1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8925 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Kamloops cancer clinic, Mr. Harcourt –– 8927

Abortion services. Mr. Harcourt –– 8928

Proposed gas drilling. Mr. Peterson –– 8929

New Democrat press release. Mr. Sihota –– 8929

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 8929

Ferry safety. Mr. Loenen –– 8929

Tabling Documents –– 8931

Throne Speech Debate

Mrs. McCarthy –– 8932

Ms. Cull –– 8936

Mr. Mercier –– 8939

Mr. Cashore –– 8942

Mr. Vant –– 8946

Motion Without Notice: Proposed federal goods and services tax

Mrs. McCarthy –– 8948

Mr. Clark –– 8950

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8952

Mr. Lovick –– 8953

Tabling Documents –– 8955

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the gallery today are a number of certified general accountants and

the guest speaker at the CGA-MLA luncheon which is held every year.

Firstly, we have Mr. Ron Pickerill, the president; Bill Caulfield, the

executive director; Mike Andruff, Geoff Thorpe, Bruce McConnachie,

Casey Longbroek, Catherine McLean, Al Kerfoot, Bill Johnson and Ian

Fraser. Mr. Minister of Finance, if you're anywhere within listening

distance, hide your budget papers and lock the door. We have Doug

Small, Global's bureau chief from Ottawa. Please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Mrs. Yri,

political science instructor at Kwantlen College in Surrey, who is in

the precincts and I believe in the gallery at this time with a group of

students from Kwantlen College. Please make them all welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN :

In the gallery today are two gentlemen: Mr. Bert Klein, who is from

Abbotsford and is a greenhouse grower; and Mr. Casey Longbroek, who is

a certified general accountant and an alderman with the district of

Chilliwack. Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Would the House please make welcome Adrian Cownden, who is representing

the Restaurant and Food Services Association of B.C. here today. Please

make Adrian and his guests welcome.

MR. CRANDALL : It

is not very often that a constituent of mine is in Victoria, since my

riding is quite some distance away. I would appreciate it if the House

would make welcome Mr. Charlie Osterloh, a longtime friend of mine from

Invermere.

MR. PERRY : May I also welcome to the precincts my constituents Michael

Andruff and Al Dexter, members of the accountants' group visiting today.

And I thank them for the delicious lunch they offered us.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

I am pleased to introduce to the House the longtime mayor of the

village of Midway in the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, Mayor

Jim McMynn. With him is the clerk, Bob Hatton, and a business associate

from the state of Washington, Mr. Van Hurst. I'd just like to note that

as 90 percent of the employment in Midway is from forestry, they are

here discussing long-term added value to increase employment. Would the

House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I rise on a matter of privilege. On April 5, the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) made several statements. At the time,

I couldn't really quite believe my ears. We had an opportunity this morning

to review the actual tapes of the statements made. The statement made by the

second member — "Have you made the coffee?" — was thrown out in my direction

when I rose to speak.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East rises on a point of order.

MR. CLARK :

Having some passing acquaintance with the question of privilege, I

might note that these matters must be raised at the earliest possible

convenience. Clearly this is a matter which was in the public domain

some time ago. This is clearly not the first opportunity for discussion.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The Chair must always hear what the member's position is

before the Chair can even decide. It's very nice of the member from

Vancouver East to assist the Chair in deciding these matters. Perhaps

the member would have cared to assist the Chair in deciding the matter

that the member himself brought forward the other day, which might have

saved the Chair quite a lot of work.

It's a longstanding

practice of the House to have the member who raises the matter of

privilege state the matter briefly. The Chair will then reserve on the

matter and decide what are the reasons for accepting it or not. I'd ask

the minister to continue.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I will

certainly be brief, Mr. Speaker. The comment made by the second member

for Victoria and directed to me was: "Have you made the coffee?" It was

stated not once but twice. It was clearly audible on the tape. On

behalf of all members in this House, particularly the female members, I

would respectfully request an apology from the second member for

Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER : As in any matter of

privilege, the Chair will consider the evidence brought forward by a

member and a decision will be brought forward. Whatever remedies to

take place will be dealt with at that time.

Hon. members,

at the opening of this morning's proceedings the first member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) rose under the provisions of

standing order 35, requesting leave to move a motion for the

adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public

importance: namely, the goods and services tax legislation presently

before the federal Parliament of Canada.

It has been stated

many times in the House that in consideration of such a matter the

urgency of debate and not the urgency of the matter is what the Chair

must consider. In making this decision, the Chair notes that the House

is presently engaged in debate on the Address in Reply to the speech of

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Accordingly, an immediate

parliamentary opportunity exists to debate the matter in question.

The Chair would also observe that motions under this standing order must be raised at the earliest

[ Page 8926 ]

possible opportunity. The measure in question has been under consideration

in the federal House for days. Accordingly, even if the matter qualified other

aspects, it should have been brought to the attention of the House on Friday

last.

Under the circumstances, I must rule that the member's request does not qualify under the provisions of standing order 35.

Hon.

members, on April 6 the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms.

Marzari) sought to raise a matter of privilege in relation to the

tabling of the public accounts in the House by the Minister of Finance

and Corporate Relations. The essence of the complaint was that not

filing the public accounts on the morning of April 5, 1990, when the

House met to prorogue, violated the terms of the report of the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

It should be noted

that the public accounts were presented to the House by the Minister of

Finance on the morning of April 6, immediately prior to my hearing the

member, and that notice of the application was given to the House by

the member prior to prorogation. I am satisfied that by giving notice

in this fashion the matter was raised at the first available

opportunity.

I have examined the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was adopted by the House

on July 20, 1989. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"Recommendation No. 1. Your committee recommends that the

government consider the ways and means by which the Public Accounts for the

province of British Columbia can be made publicly available as soon as possible

after the end of the fiscal year for which they have been completed."

The

member claims that this recommendation has been violated, and the

minister takes the opposite view. With great respect to the member, I

cannot find the quoted recommendation a mandatory direction as to the

time of filing, but rather a recommendation to consider the method.

Section

8(3)(

e) of the Financial Administration Act requires that the public

accounts "be laid by the Minister of Finance before the Legislative

Assembly by December 31 next after the end of the fiscal year, if the

Legislative Assembly is then sitting, and otherwise within 15 sitting

days after the opening of the next sitting."

When compliance with the law is manifestly clear, I cannot find any foundation for a breach of privilege.

[2:15]

Hon. members, I will now rule on the alleged matter of privilege

advanced on April 6 by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark). The substance of the hon. member's intervention concerns

announcements of proposed legislation by a minister and the subsequent

communications relating thereto by a member of the public service to

the principal permanent officers of municipalities.

The hon. member suggests that these communications improperly presuppose the

passage of legislation by the House, and thereby the rights and privileges of

all members have been improperly abridged. Further, it is argued that a contempt

of the House has occurred because these communications have preceded legislative

debate and the implementation by the House of fundamental changes to the property

tax system.

The

hon. member, in his submission, concluded that previous rulings by

Speakers on questions of privilege resulting from similar announcements

have by and large failed. The hon. member suggests, however, that this

intervention differs, in that the communications to municipal officials

concern matters of taxation, and for that reason he invites the Chair

not to follow the long-established principles upon which similar — but not identical — applications have been disallowed.

The

hon. member, in the course of his submission, provided the Chair with

references to a number of Speakers' decisions, including a recent

decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser, albeit that in every such decision the

Chair had been unable to find a prima facie breach of privilege. It is

apparent, however, that Mr. Speaker Fraser, in the course of his ruling

of October 10 last, did deliver a stern warning that the general public

must not be given any impression that the proposed changes to the

taxation system were a fait accompli and that Parliament, in fact, had

"no role to play in examining and approving the changes." To give such

an impression, Mr. Speaker Fraser said, "may tend to diminish the

authority of the House in the eyes of the public." With that warning I

am in complete agreement, and would deprecate any action that fairly

could be seen to derogate from the role of parliament.

Hon.

members will know that the Chair's responsibility in an application of

this kind is to determine whether or not the matter raised by an hon.

member warrants the immediate setting aside of the regular business of

the House. The Speaker does not rule on whether or not a breach of

privilege or a contempt has in fact occurred; that question may only be

decided by the House itself. I emphasize that the very narrow point the

Chair must decide is whether or not, prima facie, material advanced in

the application of an hon. member satisfies the Chair that the House

must immediately set aside all other regular business. On any given

occasion, should the Chair decide this question in the negative, it

does not, of course, preclude the matter being raised in other debate

at an appropriate time or proceeded with by notice of motion in the

usual way.

In reaching a conclusion, the Chair has given

careful consideration to the decisions cited by the hon. member as well

as other decisions and authoritative references. Sir Erskine May's

twentieth edition, at pages 70 and 71, explains that:

"The

distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The

privileges of parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for

the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual

members because the House cannot perform its functions without

unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the

protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and

dignity."

[ Page

8927 ]

Mr. Speaker Fraser observed that the result is, when members claim

that certain actions constitute a breach of privilege, they must

specify which privilege is affected. He also noted that contempts are,

broadly speaking, offences against the authority or the dignity of the

House itself, while breaches of privilege involve the protection of its

members from impediments to their functioning as members of the House.

Dealing

first with the specific privileges of the House, the Chair cannot find

that the announcements in question affect the privilege of freedom of

speech or that any members have been obstructed in the performance of

their duties. The proposed legislation announced by the minister, when

presented to the House, must be debated by hon. members as they would

any other legislation, and nothing appears to have occurred that would

prevent members from attending to their duties in this regard. It is,

as Mr. Speaker Fraser found on the similar facts before him, difficult

to see how the work of the House has been prejudiced or any member

impeded in the performance of his duties as a result of what has

transpired in the present circumstances.

On the second

issue of a possible contempt of the House having been committed, I have

again examined with great care the observations of Mr. Speaker Fraser

in the matter before him, to which reference has been made by the hon.

second member for Vancouver East. The grave concern expressed by the

Chair in that instance was that neither departmental officials nor

governments ought in any way to give the general public the impression

that proposed changes to the taxation system are a fait accompli, and

that Parliament has no role to play in examining and approving the

changes. The effect of this, it was said, "may tend to diminish the

authority of the House in the eyes of the public."

The

basis of the grievance considered by Mr. Speaker Fraser was that

widespread advertising directed to the public had taken place which

clearly assumed that certain goods and services tax measures were in

fact a fait accompli, when such was clearly not the case. The Chair has

been invited to draw a parallel in the matter before me, and it is

suggested that the present case is even stronger because, unlike the

situation in Ottawa, the legislation at issue here is not yet before

this House.

