1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 8

[ Page 4827 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

L. Fox: We're very privileged this afternoon to have the former MLA for Langley and former Minister of Government Services in the gallery, Carol Gran. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to share with the House that we have in the gallery today a member of the fourth estate from Israel with us today. He'll have to forgive me if I don't pronounce his name absolutely correctly, but it's Avinoam Bar Yosef of Ma'ariv newspaper in Jerusalem. He's visiting British Columbia to look into aboriginal issues and will be going up to the Nass Valley tomorrow to meet with the Nisga'a. I would ask the House to make him very welcome.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today are Warren and Evelyn Graham from North Vancouver. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

M. Lord: I'm pleased to welcome two of my constituents from a very beautiful and peaceful part of my riding, Hornby Island. Brunnie and Don Hogan are in the precincts to meet with government officials as part of their efforts to save one of the last Garry oak groves in that part of our province. Would the House please help make them welcome.

D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me to welcome to the precincts members of the constituency I represent, Mission-Kent. They are 25 grade 5 and 6 elementary school students from Durieu Elementary School, accompanied by Mr. D. Hughes. I bid the House make my constituents very welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: On behalf of the Premier, I'm delighted to introduce to the House Bruce McDonald, vice-president and general manager of Andres Wines; Ian Tostenson, president of Calona Wines; Anthony von Mandl, president and CEO of Mark Anthony Group Inc.; Bruce Walker, vice-president and western Canada general manager of Brights Wines; and Harry McWatters, a partner of Sumac Ridge Estate Winery -- an excellent golf course, I might add. I ask all members of the House to make them welcome.

J. Beattie: It's my pleasure to have in the chambers today some constituents of mine: Anita and Jim Chester and their two children, James and Heather. Jim Chester is the Okanagan branch chair of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. They're here today to have a little holiday, to enjoy some meetings and also to see this chamber in its best form.

Hon. T. Perry: Just so there are no hard feelings, on behalf of all of the other hon. members, I would like to welcome everyone who hasn't been introduced yet and those who are not with us today as well.

The Speaker: Actually, the Chair also has an introduction today. In preparation for the executive committee meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which begins here in Victoria next Monday, we have with us today: Mr. Arthur Donahoe, the secretary general of the CPA and the former Speaker in Nova Scotia, and his wife, Carolyn; Mr. Raja Gomez, head of administration of the CPA, and his wife, Rosanne; and Mr. Andrew Imlach, editor of the Parliamentarian -- which I know that all of us read each month that it arrives -- and his wife, Joanne. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

JOB PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Job Protection Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 2 is one of the key instruments in support of the regional development strategy of this government. Passage of the bill is needed to extend the application of the Job Protection Act and to maintain the operation of the Job Protection Commission beyond April 12, 1993. The act was brought into force in April 1991. It contains a two-year sunset provision, and without amendment, the Job Protection Act will expire on April 12.

In recent months there have been encouraging signs of recovery in some sectors of the B.C. economy. However, the recession continues to seriously affect many resource-based communities in the interior of the province.

To date, the Job Protection Commission has been vital in protecting jobs and the well-being of many British Columbians. It has worked with 67 firms, affecting over 12,000 jobs. Most important, it continues to work on economic plans and financial counselling projects, where several thousand more jobs are at stake. The work of the commission is not yet finished. The Job Protection Amendment Act will ensure that the commission's important contribution to regional stability can continue for two more years. This will allow the commission to complete its work so that all communities in the province are able to participate in an economic recovery.

Bill 2 also strengthens and permanently establishes sections of the Forest Act which gave the Minister of Forests the option of reducing the allowable annual cut of forest tenures in situations involving mill closures or decreases in production. This is enabling legislation which would be used only where the social and economic interests of a community are threatened and where some measure by the government is clearly in the public interest. These sections were enacted as consequential amendments under the Job Protection Act. The Forest Act provisions helped the Job Protection Commission formulate economic plans for wood processing firms.

[ Page 4828 ]

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.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I just want to remind you, it being early in the session, that all members who are introducing a bill should read practice recommendation No. 5 and try to keep their comments restricted to the purpose of the bill.

LABOUR OMBUDSMAN ACT

G. Farrell-Collins presented a bill intituled Labour Ombudsman Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: Since taking on the duties of Labour critic a little over a year ago, I've had a constant line of people through my office in Aldergrove and here in Victoria with complaints with regard to labour issues. Many of these people have lost their jobs by actions of their employer and even by actions of their union. With the removal in Bill 84 of the requirement for disciplinary action to be both fair and reasonable, I know that the threat to the individual worker is greater than ever.

[2:15]

This bill will provide for the appointment of a labour ombudsman with the full power to investigate and make recommendations on all matters related to the workplace for both union and non-union working women and men in British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, the workers of British Columbia demand fair, reasonable and affordable justice. With this bill, the Liberal opposition caucus will provide just that.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MEAT INSPECTION IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Health. In approximately two-thirds of British Columbia's slaughterhouses there is no formal meat inspection procedure. We have already witnessed the tragedy of lethal E. coli poisonings with the Jack in the Box restaurants in the state of Washington. Do we have to wait until the same thing happens in British Columbia before this government takes action?

Hon. E. Cull: There have been discussions between my ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture about the responsibilities for meat inspection, and they are being transferred to the Ministry of Health. If the member would like any more detail, I'd be happy to get that for him later.

R. Chisholm: We need more than discussions when two-thirds of the meat is not inspected. After a year as the Minister of Health, the question people are asking you isn't "Where is the beef?" but "What is in the beef?" Can the minister tell us why all slaughterhouses in British Columbia aren't inspected according to provincial standards? How many people have to be placed in jeopardy before this government gets off its rump roast and takes action?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not aware of a large number of cases of members of the public having their health put at risk from this. But as I said a minute ago, I'd be most happy to arrange a full briefing with my staff and the member if he would like that.

FUEL TAX EFFECT ON VANCOUVER AIRPORT

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance. A couple of hours ago the Premier was on television talking about the runway and terminal expansions at Vancouver International Airport, for which about a $350 million expenditure is planned. Does the minister understand the effect of the 150 percent fuel tax increase and the difficulty that tax increase poses for the expansion at Vancouver International?

Hon. G. Clark: Our fuel tax in British Columbia is exactly the same as in that socialist province, Alberta.

J. Weisgerber: There are a couple of people who would disagree with you. In a recent

article entitled "Fuel Tax Threatening Airport Growth...." the president of the airport authority says that the fuel tax was a deciding factor in Cathay Pacific's decision not to put a cargo facility here. He further says that the fuel tax is the biggest single source of competitive disadvantage for Vancouver International. He also notes that the tax is greater than the one in Alberta and that Alberta does not apply the tax to international flights. Will the minister review this policy and consider changes to the fuel tax now in place?

Hon. G. Clark: All tax policy is, of course, constantly under review. Mr. David Emerson has been to see me and my staff. He did lobby, as do most groups, for tax reduction, and we've carefully considered his comments.

I might note, however, that after he came over on behalf of the airport authority and asked for further tax concessions -- this government had already exempted the new airport authority from any of the income tax, property transfer tax or other taxes -- he then had a press conference and announced that they themselves are looking at imposing a brand new departure tax on everybody leaving the airport. It's quite interesting that we get the same message from everybody: give us tax relief, but don't worry about anybody else's problems.

We are listening very carefully to them. Obviously we're reviewing this question, because we're very supportive of the airport. We have provided significant tax relief, and we look forward to the expansion that the Premier announced today.

J. Weisgerber: A truly incredible response from the Minister of Finance, who is going to bring down a

[ Page 4829 ]

budget next Tuesday. If he looks at his statement today in the House and at his budget next Tuesday, he will know that one of them is hypocritical. Will the minister consider lowering taxes and making British Columbia more attractive and more competitive? Has he considered the effect of lowering taxes on the overall economy of this province?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we consider lowering or increasing every tax at this time. As you know, that's part of the budget review process. The budget will be announced on Tuesday, and I'm sure you'll see then that the tax policies of this administration are promoting wealth creation and expansion, promoting job creation, and keeping British Columbia number one in economic growth. After next year it will continue to be the strongest-growing province in Canada.

WATER LICENCE FEES

G. Farrell-Collins: What a wonderful lead into the next question. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. I'd like to ask the minister if he's aware that in preparation for next week's budget, according to confidential budget documents, his colleague the minister responsible for lands is considering a 100 percent increase in the licence fees for water. Is he aware of the effect of this water tax on municipalities, on ranchers and on the recreation industry in this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't talk about what's in the budget. You appear to know more than I do. I don't read leaks. My ministry and others in the government are well aware of the cumulative impact of fee reductions and taxes. We look at those very carefully. We try to provide advice to the Minister of Finance so that he can make rational decisions.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, we're still waiting for those rational decisions. I have an interesting quote for the Minister of Economic Development.

The Speaker: I hope it's short, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is very short, hon. Speaker. It says: "Higher rates" -- this is water licence fees -- "are expected to lead to widespread abandonment of licences and unauthorized water use. Eleven additional FTEs and $1.33 million will be required to carry out monitoring and enforcement activities." On a $1.5 million revenue, how does this minister believe that increasing economic development can be done by hiring $1.33 million worth of government employees? Is that the economic development that this minister is bringing in?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't answer specific questions about the budget, but the general point is that we have to question whether or not B.C. is competitive in a whole range of industries. I think that any of those things you're speculating about will leave British Columbia competitive -- in agriculture, in small business and whatever you name. We have some studies on the competitiveness of the B.C. investment environment. We've won awards for those studies; they are totally unassailed by any of the industry groups.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question for the minister of tax revenues. The document from his ministry says: "The ministry indicates that additional administrative costs of $1.33 million would be required to monitor and enforce activities." It's not clear why the ministry requires additional FTEs and increased administrative funds when the system is already in place. Can this ministry assure us that if they do raise taxes by 100 percent, there will be no additional government employees hired to collect that tax?

The Speaker: The hon. member well knows that he cannot ask hypothetical questions in question period.

LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

J. Dalton: So far in 1993 the education system has seen a four-week lockout in Fernie, a three-week strike in Quesnel and continuing slowdowns. It's ironic that today the Minister of Education's own district is on strike. Powell River will be locked out on Monday. My question is to the Minister of Labour. Does the government intend to allow these disruptions to continue, or will the government take some action to intercede?

