Hansard -- Monday, April 9, 1990 -- Afternoon Sitting

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I see a constituent of mine In the audience today. I'd like the House to make a special welcome to Mrs. Bette Pepper. She represents the Provincial Council of Women and the National Council of Women. She is truly representative of the dedicated leadership of ladies within our communities. Bette, welcome to Victoria.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the galleries this afternoon is my father-in-law, Norman Burke, and a friend of his from Victoria, John Wilson. I would ask the House to make them both welcome.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Seated today in the House and here in Victoria for their first meeting is the advisory committee on the delivery of women's programs. I'd like to introduce each one of them: chairperson, Mayor Susan Brice of Oak Bay; Finola Finlay, principal of Northern Lights College in Fort St. John; Lois Hollstedt, executive director of the Vancouver YWCA; Mobina Jaffer, president of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of British Columbia; Dr. Rozmin Kamani, president of the Federation of Medical Women of Canada; Robin LeDrew, president of the B.C. and Yukon Association of Women's Centres; Betty McClurg, executive director of Langley Family Services Association; Irene McRae, executive director of Deltassist Community Services Society; Bette Pepper, president of the Provincial Council of Women; Patreace Sinclair, developer of the New Door Second Stage Transition Housing Society; Kathie Taylor, immediate past president of the Western Businesswomen's Association; and Miss Ruth Williams, executive director of the Interior Indian Friendship Society in Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. MERCIER: On behalf of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), it's my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature a school group from Sir Alexander Mackenzie School in Bella Coola. I understand that 15 grade 11 students and their teacher, Eva Mack, are in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House, too, would like to welcome the women on the advisory committee to the minister. I know that some of them had serious difficulty wondering whether they were going to be introduced using the agencies that they represent as well as their own personal names. I assure them that they have nothing but support from this side of the House for what they are about to do. So welcome to them from the opposition.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today is my spouse, Gayle Ballard — my helper — and my stepson, Scott Ballard, and his good friend, Candice Digeso. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I note with sadness the passing of Ryan White. I'm sure that many of you have heard of the case of Ryan White. He was 13 years old when he contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, and he died over the weekend at the age of 18. He was a champion in the fight against discrimination against those with AIDS, and I would like the House to note with sadness his passing.

MR. PERRY: I would like to join the Minister of Health in acknowledging the passing of Ryan White and would hope that we in British Columbia can learn from his example.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to welcome a group of students visiting the House today from Five Acres Alternative School In Nanaimo, along with their teacher, Mr. Martin. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

MR. DE JONG: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Henry Groothof, who are accompanying my wife today. They are from Central Fraser Valley, and I would ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I see in the gallery today a friend of mine who is active with the Songhees band situated in my riding. Would all members join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Kelly Russ.

MS. MARZARI: I have one further introduction of an old constituent — not quite so old in age, but he's been in Australia now for six years and is back in B.C. He is an architect by training and formerly of Point Grey: Mr. Peter Lattey.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as you and the House are well aware, the smooth, efficient and orderly functioning of this chamber is largely due to prior arrangements with my counterpart on the other side. I am under the distinct impression — as is my assistant — that we had a prior agreement that there would be no question period today. However, if the opposition feels the need, we are prepared to respond to their urgent questions.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, because trust between members does guide our business here, and that's why we're called honourable members. I would request that if there was an intention to suggest that somehow this side was being dishonourable, the Speaker ask the hon. government House Leader to withdraw his remarks, because I deny that allegation categorically. If he failed to understand our final parting agreement, then that's his problem; it's not the problem of this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: That having been settled, I'll start question period again, and we'll start the clock now.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. As you're probably aware, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital board has recently decided to hold a referendum on the issue of abortion. Can the Premier inform this House what steps he has taken to tell the Nanaimo hospital board that, referendum or not, your government will not tolerate any interference in a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm still surprised every time I hear the opposition question the process of democracy. Why would anyone be opposed to democracy? Are you, hon. member, opposed to democracy?

MS. PULLINGER: I thought we on this side of the House asked the questions. I mean, let's just talk about democracy. This is a decision that has been condemned by the local Member of Parliament; it has been condemned by the two MLAs of the area; it has been condemned by the regional board, which is locally elected and which also decided to question whether or not it would provide funds to the hospital; it has been condemned by city council; it has been condemned by the hospital's doctors; it has been condemned by the health services employees. The decision to halt abortions was made against the advice of the patient care committee.

The law is clear. The three court decisions have affirmed that women have the right to abortion services. The only reason this board and other hospitals continue to frustrate women's rights is your sorry leadership in imposing your own narrow personal and religious views.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I would urge you to ask the member to get to a question rather than make a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The length of the preamble only determines the length of the answer. The Chair just tries to be equal in these things. The members of the opposition have a limited amount of time to ask questions. If they choose to use that limited amount of time with lengthy preambles, that is the practice that's been established. Would the member continue. It would be nice if you got to the actual question.

MS. PULLINGER: Had the member waited a moment, I was just ready to ask the question.

Is the Premier now prepared to instruct his minister to uphold the law and inform all hospital boards in this province that legal abortion services must not be restricted?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think we enjoy in this province some very dedicated municipal councils, school boards, hospital boards and other such organizations that do an excellent job. From time to time, perhaps, we may disagree with what they do or how it's done, but certainly there can't be any disagreement about a particular group seeking the opinion of the people in the community by whatever means are reasonably available.

