1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Security at Wilkinson Road jail. Mr. Sihota –– 5692

Public advisement of prison escapes. Mr. Sihota –– 5692

Bob Quinn camp closure. Mr. Guno –– 5692

Resignation of David Poole. Mr. Williams –– 5693

Dioxin testing at Woodfibre mill. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 5694

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Rogers –– 5695

Mr. Lovick –– 5695

Mr. Crandall –– 5699

Mr. Barnes –– 5702

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 5705

Ms. Smallwood –– 5709

Mr. Long –– 5712

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the tragic passing yesterday

evening of Barry Sullivan, QC, and perhaps to use the occasion to say a

few words of tribute to Mr. Sullivan.

Barry Sullivan came

to the attention of the Ministry of Education during his successful

prosecution of the Robert Noyes child sexual abuse case. Previously he

had headed a committee to advise the government on amendments to the

Human Rights Act. During the summer of 1986, Mr. Sullivan prepared an

interministry report on sexual abuse of children by school board

employees, and that report set the direction which government has taken

in dealing with the abuse problem.

It was Mr. Sullivan's

manifest concern for children, together with his professional ability,

that subsequently made him the government's choice to head the Royal

Commission on Education. He combined the objectivity of a non-educator

with the trained mind of a lawyer. As a one-man commission, Mr.

Sullivan wisely assembled a broad-based support staff of educators and

others.

From the start of the royal commission's work, his

common sense and human qualities were displayed in his direction of the

research. As well as holding formal hearings, he made sure that he and

his staff went out to meet the public in their places of work and

study. In one instance, he even held a public meeting aboard a Gulf

Islands ferry, and he certainly went out of his way to talk to the

students in the system.

Before many months had elapsed, it

became evident that he had succeeded in eliciting widespread enthusiasm

for the work of the royal commission. It is a tribute to his abilities

and his personal integrity that in the midst of strife and much

cynicism, he was able to establish his credibility and his genuine

interest.

Mr. Sullivan's health began to deteriorate during

the course of his research, yet he continued to devote himself to the

work to the limit of his strength. His personality animated all his

staff. He was assisted in particular by Dr. Arthur Kratzmann, who

became Mr. Sullivan's deputy and oversaw publication of the report. To

Dr. Kratzmann, the professional staff and the technical staff, we owe a

great deal of thanks.

Barry Sullivan leaves a memorial that many would envy. A Legacy for Learners ,

as his report is titled, suggests many improvements in our education

system. The wide acceptance it has already received is a testament to

his wisdom, his common sense and his love of children.

On behalf of all British Columbians, I extend our sympathies to Barry Sullivan's

widow, Dawne, and their four children: Lianne, Lana, Ryan and Shannon. I also

wish to recognize and thank the family for their significant contribution, because

I know that Mrs. Sullivan read much of the material, assisted and was able to

give the input of a mother and children into the report. So I wish to recognize

that and thank them for their work and contribution to the royal commission

as well as their support for Mr. Sullivan.

Barry Sullivan memorial bursary fund is being created. Details will be

provided shortly, and contributions in lieu of flowers have been

requested by the family. The funeral service is tomorrow afternoon at 2

p.m. in Vancouver.

I know, however, that the major tribute

to Barry Sullivan will be an education system that meets the emerging

needs of the twenty-first century. His lasting memorial couldn't be

better expressed than through the title of the royal commission

report, A Legacy for Learners .

Perhaps the Speaker can, on our behalf, convey the sentiments of this House to the Sullivan family.

MR. JONES : We on this side of the House also wish to express our regrets on the untimely death of Barry Sullivan.

Although

best known for his work in education in British Columbia, Mr. Sullivan

had a successful 14-year career in the legal profession. As well, he

served on the B.C. Utilities Commission. In 1982, after only ten years

at the bar, he was appointed to be regional crown counsel and was

responsible for many of the high-profile prosecutions in this province.

He was described by Denny Boyd in September 1986 as the top lawman in

the province, in terms of effectiveness and high-profile prosecutions.

Despite

the royal commission's slow start after his appointment to it, his

personal, warm and human style eventually attracted a strong public

response to that commission and gave credibility to its work. Mr.

Sullivan became a symbol of the end to a very negative past in

education, and a symbol of hope for the future.

I think

everybody knows that as commissioner he set up a very rigorous and

demanding

schedule of hearings and meetings in every corner of this

province. I had the privilege to attend a number of those hearings and

was most impressed with his incredible patience and sensitivity to all

those who wished to be heard by the commission.

Barry

Sullivan made an important contribution to British Columbia,

particularly in education, and as the Minister of Education said, his

legacy is symbolized by the title of the royal commission report, A Legacy for Learners .

I know the House wishes to express to the family of Mr. Sullivan our

sympathies and condolences on behalf of this House to a very special

British Columbian.

MR. SPEAKER : I thank both members. A proper message will be sent by the Chair on behalf of all members.

HON. MR. REID :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today

the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Graeme Roberts, who

is in the members' gallery.

HON. MR. PARKER : I'd ask the House to make welcome today Bruce Hallsor of Terrace, British

[ Page 5692 ]

Columbia. Bruce is the former premier of the B.C. Youth Parliament and a UBC student.

MR. MOWAT : I'd ask the House to make welcome Sharon White, a commissioner from the Public Service Commission.

MR. SIHOTA :

In the gallery today are a number of students from Esquimalt Senior

Secondary School. Everyone knows Esquimalt Senior Secondary; it's

probably the best school in the greater Victoria area, maybe in the

whole universe. At least, it's known for its outstanding jazz band and

its rugby team, which is off to Japan later on. Joining us are

approximately 30 students from the social studies 11 class, together

with their teacher Mr. Taylor. Would all members of the House join me

in giving a warm welcome to the students from Esquimalt.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

Also an educational visitor today in your gallery is the senior

inspector in special education from Hong Kong, Mr. Tsui, who is here

with his wife on a Canadian tour. Mr. Tsui works with learning disabled

and emotionally disturbed children, and he is here looking at B.C.'s

excellent programs promoting integration of handicapped children. He is

also here in the gallery with my wife Barbara. Could you make them

welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

SECURITY AT WILKINSON ROAD JAIL

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Solicitor General which relates to the escape

from Wilkinson Road. The government has had several inquiries, and it

appears that it hasn't learned from those inquiries. Some time ago the

outside night prowl position was eliminated through government cutbacks

at Wilkinson Road. Would the minister not agree that in order to

protect public safety, that outside night prowl position should now be

restored?

HON. MR. REE : No.

MR. SIHOTA :

I see that the minister has little or no respect for maintenance of

public safety. But I'm sure the minister is also aware that in the

original design for the building, there was a second outside perimeter

fence to cover the entire area. Again as a cost-saving measure, the

government chose not to put in that second outside fence. Does the

minister now agree that that second fence should be put up as a way of

further ensuring public safety?

HON. MR. REE : The minister does not agree with the presumptions raised by the hon. member, and the answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'll question the minister again about Wilkinson Road. The night before

this escape occurred, management was tipped off that there was an

incident about to happen at the facility. Instead of holding an

immediate search that night, management chose to defer a search until

the next afternoon shift. Of course, in the ensuing time the escape

occurred. Will the minister who has announced an inquiry be requesting

that the inquiry investigate the reasons behind that deferment?

HON. MR. REE : If there was such a deferment, yes.

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the minister again. One of the reasons that it takes up

to six hours to detect an escape is insufficient staff at night. I

understand that since the escape — after the horse has left the barn,

so to speak — the government has increased the number of guards looking

after inmates in the units. We have gone from a ratio of 1 to 4 to, I

believe, 1 to 2. Will that increase in staff at night shift be

permanent?

HON. MR. REE : That will be one of the options to be considered when the report is brought down.

PUBLIC ADVISEMENT

OF PRISON ESCAPES

MR. SIHOTA :

Another question to the minister. After a rash of escapes at Oakalla

and other institutions, the former Attorney-General, the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), indicated that the government would

consider advising the public when escapes occurred. Could the minister

explain why in this instance the public in the surrounding area was not

advised of the fact that an escape had occurred?

HON. MR. REE :

In "advising the public," I'm not too sure to what extent the member is

discussing: the whole public community of British Columbia? I think

they have been advised. The media are aware of it; they have been

advised. The local police were advised. The local prison people were

advised. If the member would set out some perimeter of area or

designation as to what he includes in "public," I'd be happy to

consider it.

BOB QUINN CAMP CLOSURE

MR. GUNO : I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways — no, it's not about a highway advertising matter.

Last

Friday, NoRoadco told the 11 workers at Bob Quinn camp that the camp

would be closing. These workers voted for the privatization of highways

maintenance when they were assured that the camp would be kept open. Is

the minister aware of the situation? Has he decided to see to it that

the contractors honour the commitment they made to the workers?

HON. MR. VANT : At this time I am not aware of the details of that, so I will take that on notice.

[ Page

5693 ]

RESIGNATION OF DAVID POOLE

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Premier, yesterday in the House you advised us that Mr. David

Poole, your principal secretary, had resigned. Outside in the corridor

you said that in effect he had been fired. Could you advise us what you

have to tell the House today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What I said was that the resignation had been asked for.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I would note that the House was not advised of that, and I'm pleased

that we are now getting a little more of the story in the Legislature

itself.

Mr. Premier, an additional question. On November 24

last year you said: "The decision was Poole's alone, and I deeply

regret that he made it." Today you're now telling us that he was asked

to resign. Which is the true story, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it's not unusual for the question to be

asked after it appears in the media. Frankly, the question wasn't asked

yesterday, and it was asked by the media; as I say, that's not unusual.

However, with respect to your question, I did regret accepting the

resignation. No one ever likes to accept these resignations, I'm sure.

The Leader of the Opposition is presently faced with a similar

situation and is being sued, as I understand — or at least the NDP

caucus is — for wrongful dismissal, and I'm sure he suffers similar

regrets. I suppose we won't know the exact cost of that until the court

rules on it.

As the member is aware as well, oftentimes

severance is based on advice from people knowledgeable in the field as

to what the court might decide. This undoubtedly, as I say, will be a

matter of regret for the Leader of the Opposition as well, so we do

regret things like this.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker,

the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to shovel money off the

back of a truck for his assistants. Can we get it clear that the

Premier is now saying that what he said on November 24, which was that

it was Poole's decision alone, was indeed not the case, and he knew

that when he said it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, again I must say that obviously there is a procedure which is

regularly used in government and in the private sector with respect to

severance, and a resignation alone is not always the cause of severance.

As I said, I think the Leader of the Opposition is well aware of this; he is

now faced with a similar situation. We don't hear a whole lot about that;

there's very little said by the opposition regarding the matter of the principal

secretary to the Leader of the Opposition who is now suing for wrongful dismissal,

and what the consequences of this might be. I realize the comments made by the

first member for Vancouver East.... He said: "The Leader of the Opposition

doesn't want to shovel the money off the back of a truck." Again, we

can only assume that given the NDP record, which in part was to pay $80,000

plus to the first member for Vancouver East after serving one month in the House

and putting the taxpayers to a tremendous expense for a by-election, this could

well happen again. Your record isn't that great. Your own demands and the

response that we've seen from your party in regard to that are not that

great.