Hon. M. Sihota: The government is prepared to be involved, at the request of the parties, regarding any of these disputes. We will make sure that we can offer the assistance of the abilities of the Ministry of Labour to try to bring a quick and expeditious resolution to the disputes.

In the New Westminster dispute, Brian Foley, a labour mediator, has been involved in trying to bring about an expedited settlement. In Powell River, in light of the events of the last couple of days, we are, at this very point, discussing the possibility of ministry assistance in helping the parties to resolve the dispute. We will continue to do that. We will monitor it, and if the parties request it, we will provide them with assistance as required.

J. Dalton: Again to the Minister of Labour. It is interesting to hear his comments on the collective bargaining process. I would suggest to the minister that in the case of school closures, the collective bargaining process has not worked. It seems everyone but the government can recognize that. Will this government's inaction continue? Will it contribute to the ever-growing dropout problem and other problems in our education system? Has this government no concern for the shutdowns in our school system?

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course one is always concerned about shutdowns and the effects of any disruptions. The hon. member talks about the collective bargaining system in the education system not working. If you take a look at the system as it has operated since

[ Page 4830 ]

the previous administration allowed teachers the right to strike, the following has happened: the vast majority....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, as soon as the opposition Labour critic settles down, I'll proceed with answering the question.

Now that he's settled down, I'll continue. With regard to collective bargaining in the education system, the vast majority of disputes within the education sector have been settled without any work disruption whatsoever. Those who have been involved in work disruptions have generally kept them to within a week. During the life experience of collective bargaining in the education field, there have been only two or three situations where we have seen extended disputes. Obviously we're concerned about that, and we're prepared to provide the assistance that's required. Generally speaking, the system works quite well.

J. Dalton: This is my final supplemental to the Minister of Labour. The official opposition certainly cannot buy this thought: just let things play out. I suggest that this government has adopted a laissez-faire attitude to this whole problem, and that is unacceptable.

My question to the Minister of Labour is: does the government endorse the proposal that Powell River has put forward, whereby grade 12 students in that district may be offered a $500-a-month boarding allowance so they can shop around the province for their education?

Hon. M. Sihota: This government endorses the notion of collective bargaining within the education system.

TRANSFER OF SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL SPINAL CORD UNIT

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Health. She has announced that the spinal cord unit at Shaughnessy Hospital will be moved to Vancouver General. Can the minister confirm that this will be impossible to do in one move? Can she confirm that the entire unit and its highly specialized staff will be moved twice: first to the older VGH building and then to the new building?

[2:30]

Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't confirm whether there is going to be one move or two, because the process of consultation with the various people involved in providing services in the spinal cord area is still ongoing. We have a committee of people who are involved in providing spinal cord services to patients right now at Shaughnessy. It's headed up by Dr. Peter Wing, and it involves other people from the Canadian Paraplegic Association. There is advice to that committee coming from Rick Hansen and others. Until they have finished their work, it's not possible to say when the transition will be or how it will take place.

L. Fox: Given the answer that the minister has just given me, would she not agree that it would be more economical and sensible to delay the closure of Shaughnessy until definite time frames can be put in place and the new VGH tower is ready for occupancy?

Hon. E. Cull: The member is jumping to conclusions that have not been reached by the committee that's looking at it. I have full confidence in the people who are now looking at this issue, and I'm sure they will bring forward an excellent recommendation to us.

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to respond with details to questions asked by the opposition Forests critic, which I took yesterday, with respect to trips....

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, it was quite clear at the time that the minister didn't have an answer. He tried, but he certainly did not take the questions on notice.

Hon. D. Miller: On that point of order, hon. Speaker, if the members opposite read Hansard, they will clearly see that I said I would bring the specific details on those questions. I can hardly believe that you want to ask questions but are not prepared to listen to the answers. If you don't want to listen to the answers, fair enough.

The Speaker: I will recognize the hon. member -- this is turning into a debate -- only if he is making a submission on the point of order and not entering into debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I am. It's quite clear that if the minister chooses to.... When a question is asked in question period, he can choose to take the question on notice and provide the answer later or he can try to answer the question. He tried to answer the question and was unable to because he didn't know what he was talking about, and now he's coming back to answer the question. The minister should follow the rules of the House. If he chooses to forward that information to the member, who is not available today, I'm sure he would be glad to receive it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Mr. Minister, we are already on a point of order; we cannot have a second point of order before the Chair has dealt with the first one.

It's the Chair's feeling, looking at the words in Hansard, that the minister said he would bring information back later. From the points of order that have been raised, I suspect that there's not the will to hear that answer. I would remind ministers to, in future, if they wish to bring back information, use the words: "I will take that on notice."

I will now take the point of order raised by the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Miller: Having committed to bring back detailed information on a question and now hearing

[ Page 4831 ]

that the opposition doesn't want that information, I can only say that will guide my actions in the future accordingly.

The Speaker: Thank you all, hon. members, for your submissions on this matter.

Hon. G. Clark: I have the honour to present the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.

I am requesting leave of the House to move a motion without notice.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: By leave, I move that a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an information and privacy commissioner, pursuant to

section 37(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I move that the special committee have the powers and be allowed to inquire into the same matters that were referred to it during the course of the first session, and that the said special committee be composed of Mr. Jones as convener; Messrs. Hartley, Garden and Krog; Mesdames Brewin, MacPhail and Pement; and Messrs. Warnke, Dalton, Jones and Serwa.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

G. Wilson: As I rise today to reply to the 1993 Speech from the Throne, I do so with some mixed emotion, because I feel at once a certain sense of frustration and anger, and also an undeniable determination. I feel frustration because, notwithstanding the importance of the ongoing debate on critical issues that take place in this Legislature, it would appear that our political system has become driven by media sound bites and tabloid front-page stories.

It is clear, hon. Speaker, as we hear from members opposite and as we see the detail of the throne speech, that the promises of past elections and of the last throne speech remain empty and unfulfilled. It is clear as we start to see that what is important in the overall determination of what drives the political process in B.C. is not the better welfare of the people we seek to serve, but rather what appears to be more important on a day-to-day basis in terms of the overall processes of individuals involved in the system.

I feel somewhat a sense of anger, because as a British Columbian and as a taxpayer, I feel betrayed by this government's callous indifference to the fact that the people of B.C. are taxed beyond their limit. This government has been arrogant in repeatedly making commitments and failing to keep them. It has introduced a series of fees and taxation against the people of B.C. with a view to try to balance a so-called budget within the five-year business cycle -- a promise that was made in the last election that clearly will not be possible in terms of the reality of today.

Yet I also feel determined to continue to fight the kind of politics that we have seen in B.C. for the last four decades which have divided the people of this province on the basis of the entertainment value of the day-to-day thrust of the debate in this House, rather than the sensible policies that are needed if we are to build a new, braver, bolder and fairer society for the people of British Columbia. I remain determined to move toward what I believe is necessary in this province: nothing less than a civilized revolution, which brought me into provincial politics and which has continued to motivate me through the darkest days of the last two months.

We know that the process we partake in is somewhat flawed. Yesterday the member for Nanaimo said there would be some who would be observing us on public television, as this is a publicly broadcast House, but that most of us would recognize that much of what is in the throne speech is in fact more flower than substance. It is less in terms of direct policy; it is more in general direction; it is more in the kind of philosophical or theoretical direction government might take.

Yet as we recognize that that is indeed what a throne speech should be, and what this throne speech has been, we also recognize that there is a need for an honest assessment of the philosophical direction that this government or any government might take on behalf of the people they seek to serve.

Let me say that while some may today witness my remarks or the remarks of other hon. members through the televised process of this House, unfortunately the majority will only read accounts of what takes place in this House -- accounts that unfortunately are often filtered through the scribbles of some wicked little Smurfs who sit up on high and who cast their opinion on a day-to-day basis in the editorial comments of the papers.

Are these editorials based on the substance of the debate? Rarely. Are they written on the issues that are important to British Columbians? Sometimes, but not frequently. Or will they even demonstrate an analysis of the political differences that may occur in those approaches, and whether in fact it is even common ground?

I don't raise this issue in response to the Speech from the Throne to condemn those confused little Smurfs, but rather to point out that the public must no longer rely upon the media, electronic or print, as their source of information on matters of substance and importance.

Interjections.

[ Page 4832 ]

G. Wilson: I hear the bleating of the members opposite with respect to whether or not that is an assault against the media. I don't choose to challenge the media. I choose to challenge the people of British Columbia to come forward and to take action directly against the government that they seek to try to get solutions and answers from.

It is time in this civilized revolution, if it is to succeed, to move toward a greater level of direct democracy. It is time for the people of British Columbia to have their concerns addressed directly and for the responses from government to be heard clearly -- unfiltered, uncensored and unedited. To this end we have a toll-free number in British Columbia, and in response to this Speech from the Throne I encourage the public to pick up the phone, call 1-800-663-7867 and register their concern, and speak directly to the minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

I'm sure the hon. member is on the throne speech, but the Chair is having difficulty finding the connection. I do encourage the member to address the throne speech, however broad the practice of the House is in that kind of debate.

G. Wilson: In response to this Speech from the Throne, the reason I addressed this question and the reason I bring to the attention of the public the fact that there is a direct line of communication they should take toward their ministers is that this government has repeatedly brought forward nothing but rhetoric -- commentary on what may be, about a new world, a new future and a better British Columbia, without providing direct action and direct answers to those people.

We have witnessed what is important in the province, and it is not the substance of quality. On the question of the social evolution within this society, even where there has been some adjustment and change, still, despite the three planks of this throne speech -- medicare, the building of the economy and the resolution of the land conflict -- it falls far short with respect to some of the most pressing social issues that are facing British Columbians. There is nothing in this that would give hope to displaced youth, to those who are subjected to the abuses that are brought about by racism, by sexism. This throne speech provided platitudes and nothing more.

Yes indeed, to be sure, a publicly and properly funded health care system is of the utmost importance to a healthy society. I look forward to implementation of some of the recommendations in the throne speech, because there is some substance there that hopefully may assist our health care system if adequately and properly put in place. But a sound health care system means that there must be trust between government and the health care providers, and that trust has been eroded over the past 15 months.

[2:45]

There is also a need for a sensible economic strategy that has, at its foundation, tax reform. We cannot expect the increase in investment necessary for wealth creation if there is no commitment to tax reform. This government sees only the opportunity to increase taxes. We need to find ways in which people can keep more of the money they earn in their pockets, with less of that money going into the coffers of government.