In this regard, the hon. member's submission is

a cogent one. However, the Chair must give at least equal weight to the

following fact: namely, that the press release of March 9, 1990, stated

that the minister had "unveiled key portions of the Assessment and

Property Tax Reform Act slated for introduction during the next sitting

of the Legislature." It is difficult for the Chair to read into these

words any suggestion that the proposed legislation was either a fait

accompli or that Parliament would have no role to play in examining or

approving the proposed changes.

On the other hand, the circulars dated March 20 and March 29, by a ministry

official, might be construed as if the proposed changes were indeed a fait accompli.

However, consideration must be given to the fact that the circular of March

20 referred to the earlier press release of the minister advising that the legislation

was "slated for introduction" to the Legislature, and that the circular

was part of an information program to assist municipalities, and went on to

set forth various guidelines.

I draw the attention of hon. members to the Journals of the House dated July 12, 1977, at pages 196 and 197, when the Speaker stated:

"Without going into the merits of the case, one can readily

conclude that it would be only prudent, if not incumbent upon a ministry of

the government, to take preparatory steps in contemplation of the passage of

legislation. I cannot see that to do so would impede the House or any member

thereof in the performance of their functions."

The

Chair must also give weight to the fact that the circulars complained

of were not communications to the general public by way of a newspaper

advertisement, but were in fact directed at principal appointed

officers of municipalities. It would, I feel, be fair to assume that

such senior officials of another level of government would be fairly

aware of the normal legislative process. It would be difficult to

conclude that experienced municipal officials were led to believe that

this Legislature would not, in due course, be involved in the passage

of the legislation.

The Chair cannot therefore conclude

that the circular is analogous to or as offensive as widespread

advertisements to the general public leading a large segment of the

public to believe or infer that the Legislature would have no role to

play in this process.

For these reasons, the Chair cannot

find any sufficient grounds to give the hon. member's application

priority over orders of the day, having regard to the facts of the case

and the many Speakers' previous rulings on similar matters.

The

intervention of the hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen)

presented on the 6th day of April last is essentially the same matter

and must fail for the same reasons.

In closing, I will

again say that the Chair fully agrees with the comments of Mr. Speaker

Fraser to the effect that the Chair will at all times do its best to

uphold the dignity of parliament whenever and wherever it may be

threatened by matters occurring outside the House; as well, of course,

within the House itself. In this endeavour I am sure the Chair will

have the assistance of all hon. members and, of equal importance, the

understanding and adherence of all public officials who may be

necessarily involved in the process of government.

Oral Questions

KAMLOOPS CANCER CLINIC

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The people

of Kamloops have long been promised a full-treatment cancer facility in

their city. The riding is now represented by two senior cabinet

ministers who astonishingly have

[ Page 8928 ]

failed

to raise the issue in this Legislature, yet they supported the

government's decision to locate the cancer clinic in Kelowna. Is the

minister now prepared to locate a full-service cancer clinic at

Kamloops?

HON. J. JANSEN : Perhaps the Leader of the

Opposition isn't aware that there already is a full-service cancer

clinic in Kamloops. I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition

would suggest that this government would allow politics to enter

medical care.

We have in this province the best Cancer

Control Agency internationally. It's recognized as being the best in

the world. They have submitted to us a very detailed analysis of need

in the province of British Columbia. I'm pleased to say that we have

agreed in total with the recommendations, which means significant

expansion of facilities throughout the province We are further working

with the Cancer Control Agency to ensure that....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The minister is well beyond the scope of the question. Next question, please.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, it would be astounding news to the medical community and

the community of Kamloops that they have a full-service cancer clinic.

They certainly don't believe they do. Given the fact that the Royal

Inland Hospital in Kamloops believes it can have a cancer clinic

operating in 18 months — as opposed to 1996 in Kelowna — and

given the fact that the local governments from Prince George through to

Cariboo prefer the Kamloops location, is the minister prepared to

reconsider his decision and locate a full-service cancer clinic in

Kamloops?

HON. J. JANSEN : The Leader of the

Opposition obviously has difficulty understanding what I said to him a

minute ago. I said that the Cancer Control Agency put the

recommendation forward, that we agree with those recommendations, and

further that we were talking to the Cancer Control Agency to ensure the

facilities in the interior would be further expanded.

are now addressing the question of mammography. We will very soon have

a mammography unit in the province in the Kamloops area. We're looking

at other enhancements of service.

The Leader of the

Opposition indicated.... Maybe we have to phrase his questions for him.

The question related to radio therapy units. If that's the question

that's the recommendation of the Cancer Control Agency of B.C.

ABORTION SERVICES

MR. HARCOURT :

A question to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier failed to assure this

House that he would uphold the law by ensuring that women throughout

this province have access to safe, legal abortions. Has he

reconsidered, and is he now prepared to instruct the Nanaimo hospital

board and every other hospital board in this province that abortion is

a legal medical service and that a woman's right to access to this

service must not be impeded?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'll defer to the Minister of Health.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to note yesterday, listening to the

comments from some of the members in regard to this issue, that there

was a sudden interest in the demographics and the democracy that exist

in hospital boards. We have appointed hospital boards, but the

socialist mentality feels that unless those boards, which are

democratically elected, conform to their thinking, they're not suitable

and require intervention.

[2:30]

The second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) made reference to the

fact that abortion is a federal matter and should not be considered at

the local level. We in British Columbia are ensuring that the surgery

is available here, and we are doing it on the basis of the Canada

Health Act.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, I

understand the Minister of Health to say that it's okay for a hospital

board to democratically break the law. That's a new concept of

democracy and the rule of law to me, because the law is very clear.

Three court decisions have established that abortion is a legal medical

service which all women are entitled to choose, so possibly we have a

new policy of this government. I would like to ask the Premier: are

they prepared to put the question of access to legal medical services

to a referendum? Is that the new approach in this province?

MR. SPEAKER : The question may be out of order because it involves future policy.

MR. HARCOURT : That policy was announced in the throne speech. There was....

MR. SPEAKER : Please wait to be recognized. You're asking a question of policy.

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT :

The question of the policy of the referendum approach, Mr. Speaker, was

in the throne speech. I take it that referendums will be utilized in

this province, and I'm asking the Premier: based on the policy that was

outlined in the throne speech, are you going to put this issue to a

referendum?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech did refer to legislation dealing with referenda.

[ Page 8929 ]

PROPOSED GAS DRILLING

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

constituents are very alarmed by the potential environmental and safety

hazards which may arise as a result of proposed gas drilling in the

Fraser Valley. Part of this alarm results from some extremely

provocative comments which have been made on the subject by the member

for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, will the minister

assure this House and my constituents that no drilling permits have

been issued or, in fact, will be issued unless all legitimate

environmental and safety concerns have been satisfactorily addressed?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that no

drilling permits have been issued. None are likely to be issued for

some months. None will be issued until the public in the area is fully

satisfied that the operations will be safe, quiet and in the public

interest.

MR. PETERSON : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

What assurances can the minister provide to this House that the

public's concerns will be fully and impartially addressed in your

ministry's review process? What steps has the minister decided to take

to ensure that Fraser Valley residents will be fully informed

concerning the safety and environmental implications of any drilling

project which could, in fact, possibly be authorized?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, any significant energy project — certainly one of any size or concern to a large number of people —

is subject to a review process. The smaller ones are exclusively

in-house between ministries. But if there is a mounting public concern

in the Fraser Valley, I would have no hesitation in recommending to my

colleagues that we appoint a special inquiry commissioner and have a

public review of the matter.

NEW DEMOCRAT PRESS RELEASE

MR. SIHOTA :

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). Yesterday in question period he referred to a press

release dated April 4 which he said that I had obviously written, and

which made reference to the word "sleazy." I know of no such press

release. I wonder if the Premier would be kind enough to table that

press release in the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I did give a wrong date apparently, and I apologize for

the mix-up on that and the confusion perhaps. But yes, I did make

reference to a press release, and I certainly would have no hesitation

to table the press release. If there's any doubt about what was said in

the press release, it will clarify this for the member opposite. It

also includes my comments written across the top.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Marson submitted his report with respect to the GO

B.C. fund to the government on December 12, 1989, and it was made public on

February 28, 1990. Could the Provincial Secretary please explain the delay in

presenting that report?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up in this House and answer questions

concerning GO B.C. because it is a great program. What we wanted to

ensure, between the date that report was turned over to me and our

release, was that we had looked at it very thoroughly and studied it to

see how we could implement the recommendations in that report and come

forward with a very positive package of improvements that could be made.

MR. SIHOTA :

A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. How was it that the

Provincial Secretary came to learn that the RCMP had wanted to lay

charges with respect to his predecessor and arising out of that report?

How did you come to realize that?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Obviously the member opposite doesn't realize where my duties begin and

where my duties end. I am the Provincial Secretary, and I believe he

should be directing that question to another minister.

MR. SIHOTA :

A supplementary question to the Provincial Secretary. You released Mr.

Marson's report on February 28, 1990. Why did you not disclose at that

time that a recommendation had been flowing from that report to lay

charges against your predecessor?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Again, I would remind the member opposite that I am the Provincial

Secretary. I don't make those kinds of recommendations. He ought to

know that as a practicing lawyer, I believe.

FERRY SAFETY

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. The question concerns the fact that all of us were recently

much saddened by the fact that we had a fire on board a Norwegian ferry

and that many lives were lost. We now have reports that some of the

safety equipment was hopelessly inadequate and that there were

inadequate fire alarm systems, sprinklers and smoke detectors.

The

question is: since we have one of the largest ferry fleets in the

world, can the minister give some assurance to the residents of this

province that indeed our safety equipment aboard our ferries is much

better?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I am pleased to stand in

the House today and respond to that question, but I guess the surprise

I have is that it came from someone from the lower mainland. I was

expecting it

[ Page 8930 ]

come from a member of the opposition because there are several of them

there from the Island. Expecting that the opposition might have done a

little homework, I came prepared.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

No, I didn't give him the question. I'm sorry, Hon. Member, I didn't.

It's an important question and one that must be properly answered in

order to put at rest the minds of our travelling public, those who use

the ferry system.

The Canada Shipping Act regulates the

type of materials that can be used in the construction of

Canadian-built ships. In all cases we are only allowed to build with

fire-retardant materials. For example, no untreated wood is allowed on

the vessels, and all carpets have to be specially treated.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Yes, to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), I was

expecting a member of the opposition to ask the question, so I did come

prepared. Several of your members are from the Island.

general terms, the Ferry Corporation has a watch cycle that has staff

working ten days on, five days off. Once during this ten-day period

throughout the entire year there is a fire drill conducted that

involves all staff members aboard the vessel, and every one of these

staff members is given a specific task to do in case of a fire

emergency.