MR. WILLIAMS : You're saying then, Mr. Premier, that you're entirely satisfied with the $172,000 payoff; that that's quite acceptable to you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I've said it previously, and I'll say it again: I am not happy with

severance policies as they exist, not only in this government but as

they are in municipal governments, in regional governments, in all

governments. Perhaps they reflect in part what's happening in the

private sector as well. I am not happy with that, and I have said that

this whole matter will need to be addressed. I'm not happy with it now.

I wasn't happy during the NDP years when they were paying someone from

Winnipeg who had served about a year or so a tremendous severance as

well, namely Cass Beggs. We know of other examples during the years

1972, '73, '74, '75 and beyond that I'm not happy with.

agree that this whole matter needs to be addressed. I think people who

work in the public service may be getting too large a benefit when it

comes to severances, and I agree that this may be based upon what's

happening in the private sector and the decisions from the court based

on what has happened previously. I can't do much about what's happening

in the private sector, but I do believe that I and members of

government have a responsibility to see this addressed in the public

sector. And we will address it in the public sector; it will be

addressed adequately. Hopefully we would not have to worry about

addressing it for city governments or municipal governments, but I

appreciate that there's a problem there as well. If need be, perhaps we

can address that in consultation with them.

I'm concerned

about it, yes, and not only for one person, as the opposition tends to

zero in on. I'm concerned as to how it affects what happens when a

settlement is finally arrived at between the Leader of the Opposition

and his former principal secretary, and the consequence of that. As I

understand it, already there have been overtures, on behalf of the NDP

caucus, I must presume, that this cost be picked up by the government

or by the taxpayers.

I am concerned about these things. I believe it needs to be addressed, and I will see that it is addressed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Government Management Services. In view of the fact

that the Premier is unhappy with this golden handshake and this fat

settlement, are you prepared to rescind the order-in-council? Are you

prepared to take it back to

[ Page 5694 ]

your

cabinet colleagues? In view of the fact that you said yesterday you

were a rookie and didn't have the signature of the pension commissioner

and other signatures from the A-G's office on it, are you now ready to

ask for the approval of the senior staff in this administration to sign

something they were clearly unwilling to sign before?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I thank the member for his concern on this subject, and I can assure

you that this government will be looking in depth at the severance

policy — past, future and current — once the report is tabled with me

and my cabinet colleagues sometime in the future by the former Chief

Justice. We will be examining the policy thoroughly to see how it

compares with other jurisdictions in the Dominion of Canada — other

provinces and the federal jurisdiction. We will be looking at this

thoroughly and making a judgment decision in the interests of the

taxpayers of British Columbia.

I might add one key element

that should be remembered by all members of this House, and that is

that it wasn't that long ago that the auditor-general, the independent

person of this province, gave advice and offered his comments and

opinion that, indeed, the severance arrangements with employees of

government, whether they are senior, intermediate or junior, should not

be discussed in public. It is a personnel matter.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Finance. On this very issue the Minister of Finance

said: "There is nothing unusual or abnormal beyond what would normally

be expected in terms of this golden handshake for Mr. Poole." This man

was employed 18 months; he got $10,000 a month in terms of the golden

handshake. Do you still think that's normal, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Like my colleagues, I thank the hon. member for the question. In

addition to the points that have been made by the Premier and the

minister in charge, I think we might add a few more points to the

official record.

[2:30]

First of all, the quote the hon. member used is what I'm speaking

to, which is the normalcy of arrangements made when severing public

sector employees. As the Premier said, if you examine the severance

arrangements of most local governments, school boards and other

publicly financed authorities, you will find in the jurisprudence

dealing with those court cases the precedents, the parameters under

which people are paid. That's a matter of public record, and as the

Premier said yesterday, if we were to examine the severance records of

the city of Vancouver while it was led by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, we would undoubtedly find that there were exactly similar

situations in that jurisdiction which, by virtue of the lack of

parliamentary procedure that we enjoy, don't get the public examination

that they should.

The fact that we are discussing this in

the public forum is proper and correct, and I'm very pleased that we

have the opportunity to tell the people of the province that what we

have done in this respect and in others.... You were told yesterday,

let me remind you hon. members, that this was not the highest

settlement in recent years of a departing public service employee, the

point being that the opposition has zeroed in on one high-profile

person for the purpose of making a political point. That's what we pay

them for, Mr. Speaker, and I really can't be too critical of that. But

surely....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The minister must finalize his answer.

DIOXIN TESTING AT WOODFIBRE MILL

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Point of order. I'd like to respond to a question posed to the ministry

yesterday and taken on notice by the Premier. The question was asked by

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore).

first observation is that the NDP has really reached a new low in

courage when they have to wait until they know I'm going to be absent

before they ask misleading, technical questions.

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just wondering whether it's

customary on a question of notice to have these peripheral remarks, and

rather political ones. I'd urge the minister to just answer the

question. Leave the commercials out of it.

MR. SPEAKER : The point is well taken.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The opposition is advised every day at 11, Mr. Speaker, if ministers are going to be present or absent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Okay, 12. Whatever.

The question posed yesterday was about testing done at Woodfibre by Beak Consulting. First to Beak Consulting.

Tom

Beak is a former scientist with Environment Canada. I believe biology

is his discipline, and since 1965 he has operated a consulting firm

consulting to the pulp and paper industry across Canada. I'm advised

that Beak Consulting is one of the best in the business and has been

employed by the pulp and paper industry for many years. In fact, the

Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has asked Beak to do dioxin testing

for some time now, which is in reference to the paper the member

presented yesterday. In order to test for discharge in a pulp mill, you

must have controlled measurement over the process which creates the

discharge.

For that reason and in the consulting employ of

the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association acting at Woodfibre, Beak

Consulting advised Woodfibre that they must achieve certain processing

standards on order that there could be meaningful measurement of the

discharge.

[ Page 5695 ]

This

is empirical methodology, and if the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

needs further explanation, he could probably talk to the member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and receive some assistance.

What

I find most disturbing is the second question posed yesterday by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam: "Is it true that your government

gave Woodfibre mill extra time to pretty itself up and get these tests

in late?" In that question, the member implies that the government was

doing the particular testing. In fact, the document it refers to

indicates that the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association was doing the

testing. He should know better than that.

There's a further

flaw in the member's allegation, and it is the flaw I wish to discuss.

As I've said, Beak was working for industry. More serious, though, is

the knowledge that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam knew that

Beak was working for the industry. He visited Woodfibre on Friday,

March 10, and he was advised of the change of the process and of the

testing by Beak that would accompany such industrial information. This

information was made available to the member by management and by union

personnel. I really find it despicable to use question period to bring

misinformation to the House.

MR. ROSE : On a point of

order. I was just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you find the word

"despicable" unparliamentary or offensive to the Chair. I would urge

that he withdraw.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The word "despicable" is unparliamentary, and I withdraw it.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. ROGERS :

I'm so pleased to be able to stand in my place this afternoon. This

morning when I stood in my place, I don't think we had a quorum. I wish

the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) would stay for my one brief

closing remark about this thing, so please sit down, top gun, and I'll

be with you in a minute.

I'm going to have to send a copy

of the Minister of Finance's answer to the former member for Columbia

River, because Jim Chabot would be very proud of it. I thought for a

moment there that we were actually sitting through the budget speech,

because it had that ring to it that I'm becoming familiar with.

There's

only one brief thing that I want to bring up. Since the chamber is full

for these few minutes, I would just like to mention, Mr.

Solicitor-General, that more enlightened jurisdictions — Ontario, for

example, and others — have followed the leads of the airlines, bus

companies and railway companies by banning smoking on the vehicles that

are known as taxis. It's going to come to this province as it comes to

every other province, and it remains in your jurisdiction as the

minister responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission. My last plea to

extend the life and health of all the people in British Columbia who

don't smoke — and perhaps extend the life of those people who do smoke

but will refrain from smoking while they're in public transit — is to

ask the government to get ahead of the public again and this time ban

smoking in taxis.

MR. LOVICK : And in the ministers' offices, too.

MR. ROGERS : There's absolutely no question of that, but I'm not so sure that that would be terribly practical.

Mr.

Speaker, I know the budget is going to be terribly fascinating; I've

given many of the members who are here today a little insight as to

some of the things they can expect — and so the budget probably has to

be changed — but I'll look forward to speaking again during that time

and, of course, having a little more fun during estimates, when there's

a more liberal chairman who will allow greater flexibility and chiding.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to participating in the debate on the

throne speech with some eagerness, enthusiasm and alacrity. I want to

begin by saying that it's nice to be back. I'm sure that it hasn't

escaped the notice of many people that we have been away for a period

of about nine months. Understandably, many individuals were speculating

as to whether the government might be pregnant with new ideas, insights

and concepts that would take us to the heights. Unfortunately, that has

not proven to be the case. Behold they have laboured and brought forth

task forces, and not much more. That, of course, has led us to the

amendment, and it is my pleasure today to speak to that.

begin, I want to remind all members of the House just what that

amendment says. Because what happens traditionally around here is that

in the heat of debate we tend to lose sight of what we are supposed to

be discussing — not so much on this side, but certainly on the other

side. The amendment to the gracious speech we heard from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor was that we would add the following words:

"And

this House acknowledges that the throne speech was an admission of

mistakes by the government on issues of critical importance to British

Columbians, including forestry, the environment and housing, and that

rather than providing a strong and clear commitment to immediate

legislative action on these important concerns, it is an agenda of

further studies, promises and delays."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

first thing that strikes me when I review the amendment and examine the

words is that this statement ought not to require debate. It is a

statement of fact, and I would submit that the record would prove that

rather conclusively. I detect a little disagreement on the other side —

it's nice to see some sign of awareness and alertness over there, and a

little sign

[ Page 5696 ]

disagreement. All I can suggest is that members opposite recognize that

yes, indeed, they did not say enough. Because just as this throne

speech has been an admission of failure on matters of environment,

forestry and housing, so too is it an admission of failure in certain

other areas critical to the well-being of this province.

would refer specifically to two, Mr. Speaker. The first would be

highways. Let's have a look at the throne speech. Let's see the

reference to highways on page 7, for those who might be following

along. The reference we detect there is as follows: "The Minister of

Transportation and Highways will initiate a comprehensive highways

redevelopment program in the coming year." Well, one doesn't need any

advanced training in logic to recognize that embedded in that statement

is a clear admission that we have been neglecting the province's

highways for a very long time. In fact, it is precisely that conclusion

which comes across very clearly in that huge transportation study, some

18 volumes recently commissioned by this government.

