1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1991

Morning Sitting

[ Page

12095 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Miller –– 12095

Mr. Smith –– 12098

Mr. Blencoe –– 12102

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12105

Tabling Documents –– 12108

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1991

The House met 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to

recognize and to ask the House to issue a warm welcome to John and Mary

Vertin, who are former residents of Surrey now living further up in the

Fraser Valley. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. DUECK: Since these lovely people now live in Central

Fraser Valley, I think it's only proper that I also wish them welcome

on behalf of my colleague the second member and myself. There are only

two kinds of people in British Columbia — those who live in the central

Fraser Valley and those who would like to live in the central Fraser

Valley. Since they have found paradise, I welcome them, and I hope this

House welcomes them as well.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. MILLER: At the outset, as other members have done, I

would like to pay tribute to two former members of this House: Mr.

Davis on the Socred side and Mr. Williams on our side. I think that

there was some similarity — although they were dissimilar personally —

in their views of the responsibilities of public life. I think that

they both had a deep appreciation of the importance of establishing

public policy, and that our role as legislators is to establish public

policy to protect public interest. Although we disagreed with many of

the ideas that Mr. Davis had, I think that was foremost in his mind

when he.... I think that's what he brought to public life, perhaps as a

result of that old postwar Liberal tradition. I think that is all too

often forgotten in the politics of the moment, if you like, and it's

worth reflecting that we do have a broader responsibility beyond our

narrow political interests. I think both of those members — Mr.

Williams and Mr. Davis — brought that to public life, and I think

that's worth acknowledging and paying tribute to.

We are responding to the throne speech, and as others have said, I

have to say there is precious little to respond to. In fact, we find

ourselves at this juncture in the life of this government — some four

and a half years into their mandate — with a government which has tried

a number of times to gather the courage to go to the electorate and has

had a number of false starts. We find ourselves doing a reprise of the

performance of this government over the last four and a half years. The

throne speech has been characterized by many as a vague rehash of old

promises, with no vision and no direction for British Columbia. It is a

government that is focused on its own problems.

As I said three or four weeks ago to a rally of IWA workers

concerned about losing jobs in the Alberni Valley, we essentially

haven't had a government in this province for some time. We've had one

that first of all spent considerable time prior to the change in

leadership defending the former Premier. Since that change in

leadership, it has been attacking the former Premier. The government

has been focused inwards and has no vision for this province.

I took the time to read the first throne speech a couple of nights

ago, and as I recall, it promised a fresh start. This new government,

with many new members, was embarking on a fresh start in British

Columbia. That throne speech was filled with promises about directions

they were going to take and things they were going to do. We quickly

discovered that every succeeding throne speech promised something new.

They made all these promises: "We're going to do this...." Lo and

behold, six months later, that was in the trash barrel: "Let's discard

that idea; that one didn't seem to work. Let's have a new fresh start."

We have witnessed an unparalleled four and a half years, with the

most unstable government this province has ever seen. The Premier is

talking about it being the most productive government. As I watched her

on the news last night, she seemed to be having second thoughts about

whether she might want to lead her party. She seemed somewhat hesitant

and overwhelmed by the weight of office, by the problems that have

beset her party and her government. But the solution may be at hand,

because when I turned on CBC news this morning, lo and behold, the lead

item was an offer from the former Premier to perhaps run again — to

relieve her of that responsibility. If she's having second thoughts,

she might want to talk to the former Premier. Maybe they could strike a

deal.

An unparalleled four and a half years of the most unstable

government this province has ever seen, and it goes to the heart of our

parliamentary and democratic systems. Stability of government is one of

the cornerstones of our democratic tradition. What have we witnessed?

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: The few remaining members of the Socred back

bench are heckling me, and I want to advise them that I have a few

words of advice for them; but it's on page 2, so if they will just be

patient I will get to them.

How many cabinet ministers have resigned, left, been pushed out, tripped out

or fallen out? It's an unlucky number: number 13 — 13 cabinet ministers.

I have to be fair. A few of them left on a matter of principle. Most of them

left because principle didn't matter.

What has been the cost of these reorganizations of government? Mr.

Speaker, 13 cabinet ministers have resigned or been pushed out. How

many deputy-minister changes? How many reorganizations of government?

What has been the cost of brass plaques for cabinet ministers' doors?

What has been the cost of changing stationery because they have changed

the

[ Page 12096 ]

names of the ministries as well. Not content with

simply replacing one minister with another, they have to go through the

entire thing and change the name of almost every ministry. They have to

change the deputy ministers half a dozen times. They have to change the

hacks and the flacks and the hangers-on. And every time they do it,

they have to print new stationery and new business cards, right through

the entire ministry. The civil servants are having a difficult time

keeping up with which ministry they work for. There has been so much

work reprinting, changing offices and moving furniture that this

government hasn't had time to attend to the business of the people of

this province.

[10:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, think of the cost in dollars of this unstable, irrational, disorganized

government, as they trip themselves around the halls of this Legislature saying:

"I'll have that office. No, that's my office. We'll change

that." It boggles the mind.

There's hope yet; there's time left. I suppose that if this

government — which I think realizes it's going down the tube — hangs on

to the very end, we still have a few months left. As I understand it,

there are still a few members of the Socred back bench who have not yet

made it into cabinet. Believe it or not, there may be six members of

the Socred back bench who haven't been cabinet minister for a day, a

week or a month.

I remember when I was a boy I used to go to my grandmother's house,

and she liked to watch a TV program called "Queen for a Day." It was

quite a degrading program to women. The premise of it was that they had

four or five women they somehow selected, and the one who told the

hardest-luck story or who shed the biggest tears and talked about the

misery of her life was made queen for a day and was showered with gifts

and wealth. That's my advice to some of those backbenchers: in the

short time they have remaining, they sharpen up their act, look a

little more abject and try to make a case that they want to be a

cabinet minister for a day or a week or a month. That way, we will have

exhausted the entire supply of the Socred back bench.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Equal opportunity, yes. My colleague says, "Make them all honourable," and that might be difficult.

Mr. Speaker, it's a legacy of promise, promise, promise and break

the promise, break the promise and break the promise. Let's talk about

some of the impact of that instability on the people of this province

and on people in my region.

I recall the profound announcements from the former Premier on the reorganization

of government: "We're going to separate this province into eight regions;

we're going to listen to the people." Well, what happened? We all recall.

This government and its predecessor like to bring in those special warrants

They don't like to subject their spending to the scrutiny of this Legislature.

They'll do anything to do those deals in the back room, but they don't

like to bring those special warrants before this Legislature and have them debated

by the people's representatives. We recall the legacy in terms of that $8

million in special warrants.

At the same time — I think it was passed either after the

Legislature adjourned or a day before it convened — there was $8

million in special warrants for regional development. I believe that

bureaucracy is still out there. I think there are people floating

around out there who think that they work for the government and who

are drawing a paycheque. The only thing is, they're not sure what

they're doing. There are offices rented in all of those regions; there

are people on staff, on the payroll, who do nothing. There are millions

of dollars being wasted. People are sitting in those offices; they're

not doing anything and they don't know who they're reporting to.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Be specific.

MR. MILLER: I'll be specific: let's talk about my region.

