1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Ms. Pullinger –– 8878

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 8878

Crofton toxic emissions. Mr. Bruce –– 8879

Funding for women's centres. Ms. Marzari –– 8879

Reporting of toxic spills. Mr. Cashore –– 8880

Ministerial Statement

Pollution abatement at Woodfibre mill. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 8881

Mr. Cashore –– 8881

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Harcourt –– 8881

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8884

Ms. Smallwood –– 8888

Mr. De Jong –– 8891

Mr. Lovick –– 8893

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8897

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8902

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 8905

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I see a constituent of mine In the audience today. I'd

like the House to make a special welcome to Mrs. Bette Pepper. She

represents the Provincial Council of Women and the National Council of

Women. She is truly representative of the dedicated leadership of

ladies within our communities. Bette, welcome to Victoria.

MR. KEMPF :

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the galleries this afternoon is my

father-in-law, Norman Burke, and a friend of his from Victoria, John

Wilson. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Seated today in the House and here in Victoria for their first meeting

is the advisory committee on the delivery of women's programs. I'd like

to introduce each one of them: chairperson, Mayor Susan Brice of Oak

Bay; Finola Finlay, principal of Northern Lights College in Fort St.

John; Lois Hollstedt, executive director of the Vancouver YWCA; Mobina

Jaffer, president of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of British

Columbia; Dr. Rozmin Kamani, president of the Federation of Medical

Women of Canada; Robin LeDrew, president of the B.C. and Yukon

Association of Women's Centres; Betty McClurg, executive director of

Langley Family Services Association; Irene McRae, executive director of

Deltassist Community Services Society; Bette Pepper, president of the

Provincial Council of Women; Patreace Sinclair, developer of the New

Door Second Stage Transition Housing Society; Kathie Taylor, immediate

past president of the Western Businesswomen's Association; and Miss

Ruth Williams, executive director of the Interior Indian Friendship

Society in Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. MERCIER :

On behalf of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), it's my pleasure to

welcome to the Legislature a school group from Sir Alexander Mackenzie

School in Bella Coola. I understand that 15 grade 11 students and their

teacher, Eva Mack, are in the gallery. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Speaker, this side of the

House, too, would like to welcome the women on the advisory committee

to the minister. I know that some of them had serious difficulty

wondering whether they were going to be introduced using the agencies

that they represent as well as their own personal names. I assure them

that they have nothing but support from this side of the House for what

they are about to do. So welcome to them from the opposition.

MR. MILLER : In the gallery today is my spouse, Gayle Ballard

— my helper — and my stepson, Scott Ballard, and his good friend,

Candice Digeso. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I note with sadness the passing of Ryan White. I'm sure

that many of you have heard of the case of Ryan White. He was 13 years

old when he contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, and he died

over the weekend at the age of 18. He was a champion in the fight

against discrimination against those with AIDS, and I would like the

House to note with sadness his passing.

MR. PERRY : I

would like to join the Minister of Health in acknowledging the passing

of Ryan White and would hope that we in British Columbia can learn from

his example.

MR. LOVICK : I would like to welcome a

group of students visiting the House today from Five Acres Alternative

School In Nanaimo, along with their teacher, Mr. Martin. I would ask

the House to please join me in making them welcome.

MR. DE JONG :

It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Henry Groothof,

who are accompanying my wife today. They are from Central Fraser

Valley, and I would ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

I see in the gallery today a friend of mine who is active with the

Songhees band situated in my riding. Would all members join me in

giving a warm welcome to Mr. Kelly Russ.

MS. MARZARI :

I have one further introduction of an old constituent — not quite so

old in age, but he's been in Australia now for six years and is back in

B.C. He is an architect by training and formerly of Point Grey: Mr.

Peter Lattey.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, as you

and the House are well aware, the smooth, efficient and orderly

functioning of this chamber is largely due to prior arrangements with

my counterpart on the other side. I am under the distinct impression —

as is my assistant — that we had a prior agreement that there would be

no question period today. However, if the opposition feels the need, we

are prepared to respond to their urgent questions.

MR. ROSE :

I'm quite concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, because trust between

members does guide our business here, and that's why we're called

honourable members. I would request that if there was an intention to

suggest that somehow this side was being dishonourable, the Speaker ask

the hon. government House Leader to withdraw his remarks, because I

deny that allegation categorically. If he failed to understand our

final parting agreement, then that's his problem; it's not the problem

of this side of the House.

[ Page 8878 ]

MR. SPEAKER : That having been settled, I'll start question period again, and we'll start the clock now.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. As you're probably

aware, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital board has recently decided

to hold a referendum on the issue of abortion. Can the Premier inform

this House what steps he has taken to tell the Nanaimo hospital board

that, referendum or not, your government will not tolerate any

interference in a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'm still surprised every time I hear the opposition

question the process of democracy. Why would anyone be opposed to

democracy? Are you, hon. member, opposed to democracy?

MS. PULLINGER :

I thought we on this side of the House asked the questions. I mean,

let's just talk about democracy. This is a decision that has been

condemned by the local Member of Parliament; it has been condemned by

the two MLAs of the area; it has been condemned by the regional board,

which is locally elected and which also decided to question whether or

not it would provide funds to the hospital; it has been condemned by

city council; it has been condemned by the hospital's doctors; it has

been condemned by the health services employees. The decision to halt

abortions was made against the advice of the patient care committee.

The

law is clear. The three court decisions have affirmed that women have

the right to abortion services. The only reason this board and other

hospitals continue to frustrate women's rights is your sorry leadership

in imposing your own narrow personal and religious views.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I would urge

you to ask the member to get to a question rather than make a speech.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER :

The length of the

preamble only determines the length of the answer.

The Chair just tries to be equal in these things. The members of the

opposition have a limited amount of time to ask questions. If they

choose to use that limited amount of time with lengthy

preambles, that

is the practice that's been established. Would the member continue. It

would be nice if you got to the actual question.

MS. PULLINGER : Had the member waited a moment, I was just ready to ask the question.

the Premier now prepared to instruct his minister to uphold the law and

inform all hospital boards in this province that legal abortion

services must not be restricted?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I think we enjoy in this province some very dedicated

municipal councils, school boards, hospital boards and other such

organizations that do an excellent job. From time to time, perhaps, we

may disagree with what they do or how it's done, but certainly there

can't be any disagreement about a particular group seeking the opinion

of the people in the community by whatever means are reasonably

available.

If the member is again objecting, as I've heard

so often from the NDP socialists, to this whole concept of involving

the public in the decision-making process, then I say you are a sorry

lot and don't have much of a chance at any time.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Women's

Programs. The minister has been quoted in the press recently as saying

that she sees her role as simply "to act as an advocate for women."

Given that the overwhelming majority of women in this province both

understand the importance of access to safe, legal abortion services

and want to ensure that it's retained, will the minister undertake to

fulfill her commitment, as she stated it, to women and ensure that

women in the mid-Island area do not lose this vital health care service?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I think the Premier has answered the question twice. There is a process

in place, whether you like it or not on the other side of the House,

and there is an opportunity, in every community that has a hospital,

for every opinion to be represented. I would suggest to those people

who do not like the opinion represented by a hospital board to get

involved in the process.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Premier. The Premier, I am sure, is well aware of the

circumstances surrounding the GO B.C. funds given to the Semiahmoo

House Society by his government and his former minister. Does he

condone the actions of his former minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Perhaps I should take a moment here and make reference to a news

release from the New Democrats dated April 4, 1990. If you ask about

condoning, certainly I can comment on this particular news release.

It's full of falsities; it's a total misrepresentation; it's a complete

lie. I would like to point out that the member was obviously a party to

this press release. Perhaps if he wishes to make reference to what is

said about something, he ought to check the facts first.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier seems to have some difficulty answering the question. I'll

rephrase it so perhaps it will be a little easier for him. In this

[ Page

8879 ]

instance, as the Premier is aware, no application

form was filled out by the society that ultimately got the money. Does

the Premier consider that to be proper conduct for a minister who looks

after lottery funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I guess

we saw in the first question coming from the socialist side of the

House an attitude which tells us that unless the decision or the

information con-ting from a group suits their particular philosophy or

what it is they would like to see, they disagree with it, it's no good,

and they can't in any way support it or even reasonably assess it. Here

we have a similar situation. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is

particularly noted for this sort of thing, and I think we hear as much

sleazy stuff come from there as we hear from anywhere. The matter has

been thoroughly investigated by respected people and respected bodies,

but somehow he doesn't like what they're finding or how they commented

on that particular circumstance. Therefore he naturally needs to pursue

it further, because unless it's as he would like to see it, or as the

socialists would have it, it's not good enough.

MR. SIHOTA : I take it that the answer to the question is that he does condone the behaviour of his minister.

The

Premier talks about attitudes and what he would like to see and what

people would like to see. The Premier talked quite some time ago about

the standard that he expects from ministers. He said he wanted to

ensure that those who are elected work under conditions and guidelines

which leave no doubts whatsoever in the minds of the public as to the

ethics and integrity of those who serve in public office.

this case, funds were funnelled — and undisclosed — to a former

campaign manager of the then minister. Does the Premier believe that in

his opinion that standard of conduct — which I have just quoted from —

was fulfilled by the minister in giving the funds to a campaign manager

and not disclosing that fact?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As the member is well aware, as soon as this whole issue was

questioned, the minister resigned. As the member is well aware, there

was a thorough investigation by the Attorney-General, by the RCMP and

by the ombudsman. With all of that information, he still wishes to

pursue it in order to attain whatever it is he wishes to achieve, which

is pure politics, and frankly, I don't fall for that.

CROFTON TOXIC EMISSIONS

MR. BRUCE : I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The residents

of Crofton — the area I live in — are greatly concerned about both the quality

of air they breathe and the quality of water they find in Crofton Bay. Recently

a spill occurred in Crofton Bay, and I asked the minister to launch a full investigation

into that spill. Can the minister tell me whether that investigation has been

called for?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I thank the member for advising my office a little over a week ago of

some accusations. I've asked my staff to have a full and independent

investigation. I would hope we will be able to get back to him very

shortly.

MR. BRUCE : Also, Mr. Minister of

Environment, I have called for a full analysis of the air quality in

the area. We're greatly concerned with the air that we breathe. The

residents would like some assurance as to the quality of air — just

what is there. I would ask the minister whether or not he and his

ministry would consider a full analysis of the air in the Crofton

community.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I thank the member for

another good question. He can be assured that in our investigations

that are taking place we will investigate all the aspects he has

mentioned. He knows that this ministry has brought in the toughest

regulations in all of Canada towards pulp mills. We're going to enforce

those regulations as best we can and as quickly as we can.

FUNDING FOR WOMEN'S CENTRES

MS. MARZARI :

A question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. Will the

minister please talk about her responsibility for women's centres in

this province? She has promised it. She has suggested she is

responsible, and the provincial government does have a responsibility.