One is

also tempted to speculate on the reasons for that predicament. I would

remind members that one of the reasons we have a state of disrepair in

the province's highways is because of the rather skewed set of spending

priorities. What we did, you will recall, with the Coquihalla was suck

all the money out of highways provincewide and place it in one spot. We

are still paying the price for that.

I would remind us

also, in terms of the predicament of not having enough money to work on

rebuilding and maintaining our highways, that we saw clear evidence of

that in last year's budget when, you will recall, there was a 14

percent reduction in the Highways budget. An admission of failure on

the part of government? You bet, Mr. Speaker: clear, definite evidence

of an admission of failure.

The second point I would draw —

for the attention of the members opposite — has to do with education.

Again let me quote from the throne speech. I am referring specifically

to post-secondary education here: "My government believes that advanced

education is an investment by society in its future." Talk about a

self-evident truth, I would add parenthetically. "Improved access to

advanced education will be a priority for the government in 1989."

Obviously it hasn't been a priority to this point. "The Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training will introduce programs to

strengthen our post-secondary system." Obviously it is a little weak at

the moment, parenthetically. "My government will enhance access to

university programs in all parts of our province" — places where they

haven't had it thus far — and will "improve coordination between

institutions, and expand capacity within our existing systems."

[2:45]

Pretty clearly, Mr. Speaker, again we are dealing with an admission of failure,

remember, from a government that has been in power for two and one-half years,

from a political party that has had the control of government for some 30 years.

That's an admission of failure from a government whose record clearly, demonstrably

in post-secondary education is abysmal.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask all members to recall that we have a very low

percentage of young people in this province going on to post-secondary

education. We have a very low percentage of young people receiving

university degrees in this province. We have a low level of student

assistance, and we have high tuition fees.

We recognize,

then, that if we are being asked to believe, as the throne speech seems

to suggest, that all is for the best in this — the best of all possible

worlds; shades of Voltaire — we are also being asked to forget our

sense of history. We're being asked to forget everything that's

happened. I'm not talking about ancient history; I'm talking about

recent history, as recently as one year ago today plus a month.

that time, the Canadian Federation of Students — I would remind the

Premier and others — produced a document called "The Quality of

Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia: A Consumers' Report." The

burden of that report was, and I can quote the letter from the research

director for the Canadian Federation of Students, just this: "In a

nutshell, the report indicates that years of inadequate funding, far

below the rate of inflation, coupled with increases in enrolment, have

created serious problems for institutions in trying to maintain the

quality of the educational experience they offer students."

Less

than a year ago, the research project comes up with the conclusion,

prima facie, that the system is in trouble, that we're having

difficulties. Now we're being promised this huge infusion of dollars.

We're going to make all kinds of great things happen; and that's good,

I won't deny for a moment. But, please, I would admonish this

government, don't try to tell the rest of us that we should forget what

the record has been, because the record, as I suggested, has been

abysmal, and to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK :

No, no. Somebody opposite suggests that I am sailing close to the wind,

and to make him feel rather better I will tell him that I am now about

to take a different tack.

I want to suggest to the minister

opposite and to all others of like mind that their sudden embracing of

the cause of post-secondary education, ipso facto, amounts to an

admission of failure. It's just that simple. Our amendment, if it's

flawed, fails only in that it is perhaps not inclusive enough. Our sin

is not commission; our sin is perhaps omission. I would offer that

observation.

Now that we see this sudden embracing of what

some have euphemistically referred to as the triple-E — environment,

education, economic development — some of us, I hope, can be forgiven

for toying with the conclusion that perhaps what is happening is that

this government and this Premier have peered over

[ Page 5697 ]

the

abyss, and maybe they see, in fact, that their own demise is imminent

and therefore have made this sudden, dare I say, almost deathbed

repentance.

"Deathbed repentance" strikes me as an appropriate phrase, and I

don't think I am exaggerating. I don't think I am stretching the point.

Let me suggest why I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. The evidence,

I would suggest, is in, and the evidence was given on March 15. On March 15,

the electors of Vancouver–Point Grey and the electors of Nanaimo, my own constituency,

were asked to judge the record of this government.

They

did so, and they made their decision very clear. Indeed, they rejected

overwhelmingly this government, this political party, this Premier. Let

me remind members opposite, and I notice they are all trying to avoid

grappling with the evidence....

MR. SERWA : On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member consistently refers to

this side and that side of the House. There are 12 staunch,

stouthearted members of the government seated in this corner of the

House. Would you ask the hon. member to refer to that corner of the

House when he's talking?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Chair

appreciates the comments from the hon. member, but may the Chair

suggest that we would hope the members know which side of the House

they belong to.

MR. LOVICK : I'm delighted to allow

my friend from the Okanagan his brief flirtation with immortality by

interrupting my speech — happy to give you that.

I was

about to give you some evidence, Mr. Speaker, because I don't believe

that the majority of members in this House — indeed, in all corners of

this House — are entirely aware of precisely what happened some weeks

ago, and the magnitude of what happened. Let me remind them: in Point

Grey the Social Credit candidate received 23.5 percent of the popular

vote; the New Democrat received 52.5 percent of the popular vote. The

win in Point Grey was by a margin of 7,721. Less than one in four

voters in the constituency of Point Grey could be found who were

willing to support that government. You can smile, friends, and laugh

and say, "It's just one of those things, " as the song says, but you

ought to be responding with fear and trembling — and I suspect that you

are.

In Nanaimo, similarly, the Social Credit candidate

garnered an amazing 35.3 percent of the vote, and his New Democrat

rival, the soon-to-be-seated MLA Jan Pullinger, garnered some 57.2

percent, a margin of 5,456 votes. Now, folks on the other side, however

you cut it, however you want to play it, that equals humiliation,

repudiation. It's just that simple. Nobody, I think, can dispute that

conclusion. In Nanaimo that hapless candidate was butchered like a lamb

at a slaughter. So it happened in Point Grey also, despite the fact —

and I want to emphasize this — that the government pointed with pride

to all of the economic indicators going their way; despite the fact

that the government stated with depressing regularity that everything

was wonderful and their track record was beyond compare; despite the

fact that they also made some specific efforts in my constituency to

leave behind some money, some evidence of the government's generosity.

Despite that, these things happened.

I would remind members

that the Social Credit candidate was assisted at the beginning of the

campaign. In fact, we had a visit by the Premier and the cabinet. Not

only did they visit, but they decided to make some announcements: they

left some money there. They left quite a bit of money, as a matter of

fact, and of course we're grateful to receive it. But what's important

to note is that it apparently didn't make any difference in terms of

changing people's regard for this government. The campaign was

announced the day after the cabinet visited Nanaimo. The Premier was

the star performer, of course, in Nanaimo on E minus 29, but you'll

never guess what happened on E minus 28: the Premier disappeared in a

puff of smoke, or something else, and we never saw him again for 28

days.

Moreover, the selfsame Premier was not even mentioned

by the candidate. Indeed, the literature from the candidate pretended,

it would seem, that the Premier did not exist. Worse than that — for

the attention of members opposite — is the fact that the same campaign

literature, the same signs, the same paraphernalia one uses in

campaigns, was conspicuous by the fact that the name of Social Credit

itself was buried. You had to look closely to see the sign of Social

Credit. You tell me those folks aren't worried, Mr. Speaker? I suspect

that they are.

The campaign in Nanaimo got even better.

Just in passing, ere I forget, let's juxtapose that brief history with

what happened two and a half years ago. In that particular election we

had billboards in the community that featured the name of the Premier

and suggested that the two candidates in Nanaimo, who were almost

nameless, were going to be part of the blank-blank-blank team. But this

time, everybody wanted to pretend that blank-blank-blank didn't exist.

What a marvellous turn of events in the short space of two and a half

years. Marvellous and amazing it was. Despite the fact that the

government continues to produce glossy little pamphlets called "B.C.

Update" in which we have a separate page devoted to something called

"economic indicators" telling us how wonderful the world is, despite

the fact that they visited my community and left a considerable amount

of money there, and despite the fact that there has indeed been a

turnaround in my community's future and fortunes, the message of the

government was rejected peremptorily, pointedly and patently. Let there

be no mistake about that. I think it's fair to say that we're looking

at a government which perceives its own demise and recognizes that it's

on the brink. I don't think there is any other explanation for that

kind of sunshine throne speech we had.

[ Page 5698 ]

Let

me just share one other observation about these election activities.

Like most members of this chamber, I was interested in what happened in

Alberta the other day. In that great Canadian stronghold of Social

Credit, where the philosophy of the party was pioneered and had all its

successes, I noticed that Social Credit is still alive. There are 83

seats in the province of Alberta, and guess what? There were five

Social Credit candidates running. I thought you might like to hear what

they received by way of votes — or at least a couple, to make the

point; an omen, I suggest. The margin of victory in one constituency

was some 3,100, and the candidate for that party received 329.

Similarly, we had another constituency where the margin was almost

6,000, and there the candidate for Social Credit received 599 votes. If

you have any sense of history, you know that that's where it began.

That was the bastion of Social Credit support in Canada. I wonder if we

are seeing some kind of historical progression which will be subtitled

for future generations as: "How the Mighty have Fallen." I suspect that

that may indeed be happening.

[3:00]

I see I have enjoyed this brief rendition of recent political events

rather too much and therefore have not left myself sufficient time to

talk about a whole bunch of other matters. Happily, I can defer many of

those to estimates debates and other opportunities.

The

question, of course, is why all of this happened. Why, despite the fact

that the government spent all that money? Why, despite the fact that

the economic indicators indicate — pardon that pun — that things have

indeed turned around from the difficult times we have been through in

this province? Why, despite the fact that Social Credit continued to

trot out its old slogans and rhetoric and try to use the old scare

tactics about not dividing the free enterprise vote, and all those

kinds of things? Why, despite all those things, was the Social Credit

government so unsuccessful in those two constituencies?

The

answer to that is probably that the people of this province have been

told once too often the old song. They've heard it too many times, and

it doesn't play anymore, friends. They remember the record of this

government. They know what has been done to them, and they also know

what hasn't been done for them. In passing, they also remember the

scandals, the dirty tricks, the insider trading and the favours to

friends, all of those things. But I don't think those minor matters are

sufficient to cause that repudiation we've been talking about. Rather,

we're looking at an attitudinal shift. It's a growing perception on the

part of British Columbians that we've been there before. We've listened

to the old songs enough times. We aren't going to get conned the same

way we've been conned before.

We are dealing with folks who

maybe say something more like this: "The government must think I'm

stupid if it believes that by walking into my constituency and saying

they're are going to spend all this money" — implicitly "if you get

on-side"; that certainly was the message we heard in that campaign....

They're arguing that kind of case, and more and more people are saying:

"Wait a minute. My intelligence and my sense of fair play is offended

by that kind of stuff. Therefore I am going to protest in the only way

I know how." I would suggest that that's exactly what happened in the

constituency of Nanaimo.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I began at about 20 minutes to. Therefore I am close to my time. How sad!