When we hear from this government about the creation of yet another Crown corporation, which I believe will be entitled the Build B.C. Corp. or something along those lines, it will be self-financed by yet more taxation against the people -- by an increased tax on gasoline or some kinds of levies against the highways they intend to build, by toll highways and toll bridges. The people of this province want to have a proper, long-range financing strategy for the infrastructure that is so desperately needed if we are to have our economy grow and succeed.

An Hon. Member: That's point two in the throne speech.

G. Wilson: Sadly, with respect to the proposition of the economic strategy, there is nothing of substance there for us to grasp.

There is also talk about conflict resolution on matters related to resources. Quite sadly, CORE, a good idea -- and certainly there is an outstanding person at its head -- has been a dismal failure. It has been a dismal failure because there has been nothing within the mandate of CORE that has allowed that operation to provide any solution to the problems that face people today. In my riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, where industry, environmentalists and people on the chambers of commerce have come together and brought solutions for CORE, they find it impossible to get an answer through the CORE process.

After an expenditure of $3 million, CORE has no means to make that happen, because its mandate has fallen short.

The public grows restless and will no longer tolerate rhetoric from their elected officials. They will no longer accept platitudes and promises of a better tomorrow with only talk from today. A public mood is forming, in my judgment, like dark thunderheads warning of a pending storm. The people have had enough. When the storm within the public breaks, they will rise up and demand that this government listen and take action. And if this government fails them, I fear that there will be no gates tough enough, no door strong enough, to hold off their anger. It will be a sad day in the poor province of British Columbia when our democracy has eroded to that level.

I hear from people on a daily basis that they cannot afford any further increases in their taxes; yet this government plans to do no less. I say to those people, if they are fed up and don't want their taxes to increase, as has been clearly demonstrated will happen through this throne speech, then pick up the phone and call that number -- 1-800-663-7876 -- and talk directly to the Minister of Finance and get his answer.

I hear daily from fishers in this province who are concerned that an agreement has been made between the federal government and this provincial government with respect to a new fisheries strategy. It would create

[ Page 4833 ]

multiple jurisdictions and threaten the livelihood of commercial fishermen, both aboriginal and nonaboriginal. People of the coalition have made numerous attempts to get a sound hearing and a sensible response from this government, but they have not been heard and they have not received it.

Despite many platitudes with respect to a just settlement of aboriginal land claims in this throne speech -- something that all of us want -- there is nothing that suggests this government is prepared to move forward on the basis of equality for every individual citizen so that every British Columbian, every Canadian, can be seen to be equal to every other Canadian and British Columbian, with equal access to the resources that keep our economy strong and keep some of our rural communities healthy.

Like the community of Sointula, where I spoke the other night to a large crowd of fishermen, many of whom voted for this government: they will not vote for them again, because they see that this Speech from the Throne contains nothing whatsoever to give them hope for a future in that community. Similarly the communities of Lund, Powell River, Prince Rupert, Gibsons and Pender Harbour, areas where fishers who have long set forth with the recognition that they had an opportunity to make a reasonable living now find that livelihood threatened, and this government does nothing to assist them.

It does nothing to take a proactive stand and a movement forward to try to deal with the fishing industry in this province.

This throne speech had nothing but platitudes on the question of education. Today the many thousands of people of Powell River feel that the education system is threatened by an outdated formula-funding system, by a collective bargaining process that threatens to conclude the year end. Those people want answers to those problems. To those people I say: now is the time to take action directly. Go directly to the Minister of Education, and do so by calling 1-800-663-7876.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair has already asked the hon. member to debate the throne speech, and during debate we are of course addressing other members of the House. I would ask him to continue to do that.

G. Wilson: I refer to education, because today in Powell River and New Westminster and Quesnel we have a crisis in education that has not been addressed. This government promised to remove the formula-funding process. There are going to be inadequate dollars because of the system of financing, not because of lack of money. The system of financing of education has done nothing to counter that problem. Not only has it done nothing, but this throne speech indicates that it is not prepared to move forward with anything progressive to give us hope that a new system can be in place.

There are people in small business today who are being choked by an ever-increasing number of fees and taxes. Yet there is nothing in the throne speech on the prospect of economic development to demonstrate that this government has seen the light and recognizes that if we are to be a society in which all people have equal access in the economy and an opportunity for wealth and wealth creation, you have to at least reduce, if not remove, the fees that make the impediments on small business so difficult to overcome.

I believe that the people in this province who have witnessed or listened to or had an opportunity to read the throne speech recognize that we have a government without a vision for what this province requires, a vision toward the grass-roots uprising that is needed, the likes of which we have never seen before. I believe it is time for the people of this province to take charge and demand that practical action be provided by their elected representatives.

In matters of education, health care, social services, aboriginal rights and the environment it is unconscionable that not only is this throne speech lacking, but that the last 16 months during which this government has had power have provided no solutions to those questions.

On the question of the Clayoquot, it is not unreasonable for people to suggest that this government, which promised its preservation, at least give an answer. Say yes or no. Don't simply put people off. That's not an unreasonable request. When we read in the throne speech that there is going to be a movement towards conflict resolution on resources, do we hear there is an answer to the Tatshenshini? Do we know whether or not there is going to be a mine in Windy Craggy? Is it unreasonable to expect an answer after how many years of study? Say yes or no.

This throne speech talks about courage. It takes courage to stand on one's convictions, stand with the firm knowledge that you are basing your comment on principle and not on expediency. It takes courage to stand firm in the face of considerable adversity and to say that we are going to hold to our conviction and that we are going to be able to put forward the kind of solutions that we believe are necessary to accomplish the kind of economic goal envisioned. That courage is lacking on the other side.

We start to see what is happening in the erosion of the political process: British Columbians are becoming ever more jaundiced because they can't get a sensible, practical answer from elected officials to problems they face day to day.

We do indeed require a civilized revolution in this province, because these people have not seen any direction or vision towards the future from this government. I believe that as we read this throne speech, we see and understand where this government is coming from. They are grasping at straws, desperate to try and keep in control runaway spending which has left us with a record $3 billion deficit. When we anticipate the budget next week, we can anticipate that in an attempt to try and deal with that, the people are going to be taxed to their limit once again.

Let me say that as we start to review this throne speech, the people understand that this government which lacks the vision also lacks courage. I believe that over the past several weeks and months we have seen a direction taken in this province which is regrettable for all elected officials -- a direction which has served to undermine the democratic process, regardless of which political stripe we wear. In that entire process I did not hear the elected

[ Page 4834 ]

members and colleagues comment that what we need to do is to look at a process that allows us the opportunity as elected members to do the job we're elected to do.

Regrettably, we see in British Columbia -- although this is an individual who I would criticize as a patronage appointment -- that an individual is not judged upon her merit or ability to do a job but on her driving record; and when that individual doesn't get the job and a man is hired in her place at $50,000 a year more, I don't hear a word about this. Where are we in this province? Where are we going on that question?

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear from the hon. member opposite that we are in the twilight zone. Obviously this man doesn't recognize that when a woman is hired for a job and is displaced not because of incompetence in the job but because of her driving record, and a man gets the job -- at $50,000 more -- this is unacceptable in British Columbia today. No, the hon. member from the government side of this House doesn't see the discriminatory question there.

No, I'm "in the twilight zone." When we see overt discrimination -- racism and sexism -- and when we see that people are brought to task not on the question of their ability to do the job to which they were elected but on matters that have no business in the public domain, I don't hear a word from other elected officials about what that is doing to undermine and erode the democratic process in British Columbia. It keeps good people from entering into a system that should be one of honorable public service which allows people to come forward and to serve.

The member for Nanaimo is right when he says that the throne speech is nothing more than platitude and rhetoric. Until such time as we elect officials who are prepared to stand up and to say that what we need are people of conviction and courage....

D. Lovick: I rise with regret on a point of order. The previous statement, as the hon. member well knows, is a blatant distortion of my remarks. Hon. Speaker, could the hon. member please have the courtesy to at least accurately report what I said.

The Speaker: I will just remind the hon. member for Nanaimo that if one wishes to correct a misquote or misrepresentation, it is usually done at the end of the speech. Please continue, hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: My point is that if we are to have any sense of hope and direction, if we are to have any commitment and faith in the democratic process -- which we saw threatened last Thursday by the anarchistic movements of people who tried to break down these doors -- and if we are to believe that people can restore faith and confidence in their elected officials, then we're going to have to witness a good deal more strength of conviction and a good deal more courage, vision and direction in providing sound and real answers to very real and pressing problems.

[3:00]

My point is that when we read in this throne speech that there is little more than platitudes and fluff and little more than a promise of yet more of the same, it is no wonder that we start to recognize that the people of British Columbia have had enough. What I'm saying is that it is time for people of conviction and courage to stand up in the face of adversity, regardless of their political stripe. It is time for us to pull together, because the challenges that this province faces are enormous.

The challenges we face are based upon a very fast-changing social fabric, which this year, and in years to follow, is going to bring about a threatening sense to our social justice system. That threatening sense is now coming forward, whether we are an aboriginal, a new immigrant to British Columbia or somebody who has been an immigrant in B.C. for many generations. There is nothing here that recognizes that those social diversities and differences have to be addressed.

Further, let me say that as we look at this throne speech, it is also very clear that there is no proposition in it that takes into account the fact that as we start to look at our resources and our resource base in British Columbia, we are under severe threat because of the continentalization of our economy, which is going to drive our resources south in record amounts, and it is going to do so in their primary form rather than in the secondary and value-added forms that are required.

If we are going to protect our primary resources, then there should have been some direction in the throne speech that says we are going to protect our water resources and that the continental diversion of water from British Columbia is unacceptable. There should have been something there to say that British Columbia will not accept bulk water export. If they wish to send our water south, they can do so in a bottle of Canadian beer, a jug of Canadian wine or a can of Canadian peas, but we will not send it down in American-built tankers so that they can feed their industries at the expense of the very industries that keep our communities strong in British Columbia.

Democracy in this province is under threat not because of a few radicals who try and break down the doors; it is under siege because we are losing sight of the conviction that we must have to protect the freedoms that make our democracy the most sacrosanct of all the virtues that make life so wonderful in this province.