We could describe the crews on B.C. Ferry

Corporation vessels as some of the best trained in the world. In

addition, the corporation works with the Canadian Coast Guard and

various training institutions such as Pacific Marine Training

Institute, where fire-fighting courses are taught on a regular basis.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm really quite surprised that particularly the members who have ferry

terminals in their ridings are not a little more concerned about what's

happening.

On every sailing within the corporation there is

a fire patrol made on each car deck, throughout the length of the

voyage. Fire is regarded as the B.C. Ferry Corporation's number one

potential enemy, and we do all that we can to prevent any fires. All

fire drills on board each vessel are fully documented, and any

observance requiring following-up is attended to.

summary, however, because of the procedures we have in place, the

materials on board and the highly trained crews, we believe that the

potential for a serious fire is minimized because of our ongoing

commitment to fire prevention and safety.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I rise on a point of personal privilege. I have had

the opportunity this morning to view a draft of Hansard . This morning the hon.

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) made a sleazy attack on my

family. This is the second one. There was another one by the Leader of the Opposition

last Wednesday, April 4, in a television broadcast from channel 11 in Victoria

which I will quote, because I have the tape: "Yes, you are right."

This is in response to a caller: "We are not going to let John Savage sell

his family farm on an order-in-council that he put through as Minister of Agriculture,

which allowed him to sell his family farm and use it as golf courses and make

a million dollar profit for his family. That's wrong."

family has lived and farmed in Delta for over a century with a great

deal.... They have done it with integrity and dignity, not to be

downgraded by somebody like you. And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

the Leader of the Opposition has made a personal attack on my

parents — seniors who have worked the soil for 75 years, as well as their predecessors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Shame!

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my mother....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I ask the member to take his seat.

MR. SIHOTA :

On a point of order, the comments coming from the minister relate to

comments which he said were raised back on April 4 during a television

show. However, in raising his point of order, he made reference to

comments that were made this morning in the House by one of our

colleagues.

It would seem to me that in making his response

the minister ought to be referring to the latter and not to the

comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, the start of this session has given us a number of points

of privilege that the Chair has had to consider. The scope of the

discussion that should take place is that the matter should be briefly

stated. However, members have taken to abusing this particular scope.

What

the Chair needs in order to assist it is for members who believe their

privileges have been violated to state the matter so that the Chair can

consider the matter. If other members wish to add something for the

Chair's consideration after the member has made his statement, the

Chair will be pleased to listen to those matters at that time.

would ask the Minister of Agriculture to continue. If there are any

further interjections, I would ask people to hold those and give them

to me afterwards in order to assist the Chair in making a decision.

Would the minister please continue.

[ Page 8931 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To continue with what I was saying, in the 1930s my mother tilled the soil by hand, planting crops.

MR. LOVICK : What does that have to do with anything?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : You just listen.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is simply that the member opposite has

already been told to get to the point; instead, he proceeds to base his

entire comments on some phony appeal to emotionalism. If he has a point

of order, Mr. Speaker, let him raise it. All we are hearing now is

about farming in the past. The concern is whether your children and

their grandchildren will be able to farm, given your policies.

MR. SPEAKER :

The House should be reminded that we are not dealing with a point of

order; we are dealing instead with a point of privilege. I am trying to

hear the evidence in terms of a point of privilege.

Does the member for Vancouver–Point Grey rise on a point of order as well?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : On a point of privilege? I must hear one point of privilege at a time. I will hear from the minister first.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : There has been enough said about my family, who, as I stated very emphatically, have tilled the soil for years.

I'll

get to my point. I would like to remind the people opposite that some

of you who sat at the time you were government took my grandfather's

farm on Tilbury Island. It was one of the largest dairy farms in

British Columbia at that time, milking 108 cows. I remind you that

during the Depression that same farm provided food for people who

walked from New Westminster because they couldn't afford to buy food.

Our family donated it to them — and it's so bad that they should make a dollar off the sale of the land?

think that is cowardly politics, and I will not sit down and let my

family suffer for it. I am going to defend it. If you want to attack

me, be my guest; I'm a politician. But you can damn well lay off my

family.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I will ask the minister to stand up and withdraw the unparliamentary word he used in his remark.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you.

Does the member for Vancouver–Point Grey wish to make a comment?

The

Chair would like to ask all members to consider the scope under which

the Chair has to operate on matters of privilege. If the matters of

privilege are stated briefly, the Chair has some possibility of

bringing back a ruling which makes good parliamentary sense. But when,

in the process of bringing forward these points, it breaks into debate,

the Chair is limited in its ability to restrict the debate.

There

are lots of other opportunities. In fact, at present we happen to be

almost at the point at of going to one of those opportunities, the

throne speech, to debate these matters. It would be better not to bring

the argument forward when asking the Chair for a decision.

Hon.

L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board of

British Columbia for the calendar year 1989 and the annual report of

the Heritage Trust for 1988-89.

MR. SPEAKER :

Just before proceeding with the next order of business, the first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) asked me for leave to make an

introduction. The Chair would really appreciate it if all introductions

were made before the formal business of the House is to take place. For

future guidance, I would ask that all members do this.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK :

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I am indeed contrite. I would just

point out that I only received the note a few moments ago.

hope members opposite will join me in welcoming two groups of students

to this chamber. First are a number of people with their instructors

Paulette Dash-Hagel and David Hagel from the Nanaimo Skills Training

Centre. The other group of students is from the Five Acres Alternative

School in Nanaimo and they are with their teacher Mr. Martin. Please

join me in welcoming these people.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Just before proceeding with the Address in Reply, I wish to inform the

House that by agreement with the opposition House Leader, one hour will

be set aside from 5 to 6 p.m. today to engage in an emergency debate on

the federal goods and services tax, as put forward this morning by the

first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy). I'm sure

all members of this assembly are concerned about the devastating

effects that will surely flow from the GST and agree that the matter is

too important to the future of this province to let it pass by without

some degree of formal debate.

[ Page 8932 ]

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place in this debate on the motion moved

by the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) to support the document

read on Thursday last by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Before

embarking on some of the reasons why this assembly and the citizens it

represents want to support this throne speech and this government, I

wish to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the Chair

by unanimous vote of members present.

I would also extend

congratulations to our Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney

(Mr. Pelton), as well as our newly elected committee chairman, the

second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong).

too, on behalf of my constituents and many British Columbians, join

with this House in mourning the passing of former members of this

Legislature from the constituencies of Columbia River and Cariboo. I

was very pleased to note that mention was made by His Honour of the

widow and mother of two former Premiers from the constituency of South

Okanagan. These three individuals in their own way provided outstanding

examples of public service as British Columbians over many years during

the development years of our society and economy, and each played

important roles in building the infrastructure in Canada's westernmost

province over three decades of growth.

I would like to bid welcome to the Legislature to the two new members of our House — the

second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) and the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull). We look forward to your contribution on

behalf of your constituents, and I know that you will enjoy your public

service immensely.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about

literacy in the province of British Columbia. It's because this

government and this side of the House puts a high priority on

maintaining a strong, viable, sustainable economy that we as a

government have revenues to make expenditures to serve the people in

British Columbia and to look after our social needs.

support the throne speech for many reasons, but one of the reasons is

its recognition of the International Year of Literacy for the United

Nations in 1990 and this government's commitment to continue to offer

upgrading programs for individuals to attain basic skills. I

congratulate the former Minister of Advanced Education and the present

one (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for their involvement in facilitating the

report of the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee entitled "Opening

the Doors to Lifelong Learning," which was dated December 1989.

believe that in addition to the excellent recommendations to this

government in that report, we also should seek out the retired teachers

of this province and call on them to assist those adults who cannot

read or write. If this were a program conducted through night schools

and community centres, we could bring freedom to those who are now

illiterate and at the same time use the expertise of retired teachers

and individuals who still have lots to contribute with their experience

and love of teaching.

Not to give the subject undue time,

but there is another area during Literacy Year that should not be

overlooked, and that is our provision of resources for those who are

learning-disabled. In 1989 this province had identified 9,800 severely

learning-disabled students and committed $43 million in the '89-90

budget through our Minister of Education to assist these students. We

contributed another $63 million for mildly to moderately

learning-disabled through learning assistance programs, and $6 million

for infrastructure assessment and planning for these children.

This

government doesn't need an international year to demonstrate its

understanding of these children with special needs. We have had that

understanding for very many years, and we have had action behind that

understanding. But I raise it now to point out that there is still more

work to be done in this area, and this Legislature should never shirk

its responsibility to fund these special children who need our help as

a society to cope in future years.

I particularly want

to mention and speak for greater resources and understanding for the

dyslexic child and ask the ministry to concentrate on teacher training,

giving teachers the ability to recognize dyslexia and to refer dyslexic

children to the proper resources.

Mr. Speaker, another good

news item in the throne speech is the reference to relief of taxpayer

burden as a cornerstone of this government's fiscal plan. I know that

we will see introduced after the budget speech an assessment and

property tax reform act to, in the words of the throne speech, "bring

greater equity and stability to the property tax and assessment systems

in the province."

Great credit is due to the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs for initiating at the time a provincial property tax forum to

listen to British Columbians. I can tell you that the property

taxpayers in Vancouver–Little Mountain are looking forward to this

budget and this legislation.

I would like to put in a word

not only for the residential property tax relief, but the relief that

is also needed by the commercial tenants in this province who will need

some attention from this parliament if they are going to see an end to

escalating assessments and resulting tax bills of more than 40 percent

in one year, as they did last year. I urge the government to not forget

them as we continue to bring reforms to our local taxation system.

want to just mention a local concern in Vancouver–Little Mountain and

in the city of Vancouver. We all know that transportation is a prime

factor in economic growth. Nowhere has this been demonstrated so

dramatically as in the success of the rapid

[ Page 8933 ]

transit

system, SkyTrain, built by our Social Credit government. One has only

to see the complete rebirth of the city of New Westminster to

understand that SkyTrain has completely turned that city around,

awakened its potential, creating growth and jobs of unprecedented

number. Burnaby has seen a multi-billion dollar surge in building at

Metrotown. Beside every station along the first phase from Vancouver to

New Westminster we've had an explosion of building and investment that

has improved each area, building new parks, apartment buildings and

housing. The routes to Whalley and Coquitlam will bring the same

remarkable service and economic growth, again creating jobs, housing

and opportunities. Here it is: Social Credit building once again.

[3:00]

A committee was struck to address a new route from Vancouver to

Richmond and, of course, to the Vancouver airport. The Ministry of

Transportation and Highways has stated that this new route may take the

form of articulated bus service or some form of rapid transit. It will

be up to the committee to make that decision. As representatives of

Vancouver–Little Mountain, my colleague the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and myself are on record with the

minister that we want to be certain that whatever route is chosen, the

neighbourhoods along that route must be protected.