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK : I can tell as I gaze across the floor that that is a universal sentiment.

couple of examples will make the point. One of the things the Premier

announced when he visited my constituency on the eve of the by-election

was that the government, in cooperation with the federal government,

was going to put up about $4.5 million for a ferrochromium plant. The

Premier also said at that time that.... He read into the record of the

meeting — or at least I heard it on the radio — something that sounded

suspiciously like a direct quotation from a so-called environmental

study by an outfit called Rescan. The study, unfortunately, was not

prepared for the Duke Point location in Nanaimo. It was prepared for

another location, which had been rejected. Moreover, that study had

some holes in it, I'm afraid.

Let me just emphasize the conclusion to it, and why we get scared. Let me make the point to the government House Leader.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

I hear some sniping and jibing on the other side. Of course we want it,

but we don't want to be conned, and we don't want to be told that

everything is in place to protect the environment when it is not.

The

point I would make is that the city council of Nanaimo, in response to

information it was getting from concerned individuals, said: "We need

more information." The city council of Nanaimo, therefore, passed a

motion emphasizing that there must be a site-specific environmental

study by an independent body, not one based on the developer's own

data; and moreover, that the study had to give the people directly

affected an opportunity for input. How sad that the city of Nanaimo has

to take that initiative because it doesn't have confidence in the

Ministry of Environment's activity.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : Don't tell me it's the law. That's a bogus argument, and you know it.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : It will happen because of a federal government western diversification fund agreement.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to touch on one other brief example of the fact that

the constituents in my area looked at the government coming bearing

gifts in its

[ Page 5699 ]

hot

little hands and said: "Yeah, but...." We were also visited by the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) a short period before the election

was called. He carried in his hand the promise of a $25 million

expansion to Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, and we all said:

"That's wonderful, but it doesn't do a darn thing to solve our

problem." The problem in Nanaimo is the longest waiting-list in the

province for elective surgery — 2,000 names.

Believe me,

Mr. Speaker, that point was made again and again and again during that

campaign. The people of Nanaimo said: "Yes, we want your money. We want

what we as taxpayers should be given, but we do not buy for a moment

that this sudden conversion, this sudden commitment and concern for our

welfare after we've been neglected all this time, is going to make us

forget that history and suddenly say: 'Come home, dear, all is

forgiven.'" We are not going to do that.

I see my time is

just about done. Let me conclude by saying only that I want to give

notice to this government. When you have the temerity to say in a

throne speech that you have the most impressive and largest

privatization program in Canada, and brag about it, but you don't have

the courage to reveal the details of one single contract or to answer

our questions in the Legislature about what it is actually costing us,

then I submit that your claim doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny;

rather, it's pious, blatant hypocrisy.

I also want to give

notice to this government that when we talk about highways.... I'm

intrigued, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that despite the fact that we had a

huge transportation study released only a few months ago — 18 volumes

long — it isn't even mentioned in the throne speech. I wonder: did it

get lost?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Before we proceed, the second member for Vancouver East has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CLARK :

I've been informed that we have 41 pre-employment students in the

gallery today from Templeton Secondary School in my constituency. 1 ask

the House to make them very welcome.

MR. CRANDALL :

Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks from the previous speaker interesting.

It impresses me that he sounds a bit like a former statesman in this

country named Tommy Douglas. It seems almost like he's trying to

emulate him, and I find that interesting since his leader is trying to

do much the opposite.

I'm glad also to hear him talk about

the commitments that were made in Nanaimo. Perhaps if he would talk to

the related ministers, those commitments would be kept, and they

wouldn't have to be made again. The riding up there would get some

benefit from his representation.

I want to talk today about

some of the good things that have happened in Columbia River in the

last few months. Since we've last been engaged in a throne speech

debate, we've had many good things happen in Columbia River. It's been

a privilege to represent that great constituency in this House over the

past 12 months.

We started off the year in good fashion in

Golden. In April 1988, the Premier and I were able to announce a new

high school to serve that community. The previous high school was built

in 1956 and is now nearing the end of its lifetime. In a few short

months, we will be able to see the construction begin on a new high

school to serve that community for the next several years.

We're

also in the process of working on the final blueprint drawings for a

new hospital in the community of Invermere. The construction year for

the present hospital was also 1956, and the previous MLA for Columbia

River was able to secure approval for a new hospital for Invermere.

That hospital will be started later this year to serve the people in

that riding.

I might also add that in the southern part of

our constituency, 1988 saw the beginning of a road that will join the

east and west Kootenays. Our good member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr.

Dirks) and I worked with the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Vant) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and

secured funding for a road to join Kimberley with Gray Creek over by

Kootenay Lake. That particular road is now half completed and will

serve the residents of both the east and west Kootenays for the years

ahead.

I appreciate the support of this government and the

respective ministers involved in seeing that these needed facilities

have been started and will be completed in our constituency of Columbia

River.

I also want to mention that our constituency was the

host for the B.C. Festival of the Arts in May 1988. 1 salute the

Kimberley community for their very excellent job of putting on that

Festival of the Arts. We will expect the city of Chilliwack to keep up

the fine work that has been done by other communities in previous years

in hosting the Festival of the Arts.

Those are some

facilities issues, at least in terms of the new Golden high school, the

new Invermere hospital and the Gray Creek pass. Facilities, however,

aren't the major issue in Columbia River, although they are

appreciated. Many of the services we have for the people of our

constituency are equally important and perhaps more so.

[3:15]

1 was pleased in the last few weeks to be able to officiate at the

opening of the Golden Day Care Centre. This small community of only

4,000 people has been working for the last 15 years or more to

establish an effective day care centre. With the help of some funding

from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we've now been able

to open a day care centre which we expect will serve our community for

many years and provide the needed service that many single parents need

— and indeed, many married couples as well.

I also want to mention that in the last few months we've seen a new residence for the mentally hand-

[ Page 5700 ]

handicapped

started under construction in Invermere. That will replace the use of a

former hospital in Invermere by providing some good housing for several

residents. It too will provide a service there for many years.

want to mention a particular item that I worked on in the last few

weeks in the city of Kimberley which, in fact, involves a young man

there who is deaf and was needing some educational programs not

available in our small communities. This young man's name is David

Bell. As a result of some excellent efforts on the part of several

people from the Ministry of Education, we've been able to move this

young man to a better program in the city of Victoria. This is just one

example of many individual services that we have been able to provide

for the people of Columbia River in the last year.

Those

are just a few highlights, and I can tell you that there are many more

that have happened in Columbia River in the last year. It's good to see

that part of the province receiving attention, and, again, it's my

pleasure to represent that riding.

I also want to mention

that in July of last year I was one of five members of this House

invited to represent British Columbia at the Canadian Parliamentary

Association. Along with me, of course, was our Speaker and the second

member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), the member for

Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) and the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). That particular parliamentary association meeting

was held in Charlottetown. We met with all the other provinces in

Canada and, indeed, some members from Britain and other parts of the

Commonwealth. Our Speaker was a very able host, and the conference was

a benefit, I'm sure, to those of us from this House as well as those

from the other Houses. I might add that if the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) is invited to attend that association

meeting, I'm sure he will attend, and I would encourage him to do so.

The one this year is in our great neighbouring province of Alberta.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

terms of our throne speech this year, I'm very pleased to see many of

the issues that have been highlighted there. I think it's tremendous

that this government has highlighted three major areas of continued

economic growth, the preservation of our environment and an education

policy to meet our future needs. This particular throne speech outlines

this government's commitment to healthy growth for the future along

with judicious expenditures of the taxpayers' money. As we focus on

those three issues during this coming session, I hope that each of our

members in this House will contribute to the achieving of those goals.

The

government recognizes that one of the major things we will accomplish

in this term of office is to balance the budget. As has been said in

this House in the last few days, there is a great temptation when times

are good to spend out of control and then not be in good financial

health when times are not as good. I think we all recognize that

because of the general economic health in the country and in the world,

our province's economy is healthy. I would suggest, with all sincerity,

that this particular government has set a tone for investment around

the world and that our economy in the future will benefit from the

investments that are being made in this province today.

The

throne speech has forecast that our budget will be balanced. It also

says that this achievement will be matched by no other province. I

concur heartily in that. It is an achievement of significance, and I

also believe that it will be matched by no other province — I would

rather say by no other government, because I'm very sure the federal

government will not balance their budget during this year.

think it's important to recognize that good financial management now is

what we need to set the tone for a healthy economy in the future. I'm

also delighted that the government has embarked on the regional

diversification program. I think that members such as me, from the

interior, appreciate this initiative in a greater way than members from

the lower mainland and the Island may, because our economies stand to

benefit from this particular policy. Indeed, I know that there are

already initiatives undertaken in my riding because of this policy and

plan of our government.

It's not only an important thing to

have new businesses come into your part of the province; it's also

important to have new facilities and new infrastructure put into place

so that the economy can grow in the future. That is happening in

Columbia River. New companies are looking at investment there, and our

facilities are receiving the attention of government and will continue

to do so.

I'm also delighted to see the new value-added

emphasis on the forest products industry. We have some companies and

some sawmills in our constituency that participate in this value-added

industry. I believe it's one of the roles of government to provide some

direction to the private sector in terms of policies and programs

whereby the private sector will work towards a greater utilization of

our workforce, and this particular policy does that very thing.

Part

of what I mentioned about facilities growth, infrastructure

development, is happening in Columbia River as well. A couple of nights

ago I was able to announce an airport improvement grant of $95,000 for

the community of Golden that will provide some needed funding for

lights, terminal buildings and other facilities for that small airport.

That airport is not one which has a scheduled airline, but it's very

important in terms of protecting our resources, fighting fires and

those sorts of things. This particular grant will assist us in

developing that small airport. We also have improvements planned in

other airports in our constituency, such as the one near Fairmont Hot

Springs; we are considering some additional improvements to that

airport as well.

[ Page 5701 ]

I'm

also pleased to see that this government and our Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) are continuing our focus

on energy development. In my particular constituency, the energy issue

of most concern to me is in the small community of Field. Field is in

Yoho National Park, very near the Alberta border, which, because of the

high mountains in Kicking Horse Canyon, is not connected to the B.C.

Hydro electricity grid that covers most of the province. The ministry

and I are working extensively trying to connect Field to the Alberta

energy grid to improve the source of supply for electricity for that

community.

I would suggest that Yoho National Park and the

tourism facilities that operate there will, in the next decades,

provide one of the most attractive tourism facilities in British

Columbia. Field is the first community on the B.C. border to welcome

residents from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the rest of Canada

on the Trans-Canada Highway. It's very important, therefore, that they

have a secure source of supply for electricity. Just in the last few

years we've seen an excellent tourism facility developed at Emerald

Lake, and we will see other facilities developed within the community

of Field and along the Trans-Canada Highway in that national park. So

we are working and will continue to work to see that a secure source of

electricity is available to the community of Field.