I started my comments today by saying that I rise with a certain sense of frustration and anger but also with an undeniable determination. Let me say that as a politician, an elected member and, most importantly, an individual in British Columbia, I have undergone a very difficult several months. When I read the Speech from the Throne, I reflected on the content of that speech and put it in the context of what I believe the people of this province wish for.

There are very few things that make this job rewarding. One of them is service to the public: making sure that we are serving our communities and that we are providing a better life for the people of this province, for future generations and the generations that will follow them. If we are going to provide that kind of service, then we have to pull together with a

[ Page 4835 ]

new vision, one that I believe will embrace a civilized revolution and take us into the next century and one that is going to provide us with an opportunity to look after the interests of not only those who enjoy the wealth and resources of this province today but also those in the next generation, and in future generations, who will depend upon it.

Hon. Speaker, my biggest disappointment in the Speech from the Throne was its lack of vision for long-term development -- economic, social and political -- to serve the people of B.C. in this generation and in future generations. I believe the people want such a revolution. I believe they will stand up and come forward, and I believe they will demand it.

Hon. Speaker, I hope that this government, despite what I've read in the Speech from the Throne, will be able and ready to try to meet that challenge. If they fail, I know that the Liberal opposition will be ready to take it on.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

U. Dosanjh: Present in the precincts are 12 grade 8 students from an alternative bridge program at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They are under the guidance of Mr. Campbell and two other staff members from that school. I ask the members to welcome them, please.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, in rising to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne, I'm especially aware of the profound privilege this represents. Last week British Columbians were shocked to see the doors of this chamber breached by angry citizens while the Lieutenant-Governor was reading his speech. Such events happen elsewhere. We do not even have a system of security against such acts of violence, because we've always been secure in our sense of the sanctity of parliamentary institutions. We have always believed that the very idea of a freely elected democratic Legislature guaranteed us the liberty to make laws in this place.

It is tempting now to conclude that we can no longer assume that the public respect for our political system provides us all the protection we need. There are those who call for strong measures to secure the precincts of our Legislature against violence. I hope that these fears are exaggerated. Those who lost their self-control in their passion for a cause have expressed deep regret. I don't expect others to pursue their political ends by invading this chamber in the future. It seems likely that the event was an aberration, not a harbinger. But we do have cause for concern. The legitimacy of our legislative process is being brought into question more and more frequently.

As deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, I have been travelling around the province with my colleagues and listening to British Columbians express their views on initiative and recall. Although there is a wide spectrum of opinion on the specifics of the various schemes and proposals that have been put forward, there is an underlying agreement on the theme that the legitimacy of the way we do our public business has eroded to the point that people are questioning the ability of our political system to produce just laws.

This theme is being expressed not only here in our province but everywhere in the world.

Whereas we in this chamber see ourselves as legislators and as people with a calling to public service, others often see us as mere politicians serving our own personal interests at the public expense. While we privately assume the personal costs of public office -- giving up time with our families and friends and living away from our home and communities for long periods of time -- we are publicly vilified for those benefits that enable us to do business on behalf of the public. Members seldom mention the personal costs of public life, because it sounds like whining and because this is the choice we gladly make to have the opportunity to represent our communities in making public law.

Was it Harry Truman who said: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"? Whoever said it, I agree. We must take the heat; it goes with the job. And to do the job right, we must be absolutely sure that our view of ourselves as legislators, as people who have been elected to represent the public interest, is the right view. Over the past year I have often had occasion to stop and ask myself: what am I doing for the people of Surrey-Green Timbers? Can I justify their confidence in me? What are they getting in return for the vote they cast in my favour?

In my constituency there is no ambiguity about my duty as a member of the Legislature. Telephone calls, walk-ins and letters to my constituency office send the message in one voice, and I read that message again in the local newspaper.

They tell their MLA: get more money for Surrey; get more money for our schools because we're still growing; get money for Surrey Memorial Hospital, because every second Surrey resident who has to be in hospital has to go to Vancouver, New Westminster or Burnaby for treatment; get money for Kwantlen College, where too many students are turned away at registration; get us a university; get more transit services. The Green Timbers Heritage Society wants protection for B.C.'s oldest forest plantation.

And then there are all the groups and individuals who want or need changes in public policy or reform of existing regulations. The public does know what it wants, and my job for the last year has been to lobby for Surrey, telling our story and demanding our fair share of the ever-diminishing public pie.

It sometimes seems to me that politics has become a kind of marketplace with the voter as the consumer. Their taxes represent a kind of revolving credit account and government is supposed to be able to supply whatever the consumer demands, according to a wide range of market choices. We in this chamber are like sales representatives who travel around our territory, taking and filling orders. No wonder the public is drawn to the populace model that would enable them to fire us when they have waited too long for deliveries.

[ Page 4836 ]

When I was standing for election I talked a lot about priorities. It seemed to me that priorities were at the root of our legitimation crisis. Among those who challenged the legitimacy of our democratic process last week was a young man pounding on the door of this chamber who was very clear about his priorities. When the stained glass fell broken to the floor, he said: "What's a pane of glass compared to all the trees being logged every day?"

I would like to try to answer that young man. That thin and fragile window is a symbol of our democratic system. Chambers like this one are regarded as places where our liberty is protected, places in which we make our laws: laws that bind every one of us equally, laws that we obey because we accept the process through which they were made. In this century the mob has put its fist through the windows of democracy many times.

And it is certain that in societies where there is no legitimate democratic assemblies, there is no means to enact or enforce laws that would protect trees, wildlife, farmland or families against the predatory conduct of those who claim that their own interests have priority over the public interest.

This throne speech sets out very clearly the priorities our province will follow for the next few years. These are difficult times. Many of our legislative initiatives are breaking new ground, reorganizing government to enable us to deliver more services more efficiently. As the Lieutenant-Governor said, we will need courage to build a fairer, stronger British Columbia; we will need courage to make the necessary changes in what we expect of others, in what we expect of government and, perhaps most important, in what we expect of ourselves.

[3:15]

We cannot turn away from those difficulties. We must stand our ground, working our way toward the future on the strong foundations that have been laid down in the past. It took hundreds of years to develop our democratic practices, and we are a healthy and prosperous society today because our democratic institutions enabled us to base our laws on the public will.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

The events of last week buried forever our political complacency. I want to end my remarks with some lines penned by W.B. Yeats as he mused on the political troubles of another place and time. His words express my own feelings in the face of an increasingly violent and disparate world.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

I hope that as we make our laws here in this chamber we will find the point of equilibrium, the balance between conviction and passion, that will restore confidence in our governmental process and meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

F. Jackson: It is with great pleasure that I rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the people of my constituency, Kamloops-North Thompson. I would like to begin by remarking on a few of the things which have been said in this House during the debate of the last two or three days.

First of all, for the benefit of the member for Okanagan West, I would like to point out that I intend to spend some time talking about what we said in our throne speech a year ago, where we said where we were going, what we've accomplished and where we intend to go from here. I would also like to thank the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who went to such great lengths this morning to point out how courageous we have been as a government.

For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who complains so loudly about the fact that we seem to be blowing our own horn, I would like to point out that as far as I'm concerned we have a legitimate right to do just that. However, in the interests of fairness I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no objection to him taking whatever time he thinks is necessary to point out what a great job they have done as the official opposition over the last year or so.

I'm quite sure that the leader of the third party would be interested to see how he would go about that, considering that in his response to the throne speech the leader of the third party described the official opposition as being on a suicide course. I found the attitude of the leader of the third party towards the official opposition rather strange, considering that just two or three weeks ago that was the guy....

J. Tyabji: On a point of order with regard to relevancy. This is basically on the Speech from the Throne. It has nothing to do with the official opposition, except as we have responded to the Speech from the Throne. If he wants to take issue with our arguments, we're happy to hear it. But please, no more irrelevant attacks.

The Speaker: I would ask the member who is speaking to take under consideration the concerns of the hon. member. Will the member please continue.

F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, we've heard quite a few variations in response to throne speeches in the last two or three days, and I don't think that mine is all that much different. However, I will try to refer to the throne speech wherever possible.

The attitude of the leader of the third party towards the official opposition is rather strange, considering that two or three weeks ago that guy was suggesting the two groups had so much in common, and that they should form a coalition.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, over the last few days members of the opposition and of the government have been continually called to order and asked first to speak to the amendment and then to the

[ Page 4837 ]

throne speech. Members are always interesting and entertaining, but I would hope that the NDP backbencher -- considering that this is about the first time I've ever seen this member up in the last year and a half -- would address the throne speech and not other issues.

Hon. T. Perry: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has had a distinguished record of participation in this House. He doesn't speak as frequently as some of the members of the opposition, but he frequently speaks much more interestingly, and his observations are always cogent. I wish I could quote Yeats, as the hon. member for Surrey did. I may not say it so poetically, but sometimes it's worth speaking less frequently and saying more. I would very much like to hear the hon. member, and I think his comments are totally relevant to the throne speech debate.

Deputy Speaker: The Speaker would remind all hon. members that during the debate on the throne speech, latitude in debate has been allowed for all members. However, I think this has been possible only because members have used reasonable judgment in being guided by the subject before us, which is the throne speech. With that in mind, I ask the member to please continue.

F. Jackson: I must apologize to the members opposite, hon. Speaker, for not being on my feet a lot more often. I thought I should give them the benefit of the doubt, because they seem to have so much difficulty no matter how often they speak.

Hon. Speaker, the leader of the third party's attitude was strange, as I said. When it came to the idea that he should form a coalition, I think what he thought was that he should form a coalition as long as he was the leader. But now that the official opposition has a new leader, he's having second thoughts about that, and he now wants to inspire the Social Credit Party to rise from the ashes of 1991.

I think the electorate of British Columbia will have some problems with that because, along with seeing the Social Credit Party rising like a phoenix, they would undoubtedly be slightly apprehensive about seeing people like Bill Reid and Bud Smith rising right along with that well-known riser from ashes, Mr. William Vander Zalm.

Hon. Speaker, the leader of the third party referred to virtual reality. I don't know what he was plugged into, but it's obvious that Fantasy Gardens is still alive and well in his mind. I would suggest, hon. Speaker....

Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please take his seat.

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, this is the third point of order on relevancy. If it turns out that the member's entire speech is irrelevant to the Speech from the Throne, perhaps he will give his place to someone who does have something to say on the Speech from the Throne and return when he has something to say in defence of his government's Speech from the Throne.