There's a pretty sorry history there, because the member in the

adjoining constituency to mine — the member for Skeena, who used to be

the Minister of Forests — was made the minister responsible for region

6. That came to a sad and sorry end. That was about a six-month tenure;

I think he was the minister for six months in that regard. They fired

him because he managed to offend almost everybody in the region.

But they told people there that they were going to do certain

things. I discussed this with the Premier when she was the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Transportation and Highways, which she was

responsible for, is a sad legacy of false promises. You led people down

the garden path, Madam Premier. You said: "We will pay attention to

your concerns; we're going to form these regions. We're going to get

together; we're going to pay attention to your concerns. We'll prepare

a transportation plan, and what the people in that region say, we will

follow." That's what they said — another false promise that they made

to the people of this province.

What did they do? They didn't pay attention at all. They didn't take

any of the recommendations that the people put forward. They inserted

their own political priorities.

Here's one of the amazing things. This government likes to talk

about their fiscal record. Let's talk about a $400,000 study — almost

half a million dollars.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask those members to try to

listen, because they might learn something about spending the people's

money. This is $400,000 to study whether they should build a general

cargo terminal in Kitimat, 120 miles away from Prince Rupert, which has

a general cargo terminal that is at only 40 percent capacity. They

might as well have piled it up on Main Street and put a match to it.

[ Page

12097 ]

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: There were no cost-benefit studies done

whatsoever. But through the efforts of a lot of people in that region

who started to question it — including people in Kitimat, Terrace and

Stewart who know their region — they discovered that the net benefit of

that proposal, which would have cost the taxpayers of this province

probably around $50 million, would simply be to transfer about 50 jobs

from one community to another about 100 miles away. If that's the

Socred idea of fiscal management.... If they wanted to run on that

issue alone, they would lose in the election. What kind of public

policy says that it makes any sense at all to spend $50 million of the

public's money to move 50 jobs from one community to another? It's

absolutely insane. People, when they finally see these government plans

exposed, will shake their heads and say: "Call an election. Let us get

at it. We want to express our opinion about these foolish economic

proposals."

We move again into the area of forestry. These are extremely serious

issues. There have been a number of reports in the last little while —

going back a couple of years — that point to the abysmal failure of

this and previous Social Credit administrations when it comes to

forestry. They are absolutely damning indictments of Socred

mismanagement in the area of forestry. Look at the Forest Resources

Commission report — it took long enough to get it out.

As the Forests critic for a number of years now, I've pressed the

government on a couple of areas. The Minister of Forests and I talked

last year about the whole question of inventory, and I recall my

attempts to try and get the former Minister of Forests, the member for

Skeena, to deal realistically with the question of inventory. What do

we have out there? How much timber do we have? What is the resource

base? Compare that resource base to our manufacturing plants and try to

give people in those resource-dependent communities some idea of their

future. What does the future hold for them? The former minister

absolutely refused to acknowledge there was any difficulty at all with

inventory. We put forward private members' bills asking for that

inventory to be done so we could quantify what our resources are and do

some planning, and they refused to deal with it. In fact, the Minister

of Forests last year compared the ministry's inventory calculations to

a public opinion poll. He said: "We're right 19 times out of 20 with a

plus or minus of whatever the percentage is." They compared their

inventory of forest resources with a public opinion poll: "Don't worry,

we think we're okay." He also wrote a letter to the paper saying the

same thing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think it's out of your imagination.

MR. MILLER: It's not my imagination, Mr. Minister of Forests. Read the Sun of June 29, 1990.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: No, if the minister wants to debate that, he can question whether the Sun is correct. This is a letter signed by himself in the Sun .

If he's saying the letter is incorrect, fair enough. If he wants to

change his story, we've come to expect that from this government,

because they're constantly changing their story.

The Forest Resources Commission report on inventories says this in

one clear, definitive statement: "The commission believes that the

current state of inventory information is a disgrace." You don't see

the Minister of Forests ever admitting that. He says that everything is

fine. Let's just cover it up. Let's not deal with it.

Why have we come to this sorry state? Why are we in this position of

not knowing what our inventories are, of not being able to give some

reassurance to communities?

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm having to shout above this vicious heckling from the opposite side. They're like unruly....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has a good point.

The member has the floor; other members have had their opportunity to

stand and speak in this debate. However, the member seems to be doing

well with the heckling.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, please ask the

hon. member opposite to address you, Mr. Speaker, and not to speak and

become testy to this side of the House. He's creating that atmosphere

in this Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, on the first

member for Okanagan South's rather specious point of order, would the

member please continue.

MR. MILLER: They're like unruly schoolchildren: they know

they've done wrong, and they don't want to listen. They don't want to

listen to us, they don't want to listen to the people of British

Columbia, and that's going to be their undoing.

In the area of resource management, we've witnessed an unparalleled,

abysmal failure. This government and its predecessors have essentially

abandoned management of resources. Their belief is that they simply

allocate those resources to others. They don't bother to monitor those

other people; they don't bother to monitor the people they've allocated

the forest to. They don't have the staff to do it.

What have we come to now right in this province? There are two

economies in this province: the lower mainland economy and the resource

economy out there. Those people in those communities don't know what

their future is, and this government can't tell them. There's been no

attempt over the years to balance the available resource with the

manufacturing capacity. There was absolutely no attempt whatsoever;

this government has failed. In my view, they deliberately did not want

to manage those resources.

[ Page 12098 ]

That was confirmed in testimony from senior officials in the

ministry before the Forest Resources Commission last year. There has

never been an industrial strategy in forestry, if you can believe it.

There has never been an attempt to relate the available supply to the

capacity. As a result, some communities in the province are faced with

a 30 percent to 40 percent gap between available supply and

manufacturing capacity. People in those communities sense the future,

and they know that it can't continue.

But nobody is working on that kind of planning or going to those

communities and saying: "We've done the analysis that needs to be done,

and we think this area is capable of a given capacity." We have to look

at alternatives for workers who might be displaced, in terms of trying

to diversify the economy. That kind of resource planning has simply not

taken place in this province. Working people are going to bear the

brunt of that, as we witnessed a number of weeks ago, when 400 or 500

people from the Alberni Valley came down to the lawns of this

Legislature. They fear for their jobs and their future, and no one in

any ministry of this government can give them any assurance that

they're even looking at the problem.

[10:30]

This government has been inwardly focused. They have not been taking

care of the people's business. They have been so caught up in their sad

legacy of scandals and resignations that they're not taking care of the

people's business.

We have a vast potential in our raw resources. They have been the

cornerstone of our economy, yet we have not realized our potential. We

have allowed opportunities to escape us. That is very sad, because if

you look at some of the other statistics, what's the human cost of

that? What do people think when they look at the auditor- general's

report, which stated in 1989 that we don't have an adequate system of

collecting stumpage payments? He says in this report that we don't have

an adequate system of monitoring the licensees in terms of road

building, harvesting and most importantly, silviculture. The

auditor-general says that the ministry doesn't have enough staff to do

their job. In responding to the document, the ministry said exactly the

same thing: "We've suffered a 40 percent reduction in our staff. Don't

expect us to deal with these issues that the auditor-general has

identified, because we don't have the people to do it."

And worst of all, the Minister of Forests on television last night

confirms that they don't have the staff in the ministry to do the job.

Why don't they have the staff? Because in 1981 or 1982 or 1983 they cut

that staff severely, and secondly, this administration and its

ill-founded privatization program cut it even further.