I am

also delighted that in energy we are paying serious attention to the

idea of co-generation using waste products from industry. In Columbia

River the major industry, of course, is forestry, and a good deal of

waste products are generated which could be used in the generation of

electricity. To some extent that's happened in the past, but the

initiatives underway right now within B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of

Energy will assist in developing that particular source of energy. It

will be a benefit both to the province as a whole and to our

environment in that particular part of the province, because if we can

use waste products in ways other than simply burning them, it will

improve our environment, especially during the summertime when we want

to attract tourists from other parts of the country and the world.

I'm

also pleased to see the throne speech deal extensively with the

environment. Our government has always been concerned about the

environment. I might add that in my part of the province, as in most of

the province, the environment is in fact an industry. Tourism is a

significant industry in Columbia River. It has been in the past, and it

will continue to be in the future. It's because of our environment that

tourists come here. So I'm delighted to see the things that are

happening in the throne speech to encourage the protection and

enhancement of the environment.

I'm pleased to see that a

new game-farming act will be introduced. The residents of my

constituency have expressed significant interest in game-farming. As

time goes on, I'm sure that this new game act will enhance that

industry and possibly provide for a game-farming industry in our

constituency.

I'm also glad to see that the throne speech

pays a high degree of recognition to the social programs that are

available to the people in our province. In particular, I noticed that

the handicapped British Columbians have received attention here. I want

to compliment our Premier and our government in having formed the

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. We know that

British Columbia is comprised of many different people, with many

different kinds of abilities. The people with disabilities are a very

important part of our province. Certainly there are far more people

with disabilities in the lower mainland and the Island, but we have

people with disabilities in our smaller communities as well. I might,

in fact, mention that the people in those communities may have an even

more difficult time of moving about the community and the province than

they do in the more populated areas.

Just recently I've had

a meeting that lasted for several hours with some of the disabled

people in my constituency, and I want you to know that I was very

impressed and educated. I think it's important for us to recognize what

the handicapped people of our province are asking for. As I met with

these folks that day, I thought it was important to notice that they

were not asking primarily that things be given them; the number one

request that I picked up was that the handicapped people in our

province more than anything else want us to help them discover and

develop their skills and abilities so that they can play a productive

role in our province. So I'm glad to see the concern for the

handicapped as part of the throne speech. I think it does behoove us as

a people to assist our handicapped people in playing productive roles

within our province.

[3:30]

1 was also glad to see that there will be amendments to the Workers

Compensation Act. I believe that these are due. I'm sure that there

will be a good deal of thought put into them. I think it's important

that our Workers Compensation Act is up to date and is serving both the

employees and the employers of our province.

I'm also

looking forward to the continuing care act. I'll speak more about that

tomorrow, in private members' statements. Continuing care, though, is

an issue. In particular, I might say, it's an issue in our smaller

communities. We have many continuing care facilities in the larger

towns and cities, but our small communities often have to go outside

their community to receive the continuing care services.

was delighted also to see that the members of this assembly will be

asked to provide their views with respect to the reform of the Senate

of Canada. I'm not sure of all the options that we will discuss;

however, I hope that one of the options is to abolish the Senate. I

think that it has been there for years and has provided....

MR. G. JANSSEN : That's the NDP policy.

[ Page 5702 ]

MR. CRANDALL : Well, it's the federal NDP's policy; I'm not sure that it's a provincial NDP's policy.

One

of the options should be to abolish it; if not, I would hope that there

will be an option where the Senate can be reformed to an extent where

it will provide some effective representation for western Canada.

The

throne speech also mentioned some appreciation and admiration for the

provincial government employees. I would like to say that the

provincial government employees form a very integral part of my

constituency. And I might say that in the Columbia River constituency

we benefit from the services of a great number of provincial government

employees. It's my privilege to work with them almost on a daily basis.

Their work is very professional and their services serve our area well.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL :

The member for Alberni laughed when I praised government employees?

Well, he may. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) may not hold

provincial government employees in as high regard as we do on this side

of the House. And I might mention that our side of the House is not

just one little corner of the House; it's three corners of the House.

Most of this House is represented by our side, and we're delighted with

the services that our provincial employees give us. I'll say again I'm

delighted and impressed with the service that I get from the provincial

government employees in my constituency, and I look forward to working

with them more in the future.

MR. BRUCE : They have good employees in Port Alberni, too.

MR. CRANDALL : Well, I'm sure they do.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll just mention that in addition to our provincial

government employees, we have a good number of employees who work with

the highway maintenance program, the privatized employee highway

maintenance services. Throughout this past winter they have done an

excellent job of taking care of our roads in Columbia River. I might

add that our roads very frequently have a large amount of snow and ice,

and those employees as well have provided excellent service to the

people of my riding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

continued opportunity to represent Columbia River in this House. I look

forward to the remaining days and weeks and months of this session. I

look forward to the legislation which will assist the people of our

province in progressing in this great province in the next few years.

This time next year I will make a similar speech in the throne speech

debate and will report some more good progress for Columbia River.

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Vancouver Centre. [Applause.]

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to accept that warm welcome. After

all, we're here to do the people's business, but there's no reason why

we shouldn't have a little compassion and friendship every now and then.

Before

I begin, I just want to relate a little story. It's not often that I do

this, but this story is really.... Depending on how you look at it, you

could say it's too bad; but in a way it could be a blessing in

disguise. I will say, though, that it is unfortunate that my assistant

— two assistants, as a matter of fact, Thelma Pankiw and Sharon Boyce —

missed the opportunity to hear the speech from the throne on the 16th.

They were at the ferry in Tsawwassen for the 9 o'clock and missed it by

15 cars. But that happens. They didn't have preferred boarding. Not

only that, their lights were left on while they were waiting for the 11

o'clock. They went back out to catch the 11 and the battery was dead.

But that's not the end. The attendant at the ferry terminal rushed over

to give them a booster charge, and the cable broke on the battery. Now

they can't charge the battery because the cable's broken, so they have

to call in a towing truck. They had to be towed to a place to get the

battery fixed. It cost them lots of dollars — I won't say how much, but

a lot of money — to get towed out. They came back and they finally did

make it here that evening.

The thing is, what people will

do to come and see what we are doing for the people of British

Columbia. I think we should send them some kind of expression of regret.

always have difficulty saying things that are not complimentary. It's

my nature that I like to say complimentary things. So first of all I

want to pay a few brief respects before I get into the other stuff.

know that the amendment that we are speaking to is because of the

government's failure to be in touch with the people and look at the

priorities that they had on their agenda. But that's not news. We're

used to that. This amendment is really not that much different from any

other.

Before I get started, I would like to congratulate

the Lieutenant-Governor upon his appointment. I think it is a sign of

things to come — him being of Chinese descent and making his first

speech here, which I thought was delivered very well, under

considerable duress. But I must say, in all fairness, I've heard Mr.

Lam on other occasions express himself as a man of the heart and a very

conscientious man. I'm sure he now realizes something about the

problems of being in an official position, because he had to speak

words that he himself did not write. We won't get into that. The words

that he did speak, however, are the words that concern us today.

The

other thing that I'd like to say, which is more to the point, is the

unfortunate passing, suddenly, of Dr. Joseph Katz of the Affiliation of

Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies, who was for a long time a

proponent of human rights and diligently struggled to bring sanity to a

seemingly fast deteriorating society, as far as human concerns go. We

certainly will miss Dr. Katz. I would like to dedicate

[ Page 5703 ]

to Dr. Katz, in a sense, some of the concerns that I will be talking about briefly here.

show you how much work we've got to do, yesterday was designated by the

United Nations as a day to eliminate racial discrimination. I doubt if

very many of us are even aware of it or understand the significance and

importance of it. We've got a lot of work to do. That's really why I am

speaking to this motion. I had considered perhaps letting it go until

we got to the budget and had a better sense of the government's

intentions — not what they were saying in terms of trying to improve

their image but what they were actually going to do. We still don't

know that. We don't know, for instance, how much of what has been said

in the throne speech will, in fact, become reality, be materialized in

terms of dollars and cents.

There was just one thing that

had me somewhat concerned, and that's why I'm standing here today. I

may be wrong, but I looked at the throne speech very carefully, and

nowhere could I find any mention whatsoever of multiculturalism. If I'm

wrong, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Tourism and Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) will stand in his place and correct me.

Considering

the state of affairs in the province of British Columbia right now, I

think that is a very unfortunate omission. It is one that surprises me

in light of recent pronouncements by the minister when he had quite a

large celebration in November 1988 in announcing the appointment of

some 25 heritage cultural advisers to the government. I attended that

event, as a matter of fact, and I was quite elated. After many months

of raising the issue of multiculturalism and what it really means and

what the government should be doing about it, it was finally going to

be addressed.

To show you how optimistic and hopeful I

tried to be with respect to the government's good intentions, I

ignored, for the most part, a similar excursion into the multicultural

community by the government in 1979. Some of you may remember that the

government sponsored a conference in 1979. Something like 80-odd

organizations and individuals attended that conference, which was

entitled "Toward a Provincial Multicultural Policy."

You

had quite a few hon. members from the government attend that

conference, including: Grace McCarthy, who was the Minister of Human

Resources at the time; Alan Williams, I think, was the Minister of

Labour at the time; Hugh Curtis was a minister as well; and Bill

Bennett, who was the Premier. They all attended this conference and all

made commitments to a multicultural policy ten years ago. They all said

it was urgent and vital to deal with the dynamism that is always

prevalent when you have a diverse community — and I've heard some of

the members speak about the diversity of British Columbia on that side

of the House.

[3:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But

to get right to the point, it is very discouraging to think that here

we are in 1989, after we've seen major shifts in the social structure,

cultural structure and the demographics. We have known for years that

language — as a major project program has been on the minds of British

Columbians for years. We know that we've had to deal with special needs

as a result. We've had to deal with a settlement of new Canadians on an

ongoing basis to the point that since the very early 1980s we've gone

from a predominantly European new Canadian culture to one that is

almost between 87 percent and 88 percent Asian. What is significant

about that, and what is the reason for any concern? Immigration is

immigration; it should be fair and equitable and accessible to all

people, regardless of how much money you have and what your conditions

are. If we're talking about multiculturalism, about a good immigration

policy, then it should be open and available to everyone. But what is

happening?

This is why I stood up. When we talk about a

multicultural policy, what are we talking about? Are we talking about

song and dance? Are we talking about ceremonial dress? Are we talking

about annual events where we go and say: "Hey, we're going to do it for

the Ukrainians today, the Blacks tomorrow and for the Chinese the next

day, and have a dragon dance"? We're talking about a culture that has

to be constitutionally founded in terms of fundamental rights and

When we

talk about a multicultural policy, we're talking about making a reality

of this great mosaic of ours, and we can't do that by gosh and by

golly. We've got to address it. That's what we're talking about. That

is not what is happening. It can't happen by having someone advise you

on the events of the day. We're talking about the education system,

teachers who are capable of addressing a changing, dynamic society —

who are themselves upgrading and understanding what's going on. We're

talking about people in the workforce who realize that they're going to

have to learn to see the people of visible minorities in reality and

not just have some kind of back-door proposition.