Deputy Speaker: The point of order is not without merit, hon. member. The Chair asks that the member would occasionally make reference to the throne speech so that we can have some semblance of relevancy. However, I am not going to be rigid on that, hon. member. As I said before, one of the characteristics of the House during the throne speech debate is that members are allowed latitude. It's one of the rare times when this is the practice.

F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, I suggest that, rather than complain about our government over the last year, both the official opposition and the third party should look back over the last five or ten years to see where they have been and what they have done, before they even consider going on from here.

But having said all that over the period of time that I was allowed, hon. Speaker, I would like to go back to the throne speech of a year ago, the theme of which was our right and responsibility and privilege to be here. That has not changed. Notwithstanding what has happened in this House for good or bad over the last year, we do have a right to be here, each and every one of us, because the voters of British Columbia gave us that right. We know ourselves how well we have carried out that responsibility. I think each of us still recognizes that it's a privilege to be here. I for one am glad to be back here, and I would welcome all members of the House back to be taking

part in this democratic process.

Speaking of that process, hon. Speaker, I would like to comment on the demonstration that took place here on opening day and pass along the following advice to some of those who took part, particularly the younger people. I would strongly suggest that they get involved in this process, that they join a political party of their choice -- whether here or over there, I've got no objection; if necessary, start a new one. Get involved in policy-making at the grass-roots level and use some of that energy, which was so clearly misspent here on opening day, to build a better British Columbia for the future.

Last year we made various commitments in the throne speech. We made a clear commitment to the working people of this province to put an end to the injustice of Bill 19. The new labour code has gone a long way towards levelling the playing field for working men and women in this province and ensuring that the needs of their families are protected. But the workplace is changing, and we need to make sure that working people can continue to take advantage of the opportunities offered by our province and by our economy.

In order to meet the challenge facing the government and the working people of the province, the Premier's summit on skills development and training to be held in June will focus on the issues of giving workers the skills and training that they need to take advantage of the opportunities of the future. The bottom line must be to ensure them decent jobs at a decent rate of pay.

The leader of the third party, in his response, seemed to have some objection to working people earning $22

[ Page 4838 ]

an hour. Some members of the third party have at various times also complained about the fact that we have a minimum wage in this province. Some members of the official opposition have also complained about our minimum wage. We even had a young Socred come to a public meeting in Kamloops and express concern that he will be forced to earn $6 this summer instead of only $5.50. The conclusion that could be arrived at, if we follow that logic, is that the third party would probably support new legislation to introduce slavery in the province.

I would also like to point to an apparent contradiction in the responses of the third party to the throne speech. Their leader, who represents Peace River South, complained about working people earning $22 an hour, and his caucus colleague, who sits behind him and represents Peace River North, suggested that what we need is well-paying jobs. I'd like to suggest that they get together and come back to the House with some figure they can agree on.

A year ago we made a commitment to improve and enhance our health care system. We worked hard to honour that commitment over the past year. The challenges represented by the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs have been met in many different ways. We've provided support of $9,000 to fund Healthy Communities initiatives around the province. We've provided support and funding for school programs to make young people aware of the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. We've provided funding to support Phoenix Centre in Kamloops so that they may implement a tobacco reduction strategy to promote good health and the prevention of illness rather than treatment and cure.

This new preventive, cost-effective emphasis for medicare has meant that we have had to make some tough decisions. In the interests of building a better and more responsible system we will continue to make these tough decisions, with our continuing priority being to get quality service closer to home. The effects will start to show up in my constituency, Kamloops-North Thompson, when Dr. Helmcken Hospital moves towards long-term and intermediate health care. If the system we've come to count on to protect our family's health is to survive into the twenty-first century, it must change to meet the demands of a changing population.

[3:30]

We made a continuing commitment to women when we established the Ministry of Women's Equality. We provided meaningful leadership where there was none before, and that will continue. On a province-wide basis we've funded women's resource centres and other organizations which provide very basic services for women who badly need help. In Kamloops we provided $40,000 to the YMCA to build a new women's emergency shelter, which is a very excellent facility. Our direction was clearly indicated in the throne speech. We will continue to provide these services for women, needed services to probably the most vulnerable group in society.

We also made a commitment to the province's young people, and great progress has been made. Last year, overall education funding was increased more than $300 million. Extra dollars were provided for capital works projects, some of which was targeted at an expansion of Heffley Creek Elementary School. Probably the most important thing we did for the children of this province is to recognize that hungry children have difficulty learning. That is why we invested $1.6 million in a school meals program to feed the 40,000 children who sometimes come to school hungry.

The better-fed become better educated, and the better-educated become better fed. The Premier indicated in his television broadcast that we will continue to fund these programs.

We promised in last year's throne speech to make the government more responsive to the needs of communities throughout the province. One of the most important initiatives in this regard was a decision by the Economic Development minister to locate regional economic development offices throughout the province. They will provide additional support for small business. Their challenge will be to pull together active and innovative local economic development groups and seek out potential economic development projects. I'm looking forward to working with the regional economic development office in Kamloops and with the new officer who will be located in Clearwater.

One of the government's commitments was to get closer to people by establishing standing committees and making them go to work, committees that would call on British Columbians to provide input so that we could develop a broader perspective on the problems of the province. While the working

schedule of these committees can be quite hectic, I would like to say that working on them with members from all parties has been one of the more pleasant aspects of this job as we've carried out our responsibility to the people of British Columbia. Travelling throughout the province, meeting with those British Columbians who came to talk to us about the subject matter of the committees, was, to say the least, an interesting experience. The information and insights of these people have provided us with a solid base for making reports to this House.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to leave the throne speech completely and engage in a bit of crass commercialism on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways and myself. As all members of the House are aware, this is going to be one terrific year for Kamloops. It's the 100th birthday of our city. The celebrations started with First Night on New Year's Eve and will continue through to the centennial Christmas concert at the end of December. Between those two events Kamloops is going to be a very busy and exciting place to be. The main event, of course, will be the Canada Summer Games in August.

Most of the games events will be in Kamloops; some will take place in other areas: softball in Clearwater and rowing at Shumway Lake. The grand finale will take place in Hillside Stadium.

An Hon. Member: Breakfast at Trout's.

F. Jackson: You're welcome.

Among other great events, to mention but a few, there will be the world fly-fishing championships, the Canadian rifle championships and the Canadian wine-making championships. If you fancy yourself as a bit of

[ Page 4839 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I would congratulate the member preceding me on his very good speech; it's a very good plug for his constituency. Once he got on track, it was in fact an excellent speech, and I would like to congratulate him.

I spent some time listening to government members defend the throne speech and members of both opposition parties criticize it, constructively in some cases and not so in others, where it wasn't warranted. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding where the government's courage that they are talking about is exhibited in the throne speech, and where it was exhibited in their exercises over the last year. It wasn't too long ago -- a little over a year ago -- that we had another throne speech. I spent some time going through that throne speech to find out what the promises of this government were.

I tried to look at what promises they had actually come through on. There were some, but not very many. I wonder how many of the promises that are in this throne speech are actually going to come to fruition. I would speculate that in fact a number of them will not.

There was an

article in the paper the other day -- apparently the government's communications strategy centring on the throne speech and on this session was leaked to some media. In fact, communication boxes were developed that were going to be communicated over the next three or four months, and this was the agenda of the government.

I have been able to identify all of those communication boxes in all of the speeches from the members of the government side, and it's amazing -- I wonder why the government hasn't learned from their experience last year, when they had the communications department of the Premier's office grind out all of their speeches. In fact, we've seen exactly the same thing here today and over the last week. I would project that with the throne speech comments that we've heard so far from the government -- with the exception of the member for Nanaimo, I might say; he's always original....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps his friend who sits next to him actually wrote the speech for him. We've seen these modules developed as if they're cookie cutters and inserted into each member's speech. We've heard the member for Shuswap get up and give hers, and the member preceding me give his when he finally got into the issues....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Solidarity -- or would you call it identical members? The public only has to elect one NDP member, because the rest of them stand up like clones and say exactly what the other one has just said. I don't think the people want that sort of thing. They would like some contribution from the back bench, perhaps even some mild criticism of the government's policies. It would be constructive; it would be helpful. I'm very glad to see that they actually tabled a private member's bill from the government benches. That's a positive sign, although I don't expect to see a lot of fruition of that type of criticism.

We have to look at what the government has done in the last little while and where they're headed in the future. It's been very interesting to hear members from the Social Credit Party stand up and address the throne speech and then hear members of the NDP address the throne speech, but they haven't talked about what's gone on in the last year and what's coming up in the year ahead.

They've been discussing the good old days: the Vander Zalm battles that took place in this House, the terrible people who used to be in the Social Credit Party and the wonderful or terrible people who used to be in the NDP -- the glory days of the NDP and Social Credit battles in this province that brought us absolutely nothing.

Let's look, for example, at some of things the government has done in the last year and some of the things they're planning on doing in the upcoming year. This government had the courage to bring in a fair wage or fixed-wage policy. I'm sure that all members of the construction unions, when they get their problems sorted out, will be pleased with that. But we now have evidence that the fair wage policy is being circumvented by the construction unions and the contractors negotiating among themselves to do what's called job targeting. They make a bid for the government.

They agree, according to the contract, to pay the fair wage, yet through side agreements and under-the-table agreements they undercut the workers. They do this by working eight hours and billing for six, or by actually cutting the per-hour wage that's paid to the employees.

The reality is that the fair wage policy doesn't work; it never did, and it never will. When the workers finally realize that it's nothing more than posturing they'll come knocking at the door of this government, and some accountability will take place. The minister always says that everything is on budget or under budget, that everything is working just wonderfully.

H. Giesbrecht: Relevance, relevance.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's very relevant, hon. Speaker, because we're dealing with labour legislation and the Employment Standards Act and the types of things that are included in this throne speech. They were included in the last throne speech but don't appear in this one, or....

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's quite clear what has happened at the University of Northern British Columbia. The estimated costs were $50 million; the bids finally came in at $58 million, an increase of $8 million -- directly to the friends and insiders of the

govern-

[ Page 4840 ]

ment. The latest estimate is that UNBC is over budget even beyond that. There are going to be serious problems with that university -- even whether they can find the money to pay for its completion.

An Hon. Member: That has nothing to do with it.

