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)

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12023 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 2). Hon. R. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 12023

Tabling Documents –– 12023

Oral Questions

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 12023

First Citizens' Fund. Mr. G. Hanson –– 12024

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Loenen –– 12024

Funding for Pap tests. Mrs. Boone –– 12024

Silver Drake Resources. Mr. Sihota –– 12025

Member's Statement. Mr. Couvelier –– 12026

Point of Privilege

Former Premier's ownership of Fantasy Garden World Inc.

Mr. Vander Zalm –– 12026

Throne Speech Debate

Ms. Cull –– 12028

On the amendment

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 12031

Mr. De Jong –– 12036

Mrs. Boone –– 12038

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 12040

Mr. Jones –– 12043

Mr. Vander Zalm –– 12046

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LONG: In the House today we have a special group of

students from Ocean Falls. We have their teacher, Mrs. M.P. Steenhuus;

Mr. Gerard Paquin; and students Chere-Anne Paquin, Jennifer Carpenter,

Dianna Archibald, Megan Archibald, James Nicol, Elizabeth Nicol, Jamie

Linden, Robyn Joyal, Jenny Johnson and Bob Arnault. I have a special

recognition here to Dianna Archibald, who will be 13 tomorrow. I would

like to have this House give them a very special welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would like to introduce two wonderful

people from Burnaby: Mrs. Lana Kask and Mr. Bill Kask. Will the House

please make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of students with

us today from the Native Education Centre in Vancouver. They are with

the native public administration program. They are studying small

business, community organizing, native legal issues and communications.

They are with their instructor, John McBride, and Lou Demerais. Would

you make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, we have the pleasure of the

company of six Young Socreds in the House today. I had the pleasure of

meeting with these fine young people this morning, and they are

representative of a much larger group. They are: Norman Fiss, MaryAnn

McLuckie, Sandra Montgomery, Trenton Poy, Randy Signorello and

Mary-Beth Whyte. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to

welcome today two more volunteer parents. These gentlemen have been

co-opted as bus drivers for the St. Joseph's School in Smithers. Would

the House please welcome Barrie Carter and Jim Teves.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

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

a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. FRASER: This measure will further enhance the

one-page conveyancing documentation objective of the Ministry of Lands

and Parks. As you know, you passed

an act last year to this effect.

This act will cover documents such as agreements for sale and leases.

It contains a number of minor amendments which will not change the

thrust of the act, but it completes the highly progressive reforms of

the Land Title Act.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Hon. Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Solicitor-General and the nineteenth annual report of the Criminal

Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: A very simple question to the Minister of Finance.

Were you aware of any information prior to the tabling of the Hughes

report that led you to believe that the former Premier was in a

conflict of interest?

HON. J. JANSEN: The answer is no.

MR. CLARK: I want to be clear to the Minister of Finance. Are

you saying that the information that would allow you, and possibly

cabinet, to determine whether the former Premier was in a conflict of

interest was not available prior to the tabling of the Hughes report?

HON. J. JANSEN: The answer is no.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Finance. I want to read him a quote from himself on April 9 in the Chilliwack Times :

"After reviewing information, I told the Premier a month ago I thought

he was in a conflict of interest." So before the Hughes report you went

to the Premier and told him you thought he was in a conflict of

interest, after reviewing information. Can you tell the House how you

reconcile your two previous answers today with your statement of April

9 in the Chilliwack Times ?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member refers to a comment in the media

in which I said I thought the Premier was in conflict on the basis of

information that I read in the newspaper, and that he read in the

newspaper. I was not aware of any more information. As the Premier

indicated earlier, we became aware of the details concerning this

transaction at the same time you did. So I'm surprised at the line of

questioning.

MR. CLARK: If you thought the Premier was in a conflict of

interest, the question that you have to answer today for the people of.

British Columbia is: why did you take no action a month prior to the

Hughes report?

HON. J. JANSEN: We saw the information in the newspaper, as

all members in the House did. We understood, too, that Mr. Hughes was

going to have an inquiry, and we were prepared to wait until the facts

were on the table, as you saw them and as we all saw them. There is

"nothing that we were aware of any earlier than anyone else, " to quote

the Premier.

[ Page 12024 ]

MR. CLARK: You wanted Mr. Hughes to do the job which you and

the rest of cabinet wouldn't do; that is, protect the public interest.

The Legislature sat from March 11 to 22. You knew that the Premier was

in a conflict of interest; yet you stood here in this House and

supported him during the last session of the Legislature. How can you

justify occupying a chair on the executive council when you knew the

Premier was in a conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order. Beauchesne is very

clear on what questions are and are not in order. One of the questions

that is definitely not in order is what chair a member should occupy in

the chamber.

FIRST CITIZENS' FUND

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Native

Affairs. A long time ago the First Citizens' Fund was established by

W.A.C. Bennett. It was first announced in 1968 as a perpetual trust. I

don't think the former Premier envisioned that those funds would be

frozen in mid-April, along with other business loans and so on, with

the freeze on regional and economic development funds. The minister

must know that the $25 million in this fund is not new money; that the

interest is supposed to be disbursed by aboriginal people for social

and economic benefits. Has the minister alerted the Premier that this

fund should not be frozen and requested that it be exempt from the

Premier's actions?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes; I have alerted the Premier and have had some discussions.

MR. G. HANSON: Just to follow up, clearly that particular

legislation should be separate and apart from the disbursement. Did you

get a confirmation that the freeze will be lifted and that the money

will be disbursed to the aboriginal people?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I hope the member knows, the fund is

being administered by the ministry, and the native committee is looking

after it. The ones that were continued and processed have been

allocated. As for the others that you're talking about being frozen,

I've asked for a review; but I cannot comment on future policy of a

cabinet decision.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. LOENEN: My question is to the Minister of Environment. In

Richmond there is considerable concern about the possibility of soil

and water contamination and a threat to health because of the alleged

dumping of contaminated soils from the former Expo site. I wonder if

the minister can assure the residents of our community that their

health will be protected.

[2:15]

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I visited with farmers in

Richmond on Saturday, and I called the mayor of Richmond this morning.

I can assure the people of Richmond that their health will not be

affected by the transported soil, because the subject soil is not

toxic. The only reason anyone might have been concerned is because

there was an erroneous statement released on May 9, 1991, by the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam. In fact, the statement by that member was,

according to my information....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The scope of the answer cannot exceed the scope of the question.

FUNDING FOR PAP TESTS

MRS. BOONE: I have a question to the Minister of Health.

British Columbia women have seen the waiting-time for Pap tests doubled

because of the government's refusal to fund sufficient positions for

speedy processing of the tests. The director of the B.C. Cancer

Agency's cytology division says the waiting-period is currently twice

the desirable length. Has the Minister of Health decided to provide the

necessary funds now to shorten the turnaround time for Pap test results?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The House should be informed that

approximately 600,000 Pap smears are conducted annually at the British

Columbia Cancer Agency's lab. There has been a significant increase in

the last year in the overall number of samples submitted for testing,

up about 10 percent from the previous year. The B.C. Cancer Agency

decided on its own to cut back on six employees whom they had hired.

They are really autonomous in terms of that type of decision. They have

since taken the six casual employees back to shorten the waiting-time

for the tests.

I will seek further information from Dr. George Anderson, head of

cytology at the B.C. Cancer Agency. If he identifies this as a crisis

or an undesirable situation, then we will take appropriate action.

Until such time, there's not much more I can say about that except that

I certainly do not want to see any undue backlog. We must provide the

best medical care for all the citizens of our province.

MRS. BOONE: The six employees have only been taken back on a

temporary basis until the end of May, which is not adequate for the

women of this province, Mr. Minister. The new fiscal year started six

weeks ago, and we still don't have a budget. These women are only one

example of the people who are suffering from this government's fiscal

incompetence. Can the minister confirm, as the B.C. Cancer Agency did

for us, that the cost of keeping the four extra technologists employed

for another year is $160,000? Mr. Minister, that's $160,000 to employ

those people to ensure that women receive proper testing procedures in

this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is some interesting budget debate,

which should take place at a later opportunity, but let me repeat the

answer that I gave earlier to the member. It is my opinion that we

cannot,

[ Page

12025 ]

in any way, see a cutback in this type of service

or any other medical services to the people of British Columbia. I will

ensure, acting on the advice of Dr. George Anderson, head of cytology,

that in this instance there is no undue delay in terms of the

processing of these tests.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for Prince George,

may I remind the members that questions would be preferable to speeches

during question period.

MRS. BOONE: A new question to the Minister of Health. I'd

like to give you an idea here. Four weeks ago, the government froze a

$30-million-a-year advertising budget, and that's saving approximately

$80,000 per day. Two days' worth of advertising funds would equal the

four technologist positions that would service the people of this

province for one year. My question is this: have you asked the Finance

minister to immediately divert two days' funding of advertising, which

we've seen in profusion in this province, to the Cancer Agency to

ensure that women in this province receive the necessary services?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the first time I've seen the member here on a Monday for a long time, which is really odd.

What I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker — for the third time — is that I

understand the concerns expressed by the member and the concerns

expressed to the ministry by Dr. George Anderson, head of cytology at

the British Columbia Cancer Agency. I will, however, remind the House

that this was an autonomous decision made by the British Columbia

Cancer Agency. They are autonomous to the extent that they make these

types of decisions. Clearly, with this increase of testing required, as

I said earlier, of 10 percent from the previous year, it's a situation

that we are going to have to address. I find any of those delays

unacceptable — from the point of view of a layman. When I have been

advised by Dr. George Anderson that we do have a critical situation,

then we will certainly consider the appropriate remedial

recommendations. As we do have the information that this is not a

crisis situation, I'm prepared to see it through. However, we will

ensure that we are watching this very closely and that no undue delay

is experienced.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to go through the business of what

questions are again, but it's all clearly laid out in the book. Both

the questions and the answers are becoming a

summary of estimates

rather than questions. I will try the member for Prince George North

again.

MRS. BOONE: Dr. Anderson met with the minister last week to bring the

urgency of this situation to his attention. My question to the minister right

now is: will you please — immediately, today — meet with Dr. Anderson and put

in place the necessary funding to ensure that women in this province are not

denied the proper services to ensure that their cancer tests are processed properly

and quickly?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that I detect another question, but it's your choice. The Minister of Health.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there clearly wasn't a question, Mr.

Speaker, but give me the.... The member says that I met with Dr.

Anderson last week, which is incorrect, and I don't know where she got

that information. The ministry staff are monitoring any backlogs that

exist, and I want to assure this House and all British Columbians that

if any situation becomes unacceptable in terms of testing delays, we

will address it as quickly as possible.

SILVER DRAKE RESOURCES

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of

Finance with respect to Silver Drake Resources. On April 11 a press

release indicated that it had acquired a licence to certain

environmental technology. Could the minister advise the House whether

the superintendent of brokers' office is investigating the matter to

determine whether or not the technology has the capabilities that it

was represented to have?

