[ Page 8865 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling documents –– 8865

Throne speech debate

Mr. Rabbit –– 8869

Mr. Bruce –– 8873

Mr. Harcourt –– 8875

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all members please rise for prayers.

In order to establish a new tradition in this House, it is the Chair's intention to ask members of either side of the House, on alternate days, to lead us in prayer. Today we'll be led in prayer by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier).

Prayers.

MR. MILLER: I rise today to ask the House to join with me in paying tribute to a young man from Prince Rupert, Jim Terrion, who is walking across Canada both ways — a considerable feat — to raise money for the deaf and the hearing-impaired. Jim is just 29, and he hopes to create a better understanding and awareness for deaf needs and also assist in raising funds necessary to help stage the twelfth World Winter Games For the Deaf, being held for the very first time in Canada at Calgary and Banff in February and March 1991.

His walk also marks the seventy-fifth anniversary for the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf, which Jim attended. This determined young man left Edmonton on February 5 and is already nearing Montreal. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to convey the support of the House for his endeavours.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House that an appropriate message be sent by the office of the Speaker on behalf of all members, I will do so. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. It will be done.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It is a pleasure for me to introduce to the House and welcome to the precincts the grade 10 students from Anne Stevenson Junior Secondary School who have been brought to Victoria by their teachers. I would like to say that this is my son's class, although he's not travelling with them, because he is travelling with his father and family. I would like to make them welcome.

I would like to pay tribute to the lady whose name is used by this school, Anne Stevenson, who was a great defender of public education and a former teacher of mine. I'd ask you to join me in welcoming the grade 10 class from Williams Lake.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I am requesting leave of the House to move a motion without notice.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1989, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts pursuant to the order of the House made yesterday.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report for the Ministry of Parks for the year 1988-89.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled six statutory reports pertaining to pensions.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Pavilion Corporation ending March 31, 1989.

MR. SPEAKER: Yesterday the Chair undertook to deal with a number of matters of privilege that were brought forward, the first by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). Would the member like to rise now and bring information to the House on this matter?

MR. CLARK: I shall provide Your Honour with copies of each of the documents referred to. I have an appropriate motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, a slight preamble to my point of order. I believe you'll understand why I make this preamble, We live by tradition in this House and the ancient usages that give us the parliament and the privileges that we have here in this House today. There are unwritten rules and written rules in this House. They bind us. They were developed — as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) said when he tabled Bill 1 yesterday — over 370 years.

A motion of privilege is to be made at the earliest opportunity in this session. That opportunity was yesterday. I realize that there is protocol and that protocol yesterday allowed for the Lieutenant-Governor to deliver the Speech from the Throne on behalf of Her Majesty. It also allowed for proper observance of those rules and traditions that were built up over 370 years by the opposition. I would say that they broke each and every one of those rules here yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to assist the Chair, I would ask the minister to actually come to the point of order. Perhaps he could assist the Chair.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The point of order is that the first available opportunity for such a motion, as the hon. member for Vancouver East is attempting to present today, was at the sitting held yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there something you wish to add to this?

[ Page 8866 ]

MR. ROSE: I was merely going to support the Chair, Mr. Speaker, in its infinitely sagacious decision of yesterday. Where this matter could have been raised yesterday by the other side of the House, it was not. I would like to read for the House from a noted authority on the matters of closing day, one George MacMinn in his second edition, page 68. Under the subject heading of the paragraph "Closing Day": "Prorogation of parliament is a prerogative of the Crown and may not be interrupted by routine proceedings, nor may a motion to prorogue be moved without approval of the Crown." This means that the Speaker acted very wisely. We didn't want to interrupt or in any way destroy the great traditions of this House. That is why our members, on the advice of the Speaker, gave notice that they intended to move their motions of privilege, in spite of standing order 26, at the first opportunity in the new session.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to ask the minister to tell me exactly which standing order has been offended so I can refer to it in the book.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would never challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The standing order I am referring to, and I am also referring to the advice of one George MacMinn, QC.... I also agree that tradition dictates that on opening day protocol is there and protocol is foremost. The opposition yesterday broke every one of those rules that have been built up over 370 years in this House.

Having said that, because of respect for the Chair and for your personage, we will accede to have the motion presented at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion was addressed to the Chair yesterday. The Chair undertook to listen to these matters to be brought forward today without prejudice, on the basis that they were brought forward to the House at the first available opportunity. When that matter was pointed out to the members — I believe four members wished to bring matters forward yesterday — each of them stated briefly their case.

Now in order to assist the Chair, I must ask the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) to stand, state his case, and then, if others have something to add to assist the Chair in making its decision, I will be prepared to listen.

MR. CLARK: I am pleased that the Minister of International Business and Immigration is concerned about traditions in the House, because that's precisely the point which I will be making in the next few minutes. I shall provide you, Mr. Speaker, with copies of the documents referred to and the text of some of my remarks. I have an appropriate motion if you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made.

The matter of privilege is simply this. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. L. Hanson) has anticipated a series of decisions by this House about property taxation and has caused another level of government to be instructed to comply with those decisions, even though to do so would be outside the current law. I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, to conclude that the rights and privileges of all members have been abridged by that Minister because representation and consent to taxation form the basis of the power of this Legislature.

[10:15]

Sir Erskine May In the fourteenth edition, page 7, describes representation and consent to taxation as "the essential element of a parliament." He goes on to trace the origins of that power back 775 years.

The facts indicate briefly this: on March 9, 1990, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture announced in a press release "advance information on projected reforms to the assessment of property tax system...." In paragraph 1 of that release, the minister "unveiled key portions of the Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act slated for introduction during the next sitting of the Legislature." Paragraph 3 of the minister's March 9 press release purports to give municipalities the option to impose a flat tax on residential property. On page 2 of the release it says: "The Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act will be applied retroactively...."