The

Arbutus corridor, as well as Cambie Street, have both been suggested. I

know we will have ample opportunity to present our concerns to that

committee. I do think, however, that there is an exciting opportunity

to use the Arbutus corridor as a tunnel or recessed trainway which

would give a direct route to Richmond and leave all the air rights for

valuable housing and landscaped park-like development. The value of the

land could make such a plan feasible. Although many will at first

believe that a tunnel would be prohibitive in cost, I would remind

those critics that it will never be any cheaper and would be a

tremendous asset to the transportation plans of the lower mainland as

the ultimate destination would be Richmond and the airport.

British

Columbia stands tall today in western economies because of previous

decisions taken by Social Credit governments since 1953 to put in place

infrastructures for future growth. Individuals who have served on this

side of the House have had what it takes to make bold decisions to last

for decades and to serve well the growth demanded by the passage of

years.

I look quickly at the evidence of early Social

Credit throne speeches that heralded the visions of decades of growth

that lay ahead of those charged with the responsibilities of the

government of the time. Just examine, if you will, the frameworks for

important infrastructures that many of us take for granted today.

1953, the throne speech mentioned, expanded on and acted on the

expansion of the building of highways without increasing the net debt

of the province. There was legislation to authorize the development of

the Columbia River basin, a policy for highway construction that up to

that time had been unprecedented. It was proposed in 1953 to introduce

certain measures to ensure fair remuneration for female employees. An

act was presented to control the ribbon development on the main

highways of the province.

In 1954, the throne speech

announced the commencement of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from

Squamish to North Vancouver, from Prince George into the Peace River

district— the greatest development for the north that we have seen and

the start of all the development in the north. We saw the continuing

and enlarged program of highway construction and secondary programs for

highways. At that time, as you know, we couldn't even take an

automobile past Hope and have any hope at all of getting through at all

without some safety hazards.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In 1955, the Disabled Persons

adopted and proclaimed by the government of British Columbia of the

day. Provision was made to encourage development of our natural

resources, agricultural produce, industrial undertakings and tourist

travel in a way unprecedented before 1955. The University of British

Columbia got its first truly large capital infusion, an aggressive

capital expenditure which has continued to this day, We were able to

make available and extend the program of rural electrification to the

power development throughout the province and improved arrangements for

municipalities. Problems of apprenticeship were addressed and many

other social programs.

In 1956, there was the establishment

of the Capital Improvement District Commission for this area, Victoria,

which has done remarkable things since 1956 to enhance the beauty of

our beautiful capital city. Then there were other areas that had to do

with making sure we tied in with the Trans-Canada Highway and that the

construction was completed for highways in the Cariboo, the southern

and northern transprovincial highways and the Trans-Canada.

also introduced legislation to promote the observance of fair treatment

to all men and women with respect to their employment. At that time, in

1956, we also passed legislation to financially assist the Association

for Retarded Children of British Columbia. That was one of the

breakthroughs for the mentally handicapped of this province at that

time.

In 1957, legislation was brought in to remove the

tolls of the bridges in the province. And there was an announcement

that year that the opposition members laughed about at the time —

they're not laughing now. The homeowner grant was announced: a tax

relief grant of $28 a year, which has grown this year to $470, and to

$700 for senior citizens. That was a Social Credit initiative, Mr.

Speaker.

In that same year there was an aggressive

marketing campaign for the tree-fruits industry in the Okanagan. It was

given a great deal of observation as well as action at that time.

[ Page 8934 ]

There

was legislation concerned with the welfare of blind workmen and also

the authority to approve the extension of hospital insurance benefits

to cover chronic care.

In 1958 there was a willingness to

participate in the hospitalization program of the national government.

One had been put in place by the provincial government ten years prior

to that.

An agreement in principle to complete the highways

serving Richmond, Delta and all of that area took place, as well as the

completion of the Westcoast Transmission pipeline, which brought

natural gas from the Peace River to the markets of the interior and

coastal areas. We could go on to talk about the Upper Levels Highway,

the Princeton-Kamloops highway and the Kitimat-Terrace highway, all of

which have had an influence on each and every constituency represented

in this Legislature today.

We had the initiation of

ferry-building in 1959. The two ferries commissioned in that particular

year were capable of carrying large numbers of passengers and cars. Of

course, 1959 saw the beginning of one of the largest ferry fleets in

the world in our own province.

Senior citizens' homes and

housing were given great concentration in 1959 and since, and

legislation respecting nursing homes was brought in.

Campsite recreational concerns and marine park programs were all given high priority in those years.

There

was a great loss suffered in 1957 with the fire at Government House. Of

course, in 1959 we saw that this government had completed a brand-new

Government House to take the place of the burned-out one.

In 1960 the Deas Island tunnel, housing for the aged, a master plan for the development of Garibaldi Park and the initiation of Beautiful B.C. magazine took place.

could go on to give you more from between 1960 and 1980, but I think

it's important for us to remember that it was this government that

saved very many homes in 1980 with a new housing program that resulted

in a total of over 5,000 additional dwelling units in that year.

women's office was established in 1980, and the Knowledge Network,

which has led the world in education television service, was

established in our province.

A new science policy, long

before other jurisdictions talked about a science policy, was started

in this Legislature through these throne speeches that I have read.

Particularly, in 1980 the discovery park, near the Institute of

Technology, was established.

I was interested also to note that in the 1980 throne speech SkyTrain was announced — our

remarkable rapid transit. That initiative, which was at the time.... I

can recall that just a year before that the NDP told us we didn't need

a rapid transit service in the lower mainland.

I remember,

too, that it was in the 1980 throne speech that Expo was announced.

Expo and the initiative to bring the world to British Columbia was one

of the great initiatives of this Social Credit government, and one

which, I might add, the Leader of the Opposition tried to stop.

would argue that when it comes to building for tomorrow there's no

comparison between the side opposite and this side. The opposition has

been short of vision for three decades. There was no vision during

their three years of government in the early seventies, and it isn't

there today. In the last two years we have had a plan in place which

looks to not just today but to the future and for generations to come.

1988 we began the Asia-Pacific initiative, which has just been

completed, to follow up some of the planning that went on early in the

mandate of this government to have new economic initiatives that will

prepare us well for the year 2000. This is the first parliament of a

new decade, the decade in which we all want to have sufficient public

dollars to do more for educating our young people, providing

sustainable health care for all citizens and a clean environment as a

legacy for future generations. It's the decade where those moneys will

be available because of the vision of this government to plan

ahead — the vision that this government has had to have the

infrastructures in place and to provide focus to delivering stable

government for the economy.

This throne speech is about

choices. It's about ensuring the security of British Columbia's

economic prosperity and quality of life.

One of the real differences between the negative Nellies on the side opposite....

Interjections.

MRS. McCARTHY :

If you think that's a sexist remark — the negative Nellies and the

negative Mikeys. The real difference is that the building force of

Social Credit — the positive force —

represented on this side of the House has the ability to always focus

on building today's economy and infrastructure to meet tomorrow's needs.

want to talk about that infrastructure which our government is working

on for the next decade. First is the port of Vancouver. We need to

acknowledge the overall planning of the White Paper on British Columbia

ports policy, published last year by our Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). The White Paper states:

"Ports generate significant employment and are a

crucial component of economic activity within the province. The port of

Vancouver, for example, has recently estimated the economic impact of

the port to be $1.9 billion annually and 18,875 direct or indirect

jobs. Similar estimates prepared for the Fraser River Harbour

Commission indicate a $5 billion economic impact and 33,000 people

employed; and for Prince Rupert, $637 million in economic impact and

4,221 people employed.

"In the port of Vancouver, container traffic generates 500

jobs for longshoremen alone, yet nearly 45 percent of Canada's Pacific container

trade is currently arriving in U.S. ports."

The initiatives that result from this paper and the work being done by the more than 100 volunteers

[ Page 8935 ]

who have been serving the Asia-Pacific Initiative have special meaning for the port of Vancouver.

There

are several issues we need to address involving the port, and a big one

is environmental protection, safe measures for cargo handling and urban

encroachment in industrial lands. These issues, though, will need

cooperation and understanding on all sides, because the greatest

contributors to our gross domestic product are the exports carried

annually by those ships out of the port of Vancouver. Both provincial

and federal governments launched the Asia-Pacific Initiative to help

maximize those opportunities in the decade ahead.

[3:15]

Speaking with port authorities, we know that there are two major

targets for more business. One is filling ships with backhaul

containerized cargo. We have to do it, and we are making progress as

this government supports initiatives in our forest products industry to

add more value and produce more specialty lumber products for export.

The

second area is cruise passengers, and this government is doing its best

to work with the tourism industry to encourage more packaging of tours

out of Vancouver to sell our fabulous lower mainland, so those cruise

ships will make Vancouver a destination and make greater use of our

international airport so that more people can visit Vancouver first and

then depart for other destinations in Super, Natural British Columbia.

the harbour, our Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, so criticized

by members opposite, has been a major contributor to our B.C. economy

in just two and a half years' time. It's a total success, a remarkable

success. It's infrastructure, it's planning, it's vision. The port

itself needs expanded cruise-ship facilities in the next five years,

and we as a government must help facilitate those plans.

The

Tourism Task Force of the Asia-Pacific indicates a growing Asian

customer market. The Japanese market alone is responsible for $8

billion a year in overseas international travel. Soon it is estimated

that the annual number of outbound Japanese tourists will exceed ten

million a year, and Vancouver International Airport is the major

airport, the gateway in Canada for travellers to and from the

Asia-Pacific region. It can be much more, and this government's

initiatives and future planning are already underway with the federal

government in planning for increased traffic.

Vancouver

International Airport is now the second busiest airport in Canada and

getting busier. It's the regional hub, and because of our improved

regional airports through this government's freedom-to-move policy,

same-day travel to and from Vancouver is a reality. In 1988 alone, jet

traffic from the Pacific Rim increased 20 percent, and Vancouver

International received more than its share of new business.

Deregulation

of the air transport industry, introduction of new efficient aircraft,

the dominance of Vancouver airport in the regional marketplace,

together with a burgeoning economy, have all contributed significantly

to the increased demand for air service. We have the opportunity of

attracting major international aircraft maintenance centres.

is interesting to note that companies such as Japan Air Lines fly over

Vancouver and over North America now to Shannon Airport in Ireland on a

regular basis for required monthly maintenance. So why not Vancouver?

Why not indeed? We can expand our air cargo capabilities. Vancouver

International Airport can be a tremendous economic generator for

British Columbia beyond what it is today, and the airport committee

established by this government and jointly financed by the federal

government gives life to that vision.

You would know, Mr.

Speaker, that we already see annual revenues to the airport of over $55

million for an annual profit of close to $10 million — over 325,000

annual aircraft movements. It's directly and indirectly generating

approximately 3 percent of British Columbia's gross domestic product

and directly employing 12,000 persons.