MR. SPEAKER: The question might be better put on the order paper.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question on Silver Drake Resources. The

company has issued a number of statements indicating the skills of Mr.

Ferchichi and others working with the company. Based on the

representations that the company has made in its public pronouncements,

the investors have now been investing in the company. Could the

minister advise the House whether the superintendent of brokers' office

is investigating the affairs of the company in light of the stock's

fluctuation in the past few days?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is inappropriate for me to comment on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a number of procedural matters to deal with. The Attorney-General is first on my list.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report and

recommendations of the compensation advisory committee for 1990 be

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice for the

purpose of recommending a resolution to the Legislative Assembly for

fixing of salaries pursuant to sections 7(1) and (2) of the Provincial

Court Act.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposition House Leader, do you not wish to move your matter?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we decided to postpone that resolution by 24 hours.

[ Page 12026 ]

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a member's statement.

Leave granted.

MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, to my colleagues for allowing me

this rather unusual opportunity to expand on a matter of great concern

to me personally and possibly to all members of the Legislature.

Members will know that I had intended today to bring a motion before

the House that would have the effect of instructing the ombudsman to

investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation by

myself of

section 217 of the Financial Institutions Act. For what

appears to be a variety of constitutional problems, it would appear

that option is not practicable for me to pursue today. Therefore I

wanted to first of all put on the record clarification of some of the

circumstances around this issue that I feel have been misrepresented.

Secondly, I wanted to serve notice on my intended course of action.

First of all, I want to make it plain that, contrary to the

suspicions of some, I requested that the actions of myself as Minister

of Finance be the subject of a written report by the Attorney-General's

Ministry. There was a feeling abroad that this initiative was somehow

undertaken by my staff, independent of my knowledge. I want the House

to know quite clearly that I requested that clarification.

Secondly, I'd like the House to know that I have not had access to

all of the particulars and opinions around this issue. As a

consequence, I find myself unable to speak with any authority on the

allegations laid against me.

Thirdly, I'd like to point out for the record that the

Attorney-General and the leader of the government party have, in

effect, received one opinion, three times — with variations each time.

Fourthly, I'd like to confirm for the record that there is nothing

new in these allegations which was not already included in Ted Hughes'

report and Ted Hughes' material. There seems to be some confusion on

that point.

I'd also like to make it plain on the record that my remedies, as I

pursued them, were to first of all ask for a charge under this act, if

I have violated the act. As you know, that does not appear to be an

option. Secondly, I had asked that all of the opinions be disclosed;

that also was refused. Thirdly, in the absence of those things, I said,

"Let's embark on a judicial inquiry"; that also has been refused. I am

left then only with an appeal to the ombudsman.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will today formally ask the leader

of the opposition party and the leader of the government party to join

me in a reference to the ombudsman, where I would ask him to judge the

truthfulness of the allegation that I have broken the law. I do this in

the interest of clarifying future roles and responsibilities for anyone

else who may hold office in government; and also, obviously, for the

purpose of clarifying my integrity and my character, which I think have

been impugned unfairly.

[2:30]

Point of Privilege

FORMER PREMIER'S OWNERSHIP OF

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the opposition member for New

Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) stood in this assembly on May 8, 1991, and

accused me of a deliberate and wilful attempt to suppress information

concerning a reorganization of the shares of Fantasy Gardens from this

assembly on March 11, 1991. The member alleged that by my conduct on

that date — March 11, 1991 — I was obstructing and impeding your

parliamentary duty as a Speaker in relation to the motion of privilege

made by the member for New Westminster.

Mr.Speaker, those accusations are not true. I hardly need to say

that I find such an accusation to be offensive. It is made even more

outrageous by the fact that the materials filed by the opposition

member do not support in any way the bringing of such a serious and

offensive allegation.

In making her statements to this assembly on May 8, 1991, the member

for New Westminster seems to have forgotten the materials included in

her motion of privilege made on March 11, 1991. As you will recall, Mr.

Speaker, those materials included the company documentation that

evidenced the share reorganization of Fantasy Garden World Inc. in

April 1989. Indeed, those documents formed the very foundation of the

member's motion.

As I understand it, the member for New Westminster takes the

position that these documents show that in April 1989 and later I must

have known the full extent of my share holdings in Fantasy Gardens. But

when you read the member's statement to this assembly on May 8, 1991,

you are left with the impression that there was no discussion of the

April 1989 share reorganization in this assembly on March 11, 1991. You

are left with the impression that I somehow concealed the facts of the

reorganization from this assembly because I did not specifically

mention the reorganization in my statement on March 11, 1991.

I must say that I fail to see how I can be accused of a deliberate

and wilful attempt to suppress information concerning the

reorganization of the shares of Fantasy Gardens in speaking to this

assembly on March 11, 1990, when the details of that share

reorganization formed the basis of the allegations made against me by

the member for New Westminster. Those details had been fully disclosed

to this assembly before I rose to speak in response to the allegations

against me. My response to the member's comments on March 11 — and my

response now to her comments of March 8 — is that I was not, and never

have been, concerned with the details of the shareholdings between my

wife and myself. So there is no misunderstanding of my position.

I would like to repeat what I said to this assembly on March 11,

1991, with respect to the suggestion by the member of the opposition

that the April 1989 share reorganization must have made apparent to me

the

[ Page

12027 ]

true extent of my shareholdings. This is from page 24 of Hansard :

"You know, if I were in a partnership with anyone on

the other side, I may want to know exactly each and every day of the

week, week of the year or month of the year, where it is my shares or

somebody else's shares.... My partnership was with my wife, and I have

been married to my wife for 35 years. It's a lifetime contract. I don't

have to check on my wife; my wife doesn't have to check on me. It

doesn't matter what you put to paper, the fact remains that when you're

married for 35 years — and, I would suggest, for a whole lot less, for

that matter — whatever is yours is your wife's, and vice versa. That's

how I have always gone through life, and that's how I intend to

continue going through life. I hope to be married to Lillian for

another 35 years, and I'm not going to be checking contracts or be

worried about what perhaps might have been signed by one or the other."

That statement reflects how I dealt with the April 1989 share

reorganization. The testimony given by my accountant, Mr. Vegt, which

was placed before this assembly by the member for New Westminster on

May 8, 1991 is also helpful, in understanding the share reorganization

and my view of it. Mr. Vegt testified that the purpose of this share

reorganization was to permit capital gains to be crystallized in the

event of a possible sale of the assets of Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Vegt's

testimony makes it clear that the relative relationship of the

shareholdings of my wife and myself was not an issue in that

reorganization. All that had been changed or reorganized was the nature

of the shares held.

Again, so there is no misunderstanding, I would like to quote from page 5 of the testimony of Mr. Vegt before Mr. Hughes.

"At that time, in that there were some potential sales

out there, we knew that likely a potential purchaser would not be

buying shares but would be buying assets of the company. We also knew

that by selling assets, neither the company nor Mr. or Mrs. Vander Zalm

would be eligible to claim the capital gain exemption, the $500,000

tax-free gain that they would be entitled to if they would have sold

shares. So we did a reorganization in order to allow them, even on an

asset sale, to utilize this capital gain exemption. So we reorganized

the company, to allow them down the road, if that's what would have

happened, by exchanging shares.... We exchanged the existing common

shares for preferred shares in the same pro rata relationship as was

there before and reissued new common shares also in this same

relationship. So the pro rata relationship between Mr. and Mrs. did not

change as a result of this reorganization. It was strictly an exchange

of shares to allow certain things to happen if a sale would be

consummated."

As I said earlier, I am at a loss as to what information about the share reorganization

I am accused of concealing from this House on March 11, 1991. The member for

New Westminster, in her statement on May 8, 1991, referred to the testimony

of Mr. Vegt, Mr. Kendler and Dr. Emerson before Mr. Hughes concerning the preparation

of my October 5, 1990 letter to the people of British Columbia and to documents prepared

by those individuals and produced to Mr. Hughes which pertained to the preparation

of that letter.

There is no information in that material about the share reorganization that

was not before this House on March 11, 1991, other than Mr. Vegt's succinct

and very helpful explanation of the purpose of that reorganization which I have

just read. Of course, it was not available on March 11, as Mr. Vegt had not

yet testified before Mr. Hughes. The opposition member put particular emphasis

upon Dr. Emerson's testimony that he found some weakness in my explanation

with respect to the ownership of Fantasy Gardens. I appreciate that it was Dr.

Emerson's view that my explanation may not be persuasive to some. The very

fact that I am standing here today responding to this motion shows that Dr.

Emerson was quite perceptive in his advice. But the fact remains that the explanation

I gave was the only one I could give, because it is the truth.

In this regard, I note that the opposition member did not refer to

the testimony about the October 5, 1990 letter given by the two

individuals who originally advised me as to my shareholdings — Mr.

Kendler and Mr. Vegt. To assist me in the preparation of my October 5

letter, both these gentlemen prepared for me documents setting out the

advice which they had given with respect to my shareholdings. They did

so to ensure that my explanation in the public letter would reflect the

events as accurately as all involved could recollect them. In addition,

both these gentlemen reviewed a draft of my October 5, 1990 letter and

made comments on it. Those comments were incorporated into the October

5, 1990 letter.

Mr. Speaker, all the materials put before you by the member for New

Westminster on May 8, 1991 reveal the process of my consultation with

my advisers about my October 5, 1990 letter to the public. I engaged in

that process to ensure the accuracy of the explanation given in that

letter concerning the misstatements I made about my shareholdings, but

there is nothing in this material which shows that those misstatements

about my shareholdings were deliberate or wilful.

The opposition has been quick with its allegations of deliberate and

wilful misconduct on my part as a member of this assembly. In my

respectful submission, this is an abuse of the motion of privilege. I

submit that the motion and statements made by the member for New

Westminster are nothing more than a political attempt to divert this

assembly from the important business of the day. The motion is a tactic

to keep the attention of this assembly focused on the issue of the sale

of Fantasy Gardens, because the opposition perceives it to be to their

political advantage to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I say this because the materials put before you by the

member for New Westminster on May 8, 1991 provide no foundation for the

serious accusation that I withheld important and relevant information

from you. The materials were designed to supplement those materials

already before you on the motion that accuses me of the serious offence

of deliberately and wilfully misleading this House. But in none of the

materials filed on either March 11 or May 8 is there any statement made

by me to this assembly where I have stated something to this assembly

which is false — not one statement.

[ Page

12028 ]

Mr. Speaker, these materials do show that I ought to have known the

extent of my shareholdings in Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Speaker, I am

embarrassed once again to have to say that I was mistaken about that

matter. I have admitted this mistake time and time again since

September of last year. It was a mistake, but that's all it was; it was

not a lie.