On March 20, a circular was sent to all municipal principal appointed officers.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order from the government House Leader.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I do believe that the hon. member for Vancouver East is engaging in debate. I would ask that if he has a motion to present, he present it and get it over with.

MR. SPEAKER: The difficulty here is that the Chair would like to hear all of the available evidence. If I can hear from the member and then from people who wish to assist the Chair, the Chair will be able to assess the evidence that's brought forward. I would like to have the member continue.

MR. CLARK: On March 20, circular 90:14 was sent to all municipal principal appointed officers. These are the senior non-elected persons in the municipal government. In anything above village status the administrator received the material. No members of the Legislative Assembly received this circular.

Circular 90:14 was written by Mr. Tamblin, the executive director of municipal financial services in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. He apparently takes his authority from the minister's press release of March 9 and then directs municipalities on how to implement a flat tax on residential property, among other things. In other words, key elements in the proposed legislation were released.

On March 29, circular 90:15 was sent by Mr. Tamblin again to all municipal principal appointed officers. Attached to that circular, and apparently forming part of it, is a property tax demand regulation. Circular 90:15 advises that the old regulation is

[ Page 8867 ]

repealed, and a new one substituted effective March 26.

1 submit that what we have in the press release and two circulars from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture is a flagrant violation of parliamentary privilege. The press release and circular 90:14 both state that the proposed assessment of property tax reform act will be passed retroactively. They did not say the proposed legislation might or may pass, but that it will pass. Surely it is the privilege of all members of this House to debate, amend, pass or defeat proposed legislation. It is the prerogative of all members of the House — not just the members of the government. For a minister or a staff member....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like you to understand the process that we're going through here. What we need to know now are the matters that you wish to have considered for the matter of privilege. You table the evidence. Once we have the evidence, the Chair will decide whether or not a matter of privilege exists. Then the debate will occur.

It would seem to me you're getting into the area of your debate as opposed to the evidence. You should restrain yourself until the Chair decides whether we have a point of privilege to discuss. I would ask the member to be governed by those remarks.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've read previous rulings by Speakers on motions of privilege that have been raised as a result of announcements of the government regarding proposed legislation before the introduction in the House. By and large those motions of privilege have failed.

If I can, I would like to submit to you that this case is different in the following respects, and materially different from all cases referred to in Mr. MacMinn's book. It is different in a fundamental way.

The information which has been given to municipalities to act upon deals with taxing authority and changes to the taxing regime.

Aside from May, which I quoted at the outset, I would like to cite Bourinot's second edition: "The principal purpose of the House of Commons, in fact, is the consideration and criticism of the estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures." The scrutiny of the public purse is the principal purpose of the Legislature. By extension, legislation designed to give municipalities — which I remind Mr. Speaker are simply creatures of the provinces — the authority to impose a flat tax — a regressive poll tax is what it is — is deserving of debate in this House prior to its implementation.

The government, through its press release and two circulars, has instructed municipalities to make changes to their taxing system that have no current basis in law and result effectively in tax changes without public debate. No legislative debate on fundamental changes to the property tax system has taken place, and this, I submit to you, is in contempt of the House. To say further that the tax regime changes will be implemented retroactively is to pre-judge the deliberations of this House. The press release issued by the minister prejudices the future proceedings of this House.

The flat tax in itself is an important issue, and I won't go into the details, because it will presumably be legislation at some point in the House, except to say that it is a regressive tax, a tax which shifts the burden away from wealthier individuals. All members of the House should be consulted here in the Legislature about the principle of the flat tax. No member's vote can be taken for granted. That is an essential element of our democracy.

If you find that a prima facie case has not been made, I would like to use a lawyer's technique and simply draw the Speaker's attention to a ruling by Speaker Fraser on a similar situation very recently. In that case the Rt. Hon. John Turner moved that advertisement by the government with respect to the CST was in contempt of parliament because it prejudged deliberations of the House, Although in that case — unlike this one — at least the CST legislation had been introduced in the House.

In that case the Speaker found that a breach of privilege had not been made. He went on to say: "This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill-conceived, and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of the House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated."

I submit that this is a much stronger case than the advertisement with respect to the CST. Mr. Speaker, if you find a prima facie case has not been made of a breach of privilege in a technical sense, then I implore you to make a ruling similar to that of Speaker Fraser which upholds the traditions of the House and which says it is not appropriate for the government to make commitments on behalf of the House before legislation has been introduced in the House. I ask you to make a ruling that a taxing change to be implemented by municipalities before that tax change has even been introduced in the House is contempt of parliament. It is a breach of the privilege of all members, and I ask you to make such a ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and the indulgence of the House. It is contemptuous treatment of the House and of the people's representatives in a matter relating to the way taxes are collected. It cannot be tolerated by you, Mr. Speaker, or by anybody who sits in this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding I would refer you to the second edition of MacMinn, page 36, "Procedure on Raising a Matter of Privilege, " and I would ask all members to take the time to read this journal, which is available. In essence, the very brief paragraph outlines the procedure, and I think we've violated that a little bit today, in that it says: "...a

[ Page 8868 ]

brief written statement of the matter, which the member reads to the House. (See practice recommendation 7 of Standing Orders);..." We're dealing with the word "brevity" here.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, when you are making up your mind, that if you are considering the statement made by the Speaker of the House of Commons, you'll note that in fact the government of Canada did carry on something. They were in fact carrying on advertising with respect to the goods and services tax. I respectfully submit to you that this has nothing to do with that sort of ruling. What happens here is that possibly a minister of the Crown or someone else expressed an intention to bring in a certain piece of legislation. I remember during the 1983 election campaign when the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Barrett, said he would bring in legislation that would wipe out the CSP and do away with restraint. It would have been a terrible thing if it had ever happened. And I have heard the current Leader of the Opposition say that if they were government they would wipe out certain acts or laws.