If the member is again objecting, as I've heard so often from the NDP socialists, to this whole concept of involving the public in the decision-making process, then I say you are a sorry lot and don't have much of a chance at any time.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. The minister has been quoted in the press recently as saying that she sees her role as simply "to act as an advocate for women." Given that the overwhelming majority of women in this province both understand the importance of access to safe, legal abortion services and want to ensure that it's retained, will the minister undertake to fulfill her commitment, as she stated it, to women and ensure that women in the mid-Island area do not lose this vital health care service?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think the Premier has answered the question twice. There is a process in place, whether you like it or not on the other side of the House, and there is an opportunity, in every community that has a hospital, for every opinion to be represented. I would suggest to those people who do not like the opinion represented by a hospital board to get involved in the process.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. The Premier, I am sure, is well aware of the circumstances surrounding the GO B.C. funds given to the Semiahmoo House Society by his government and his former minister. Does he condone the actions of his former minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps I should take a moment here and make reference to a news release from the New Democrats dated April 4, 1990. If you ask about condoning, certainly I can comment on this particular news release. It's full of falsities; it's a total misrepresentation; it's a complete lie. I would like to point out that the member was obviously a party to this press release. Perhaps if he wishes to make reference to what is said about something, he ought to check the facts first.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier seems to have some difficulty answering the question. I'll rephrase it so perhaps it will be a little easier for him. In this

instance, as the Premier is aware, no application form was filled out by the society that ultimately got the money. Does the Premier consider that to be proper conduct for a minister who looks after lottery funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I guess we saw in the first question coming from the socialist side of the House an attitude which tells us that unless the decision or the information con-ting from a group suits their particular philosophy or what it is they would like to see, they disagree with it, it's no good, and they can't in any way support it or even reasonably assess it. Here we have a similar situation. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is particularly noted for this sort of thing, and I think we hear as much sleazy stuff come from there as we hear from anywhere. The matter has been thoroughly investigated by respected people and respected bodies, but somehow he doesn't like what they're finding or how they commented on that particular circumstance. Therefore he naturally needs to pursue it further, because unless it's as he would like to see it, or as the socialists would have it, it's not good enough.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the answer to the question is that he does condone the behaviour of his minister.

The Premier talks about attitudes and what he would like to see and what people would like to see. The Premier talked quite some time ago about the standard that he expects from ministers. He said he wanted to ensure that those who are elected work under conditions and guidelines which leave no doubts whatsoever in the minds of the public as to the ethics and integrity of those who serve in public office.

In this case, funds were funnelled — and undisclosed — to a former campaign manager of the then minister. Does the Premier believe that in his opinion that standard of conduct — which I have just quoted from — was fulfilled by the minister in giving the funds to a campaign manager and not disclosing that fact?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As the member is well aware, as soon as this whole issue was questioned, the minister resigned. As the member is well aware, there was a thorough investigation by the Attorney-General, by the RCMP and by the ombudsman. With all of that information, he still wishes to pursue it in order to attain whatever it is he wishes to achieve, which is pure politics, and frankly, I don't fall for that.

MR. BRUCE: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The residents of Crofton — the area I live in — are greatly concerned about both the quality of air they breathe and the quality of water they find in Crofton Bay. Recently a spill occurred in Crofton Bay, and I asked the minister to launch a full investigation into that spill. Can the minister tell me whether that investigation has been called for?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for advising my office a little over a week ago of some accusations. I've asked my staff to have a full and independent investigation. I would hope we will be able to get back to him very shortly.

MR. BRUCE: Also, Mr. Minister of Environment, I have called for a full analysis of the air quality in the area. We're greatly concerned with the air that we breathe. The residents would like some assurance as to the quality of air — just what is there. I would ask the minister whether or not he and his ministry would consider a full analysis of the air in the Crofton community.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for another good question. He can be assured that in our investigations that are taking place we will investigate all the aspects he has mentioned. He knows that this ministry has brought in the toughest regulations in all of Canada towards pulp mills. We're going to enforce those regulations as best we can and as quickly as we can.

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. Will the minister please talk about her responsibility for women's centres in this province? She has promised it. She has suggested she is responsible, and the provincial government does have a responsibility. But now Port Alberni, Williams Lake, Campbell River and Fort St. John have been closed, and Quesnel and North Vancouver are on their way to closing by the end of this month.

The clock is ticking, Madam Minister. When and how are you going to fund those women's centres? I'm talking about emergency funding here. I know you have a committee; I know it's working. Where is the emergency funding?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The emergency or interim funding must come from the federal government. My committee has a mandate to come back within the next six weeks with recommendations for cabinet on how best to deliver women's programs in communities.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Minister, emergency funding generally comes from the source of government closest to the centres. That happens to be the provincial government, and it is the provincial government, in your name, that has suggested we have a responsibility. Emergency funding means provincial funding. Do you seriously believe the federal government will come up with emergency funding for the remaining 18 centres that might close?

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Environment. The Woodfibre pulp mill has had its third spill in less than five weeks. Will the minister confirm that his department has failed to establish any firm legal requirement that spills must be reported to the proper officials, notwithstanding what the minister says about strong pollution laws?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, once again the member is incorrect. Any mill under permit in this province that has a spill must inform my department immediately. If they don't, they are in violation of their permit.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister should be aware that section 10(5) of the Waste Management Act requires that spills be reported according to the regulations. Can the minister confirm, however, that there are in fact no regulations to enforce this section, no regulations saying when and to whom spills shall be reported?

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the minister said no to that question. How can the minister expect to successfully prosecute polluters when the evidence of toxic spills is gone before the ministry might hear about them? That's if he cares about them at all.