Tourism and

international trade possibilities in this decade are better than we

have ever seen. We are in the right place, we are at the right time and

the further development of the airport with an added runway and the

development of airport related industry is within our grasp.

The

mandate of this airport is no longer national in scope, but regional.

It is now recognized as a major tool for regional economic development,

and for that reason this government has aggressively pursued the

transfer of the control of that airport to a local airport authority by

memorandum of understanding signed on July 14, 1989.

The

vision, the plan and the foresight here is to facilitate the transfer

of this vital infrastructure to a regionally responsible group mandated

to compete to the very greatest extent for British Columbia and the

Vancouver region and to compete against Seattle-Tacoma, San Francisco,

Calgary, Los Angeles and even Toronto for the benefits to our

region — Pacific Canada — in the year 2000 and beyond and for

the benefits of a growing international trade and tourism business.

have put together the infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. Most times, the

Social Credit governments of the past — and the Social Credit

government of the future — did it ahead of time, but we always did

plan for the future so that we could achieve the social programs for

our people.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to interrupt the good member

when she is going on so well, but I seem to hear the voice of the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Yet I recognize no one

sitting in his chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member continues. We'll make up the little bit of time you lost there, hon. member.

MRS. McCARTHY :

But always, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party has planned for the

future so that we could achieve the social programs for our people.

[ Page 8936 ]

1990, British Columbia has an opportunity. This year we have an

opportunity to rekindle the flame of hope for our fellow citizens.

Some

say it is an election year. Well, I hope so, Mr. Speaker, because in

the midst of federal government deficits, in the midst of onerous tax

reforms such as the GST and in the midst of the concerns we all have

over the constitutional process in Canada, British Columbia alone

stands out as the most visionary government in Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, it's important today to kindle the flame of vision and of

innovation that we have started in the province of British Columbia and

have continued for the better part of 37 years: to make British

Columbia a place for Asia, Europe and North America to meet; to enhance

the idea of tolerance with such things as the Dragon Boat Festival and

the tolerance that we will have for each other; to ensure the security

of our environment through vigilance followed by actions; to appreciate

and enhance the best health care system in the world and to give

expectation and opportunity to the young people through education — the

best in the country, Mr. Speaker — while giving security to our aged

with seniors' housing and health care.

the midst of a national cynicism and radical tensions over the

constitution, B.C. stands above the clamour with the greatest choice of

all, Mr. Speaker: hope for the future in a growing, prosperous British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The debate continues. The

Chair would just remind the House of the courtesy we extend to those

new members who are making their first speech.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, it's an honour and a privilege to be here in this assembly

representing the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the first woman and the

first New Democrat to represent that riding. I am honoured to follow in

the footsteps of those who have held the seat before me, particularly

Brian Smith, who served my community well for over ten years; and Dr.

Scott Wallace, who, although it has been 12 years since he sat in this

Legislature, is still well loved by the people of my community.

The

Social Credit, government has characterized the throne speech as being

about change, choice and challenge. I listened with interest to the

remarks of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs.

McCarthy) when she talked about vision, because as I read the throne

speech again last night, I found that it presents no vision for change

in this province, it doesn't address the choices people in my community

want to see, and it fails miserably to meet the challenges of the next

decade.

I want to speak about each of these in turn, and

I'll begin with change. I was elected to this Legislature last December

because people in my constituency want to see change. One of the major

changes they want to see is a change in the way we manage our

environment. People in my community live here because we like the

quality of life. We have proximity to a large city; we have a mild

climate; and we have easy access to the ocean, to the Gulf Islands and

to wilderness areas.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is a constituency

blessed with many advantages. One of those advantages should be our

beaches, but it's not, because our beaches continue to be fouled by

human sewage and toxic contaminants. Most of the beaches in my

community are posted with signs warning swimmers about the health

dangers of swimming there. Even where there are no signs, parents are

afraid to let their children play in the water because of fear of

chemical pollution.

People in my community have been very

clear about the need to clean up our local beaches. They know what

needs to be done. They're telling their local politicians quite

clearly, they're telling me quite clearly, and my election should have

told you quite clearly, that they're tired of talk and they want

action. They want an end to the dumping of raw sewage into our waters.

They want a safe and convenient collection system for toxic waste and

regulations against pollution that they know will be enforced. They

want to see an end to ocean dumping, and they want assurances that oil

spills will be prevented. They want a concerted effort to clean up our

beaches now, not in the next century.

People in my

community aren't looking for handouts; they're willing to do their part

and to pay their fair share. But they also want to see leadership from

the province, leadership that could guarantee fair funding and

federal-provincial cost-sharing. I listened carefully to the throne

speech for some mention of an enhanced and comprehensive municipal

infrastructure program, a program which my colleagues have been

pressing for at both the federal and provincial levels. I found nothing.

Environmental

issues such as these are the number one concern of people in my riding.

I was elected by the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head to deliver a message

to this government on the environment, and it's this: talking like an

environmentalist doesn't make you one.

The throne speech

talks about agriculture, forestry and mining, but it doesn't contain

any promise of change to the uncoordinated, ad hoc way we manage

resources in this province. I don't draw any encouragement from the

words in the throne speech which read, "My Minister of Forests will

continue the government policy to balance timber-harvesting and

conservation...." It is the current policies that need changing. How

can you talk about continuing policies that produce the lowest number

of jobs per cubic metre of wood in Canada when we have the richest

resource? If we improved our resource management abilities to just

the Canadian average, we could produce many more jobs from the same

timber harvest. Think about the different light that would put on our

ability to preserve significant wilderness areas and still ensure a

sustainable economic base for our forest communities.

Environmental issues aren't the only area where we need change in my community. I want to talk now

[ Page 8937 ]

about

some of the social issues. Oak Bay–Gordon Head is often stereotyped as

a community of wealthy senior citizens. The Oak Bay Tweed Curtain myth

hangs on despite the fact that the riding contains the University of

Victoria, with a sizeable young student population, and despite the

fact that the fastest-growing part of the riding is Gordon Head, which

is populated by young and growing families. Certainly senior citizens

make up an important part of the riding, and I will return and talk

about them in a few minutes.

[3:30]

For now I want to talk about the young people in my community, and

some of the changes they and their families want to see. As a former

school trustee, I can tell you that services for children and youth in

this province lack coordination and contain many glaring gaps. Schools

are in the best position to see this because children arrive at school

with all their problems, whether it's being hungry, abused or stressed

out from drugs and alcohol. It's frustrating to try to find help for

those children and find out that there isn't any because the staff are

already overloaded by heavy caseloads or the service simply isn't there.

For

example, until this fiscal year, counsellors at the elementary school

level were not considered a part of education as funded by the Ministry

of Education, as if children don't have problems until they reach the

age of 12. I'm glad that there has been a change in policy. I hope that

this is a sign of better things to come, but I rather doubt it. I doubt

it because this tiny ray of good news is overshadowed by the really bad

news that anything the Social Credit government doesn't consider

necessary for education must now be funded by referendum. Last year

that meant elementary school counsellors. Maybe next year it will be

arts programs or teachers for special education, because the government

will not consider those things to be a part of education in this

province.

People in my community are almost totally united

in their opposition to school referendums, because they know the Social

Credit record on education They've been through school closures and

cutbacks to their programs. They've watched their children work with

outdated equipment in industrial arts programs and technology courses.

They simply don't trust this government to fund education adequately We

can have fairer taxes for education, but referendums will not create

fairness. On the contrary, they will create have and have-not school

districts.

I want to talk now about some of the less

fortunate young people in my community. Consider, first of all, youth

who are dependent on drugs and alcohol. Where do they go in my

community for treatment? There is no residential treatment centre for

drug-dependent use in greater Victoria, even though less than one year

ago the courts condemned this government for the lack of residential

treatment facilities in the province. There are fewer than one dozen

beds in all of British Columbia for drug-dependent use, and the

alternatives are temporary stays in adult detox centres or outpatient

counselling.

Promises of stronger law enforcement and

increased budgets for advertising the ill effects of drugs and alcohol

simply don't address the problem. These youth need help now. They need

someplace to go now, or they're going to be ending up in the courts and

the prisons in the future.

What about severely handicapped

youth? We have, in my community, one of the finest centres for children

with mental, physical and psychiatric problems. It is operated by the

Arbutus Society for Children, which provides a variety of residential

and out-patient services to children. But what happens to the young

people in that facility who suffer from severe handicaps when they turn

19 years old, as will 13 residents of the Queen Alexandra Hospital by

the end of this year? They go into geriatric wards with the very old

and the senile, because there are no alternatives for them. What kind

of callous society do we live in that can find money for videos but

cannot find money to provide a living environment that affords dignity

to those least fortunate among us?

I would like to see some

changes to the way services for children and youth are provided in this

province. I hoped to see them in the throne speech, but I searched in

vain. I mentioned some specifics just now, and another change I'd like

to see is the pooling of capital resources for the Ministries of

Education, Health and Social Services, so that child care, community

health and social services could be located in our neighbourhoods in

conjunction with the schools.

The school district in my

community is more than willing to cooperate with the province to

provide community services in public schools, but they just can't

provide the space, because they don't have the room in their capital

budgets. They don't have the mandate. New schools in Ontario must

provide space for child care. That's something we could do here in this

community if the province would provide the leadership to allow it to

happen. But it won't be done, because the school district doesn't have

the mandate and this government is not providing any leadership. I was

disappointed to see no mention of child care in the throne speech, but

perhaps this is an issue that the Minister Responsible for Women's

Programs does see as her mandate, and I hope she'll take up this

suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn now to the second

theme, the theme of choices. One of the choices my community would like

to have is affordable housing. While my riding contains some of the

most expensive real estate on Vancouver Island, it is also the home to

students, young families, senior citizens on fixed income and young

people getting ready to set up separate households for the first time.

They can't find housing they can afford. Some of these people can't

find housing they can afford anywhere in greater Victoria.

Tenants

in my community would like to have the choice of secure tenure, the

peace of mind that comes from knowing your home won't be demolished,

that

[ Page 8938 ]

you

won't be evicted from it, that it won't be sold as a condominium or

that rents won't go up 30, 40 or 50 percent in one year. But again,

when I look at the throne speech, I see no leadership. I see no new

ideas to tackle the housing problem. The throne speech promises that

the budget will reveal the strengthening of our comprehensive housing

programs. What comprehensive housing programs? That's precisely the

problem. The Social Credit government has ignored housing for so long

that it now thinks that a collection of band-aids stuck on the issue is

a comprehensive solution.

This is a matter in which I know

what I'm talking about, because I used to work in the government. The

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) — I wish that he were here today to hear this —

as reported in a Squamish newspaper, has said that I leaked all the

good ideas that the Social Credit government had to the opposition when

I was a member of the committee advising the minister on housing.