So we've lost over 2,100 people in the ministry, which is unable to do

its job. We get this plaintive cry from the ministry people saying: "That's

true; we can't do our job. Don't ask us to do it." And this government

wants people to have confidence in them. They want to stand up and brag about

their fiscal record, and how they can manage the economy. It's absolutely

shocking, Mr. Speaker. And the human cost....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You ought to talk about Ontario.

MR. MILLER: There's a member who wants to raise Ontario. In a

sad attempt to divert attention from their own sorry record, this

government wants to talk about Ontario. That's all they want to talk

about. They don't want to talk about British Columbia, because they've

done such a lousy job.

One small item on Ontario. B.C.'s only broadcast journalism school

is facing the axe. Where will students have to go for that training?

They are going to have to go to Ontario. Students from British Columbia

will now have to go to Ontario to get training, and this government

seems proud of that.

What's the human cost in this unrealized potential? Why are 25

percent of the people on social assistance between the ages of 19 and

25 — our young people, who are the future of this province? Because the

opportunities aren't there for them. Those young people from small

communities around this province don't have opportunities in their own

communities. They're forced to leave their own communities. It's sad,

all right.

Mr. Speaker, this current cabinet has been party to all of the

scandals, no matter how they try to distance themselves. They knew all

along, and they did nothing. They had a choice and they didn't take it.

They could have dealt with the scandal. They could have dealt with the

former Premier. The current Premier was the champion of: "Let's not do

anything."

If you are honest with yourself, you know you can't take a house

with a rotten foundation, slap a new coat of paint on it and say: "Our

problem is solved." That's what this cabinet is trying to do now. This

cabinet couldn't deal with the former Premier. I suspect they didn't

want to deal with the former Premier. And now they're going to the

people and saying: "Trust us to run the province." It will not wash.

This is a lame-duck government. We have a very few months to go until

the end of their term. The people of British Columbia are looking

forward to the opportunity — finally — of passing judgment on this

sorry gang.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise this morning

and talk about a few issues — a potpourri of them, in fact — and to

maybe put some forward as well. I hope to be able to further discuss

them during the budget speech debate and the estimates coming

thereafter.

I've been in and around the Legislative Assembly listening to throne

speeches, participating in them and being an accessory to them before

and after the fact since 1967. Indeed, I'm impressed by the currents in

this throne speech that are asking for a change to the legislative role

performed by each individual MLA. It is timely and important. We must

never forget that we come here as MLAs. Whatever else happens is fine,

but the voters who send us here as their elected representatives send

us as their MLA. They do not elect us to any other job, and those who

forget that have historically paid a pretty heavy price. I hope the

issues that have been raised with respect to the role of the MLA

[ Page

12099 ]

will be listened to carefully, and furthered with regard to the auditor-general's report as well.

There are a number of things in the throne speech that touch on

matters and issues that are very important to the people of British

Columbia and to all of us in here. They should be looked at very

carefully.

In that regard I'm glad to see a reference in the throne speech to a

policy respecting roads to resources. It's a very important policy

signal for British Columbia. For instance, we have on the table at the

moment, because of the innovative uses of our resources with respect to

transportation links, fully three-quarters of a billion dollars of

capital investment from the private sector in the mining industry that

can and will and should go ahead if we wisely expend those moneys on

transportation links to resources. Of course, I refer to the Cirque

mine area in the Rocky Mountain Trench, to the Mount Milligan area and

to the road being put in to the Iskut, which will provide tremendous

growth and potential in that area that is much needed.

This policy should be developed using a very broad definition of

both roads and resources. As legislators develop it in this chamber,

this policy should include not only highways and development roads, but

railroads, transit roads and waterways. And resources should include

not only natural resources but the resources of people, particularly in

the more concentrated population areas. In this young and still

pioneering province, it seems to me we must find new ways to build our

transportation systems.

In the interior we need to grow, and build stronger economic and

population units. We need more people, and we have to have as a

fundamental policy choice those things that will attract more people to

certain areas of the province, so that we can have the economic base

that will allow them to cut across the vicissitudes of the swings and

valleys of a resource-based economy.

On the coast we have to unlock ourselves from the 1960s

transportation technology that typically permeates the way we move

people and goods up and down the coast and between the islands. In

urban British Columbia it seems to me that the land use problems that

people in this chamber are going to have to face, and which are now

upon us, demand solutions that will come only from applying innovative

transportation solutions to those land use problems.

I think the issue of roads to resources, though it doesn't get a lot

of attention because of the way it is put in the throne speech, is a

signal of things that we're going to have to deal with in this session,

and which MLAs are going to have to deal with in this chamber for a

good long time to come. I hope we allow an expansive use of those

concepts.

As well, the throne speech referred to the concept of access to information

and the promise that there will be legislation before this House that will

deal with that issue. I must say it's good to see that the trees which have

been planted over the last couple of years in that regard will now be bearing

some legislative fruit. While the notion of access is an old one, I think the

methodology which should be used is one that is rapidly changing and should

be the focus of that with which we grapple.

We have in British Columbia the potential to make access to

information really meaningful to all citizens and not just available in

a controlled way for various elite groups. I therefore suggest that if

we're dealing with that issue in this House, we follow the technical

models developed over the past few years in the land title system and

in the pilots that are now being used for our electronic courtrooms.

Our access process should start from an assumption that all information

is public property. All information held by government should be made

electronically retrievable, beginning with the present and

systematically moving back in time because of the cost of doing that.

Any restrictions on access should be justified by policy criteria that

are laid out in advance. In that way, any citizen will be able to

access the phenomenal volumes of information that are stored in

government, directly from government, through the use of modems from

their own home or place of business. Let us avoid establishing a system

that requires physical in-house examination of files and is therefore

useful to only a very few, typically at the margins of our society,

rather than to the majority of people.

[10:45]

Just as the notion of access is an old one which can benefit in

scope from new technology, so it is that the new technology which can

be used for that access requires strict adherence to rules ensuring

individual privacy. This issue of privacy, while perhaps not as

attractive to some groups in our society as to others, is in fact a far

bigger issue of much greater and growing magnitude than is the issue of

access. It will increase in importance as we begin to use more and more

of the technology that is available to us to provide that very access.

So while we congratulate ourselves about moving on the old idea of

access, let us also ensure that it is implemented to the benefit of the

many and is balanced by the growing need to protect individual privacy

in our society.

The throne speech also makes reference to the issue of native claims

that are upon us throughout the province and indeed have been for many

years. I'm pleased to see the throne speech signals that the very wise

and careful course developed by this government will continue. We have

witnessed an historic change over the past three years, and I think now

is the time to move more rapidly some distance forward in resolution of

many issues that are before us. Especially will it be important during

this time not to let buzzwords create divisions in our society with

respect to that issue. That is why the political promise to recognize

notions that are unexplainable and undefinable, such as aboriginal

title, is a process that is very unwise.