Will the minister now agree that whistle-blower protection legislation is appropriate for this province, and will he agree to put that into effect?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the first part of his question is wrong; and in answer to the second part, no.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of order at the first opportunity, at the conclusion of the question period, and I raise it more in sorrow than in anger. But I am also outraged. So my sorrow is great and my anger is also rather momentous. Somebody said I don't look like it, but I am serious about this. I say this to the Premier because the Premier — and I've acknowledged this publicly before — has had a very positive influence on the improved behaviour in this place since he became Premier. So I don't take that away from him. It's a much more civil place than it was. It has not, though, continued to be today. The Premier himself called a press release which was put out by my hon. friend from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew a lie. The Premier knows full well that's unparliamentary. It is not permitted in this chamber.

The other reference to my hon. friend, which he finds extremely offensive, was the word "sleaze." Last year the Premier called my hon. friend "sleazy Moe," and he — and I complimented him for it — had the good sense and the gentlemanliness to withdraw. I suggest he withdraw both those little utterings now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair listened carefully during question period and listened especially carefully when the press release was mentioned. I think if you check Hansard, you will see that what was said was that the press release itself, issued by someone, was a lie and not that the member himself had lied.

Had the Premier said that the member had lied, I would have interrupted question period at that time and asked him to withdraw it.

Nonetheless, it would be in good order to try to bring this very early part of this brand-new session back to the nice, quiet, level playing-field that we once had. If there were any remarks made that were untoward that the Premier wishes to withdraw, he could withdraw them now. Otherwise....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I got carried away because I picked up the word from the press release too. I certainly withdraw the word that I picked up from the press release in my comments to the member.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I allowed our House Leader to raise this issue because I think that's the best way of handling these matters. The Premier has chosen not — as I understand what he had to say — to withdraw the word "sleazy." He did this last year, and he's doing it again. I want to give the Premier a choice: either he can withdraw it here, or he can go outside and say it. I would ask for a withdrawal.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, knowing the member's record in defending politicians, I certainly won't.... I said already that I withdrew the word, and I'll do so again.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I did, and I'll do so again. I told you, I apologize, but I read it here and I picked up on it, and I should not have done that, reading from your press release.

Also, I'd like to comment that we too would like as much decorum in the House as possible. I'm afraid all of us may be carried away a bit by the fact that the opposition didn't start it off very well on Thursday when we opened the House, and perhaps that has affected the situation some.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Since that matter has now been dispensed with, we can presume that the rest of the session will be operated with the same good decorum that last year's session was.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Western Pulp Ltd. Partnership at Woodfibre in Howe Sound will be issued a pollution abatement order under section 22 of the Waste Management Act on April 10, in response to recent spills that have occurred at the mill, the most recent being April 6.

The order will require the mill to provide spill containments sufficient to contain 125 percent of the volume of the largest storage tank capacity for each dangerous good stored at the above site. No drains are to be located within the containment area.

The order will require that two-way radio contact be maintained between the chemical unloader and personnel at the site of the receiving storage tank when dangerous goods are being offloaded or transferred. Such communication is required until such time as high-level alarms are installed on all dangerous goods storage tanks.

The order is to acquire and construct or carry out any further works or measures that are necessary to control, abate or stop the pollution; to hire an independent consultant approved by the ministry to conduct an environmental audit to identify possible spill sources on the site; and to develop and enhance a contingency plan which will reflect a program to ensure that their staff are adequately trained.

I close, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating my staff for being so quick to act and for doing a good job in this area.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would start off by noting that I was not informed that this statement was going to be made today. While everyone has to be appreciative of the fact that a pollution abatement order has been issued, I would reiterate the point I made earlier that there are no regulations to enforce the section of the act that points out where and to whom these spills are reported. Therefore we have this willy-nilly, catch-as-catch-can situation throughout this province when it comes to spill enforcement and reporting spills.

The fact is that nobody knows whether it's three or 103 spills that have taken place in the past three weeks. There are only those three that have been reported in the past five weeks.

It's good to know that there will be an environment audit, but we don't have the kind of monitoring going on a 24-hour basis that's going to ensure that this does not happen. No amount of statements in the House by this minister and no amount of public relations by this minister are going to deal with that. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that we have to have whistle-blower legislation to protect the workers so that they report these spills, because they want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The minister should enable them to do that.

Finally, I think it's about time that this minister stopped functioning as an apologist for the polluters, inviting people to come to Howe Sound and eat toxic crabs, and got on with dealing with the task he has of protecting this environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would just like to give the House this guidance for future ministerial statements. If the scope of the reply could be in the same keeping as the scope of the statement, we would avoid breaking into argumentative things. There are lots of other occasions during the normal proceedings of this House when we'll have an opportunity to do that.

MR. HARCOURT: The throne speech of last week shows that this government has its sights set on only one thing: saving its political butt. This government is dressed up in its best clothes hoping that no one else will get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

At a time when people want leadership on critical issues, this government won't make a move until its pollsters tell them what to do. If the Premier would open his ears and listen, he might know what British Columbians are saying. I'll tell him what they're saying. They're saying: "Don't play politics with our kids' education. Stop being a schoolyard bully armed with a short-sighted referendum scheme. Quit picking fights with British Columbians, with doctors, nurses, teachers, school boards, women, aboriginal people and now with your own employees."

It's clear from this throne speech that the current government will resort to anything to get re-elected, regardless of how many people are hurt or how many tax dollars are wasted. This government won't tell us, but I bet the Socred polling will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia at least $1 million this year. A number of partisan TV ads — again, paid for by the taxpayers — will double this year.