Let's

not quibble about the fact that the government hadn't even appointed

the committee I sat on when the New Democrats outlined our

comprehensive housing policy during the Vancouver–Point Grey

by-election. Let's move to the real problem here. I laughed when I

heard the minister's remarks, because I knew that the government did

not have an overall housing policy, and I knew that the government

could not have one prepared for it, because the instruction given to

that committee was not to solve the housing problem, the instruction

was to get the issue off the front page of the Vancouver Sun before the next election.

The

people who have been calling my community office about rent hikes,

discrimination against children and the lack of student and senior

housing have more than a media problem. These people would be delighted

to see the government steal any of the ideas that we have about solving

housing problems, like taxing housing speculators, eliminating the

property purchase tax for first-time buyers or introducing a rent

review system that is a little bit more sophisticated than having to

lobby the minister to intervene on a case-by-case basis.

Another

choice people in my community are looking for in the throne speech and

have not found there is the opportunity to pursue post-secondary

education. People in Oak Bay–Gordon Head know that education is a

prerequisite of economic health. But post-secondary education is moving

rapidly beyond the reach of many middle-income families. British

Columbia has the lowest participation rate for university in Canada.

One of the main reasons is the cost of post-secondary education. The

provincial government "Access for All" study failed to address the most

significant barrier of all, and that is the financial barrier. Tuition

fees have doubled since 1980, while funding to post-secondary education

has increased by less than 40 percent.

If we really want to take control of our economic future in this province,

we have to rebuild our universities and our colleges that were gutted by the

Social Credit government during the restraint year so that we can ensure our

youths are not turned away because there isn't enough space. And we must

ensure that ability to pay does not become the criteria for who can attend post-secondary

institutions.

The

last choice I want to talk about is health care. My community is

fortunate to be part of the Victoria Health Project, a pilot project in

community-based health services, and there is a wellness centre in Oak

Bay providing excellent service to the frail elderly. I commend the

government for this funding, but I ask for assurance that the funding

will continue not at the expense of other needed medical services but

as a complementary integral part of our total health care system. A

decision in this matter must be made before the royal commission

reports, because the funding runs out before the 18 months of the

commission ends. This is a choice senior citizens in my community value

and one they want to see continued.

I want to conclude by

talking about challenges. The Social Credit government says it's ready

to meet the challenges of the 1990s. Again, in looking at the throne

speech and considering their record, I see no evidence that they are

committed or able to meet the challenges.

I want to focus

on one very important challenge that concerns people in my

constituency, and that's the challenge of managing urban growth. As I

said at the beginning of my remarks, we live in this part of the world

because we like the quality of life here. The quality of life in

Victoria and Vancouver is attracting many people to this area. Over

60,000 people came to British Columbia in the last year, most of them

other Canadians.

But rapid growth brings problems: threats

to our environment, more untreated sewage going into the ocean, growing

piles of garbage to be landfilled, loss of farmlands and open space. It

brings increased congestion on our roads, which in turn increases air

pollution, and it certainly adds to the housing crisis.

constituents are concerned that the very things we like about our

community are under threat as a result of poorly managed and unplanned

urban growth. This is a case where the people in this community are way

out ahead of their governments. They know we can't tackle housing

problems or transportation or pollution and isolation in 11 different

municipalities in greater Victoria.

Unfortunately the

Social Credit government eliminated regional planning seven years ago,

and nowhere in this throne speech is there any recognition that this

shortsighted policy has failed. Nowhere in this throne speech is there

any vision about our urban future. It doesn't even mention urban areas

or metropolitan areas.

We have over five million people living around the Georgia basin —

in Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver and the Puget Sound. But this

government persists in viewing our urban region as simply a collection

of small towns, no different from any other small towns in the

province. The failure to recognize this complex nature of our urban

areas has caused this government

[ Page 8939 ]

to have a blind spot when it comes to urban problems.

It's

time we recognized that in addition to being a resource-rich province

we are also an urban province. It's time we had an urban development

strategy.

I would like to see some leadership, some

co-operation with municipal and regional officials, with community

groups and those who build our communities, to develop such a strategy

and to address the major issues facing our metropolitan areas. We can't

go on any longer compartmentalizing ourselves into these separate

little governments and line ministries to deal with urban issues;

otherwise, we're going to be like the proverbial blind men who each

approached the elephant and touched different parts of it and each

concluded that the beast was something different. We're all going to

come up with disjointed solutions and disjointed conclusions about what

needs to be done in our urban areas. It has to change.

The

people of this province are looking to the government for leadership on

the issues of concern for them. They are looking for someone to put

forward a vision that they can identify with and support. Last December

the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head had the opportunity to send the

government a message. They evaluated this government's leadership and

its vision and they found it lacking. If there is one place that the

people of my riding agree with this government, it is that it is time

for a change — a change that will only come about after the next election when we have a change of government.

MR. MERCIER :

I'm proud to stand in this House and speak on behalf of my constituents

and the people of British Columbia. I am speaking to the throne speech,

and it provides the opportunity for an MLA to address a wide range of

concerns. I'll talk briefly about the positive message in the throne

speech, the excellent programs for people, and our Premier's steadfast

demand for fiscal responsibility in government.

My main

objective today, though, is to ask this House to unite in opposing the

GST, which is just one more patch on Canada's historical fiscal

patchwork quilt. I am seeking, through this House, reconsideration of

the June 29, 1988, motion of this House with respect to the Meech Lake

constitutional amendments. I am also demanding that a

federal-provincial conference be held immediately to strike a fair

formula for deficit reduction; and I am demanding that the

federal-provincial fiscal arrangements become a specific and permanent

part of our constitution.

[3:45]

Talking through the medium of the throne speech, I am thankful that

our Legislature convenes within the framework of the constitutional

democracy from which we so benefit and which we so often take for

granted. It reminded us of the needs and challenges facing our nation,

and that the government and Legislature and individual British

Columbians reaffirm support for this great and complex country and

embrace initiatives which can keep us together as a nation. The throne

speech repeated our government's commitment to affirming the value of a

strong, united country, such that will enable our future generations to

enjoy the same greatness and be given the same opportunities that have

been afforded to us.

I support the objective of maintaining the equality — and I underline "equality" —

of all Canadians in all provinces. Our government has maintained an

economic and fiscal approach such that British Columbia has set the

example for fiscal management in Canada. Our government will maintain

prosperity through a disciplined budgetary framework within which

economic growth, environmental integrity, job security and social

services are maintained. As I will comment on later, I regret that the

uncertainty caused by federal action to unilaterally curtail resources

and programs can sometimes impede our provincial progress. I truly

believe, as our government believes, that the responsible course is to

arrest our country's financial problems immediately. I condemn the

federal government for its lack of fiscal discipline of the past many

years, which will impact most seriously on and add to the social

injustice facing the working poor, particularly those hard-working,

single-parent families who live in virtual poverty in the midst of

abundance.

I want to talk about Meech Lake and Canada's

federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. To chart Canada's future it is

necessary to review its past. What were the fiscal powers under the

Canadian constitution of the British North American colonies at

Confederation? In 1867, government activity was narrowly restricted and

so, too, were governmental expenses. It had not been necessary to

develop many sources of revenue. The bulk of the revenue of the British

North American colonies was derived from customs and excise. Customs

alone had 66 percent of the provincial revenue of the province of

Canada, which it is interesting to note is now Ontario and Quebec. This

was the financial background when the Fathers of Confederation met at

Quebec in October, 1864, to frame a constitution for uniting all the

British North American colonies.

Under the Confederation

arrangements, the general government was to assume responsibility for

defence, transportation and other functions, as well as the bulk of the

provincial public debt. It was only natural that it should have or be

given the most lucrative source of revenue. The functions and

responsibilities assigned to the provinces, though important, were not

costly at that time. All involved modest expenditures in 1867, and it

was anticipated — incorrectly — that they would remain fairly

static. The vast responsibilities now exercised by provincial

governments could not have been foreseen. In those days, the main

revenues to the provinces were subsidies by the federal government, and

the power to levy direct taxation, as it finally appeared in the

British North America Act, 1867, permitted direct taxation within the

provinces for the raising of revenue for provincial purposes.

Special conditions applied to the west in those days. When the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan

[ Page 8940 ]

and

Alberta were carved out of the Northwestern Territory, the federal

government retained the ownership of the land and other natural

resources. In return, these provinces were granted special subsidies.

Later the federal government agreed to surrender to the provinces the

resources that they justly deserved.

conclude the early

picture of Canada, it is noteworthy that the underlying issues that

precipitated Confederation in 1867 were more political than economic.

But in order to fulfill the major political purpose — the

maintenance of the British connection on the northern half of the

continent by building a large united nation —

it was necessary to weld a number of regions together into a single

economic unit. In today's context, the benefit of the federal

parliament's economic policies from those days accrued to the central

region — Ontario and Quebec. This concentration of industrial

activity in the central provinces placed these provinces in a

favourable position for raising revenues for the provision of essential

services and for the development of their own economic policies, which

they have not relinquished to this day.

Many joint

federal-provincial conferences have considered but not actually dealt

with the constitutional jurisdiction over federal spending power. The

question is always how to meet the legitimate claims of the federal

government over the control of the economy, the mobility of Canadians,

and the equalization and alleviation of regional disparities, while

still accommodating the equally legitimate claims of the provinces to

maintain the character of their provincial societies. Not enough time

has been spent on the constitutional distribution of taxing powers.

argument is that it's far more important to properly divide control of

the tax base between the federal and provincial governments. Under our

constitution it appears that the provinces are vested with far greater

responsibilities, especially in the social services sphere, than their

financial resources can bear. Conversely, the federal parliament is

vested with extensive fiscal resources and relatively narrow regulatory

powers. We, as a country, are wrestling to this day over centralization

of the taxation and spending powers, and that must stop.

Relating

all this to the throne speech, I ask how our province can continue to

provide excellent management of its affairs when at any time the

federal government can throw a monkey wrench into the works. What

Canada must have without further delay is a fair formula for fiscal

management. The GST is not the way to beat the deficit. Without going

into all the details, there is a better way. We have to determine what

the acceptable accumulated debt level is for this country. We have to

determine the annual requirement for carrying the cost of that debt.

What is the acceptable debt-carrying cost? We have to specify the

annual debt retirement requirement, to reduce the debt and the interest

thereon to an acceptable level. We have to determine the maximum

ability of the provinces to pay on a per capita basis or otherwise.

Before

I move to my next comment, we all know that no matter how we handle it

as Canadian taxpayers, we are going to pay and pay and pay for the

federal deficit.

Interjection.