But now Port Alberni, Williams Lake, Campbell River and Fort St. John

have been closed, and Quesnel and North Vancouver are on their way to

closing by the end of this month.

The clock is ticking,

Madam Minister. When and how are you going to fund those women's

centres? I'm talking about emergency funding here. I know you have a

committee; I know it's working. Where is the emergency funding?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The emergency or interim funding must come from the federal government.

My committee has a mandate to come back within the next six weeks with

recommendations for cabinet on how best to deliver women's programs in

communities.

MS. MARZARI : Madam Minister, emergency

funding generally comes from the source of government closest to the

centres. That happens to be the provincial government, and it is the

provincial government, in your name, that has suggested we have a

responsibility. Emergency funding means provincial funding. Do you

seriously believe the federal government will come up with emergency

funding for the remaining 18 centres that might close?

[ Page 8880 ]

REPORTING OF TOXIC SPILLS

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Environment. The Woodfibre pulp mill has

had its third spill in less than five weeks. Will the minister confirm

that his department has failed to establish any firm legal requirement

that spills must be reported to the proper officials, notwithstanding

what the minister says about strong pollution laws?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, once again the member is incorrect. Any mill under permit

in this province that has a spill must inform my department

immediately. If they don't, they are in violation of their permit.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister should be aware that

section

10(5) of the Waste Management Act requires that spills be reported

according to the regulations. Can the minister confirm, however, that

there are in fact no regulations to enforce this section, no

regulations saying when and to whom spills shall be reported?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : No.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the minister said no to that

question. How can the minister expect to successfully prosecute

polluters when the evidence of toxic spills is gone before the ministry

might hear about them? That's if he cares about them at all.

Will

the minister now agree that whistle-blower protection legislation is

appropriate for this province, and will he agree to put that into

effect?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, the first part of his question is wrong; and in answer to the second part, no.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of order at the first opportunity, at

the conclusion of the question period, and I raise it more in sorrow

than in anger. But I am also outraged. So my sorrow is great and my

anger is also rather momentous. Somebody said I don't look like it, but

I am serious about this. I say this to the Premier because the Premier

— and I've acknowledged this publicly before — has had a very positive

influence on the improved behaviour in this place since he became

Premier. So I don't take that away from him. It's a much more civil

place than it was. It has not, though, continued to be today. The

Premier himself called a press release which was put out by my hon.

friend from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew a lie. The Premier knows full well

that's unparliamentary. It is not permitted in this chamber.

[2:30]

The other reference to my hon. friend, which he finds

extremely offensive, was the word "sleaze." Last year the Premier

called my hon. friend "sleazy Moe," and he — and I complimented him for

it — had the good sense and the gentlemanliness to withdraw. I suggest

he withdraw both those little utterings now.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The Chair listened carefully during question

period and listened especially carefully when the press release was mentioned.

I think if you check Hansard , you will see that what was said was that the press

release itself, issued by someone, was a lie and not that the member himself

had lied.

Had

the Premier said that the member had lied, I would have interrupted

question period at that time and asked him to withdraw it.

Nonetheless,

it would be in good order to try to bring this very early part of this

brand-new session back to the nice, quiet, level playing-field that we

once had. If there were any remarks made that were untoward that the

Premier wishes to withdraw, he could withdraw them now. Otherwise....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I got carried away because I picked up the

word from the press release too. I certainly withdraw the word that I

picked up from the press release in my comments to the member.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I allowed our House Leader to raise this issue because I

think that's the best way of handling these matters. The Premier has

chosen not — as I understand what he had to say — to withdraw the word

"sleazy." He did this last year, and he's doing it again. I want to

give the Premier a choice: either he can withdraw it here, or he can go

outside and say it. I would ask for a withdrawal.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, knowing the member's record in defending politicians, I

certainly won't.... I said already that I withdrew the word, and I'll

do so again.

MR. SIHOTA : The word "sleazy"?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Yes, I did, and I'll do so again. I told you, I apologize, but I read

it here and I picked up on it, and I should not have done that, reading

from your press release.

Also, I'd like to comment that we

too would like as much decorum in the House as possible. I'm afraid all

of us may be carried away a bit by the fact that the opposition didn't

start it off very well on Thursday when we opened the House, and

perhaps that has affected the situation some.

MR. SPEAKER : Since everyone has decided to be in....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Since that matter has now been dispensed with, we can

presume that the rest of the session will be operated with the same

good decorum that last year's session was.

[ Page 8881 ]

Ministerial Statement

POLLUTION ABATEMENT AT WOODFIBRE MILL

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Western Pulp Ltd. Partnership at Woodfibre in Howe Sound will be issued

a pollution abatement order under

section 22 of the Waste Management

Act on April 10, in response to recent spills that have occurred at the

mill, the most recent being April 6.

The order will require

the mill to provide spill containments sufficient to contain 125

percent of the volume of the largest storage tank capacity for each

dangerous good stored at the above site. No drains are to be located

within the containment area.

The order will require that

two-way radio contact be maintained between the chemical unloader and

personnel at the site of the receiving storage tank when dangerous

goods are being offloaded or transferred. Such communication is

required until such time as high-level alarms are installed on all

dangerous goods storage tanks.

The order is to acquire and

construct or carry out any further works or measures that are necessary

to control, abate or stop the pollution; to hire an independent

consultant approved by the ministry to conduct an environmental audit

to identify possible spill sources on the site; and to develop and

enhance a contingency plan which will reflect a program to ensure that

their staff are adequately trained.

I close, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating my staff for being so quick to act and for doing a good job in this area.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, I would start off by noting that I was not informed that

this statement was going to be made today. While everyone has to be

appreciative of the fact that a pollution abatement order has been

issued, I would reiterate the point I made earlier that there are no

regulations to enforce the

section of the act that points out where and

to whom these spills are reported. Therefore we have this willy-nilly,

catch-as-catch-can situation throughout this province when it comes to

spill enforcement and reporting spills.

The fact is that

nobody knows whether it's three or 103 spills that have taken place in

the past three weeks. There are only those three that have been

reported in the past five weeks.

It's good to know that

there will be an environment audit, but we don't have the kind of

monitoring going on a 24-hour basis that's going to ensure that this

does not happen. No amount of statements in the House by this minister

and no amount of public relations by this minister are going to deal

with that. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that we have to have whistle-blower

legislation to protect the workers so that they report these spills,

because they want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The minister should enable them to do that.

Finally, I

think it's about time that this minister stopped functioning as an

apologist for the polluters, inviting people to come to Howe Sound and

eat toxic crabs, and got on with dealing with the task he has of

protecting this environment.

MR. SPEAKER : Order,

please. I would just like to give the House this guidance for future

ministerial statements. If the scope of the reply could be in the same

keeping as the scope of the statement, we would avoid breaking into

argumentative things. There are lots of other occasions during the

normal proceedings of this House when we'll have an opportunity to do

that.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. HARCOURT :

The throne speech of last week shows that this government has its

sights set on only one thing: saving its political butt. This

government is dressed up in its best clothes hoping that no one else

will get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

At a

time when people want leadership on critical issues, this government

won't make a move until its pollsters tell them what to do. If the

Premier would open his ears and listen, he might know what British

Columbians are saying. I'll tell him what they're saying. They're

saying: "Don't play politics with our kids' education. Stop being a

schoolyard bully armed with a short-sighted referendum scheme. Quit

picking fights with British Columbians, with doctors, nurses, teachers,

school boards, women, aboriginal people and now with your own

employees."

It's clear from this throne speech that the

current government will resort to anything to get re-elected,

regardless of how many people are hurt or how many tax dollars are

wasted. This government won't tell us, but I bet the Socred polling

will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia at least $1 million this

year. A number of partisan TV ads — again, paid for by the taxpayers —

will double this year.

British Columbians are way ahead of

this government. They know this government is more concerned with

public relations than with public interest. The Premier has suggested

that his school referendum scheme is standing up for democracy. He

calls British Columbians who oppose it "sinister." This is from a man

whose government has repeatedly imposed its own personal and religious

views on the people of B.C. British Columbians are way ahead of this

government. They are giving one clear message: it's time for a change.

Today

I want to put forward some of the New Democrat legislative agenda for

this session. Our legislative agenda will be to bring about open

and honest government for the people of British Columbia: a government

that shows leadership on critical issues and addresses today's issues

and today's realities with modern solutions, not 1950s morality; a

government that stands up for B.C. against the Mulroney government and

shows some leadership; and a government that represents the interests

of the working men and women of this province.

[ Page 8882 ]

The

Premier is right about one thing. The future is about choices. His

government has made its choice: government for its political friends

and government behind closed doors. New Democrats have made our choice:

open and honest government for B.C.

Accordingly, we will be

asking this Legislature to adopt an open-door policy. This will include

freedom of information legislation to ensure full public and media

access to government business, including public spending accounts. It

will include the televising of legislative proceedings, a promise we'll

keep. We'll be asking this Legislature to adopt new initiatives in

grassroots democracy. Accordingly, we will be bringing forward

legislation to open up decision-making to British Columbians and their

communities on the future use of Crown lands and forests.

well, we'll be taking new steps to provide communities with the chance

to choose and start services that meet their own needs in local

environmental action; economic development and promotion; health

services, such as community-based clinics; and family services, such as

child care. This government thought so much of their regionalization

scheme that they got rid of it. That shows how much confidence they've

got in it. We'll do it right when we get the chance to govern — in the

very near future, hopefully.

We propose to bring this province into step with the rest of Canada by lowering the voting age to 18.

must restore the trust between British Columbians and the government.

That has been seriously eroded during the current government's term of

office. We will be bringing forward conflict-of-interest laws to punish

politicians who abuse the public trust to help themselves or their

friends. I wish the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) were here,

because we will be introducing legislation to separate the

Attorney-General's legal responsibility from those matters involving

the potential criminality of a political colleague.

This

government is out of touch with the critical issues facing hundreds of

thousands of working families. The throne speech boasts of this

government's comprehensive housing policies. The only thing

comprehensive about them is their complete failure to house British

Columbians. We'll be putting forward a housing program that is

affordable and do-able and will house British Columbians. This will

include a starter-home program to make home ownership affordable for

young families, changes to the Property Purchase Tax Act to exempt

first-time homebuyers, and a doubling of the non-profit cooperative

housing to help our seniors, disabled citizens and single-parent

families.

We are prepared to bring in other housing

measures such as a tax on the flipping by speculators of our houses,

the return of the rentalsman and rent stabilization, a stop to public

land sales like the Expo lands and a start to opening them up for

affordable housing. We'll bring in controls on the demolition of good,

affordable housing.

[2:45]

We will

be introducing measures to deal with today's health care realities.