The

government has to begin to realize that although it doesn't lack

expressive terms like "affirmative action, " there is going to have to

be something more tangible, something more constructive, something more

realistic and believable to address these needs. But having done all

that, then there is a question of education, of citizenship. The

dangers that people fear are the erosion of their culture; and the

existing culture, the aboriginal people — the indigenous of this

province — have concerns.

Some of the things I'm hearing,

the chit-chat on the streets, concerns me not because it's happening

but because we are, by default, allowing it to happen. That's a

concern. We are not addressing these issues. The kinds of things that

are happening in Chinatown are a tragedy. It has become commonplace to

talk about Asian gangs now, but who understands what

[ Page 5704 ]

that

really means? What are we talking about? It puts a lot of people at

risk who are not in the Asian gangs, but the fact that they're Asian

makes it difficult for them. Not everybody is from Hong Kong. There are

a lot of people in Chinatown and the surrounding area who are

third-generation Canadians and are suffering as a result of these

demographic changes. So it's not just race; it's cultural, it's values,

it's the fundamental things that we care about that we've got to

document and show constitutionally.

We've got to begin to

talk about what we mean as Canadians and what we mean as British

Columbians; not just how much money you have, but whether you are

committed to the things we are trying to develop in this country. We

are a country that has a heart. We care about people; we have

compassion; we're not just trying to make the dollars. Anything that

impacts on that should be addressed at the government level. We should

have a ministry; we should have a department out there dealing with it

on an ongoing basis. That's what's missing, and, Mr. Speaker, that's

really the main reason I stood. I am very disappointed that nothing was

mentioned in the throne speech, notwithstanding the fact that we've

just named a heritage advisory council to the minister and the

government. Why wasn't it mentioned? Why was there no reference to the

recommendations that were made ten years ago?

We don't need

any more studies. I've been patient; I've tried to watch. But it seems

to me that there is a cynicism on the part of the government, and I

think the government should come clean. Perhaps the government doesn't

really believe that there is anything it can do. Let's be fair. Because

I must agree that when we do get into the field of

definitions about

what multiculturalism really means, when we do talk about how to

legislate on something as complex and diverse as a society of people

with so many different values and ways of life, etc., it isn't easy,

but we'd better start doing it, and we'd better take it seriously,

because society is changing.

MR. JONES : How are we doing on settlement services?

MR. BARNES :

Okay. If we want to get down to specifics in terms of the government's

contributions.... Mind you, when I was talking about 1979, I was

talking about prior to the great effort by former Premier Bill Bennett

and the restraint program of 1983. It was an election leading up to

that next election, and the government was of a different mind. In 1983

the government wiped out everything.

HON. MR. REID : That's yesterday.

MR. BARNES : No, it's not yesterday when it comes to government attitude, because what have you done since?

HON. MR. REID : Lots. You know better.

MR. BARNES :

No, I do not know better. I will ask you — and I have some questions on

the order paper and will be asking you these questions during the

budget debate — to specify those multicultural service agencies that

your government is funding. Name them. I know that prior to 1983 you

were giving at least a pittance to some of them, but right now you have

a minuscule grant that you give to Mosaic — only one agency.

there are others, you tell me what they are. The minister is suggesting

that there are a whole bunch. But a study was done just a few years ago

that showed that British Columbia, compared to other provinces, pays

$9,

whereas it's over $200 in Manitoba. In Quebec it's about $140; we

pay $9. If that's wrong, you stand up here. I'd be more than happy to

be shown where I am wrong.

I can tell you that those

agencies need support. Unless you have the dollar value, unless there

is a money commitment, all this other talk about advice and

communication, etc., is not sufficient.

HON. MR. REID : Money doesn't do everything.

MR. BARNES :

Money doesn't do everything, and that's why I said we need a cultural

policy that deals with the principles of Canadian citizenship, that

agree with you. The Canadian people, the British Columbians here right

now, who have been struggling are asking these questions. These are not

questions that I am inventing; these questions are what they are

asking. Some of their questions are fraught with concern, desperation,

cynicism and lack of confidence because they don't get anything from

the government.

The government isn't coming out and saying:

"Look, here is what we're doing. This is what we did in 1986 when we

had Expo 86 and said we were going to have all these new people coming

in." What were your impact studies; where were your plans? What did you

have in place in terms of adjustment or funding or settlement programs?

The

people here are suspicious; costs are going up because of dollars.

Fine. That's free enterprise. But what are the consequences? When does

free enterprise stop and look at the impact? What are your

responsibilities to the people in the West End, for instance, in my

riding, who are finding that their apartments are being converted into

condominiums? What do you do when the builders no longer want to build

apartment buildings because there is more money in condominiums?

HON. MR. REID : What's that got to do with multiculturalism?

MR. BARNES :

It's got everything to do with the stability of society, the integrity

of communities. Let's say they are European people, by and large. They

see this shift. They see these people of another culture, another

world, coming in and buying property, and the prices going up. What's

their attitude? Is it fair for them to judge those people?

[ Page 5705 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL : You talk like the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt).

MR. BARNES :

Listen, you'll get an opportunity to speak when you stand up; don't

speak from your seat. I'm asking you a question that's hypothetical,

but answer the question: what do they think when someone has enough

money to pay any price for a piece of property regardless of what it

is, and they can't afford to get even a down payment on it?

All

right. Should you call that racism? What is it? People don't know.

You're not talking to them. You're not saying: "Look, we have

alternatives. We recognize our obligations to you as citizens who have

been here." I'm talking to you and to the government. Where is your

leadership? This is what's wrong. We're talking about multiculturalism

in practice. We are talking about recognizing the impact. People do

have attitudes out there. They are whispering. Perhaps they are

ill-informed, ill-advised, don't know what they talking about. But they

are talking, and that's dangerous. You are by default allowing it to

happen. Show the leadership. Get out there and show them how it all

works. That's why I got up. I think you think that multiculturalism is

not that important. That is the future. It always has been the future

in Canada. It is growing.

AN HON. MEMBER : You're wrong again.

MR. BARNES :

It's not a question of being wrong, It's a question of getting the

debate going. I'm not concerned that I'm always right. If I am wrong,

you show me where I am wrong. What I want to see is action from you. I

want to see results. I want to see something more than talk. If I'm

wrong, it's not the first time. I've made so many mistakes, I'll be in

debt for the rest of my life. But that doesn't stop us from dealing

with these issues, and we are not dealing with them.

I will

be voting against the throne speech because I think it is unfortunately

a grab-bag of popular issues or issues that have become of concern to

people, like the environment, universities, higher education, etc.

Those kinds of things have always been with us. Most of them are the

result of your government's failure to come up with a commitment,

especially in the area of dioxins and the environment.

just want the government to realize that this is only the beginning of

the fight as far as I am concerned. I want to say, however, that I am

not attacking the advisory committee or council that you have

appointed. Frankly, I don't think they were given much of a mandate.

What you have said to them is that they will advise you. They have no

real authority. Apparently they are not really holding public meetings

where people can have input. You are not really rushing the matter. You

should be telling them: "I want something right away." It seems to me

that was a one-day wonder when you held a big event and announced the

heritage advisory council, and then that was the end of it.

What

you are doing is putting at risk British Columbians who believe that

they can have a better form of representation at a time when we are

getting ready for the twenty-first century, when young people are

beginning to drop out of the system, having less and less confidence in

their opportunity to participate. I think there are far too many

questions that have been left unanswered or neglected because of lack

of understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

would like to see British Columbia have its own multicultural policy, a

public policy that addresses both the private and the public sectors, a

policy that gives leadership and guidance for the twenty-first century

so that our vast society of different cultures and races can coexist,

can cooperate and can work together. That will not happen by osmosis or

by accident. It is only going to happen because we work at it and show

the leadership.

What is going to happen if we don't is that

people will go for themselves. We will have a society of individualism,

when everyone protects himself and gets rid of anything that is

uncomfortable or inconvenient: for instance, social services or a good

public system for education. These kinds of things are going to be at

risk, because now you have said values are for sale. You are putting a

price on things that are fundamentally a part of this society that

should be protected in a constitutional law. We should be educating

people toward that direction.

What you are talking about

right now is that the dollar comes first. I say you have been negligent

in not having programs in place, not showing the leadership and not

acting.

[4:00]

MR. B.R. SMITH :

It's a great pleasure to speak in the throne debate, Mr. Speaker, and

to follow my friend the second member for Vancouver Centre, who always

has some good home truths and warm-hearted observations.

During

the period since we were last in this chamber I have had the very

pleasurable opportunity of going back in part to the private sector,

and seeing how good and how responsive that sector is, whether you are

practising law or doing business. It has been very agreeable.

strongly support the government's economic initiatives, many of which

have been outlined in the throne speech. Particularly I should say that

I support the strong campaign that has been launched over the last few

years to sell British Columbia abroad. This has resulted in badly

needed trade centres opening up in crucial places such as California

and Singapore. I have praise also for the province's performance at the

world economic conference in Davos, Switzerland in February. I have

spoken to business leaders who were over there, and they told me that

our delegation was extremely successful and hard working. I also know

that the Premier did an excellent job in that forum promoting this

province, and I congratulate him.

[ Page 5706 ]

This

province has successfully auditioned for, and won its part on, the

world economic stage as an international banking centre, and it's also

going to win its way as a centre for international commercial

arbitration. It is very well suited for both. The news in this province

from almost every sector of the economy is very strong. I can see this

in Victoria in my own constituency. For years we've had a very slow

economy here, and we now have an upswing in construction, in tourism,

People have a buoyant, optimistic outlook about the future of their

city, which they didn't have a few years ago.

Some cynics

believe that economic growth occurs regardless, or indeed in spite of,

the actions of government. It is that same kind of thinking, in moments

of high prosperity like these, that may encourage the electorate to

decide to let down its guard and swing to the left. "Things are so good

in this province right now that even the NDP couldn't spoil it, " is

something I hear with increasing alarm in business and professional

circles. Certainly the opposition is scurrying to present a new image.

They are now the friends of business, large and small.

Interjections.

MR. B.R. SMITH : Oh yes, they are — converted entrepreneurs. Not socialists anymore; democratic socialists they call themselves.

They

have also, with their penchant for original thinking, discovered the

phrase "sustainable development." They use it in every speech. A pretty

little platform came out on sustainable development; I'm sure you've

got it. They've built a platform around that concept to give

bureaucratic similitude to their concept of managing the economy at the

same time as preserving the environment. As their leader has this new

experience of being invited before sundown to meet with businessmen, an

entirely new experience for him, he assures his audiences that....

"Don't fear us, " he says. "We'll keep the economy going; we're not

going to kill that goose that lays the golden egg. You can trust us."