G. Farrell-Collins: It has a lot to do with it, because these members stand up and say: "That's the kind of courage that it took; those are the kinds of tough decisions that this government is making" -- courageous decisions to line the pockets of their friends and insiders, to line the pockets of the people who support them during elections and contribute to their campaigns.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: There's a difference between fair wages and fixed wages, and the members opposite obviously don't understand it or choose not to understand it. As we speak, there is a complaint before the conflict-of-interest commissioner with regard to a contract that was tendered by the B.C. Ferry Corporation that said right in the contract.... I can read it to you; it's written right in the contract.

Some Hon. Members: Relevance, relevance.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's extremely relevant, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The interjections are making it very difficult for the Chair to hear the member.

Hon. T. Perry: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I'm not an expert in parliamentary procedure, but as I recall the conflict-of-interest legislation, if there's a complaint before the commissioner, it's not to be discussed in the House during the investigation by the commissioner. I think the member may wish to consider that point, and you may wish to rule on whether it's appropriate to continue that line of argument.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot rule on a matter which is not itself before the House. However, it would be of some help if members would not get into matters which are not before the House.

[3:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: I intend to be very careful and to take the comments of the minister to heart.

But there is an issue here, and it's really the whole issue around which the throne speech revolves: courage. It's certainly something that every single member on the government benches has spoken about when they've risen in this House, and I think it's important to look at just what type of courage this government has.

When we look at the contract that was put out by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, one of the requirements before you can put in a bid is that the company that bids must employ workers who are members of the B.C.-Yukon buildings trade council." It also says that they must employ subtrades that are members of the B.C.-Yukon buildings trade council. So where does the courage come in on the part of this government when, in what is supposed to be a free and open tendering process, they prevent over 60 percent of the contractors in this province from bidding on the contract? How is that making a tough decision?

How does the exclusion of over 60 percent of the people who would bid on a public construction project make the expenditure of public funds more efficient?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo should be very careful when he comments on issues like that, because I understand that he may be having some troubles in the future also.

When we deal with courage....

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member.

When someone is speaking, it may be of assistance if we try and reduce the dialogue that is taking place between members. I've been hesitant to interject, but as I'm sure all members will recognize, a pattern is emerging, and I feel it will cause us some difficulty in a very few minutes. So I would ask members to please contain themselves as much as possible and allow the member who has his place to speak with the least amount of interruption.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll try and stick to the issues and look at them very specifically.

This government has talked about courage. Over the last week or so, we've been seeing exactly what type of courage the government has. They have had the courage to raise taxes and the cost of fees and licences astronomically -- in some cases up to 1,000 percent. That's pretty courageous.

It's pretty courageous for the government to then turn around and use that money to give wage increases to public sector employees that are well above those in the private sector. The BCGEU contract was 6 percent; private sector contracts were running at 1.7 percent. That's over three times the rate of the private sector contracts. Did that take courage? Was it courageous to go to the bargaining table and say to those unions: "Everybody else in the province is getting 1.7 percent, but we're going to be really courageous. We're going to stand up and draw the line on wages. Here's 6 percent." That's not courage.

A few days ago this government -- the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance -- and all the leaders of the public sector employees' union and the health sector unions had a press conference. There had been a negotiated settlement for a 3 percent wage increase. This government had the courage to go back and reopen that, and they turned around and gave them a 4 percent increase. Is that the type of courage this government has?

I have something in front of me, and I tell you that as time goes by it becomes more and more useful. It's this document that the NDP government used in the past --

[ Page 4841 ]

certainly in the last year -- to bring in their throne speech and their budget. This year they seem to have thrown it out and forgotten all about it. It's the Peat Marwick report. We all remember the infamous Peat Marwick report, the report that this government used to put all the blame for their inability to control costs on the previous government. And I'm not saying that they don't bear some blame; they certainly do.

But one of the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report was that the only way the government would ever be able to tackle its deficit, the only way the government would ever be able to control spending in the areas of health, education and social services -- and the others, but those are the three big drivers -- would be to keep the lid on public sector wage increases at least at the rate of inflation, at least at the rate of the private sector.

Rather, this government has knuckled under, capitulated, given up, waved the white flag and given them wage increases that are three times the rate of inflation and three times the rate of private sector employees. That's not courage.

We had the Minister of Social Services stand up here yesterday and give what I thought was a brilliant speech. It was a wonderful speech on what she's been doing in her ministry. The whole basis of her speech dealt with providing services for the youth in this province -- the young people, the children. We have to deal with the children of this province.

The government is borrowing. It's taxing away from our economy with the corporation capital tax, and eroding away at the capital base that is used for investment in this province. It's taxing every single industry, every municipality. The tourism industry is being almost devastated by the taxes of this government. They've cut the budget. The highways industry has been cut. This government has gone through and taxed everything they could possibly find -- every single penny they can imagine. They've raised it; they've taxed it. They're bringing it in, and they're putting it into health, education and social services.

That would be fine if we were looking at perhaps only one year and we could run a deficit. In one year we could run one deficit, keep everything -- health, education and social services -- properly funded and leave it at that, and then next year we could recoup it. But the fact is that every single year this government is projected to raise the deficit beyond what it has ever been in the history of this province. We will have an accumulated deficit by the time this government leaves office of $8 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion -- who knows?

How does that type of courage help the young people and the children in this province? They are the ones who are going to have to pay. Those children the Minister of Social Services is trying to help through education, social services and health care are the ones who are going to have to fork over that money. And how are they going to get it? They are going to get it by pillaging our resources, by lowering our standard of living or by some other means.

They are going to have to sacrifice the lifestyle that the people on the government benches have grown up with, that the people on the government benches will have in their retirement, with their pensions. The young people of this province, whose children that they talk about so much, are the ones who are going to have to pay those bills.

Courage would be this government toeing the line on public sector wages, keeping the costs of government under control, keeping the rate of growth of government under control, so that they could hand off to the next administration -- their own or another one -- and the children who are going to inherit this deficit something that's manageable, something that they can pay. This government is spending the future of the children. They are spending their money.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'll give the minister examples of spending I'd like to cut. I'd like to see the BCGEU settlement reduced to a reasonable rate of increase that's commensurate with the cost of living or inflation, or that's commensurate with private sector wage increases. That would save how many millions of dollars? The fair wage policy cost us $108 million to $200 million. Those are ways this government, if it were courageous, could save money.

I could go on a long litany, but perhaps if the member wants to resign we can have an election and the Liberals will take over -- and I'll tell you what we're going to do.

We saw in the throne speech -- and certainly the Minister of Labour spoke to it -- that in order to promote economic growth in this province this government is going to have another Premier's summit on training programs. I imagine that the Minister of Advanced Education will be involved in that too. They say they're going to get business, unions and workers together and have this summit. I don't know if the minister has been reading his mail, but it seems to me there was a letter sent to the Premier -- and, I'm sure, to the minister. The letter said that in light of the deception that went on regarding

section 68 of Bill 84 -- promises made that amendments would be brought in, which were not followed up on; handshakes with the Premier, who promised to bring in amendments to

section 68 of Bill 84 but later reneged on those promises -- business will not participate with this government in any other summits. Now the government is going to spend money on a summit where labour and government will be there and business won't. How the heck are we ever going to get anywhere if the people and businesses in this province can't trust the government to live up to their word, and they have to boycott these types of conferences in order to express their opposition? They can go to this conference, strike a deal with the Premier, and they don't know the next day if that deal is out the window. How can you run an economy on that?

The Premier goes around the world, and he's planning another junket. I believe it was mentioned in the throne speech that he's going to continue to travel the globe to promote British Columbia as a place of investment. I don't know if any of the members opposite have ever invested in anything, but people around the world are not going to invest in British Columbia if they know that when they reach out and

[ Page 4842 ]

shake the Premier's hand on a deal -- and in many countries of the world that's how deals are done; not in contracts, but on a handshake -- they don't know if that deal is going to be followed up on. That is not how business is done. If they think their Premier can behave that way around the world, in public, and come back and bring in the type of legislation he did, contrary to those decisions, then they've got another think coming, because the people of the world will not invest in British Columbia if that is the type of government they have to deal with.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, they are investing in British Columbia....

An Hon. Member: It's the best economy in Canada.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, It's amazing to hear the NDP say this is the best economy in Canada. Sure it is, but that's despite the NDP not because of them. This is a resilient province with an incredible wealth of resources. This government is doing everything it possibly can to tax the capital base of the province by the corporation capital tax -- put it into general revenue, and turn around and spend it. We're going to run out of money and capital in this province if this government continues to do that type of thing.

The member shakes his head. The fact of the matter is that investment in this province is down from last year because of this government. Capital expenditures are down because of this government. If you factor out capital expenditure by the government, private sector investment in this province is also taking a nose dive. That's a fact.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member from Surrey says: "Go check your figures." The Finance minister should review his figures because the figures he quoted in this House the other day were inaccurate. All he has to do is check with Stats Canada, the Investment Dealers' Association and others to find out what the true figures are. These aren't hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors from government projections, which are never accurate anyway.

We have seen a number of things the government says it is going to do and then doesn't follow up on. A vast majority of the government members who have spoken so far have talked about the freedom-of-information legislation that this government brought in last session. In written form, I agree, it is an excellent piece of legislation. It needs some fine-tuning and brushing up, and we've contributed in that regard. It's a good piece of legislation, one of the best in the country. The problem is that the government isn't living up to it.

I asked the Minister of Labour midway through the spring session last year for information regarding his ministry, and I have asked him about that in both written and oral form a number of times since. Hon. Speaker, I still have not received it. How is it that the government can bring in a piece of legislation and proudly stand up and say what a wonderful piece of legislation it is, but not live up to it? The Government House Leader, the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services -- one of the more prominent cabinet ministers -- is not living up to the spirit or the content of that bill.

So we have them saying one thing and doing another. Until the Premier and the cabinet learn that they can't say one thing and do another, and until the government backbenchers learn that they can't say one thing and do another, people will not trust this government. People will not invest in this province; they will go elsewhere. People will not strike deals with this government or consult in any meaningful way with this government, because you never know what they're going to do. They say one thing and do something else.

Hon. Speaker, one of the other issues that was brought up -- although I think it was mentioned in one word in the throne speech -- was education and the future of education. I think it's....

J. Dalton: It was mentioned twice.

G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague the critic for Education says it was mentioned twice. Two words in the whole throne speech mention education.