This government continues to force patients to go to Seattle. I happen

to have met the first open-heart surgery patient that we shipped out of

this province to Seattle. I'll tell you, he wasn't very happy about

having to leave British Columbia to go to another country to have an

open-heart surgery operation he should have had right here in the

interior of this province.

This government continues to

impose its narrow personal views on the very difficult and challenging

AIDS problem that we face, when young people must be given the facts on

sexuality so they can make their own informed decisions. The Health

minister says that teaching kids about AIDS is complex. There's nothing

complex about this fact: 88 B.C. teenagers tested positive for the AIDS

virus this year alone. That's double the number of last year.

the absence of leadership by this government, we will be asking this

Legislature to take urgent action to provide adequate health care,

including heart surgery and cancer treatment here in B.C. and in B.C.'s

hospitals, and to support a provincewide AIDS prevention and treatment

program.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

had to leave. I think that's unfortunate, because British Columbians

want strong action, not more oil tankers and toxic waste, not an

ex-Minister of Environment who, when we had our first oil spill on the

west coast of Vancouver Island, said: "I don't know what to do; I just

follow. Tell me what to do. I haven't got time to visit the site."

the failure of leadership in this area, we will be reintroducing an

even more comprehensive sustainable development program for this

session, to sustain our forest, fishing and farming economies without

harming our environment. We will be putting forward new action not just

to recycle but to significantly reduce garbage, deal with biomedical,

industrial and household toxic waste, establish clean air laws and

protect our heritage rivers. The environmental threats we face are

largely the result of B.C.'s rapid growth without effective

environmental protection.

As a result, we will also ask

this Legislature to adopt a Georgia basin environmental action plan.

The Georgia basin is an ecologically sensitive area with a population

of five million people that will double in our lifetime. It is the

lands and waters of southwest B.C. and northwest Washington State, from

the Fraser River west to lower Vancouver Island, and from the Sunshine

Coast south to Olympia, Washington. It includes sensitive coastal

waters that are shared by B.C. and Washington, including the straits of

Georgia and Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.

Legislation will

be presented to move with urgency on our common environmental concerns,

including action on oil spills, with a moratorium on increased oil

tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration; the

dumping of sewage and toxic waste in our ocean waters; the protection

of our fisheries and flyways; air pollution reduction; and the

preservation of our farmlands and watersheds.

[ Page 8883 ]

Mr.

Speaker, the current government thinks that its school referendum

scheme is a clever political strategy. What it is trying to do is pit

homeowners against school boards, and they are willing to jeopardize

our children's education to do it. We are ready to put an end to the

school wars, and that means no referendums on our children's education.

We will bring forward budget proposals to provide school tax relief for

homeowners, while providing funding stability for our children's

education. The best economic investment we can make is our children's

education. The young men and women of today must be given the

educational opportunity to develop the leadership and the technical

skills that are needed to meet the challenges of global economic

change. We'll be putting forward proposals to open the doors of our

universities and colleges to achieve this goal.

Mr.

Speaker, I heard the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid)

talk about the countries in eastern Europe. I want to tell him what

they are struggling for. They are struggling for democracy, and that

means the fair use of taxpayers' money, not for privileged friends and

insiders but for the public. That hon. member should realize that the

struggle for democracy is indeed a difficult one and show some

leadership about how we should be dealing with public funds and how

they should be utilized.

British Columbians know that we

can get more jobs and economic opportunities from our rich forests and

fish and agricultural resources. If we are to renew our resources for

our kids, it's clear we must have a healthy forest environment and

economy. To that end we will be pressing for an environment and jobs

accord in this legislative session. For too long British Columbians

have been told that we must choose between jobs and the environment,

that if we don't log the Carmanah, our province is headed into the

economic dumpster. We say there is a better way. A logging permit for

the Carmanah will turn this watershed into a battle zone that B.C.

cannot afford. The Carmanah is one of dozens of major land use

conflicts in our province, but we say it must be the last.

The

government is once again asking for leadership. We are quite prepared

to provide that leadership. Three or four of them on the other side are

saying: what should we do? The people of British Columbia have been

wondering what you should be doing, too, and about what you have been

doing to create the conflicts and the bitterness that divide British

Columbians. If you would listen....

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT : If you want to read my lips, if you can't hear what I'm saying, please feel free to do that, hon. members.

New

Democrats are ready to strike a deal between our forest stakeholders —

the loggers, the forest industry, the environmental leadership and the

aboriginal peoples. Over the last 18 months I've met with all the major

players and I've told them to look beyond their special interests. A

few have held onto extreme positions. But there is more mutual interest

in a healthy forest environment and economy than this government

realizes, because they're not listening, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced

that our forest stakeholders are ready to make intelligent

accommodations. What's missing is the political leadership to strike a

deal.

There's room in an environment and jobs accord to

double B.C.'s parks and protected wilderness while building a

prosperous forest industry. The experts of this government aren't

listening. We can guarantee a sustainable timber supply while taking

this environmental step.

We can settle aboriginal land

claims at no threat to private lands. This will bring B.C. an economic

windfall of federal dollars for natives and non-natives alike. It will

open up B.C. to new investment, Mr. Speaker — investment that won't

come to our province as long as we have Socred conflicts.

The

current government won't strike a deal over our forests. They say that

greater political gain for Socreds can be bought by exploiting conflict

all over this province among British Columbians. As a result of that

mean-spirited, divide-and-conquer, loser approach of this Social Credit

government, B.C. has no forest inventory, no plans for old-growth

forests, no strategy for value-added manufacturing, no resolve to

settle native land claims and no vision for a shared future.

this leadership vacuum, conflict is inevitable. New Democrats say that

B.C. must have an environment and jobs accord without delay. While

moving towards an accord, it's important that we

schedule logging and

preservation activities so that we maintain jobs and timber supply

without jeopardizing our options to preserve or to give special

treatment to disputed watersheds. We must also make sure that the work

on an accord is supported with independent forest research, with full

public participation and the sharing of all information.

Let

me repeat: if a Carmanah logging permit is issued, British Columbians

will once again be at each others' throats, and the battle will

continue valley by valley throughout our province.

New

Democrats are ready to bring peace to our embattled province and to our

embattled forests. An environment and jobs accord is a major advance

for our resource economy, and we will proceed with this.

will also be putting forward legislation to acquire new value-added

manufacturing in return for industrial access to our public forests,

new measures to protect our ocean fisheries and fishing industry, and

extraordinary assistance for B.C.'s tree-fruit growers, who were

abandoned by this Social Credit government on the trade deal.

must also build the new economy in British Columbia, as well as our

traditional economy. We can do this by advancing B.C. entrepreneurship

in such areas as high technology, the environment and our aging

population.

We'll be putting forward a new initiative to

bring business and labour together to sell B.C. enterprise in the

Pacific Rim, in the United States and in European

[ Page 8884 ]

markets.

This partnership will promote B.C. technologies, the export of

manufactured products, the development of a highly skilled labour

force, stable labour-management relations and joint trade missions

abroad.

British Columbians want their government to stand

up to Brian Mulroney and get a fair deal for B.C., instead of being the

wimps they are. This group of government wimps has repeatedly whined

when B.C. came out on the short end of the score, when in fact it's

this government who took us out of the game altogether.

Ask

the fishing industry. I'd hide my face too, Minister of Fisheries (Hon.

Mr. Savage), if I were you. Ask the forest industry, ask the grape

growers and the wine industry, and ask the shipbuilding industry.

British Columbians want their government to show savvy in dealing with

Ottawa and to take a strong bargaining position on behalf of B.C.

will be seeking the unanimous support of this House, and we ask this

government to join with us, in saying no to the GST. We will continue

to press this government to abandon their collaboration with the

Mulroney government and to have neither truck nor trade with the

collection of this unfair tax.

Can you believe it? This

government, that's smiling about it now, asked Brian Mulroney to cut

federal spending to B.C., and of course he gladly accepted. He made

cuts to our universities and our hospitals. He cut the Polar 8. Now

he's ready to cut FRDA, our reforestation agreement, too.

are going to continue to press this government to stop calling for the

hogus-bogus cuts that hurt our economy, our families and our children.

British Columbians want new leadership that listens and is in touch

with today's realities, not a Premier who imposes his 1950s morality on

all of us. It's time this government quit censorship, treated our kids

with respect and showed the AIDS video.

[3:00]

It's too bad that the minister for women's issues isn't here,

because it's time that women had the right to make their own decisions

about their own bodies and about abortion. It's time that she stopped

ducking the issue on behalf of B.C.'s women. We will continue to defend

a woman's right to freedom of choice on abortion, and we will seek the

unanimous support of this House to oppose the federal recriminalization

of women on abortion. We will be putting forward proposals for family

planning programs, including pregnancy prevention and pre- and

post-natal counselling.

It's time that this government

stopped telling single welfare mothers to look to prayer — and helped

these families; and stopped telling poor kids who go to school hungry

that they do so because their parents don't love them — and fed those

children. Accordingly, we will be introducing proposals that address

children's rights and children's poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is right: the future is about choice and about change.

The legislative agenda we're proposing represents the interests of the working

people of this province, not of a few government friends and insiders. The current

government has balanced the provincial budget unfairly on the backs of ordinary

people. They have overtaxed middle-income and working families, and they've

wasted money on their friends and bad business deals like the Expo land sale.

Only a Socred could lose money on one of the fifth best sites in North America,

the Expo land site — $100 million on one of the five best sites in North America.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. That's free enterprise; give it away

free and then lose money on it. That's the Socred free enterprise.

want to assure you that New Democrats will live within the means of

British Columbians. For us, a balanced budget and fair taxes for

working people will go hand in hand. The people of B.C. will have a

clear choice between this current government, which imposes its own

personal views while its political friends line up for the special

favours they know they'll get, a government which chooses conflict over

cooperation and acts like a schoolyard bully picking fights and

desperately searching for another election issue....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT :

The Socreds — speaking to the member from the Island — have a 100-year

program for the Island Highway. That's what we're against. We want it

built as soon as possible, not your 100-year program. We don't want to

be here for the centennial of the completion of the last mile 100 years

from now, which is the Socred plan for the Island Highway. They won't

have to wait for that 100-year Socred plan, because British Columbians

have another choice with new leadership that listens and is ready to

deal with today's realities and represents the hopes and dreams of the

working men and women of this province. In this legislative session,

the choice for British Columbians will never be clearer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : All members please come to order. Can we have a little quiet between speeches.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

As the Leader of the Opposition concluded, in reading with some great

fervour his last statement that the choice for British Columbians will

never be clearer, I would suggest that he's very correct. It has become

very clear. I'd also like to suggest that we don't need to look for an

election issue on this side; the Leader of the Opposition hands us one

or two every week. Part of the reason, of course, is that he doesn't

let the facts or the correct information stand in the way of his

political statements, so he keeps getting himself....