British Columbians are way ahead of this government. They know this government is more concerned with public relations than with public interest. The Premier has suggested that his school referendum scheme is standing up for democracy. He calls British Columbians who oppose it "sinister." This is from a man whose government has repeatedly imposed its own personal and religious views on the people of B.C. British Columbians are way ahead of this government. They are giving one clear message: it's time for a change.

Today I want to put forward some of the New Democrat legislative agenda for this session. Our legislative agenda will be to bring about open and honest government for the people of British Columbia: a government that shows leadership on critical issues and addresses today's issues and today's realities with modern solutions, not 1950s morality; a government that stands up for B.C. against the Mulroney government and shows some leadership; and a government that represents the interests of the working men and women of this province.

The Premier is right about one thing. The future is about choices. His government has made its choice: government for its political friends and government behind closed doors. New Democrats have made our choice: open and honest government for B.C.

Accordingly, we will be asking this Legislature to adopt an open-door policy. This will include freedom of information legislation to ensure full public and media access to government business, including public spending accounts. It will include the televising of legislative proceedings, a promise we'll keep. We'll be asking this Legislature to adopt new initiatives in grassroots democracy. Accordingly, we will be bringing forward legislation to open up decision-making to British Columbians and their communities on the future use of Crown lands and forests.

As well, we'll be taking new steps to provide communities with the chance to choose and start services that meet their own needs in local environmental action; economic development and promotion; health services, such as community-based clinics; and family services, such as child care. This government thought so much of their regionalization scheme that they got rid of it. That shows how much confidence they've got in it. We'll do it right when we get the chance to govern — in the very near future, hopefully.

We propose to bring this province into step with the rest of Canada by lowering the voting age to 18.

We must restore the trust between British Columbians and the government. That has been seriously eroded during the current government's term of office. We will be bringing forward conflict-of-interest laws to punish politicians who abuse the public trust to help themselves or their friends. I wish the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) were here, because we will be introducing legislation to separate the Attorney-General's legal responsibility from those matters involving the potential criminality of a political colleague.

This government is out of touch with the critical issues facing hundreds of thousands of working families. The throne speech boasts of this government's comprehensive housing policies. The only thing comprehensive about them is their complete failure to house British Columbians. We'll be putting forward a housing program that is affordable and do-able and will house British Columbians. This will include a starter-home program to make home ownership affordable for young families, changes to the Property Purchase Tax Act to exempt first-time homebuyers, and a doubling of the non-profit cooperative housing to help our seniors, disabled citizens and single-parent families.

We are prepared to bring in other housing measures such as a tax on the flipping by speculators of our houses, the return of the rentalsman and rent stabilization, a stop to public land sales like the Expo lands and a start to opening them up for affordable housing. We'll bring in controls on the demolition of good, affordable housing.

We will be introducing measures to deal with today's health care realities. This government continues to force patients to go to Seattle. I happen to have met the first open-heart surgery patient that we shipped out of this province to Seattle. I'll tell you, he wasn't very happy about having to leave British Columbia to go to another country to have an open-heart surgery operation he should have had right here in the interior of this province.

This government continues to impose its narrow personal views on the very difficult and challenging AIDS problem that we face, when young people must be given the facts on sexuality so they can make their own informed decisions. The Health minister says that teaching kids about AIDS is complex. There's nothing complex about this fact: 88 B.C. teenagers tested positive for the AIDS virus this year alone. That's double the number of last year.

In the absence of leadership by this government, we will be asking this Legislature to take urgent action to provide adequate health care, including heart surgery and cancer treatment here in B.C. and in B.C.'s hospitals, and to support a provincewide AIDS prevention and treatment program.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) had to leave. I think that's unfortunate, because British Columbians want strong action, not more oil tankers and toxic waste, not an ex-Minister of Environment who, when we had our first oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island, said: "I don't know what to do; I just follow. Tell me what to do. I haven't got time to visit the site."

On the failure of leadership in this area, we will be reintroducing an even more comprehensive sustainable development program for this session, to sustain our forest, fishing and farming economies without harming our environment. We will be putting forward new action not just to recycle but to significantly reduce garbage, deal with biomedical, industrial and household toxic waste, establish clean air laws and protect our heritage rivers. The environmental threats we face are largely the result of B.C.'s rapid growth without effective environmental protection.

As a result, we will also ask this Legislature to adopt a Georgia basin environmental action plan. The Georgia basin is an ecologically sensitive area with a population of five million people that will double in our lifetime. It is the lands and waters of southwest B.C. and northwest Washington State, from the Fraser River west to lower Vancouver Island, and from the Sunshine Coast south to Olympia, Washington. It includes sensitive coastal waters that are shared by B.C. and Washington, including the straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.

Legislation will be presented to move with urgency on our common environmental concerns, including action on oil spills, with a moratorium on increased oil tanker traffic and offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration; the dumping of sewage and toxic waste in our ocean waters; the protection of our fisheries and flyways; air pollution reduction; and the preservation of our farmlands and watersheds.

Mr. Speaker, the current government thinks that its school referendum scheme is a clever political strategy. What it is trying to do is pit homeowners against school boards, and they are willing to jeopardize our children's education to do it. We are ready to put an end to the school wars, and that means no referendums on our children's education. We will bring forward budget proposals to provide school tax relief for homeowners, while providing funding stability for our children's education. The best economic investment we can make is our children's education. The young men and women of today must be given the educational opportunity to develop the leadership and the technical skills that are needed to meet the challenges of global economic change. We'll be putting forward proposals to open the doors of our universities and colleges to achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) talk about the countries in eastern Europe. I want to tell him what they are struggling for. They are struggling for democracy, and that means the fair use of taxpayers' money, not for privileged friends and insiders but for the public. That hon. member should realize that the struggle for democracy is indeed a difficult one and show some leadership about how we should be dealing with public funds and how they should be utilized.