[4:00]

Hon. Speaker, today -- and it's appropriate -- for the first time in the history of British Columbia, we have a full-blown strike by teachers in the New Westminster School District. It's just coincidence that that happens to be the same school district that the Minister of Education represents. She used to be on the board of that school district; she was the chairman of the board of that school district. We have seen incredible disruption in the education system in this province over the last 12 months. We had a strike in Quesnel that went on for six to eight weeks or something to that effect.

We've had lockouts, strikes, rotating strikes and job action by teachers. We've had all sorts of disruptions.

In answer to a question that was asked of the Minister of Labour today, he said: "Well, we're monitoring. We're looking at it. We're going to see what happens." All he has to do is ask any parent or student in the district of New Westminster. The member for Nanaimo can go to his district and talk to the students, the parents and the teachers there, and he will understand that education today is in a crisis situation. There is nothing but disruption going on. Students are losing out on their education and their days in school. We're investing a lot of money in those schools -- anywhere from....

I don't know what it is. It starts out at the lowest end at $4,000 per year per student, and the upper end is $10,000 or $12,000 per student per year. When you shut down a school district, that's a lot of money. That's a lot of investment that we've committed to that's not being delivered.

The issue is fairly simple. The government promised during the election, it promised during the last throne speech and it promises again in this throne speech, I imagine, that they're going to look at the education funding formula. That formula -- it's about as long as

[ Page 4843 ]

my two arms put together -- calculates how much money goes to each district per student per year. There are a lot of problems with that formula. It was established under the previous administration, and difficulties with it immediately became apparent -- particularly in the districts that have rapid rates of growth. This government promised to rework the funding formula; they haven't done it. They promised it in the election; they didn't do in the last budget. They promised it in the throne speech; they didn't do it. And it looks like they're not even going to do it yet.

In fact, when they had an investigation of funding for schools, they couldn't even look at provincewide bargaining. The single largest cost of education in British Columbia is the cost for staffing, particularly teachers. The government has an investigation into the funding of education, and they don't even want to discuss provincewide bargaining. What is happening....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: All the member opposite has to do is pay attention to the newspapers and read the information that flows around, and he will know exactly where we stand.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, it's amazing that the two members who are having the most difficulty with education in their ridings are the ones who are doing all the heckling. Perhaps if they would spend some time with the Minister of Education, we wouldn't be in this situation, and they could be doing something more productive. This government has not even looked at the concept of provincewide bargaining. Do you want to know why?

D. Lovick: Why?

G. Farrell-Collins: Because the BCTF, the teacher's union in this province, says no way. Everybody in this province knows the reason the NDP got elected: over half of their campaign workers probably were members of the BCTF. That's true. There were a good deal of teachers in my campaign, but they're the ones who will never vote for this government.

I'm not saying that we're necessarily going to solve all the problems by doing that, but why won't the government even investigate the issue to see if it's something that can be done? It requires courage to investigate it. This government hasn't done that. They're kowtowing once again to their friends and insiders who fund the election campaigns that allow them to get elected. It's time that this government learned that they were elected to govern all British Columbians, not just the special interest groups or big people who have money to pay for their campaign, constituency and riding events.

The government really needs courage to say no to those friends and insiders and to once and for all finally govern in the best interests of British Columbians. Please, let's for once see that reflected in the throne speech and not somewhere else.

D. Streifel: It's a pleasure to take my place in the debate to support the throne speech. This is the second time I've had the privilege of doing this since this government was elected. Like last year's throne speech, this one lays a foundation and a framework for the future.

Interjection.

D. Streifel: Again I follow the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- and someplace else far off to my right. It's a pleasure to stand and pick up after that member and set the record straight.

Of all the issues we've discussed in this House over the past few days, the strongest themes to emerge from our government's throne speech are the themes of change, challenge and courage.

G. Farrell-Collins: Courage, courage! Where is it?

D. Streifel: Well, since the hon. member is asking, we obtain our courage in the honourable way: through action, dedication and history. We don't go to the Wizard of Oz and seek it out. These are not mere words. Under our honourable Premier, our government has already demonstrated that we have the courage to make the changes necessary to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. I can assure you that I will continue to work to make sure the concerns and needs of the people in the constituency of Mission-Kent, the constituency I represent, are being heard and addressed.

I'd like to give some examples of how the changes our government has made have benefited the people of Mission-Kent. Since our last throne speech, the government has provided over $43 million in funding to the three school districts in my riding. That's a major change from the past. This money has gone to build new schools and to provide more space in existing schools to get kids out of portables and into proper classrooms. We've funded projects to make classrooms and school buses safer, and we've provided funds for students with special needs.

It is not often that I stand in my place in the Legislature to offer a list of accomplishments in our community and in the constituency of Mission-Kent, but I think it's important at this time to list exactly what has happened in some of the areas under our government.

In the Mission School District we have provided $2.8 million for a new 200-student school to replace the Bell Road Elementary School; $1.85 million to build a 50-student addition to Dewdney Elementary School; $775,000 to plan a replacement for Deroche Elementary School; $763,000 to expand Cherry Hill Elementary School to accommodate 50 additional students -- like many other areas of the Fraser Valley, the constituency of Mission-Kent is growing very rapidly -- funding for a site for a new secondary school; and funding to acquire a site and plan for a new 400-student facility to

[ Page 4844 ]

replace Windebank Elementary. The secondary school that's planned to be opened in 1995 in Mission-Kent will be a combined effort of the Ministry of Education and the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. On that same site it will provide a new campus for the University College of the Fraser Valley, where we will be sharing facilities from the secondary school and the college -- a progressive move.

This government has provided more than $400,000 for the final phase of renovations to modernize and upgrade Mission Secondary; $25,000 for a study at West Heights Elementary to determine the work needed to modernize the school -- again a change from the past; more than $70,000 for a 36-passenger bus and to provide two-way radios for the district school buses; and finally, $14,000 for equipment for hearing-impaired and visually impaired students.

In the Agassiz-Harrison district we've provided $1.1 million to expand Kent Elementary, increasing the school's capacity to 325 elementary and 50 first-year primary students; more than $113,000 to upgrade fire protection and intruder alarm systems and upgrade roofing at Agassiz Elementary-Secondary; a further $20,000 to determine the work needed to upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems of the school; and more than $64,000 to replace a 72-passenger bus and equip all the district buses with two-way radios.

Finally, in the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows district, which is a small portion -- although a portion -- of my constituency, $9.6 million has been provided for two new elementary schools: Yennadon Elementary School for 450 students and Cottonwood South Elementary for 200 students. Although these schools aren't located directly in the constituency of Mission-Kent, children of constituents of mine are educated in these schools.

More than $10 million was provided to Westview Junior Secondary to increase the capacity to 650 students; $3 million to add 175 more students to Meadowland Elementary; and about $3 million to accommodate 150 students in Glenwood Elementary School. Close to $900,000 was provided to add 100 more students to Allouette Elementary, and about $150,000 to add 100 students to Webster's Corner Elementary.

We've provided $2.6 million to renovate Maple Ridge Secondary. We've provided about $650,000 to replace the roofs of various schools to ensure the safety of our children, and a further $2.2 million for a new district maintenance facility. That's change, and it's very welcome and needed change.

We showed that we're getting our priorities right by providing funds to organize projects that put people first. We provided $10,400 for a Healthy Communities project in Mission. This is a very valued project of the Ministry of Health, whereby after-school supervision was provided for students.

We provided funding for alcohol and drug programs -- $1,000 to Mission Secondary School for a student visit to detox drug and alcohol treatment centres. For discussions and a drug and alcohol workshop, $2,000 went to Hatzic Secondary School for a school-based video, posters, peer counselling, a dry grad and travel to other schools.

Through the women's grants program of the first stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality, we provided $10,000 to help the communities of Abbotsford, Mission and Matsqui develop strategies. That's another welcome change by this government -- that we serve all the communities of this province, whether they are represented by a New Democrat member, a Social Credit member or a Liberal member.

We provided $68,000 to Mission Community Services Society for a new Mission teen day care centre to allow teenage parents to finish their secondary education to go on to a better life, a life of hope -- not a life of no hope, as we would hear from members of the opposition parties.

Central Valley Transition House Society in Mission received more than $16,000 in funding to help expand the transition house by adding child recreation facilities, offices and a women's resource centre. The Agassiz-Harrison Literacy Group survey received a portion of $1.4 million used to fund 31 projects. We provided more than $48,000 to the corporation of the district of Kent to help develop ball diamonds in Centennial Park. These new diamonds will be used by 38 local teams; about 3,000 people will use those facilities.

Finally, we provided about $3 million for highway, road and bridge improvements in my riding. It's refreshing and encouraging to note that the new bridge on the Stave River between Silverdale and Ruskin is progressing. There's still work being done there, and I look forward to the completion of that bridge project. Even though funding for new highway capital improvements has been put on hold, the government recognizes the urgent need for ways to solve the increasing traffic in our growing communities. Our government has responded to that need; that, too, is change.

But I think the biggest change noticed by the people of my riding is that they now have a government that listens to them. Just recently I attended a fundraiser in my local community. In discussion and talks during the social afterwards, many of my constituents complimented me as their MLA for showing up, for having the interest to participate with the community in these fundraising events. They told me that that's a very major change from the past, when sometimes their local MLA had not bothered to show up, had not had the interest in the community to be there with the people.

I have dedicated myself to be with the constituents of Mission-Kent through the good times and the times that aren't quite so good, and that is a major change.

[4:15]

K. Jones: It doesn't sound like anybody else will pat you on the back.

D. Streifel: I don't necessarily need a back pat, hon. member, but thank you for taking notice, for reaching out the hand of welcome and giving me that pat.

With all that we've accomplished in the constituency of Mission-Kent in 16 short months, you'd think that I'd be elated, hon. Speaker, but I'm not quite satisfied yet. We've laid the foundations for a stronger future, and we

[ Page 4845 ]

will do more. I will continue to work with the people of my riding to ensure that their share of Shaughnessy resources comes home. I will be working toward a completion of our desperately needed highway project, and I will be watching the completion of the new University College of the Fraser Valley campus. The final securing of Hatzic Rock is long overdue, and I know that our government will come through on this one for us.

Regarding the long overdue transportation initiatives in our end of the Fraser Valley, I'm going to be very strongly lobbying this government of ours to recognize the overdue needs of my constituents for sophisticated transportation -- a way to move more people at once, but not by relying solely on highways and bridges. Light rapid transit, buses, whatever it takes -- we're going to be delivering that to the people of Mission-Kent.