It is also why we should not be alarmed by the concept of having a

variety of self-government structures throughout the issue and

throughout the land. If anyone really wants to think about it, we now

have many varieties of self-government by the way we have constituted

our provinces, by the way we have chartered our cities, and by the way

we have chartered all our regional districts. As I listen to the issue

develop, I am very concerned that we make certain we keep a perspective

on where we have been and where it is

[ Page

12100 ]

possible for us to go, and most importantly, that we move there as quickly as we can.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Looking ahead to the budget discussions in relation to our throne

speech, I intend then to express some views about the role of

administrative tribunals in this province. I think we must visit some

assumptions about their utility, their methods, their personnel and

their relationship to other fundamental factors in our system for

resolving disputes. I say that because in this province, and indeed

across our land, the presumption of innocence, sadly, is becoming a

farce. If we are not giving and going to give respect to it through all

the estates and all the elements who are parties to our social

contract, then let's examine it. If we can't adhere to it, then as

legislators, perhaps the time is nigh to begin replacing it with

Western European models for inquiry in relationship to the resolution

of disputes.

That need exists at all levels of dispute resolution in this

province. While I personally very much support retaining the

presumption of innocence, it is becoming ever more obvious that many

public people and institutions in our society view it not as an anchor

of our democracy to be respected, but rather as a challenge to be

overcome.

Our forest sector was given a good deal of prominence in our throne

speech, as it should. I want to briefly speak to the issue because in

our constituency forestry is a major factor. We have greatly benefited

from our forests and those who harvest them. Our people in the Kamloops

constituency do not embrace the no-growth mentality that seems to be

issuing forth in other areas. But we are concerned about access to the

resource, about better utilization of the fibre and about the dynamics

between open log markets and area-based tenures.

As I listen to talk about a comprehensive, wide-open provincial log

market, frankly I cringe. I was raised in the North Thompson valley,

where our very ability to survive as communities is rooted in having

the certainty of an area-based wood supply for our area-based

conversion facilities. I listen to people advocate one provincial log

market, while at the same time they claim to support keeping the wood

at home. The question is: how are they going to reconcile those

concepts? The answer very simply is that they can't. Therefore, in my

view, they should cease this New DemoSpeak that we hear around the

land, promising systems of harvest which are fundamentally

incompatible. Our small towns will rue the day if they succumb to the

NDP promise to overturn the idea of area-based tenures tied to local

conversion plants. That is the model in Washington and Oregon, and like

the spotted owl issue, let's keep it in Washington and Oregon.

I want to speak briefly on the issue of diversification, which was touched

on in the throne speech, because it has very important implications for our

communities, particularly in the interior. In places like Clearwater we need

diversification. We've made big strides over the last four years with respect

to diversification in the area of tourism. But we need more. We need it in the

area of wood products, where the capital necessary to get a start often isn't

available from traditional lenders. That fact, all over rural British Columbia,

speaks to a role for government to lend a hand. Let us examine our business

assistance policies and ensure that they reflect the needs of Clearwater, as

well as the choices that are possible in more diversified urban economies in

British Columbia.

One such possibility for diversification is data processing.

Clearwater has two broad-band systems running right through the middle

of it, and that infrastructure means that data processing is an option

for communities like that. A local group has begun to submit a

proposal. They've asked Doug Kerley to examine the area's needs, and he

has endorsed the idea. We should use our purchasing policies to ensure

that real diversification occurs in Clearwater by ensuring access to

government data processing contracts is not just the special preserve

of Vancouver and Victoria.

The throne speech also talked about assistance for special health

services for people living in rural areas. That is one of the great

unsung issues in the throne speech, because it is the case that many of

our people throughout this province have had lip-service paid to them

about equality of access to health services when in fact they haven't

had it, by simple virtue of where they live geographically. I'm very

pleased to see that it has happened, the support will be there and is

talked about in the throne speech.

Yesterday we received the auditor-general's report, and a rapid read

of that report finds nothing particularly startling, which I suppose

speaks well for the quality of the administration we've had over the

last few years. One issue, however, begs raising, and that is the

notion of so-called value-for-money auditing. I raise it in the context

of all the discussions we've heard in here about the role of an MLA,

because as MLAs, you should be very wary of this so-called

value-for-money audit system. The fact is, the very root of responsible

government means that you, the MLA, are the value-for-money auditor,

not some appointed official. It is the MLAs' responsibility to deal

with value-for-money auditing, not some functionary to whom the

authority has been given.

Value-for-money auditing is a growing boondoggle invented by various

self-seeking, self-administered professional organizations across this

country. It will show over time that there will be two certainties as a

result: (1) for auditors it will create more work than the GST; (2) for

MLAs it will create a competing debating House about public policy

choices. Value-for-money auditing is not an objective analysis and

policing of public expenditures; it is, rather, the imposition of a

subjective analysis on those choices and decisions by a non-elected

person who does not have the responsibility for the trade-offs that

public policy choices inevitably require. Therefore the value-for-money

auditing exercise will begin without much notice; but over time, the

auditors' value judgments will become the debating focus rather than

your value judgments as responsible elected representatives of the

people. I urge members in this chamber to really think through that

[ Page

12101 ]

process carefully, because over time it will not be

good for this chamber. It will not be good for members serving in this

chamber.

Yesterday we watched — I was going to say with amazement, but there

wasn't any — a somewhat hackneyed, partisan stunt in this House when a

petition from the so-called Friends of Royal Inland Hospital was

presented. First of all, the member presenting the petition should know

that 3,500 people is a puny imitation of the real number of friends

that Royal Inland Hospital has. The friends of Royal Inland Hospital

run into the tens of thousands, and if all he can summon up is 3,500

names, then his network is pretty weak indeed.

But after the House, he went on the radio in Kamloops to brag about

his stunt. While on the radio, he was asked directly whether he

supports a full-service cancer clinic for Kamloops, and he wouldn't

answer flatly that he does. In fact, he waffled and he fudged, and that

is because....

AN HON. MEMBER: What a surprise.

MR. SMITH: It didn't surprise any of us from Kamloops. That

is because Mr. Flip, the Leader of the Opposition and Dr. Flop, his

opposition Health critic, have been doing New DemoSpeak on this issue

for the last year.

The Cancer Agency, which the NDP panders to in Vancouver, does not

endorse two cancer clinics for the interior. They have diddled around

the issue of location for 15 years. Their gain is to keep all of the

action for themselves at headquarters in Vancouver. The NDP has played

footsie with the Cancer Agency's gain, and Dr. Flop repeated that

footsie again yesterday. The result is that Kamloops people now know

that partisan stunts in health are easily done by the NDP, but a

specific, unequivocal commitment to a full-service cancer clinic for

the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops is very carefully avoided.

Speaking of friends of Royal Inland Hospital and the region he

described, let the people know — all the people who are friends of

Royal Inland Hospital, whether they live in the constituencies of

Kamloops, Shuswap, Yale-Lillooet, Cariboo South or Kamloops-North

Thompson — that if they vote NDP in any of those five ridings, they

will not be assured of that much-needed facility. Only Social Credit

has been prepared to stand up and say flatly that the Cancer Control

Agency can take a hike and that we will set policy determining that the

Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops gets the full-service clinic promised

by its MLAs. All of the partisan stunts performed in this House will

not change that fact for the voters in those five constituencies, and

let there be no mistake about it.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, I want to finish, if I may, by addressing some constitutional

issues that I think we should be alive to in terms of the debate now going on.

I think we have a great opportunity before us in this country to visit some

of the important issues we have to visit in terms of restructuring our

country and making it a better place to be, a stronger place to be, and more

able to deal with the future that is before us.