British Columbians know that we can get more jobs and economic opportunities from our rich forests and fish and agricultural resources. If we are to renew our resources for our kids, it's clear we must have a healthy forest environment and economy. To that end we will be pressing for an environment and jobs accord in this legislative session. For too long British Columbians have been told that we must choose between jobs and the environment, that if we don't log the Carmanah, our province is headed into the economic dumpster. We say there is a better way. A logging permit for the Carmanah will turn this watershed into a battle zone that B.C. cannot afford. The Carmanah is one of dozens of major land use conflicts in our province, but we say it must be the last.

The government is once again asking for leadership. We are quite prepared to provide that leadership. Three or four of them on the other side are saying: what should we do? The people of British Columbia have been wondering what you should be doing, too, and about what you have been doing to create the conflicts and the bitterness that divide British Columbians. If you would listen....

MR. HARCOURT: If you want to read my lips, if you can't hear what I'm saying, please feel free to do that, hon. members.

New Democrats are ready to strike a deal between our forest stakeholders — the loggers, the forest industry, the environmental leadership and the aboriginal peoples. Over the last 18 months I've met with all the major players and I've told them to look beyond their special interests. A few have held onto extreme positions. But there is more mutual interest in a healthy forest environment and economy than this government realizes, because they're not listening, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that our forest stakeholders are ready to make intelligent accommodations. What's missing is the political leadership to strike a deal.

There's room in an environment and jobs accord to double B.C.'s parks and protected wilderness while building a prosperous forest industry. The experts of this government aren't listening. We can guarantee a sustainable timber supply while taking this environmental step.

We can settle aboriginal land claims at no threat to private lands. This will bring B.C. an economic windfall of federal dollars for natives and non-natives alike. It will open up B.C. to new investment, Mr. Speaker — investment that won't come to our province as long as we have Socred conflicts.

The current government won't strike a deal over our forests. They say that greater political gain for Socreds can be bought by exploiting conflict all over this province among British Columbians. As a result of that mean-spirited, divide-and-conquer, loser approach of this Social Credit government, B.C. has no forest inventory, no plans for old-growth forests, no strategy for value-added manufacturing, no resolve to settle native land claims and no vision for a shared future.

In this leadership vacuum, conflict is inevitable. New Democrats say that B.C. must have an environment and jobs accord without delay. While moving towards an accord, it's important that we schedule logging and preservation activities so that we maintain jobs and timber supply without jeopardizing our options to preserve or to give special treatment to disputed watersheds. We must also make sure that the work on an accord is supported with independent forest research, with full public participation and the sharing of all information.

Let me repeat: if a Carmanah logging permit is issued, British Columbians will once again be at each others' throats, and the battle will continue valley by valley throughout our province.

New Democrats are ready to bring peace to our embattled province and to our embattled forests. An environment and jobs accord is a major advance for our resource economy, and we will proceed with this.

We will also be putting forward legislation to acquire new value-added manufacturing in return for industrial access to our public forests, new measures to protect our ocean fisheries and fishing industry, and extraordinary assistance for B.C.'s tree-fruit growers, who were abandoned by this Social Credit government on the trade deal.

We must also build the new economy in British Columbia, as well as our traditional economy. We can do this by advancing B.C. entrepreneurship in such areas as high technology, the environment and our aging population.

We'll be putting forward a new initiative to bring business and labour together to sell B.C. enterprise in the Pacific Rim, in the United States and in European

markets. This partnership will promote B.C. technologies, the export of manufactured products, the development of a highly skilled labour force, stable labour-management relations and joint trade missions abroad.

British Columbians want their government to stand up to Brian Mulroney and get a fair deal for B.C., instead of being the wimps they are. This group of government wimps has repeatedly whined when B.C. came out on the short end of the score, when in fact it's this government who took us out of the game altogether.

Ask the fishing industry. I'd hide my face too, Minister of Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage), if I were you. Ask the forest industry, ask the grape growers and the wine industry, and ask the shipbuilding industry. British Columbians want their government to show savvy in dealing with Ottawa and to take a strong bargaining position on behalf of B.C.

We will be seeking the unanimous support of this House, and we ask this government to join with us, in saying no to the GST. We will continue to press this government to abandon their collaboration with the Mulroney government and to have neither truck nor trade with the collection of this unfair tax.

Can you believe it? This government, that's smiling about it now, asked Brian Mulroney to cut federal spending to B.C., and of course he gladly accepted. He made cuts to our universities and our hospitals. He cut the Polar 8. Now he's ready to cut FRDA, our reforestation agreement, too.

We are going to continue to press this government to stop calling for the hogus-bogus cuts that hurt our economy, our families and our children. British Columbians want new leadership that listens and is in touch with today's realities, not a Premier who imposes his 1950s morality on all of us. It's time this government quit censorship, treated our kids with respect and showed the AIDS video.

It's too bad that the minister for women's issues isn't here, because it's time that women had the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies and about abortion. It's time that she stopped ducking the issue on behalf of B.C.'s women. We will continue to defend a woman's right to freedom of choice on abortion, and we will seek the unanimous support of this House to oppose the federal recriminalization of women on abortion. We will be putting forward proposals for family planning programs, including pregnancy prevention and pre- and post-natal counselling.

