[ Page 5633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mrs. Boone –– 5633

Mrs. Gran –– 5636

Mr. Sihota –– 5637

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 5641

Ms.Marzari –– 5646

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, today there is a memorial service for a very special friend of the New Democratic Party, formerly the CCF Party. It is for May Campbell, who passed away very recently and was an old-time member of our party. May was 96 years old and is survived by her husband, Walter, who is 102 years old, and her sons Curly, and his wife Mayne of Sorrento, B.C., and Gordon of Sooke and daughter Maizie and her husband. She is also survived by her nine grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren. May Campbell was well-known for her associations in this community with the Silver Threads, the credit union movement and housing organizations. She was a founding member of the CCF and the New Democratic Party. I'm wondering if the House would join with us in wishing condolences and sympathies to the family for this very special person in our party.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's a sad occasion to follow with a request that the House join me in a happy occasion, which is to recognize the presence in the House this morning of a group of 32 students visiting British Columbia from King's School in Winchester, England, hosted by Claremont Secondary School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Phil Davies and Mr. Tony Thompson. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming our visitors.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts and in the gallery this morning are a host of native leaders from the central interior of the province, from the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. I would like the House to impart welcome to Chief Joe Michelle; Justa Monk is here, and Edward John, and many more native leaders who are with us this morning. They have attended the CCNA meeting this morning. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of birthdays I would like to recognize this morning, and a couple of housekeeping items.

First of all, I would like the House to join me in wishing a happy birthday to one of our Clerks. Mr. George MacMinn is celebrating his birthday today. He is not smiling about it; he is trying to sit there humbly as Clerks do and show no emotion. He is in good company, though, because it also is Johann Sebastian Bach's birthday, and I think we should make note of that.

A couple of housekeeping matters for the House: members should be alerted that this Thursday will be treated as a normal Fr

ay sitting, and there will be private members' statements, which must be filed by 5 o'clock this afternoon. Note also that Wednesday we will be sitting twice, at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00. Again, Thursday will be treated as a Friday, with a sitting at 10 o'clock until 1:00.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of the opposition, I would like to confirm the agreement for the changing of the House hours. I would like to remind the very musical House Leader of the government that yes, it is Bach's birthday. He was born in 1685, the same year as Handel and Scarlatti. If we could wish him a happy birthday, he'd be 304 years old now.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise to this House that I am disappointed in the throne speech. I, like my colleagues, am disturbed that this government has chosen to study and review many of the areas of concern to us, areas that require action now.

One area I would have liked to have seen more about, but which is noticeably absent from the throne speech, is the health area. I know that there is mention of the removal of user fees for short-term stay assessments and treatment centres. I'd like to know if this is a recognition by the minister that these user fees have adverse effects on various people. If so, then what about the existing user fees for physiotherapy, chiropractic, chiropody? What about the dispensing user fee for the elderly when they go to purchase their Pharmacare products? What about reducing the MSP premiums that this government has raised two years in a row? A 40 percent increase two years in a row, Mr. Speaker, is having an extremely adverse effect on those low-income earners, the working poor, as we know, in this province.

Why do we still have deterrent fees on services that the minister has admitted are preventive? Prevention is what this government is talking about, and yet we have fees to deter people from using such things as physiotherapy. If this government is serious about making health care accessible, then why are they lobbying the federal government to re-establish user fees? Surely that is not making things more accessible to the people of this province. These are not the actions of a government serious about health promotion or accessibility.

This throne speech does mention something about a new medical services act, but it makes no mention at all of what this act is going to carry. I might say that the public are pretty wary about this; what will this hold for us? Is it going to be more of the Socred legacy: more fees, more cuts in the health care system? Are we going to see a new and revised ministry that no one understands? Are we going to have announcements of changes that have not been thoroughly thought through, such as the downsizing of Riverview and long-term care assessments? Both of these things were announced, started and then stopped in midstream because of no consultation and no planning.

It's ironic, at a time when the government is forming review groups, task forces and advisory groups, that the Ministry of Health is ignoring the various

[ Page 5634 ]

advisory groups and their reports. We have an AIDS advisory group. We know that their report and advice about medication for AIDS people has been ignored. We know that AZT is not being provided. We have an ethics advisory group, and we know that people are dropping out of this group and refusing to sit on it because the reports are not being made public.

We know that there is a midwifery report; we know that there is an acupuncture report and a nursing manpower report. Where are the actions on any of these reports? There is no action. The government is failing to act at all. They have studied, they have reports, and yet they do nothing.

This Medical Service Act is a surprise to many in the medical community. It has been done unilaterally. Major players are downright nervous about what's in store for them, and justifiably so, because this government has shown no acknowledgement of any of its intents with regard to health care, no plan about what's going on in health care in this province.

[10:15]

The throne speech neglects to mention some of the major concerns of today. On April 1 — and that's not too far away — the master agreement between the Medical Services Plan, the government and the doctors expires. This agreement was unilaterally ended by the government. The public is concerned about what it is going to mean to them, what it is going to mean to medicare. Will people have to pay their costs up front and then go back to get reimbursed from the MSP? Is this new Medical Service Act the way to negotiate a settlement? Are we going to see legislation in this act to do what the government has failed to do, to negotiate a contract with our doctors?

With April 1 approaching, I'm sure the government realizes that it has bitten off more than it can chew. By opening the contract to enable them to privatize the MSP — and that was the sole purpose of opening this contract, to privatize the MSP billings — they have opened up a whole new contract and opened up negotiations for everything that has previously been closed in this province.

I'd like to have seen this throne speech acknowledge the crisis facing our hospitals — and there is a crisis. Every day you look in the paper and see beds cut down, closures, people who can't get into hospital, who can't get services. There's a lack of funds for our hospitals, a shortage of beds, and a shortage of nurses. Hospitals are caught in binds — they can't be all things to everybody.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: I'm sorry about that, member; I really miss you. I wish you were over here in the middle, because I'd really like to chat across to you, but I'm going to have to move so I can glance over to the side there.

Hospitals are caught in a bind, Mr. Speaker. They can't be all things to everybody. Right now the government has dropped the ball at the community level on just about everything you can imagine. It has left the hospitals to fill the void that is there for mental health, because of the downsizing of Riverview and because of all the services that are lacking in our communities. Hospitals are secondary- and tertiary-care facilities first and foremost, which has been made impossible to happen because they are consistently picking up the ball for the services that should be provided at the community level.

We all know — and anyone in the health system can tell you — that beds are now being blocked by people who shouldn't be there. We know this, and yet this government is doing nothing — and has done absolutely nothing in the past — to solve those problems.

We have home care, which is a system that I have talked about numerous times in this Legislature. It is a system that is promoted and well-thought-of and is an excellent way to deal with our system. Yet we have seen no increase in that budget. We need more long-term-care spaces. We need hospice programs and respite beds. Yet at this time we see that the AIDS hospice in Vancouver is closing because of lack of funds. Chronic care patients should not be taking up acute-care beds. For hospitals to function effectively and efficiently, communities need to have alternatives. They need to have crisis intervention, family counselling, supportive housing and mental health services. They need all of those things to reduce the pressure on our hospitals so that our hospitals can run effectively and provide the services that are required.

Unless those community services are developed strongly in this province, we will not see any reduction in the abuse of our hospital system or the overcrowding that takes place right now.