The Speech from the Throne yesterday said the government would introduce certain laws and certain statutes, and of course they would have to be voted on. There is clearly nothing wrong with a minister of the Crown expressing an intention to do something. We all know that it cannot become law until it is passed by this Legislature, and I respectfully submit that there is no breach of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will appreciate the information brought forward by all members on these matters and, as is normal in a condition like this, reserve judgment and bring the matter back to the House as soon as possible.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I ask you to consider the case of a minister of the Crown who deliberately — seemingly — overlooked and overrode the instructions of this House last year when the Public Accounts Committee brought forward its report and instructed the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and the cabinet to consider the ways and means by which the Public Accounts for British Columbia can be made publicly available as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year for which they have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, I point to the fact that this morning the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) brought forward the Public Accounts for the year 1988-89. I might suggest that, in fact, we are relieved to have the Public Accounts now, rather than later, because it is part of the accountability of this House that we are able to look at the Public Accounts as soon in the session as possible. However, I must point out — and I would ask the Speaker to hear the facts — that the minister concerned did, in a letter to the....

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, as I understand It, the issue before you — for your consideration — has to do with the matter of privilege. I listened closely to your comments on the previous matter of privilege that you were asked to consider. You were very clear in your instructions that you did not want editorializing, and you did not want extraneous political comment. You wanted the substance of the matter before you, so you could judge it.

What we're getting into here is a political discussion. If the Chair decides to allow the hon. member to participate in that way, then I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow me to respond in a similar vein.

MR. SPEAKER: Your point of order is very valid, but I would ask the member to continue and follow the guidelines set down for us and agreed to by all members by that learned publication, the second edition of MacMinn. The member may continue.

MS. MARZARI: I quote from the gist of two letters that were written to the auditor-general in the fall of '88, in which the auditor-general requested instruction or some assistance or guidelines from the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations as to when the Public Accounts would be prepared. At that point, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations responded that the Public Accounts would not come forward to this House until the Legislature sat again.

As is required in the Financial Administration Act, which guides this House and the timing of when the Public Accounts come forward, I point to the fact that last summer, in the last day of its sitting, the House instructed the cabinet and the minister to bring forward the Public Accounts as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year. The auditor-general again wrote four guidelines as to when the Public Accounts would be made available. The response to the auditor-general indicated that the minister had no interest in bringing forward the Public Accounts in a timely fashion, as was recommended by this House. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the minister was disobeying the instructions of this House.

[10:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MS. MARZARI: I would ask you then, Mr. Speaker, to consider a prima facie case.

MR. SPEAKER: And we have a copy of the motion. Would the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations wish to add something for my consideration in making this decision?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member got off into the general area of making editorial comment, which I believe deserves a response. The motion the member refers to dated July 20, 1989, reads in part, "consider the ways and means" by which Public Accounts might be made publicly available sooner.

[ Page 8869 ]

Only consider the ways and means: it does not specifically direct early release.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the representation made by the hon. member — I believe it was yesterday morning — would imply that the Public Accounts Committee did ask that it be brought forward, possibly even when the House was not sitting, when in fact, it is my understanding, that was not the consensus of the committee, but rather a direction of the chairman alone.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the government believes that in the normal, traditional manner of courtesy to the House, Public Accounts should be presented to the House first and prior to it being publicly released. That's been a longstanding tradition, and one which the government embraces. To attempt to put a different construction in terms of our motives does a disservice to the reputation of this government and, indeed, to all members of the House. I believe that on the evidence submitted there is absolutely no way the Chair can seriously consider this request.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will undertake to consider the evidence brought forward today by both members and bring a ruling back to the House as soon as possible.

MS. A. HAGEN: I rise this morning in following presentation to my notice of motion, which this House received yesterday morning. It deals with the matter of the privileges of this House having been breached by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) announcing legislation prior to its introduction in the House.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, may I just present my case to you. I will quote from the minister's statement of January 31. The Minister of Education stated: "There will be a legislative requirement for school boards to receive approval of their taxpayers through district referendums for any planned expenditures beyond the provincially established block funding level."

Mr. Speaker, I will present documents to you that will indicate that the government has acted, over the period of time since that announcement, as if the legislation were a fait accompli, in various presentations to officials and to the public. The legislation has been amended, if you like, outside this House because you will find in the documents I will present to you that guidelines have changed. For example, at one time three weeks' notice for the referendum was required; then two weeks; and as of Wednesday afternoon, that had been reduced to one week.

The government, indeed, has sought to impose on another level of government a requirement for action without a legislative framework. Moreover, this legislation has a very profound effect on thousands of constituents in this province who are represented by the Members of the Legislative Assembly now reassembled. We have not had an opportunity to exercise our democratic rights nor our duty to consider this major policy initiative prior to it in fact being in effect.

I would note that on Wednesday afternoon the Minister of Education was reported to have stated, in response to questions about this legislation, that it was likely to be retroactive. In other words, the impact of this legislation would be fully implementable this year before it was ever concluded in a debate in this House.