It's time that this government stopped telling single welfare mothers to look to prayer — and helped these families; and stopped telling poor kids who go to school hungry that they do so because their parents don't love them — and fed those children. Accordingly, we will be introducing proposals that address children's rights and children's poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is right: the future is about choice and about change. The legislative agenda we're proposing represents the interests of the working people of this province, not of a few government friends and insiders. The current government has balanced the provincial budget unfairly on the backs of ordinary people. They have overtaxed middle-income and working families, and they've wasted money on their friends and bad business deals like the Expo land sale. Only a Socred could lose money on one of the fifth best sites in North America, the Expo land site — $100 million on one of the five best sites in North America. You should be ashamed of yourselves. That's free enterprise; give it away free and then lose money on it. That's the Socred free enterprise.

I want to assure you that New Democrats will live within the means of British Columbians. For us, a balanced budget and fair taxes for working people will go hand in hand. The people of B.C. will have a clear choice between this current government, which imposes its own personal views while its political friends line up for the special favours they know they'll get, a government which chooses conflict over cooperation and acts like a schoolyard bully picking fights and desperately searching for another election issue....

MR. HARCOURT: The Socreds — speaking to the member from the Island — have a 100-year program for the Island Highway. That's what we're against. We want it built as soon as possible, not your 100-year program. We don't want to be here for the centennial of the completion of the last mile 100 years from now, which is the Socred plan for the Island Highway. They won't have to wait for that 100-year Socred plan, because British Columbians have another choice with new leadership that listens and is ready to deal with today's realities and represents the hopes and dreams of the working men and women of this province. In this legislative session, the choice for British Columbians will never be clearer.

MR. SPEAKER: All members please come to order. Can we have a little quiet between speeches.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As the Leader of the Opposition concluded, in reading with some great fervour his last statement that the choice for British Columbians will never be clearer, I would suggest that he's very correct. It has become very clear. I'd also like to suggest that we don't need to look for an election issue on this side; the Leader of the Opposition hands us one or two every week. Part of the reason, of course, is that he doesn't let the facts or the correct information stand in the way of his political statements, so he keeps getting himself....

As the leader said, they're going to have a balanced budget and fair taxes, I want to get to that later, but first of all I want to talk a bit about my constituency, since the throne speech debate gives us an opportunity to talk about what has happened in our constituencies. And, of course, it was one of the hardest hit during the recession of the mid-eighties when the....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, it was restraint, but up there it was real restraint. It was the private sector that went into restraint, because there weren't the sales, there weren't the world markets for that. The reason the government went in with a restraint program is that the other people should not be immune from the restraint that was a reality to those people.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Unlike the opposition House Leader, who often says he needs all the help he can get, I don't need all the help. Either that or I would like an extra ten minutes added onto my time.

In my constituency.... Yes, I was there. The Leader of the Opposition talks about how they are the representatives of the working people. I was there in '72 to '76 when the oil companies moved out, when a lot of things went downhill because of the socialist policies. Guess who got hurt. It wasn't the oil companies that moved out; it was the working people there who ran out of jobs. These people would drive out that oil and gas industry and still have the gall to say that they represent the best interests of the working people. How do you have the people working when you don't have somebody providing the jobs? That is something they might get straight.

The oil and gas industry is doing very well right now thanks to the policies of this government. But I can assure you that because the oil and gas industry are free-enterprisers, even a hint of socialism will get them to move out. Lease sales have been running over $100 million per year. The lease sales generally move into seismic work and the seismic work moves into exploration in about a two- or three-year cycle. Lease sales have been carrying on, and the prospects are good. But they don't have to carry on; they can drop it as soon as they smell socialism on the horizon. I would hope.... I know that those people don't want to see the socialists.

I can give you an example. I'm sure that many of you read about the Border-Ring field development that happened up there. Several companies went in there, and over a two-year period they have invested over $100 million, in addition to the lease sales, in order to explore and develop that field and to sell the gas. That is $100 million of their money they have put into this province. It will take them years to get that back. I think we have to remember that when these people go in there with the first $10 million or the first $20 million or $50 million in a drilling program, they have absolutely no assurance that they are going to hit pay-dirt — that they are going to hit gas or oil. Yet they do that, because they are free-enterprisers, they are risk-takers, and they make things happen in this province.

In the forestry sector, in the last while, we've had the Fibreco mill at Taylor, and that has created steady employment. It has developed a greater utilization of aspen, and it has created a stability in the area. They are now looking at further development and utilization of aspen to extend and add to that pulp mill to do a lot more in the area. That will help. That is because they are encouraged by the government that promoted regionalization.

Remember, when we talked about regionalization we had nothing but objections from the other side of the House. The regionalization program has worked.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The plan is still carrying on. It's not necessary to keep the same organizational structure in place. The regionalization is in place, and it is working. Ask the people in my area.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wonder if that member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) would like to repeat the remark that we should be ashamed of our educational system in this province which she made in the last session. Either that or she could let me give my speech. This is a group that's for education but claims to be ashamed of it.

I'm saying that farming in my part of the country needs some help, and I'm trying to get some help for them. About $5 million would keep the grain industry going while the prices are down, and the prices are down thanks to a lot of socialist practices in other places where they have distorted the market value of grain.

We heard about the apple industry. Isn't it interesting that as soon as you get into the apple industry and the grape industry, where millions of dollars have been put, that's all great, and the other side keep saying: "Not enough!" But if it comes to any support for the grain farmers in a free-enterprise constituency like mine, do I get any support from the NDP? No way.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If that member from Prince George is an example of what the education system in this province has produced, then I think I see why she would be ashamed of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could have the member continue. These interjections are not actually recorded by Hansard, and this appears to be nothing but blank tape for those people who subscribe to that scintillating journal.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker, because it would seem like last Thursday they performed for the cameras; now they're performing for Hansard, and you assure us it's not even recorded in Hansard. So you’re wasting your time once again.