I think that a very major concern and a major loss through the whole of the throne speech is that there was no mention whatsoever of the major crisis in our nursing situation, which exists not just in B.C. but in Canada. We have talked about this for two years, but there has been little done. We have a personnel study which has made some recommendations. A little bit of action was done on some of them, but there has been no movement on the major ones. Certainly wages are an issue, but the one issue that I think is of concern to everybody is the quality of service and the quality of care that is not available for our people right now.

The government is fond of saying that hospitals are autonomous and that it's up to them how they allocate funds to their staff. However, the government allocates the money to the hospitals, and unless the funds are there, the hospitals have little discretion as to how to use those funds or how to provide extra staff.

We are the second-lowest province in Canada in the nursing care hours provided per patient. That is a shame to this province, and it's a shame that our patients are having to endure such a situation. What this translates into is less care for our patients and virtual burnout for our nurses. We have cases where nurses who are regularly working 12-hour shifts are being asked to serve 18-hour shifts and, in some

[ Page 5635 ]

cases, 24-hour shifts –– 24-hour shifts, having at their fingertips the lives of people in this province. Yet we have done nothing. Nurses are very concerned about the quality of care they give, and because nothing is being done to address the problem, they are leaving the profession and adding to the problem by doing so. We have more and more shortages of nurses. There are no shortages of nurses; there are shortages of nurses who are willing to work under the conditions and in the areas that we are currently offering them.

This government has been promoting several myths for the past two years, one in particular for the past year, One of these myths is that health care costs are out of control. That's simply not true. Spending on health is about the same share of our national income as it was five years ago. We have not increased it substantially at all. We are spending about the same amount as the French and German governments and much, much less than the U.S. We spend less than the U.S. because we have a national health system, because the government controls the costs and is involved in setting prices and setting the incomes of the various workers out there. Without the controls that our government has, there's no doubt at all that our health costs would go sky-high, as they have in the U.S.

However, it's important to say that although they are not out of control, health care costs do have an insatiable appetite and will grow as large as we want them to. I think we have to start reviewing our outcomes— something that has not been done — to find out what is effective health care. It's not just providing everything that is asked for but it's providing effective health care. Are all operations called for? What about the tests, alternative treatments and medications? Are they required? Have they been effective? Have they had the desired effect?

The bottom line on all the services that are provided by this government ought to be whether the patient benefits. I don't think we've seen that coming from anything. We have never once stood back and taken a look at our system to ask ourselves if everything we're providing is a benefit to the patient.

Physicians and governments need to work together to reach a consensus about the length of stay and guidelines for testing, medication, surgery and other therapy. Nothing must be sacred. We must get a consensus on these issues not based on personal opinions but based on positive evidence that things work. That is the way we must look at the health care system.

Myth number two in this area here is that this government is committed to prevention and health promotion. For the past year everywhere we go we hear the government talking about prevention and health promotion; yet when we get out there, we find absolutely nothing happening in those areas. You talk to somebody in mental health, in alcohol and drug — I know that's no longer health, but it should be — and any of those areas, and you ask them where all those dollars are that have been announced. They're not there for the user of the system. That's for sure.

We need more than just lip service. We need commitment to community-based programs that will provide support to individuals. That support must come now under the leadership of government. We can't wait, as the minister said in his speech last week on health promotion, for a groundswell of public support to push us into action. The government must be the leader in this area. We must lead this province, not follow the leadership of the public.

The people of British Columbia know the legacy of Social Credit, and they are not for one minute fooled that anything will come out of the studies that this government has done. In 1987, when unemployment was higher than it is today — some areas were at 15 and sometimes 17 or 18 percent — we moved a motion to establish a legislative committee on unemployment, and that was turned down at the time. Unemployment has been reduced; suddenly it's unacceptably high and must be studied. The women's secretariat that currently exists in this government has done nothing to address the problems facing women today, such as poverty, economic equality and a woman's right to control her own body, yet a new ministry is going to be formed to deal with women's issues. Interesting, isn't it? Suddenly we've become interested in women's issues.

This government has a shameful history in its relationship with the native population and has consistently refused to deal with land claims. However, we now have a Premier's Council for Natives. I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that one of the first pieces of advice that Premier's council give you would be to remove the second member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Vant) from your cabinet.

Governments that are serious about consultation and study do so at the beginning of their term, not at the end when they know they're not going to have to act. It's easy enough to study things when you know you don't have to take any action. These studies and reviews are nothing more than coverups for government inaction, and that is what we're going to see over this next year: study, study, study until an election comes along, and then there'll be no action whatsoever from this government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Too bad you weren't there last night.

MRS. BOONE: I will be going tonight to my home community to listen to the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) make what I hope is a statement with regard to our university in the north. And I'd like to note that I'll be traveling up there by commercial airline and not by government jet, because there's no room for me on that government jet.

I will be there, Mr. Premier, and I'll be listening carefully to what takes place. We on this side have long promoted and long talked about a university for the north. If this comes about, it does not come about because of any action by the government; it comes about because you have been led, pulling, kicking and screaming, by the people of Prince George to acknowledge the needs of the north. You have never

[ Page 5636 ]

done so, and you never would have done so if the people had not taken a stand.

Because I'm so concerned about what this throne speech does nothing to address, I would like to move that the motion, "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following:

"And this House acknowledges that the throne speech was an admission of mistakes by the government on issues of critical importance to British Columbians, including forestry, the environment and housing; and that rather than providing a strong and clear commitment to immediate legislative action on these important concerns, it is an agenda of further studies, promises and delays."

[10:30]

MRS. GRAN: It's an interesting exercise that we carry out in this House, one positive, one negative, and I'm extremely grateful to be on the positive side of the House. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you, our distinguished Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

It gives me great pleasure to speak today to the throne speech, as I found it to be a document unprecedented in depth of caring. It matters not what the other negative side of the House says; the depth of caring is there, and as much as it makes your lives difficult, it's a fact of life. It doesn't matter how many negative things you say about the throne speech. I know, as a member of the Social Credit caucus, that all that is in that throne speech will come to pass. You know it, I know it — and the public will know it. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) laughs, but we'll see who laughs last.

I want to pay tribute to some of the programs that have been announced by this government. I particularly want to point out to the House that the Premier of this province has probably been the best listener In the history of the province, and I think that that is evident in every program that has been announced by this government.

I point particularly to education. Education is the root of everything that is good and caring in this province. This government has done more for education that any government in the history of the province. As a mother, as a member of government, as a parent and as a taxpayer, I applaud the changes that have been made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I am particularly pleased with the new emphasis on how to teach children to learn, to teach teachers to care about the self-esteem of children, to try to convince parents that self-esteem, and how to learn, is one of the most important aspects of education. For many years children have been sent to school to do as they're told and to learn as they're told. As we all know, not all children are created equal; many of them have learning disabilities and problems at home that cause difficulties in their learning process. So for me the most important part of the new announcements is contained in the aspect that cares more about the individual child.

The Minister of Advanced Education and job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) made an announcement that one of the press called "a good-news bombshell" yesterday. I can say that I was there to hear the announcement, to see the happiness and the pride that all of the college and university administrators have for this program. I'm happy to be part of a caucus and a government that has made this announcement and has made it possible for some 15,000 students to take advantage of university programs over the next six years.

Then the minister has done a wonderful job in his ministry. I think that of all the ministers who have had that portfolio, he has probably had the best relationship with the universities and colleges. I am very pleased with the announcement and the initiatives made yesterday.

I want to talk about my own constituency, Langley, one of the fastest-growing areas in this province. I want to put the Minister of Education on notice that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and I are looking forward to the announcement of a new secondary school in Walnut Grove. We thank the minister for the extra money he has put in his budget for capital projects such as the secondary school in Walnut Grove.