I do not see what is before us as a great tragedy, a tremendous

hardship or an event that is likely to rip us asunder; I do not see it

at all in that way. It seems to me that what is upon us all around the

world is great pressure on federalism. Secondly, another major trend

that is around us all over the world is the issue of what the

information age has done to people's ability to make choices about how

they want to govern themselves and how they want to deal with

government.

One of the most important issues we have to deal with, should deal

with and should want to deal with in this coming constitutional debate

is the question about the kind of government we want to have and the

kinds of things we want government to do, and about whether or not we

want to enhance individual rights in this country or in fact to enhance

and endorse a greater system of collective rights. It is a very

important issue, and I think it is a profound one that begs to be

addressed, and can now be addressed because of the constitutional

divisions that have occurred and the process that is taking place.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, we as citizens should not allow

ourselves to deal with this issue solely in terms of the division of

powers. The division of powers is an academic exercise that has gone on

and on and on in this country; it titillates and interests lawyers,

constitutional experts, professors at universities, and various and

sundry politicians. But at the end of the day, the division of powers

and the tinkering with them means that you take power and give it from

one government to the other. The issue that should be dealt with at

this time is what, if any, powers in certain areas the people want to

give government at all, and what level they want to give them at. That

issue has to be opened up. It has not yet been opened up in this

debate, and it is the one that will not be opened up by government,

because obviously it is the one that is most traumatic for governments

to ever have to contemplate. As we go through this issue, as we go

through this time, I think it is important that we open that issue up.

As well, I think that we should not learn the wrong lessons from

what has happened to us in the past. In that regard, I refer

particularly to the Meech Lake process. It has been said that the Meech

Lake process failed; I think that if we learned that lesson, then we

have learned exactly the wrong lesson. The Meech Lake process in fact

did not fail; the Meech Lake process worked. What failed was that the

predicted and presumed result did not happen. But the process that was

designed for Meech Lake required unanimity or nothing — and in fact the

process worked. Let us not lose sight of that. Indeed, the process

worked precisely because a member of a legislature in this country was

able to do what he felt should be done on behalf of his people, and

indeed it turned out that he did it on behalf of the majority of

Canadians as well. So let us not learn the lesson that the Meech Lake

process failed, because it did not fail. Let us in fact learn the

lesson that when we embark upon a process, let us do so understanding

its implications, so that if we want to

[ Page 12102 ]

get to a certain goal, the process will support that desire.

As well, I think that we should not learn the lesson from Meech Lake

that somehow you can start a constitutional renewal process from a

negative premise. That was the greatest flaw of all in that process,

having the premise of unfinished business from 1982 rather than a

desire to have a constructive renewal for the 1990s.

I also think it is important to learn the lesson from that process

that our parliaments failed — all of them; this Legislature included —

to do their duty. And their duty is this: governments propose,

oppositions oppose. Because that did not happen in our parliaments,

because we had unanimity and close to unanimity in most of our

legislatures across this land, the parliamentary opposition that

naturally reflects the various views of the people did not take place.

So what happened? There arose an extraparliamentary opposition to the

process which manifested that opposition. It's a lesson that every one

of us in all legislatures in this country should learn.

In closing, I want to say that one of the things most needed in this

country is to have people travel this country and learn about it. We

are not educating people at all about this country — ourselves and

particularly not our young people. In fact, because our immigration

patterns have changed dramatically over the last 40 or 50 years, we

have people coming to this country who do not have the same traditions

that support some of the constitutional premises that make up our

country. There's a great and crying need for people to travel this

country and learn about it.

One way that we might very well be able to support this need to

travel is that every legislator in this place, bureaucrats all over

this country, get bonus points for travelling hither and yon — and

goodness alone knows they do indeed travel hither and yon. Those bonus

points, it seems to me, should be available to be put in a great pot

and divided up among kids in high schools and universities.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to say, first, that it's a pleasure to

complete the discussion on the throne speech on behalf of Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition. I want to indicate that my conclusion to our

discussion will mostly articulate what some of the government members

have been asking for and some of the things that we would do in

government.

While this government has been mired in the controversy and scandal

that has been taking up the government agenda — and the people's

business has indeed suffered in British Columbia — this side of the

House, the New Democratic Party of the province of British Columbia,

has been hard at work preparing legislation, policies and programs to

govern this great province.

Before I get to that, I want to reflect a bit on the throne speech. First,

I want to say that people in my constituency and in my travels are wondering

why the Legislature is meeting, why we have another throne speech in the fifth

year, near the end of the term of this discredited government, and why we haven't

had an election in British Columbia.

A throne speech is supposed to lay out a vision, a direction,

accomplishments, some sense of purpose of a government which has some

semblance of credibility. This government tabled a throne speech which

speaks for itself. It was old and flat and had no vision. It was

symbolic of a government that's lost its sense of purpose, lost its

direction in terms of whom it serves. To whom do you owe your

allegiance in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Tedious and repetitious.

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Labour says we're tedious and repetitious.

Mr. Speaker, a government's direction and sense of purpose in terms

of serving the people is important. There is no indication in this

throne speech that this government has any new ideas for the people of

this province. Quite frankly, it is a tired, worn-out government mired

in controversy and conflict. People are exhausted and embarrassed by

five years of scandal, conflict of interest, and botched privatization

deals.

My constituents are saying: "Why not an election to clear the air?

Let's have an election to clear the air in the province of British

Columbia." My constituents and the majority of British Columbians are

embarrassed. The ethical record of this government is the talk of the

nation. We are the shame of the country. A revolving door on cabinet:

40 ministers in 54 months, 13 resignations — 8 while under

investigation. The people are saying: "Give us a break! Call the

election. Clear the air. Let the people decide what should happen in

the province of British Columbia."

This government has run out of options. We have a list of scandals

as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker. Let me just list a few of them, time

permitting.

The Expo lands — the fire sale, the giveaway of the greatest land in

the province of British Columbia in terms of its value to this

province. We lost it; we sold out; we gave it away. These so-called

managers of the economy, of our lands and of our public assets gave it

away.

The Knight Street Pub — do you remember that little incident, Mr. Speaker? Forget that one.

The Lottery Fund abuse. Remember that — the scandal and

embarrassment to the people of this province? Do you remember the

tampering? Do you remember the memory? Thanks for the memories of

tampering with the justice system. Do you remember that?

Do you remember your silence on Fantasy Gardens — your abject

silence while the people wanted action? They knew what was going on.

You knew what was going on in your abject silence. Finally Mr. Hughes

had to tell the sordid tale of intrigue and conflict of interest of

this government and Premier, and all of you bound up in that

controversy. This is a government that no longer knows right from wrong.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.)

[ Page

12103 ]

What does the interim Premier say — the head of a caretaker

government that should have been removed...? We should have had an

election some months ago. When she was taking her position as the

interim Premier, what did she say about her government? I quote: "When

history is written, the period of 1986 to 1991 is going to be one most

British Columbians will look back upon with pride." [Applause.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the government bangs their desks for that kind of pride.

AN HON. MEMBER: They still agree with it.

MR. BLENCOE: They agree with what they've done. They agree

with the sordid details and conflict. I can tell you, call the election

and the people will tell you what they think of your pride in your

government, Madam Member, Mrs. Premier. Call the election and they'll

tell you what they think of this government.

[11:15]

While this government has been mired in controversy, sordid details

and conflict of interest, this side of the Legislature has been hard at

work preparing legislation and alternatives to govern the province with

honour and integrity. That's the number one issue: returning to honour,

integrity and discipline about the people's business.