But

we know differently. We know that the old technocratic agendas are

being polished, updated. We know that they're planning the new

millennium if they ever get the chance. The new millennium is going to

be a time of centralized control, a time of doctrinal pleasure, if they

ever get a chance to form a government. They won't need a task force on

unemployment; there will be new jobs for everyone — high-paying jobs in

the public sector. All those lovely vans with the faded painted flowers

on the back, heading westward from Ontario and Manitoba with their high

pockets of unemployment and socialists; socialist unemployment is high

there right now, and in Alberta.

One of the agendas of the

new millennium is to thwart the implementation of the free trade

agreement, which so many of their federal members are also committed

to. I never could understand their opposition to that agreement. I

couldn't understand....

MR. BARNES : On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to interrupt the member's speech, but

it's amazing what a difference a seat can make. He'd never have talked

like this when he was a minister. This is incredible.

MR. B.R. SMITH : Oh, I couldn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, I'm afraid that's not a point of order.

MR. B.R. SMITH : You could at least do me the courtesy of honouring my maiden speech from the back bench, hon. member. [Laughter.]

couldn't understand why Jack Munro was opposed to the agreement, and I

have to believe that in his heart of hearts he knows how good that

agreement is for his woodworkers. But this party is captive of its

doctrinal past. These members opposite have a deeply rooted xenophobia

about foreign capital and foreign competition, and I wish we could do

something about that; I really do. They don't want it coming in here,

but if it comes in they want to completely control it. They do believe

in building higher walls around the province. They like subsidizing

industries, and they would very quickly return the private initiatives

to government ownership and management if they got a chance.

know also what their approach would be to residential land flipping in

Vancouver: they would legislate against foreign land ownership. That

would be their type of solution. That's the kind of solution that

hasn't worked well in most jurisdictions that have tried it. They would

also like to stop all resource exportation. I fear they will not have

learned any of the lessons of old and that they would restore the

monopolies to the unionized sector of the workforce. Sure they would!

Mr. Speaker, these are the sorts of things which would happen if those

ladies and gentlemen opposite were ever successful at the polls; not

the nice, bland, bureaucratic reassurances that flow from the lips of

the Leader of the Opposition and from his policy paper on sustainable

development, which goes down so well with hot toddy at midnight.

None

of this needs to happen. If we, as a free enterprise movement, have a

dream and a sense of our destiny, we have the energy to achieve it,

because despite the dire difficulties this government has suffered

within the past year, British Columbians are not anxious to turn to the

New Democratic Party. In the face of the recent advantages the Leader

of the Opposition has had, he has not been doing terribly well in the

polls. The public does not particularly want you, hon. member. It's

important, though, that they don't get you by default.

Interjections.

MR. B.R. SMITH : He's absent. I don't know where he is, Mr. Speaker. He's in court in the lawsuit brought by his executive assistant.

I believe this province is moving toward a new sense of self-confidence. British Columbians want to

[ Page 5707 ]

believe

in the future. They want to know that under free enterprise we can move

forward with confidence; that we can enjoy unparalleled growth and yet

be environmentally sensitive; that we can have new immigrants entering

our borders, but that they can enhance, nourish and strengthen, not

weaken, the fabric of our society; that we can have the finest

education system in the world but can do so without stretching the

taxation resources of an urban homeowner on a fixed income; that we can

have investment in land without driving our own children out of the

urban housing market.

We must know where we're going and

how to get there. Otherwise, as a government, we will become too

anxious to please in all directions. Otherwise, we will be targets of

every special-interest group that wants all manner of concessions from

the public purse. Otherwise, we will become a cow to milk, to satisfy

every demand. What I am saying is that we must be fiscally responsible;

otherwise we will move away from our conservative roots.

know that the party opposite has been and will again be rabidly

promiscuous on fiscal matters. Despite what they're telling us now, we

know they will. We cannot, as a government, however well motivated we

are, spend our way back into popularity. That popularity will come by

giving British Columbians a strong sense that we speak for their

destiny and that we know where we're going.

I want to see

this province have the finest educational opportunities for our young

people, and I applaud many of the major reforms that will be

implemented from the Sullivan royal commission.

I just want

for a moment to pay my own little tribute to Barry Sullivan, QC, with

whom I worked when he was regional Crown counsel and I was

Attorney-General. I developed a very strong admiration for Barry

Sullivan, for his ability and also for his courage and determination —

and that was never more evident than when he had this terrible ailment.

In the mid-eighties he expressed to me a very strong interest in

running for the Legislature at some time in the future. This province

is the poorer that he never had that chance, but it is still the richer

for the legacy he left us in his royal commission.

I want

to commend the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) for his very

consultative approach and for the hard work that he has put into

implementing reform. His commitment to enhancing literacy and his

willingness to make available more computer technology are only two of

the many important measures that he has undertaken.

What

I'm frankly concerned about, Mr. Speaker — and I can say this from this

perch; I can't say it from that perch — is the announcement made some

seven weeks ago that the government is pledging to spend an additional

$1.4 billion to implement the new educational reforms over a ten-year

period. Regardless of the merits of some of those excellent reforms, I

must caution against future promises of such magnitude. Trumpeting

large future spending commitments in education will certainly raise

expectations in teacher bargaining. It's unfortunate that at this very

moment, when we're experiencing a broadening scope of bargaining and

the use of strikes as an ultimate sanction, we as a government are

raising expectations with large future spending commitments.

sense of foreboding tells me that we may be heading toward a local

taxpayers' revolt in some school districts, many of which are going to

experience budget increases in excess of 20 percent. A distressed

homeowner from Coquitlam wrote me the other day that his school taxes

were up 36 percent this year. Herein lie the seeds of strong discontent.

don't feel quite the same concern about the post-secondary announcements

which took place this week and which I was pleased to attend in

Vancouver. The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), I

thought, carefully crafted his access announcements to meet specific

needs and waiting-lists by creating 15,000 new student spaces and by

announcing immediate new operating spending increases of $35 million.

the field of transportation, we also put out high aspirations, a few

months ago, that we would be spending massive amounts of money in the

field of highway construction.

Mr. Speaker, because I was

one of those who soldiered through the difficult economic period in

this province from 1983 to 1987 as a minister charged with operating a

sensitive and intricate justice system with lean manpower and less

money, I caution you that we as a government must not move headlong

down the trail of spending. We must avoid another cycle. Remember the

cycle that we had in 1974 and 1975 of inflationary spending and public

sector wage increases. The very moment that we are raising spending

aspirations in this province, the federal government is about to bring

the long-overdue measures of curbing spending and tackling the massive

accumulated federal debt.

[4:15]

Our fiscal house in British Columbia is currently in better order by

a long shot. We should not be marching in a direction diametrically

opposed to that which they're going in, in Ottawa to bring their

spending under control.

I am reminded that the tragedy of

Premier Getty's personal defeat in his own riding this week on an

evening when his government easily won re-election is surely not

unrelated to the fact that he made major spending promises in the

latter part of a campaign which probably seemed out of character with

his government's traditional creed.

It is vitally important

that our free enterprise coalition remains true to its history and

origins of being generally fiscally conservative. As I have said before

in these remarks, we as a governing party must communicate and must

have a sense of where we want to go and what we want to be as a

specific society at the end of the next decade.

Let me

mention the initiatives on the environment. We are actually making

major environmental strides in this province as a government. We have a

record of improving standards under the Waste Management Act. We have

made some very major

[ Page 5708 ]

moves

to demonstrate the province's commitments to preserve wilderness. I

would point to the creation of the park on South Moresby. That's an

enterprise in which — controversial as it may have been at the time — I

take a great deal of pride for the work I did to bring it about.

There

is no doubt that we can have modern, productive pulp mills, a new

petrochemical plant and a ferrochromium plant without pouring toxins

into the water or into the air. There can be no question that the pulp

mill conversion on Vancouver Island has to take place, and that the

conversion to natural gas will bring strong environmental benefits as

well as benefits to industry on this island. You will find that most

industries are prepared to cooperate with government in its goal to

ensure that they are clean and that they meet high pollution standards,

which they can do without impairing their productivity in any way.

Much

has been said about oil spills. The first oil spill in these parts

occurred in the early seventies in my community. It was a discharge of

bunker fuel, and I remember it well. We didn't sit around and wonder

whose jurisdiction it was to do something about it. We — the mayor and

council and everybody — got our whole public works crew down and

started to clean the place up. We sent the bill later. It was never

paid by the federal government; it still hasn't been paid to this day.

The fact is that we were proactive. I think a lesson has been learned

here. There is a very strong dedication on the part of this government

and the federal government that next time there is an oil spill, not

only will they do things on the ground, as they all did this time, but

they will be there in the front line. They will be seen to be giving

leadership, because on this coast, oil spills really threaten the whole

fabric of our outdoor life and the way we view nature. It is terribly

important that we have a commitment to not have that occur.

don't intend to speak at any length about forest policy, because we

have people in our caucus who are extremely knowledgeable and

intelligent on that subject. But I hope that as a government we will

not turn over the task of articulating our forest objectives to some

royal commission. I believe that the harvesting, protection and

regeneration of the forest resource are so important and must continue

for future generations. That has to be our abiding concern. I also

believe that we must ensure that the forest resource is carefully

managed, that small business and individuals have access to logging and

that the entire resource can never be dominated or owned just by a few.

believe also that we have to remember that the forest resource is not

and cannot be there solely for harvesting. Some areas should not be

logged. I am speaking of stands that protect the estuaries and the

streams, which may have inestimable value for recreation or tourism. I

am speaking of large stands of unique trees of the Cathedral Grove

variety or the redwoods in California. These should not be logged,

because they are unique and are a resource for all our people.

recognize these important values is not to put the forest resource

under some kind of glacial stop work order — as the opposition would do

— and to halt productivity. That's not what we are talking about.

want to praise the throne speech for acknowledging the need to provide

assistance for the renter and to deal with housing shortages, which are

very acute in our major cities. I've been supportive of the

federal-provincial social housing programs; I think they're excellent.

Recently we opened Dowler Lodge in Victoria, and I was able to

represent the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Richmond). I believe the government should strongly assist these

housing initiatives. I think the municipalities sometimes need a bit of

a prod so they can be a little more proactive in zoning. The tendency

is that everybody wants these projects, but "not in my back yard, " so

we have to have municipal cooperation.

Again, Mr. Speaker,

I feel that this government needs to return to its roots and address

the housing problem in a larger way; that is, by incentives towards

home ownership. I'm not talking about tax incentives or increases in

the homeowner's grant. I'm talking about something entirely different:

finding ways that these people who are renters and who are dependent on

rent can somehow become owners of the premises they occupy.