I also want to put the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) on notice that we in Langley are looking forward to the widening of 200th Street in this budget year. I know that the people of Langley will be grateful for that initiative, Mr. Minister.

I also want to say how happy I am with the Go B.C. grant initiative. Already in my constituency many groups have taken advantage of the program. It has helped many groups to put together programs and worthwhile projects that otherwise would never have gotten off the ground.

I want at this time to compliment the Premier on the initiative of a women's ministry.

Interjections.

MRS. GRAN: It doesn't matter, hon. members, who that minister is. What matters is that the government has recognized the issue. At the same time, I want to say that even without that ministry this government has done a good job. I particularly want to point out the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, who has been extremely sensitive to women's issues, and I want to say here and now that he has done an excellent job in that area. I also want to point out to this House that the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has also handled the day care issue extremely well and very sensitively. And the Attorney-General's ministry: I must mention the family maintenance program. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, although I'm very happy about the women's ministry, I wouldn't want anyone to

[ Page 5637 ]

think that this government has not been sensitive to women's issues — because it has.

We move from women's issues to the horse industry. I spoke about this in the first throne speech. The horse industry is one of the most economically viable industries In this province, and nowhere is it more evident than in the Fraser Valley. Langley has half of the thoroughbred breeders in the whole province. We also have standardbred and quarterhorse. We have a lot of horses in Langley. It is a big industry, and that industry is looking for a new racetrack, a new facility to carry on an industry that we must all care about, even those from the city.

Interjection.

MRS. GRAN: I particularly want to point this out to the member for Vancouver East, who probably knows very little about horses — those kinds of horses. I'm hoping that member will be supportive of the horse industry.

This government has been successful; this government has listened and this government has acted, Whenever a mighty party like the Social Credit Party stumbles, it's interesting how it creates fear, and the most interesting part of that is its fear of socialism. The other interesting part is how the socialists are now calling themselves something else, and appearing before the business community and saying: "We care about you; we've changed our stripes; we're not socialists any more."

MR. R. FRASER: Who believes that?

MRS. GRAN: Absolutely no one believes that. I think it's safe to say — and the Premier should take heart in this — that imitation is the purest form of flattery. But you are, hon. members, a very poor imitation of free-enterprisers. After all of the things that you've said about business — and I remember it well as a rookie through the debate on Bill 19 — business is a dirty word on that side of the House. How those members today can stand in front of the business community and say that they care is beyond me. It tells you how flexible that side of the House is. Power is the only thing that matters. "I don't care about my philosophy. What I want to do is win, and if in order to win I have to change my philosophy on the outside, then I will." Hon. members, that won't work. Socialism is dying around the world and free enterprise is thriving everywhere. When the next election comes, hon. members, Social Credit will still be government in this province.

I want to conclude my remarks on a more serious note concerning personal attacks on members in this Legislature. I want to say, here and now, that I would never participate in a personal attack on a member of the NDP.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I have to relate to the experience that I had with the allegations made that I had somehow helped my son with B.C. Hydro. I find that kind of political manoeuvring really difficult to understand. None of us is without fault, without things in our lives that we would rather not read in the newspapers. Hon. members, we set the example for the people out there. When we act without integrity, without caring about each other, regardless of our politics, we set a very bad example.

I have to say that the disappointment that I felt, particularly in the Leader of the Opposition in participating in that exercise, was very difficult for me to deal with. I have a very high regard for many members on that side of the House, but to know that to gain some political points an issue like that would be used

I think it's time for all of us to think about the job that we have to do here. It's fine to debate issues and to heckle one another across the room, but I think it's another thing when we attack one another personally — particularly using someone's family.

I read the Blues yesterday and I listened. I read the jokes made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to offer some constructive advice. The jokes aren't funny or becoming of a man in his position. I would suggest to the members on the opposite side of the House — not all of them but some of them — that they start acting in a more responsible manner.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to see you back in the chair, and it's a disappointment to see that the Premier is leaving now. I thought he might want to stick around for a few more minutes, because I have a number of comments that I want to make which I think ought to be brought to his attention.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I saw it was you getting up, and I decided....

MR. SIHOTA: That comment, Mr. Premier, after the comment from the member for Langley.... You two better get your act together.

You know, it's not surprising that the Premier is leaving the chamber at this moment. He's been in the habit of leaving the province for the past few months and particularly during the course of the by-elections in Point Grey and Nanaimo, when he chose not — or dared not — to visit those two ridings. I am going to talk about that a little bit later.

[10:45]

We are here today dealing with the throne speech, and this is the third throne speech that I've been witness to since being elected as a member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. This throne speech should be considered in light of the events which preceded it, because it's only when one begins to look at what has transpired over the past two and a half years that the reasons for this throne speech become evident.

As I said earlier, I think those events are best epitomized by the Point Grey and Nanaimo by-elections. Those by-elections — and there goes the member for Langley now, having made her spiel and preferring not to listen anymore to what we have to say — epitomize what's wrong with this government and in many ways symbolize what British Columbians feel today about this government.

[ Page 5638 ]

Quite frankly, British Columbians are fed up with this government. British Columbians are fed up with a government which chooses to impose its own morality on others. British Columbians are fed up with a government which favours insiders within the Premier's circle and excludes all others.

British Columbians are fed up with the record of this government which includes fiascos such as the Knight Street Pub affair — we talked about those inside the Premier's circle — and situations like the Coquihalla Highway where this government chose to disguise, deliberately in my view, some $500 million in over expenditures on that highway. They are fed up with a government which Introduced legislation along the lines of Bill 19 and engaged in a so-called public process of consultation prior to that legislation when it was sitting back drafting its own legislation.

One wonders now if the same type of charade is taking place with respect to what we see in the forest sector and the traveling road show of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). By virtue of those by-election results and the feedback that Social Credit members are getting, the government knows that it is in trouble.

They know that they are in deep trouble, and all the rhetoric from people like the member for Langley or the Premier won't change the basic fact, which is that people feel this government is totally out of touch, and they are fed up with its actions. That's obvious not only to us but to members opposite; therefore it wasn't a surprise to read during the time we were off the comments from the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) when he talked about the new cabinet and the role of others within the back bench and the cabinet.

It wasn't a surprise to hear the comments from the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) and hear her displeasure with the direction of the government, and from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), who I have a lot of respect for, and who has, in his own way, expressed his disenchantment with the direction of this government. This government knows full well that it is in trouble and as a consequence of that, it has gone out and hired the image-makers from the Bennett era.

Mr. Heal is now producing a film for, I believe, the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Lampert is back now to try to resurrect the image of this government. That's what this throne speech is all about — image. It's all about trying to change the image of this government. You know, you can, try to change the image as much as you wish; the problem still remains that you can't change the way of thinking, and you can't change the lack of substance. That’s what has been the fatal flaw of this government right from the beginning, right since the 1986 election. It was an election predicated on style and not substance. The record of the government speaks to the absence of substance.

You can change the image, but you can't change the thinking. You can't change the type of right-wing mentality that has crippled this province in terms of both its economic and social sectors. We'll talk about that In a minute as well.

This throne speech is in part about the changing of image and in part an admission of failure, an acknowledgement that this government has failed in trying to deliver the message it wanted to deliver to the people of this province. Now in its throne speech this government would have us believe that it cares about the environment, about the economy, about education and about health care. I'm going to submit that nothing could be further from the truth when we get to this government. If it cared, it would have taken a whole series of actions in advance of this throne speech.