MR. MERCIER :

I listen to the opposition speakers from time to time. They are the

last people who know how to run an economy. They are the last people to

learn how to deal with controlled spending, and in many cases they're

the party that has prodded this country into the financial difficulties

it has found itself in today.

MR. CLARK : Does this mean you're back in the fold now?

MR. MERCIER :

I am back in the fold, and I'm proud to be back in the fold. In our

party we have lots of room for people with energy, enthusiasm and

different ideas; we're not all locked in step into doctrines that are

50 years old.

We have to set an annual base for the revenue

required and allocate the load of this debt among the provinces. We can

utilize both existing provincial and federal tax collection systems. We

don't have to add 4,000 new federal employees to help us collect the

tax. We have to incorporate a formula, however, that adjusts for

transfer payments. That's a famous Canadian financial method— to have

equalization payments everywhere from the Maritime provinces to the

Canadian Football League. Everybody likes equalization payments in

Canada.

By all means we must kill the GST. Can you imagine

the hardship to the poor of the loss of the purchasing power by waiting

on a monthly rebate system? What about the impact on the working poor

who won't get a rebate?

Why is it necessary to find a

better way than the GST to fight the deficit? As the Royal Bank shows

in their recent newsletter, in the coming year they forecast that the

interest rates will remain at current high levels, which reflects the

Bank of Canada's concern about the inflationary impact of the goods and

services tax. In the first quarter of 1991, they expect that the

consumer price index inflation will jump up to the 7.5 percent to 8

percent range as a result of the tax. Can you imagine what that will do

to people on low-income budgets? The extent to which all or part of

this temporary jump becomes entrenched is a source of uncertainty. But

I can guarantee you that politicians being what they are, there will be

no uncertainty about the fact that the GST will rise and rise and rise.

Canada's fiscal problems are further compounded because a growing proportion of our debt is owed to foreigners —

30 percent of our federal bonds, 36 percent of provincial bonds and 50

percent of industrial bonds. That is the country's catch-22. The Bank

of Canada governor John Crow's policy of high interest rates and a high

Canadian dollar is strangling our economy. Foreign investors are

unwilling to hold

[ Page 8941 ]

our

currency unless we pay a huge interest rate premium, which in turn is

aggravating Ottawa's deficit, debt and borrowing problems.

Our

social safety net is the best in the world. But with a cumulative debt

of $260 billion — $30 billion in payments going out

annually — can

we afford it, or are we in risk of losing some of the basic programs?

The federal government has dilly-dallied over that question for the

last five years.

I'd like to tie the Meech Lake resolution

that we passed in this House in 1988 to the general sales tax, because

I think we need a western formula. I think we need financial

arrangements of Confederation, and they are far more important than

language or cultural rights. The attack on the deficit is a national

cause and requires a better national solution.

The funds

that we're using to pay the annual debt interest, the accumulated

deficit and the debt will come from our national economy. No matter how

you slice it, it's going to come out of our economy. The formula for

making those payments must be fair. The transfer payment system was, in

effect, an inefficient and unfair transfer of wealth among provinces

and disguised the true cost of subsidization of have-not provinces and

of social programs. We now have to face the music. The allocation of

income tax proceeds as it is now is arbitrary and was developed ad hoc

over half a century.

The federal manufacturing tax is all

the bad things it's accused of and never should have been, yet it's the

foundation of the GST today. The proposal for the federal government

general sales tax will effectively be just as bad and will definitely

be a burden on the poor. It's an invisible tax and a deadly tax.

[4:00]

Dealing with Meech Lake, before I head into a conclusion.... In 1867

constitutional language rights and other special rights were granted to

Quebec, especially in the areas of language and education Although my

grandparents grew up in Quebec — or perhaps because of that — I

have a great deal of difficulty understanding the meaning of distinct

society. Quebec has been a significant beneficiary of transfer

payments, yet Quebec has historically been a side-car of Confederation.

Canada will only be Canada when all Canadians are, under our

constitution, equal in every possible way.

I would like us

to postpone dealing with debate on Meech Lake and the related

amendments until all the financial programs can be renegotiated and the

disparity of federal government spending comes closer to a per capita

basis. Agreements on tax sharing are not new, such as refinancing the

country after the Second World War and during post-war reconstruction.

Most success was gained in reaching agreement in times of emergency,

and I think we have a time of emergency. The world is going to pass us

by unless we speed up the addressing of our fiscal responsibilities and

weaknesses.

The questions that are a priority at our

federal provincial conferences.... It amazes me that we can be talking

about cultural issues when faced with the financial problems this

country has. I note that provinces have in the past threatened

separation to gain better financial arrangements with the federal

government. I note that many of the provinces threatened to secede

unless their subsidies were increased. Going back in history, you will

find that this is true. But I also note that the central provinces have

always had the preferred base for raising revenues, and this has to

change. We've built our financial system in Canada on a crazy-quilt

pattern. It has continued right up to current times — a patch here and a patch there — and that has to change.

is indeed ironic that our country is actually strongly bound together

by ambitious joint social security programs started after 1945,

notwithstanding that in those times Quebec and Ontario refused to enter

into some federal-provincial financial agreements. Politicians at the

federal level took on more and more programs without provincial

consent, and programs after 1945 centralized our federal government and

our country as never before — and all that with little judicial support.

During

conclusion in 1962 of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, all

provinces accepted the federal proposal except Ontario and Quebec. In

1964 Quebec threatened to withdraw from fiscal program matters. In 1969

the conferences on taxes and spending determined to protect taxpayers

against multiple taxation and supported federal equalization payments.

All of this means that we should not be proceeding with the Meech Lake

accord without dealing with the deficit, and also with a way of solving

the deficit other than the GST.

There is a precedent for

appealing to the Senate on a resolution that might have been passed by

the federal Parliament. In the 1930s, so great were the pressures on

the provinces that the federal government undertook to obtain an

amendment to the constitution allowing them to impose an indirect sales

tax. A resolution to that effect was in fact adopted, but it was

defeated in the Senate.

In 1990 it is not the first time

that the federal-provincial tug of war has arisen, but it must be the

last, because the people of this country have had enough. They've had

enough of free-spending politicians perpetuating too big a bureaucracy

with the taxpayers' money.

All the way down from the first

parliaments of the twelfth century, taxation has been a concern of

parliament. We started our country with a population of about 3.5

million people. In 1990 we have over 27 million people. Surely we have

to have a better financial and fiscal arrangement than was built in

those earlier days.

Many inequities have been perpetuated

by the power axis of the Quebec-Ontario coalition on the west and the

Maritimes from early times right up to the present. If we don't deal

with the deficit, Canada will be broke and discussion of Quebec's

rights will be academic. The argument of how much help one province

should give another has continued for the last 75 years. What we have

to do is have a proper way to bake the pie, slice the pie and

distribute the

[ Page 8942 ]

pie. I ask you, as politicians: have we yet exhausted our search for innovative ways to strip the taxpayers?

This

leads me to say that in our province we are fortunate to have a

government that is concerned about fiscal responsibility. There is room

in this great country for all the cultural diversity. But our real

strength in the eyes of the rest of the world today will be known by

how we deal together to meet our financial crisis. This government and

this province leads the way in financial management and delivery of the

social programs that are required— and we want those programs to

continue. It's important to note that Confederation will survive, that

this unique country has unique opportunities, that equalization

payments tie the country together, and that we're prepared to do our

share to help the provinces that don't have all the natural resources

and other benefits we have in this province. We have to adjust, as

Canadians know how to adjust, to swings of opportunity and adversity in

the various regions of our country.

In closing, I would

state that I seek reconsideration of the June 29, 1988, motion of the

House with respect to the Meech Lake constitutional amendments. I

demand that a federal-provincial conference be held immediately to

strike a fair formula for deficit reduction and that the

federal-provincial fiscal arrangements become a specific and permanent

part of our constitution. I am asking the support of my colleagues as a

British Columbian, as a westerner and as a proud Canadian.

MR. CASHORE : It's good to see that my fan club is present in the House today, especially the government Whip.

was interesting hearing the remarks of the hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds going on about the GST. I know that there's going to be

that debate later, but I just have to say that you people on the other

side of the House were instrumental in trying to get those Tories

elected. You're part and parcel of the same outfit, and you're standing

here trying to convince people that all your wonderful protestations

mean something. They don't ring of sincerity. The fact is that if you

were in Ottawa, you'd be doing the same thing. Let's recognize that

when you put forward something simply for political expediency, the

public sees through it.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the

throne speech, we're looking at that same type of an issue. When

various perspectives are put forward for political expediency, the

public sees through it. And nothing could be more true than the

environmental aspect of the throne speech, which was surprisingly weak

on environmental issues.

I don't know what the reason for

that is. Everybody was predicting that it would be a green mandate and

that it would be consistent with the scrambling that's going on the

government's side to try to appear green. But they must be saving that

part of their public relations campaign for some key point later on,

and we'll look forward to the time when that comes.

However,

just what is "Vision 2001"? It's vague. It doesn't contain details, and

it talks about encouraging public consultation and framing

environmental policy over the coming decade — ten years that we

have to wait to find out what these people expect to be able to

produce. Of course, we know that they're never going to have a chance

to find that out, because they're not going to be in a position to even

try to do that during the next decade.

The fact is that

this government has really practiced using process as a means of

governing. This government has tried to use public relations as a means

of managing the environment. There's some kind of a belief that if you

hold a press conference and if you make a statement, that's going to

start to clean up land that's had toxic waste dumped on it, that

somehow that's going to clean up the waters of Howe Sound or the waters

around the Watson Island mill in Prince Rupert. There's some sort of a

belief that all you have to do is say the words and everything will be

okay.

But

they're hollow words. The public knows that

they're hollow words, because the public has had the opportunity to see

the legacy of this government over several years now: the cumulative

effect of environmental mismanagement, the cumulative effect of not

taking the public seriously and not dealing with these issues, and the

cumulative effect of a government that primarily seeks to support its

friends in high places and see that they remain their friends in high

places, while leaving the rest of the people — the taxpayers, the

middle-income earners and the people who are victims of Socred

mismanagement — to deal with the results of bad government.

When

the government talks about setting up a process, consultation, they

don't really believe in it. They don't really understand how to do it.

It's not part of their operating philosophy. This government's

operating philosophy is that you don't waste your time listening to

what the public has to say; you go ahead and find out what's going to

suit your interests. And this is how they've operated. That's the

reason we are seeing so many conflicts in this province at this time.

Just

look at some of the conflicts that have resulted from Socred

mismanagement over the years. Just take a look at the ferrochromium

plant fiasco, for instance. Here we have a situation where, because

there has not been an appropriate review process, which should have

been in place many years ago, we've had a proponent coming along and

virtually indicating to community after community that if they didn't

accept his plan and accept it pretty soon, he would take those jobs and

that investment and go elsewhere.