AN HON. MEMBER : Innuendo.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : That's not an innuendo; that's a direct accusation.

[ Page 8885 ]

the leader said, they're going to have a balanced budget and fair

taxes, I want to get to that later, but first of all I want to talk a

bit about my constituency, since the throne speech debate gives us an

opportunity to talk about what has happened in our constituencies. And,

of course, it was one of the hardest hit during the recession of the

mid-eighties when the....

MR. JONES : Socred restraint, it's called.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Yes, it was restraint, but up there it was real restraint. It was the

private sector that went into restraint, because there weren't the

sales, there weren't the world markets for that. The reason the

government went in with a restraint program is that the other people

should not be immune from the restraint that was a reality to those

people.

In my constituency....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Unlike the opposition House Leader, who often says

he needs all the help he can get, I don't need all the help. Either that

or I would like an extra ten minutes added onto my time.

my constituency.... Yes, I was there. The Leader of the Opposition

talks about how they are the representatives of the working people. I

was there in '72 to '76 when the oil companies moved out, when a lot of

things went downhill because of the socialist policies. Guess who got

hurt. It wasn't the oil companies that moved out; it was the working

people there who ran out of jobs. These people would drive out that oil

and gas industry and still have the gall to say that they represent the

best interests of the working people. How do you have the people

working when you don't have somebody providing the jobs? That is

something they might get straight.

The oil and gas industry

is doing very well right now thanks to the policies of this government.

But I can assure you that because the oil and gas industry are

free-enterprisers, even a hint of socialism will get them to move out.

Lease sales have been running over $100 million per year. The lease

sales generally move into seismic work and the seismic work moves into

exploration in about a two- or three-year cycle. Lease sales have been

carrying on, and the prospects are good. But they don't have to carry

on; they can drop it as soon as they smell socialism on the horizon. I

would hope.... I know that those people don't want to see the

socialists.

I can give you an example. I'm sure that many

of you read about the Border-Ring field development that happened up

there. Several companies went in there, and over a two-year period they

have invested over $100 million, in addition to the lease sales, in

order to explore and develop that field and to sell the gas. That is

$100 million of their money they have put into this province. It will

take them years to get that back. I think we have to remember that when

these people go in there with the first $10 million or the first $20

million or $50 million in a drilling program, they have absolutely no

assurance that they are going to hit pay-dirt — that they are going to

hit gas or oil. Yet they do that, because they are free-enterprisers,

they are risk-takers, and they make things happen in this province.

the forestry sector, in the last while, we've had the Fibreco mill at

Taylor, and that has created steady employment. It has developed a

greater utilization of aspen, and it has created a stability in the

area. They are now looking at further development and utilization of

aspen to extend and add to that pulp mill to do a lot more in the area.

That will help. That is because they are encouraged by the government

that promoted regionalization.

Remember, when we talked

about regionalization we had nothing but objections from the other side

of the House. The regionalization program has worked.

MRS. BOONE : Where are your ministers?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The plan is still carrying on. It's not necessary

to keep the same organizational structure in place. The regionalization is in

place, and it is working. Ask the people in my area.

Anyway, in the farm sector, the farmers in my area are very encouraged.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I wonder if that member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) would like

to repeat the remark that we should be ashamed of our educational

system in this province which she made in the last session. Either that

or she could let me give my speech. This is a group that's for

education but claims to be ashamed of it.

I'm saying that

farming in my part of the country needs some help, and I'm trying to

get some help for them. About $5 million would keep the grain industry

going while the prices are down, and the prices are down thanks to a

lot of socialist practices in other places where they have distorted

the market value of grain.

We heard about the apple

industry. Isn't it interesting that as soon as you get into the apple

industry and the grape industry, where millions of dollars have been

put, that's all great, and the other side keep saying: "Not enough!"

But if it comes to any support for the grain farmers in a

free-enterprise constituency like mine, do I get any support from the

NDP? No way.

I might point out that the difficulty....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

If that member from Prince George is an example of what the education

system in this province has produced, then I think I see why she would

be ashamed of it.

[ Page 8886 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Perhaps we could have the member continue. These interjections are not actually recorded by Hansard , and this appears to be nothing but blank tape for those people who subscribe to that scintillating journal.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker, because it would seem like

last Thursday they performed for the cameras; now they're performing

for Hansard , and you assure us it's not even recorded in Hansard . So you’re wasting your time once again.

However,

I did want to comment on the electoral process. I know the NDP is very

strong in supporting one member, one vote. Their leader talks about how

he's willing to support regionalization; he's willing to support the

north; and their idea of absolutely fair representation is one member,

one vote. They don't ever look at what happens about the size of an

area that needs to be represented. Yes, it was done by a judge, and

we've had to accept electoral reform, but it means that we have less

opportunity for our people to be heard, simply because they have lower

numbers.

[3:15]

1 do want to get onto education matters. I'm very proud of what we have accomplished in education in the last few years.

The

Pacific Rim initiatives have far exceeded our expectations in the

teacher exchanges, the student exchanges, the amount of interest

created in Japan and other countries that are coming to British

Columbia, spending money here and taking a great interest in our system

of education. As a matter of fact, they are looking for arrangements

for us to take our system of education over into some of their schools

so that we can provide that.

The royal commission....

[Mr. Pelton In the chair.]

MR. JONES : Have you changed your mind from '88?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Changed my mind on what?

MR. JONES : The referendum.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : No, I haven't. I haven't changed my mind on the referendum.

The

royal commission. They felt it would be sitting on the shelf, and then

when we took action on it, they said: "Why are you doing this? Why

don't you put it on hold for a while?" I don't know what they want.

First of all, when the royal commission was appointed, the opposition

said: "It's a sham. It's not going to do anything." When the report

came forward, they said: "They're going to put it on the shelf. It's

not going to do anything." Then when we took action on it, they said:

"Put it on hold. Stop the process. Don't make any changes." You just

heard your leader read from his script to say: "We will see that kids

will have changed to adjust to modern times." At the same time he is

supporting blocking these changes. No change is supposed to happen.

They say there's been no consultation. There's been far more

consultation in this province than there has ever been in the past, and

on every one of the "Year 2000" curriculum reports all you have to do

is read the list of how many teachers, trustees and other people are

involved in preparing that information.

AN HON. MEMBER : Read my lips.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm sorry, I don't have $80,000 vision.

The

Leader of the Opposition has said: "Don't play politics with our kids'

education." That is the same leader who supported the BCTF social

studies supplement a couple of years ago, where all kinds of partisan

garbage was put in along with some good material. He fully supported

putting that very partisan stuff into the schools. That is the same

leader who last year authorized the sending of a letter to every

student council president in this province to say: "We have members who

will come into the schools and talk to you about how rotten the

government is. We will be completely partisan and will bring the

partisan view into the schools." That letter is on record in Hansard .

That is the same person who said: "Don't play politics with our kids."

That is the same party who now, in every school trustee election, wants

to run partisan members. The first requirement has to be NDP membership

so that the party organization then can deal with the election of

trustees. What is that if not political?

The Leader of the

Opposition has said the people have a choice, that they are quite

prepared to provide leadership on that side. Well, I guess the public

is going to have to find out in what direction that leader will lead,

because there's certainly all kinds of evidence that he doesn't know

where he's going to lead. That's the member who stands up in Kamloops

at a meeting....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'll get to the referendum.

That's

the same opposition leader who stands up in Kamloops and says to a

group of supporters that this Socred government is underspending this

year by $3 billion. A week later he stood up in front of a bunch of

businessmen in Vancouver and said: "We will live within our means and

we will have a balanced budget." Obviously his calculator isn't working

as well as his thinking. A $3 billion increase would represent quite a

change in taxes, something like 25 percent.

That is the person who stands up in this House and says he has always been a socialist and is proud to be a socialist.

AN HON. MEMBER : Not any more.

[ Page 8887 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

No. Then he stands up at the chamber of commerce In Victoria and says

he has never been a socialist. He doesn't even know what he is. That is

the leader who said this afternoon, reading from his script, that we

should not jeopardize kids' education, that we would resort to anything

to get elected. Well, I think the shoe is on the other foot. They would

apparently resort to anything to get themselves elected.

is interesting that he says we should not go to referendum and we

should not put any restraint on school spending. He has said publicly —

he didn't read it because I guess they didn't write it for him — in a

press release that the government should pick up 90 percent of the

funding for education. Well, we pick up about 83 percent now. And this

is the responsible leader who says that the school boards should be

given the complete unrestricted right to set the total budget — no

restrictions, no conditions. And the government, without question,

without any restrictions or questions, should pay 90 percent of that.

AN HON. MEMBER : That's how he's going to balance the budget.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It's interesting, isn't it? No cost controls, just full spending. That

Leader of the Opposition — the one who would provide leadership for the

province — has said that the government should pay the increase in

costs in education because the taxpayers can't afford it. If you want

to think about that one for a little while, the taxpayers cannot afford

any more taxes, so therefore the government should pay all of these

costs. He doesn't know where the money comes from. I don't know where

he thinks the money comes from. Imagine this person setting himself up

as a responsible leader ready to take over running this province. He

says that the taxpayers cannot pay any more taxes, but he wants to

increase spending by 25 percent here, and 15 percent here, and 30

percent here.

This is the same member who says we should

have left things alone in the education system — no, not left it alone,

just put in more money, whatever anybody asked for. If we had left

things alone this year, the taxpayers were facing a 30 percent increase

So he says the taxpayers can't afford any more, so the government

should do that. Most of the people I talk to are aware of the fact that

the taxpayers provide the money that government spends, in one form or

another, but not that member. He says the government is somehow or

other a separate entity. "Don't go to the taxpayers for any more money;

they can't afford it. Go to the government." I'll tell you, if that's

the kind of leadership that he's going to provide, we've got a little

bit of a problem.

I do want to make a reference to an ad

that the British Columbia Teachers' Federation has put in the various

papers, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their members'

money to fight against the referendum idea.

I'd like to

point out that this morning I have sent a response to Mr. Ken

Novakowski, president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation:

"Dear Mr. Novakowski:

"As

Minister of Education, my main objective always has been to provide a

good education for all children everywhere in British Columbia.

Students are my top priority.

"It is for this

reason that the government has introduced block funding with equitable

distribution of funds to every school district. Stable, predictable and

more accountable funding for educational programs is now guaranteed.

"The

block funding includes all expenditures in school districts during the

1989-90 school year, plus an economic increase of over 6 percent for

1990-91. This provides funds to continue all present programs and

services and even to enhance some. Where enrolment increases are

projected for September 1990, additional funds are added to pick up

this extra cost. Funds for capital or school construction projects, for

computer technology and for royal commission changes will be provided

over and above the block funding.

"Assuring

all current spending for wages, benefits and all other operating

expenses plus a 6 percent increase seems reasonable to me. How much

more do you want?