Let's take each of those areas one by one. Let's take a look at the environment and the newfound sensitivity of this government to the environment. In my riding, as well as that of my colleague the member for Victoria, and I believe even that of my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), we experienced this year the devastating effects of an oil spill along our coastline. It was felt deeply in my riding, particularly from Metchosin-Sooke, up to Port Renfrew and into that precious resource that we know as the Pacific Rim Park.

This government, which supposedly cares about the environment, failed to react. In fact, when it did react to that oil spill, in many ways it did so negligently. For days, while reports were coming into my constituency office, while they were being reported by the press, this Ministry of Environment sat on its hands and allowed the deterioration and erosion of those precious beaches and coastline in my riding.

The provincial emergency program, designed to deal with environmental disasters, had some three months prior to that sold off all its supplies. The government had said that it had to sell off, for example, all excess garbage bags that it had stored to deal with this type of spill. When the spill occurred, the provincial emergency program did not have the cleaners and apparatus necessary to engage in the essential cleanup activities.

That's planning for environmental disaster. Where was the sensitivity of this government to the environment then? And since then? Since then, what steps has it taken to upgrade the provincial emergency program?

Last month I received about 20 letters, unprompted, from grades 3 and 5 students at Sooke Elementary, who wrote on their own wondering how this spill could happen and why it was allowed to go on in the neglectful fashion demonstrated by this government.

If this government cared about the environment, the provincial emergency program would be fully funded. It would not be bounced around from the Ministry of Environment to the Attorney-General Ministry to the Ministry of the Solicitor-General. It would not be cut by 6 percent. It would not be issued a directive in the first week of March saying: "You can't go to any preventative seminars, because we've run out of money." It would fully fund the provincial emergency program.

[ Page 5639 ]

If this government cared about the environment and wanted to prevent and deal with oil spills should they occur, it would buy the vehicles necessary to get out on the ocean and lick up the oil on the water. All we're talking about is $250,000 to buy one vehicle that we could have on standby, located either in Victoria or Port Renfrew to deal with these types of spills. Yet this government was not prepared to make that type of nominal commitment.

That's not to say that those types of vehicles would sit vacant for years. We always have oil spills and minor incidents within our harbours, and those machines could be used for that. This government did not have the foresight nor the desire to buy it, despite lobbying — yes, to the member for Langley — from the business sector. I've got the letters to prove that.

This government was not able during the course of that oil spill to coordinate its activities with the military. The federal member from Esquimalt — the former Premier of this province — and I met with the military, and they were aghast that they had not been asked by anybody, including the provincial emergency program, to deal with the oil spill despite their ready resources to do it. That's coordination. That's caring about the environment. There was no quick response capability within the Ministry of Environment. Now this government hasn't even moved to take legal action against the state of Washington, to seek damages...

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says the legal advice is wrong. He should read the Trail smelter case.

... and take action against the American government in the same way the Americans took action against us in the sixties with respect to the Trail smelter case. I could be wrong in terms of the date of the Trail smelter case, but they took action against us; they didn't hesitate. This government hasn't taken action.

If this government cared about the environment, it would do something about the Carmanah Valley, which sits adjacent to my riding. We've made our position clear. We've indicated where we stand on that. Where is your sensitivity to that issue in dealing with the environmental problems that are not so much because we've got this unique wilderness called the Carmanah Valley but because this government has allowed for clear cutting policies in our forests? We have raped our forests to the point that we now begin to intrude upon environmentally sensitive areas like the Carmanah Valley. Where was your concern and your vision for the environment then? Now when we have a problem and we are intruding upon the environment in areas like Carmanah Valley, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and others engage in duck-and-cover activities, play ostrich and don't want to deal with the issue.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Environment is back in the House now.

Now this government would have us believe that it's going to get tough with polluters; it is going to enforce its new regulations. Hell, it could not enforce its first set of regulations. How many actions, Mr. Minister — now that you are here — has your government commenced against polluters in the last decade? Even you would agree by now, I would think, that your record was horrendous. The minister now wants the public to believe that its new found sensitivity to the environment will allow it to take action against corporate polluters. Good luck, Mr. Minister, because nobody believes that your government has the political will to deal with the environment.

[11:00]

Environment was just one matter that came up during the course of the throne speech. What about forestry? In my riding, where forestry was once a major employer, that industry is virtually non-existent today. It wasn't that way in the past. I can remember — as someone who grew up in the Lake Cowichan area and ultimately here in the Victoria area — that you never thought that there would be an end to our forest supply. But again, because of the policies of this government, the clear cutting, the absence of silviculture programs, the absence of restocking programs, the absence of regulation and monitoring by the Forest Service, the cutbacks in the Forest Service and the elimination of sustained-yield requirements in the Forest Act — because of all those types of activities — we now have a falldown effect on the coast, because of the negligence of this government in terms of forest policy. Four hundred and twenty-five jobs in Victoria at Fletcher Challenge. Up to 80 percent of my constituents who are working in Port Renfrew in the forest sector are facing the prospect of layoffs. We will talk more about Port Renfrew in a minute.

This government has allowed the deterioration — some would say the rape — of our most valuable resource. Now in this throne speech they say they are going to do something about it. What about the last decade? What about the last generation of mismanagement by this government?

If there is one policy that this government ought to be defeated on in the next provincial election, it is its neglect of the forest resources in this province. I will predict today that that will become the salient issue in the next provincial election, because we are going to see more layoffs — that the layoffs we just saw at Fletcher Challenge and the effect we are having on communities such as Port Renfrew is just the cutting edge. All of you who sit in cabinet and are here today know that as well as I do.

Mr. Speaker, this government says that it has done a wonderful job with the economy. I see that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has his pom-poms out on that comment. You say it's good. Those on the other side of the House who would advocate that ought to go to Port Renfrew and tell that to the people I represent in that riding. They ought to tell them about the economic record, and they ought to listen.

[ Page 5640 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you inviting me to your riding?

MR. SIHOTA: I would invite the minister to my riding any time he wants to come, and I will take him out to Port Renfrew.

MR. MILLER: Bring the minister of culture with you. Tell him to wear that green tie.

MR. SIHOTA: Culture is spelled with a "K" to the minister of culture.

This throne speech says absolutely nothing about the effect of the forest policies on single-industry villages like Port Renfrew; not one word is mentioned. They accept the fact that there have been layoffs in Victoria; they accept the fact that up to 80 percent of the workforce in Port Renfrew may be out of work. But they say nothing about a strategy to deal with single-industry villages like Port Renfrew.

Port Renfrew is a community that has a tremendous amount of potential. If we did the most basic of things, we could diversify its economy. I note that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is here today. The basic requirement for Port Renfrew in terms of giving that village some hope, in light of the cutbacks in forestry, is to provide a decent road to Port Renfrew — from Sooke to Port Renfrew to Lake Cowichan. It is impossible to believe that in this day and age there is not an adequate road to Port Renfrew to allow for tourists in this province who visit the greater Victoria area in incredible numbers. An alternative route up-Island would take them past some of the most incredible natural resources that we have: China Beach, Botanical Beach, Sombrio — just to name three along that route. The potential is enormous. We have the best fishing areas on the Island in Port Renfrew, surpassing those of Campbell River, and we can't get this government to put some money Into developing the wharf in Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Have you asked them?

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, I have asked, Mr. Minister, and I will be happy to produce a stack of letters that I have written to various ministers.