The government did not

come through to support the people of those communities at that time

and to indicate to them that that approach and that attitude simply

were not going to be allowed in this day and age.

Let's see

where this floating crap game went, as this individual tried to place

this ferrochromium plant. It went to Bamberton, and then the environ-

[ Page 8943 ]

mentalists

in Bamberton realized that they were being sold a snow job. They

started to bring their very good environmental work together and they

made the point.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

what did he decide to do? He went to Nanaimo. Then, when the people in

Nanaimo rose up and started to try to bring some kind of wisdom to this

situation, he went to Campbell River. From there he went to Port Hardy.

He's been learning a little bit as he has gone along the way. Who knows

where else this may show up?

There are key questions that

have to be answered in the process of developing any type of industry,

any type of project in this province. We all want to see jobs created

from environmentally responsible industry. But we don't want to see

them if they're put in place without answers to the important

questions: What is the water supply that this is going to use? What is

going to be the result of the dumping of toxic effluent? And in the

case of the ferrochromium plant, where's the raw material going to come

from?

[4:15]

I understand that 90 percent of the world's supply of the raw

material that goes into ferrochromium comes from South Africa. What

sort of assurances will be given that the people of British Columbia

will not be forced to deal with that racist regime? What assurances

will there be that if the supply dries up in some other part of the

world the government won't consider going after dealing with South

Africa, as the Premier wanted to do during his first year, when he

wanted to get into all sorts of weird and wonderful dealings with South

Africa? I think the voters are appalled by the lack of democracy in

South Africa and would be appalled at any type of process that would

have truck with that.

What about the whole question of

federal and provincial government grants going into projects like that?

There's a great deal of leverage that can be used to ensure that the

proper procedures are followed. We don't have to risk the environment

for the sake of having jobs in the province, and we don't have to allow

people to come in and ride roughshod over the people of this province.

An appropriate process will bring harmony into the workplace. It will

bring harmony into the communities that would be the locations where

industries would take place. But it would be done in an appropriate

manner. And if the appropriate answers are not being dealt with, then

it should not be put in place.

The Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has come forward with a major project review

process. I'm pleased to see that he has done that — I want to put that

on the record. I am in the process of analyzing it, and the minister

will be receiving my constructive comments, because I want to encourage

everything I possibly can to see that that kind of process is in place

and that it works. But the fact is that there really are some flaws in

it. Those flaws are in the areas of lacking the kind of independence

that's needed to make a process like that truly workable; lacking

adequate opportunity for public input at the appropriate times during

the development of a project; and lacking the assurance that

construction will not begin until the major environmental questions are

answered. All those things should be in place. Therefore it looks as

though that review process is too little, too late. It looks as though

it's being used again as a kind of window-dressing, as an attempt to

indicate that the government is serious about the environment, when in

actual fact it is trying to buy time and desperately trying to convince

the electors, prior to the election soon to be upon us, that it really

is green — and the voters aren't falling for it.

Mr.

Speaker, I mentioned that there are areas of conflict in the province

because the citizens of the province are really concerned about the way

these projects are coming forward. I mentioned the ferrochromium plant,

but there's also the whole issue of new pulp mills throughout the

province. We hear it rumoured that there are at least ten new pulp

mills coming on stream. Mr. Larry Bell of B.C. Hydro has talked about

that in justifying the demand for additional hydro power. But the basic

questions we need to be dealing with here in order to avoid what's been

happening in Alberta are absolutely fundamental. Those questions have

to deal with the effluent, with what's going to be happening to the

rivers and oceans of the province, and also with the major question of

where the wood supply is coming from. In answer to that question, I've

heard: "Well, the wood supply would be aspen. And because aspen is not

considered part of the annual allowable cut, then it's not really a

tree, so we don't have to worry about it." There's a total disregard

for the role of trees in carbon-fixing and dealing with problems of air

pollution. It's ridiculous. We have to have the kind of procedures in

effect that really do the job.

Another one, Mr. Speaker, is

this very divisive issue of oil and gas drilling that's about to take

place in the Fraser Valley. The fact is that the power exists to enable

that process to go ahead notwithstanding what the minister said in the

House today. I find it alarming that on the edge of Boundary Bay —

the world-class wetlands that are so important to the migrating

waterfowl which go all the way from Siberia down to Central and South

America — we're taking a chance that there might be environmental

damage, when there have been so many impacts in that area, where at a

stroke of a pen, OICs have resulted in farmland suddenly being the

basis of wild speculation and the loss of food production land in the

province. Truly, when we look at situations like that, we realize that

this government has a serious problem with its priorities.

What

all this has led to is a state of environmental chaos in this province.

I want to recognize that the Minister of Environment is not all to

blame — not by a long shot. But he has to take responsibility,

being the minister of this government. He therefore bears on his

shoulders the responsibility and the blame, if you will, of the

accumulated neglect that has resulted

[ Page 8944 ]

causing so many environmental problems. So we have this situation where

he's scrambling to catch up. I think it's rather sad that the Minister

of Environment has been reduced to this major project since becoming

the minister, spending — at a conservative estimate — half a

million dollars of the taxpayers' money to hoodwink the voters into

thinking that they should be re-elected, that he should be re-elected,

because somehow there's the expectation that he's doing a good job.

MR. PETERSON : You be nice. He's doing a really good job. You know that.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, my friend says he's doing a good job, but why does he have

to spend half a million dollars to tell the people — the householders in my constituency and others —

that he's doing a good job? Wouldn't his actions speak louder than

words? If he was doing a good job, would he have to send something like

this out to every household in the province and force the taxpayers to

pay for it themselves?

MR. PETERSON : I've got nothing but good comments on that.

MR. CASHORE :

That's incredible. It cannot be justified, that people are being forced

to pay for the Social Credit advertising that's going out there simply

and crassly to try to re-elect this government. That's very

inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, and it diminishes government when that sort

of approach is used. The voters see through it.

You

mentioned that there have been calls to your office. I can tell you,

Mr. Government Whip, that there have been lots of calls to my office as

well, and people are disgusted with that.

Within the throne speech — just to tell you how vacant it is of solid environmental policy —

there is nothing on dealing with waste management other than a mention

of some kind of toxic waste agency, which I think is leading to yet

another technofix which isn't really going to deal with the problem.

There's nothing dealing substantively with tanker problems in the

province. There is nothing to deal with protecting whistle-blowers, who

are almost always the people who report illegal spills at pulp mills.

There's nothing there to protect those workers, who do have the right

to work in a safe environment and should not be forced to compromise

themselves by participating in damaging the environment. This

government should protect those workers instead of dumping on them as

well as everybody else.

There's no mention in the throne

speech, Mr. Speaker, of a recycling agency in this province so that we

can close the loop when it comes to the recycling of waste. There's

nothing on environmentally sensitive spending by government and Crown

corporations to make sure that there are environmentally appropriate

products being used, and there is nothing to deal with the urban

forest. There's nothing to ensure that an appropriate forest inventory

takes place.

There's nothing to deal with the Brundtland

report recommendation that 12 percent of the land base be preserved as

parkland. I would remind this government that it has stated it believes

in the Brundtland report. It says that but doesn't act on it, and

that's appalling. That's the kind of thing which creates the

divisiveness that's existing, setting community against community and

person against person in this province.

There is nothing

about dealing with the appalling shortage of conservation officers in

this province. We all know that we went through that fiasco last year

when it appeared that the government was increasing the conservation

officer service by about 38, but in the final analysis, when you

realize that some of them are actually clerical workers, the number is

actually nine. Victoria went for so many months without a conservation

officer, and when one finally came to this area just recently, that

individual was pulled out of Duncan. So we find that we are dealing

with a shell game here. We are not dealing with environmental

protection.

There was nothing on spills. I would point out

that there was nothing to ensure there would be 24-hour monitoring of

spills. I notice that after the fact, the minister is scrambling to

deal with the situation at Woodfibre. Those policies and procedures

should be in place prior to these events occurring so that it can be

ensured they don't happen.

There's nothing to ban the

dumping of toxic waste which is going on in this province, in the

oceans nearby. There's nothing about phasing out apartment and

commercial incinerators which contribute to the air problem, and there

is really nothing about returning the testing of motor vehicles to

testing stations so that we could be dealing with questions of safety

of automobiles and safety of the environment in such a way.

There's

nothing on the urban future of this province, as the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) so eloquently stated in her speech a few

moments ago.

There's

nothing on the subject of land use planning, in which my colleague the

member for Cariboo has a great background, and in which he's providing

excellent leadership up in his area to develop new and effective ways

of involving the people of this province in land use planning.

There's

nothing about the cleanup of toxic lands — the Expo lands. The

people in the downtown east side who make use of Crab Beach park —

it's just a small park that's available to the low-income people of the

downtown east side — have

been asking the Minister of Environment for an analysis of the soils at

Crab Beach park, so they can be assured that those soils are safe, that

they are not toxic and a danger to their children and others who would

be making use of that park.

Their very simple request for that kind of information has not been denied; in fact, it has been ignored.

[ Page 8945 ]

That

is not appropriate. A government can be judged by the way it treats

those people who have the least wealth, those people who are the most

in need, and often we find that such is the situation with the people

in the downtown east side.

There's nothing in the way of a

freedom of information act to provide the information that is so

needed, so that environmentalists and others can bring their concerns

if there's a development or a project or whatever. Instead, they have a

great deal of difficulty finding the information they need in order to

bring their submissions to government.

As a matter of fact,

I have a letter here from Neil Aitken of Gabriola Island, who wrote and

asked if he might have the transcripts of the forest task force the

Minister of Forests had that went around and received briefs over a

year ago. That was refused, so he was not able to prepare a submission.

I wrote to the Minister of Forests and asked if maybe these documents

could be made available in the local library, and there was not even a

reply; there was no response. Again, one of the people who is trying to

be part of the solution to the problems we have in this province was

ignored and treated as though he didn't count, as though he didn't

exist, when all he wanted to do as an intervener was to participate by

bringing his wisdom, intellect and research to help develop solutions.

[4:30]

There's nothing about the protection of agricultural land, which is

so important in the wake of the erosion of the protection of

agricultural land that has recently taken place in this province. I

would say to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr.

Savage) that I respect his parents, and I would expect him to respect

mine. But the business of this House is not to tell stories of the past

to somehow justify misadventures of the future. We expect the minister

to be responsible for his actions and not to appeal to some sentimental

feeling on the part of the members of this House to let him off the

hook. That's inappropriate. He has to answer for his actions, and he

need not hide behind his parents in doing so.

I'm glad to

see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is in the House.

He has just made his announcement about the Carmanah. I have to ask

what were they waiting for? What took them so long to finally come out

with some kind of decision, especially when it was such an inadequate

one, especially when this minister promised the West