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)

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 12065 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12065

An Act to Expand the Powers of the Ombudsman (Bill

M202). Ms. Cull

Introduction and first reading –– 12066

Oral Questions

Lottery grant to Eco-Clean. Mr. Sihota –– 12066

Restraining orders against abusive husbands. Ms.

Marzari –– 12066

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 12066

Nitrate traces in Fraser Valley wells. Mr. Peterson –– 12067

Public hearings on Kemano project. Mrs. Boone –– 12067

Heliski industry safety standards. Ms. Pullinger –– 12067

Public hearings on Kemano project. Ms. Pullinger –– 12068

Silver Drake Resources. Mr. Sihota –– 12068

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Clark –– 12068

Presenting Petitions –– 12068

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Brummet –– 12069

Mr. Cashore –– 12073

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 12077

Ms. Smallwood –– 12080

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 12082

Mr. Guno –– 12085

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen –– 12087

Mr. ReI'd –– 12089

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1991

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce His

Excellency Sergio Silvio Balanzino, the Ambassador of Italy to Canada.

He is accompanied by his wife, by Mr. Gianfranco Manigrassi,

consul-general of Italy in Vancouver and by Mrs. Yolanda McKimmie,

vice-consul in Victoria. Benvenuto.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for all

our MLAs on both sides of the House as May is recognition and awareness

month for motorcyclists. The B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists have once

again gathered on the legislative grounds and allowed our MLAs to join

them for a ride in the park, which many of us thank you very much for.

They are here also to meet government on various subjects on behalf of

the 142,000 owners of motorcycles in British Columbia. Would you please

join me in welcoming Peter Jack, the provincial organizer, and Robert

Fenton of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, visiting from the Kootenays today

are two women involved in outstanding work in their own communities and

across the land, Marcia Braundy and Tish Lakes. I would ask the House

to join me in welcoming them.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon are Mr. Philip

and Mrs. Jan Mansfield from West Vancouver and Mr. John and Mrs. Jackie

Carnell, who are moving to West Vancouver from the United Kingdom. They

are joined by my wife Yvonne.

MR. ZIRNHELT: We have in the House today about 40 grade 10

and 11 students from Correlieu Secondary School in Quesnel. They are

accompanied by Ed Nielsen, Marjorie Sinclair and Adrian Monych. Please

make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: I take great pride and pleasure in....

AN HON. MEMBER: Easy for you.

HON. L. HANSON: I'll start over again, Mr. Speaker. I take

great pride in reminding the House that the greatest junior A hockey

players in Canada come from my own constituency of Vernon. On the

weekend they defeated the Sudbury Cubs 8-4 to win the Centennial Cup,

which is emblematic of junior A supremacy in Canada. I know the House

will join me in congratulating them on their accomplishment.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's the wish of the House, the Chair will be

pleased to send a message to the team on behalf of the members.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have

a number of very important people from my riding. They are the

volunteers who were responsible for mailing over 70,000 pieces of

information for me last year. I'd like the House to welcome Peggy Price,

Del Thyer, Grace Race, Ruth Lindsay, Jacquie Ackerly, Norma Mann, Lois

Sutherland, Barbara Gravenor, Michael Evans, Eric Graham, Mary Anne

Ellens and my constituency assistant, Jocelyn Jenkyns.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting the House today is Mr. Jim

Corlett from Portland, Oregon. He's the executive director of the

Western States Legislative Forestry Task Force. I would ask the House

to make our American visitor welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, among the students who are

visiting here from Quesnel is Sarah Hilbert, president of the Cariboo

North Young New Democrats and vice-president of the YND. Would you give

her a very warm welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed Prof. Don Balmer

from Lewis and Clark College in your gallery. I know he's here with 15

or 20 of his students this afternoon, because I'm going to be seeing

them later. I wish all our colleagues would welcome our friends from

the United States who are here to see how the parliamentary system

works and to find out why they have the system they have.

MR. JONES: I too want to welcome Professor Balmer and his 25

political science students, who are from all over the United States,

although they attend Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. Would the House

again please welcome them in our usual warm, desk-thumping manner.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce my

sister, Norma Beech, who is visiting from Calgary. It's the first time

she has had the opportunity to visit the House since the election, and

I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I know you would want me to welcome

the other people in the gallery who haven't been mentioned yet. I'd

like to make them welcome as well.

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

Provincial Secretary for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the 1991 annual report of the B.C. Law Reform

Commission.

Hon. S. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education

for the period July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990.

Hon. J. Jansen tabled the annual report of the auditor-general,

dated March 1991.

[ Page 12066 ]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO EXPAND THE POWERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ms. Cull presented a bill intituled

An Act to Expand the Powers of

the Ombudsman.

MS. CULL: This bill addresses the failure of the government

of British Columbia to proclaim sections of the Ombudsman Act passed by

the Legislature in 1977.

These sections permit the ombudsman to investigate complaints about

the operations of other public sector bodies, including municipalities,

regional districts, school boards, universities and hospitals. As of

July 1, 1991, this bill would finally broaden the powers and duties of the

ombudsman with respect to matters of administration on a complaint or

on the ombudsman's own initiative to investigate a decision or

recommendation made,

an act done or omitted, or procedure used by any

of the authorities listed that aggrieves or may aggrieve a person.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY GRANT TO ECO-CLEAN

MR. SIHOTA: A question for the Attorney-General. Could the

Attorney-General update the House on the status of the effort to secure

return of the Eco-Clean funds advanced under the lottery grant and

advise us whether those funds have indeed now been returned?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm sure the House would like a detailed

answer on that, so I'll take that question on notice.

RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST

ABUSIVE HUSBANDS

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Attorney General. The

throne speech suggested that violence against women had to be

aggressively addressed at all levels of law enforcement and the justice

system. Can the Attorney-General confirm that, by a change in his

ministry's policy, women facing violence at home are no longer

guaranteed expedited service when they seek an emergency restraining

order to protect them against abusive husbands?

HON. MR. FRASER: The question was a little convoluted, but

the fact of the matter is that this government is very concerned about

violence in the home and justice in general. So we do everything we can

to make sure that people are protected at all times everywhere.

MS. MARZARI: Until a few weeks ago, Mr. Attorney-General,

women had an insurance policy. They got contract counsel paI'd by

government so that they could get special service when they sought a

restraining order. Now when they seek court protection, they're

potentially at risk — sometimes for as long as two weeks — until the

regular procedures roll into motion to give them protection. Are you

going to reintroduce a restraining order program?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical

question that I would address in a more technical nature at a better

time. So I would be happy to take the question on notice.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Environment. The Environment minister saI'd yesterday that he stands by

the decision to dump contaminated soils from the Expo site next to

Richmond farmland. Will the minister admit that those soils are being

removed from the Expo site because they are too contaminated for

residential use?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, if the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam had not put out an erroneous news release,

which amounted to a lie, then he would not have....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member take his seat.

We're in the fifth year of a parliament. I am very surprised that I

would have to bring this to anyone's attention. But members, it is

totally and completely inappropriate to use the word "lie" in this

chamber to describe the actions of any member. So I would ask the

minister to withdraw that remark and then continue with the answer to

his question.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the remark.

Perhaps I should use the word "erroneous"; perhaps I should use the

word "hyperbolic." Perhaps I should use the words "certainly out of

tune with what the situation was."

The soil in question is not toxic, the tonnage is not 10,000 to

20,000 truckloads, and the soil is of a residential grade as to 75

percent of the content. If the member who has raised this question had

taken the time to read the information on this, he wouldn't be asking

the question today.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary. This minister should know that it

requires more than bafflegab to protect the environment. The minister

knows that the soils are too contaminated for people to live on or

near, and if he didn't know that, then he wouldn't be condoning them

being removed in the first place. Will he admit that it makes no sense

to drop these soils next to food-growing land? If they're not allowed

on residential land, why are they allowed on land next door to

food-growing land?

[ Page 12067 ]

HON. MR. MERCIER: I should inform the members here that the

site in question is an industrial site. It's a reclaimed garbage dump

that the soil is going to cover. If the member had studied the site

where this soil is being located, the member would realize that the

material being covered over and the material used to cover it are

entirely safe in the end result — in fact, it's safer than leaving the

garbage dump material that was already deposited there over many years

so close to the surface.

MR. CASHORE: I have studied the site. I have been on the

site. The site is next to food-growing land. The Richmond Farmers'

Institute, among others, has a right to be heard. Will the minister now

agree that the people of Richmond are entitled to public hearings

before truckloads of contaminated soils arrive on their doorstep?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member opposite has probably not read

the material on the material. I had the pleasure to talk to the mayor

of Richmond, and the information I have is that the mayor was not fully

apprised of the information on the soil. I have asked him to inform

himself; I'd ask the member to inform himself. Then perhaps you might

like to ask the question of me again someday.

NITRATE TRACES IN

FRASER VALLEY WELLS

MR. PETERSON: I have a question for the Minister of

Environment, and I'll only ask it once. Recent tests have indicated

that nitrate traces may exist in some Fraser Valley residential wells.

What I'd like to know is: what steps is the ministry taking to protect

groundwater supplies, particularly in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. MERCIER: At the present, I can advise that

discussions have been held between my ministry, the Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Health. Those

ministries are in the process of developing a joint action plan. In

fact, they've gotten to the point where they're drafting regulations to

deal with the problem.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON KEMANO PROJECT

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Environment. Last

year one of your many Environment ministers stated that there would be

public hearings on the Kemano project. Have you decided to carry out

the former minister's commitment by holding public hearings?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'll take that question on notice, obtain

the information and respond to the member.

HELI-SKI INDUSTRY SAFETY STANDARDS

MS. PULLINGER: My question is to the Minister of Lands and

Parks. As we all know, heli-ski accidents have killed 12 people in the

last year, and twice heli-ski operators have asked the province for

regulatory legislation. As well, a coroner's jury recommended "that a

provincial regulatory body to establish safety standards for the

heli-ski industry in B.C. be established." Can the minister confirm

that no such legislation or body exists to set and enforce safety

standards for this industry?

HON. MR. PARKER: The issue of helicopter skiing is one that

has been investigated several times. With the combination of the two

ministries — Lands and Parks — we are undertaking to address this issue

and will have a response for the House in the not too distant future.

MS. PULLINGER: A supplementary question to the same minister.

Sports Illustrated , one of North America's most widely read sports

magazines, has criticized B.C. for the lack of heli-ski safety

regulations, and obviously that doesn't do much for tourism in this

province. In last weekend's paper, the minister invited proposals for a

new heli-ski business in southeastern B.C. My question to the minister

is: can he explain his decision to encourage new projects before he has

even moved to secure the reputation of this industry and the safety of

skiing visitors to British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: The heli-ski operations in the province are

enterprises that are recognized worldwide, draw on a worldwide market,

and hence the operators go to great lengths to make sure that it is a

safe operation. We've been very fortunate in having safe operations.