We have tourists who come from Japan, Germany and all over the world to Port Renfrew because they are aware that it is the starting point for the trek through the Pacific Rim Park. It is embarrassing to think that they have to travel on that type of road. I say to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that this government ought to give not just serious consideration, but priority consideration — in light of what has happened in the forest sector in that community — to providing a proper road from Port Renfrew to Lake Cowichan. I will join with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) in saying from Lake Cowichan to Port Alberni. That is what should happen in order to open up that portion of this province.

This government is totally insensitive. I talk about the tourists who come; you know, there are not even outdoor toilet facilities for the public in Port Renfrew.

Last year when I wrote to the Minister of Tourism asking him to put two in Port Renfrew, I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply from him. So the businesses have to deal with all the campers coming out after seven or eight days of hiking.

Mr. Minister of Highways, you are here; you have heard what I have to say. The challenge before you, sir, is to make sure that we get that type of road. The challenge, Mr. Speaker, to this government is to begin to think in real terms about what it takes to diversify the economy of a village like Port Renfrew that has been gutted by this government's neglect of our forest policies.

HON. MR. VANT. Will you answer my letter?

MR. SIHOTA: Then Minister says: "Will you answer my letter?" I'll be very happy to answer his letter if he answers all mine, and I think we will have a good correspondence going back and forth.

Then this government says they are so good on the economy. Let's leave Port Renfrew and talk to the workers at Lilydale, which is the chicken-processing plant in my riding in the Western Communities. This government, through the policies of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), has provided $700,000 in subsidies to a rival plant in Saanich to the detriment of the plant in the Western Communities, That plant is now on the verge of closing. About 200 jobs in my riding are at stake.

The member for Langley, the minister-to-be of women, says: "We are free enterprisers." I want to tell you there is a difference between free enterprise and Social Credit enterprise. Social Credit enterprise is a type of activity that we're seeing happen in Saanich right now, in terms of the funding that's going to the rival chicken processing plant, which will have the effect of closing down a plant in my riding. That's Social Credit enterprise. That's throwing money at one plant to shut down another plant. What kind of logic is that? That's intrusion in the marketplace by some misconceived, misguided policies by the Minister of Agriculture. That's not free enterprise; that's Social Credit enterprise. And Social Credit enterprise means a lack of jobs. It means increasing deficits. It means unemployment in communities like Port Renfrew and at Lilydale.

This government says that it has now found this new sensitivity about education.

MR. BLENCOE: The "u" back in education.

MR. SIHOTA: They've put the "u" back in education.

The Premier, who isn't here now.... I noted what he had to say when he was here, when he was heckling my friend from Prince George North; he was saying: "Nobody has done to education what we have done to education." He's right.

If this government truly cared about education and post-secondary education, it would do something about access to post-secondary education. I have sitting on my desk about 200 letters from students at the University of Victoria complaining about

[ Page 5641 ]

tuition fees and tuition fee increases in this province. And they're right. If you want to talk about barriers to education, you start talking about financial barriers. You talk about the financial barriers this government has imposed through its policy of increasing tuition fees; through its policy of deciding not to provide grants to students who need them to complete their education; through its policy of cutting back student loans. You can talk as much as you want about creating more spaces, but you've got to talk about getting the students there. You're not getting them there; you're keeping them out, through fiscal policies like increases in tuition fees and absence of student loans and grants. If you want to increase access to education, that's how you do it.

The Premier is right. Nobody has done to education what this government has done to education. It's a shame. And now, all of a sudden, not because there's any will but for reasons of improving your public image, you're talking about some changes in education.

Housing. I have constituents in my riding, like I know my good friend from Victoria has, who are facing massive, onerous increases in rent. When you're talking about 15 percent or 20 percent or 25 percent to a senior citizen on fixed income or to a single parent on social assistance, you're talking about significant increases to their budgets. I remember the rhetoric of a few years ago, when they said: "The government is going to vacate the field, and the private sector will begin to provide housing for those of low or moderate incomes." Well, take a look at what's happening today. That never happened, and the comments that we were making in the House at that time indeed have come to pass: yes, it is true that the private sector did not fill the void. Now this government begins to talk about all sorts of policies for housing and about its so-called housing action plan.

If you want to help those people who have problems with housing, this government should have announced, first of all, the re-creation of the rentalsman. It should have announced a fair and equitable rent review mechanism. It should have announced new legislation to deal with mobile home owners, who have no protection at all. It should have announced policies in terms of landbanking. It should have been aggressive in dealing with the problem. But you didn't do it. For reasons of public relations, you just wanted to talk about housing, to say: "Yes, we care." Where is the evidence that you care?

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is just about up.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: The members opposite applaud that, because they don't want to hear any more. They don't want to hear about their shameful, deceitful, despicable record as government over the last three years. They don't want to hear about their new efforts to try to change their image. You know, I'm bitter, because this government has done nothing about the problems that I've listed; yet now it says that it will. Now it says it will get on with making the changes that British Columbians want. After two and a half years of neglect there is little or no reason for British Columbians to have faith in what this government has to say.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, the members like to chortle and heckle on the other side because they have very little else to say in terms of substance.

HON. MR. REID: You should go back to one of those access colleges that they just opened up.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister says I should back to college: this is from the minister who spells culture with a "k". I think the minister should be going back to college.

As I said in my opening comments, this is the third throne speech that I've been witness to. It will be the last for the Social Credit Party This government is out of touch, and its days are numbered.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to inform the House that we have some visitors from my constituency of Nanaimo. We have a group of some 30 students, people associated with the Nanaimo Skills Training Centre and with Project Interface, along with their instructors, Paulette Dash-Hagel, Mr. David Hagel and Ms. Anne McGougan. As well as these people, I notice directly in front of me another member from my constituency, Mr. Murray Charleson, who was recently appointed to the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming all these people.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, might I also take this privilege, if I may, to welcome Murray to the chamber. I wasn't aware he was with us today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is indeed a pleasure to stand and speak in favour of the throne speech and to reject the motion of non-confidence in the throne speech and this government. I want to tell you that I have this podium here to hide another portfolio: I'm on a diet, Mr. Speaker. I've lost two pounds already and I want to say to this House that I'm going to lose 30; that's on the record.

I think that the throne speech we've just heard from His Honour is the best yet. Of all the speeches that I've had the pleasure to hear, dating back to 1976, this one represents the most positive, most enthusiastic, most comprehensive throne speech on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you, in your role as Deputy Speaker of this assembly and on your re-election. You do a super job. As well, I want to congratulate Mr. Speaker himself. Mr. Speaker has a tough job. His adherence to the rules of the House has made the debate reasoned and has maintained the decorum that is a tradition of the parliamentary system of government, and I want to congratulate the Speaker for that.

[ Page 5642 ]

I want to talk for a few minutes about the constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon, which I've had the pleasure to represent. Burnaby-Willingdon is changing in demographics; it's changing in many ways. When I first moved to Burnaby some 20 years ago, it was a bedroom community on the outskirts of Vancouver and people were moving out there to establish industries and businesses because of high land values in Vancouver. Now with the advent of the new Metrotown complex, which I'm told will be the second-largest complex of its kind in Canada and perhaps in North America, and with the change in demographics, we have a new set of opportunities and a new set of problems.

One of the causes célèbres that I started out to do something about many years ago was the removal of the Oakalla Prison. I am here to tell you today that after all these long years since 1975, all the elements are in place that will remove that blight from the landscape. It's being done by the Social Credit Party, and I'm very thankful to the people involved — to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and my colleagues in cabinet — for allowing that to happen. It will be gone shortly. Low-rise housing, I'm told — whatever the planning people and the people in the area happen to agree upon — and parks will replace this dismal prison, and it will be a thing of the past in the most beautiful part of the lower mainland.