I also recognize that this mistake has caused the Speaker and this

assembly to have been misled as to the extent of my shareholdings. I

refer in particular to page 4308 of Hansard

from May 5, 1988, which was placed before you by the member for New

Westminster on March 11, 1991. The Speaker is reported as stating:

"What emerges from the material before me is that

apparently a leasing arrangement exists between the company owned or

controlled by Mr. Toigo and the company known as Fantasy Gardens, in

which the Premier is a minority shareholder.

"It further, appears from material filed and from excerpts from Hansard

that the lessor company is not operated by the Premier, although his

interest in the, company is fully disclosed in his filed declaration

with this House and is apparently freely admitted in Hansard and in the press reports."

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I was not involved in the operations of

Fantasy Gardens. There is no dispute about that. It is also true that

my interest in the company was disclosed in the manner required by the

Financial Disclosure Act in the declaration filed with this House.

[2:45]

However, the statement that I was a minority shareholder is not

correct. I accept this misstatement by the Speaker to be my

responsibility. I ought to have known the extent of my share holdings

in Fantasy Gardens. I ought to have been in a position to correct the

Speaker when the misstatement was made about these share holdings. I

did not do so, because I was mistaken about the extent of my share

holdings. In the result, the Speaker and this assembly were misled to

believe that I was a minority shareholder. For that I apologize to you,

Mr. Speaker, and to all members of this assembly.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MS. CULL: The Speech from the Throne is the government's main

opportunity to set out their vision for the province. It's the time

when the governing party can set out clearly for all to see what their

values are and what their vision is, what are the challenges as they

see them and what are the priorities that they're going to pursue in

the next year.

We're certainly at a time in this country and in this province where we

have a very great need for leadership and vision. The challenges that face us

with respect to the constitution, the economy and our environment require bold

new thinking. The persistent social problems related to poverty, and the immense

changes that are being brought about in our society as a result of aging, immigration

and changes in the roles of women and the family, mean that it is very important

that the government be clear about their values and their priorities for tackling

these new and emerging and the long-standing problems that face us.

I think also that it's not unreasonable, in the fifth year of the

government's mandate, to expect to see some continuity, a sense of

progress, some sense that directions that were set out in earlier years

are being achieved or, if they're not being achieved, that new ideas

are being proposed instead. Unfortunately, this Speech from the Throne

fails to do this.

The failure cannot be blamed, however, on any lack of analysis of

the problems facing the province. The Leader of the Opposition said

last week that we have no shortage of royal commissions, round tables,

task forces, committees and whatever. We have a very dedicated civil

service. But what we have is a vacuum at the top. We have an almost

total, lack of leadership and ideas coming from the Social Credit

politicians who are supposed to be governing this province.

Instead of a visionary statement that sets out concrete ideas about

how government's going to manage our natural resources so that we and

our children have jobs; instead of making it clear that we must protect

and enhance the environment and our quality of life, our urban areas,

our education, our social and health programs; instead of making it

clear that these are the key to attracting investment to this province

and also to meeting the needs of British Columbians; instead of

reassuring British Columbians that this government recognizes the

turmoil that it's in and is prepared to provide open government and

stability and an end to the special deals for friends and insiders;

instead of all that, this throne speech is simply a rehash of old

promises. It's a vague shopping list without any sense of direction.

When it's not vague it's unbelievable, because it contains policies

that until very recently the Social Credit government ridiculed and

opposed. It sounds like something that's been hastily patched together

by a government which had other things on its mind than the welfare of

British Columbians.

Last year's Speech from the Throne, the first that I was privileged

to hear in this assembly, was characterized by the government as having

to do with choice, challenge and change. The government this year

hasn't attached any labels to the speech, but I would like to propose

that instead of the three C's from last year we have the three R's:

rehash, recount and retreat.

I was elected some 16 months ago, not because the people of Oak

Bay-Gordon Head were happy with the policies of this government, but

because they wanted a change. After reviewing the speech, the people in

my community will have to conclude that the Social Credit government

simply isn't listening to them, that instead it has grown arrogant and

stale and is concerned only with holding onto power.

One of the major issues of concern to my community is the

environment. Whenever I'm out talking to people in the community, it's

still the number one issue they bring up. They know what needs to be

done, but they're tired of talk and want some action. They want action

to clean up the beaches and the water around

[ Page

12029 ]

greater Victoria; they want action on hazardous

waste; they want a provincial plan to reduce solid waste and to promote

recycling so that we don't have to drain Heal Lake to fill it up with

our garbage; and they want major changes in the way our forests are

managed. It's not unreasonable that my constituents could expect to see

some results on these matters, not just more talk.

The throne speech, for example, says: "My Ministry of Environment

will be releasing ..specific action plans in the area of water

management, fisheries, wildlife, pesticides and environmental

enforcement." Mr. Speaker, that's what the throne speech said last

year. It talks about "the urgent need to undertake major water and

sewer projects." It said that last year too. But we don't want

high-sounding phrases; we want action.

Unfortunately the revolving door of the Environment minister's

office spits out a new minister every couple of months these days who

says something different about sewage in greater Victoria. Only two

Environment ministers ago we were told that the government would

consider 75 percent funding for sewage in Victoria. The last one said

25 percent, maybe 50. The new one is silent, and he has left the

chamber.

What my constituents want is for the Minister of Environment to sit

down with the capital region municipalities and work out a fair funding

formula for Victoria's sewage treatment. One recent Environment

minister said it was up to the CRD to take the leadership on this

matter. Let me tell you that they are taking the leadership, they have

done the studies and they are proposing to put a referendum to the

people of this region by the fall. But how can you put a sensible

referendum question when you don't know what it's going to cost and

when you don't know what the provincial funding is. While all of this

is being debated and the government is being silent, we continue to get

the heckling from the other side of the floor and from those people in

the interior and the north who conveniently forget that there was 75

percent funding for sewage treatment in their communities in their time.

This year's speech is silent on hazardous waste, which is absolutely

astounding considering that there are 400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste

in storage in this province and another 110,000 tonnes being produced

every year. Last year the government proposed the creation of a

corporation to deal with hazardous waste. I said at the time that this

would just hide the problem, and that's precisely what it seems to have

done, because one year and $3 million later, I still have constituents

who phone me up and say they have made eight phone calls, including one

to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, trying to get rid of

surplus paint before they move. The only answer they can get from any

of these various bodies within the government is to dump kitty litter

into it and put it back in the garbage. That's a solution to hazardous

waste?

This throne speech doesn't even deal with solid waste. I can appreciate

that the government's rather short of ideas when it comes to this matter,

but if they really don't have any ideas of their own to deal with this very

critical urban issue, let me suggest that they take a close look at the British Columbia

Recycling Act that was introduced by my colleague from Coquitlam last year and

take some ideas from that. The government doesn't seem to be above taking

ideas out of our private members' bills. More power to them if they find

ideas there that they can support.

Last year I introduced the Georgia Basin Commission Act to establish

a commission to guide the growth in the Georgia basin, and I said at

that time that it would achieve a reduction in air and water pollution,

provide strategies for reducing the impact of urban growth in the

Georgia basin and also involve international cooperation with

Washington State. This is an idea that the Leader of the Opposition has

been talking about for some time with locally elected politicians and

with those elected in Washington. In the last number of months the

Leader of the Opposition and I have had the opportunity to talk to many

people in the Georgia basin about this idea and have received a lot of

positive encouragement to implement it.

So it was with considerable pleasure that I listened to His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor announce just such a commission. It's ironic,

though, because last year members on the other side of the House

ridiculed the idea and called it a bureaucracy. Last year they didn't

like it; this year they do like it. Unfortunately it's like another

idea you ridiculed last year and are now embracing this year: the

legislative committee on ethics and conflict of interest. We're going

to have to wait and see whether there really is any substance to this

change of heart, or if it's just another government announcement to

make it look like it's doing the right thing, even though it fails to

do it.

After environment, one of the issues I hear most about in my

community is health care. People are concerned about the shocking

deterioration of the health care system in British Columbia: of crowded

hospitals and overworked employees, of long waiting lists for surgery

and cancer treatment, and about rising user fees. Like most British

Columbians, people in my community are looking forward to the report of

the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. Many people in my

community made thoughtful submissions to the commission, and have high

hopes that they will be seeing thoughtful answers when the report is

received.

I was pleased to see two other ideas that have been long promoted by

members on this side of the House: travel allowance for those residents

who have to go long distances for treatment, and a reversal of the

government's long-standing, stubborn and very irresponsible policy on

AIDS in this throne speech.

But it's difficult not to be cynical, because even though there are

a few good announcements, there have been so many times that this

government has said the right thing but continued to do nothing. For

example, reading from the throne speech, it says: "...my government

will continue to improve on the health care system through the building

of partnerships with hospitals, community groups and health care

providers."

[ Page 12030 ]

To those of us in Victoria, that sounds rather like the

announcements in the 1988 speech about the Victoria Health Project.

You'll remember the Victoria Health Project: it's a tremendously

successful initiative involving community-based partnership. It's been

the subject of international attention, and although the evaluation

studies are not yet complete, it has been pronounced a success.

You would think that the throne speech would mention such a project

— that it would be used as an example of something that should be tried

in other communities — but it didn't. The reason it didn't is because,

having launched this hugely successful program, they've simply lost

interest in it. Mind you, it was three years and three Health ministers

ago, and it's kind of hard, as we move along with the different

ministers, to keep track of the initiatives and to keep the enthusiasm

up.

But this is a very successful program, and earlier this year, with

funding about to run out with the end of the fiscal year, it took a

tremendous community outcry and the resignation of a senior official

before the government reluctantly, seven weeks prior to the end of the

program, agreed to continue with more funding.

Unfortunately that's been the legacy of this administration. They

announce something with great fanfare one week, then lose interest and

move on to something else that's caught their attention. If a project

is successful, the community is just going to have to find a way to

continue it on their own or do without because they can't stretch the

resources that far.

One of the saddest cases of not acting on health care issues in my

community involves mental health. The Speech from the Throne said that

the Mental Health Act will be reviewed, with the goal of improving the

rights for those people who need voluntary admission and treatment in

hospitals. What about improving the services for these people right'now?

Last year the government said it would expand and improve community

health services and replace Riverview Hospital, but last week when my

colleague for Vancouver-Point Grey read to this House a letter I

received from one of my constituents, we heard how Riverview continues

to consume the lives of our mentally ill because there is nowhere else

in the community for them to go. Unless they are in crisis, they get no

service. They get into the hospital and they're back out on the

streets. There simply isn't any place in this community to provide for

their needs.

Disabled people don't fare any better. The promise of community care

for these individuals rings very, very hollow. A few lucky individuals

do get out into group homes, but the great majority are trapped in

geriatric wards with the senile. This very sorry state has caused the

Arbutus Society for Children in my riding in Saanich to keep young

adults over the age of 18 in a children's hospital. There simply isn't

anywhere else for them to go except into the geriatric wards.