It is my view and my request to you to consider this view that our privileges as Members of the Legislative Assembly have indeed been breached in a most fundamental way in the course of government action over the last number of months. There is no reason whatsoever for us not to have had an opportunity to act on a pronounced government policy and legislation. For us to begin this session with the acknowledgement that the legislation, which should have been debated long 'ere, may not even be concluded prior to its implementation is a profound offence against the traditions of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would table with you a motion and documents around pronouncements of government in respect to this legislation for your consideration of a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Just to help you in making a decision with respect to this allegation, again, it has been common practice over the years for ministers and others to express intentions of something they are going to bring forward either by action, motion or legislation. The Minister of Education did say it was his intention to bring forward legislation that would affect certain situations with respect to school funding.

The member of the opposition is basing her claim primarily on what she has heard in the media and what she has read, I assume, in newspapers. Perhaps she should have gone to the source — and that is the Minister of Education — and asked him what actually did occur.

The member of the opposition ought to be aware — and I know you are aware, sir  — that the government bill will be tabled in the House. There is nothing wrong with that. Since parliament's inception, government has always said that it will bring in at a certain time a certain piece of legislation that will be debated. Indeed, the opposition does the same thing, and the opposition can also present bills, as it has done, before this House. They often talk about it before they do it.

When the bill is brought before the House, it will be debated in this House and decided upon by the majority of members in this House. That is the tradition of parliamentary democracy. I submit to you, sir, there has been no breach of privilege at all.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

MR. RABBITT: It's with great pride and enthusiasm that I present the following motion, seconded by

[ Page 8870 ]

my friend and colleague the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), on behalf of the people of British Columbia and the government of our province: "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."

Mr. Speaker, this government will not put at risk the fragile economy and prosperity that we today enjoy in British Columbia by entering into an election-year bidding war with the special interest groups as represented in this Legislature by the NDP opposition. That is the message of this throne speech, and I endorse it enthusiastically. We have not come so far against such great odds to turn tail and run now that an election is near. Make no mistake: unlike the NDP opposition, who have 20-20 hindsight, this government will not try to proceed by using a rear-view-mirror approach.

I've said what we will not do; now let me tell you what we will do to ensure a continued and broadened prosperity and quality of life for all British Columbians in every corner of this great province which we all love so much. This is a government with a vision, a vision for the future, a future that we can enjoy and that our children and grandchildren can enjoy.

We will institute public sector pay equity to further redress the historic inequality faced by women in the workplace. Women have had the vote for nearly two generations in our province — coincidentally, since April 5, 1917 — and in fact today are the majority of our population. I am astounded by only one thing: the phenomenal patience the hardworking women of this province have displayed over so many years.

This throne speech is a careful document, but equally it is a progressive document, capturing, I believe, the tempo of the area in which we live. Our future depends on a commitment of ideals — being true to our ideals — yet equally on our resolve to find real, workable, affordable ways of achieving those praiseworthy purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we're here to do the right thing. We're here to strengthen our small business sector and the added-value production in the forest industry, to build stronger institutions of self-worth and self-development in our native communities, and to emphasize balanced development throughout the regions of British Columbia, strengthening the process of listening to British Columbians through enabling legislation for referenda.

We talk about a vision for British Columbia's future, Mr. Speaker, and that makes the opposition nervous — nervous because they read their own press releases and after a while begin to believe that things are really as bad as they're saying. Look at the record. These are the people who tried to kill Expo, who would have killed the Coquihalla, privatization, regionalization and restraint, and who are opposed to a balanced budget. These are the people who would have killed the W.A.C. dam, the same people who will kill the Site C dam if ever elected. That's their vision: destroy, destroy, destroy. Tear down, rip up, throw away and then go sulk in the corner when the voters don't approve.

We've got over there what I call the attack of the killer tomatoes. Maybe they have turned from red to green on the outside, but they're still soft and squishy on the inside, and they still go splat when they hit the road. As to their true colours, we'll have plenty of opportunity to elaborate on that during the coming session.

Mr. Speaker, you have to earn a dollar before you can spend a dollar. That's what the bottom line is all about. That's what the long run is all about. That is what responsible management is all about. Borrow if you must for construction, make an honest effort to save for operating expenses and don't violate the civil rights of the young British Columbians who will be following us by writing a blank cheque with their names on it today.

We're talking about tax relief. What a contrast with Ottawa, where the NDP style of budgeting has held sway for much of the past two decades. Actions have consequences. Choices matter, and the long run is always closer than you think.

Government has no money of its own. When the government makes the wrong choice, it's every single taxpayer who has to pay. The millworkers and the mineworkers and their wives have no choice when the tax notices arrive. Their only choice is at the ballot box.

[10:45]

Today most British Columbians enjoy a fragile prosperity. Our challenge in the coming year is to maintain that prosperity and to extend it through opportunities for growth and restructuring to those groups and regions who have not been fully included in that prosperity.

Under our new legislative boundaries, Yale-Lillooet has more highway and road mileage than any of the other 74 constituencies. The Fraser Canyon highway runs through my constituency. It is one of the most spectacular tourist routes in the world. It's a terrific trip as long as you pay attention to where you're going and stay on the road.

Our government's throne speech is telling British Columbians that we're staying on the road; we're not going to be dragged over the edge by reckless spending or endless promises just to give one more injection to a tax dependent, as fostered by the NDP opposition.

The situation of rural British Columbia in the province today is somewhat similar to the position of western Canada in Confederation. We're not at the centre of the population, and we do not dominate the political process. It would be very easy for the interior to become as alienated within the province as western Canada has within Confederation.

The fact that this has not occurred is a tribute to the dedication of successive Social Credit governments to ensure, so far as possible, equal opportunities and outstanding quality of service throughout

[ Page 8871 ]

British Columbia. It wasn't easy then, it isn't easy now and it will not be easy in the future. We cannot take tomorrow for granted.