This throne speech offers British Columbians an important view of the future, a future which all British Columbians can look forward to with anticipation. I want to talk about a few points involved in the throne speech.

We talked about the establishment of a full ministry of environment — I'll say a little more about that later on — and I see that as a very positive move. I want to talk about a new set of legislation that will be con-ting down through the auspices of my ministry which will deal in a new way with business assistance programs and other types of industrial and incentive programs throughout British Columbia. I salute the initiative in the Speech from the Throne for the establishment of a minister of state responsible for women's issues. I think it's long past the time when that should receive far more prominence. As one who held that position for a very brief period, I believe it needs to be given more prominence. Like the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), I agree that the minister currently in charge, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), has done a super job in administering that part of his portfolio.

Someone said that the future is here today in British Columbia, and I believe that's true. As you look out and see the changes in demographics, the changes in the mix and industry, the future is indeed here today in the province. It's important for us to look forward, but it's also important for us to look back and take some cognizance of the past, because the wisdom of the ages is very important to us in this province. In my opinion, modern history in British Columbia started in 1952, when the Social Credit government first came into power.

HON. MR. REID: How many times since?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Many times since, and we'll get into that later.

In 1952, W.A.C. Bennett formed the government here In this very same chamber — not the majority government, but a party that had one member more than any of the other parties that happened to be in the House. He came forward with what was described at the time — I was reading some of the newspapers — as a "rag-tag group of individuals that would never make government and would never succeed." From 1952 to 1972, Social Credit gave the best government that this province had ever seen at any other point in time and history up until that time.

Then the forces of private enterprise and the forces of reason in this province let their guard down. We had 1,200 days and 1,200 nights of the type of administration that did not suit this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: My good friend the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) gets excited when I make these kinds of speeches.

HON. MR. REID: Keep going. You're doing great.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate that.

It was interesting for me to hear the Leader of the Opposition say the other day in an interview in one of the hallways here, in a serum, that the administration from 1972 to the fall of 1975 was misunderstood. A lot of people misunderstood it, and they voted with their feet by moving out of the province during that time.

Then in the fall of 1975, the leader of the government then, Premier Barrett, called an election at that time. I remember it very well. He called it close to Christmas. He felt that somehow in the foggy dew of an election they would be able to sneak through and retain the government after the poor job they did.

The people returned a Social Credit government to office. From 1976 to 1986, it provided the best government this province had ever seen at any other point in time.

Then there was another era, and the people spoke again. The NDP don't believe in trusting the people, as Churchill used to say. That's something they never believe in. If you live outside of a certain area, you're rural rednecks. You know, we classify people, put them in slots and we hyphenate British Columbians from time to time. But we always trust the people. I am going to tell you....

MR. MILLER: We're not rednecks. We have faith in people of this province.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I am glad to see that you have faith, so hang on — you're going to require a whole bunch more of it when you're defeated in the next election.

Interjections.

[ Page 5643 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, everyone is enjoying this little repartee that's going on here, but I think we should give the minister the opportunity to conclude his speech. He's having some problems, and some of them are coming from his own side. We'd ask the minister to proceed, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, if you could help me, if my side could slow down and they could kind of pep it up, it will give me something to talk about as we move along here. It will help me a little bit.

We elect visionaries in this province. We elected the first visionary with W.A.C. Bennett, we elected a visionary in William Richards Bennett, and we elected another one. We elect people with vision, and we wonder why they think differently than we do and why they do things differently. It takes a while for these things to work through the system, and leadership is sometimes doing things that are not always popular at that point in time.

One of these visionary things I'd like to talk about for a few moments is the provincial program of regionalization. Regionalization is not the product of some eccentric mind in Victoria, although there are a few eccentric minds in Victoria that you can note from time to time. It's a worldwide movement; it's happening all over the world. We'll note that the world is breaking down into more sectoral parts.

When the government was re-elected in 1986 the current Premier promised an open government. He promised a government where people have impact, where people have something to say about their future and something to say about the economy and the areas in which they live.

I don't believe, really, in the principle — and this is not original; it comes from a lot of people who are involved in regional thinking — of a world economy. I don't believe in the principle of a national economy or even a provincial economy. I believe it's only the sum of the parts, or the regions, that make up those individual economies. That's certainly true here in this province.

If you have a series of regions that are strong, we can say that we have a strong provincial economy. If we have a series of provinces which are strong and they are buoyant and their economies are good, we can say that we have a national economy. The same thing is true of countries and of the world. If you want to ensure that you have a strong provincial economy, then you'd better pay attention to the regions individually. You'd better pay attention to what they think. Wild and chimerical as this may seem, this government believes that people in Prince George and people in Merritt know a heck of a lot more about what should happen in their economy than someone who happens to be here in Victoria. I know that's wild thinking, but that's what regionalization is all about.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In Alberni, too. Hang on, my friend. Good things will happen in spite of you.

[11:30]

Canada — and British Columbia — has what is traditionally known as an open economy. That simply means that we don't have enough people within our economy to consume the goods and services that we produce. We have to export them, move them out. We have to be competitive.

We also have to pay attention to each and every part of this province and every part of this country if we are to be a true nation, a strong nation, a strong province, and sustain the economy and the lifestyle that we have become accustomed to. I will tell you what the opposite of regionalization is — and I can understand some of the frustrations of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier). It is what is happening right now with respect to interest rates in Canada.

There is a little area in Toronto not far from where I was born that is called the Golden Horseshoe. It's about 80 or 85 linear miles of space that has an economy that's heating and bubbling. The unemployment rate there is absolutely zilch and the inflation is about 9 percent. It's boiling to such an extent that the Bank of Canada every Thursday takes cognizance of it. It continually increases the rate that they charge chartered banks, thereby driving up the interest rate. Because of a small area in central Canada — central Ontario, Toronto — someone in Kimberley, someone in Prince George and someone in Burnaby is put out of business because they can't afford to service the interest on those loans.

MR. WILLIAMS: Or somebody in Richmond.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, somebody in Richmond.

The best thing that could happen, in my opinion, in a national government in a Canada which I love and in a Canada which must stay together and work together would be for the government of Canada to put pressure on the government of Ontario to get their house in order and act the way the province of British Columbia is acting from a fiscal point of view. That would be one of the best examples we could ever set.

Ontario sees itself as a leader. It is not leadership when they continually spend. With the economy they have, they should be awash in money in their provincial treasury. Instead of that, they're putting inordinate pressure on the rest of Canada. I believe that's a message we have to continually explain to eastern Canada. They have to think regionally. I understand that we can't change the monetary system within the type of jurisdiction we have, but we can certainly change the fiscal system in Canada to reward those people who are doing well and keeping their house in order, and perhaps not reward so much those who aren't.

Regionalization is working in British Columbia, and it's working in a very positive way. It's working in all regions. The economy of British Columbia is

[ Page 5644 ]

moving upwards. Some areas are resisting this upward trend. We're working on that.

I want to tell you some of the things that we're doing. In Prince George there's a new FMC plant for hydrogen peroxide production, as my good friend the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned. In Mission we established a new studio ranch for producing movies and took off the street some of the young people who are working there. Other young people who are working there receive wages up to $35,000 a year. In Nanaimo there's a ferrochromium plant to bring in chron-dte from offshore, produce it and send it out again - pure export, employing hundreds of people in an area that requires employment. In the Peace River area there are several initiatives.