[3:00]

There is no mention of the disabled in this speech. It's just not in there.

The Arbutus Society has been waiting patiently for a long time to hear the results

of the committee that's supposed to be reviewing the funding for orthotics.

Last year members on this side of the House brought up the shameful practice

of this government refusing Pharmacare coverage to children who require many

kinds of orthotic devices. Finally in the end, the then Minister of Health decided

to investigate. In trying to follow through, you can't find the committee

and you can't find out who's chairing it. The last frustrating example

I got from one of his senior officials who is supposed to be in charge of the

committee is that she wasn't even aware there was a problem.

MR. PERRY: There probably is no committee.

MS. CULL: There probably is no committee, as my colleague

from Vancouver–Point Grey says. There certainly hasn't been any action

on this issue.

Another concern that I want to talk about which is of great concern

to my community is education. People in Oak Bay–Gordon Head recognize

that investment in their children is the best investment they can make,

but again this government talks and fails to act.

Whenever concern about post-secondary education arises, the Social

Credit government trots out the access for all policy. It sounds fine,

but simply saying that you're going to raise the level of

post-secondary enrolment to the national average in the next five years

doesn't actually accomplish it. You have to put some resources behind

it.

In fact, the policies of this government are moving us in the

opposite direction. At the University of Victoria next year, 800

students are expected to be turned away because of lack of operating

funds and a 25 percent space deficit — 25 percent less than is needed

to service the students who are there now. Students who are going to

the University of Victoria can't even complete their degrees in the

four years that one would normally expect it to be done, because third-

and fourth-year students can't get the courses they need to graduate.

So they carry on: five years, six years, running into difficulties with

their student loans and taking up spaces that could be made available

to other students if they could proceed as was intended.

MR. SIHOTA: Access for some.

MS. CULL: Access for some, that's what we've got here —

access for those who can get onto the list, who can get up ahead, who

have the resources. Don't expect Camosun College to pick up the slack

from UVic, though, because we've now learned in discussions with the

people at Camosun College that they will be turning away hundreds of

students next year as well. They have run out of space and operating

funds. So where are these other students going to go? All the other

colleges and universities in this province face the same problems.

It's not just a question of throwing more money at education; it's a

question of our priorities and principles. What that means is that we

have to make sure that we put the limited tax dollars we do have where

they're going to be most effective — not waste them on

[ Page

12031 ]

ideologies like privatization and the economic

regions, which came and went with hardly any benefit to the people of

this province that anyone can perceive.

It also means that we have to provide stability and predictability

in school funding for both the K-to-12 and post-secondary systems.

That's what the Royal Commission on Education called for as the most

important element of funding: stability. But that's not what we get. We

get a government that announces this year an increase in capital

funding. There isn't a member on this side of the House who isn't glad

to see that increase, but we have to be a bit cynical. Please forgive

me if I have to wonder why this announcement comes at the eleventh hour

of a government's mandate, when, districts have been crying for funds

for so long. During the term of this administration we've seen as

little as $20 million available for capital funding for schools, and

now we see $650 million. Forgive me for noticing that there's an

election coming along down the line and thinking that the two items

might be connected.

It has been announced. We know that there is going to be more money,

and I can tell you that I and the parents in my community —

particularly those of Willows School — will be looking to this

announcement to see that we finally get the money we need to bring the

schools in greater Victoria up to earthquake safety standards so that

they don't fall down on our children during an earthquake.

Mr. Speaker, the speech mentions housing hardly at all. It doesn't

address student housing or the one million tenants in the province. It

doesn't talk about helping more families own their own homes, even

though less than 10 percent of the families in Victoria right now can

afford to buy a home at the current interest rates. It doesn't say

anything about housing for seniors. These are matters of concern. The

people in my community were looking to the government for leadership

and equality.

What's really in this speech for women and women's equality? Pay

equity was announced, but it was announced last year, and you can't

just keep on announcing programs. We're looking for something new,

something that shows that there's some thought behind it, some

direction that shows that this government knows where it's going on

these issues.

Employment equity is the only new thing I could see in there for

women, in terms of equality. You talk about employment equity in the

public sector. Last year, though, when I raised that matter and talked

about the lack of employment equity in the public sector, the Minister

Responsible for Women's Programs said it really wasn't a problem. She

disputed my figures and said that there were far more women in

government than the statistics showed. She wasn't prepared to act on it.

I could go on with some of the issues of concern to people in my riding, but

I would like to get to the point about why this throne speech really fails to

address the concerns of people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head and throughout this province.

It's clear that it's because the government is unable to come to grips

with the turmoil it is facing. It is simply not governing. It's a government

in disarray, in turmoil. It's a government so concerned with its own internal

problems, its scandals, its leadership crisis, that it has no time or energy

to spend on the needs of British Columbia.

Twelve cabinet ministers, Mr. Speaker, have had to resign amid

controversy about conflict of interest or other things. Just look at

one particular ministry and at what happens there, the Ministry of

Environment. Then you can see why nothing has been done. Six cabinet

ministers in five years — no wonder nothing is happening in the

Ministry of Environment.

The real problem lies in this situation: nobody is minding the store

over there; nobody is governing. No one is looking after the interests

oil people in British Columbia; they're looking after the interests of

themselves. Instead of dealing with the priorities and the needs of

British Columbians, this government is saying anything it thinks will

allow it to hold onto power. There's no vision and no leadership, and I

think the main reason is that this government has lost the basic

prerequisite of effective leadership: the authority to govern. It's not

listening to the people.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects,

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg

leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour

has addressed to us at the opening of the session" — amended by adding

the following — "and this House regrets that the speech fails to

address the urgent issues confronting our province and fails to arrest

the political chaos and crisis of confidence engulfing the present

administration, which can only now be remedied by means of a provincial

general election."

On the amendment.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to rise in this debate and second the

motion that's just been made. I'm doing this because I've been in this

Legislature for approximately a year and a half, and I've been

reflecting on what's happened in that period of time.

HON. MR. FRASER: Another good speech.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Another good speech. I note there's heckling

this time. Last time, which was my first throne speech debate, you

didn't heckle. In fact, you listened. That was really nice. You've done

some of what I suggested you do in that speech. Not enough, but some.

During the by-election, there was a gathering of businessmen,

government officials and so on, and I attended. We were asked what the

main issue in this election was? Rather than blame any one man for the

issue in the Cariboo by-election, I chose to focus on some of the

issues that got me into politics. I'm here speaking, a year and a half

later, on some of the same themes.

I've watched very closely from this place where we can see many more

things going on in the province, where we have an opportunity to raise

them and watch closely what the government's been doing. I see there's

[ Page

12032 ]

been insufficient progress. As a result, we have a

lack of confidence in the government, That's the reason why we passed

this. As the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head said, the only way we're

going to resolve this is to give to the people the final referendum on

government, which is the general election.

The lack of leadership is probably occurring in this province

because those tools of leadership, which are vision, integrity, good

information, due process and the recognition of public opinion and

finally acting on those recognitions of the public's feelings.... This

government has failed. Instead, going back seven or eight years, the

government chose to react to a powerful lobby of the timber industry,

which basically set in motion a number of forces that have led us to

crisis in forest planning and land use planning in British Columbia.

This government has drifted away from what the mainstream of the

public has felt is really essential to do in the forests and with the

bountiful resources that we have in the province. Instead of

leadership, we see chaos. We see a lot of tired ideas that have been

recycled through the throne speech. We see a government that has been

totally unable to develop an economic strategy to meet the needs of

British Columbians today.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to spend a few minutes and deal with the state of resource

management in British Columbia. In all the public consultations, we

don't see an impact analysis for any of the land use proposals that

have come forth. Instead, we see fringe groups that collect themselves

together, such as the Valhalla Wilderness Society, and make

recommendations for a land use plan. At least, they brought some ideas

together. We don't see a reaction from the government. We don't see an

analysis of the impact of that. People are left wondering what the

impact is. No analysis is being done, even though time has passed. It

remained for Simon Fraser University to do an impact analysis, to give

us some idea of what would happen if that kind of land use plan was

followed in the province.

I referred a little earlier to the 1983 memorandum from the Council

of Forest Industries of B.C., which really said that we should get the

government out of resource management, let the companies do it and all

will be well. The government acted on that. They downsized the Ministry

of Forests. They got the public out of the public's business. Now we

find that there is absolutely no uncertainty in the minds of the

public: it was the wrong thing to have done. We've lost seven years of

valuable time when we could have been asserting the public interest in

respect to forest management.

Now we see the B.C. Forest Resources Commission has come out and

basically concluded the same thing: we have got to do a better job of

managing the resources in the interests of all British Columbians.

The people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin have gone for two years and better without

any audit of the silviculture programs. We're looking at reinvestment by

companies, and they're doing it without any recourse to review by the public

from the Ministry of Forests. We cannot downsize and minimize the auditing and

monitoring role of the government and expect that we're going to take good

care of the forest resource.

We've seen decentralization of resource ministries, which really

meant the collection of a lot more experts who were relegated to

paper-pushing roles in regional offices, instead of having the resource

managers out in the field where they can see what's going on and can be

the public presence while the private users are developing the forests.

This consolidation of centralized power has resulted in increased

alienation on the part of the people who live in the watersheds and who

are most affected by the development of the resource.

[3:15]

I'd like to comment on the inventory of the province. We're running

a business here, and we don't know what's on the shelves; we don't know

what has been sold; we don't know how much is growing, how much is

going to be provided to us in the future. One short quote from the

Forest Resources Commission: "Both the Ministry of Forests and other

users have been applying these inventories beyond their limits of

reliability." In other words, we're not managing within the confidence

of any measure that we can put before the people and say we have looked

at the use of the resource, we know how much we have, and have

confidence in that. We can't do that, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, a direction has been put forth by the Forest Resources

Commission, calling for decentralized planning; conversion to small,

area-based tenures; a natural resources ministry; independence in the

operation of the management of the forest industry; increased

sensitivity in harvesting; more community control; regional forest base

management committees; more value-added; more competition in log

marketing; an education that relates to the need for truly integrated

resource management; and a more well-rounded education for forest

resource workers. These are not new ideas, but they've finally been

recognized.

The first member for Cariboo in his speech the other day talked

about the NDP and top-down planning processes. Quite to the contrary,

we've been on record for years calling for more empowerment of local

people in resource management and other issues. Indeed, the Social

Credit record is that of creating provincewide commissions and only ad

hoc public processes at the local level.

The first member for Cariboo also mentioned that the current cutting

levels of overmature timber would allow cutting for 80 years. I suggest

to him that the public will not believe that until those areas are

mapped and presented, so the people can see the impact and see that in

fact those resources are there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are there.

MR. ZIRNHELT: They aren't mapped.

HON. MR. PARKER: You should know better.