For 20 years the interior residents listened to a self-satisfied urban opposition complaining about black-top government. They weren't listening to the people of the interior. They didn't care about quality of the regions, and they still don't. They proved it when they were in office. Many interior voters took a chance on the NDP in 1972, and they saw the results: little or nothing.

Does anyone remember the nickname of the NDP Minister of Highways? Pothole Lea. The interior is only an NDP priority at election time.

One example they talk about is education, but it was Social Credit who built our outstanding community college system, a system truly cost-effective and responsive to the community needs. It was Social Credit that developed the Knowledge Network, Open Learning system and degree-granting status for our regional colleges to break down the barriers of geographic, occupational and family responsibility, to obtain a higher education in this province. I'm proud of that.

It is Social Credit that cares about equal rights — not equal rights to complain, but equal rights to succeed. To have access to a first-class education and a first-class health care system and services, we must have, in W.A.C. Bennett's words, "equal rights for all, special privileges for none."

Interjection.

MR. RABBITT: Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker. The NDP record in the interior was stony silence punctuated by barely a hiccup — lack of vision, lack of concern, lack of action. Today we have new promises from the new leader, a leader of even narrower regional vision. A leader truly, for us in the interior, beyond hope.

Their criticism of regionalization reminds me of the Ottawa mandarins discussing western alienation. Under an NDP government we would need a provincial triple-E senate to protect the interior of British Columbia from the cynical indifference of the east end boys who think that Burnaby is rural British Columbia.

Local government is in many ways the cornerstone of our democracy. It's a level of the government which is closest to the people and, most importantly, is directly accountable to them. I'm delighted to say, as a former alderman and mayor, that we have an excellent relationship with local government. That excellent relationship extends through our revenue sharing program.

Ironically, there are accumulating in society today problems facing both municipal and provincial governments. The high standard of living we have developed has been a costly one. When we reflect on the very serious issue of accumulating waste, both toxic and non-toxic, we should bear in mind that this is the price we are paying for affluence. This is the price we have been paying to maintain, preserve and protect our very precious and privileged way of life. In the deliberations of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Task Force, which I had the pleasure to chair, we found universal recognition at the municipal level of the priority of coming to grips with recycling and other far-sighted strategies for managing the sheer, awesome mass of material generated by our advanced consumer society.

I'm delighted to see that these environmental issues are being given the priority which they need, and that they play a vital role in cooperation and coordination with the local government. To preserve the environment I believe that the polluter must pay. Those that generate waste must pay for its disposal, and I thank the government for supporting that cause.

I was struck by the very progressive tone of the throne speech, and I was particularly pleased to note that this year's address contained more references than ever before to British Columbia's native people, a very important part of the community I represent as the MLA for Yale-Lillooet.

I'm particularly pleased that there is equal recognition given to the positive potential of cultural development. I am quite sure that the native peoples are fed up with being constantly referred to in negative terms as if they are the only part of our society that faces problems, and as if their tremendous spirit and creativity is not recognized or respected by the non-native community.

This constant harping on the negative with regard to our native people is unfair and incredibly shortsighted. It feeds on itself and simply makes it much more difficult to build bridges in cooperation and understanding. Anyone who has ever travelled outside of British Columbia is well aware that the rich Pacific native heritage is a very important part of our identity and, may I add, an incredibly positive one. Let us move forward today, Mr. Speaker, to a new awareness, a new level of consciousness about our native people.

I want to comment on the Attorney-General's approach to native justice issues. The fundamental issue is of respect, Mr. Speaker, respect for the native society and its right to maintain justice in ways which strengthen traditional native values. That basic recognition — respect for the equal value and validity of the native cultures — is the first essential step in getting us out of the horrible blind alley which natives and non-natives have been stuck in for the past 150 years or so in this province.

Let me say, too, that reducing the cost and complexity of courts and the legal system is absolutely essential for all British Columbians. There is an enormous public frustration that we have so much law and seemingly so little justice that is affordable to the ordinary person. There is tremendous cynicism about social institutions out there and in the public, and frankly, it is well deserved.

It is time that we had some fire in our bellies in addressing the issues: that is, the cost and complexity of our justice system — for example, the leniency in sentencing for rape and child abuse, and the tremen-

[ Page 8872 ]

dous problems of single parents and their children often living in poverty in the midst of abundance.

In my constituency we have an added concern: the loss of labour content in primary and secondary production that threatens our economic base. We don't want to turn the clock back, but we need an aggressive policy of developing alternative employment opportunities in our resource regions.

I am delighted to see the strong emphasis on regional initiatives in this year's throne speech. Key elements such as tourism and small business enhancement are also given prominence, and that, too, gives me confidence in our government's working in the right direction.

The role of the government is not to create employment directly. That is simply not the most efficient or effective use of the tax dollar. The failure of well-intentioned federal initiatives in Atlantic Canada has shown this again and again. The role of government is to provide infrastructure — an infrastructure to assist in building the groundwork from which the people can build most successfully, in thousands of creative ways that could never be thought of or seen by bureaucracy.

That is the unique genius of free enterprise. Socialists have failed in this century because they have been fundamentally opposed to and have misunderstood development of concepts and ideas that are paramount to the free enterprise system. They have seen the free enterprise system as lacking in planning. Quite the opposite is true. Free enterprise represents the ultimate in planning at the small business level. Competition sifts the not-good ideas from the good ideas. It responds to the needs and desires of the people of British Columbia. A healthy free enterprise environment is like a healthy natural environment. Cooperation and competition work together to ensure an economic gain to society.

No single human being could have designed something as simple or as complex as an ordinary tree. No single government could design something as complex as a living, healthy and vibrant economy. It takes the cooperation of all of us to do that, and that is why, in the long run, free enterprise is the most democratic and effective economic system.