"I believe taxpayers are

willing to support reasonable increases in line with the economy. If

you want more than the substantial funding increase already provided,

you should seek support and approval directly from the people who

provide the funds: the taxpayers.

"Would you consider setting aside, even briefly — as many

of your professional members are doing — your continuous demands for more money,

so that we might discuss education changes which will benefit pupils?"

I will table that, Mr. Speaker, since I have read from it at considerable length.

I want to use it to point out the issue of referendum, which has become such

a battle-cry for the opposition based on inaccuracies, distortion, misinformation

and perhaps ignorance in the sense of lack of knowledge.

Talking

of funding for education, as the Sullivan report said, it should be

stable, it should be predictable and it should be accountable. When we

talked to the various stakeholders and met with them, there was general

agreement on that. There was also general agreement on the block

funding, and that it was a way. "But," they said, "if you are going to

go to block funding, you have to start with a base of actual

expenditures."

For those who have taken the trouble to

read, you will note that we have gone to total actual expenditures from

the 1989-90 year by or on behalf of school districts — that which was

approved by the fiscal framework from 1989-90 — plus the supplementary

spending. That is the base on which we start out.

There was

agreement that it should be increased in line with the economy. They

said: "It must be a realistic figure." The best evidence that was put

together in terms of historical factors and looking at the future was

the 6.17 percent. We have all actual expenditures as requested, plus a

6.17 percent increase in the total budget.

[ Page 8888 ]

They

also agreed that the fairest system they knew of to distribute this

money was the fiscal framework, which is formula-driven on the basis of

facts and information in each and every district. There was agreement

on that.

There was also acknowledgement that, with

recognizing all actual expenditures plus a reasonable economic increase

on top of that, it could be acceptable. It would be reasonable to

assume that it couldn't be open-ended after that. In other words, it

had to be some measure of cost control or capped beyond that. We

reached all those agreements.

[3:30]

As to the method, we were really left with two options: all actual

expenditures plus the 6 percent increase — which everybody considered

reasonable — and cap it at that. We felt there are some unique

circumstances in some districts. There are some special programs both

the board and the taxpayers would be happy to fund. The referendum, in

that sense, opens the door for extra spending.

I've been

accused of changing my mind on referendums. I have not. I said that I

did not believe we should use referendum for funding education. I still

believe that very strongly. We are not using referendum to fund

education. The funding of all actual expenditures plus a reasonable

economic increase is assured and guaranteed by this government.

The

funding for education is now stable, predictable and assured by this

government on actual expenditures plus an increase in line with the

economy. You talk about depoliticizing a process, because the factor by

which we are committed to increase the education funding each year will

be in line with the economic indicators. What we're saying is that you

go to referendum. You go to the approval of your taxpayers, if you want

to go into extra spending beyond that — above what the economy allows

and provides. That is quite a difference from the invidious comparisons

that many of the members are making in criticizing this program, in

saying that our education funding is dependent upon referenda. It is

not. The education funding is assured; the increase is assured.

They

compare it to referenda in other jurisdictions, to referenda in the

past. In the past, some of the referenda were for the total budget to

be approved by referendum or the total increase to be approved. We have

said that we will guarantee the 6 percent increase this year.

MS. A. HAGEN : Why don't you bring in legislation so we can see what you're talking about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : We're going to.

MS. A. HAGEN : It's rather late, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

No, I don't think it's rather late. The House just opened, and we're

doing our best to get the legislation in here as soon as possible.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't think you would see it even when you get to read it, because

you don't believe in it, so that's not much help to you. That member,

who has an interest in education, turns out strictly to make whatever

partisan political mileage she can out of anything or any statement.

About the only other approach that member takes — my education critic,

with emphasis on "critic" — is to be a satellite repeater for the B.C.

teachers' union executive.

I see my time is just about up.

Let me conclude with just a reference to the Leader of the Opposition

saying: "We will stand up against the Mulroney government; we will

stand up against the federal government." I'll tell you once again:

some stand! As soon as the federal government takes some money away

from British Columbia, what does the opposition jump on? They say:

"Don't fight them. Just do it out of provincial taxes. Don't go after

them to meet their responsibilities. You fund it. Whether it be in

forestry...." They say: "The federal government is not going to put up

the money, so don't haggle with them, for goodness' sake. Put it up

from British Columbia." Wouldn't they fight!

On the women's

centres — they have taken that money away. A pittance in the total

federal budget, and what is the NDP response to that? They said: "Don't

haggle about it. Just pick up the slack everywhere." That's how they

would fight the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER : That's how they balance their budget.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

How would you balance your budget if not only did you promise to

provide anything that anybody in this province wanted in the way of

funding, but you also made up whatever the feds took away from British

Columbia?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I have the advantage, hon. member. Because I have a hearing loss and

can't hear you, all you do is irritate me. You can't even impress me.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I welcome the opportunity to take my place in this debate. I would have looked forward to a throne speech that promised....

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

May I just have the permission of the Chair? I did say that I would

table this document that I read from. Could I table that now so I won't

interrupt later?

MS. SMALLWOOD : As I was saying, I

was looking forward to a throne speech that would address some of the

concerns of the people of this province and offer some hope.

Unfortunately, all we got was a replay of old history and platitudes.

[ Page 8889 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There was some new history there too.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I think that it is very important to look at this government's record.

They talk about a record that they are proud of, so let's analyze it.

Let's look where this government has been and where previous Social

Credit governments have taken this province.

First of all,

I think that it is really interesting to look at the number of people

on income assistance and compare it to the number of people on income

assistance in 1975 when the New Democrats were government. It's

interesting because if you look at the ratio of the people on income

assistance, there are actually two times as many people on income

assistance in the population now under Social Credit as there ever were

under a New Democrat government.

Let's take a look at who

those poor people in this province are. This government is more than

happy to engage in corporate welfare, but at the same time kicks

people, discriminates against people and insists that people on welfare

do with less. The people who are on income assistance are the poor in

this province, people in groups who are guaranteed of poverty: women,

three out of five; native people, over 54 percent; disabled, over 57

percent. Workers in increasing number — even the government's own

statistics — faced that last year. Still we see no relief. We see no

plans to break this cycle. We see only a low wage policy in this

province. We see only more platitudes and more promises of studies.

The

Economic Council of Canada says that the average family with parents

under the age of 25 had an income 14 percent lower today than they did

ten years ago. That is the history of governments like this government

across Canada. That is the history of this government in British

Columbia.

That's another group. We've got women, natives,

disabled, young people and seniors all living below the poverty line.

It's really interesting to look at who the poor are in this province

and dispel the myth that this government perpetuates. It's interesting

to note the increasing number of men over the age of 50 who become

technologically redundant. Where are the programs to help them? They

are non-existent. What this government offers for re-entry into the

workforce is topping up wages, low-wage subsidies for employers, and no

assistance for families or working people. What this government offers

is more platitudes. This government is out of touch.

In the

throne speech we heard a lot about equity, whether that was employment

equity or regional equity. I want to talk a little bit about that,

particularly after following the Minister of Education, but I'll deal

with that a little bit later.

We look at the opportunities

for people to achieve that equity in this province, the opportunities

to fulfil themselves and to be rightfully employed. We look at the

number of jobs that have been created, in particular in the lower

mainland. Over 90 percent of all the jobs created were in the service

sector. In the service sector the wages are 44 percent lower than goods

jobs. I ask where the leadership of this government is. Is this the

vision that your government has for the people of British Columbia? The

majority of those jobs that were provided were part-time, at $6 to $8

an hour. One out of every five of those part-time jobs has workers

working involuntarily, looking for full-time employment.

find this next statistic so staggering that it plays over and over in

my mind. Do you realize — and I think this is important for the member

for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) who likes to chat — that

only 57 percent of all full-time jobs in British Columbia are

year-round jobs? Out of all of the jobs that exist in British Columbia,

only 57 percent are full-time, year-round jobs. Is that a vision that

this government has for the people of this province, where a little

more than half of all the jobs are full-time, year-round jobs?

When

you look at the number of people in this province and look at the

number of families where two income-earners have to work to keep the

family income level above the poverty line, with no support from this

government, no initiative around day care and nothing more than more

taxes and platitudes and old rhetoric, is that the vision you have for

this province, where people work harder, longer hours and more family

members are in that workforce trying to keep the level of the family

income above the poverty line? Is that your vision for families in this

province? Again, it is sadly lacking in the throne speech.

Let's

look at the impact of that 57 percent of all jobs that are full-time.

What we're seeing in this province, in addition to having more people

out in that workforce and more people working for less money, is an

increased number of people who are moonlighting, an increased number of

people who have to hold down two and three jobs because the income they

are earning is too low to sustain the quality of life that they desire

for their families.

That begs the question: "Is that what

you want for families in this province?" When you have half a million

Canadians, up 65 percent since 1980, moonlighting just to make ends

meet, is that your vision for British Columbia? I tell you that it is

not my vision, nor is it the vision of the New Democrats. We want

decent jobs at decent pay and support for families to be able to

provide for their children. You are not providing that leadership.

know who the poor are in British Columbia. They are the people on

income assistance that disproportionately can be guaranteed their

poverty for no other reason than that they belong to a specific group:

the disabled, natives, women and older men. We know that the majority

of poor — two-thirds — are actually in the employed workforce. Why?

Because of lack of leadership from the provincial government and a

low-wage strategy that does not deal with the real needs of families in

this province.

[3:45]

We've heard a lot about equity, and this throne speech talks about

choices and change. I want to talk a little bit about some of that

equity as far as it

[ Page 8890 ]

pertains

to regions, because very clearly this government's record on equity and

the distribution of the wealth of this province is sadly lacking. More

people are having to do with less.

But for the regions....

We're seeing this incredible growth in the lower mainland, and the

stresses and strains that are brought about by unplanned, unmanaged

growth and by the abandonment of these communities. We're seeing

communities outside of the lower mainland that are not able to sustain

the employment in their own communities.

I want to refer,

as I have in every throne speech I have done, to the impact of that

growth in my own municipality. I'm really sorry that the Minister of

Education left, because he talked about his financing initiative. And

he talked in pretty broad terms about what that will mean to the

province. What that means to constituencies like mine — and to the

constituency of the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, who also

has left the House — is that we will forever be in a situation of

catch-up. We will forever be the poor cousins in this province.

municipalities like Surrey and Langley, in the suburbs like Coquitlam

and north and south Fraser, where most of the growth is taking place,

municipalities have suffered under the policies of previous Socred

governments and continue to do so under this government. The Surrey

per-pupil expenditure is grossly underfunded compared to the

provincial average, and when you compare it to other school districts

in the area — Burnaby for instance — Surrey has $4,500 per student

where Burnaby has $5,000. It seems like a small amount when you talk

about a $500 difference, but the reality when you compound that by the

number of students we have in our municipality is huge dollars. And

that inequity will continue.