[ Page

12033 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT: I know better. The former Minister of Forests

is commenting that I should know better, and I am saying: show me. I

can read numbers, but I also hear growing unease by foresters from the

government and from industry, doubting the numbers that are being

presented, because of poor inventory.

There were some good processes in place to deal with these matters,

Mr. Speaker: a coordinated resource management planning process,

regional resource management committees. There was a public involvement

process that was virtually stamped out of existence. There was a folio

system that had the overlay of different land users, so that resource

managers and companies could see and make better plans — see the impact

of some of the uses. All that was set aside.

Now we're seeing the reinvention of the wheel. The excuse is that

now the public is demanding it. It seemed to me that the public that I

knew had been demanding that for years; it just took an inordinate

amount of pressure. As a result, the public remains very cynical about

what the government is doing. So initiatives in the throne speech to

pull together all the ad hoc processes, I say, are long overdue.

This is the government that eliminated the progressive environment

and land use secretariat that was established by the New Democrats. The

strategy developed by the initiatives recognized in the throne speech

will again be a top-down strategy. We do need a top-down strategy with

respect to creating a provincial land use strategy, but we also need a

bottom-up strategy That, I suggest, is going to take a long time, and

there's absolutely no excuse why this isn't occurring at the moment.

I'd like to make some comments on the whole notion of consultation

and the government's record with respect to consultation. A lot of the

consultation that's been going on was designed to have its results

after a planned provincial election. I'll just give you three examples:

the Forest Resources Commission, the round table, the Royal Commission

on Health-all due to report. One has reported, the Forest Resources

Commission. But we know the government wanted to have an election as

soon as last fall and earlier this spring; it just didn't work out.

Most of the major consultative processes were designed to have their

results known after an election. We're going to see most of these

tabled before the election, and we're going to have a chance to debate

all these. I think the people will have a chance to judge the

government on its lack of progress in most of these areas.

One other thing that I'd like to point out that was close to our area is the

Cariboo Local Advisory Council, which was set up in response to a blockade by

native people in the Chilcotin; and they agreed to take that down upon a very

strong lobby to the government by some of the working people in the area. The

government set up a committee, and it's one of these ad hoc processes that

suspended normal planning for developing a resource management plan and set

up a local committee that's looking again at process. But we've lost

valuable time. I remember that in and around that time before the committee

was set up, I put forth an agenda and a plan that would deal with some of the

problems.

We are faced with a situation where the native people from one of

the tribes refused to participate, because it was not hooked to the

settlement of land claims. They were invited after the fact to join the

process. I think the failure to involve the people in the Chilcotin is

a major oversight, and as a result we haven't seen the impact of

resource management on those people out there being addressed at the

grassroots level. I think we could have avoided a lot of bad feelings

that have developed over the last year.

I'm not predicting doom; I'm just saying that there is a better way,

and that it wasn't for the want of ideas. It was for the want of will,

and establishing a regional committee to somehow deal with all the

local problems just isn't sufficient, in spite of the fact that the

Minister of Forests admitted in this House — upon questioning by me —

that he would set up a process that would successfully involve those

people. I'm speaking here of the Chilcotin bands who were given one

representative on this group. Although later the group did say, "Come

on in, you can all join, " it was too late. Those people felt offended

that they were not there up front, when they have been pushing for

years for recognition of their rights in the land use planning process.

It's true that when we get to land claims discussions, which this

government is now reluctantly getting involved in — first of all by

recognizing they have a role and latterly by recognizing that there's

going to be some cost to the province — it's going to be a difficult

process. I think that we have to start to build trust at the local

level. In fact, I spoke to the Task Force on Native Forestry and said

that it's really essential to take some small steps to develop the

trust that is absolutely essential if we are going to enter into

negotiations in good faith and if we aren't going to be mean-spirited

about it.

I feel that the danger of reaction of local communities is so great

that we have to start slowly but surely and get a common information

base. One of those would be mapping the resource base in the Chilcotin

plateau, for example, which hasn't been done in a form.... It's easy to

do. You take a satellite photo, you map out the mature forests, the

immature forests and the sensitive sites, and you put it on the table

and say: "This is the...."

HON. MR. PARKER: It has been done.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It hasn't been done.

HON. MR. PARKER: Oh yes, it has. All you have to do is go across the street and get it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: No, it hasn't been done. They're telling me it

has been done, but it has not been presented in any way to the public.

If you ask for information from the Ministry of Forests on the effect

of the old-growth deferral, or if you look for information on any of

the Parks '90 plans as to how much mature timber is in there, they

can't tell you a figure. They have to study it some more.

[ Page

12034 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: Misleading the House.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm accused of misleading the House, when I think I know of which I speak here.

HON. MR. PARKER: Well, I'm afraid you don't.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Well, if I don't know what's going on in the

Cariboo with respect to forest management, then nobody knows, because

I've been asking for the information for a long time.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Then I suggest you table those maps with the people and have a public involvement process to discuss them.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: We're not talking about simple little maps that nobody can read; we're talking about information presented.....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Lands and

Parks may have his own opportunity to stand. In the meantime, the

second member for Cariboo has been recognized. Possibly you could

extend the courtesy of letting him complete his speech.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must be hitting close to home on some of these issues.

I'd like to give an example of the lack of successful public

involvement processes that's affecting the people in the Cariboo. For

example, the beetle-kill licences, which expanded the cut significantly

— by about 50 percent — were extended a couple of years ago with no

public hearings. There was no public involvement and no attempt to tell

the public what was going to go on. As a result, people feel somewhat

distrustful — to the point where I think it's of crisis proportions. I

think that the only way we're going to re-establish that is to collapse

all these regional land use planning processes into one, bring all the

people around the table and get on with it.

One of the problems with the consultation being presented right now

by both companies and the government is that it's a walk-through

process. Maps are put up on the wall, and you can walk into a room and

discuss it one on one. That's good for information transfer, but in my

view it's not adequate for debate on the essential issues with respect

to forest use and land use management.

I think we singularly lack an opportunity for government ministries to be on

the stand to answer questions about resource management in the future and their

past performance. I think the government has wanted to govern from its own narrow

view of economic growth, and I think this is the kind of growth that cannot

be sustained without chaos. It seems to me that this approach has resulted in

rampant ad hockery — as the Leader of the Opposition calls it — and it's

just not good enough in this day and age when all of the technical tools are

available to us to do better.

I'd like to mention the role of the education system and welcome the

emphasis put by the Forest Resources Commission on developing programs

in schools. I know this is underway. But there is much more than just

information about resources being put into the school system. We need

people to fully understand the public involvement process. People need

to be encouraged to take an active

part in the communities and look at

the real-life resource planning as it goes on. With that, people would

develop the ability to become active citizens and leaders, to help us

resolve the crises that we find ourselves in.

A word on local resource-use plans, Mr. Speaker. The problem with

local resource-use plans is that they are generally driven by the

Ministry of Forests. They don't successfully involve the other

ministries, and they are only created in reaction to crises. Rarely —

I'm not saying it never happens — does it ever happen on a proactive

basis, to solve problems and do the planning before we have a crisis.

The Ministry of Forests has the majority of the staff; the Ministry of

Environment generally only has limited staff to put into these planning

processes. That isn't good enough.

It seems to me that if we're going to empower local communities to

seriously help make decisions about the economic future of their

regions and their valleys, they need information, and they need a

recognized established process. I welcome the fact that the Forest

Resources Commission recognizes that, but we're a long way from doing

it. As I said, these ideas are not new. This government is going to be

judged for having failed to have put these processes into place,

because most of them take some time to create results.

We know that people want jobs and employment; they don't want

welfare and unemployment. It seems to me that 10 percent unemployment

is totally acceptable. But we've gotten into a situation in the

interior with respect to modernizing the forest industry that is

totally unaccountable to the public when downsizing the work force.

We've only kept it afloat by cutting more and more timber. While you

could argue whether or not this is overcutting, I think the point is

that as soon as you cut more than grows, you are overcutting.

As a result, we have created communities that are overly dependent

on what we call the "spaghetti mill." We need to develop the

value-added. To do that, we have to keep the pressure on the people who

have the timber licences to develop alternative economic structures in

these communities that will result in employment. I'm talking here

about the businesses that will be involved in reforestation and the

businesses that will create further products out of the timber base

that we have.

[3:30]

My next topic has to do with changes to the Election Act, which I

think will make people more cynical. When people arrive on voting day

to find out they can't sign up, they will blame this government, and

this will create some further alienation. It seems to me that the

fundamental right to vote is absolutely essential. When

[ Page

12035 ]

we see that people are disillusioned with political

processes, we should be doing everything we can to encourage them to be

there. As a result, I think we have to reinstitute

section 80 in the

Election Act, and we've called on the government to do that. There are

hundreds of thousands of people off the voter list. We cannot have a

healthy system without them.

In his reply to the throne speech, the first member for Cariboo also

took issue with my view of the record of the New Democrat government. I

don't want to talk about Ontario, and I don't want to spend a lot of

time talking about our record from '72 to '75. But as we're headed into

a deficit this year, it's really important to remember that last year

this government predicted we were in a fragile economy — they knew. We

are having trouble getting a budget into the House, because they are

afraid of the word "deficit."

Contrast the performance of the last few years to that of the New

Democrats from '72 to '75. I'm mentioning this because in the context

of fear about balanced budgets, we are committing ourselves to

balancing the budget over the business cycle, and we intend to take a

responsible approach to doing only what the people can afford.

When in government, the New Democrats never produced a deficit

budget and never ran up direct debt. During the New Democrat

administration, B.C. had the lowest income tax rate for small

businesses and the second-lowest personal income tax rate. Billions of

dollars were brought in from investments that the government had made.

The New Democrats put real cash, totalling $201 million, into special

rainy-day funds. When Social Credit defeated the NDP in '75, these

special funds contained a total of $550 million. That was real money

from real budget surpluses. The 1975 Public Accounts shows that when

the NDP left office the budget surplus was $45 million higher than when

it came to power. Now the Socreds have planted seeds of poison in the

minds of people. They've had about 15 years to repeat some untruths

about our record. Hearing it over and over again, some people will

believe it; however, I think the truth will be known.

The argument that the NDP left the province with a deficit of $500

million comes from the fact that the Socreds cooked the books. Perhaps

we should use the same people who cooked the books when we get into

government, and maybe we'll reveal an even greater deficit.

This is how the books were cooked: by underestimating revenue, particularly

sales tax and forest revenues, $80 million; by considering as grants loans to

Crown corporations that should have been paid back to the province, $82 million;

by rejecting the federal-provincial rail agreement, $30 million; by not transferring

to the province cash earned by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, $27 million;

by making a totally unnecessary grant to ICBC, $181 million; by making totally

unnecessary grants to B.C. Hydro and the transit bureau, which had adequate

borrowing authority to meet their needs, $59 million; by refusing to use the

Housing Corporation of B.C. to finance capital expenditures on housing, $63

million; and by calling a deposit in B.C. Central Credit Union a grant, $2.5

million. All this totals $524.5 million.