We are proud to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, proud of our role

in this great democracy in the province of British Columbia. But we're

also proud of the work we've been doing in leading legislation in the

country on good government laws. What are those good government laws

that we've had to introduce for the people of the province? Well, there

is a real conflict-of-interest act and a freedom-of-information act

so that people can know what their government does behind some of those

closed doors, Madam Premier. There is a fair election practices act to

guarantee fair elections and to lower the provincial voting age to 18,

so that young British Columbians can participate in our great democracy.

Mr. Speaker, our laws — good laws — will stop the resale of B.C.

lottery tickets, which has been linked to organized crime. That was

another scandal by this government. We will guarantee a fair and open

bidding process on all government projects, and we will require full

disclosure of campaign contributions in the province. Yes, we are

prepared, and we have the laws to bring in good government in order to

protect the integrity of the province in the interests of the public.

This is a side that will work for all British Columbians, not just for

friends and insiders whom we have seen this government represent for

five years.

Mr. Speaker, some months ago our research, our policy and our

members on this side developed a leading document on sustainable

development in the province, on how to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SERWA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows

full well that he's not allowed to hold up props, and that's what that

hon. member is doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is such that it can be well overlooked.

The second member for Victoria continues with his throne speech debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's a pretty sad reflection when a

member who was briefly a cabinet minister has to be a prop for this

government.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed a very important document that will

start to resolve the land use conflicts in the province. It will try to

grant additional economic benefits from B.C.'s renewable resources.

It's an important document that I would suggest the members may wish to

read when they are dealing with a resource conflict in our renewable

resources in the province.

We've put forward and worked hard on the environment and jobs

accord. We need to sustain both our forests and our forest economy, but

we also need to make sure each creates stability and economic security

for our forest communities. We have an environment and jobs accord,

which is a leading document that will be ready when this government

finally get its walking papers and the people of the province tell it

where to go.

Carrying on with that theme, we developed sustainable development

legislation, policies for the environment and for the future,

environmental action for the province, and laws that the people will

know they can be proud of. We have a real agenda, as my colleague from

Point Grey says, that the people of the province can understand, follow

and know what our government will do in this great province.

What are some of those laws to protect the environment but, at the

same time, to establish a balance between the economy and our forest

communities? They are a Clean Environment Enforcement Act, a Spill

Prevention and Reporting Act, a Pulp Pollution Prevention Act,

an Act

to Ensure Environmentally Sound Public Spending by Government,

an Act

to Enforce Pollution Offences and Create an Environmental Protection

Fund, a Whistle Blowers' Protection Act to protect those who wish to

report environmental degradation in our great province,

an Act to Ban

the Use of CFCs,

an Act to Phase Out Apartment and Commercial

Incinerators, a B.C. Recycling Act and

An Act to Ensure the

Agricultural Use of Farmland — and it goes on. While this government

has been mired in controversy and conflict of interest, we have been

preparing an agenda for all the people of the province.

Many members have asked, "Where are your laws?" in the throne speech

debate, as if we're the government — and we will be very soon. Just

send us a memo, and we will send you these bills. We will let you know

what the people of British Columbia want to see in legislation.

What about laws for our forests, protecting our communities and those single-resource towns depen-

[ Page

12104 ]

dent on our forest economy — that great resource

that my colleague from Prince Rupert talks about so eloquently in this

Legislature? We have tabled legislation that will protect the forest

environment. I wonder how many members on that side have read that

legislation. I suggest you do. What are some of those laws? One is the

Forest Resource Inventory Act, which will require an immediate

comprehensive inventory of all public forests in the province. How long

have you been in government? You still don't have an inventory of our

forest economy and our forest resources; you still haven't done it.

That's a first priority for our new government.

There's a Forest Waste Reduction Act and Act to Protect Parks and

Wilderness Areas. Boy, do we ever need this!

An Act to Establish an

Environment and Land Use Secretariat can start to tackle the important

land use conflicts in the province. With scientific analysis and

rational understanding we can start to deal with the issues that face

British Columbians today. There's

an Act to Ensure Sound Forest

Practices on Private Land — long overdue.

These are all things that we've been doing while this government has

been embarrassing itself in front of the nation with all those scandals

and the revolving door in cabinet. This side of the Legislature has

been busy preparing legislation that the people know is required in the

province.

I already referred to the environment and jobs accord — how to

balance the environment with the protection of our forest economies and

communities. These are difficult issues that this side of the

Legislature is prepared to tackle on behalf of all British Columbians.

We're prepared to increase value from our forests. Again, many of my

colleagues have talked about this over the years. We have introduced a

Forestry Value Added Act that requires new value-added manufacturing

and jobs when licences to harvest public forests are awarded. What a

novel idea: jobs for public lands! That's alien to this administration:

jobs, and public land and public assets.

We will do it. We've got the laws. Maybe you want to do it as a

last-ditch attempt to get yourself reelected. The people, however, have

seen through it.

Let me go on. Housing programs....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: The laws are there. Home ownership for young

people, protection for tenants,

An Act to Provide for a Rentals

Mediator — these are New Democrat alternatives. There is the Housing

Initiatives Fund Act, 1990: second mortgages for first-time young

buyers to help them meet the dream of home-ownership. Again, if this

government wants to see the legislation we have developed on housing,

we'll be pleased to send it to them. It's here.

We've been working in the area of labour, protecting working people on

behalf of all British Columbians with

An Act to Improve Employment Standards.

Boy, do we ever need that! My colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has been

working diligently to protect and help the people of the province. There's

An Act to Extend Workers Compensation Protection. My office and everybody on

this side constantly deals with the problems of compensation and what people

have to go through to achieve workers' compensation. We're prepared

to tackle that. We are going to be looking at the labour code and bringing down

legislation that's fair for all British Columbians.

We have policies on women's equality; policies on ensuring that

women have a rightful place in the workforce; policies on job training

for women; policies on protection from violence and sexual abuse;

policies on affordable, quality child care; and policies that we've

worked on while this government has been mired in controversy, scandal

and chaos.

Health care for the nineties. Boy, do we need that in this province!

Here are the policies. We've got them ready. We are ready to govern in

British Columbia.

Transportation solutions in the nineties. We have clear, articulated, concise policies for all British Columbians.

Post-secondary education priorities for the 1990s. We have clearly

thought out policies and documents, not developed behind closed doors,

not subtly dumped on the people of British Columbia, not developed

between the curb and the taxi door when it suits the government's

political ends. These documents were prepared in order to proudly stand

up in the election and tell the people that's what we're going to do in

terms of being government in British Columbia.

We have a document on the eradication of poverty, something this

government doesn't wish to do anything about, and a document on the

eradication policies to deal with those less fortunate.

[11:30]

Labour. I already referred to some of the bills, but we have a

labour statement and policy document called "Fairness at Work,"

something novel to Socreds. It's a document that we're proud of, and we

will be pleased to send it to the government.

We have an important document towards a just and honourable settlement of Indian land claims in this province.

I don't want to hear from any member on that side again: "Where is

the New Democratic Party?" We have the policies for the people of

British Columbia in equality and income support — policies and

legislation. Here's one this government won't want to read: "Open

Government Fairly Chosen." They don't want to read that one.