Again, I point out that the

throne speech's references to equity are nothing more than platitudes.

We have the young communities in the province, where the young children

are growing up handicapped, having their hands tied and having to go to

referendum. This is creating more inequities and discrepancies in the

education system. If that is not shortsighted, I don't know what is.

There is no way we're going to be able to deal with the inequities in

the labour market without being foresighted enough to deal with those

young people, give them a chance at life and give them the support they

need with a proper education system.

I am appalled when I

go into our school system. This minister talks about being proud of the

education system in this province. When I go into the schools in my

constituency and realize that students are having to share textbooks

and are unable to do their homework because there aren't enough

textbooks to take them home, I am absolutely appalled. I don't know how

this minister can say that he is proud of that reality. When I was at

school, that was a given. You had textbooks.

The kind of

funding formula that this minister has in place and brags about takes

absolutely no recognition of salary increments for young communities

like ours. It has no recognition for the cost of planning, for the

managing of large capital programs. It has absolutely no recognition

for the costs of moving and setting up portables. I would love any

member in this House to come out to some of the schools in Surrey. They

look like concentration camps. There are rows upon rows of portables,

where kids are housed in temporary classrooms. It sounds like a small

thing, especially for some of the members who grew up many years ago in

those one-room schoolhouses, but they've got to realize what it means

when you're talking about those portables. It means that there are no

facilities to accommodate those kids, no libraries, no gymnasiums, no

washroom facilities. It also means that those portables are taking up

room on the playgrounds. This is not a healthy situation, and it has to

be remedied. Under this minister's new funding formula we don't have a

chance of remedying that situation. It can only get worse. The

discrepancies and inequities will continue to be exacerbated.

The

funding formula does not recognize the cost of maintaining and heating

new portables. The funding formula is insufficient recognition for the

increased maintenance costs due to portables and overcrowding — no

recognition of the enrolment growth over the years which affects

growing municipalities but not stable or declining districts.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I would welcome the minister to come out and see the schools in my

constituency. I would welcome you to sit down and look at the real

numbers, because these numbers are right; these numbers are

substantiated.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

If that's the best the minister can do in defence of his government and

in defence of his government's record and the reality that families and

children face in this province, then indeed I am sorry. I welcome the

change that this throne speech talks about, and I challenge this

government to put it in place.... Drop that writ, and give us an

opportunity for some real change in this province.

The

minister is back. I'm glad to see the member for Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) re-entering the House, because I want to

talk about another thing that is of real importance to the municipality

that we share: the hospital situation. I know all of the members have

heard this before. I was surprised and quite appalled to attend a

meeting with the hon. member and the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon.

Mrs. Johnston) and have them act surprised and amazed at the

information that was being put forward, because it's not new.

The

situation with the hospitals and the schools in our municipality is

absolutely criminal. The neglect that we have seen through poor

planning and lack of attention is appalling. I am constantly asked in

municipalities like Surrey and White Rock: if we had two such

high-profile cabinet ministers, then how

[ Page 8891 ]

could

it possibly be so bad? Well, I shrug my shoulders, because I myself

can't understand how two members of the cabinet — at one time — could

sit around that cabinet table and not be advocates for their own

constituencies.

MR. REID : You'll see the results.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale says we'll see the results.

You've been in power for over three years, Mr. Member, and we have seen

nothing but platitudes. If you think you can buy your constituents at

the last minute, I suggest you're sorely mistaken.

The

Surrey Memorial Hospital situation is one that impacts not only our

community but also the whole region. We've received repeated reports of

Surrey Memorial's emergency ward going on diversion. That is when the

hospital is at 100 percent capacity and cannot take another person.

It's not surprising that the hospital should go on diversion, because

our emergency ward sees upwards of 200 visits a day with only 13 beds

to service those 200 people — another indication that the throne speech

and this government's record are sorely lacking, indeed quite pathetic.

When

this hospital goes on diversion and when those people — my family, my

next-door neighbour, the person down the street — end up going on

diversion and being sent to another hospital looking for someone to

take care of their emergency, all too often now we are finding that

other hospitals in the region are also on diversion because the area is

so saturated, so understaffed and so underserviced.

What's

this government's answer? After years of neglect, after years of

ignoring the situation, after years of ignoring the professionals and

the cries of the families that need the care in our community, they

take beds that are desperately needed in Vancouver and distribute them

throughout this area that is so understaffed. Not an innovative program

to deal with bringing those beds up to the average needed for the

province, but shuffling the deck of cards. More smoke and mirrors.

have a situation in Vancouver where they provide for many of the

specialized services for the whole province for families that cannot

get services in their own communities — and what are they doing but

jeopardizing their chances for good health care? They're distributing

them throughout the Fraser Valley with no promise of increased

attention for planning. We see the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital

District repeatedly saying publicly that the only way they can plan for

hospitals is in an ad hoc manner, because the province refuses to give

them the mandate to do proper planning and deal with the real health

care needs of British Columbians.

I think the Socred

government and the Ministry of Health through the minister are more

interested in helping their friends and their developer interests than

in actually planning and providing good health care for the people of

our constituency. I think the record bears that out.

think the government's record stands for itself. The fact that the

minister can't stand the facts.... I keep calling the member for

Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale the minister. God, old habits die fast.

The fact that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale is so

offended by the truth just shows how sensitive he is to the fact that

our constituency, Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, has suffered under this

government and during the time he has been elected to represent them.

[4:00]

I think the record stands for itself. I am disappointed by the

throne speech. I think this was an opportunity — as in every year that

this government has brought a throne speech to the House — to show some

real, concrete vision, some real plans for the future. Yet again and

again, as we stand in our place, we look at the reality, we look at the

facts, and the facts bear out that this government has not represented

this province well. The only thing this government has been able to do

is fight among themselves and look after the interests of their friends

and insiders. It's a sad commentary on the history of this government.

I, too, look forward to choices, change and the challenge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Hon. members, the previous speaker, the Minister of Education, at the

end of his speech asked that a report be tabled, which was accepted,

but he neglected to ask that leave be granted. Leave is required for a

report, in the form of a letter tabled in the House. In order for the

records to be kept scrupulously clean, I would ask: shall leave be

granted for the Minister of Education to table his letter dated April

9, 1990?

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG : It

is with a great sense of pride and enthusiasm that I rise to speak in

support of the Speech from the Throne delivered in this House last

Thursday. I view this speech as an extremely carefully drafted

document. It is not a speech with idle words, nor is it loaded with

promises which no one could expect any government to deliver on. On the

contrary, this year's throne speech is a document which speaks of

economic reality, of sustainable social, education and health programs,

of improved, simplified justice and improved native programs, as well

as of a continuing dialogue with industry, tourism, agriculture and

fisheries in response to local markets and market conditions. In short,

the contents of the Speech from the Throne are a diamond that sparkles

on every side.

On the other hand, I was really taken aback

last Friday morning — as I'm sure all members on this side of the House

were — by the few comments that the Leader of the Opposition made on

the speech just prior to adjournment, especially after the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) had just delivered one of the finest

responses ever made to a throne speech.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition inferred that the member spoke only of the past 30 years. Let me

[ Page 8892 ]

tell

you, Mr. Speaker, as well as the Leader of the Opposition: British

Columbians are proud of their past, except for the three years of 1972

to 1975. British Columbians have enjoyed enormous prosperity guided by

a Social Credit government for many years, and the people of this

province would have it no other way.

The people of this

province want action, not just words and hollow promises. There's a

familiar phrase: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it

drink. I'm not inferring that I would compare people with horses, but I

think the following comments will bear out why I used that saying.

Over

the past year I have had a great number of letters and phone calls from

people in NDP ridings, each with particular problems or concerns or

lack of knowledge about programs and the process of getting information

on these programs. Speaking to these people, I continually found that

they could not get the help from their MLA. So, Mr. Speaker, I am

beginning to understand the workings of the socialists a little better

each year, and that really boils down to all talk and no action.

Interjections.

MR. DE JONG :

While the socialists opposite are perhaps very much at liberty to say

what they want while they are in opposition, such democracy and freedom

of speech will have no place within the party should they ever gain the

power to govern, which I am sure they won't. The socialist policies are

developed within the party only, and those in government would be bound

to them. We've seen this in other provinces.

The primary

reason that the Speech from the Throne is such a jewel is that it

reflects the needs, ambitions and desires of all British Columbians,

not just those of a few hundred at a party convention. Good Social

Credit government such as British Columbians have enjoyed over the past

three years depends on open government, where accountability is

achieved through communication and consultation.

This

government has initiated more task forces, more advisory councils and

royal commissions than any other government prior to its mandate, and

many of these have provided a lot of information and assistance to this

government which has led to the type of throne speech delivered: a

careful, considered document. At the same time, the contents reflect

the needs of every British Columbian in a most sensitive way in terms

of services to the less fortunate. It also speaks of how fragile a

strong economy can be should the government fall to provide a climate

for it to flourish in times of high interest rates coupled with a very

competitive market.

Again, I must remind the socialists on

the other side that unless we continue to have a steady and growing

economy, which takes a lot of effort on the part of government....

We've seen a recent experience in Kimberley where the government took

immediate action. It's that kind of action that our government can

continue to provide to improve for the social, education and health

care programs so the people of this province are not only in need of

but deserve.

As a member of this Legislature, and as a

citizen of this great province, I am extremely concerned when I hear

members opposite — more specifically the leader of the socialists —

speak about all of the things they would provide if they were in

government. Costing out some of these statements that have been made

over the last few years, particularly the last two years, they would

have had to extract in excess of $3 billion from the pockets of the

people of this province in order to provide a balanced budget. In the

same period of time the Leader of the Opposition has talked about a

sustainable economy. How can any leader expect the people of this

province to provide another $3 billion and make the people believe that

such spending is sustainable when in many parts of this country, as

well as other countries, governments are fighting hard to stay afloat

financially and at the same time provide for their social needs?

Over

the past few years the members of the opposition have criticized this

government, saying that the Social Credit government is only interested

in big business and that the programs put in place were designed to

make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Two years ago I

made reference in one of my speeches, when introducing the topic of the

family program, that the Premier of this province is a hard-nosed

politician in terms of the business aspects of government. I also

stated that he was a man of great compassion for the people who had

been hurt by the storms of life. Well, Mr. Speaker, the information

circulated by the various ministries involved in the provision of this

specific program and other social programs is far beyond the

expectation of anyone here in this room, I am sure. If the members of

the opposition would have kept up with all of the good news stories

that have arisen from that program — and other social programs, but

particularly that program.... I believe it only proper for each of

those members who have scoffed at the program to apologize for having

been so negative at its introduction, because the results have been far

beyond expectation.