[11:00]

Our challenge today is to match the health of our free enterprise economy with the health of our natural environment so that we may make an outstanding quality of our lives something which is sustainable, not only for ourselves but for future generations. This is a Social Credit government vision of sustainable development, which is the underpinning of the throne speech.

While careful and cautious, it is equally progressive and idealistic. It is the product of an enhanced learning we have all experienced over the recent decade. It is a very positive and realistic basis for optimism for the coming decade. In the past, economic infrastructure largely meant energy, transportation and basic education. Increasingly, it means high technology, transition assistance and continued retraining.

To working people, the challenges of the quickening pace of economic change are accelerating and often frightening. As a past union executive, I am particularly delighted at the recognition given in the throne speech to the changing nature of the workplace and the social fallout which results. The new provincial pension plan is a major initiative in this regard, and I applaud it. Protection for workers subject to major layoffs and community transition programs are both extremely worthwhile and progressive steps. Enhanced bridging programs for income assistance recipients are likewise ingredients in a compassionate program. These programs are focused on practicality and recognizing the very real problems faced by displaced workers, particularly in our resource constituencies.

Enhancement of value-added forest production has tremendous potential if effective marketing is done. For example, in California and the western U.S. paper-products market, value-added is very successful. Watch value-added work in British Columbia, I tell you. It's happening today in Yale-Lillooet, and it's going to happen throughout British Columbia tomorrow.

Even though our government is doing an outstanding job, I would be first to admit we're not perfect. I wanted to say something that even the opposition could agree with. Frankly, I don't see how any fair-minded person could look at our fiscal and economic performance and at this year's throne speech and fail to be impressed. The measure of good government is not how it sounds on the 6 o'clock news. The measure of good government is how it rises to meet difficult challenges and how it deals with hard choices on behalf of the public, not just now but on behalf of future generations. For the past two years we have felt the heat. The mettle of our leadership and of our unity have been tested in an incredibly public and democratic way. But today we stand united, stronger than ever, proven right by economic events and able to stand up for British Columbia as we address the historic inequalities of Canadian federation, not to weaken our nation but to heal and strengthen it through meaningful Senate reform.

We have many battles to fight yet: battles against the GST, battles against excessively high interest rates imposed by a centralist bureaucracy, high interest rates that are seeking to make British Columbians pay Ottawa's failures over the past 20 years. This is a feeble attempt by Ottawa to live up to Social Credit standards of financial management, balanced budgets and public accountability.

We have battles against driftnet fishers who plunder our oceans without regard to the future. We have battles against environmental irresponsibility, threatening whole species and indeed their elimination if ultimately not checked, and even threatening our own species. We will not flinch at these tasks. We will not avoid the battles on behalf of the people of British Columbia in the natural environment of our great province.

[ Page 8873 ]

We have taken the hardest that our adversaries could give. We have amazed the curious by thriving and prospering, by uniting and by working with renewed energy. Rumours to the contrary, B.C. Social Credit is not an endangered species; rather it's an ecological success story. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that for many years to come this party will form a government which will deliver good government to the province and the people of British Columbia.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on being chosen by your peers to preside over the deliberations of this chamber. May you enjoy and excel at your duties.

May I also congratulate my two colleagues: the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker and the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) on his appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole. I both appreciate and sympathize, but I still wish you the best of luck in the coming session.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion to adopt the Speech from the Throne presented by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

I owe this opportunity to the people of Cowichan-Malahat. I thank them for their support and encouragement, and it is with pride that I represent them in our Legislature.

As we start to debate this year's throne speech, I would first like to reflect for a moment on our fundamental institutions of justice and democracy. I recently returned from a trip to eastern Europe in which I was part of a Canadian-American delegation that went to share ideas and methods on how to conduct free elections in a multiparty democracy That experience led me to understand in a fuller, more profound sense the fragility of democracy and the importance of not just what we do in this chamber but how we do it and why. It made me realize how much we take the freedoms of democracy for granted.

If I may digress but for a moment, I'd like to tell you of the excitement, the feeling in the air, in Prague. In fact, you could still feel the sense of the revolution: the dedication in the eyes, the commitment in the voices of those who have fought many years to achieve a free and democratic society. To meet men and women who have spent years in prison in their quest for democratic reforms is both a humbling and inspiring experience.

For all the raucous words we may hear coming in this session — though, of course, my own party has a longstanding reputation for gentle language — we are participating in a democratic process that may have its flaws but is still the best there is. In the words of that great leader Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried...."

We will achieve many good things in this session of the Legislature, but most importantly, we must uphold our institutions of democracy and ensure their passage onward to our children. We must be proud of that tradition; yet we must also be ready to implement the reforms needed to keep it vital, credible and respected. In time, I believe we must discuss the fundamentals of caucus discipline on legislative, as opposed to supply, votes. Britain some time ago introduced the reform, essentially allowing free votes on legislative bills which are not fundamental to public confidence in the government of the day.

The discussion, I believe, will be precipitated by the upcoming vote in the House of Commons on the bill to pass into law the goods and services tax. Canadians are now raising legitimate concerns as to whether their representatives — you and I and others in the legislatures across this country and in the House of Commons — are truly responsive to their views. When people feel they are not relevant to the parliamentary process, then to the peril of us all, the parliamentary process can become irrelevant to the people. We must look to what we may do in this chamber to more fully nurture the confidence of our constituents in ourselves and in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, to the business of today. Last year the theme of the throne speech stressed the environment, the economy and education. This year again all those vital concerns are discussed and concrete measures proposed to meet emerging needs and priorities.