In the little village of Oliver, the mayor, along with my good friend the minister of state for that area and the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks), got together and established a schnapps factory that will employ a hundred and some people in Oliver — regionalization working.

I was up on the Sunshine Coast a week or two ago, in Powell River, Sechelt and Gibsons. In Sechelt we announced the Hillside industrial park, which will give the potential for another deep-sea port in that particular part of the world — brought about through regionalization. I will recount the words of the economic development officer in that area. He said: "When you first came through this area talking about decentralization and regionalization, I was not a convert. I didn't believe in it." But he said:

"There's an old adage that with females you say nice things to the face; with men you generally say nice things or bad things behind their back. I'm going to reverse that order. I'm going to tell you that I now believe in this thing. I've been working on it for seven years, and it took the regional process to bring it to fruition and make it happen."

Dealing directly with people through the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), dealing directly through my ministry-of-state office and the various ministries involved we were able, in a few months, to turn something around that had been going on for seven years. That's people working and the committees working in the areas. That's regionalization working. There are people all over sending in testimonials.

HON. MR. REID: Hear, hear, All over. Port Alberni. Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want you folks on the other side to listen to this, and I know my good friend the Provincial Secretary will listen as well. This is a letter from one of the mayors in British Columbia.

I'd like to thank you on behalf of the council and our administration" — I'm leaving out the names to protect the innocent for a while — "for the opportunity to meet you and the Premier and your cabinet colleagues. We were greatly encouraged by the interest and enthusiasm expressed by cabinet committee on the ideas we presented and look forward to continuing participation with you in their realization.

As noted, our particular immediate concerns concern transportation. We will be pleased to provide more detailed information as you require it.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the regional development process. I assure you that we appreciate the need for your regional development initiatives and Surrey intends to be an active partner.

Robert J. Bose, PhD
Mayor of Surrey

An amazing convert, Mr. Speaker. The last time I saw Mr. Bose, he was not a member of our party, was he? But he now believes in and now accepts regionalization.

They are not the only ones that accept it, Mr. Speaker. Looking back through some of the misunderstood era — as far as the NDP is concerned — and the economic development strategy of the NDP for British Columbia in 1979, you see a regional map. I know I'm not supposed to hold it up, Mr. Speaker, but at that time they said they had ten regions. They must have lost three. They proposed regions to be set up in British Columbia: a southeast region, an Okanagan region, a Kamloops region, a lower mainland region, a Vancouver Island region, a central British Columbia and Prince George region, and northeast and northwest regions.

I also noted that the way they spoke of regional development at the time was interesting. They said: "The NDP is committed to reducing the disparities by giving special attention to the needs of other regions and other groups." They said on the next page: "The NDP, of course, is committed to regaining control over key sectors of the British Columbia economy and placing greater decision-making power in the hands of the average B.C. resident." It goes on and on.

Here are some of the interesting things they said back there and that I believe they still believe today:

"The goal of an NDP industrial strategy is to shift the power to the people of B.C. These alternatives include public ownership of natural resources" — creation of wealth, you see — "taxation, competitive bidding and public entrepreneurship. Most of B.C.'s natural resources are publicly owned. Nominal public ownership of resources is not sufficient to ensure control of these resources."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They go on to talk about setting up several Crown corporations, because they see this as the way to create wealth in the economy and to bring about economic development: the B.C. Coal Corporation, the B.C. Land Corporation, a new B.C. Investment corporation — it goes on and on with the proliferation.

The mayor of Surrey supports regionalization. Many mayors of all political stripes throughout the province of British Columbia are supporting regionalization. I believe that you're supporting regionalization, too. As a matter of fact, I turned on my television during the federal election campaign and saw the leader of the New Democratic Party, when he was up in Prince George, saying: "You know

[ Page 5645 ]

what we're going to do when we form the government in Canada? We are going to establish regional committees, regional groups, so that the people in the areas can bring their ideas back to government. It's too far. It's 30,000 miles one way from Ottawa and 3,000 miles the other, and as the NDP we're going to change all that." They are true converts, I can tell you.

I can see the mayor of Surrey converting. I like the mayor of Surrey, and I can see that. My faith was instantly buoyed when the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) converted to something akin to capitalism. I believe It's market socialism. He's one step along the way — an amazing conversion, if I have ever seen one.

I could see the Leader of the Opposition converting, because he has never really been any place. As I said the other day, he has both feet firmly planted in the air at all times, ready to move either way. I can see his conversion.

I believe that even Mikey likes.... I shouldn't say that. Even the Leader of the Opposition likes regionalization. On March 16 the Vancouver Sun — an impeccable source of information, as you well know, Mr. Speaker — quotes the Leader of the Opposition saying: "What we're interested in doing, instead of seeing the provincial government playing sugar daddy...is that we work with local communities and regions." It's wonderful. This latent me-tooism is interesting.

What is happening here — and I'm confident of it — is that the NDP have hired some pollsters again. They are out looking around the province, and they say: "Darn it, acceptance of this regionalization is over 65 percent among the general population in the province. This is something we'll have to get on board with. And they don't like our socialism. So we'll go and have a talk to the Business Council of B. C. and we'll show them...."

Mr. Speaker, any businessman who would look for help from the NDP would be like a chicken going over to Colonel Sanders, looking for aid and succour; it would be about the same sort of situation. They're never going to change their stripes.

I'll tell you what the Leader of the Opposition is: he's a nice guy. I like him very much. He's a super guy. I've known the Leader of the Opposition for a long time, Mr. Speaker. He's a super fellow. He's not a raving socialist. No, he's a little more of an opportunist. He's none of those things. I'll tell you one thing he is not: he is not an entrepreneur. He wouldn't know Milton Friedman from Milton Berle, I'm telling you.

MR. MILLER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may have misheard; I will allow the Provincial Secretary an opportunity to clarify it. In reference to the leader of my party, I clearly heard him say that he was an opportunist. If that is the case, I would ask that the member withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. REID: If the term "opportunist" doesn't apply to the Leader of the Opposition, I withdraw.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me a break. I appreciate that. He and I are also good friends.

I want to tell you what the Leader of the Opposition also is not: he is not a leader. He's only a priest of the oracles. I'm not too sure who those oracles are, but I think maybe the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is one of them; the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is the other. If, on any sorry day, the people of this province might have a lapse in thinking and might re-elect, heaven forbid, the NDP to power, do you know who would be leading? It would not be the Leader of the Opposition in his role as Premier; it would be the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). I think following closely on his coat-tails would be the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. That's the kind of leadership that....

[11:45]

MR. MILLER: What about me?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, you're not a trained seal; you're only a seal in training. You're coming along; you've got a way to go yet.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this thing is working well in British Columbia. Things are going well in this province, and we're doing darned well here.

I want to tell you some of the things that we're doing through the ministry of state for Mainland Southwest. During February and March, my staff organized meetings with representatives of banks, trust companies and credit unions. The purpose of the meetings was to explain the regional seed capital program; specifically, to detail the guarantee document. Other incentive programs were also addressed. A total of 18 meetings were held in that month in 15 communities. That's getting out to the people of British Columbia and working with them.

HON. MR. REID: That's leadership.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's leadership, and that's working with them.

Following the above, the ministry of state advertised one-hour counselling and information sessions to be conducted by economic development officers in the more distant communities in the regions of British Columbia. The purpose of all these sessions is to deliver the services of the minister out to the communities and to work with them in their communities.