In 1972 the new NDP government could have been able to show that the

Socreds had left the province with a $1 billion deficit, which is twice

what the Socreds claim was left by the NDP in 1975, by taking the

Columbia River and B.C. Rail expansion costs and including them in the

financial review. The NDP chose not to juggle the figures to score some

political points; instead, they presented the financial picture in a

straightforward fashion. It's too bad the new government did not do the

same thing in 1976. I just wanted to set the record straight on the

financial performance of the New Democrats.

I remind you of the government's record here: the $500 million

overrun on the Coquihalla; probable loss of $100 million on Expo lands;

and SkyTrain being $700 million over budget. Compare that with our

record. It looks pretty bad.

I'd like to speak about a few of the needs of the people in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin and how the throne speech has dealt with some of

those, I hope. First, we need clear land use planning processes in

order to reduce the uncertainty about the economic future. That hasn't

been done in this throne speech. We need a government here and evidence

that they are willing to introduce measures that will protect drinking

water and manage the watersheds, which are both polluted by sewage,

cattle and other uses.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The former Minister of Forests is trying to

slur my name by saying that the fertilizing that's brought in by horse

loggers is in fact pollution. He should know that the horse loggers are

very careful around streams — and the horses are too. They're very well

trained for the purpose, and he knows that. He's been a great supporter

of horse logging, I know.

We need to know that our school budgets will provide us with a

stable, predictable and fair funding formula. Increases in funding in

the order of 0.6 to 2.5 percent in the districts that I represent are

just not good enough. In spite of the recommendations by yet another

royal commission for stability in funding, we haven't seen that

developed.

I have one other comment about an initiative that's mentioned in the

throne speech — the planning of resource roads. I remember back some 20

years when it was well known in planning circles that when you put a

road into resources, you plan for all the resources. And here we are 20

years later, trying to develop legislation to require a coordinated

approach to the planning of resource roads.

The first member for Cariboo, whose speech made such an impression

on me that I have to rebut some of the things he said, took issue with

the Leader of the Opposition being from Vancouver. I'm sure he would

recognize that he's proud of being from Vancouver and proud of his

record when he was mayor of Vancouver. I would like to say this about

the Leader of the Opposition: he was successful in his position and you

have had lots of time to expose scandals. There haven't

[ Page

12036 ]

been any uncovered yet. This was the second-most powerful job in the

province, and I predict to you that he will be successful in the most

powerful job in the province, which is that of Premier. This is because

he will listen to the people of the Cariboo.

I would like to remind you that in the past two years he has been to

the Cariboo at least seven times. That's a better record than any other

Premier or Leader of the Opposition. I'm proud to say that when he did

visit the Cariboo, he listened to what people had to say, and he showed

that he was knowledgeable about the issues raised by the timber

industry, the native people and the chamber of commerce. I know that he

will continue to listen to the people of the Cariboo and that if he

doesn't listen, I will be reminding him of it.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The member opposite wanted to know if the

Leader of the Opposition knew what an agricultural lease looked like.

Well, the next time I see a good one, I'm going to be sure to point it

out to him. But I would like to say that when he goes and looks at

agricultural leases, he won't have to borrow snowshoes from the

Ministry of Forests to look at them on top of the snow, as the present

Minister of Lands had to do when he was looking at agricultural leases.

If we have consultants like the Minister of Lands when we do resource

management, we can do all our planning from snowshoes; we won't even

have to look at the soil.

HON. MR. PARKER: Is that right?

MR. ZIRNHELT: We might hire you; there might be a job for you in our administration.

HON. MR. PARKER: Do you know what horse logging is?

MR. ZIRNHELT: It seems like the Minister of Lands wants to

talk about horse logging. He knows that it creates a lot of jobs and is

very sensitive to the forest. He's worried about the fertilizer they

spread, but the forest needs that in places.

I don't want to be distracted by the heckling from the other side.

The very knowledgeable member over there is kind of getting me off the

point.

I would like to remind the House that in spite of all the crisis, chaos and

scandals going on around us, New Democrats have been putting forward very sincere,

well-thought-out programs that the people will be able to learn about more specifically

when the election happens. We've got reams of policy, but the issues we

have been concentrating on and have spoken thousands of hours about are ensuring

fair and open government, equality for women and fairness for all British Columbia families.

We want to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians during economic downturns;

we want to achieve tax fairness for British Columbians; we want to provide more affordable

housing; we want to renew the forest industry; we want to ensure a longer-term

economic future for the resource-dependent communities in B.C.; and we want

a better balance between economic growth and protecting our environment.

In fact, we took the initiative to establish what we call an

environment and jobs accord, which deals with the need to do

time-limited regional planning in the crisis areas and eventually in

the whole of the province, so that we can get away from the ad hoc

negligent approaches that have been taken in the past.

In conclusion, I want to remind the House and the people of the

province that this is the same old gang that's a little tired, that's

left us living in chaos and that has failed to instill confidence in

the public. The morale in the political arena is very low among the

voters. The failure to plan for a changing economy has left us with a

nervous feeling about the future. However, we feel that the future in

this great province can be great if we seriously put our heads to

working together and not confronting one another in a way where

somebody has to lose. As I said when I opened my speech, the resolution

of the crisis and chaos is going to be by the ultimate referendum: the

vote of the electorate.

I'm not sure that people will rush to the polls in as great numbers

as we had hoped, because some of them are going to get there and find

that they're not on the voter list and there's no way to put them on.

But we will be doing our part to ensure that people are not

disfranchised. I think that to elect a New Democratic government, under

the leadership of a person who will listen and a party which has a

well-thought-out and affordable platform, will give people hope. If

they elect New Democratic members from every region of the province, we

will ensure a voice in government for those regions, under the Leader

of the Opposition, who has spent considerable time and effort planning

to be in that position and consulting broadly with a full range of

people in the province.

MR. DE JONG: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in this

House. I would like to say first that I'll be speaking against the

amendment, but I'm very pleased to speak in favour of the throne

speech. It's loaded with many good things; it covers just about

everything, even though the Leader of the Opposition didn't think so.

Particularly in view of the circumstances — and we are all familiar

with the circumstances and the time that was allowed to put this speech

together — I think it's a good document.

[3:45]

Not unlike some other governments, though, this government has

without a doubt experienced some trying times, which I would like to

compare to a gardener or a farmer preparing his field or garden

following fall or winter, when the elements of nature have taken their

toll on trees, shrubs, plants, etc. Storms cause delays, and damage has

to be assessed. Some of the various types of storms do leave their

mark, and it takes time and energy just to do the cleanup job, let

alone planning the crops for the following season. The people of Sumas

Prairie who were affected by the floods of the Nooksack River last

November, as well as the people of the Chilliwack River valley — some

of whom lost all of their belongings, including their homes — will tell

you all about

[ Page

12037 ]

what it is just to finish the cleanup and re-establish themselves after winter storms.

In similar fashion, the clouds of uncertainty displayed themselves

over Victoria. The short windup session provided the government with

the opportunity to do some cleanup caused by the storms. It also

provided the preparation of the soil to establish some of the basic

direction for the coming year. We think of the bills that were passed

in that short little session.

In the Chilliwack River valley, it wasn't just that properties were

damaged; the river became a total ruin on account of the storms. Sport

fishing was almost, if not entirely, eliminated. I must give the former

Minister of Environment, the first member for Okanagan South, a lot of

credit for the work he did on the rechannelling, as well as on the

protection of the clay banks that have been seriously damaged by the

storms, and for the work done on the stabilization that this river

needed. Undoubtedly a lot more work is to be done, and I'm sure that

with good government the river will become what it once was — a

sportsman's paradise.

The Nooksack River had its effects on Sumas Prairie. Even though it

is very difficult to get some negotiations going with the government in

Washington, I believe that we must continue, at all three levels of

government, to seek an agreement with the people in Washington so that

proper dikes can be built to protect not only the farmers in British

Columbia but also those south of the border.

It's not, as members of the opposition would like to have the people

believe, that this government is not governing. This government has

recognized throughout its mandate that in order to continue to maintain

the level of services which people are accustomed to and deserve, any

government has the responsibility in good times not to spend all the

money but rather to save some dollars so that when recession does take

place there are still some resources available. From the resources

available they are to provide those essential services which the people

are depending on: education, health and social services. What would we

do if the coffers were empty? We can only pass it on to the next

generation.

This is why the Compensation Fairness Act was essential. The act was

not designed to take a stab at a particular group, even though it may

be felt that way by some. It was simply designed to ensure that the

cost of services to the public would not be in excess of what they

could afford to pay either in the short term or over the long haul.

On this side of the House we know how much the taxpayer can afford.

We also know that the quality of those essential services which the

people of this province are deserving of should not simply be gauged on

the money placed towards these services. It is, and has been, the

dedication and determination that British Columbians have displayed and

practised for many years that this government wishes to see continue.

If governments do not practise fiscal responsibility, who will? We run

the risk of losing the dedication and determination of the people if we

do not practise fiscal restraint.

If there's ever a time when the general public appreciates what the

pioneers have achieved through determination and hard work in less than

150 years of Confederation in terms of infrastructure, cities and towns

established, it's during times of depressed economic conditions. I

believe that the opposition would do themselves a lot of good if they

looked at some of the positive things rather than complaining about the

present, as they have been doing for so long.

I'm pleased that while there was very little time — to put it in

gardener's terms — to plant the seeds which we find in the throne

speech, I am proud to find that one of the first items touched upon

deals with the constitution of our country. We in British Columbia are

a vital part of Canada, and British Columbians from all walks of life

will have an opportunity to participate.

Recognizing that British Columbia, like any other province, is of a

multicultural makeup, our problems are the same. However, our objective

to solve these problems in a harmonious way may be somewhat different

than those of the other provinces and obviously quite different from

the socialist policies from across the floor. I believe that many

politicians over the past year have tried to grab headlines labelling

many of the small cultural groups as "minority groups, " often stating

that governments at all levels have a special responsibility to these

"minority groups." Well, having come as an immigrant to this country

myself, and while I'm not in one of those groups that has millions of

people in Canada.... We are probably also considered a minority group.

As I consider myself as a person within such a group, and if I consider

that every culture or ethnic group has a tile within that Canadian

mosaic, which some people can display very accurately.... I believe

that all Canadians — including the new immigrants, those that are of a

minority group as we may call them — have a responsibility to keep

their part of the tile to which they belong shining in a Canadian

society. The entire ethnic group has a responsibility to keep their

tile shining so that there are no dark or unpolished blotches. I

believe that every British Columbian — no matter of what race or

nationality originally, or what cultural or ethnic persuasion — wishes

to be a part of polishing that tile and keeping it polished, and works

hard at it.