However, I did want to comment on the electoral process. I know the NDP is very strong in supporting one member, one vote. Their leader talks about how he's willing to support regionalization; he's willing to support the north; and their idea of absolutely fair representation is one member, one vote. They don't ever look at what happens about the size of an area that needs to be represented. Yes, it was done by a judge, and we've had to accept electoral reform, but it means that we have less opportunity for our people to be heard, simply because they have lower numbers.

1 do want to get onto education matters. I'm very proud of what we have accomplished in education in the last few years.

The Pacific Rim initiatives have far exceeded our expectations in the teacher exchanges, the student exchanges, the amount of interest created in Japan and other countries that are coming to British Columbia, spending money here and taking a great interest in our system of education. As a matter of fact, they are looking for arrangements for us to take our system of education over into some of their schools so that we can provide that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I haven't. I haven't changed my mind on the referendum.

The royal commission. They felt it would be sitting on the shelf, and then when we took action on it, they said: "Why are you doing this? Why don't you put it on hold for a while?" I don't know what they want. First of all, when the royal commission was appointed, the opposition said: "It's a sham. It's not going to do anything." When the report came forward, they said: "They're going to put it on the shelf. It's not going to do anything." Then when we took action on it, they said: "Put it on hold. Stop the process. Don't make any changes." You just heard your leader read from his script to say: "We will see that kids will have changed to adjust to modern times." At the same time he is supporting blocking these changes. No change is supposed to happen. They say there's been no consultation. There's been far more consultation in this province than there has ever been in the past, and on every one of the "Year 2000" curriculum reports all you have to do is read the list of how many teachers, trustees and other people are involved in preparing that information.

The Leader of the Opposition has said: "Don't play politics with our kids' education." That is the same leader who supported the BCTF social studies supplement a couple of years ago, where all kinds of partisan garbage was put in along with some good material. He fully supported putting that very partisan stuff into the schools. That is the same leader who last year authorized the sending of a letter to every student council president in this province to say: "We have members who will come into the schools and talk to you about how rotten the government is. We will be completely partisan and will bring the partisan view into the schools." That letter is on record in Hansard. That is the same person who said: "Don't play politics with our kids." That is the same party who now, in every school trustee election, wants to run partisan members. The first requirement has to be NDP membership so that the party organization then can deal with the election of trustees. What is that if not political?

The Leader of the Opposition has said the people have a choice, that they are quite prepared to provide leadership on that side. Well, I guess the public is going to have to find out in what direction that leader will lead, because there's certainly all kinds of evidence that he doesn't know where he's going to lead. That's the member who stands up in Kamloops at a meeting....

That's the same opposition leader who stands up in Kamloops and says to a group of supporters that this Socred government is underspending this year by $3 billion. A week later he stood up in front of a bunch of businessmen in Vancouver and said: "We will live within our means and we will have a balanced budget." Obviously his calculator isn't working as well as his thinking. A $3 billion increase would represent quite a change in taxes, something like 25 percent.

That is the person who stands up in this House and says he has always been a socialist and is proud to be a socialist.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. Then he stands up at the chamber of commerce In Victoria and says he has never been a socialist. He doesn't even know what he is. That is the leader who said this afternoon, reading from his script, that we should not jeopardize kids' education, that we would resort to anything to get elected. Well, I think the shoe is on the other foot. They would apparently resort to anything to get themselves elected.

It is interesting that he says we should not go to referendum and we should not put any restraint on school spending. He has said publicly — he didn't read it because I guess they didn't write it for him — in a press release that the government should pick up 90 percent of the funding for education. Well, we pick up about 83 percent now. And this is the responsible leader who says that the school boards should be given the complete unrestricted right to set the total budget — no restrictions, no conditions. And the government, without question, without any restrictions or questions, should pay 90 percent of that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's interesting, isn't it? No cost controls, just full spending. That Leader of the Opposition — the one who would provide leadership for the province — has said that the government should pay the increase in costs in education because the taxpayers can't afford it. If you want to think about that one for a little while, the taxpayers cannot afford any more taxes, so therefore the government should pay all of these costs. He doesn't know where the money comes from. I don't know where he thinks the money comes from. Imagine this person setting himself up as a responsible leader ready to take over running this province. He says that the taxpayers cannot pay any more taxes, but he wants to increase spending by 25 percent here, and 15 percent here, and 30 percent here.

This is the same member who says we should have left things alone in the education system — no, not left it alone, just put in more money, whatever anybody asked for. If we had left things alone this year, the taxpayers were facing a 30 percent increase So he says the taxpayers can't afford any more, so the government should do that. Most of the people I talk to are aware of the fact that the taxpayers provide the money that government spends, in one form or another, but not that member. He says the government is somehow or other a separate entity. "Don't go to the taxpayers for any more money; they can't afford it. Go to the government." I'll tell you, if that's the kind of leadership that he's going to provide, we've got a little bit of a problem.

I do want to make a reference to an ad that the British Columbia Teachers' Federation has put in the various papers, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their members' money to fight against the referendum idea.

I'd like to point out that this morning I have sent a response to Mr. Ken Novakowski, president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation:

"As Minister of Education, my main objective always has been to provide a good education for all children everywhere in British Columbia. Students are my top priority.