One-hour, one-to-one meetings are booked through the government agents or the chamber of commerce. It's intended that the officers will travel. They'll get out of their offices in Victoria, New Westminster and Vancouver and into the communities, to work with the regional people where things are happening. To date, the sessions in Main-

[ Page 5646 ]

land-Southwest were held in: Squamish, 18 appointments; Whistler, 12 appointments — the reason they couldn't have more is they were doubled-booked, and the next time we go back we'll have to lengthen the time; Chilliwack, 26 appointments; Hope, four appointments; that's a total of 60 appointments. Sessions to be held right away in this month are: Mission, 26 appointments; Sechelt, eight appointments; Pemberton, four appointments; and Lillooet, nine appointments. We're doing well in British Columbia.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) has established this freedom-to-move opportunity, which is the best initiative in transportation since 1958. 1 want to congratulate the minister for it.

We had the Delcan study, which identified $7 billion worth of new highway construction and maintenance that needs to be done in the province of British Columbia. The only reason that we can pay for this is because of the vibrancy of the economy. There is a study into all modes of transportation.

Yes, there are problems. There are problems because this government is doing things and moving the economy forward in a way that has never happened before. We're going to deal with Surrey, and we're going to deal with Burnaby. When I stand up to speak on the throne speech debate, I'll have a lot more to say. I want to thank you for your tolerance.

MS. MARZARI: The throne speech for 1989 suffers from its promise of too little too late. The ground of social justice and economic stability has been parched for too long. Our province has cracked and dried under restraint. The thin layer of fertilizer which the speech promises is a sad scattering of help upon ground which needs deep watering and ploughing before new promises can sprout new programs.

However, new winds are blowing, and we find at the end of the speech, just before natives and just after substance abuse, the "w" word: women. An interesting addition, since women thus far have only been viewed by this government as mothers — mothers in aprons, mothers in kitchens or as mothers-to-be. Where they have been poor, the effort by this government has been to get them into the workplace. Where they have been rich, the effort by this government is to keep them insecure and put them back in the kitchen.

Imagine my surprise then to find a new commitment to women as workers in the throne speech. Mind you, the terms of reference make it clear that these women are still mothers, and need help with "family responsibilities" — meaning children, I would imagine. Despite the edge of sexism and the odour of inaction, I must say welcome to the turf of justice and common sense.

But, gentlemen, you haven't paid your dues. In politics, as in management, as in business, you can't make good ideas work without good structures to fit them in. Building seed capital funds for business will not work unless you've got a stable financial apparatus to deliver them. Creating tourism programs, for example, with local industry won't work unless you are rebuilding a Ministry of Tourism that has the capacity and the budget to promote our province to the world. Conversely, in politics you can't have good structures without good ideas to fill them with. If you attempt to do so, you will build a house of cards which will be blown away with the first wind of reality.

Such is your ministry of state for women's issues: a structure built with no rationale, no goals, no idea of what to do, except your terrible fear that women have watched your performance over the past year and have reeled back in alarm and disgust. Your polls must be telling you what ours are telling us. If you can't read the message from the polls, perhaps you can read messages from four by-elections, the last one in Point Grey, the bastion of B.C. business.

Women want a status-of-women commission. We are the only province in Canada not to have one. They want a chance to tell government directly what is on their minds, with public reports and public recommendations. I'll begin the process right now, before the new minister, whoever she may be, is announced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe it will be a he.

MS. MARZARI: If it were a man I would not be surprised.

Women want equality; they want security; they want choice. Under equality, they want equality in the workplace, where women have long understood they were undervalued and underpaid. Now the experts have actually measured the level of their subsidy to their male co-workers: women earn on average 60 cents for every male dollar earned in the office or factory. In the home they want recognition for child-rearing, through better pensions for homemakers. Where they are poor, single parents, they want livable welfare rates. They want minimum wage rates until their chances in the job market improve and they choose to enter it. They want real training that leads to real jobs, real alternatives to the poverty of welfare and being working poor.

Women's legal equality is fought daily in the courts and in, of all places, the banks. Women in small business is big business in B.C. Yet I have letters on my desk right now from two women who are being told to haul their spouses down to the bank manager to cosign business loans. Women's right to constitutional equality is encumbered by Meech Lake amendments that would bump their interests down the list of people worth listening to. After native and multicultural interests, Meech poses the possibility of a woman's right to an abortion or even to birth control information being curtailed if the culture in which she lives is opposed.

Security. When women speak of security, they refer not just to income security, although welfare rates that are 60 percent below subsistence levels affect 85,000 children and 35,000 single parents in B.C. You should understand that 60-cent dollars in the private sector and dependence on subsistence welfare are facts that taxpayers pay for, that we subsidize

[ Page 5647 ]

every day. Society pays in a hundred ways for this decision to keep women poor. Poverty is expensive. Security is cheaper. Mr. Borglund's lawyer, Bill Smart, reminded us of that on Friday last, when he suggested that the two and a half million dollars which will be spent keeping his client in jail for the next 25 years would have been better spent when he was a kid in obvious need.

So we pay. We pay in jail costs, court costs, health costs, police costs, and worst of all, in human potential lost. We could have been preventing that by spending in social housing for women and families, in safe, secure licensed child care and home care for families in need, in counselling and support for the victims the community create.

Women as seniors need security, which they deserve. Yet homemaker services that should be doubled are being halved, and the women who do it are working for a terrible pay and watching the standards for training in their field being extinguished daily. Worker safety is a security, and women work hard towards safety in the workplace for themselves and their male colleagues. Decent child care and nursing home care is a security which we must afford. They are everyone's issues, not ones to be discussed just by the women's minister.

There are connections in all these issues with every aspect of our lives. It is in making the connections that we see how certain classes of people get singled out for abuse.

Increasingly, poor people in our community are women, and with poverty comes helplessness, ill health, dependence, vulnerability and, inevitably, abuse towards women and their children, whether that be sexual and physical abuse by a father or a boyfriend or emotional abuse by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

Rather than making the connection, your government has delivered food banks and cutbacks for poverty, advocated Jesus Christ for hopelessness, and aimlessly shovelled a few of the abused between foster homes and transition houses. Now a minister will be tossed into the limelight to deal with these issues that she won't understand. The issue will not be to deal with the connections, the threads that need drawing together to remake the quilt. That is my fear.

Finally, along with equality and security, women need reproductive choice. It is the first requisite and the first priority for women today. As long as the state attempts to go past the skin of a woman and dictate how and when she will give birth, equality and security are demeaned. She is forever vulnerable.

If the Canadian government decides that abortion at any stage is a criminal act rather than a procedure to be discussed by a woman and her doctor, then legally that woman can be hostage to other people's agendas for her fetus — hardly what women want. That's hardly what society wants, but it's apparently what this government seems to want as it refuses to fund the Everywoman's Health Centre, as it refuses to sit down and discuss a program with the fair planning association, as it authorizes the apprehension of a fetus before birth and then deliberately provokes a court hearing, hoping the court will ratify its stand.

No, gentlemen, your ministry for women's issues is a contradiction in terms. A minister should be there to empower, not to control. You won't fund abortion clinics. You blew a chance to get decent day care when the federal bill was on the floor. You never adopted a bargaining stance and you denied needing new spaces. You want to put welfare moms in the day care business — that's what you tried to do last year. Now you want to study day care.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the government House Leader adjourns, the second member for Nanaimo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming today a group of 50 visiting Japanese students. They are studying at the Canadian Pacific College in Nanaimo, the principal of which is Mr. Bruce Avis. We're also joined by the president of Poole Gakuin Junior College in Osaka, Rev. Hikaru Yanagihara. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move the house do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.