The reference in the throne speech to the cultural building in our

province.... I trust and I know that this government will continue to

provide that freedom and ability to allow every British Columbian to

shine forth in our Canadian society.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to see the direction in this speech in

expanding services to victims of family violence and sexual assault.

Perhaps I'm somewhat biased on this one; however, when the effects of

such violence in society hit home within one's own family circle, as it

happened to our daughter in California this past March.... I suppose

you will all understand that the trauma of such acts of violence has a

long-lasting effect on the person involved, perhaps for a lifetime.

I agree totally with the point made in the throne speech that the

only and effective means for those active in creating such violence

must be aggressively addressed, and punishment of such acts should not

[ Page

12038 ]

minimized. I have no doubt that the people of this province, and

especially the women, will applaud the government for this initiative.

The Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues have made

reference to some areas in the economic structure not being addressed

in this throne speech. Likewise has the Leader of the Opposition failed

to respond to some of the very positive points in the speech — which I

am sure leaves many British Columbians wondering about the leader of

the socialists.

The Leader of the Opposition made special reference to the

agriculture industry. He said that a socialist government would provide

$47 million to the fruit industry in the Okanagan valley. He said it as

though this government had totally ignored the problems of the fruit

industry Quite to the contrary, this govern ment has provided close to

$30 million in assistance to the fruit industry. This government has

initiated the

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and started a ten-year

replanting program at $2 million for this year, plus some other

incentives which I'm sure we will hear about in due time.

This government is involved in tripartite agreements with various

components within the agriculture industry, as well as crop insurance.

For example, this government has just signed an agreement for the grain

farmers of the total province with the federal government called GRIP.

This again is a participatory program by the industry. All of these

programs are infrastructure-enhancement programs, long-term

stabilization programs, not short-term election promises.

Yes, the free trade agreement is of concern to the agriculture

industry. Just because there's no mention of it in the throne

speech.... Both levels of government fully recognize these concerns.

This government has never denied that the free trade agreement would

have an affect on agricultural commodities. Therefore I have no fear of

what this government has already done to balance these concerns. It is

fully prepared to consult with the industry for stable, long-term

programs on which the farmer can build, plan and succeed in a

competitive marketplace.

I will add that, at the conference I attended in February and in

discussions with Mr. Mazankowski and Mr. Jim Hewitt, representing the

Farm Credit Corporation, their goals are exactly those our government

has been looking at and busy implementing. We are not looking at a

short-term bandage approach; we are looking at long-term success

instead.

The only other place the Leader of the Opposition can think of to throw more

money at is the Agricultural Land Commission. I find it rather strange the Leader

of the Opposition would make such an outrageous statement regarding the Agricultural

Land Commission without really looking at, in any depth, the effectiveness of

the institution and the benefits it provides for the industry and to society

as a whole. There is no doubt: trends in the agricultural industries are changing,

and the Agricultural Land Commission, together with government, must work along

with those changes — which will mean, again, the survival of the industry as

well as the land. I'm all in favour — and I know the members of this side

of the House are as well — of preserving the prime agricultural land but at

the same time providing a climate for the entrepreneurial, industrious, energetic

farmers to succeed and be able to make a positive contribution to this province's

economic standards.

[4:00]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the other day that if we

wanted to comment on Ontario — I believe he was addressing this to some

members on this side of the House — then perhaps we should move there.

Well, I'm sure that after eight months of socialistic government, many

of us would be welcomed by that government to help them out of their

mess. I got a letter from my brother the other day. He lives close to

Toronto. He wrote me that for every car that's sold in excess of

$35,000, $2,400 in additional tax on top of all the other taxes has to

be paid by the purchaser of that car.

In conclusion, the general message in the Speech from the Throne is

the same as it was in this little booklet provided by the government

back in 1957-58 after the first five years of Social Credit government

in British Columbia. It still has the same message, except it's

expanded considerably. But the basic message is that unless we continue

to build the infrastructure and provide the climate for private

enterprise to operate, we will not be able to provide the services the

people of this province deserve. The people cannot get that under

socialism, as has been proven in other countries which are now turning

towards private enterprise after years of a substandard lifestyle under

socialism, and because of it.

The people of British Columbia have given it their best for many

years. Governments have not built this province; people have built this

province. The people are prepared to give it their best. Let's give

them a hand.

MRS. BOONE: I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment and the motion from my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the throne speech last week, the

question on everyone's mind is: "Why bother?" What was the point of

calling us all back and putting us through the pains of listening to a

rehash of the former Premier's promises? One could have saved us all

some time by showing us a tape of the Premier's televised speech of

last January, throwing in a few NDP promises for good measure and then

saying: "Me too." It's clear that this is a tired, old government that

will say and do anything to stay in power. Had the acting Premier

wished to make her mark and to make a difference, she could have

repealed Bill 82, which is causing tremendous unrest and disturbance

within the school system.

I'd like to quote from the Citizen

newspaper. I think it's rather

interesting that trustee Bob Holtby said at a meeting of the school

district there.... Bob Holtby, who sought to be a Social Credit

candidate in the Prince George North riding, said he found the act

"personally offensive." He went on to say: "I've been sitting here for

five years, and every time I think

[ Page

12039 ]

they've done something stupid, they turn around and do something

more stupid." To which trustee Doug Walls quipped: "That's pursuit of

excellence." Walls also said that "if the goal of the new act is to

draw the public education system into a pre-election controversy, the

government doesn't deserve the public's trust."

Mr. Speaker, it's clear that this is the same old government. You

can change the leader, you can change the ministers and you can shuffle

the deck all you want, but you end up with the same old jokers in the

end. It's almost funny the way the members of this government are

scrambling to distance themselves from the former Premier. In fact, one

can almost feel sorry for him suddenly finding out the type of people

he was dealing with, whom he thought were friends. All you had to do

was to watch the performance of the Social Credit government today when

the former Premier made his speech, to find out just how lonely he

probably feels right now. Those who desperately clung to his coat-tails

— and I do mean desperately in many cases — are trying to claim that

they didn't know that the coat was made of polyester, and they didn't

know that it was dirty.

If the cabinet truly didn't know what was going on, and if they

really didn't know what this man was like, then they were the only ones

in British Columbia who didn't. Quite frankly, that makes them

incredibly stupid. Candidates were quitting, presidents were resigning

and leadership reviews were being called throughout the province, yet

cabinet ministers stubbornly stood behind their leader until he could

no longer win. Once they thought he could no longer win, they abandoned

him like a sinking ship.

Mr. Speaker, all of British Columbia wants to know where the cabinet

was when Bill 19 was developed behind closed doors without the

knowledge of the Labour ministers. Where were you when the Premier

centralized control of his office and made all deputies report to him?

Where were you when $40 million was spent to get the government message

out, while people waited in line for open-heart surgery? Where were you

when the use of the government jets for ambulance purposes was

decreased by 34 percent, yet costs increased by 32 percent and cabinet

used the government jets as a taxi service?

Where were you when the minister of state program was instituted

without thought, and $8 million was raised unnecessarily through

special warrants? By the way, where are those ministers today, and

where are all of those wonderful programs of decentralization? Now we

don't even have a ministry that talks about regional development;

instead we have something else combined into a big ministry, but no

talk about regional development anymore.

Where were you throughout the discussions of the Knight Street Pub affair or

the sale of the Expo lands? Where were you when a single minister was granted

the power to give loans and grants up to $1 million on his or her own authority?

Where were you when the independent advisory committee to approve lottery grants

was dissolved, and the minister was given that full responsibility? We've

seen what that full responsibility has resulted in: a shamed fiasco, with the

transfer of funds to the friends and insiders of the minister. We've seen

that grants and lotteries have gone from $14.5 million in the seventies to $83.1

million in 1988-89. From that tight control in the seventies, it has gone to

where a minister may grant a lottery grant for any purpose the minister considers

to be in the public interest.

I think we should all ask all of those cabinet ministers where they

were when the government, time and time again, refused to fund AZT, the

drug for AIDS. Where were you when they refused that? Where were you

when you refused time and time again to fund lunches for

schoolchildren? All of a sudden you found heart, you say? I think not.

We know where you were. You were all in cabinet. You were all

sitting there voting and supporting these initiatives. You sat silent

and went along with your leader, and by that silence you agreed with

him. You showed us and the province of British Columbia that you, along

with the Premier, don't know the difference between right and wrong.

If you didn't agree, why didn't you resign, or at least speak up?

Others did. Changing leaders just isn't good enough. It's a little bit

like removing a noxious weed: you can remove one, but that won't help a

whole lot, because those others will still take over. You have to get

rid of all of those noxious weeds. All the throne speeches in the world

won't help, because we are still left with the same noxious weeds as

before. This government has totally failed the people of British

Columbia.

Several years ago the Minister of Finance announced his famous BS

fund — a rainy-day fund, he called it. He said it was there for when

times got tough, so that they could implement programs and keep the

government in operation. He stated, when he implemented it: "My

definition of a rainy day is not an election, but that's not to say

that we won't have to spend it in an election year." Guess what? We've

just come through a time that I think the government thought was going

to be an election year, and I think they actually thought that we would

have been through an election by this time. The money has been spent;

it's not there.

We're in a situation right now where we need those funds to keep

programs going, and no money whatsoever has been saved. We've been

through some very good times in this province. The economy has been

doing well. Did this government save money? No. Revenues were high;

this government didn't save money. Do you know what they did? They

increased spending by 12 percent; in good times, they increased

spending by 12 percent. Now when we really need it, when there are

programs suffering and revenues are down, we don't have any of that

rainy-day fund. We don't have any cushion there at all.

They even have the nerve, in this throne speech, to suggest a tax

hike — a tax hike from this government, which condemns taxes at all

times. A tax hike is what they say they're going to give us. What

happened to the rainy-day fund? The rains are here now, and we

[ Page 12040 ]

have no cushion whatsoever. This government does not deserve a second chance.

Last week we heard whining from Socred members that New Democrats are not

the only ones who care. More than one member got up and said those words, over

and over: "You're not the only ones who care. You New Democrats aren't

the only ones who have a social conscience." Well, forgive us and the public

for not recognizing it.

Forgive us for not being impressed with the medals that were given,

instead of action on women's issues. Forgive us for misunderstanding

this government's constant refusal to fund the drug AZT, and forgive us

for misunderstanding the Minister of Parks' comments that AIDS was a

self-inflicted wound. Forgive us for misinterpreting some government

members' heckling when welfare moms brought their plight to the

Legislature. And forgive us for being disgusted when the Minister of

Health said that cancer patients in the north will be well served by

clinics in the lower mainland and Kamloops. That's just not good

enough. Forgive us for distrusting a government that prefers to send

patients to Seattle rather than investing in our own health services.

I think that we can all be forgiven for not seeing this as a caring

government. When the needs of the people are put ahead of the friends

and the insiders of this government, then and only then will the

government be able to lay claims to caring. It's not good enough to

find a social conscience just prior to an election.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close my remarks with a quote from Breach

of Promise , by Graham Leslie, former Deputy Minister of Labour. Mr.