I would just like to comment a little

about an experience I had this past Saturday. We had a sod-turning

ceremony in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area for a new building of the

Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services. The manager and staff of

Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services were delighted when the

Strengthening the Family program was introduced. Yes, they knew it

meant more work. They knew it would take more volunteers, more staff

and probably the need for a new building, because their building was

rather cramped. They undertook to study the provision for a new

building. They were informed by the government, just a couple of months

ago, that the government, through its Lotto funding, would provide

one-third of the cost, but that left $1.2 million to be raised from the

local community. This was only two months ago.

[ Page 8893 ]

With

the fund-raising hardly begun, they have already raised $500,000 worth

of pledges. In fact, one small company in our town donated $75,000

towards this worthwhile cause. The sod-turning event was attended by

200 or more people. Yes, members on the opposite side, this community

is a Social Credit stronghold. Farmers, business people, store clerks,

roofers, bricklayers, mothers, fathers and children were all there at

the sod-turning. It was a total community effort having the compassion

for those who need a helping hand — the real Social Credit spirit. They

do not just talk about it; they act as individuals and as a community

collectively.

Yes, members of the socialist club, what

counts is where the people can be identified together with government

support. Wonders can and still do happen even in a Social Credit

community. Such are the results of the carefully prepared programs

aimed to help those in need. Unless the members opposite become

supporters and enthusiastic about the many initiatives already in

place, as well as those contained in the Speech from the Throne, they

or the communities they represent will never experience the results of

programs nor the enthusiasm of those assisted through them.

This

year's Speech from the Throne not only reflects the fragility of our

economy, but clearly demonstrates that, as a government, we want to

continue one of the most essential ingredients for good government,

which is ongoing communication with industry, business and labour.

Simply, in order to be successful with either of these three, as a

government we must take all three into account Anyone in business or

labour will tell you exactly the same: that by such a tri-level

approach of government, business and labour in the exploitation of

B.C.'s resources, British Columbia has been — and will continue to be —

a success story.

[4:15]

It's a matter of protection of British Columbia's unique and

precious quality of life and environment. When we talk about the

quality of life, we're not just talking about the preservation of some

open space. The financial ability of the individual to pay is just as

important.

This government has been very successful,

through the establishment of the youth corps, in utilizing the energy

and enthusiasm of our young people to gain a better understanding and a

greater knowledge of the preservation of our heritage, and particularly

that which remains connected with nature and all the things that go

along with it. That understanding gained by these young people will

undoubtedly not only benefit the ministry and its future workings, but

will also achieve a cleaner environment for all British Columbians.

know — and I'm sure most of us on this side of the House know — that

many of the members opposite have been very critical of the regional

concept and the activities of the Ministry of Regional and Economic

Development. Having served for almost two years as parliamentary

secretary for this ministry, I must again emphasize the importance of

getting involved in an attempt to make things work. I can only speak

for region 2, because that's where the majority of my activities have

taken place. I must say that the concept does work, and it works very

well.

It's really a pleasure to see the enthusiasm of the

local economic development offices of various municipalities and

representatives of a great number of companies which needed a start-up

loan that are now flourishing enterprises employing more people. Some

have increased by as many as 50 people, depending on the demand of the

product.

The transportation plan undertaken through the

ministry has not only provided for participation of local people, but

more so, it has given local governments and people who have a keen

interest in the development of this province and their communities an

opportunity to participate in one of the most comprehensive plans for

transportation in this province. The recommendations and implementation

of this plan, geared to accommodate the transportation needs and

concepts of the twenty-first century, will be of lasting benefit to the

economic needs of this province, which is rich with resources and a

delight to the tourists who visit and enjoy it.

conclusion, as people of this province, younger and older ones, are the

most precious resource that we have, the contents of this Speech from

the Throne embrace the most intimate, sensitive needs of all British

Columbians in terms of developing the talents of our young people

through the most modern and up-to-date educational programs and

facilities for both elementary and high schools, as well as advanced

education, colleges and universities,

The Speech from the

Throne also ensures that justice, housing, women's programs and

natives' issues are considered through new and exciting programs.

spite of what the members opposite will say about the Speech from the

Throne, I am convinced, recognizing the many positive changes which

this government has initiated over the past three years and which have

captured the imagination and enthusiasm of all British Columbians, that

the same will hold true for the contents of this Speech from the

Throne, one that guarantees a secure, progressive and prosperous future

for all British Columbians.

MR. LOVICK : I want to

begin my remarks today by offering some congratulations to the new

Speaker. Certainly I congratulate him on his ascension to that high

office, and I have every confidence he will do good work. I am

reminded, when I think about the new Speaker, of a comment I made as a

rookie MLA about Speakers in general. I said at the time that the

Speaker clearly is someone who requires the finesse of a head waiter

and the tact of a marriage counsellor.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Given

what we witnessed in this session the other day, and given my suspicion

that we will be carrying on with that kind of raucous and passionate

debate, I would add a couple of other characteristics I think

[ Page 8894 ]

you

will require. I think you will require the shoulders of Hulk Hogan and

the skin of an armadillo. I suspect, however, that you have both those

attributes and therefore will have no difficulty.

For most

of us in this chamber, this is our fourth throne speech. I want to

start by offering this government congratulations. Mercifully, this is

the shortest throne speech of the four. Mercifully, moreover, this

throne speech restrains itself somewhat from the indulgence in purple

prose so characteristic of the three that came before. Happily, those

things aren't there any longer, and I congratulate the government for

that.

The problem, however, is: alas, where's the beef? If

you look at the document, you struggle somewhat to see much in the way

of initiative. When I looked at the document and listened carefully to

what was said, and when I read the document, I kept thinking to myself:

this is a throne speech with a difference. This is a throne speech that

seems to read more like an abdication-from-the-throne speech. This is

the kind of speech that comes to us from a tired government, a

government that seems to have lost its enthusiasm for governing. That's

the point about this speech; that's what makes it remarkable.

When

I listen to throne speeches, I usually make notes. I guess it comes

from an academic background, but I usually pay close attention. I don't

like to read things as they're coming to me; rather, I like to listen

and make notes, and then go and compare the two documents. My notes

tend to involve me in categorization. Predictably, I will use things

like legislative initiatives, the number of task forces named, the

commissions, etc., that have been established. I did that here again,

but I also made use of four new categories. These are as follows:

(1) fluff — hard word to pronounce, that, but it is the number one

category; (2) reannouncements — things we've heard before;

(3) overstatements; and (4) omissions.

I want to address those

four categories today, if I might. Let us deal first with fluff. Fluff

is a term that refers to statements that we can loosely call empty;

statements that on the superficial level appear to be telling us

something but, when subjected to close analysis, yield nada in terms of information content.

would refer specifically to five areas, major policy areas that cry out

for significant initiatives on the part of government but which in fact

become fluff: (1) regional economic development; (2) trade;

(3) forestry; (4) tourism; and (5) agriculture and fisheries. I would defy

any member on the other side to show me under those headings anything

of substance or significance that has been stated. Rather, I put it to

you, what we get is the merest mush and fluff.

Let me give

you a brief and specific illustration. I would refer members opposite —

and I'm pleased to see that there are a few here — to pages 8 and 9 of

the throne speech. One example is the agriculture and fisheries

section. Let us listen to this insightful, profound and significant

statement.

"Agriculture and fisheries create real wealth for the province.

They are sustainable activities, sensitive to environmental needs. Government

is promoting a stronger agricultural economy by fostering entrepreneurship

and targeting economic development activities. Programs to encourage quality

in all agricultural and fish products will be pursued. Policies respecting

land use, to continue a viable agricultural sector, will be strengthened."

Let's

look at that statement when we unpack it, to use a phrase. Let's look

at what's actually said in there. What we discover is very little

indeed. We're going to foster, target, pursue and apparently

strengthen, but the obvious question is: what do any of those things

mean? What are we being committed to? The answer, as I said a few

moments ago, Mr. Speaker, is nada; rien , if you prefer another language.

Let's

turn to the area of reannouncements. I count some seven reannouncements

in the throne speech, and they range all the way from SkyTrain reaching

to the sky, it seems, to Access for All programs for community colleges

— all of which we've heard before. Nothing new there, nothing new under

this particular sun, and the obvious question is: why? Is it the case

that government is so bereft of new ideas, so limited in its vision,

that what we have to do is rely, rather, on old stuff? It looks, sadly,

as if this government is showing serious signs of stasis and staleness,

and we ought to have better.

Turning to the matter of

overstatement, I recognize instantly, of course, that it's possible the

entire throne speech represents an overstatement. I can recognize that,

but I want to dwell on one particular example of the overstatement, if

I might: the reference to consultation. This government says on a

number of occasions in this throne speech that consultation is the

hallmark of its activities. This is what it wants to be identified for.

Let me just remind everybody that in March of last year we also had a

ringing declaration about consultation. We learned in last year's

throne speech that "...government has embarked on an unprecedented

process of consultation with the citizens of this province on many

strategic issues." That, I recognize, is a restatement and an

overstatement, a reannouncement and an overstatement, but it's a

glaring example of the overstated.

Tell the people of my

constituency about this government's commitment to consultation. Tell

the 5,000 people who stood outside city hall in Nanaimo protesting the

establishment and building of a ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo about

government's process of consultation. The people had literally to take

to the streets to stop that particular measure from being forced down

their collective throats. Tell them about consultation.

Tell

the people of Nanaimo about the consultative process when we look at

the so-called inner route for highways, when we discover, despite all

the claims that nothing is written in stone, despite all the vaunted

statements that we will indeed have complete consultation and

discussion, that the route is fixed. Tell the people of my constituency

then about consultation.

Tell the people of my constituency about consultation when you describe to them the upgrading of

[ Page 8895 ]

Nicol

Street. We all believe in the project; we know it needs to be done. We

believed, however, that our input would be solicited, listened to and

taken into consideration. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, once again we discover

that the consultative process is essentially a sham. It doesn't really

make much difference in the decision-making process. It is, rather,

another hurdle that needs to be jumped.

[4:30]

Tell the people of the Saanich Peninsula about the consultation

process. We've had the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon.

Mrs. Johnston) announce that, yes, indeed, we've listened to the people

and therefore we've come up with a five-point plan for the Pat Bay

Highway. The people of the Saanich Peninsula, however, are saying: "We

have not yet been heard. We haven't had our opportunity and we're

offended by that." The point I'm making is that the vaunted claims

about consultation tend to be slightly hypocritical. They aren't

exactly defensible when one checks the record.

Let me give

you another specific example of a matter of overstatement in this

throne speech. I refer you to the plan stated on page 8 to renew and

bolster the ferry system, what is called a long-term plan to renew and

bolster the ferry system. If that's a long-term plan, it was put

together last week. There isn't a plan. There is no evidence of any

kind of long-term plan. Rather, what we are seeing now is panic on the

part of the corporation dealing with the crisis of its fleet, and

that's why we've had to go offshore to buy a couple of ferries. To

talk, then, about a plan that's going to encourage and foster the

shipbuilding industry in this province is, again, the height of

hypocrisy.