The

initiatives that I'm suggesting were most dramatically brought about by

the Thatcher government in Britain, which converted thousands of

Britons from row-housing, subsistence tenants into homeowners with

renewed pride in their premises. The change was remarkable, not only in

the way they looked after their premises but in their attitudes and in

the way they felt about where they lived, about their homes, and in

their pride in them. They have transformed renters into owners in a

very positive way. That's the kind of thing we've got to do; that's the

kind of future we've got to point our children to. I'm saying it's got

to be an

article of faith for this party and this government to

encourage more and more citizens, including young homeowners, to own

their accommodation. We have to support the virtue of ownership.

note with a good deal of pride that the government will incorporate

many of the recommendations contained in the report of the Justice

Reform Committee. The mandate of that committee, along with its

composition, was something that I put a great deal of time and thought

into. I'm proud that during my tenure as Attorney-General law reform

legislation was passed each year, and I'm particularly proud to have

pioneered the most advanced victims' rights legislation in this country

and to have piloted our excellent family maintenance legislation

through the Legislature last session. I shall be standing in my place

when the Justice Reform Committee legislation is introduced in this

House, and I shall be supporting those initiatives.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

[ Page 5709 ]

note, Mr. Speaker, that there will be another round of constitutional

reform discussions in Charlottetown in September. I believe I attended

on behalf of the government every set of major constitutional

discussions, ministerial or first ministerial, from 1981 to 1988, so I

know how important those talks are.

British Columbia has

always fought consistently for a stronger voice in national

decision-making and in key central institutions. High on the agenda is

certainly going to be Senate reform. I intend to speak on that subject

later in this assembly, and not in any depth today. But I should say

that I do understand the frustrations that produced the proposals of

the Canada West Foundation and the good work that has been done by the

Alberta government with their roving task force, which has finally

driven them to introduce legislation in their assembly to provide for

the mechanism of electing Senators.

I feel that none of

this is the right way to go, however. I believe that we shouldn't have

a triple-E Senate. We should have a single-E Senate, and the single E

we've got to have is the E of being effective. Unless the Senate is

effective.... It doesn't matter a darn how you choose them or how many

you have if it has nothing to do. If it's just a retirement home for

people to sit around and review House of Commons legislation, kick up

their heels once every four years and then go away, it doesn't matter

how it's composed. The important thing is to give the senators a job to

do and to make it meaningful.

It should have specialized

areas that it works on exclusively. It should people the parliamentary

committees, like the one on banking. It should be given exclusive

authority to deal in the field of dominion provincial relations, I

think. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that equality is going to produce

a desirable Senate; it's a desperate solution that has been advanced to

break the dominance of Ontario and Quebec in the Upper Chamber. It is

surely not terribly appropriate to have British Columbia and Prince

Edward Island both having the same number of senators. At the same time

I find it very inappropriate that we've now got six senators and New

Brunswick has ten.

I do not believe that electing senators

will make the Senate work effectively, although it would be more fun to

have an elected Senate, and you'd have people who were alive going down

there. What would worry me is that when they got down there.... If you

have an elected Upper House and an elected Lower House, we know the

elected Upper House is going to start to try to use the power of the

purse and clash with the Lower House.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It would be Australia all over again.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

That's right. And then, to whom is cabinet responsible? It can't be

responsible to both at the same time, particularly if you've got a

Liberal Upper House and a Conservative Lower House. So it has always

created problems when we've had an elected Upper House.

The

important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that British Columbia has to make a

commitment when it goes to Charlottetown to ensuring that the Senate is

reformed, if it's going to stay at all; that it be made more effective;

and that this province have a stronger and more relevant voice in the

Upper House. But it's going to take persistence to bring about any

reforms, because the great tendency from the centre, as the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) knows, is to pay no attention to

talk about Senate reform, to leave it as it is — Ontario and Quebec

have all their members — and to let sleeping dogs lie. But I do hope

that there will be a commitment in September.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I compliment you for allowing me to speak today.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start off by acknowledging the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head in his leadership speech. I think that many of the

members in this House enjoyed it, and I notice some of the other

members on the government side were enthralled as well.

I'd

like to start off my comments on the government's throne speech by

sharing an experience that I had yesterday when I spoke to some

caregivers, some students at Douglas College involved in social

services. I was recapping some of the government's initiatives over the

past two to five years, looking at the trend in the government's social

service initiatives, first to privatization and second to relinquishing

its responsibility for the provision of services, both in a direct

capacity and in funding.

While it was quite interesting and

informative for me to share some of the exchanges with the students,

one of the young men asked me: "If the government has gotten out of the

delivery of services, clearly not only in social services but in other

areas as well, and if they are cutting the funding for those services

that are being fulfilled by community and private enterprise, then what

is the purpose of government? What role does this government have if

they are shirking their responsibility not only to the delivery but to

the funding of services?" That really brought home to me, in light of

the throne speech we had just heard, what this government is all about.

One

of the things I did in preparing for the throne speech, and bringing

some of the issues that I have been working on in my constituency

together, was to begin to look, first of all, at the definition of

"govern." I think it is interesting and important for us at this point

to see where this government lies in all of this. The dictionary says:

"To govern or to rule. To govern implies the aim of keeping in a

straight course or smooth operation for the good of the individual or

the whole." I thought, yes, that's consistent with our philosophy;

that's consistent with the aims of the New Democrats. However, when I

read further, I saw that the definition says: "To rule may imply no

more than laying down laws or issuing commands that must be obeyed, but

often suggests an exercise in despotic or arbitrary power."

[4:30]

[ Page 5710 ]

I think that when we look at the government's history, when we look at

what the government has done over the last couple of years, very

clearly this government has abandoned its responsibility to govern, and

is, instead, following the definition of "to rule."

I'd

like to talk a little about the throne speech, and how I feel this

government has failed miserably. It is reflected in what has happened

in my own constituency. First of all, the constituency of Surrey, for

those members not familiar with it, is possibly the most rapidly

growing area not only in the lower mainland but in all of the province.

Surrey's population growth is twice the provincial rate, and three

times the rate of Canada and the GVRD. That says to me that if a

government is indeed looking after the welfare and concerned for the

good of the individual and the whole of the community, the government

would be dealing with the services, the growth and that impact, and

would have different systems in place that would help alleviate the

pressures brought to bear on communities by that growth.

Unfortunately,

this is my third response to a throne speech, and each time I've had to

bring to the government's attention the sad lack of attention that has

been paid to the community I care so much about. I think it is

unfortunate that the ministers responsible have not seen fit to pay

attention to the important issues in our constituency, and that we have

not heard from the two ministers represented in cabinet from the

municipality of Surrey.

Again I want to point out that for

any municipality, infrastructure is of crucial importance. The

infrastructure, the need for consistent support for upgrading of roads,

drainage and water, is mandatory. For such a rapidly growing community,

it is all that much more important. Let me point out to you some of the

problems that Surrey faces. I would like to first give a bit of an

overview — for the third t time — of who lives in our municipality.

Surrey

has one-third of the GVRD's population of children under the age of 19.

That, in and of itself, causes a tremendous demand on services for

education, recreation and family support services. I'll talk a bit

about the state of those services later on. We have seen quite an

increase over the last few years from 1981 to 1986 in single-parent

families. That again points out a real need for community services and

support. We have seen, in some schools in my constituency, a tremendous

turnover of the school population. One school in Guildford, Holly

Elementary, sees over 100 percent turnover in their students in one

year. That again points out the need for services. Unfortunately we

have not seen that support forthcoming.

I am glad to see

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) here, because I want to talk in

the House about some of the concerns that I have raised with him and

about the crisis in health care faced by my municipality. I'd like to

start by talking to the House about a press statement carried in one of

our local newspapers on March 8. It's headed "Emergency Ward

Overflows." Early this year I went to see the minister and asked him to

pay special attention to what was going on at Surrey Memorial

Hospital. We have a crisis situation, and this particular story in

Surrey-North Delta Now really emphasizes that crisis.

week prior to the story, the hospital was on what is called

"diversion." That means that the hospital is at 100 percent capacity.

They cannot deal with any more patients; at this point in time, they

had used all possible overflow options. They had sent people home

prematurely, and they recognized that — senior doctors recognized that

people were asked to go home prematurely. They were in a process of

diverting emergency cases to some other local hospitals. This in itself

is not an exceptional situation; it happens a number of times in Surrey

because the hospital cannot service the community's needs.

this particular incident, the hospitals that they were diverting to

were also on diversion; they were at capacity. Royal Columbian,

Langley, Peace Arch — all the hospitals in our region were no longer

able to take emergency patients.

I have brought this

situation not only to the House's attention, but I have brought it

personally to the minister's attention. I have intervened on several

occasions on constituents' behalf, trying to help them deal with family

health crises. And still we have not seen any concrete action from this

government.

HON. MR. DUECK : How many millions of dollars of construction is going on right now?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The Minister of Health — I'm glad he is listening, because I was

getting a little concerned — points out that there is construction

underway at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That construction will not

alleviate the problems facing our community, will not provide one new

bed for at least two years. By that time, when we already have a

situation where our region cannot take emergency patients, it begs the

question: what kind of crisis are we going to face? What I have asked

for, and will continue to ask for, is emergency response from this

government. Someone is going to die.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD : That shocks me. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) responded by saying: "You got it. Somebody is going to die."

AN HON. MEMBER : Don't be ridiculous.

HON. MR. DUECK : We've looked after the emergency approach to that. Check with your hospital.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Well, I'll be very pleased to hear during the estimates and during the budget....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I would ask the hon. member to address her remarks to the Chair. Thank you. Please proceed.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'll be very pleased to hear during the

budget deliberations and during the estimates what kind of support

[ Page 5711 ]

the

Ministry of Health is prepared to give our hospital, because we do have

a very serious problem there. That problem has repeatedly been brought

to the government's attention; that problem was predicted. The

government has been warned over a ten-year period by the planners of

health care both in our region and, I believe, in the ministry as well,

and it has been ignored until such a time as people's health and our

community health care is in serious crisis.

I want to

further point out that our hospital has a catchment area for some

services equal to and in excess of Vancouver, and yet we have a

fraction of the beds available, a fraction of health care workers

available to provide services, and a fraction of overall support. What

we are facing at Surrey Memorial Hospital is something like 200 visits

a day to the emergency ward.

During this crisis that I

pointed out just a couple of weeks ago, in that one day there were 219

people that came to the emergency ward at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

That sounds like a large number of people, and I assure this House that

it is a large number of people. When you look at the busy emergency

ward at Surrey Memorial Hospital, what it tells you is that we are the

busiest emergency ward in all of British Columbia.

I think

that it's important for this House to understand that through the

neglect — and I say neglect — of this government, Surrey Memorial

Hospital has 20 beds to serve 219 visitors to their emergency ward. I

think that is criminal. The people of our community have been paying

the taxes for a good health care system and this government and

governments prior to this government have ignored our need and ignored

our call for help. So I'll be looking forward to the budget and looking

forward to hearing what that emergency plan is. I'm putting the

minister on notice, through you, Mr. Speaker, once again in hopes that

he can provide the kind of information that will alleviate some of the

concerns the people in our community have.

I can go on. I

think that it's worthwhile to talk about some of the services that are

provided by our hospital. There's a tremendous amount of concern

expressed by many of the people who find themselves having to rely on

our hospital. The bed ratio is worked ou