I'd like to give another example of how our government is showing it has courage to make the changes needed to meet future challenges. This is the process now underway to adapt our health care system to meet the changing needs of the people of British Columbia. The initiative undertaken by the hon. Minister of Health will meet a major challenge, not only for British Columbians but for all Canadians. By going forward to meet that challenge, she is walking the path first forged by the father of medicare in Canada, the late Tommy Douglas. And as medicare was a major part of the throne speech, hon.

Speaker, I would like to refresh the memory of the Liberal opposition on how Canadians came to enjoy the finest medicare system in the world.

K. Jones: Through the Liberals.

D. Streifel: Listen up, hon. member, you have a history lesson in store for you.

I'd like to refresh the memory about events in Saskatchewan during the 1961 provincial election campaign, events that bear a striking resemblance to events here and now in British Columbia. In December 1959, Saskatchewan CCF Premier Tommy Douglas announced that his government would introduce a universal medicare plan. The June 1960 election was fought on the medicare issue. The opposition Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit parties vigorously opposed Douglas's vision of medicare. That was the Liberal opposition in Saskatchewan. Listen to history.

The opposition parties were joined by the Saskatchewan medical profession in their attack on the government's plan. The college of physicians and surgeons waged a well-financed and organized campaign under the slogan "Political Medicine is Bad Medicine." The Saskatchewan press also joined in the sustained attack. But the last word went to the people of Saskatchewan, who returned a Douglas government with 38 CCF members -- and, coincidentally, 17 Liberals.

Since medicare had become the major of the election campaign, Douglas felt that the CCF victory was a mandate for the party's medical plan. Soon after, negotiations on the makeup of a planning committee with the province's medical care professions began. After three months, the doctors still could not accept even the terms of reference of the committee. I think I'm seeing history being repeated in British Columbia in 1992 and 1993.

The government finally appointed a committee, and the prolonged and acrimonious bargaining continued with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They recommended a system of universal coverage, financed by direct taxation and general revenues and run by a non-political commission, with doctors paid on fee-for-service basis -- the medicare system that all Canadians enjoy today. Does it sound familiar, friends? While it is now considered a sacred trust, at the time the doctors responded by officially stating that they would neither join nor cooperate. But Tommy Douglas was not deterred.

K. Jones: I rise on a point of order, hon. Speaker. The Members' Handbook states that the reply to the Speech from the Throne will be related to debating issues raised in the speech. The Speech from the Throne is described as: "The reasons for the summoning of the Legislative Assembly and the broad outline of the executive's proposed legislation...."

Deputy Speaker: The Chair appreciates you bringing that matter before the assembly. I hope that the member who has his place will keep in mind your suggestion.

D. Streifel: Thank you for bringing to our attention that a major portion of the Speech from the Throne was indeed the medicare system and, I believe, how it came to be.

The bill was introduced, and the Premier was able to participate in second reading debate just before he resigned to head the federal New Democratic Party and bring his vision of medicare to Ottawa and to all Canadians. I'd like to suggest that my hon. friends in the opposition read up on their history a little and look at Douglas's second-reading speech. I heard the hon. member from Cloverdale ask me what my source is. My source is unimpeachable: it's the 1961 Hansard from the Saskatchewan House. They might learn a little about what we're doing today to protect medicare in British Columbia.

It was the Douglas government's hope and intention to eventually have a large part of the administration handled on a regional basis. He maintained that the closer you keep an administration to the people, the better. In our New Directions in health care, we are revisiting Tommy Douglas's vision of community-driven medicare, a system everyone can benefit from and everyone can afford.

New Democrats have shown that we covet history and learn from the past to develop our visions for the future. Once again in 1993, just as in 1960, the same old Liberals are opposed to medicare. We're showing that we have the courage to make the tough choices and decisions to make medicare stronger and better for the future of all British Columbians. I commend the hon. Minister of Health for her unwavering courage and commitment to renewing and protecting medicare in the face of a changing medical environment, a changing

[ Page 4846 ]

society and rapidly rising costs, to ensure that it keeps pace with our changing needs.

I challenge the opposition to have the courage to change and to forgo the constant negative rhetoric and join together with British Columbians in building a better future. Put your petty differences behind you and work with us in the interests of all British Columbians. It is a major challenge just to be the government. In my life, I have found that it's easy to criticize without taking the responsibility of providing an alternative. This government wasn't elected to force British Columbians to one side or the other, to force winners or losers.

We were elected to bring change to British Columbia: change such as the Health minister has made, where all the voices who wish to be heard are heard, to resolve and find solutions to problems and disputes. By finding consensus among all those voices, nobody loses and everyone wins. That's the change we've brought to the people of B.C., and that's what I'll continue to work for. We've laid the foundations for the future in British Columbia by the initiatives that we've undertaken, the tough decisions that we've had to make, the challenges that we've had to face in 16 months of government.

I look forward to participating in some of the initiatives that are going to come next in economic renewal and to the pilot projects on community adjustment. I look forward to shifting decision-making on health care away from the Legislature, away from the bureaucratic end and into the communities. I look forward to further work on wage equality and our economy and international marketing strategies. I look forward to the full implementation of freedom of information and protection of privacy.

As we look at the past session and what we accomplished with our conflict-of-interest guidelines, guidelines that many of the opposition are uncomfortable with, I look forward to passing those guidelines down to local governments to ensure that government can no longer hide from British Columbians. I'll be proud to take my place in the Legislature to support the budget and the next throne speech of this government.

A. Cowie: It's a pleasure to stand and comment on the throne speech. It's also a pleasure to follow the member for Mission-Kent, who always inspires me in many ways. I appreciate his vigour, even though I don't always agree with everything.

My leader from Delta South and my colleagues, I want to make clear, have mentioned the difficult times that we're in. It's a difficult time to be government; I grant that. There has also been mention of the deficit and the fact that costs appear to be out of control. My colleagues have also mentioned the fragile state of the forest industry, the mining industry and business generally in this province. There's a crisis in education. We only have to mention the strike that's going on today in New Westminster and up in the Sechelt. And it's inevitable, as the speech mentioned, that we're going to have tax increases.

While I'm not looking forward to that, I am looking forward to the budget so that I can look at it more thoroughly next Tuesday.

It's not surprising that there was very little in the speech about my portfolio; it's not surprising there was very little about my riding. In fact, it's not surprising that there was very little in the speech, period. The speech gave us very little guidance as to the present government's vision of where we're going in the next short while. Maybe that's the practice: keep it vague; we're not quite sure how or where the ship is going to go. We're not even sure who's guiding it. We're desperately in need of a good road map or at least a good navigational map.

The business community, and indeed all communities in this province, need confidence and guidance, whether it's a navigational map or a road map. Let's have both.

I always have to clarify that Quilchena is not in the Cariboo; it's in the Kerrisdale-Dunbar area. It is a very prosperous riding. It's an attractive riding, and it's mostly single-family housing. It has generous open space and lots of good services. Business leaders come from my community and have businesses all over the province. There are many professionals there. There are doctors, health care workers, educators and students, as members know. There are actually civic leaders there, too -- and, in fact, there's the odd leading politician. As you know, the Premier comes from my riding. As I mentioned in my last comment to the throne speech, I am very confident that he even voted for me.

But Quilchena is not without problems. The closing of the Shaughnessy Hospital will cause problems to my riding. It's in the adjacent riding. Maybe I have to explain.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, hon. member. Try to address the Chair.

A. Cowie: They're just getting a little excited, hon. Speaker, about what I'm saying.

[4:30]

The closing of Shaughnessy Hospital will mean that more facilities will be put out to a hospital that never should have been at UBC in the first place. That was poorly planned by the previous government. I'm surprised you don't mention that more. The closing of Shaughnessy Hospital will mean additional traffic to Marine Drive, the only artery to UBC. Already 24,000 cars use that road every day; it's designed for 7,500. It just can't take any more traffic.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: I'll get off the medical terms. You're confused.

I want to make one other reference to UBC. UBC is growing without any real plan. If you were locating UBC there today.... Well, you wouldn't locate it there today; you would probably locate it downtown. But it's there, and we have to deal with it.

Hon. T. Perry: Put it in Vancouver-Little Mountain riding.

[ Page 4847 ]

A. Cowie: What we should be thinking about is taking some of those facilities....

I'm glad the Minister of Advanced Education is here, because he should think seriously about this. We should be thinking about....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. This is one of those times when I'm having as much fun as the members, but we must maintain some order. I want to ask the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to try to moderate his interjections somewhat. I think that the member who has his place is actually enjoying the interjections, but I caution him that we don't want to lose complete order in the assembly. So try to address the Chair, and please carry on, hon. member.

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, it's obvious that the minister got excited because we got into some of his subjects. He has several subjects.

What we'd like to see, as far as my riding is concerned, is less impact on it due to UBC. If UBC is going to grow, at least we'd like to see some idea of how the traffic is going to be handled by the increased use of UBC.

I'll give you one little example that you might like to think about. The schools of architecture, planning, landscape architecture and even urban economics should be downtown. They relate a lot to the business community, and I think the old Woodward's building would be a great place for that facility, rather than building additional buildings at UBC. The minister might want to think about that.

The Speech from the Throne did mention change, and I'm glad that the throne speech mentioned that. Change is inevitable, even in my riding of Quilchena, which, as I mentioned before, is a pretty prosperous and stable community. But even Quilchena has to change. Quilchena has to provide more housing for the elderly, for the youth and for students. There's simply not enough adequate housing.

That gets me into the subject of municipal affairs; it also was only mentioned twice in the speech. The problem there is the lack of giving Municipal Affairs its due. It's really a ministry that should take on more leadership.

M. Farnworth: We know what you want.

A. Cowie: You'll have to wait.

What the ministry should be doing.... It's very confusing. If you look at its new staffing chart, you'll find planning and housing way down at the bottom; in fact, it's hard to find the line leading to it. This indicates to me, and to anybody who deals with graphics, that there's very little priority on planning, which I would have thought this government would be attempting to correct. The Socreds -- and I'm surprised we don't criticize them more for this -- absolutely destroyed planning in this province, which has caused a great deal of hardship in many municipalities.

I want to just mention one that I had a lot to do with. I happen to live there at the present time, only four houses away from my leader: south Delta.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: I'm clarifying that -- south Delta.

Delta, especially the Tsawwassen area, is suffering a great deal b