If, in fact, the government wants to be serious

about its three C's, I would suggest that it add another one to

"challenge, change and choice." The other one it ought to add is

chutzpah, a good Yiddish word for gall. These folks have gall in

unprecedented, almost unmeasurable amounts, to make the claims that

they do in this document. It's evident, surely, that chutzpah probably

should be number one in their list of C's.

I want to turn

now to the area of omissions from the throne speech. First the obvious

ones. The obvious omission, of course, has to do with economic

development in terms of any kind of macroeconomic strategy, anything

beyond the usual ritualistic references to fostering entrepreneurship

and letting the private sector do its thing. The reality in this

province is that we have two economies: a lower mainland economy and a

bunch of other economies. I see nothing in this throne speech, or

indeed in the activities of government in the last year, that addresses

that reality.

Second, I see nothing here that deals with

the reality of the low-wage economy that is developing in this province

and with the attendant problem of a shrinking — nay, disappearing —

middle class. That's the kind of reality we have to grapple with as a

government in this province, and Lord help us if we don't do so soon.

the area of housing, another omission, it seems to me, is that we have

only the smallest reference to the Residential Tenancy Act and some

amendments to be made to it. The signs aren't encouraging that the

legislation will be modified in any way that will solve the problem. We

know that, surely, because of what we heard the minister responsible

for housing saying the other day.

You remember, first, that

he talked about the danger of rent controls. More significantly, what

he talked about was the reason we don't have sufficient supply. The

reason he suggested for not having sufficient supply, why landlords in

fact were jacking up rents, had nothing to do with an unregulated and

open market. It had everything to do, rather, with the perception that

somebody might come in and impose rent controls. The only person I've

ever seen with the temerity to say anything as ludicrous and fatuous

and facile as that is Walter Block from the Fraser Institute. It's

scandalous that a minister responsible for housing would use the same

kind of argument.

We on this side know full well what the

arguments are about rent reviews, rent controls and so forth. We

recognize that problem; we know the problem. But don't for a moment

suggest that we are being well served by the operation of the market.

We have not had rent controls or rent review in this province for 15

years. We have a crisis in supply. The answer to that from the

government to that is — guess what? The reason we have a crisis in

supply is — who knows? — maybe you guys will be back in government, and

you'll impose rent controls. That has got to be the most classically

stupid argument I have heard expressed in this House. But they use it,

and they love it.

Let me tell you something more about the

problem with rent controls. When we listen to members opposite talking

about their fear of rent reviews and rent controls or any intervention

or interference with the marketplace, what we get is the notion that

somehow if we tamper with it, we will have a problem with supply. The

point, however, is that we already have a crisis in supply.

would remind everybody of a conversation I had not very long ago with a

group of people in Nanaimo concerned about the problem with rent and

the fact that they couldn't afford to live in their homes or

apartments. When I went to talk with them, I coincidentally had been

listening to the radio as I drove in, and I heard the National

Citizens' Coalition, that bosom friend of members opposite — like the

Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who's going to get his chance

next. Their slogan, you recall, is that great model of Jeffersonian

eighteenth-century wisdom: more freedom through less government. What

you have to say when you listen to that slogan is: tell that to all the

folks who aren't benefiting from the society, because government and

freedom can be used as mere shibboleths, as symbols, to hide behind.

What we're talking about is freedom granted by the activities of

government as well as freedom from the excesses of government. Let us

never forget that both of those meanings ought to be taken into account.

[ Page 8896 ]

When

I talked to the folks In Nanaimo, the timing was exquisite, because

there on the front page of my local newspaper was the story of the

single-parent mother with two kids who couldn't afford both to feed her

family and to pay rent. Tell her about more freedom through less

government. Tell her we're sorry we can't do anything about your rent

going up 50 percent because it might have an impact on the supply in

the long term.

To hide behind the notion of the long term

and the longer-term impacts on the market is inexcusable; it's wrong.

That's why in Nanaimo we have something called the Affordable Housing

Committee — a committee, you'll be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that

is comprised of both tenants and landlords, people who recognize that

the market, left to its own devices, won't sort out the problems, that

we need to do something about it. We need to do something about it; we

need to intervene in that marketplace.

Those folks have

been writing letters to the minister and to the Premier, asking for

some pretty simple answers. I'll just quote from a letter — the most

recent one, dated January 16 — to the hon. Minister of Social Services

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck): "In conclusion, we ask specifically what

the government intends to do in the area of affordable housing in the

immediate future." Two and a half months later we haven't heard

anything, and the obvious question is: why? I suspect the obvious

answer is that they don't know, because they are ideologically

committed to doing nothing.

I want to touch on another area

of omission in this budget. Not the budget; pardon me, the throne

speech. We'll see it in the budget too, I know full well. Under the

heading "Health Care," for years we have been talking about

waiting-lists in Nanaimo. Indeed, members opposite — and I see the

former Minister of Health is here; he knows the song very well — we've

been talking about people who simply can't get the kind of service that

we all assume ought to be provided as a matter of right. What is the

government's response, after three and a half years, to the crisis In

health care? A royal commission. Isn't that exciting? Isn't that

inspiring? Doesn't it make you feel good? You know what it is, Mr.

Speaker? It's shades of Mackenzie King.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

You remember Mackenzie King. I'm going to give you a little

entertainment, folks on the other side. He used to be Prime Minister of

Canada. He was first elected in 1921 in the constituency of York North,

and his campaign slogan and song went as follows: "Hark the herald

angels sing, William Lyon Mackenzie King...." Mackenzie King, you will

recall, was the guy who on the one hand didn't know what his other hand

was doing. Mackenzie King was the guy, you will recall, who thought

that the solution to problems was to pile a parliamentary commission on

top of a royal commission. That's what our new Minister of Health (Hon.

J. Jansen) is apparently accepting as his model for conduct in these

difficult areas: delay, stall, postpone, don't deal with the problem in

Nanaimo and don't deal with the problem of some 2,000 people on a

waiting-list.

I could quote at considerable length from the

brief that came from the board of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital

to the minister. Suffice it to say here that what they point to is

absolutely scandalous. Let me give you just a couple of examples of

what this group of citizens — not enemies of this government, I would

point out — had to say to the ministry.

They make the point that "during the week of January 15, 1990, of 35

patients booked for elective surgery, 29 were cancelled abruptly." They

go on to say that "massive delays have become chronic." They go on to

say that "if NRGH continues to be underfunded, it must begin closing

down programs and services in the immediate future." They go on to say

that "to achieve equity with its peers — that is, other hospitals of

comparable size...." Note "equity," by the way. It's a concept with

which the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) isn't familiar, but

note it anyway. "To achieve equity NRGH would require an increase in

its annual operating budget of $6.3 million, or 15.3 percent,

immediately."

We're

talking about equity. We're talking about making sure a facility in one

community gets the same kind of assistance and support that hospitals

in other communities of comparable size get.

To me, it's

scandalous, it's shameful, that a board can make that statement and the

government isn't immediately standing up, screaming and saying that's

wrong. I am offended bitterly by that, Mr. Speaker. I think we should

all be offended bitterly by it.

I want also to just make

passing mention, because I see time is indeed flying, of another health

care crisis in my community, one that is certainly well known by now;

namely, the whole matter of Pharmacare and the program's failure to

provide certain services to diabetics. All members here ought to be

well and truly familiar with it; I would hope they are. Suffice it to

say that our current policy of not providing that assistance under

Pharmacare is probably costing us significantly more money than would

an effort to actually change Pharmacare so that we did provide that

kind of funding. That's the shortsightedness; that's the foolishness.

colleague from Nanaimo and I have brought down some 2,000 letters to

the Minister of Health. Our response, sadly, from the ministry has

been, to put it charitably, confusing. We've had contradictory evidence

given to us; we have had answers that tell us, "Yes, the program is

under review," and then answers that say: "No, it isn't under review."

What we need are some clear answers rather than the platitudinous and

pious utterances of this particular throne speech.

I'm

going to save my comments on my critic roles, under the heading

"Omissions from this throne speech," for another time because I don't

have enough today.

Instead, let me draw attention to the whole matter of social services. The government loves to point to

[ Page 8897 ]

its

economic record and suggest that we have turned the corner, that the

economy is buoyant, that things are moving, that prosperity has

arrived, even if it is — to use the newest coinage — a fragile

prosperity. Based on an estimate of the public health officer in

Nanaimo, we still have the predicament in my community — and I suspect

we are not alone — of some 3,000 children who are literally living in

poverty and therefore have need of what we're calling a hot-lunch

program. That, too, in this day and age is scandalous. We ought to be

addressing that. Sadly we say nothing of the kind in this throne speech.

[4:45]

I have already suggested the throne speech ought to be regarded as

an admission of failure. It does indeed sound like it comes from a

government that has lost its edge and lost its will. The only

references to vision happen to be to the year 2001. This makes

perfectly good sense, because nobody is paying attention to 1990.

The

notion of the three C's — change, challenge, choice — ought to be

replaced by the three T's. Sadly, what we're looking at in this throne

speech is tired, trite and turbid. Turbid, in case anybody doesn't

know, means dull, cloudy, not aware of a direction you're going.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK :

Interestingly enough, those who respond to that touch of education on

my part are the ones least likely to know the meaning of the word.

I will rest my case on that note, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the attention of the chamber.

HON. MR. FRASER : Do I welcome the opportunity to support the throne speech? The answer, of course, is yes.

Let

me begin, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating you on your elevation to

Speaker. We know you didn't want the job, because it is very hazardous.

History says you lose your head very often, and I wish you a better

fate than that.

I would also welcome to the House the new

members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) and Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt).

I am sure they will enjoy their stay here, even though it might be

short.

I would also like to mention, with some regret, the

passing of Mr. Chabot and Mr. Fraser, who both served the province and

the chamber well, and who will be remembered by all of us for their

commitment to the people of British Columbia, the parliamentary

traditions of Canada and this province. I make special mention of them

for the reason that I have great respect for them, as I am sure

everybody has.

With respect to the speech I heard from the

Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, I must say I was not

surprised, but I was disappointed. I would simply say to all my friends

here and the members opposite, if that's a blueprint nothing will ever

get built by the opposition. There was absolutely nothing in there.

What I did see was a kind of reflection of the remark we heard from the

member for Victoria, who said to my colleague the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston): "Have you made the

coffee yet, Rita?" That's a little putdown we're going to try to forget

about.

In question period today, the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey was waved down by the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). How can they talk about women's issues when they

just put them down with a wave of the hand. It was truly an incredible

performance. I saw the sparkle in your eye, which looked more like

daggers, Madam Membe