Yet the dominant theme of this year's throne speech concerns the very fundamentals of how this government is able to achieve major progress in the environment, the economy and education, and no less so in health care and social services. This government has examined carefully the delicate relationship between its own spending and the impact of that on British Columbia's economy, the taxpayer's ability to pay, and, completing the cycle, the stability of its own revenues. If government spends what the taxpayers cannot bear, the economy may suffer two disincentives to growth — inflation and high taxes. This critical look at the dynamics of government and the economy is essential, given the emerging trends in the economy of not just British Columbia but the world.

However, the talk down at the store — that's Bruce's Grocery of Canada — is that if the federal government was as well managed as the B.C. government, we'd not be facing the prospect of the goods and services tax. Yet, for all of our good fortune, there is also reason to plot our course more carefully.

It is by now becoming well known that global prices for our critical commodity exports, principally pulp and lumber, are softening — not falling, but softening.

[11:15]

Interjections.

MR. BRUCE: It would be good for my colleague from Nanaimo to listen, because what I'm about to say affects the constituents in his area as desperately and as meaningfully as the constituents in my area.

The effects have not yet reverberated in the provincial economy, and they may not. Yet I am concerned, for I know my own constituency well. It is the

[ Page 8874 ]

heart and soul of the forest industry, and its constituents will be among the first to feel these effects, as will the constituents in Nanaimo. I will look after the affairs of the people in Cowichan-Malahat, and if I have to, I will look after the affairs of the people in Nanaimo too.

Do these conditions, and many others external to our provincial economy, ranging from a slide in the Tokyo stock exchange to American protectionism, impend the repeat of the agonies of 1982 and 1983? Optimistically I say no. But realistically these signs tell me that, given economic conditions and trends, British Columbia's prosperity is fragile.

What we are enjoying in this province today is the result of good management and good government of years past and today. The future of that strong economy will very much depend on the future results of the election.

I am proud that this government will not risk exacerbating the conditions that led to the recession of 1982. I'm not talking about lost corporate profits, but about the very real anguish of the people, moms and dads, many of whom I met in my office as mayor of the municipality of North Cowichan, and about what they experience when shifts are laid off, mortgage payments skyrocket, and families face very severe hardships.

To preserve its prosperity, British Columbia must be ready to act decisively to ensure the recession of 1982 does not occur in 1991. We must anticipate change, we must frame our choices wisely, and we must confront our challenges. Neither this government nor any other government can guarantee economic prosperity. Yet a good government can meet its own specific challenge of not spending what the economy and the individual taxpayer cannot afford to bear. This, my friends, is a simple and very ancient message. It is one both the communists and the socialists have never understood. It would be a cliché if it were not so often forgotten by those who should know better.

Part of that challenge to government is to remember and respect the importance of maintaining equity between public and private wage settlements. This government has presented — and I commend to the House — speedy approval of the measures to ensure such equity. As shall become known, the heart of these proposals is not recession or restraint, but reason and responsibility. In them lie the political message of the throne speech. This government will not seek to buy false peace.

To build on the successes of last year in maintaining and improving government's concern for the environment, the economy and education, several measures will be undertaken. Government will present an action plan for the environment entitled "Vision 2001" that will target environmental problems and seek to find solutions.

One area to which government must continue to direct its attention is forestry and the environment. In British Columbia, it is not to exaggerate to say that forestry is the environment. The awareness of forestry issues in 1990 far surpasses that of only five years ago. I commend our government for dealing with these changes, developing the choices and confronting the challenges. It would be easy to call for a study, like some who would tell the forest workers of Cowichan-Malahat — the very members of the IWA — to go on UI while the world passes them by. But to govern, my friends, means you deal with changes, you develop choices and you face the challenges.

An energy conservation act will also be introduced. Environmental standards, monitoring and enforcement will be strengthened. I would add that the ministry is in a position to take strong action now, as I have recently called for in my own area. Government must be diligent and decisive In protecting our waters and our air.

I believe we must also revisit the number one cause of air pollution: the automobile. B.C. has a solution in natural gas that is gaining the attention of the world and that we should pursue with great vigour. British Columbians have already proven to be willing to undertake the efforts needed to improve the economy. I refer specifically to recycling. I grew up with recycling. My mother used to save and clean every jar and every can, then once a month take them down to the Victoria recycling depot. Her example — and examples of thousands of others — has made a difference. I'm pleased to say that my own community is now pursuing a course of action.

For the people of Cowichan-Malahat, I am proud to say that the small business forest enterprise program will expand to create more jobs and to further diversify the range of economic activity surrounding our forest resources. Other small business initiatives will flow from the newly announced Strong Communities in the 90s program and refocusing of assistance to Community Organizations for Economic Development.

Complementary legislation, to my mind, are the amendments to the Employment Standards Act to give adequate warning for any large layoffs. I have faced these layoffs several times in my community, and before-the-fact action is a must. Workers and communities deserve as much lead time as the big companies to replot their economic future when global changes make that necessary.

You may be interested to learn, Mr. Speaker, that over the last year the small business conferences held in my constituency have been oversubscribed. An outcome of such conferences in Cowichan-Malahat has been the development of a strong and growing tourist industry. I am proud to say that that tourism development has not been in opposition to forestry but in concert with forestry, something that we can do throughout British Columbia.

Our agricultural and dairy industries have, on the whole, done very well and will benefit from the recharged commitment to improving the quality of our products. Greater variety in our products and greater diversity in our markets will continue as a top priority.

Having just returned from eastern Europe and having seen many of the changes there firsthand, I am pleased at the steps being taken to build new trade

[ Page 8875 ]

and investment relations. To be realistic, the economic results there will not be immediate, but the trust necessary for future success can be.

As British Columbia reaches out to Europe, it must also reach out to all the regions of the province, particularly Vancouver Island and the north. To this end, my friends, I commend the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) for his help in our fight to save the E&N Railway from eastern indifference. Some said it could not be done; some cried foul. We took action. We understood the change. We knew the choice and we faced the challenge. I look forward, as I know you do, to a ride on the improved service of a B.C.-regulated E&N Railway.

Education will continue to receive the support our system needs, and our children's future needs, in order to deal not just with economic and scientific change but with social, political and cultural change.

The reforms of the Sullivan Royal Commission on Education — "Education 2000" and "School Finance '90" — will continue to move towards full implementation. We will also see the introduction of the University of Northern British Columbia, which I believe will have a great impact on the lives of many in the northern part of our province, as has the expansion — first of all, really, the initiation and then the expansion — of the Malaspina campus in Cowichan, which has proven to be a tremendous success and a considerable asset to the community of central Vancouver Island.

There is also in this throne speech a strong progressive and realistic theme that deserves as much recognition as its core economic strategy. My friends, I share with many in my generation a sense of idealism as to what government can achieve to help the unprotected, the unfairly treated and the disadvantaged. I am heartened to see that the values of my generation are clearly and realistically reflected in several of the initiatives of this throne speech.

The clearest demonstration of that idealism, I believe, is in the commitment to develop an initiative to ensure pay equity in the public sector. One can make all the fine logical distinctions and spin out all the reasons and rationales under the sun, but the fact remains, my friends: women in the public service tend to hold non-managerial jobs and are paid less than men, while working just as hard, just as long and, in many cases, with more dedication.

Equally as important to women, many of whom are proving to be British Columbia's most successful entrepreneurs — and my sister just happens to be one — is the proposed pension plan. This will allow men and women to build a safe pension for their retirement even though they may shift jobs and perhaps even careers.

Other examples of the idealism inherent in this throne speech are the recognition of the needs of single-parent families, bridging programs to help people move from social assistance to social independence and, important to me as MLA for Cowichan-Malahat, native justice, language and cultural life.

[11:30]

I'd like to expand on this part, if I may, for a moment. There has long been a problem for natives with the justice system. When two cultural worlds collide in such an emotional forum, misunderstanding on both sides is perhaps inevitable. What the Attorney-General has proposed, coming out of the justice reform package, is to allow, where possible, native communities to exercise native principles and procedures of justice. The spirit of native justice proposals is active in our judiciary already, and I refer to the recent initiative by Provincial Court Judge Fred Green of Duncan to meet with tribal elders on Vancouver Island. Together they explored not the differences but the possibility of cooperation between native justice and the provincial legal system.

I have discussed the framework of this year's throne speech: moderate and forward-looking fiscal management to preserve our stability as conditions increase its fragility; continued emphasis on the environment, the economy and education; and realistic yet idealistic initiatives to help British Columbians who most deserve our respect and attention. This government has adopted this course because we recognize that we must anticipate change, we must make our choices and we must face our challenges.

I began this speech by reflecting on our fundamental institutions of justice and democracy. Let me conclude, then, with a further reflection by an author named E.B. White, who wrote: "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." To put credence to this quote, the people of British Columbia are right. They were right in 1952, they were right in 1953, in '56, in '60, in '63 and in '69. They were right again in 1975 and '79 and '83 and '86. And, my friends, they will be right again in 1990 or '91. You see, Mr. Speaker, the people are right more than half the time. People in the province of British Columbia do not want socialism.

MR. SPEAKER: If there are no members standing, I am prepared to call the vote on the throne speech.

MR. HARCOURT: I guess that limit of speeches goes along with the limited throne speech that we had to deal with yesterday. What we saw yesterday was a Social Credit government not wanting any scrutiny of the GO B.C. grants or the conduct of the former Provincial Secretary or the Premier in any manner whatsoever. They don't want to talk about any of the reports from the auditor-general, the comptroller-general, the RCMP or the Attorney-General's staff.

We saw this government say that the Premier should continue to make the choice for women on the question of abortion. We saw this government say that there may be a housing crisis — but if you want action, vote New Democrat. And we saw this government finally say that they cannot say the word "no" to the GST.

What we heard yesterday was a government that wants to talk about 20, 30, 40 years ago, as we heard

[ Page 8876 ]

from the member for Cowichan-Malahat. I remember 20 years ago, Mr. Speaker. Do you remember 20 years ago? That's when the Premier was a Trudeau Liberal and the Minister of Finance was a Trudeau Liberal. Yesterday we heard this government wanting to talk about Mongolia, about Australia, about Albania. No wonder they wanted to talk about eastern Europe. Look who was just there: the Premier. They wanted to talk about 20 or 40 years ago. They wanted to philosophize about worldwide political ideologies. This is the astral traveller party: the Social Credit Party. The ones who can read, read Shirley MacLaine; those who can't, consult the Premier's numerologist. Maybe it's time we started to talk about British Columbia. I wish this government would talk about British Columbia. Maybe it's time they started to talk about today's realities.

This government says the throne speech is about change, choice and challenge. For once I agree with them. The people of B.C. know they have a clear choice; they are saying it is time for a change; and only a new government will get on with dealing with the new challenges we face.

This government is so desperate to win an election that they're ready to pick a fight with their own employees, just as they've done with nurses, with doctors, with women on abortion, with teachers, with school boards and with the aboriginal people. I say it's time we had a government that brings people together, not one that tears them apart as we've seen under Social Credit.

I'll have more to say on Monday afternoon on the positive alternatives that the people of British Columbia can expect from the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MIL VEITCH: After that underwhelming opening by the Leader of the Opposition, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:38 a.m.