However, when you ski in the mountains, you can expect there will be

slides from time to time. That sort of exercise is a considered risk by

everybody that chooses to ski the high country. The ski operators have

well-trained guides and assistants and, as I said before, go to great

lengths to make sure the sport is safe in the area they are operating

in.

By the way, the opportunity in Fernie has just recently been

offered. It's a day-trip operation and will add to the tourism

opportunities in the southeast Kootenays.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, another question to the same

minister. We see the minister sidestepping his responsibility again. I

would like to ask the minister: how many deaths is it going to take

before you will address the concerns of the industry and implement the

regulations and the regulatory body that the industry itself, as well

as the coroner's jury, has asked for?

HON. MR. PARKER: Apart from repealing the law of gravity, I

don't know how you'd stop avalanches in the province of British

Columbia. The tour guides in this province operate well-respected

companies. They have the opportunity to enjoy repeat business, which

tells me their clients are quite satisfied with the way they conduct

their operations. They are an asset to the province. We do work with

them to help them over any of the difficulties they may have in their

business.

[ Page 12068 ]

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON KEMANO PROJECT

Ms. PULLINGER: A new question to the Minister of Environment.

The last Minister of Environment said that the government's agreement

with Alcan requires the taxpayers to pay Alcan all costs of any hearing

that Alcan participates in against its wishes. Can you confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The question was taken on notice earlier today,

but perhaps....

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say the same

thing. I'll take that on notice in conjunction with the previously

asked question.

SILVER DRAKE RESOURCES

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance — and it

relates again to the matter of Silver Drake Resources, a company whose

stock value has fluctuated significantly. There has been a lot of

attention paid to the role of the former Minister of Environment with

respect to his involvement with that company. There have been a number

of representations made by the company as to the environmental

technology that it possesses and whether or not it has the patent

rights that it suggests it has. On top of that, there are additional

questions with respect to the qualifications of the so-called

scientific mind involved with the company.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have the question please?

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House whether he

thinks, in light of the publicity around the matter, that there is no

need for the superintendent of brokers' office to examine the affairs

of the company?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I commented yesterday, and I'll

repeat that comment. It is not appropriate for me to comment on any

aspect of whether there is an investigation or whether the product is

viable, or on any aspect relating to the Securities Commission.

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Finance. Can the

minister confirm that Fantasy Garden World Inc. paid no provincial

sales tax last year, in spite of the fact that many thousands of small

businesses in British Columbia are required to pay promptly?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who pays sales

tax and who doesn't pay sales taxes until such time as those matters

are presented in the normal course of events.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. Will the minister

undertake to inform the House as to whether or not Fantasy Garden World

Inc. paid sales tax in 1990?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, if any corporate entity in the

province of British Columbia is required to pay sales tax, it would do

so. If they are in default, the normal process would happen. It's not

my intention to bring forward every single defaulter of sales tax

throughout the province, and I'm surprised that the member would ask me

to do that. The normal situation applies, regardless of the ownership

of the company

Presenting Petitions

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of some 3,265 residents of the great city of Kamloops. As you

know, Kamloops is home to the historic Royal Inland Hospital, which is

now approaching the centenary of its service to the interior of British

Columbia. This petition from the Friends of Royal Inland Hospital is in

the appropriate form, and I have signed the first page, as required by

our rules.

The petition states that "health care be made a priority in the

province of British Columbia," and it goes on to express concern over

the closure of beds, the layoff of health care workers and cuts in

medical services in Kamloops:

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon.

House take such action as to reinstate the above and that Royal Inland

Hospital receive fair and equitable funding to deliver quality health

care to its referral area. Please ensure that Royal Inland Hospital is

not singled out for further cuts, but is allowed growth to serve the

residents of the referral area."

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by 3,265 residents of Kamloops

and its environs who are concerned about the deterioration of the

regional referral role of Royal Inland Hospital under this government.

I would like now to tender it for the consideration of hon. members, if

the Clerk can take the petition.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I've got a couple of items here, one

of which I've given you notice of. The first one is that I seek

unanimous consent to substitute the name of the hon. member for

Surrey-Guildford Whalley for that of Mr. Williams on the special

committee to name members to the standing committees of this House.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: Secondly, I don't know if everyone knows that today

marks the tenth anniversary of the election of the hon. government

House Leader from Kamloops. Congratulate him for that and also advise

him that Bob Williams has sent a small package. It's now gaily ticking

away in my office.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I want to thank the member for his

congratulations. Indeed, it was ten years ago today when we won a

significant by-election in the city of Kamloops. I might point out to

the members opposite that going into that by-election, we were a full

20 points behind in the opinion polls. So don't read too much into them

is all I want to say.

[2:30]

[ Page 12069 ]

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the

opportunity to talk about some of the things that are in the throne

speech, unlike the opposition, who talk about things that aren't in the

throne speech.

I think anyone who has been in parliament for any time — and even

many members of the public — recognize that the throne speech was never

intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of everything that the

government has done, everything that the government intends to do, and

everything that government cares about. It is simply a list of some of

the highlights of the programs. We've heard so many times over the last

week that we don't care because it's not in the throne speech. What a

ridiculous comment. I could point out that His Honour last Tuesday did

not say: "Today is Tuesday." I'm surprised the opposition hasn't

accused us of not caring what day of the week it was — because it

wasn't in the throne speech. We've had these attacks.

MR. JONES: Unfair, unfair.

MR. BRUMMET: It's certainly warranted. Any attack on the

opposition is more than warranted. Wait until I get into the text of my

speech.

I'm very pleased that the suggestion has been accepted to provide

travel allowance assistance for those people from the remote areas who

have no alternative but to come to the major centres for specialized

health care. It may be of interest to members that a person from Fort.

St. John has to pay $620 return airfare to come down to Vancouver for

an inspection by the medical services. If that person requires a

companion, that means it's about $1,300 without hotel rooms, without

anything else, to come down and get an examination that is only

available in Vancouver.

I might point out, further, that the return airfare from Fort Nelson

to Vancouver is about $893. That means that a couple coming down

because one of them needs medical attention would have to pay at least

$2,000. And we still talk about equality. So I'm very pleased that this

has happened. It can be done. It doesn't need to be total refunding,

but it needs to be assistance. Most of the people in the remote areas

in the north do relish maintaining some of their independence, but they

do want some equality and some help. So I'm very pleased with that.

In the throne speech we have a further commitment to forest renewal.

We hear constantly from the carping critics of the opposition that

we're not planting enough trees and not doing enough. And yet a lot

more money has gone into it. The program has been accelerated, and

there is a lot being done. More trees are being planted today than are

being cut. That's a combination effort by the government and the

private sector.

We've heard quite an attack about: "Well, the government has not

made a firm commitment to put a university in the Fraser Valley, so

this government is not committed to education." What they neglect to

mention is that this government put aside — and I forget the exact

amount — literally millions of dollars in the Access For All program,

which now provides degree-granting at Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo.

Government started out some years ago saying we need a university in

the north. That is now a fact of life. I would like to remind members

of this House and certainly members of the opposition that the people

in the Fraser Valley have much more ready access to SFU and UBC than do

the people in the remoter areas. So if there's got to be a priority,

it's got to be up there. When those degrees are available closer to

those people, the pressure comes off UBC and SFU, and these people have

all kinds of opportunities. Those who already have three universities

within driving range should not get priority over those who have to

travel great distances. So I'm very supportive of what the government

has done.

The throne speech talks about a pension plan for all. I don't know

whether that's achievable, but I can assure you that this government

has looked at the difference between those people who, through their

employment, have pension plans and those people who, because their

employers don't provide pension plans — and that's many of the small

businesses and the service industries — don't have access to a pension

plan. An opposition member can irresponsibly say, "Well, give it them,"

but it has to be done, it has to be possible and it has to be

pragmatic. The government has looked at this, and it's coming up with

ways to do it. Yet they say that it should have been done ten years

ago, or something of that nature. The government is reacting to the

needs to the people of this province; this is another example of how

this government cares about those people.

In the throne speech there's additional support to families, and the

details of some of these have been announced in government programs to

date. There's additional support going to families, to day care and to

all of these. But sometimes we have to be careful that we don't try to

do everything. If we as a government decide to look after everything

from cradle to grave, then we have a situation where people are

discouraged from helping themselves to look after their own needs.

We've had some criticisms that the government does not care about

education, because in the throne speech they did not say how much they

were going to spend on education. This is from supposedly knowledgeable

members who know the amount to be spent will come from the budget, not

the throne speech. The throne speech does renew our commitment to

education.

We have heard all the attacks about the cuts in education and how we

are putting down education, and yet, over the last four years, when the

cost-of-living index rose by something like 17 percent, the financial

commitment of this government to education was about two and a half

times that, almost 40 percent. Now that is a commitment to education,

and a great deal has been done and a lot more is being done.

[ Page 12070 ]

What we have — whether you take the federal throne speech or the

provincial throne speech — the critics simply.... You can almost write

their attacks in advance and expect them. The Leader of the Opposition

got publicity this year for saying exactly the same thing he said last

year and the year before, but he somehow or other keeps saying the same

thing — nothing in there.

In his response, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said:

"Here is what we would do." We heard a listing of a number of

generalizations and a number of platitudes. Now this is the difference

between an opposition member and a government member. If a government

member says, "We are going to do more to protect the environment,"

then immediately that person is asked: "How? In what way? Exactly what

way?" The Leader of the Opposition gets away with saying: "We're going

to do more for the environment." He doesn't get challenged. He doesn't

have to answer in this House. And the press doesn't even bother to ask

him: "How would you do it?" He said: "We're going to generate more

cooperation in the forest industry." Nobody asks him how. That speech

by that member was very lacking in any specifics. And their basic

platform is personal character assassination of the members on the

government side.

There is another difference: the members on the government side are

held responsible and accountable for what they say; but members of the

opposition seem to be able to say anything, whether it's correct or

not, and they are not asked to account for it and are not even asked to

be responsible for what they say. They could make any accusation and

leave it hanging out there — and who cares? So that's the difference.

We have to be very responsible.

As I indicated, this government has a commitment to the continuance

of a quality education system, not rash promises. I could use the

Ontario example. I spent a number of years on the Canadian Council of

Ministers of Education. There's a lot of concern about how we measure

performance in education, how we determine whether or not pupils are

CMEC set out to say: "Let us try to determine what the educational

indicators are." That is to find some criteria against which we can

measure progress. That was moving along very nicely. We had $500,000 in

commitments from a private sector organization, because they too were

interested. If we're going to make comparisons, how do we determine

whether some progress has been made? It was moving along very nicely

until the NDP election in Ontario. That Minister of Education came to

the meeting and said he couldn't speak to this until he checked with

the teachers. He told us to remember that the teachers committed their

full support. Now there's an obligation. Shortly afterwards that

minister wrote back and said that the teachers thought it was

standardization, and therefore Ontario was not prepared to participate.