In our party and caucus, we are now preparing legislation to protect

the paycheques of British Columbians in these difficult times. We're

not satisfied with dealing with this legislation; we're moving on to

the future. We're going to protect workers from plant closures. Where

have you been? Where has this government been?

The conclusion to our debate on this side of the Legislature is that

New Democrats in British Columbia are prepared and ready, and like the

people, they are tired, embarrassed and want change desperately. They

want change in the province. They want an election as

[ Page

12105 ]

soon as possible to clear the air. No more memories

of revolving doors, resignations, conflicts and scandals of Expo lands

— they want honour, integrity, fairness and laws that represent all

British Columbians.

If this Premier says that she is proud of her government for the

last five years, as she said as she took over as interim Premier, if

she is proud of her record, call the election and let the people

decide. Let's have an election.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I rise today to conclude the debate on

the throne speech. I'm overwhelmed with the attention given my

participation by the members of the opposition. Throne speeches are

about the general plans and programs of government, but they are more

than that. They are about values, principles and the ideas which bind

us together as a province. They are about the vision we have for the

future and what it means to be an average British Columbian, and what

it means to the average British Columbian.

This throne speech reflects attitudes which have held this province

steadfast on a course of sustained economic growth and security for

many years. It reflects the values of continued improvements in health

care, education and social services for British Columbians of all ages,

in all regions. It recognizes British Columbians as builders: a

confident, positive people who know the worth of individual initiative

and enterprise, yet who are also compassionate. It reflects values and

attitudes which have enjoyed the support and confidence of the people

of British Columbia almost continuously since 1952 — a tradition which

we on this side of the House have every intention of continuing.

What we do in this House is important; it affects the lives of over

three million people. It will be truly remarkable if anyone 100 years

from now gives even a passing thought to the legislators sitting here

today. Yet the decisions we take will affect the measure and quality of

their lives, just as legislators 100 years ago shaped the province in

which we live today by their actions and inactions.

A striking example is native land claims. They should have been

fully settled by 1891 and not left as an omelette for the Legislature

of 1991 to unscramble. We must not, and we shall not, leave a similar

inheritance of financial and social troubles for those who sit in these

chairs 100 years from now.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a world of constant and unpredictable change. British

Columbians look to us to understand and manage that change in ways that

will expand their opportunities and secure those things they value

most: peace, prosperity and a sense of community. Those are the

important ends that we are here to serve. Our own personal and party

ambitions, strongly felt as they may be, are truly secondary. Let's

remember who we are: a handful of ordinary human beings trying to do a

good job today, right now, for three million other ordinary human

beings who will see us and judge our performance by how we affect their

lives.

Throne speeches are about their lives: the hopes and concerns of the

average British Columbian. This throne speech reaffirms enduring Social

Credit philosophy, the philosophy of effective and compassionate free

enterprise government in the context of the daily life of British

Columbians in 1991. Each of us is average in some ways and exceptional

in others. Free enterprise encourages the exceptional talents of each

of us. That democracy of talent, furthered by education, is the real

secret of success in our society.

Education is the key. We are spending $650 million this year to

build new schools or to improve old ones. We are looking at expanding

an already fine post-secondary system

with a university for the Fraser Valley, which would complement Access

For All and the Open Learning Agency; a recent strengthening of college

degree programs; and the development of the University of Northern

British Columbia.

Expanding skills and knowledge are vital to securing our continuing

prosperity. We have had considerable success in diversifying B.C.'s

export markets; we must continue to diversify our economic base. New

jobs will increasingly come from small business and innovations. We

enjoy a tremendous potential advantage in attracting innovator-based

industries because of our natural setting and our enviable quality of

life. We must secure those advantages and at the same time maintain the

climate for prosperity, which only affordable government and affordable

taxes can provide, to small business. This means providing first-rate

health care, education and social services, while keeping spending at

sustainable levels.

The art of good government is getting the most out of tax dollars

without having to squeeze the most dollars out of our taxpayers. It's

not an easy job; it's an impossible job if you want to be universally

popular. So government has an obligation to set sensible priorities and

to stick to them. We serve the average British Columbian, not the

special-interest group.

This government recognizes and affirms British Columbia's commitment

to holding our country together. I am a westerner, born in

Saskatchewan, and I am committed to British Columbia. So I understand

the westerners' feelings of alienation — the anger and frustration. Yet

I also know that the people of British Columbia expect us to manage the

affairs of the country in such a way as to ensure the country remains

united.

We are not alienated because we want to be less Canadian; we are

alienated because we have been frustrated in our desire to be more

fully participating Canadians. British Columbians don't want out; we

want in. We want to be equal partners, assuming our fair share of the

burden and enjoying our fair share of the benefits. Through a committee

of this House we will engage the people of the province in a frank and

constructive dialogue about our future. We will listen carefully to the

people of British Columbia, and we will act only with their consent. We

will, I am confident, say yes to Canada and a new constitutional

arrangement that represents the best interests of all Canadians.

[ Page 12106 ]

My real fear for our nation's future lies not in the constitutional

debate but in the horrendous federal debt, all the more frightening

when you realize that it only took about 20 years to accumulate. Ottawa

is not alone; Canadians are horrified by the ruinous course being

pursued today in Ontario. There is nothing new or innovative about

going broke. In British Columbia we stand firm in the conviction that

only the most irresponsible government would burden future generations

with uncontrolled debt.

We on this side of the House will live up to our financial

responsibilities and work to protect the household budget of the

average British Columbian at all times. Salaries and benefits make up

the greatest portion of government spending. That's why you can't speak

seriously about careful management without having regard to these

matters. For the opposition to intimate otherwise is being less than

honest with the taxpayers of British Columbia.

We have had considerably better labour relations and fewer paydays

lost due to labour disputes since Bill 19 was passed, yet the Leader of

the Opposition wants to rip it up. That's not in the interest of the

average worker in this province, and the NDP knows this. That's the

special interest agenda of the unions which dominate that party —

virtually own it, in fact — and they preach to us about ethics.

I'm not a Shaughnessy lawyer, but I doubt that even the Leader of

the Opposition could afford to run his household budget the way the NDP

is running the province of Ontario. In the half-hour it took him to

speak in this debate, Ontario taxpayers went half a million dollars

further into debt. I don't think even he would want to apply NDP

budgetary philosophy to his own finances.

Over the long run Social Credit is always better for people

programs. Because our debt charges are so low we are able to spend 70

cents out of every tax dollar on health care, education and social

programs — a higher percentage than any other province.

We are taking measures to strengthen the essential trust between

citizen and state. We are improving conflict-of-interest legislation;

we are introducing access-to-information and protection-of-privacy

legislation. Perhaps most important, we are moving ahead with a

profound change in how our democratic institutions operate — the

referendum process. We will be seeking the views of the people on just

what they would like to see in terms of direct democracy initiatives.

The people want a greater say, and this government hears them and will

respond.

Our system of democratic government has always survived by adapting. The parliamentary

system itself began as a council of feudal warlords. On our worst days in this

House it would seem that we haven't changed all that much. Society is changing.

British Columbia is incomparably more diverse than it was just a generation

ago. This government recognizes these changes and is responding to them. One

simple but striking example of change can be seen by looking through photos

of the UBC law school graduating class. Women do not yet outnumber men, but

they are giving them a serious run for their money, something truly unthinkable

in the 1950s.