Leslie states:

"I believe that the B.C. Social Credit Party is no

longer fit to govern British Columbia, and that it has disqualified

itself ethically as well as on the basis of its management

incompetence. If the party is ever again to offer itself as a free

enterprise candidate for government office in this province, I believe

it urgently needs time in opposition, where it can identify for itself

and its allies the ideals it stands for, other than the acquisition of

power apparently for the sake of friends and financial supporters."

This comment comes not from a long-time New Democrat, and not even

from a short-time supporter of the New Democratic Party, but from

somebody who admits that he has voted Social Credit for the past 30

years. He has voted Social Credit for the past 30 years, and he says

it's time for a change. This government doesn't deserve a second

chance. I think the rest of this province believes that it's time for a

change as well. Let the people decide. Give us an election today.

[4:15]

HON. MR. MESSMER: I am privileged to take

part in this debate

on the Speech from the Throne, in support of the government's

initiatives for the session and against the amendment.

Firstly, I would like to say how proud I am of our caucus, in that they elected

a highly capable woman to the office of Premier of the province of British Columbia.

The Premier is the first woman in Canada to hold the position of Premier, and

it proves once again that we are an equal-opportunity party

Last Thursday the second member for Boundary-Similkameen talked

about the government's supposed neglect of small business and

agriculture in the throne speech. He omitted to say why. By tradition,

the throne speech sets out the government's new proposals for a

session. The member conveniently forgot to point out that this

government has spent the past five years putting in place programs and

policies to assist small business and agricultural industries.

Having, served as co-chairman of the provincial government's small

business task force, I can tell you that small business is big business

in British Columbia. Provincewide, up to 95 percent of the net new jobs

created in the last year came from small business. When you consider

that British Columbia created almost half of the new jobs in all of

Canada last year, this number is all the more impressive. In addition,

the greatest contribution we provide to small business growth is

maintaining a healthy free enterprise climate and keeping our

outstanding people-programs soundly managed and affordable to the

taxpayer.

Figures released by this government in November 1990 showed that

1,615 jobs are being created as a result of the government's new

financial incentive programs. Since May 1990, a total of 194 approvals

have been provided to small businesses, including 132 under the

business start-up program and 62 under the small business assistance

program. A wide variety of small businesses are being assisted through

these programs, helping to further diversify the province's economic

base.

Unlike the member's NDP counterparts....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the fact that there

is not a quorum has been brought to the attention of the Chair. I'll

ring the bells, and when sufficient members have returned to the

chamber, we'll continue with the business.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Unlike the member's NDP counterparts in Ontario....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The quorum is leaving as you are

speaking. Either the Whips can organize it so that there are at least a

minimum number of members in the chamber, or I'll accept a motion to

adjourn; but I will not tolerate members walking out just because we've

established a quorum. Would the member please continue.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Unlike the member's NDP counterparts in

Ontario, whose actions are choking small business recovery and ensuring

that jobs are lost forever to the citizens in that province, this

government has acted responsibly in developing small business policies

which emphasize innovation rather than handouts. B.C.'s agricultural

community has diversified greatly in recent years, as new, more

specialized market opportunities have opened up. At the same time,

however, there is a need to address the serious

[ Page

12041 ]

adjustment pressures which world market conditions are imposing on some of our traditionally strong production sectors.

The orchards of the Okanagan, Similkameen and Creston Valleys are

more than just an industry. Historically they have been an integral

part of British Columbia's identity, defining both how we see ourselves

and how others see us. It is no secret that the fruit industry has been

struggling for a number of years and for a variety of reasons. Last

year the government of British Columbia undertook a strategy to retool

the industry, to get it ready for the nineties, to reposition the

industry in a competitive, market-driven global economy and remarket

our superior products both at home and abroad.

The first step was emergency assistance totalling some $13 million,

which was shared by the federal and provincial governments. The second

step was the formation of a Crown corporation called the Okanagan

Valley Tree Fruit Authority. The corporation's mandate was to work with

British Columbia tree-fruit growers, processors and marketers to begin

a grass-roots restructuring of the industry. This restructuring is well

underway. Local industry leaders comprise the corporation's board, and

local growers are providing input to the program development on the

basis of their own personal experience.

This is an example of the democratic process in action. The people

who work and own orchards are mapping the way to their future. This is

the free enterprise way, rather than the socialist, centralist way.

This method of expediting the change will not keep people in bondage to

government handouts as a method of control. Our plan for restructuring

has seen an estimated expenditure of close to $20 million on the fruit

industry in the past year. But that expenditure is being made in the

context of making this important industry more competitive in the free

market of the 1990s. The grape and wine industry in my own constituency

has been going through a wonderful renewal that is a credit to the

growers and the government that has supported them.

Once again, the strategy to retool, reposition and remarket their

product under the $28 million federal-provincial cooperative agreement

has been a model that others would do well to follow. The industry led

the way in forecasting market demands, and they designed a strategy to

meet those demands by the year 2000. Our grape and wine industry wanted

to compete, they wanted to be players in the free enterprise system and

they wanted to win. That is what the government wanted them to do as

well.

This industry has already achieved a tremendous response from

British Columbians. The industry is developing and marketing superior

product that is rapidly becoming a favourite wine beverage both at home

and abroad. I understand that the demand is increasing so fast they're

going to have to work extra hard to meet it.

The cooperation of the liquor control branch, the liquor distribution branch

and the Ministry of Agriculture has led to the formation of the B.C. Wine Institute.

This institute was launched last summer to place quality B.C. wines in world

contention. I understand that this past Christmas the demand for B.C. wines

grew by some 30 percent-plus over any other period on record. This is yet one

more example of people using their own individuality, experience and creativity

to prosper in the free enterprise system.

Tourism is also small business, and this government has assisted

local governments and non-profit societies to provide tourism

attractions to invite people to British Columbia. Let me list some

examples from my own riding of Boundary-Similkameen. We've assisted

with beach and lakeshore resort improvements: Rotary Beach in

Surnmerland, Kinsmen Beach at the Osoyoos lakefront, walkways in

Osoyoos, the Kiwanis pier and walkway in Penticton. This is called

working with service clubs. We've provided funding assistance for a

harvesting machine to keep the lakes clear of milfoil — cooperation

with communities, sharing that responsibility.

Fish and wildlife programs — again, working with the fish and

wildlife organizations. The Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of

Social Services have provided funding assistance to staff information

centres coordinated with the chambers of commerce. Assistance with the

establishment of the Coquihalla information centre, in cooperation with

the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association, and donated land for the

use of information centres such as the one in Christina Lake.... The

Partners in Tourism program has assisted the Okanagan-Similkameen

Tourist Association with promotion and advertising. It's called sharing

with local business to promote tourism to people from outside of our

area.

Special events such as agricultural fairs in Rock Creek and the

Harvest and Grape Fiesta in Penticton, just to name a few; sporting

events such as Ironman Canada, an international event; promotion of

cultural events such the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which provides an

annual operating grant for the Okanagan Summer School of the Arts and

attracts visitors from around the world; Music '91, which encourages

British Columbia residents to vacation in their home province,

assisting communities to help their major attractions....

Besides all of that, we have assisted with golf courses in the

Okanagan, community centres, arenas, hiking and biking pathways. I'll

just name a few of the golf courses we have assisted: Christina Lake,

Kettle Valley, Osoyoos, Oliver, Penticton and Surnmerland. Besides all

of that, we have helped with 16 kilometres of walking paths in the

Oliver area. All the events are not only needed by the people who live

within the area, but are a means of attracting tourists to the

beautiful valley we live in.

Heritage sites such as the Keremeos Grist Mill, the SS Sicamous and

the CPR station on Railway Avenue; cultural site attractions, by

providing operating grants for museums and art galleries, and the

Boundary Museum improvements; enhancement of tourism-related industries

through the establishment of the farm winery and estate wineries, and a

grant to assist the Okanagan Wine Festival Society to stage the festival

[ Page

12042 ]

and promote B.C. wines; downtown beautification programs and village square programs....

I believe our government has assisted Boundary-Similkameen in the

small business and tourism field, as well as assisting communities to

spruce up their downtown areas to attract business. And the member

opposite said we have done nothing.

The throne speech recognizes that sound environmental management and

protection must encompass more than one community, and often more than

one particular river system. Just recently we heard from Oak Bay–Gordon

Head about the fact that government should be doing something about the

sewage system within their community. I can tell you that it's a

cooperative field.

The Penticton sewage treatment is an excellent example of an

imaginative solution to waste management taken by this government and

local government. The plant is a tertiary treatment plant which uses a

biological nutrient removal system. The province kicked in more than 75

percent towards this project, the first of its kind in North America.

This new technology is not only protecting the quality of our

environment but also has created export opportunities.

With the provincial government's assistance, the communities of

Okanagan Falls, Osoyoos, Oliver and Keremeos in my constituency have

also done a tremendous job in doing their part to preserve and protect

our precious lake system. I'm proud to represent a government and a

constituency which does more than talk about environmental protection.

I had the privilege of serving as Parks minister for a year, and I

can tell you that the preservation of the pristine quality of life in

British Columbia is important to this government and to its citizens.

Through initiatives such as Parks Plan '90, we are securing employment

and social values associated with our forest heritage at the same time

as promoting tourism.

It is the policy of this government to involve the public, and over

11,000 British Columbians attended public meetings and made their views

known concerning the priorities for parks and wilderness areas for the

1990s. In my area alone, we operate 368 campsites and 600 day-use beach

and picnic sites. Visitors to those sites enjoy the natural

surroundings and, through participation in nature programs, gain

respect and understanding of our forest heritage and resources.

Campgrounds from Christina Lake to Surnmerland to our western boundary

at Hedley supply our tourists with a parkland setting — an invitation

to stay in beautiful British Columbia.

As Solicitor-General, I am responsible for law and order, and it

pleases me to inform the House of the active and positive enforcement

measures that this government is taking. The Attorney-General and I

will be taking a submission to the federal government asking for

tougher enforcement of deportation laws for gang members in this

province who commit serious criminal offences. The stance we have

taken, I can assure this House, has wide public support.

[4:30]

If a person is in British Columbia on a permit or interim status, short of having qualified

for citizenship, and if we have solid evidence to show a person participates

in a group whose dominant purpose is proven to be lawlessness, and they have

a right to a full hearing with counsel, then there is no reason, in fairness

to them or to the British Columbia taxpayers, not to call on them to show cause why their

interim status should not be revoked and they should not be sent back to the

country of their origin.

I want to make an important point: we are not singling out immigrant

groups. We are very concerned about the insufficient penalties in a

number of fields, particularly the Young Offenders (British Columbia)

Act, and with the need to protect witnesses to get convictions. In

fact, it is the immigrant communities which are vulnerable and bear,