Without Ontario's participation....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: It is facts, but you wouldn't understand facts,

Mr. Member from Victoria. They go right by you.

So we have a situation where a good program has been taken down for

political reasons because of a debt that's owing by the Ontario-elected

members to the teachers who supported them in their election campaign.

I hope that does not happen in British Columbia.

We've heard a lot about education. Education is very important. In

question period this afternoon, we heard Dr. Strangelove — I'm sorry, the

member for Vancouver-Point Grey — say that he's supporting a petition

to make health care a priority in this province. From the $15 billion

budget, 40 percent or so goes into health care. I would think the fact

that one-third of the money in that budget goes into education

indicates that education is a priority. The per capita spending on

education is high in British Columbia.

Yes, we've spent a great deal more than we did in the mid-eighties,

when the money wasn't there, and have caught up on a lot of things in

education. But you just can't go the NDP route. A couple of years ago,

when we said we had put in a 15 percent increase, they said it was not

enough — cutbacks in education. Last year it was 10.9 percent, and they

called it a cutback in education spending. So you have this constant

statement about cuts. When a 10 percent, 11 percent or 15 percent

increase is a cut, then I wonder what sort of financial difficulties

we're going to get into in the future.

Let me deal with some things that the Education critic was saying

this morning. Remember this person was saying that it's time for a

change. They want the people to vote in an NDP government so that she

can be Minister of Education — a rather frightening thought. I guess

that member went to the BCSTA convention on the weekend and told them

that they would repeal Bill 82. I guess that's notable because nobody

likes Bill 82; nobody likes constraints. But in the private sector

there are real constraints. So when people don't act responsibly, there

have to be some restraints.

[2:45]

They keep talking about figures. In February the teachers' average

settlement was 7.1 percent; the settlement in the private sector was

5.6 percent. They make a great case about the 3.75 percent increase in

the operation budget, which the government announced is not in line

with the consumer price index. If the consumer price index is running

at around 5 percent or 5.5 percent, why don't they make the case and

say that they want increases in line with the 5.5 percent? If that were

the case, there would be plenty of money for all the other programs.

So what do we have? Whatever this government has done, it has never

been enough. Then they have the gall to say that it's not money; it's

commitment. When we ask what they mean by commitment, they ask for more

money. Somehow or other the fact escapes people that money does not

come from government; it comes through government from the people.

[ Page 12071 ]

Maybe it wasn't very politically smart of me, but when many people in

my constituency have said that they wanted more, I said: "I love giving

out other people's money. I try to do it responsibly, but I do love to

spend it. If you want $100, please send $125 to Victoria." When they

asked why the $125, I said: "To collect it, process it and feed it back

to you probably costs 25 cents on the dollar. Therefore if you want

$1,000, send me $1, 250. I'd love to give you $1,000 back. Make me look

like a good guy, and you pay the bill." That is exactly what the

socialists are advocating. In other words, they say that we and the

government should provide that.

That Education critic, and would-be Education minister, also said

that if they became the government, they would give full taxing

authority back to the school districts. When I was Education minister,

I can remember all the flak I got that the government shouldn't expect

local people to raise the taxes; the government should provide. I got

all these blasts. So we agreed that 90 percent of the education funding

would come from provincially collected taxes, not from provincial

revenue; we would give 90 percent of the costs back, and only 10

percent of it would be on the taxpayers.

As soon as we did that, we had this admonition by the opposition

that the government should pick up 90 percent of the cost of education,

and we were already doing a great deal of it. When we spent all this

money, they said that it was not enough.

The member for Prince George North spent quite a bit of time on

education and on how we don't do the right thing by it. Implicitly, I

assume that if we aren't spending enough at a 15 percent increase, then

they would spend more. Yet she comes to Fort St. John, to the NDP

candidates' nomination meeting, where all 80 of the local NDPers turned

out....

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: Some of them were observers. I don't think there

were 80 members. She comes up there and says: "We would spend within

our means." So you have all of these situations where they constantly

imply.... They tell the health people that they would spend more money.

They tell education people that more money would be spent. They tell

social services people that more money would be spent. They tell the

people who want roads that more money would be spent.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen sent out a newsletter

which I happened to read, and he said that this government is so stingy

that it has only given the producers 2.2 cents per pound — I'm not sure

whether that's the correct figure — for the apples they produce. "We

will live by the promise that our leader made to give you 10 cents per

pound for the apples you grow."

AN. HON. MEMBER: What about the facts?

MR. BRUMMET: Those are the facts, unless that member

distorted them in his newsletter. I'm quoting from his newsletter.

MR. JONES: You're not quoting anything. You're quoting your

own printed notes there.

MR. BRUMMET: I've got the newsletter here, but I'm not going

to take the time....

MR. BLENCOE: Table the document.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BRUMMET: Maybe those members should read their own

garbage sometimes, and that way they would be as knowledgeable too.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would address the Chair.

MR. BRUMMET: We're talking about the conflict and

confrontation in education. Mr. Speaker, we tried valiantly to

eliminate that. We set up a royal commission that came in and listened

to people — educators and everybody else, including students — and

asked: "What is the direction we need to go in education?" They came in

with recommendations. Yes, one of them was that we should avoid

confrontation. I tried for a long time to avoid that confrontation. We

had an opportunity because we called together the educators, the

parents and a lot of people on the education advisory committee, and we

said to them: "Here are the recommendations of the Sullivan report. How

do we translate this into operating practice?"

These people came up with these documents, and they came up with the

Year 2000. First of all, the outline got a lot of reaction. We've been

accused of no consultation. The original Year 2000 document prepared by

educators was sent out to everyone in the province interested in seeing

it, particularly to all the schools. Teachers, parents and a lot of

people had an opportunity to react. Those reactions were considered,

and the document was modified for the Year 2000 program. We are accused

of no consultation. I don't know what you need.

First of all, when the document went out for the reaction from

teachers, the BCTF told them to ignore it. As Education minister, I

offered each year to speak to the annual general meeting of the

Teacher's Federation — now teachers' union — as ministers in every

other province do. I was told no. I was finally told I could come and

watch. So one year I did and surprised them, and the next year I

declined. I had other things to do than to come and watch. I asked:

"Why won't you let me speak to the teachers and answer their questions

directly?" They replied: "We'll tell them what you think." These are

the people who talk about freedom of speech and freedom of access to

information. A lot of work went into keeping me away from talking to

teachers directly.

Because I had taught in the Okanagan for many years, I was finally

invited as a speaker to the

[ Page 12072 ]

Okanagan Valley teachers' convention. The word went out from the BCTF

to boycott that meeting. I don't know how many teachers there are in

the Okanagan — it must be well over 1000 — but 250 of them didn't

accept the BCTF instructions. Imagine that: a convention of teachers

asked me to speak to them, and I agreed to speak for half an hour and

to answer questions for an hour. The BCTF sent out a bulletin through

their union reps to the teachers saying: "Don't go to that meeting.

We'll tell you what he thinks."

When the Year 2000 program went out, I continually met with the BCTF

executive and said: "Let's talk about how far we should take it, in

what way; to what extent we should implement this." I would leave that

meeting. The next day there was an issue-alert bulletin that went out

to all the teachers, distorting the information and telling them: "It's

no use; they have not made a firm commitment to funding this change."

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what more you can ask, when you can get a

government to say we're serious about this, and we will commit, above

the operating budget for education, $1.4 billion over the next ten

years; because it's going to take time to implement this program, in

conjunction and working with the teachers. When we say we're going to

commit $1.4 billion.... To get a ten-year commitment from any

government has to be near a miracle. But that was forthcoming — a firm

commitment. And what did we get? "Not enough, and give it to us." And

then the attack kept going out: "Don't let them do this. Don't let them

impose this on you."

I think we came a long way, and it was thrown back in our face. We

got the moral commitment and the financial commitment from this

government to support the recommendations that the royal commission

report had brought forward, and that the educators had translated into

operating practice. We got that support, and we had the opportunity to

do it. As a matter of fact, from other places in the world, in North

America, we were getting accolades for what we were talking about. But

the BCTF kept sending out issue alerts saying: "Don't let them do it."

I know that the government now has said that we're going to review

this program. It's always subject to constant review. I guess my fear

is: is the government going to become convinced that since the teachers

don't want it, since the BCSTA fights against it, why are we committing

this money towards it? That's my fear. But when I talk to individual

teachers, who are very impressed with the opportunity for professional

autonomy in the classroom — which their own organization seems to want

to prevent.... They have the opportunity.

We've heard about the dropout rate; it's of great concern. The

federal throne speech.... Everybody is concerned about the dropout

rate. One of the things from the royal commission was that if you want

the kids to stay in school, to grade 12, you've got to make the program

relevant to them as individuals, not just relevant to those who are

going on to university. That is incorporated in the Year 2000, and that

is what we are fighting about.

We see the juvenile action of teachers in Surrey, who are throwing

their Year 2000 manuals into a pile and saying: "We're not going to

participate. We're professionals." Can you imagine doctors, even if

they were fighting for more money, and even at loggerheads with this

government, saying: "We are not going to use a CAT scan, because this

government bought it; we are going to go back to surgery to find these

things"? Can you imagine those people acting that way? I'll tell you,

if a bunch of students came back to the office and dumped their books

on the desk when I was a school principal, and said, "The questions in

here are too hard; we don't like the book," I would have thought that

that was juvenile behaviour. Yet we have these role models, wanting to

be called professionals. I'll accept and treat any teacher as a

professional who acts like a professional. But I'll tell you, I cannot

praise them as professionals when they pull these antics.

When you think that it's clearly in the act that giving the marks to

students is part of a teacher's job.... It's in the job description. We

have the teachers in Abbotsford taking full pay for supposedly doing

their job, and for two months refusing to give the marks to the

students. When as Minister of Education I tried to interfere, I was

told: according to the Human Rights Act, according to the constitution,

according to all of this, the deal is between the employer — which is

the school board — and the teachers. The only persons that can

castigate the teachers for not doing their duty are the school boards.

Of course the school boards, I think, are more interested in keeping

the kids in school, so they don't want to create confrontation.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I don't think teachers have the right, in good conscience — whatever

other reasons, even as a union member — to draw full pay and refuse to

do a part of their duties that is required. When you get a headline in

the Vancouver Province saying that the Vancouver School Board

has voted not to disobey the law... When that warrants a headline, that

the people responsible are going to obey the law, that's something else.

[3:00]

While I'm on Vancouver, when you think of it, last year, when we

said 6 percent in a 5 percent economy, they immediately said: "Not

enough." This year the minister announced 3.75 percent-plus. "Not

enough." But they went to Commissioner Lien and said: "Why are you

holding us back from paying the teachers? We can afford to pay 9.1

percent."

Mr. Speaker, there is so much concern about education. The case is

being made that it has to be in line with the cost of living. As to the

cost of living, I would say 5 percent is generous right now, that the

private sector is averaging 5.6 percent — certainly more in line with

the economy. Teachers are demanding averaging and depriving pupils of

services because they want at least 7 percent. They say: "We're not on

strike for money; we're on strike for other things."

Interjection.

[ Page 12073 ]

MR. BRUMMET: I would be quite happy, as that advanced

critic.... I say advanced critic because that's his specialty —

criticism. Building bridges? No way. Criticism? You bet. Anything. But

I would be glad to give.... I asked school boards: "Do you want full

taxing authority? Do you want all that? Because with it goes the

responsibility." Oh no. They wanted full taxing authority with the

government paying 100 percent of the education cost, and they wanted

full taxing authority for extras.

Yes, I'm all in favour of democracy, but democracy has two aspects

to it: rights and responsibilities. When you're willing to take the

responsibility for something, then you have the right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must advise you that your time

has expired.

MR. BRUMMET: Such a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. I was just getting

into full flight. Thank you.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: Visiting us today are some grade 6 students

from St. Joseph's School in Smithers, their teachers, Cheryl Teves,

Margaret Sikkes and John Lankester, and two volunteer parent drivers,

Jim Teves and Barrie Carter. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the hon. member who just finished

speaking, I'm reminded of a rant that he gave earlier in the House — I

think it was back in 1987 — and he got so excited that the opposition

House Leader suggested he should go home, have some milk and cookies

and maybe calm down. I think he would still benefit from that advice.

Anyway, I want to remind him that I didn't heckle him once when he was

speaking and, given that he has a very loud voice, I am counting on him

to return the favour.

It's a pleasure to stand in my place and speak during the throne

speech debate. I want to take this opportunity to recognize that this

is the centennial of Coquitlam. It's an excellent year that we're

having in Coquitlam, where so many of our people have their homes, but

whose place of work is outside the community. People rely on the

transit system and roads to be able to get to work in Vancouver and

other places. It's a tremendous thing that our centennial is providing

the focus that enables that community to draw together and work on some

very worthwhile projects.

One of those worthwhile projects is the B.C. Summer Games, which are

being hosted in Coquitlam between July 25 and 28. I'd like to invite the

members of the Legislature and, indeed, all the people of British

Columbia to visit Coquitlam during the B.C. Summer Games, because

there's going to be a tremendous time presented in that delightful

community for those who come to visit us.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll be there.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you.

Also, we are going to celebrate as part of our centennial in

Coquitlam the B.C. Seniors' Games, and I really want to emphasize these

games which are taking place September 4 to 7 in Coquitlam. Mr. Les

Robson is doing an excellent job as the chairperson of the committee

which is planning that. There are going to be over 1,600 participants

and hundreds of other people coming to the community to participate at

that time. I think it's very important that we recognize the role of

seniors in our communities and that we affirm the value of their

presence in that activity. Mr. Robson is himself an outstanding

marathoner, and I believe that probably he would put most of us in this

Legislative Assembly to shame if we were to enter into a race with him.

He is in a race, along with the members of his committee, to try to

find the funding to be able to make the Seniors' Games the success and

the economic benefit that it potentially can be. I have written a

letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture,

asking that this government consider providing support to the B.C.

Seniors' Games committee as they do to the B.C. Summer Games. They are

similar events in terms of the amount of work that is required, and yet

the one activity receives no provincial funding at all for the

committee that has to put on the games.

This committee is experiencing a $58,000 shortfall, and they should

be able to go about their work of putting on an event that's an

economic benefit to our community, and indeed to the province, without

having to get bogged down in the fund-raising. In the scheme of things,

that money would be realized for the province many times over because

of its spinoff effects.

I also wish to say with some sadness that there's a lot of concern

in my constituency about Bill 82. The bill is consistent with the bad

and unfair labour legislation that we have seen during the term of this

government. It represents another addition of the piecemeal and ad hoc

approach to labour legislation that we find in the way this government

has been mismanaging things in this province. They simply have a

failing grade when it comes to finding policies that will help get

people working through a carrot approach. Instead they are constantly

putting people down.

We had an example of that listening to the last speaker, who spent

three-quarters of his speech teacher-bashing. That is totally

unnecessary, when you recognize the importance of teachers to the

people of this province and the development of education.

Teacher-bashing is all very convenient and very simple, an activity for

someone who has the immunity of this House to indulge in that, but it's

highly inappropriate. What we need is good, fair labour legislation

that enables this province to work appropriately in its multifaceted

ways.

One of the things the member said that I want to refer to was that

the Leader of the Opposition hasn't put forward a program. I'm here to

tell you today that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact

is that, because we've had to endure the disarray of this

[ Page 12074 ]

government and the constant soap opera that has been on the front

pages and the lead item on the news day after day, night after night,

matters of urgent and vital importance to this province are not getting

the benefit of public debate. They are not getting the benefit of being

dealt with in the media, because the media are constantly engaged with

the soap opera that has been the hallmark of this government.

While that has been going on, the Leader of the Opposition has

instructed his shadow cabinet to come forward with a legislative

package, a program that would show the people of the province where we

stand. Therefore, during the last session of the Legislature, the

official opposition in this House introduced a combination of over 50

pieces of private members' legislation, motions and other documents on

the order paper that state very clearly where our government would

stand. The leadership has been coming forward and presenting a program,

which has unfortunately been obscured by the amount of mismanagement

experienced by this government. After all, there's only so much space

that can occupy the newspapers, television and radio.

We do have an excellent program. We have private members' bills, 13

of which I have introduced myself, that outline very clearly what an

NDP program is with regard to the environment. The legislation deals

with items that this government has not even touched. It deals with

other items where this government has some legislation but where there

are serious gaps. So don't talk to me about this opposition party not

having put forward its program. We've put it forward very clearly and

very thoroughly, and the people of British Columbia are becoming ever

more aware of that program.

Mr. Speaker, there's a saying that is very important to me. It's

biblical. "Where there is no vision, the people perish." I've just been

through the throne speech of last year and the one from this year. In

last year's the government announced an environmental program entitled

Vision 2001, which was to be this province's answer to the federal

Green Plan. We have not seen Vision 2001. Vision 2001 is mere

window-dressing, smoke and mirrors and rhetoric. Vision 2001 was an

attempt on the part of this government to indicate that they were about

to do something. But the fact is that because of the disarray, because

of the six Environment ministers in four and a half years and the four

Environment ministers in the last two years, because of the three

deputy ministers during the term of this government, we have a

situation of disarray in the Ministry of Environment.

They talked about Vision 2001. Then we just had our throne speech —

where is Vision 2001? It is not mentioned. It was the hallmark; it was

one of the news items coming out of the throne speech a year ago. Where

is it now, Mr. Speaker? The fact is that a government in disarray has

forgotten to go back and read its own promises and has failed to even

in some way put forward the fact that they remembered that they had

promised that.

The fact is that there is a very serious morale problem within the

Ministry of Environment. The excellent people that work in that civil

service have found that their work has been smashed to smithereens time

and time again because of the inappropriate political agenda of this

government. For example, during the time that the No. 4 environment

minister resigned in a fit of self-righteousness over the Premier's

interference in deciding to squelch the AOX level which the cabinet had

agreed to — which these members of cabinet who are now heckling

personally agreed to.... When the Premier overruled that cabinet

decision and the minister resigned, the fact is that that sent a

message to good people working in the ministry who had worked hard to

develop that program, only to see it turn to ashes and dust because of

the interference by friends and insiders of this government.

It is simply inappropriate that those people who worked so hard to

develop that program to address a serious environmental concern with

pulp pollution only saw their hard work turn to ashes. Who would not

suffer a morale problem in having to deal with that kind of treatment?

After all, these are people that deserve the affirmation of seeing the

work that they do bear fruit and come into something worthwhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you'd do.

MR. CASHORE: The member has asked what I would do. What I

would do is contained in this book, "Sustainable Development," the

program of the New Democratic Party. It's contained within Bill M204,

and I recommend it to that member. It's all spelled out there — 1.5

with a zero AOX by the end of the year. The member has asked for it,

and he has received an answer.

[3:15]

At that time, in its attempt to waffle out of this embarrassing

situation, the government stated that they needed to study the issue.

So what did they do? They called on the three universities to enter

into a study of AOX requirements with regard to organochlorines. They

called on the universities, they were saying, to develop a study and

research project that would enable them to get answers with regard to

the importance of dioxins and furans and the other nasties that come

out of the organochlorines.

The fact is that that research project is not even off the ground.

It's not even to the point where it's up and circling the airport — it

isn't even off the ground. It is true that there have been some

meetings, but they are not able to agree on the research objectives

that are required so that they can get on with that.

So again, the words that were spoken at an embarrassing time for

this government have turned to ashes. They never meant anything.

Clearly this is a tired government that is not dealing with the urgent

and pressing environmental issues. This indicates that it's very much

time for a change.

Let's take a look at another situation in the Ministry of

Environment. A few years ago, as part of restraint, the Ministry of

Environment stopped keeping up its database. That was simply a tragic

thing for this province. All kinds of inventory data that is needed to

enable us to deal with a wide range of environmental

[ Page 12075 ]

issues from forest practices, matters dealing with the Waste

Management Act, matters dealing with effluent discharges.... Nobody is

looking after the database. That treasure, which was part of an amenity

for the people of British Columbia, has been allowed to go fallow. It's

going to be a tremendously difficult task to get that database up and

running again.

What about the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation? It has become

an embarrassment to this government. It has not done what the

government said it would do when they brought in the legislation. As a

matter of fact, they have had to fire the person who was the manager of

the corporation. Nothing has happened through that corporation that has

dealt with the objectives given to it.

Let's look now at the situation with regard to the Expo soils. The

fact is that the soil classifications in this province were developed

after this government had entered into a deal with Concord Pacific and

as an afterthought recognized that it was going to have to answer the

question: "Who pays for the cleanup of the lands?" And so the

government said: "Yes, we will pay for the cleanup; the taxpayers will

pay for the cleanup." Yet the government was not willing to apply that

principle to the previous owners of the land. Surely if the government

feels the people of B.C., the present owner, should pay for the cost of

cleanup, the government, looking after our interests, should require

that CPR and others of previous ownership should have paid for the

cleanup of that land. It's simply inappropriate.

Then they scrambled to come up with standards that would classify

the lands at Expo. These standards were not based on Richmond, Prince

George or Prince Rupert; they were based on the Expo lands, and they

came up with a classification system.

They have decided the site they are now removing soil from is a site

they want to use as residential land. The fact is that Concord Pacific,

not through any fault of its own, wishes to proceed with its plans, but

the government is holding it up because it can't get its act together.

Now they've started to remove the soil to a site in Richmond, which is

an industrial site, but it's an industrial site that's in the midst of

food-producing land. The Minister of Environment is simply incorrect

when he says the soil is not contaminated. The soil is slightly

contaminated. It is not contaminated to the point that it is defined as

a special waste in the Waste Management Act, but it is contaminated to

the point that they have decided it's not suitable for residential

land, and therefore they have to remove it.

Where do they take the soil? They take the soil from the Expo site

and put it in the midst of farmland in Richmond. That is simply

inappropriate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where should it go?

MR. CASHORE: The fact is that the soil admittedly contains

heavy metals, and we hear the member opposite saying that they believe

that the soil should go on food-growing land or adjacent to

food-growing land. That shows where they stand; that shows the extent

to which they are willing to play chance with the health and the safety

of British Columbians. They are quite happy to see soils that have been

denied for use for residential land go into food-growing land out in

Richmond.

Do you know something else? They're prepared to do that without

allowing the people to have public hearings. I find it absolutely

offensive to think the people in Richmond do not have the right to sit

down in an appropriate public hearing and ask their questions and have

them dealt with in a responsible way. Through some sort of an anomaly

or technical point, because it's land that belongs to the National

Harbours Board and because the provincial and federal governments can

ride roughshod over the municipality and over the people of Richmond,

we're ending up with this situation that the people of Richmond are

disfranchised. They don't have an opportunity to have a say about what

is going on in their community. That is simply inappropriate.

The hon. member asks: "What would we do?" We've introduced the

Environmental Protection Act. It deals with those situations. Those

questions are answered and dealt with before anybody asks them. Public

hearings would be available to the people. That is leadership; that's

the way it should be done.

I'd like to turn now to the government's record with regard to the

Agricultural Land Commission. We see the situation where, with the

stroke of a pen, cabinet interfered in the work of the Agricultural

Land Commission and decided that golf balls are a vegetable crop. They

decided that golf courses are a form of agriculture.

It's not that golf courses can never be placed on marginal

agricultural land. The point is that cabinet has decided to make that

decision and denied the expertise of the people within the Agricultural

Land Commission. It's simply inappropriate. It's interference.

The hon. member asked me: "What are we going to do about it?" I will

answer her. What we are going to do about it is to rescind that

order-in-council. The members opposite keep asking me what we're going

to do, and every time they ask, I have an answer. We have the answers

about what we're going to do: we're going to wipe that order-in-council

out. It never should have happened.

If those members look at a map of the Boundary Bay area, it looks

like a patchwork quilt with Panamanian-registered companies all over

the place. The people in Boundary Bay have seen their provincial

treasure — Crown land — sold to people on the basis of lease-to-purchase arrangements. It never should have happened, and it's

happening in a way that is putting the wildlife in the Boundary Bay

area into jeopardy. It's putting into jeopardy the Pacific flyway....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Let the record show that the Minister of Parks

is making fun of the issue with regard to Boundary Bay and the

protection of the wildlife there. What kind of a Minister of Parks do we

[ Page 12076 ]

have in this province that would tend to make fun of the issue of

protection of wildlife in Boundary Bay? That is absolutely appalling.

But it's not surprising, because it's consistent with some of the very

inappropriate comments that he has made in this House, which I will not

go into.

I also wish to refer to the issue of bulk water exports in this

province. This is a very important subject that has come to our

attention lately. This government has no policy. In a panic and under

intense questioning from the opposition, the government decided to

knuckle under and call for a moratorium until the end of June. The fact

is, Mr. Speaker, that with the issue of bulk water exports, the hearing

process they put into place simply does not give Mr. Carter, an

excellent person, the tools to do the job. This process is going to

require public review, not only with regard to the environment but also

with regard to the trade issue. Do Canadians want to get involved in

bulk water? And if they do, to what extent? This government denies the

people of this province their right to participate in that debate.

We have a very thorough policy on this. There are five points in

this policy. It calls for a thorough review process dealing with the

implications of bulk water export for Canadian sovereignty, for the

environmental implications to be dealt with thoroughly, for the

implications for land and water resources in related industries to be

thoroughly reviewed, for any areas subject to aboriginal claims to be

part of the equation for a system of groundwater licensing being

established and for a reasonable form of taxation of this valuable

resource being implemented.

The member opposite asked me what we would do. I've just given him

the answer, Mr. Speaker. We have a very thorough policy. Just keep

asking that question on what we would do. We have answers to that,

because we've done our homework and have our policies in place.

I turn now to the major project review process. The major project

review process is this government's attempt to fool the public into

thinking that there is an appropriate process for environmental review

when major projects are coming forward. Nothing could be further from

the truth. The major project review process is something that happens

by virtue of what is decided in a cabinet group: whether there will be

public hearings; the kind of review it's going to be; and whether

there's going to be a relationship with the federal review process. Our

Environmental Protection Act will put that into legislation. It's

something that will be decided within the Legislature, and it will be

subject to a public debate. It's not the type of thing we are ashamed

of; it's something we're very proud of. We're going to be making sure

that the people of this province have the opportunity to have their

voices heard when it comes to issues like this, whether it's having

contaminated soils dumped next to farmland, whether it's the issue

similar to what we've seen with the Kemano completion project —

whatever it may be. With these major projects, the people of the

province have the right to be heard and the right to do so in an

appropriate legislated process.

I want to turn now to an issue that relates to my own community,

Coquitlam. The GVRD is dumping the toxic ash from the Burnaby

incinerator on the Coquitlam landfill at the confluence of the Brunette

and Fraser Rivers, in an area that could be subject to liquefaction if

there were an earthquake. That's not really a small issue. The

municipality of Coquitlam only receives $1 a tonne for that ash, yet

future generations might be charged with the cleanup of that situation.

That is simply not appropriate. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this

makes the Coquitlam landfill the largest illegal toxic dump site in

this province? It's illegal because there's no permit. This government,

which has promised to go through the permitting process with regard to

that situation, has never followed through. They said they'd do it and

put out a news release. This government seeks to manage the environment

by virtue of public relations and news releases rather than substance.

They simply haven't dealt with this issue, and that's unfair. The ash

is going there by virtue of a letter, written by the minister, giving

permission but violating the Waste Management Act and denying the

people of Coquitlam and others the right to appear at hearings and

speak on the permitting process. That's simply not a way to run a

government.

The member opposite asks me what we would do with regard to air

quality. What we're going to do is have an authority that recognizes

that the GVRD and the Central Fraser Valley Regional District and the

Regional District of Fraser-Cheam all have a mutual issue on their

hands with regard to the quality of air. Those people recognize, as Dr.

David Bates has pointed out, that when there is an inversion, the

people going to emergency wards seriously and dramatically increases.

This indicates that if we don't address the issue of air quality,

there's an impact on the cost of our health care plan. So it behooves

us for economic reasons, if not for other more humanitarian reasons, to

address this issue. We will set up an airshed authority that goes

across political boundaries and enables that issue to be addressed in

an appropriate mariner.

[3:30]

My colleague from Oak Bay has also mentioned the Georgia basin

authority, which will recognize our mutuality with people who happen to

be on the lake of the Georgia basin, in the jurisdiction of Washington

State. We have a mutual concern to address this environmental issue

together. There are some things they do better than we do, and there

are some things we do better than they do. Through mutuality and

neighbourliness with our friends in Washington, we can start to address

some of these issues together. So the question is: what would you do

about that? That is my answer.

There are so many more items I would like to address with regard to

the environment. I fear that we may not even get to the estimates this

year because of government mismanagement and the fact that the throne

speech was delayed because of government mismanagement; then the budget

was delayed because of government turmoil; then the continuing soap

opera left us without being able to deal with the vital things.

[ Page 12077 ]

I do hope we get an opportunity to speak in estimates on some of

these things.

Better still, I wish they would call an election. I think it's time

for the Social Credit government to put itself out of its misery. I

used to say, "Put the people of B.C. out of their misery," but now I'm

saying: "Put yourselves out of your misery." You don't have to go on

with this anymore; your time of suffering is over. Call an election.

Spend your time in the exile of opposition where you belong, and let's

get on with doing it appropriately in this province.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a real pleasure for me to stand and

join in the debate. Before getting into the substance, I think it's

worth noting that the members across the way have had some 20 years to

contemplate the exile of opposition, after only three short years in

government and a 20-year exile before that. So certainly if I ever want

to know about the exile of opposition, I'll call you. I know that if

you don't have the experience, those who have gone before you have more

than enough experience and knowledge about that particular area of the

Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you're going to do.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a real pleasure for me to stand and

tell you about what we have done. That's the question, Mr. Speaker:

what have we done during the past four years? Why are we the best

province in Canada? Why do we have the best record of any government in

the country? Why are we the best government in Canada?

I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and to note first of all that

the industries regulated by this ministry make an enormous contribution

to the well-being of British Columbia and to the communities of British

Columbia. These industries and the people employed in them are

understood and appreciated by the people in the communities where the

wealth is created. Those people in rural British Columbia understand

the mining and petroleum industries. They understand the benefits of

hydro generation. It's the people in urban British Columbia.... For

some reason, many of them think that money simply pours into Vancouver

from some outback. They don't understand that there are people out

there working, striving and trying to make a living. We in Social

Credit understand that you have to create wealth for there to be wealth.

The mining industry is probably one of the great unsung success

stories of this province. It's the number two industry in this

province, creating huge wealth in British Columbia. We should support

those kinds of industries. We should support the mining industry and

the petroleum industry. We in northeastern British Columbia — probably

more than anybody in the country — understand the benefits of resource

extraction.

The petroleum industry contributes huge amounts of money to our

treasury. It creates economic activity in the areas where resource

extraction is taking place. People in those communities support that

kind of activity. They also support hydroelectric generation. They like

to see jobs being created. They like the jobs created when new projects

come on stream. They like the construction jobs that bring new projects

on stream. These things are important to British Columbia.

The NDP don't seem to understand that. All they want to do is

criticize: tighten up, more environmental controls, more restrictions,

more regulations. We hear it continually. "We would tighten up. We

would make life more difficult for industry." But tell me, is it the

industry that you want to hurt, or is it the people who work in the

industry who are your real targets?

B.C. Hydro is probably one of the great....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, anytime the members want to

take their place, if they'll stand up I'll be delighted to sit down. If

not, then I would hope....

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got nothing to say. Carry on.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I want to spend a few minutes talking

about Jack Davis, the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, someone who I think made a tremendous contribution to

British Columbia and to Canada.

It wasn't really until I served as Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources that I had an opportunity to understand the work

that he did, the depth of his intellect and the dedication that he had

to his province and his country. I was delighted that the Premier chose

the throne speech as an opportunity to announce that the new Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources building would be named in his honour.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest tribute to Jack Davis over time will be

the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. That project required someone who

had the drive, the sincerity and the dedication to push it forward. The

Vancouver Island pipeline had been talked about for decades. No one

could put it all together. It was the efforts of one individual, Jack

Davis, that made it happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It is over budget, and I don't think

that over the fullness of time it's going to make a great deal of

difference. I believe that the improvements to the environment and the

economic activity that this pipeline will generate far outweigh any

additional costs that may have resulted.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much is it over budget?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I don't know how much over budget it is,

but I don't think it matters particularly, when you look at the effect

on the environment. Those members across the way talk so bravely about

protecting the environment, but they don't want to spend any money to

do it. Fine somebody. Put a regulation in place to make somebody else

do it. But

[ Page 12078 ]

make an investment to improve the environment? Never. Never make an

investment. Fine industry. Force somebody else to clean up the

environment. That's your answer; that's not our answer.

I think over the next ten or 20 years, when we look at what happens

to the economy of Vancouver Island, even those nay sayers across the

way will understand that one of the most important things to happen on

Vancouver Island in decades has been the natural gas pipeline over to

the Island. Industry will benefit from cheap, clean power, and I think

it's going to be a tremendous asset not only to Vancouver Island but to

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech spoke in some detail about native

issues, and I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the

considerable progress that this government has made over the last three

years on native issues. I'm pleased to have had an opportunity to play

a

part in moving that issue forward.

We started three years ago with some serious differences and

difficulties with the native community Last August, for the first time

in the history of British Columbia, cabinet agreed to negotiate a

resolution to native land claims. We agreed to join with Canada and the

first nations to find an answer to the difficult problems that have

plagued this province for longer than the province has existed. Last

September, after undertaking to start negotiations, we actually began

negotiations with the Nisga'a Tribal Council toward a framework that

would guide negotiations on native land claims. One of the most

important and memorable days I had as Minister of Native Affairs was

the signing of the framework agreement in New Aiyansh last March. I'm

pleased also that talks are underway with Canada and the First Nations

Summit to find a way of moving native issues forward and to find ways

of resolving, not only for the Nisga'a but for all tribal councils in

British Columbia, a solution to a problem that has plagued us for too

long.

We were able to achieve those kinds of successes while maintaining

our belief that aboriginal title did not exist. We continue to believe

that there is no aboriginal title in British Columbia, and this

position was supported clearly by Chief justice McEachern in his

decision on Delgamuukw v. the Queen. The much-talked-about

Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case supported the province's belief that

aboriginal title does not exist in British Columbia. It was with that

belief that we undertook to negotiate land claims and a resolution to

the land question. We are still committed to finding a resolution, but

not on the basis of native ownership of all land in British Columbia.

That is in absolute contrast to the position taken by the Leader of

the Opposition and the NDP. Last year he and other members of the NDP

stood in this House and said that if they were the government, they

would recognize aboriginal title. What a serious mistake that would

have been, given the decision by the Chief Justice. They would

recognize not only aboriginal title but also claims for sovereignty and

self-government.

Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We wouldn't pay

any more than 25 percent of the costs of settling native land claims."

The result of that poorly-thought-out statement was that within a

matter of weeks Tom Siddon, the Minister of Indian Affairs in Ottawa,

announced that Ottawa would expect British Columbia to pay 30 percent

of the cash costs and provide all of the land and resources necessary

to settle claims in British Columbia. Most calculations would indicate

that would mean 70 percent of the costs for the province and 30 percent

for Ottawa. I believe that federal position was a direct result of the

NDPs indication of their willingness to contribute substantially to the

cost of land claim settlements. I think that this issue demonstrates as

clearly as any just what a disaster the NDP would be if they were ever

to be elected to government.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, they made a mess of it in 1972, 1973 and 1974, and the

people kicked them out in 1975. They have shown again that they don't

understand issues, and most importantly, they don't understand the

consequences of their actions. They stand up and make statements

without any understanding at all of what the issues are or what the

consequences would be for British Columbia. This issue demonstrates

more clearly than any just how inept that group across the way would be

as government.

Even with good management, with a good Social Credit government,

these are going to be difficult issues to resolve. Land claims

negotiations are going to be tough, and it's going to be difficult for

anyone to find a resolution to this problem that will meet the needs of

all British Columbians. Our new Minister of Native Affairs and our very

capable staff are probably best equipped to handle this issue, but

these folks across the way don't understand that issue, and they don't

understand most issues in British Columbia. This one demonstrates as

clearly as anything just how incapable they truly are.

The throne speech also dealt in some length with the alarming

increase in debt in Canada. The national debt in Canada now exceeds

$389 billion. The deficit in Canada is increasing at $120 million a

day, or $5 million an hour.

The NDP government in Ontario didn't take very long to get into the

game in a major and scandalous way. Their very first budget has a $10

billion deficit. Their deficit in Ontario, the first year they're

government, will be more than 20 percent of the total budget. Imagine —

one dollar in five for debt spending. What's so shocking about that is

that 18 months ago Ontario led the country in economic activity.

Financial analysts were concerned with the rate of growth in Ontario

and the way Ontario was leading the country in inflation. Eighteen

short months, and after eight months the NDP government brings in a $10

billion deficit and throws the whole country into shock.

The NDP promised, during their election campaign, that they wouldn't

increase the deficit. No debt, no increase in deficit: that was the

promise. But it sure didn't take them very long, did it?

I don't think Ontario, after two or three NDP budgets, will ever get

out of debt again. I believe that after two or three more NDP budgets,

Ontario will be so far in debt it will find itself in exactly the same

[ Page 12079 ]

can't service, never mind reduce. I believe that Ontario, for the last

time in the foreseeable future, has seen a situation where it is

debt-free. Ontario has started down the slippery slope to finding

itself so deeply in debt that it will never get out, and I don't think

the people of Ontario can do a darn thing about it. These guys are

going to be there for two or three more years, and the deficit will be

beyond their ability to repay.

The NDP here in British Columbia do their very best to distance

themselves from the NDP in Ontario. It really is fun to watch them say:

"Oh, but it's different in British Columbia. Things are so much better

in British Columbia than they were in Ontario. We would never have to

do in British Columbia what they did in Ontario." My goodness, why do

you think things are so good in British Columbia? Because we've had a

Social Credit government for 40 out of the last 43 years.

I don't think for one minute that British Columbians believe the

socialists here when they say they're any different than Bob Rae and

his gang. They're exactly the same bunch of people.

The NDP here sent a team — an implementation group — down to

Ontario. NDP MLAs from British Columbia went to Ontario to help the

Ontario government bring in its new budget. They won't tell us who it

is. They're not very proud of what they did down there. As a matter of

fact, it's obvious that they're ashamed of what they did in Ontario;

they're ashamed of their connection with Ontario; and they continually

refuse to tell us which of those 20 stalwart folk went to Ontario to

help the Ontario government. They hang their heads; they won't tell

anybody; nobody went; we didn't have any part of it; none of us went.

That's the answer.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They really are embarrassed by their colleagues in Ontario. They

distance themselves from Bob Rae as if he had the plague. They don't

want to talk about Bob Rae; they want to read newspapers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Do you? You're proud of what he's done?

You like his new welfare system? You like his new taxation systems?

I'll tell you, Bob Rae is a model for you guys. He's your role model,

and we all understand that. It's your denial of it that causes me some

trouble.

What a contrast between the NDP in Ontario and the Social Credit

government in British Columbia! Over the last four years the Social

Credit government in British Columbia actually reduced our accumulated

debt by $800 million. Over the last four years we reduced our total

debt by almost a billion dollars. In 1986, British Columbia had

accumulated a debt of $4 billion. At the present moment it's about $3.2

billion, so we've actually more than balanced our budget over the last

four years; we have written down the debt, something no government

anywhere else in Canada has been able to accomplish.

It's a record that any other government in Canada would be proud of

and one that most governments and people in Canada look to with envy.

These folks across the way are all of a sudden confronted with the

reality in Ontario and of what would happen if they were ever to govern

British Columbia. Quite frankly, I don't think that's going to happen.

When people analyze what's happening in Ontario and compare it with

what's happening here in British Columbia, they will decide again, as

they have so many times, that they want Social Credit to continue

providing good government here in British Columbia.

I wonder how many times over the last 20 years the NDP, as an

election drew near, thought they were going to win, and how many times

they were disappointed. In a way, I feel sorry for the members across

the way, because that disappointment is coming once again, and it's

going to be a big disappointment to those folks, because they've really

worked up the belief that they're going to win. It's going to be a

letdown for them. My condolences in advance to you.

During the last session we passed some important legislation to

protect the taxpayers of British Columbia. We understand, as no other

government in Canada understands, the need to protect the taxpayer and

that the taxpayer is at the limit of his ability to pay. As a result of

that, we introduced the Taxpayer Protection Act, the Compensation

Fairness Act and the Job Protection Act. These will help us through the

difficult times ahead.

The throne speech makes reference to the $1.4 billion forest renewal

program, again an issue where this government has shown leadership that

will allow us to ensure our forest industry is sustainable at a level

that ensures the ongoing prosperity in British Columbia. The

maintenance and enhancement of our forests is extremely important. No

one expected our government would come up with $1.4 billion. Most

industry analysts were calling for $500 million to $600 million. The

NDP even thought we should spend $700 million or $800 million over the

next five years. We haven't heard much in this Legislature about our

decision to spend $1.4 billion. They're rather quiet about that,

because they understand they could never match that kind of commitment

to the forest industry. They're worried they're going to have to pay

for it. Well, you can't have it both ways, my friends.

I was particularly pleased with the announcement in the Speech from

the Throne of a travel allowance system for those in remote areas who

have to travel to Vancouver for health care. It was an important

decision and one we should have taken before today. I don't have any

doubt that it's long overdue; but we've done it, and that's the

important thing. We have undertaken to do that, and it's going to be

extremely good news for the people in South Peace River and for the

people all over rural British Columbia who have to travel to Vancouver

for treatment.

If you live in Dawson Creek and you travel to Vancouver for

treatment, it will probably cost you in excess of $1,000 for a trip to

Vancouver — $600 or $700

[ Page 12080 ]

for airfare, a couple of nights in the hotel and $1,000 is gone.

Many people need somebody to travel with them, and obviously, it

increases the costs. Some assistance for those people with the costs in

travelling to Vancouver is an important step forward.

There are more important implications from that decision. For the

first time, when government starts to pay a portion of the cost of

travelling for health care services, then government will start to

think about the economics of locating all of the specialized services

in Vancouver. It's pretty easy for economists in the Ministry of Health

or in the health care system to sit down without any thought to

transportation costs and decide that it's most economical to provide

all of the services in one location — to centralize. Once you start

figuring in travel costs, then I expect you're going to find there is a

lot to be said for locating things like cancer care in Prince George,

not only for humanitarian reasons but for economic reasons. I don't

think any bureaucrat understands the true costs, and so I welcome this

initiative, not only for the immediate relief that it will bring, but

in the expectation it will bring greater relief in the long run.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents were also pleased with the recent

announcements by the Minister of Education regarding residential school

taxes. They were particularly pleased with this new approach, coupled

with substantially increased homeowner grants. I'm pleased that

homeowners in British Columbia and in South Peace River will for the

most part either face no increase in residential school taxes or in

fact enjoy a decrease in school taxes.

In closing, I want to take a few moments to comment on some of the

tactics, processes and ways in which the members of the opposition in

this House have chosen to convince British Columbians that British

Columbians should choose them as the party to govern them next time

around.

It seems to me that selling a political party is a little like

selling any other commodity or item. There are really two ways, if

you've ever been in business, to sell an item. One is, if you have a

very good product or the very best product, to go out and tell the

customer about your product and how good it is. If you're selling a

second-rate product or something that's kind of slipshod — like an old

car in which the transmission's not too good — then don't talk about

your product. Talk about your competitor and his products. Run down the

opposition or the competition.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say that in the years I was in business,

I had the opportunity most of the time to talk about how good my

product was and how it would benefit the person to whom I was trying to

sell.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well, actually it was General Motors,

but there are good products in all lines.

It's the folks selling the Edsel across the way who have the

trouble, and they understand that the product they're trying to sell

doesn't meet the mark. So we hear them stand here day after day saying:

"The government doesn't do this; the government doesn't do that; the

Social Credit Party doesn't do that." We never hear what your plans

are. We asked the last speaker to tell us what he was going to do. He

paused and then went on to criticize the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to make

an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: Today in the members' gallery is a very

hard-working, dedicated mayor: the mayor of Abbotsford, His Worship

Mayor George Ferguson. I would like the House to give him a cordial

welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm tempted to say I'm glad to take my place

in this speech, but quite frankly I think that most of us would much

rather be facing an election at this time than dealing with a throne

speech that has very little credibility and a government that very

clearly has lost the confidence of the people of this province.

It's very difficult for us to deal with the issues in this throne

speech, because they are rehashes of previous throne speeches — as one

of our earlier speakers said — with a few NDP platforms thrown in for

good luck.

There are a couple of issues that I'd like to talk about, and I think

that this opportunity to do that.... The previous member said: "Tell us

what you are going to do." Well, I welcome the opportunity to tell the

House and the people who are listening to TV what's important to us.

Very clearly most of the members in this House sought election in 1986

because they wanted to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to start by making some references to the constitutional

debate that we, like all other Canadians, are involved in. I think that

it underlies many of the concerns that the public has about politicians

generally. What the people in British Columbia and in Canada said in

the last go-around is that they will not tolerate the old style of

governance. The old-style politicians such as we see in the Social

Credit Party and the Conservatives in Ottawa are more likely to make

deals in the back room with their friends than to actually serve the

interests of the people they were elected to represent.

The issue of the constitution and the message that this government —

until it gets up enough nerve to call the election — has to keep in

mind is that the people of British Columbia will no longer be excluded.

They demand the right to participate, and they demand the right to have

the politicians in this province address the relevant concerns that

affect their daily lives. To have the previous speaker talk about

selling his party as a product completely underscores the difference

between that party and the New Democrats. We very clearly understand

our responsibility. It's not to be one

[ Page 12081 ]

of selling a product, Mr. Member, but of representing the people of

this province, and of doing the people's business and serving the

people's interests. That's the difference between the Social Credit

Party and the New Democrats. I think that if the government ever does

get up the nerve to call the election, that will be the issue: who

serves the interests of the people of British Columbia?

I'm in a particularly good position in this House to have some

experience with the interim Premier.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You see, Mr. Member, the interim Premier has

been serving the municipality I live in for the past 20 years. For this

say-anything, do-anything government, the kind of throne speech we just

saw, that all of a sudden, in the last dying days, decides that it

cares about women and about the family... It's very interesting to

look at this interim Premier's record in Surrey and at what she has

done for our community, in the hope that the people of this province

don't have to suffer the same fate.

As I said, in the last 20 years Surrey has been represented by the

interim Premier, as well as by another senior member of subsequent

Social Credit cabinets. The reality that families in Surrey are having

to deal with — and I've said this time and time again; this is the

fourth or fifth throne speech.... We in Surrey have 350 portables in

our school district. That's the size of some school districts — some 28

schools. What that means, to members who aren't that aware of the

functioning of real life in their constituencies, is that those

portables are covering the playgrounds. It means that the kids have

nowhere to play. It means that the kids have to line up to go to the

washroom because washroom facilities were never built for all of those

portables. It means that when a child has to go to the library for a

book, there aren't enough books there for him. That child has to go

through the rain and the mud to be able to get to the gym.

The facilities in our school district are abysmal. That is the

direct history of the interim Premier's effect on her own municipality.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's interesting, because the members find

that amusing. I want to quote one of the past — it's hard to keep track

— Ministers of Education. When the school trustees were lobbying him

for fair funding, he said: "Better portables than tents." That's the

vision he had for our school system, and it was backed up by a silent

member from our municipality. We never heard a word from the interim

Premier, and we never heard a word from the member for Surrey-White

Rock on these important issues.

Let's talk a little bit about health care. We recently had the Royal

Commission on Health Care in Surrey. It gave us an opportunity to pull

a lot of statistics together and get a real picture of the services.

Again, I want to remind the members that what we're talking about is

that our responsibility as members of this House is representing the

needs of the people of British Columbia. In Surrey the reality is that

in the Boundary Health Unit — that's our preventive health component —

they have not had an increase in staff for preventive health since

1975. That is for services like AIDS, communicable disease testing,

counselling and post- or prenatal care. Those are services to families

directly. Since 1975 our population in Surrey has tripled, and we have

not had any additional support in the way of staffing for these

much-needed services.

I want to again remind the House that this is the direct reflection

of the service of two senior members of this government and the interim

Premier, who now says, all of a sudden, that she cares about children

and families. Where was she in the last 20 years? Why did we not hear

her lobbying strong and hard, and why was she not impacting the

policies of your government? She is now sitting as the first cabinet

minister for your government. Did she not have any influence before,

and will she have any influence now?

We talk about the care for violence against women and children. In

Surrey, our mental health division of the Ministry of Health is in a

peculiar situation, in that it was the second-highest area for cases in

the deinstitutionalization of Riverview. They got no relief, no

additional staff to help them with that problem.

In the last number of months we have seen services to children,

through the mental health

section in Whalley, diminish even further.

For the longest time, for counselling for children that were sexually

abused, there was a waiting-list of something like four to six months.

Just recently the government negotiated a new fee structure for

sessional psychologists, then turned around — through the Ministry of

Health, through mental health — and decided that they no longer could

afford to pay the fees that they themselves negotiated, and laid off

sessional psychologists.

What that means to the children in my community is that now those

who are the most severely abused have to wait a full 12 months for

services. I want the members to think about that. Again, that is the

direct response, and it falls to the member who is now the interim

Premier and the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale. Where were

they, and why haven't we heard anything from them in the past?

It's a little bit late and, quite frankly, this government's words

in the throne speech lack credibility even before you begin to look at

the reality of what has happened in this province. They lack

credibility because of the ongoing turmoil, the ongoing conflict within

their own ranks and the fact that they are more interested in fighting

among themselves than they are in governing the people and delivering

services that taxpayers pay for.

[4:15]

All of a sudden in the throne speech, this government would have us

believe that they have repented and that they care about children. When

you look at the facts, the fact that under this government we now have

specialized food banks to serve women and children only in this

province, in Vancouver.... Where have they been, and why have they not

said anything until now? Quite frankly, can you believe? Can you

[ Page 12082 ]

give any credibility to what they are saying at this time?

I'll talk a little bit more about sexual abuse. I told you that the

waiting-list for mental health is now 12 months for children. If you

can envision a child.... I'm going to talk to you a little bit about a

case that came through our office. There was a little girl; she was

eight years old. She was in a foster home and, thankfully, had very

good care. The family that was looking after her had extensive training

in the care of severely abused children.

This little girl was a very sweet little child. The only trouble was

that she had been so abused in her home that she couldn't stand to be

around anything that was pretty or nice. The foster parents, when they

brought her home, redid her whole bedroom. That child wasn't in her

room much more than an hour before she had torn all the wallpaper down

and completely destroyed the work that this family had done. The reason

the child was acting out like this was because she was so angry at what

had happened to her in her very young years. As our office continued to

try to get help for this foster family and this little girl, it came to

our attention that she was diagnosed as being very close to a psychotic

break. The information I have is that this foster parent could not find

any service for that child in her home community of Surrey. They

finally had to take her to downtown Vancouver to a specialized

facility. Again, that is because our government has been silent on the

care for families and children.

The very municipality that the interim Premier would represent has

been grossly neglected. The two previous ministers from Surrey-Newton

and Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale have been silent.

In the last little while there was a newspaper report which I'm sure

you'll all recall, about a woman who was very brutally attacked and

left tied up in her bathtub in Surrey. I don't know if the members are

aware that when that woman was finally brought to Surrey Memorial, she

waited in the waiting-room in the emergency room for five hours,

because our hospital is so backed up that it is unable to deal with the

needs of our community. She waited five hours after being left in such

a brutal situation.

As if that wasn't bad enough, this woman never did get any

counselling from our community. No services were available in Surrey to

counsel a woman that had been so violently attacked. This interim

Premier would have us believe, all of a sudden, that she cares about

women in British Columbia and that she cares about families and

children. Her record is one of silence. Her record is one of ignoring

the needs of the people that she has directly represented for the last

20 years. We have yet to hear her speak out on issues of concern to

women and children.

That's the reality, and yet we hear the fine words of this

government in their last, dying days. Not only does this government not

have any credibility with the people of this province, they very

clearly do not have any credibility with the members in this House.

Rather than going on with this façade, the only decent thing to do is

to call the election and allow us to get on with dealing with the real

lives and the real needs of the people of British Columbia.

In closing, I want to go back a little bit to the challenges ahead

of us for British Columbia and for Canada. This challenge is allowing

and supporting all members in our own constituencies throughout British

Columbia, whenever we are players involved with the building of Canada,

to be full citizens. That's the role of government. The role of

government is one of enabling, supporting, enhancing, building on our

strengths and ensuring that everyone in this province can be the best

that they can be.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: When we talk about being the best that we can

be, the Attorney-General brings up Expo. The fact of the matter is that

they just don't understand. They don't understand that people with

disabilities can't be full citizens if they can't participate. They

don't understand that women are denied full citizenship if they are not

equal economically. Having the vote isn't enough. You have to be equal

to participate. You have to have the right to be able to support your

families and yourselves on equal footing. That is the challenge of

government: to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute

fully. I suggest to the member across the way that if we're talking

about building a great Canada, the best way to start is ensuring that

everyone can participate fully and be equal and full citizens in

Canada. Through that, we will indeed be a great country.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It is my pleasure to rise today in support

of the throne speech. I take great pride in representing the great

riding of Yale-Lillooet. From March 16, 1987, when I first stood in

this House and replied to a throne speech, up until today in the fifth

session of the thirty-fourth Parliament, it has been a very interesting

and educational time.

I'd like first of all to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on

maintaining your role as Speaker. I'd also like to congratulate both

the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Committee of the Whole on their

unanimous appointment by this House.

Over the past four and a half years I have spoken many times very

fondly of that great riding of Yale-Lillooet, because it is a very

special place for me. You can ask why. It's because if it wasn't for

that great rural riding, I wouldn't be here today. Yale-Lillooet is the

reason I have a seat in this House and an opportunity to serve the

constituents and the province alike. The riding has a great, colourful

history dating back to before British Columbia was a province. Its

history started in the early 1800s with fur-trading and went on to have

three of the four great gold rushes of the province's history. The

people are a special brand as well. They still have a bit of the

pioneer spirit, and I guess with those pioneers came a right-wing

philosophy, where you do for yourself rather than look to government to

give you a handout — and that still exists today.

[ Page 12083 ]

And the geography. It extends from the Coast range through to the

rolling plateau grasslands, from the U.S. border through to the south

Chilcotin. It's a great place. It includes eight municipalities, 34

unorganized communities, four regional districts, seven hospital

boards, six school districts, three college boards, four highway

districts, four forest districts, and 28 native bands on 276 reserves.

I can tell you that Yale-Lillooet is a very diverse riding. It has many

needs. Of course, to an urban representative in this House, it may be

hard to fathom that it can take ten hours to go from one corner of the

riding to the other.

In that geography, we've got just about every major river system in

the province, the Trans-Canada Highway, Coquihalla Highway, southern

transprovincial highway, Duffey Lake highway and also 97C. All those

networks are important to the provincial infrastructure.

Utilities. All the major B.C. Hydro transmission lines running from

the north down to the lower mainland run through that riding, as do the

natural gas lines from the Peace River, the oil lines from Alberta, CP,

CN and B.C. Rail. It's a key riding, and it is very key to me.

The first term has been a learning process, and I think many of you

have found that as well. I've learned from all my colleagues in the

House, both government and opposition members. Two of our members, Jack

Davis and Alex Fraser, are not here today, but they taught me two

valuable lessons. Jack Davis was a very accomplished individual. He was

an academic and a sports hero. He had credentials that I could go on

for ten or 15 minutes reciting, but I'll tell you the one thing that

Jack Davis never forgot: rural British Columbia. I'm glad he was able

to pass that on to me.

Alex Fraser was also a very grand individual. In his last ten years

he was Minister of Highways and a very busy man, yet Alex Fraser had

the time to meet with any constituent that wanted to meet with him and

sign every letter to that constituency. I learned a lesson from Alex

Fraser: there's nothing as important as your constituency.

There was a member from the opposition who taught me a lesson too.

He's not with us, but he's not dead. I'm sure we'll hear of Bob

Williams in the future. Bob Williams, as we've heard, had a very

cutting tongue at times, a very sharp wit, a way of getting to the nub

of an issue very quickly. I watched and I tried to learn.

One day, a couple of sessions ago, we were discussing a piece of

legislation which involved the credit unions, and I listened to Bob get

up and deliberate. He spoke for a while, and I agreed with some of what

he had to say, and then he went on a tirade. Anyway, the House ended up

that day. We met at the ferry, and I asked Bob a very simple question.

I said: "You know, that bill was 95 percent good, maybe 5 percent

questionable. Why did you spend 95 percent of your time telling the

House what a terrible bill it was?" He said: "I'll tell you; it's very

simple. My job is to tell the people out there how bad it is, even if

it's only 5 percent or 1 percent. It's your job to tell them about the

95 or the 99 percent that's good."

You know, we sometimes lose that little bit of focus because we have

a tendency on this side of the House to react to the opposition, but

today I'm going to try not to do that. I'm going to try to talk about

the 95 percent of what government does that is very good.

[4:30]

The throne speech was a very responsible throne speech.

If the first member for Nanaimo will refrain from his heckling,

maybe I can continue with my deliberation.

This is an election year, and we all know this. This could possibly

be the last sitting; it is the last major sitting of this House. But I

can tell you that this government did not get into an election-year

bidding war, a giveaway contest, with the NDP. This is a throne speech

that has both balance and fairness. Isn't that what government is all

about?

I've heard my colleagues over there on the other side of the House —

members of the opposition — attack Bill 82. It's known in this House

that Bill 82 was not one of my favourites. But I'll ask you, hon.

gentlemen who are sitting in the House today: have you come up with one

alternative? Not one alternative came forward. We've heard a lot of

bellyaching, but not one positive alternative.

I'll tell you what the alternatives were, and I'll tell you why they

didn't come up with them: because these individuals are going to end up

delivering the same type of government, if they are given the chance,

as we see in Ontario. What were the options that the Minister of

Finance of the day had? I can tell you. He could have frozen wages, as

some provinces have done. He could have picked a low cap of 2 percent,

as some of the provinces have done. He could have done nothing. But

let's look at the alternative. If he had done nothing, what would have

happened? He would have had to raise taxes and go into serious deficit

financing. Does that remind you of something that's happened in

Ontario? Even now, with 20-20 hindsight, I haven't heard the opposition

NDP come up with an answer. It's rather sad.

I've heard a lot of criticism about the throne speech — not what's

in it, because I'll tell you, this is a very positive throne speech.

It's a down-home one that deals with basic issues, but it's a very

solid, balanced, fair approach. Really, the only way they can attack it

is by trying to invent some things that they think should be in it.

I don't want to dwell on the Ontario scenario, but we hear about the

14 taxes that went up in one shot. That cost the workers and consumers

in Ontario over a billion dollars; that happened overnight. We know

that they have an approximately $10 billion deficit, and if that was in

$1 bills, it would fill this chamber. It's a lot of money: it's $1,000

for every man, woman and child that live in the province.

Prior to the Ontario election, we heard a lot of criticism from the

official opposition about what the Liberals were doing. Let me tell

you: when these people who have been trying to sell themselves as

pinstripe-suited Liberals here in British Columbia took office there,

they raised taxes, they raised the deficit,

[ Page 12084 ]

and we're told that at the level they're going, in four short years

they will have a a $70 billion deficit. The economy of Ontario is

important to British Columbia, because it's important to Canada.

I'm not going to spend time today, because we don't have the time,

to talk about Meech Lake or to talk about where we all stand on the

issue of Canada. That's a debate I hope to talk about in the future.

What we have to look at now in the short term is where the economy

of Canada is going. I have a press clipping here that says:

"Industrialized countries must curb inflation, cut deficits and correct

structural deficiencies in their economy." That was a quote from the

head of the International Monetary Fund. These are the people who

finance the world's economy.

And folks, it's got to start at home. It's got to start right here

in British Columbia. I'll ask many of the people here and especially

those people at home that may be watching today: do you remember when

you got your first credit card? Do you remember what it was like to

have that instant credit and be able to go out and buy what you wanted,

when you wanted? But do you also remember when the bill came in? And do

you remember when you had to pay it off? It was awful easy to buy, but

it wasn't awful easy to turn around and pay the bill off. Let me tell

you, whether it's Ontario, Canada or British Columbia, the bill has to

be paid. The buck stops with government. There are no more tomorrows.

You can only spend a certain amount of money, and then it runs out. As

much as you people across the way may think there's a money tree, it

ain't so.

I guess we can look back in history, because we hear people across

the floor talking about recent history. I'm going to talk about

history, going back to '72, '73, '74 and '75, when the government of

the day came in — the NDP government of the day came in in '72 — took a

surplus, and in three and a half years turned it into a deficit. I can

tell you folks, we were able to work our way out of that one. But if

the actions in Ontario are any indication of what they would do to

British Columbia this time, we have a major problem.

British Columbia cannot afford the spending of the New Democratic

Party. Mr. Speaker, '72 to '75 was a disaster in British Columbia. I

can tell you that '90 to '91 in Ontario — déjà vu — is another

disaster. And if we in British Columbia were so foolish as to do that

one more time, there would be another disaster right here in British

Columbia. We can't afford that. I'll tell the members in this chamber

and I'll tell the people of British Columbia: Social Credit, warts and

all, is miles ahead of the socialist NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RABBITT: The first member for Nanaimo continues to

heckle. Take your place; save your breath.

What has the NDP said that they would do? I'm not going to go

through, because all the quotes.... But let me tell you: the Leader of

the Opposition, near my home constituency, just north in Kamloops on a

local radio station, told the community there and the people of British

Columbia that if they were elected, there would be an additional $3

billion for social programs. That's in the first shovelful off the back

of the truck. Yet on the other side of his mouth he says he's going to

balance the budget. I'll tell you, he has something on Houdini. What

does this mean? He could spend another $3 billion and balance the

budget? But it's going to come out of your pockets, folks — three

billion bucks out of your pockets. And how will he do it? He will raise

taxes. If he doesn't do that, he has only one alternative: deficit

finance. The NDP lied in Ontario. I don't think they are doing anything

different here. What did Leonard Krog say? He said: "I'll tell you the

truth, folks. To fulfil our promises, we're going to raise taxes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Leonard Krog today?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I think Leonard is up in Parksville. He was

the NDP candidate. Or have you disowned him yet?

What did the second member for Vancouver East have to say? I

remember sitting in the House while the debate went on. What was he

going to do? He was going to tax all the money on farms over and above

the cost of the farm, because you shouldn't make profits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you explain that?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I would have a tough time explaining that,

my friend.

What did the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey say? She said

that they would introduce a municipal income tax. This is an

interesting scenario.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that again?

HON. MR. RABBITT: A municipal income tax.

Somebody has to tell these people across the way that government

does not have any money of its own. The only money that government has

is what it extracts from the taxpayers. I guess this is one of the

lessons you learn when you are in municipal government. I look over on

our benches, and I see lots of people who have gone through the

trenches. They have paid their dues, and they were very successful.

They've come into government and, for the most part, I can say they

have been very successful here.

But we must look to the future. Looking to the future, I'd like to

spend a few moments talking about my ministry before my time runs out.

It's a very quiet ministry It doesn't grab a lot of headlines, but it

affects every individual in the province of British Columbia. An

individual, when he's elected to this House, is given a mandate to

serve his constituents, to serve this Legislative Assembly, and if so

chosen, to serve his government. I'm very pleased that I was given the

opportunity to serve this government as a member of the cabinet.

My mandate is very similar to that of the government's. I am to

carry out my role as minister with both fairness and balance. Fairness

and balance are the fundamental foundation that we can build on as a

government and as a ministry.

[ Page 12085 ]

I would like to spend just a little time talking about the people —

in excess of 6,000 people — who are in that ministry. Six hundred work

directly for the ministry, and the balance of them work for agencies

that are the responsibility of the ministry. I think that it's rather

unique. You can get up in the morning, and you can be asked a question

about something as remote as cemeteries or funeral directors, or it

could be something as intricate as a major labour dispute involving a

class of labour throughout the entire province. I can tell you that out

of the 30 acts my ministry has to administer, police and govern.... The

ministry develops a great rapport with the people who work there. I

have to thank the people who have helped me in the first six months to

meet the challenge of the ministry and that which comes with

government. With the vastness of that ministry, I could never stand

alone and do the job all by myself. I want to commend the deputy