[11:45]

This is a small example of some extraordinary changes to our society

and to our economy. This government recognizes these changes, and we

recognize that they have a price. We are living longer, yet new medical

technologies cost more every year. Our children are learning well, but

each year there is more to learn. Our natural environment attracts

thousands to our province each year, but nature must then be coaxed

into housing, feeding and caring for us all. We are affluent enough to

provide success, but we must care for those whom success has passed by.

We cherish our children and our peace and security, yet we must redouble our efforts to protect them.

We identify strongly with our magnificent forests, yet we must work

hard to replant and renew them if we are to sustain our economy. Each

of our blessings brings a responsibility, and the greater the blessing,

the greater the responsibility.

In this debate the opposition has painted a picture of this province

that I really don't recognize. I never cease to be amazed, Mr. Speaker,

at their ability to find a dark cloud behind every silver lining.

Canada wasn't built that way, and British Columbia wasn't built that

way either. I'm not sure whether the opposition is so negative....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you finished?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they're finished!

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe you are.

I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the opposition is so negative

because they lose so many elections or whether they lose elections

because they are so negative,

I've always found that if you look for the best in people, more

often than not you'll bring it out in them. If you show respect for

other people, you will earn respect for yourself. The NDP view

diminishes people by telling them that they are all faceless victims of

some economic force. The free enterprise view strengthens people by

recognizing and celebrating the fact that individuals are responsible

for the choices that they make and for the consequences that result.

That is the basic outlook on life which separates believers in the

individual from believers in the masses — this side of the House from

that side of the House. We on this side are confident that we can

achieve a careful balance of ensuring and protecting both our natural

environment and our jobs. We deplore the growth of violence and

lawbreaking in the name of protecting the environment. We prefer to

work on strengthening our provincial, national and international

programs for environmental protection, and I'm sure most British

Columbians would agree.

We on this side of the House hear the concerns of the average

British Columbian who says: "We are losing a quality of life in our

neighbourhoods." We

[ Page

12107 ]

hear the concerns of people who say they are not

comfortable walking the streets of their neighbourhoods. We hear these

concerns, and we are taking action as outlined in the throne speech. We

will not allow those who have no respect for the law or for the rights

of others to diminish our quality of life.

I spoke earlier of changes in our society, of my confidence and

optimism that these changes can be managed and encouraged within a

framework of enduring values. To this end, I want to reiterate the

importance that we on this side of the House place on the family as the

cornerstone of our society. Our policies and programs always have and

always will reflect this view. Programs to support the youngest and

oldest of our community and those with special needs mirror our respect

for and commitment to the family.

At the same time we recognize that the typical structure and life of

the family have changed more in the past 40 years than in the past 400.

Family life is changing and so too is working life. People change jobs

faster than ever before, and their jobs are changing as well. There are

more service sector jobs, more jobs requiring technical skill, more

self-employment and much more small business. Our pension initiative is

only one reflection of that change.

Government itself must rethink its unrelenting expansion of the past 40 years.

Government programs have helped, but their cost has weighed down the average

person and the average family. There is a real sense that government has reached

its natural manageable limits. Enough is enough. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the opposition for their support.

Surely British Columbians deserve to keep the rest of what they earn

for their own dreams, when nearly half their earnings are already

absorbed by the demands of all levels of government. Surely we are

mature enough to live within our means, set intelligent priorities and

plan for a rainy day. There is nothing easier for a government than

saying yes with other people's money. We all want things we can't

afford. We all know that there is a limit to how much we should

consume; the people know that. They expect politicians to know it as

well and to act as if we know it when we are spending tax dollars.

Also, they expect us to look out for their future. That's what they pay

us for. If we only plan for the next election, we will have given up on

the next generation.

In 1952 British Columbia elected its first Social Credit government,

in large measure because people were concerned about health care and

the lack of a strong economic vision in a province with incredible

resources. That government pioneered in transportation, energy, health

care and education. In large measure, our outstanding quality of life

and financial health are blossoms from the seeds planted by that first

Social Credit government.

Their plans were hotly criticized every step of the way. The NDP called the

Deas Island tunnel, now the Massey Tunnel, "a highway to nowhere."

The NDP condemned opening up the interior as "blacktop government."

The NDP called the two-rivers power policy "too much, too soon." When

asked about this criticism, W.A.C. Bennett just used to say: "Tell them

I smiled, and I smiled, and I smiled." Today he would still be smiling.

Today we have a new road to travel; a road beyond the resource-based

economy; a road which already stretches far beyond the simple cutting

and selling of trees; a road to a fully mature and diverse economy,

with the greatest share of new jobs coming out of innovative

industries, services and small businesses, bringing a more human scale

to our development.

The forest industry will remain an integral part of our industrial

strength. Our quality of life will ensure that we have a natural,

competitive advantage in developing knowledge and skill-based

industries, particularly those which build on the basic strengths of

our resource industries.

Our hospitality industry is environmentally friendly; it is

environmentally dependent. Creative minds will find real business

opportunities from the greening of North American consumers. If we

avoid extreme attitudes and rhetoric, then real, practical solutions

will be found that protect our natural heritage while securing our

prosperity. As I've said, we need to get the most out of our tax

dollars without squeezing the most tax dollars out of our taxpayers.

In the public sector no less than the private sector, managers will

increasingly have to be accountable for results. For example, how much

a government spends on education will always be an important measure of

its priorities; how much you spend on education will always be a matter

of public debate. But how much education the people actually get for

the money you spend will be the real measure of your effectiveness as a

government. The average British Columbian understands that.

When I meet young people at Kwantlen College, I'm impressed by their

instinctive support for free enterprise as a real way to make their

dreams come true. When I meet small business operators in Vernon, I'm

impressed by their belief that the environment doesn't have to be

traded off in order to provide good-paying jobs, When I meet loggers in

Courtenay, I'm impressed by their genuine desire to see balanced,

shared and sensible resource use. When I meet retirees in Penticton,

I'm impressed at their desire to stay active and return something to

their community.

These are just snapshots, but together they have the makings of a

great movie: scenes of progress, hard work and enterprise, — scenes of

happiness, as hard-earned dreams come true. The government has a role

in this movie, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the leading role. The star is

the average British Columbian.

For almost 40 years the Social Credit government has reflected the

real hopes, aspirations and values of the average British Columbian. We

continue to do so. We hear the voice of the hard-working, fair-minded

average British Columbian, and it still guides our vision. We could ask

for no better guide.

In closing this debate, I would ask that all members join me in thanking His Honour for the gracious

[ Page 12108 ]

speech he has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

[12:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Bruce

Savage

Strachan

Rabbitt

Mercier

L. Hanson

Gran

Jacobsen

Chalmers

Parker

Huberts

Ree

Serwa

Crandall

Vant

De Jong

Kempf

Veitch

Dirks

Richmond

Johnston

Fraser

J. Jansen

Messmer

Weisgerber

Couvelier

Dueck

Loenen

Peterson

Smith

Reid

Vander Zalm

Michael

NAYS — 21

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Guno

A. Hagen

Lovick

Smallwood

Sihota

Pullinger

Miller

Perry

Zirnhelt

G. Janssen

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind all members that there will

be no sitting tomorrow or the next day. I wish everyone a very pleasant

Victoria Day weekend, and we'll see you all back here on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1990 annual report of the ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1991, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada