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)

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1991

Morning Sitting

[ Page

12001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12001

Ruling on Point of Privilege –– 12001

Private Members' Statements

Education a priority. Mr. Reid –– 12001

Ms. A. Hagen

Protecting polluters — government environmental policy. Mr. Cashore ––

Mr. Serwa

A better way Mr. Serwa –– 12005

Mr. Rose

B.C.'s continuing health care problems: a plea for action. Mr. Perry –– 12008

Hon. J. Jansen

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Perry –– 12010

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 12013

Mr. Sihota –– 12015

Mr. Vant –– 12019

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1991

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

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

Attorney-General for 1989-1990 and the annual reports of the Legal

Services Society for 1988-1989 and 1989-1990.

RULING ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

MR. SPEAKER: On Wednesday last the hon. member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley rose on an alleged matter of privilege, namely

the failure of the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, now Minister of

Environment, to complete and return a form required to be filed by

February 19, 1991, pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

On April 15, 1991, the acting commissioner of conflict of interest

advised the Clerk of the House that he had met with the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds on April 12, 1991, and that he, as the commissioner,

was now filing the required public disclosure statement of the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds, prior to the member being sworn in as a member of

the executive council.

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley tabled a letter dated

February 15, 1991, written by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds,

addressed to the acting commissioner and copied to all hon. members,

indicating among other things that he believed there were "deficiencies

in the reporting documents which make it difficult for me to sign same

because of the additional responsibility I have as a chartered

accountant for making such declarations."

In any event, the required documents were completed and filed as

required by the statute — but beyond the date prescribed by the acting

commissioner. The Chair notes that as

section 15 (3) of the Members'

Conflict of Interest Act has not been proclaimed, the hon. member for

Surrey-Guildford Whalley does have the right to raise the matter in the

House.

Section 15 (1) provides that:

"A member who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe

that another member is in contravention of this Act or of

section 25 of the

Constitution Act may, by application in writing setting out the grounds for

the belief and the nature of the contravention alleged, request that the commissioner

give an opinion respecting the compliance of the other member with the provisions

of this Act."

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has not indicated whether or not

she has availed herself of this section.

The Chair also notes that the acting commissioner may, by virtue of

section

17, report to this House any refusal to file a disclosure statement should he

deem it appropriate to do so. It must be noted that the acting commissioner

himself, as an officer of this House, has not asserted that as an officer he

has been improperly impeded or obstructed. Indeed, the acting commissioner has

extensive powers under the act and the power to recommend severe penalties,

including, under

section 17, for failure to file requisite information to ensure

compliance with the statute.

Joseph Maingot, in his authoritative text Parliamentary Privilege in Canada ,

at page 12, gives a general definition for parliamentary privilege as

follows: "Parliamentary privilege is the necessary immunity that the

law provides for Members of Parliament, and for members of the

legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order

for these legislators do their legislative work."

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has not, in her

submission, indicated to the Chair any possible way in which she has

been impeded in doing her parliamentary work by reason of the late

filing in question. Other consequences may or may not flow from any

late filing under the statute. I cannot, however, find that there has

been established any prima facie case of either a breach of privilege

or an offence described by the hon. member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley

as a "contempt for the rights and privileges of the member of this

assembly."

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It is private members statement day, and I believe the first member on the list is the member for Surrey-White Rock.

EDUCATION A PRIORITY

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take my place this morning to raise

the issue of quality of education or priority of education by this

government in the province of British Columbia.

Remember this: the strength of our education system is going to be

the key factor to our success in responding to future challenges. We're

living in an era of rapid change. Our education system is a key pillar

of our economy. Our young people are among the most prized of natural

resources we have at our disposal. That's why, as government, we place

such a high priority on our education system to ensure its strengths

for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, priority and quality.... When you deal with the

question of finances, because it seems to be the issue of the day when

you talk about priorities.... To show the evidence of the priorities of

this government towards education funding....

In the years since I first served in this House, in the last eight

years, our budget for education in 1983 in the province of British

Columbia was a total of $1,907,589,000. There was an enrolment of

482,255 students in 1983. Subsequently, in 1984 the budget was

$1,913,592,000. In 1985 the budget was $1,850,059,000. The budget in

1986 was $1,950,380,000. In 1987 it was $2,084,632,000. In 1989 it was

$2,227,285,000. In 1990-91 it was $2,938,626,000.

Mr. Speaker, that is perceived by some as underfunding or as a lack of priority by this government.

[ Page 12002 ]

Twenty-eight percent of our current budget is

allocated to education in the province of British Columbia. The

interesting thing is that there are some issues related to funding

which are in constant conflict between this government and the union

movement called the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They said that it

doesn't matter whether you work in a sawmill, a bank or a robotics

company in British Columbia, we owe it to ourselves to make certain

that these finances are used adequately for quality of education.

It's interesting that I had a visit a couple of days ago from two

members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. These teachers in my

constituency came and spoke to me for an hour — not about education,

not one word about education, not one word about priorities and not one

mention of a student in my constituency. You know what they mentioned?

They mentioned money. They mentioned the fact that they aren't getting

their fair share. They have been underfunded and cut back.

[10:15]

When I entered this political arena in 1983, a teacher's salary then

was about $24,000 a year on average. I asked them why, after a 10

percent increment through the system over the last ten years, it has

now reached a total, before the most recent incremental offer of 4

percent — they wanted 7 percent — of a staggering $51,000, on average.

That's almost double since I entered politics. So I asked these

teachers: what cutback has this government created for you? What

concern has it created for you? What quality of education have you

offered to the students because of, the incremental pay that we have

continued to give you for the 190 days –– 1,045 hours, 5.5 hours a day

— that you're contracted to teach? What have you offered, what

concessions have you made for the students? Except that when I read

about the most recent negotiations — I want to read this, because it's

important — it talked about the settlements made with the teachers in

the Victoria constituency. It was important because this was a rejected

offer in February 1991 from the Greater Victoria School District. Some

of the members for Victoria are in the House today — maybe they

understand why this is.

They were offered an increase in salary of over 15 percent over the

next two years; an increase in professional development funding from

$66 per teacher to $106 per teacher for the coming year; an increase in

elementary teacher preparation time from 60 minutes per week to 80

minutes per week out-of-the-classroom time; recognition of support for

needed classroom teachers with regard to integration of special needs

students; relief from all supervision duties before school, during

recess and lunch hour and after school –– 5½ hours of paid time, no

time committed for the educators now to assist with the students'

education or their needs. Interesting isn't it, when you talk about

priorities and quality of education?

I recall reading yesterday — the member from Abbotsford can probably

emphasize this even further — where the teachers in the Abbotsford

School District are refusing to provide the students....

MR. SPEAKER: Time is up, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of an

education system that works well for our children is that it take place

in the climate of frankness, openness and fairness. I find it passing

strange that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale met with

teachers for an hour and finds the only comment he can make in this

House is a comment to criticize those important people in our

educational enterprise.

I would note also that yesterday, parents and students from

Abbotsford were in the precincts, and a number of times, as I chatted

with them or passed them on their way, they asked me why their members

for Abbotsford would not meet with them. I suggested they should speak

to their members. But the fact that teachers did come to a member and

talk about their issues is important. It is important that one reflect

on the climate in which they came and on the issues before us. It is

also important when people come to meet with their members in these

precincts that, if humanly possible, members do make it possible to

have those discussions.

Let me just turn to the issue of priorities. It is interesting that

the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale quoted statistics back

through the 1980s in terms of education funding. We note during that

time how severely cut back education was in a previous administration.

That affected his district very drastically, and we have some further

statistics that I just want to table in the House this morning.

Surrey is the most rapidly growing district in the province, perhaps

one of two or three of the most rapidly growing districts. It has 329

portables on school grounds in that district. It has been desperate for

buildings to house children and to provide a quality of education.

The Social Credit government has an appalling record of providing

the kind of funding that would build those schools. I could go back,

and will, to the 1980s when growth was taking place, when portables

were first cropping up, and when the capital budget — in a recession, I

might note, when we could have built schools cheaply — for all of the

schools in the province was $24 million; something like $300,000 a

district.

Yesterday the government announced a dramatic increase in capital

funding, an almost 100 percent increase in capital funding. We have to

ask ourselves: does that have to do with the priorities they've set for

education? Or does it have to do with the fact that members like this

member and the member for Surrey-Newton, who is the Premier, are

running for re-election very soon and they need to go to their

electorate with an election bonus that will — too late — in a

boom-and-bust way begin to deal with the issues of the quality of

education in Surrey which have been around for a long time?

I want to conclude by commenting about the issue that has caused a

number of public sector unions to speak with members on both sides of

the House this week. I want to quote the Minister of Labour. When Bill

82, the Compensation Fairness Act, was introduced, he noted that it was

unnecessary because "it would hinder better relationships between

employers and employees." That is the basis for the thesis that I

[ Page

12003 ]

started my comments with: a climate of openness,

fairness, stability and predictability is the most essential hallmark

of a good education system. Having begun one of its few long-term plans

stemming from the Royal Commission on Education, the government has

undermined that plan with legislation and with actions, where the

Ministry of Education, in fact, has been confounded by the cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. REID: It's interesting that the respondent to my earlier

comments is a teacher in her own right. Of course she defends the

system, and that's unfortunate. The dilemma that this government finds

itself in is trying to defend the government's priority, which is

education funding –– 28 percent of the overall budget towards education

funding. My school district, which she wanted to equate to, has a

request for a capital budget of $185 million this year for our district

alone. So there's no question that there is a larger demand because of

the growth in Surrey and because of the numbers of students entering

the system.

The other thing that I should make quite clear to the people out

there is that the Surrey district's current operating budget is $208

million. That's an increase of 11.3 percent over last year, funded to

that amount — a total of a $19 million increase. In total over a

two-year period the population growth is around 40,000. The student

growth was around 1,000; the increase in funding was $19 million for

that 1,000 student enrolment increase.

The other thing that is quite important to point out is that the

pupil-teacher ratio has gone from about 18.7 in 1985 to 16.1 in my

district this year. When you reduce the pupil-teacher ratio by a

significant number like that.... Every time you reduce it by 1 percent,

it costs you somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million.

The difficulty we have in this government trying to meet the

priorities of quality of education and, at the same time, meeting the

demands of the teaching profession who only demand compensation for

themselves and not quality of education for the students, is

unfortunate. As a member representing Surrey for eight years, I say

that our system has been well administered. We have a quality teaching

staff and a quality administrative staff.

We have a difficulty with the taxpayers — a small businessman trying

to keep up.... When you see teachers making $51,000 a year on

average.... I don't know many small businessmen in my community who

have gone from $23,000 in '83 to $51,000 take-home pay in 1991. It's

time the teachers started to talk about the quality of education and

the quality of the students out there.

I have an adviser in Chilliwack, as a matter of fact — I wish the member from

Chilliwack was here — who is a friend of mine, and his wife is a teacher. His

name is Budsy Usher. I understand he is not feeling very well, so I hope that

he is better soon. Anyway, Budsy and I talk at great length about the education

system as it equates to his district, because I know very well what is happening

in mine, and I know they wanted an additional $11 million in Surrey this year,

over and beyond the $19 million that was offered and provided.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: It's highly unusual. It's normally asked when someone else is in the chair who is softer. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today is my daughter, Judith

Cashore, and her friend Leah De Julius. Judith is from Coquitlam and

Leah from Surrey. Would the House please make them welcome.

PROTECTING POLLUTERS — GOVERNMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the first member for Okanagan

South for being present to respond to my statement today and also for

agreeing to allow me to go in the second time slot. I appreciate that

very much.

The topic of my comments has to do with the Socred government policy

of protecting polluters. We realize that the closest this government

gets to being principled is that it follows the principle of style

without substance. This is a government in disarray, and another policy

it is obviously following is that power must be achieved without

principle.

Nowhere is it more apparent than in the government's environmental

policy. Just to demonstrate how much disarray there has been during the

term of this government, there have been six Ministers of Environment

and three deputy ministers. When the acting Premier fired the fifth

Minister of Environment, the deputy was fired also, thus putting the

situation into a state of chaos and deepening the amount of despair and

the serious morale situation that exists within the civil service of

that ministry.

Excellent people trying to do a good job to protect the environment

are caught in the disarray that is caused by the mismanagement and the

conflict that has been the hallmark of this government. Scandal after

scandal, conflict after conflict in this province have preoccupied this

government; and therefore it has not been able to apply itself to the

serious, urgent and pressing matters that need to be addressed in

protecting our environment.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the throne speech, in which the

environment was reduced to an afterthought. In this province at the

present time there are still only 14 full-time employees in the

Ministry of Environment to review over 8,000 logging plans for fish and

wildlife values. What does that mean? It means that fish and wildlife

in this province have no rights or protection.

[10:30]

[ Page 12004 ]

Also there is still a failure to obey the auditor-general's

requirements as stated in the Public Accounts that the laboratory

privatization fiasco has certain mitigating measures taken to try to

get that disaster back on track. For two years in a row now the

auditor-general has pointed out that his requirements have not been

fulfilled.

This government still cannot get it right with regard to the Expo

lands problem. The government entered into a very bad deal, and then as

an afterthought recognized that it would accept responsibility for

cleaning up those lands but would not apply that principle to those

from whom they had purchased those lands.

Also the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation has been an abject

failure in this province. Again, it's smoke and mirrors and an attempt

to try to appear to be doing something for the environment, but doing

something that is only window-dressing.

There is no reference in the throne speech to Vision 2001 as had

been promised in the previous throne speech. As the member who will be

responding to me will agree, it was something he had commented on while

he was the minister. He had indicated this was going to be coming

forward. I am sure he will update us on why it was not mentioned in the

throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, there is one constant with regard to this government: constant

turmoil and constant disarray. The fact is that the six Ministers of Environment

who have been in this position have seen their role as one of protecting polluters,

being an apologist for polluters and not being an advocate for the environment.

The third Minister of Environment, when there was a serious oil spill caused by the accident that happened with the Nestucca

barge south of the border, said, "We're prepared to follow; just tell

us what to do" — thus abandoning any responsibility for protecting the

environmental interests of this province.

The fourth Minister of Environment, when commenting to the media on

the situation with regard to fisheries closures in Howe Sound, invited

the media to come down to Howe Sound and feast with him on crabs that

glow in the dark.

The fifth Minister of Environment signed the order to bring in

watered-down AOX standards with regard to organochlorines and admitted

later that he signed it without having read it, recognizing the fact

that the standard had been set by what the Premier was willing to

accept from COFI. The cabinet, which had agreed on a different set of

standards, knuckled under, and that minister went along with it. No

advocacy for the environment, Mr. Speaker.

The sixth Minister of Environment — and I'm sorry he's not here to

defend himself — said he didn't know why he was appointed and that he

did not see his role as being that of an advocate for the environment.

During that time the value of the ministry in cabinet went up and down like

a yo-yo. The third minister went from a junior to a senior minister by being

on the policy and priorities committee. The fifth minister went from a senior

minister to a junior minister because the saliency of the issue appeared to

slip in the polls and it didn't seem to be that important any more. The

sixth Minister of Environment, while being on the finance committee of cabinet,

is not on the policy and priorities committee and therefore not in the inner

cabinet and not in a position to be defending the environment when forestry

issues, energy issues, and various other issues come to that seat of the most

important decision-making that takes place in this province.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the environment is not being protected by this

government. It shows that the only principle that this government has

is the principle of seeking to be in power without being principled.

Look at the issue of the organochlorine reduction.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Perhaps at an other time.

MR. SERWA: It's a pleasure to get up on behalf of the

Minister of Environment and respond to the opposition critic with his

statement that this government protects polluters. It was really an

interesting opportunity for me to hear how much political rhetoric can

be enunciated that has absolutely no focus, filled with innuendoes,

misinformation and partisan political bias.

The role of the Ministry of Environment is an exceedingly demanding

one. The population of British Columbia has grown to over three million

people. The impact of people is. such that the workload is ever

increasing to the most important ministry in the provincial government.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Yes, it has been very demanding on ministers and on deputy

ministers, and I can assure you that it is very demanding on those very

committed, hard-working individuals in the Ministry of Environment who

do such an awesome job to protect, to preserve, and to enhance the

quality of the environment in this great and splendid province of

British Columbia.

My hon. colleague opposite, a member of the opposition, has made a

number of statements such as referring to the public servants who are

so dedicated and so committed in the ministry — that there is a serious

morale situation in the ministry. I can assure that hon. member that

that is not the case. I have met with regional directors and with all

the principal people here at the office in Victoria, and I can assure

this assembly that there is no morale deterioration in that ministry.

There is a strong commitment to do the best they can possibly do from

day to day for the province and the people of British Columbia.

The fish and wildlife and integrated management

section of the

ministry is very competent and effective. They are doing a most

impressive job of protecting the greatest legacy that this province has

— fish and wildlife resources. In the integrated management field,

which is a new branch of the ministry, they are charged with

responsibility to work with other ministries on land uses. Land uses

are a major and very high-profile element of interest in British

Columbia, and I'm

[ Page

12005 ]

pleased to see that the Ministry of Environment has a leading hand in it.

The hon. member opposite made reference to Expo lands. I want to

tell the member that the Ministry of Environment is doing a most

impressive job with that. I want to enunciate to the public and the

people of British Columbia that there are a wide range of soils in that

Expo site. There are soils not contaminated in any way, shape or form;

there are soils mildly contaminated through asphalt, sawmill waste or

other material like that, which can be used for fill in residential

developments; there are other soils a bit more contaminated with

hydrocarbons, tar, asphalt or industrial and building waste that are

useful as industrial fill. That is particularly the type of material

being hauled at the present time to the Richmond area.

Further to this, the Ministry of Environment has a great deal of

concern for the specific ability of technology in our province to

handle hazardous waste materials which show up in some areas. A very

expensive and extensive drilling program was undertaken in that site to

identify those particular areas. Some six contracts have been issued to

various firms in the province for pilot projects. The federal

government, the companies themselves and the Ministry of Environment

are all paying a portion of that to identify the best possible

technique for mitigating the hazardous waste aspect of those

contaminated soils.

So once again this government is on top of environmental issues. The

Hazardous Waste Management Corporation has an awesome challenge, a very

important responsibility in the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time is up, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons there is a

morale problem in the ministry is that people there do very difficult

work. They try to bring plans into place, only to have them smashed to

smithereens. The organochlorine fiasco is a case in point. That's one

of the reasons for the serious morale problem there, caused by the

political agenda of this government.

The government chaos has destroyed program that had some possibility

in cleaning up ganochlorine pollution, Just to give you a little

background, in May 1989 the then minister announced proposed

regulations that would achieve an AOX level of 1.5 daily maximum. That

was considered to be absolutely essential. This was political damage

control resulting from pollution which caused fisheries closures. It

had denied people their livelihood and affected their health. In the

following months, more and more fisheries closures resulted and, to

protect the health of British Columbians, the federal Health ministry

put out many warnings and closures. The fact is that hundreds of

kilometres of British Columbia coastline are now closed to shellfish

harvesting.

The deteriorating environment is a result of this government's benign neglect.

And as news of fresh disasters has increased, the government claimed its commitment

to 1.5 was secure. Then on December 5, 1990, cabinet approved a watered-down

version of the promised regulations, a version which, because of daily and monthly

averages, would have actually gone well over the 1.5.

Then the heavyweights went to work, and members of COFI leaned on

the former Premier. The speculation was that the threatened loss of

huge campaign donations resulted in the Premier's unilateral decision

to kill the 1.5 AOX promise. What happened then was that in a frenzy of

righteousness, the then minister resigned. Vaughn Palmer stated in a

column that the minister also had met with COFI and said to them that

if it didn't work out, he could always rescind the 1.5 regulations

after the election. To my knowledge, this has never been refuted by

that former minister or anybody else in the Social Credit cabinet.

Even though what he brought to cabinet was a shadow of the May 1989

promise, if his regulation had been brought forward, it clearly would

have been a step in the right direction. Bill Andrews, of the West

Coast Environmental Law Association, is a highly respected lawyer

involved in an umbrella organization involving pulp unions,

environmentalists and a wide range of responsible British Columbians.

He stated in an

article that this action on the part of cabinet was "an

unmitigated disaster."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, your time has expired.

A BETTER WAY

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to have the opportunity to

rise as a private member on Friday morning and bring issues to the

Legislature that a member feels are very important.

Several days ago I noted an

article in the publication called Parliamentary Government in

the Legislative Library. The

article was entitled "Crisis of

Confidence: A Roundtable Discussion." In the

article were opinions of a

number of federal Members of Parliament. Their statements dealt with

some of the challenges and weaknesses of the British parliamentary

system that is in use in the House of Commons, the provincial

legislatures and the two territories.

Over the past four and a half years, I have had the opportunity to

participate in a number of conferences sponsored by the Canadian region

of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Invariably, in both

formal and informal discussions, there is a growing awareness of the

need for certain parliamentary reforms to take place.

About a year ago in this very chamber, I presented a private

member's statement on my thoughts regarding the process and the role of

private members. With the enhanced power — again through television

debate — and with my perception of the importance of the issue, I felt

it most important to reach out and share my thoughts with my fellow

British Columbians.

But before I make my remarks, I wish to quote from the

article

"Crisis of Confidence." The quotes graphically illustrate that diverse

partisan political perspectives support my previous private member's

statement.

[10:45]

[ Page 12006 ]

Deborah Grey, a Reform Party Member of Parliament: "Concerning the

House itself, I mentioned earlier the need to allow freer votes in the

House of Commons so that thinking people could have discussions and

dissensions within the party and be able to express those without being

thrown out of caucus."

Brian Tobin, a Liberal Member of Parliament: "That said, I agree

absolutely there is room for reform, for anything that moves Parliament

towards less of a confidence system in the leaders of parties, that

allows members more freedom in certain areas to express their views and

to express their best judgment on behalf of their constituents."

I quote from Patrick Boyer, Progressive Conservative Member of

Parliament: "You were asking for any suggestions about reform of

Parliament, and I have three favourites. The first has to do with

loosening the iron grip of the parties over the Members of Parliament.

The role of the Whips and party discipline and the imperative to vote

the party line have their own justifications, but I think the gradual

result is the problem we have been talking about today. If we could

adopt a rule of unity in essentials and diversity in matters of

secondary importance, that would permit a more reflective House of

Commons in the sense that members could reflect what their constituents

feel, what they personally feel, and thereby enrich the process."

Mr. Patrick Boyer goes on to indicate that a second element of

reform concerns the role of referendum and plebiscites. I was

exceedingly pleased to note the emphasis placed on that measure in our

recent throne speech.

Nic Leblanc, Member of Parliament from the Bloc Québecois: "You have

alluded to the fact that Members of Parliament are not allowed freedom

of voting in the House. It is a major problem. The Prime Minister and

the Leader of the Opposition have all the power. The Prime Minister

appoints his ministers and committee Chairmen."

Mr. Leblanc goes on to observe that power in the hands of very few

tends to cause other members to become uninvolved eventually. Yet when

an opportunity arises to cast a free vote, the whole dynamic of the

process was greatly improved.

In my private member's statement delivered on May 25, 1990, I

carried a similar message and detailed my reasoning. The role of the

private member has three primary elements: that of a legislator, a

critic and a facilitator. Private members have a three-way

accountability to constituents, to parties and to conscience. There is

a great and growing crisis of confidence on the part of the public

towards politics and politicians: playing politics versus

representation of constituents.

A 1986 Canadian public opinion poll indicated 75 percent of those

contacted felt that the Canadian parliamentary system is in need of

reform. Only 42 percent believed their elected representatives are

honest and sincere, and 60 percent of Canada's youth are cynical about

politicians.

Members of government are elected by the public and are accountable to them.

The faith, trust and confidence of our respective constituents has been given

to us when they cast their ballots. Accountability and responsibility is what

people want and what people deserve: our integrity and willingness to meet new

and changing circumstances.

Canada is celebrating 200 years of representative government. A

review of the Constitution Act of 1791 to the present shows the

continuing evolution of our political system and parliamentary

practice. I believe that both federal and provincial constitution acts

should be reviewed again and amendments made. We need to follow the

example set by the mother parliament in Great Britain, where it is

possible to defeat government motions without defeating the government.

I recommend that the members of this Legislative Assembly seriously

consider implementing the following list of positive improvements:

(1) free votes; (2) fixed dates for sessions of the Legislature; (3) fixed

terms between elections; (4) an expanded use of all-party committee

systems as a fundamental aspect of parliamentary reform; and

(5) I

again heartily endorse the concept of referenda. The participatory

democratic process will allow people a direct opportunity to make their

views known and will allow a better understanding of the complexities

of modern government.

In my opinion, party discipline needs to be relaxed in order to

allow elected members to more accurately represent the views of their

constituents. The British experience has shown that governments do not

fall and legislatures do not become unworkable when members balance

their responsibilities to parties and party Whips with their

responsibilities to constituents and to personal conscience. I believe

that the relaxation of party discipline....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sorry, your time has expired.

MR. ROSE: Talk about parliamentary reform and rule changes

doesn't turn many on. I think the member does a service, though, in

bringing it to the House, because this is a very conservative place

around here. As a matter of fact, if you look rule 1, we base our rules

on the traditions and the jurisprudence of the British House of Commons

even before the Commons of Canada. So in terms of our rules, we're more

like the British House of Commons was around 1890 than we are like the

Canadian House of Commons in 1990, where considerably more latitude has

been given to the private member.

There are some here on paper. They don't result in anything really

meaningful, except I would remind him that under the chairmanship of

the august Speaker and senator, we did come up with rule 25A, which

gave an opportunity not otherwise available to opposition members to

put forward things of concern to their constituency and to themselves.

You're a perfect example of how one uses this sort of procedure and

opportunity.

There are other opportunities, but they're denied to us — in the main. I'm talking about a book called the Orders of the Day which at the end of a term is filled

[ Page

12007 ]

with questions and with resolutions, and is brimming over with private bills that are never debated.

According to these rules, Friday is supposed to be private members'

day. But if you look at the precedents associated with private members'

day, you will see that government orders tend to take precedence. Even

if we do get an environment bill debated, as the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam did a couple of weeks ago, he was only on for

about five minutes, his bill was ruled out of order and we went back to

government business.

It seems to me that if we want to have more opportunities here for

the backbenchers — according to our own rules — then the government

House Leader and the government should be devoting more time to that

end. I would suggest that the member should not be bringing this

material to us — we're all for this anyway — but that he should try and

convince his own caucus of this. That's where the fault lies.

It's very difficult to get any change in terms of the rules of this

House. We were able to get some. All the practice recommendations in

the back of the rule book show efforts to give more opportunity to

private members. The very fact that for the first time in 1985, when

you introduced your private bill — even though it was never going to be

debated and you knew that — you could at least describe what it was all

about. Before that time that was impossible. Rules 60A and 78A permit

the government to refer any part of motions and estimates to

committees. Since 1985 that's never been done once. Do you know why?

Because the government does not want to give the committee the power to

call witnesses to look into estimates.

Efforts, have been made in the Canadian House of Commons, going back

at least ten years. I was on those committees that travelled to Britain

and elsewhere looking at various rule changes that were coming about.

There were more just a little while ago — I think at the closing of

Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons. A lot of people say it was

a retrogressive step. It took powers away, and it muzzled people,

giving them no opportunity to speak. But in spite of the fact that a

lot of things were said rhetorically about that, I'm not sure it is

necessarily going to weaken the place. It was thought that once

estimates were taken out of the Parliament of Canada in 1968, it was

going to weaken the opposition's hold. Maybe it has. But it has

certainly saved a lot of lip-flap. We've had the same problem around

here, and it faces both governments.

What I'm saying is that it's very difficult to get changes around

here. Even when you do, on paper, they don't amount to very much in the

way of changes to our behaviour or activities. It's the government

who's in charge of the business, and they are responsible to do this.

Let me just give you one other example. When we introduced standing order 35,

we thought we would have all kinds of opportunities to bring up subjects of

importance and urgency and that we'd have an opportunity during those debates

to explore a great number of matters. Since 1985 there has been one example

of a standing order 35 being approved and debate resulting. It's a very

simple thing: an hour's debate. But it's never approved. Do you know

why? It's never approved because you have to have the agreement of the government

for it to proceed, because the rule says: "If objection is taken, the question

of leave shall be decided on division without debate." We know pretty well

that when we have a division around here and the government has the discipline

that the member complains about, we lose the vote. That's why we've

never had any 35s approved around here for a long time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: You're welcome, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hesitate in gonging you out.

MR. SERWA: It's always a pleasure to listen to a very

distinguished and responsible parliamentarian. I have to say that,

because the hon. member opposite was a teacher in the high school where

I graduated at the time I graduated, so I continue my respect for him.

In listening to the comments of the hon. member, and perhaps the

lack of compliance with opportunities that are already in the standing

orders, I suppose we can look at water that's under the bridge and, to

a degree, lament.

The purpose of my bringing this up again is the fact that I really

believe it's very important that we recognize that each and every one

of us here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is elected

by people, by constituents, and it's our responsibility to serve those

constituents to the best of our ability. I believe that the British

parliamentary system, as practised throughout all of the jurisdictions

and territories of Canada, has failed to evolve to the point necessary

to achieve the effectiveness that the public demands.

I alluded to the thoughts of individual Canadians, to the cynicism

that is out there, to the lack of credibility of politics and

politicians, and I sincerely lament that. What we have is an incredible

process. Democracy was developed in Athens some 2,500 years ago,

brought and spread throughout all of the known world by the Romans,

brought to Great Britain and eventually refined to the Westminster

system over 300 years.

It's an outstanding form of democracy. It's the best possible form

of democracy, but it is a fragile form. What we have seen is the

strengthening of the party discipline. We can recognize it perhaps more

clearly in the federal government, where we elect members from the west

to represent the west's interests, but because of the dominance of

central Canada and Canadian politics, our elected members are unable to

stand up in the House and speak of conscience or of the desires, aims

or ambitions of western Canadians. It's a very frustrating experience

for them and certainly a disheartening experience for our constituents.

[11:00]

I firmly believe that free votes will enhance the credibility of

politicians. I firmly believe that the objectivity of the debate in the

House will be enhanced, because for the first time ever we will have

the opportunity to perhaps develop debate and do our

[ Page 12008 ]

research, so that we can actually reach out and

start changing the minds of members opposite. That is what

participatory democracy is all about.

B.C.'S CONTINUING HEALTH CARE

PROBLEMS: A PLEA FOR ACTION

MR. PERRY: My statement is entitled "B.C.'s Continuing Health

Care Problems: A Plea for Action," and I'm pleased that the former

Minister of Health and present Minister of Finance has shown me the

honour of attending to respond to my statement today.

B.C.'s health care system is in serious trouble. As our population

ages and its ethnic diversity increases' as new diseases arise — like

AIDS and the mysterious syndrome of chronic fatigue — the stresses on a

complex system seem to grow continuously. Sadly, a health system once

considered the envy of most nations now fails at times to meet its most

basic mandate: the timely and appropriate care of life-threatening

illness.

During our 1990 session we reviewed in some detail many problems of

health care in British Columbia. The Royal Commission on Health Care

and Costs, so ably chaired by Mr. Justice Peter Seaton, has travelled

to the farthest reaches of our province, recently even to Fort Ware and

Ingenika, to hear from the people and from those who serve them in our

health system.

The problems are well known to the public: long waits for surgery;

inadequate community mental health facilities; overworked nurses;

marginalization of disabled people and of aboriginals. I will discuss

some of them later today in my reply to the Speech from the Throne, but

now I would like to address some of the possible solutions to our

problems as I perceive them after two years in the role of opposition

critic for health issues. In those two years my eyes, and I hope my

mind, have been opened far wider than they were by my medical education

and training. Some of you might say that the latter permanently closed

my mind, but I can hope that process was at least incomplete and that

the edifying debates of this Legislature will contribute to opening it

further.

I have learned, in their homes, from disabled people and their

families. I have learned from the mentally ill and from the sick or

infirm elderly, who are often coping heroically at home with the barest

minimum of support.

I have also seen at first hand the constructive innovation which has

taken place, for example, in the Victoria Health Project, where I

observed firsthand an experienced nurse of the quick-response team

arrange within hours for the early discharge, with appropriate home

support, of an elderly woman who had recently been blinded.

I have admired the sagacity, the incorruptible humanity and the

practical abilities of John Turvey and his colleagues in the Downtown

Eastside Youth Activities Society of Vancouver, with their pioneering

needle exchange project, which has become a world leader in preventing

the transmission of AIDS, of hepatitis and of other lethal diseases

among injection drug users.

I have been impressed by the political courage of the public health doctors

and the Vancouver city politicians who have risked their credibility, at a time

when not everyone would have done so, to bring sound public health practices

to a province which sometimes would rather look backward than forward.

Most impressive of all, Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed native people

struggling to overcome the linked scourges of alcoholism, sexual abuse,

chronic poverty, cultural extinction and oppression. I have followed

the pioneering work of people like Angie Todd-Dennis of the native

health professions program at UBC, and I have been encouraged to see

that the understanding of the root causes of native health problems has

percolated through to groups like the B.C. Medical Association and the

Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia, which have now

joined the aboriginal communities in calling for a planned,

coordinated, sustained, and provincewide effort to address those roots

of poverty, of alcoholism and of abuse.

Although the Health critic's lot is to be exposed often and

thoroughly to the tragedies of our society, I have also been given

cause for great optimism, because I have met literally thousands of

British Columbians eager to improve our health care system and to make

it respond optimally to the needs of our citizens. From the mothers of

disabled children through the front-line nurses, practical nurses and

aides, the community support workers, the physicians, the medical

scientists, and even the oft-maligned administrators, there is an

enormous idealism in our people. Our job as legislators is to stimulate

and tap that idealism, not to frustrate it.

Let me turn to what I view as some priorities for action towards the

renewed health system and improved health for all British Columbians.

First, above all, prevention. We know in many areas what to do, but

we seem to lack the will to act. Tobacco is our number one public

enemy. The tobacco epidemic must be contained. The tobacco pushers must

be shamed. The ten thousand young British Columbians who are succumbing

to tobacco addiction this year alone must be protected, just as we

would wish to protect them from addiction to cocaine, to heroin or to

alcohol.

I have previously detailed in this House — on July 14, 1989, and

July 13, 1990 — the measures I believe are necessary to protect our

children from tobacco. Last year I presented private member's bills in

this Legislature which could help British Columbia lead the world in

preventing tobacco addiction. In the estimates debate last year I

outlined additional measures which the Minister of Health — by the

stroke of a pen — could take. I stand by those statements and encourage

this government, even in its dying days, to salvage some measure of

public esteem by acting forcefully against tobacco. Mr. Speaker, the

new Minister of Finance has that opportunity, even now as we await the

budget.

Alcohol is an equal scourge, and what it does not cost in direct

mortality or physical illness it charges back to us in social costs and

so-called accidents such as motor vehicle "accidents, " more properly

referred to as collisions. A broad strategy to combat alcohol abuse is

far beyond the scope of this brief statement, but suffice it to say

that there are concrete steps we can take, ranging from messages on

product labels and at

[ Page

12009 ]

points of purchase warning against fetal alcohol

syndrome and the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy through to'a

sustained commitment to community and hospital treatment of alcoholism.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. Time has expired.

In response, the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising and

commenting on behalf of the Minister of Health, and also in taking the

opportunity to give some of my observations on what happened in my term

as Minister of Health and to respond as to how effective I think the

Health critic has been in addressing some health issues in the province.

I think the public expects that a Health critic should bring forward

broad issues of concern and suggestions for improvements to the system,

and should present what are, in his opinion, community interests. I

want to say that as I have seen it, the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey, during his term as Health critic, has been very ineffective in

all of those areas.

If you recall last year, his debate on the budget was totally

abysmal. His questions in the House have not reflected those broad

concerns I talked about. His statements to the public exhibited an

amazing lack of knowledge, no vision and no foresight. Perhaps he is

too busy with other things.

Let me give you an example. We believe in bringing health care to

communities. We believe that we should bring those services to the

communities rather than demand that people come to the Vancouver area

to receive health care. That is our initiative, and where that is

impossible....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

HON. J. JANSEN: In listening to the throne speech.... We are

bringing into position a travel allowance system to help families take

care of the costs incurred as a result of that. I cannot recall one

time that that member brought that forward as an initiative that that

party stood for.

But let me tell you what he did do. The House will recall the cancer

clinic initiative. We brought forward the initiative of bringing cancer

treatment closer to people in the communities. What did he do? He

showed nothing but contempt for the people of Kamloops. To use his own

words, he said that the minister "spat in the face of the cancer

clinic." He has spat in the face of the people of Kamloops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. J. JANSEN: Shame! I wonder if his feelings are the same

for the people of Prince George, who want a cancer clinic in their

community. Perhaps the member would like to comment on that. I know

that the people in Prince George.... I see the member from Prince

George is here and is disagreeing with my thought that maybe the people

of Prince George would like a cancer clinic.

When we negotiated the agreement with the BCMA, he failed to

understand his conflict of interest. He stood here in House and brought

forward initiatives respecting that negotiation when it was for his own

pocketbook. He was an embarrassment to that socialist party and to the

people of British Columbia. I guess it's difficult to bite the hand

that feeds you.

His presentation to the royal commission was an example of how

ineffective, how lacking of vision, how poorly thought out... He

appeared to be totally unprepared for the presentation. It's a shame,

because that opportunity only presents itself once in a lifetime.

I also get mixed messages from this member. Let me quote what he

said to my own community, the wonderful community of Chilliwack. The

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey said: "British Columbia's health

care system is the most cost-efficient in the world. It runs 25 percent

cheaper than the U.S., but costs still have to be cut, and errant

hospital bureaucracies have to be brought into line." Well, I look

forward to his budget debate when it comes forward.

I have another quote. I see my time has expired, but I'd sure like

to carry on, because I have some wonderful things to put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey concludes.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'd love to hear more from the

minister. It's been quite amusing and entertaining. Perhaps he will

allow us the luxury of a budget debate, and maybe even an estimates

debate. I'd be delighted to bring forward some response to the points

he raised.

Just to reply to one comment regarding the regionalization of

services, it was the member for Prince Rupert sitting on this side of

the House who repeatedly insisted on the importance of travel

assistance for sick people in rural and remote parts of British

Columbia needing assistance.

I have begged the minister repeatedly by letter to allow travel

assistance for people suffering from cancer who now must be exported

from our province — to the humiliation of our citizens — to Washington

State for routine cancer radiotherapy treatment. I have asked that

minister to pay for their travel costs, and he has refused. But he

doesn't want to hear. Of course, he has run away.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to return to the points I was making on

prevention. Premature births are costing us millions of dollars in

immediate hospital care for the newborn, with enormous family

disruption for parents and untold costs and difficulties in the

long-term care of babies who survive with severe disabilities. Are we

doing all we can to prevent premature births? The Royal Commission on

Health Care and Costs was told last fall by professional midwives from

the Grace Hospital in Vancouver that the potential exists to reduce

premature labour by innovations in prenatal care and education. Last

year we passed in this House the Health Professions Act. Mr. Speaker,

you were presiding over part of that debate; you will remember

[ Page 12010 ]

it. Isn't it time for the Health Professions

Council to move on the licensing of appropriately trained professional

midwives so that we can turn loose that pool of talent on the problems

of prematurity? We could become world leaders by extending high-quality

and effective prenatal care to those pregnant women who for whatever

reason are now marginalized.

[11:15]

Consider immunization, Mr. Speaker. Public health doctors tried for

four years to obtain funds to immunize high-risk British Columbians

against hepatitis B, which is a potentially fatal and transmissible

disease that claims about 50 lives each year in this province. Only

when Mrs. Bobbi Bower of Langley was willing to share with the world

the story of her daughter Autumn's tragic and preventable death at age

16, did we see action.

I believe it may be time for universal childhood immunization

against hepatitis B. I have been pushing the former Minister of Health

as vigorously as I can in that direction. From my research I have

learned that this might be achieved for something like $5 to $10 per

child in this province. Is that cost too high a price to pay for

protection of our children? I would like to see us join 42 other

countries, including the United States and New Zealand, to move forward

rapidly in preventive health when we have the opportunity

The same could be said for immunization against hemophilus influenza

B, which is a cause of infant meningitis. Will we be among the first to

use this new vaccine? I hope so.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out. Perhaps I can return to

some of these issues in my reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, while your replacement is taking the

chair, I'll just take a moment to organize my papers and perhaps

explain — in case there is anyone watching this today — to such people

as may have wondered why some of us on both sides of the Legislature

are wearing carnations. Not only was this Mental Health Week, but also

Multiple Sclerosis Week. While members are taking their seats, I'd like

to acknowledge the courage of the people in British Columbia who suffer

from that disease, and the dedication of the health professionals who

look after them, including the scientists who are making an enormous

effort worldwide to come to grips with that terrible problem.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition expressed an alternative vision for

this province. I was proud to take my place on this side of the Legislature,

hoping that the people of British Columbia were listening to him, because he

enunciated a vision quite different from that which we see in this flimsy document

camouflaged by the coat of arms of the province of British Columbia which, in

my view, really represents the abdication of political responsibility.

I listened carefully as the Lieutenant-Governor pronounced the

speech. I have read and re-read this document, and I find it remarkably

flimsy as we enter and progress through a new decade and approach the

twenty-first century.

I can only try to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition

which we heard yesterday. It behooves us to once in a while pause and

be thankful for what we have in this province and this country. It

behooves us to think once in a while of the millions of people now

facing starvation in Bangladesh or in Sudan and of those who are the

casualties in a dozen different countries or more, as well as the

casualties of the Persian Gulf War, and to remind ourselves that we are

remarkably fortunate. No matter what the delinquency is of our

governments at times, fortunately we have a talented population which

keeps us somehow steered on a reasonable course towards the future.

Fortunately, in the people resides not only wisdom, but enough power

sometimes to prevent the harm that governments would do to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I was proudest of all yesterday listening to the Leader

of the Opposition as he talked about the problem of resolving the

aboriginal land question and the complex issues of aboriginal rights.

The Leader of the Opposition — the first member for Vancouver Centre —

has shown exemplary political leadership on that question, not only in

this province but in this country.

When I entered politics a short two years ago, native land issues

were scarcely talked about in this country One could hark back to the

time of Tom Berger, who on this date 14 years ago produced the

Mackenzie Valley pipeline committee report and directed the attention

of many Canadians, for the first time, to the seriousness of aboriginal

land issues.

But there was a long hiatus, and my leader, the Leader of the

Opposition, was perhaps the first politician of prominence in this

country to courageously tackle that issue consistently, no matter where

in this province, no matter where in this country, before chambers of

commerce, before native Indian groups, before women's groups, before

environmental groups, before trade union groups, before every audience

that I have ever heard him speak at, including immigrant population and

multicultural groups. He had raised the issue of the aboriginal land

question and the historical injustice to native people.

I remember well, when I first entered this House only two years ago,

how members of the government side laughed at him; they laughed at me.

They laughed at my colleague sitting beside me during the debate on the

Pacific Spirit Park Musqueam land claim issue.

We've come a long way in this province in understanding those

issues, and it reflects enormous credit on the Leader of the

Opposition. I hope that he will have the opportunity to show that

leadership in a more challenging role soon, when he will have the

ability to cash in on that investment — the investment he and others

have made — and to finally help to bring justice to the native people

who have sought it in their own dignified way for so long.

[ Page

12011 ]

I was impressed to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and the likely

next Premier, describe careful, practical and far-reaching measures and

policies that form part of a program for the protection of our

environment. Virtually nowhere in this Speech from the Throne do we

find any insight into the seriousness of the global environmental

problem. Do we see any reference in this speech to global warming,

ozone depletion, the global population problem, the poverty of the rest

of the world and the impact that pollution and excessive consumption of

resources and energy in our lifestyle and in our province and in our

country have on the development potential of the rest of the world? Two

short years after the establishment of the round tables, do we find any

reference in this speech to the Brundtland commission report? If it's

there, it eluded my notice. I've read that speech, and I listened to it

carefully, and I see no serious commitment.

But I did hear from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday a

carefully developed program to address those issues. I heard specific

commitments to the need to preserve wilderness and parkland in this

province, not the charade of a public consultation process, beautifully

carried out by a ministry under one of the most effective ministers it

has had in years or under a deputy minister who allowed and arranged

for public consultation and serious input from the public all over this

province, only to be sacked just as the process was completed, treating

with contempt those people who had participated in that process — the

minister to be sacked also, just in the middle of that process. In

contrast, we see on this side of the House a clear commitment to double

parks and wilderness in the province and a clear commitment to the

Brundtland target.

And what did we see from government members at that time — soon, we

hope, to be opposition members? We saw laughter when the Leader of the

Opposition made that commitment.

What about the agricultural land reserve? It's something so highly

treasured by British Columbians that even now I see that the Minister

of Native Affairs, the first member for Delta, had in his own riding a

public rebellion — the first popular revolution in Canada — in a sense.

His own citizens held a plebiscite to overturn what his government's

policies led to: the exclusions from the agricultural land reserve of

land which belonged in there.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition renew his commitment to the

ecological importance of the agricultural land reserve and his

commitment to ensure that farmers are able to make a decent living in

this province, and that agriculture, not even mentioned in this throne

speech, is a sustainable industry in this province.

Believe it or not, members of the government side from rural constituencies,

some of us from urban constituencies — like my colleagues beside me and I — take

seriously the agriculture industry in this province and are willing to work

for it and willing to fight for our own consumers to buy British Columbia produce

and not simply truck over the border to buy the cheaper, contaminated produce

that they can get from California. We take it seriously, and we're offended

that there is no mention of agriculture in this speech, because that is our

future, just as it has been our past, as an agricultural people that found we

could no longer live as hunter-gatherers some hundreds of thousands of years

ago.

I was disappointed in the Speech from the Throne in its short shrift

to forestry, the principal industry in this province. In my riding, my

colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I have

organized seminars. We have listened to the forest industry, to the

unions and to the environmentalists. We have tried to educate ourselves

about that industry, which is the backbone of this province. We have

heard from the new dean of the school of forestry at UBC that a $1

billion investment is needed in forestry each year to make us

sustainable and competitive in the future.

Did we hear any commitment in the Speech from the Throne to a

serious investment in reforestation, in silviculture? I heard nothing.

In the confusing budget announcements of the various ex-Ministers of

Finance, I have heard no long-term commitment to serious silvicultural

forestry. I see ongoing overcut.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I see that members opposite are uncomfortable

hearing about this. They're heckling and laughing because they realize

how they have sold out the long-term future of our citizens by their

grotesque mismanagement of the forest industry. I see the member for

Omineca, who himself presided over that system as Minister of Forests

for a period of a year or two and had the gall to stand up in this

Legislature and denounce the then Minister of Forests for

mismanagement.... And now again he has the gall to revert to the

government side at the last minute, thinking that he can save his hide

and deny what he said in this House before about the mismanagement of

the forest industry.

In education, we heard this morning the statement from the former

Minister of Tourism, the disgraced member of the hall of shame, who no

longer sits here today to listen. We heard an attack on teachers at the

very time when we need to be building our education system and when we

should recognize, regardless of the complexities of funding and the

ultimate limit which the Leader of the Opposition emphasized himself

yesterday, that government must be accountable to taxpayers. Regardless

of that, we heard mockery of the concept that education is the single

most important investment we can make in our future.

Last year, in response to my questions about the importance of sex

education and education about public health for our school students,

the former Minister of Education urged me to investigate the "Learning

for Living" curriculum. I did so despite that former minister's

absolute paranoia and insistence that he send a couple of extra

supervisors to the meeting to review curriculum to make sure that I

wasn't doing anything political. I put that letter from the former

minister into my humour file....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or wacko file.

[ Page 12012 ]

MR. PERRY: Or wacko file. He invited me and in fact urged me

to review the "Learning for Living" curriculum. When I sat down to do

so with his own officials, he became paranoid and worried that his

officials might tell me something inappropriate. What he was worried

about, I have no idea. But I did review that curriculum, and I

satisfied myself it's an excellent curriculum. It reflects very

creditably upon that Ministry of Education. But is it being put into

action? In some school districts, yes. I've seen beautiful evidence of

that in school-aged children with whom I've talked about tobacco,

alcohol and drug abuse. In other school districts, no. I hear from

educators, public health nurses and other sources that what is missing

is the political leadership to ensure this program reaches our

students. I heard no commitment to that excellent program in the Speech

from the Throne.

[11:30]

I could talk about housing. I could and will talk about poverty and

women's issues. We were visited during the last mini-session in March

by representatives of women attempting to raise children on social

assistance with single incomes. Last November I heard Ms. Gus Long of

Burnaby address the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs forum on

the impact of poverty on health. The reality is often shocking. I see a

government unwilling to face it, a government whose ministers have

distinguished themselves time and again by saying that young, single

mothers are throwing their money away, are not dressing their children

properly and are not making sandwiches for them in the morning — the

root cause of those children's hunger in school. At the last minute, as

the last gasp of a dying government, we see in this speech a mention of

feeding hungry schoolchildren. That was forced on this government by

the poor children themselves, by the Vancouver School Board, by — dare

I say it? — physicians in Vancouver who recognize the problem, by End

Legislated Poverty, by Ms. Gus Long, by the deliberations of the Royal

Commission on Health Care and Costs and by the embarrassment caused by

the British Columbia Nutrition Council, the organization of

professional nutritionists in this province, when it pointed out

publicly that those children do not have access to an adequate diet. It

was a humiliation for us in a time of general wealth.

I could talk about disabled people. Do I hear anything in this speech about

the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities? It is an excellent

undertaking begun perhaps through the good offices of the former Minister of

Health who sits here, the first member for Central Fraser Valley, and by the

former Premier — an excellent body widely representative of the people of British

Columbia which reports to government. Do I hear any commitment that their deliberations

will now be made public? In the reference to access for information, may I take

it as granted that the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities

will now publish its reports, including those already submitted? Will we see

them during the life of this House? I wish I were optimistic, but I doubt it.

I challenge the new Minister of Health, if he's listening anywhere, and

the Premier, if she is listening to anyone these days, to release those reports

and respect their commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

Under freedom of information I could cite you

chapter and verse of

reports like the report of the Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS,

which was suppressed by the former Ministers of Health, never released,

although we asked for it frequently Let us see that report if there is

a commitment to openness. Let us see that, it recommended measures only

now announced at a public international AIDS conference, at the very

last gasp of a dying government, measures which could have prevented

cases of AIDS in this province, could have helped prevent the spread of

the epidemic, could have prevented the deaths of innocent British

Columbians, had they been published and enacted earlier — and were not

enacted purely out of ignorance.

I could talk about the scandal of the Expo lands sale, which the

Leader of the Opposition referred to yesterday. It doesn't hurt to

remind us once in a while, as we are barraged by charges from the other

side of the House that we are fiscally irresponsible, that we argued

against the catastrophic sale of that property — the absolute giveaway

worth, at a conservative estimate, at least $150 million in lost money

to the taxpayers of B.C. and perhaps as much as $600 million or even a

billion dollars. If you look at the estimate of Brian Calder, former

president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and friend of

many members opposite, he thought that the Expo lands deal cost us as

much as $600 million or more compared to what we might have made for

the responsible sale of those lands. We're still cleaning up that mess.

We're still paying for the cleanup of those toxic soils out of your and

my pockets, Mr. Speaker, and more importantly, out of those of people

less fortunate than us, who pay a higher share of taxes by virtue of

measures like the GST and the lack of progressive taxes in this

province.

I want to turn to a few health care issues, because we may not be

allowed a debate in this House. The House has sat very seldom during

this parliament. I do not take it for granted that we will.be allowed a

budget debate, and therefore I will raise some measures today. I would

love to have the opportunity to ask the minister questions face to

face, but I see the minister doesn't have the.... Even the former

Minister of Health who was here moments ago is afraid to be sitting

here and listening to me face to face.

Let us turn to the problem of heart surgery. We know that British

Columbians have died while on the, heart surgery waiting-lists. The

case of Mrs. Mary Sallis was raised in this House. Mrs. Salfis's

widower is suing the government of British Columbia and the Vancouver

General Hospital because they did not provide a dying woman adequate

basic health care guaranteed under the Canada Health Act and under the

founding principles of medicare.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew says the government is

responsible. I could not agree more. This government did virtually

nothing to prevent such problems, and it moved at a snail's pace to

correct them.

[ Page

12013 ]

Some measures have been taken. There is now a surgical registry.

There is now a standardized policy for criteria for open-heart surgery

and for rating the urgency of patients. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I

would like to think that the opposition had some role, however small,

in pushing the government into those initiatives. Perhaps it was the

people of B.C. who did so; it doesn't really matter. What counts is

that finally it's happening, but regrettably it had to wait until the

last minute of this government.

Somehow methinks the Minister of Health has been a little too

complacent. For example, on February 11, when he announced the opening

of a new heart-surgery unit at the Royal Columbian Hospital in New

Westminster, according to the report by Anne Mullens in the Vancouver Sun

of February 12, 1991, and confirmed by the member for New Westminster —

who, while not invited to the ceremony, chose to attend and heard the

comments verbatim — he stated: "By the end of the year" — that would be

1991 — "we expect to have performed almost 600 more cardiac procedures

than last year." He added that waiting-times for openheart surgery have

been cut to an average of 11 days from 20. He repeated that untruth in

a letter to the Vancouver Province a few days later, subsequently admitting a typographical error, that the correct figures were 20 weeks and 10 weeks.

I have in my hands the waiting-lists from the Vancouver General

Hospital at the same time, the hospital that performs the bulk of

open-heart surgery in B.C. The lists, compiled by the admitting

services at that hospital, show that as of February 1, 1991, the

average wait at that hospital for open-heart surgery was 20 weeks. That

would mean that if the minister's statement was correct, the

waiting-time for open-heart surgery at the other hospitals that perform

it would have had to be zero or negative days. In other words, the

surgery would have to have been performed before the patient even asked

for it for his statistics to be right. That disturbs me, because it's

misleading the people, and it betrays the former minister's ignorance

of the real situation in this province.

I see that my time is running out. I want to briefly address one

last question. I will go from here to a citizenship ceremony for new

Canadians at Point Grey Secondary School in my riding. One of the most

fulfilling jobs I can do as a member of the Legislature is to greet new

Canadians, people who, like myself, have chosen this country because of

their sense of optimism in what we can do. They feel that way not so

much about this province but in fact about this country called Canada.

I would not want to sit down in this debate without saying to you

and to the other members of this assembly that as someone who chose to

be a Canadian citizen 21 years ago, I will fight for this country. I

will fight for its unity, and I will fight with members of my party to

make sure that it stays together, that it blossoms and that the

optimism and the idealism and the talents of our people are genuinely

fulfilled in this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair would like to comment

that it is 12 years ago today that four members who are still here were

elected to the Legislature. They are: the hon. first member for

Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) and the

member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I wish them a happy

anniversary

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is certainly my privilege to respond today to the Speech from the Throne by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, David Lam.

As the new Minister of Native Affairs I am especially pleased that

many of the areas highlighted in the Lieutenant-Governor's remarks are

areas of concern to aboriginal people in British Columbia.

The announcement of a special legislative committee to hear the

views of British Columbians on constitutional change is indeed a

welcome one. A recognition that a new social era for Canada must

include accommodation of native Canadians as an essential part of a

strong Canadian community will be good news for all the aboriginal

people of British Columbia. The government has made a strong commitment

to address the difficult economic climate facing British Columbia today

and a commitment to native involvement in the building of the Iskut

road in northern B.C.

My ministry's Native Economic Development Advisory Board will

continue to advise us on economic development and strategies that will

ensure that native people are involved in the economic mainstream of

the province of British Columbia.

The new employment equity initiatives targeting aboriginal peoples,

among others, are a welcome addition to our existing efforts in this

area. The $1.4 billion forest renewal program has been reaffirmed, and

initiatives to preserve and protect our environment have been announced.

It is the government's intention to keep aboriginal interests in

mind in the development and implementation of all government policies,

and especially to fulfil our obligations to consult with aboriginal

people on policies that might affect their traditional activities.

My ministry is currently participating in a joint task force on

native forestry with the Intertribal Forestry Association and other

government ministries. We are also participating on resource management

plans with the Nisga'as.

The Lieutenant-Governor has announced that there will be new

strategies for child protection and expanded services to help victims

of family violence that will benefit native and other citizens of

British Columbia.

The expansion of post-secondary education through the new University

of Northern British Columbia and the proposed creation of a

degree-granting university in the Fraser Valley will significantly

increase the ability of aboriginal students to access higher education.

Perhaps most importantly, the government has made a commitment to

build on its successes in negotiating a new relationship with British

Columbia's

[ Page 12014 ]

aboriginal citizens. The Lieutenant-Governor

mentioned the progress that has been made since last August when

cabinet accepted the recommendation of the Premier's Council on Native

Affairs to change its 119-year-old land claims policy and become

directly involved with the federal government and native leaders in

claims negotiations. I give credit to my colleague the hon. former

Minister of Native Affairs.

[11:45]

Signing of the first land claims framework agreement in the

province's history with the Nisga'a Tribal Council is the beginning of

substantive negotiations with Canada and the Nisga'a people. We will

participate with Canada and the First Nations Summit on a tripartite

task force on native affairs. The native claims will be determined and

a procedure will be put in place as how best to proceed with those

claims. Cabinet is looking forward to receiving the recommendations of

the task force as early as next month.

There will be creation of a third-party advisory committee,

comprising both management and labour of major resource industries in

the province, to advise us on land and resource negotiations. There

will be a commitment by the province to contribute its fair and proper

share of aboriginal settlements.

All the citizens of British Columbia deserve a degree of certainty,

which modern-day treaties can provide. The vast majority of British

Columbians believe justice has not been done in a moral, political or

economic sense. Government must find honourable and just ways of

resolving long-standing issues.

In addition, this government has undertaken and will continue to

support significant initiatives in culture, heritage, language,

education and native social services. A $10.7 million five-year grant

program supporting native heritage has been announced for the

establishment of language and culture centres across the province. The

program is administered by a Crown agency whose majority of members are

aboriginal people and which has access to advice from all tribal

councils in the province. The first grants from the program will be

issued later this month.

The Ministry of Education will continue to support native control

and input into the primary and secondary system through local

agreements between bands and school districts.

The Ministry of Health will continue to provide preventive services

and health education programs for native people, such as its native

AIDS education program.

The Ministries of Attorney-General, Solicitor-General and Native

Affairs will continue to consult and work with native people to make

the justice system more accessible, relevant and responsive to native

concerns.

I would like to make the following points. The province is sincere in its commitment

to resolve native land claims and any other outstanding grievances of aboriginal

people. We are committed to representing the interests of all British Columbians

in our negotiations with aboriginal peoples. We will be flexible in our approach

to negotiations and will continue to press for processes that are faster, more

open and more effective than in the past. This government is committed to reaching

agreements that are fair to both native and non-native people and affordable

to the taxpayers of British Columbia. At the same time, we take very seriously

our fiduciary obligations to native people and our commitment to come to a new

arrangement with aboriginal peoples in the province.

to examine and improve the economic, social and cultural situation of

aboriginal peoples so that they can share more equitably in the

opportunities of this great province.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment or two to talk about a number

of things that were stated in the throne speech. I am pleased to be

able to stand here today and remind people that the government of

British Columbia has for the past four and a half years governed

extremely well from the perspective of having the province be in the

forefront of the economy of Canada. It seems funny — I was sitting here

listening to the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey make some

comments about different sectors. If you were to take a look at the

commitment this government has made in a number of the sectors he

referred to, I believe people would realize very clearly how lucky we

really are in British Columbia. The government has done a fantastic job

in providing for the people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to refer to an often-used statement; it was used quite a

bit around this assembly last year. That was the one made by Mr. Krog,

the candidate in the Nanaimo area. It seems to me scandalous that Mr.

Krog could not continue to say what he thought and what he knew. It is

scandalous that Mr. Krog has virtually not been heard from since. What

he did was tell the truth. What has the opposition got to hide? It's

funny that Mr. Krog could get up and say that they may have to spend $3

billion more to deliver the programs that the opposition says might be

required to be delivered in this province. Who would be paying for

that? You don't hear very much from Mr. Krog anymore. He was being

totally honest. Isn't that something, that we can't have honesty from

the other side? Somebody wanted to espouse honesty, and he has now got

a buttoned lip. I find that very hard to accept.

MR. MILLER: Take it easy on us.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, I'll take it easy on you, all right.

It's kind of nice to see the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

sitting opposite. It seems I recollect that member standing after the

throne speech last Tuesday. If I recollect properly the words in Hansard , there was an attack on the credibility of my family and especially my parents. I take exception....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Sir, I ask you to look in Hansard .

[ Page

12015 ]

I again take exception to the fact that somebody could rise in this

House and criticize the efforts of people who have worked very hard to

establish themselves, who have worked the earth all their lives and I

believe deserve a lot more credit than was shown by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in his statements. I don't believe the people of

British Columbia are ready to accept that, Mr. Speaker. I think they

will realize what that statement really means. I give a lot of credit

to the people who have worked so hard to make this province what it

really is. Their efforts should make us proud to sit in this assembly

and debate issues on their behalf — not to criticize. I despise that

type of attack on people who've given their lives to that sort of

effort, for each and every one of us to have a better opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that I'd like to raise.

I've heard a lot of talk from the people opposite about scandals. I'll

tell you, there's a lot of paper here. I guess I could go on and on and

use up the rest of my time talking about people on the opposite side.

For that matter I could go back to Ontario. Ontario seems to have a

predominance of problems. The opposition in British Columbia likes to

think that there's a problem here. I find it very funny that we can

only concentrate on British Columbia, when in fact I believe there was

a machine, or part of a machine, which headed east when the Ontario NDP

government was elected. It went to draft part of the budget that was

presented in Ontario. I think that budget is atrocious; in fact, it is

scandalous.

The NDP in Ontario said they would deliver a budget deficit of $2

billion. What did they come up with? Nearly a $10 billion deficit. That

is horrible. No wonder the people of Ontario have such low morale. I

was talking to some people from Toronto yesterday, and they are

appalled at what they may well face over the next three or four years.

I hope the people of British Columbia come to realize that if the NDP

gets in, I would lay odds that we'll be facing the same difficulties

here. I don't believe the people will accept that. I believe they will

realize that the government has managed this province extremely well on

behalf of all people's interests and concerns. I could go on and on.

It was interesting that we introduced a federal member from Victoria

in this House yesterday. I guess I could go on, with papers galore here

too, about a gentleman who is supposed to set an example as a

politician and show leadership. This gentleman declared bankruptcy

because of his own inability to pay his debts. The taxpayers bore the

cost of his debts. This gentleman draws his income from the taxpayers.

If that isn't scandalous, I don't know what is. If politicians are to

lead by example, then that is a terrible example of the ability to lead.

MR. MILLER: Gosh darn!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You're darn right it's "gosh darn!"

It is a horrible example. Everyone else in society is obligated to pay debts.

Above all, politicians should show leadership and guidance. I think it is extremely

deplorable that some effort was not arranged to bear the cost, as everybody

else would have to do if they were in debt or carried a mortgage — including

politicians; probably some in this Legislature. That gentleman should have had

the same obligation. Otherwise, he should have resigned.

I'd like to carry on with a couple more things, Mr. Speaker. I know

very well that there has been a lot of discussion about a number of the

issues before this House. Certainly I've heard a lot of discussion

about education. I'd like to show the people what this province has

accomplished. If I could show the expenditures....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not permitted and not acceptable to the Chair under any circumstances.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm sure the members opposite will get a

chance to view the information that is available to them which will

show that this province leads very well in presenting a proper funding

level for education. I think we've done extremely well in providing for

services. If you look at the amount that was committed from last year's

budget, nearly 70 percent was expenditures for social programs. Whether

it's for education, advanced education, health care or social services,

it's a very large commitment by the province.

I'd also like to say that from the point of view of the options

people have, I think they are going to realize that the government has

done an excellent job in making sure there is stability for their

future, for their children, and that there is opportunity for people.

Not what we may well see in Ontario, where I'm sure many people are

questioning what the future is for their young people. How much debt is

going to be passed on to future generations by succeeding budgets that

will be brought in by the NDP government in the province of Ontario? I

think what they will be facing will be disastrous. I wouldn't want to

be looking forward to sending my children — to have to look to a future

in Ontario. I'd be glad to continue to work hard, and credibly, on my

children's behalf and on everybody's children's behalf right here in

British Columbia. I think we have done an excellent job as government,

and I believe we will continue, hon. member, to serve the people of

British Columbia come the time of election.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm offered an enormous amount of unsolicited

advice from members who forget that if they stood in their place they'd

be recognized.

[12:00]

MR. SIHOTA: You should never get out of this chamber and talk to a reporter.

Interjection.

[ Page 12016 ]

MR. SIHOTA: It's always bound to get you in trouble.

I want to talk about a number of issues. The throne speech gives us

an opportunity, perhaps once a year in a rather unrestrained way, to

talk about a number of concerns and to speak to matters in general.

Therefore I want to talk at the outset in a general way about a number

of issues and a little bit about some issues that pertain to my own

riding.

I couldn't help but note the comments that were being made earlier

today during statements, and yesterday during the course of debate on

the throne speech, related to the whole issue of changes to our

political process, the cynicism that people feel about politicians and

how people feel alienated from the political process. I think it's fair

to say that that concern is on both sides of the House, and I think

that the debate, particularly this morning, demonstrated that that is

of concern to all of us.

I really didn't want during my comments this morning to get too

partisan, but I want to talk a little bit about the failure of

right-wing politics and rightwing values, and the way in which the

political approach of the right has gotten.us into one heck of a mess

in this country These are very troubled times in Canada. I guess when

you have troubled times, there are the challenges to meet those

troubles.

There is, in my mind, a real vacuum in terms of leadership,

particularly at the national level in this country, at a time when this

country is in the midst of some confusion as to its own identity and

where it wants to go. We have the strong feelings emanating

from~Quebec; we have traditionally had a strong sense of western

alienation. We've always had the view on this side of the Rockies that

people in Ottawa don't listen, and often political mileage is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must ring the bells; we lack a quorum.

MR. SIHOTA: There is, in my mind, a legitimate need to sort

of sit back and pull oneself away from the partisan rhetoric that goes

on in here and think a little bit about where we're going as a country.

I think that a lot has to be resolved among all of us as Canadians, and

there needs to be some time or space or moment to reflect on why we're

here — not so much here in the chamber but here in this country — and

what we want.

There have always been discussions about national identity in

Canada, but even those discussions don't seem to be as salient now as

they were, for example, 15 or 20 years ago. People seem to be so locked

into views — parochial views often, in terms of the province that they

represent, and the views of that province vis-AL-vis national and

constitutional issues, be it people from Quebec or people from British

Columbia. They seem to advocate whatever seems to be in the parochial

interests of their province. In addition to that, there just doesn't

seem to be much in terms of leadership at the federal and national

level in bringing together some of the divergent views in this country.

It seems that people are so wrapped up in their day-to-day lives, going from

paycheque to paycheque, meeting the immediate concerns of their families and

attending to some of the economic concerns which face them on a regular basis.

People aren't pausing to reflect about this country — what makes this country

tick and what values should underlie this country as we move towards the turn

of the century and try to solve our problems.

There doesn't seem to be at the national level — and I think it is a

legitimate concern — any willingness to bring Canadians together, to

think about what we want and where we want to go as a nation. That's

really unfortunate in terms of the times that we have.

People have to begin to feel good about this country again. They

have to begin to feet good about what we are as Canadians and where we

want to go. That sense of feeling good just isn't there right now as we

remain in this period of political acrimony and parochial interests.

Interjection

MR. SIHOTA: If they want to heckle, that's fine. I'll deal

with the points you raise, Mr. Minister. I'll be happy to talk about

some of the political situations in this province. In fact, I will.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: In the interest of lowering the acrimony.

MR. SIHOTA: When I talk about acrimony, I'm talking about

acrimony as it relates to constitutional issues in this country. There

has to be some will nationally to pull people together. In developing

that will, there has to be some give and take. Certain provinces are

going to have to give, and others are going to have to take. There is

going to have to be a commitment to national programs, institutions and

standards.

At the same time, there is going to have to be a recognition that it

is in the interests of this country to have Quebec be a part of this

country. The culture and the values that they cherish in that province

should be something that we as Canadians should take pride in and

perhaps become more informed about.

For what it's worth, I am expressing a lot of concern about what's

happening nationally and wondering how we're going to find our way out

of the kind of mess. we've created. Some of the suggestions that people

have made are reasonable. Suggestions along the lines of a constituent

assembly are perhaps reasonable for remedying some of the concerns. It

is clear that the kind of process used in Meech Lake is something

that's unacceptable to people in Canada now. In that regard, that

process ought not to be duplicated.

But even then, whatever flows out of the concept of constituent

assembly has to be acceptable to the country as a whole. Therefore I

think that there is legitimate room for debate around the need for some

type of referendum to develop the Canadian consensus on where we're

going on these issues. There must be some way we can draft a referendum

question or document that gives people some hope and inspiration that

this is a nation that's still worth preserving.

[ Page

12017 ]

So some of the suggestions that have been put out around the

resolution of our constitutional problems are legitimate. Underlying

all that is this view that people — and I will make a note to myself

about a social and economic charter, because that's something that's

worthy of comment in terms of where we're going today... But when you

reflect on what's happened, one of the real reasons the process of

Meech Lake and others hasn't worked to date and why people scorn even

the Spicer commission today is that there's this underlying sense of

cynicism about the political process — this view that politicians don't

listen.

All of us in this chamber are concerned about that kind of attitude

gaining some level of prominence in society, because I think each of us

as individual MLAs likes to think that we listen to our constituents,

that we endeavour to react to their concerns and seek to reflect their

views and values both in terms of this chamber and outside.

As much as we may like to think that way, it's clear that there's a

broad consensus of opinion that the parliamentary system as we know it

does not in the minds of people seem to work or reflect the view that

their voice is being heard.

I said at the outset that I wanted to talk about the failure of

right-wing governments. To a large extent the cynicism of the public —

the view that "Well, you guys are all in it for yourselves" — is

reinforced by some of the stuff that we've seen go on in British

Columbia over the last four and a half years and the activities we've

seen in this province with this administration. I don't want to

belabour the point, but there is an overriding view in British Columbia

today that the Social Credit government is a government that works for

its own friends and insiders, and that it is a government that is more

interested....

AN HON. MEMBER: ...our friends in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: It's troubling to see that the former Minister of

Environment, who no longer has his job, says: "That's right, I work for

my friends." That's exactly what people think. It's amazing to hear

that member heckle and take pride in the fact that he believes that

it's the role of his party to work for his friends. It's not

surprising, therefore, to come to the conclusion that this is a

government which tends to think of themselves and forget just who it is

that they're here to represent, because the overriding view in the

province today is that they work for themselves, they work for their

friends, and they work for their insiders.

The track record in that regard is one that speaks for itself. When you get

principal secretaries like David Poole fired and he gets a quarter of a million

dollars to walk away from the province, it's amazing. When you take a look

at cabinet ministers who give a quarter of a million dollars to their friends

through a lottery program without even asking them to so much as fill out an

application form, you bet people come to that type of conclusion. When you see

a former disgraced Premier using his office to benefit himself personally, you

bet people have every right to feel that sense of cynicism.

There is an obligation on the part of this chamber to make it clear

to the population at large that that kind of behaviour is not

acceptable. The fundamental responsibility to make that clear, under

our system, comes from the government. I don't think that has been

happening with this administration, and because of its unwillingness to

deal with those issues, people continue to have the kind of cynicism

they have.

For the 4½ years I've been a member of this House, I've tabled

legislation which gets to the heart of the matter: tough

conflict-of-interest laws. You see, the conflict-of-interest problem

isn't something that just came in the last four years. It's been there

for many a year, and in fact, one only has to take a look back prior to

the 1986 provincial election and read some of the statements that the

former Premier, Mr. Bennett, had to make in light of some of the

conflicts that arose while he was in office.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to the government that there's a

need to attend to the matter of conflict of interest. There have been

other jurisdictions in Canada that have spoken to and addressed the

problem in a way to give people some measure of confidence that the

issue is being handled. Here in British Columbia there has been no

legislative measure of confidence. There have been words by the

disgraced former Premier, who said, when he got elected in 1986, that

he expected honesty, high standards and moral integrity from his

government.

scandal. Then we saw the current acting interim Premier, who was

appointed by her caucus to be the Premier, say that she expected the

highest moral and ethical standards from her cabinet. Even before the

House began, on opening day, they had already tossed out the first

cabinet minister.

[12:15]

It's true. People get fed up. Quite honestly, they can't stomach

this government much longer, and they can't stomach the inexcusable

behaviour and personal advantage that individual members of this

government have gotten from their office. You would think that this

administration would have, if I can quote the former disgraced Premier,

"the moxie" and the courage to present legislation that attends to the

problem and says: "Look, folks, we understand there's been a lot of

wrong in the past, and we propose to you strong, tough conflict of

interest laws."

We've got a committee from the government saying: "We'll set up another committee to take a look at it." Come on!

We have tabled, as I said earlier on, a bill in this House for the

last four and a half years. It is predicated on what other

jurisdictions do. It analyzed the law of the federal government. It

analyzed the law of the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba. We

extracted from those laws the strongest elements of their legislation

and injected them in a private member's bill that we have put before

this House.

Our bill is very straightforward. It says that when a politician gets their hand caught in the conflict-of-

[ Page 12018 ]

interest cookie jar — when they've put it into the

conflict-of-interest cookie jar — they're gone. They lose their seat.

They lose their pay. They're gone.

It has another element that I want to talk about in a second, but

contrast that with what Social Credit has done. I'll give the most

recent example. We have a case with the former Premier, the first

member for Richmond, who violated the conflict-of-interest guidelines

that he himself wrote. Having violated them, what has happened? He's

still got his seat; he's still got his pay; he's still here in this

assembly Surely if they violate the most basic trust given to

politicians, and violate conflict-of-interest rules, they should be

gone. I think that's what the public wants, and for the life of me, I

can't understand why the current administration can't bring itself to

introduce conflict-of-interest laws that say that.

I want to talk about another dimension of the law we've proposed

which really hasn't been talked about in this chamber; it should be

talked about in the context of the former Premier. Under our law we say

that an individual ought not to be able to benefit from the fruits of

their illegality. I see the Solicitor-General listening. I'm glad he's

here, because I know he's made a lot of speeches — we'll talk about

that some other time; if we ever get into estimates, hopefully we'll be

talking about it — about the need to be tough with people who break the

law. I've heard a lot of his speeches. He gave one in Kamloops, I

think, when I was up in that area, and in Vernon, and so on. I am sure

he would agree with me that someone who does wrong ought not to benefit

from the fruits of that wrongdoing. I see the Solicitor-General nodding

in agreement with what I've got to say

We have a situation here.... Let me put it this way. In the law that

we've proposed as New Democrats in terms of conflict of interest, we

have said that if a politician benefits financially from a breach of

the conflict-of-interest laws, he should pay restitution; he or she

should not be able to benefit financially from their wrongdoing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. SIHOTA: I will. Take the case of the former Premier, now

the first member for Richmond. He bought Fantasy Gardens, I believe,

for somewhere around $1.6 million. He made some improvements, put some

money into it; I understand that. He sold it for $16 million. He made a

profit somewhere along the line, but he made that profit as a

consequence of the breach of his responsibility... Sorry, in the course

of making that profit, he breached....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I realize that you're responding to

some heckling from across the court, but because the Speaker has this matter

under consideration, it is a matter of privilege — and the matter is also before

the courts. There will be ample opportunity for you to discuss it, I believe,

once those matters have been dealt with, either in debate on the budget speech....

So the scope is pretty limited under anything else. Would you just restrict

your comments.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not use a specific

example, but what I'm trying to get at is that if someone benefits

financially from wrongdoing, they ought not to maintain the fruits. I

think that should be a central piece of any conflict-of-interest

legislation. Not only should you lose your seat and your pay, but you

should have to return or make restitution for the profit you secured. I

think that should be a very basic and central ingredient of

conflict-of-interest legislation, and I think it also ought to be a

very basic and central portion of debate, as we debate these types of

matters. But I'm pleased to say that in the law that I've introduced in

this House, that would be the case: if you are found in breach, you

must return the profit. I think the average person would find some

comfort in the fact that that kind of law exists, so that no one can

seem to benefit from their illegality.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Name names.

MR. SIHOTA: One element of restoring some measure of faith in

people is that if politicians do wrong, they not only lose their seats

and their pay, but they also have to return the profit they made.

There are other elements that are necessary to restore a measure of

public confidence in the system. The Solicitor-General expresses a real

frustration and is heckling that I'm not naming names. I don't think he

heard what the Speaker had to say.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I could go into others if you want. The

member opposite says "broad sweeps." Let's take a look at the

individual allegations of conflict of interest that have been found in

this administration. The first one was in 1987.

MR. KEMPF: Name names and do it out of this chamber. Have guts enough to do that.

MR. SIHOTA: If you want to heckle, go to your chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must remind the member for Omineca that he may interject only from his own seat.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Omineca....

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if you address the Chair, you will provoke the members a little less.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Omineca was

sitting in another chair, but the way cabinet ministers have been

revolving in this government, I just assumed he was now a minister.

What have we had? We've had one cabinet minister appointed every two

weeks during this administration. There are only five or six members of

the Social Credit back bench who haven't been in cabinet. So you can

excuse me for getting....

[ Page

12019 ]

There are other elements of restoring some measure of integrity in

the political process. The second very necessary piece of legislation

which should be introduced to restore some measure of confidence in the

public mind is that the activities of those who seek to benefit

personally and who mix personal business interests with their public

responsibilities.... I think the second measure that needs to be

introduced to accompany what I've said is freedom-of-information laws.

The public — after all, they are our masters — should have access to

pertinent documentation that records why the government took or didn't

take any particular action. It is their government, it is their

documentation, and they ought to be entitled to get access to it.

Other jurisdictions have introduced freedom-of-information

legislation. I know my colleague the member for Burnaby North, who's

not in here right now, has for years, in the tradition of this

party.... It's always been the member for that riding who has

introduced a freedom-of-information law. We put those on the books

because we think that it is important that the public have access to

those underlying documents that form the foundations of decisions.

There are often a lot of questions arising in this House that can be

answered one way or the other by the presence of those documents. We

have seen over the past few years a lot of questions asked about the

Expo land sale. We've seen a lot of questions about the Coquihalla

Highway. We've seen a lot of questions being put most recently in the

House about determinations involving Mr. Emerson and others.

I guess, in some way, in opposition you tend to think that you've

only seen the tip of the scandal iceberg. Freedom-of-information laws

would address a lot of the concerns that we have as an opposition in

terms of what may or may not have been done and would provide

government with a defence in terms of saying: "Yes, this is what we

did, here's why we did it and here are the documents that prove it." It

would probably go a long way towards evaporating some of the tension

that often develops in this House.

To my way of thinking, it would only be sensible if we had those

kinds of laws so as to open up government — to provide, as someone

says, sunshine laws to allow for better scrutiny of the decisions that

are made, and to allow for far more informed debate than sometimes

happens when you don't have freedom-of-information laws.

This government has been asked over and over again, for the past

four and a half years, to produce those laws. They haven't. We've even

said: "Here's what we propose. Here's our private member's bill in that

regard. Take it. Say it's yours." You've stolen ideas from us before.

Introduce it. It's good law. It would open up parliament. It will

attend to many of the problems and evaporate many of the difficulties

that often arise. It's a sensible way to go. It is a way that is

consistent with what is happening elsewhere in North America and in

provinces across Canada. If you've got nothing to hide, it would seem

to me you would have no hesitation in having that kind of legislation

in place and introduced.

I say with some regret that over the past four and a half years we

have not seen this administration come forward with

freedom-of-information legislation that would open up the process, give

us some knowledge as to why what is happening is happening, and perhaps

give government an opportunity to better explain the basis for a

particular decision. There's legitimate room for that type of

legislation, and in my view, it is illegitimate for government not to

put it forward.

The third thing that I think has to happen is that the powers of the

ombudsman should be expanded. I know that consideration is being given

now to putting an issue before the ombudsman. I don't want to talk

about the issue that's currently before the House that may go to the

ombudsman, but I want to say that there are provisions of the Ombudsman

Act that haven't been proclaimed. I haven't looked at the legislation,

but if memory serves me right, the ombudsman's office was created

sometime in the early seventies. I can't name the exact date, but it's

been here for some time. It's hard to believe that over the last 20

years we have not expanded the powers of the ombudsman to allow that

office to inquire into a number of matters that it is now forbidden to

do.

Again, let us open up the process. Let us have some sunshine. Let us

take out of the shadows those provisions of the act that have never had

light shone upon them because the ombudsman has been prohibited by law

or the provisions that are necessary have not been proclaimed. Surely,

if we are to move towards a regime of open government, the ombudsman's

powers have to be expanded.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, others have talked about free votes as if

they were a panacea. I don't necessarily think that free votes are a

bad thing, and in some measure I'd support them, but I don't think they

are the exclusive answer. I think there's a greater role in our system

here for parliamentary committees. Instead of doing what we often do,

doing most of the work in the Legislature, there should be more use of

parliamentary committees to travel around the province, consult with

British Columbians and consider their views, to reflect those views in

recommendations.

[12:30]

There's all sorts of room there in terms of laws and policies that

need to be developed and could be developed if we made better use of

parliamentary committees. If I may say, there's intelligence on both

sides of the House. There are very capable people on both sides of the

House, and they should be utilized in a far more effective fashion

through more and better utilization of parliamentary committees, so

that we get some of the stuff out of this Legislature and we get people

out on the road talking to British Columbians, and some of the stuff

out of the minister's office, which I'm sure would help as well.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my comments.

MR. VANT: In representing the Cariboo people, I am proud to

stand in this House and support another good Social Credit throne

speech. It is an inclusive throne speech that His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor delivered in this chamber the other day. There is

[ Page 12020 ]

something in it for all people in every part of our great province.

What a contrast to the former mayor of Vancouver's idea that what is

good for Vancouver is good for B.C.! As usual, the Leader of the

Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre, has got it

backwards. What is good for B.C. is good for Vancouver. I have a little

bias, being a member from the interior of our great province. But let's

face it — Vancouver would be nothing if it wasn't for the flow of

resources from the rest of this great province: the timber, the

value-added wood products, the plywood, the pulp and paper, the

minerals, the natural gas, the wheat, even the beef for your

hamburgers, that all flow to Vancouver from the interior of British

Columbia. Let's not forget, of course, the dairy products, the produce

from the Fraser Valley and Delta, the fruit and manufactured goods that

flow to Vancouver from the Okanagan. Yes, Vancouver is dependent on the

economic base and trade necessary for its existence; yes, as a very

beautiful city and as a major port.

The Leader of the Opposition refers to the first inhabitants of

British Columbia — and I quote from yesterday's Blues — as "our first

citizens." I know the member for Atlin, who was sitting in this chamber

earlier this morning, would be offended by his leader's condescending,

ethnocentric, nineteenth-century colonialist attitude. The natives, the

first citizens of our great province, are fellow citizens, not

possessions.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday of the NDP's

environment and jobs accord. He said: "That gives one process for

citizens to sit down in each region of the province that's

time-specific." I don't know what this means. Does it mean a moratorium

on all logging in all disputed areas for perhaps 20 years? This

frightens the people of the Cariboo whom I represent in this House. It

even concerns the members of the IWA in the Cariboo, because 70 percent

of our economy there is dependent on the forest industry.

Just a few minutes ago the member for Point Grey said that the

primary industry in British Columbia is the forest industry. For a

while I thought he was going to advocate clearcutting the forest out at

Point Grey, but he didn't go that far in talking about the forest

industry. But for sure, directly and indirectly, our economy in the

Cariboo is very dependent on the harvest and use of our working forests.

Meanwhile I heard with much dismay that the Leader of the Opposition

knocked the Social Credit strategy, as outlined in the excellent throne

speech, of bringing together the results of many meetings, reports,

consultations and public hearings of the Forest Resources Commission.

The commission includes, I am proud to say, my constituent John Szauer,

a forester of great distinction; also the results of the meetings of

the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Parks Plan '90, the

old-growth strategy committee, etc. The results of all of this very

valuable input from the people of the province will be brought

together, with additional input from other appropriate sources, to

create an overall strategy for B.C. land use decisions.

I must remind this House that there are many stakeholders in the use of our

Crown land and our Crown forests in British Columbia. There are, of course,

the first citizens: the trappers, guides, prospectors, timber harvesters, resort

owners, ranchers. In other words, this has been a grass-roots Social Credit

process from the grass roots up, not a top-down, imposed NDP process.

I was amazed, too, that the Leader of the Opposition fantasizes

about being Premier of this province. He talks about making many trips

to the east. He said he wasn't going to go to eastern Canada; he was

going to go to the Orient. Well, I can certainly understand that in

these troub