"It is for this reason that the government has introduced block funding with equitable distribution of funds to every school district. Stable, predictable and more accountable funding for educational programs is now guaranteed.

"The block funding includes all expenditures in school districts during the 1989-90 school year, plus an economic increase of over 6 percent for 1990-91. This provides funds to continue all present programs and services and even to enhance some. Where enrolment increases are projected for September 1990, additional funds are added to pick up this extra cost. Funds for capital or school construction projects, for computer technology and for royal commission changes will be provided over and above the block funding.

"Assuring all current spending for wages, benefits and all other operating expenses plus a 6 percent increase seems reasonable to me. How much more do you want?

"I believe taxpayers are willing to support reasonable increases in line with the economy. If you want more than the substantial funding increase already provided, you should seek support and approval directly from the people who provide the funds: the taxpayers.

"Would you consider setting aside, even briefly — as many of your professional members are doing — your continuous demands for more money, so that we might discuss education changes which will benefit pupils?"

I will table that, Mr. Speaker, since I have read from it at considerable length. I want to use it to point out the issue of referendum, which has become such a battle-cry for the opposition based on inaccuracies, distortion, misinformation and perhaps ignorance in the sense of lack of knowledge.

Talking of funding for education, as the Sullivan report said, it should be stable, it should be predictable and it should be accountable. When we talked to the various stakeholders and met with them, there was general agreement on that. There was also general agreement on the block funding, and that it was a way. "But," they said, "if you are going to go to block funding, you have to start with a base of actual expenditures."

For those who have taken the trouble to read, you will note that we have gone to total actual expenditures from the 1989-90 year by or on behalf of school districts — that which was approved by the fiscal framework from 1989-90 — plus the supplementary spending. That is the base on which we start out.

There was agreement that it should be increased in line with the economy. They said: "It must be a realistic figure." The best evidence that was put together in terms of historical factors and looking at the future was the 6.17 percent. We have all actual expenditures as requested, plus a 6.17 percent increase in the total budget.

They also agreed that the fairest system they knew of to distribute this money was the fiscal framework, which is formula-driven on the basis of facts and information in each and every district. There was agreement on that.

There was also acknowledgement that, with recognizing all actual expenditures plus a reasonable economic increase on top of that, it could be acceptable. It would be reasonable to assume that it couldn't be open-ended after that. In other words, it had to be some measure of cost control or capped beyond that. We reached all those agreements.

As to the method, we were really left with two options: all actual expenditures plus the 6 percent increase — which everybody considered reasonable — and cap it at that. We felt there are some unique circumstances in some districts. There are some special programs both the board and the taxpayers would be happy to fund. The referendum, in that sense, opens the door for extra spending.

I've been accused of changing my mind on referendums. I have not. I said that I did not believe we should use referendum for funding education. I still believe that very strongly. We are not using referendum to fund education. The funding of all actual expenditures plus a reasonable economic increase is assured and guaranteed by this government.

The funding for education is now stable, predictable and assured by this government on actual expenditures plus an increase in line with the economy. You talk about depoliticizing a process, because the factor by which we are committed to increase the education funding each year will be in line with the economic indicators. What we're saying is that you go to referendum. You go to the approval of your taxpayers, if you want to go into extra spending beyond that — above what the economy allows and provides. That is quite a difference from the invidious comparisons that many of the members are making in criticizing this program, in saying that our education funding is dependent upon referenda. It is not. The education funding is assured; the increase is assured.

They compare it to referenda in other jurisdictions, to referenda in the past. In the past, some of the referenda were for the total budget to be approved by referendum or the total increase to be approved. We have said that we will guarantee the 6 percent increase this year.

MS. A. HAGEN: Why don't you bring in legislation so we can see what you're talking about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I don't think it's rather late. The House just opened, and we're doing our best to get the legislation in here as soon as possible.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think you would see it even when you get to read it, because you don't believe in it, so that's not much help to you. That member, who has an interest in education, turns out strictly to make whatever partisan political mileage she can out of anything or any statement. About the only other approach that member takes — my education critic, with emphasis on "critic" — is to be a satellite repeater for the B.C. teachers' union executive.

I see my time is just about up. Let me conclude with just a reference to the Leader of the Opposition saying: "We will stand up against the Mulroney government; we will stand up against the federal government." I'll tell you once again: some stand! As soon as the federal government takes some money away from British Columbia, what does the opposition jump on? They say: "Don't fight them. Just do it out of provincial taxes. Don't go after them to meet their responsibilities. You fund it. Whether it be in forestry...." They say: "The federal government is not going to put up the money, so don't haggle with them, for goodness' sake. Put it up from British Columbia." Wouldn't they fight!

On the women's centres — they have taken that money away. A pittance in the total federal budget, and what is the NDP response to that? They said: "Don't haggle about it. Just pick up the slack everywhere." That's how they would fight the federal government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How would you balance your budget if not only did you promise to provide anything that anybody in this province wanted in the way of funding, but you also made up whatever the feds took away from British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have the advantage, hon. member. Because I have a hearing loss and can't hear you, all you do is irritate me. You can't even impress me.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I welcome the opportunity to take my place in this debate. I would have looked forward to a throne speech that promised....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: May I just have the permission of the Chair? I did say that I would table this document that I read from. Could I table that now so I won't interrupt later?

MS. SMALLWOOD: As I was saying, I was looking forward to a throne speech that would address some of the concerns of the people of this province and offer some hope. Unfortunately, all we got was a replay of old history and platitudes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that it is very important to look at this government's record. They talk about a record that they are proud of, so let's analyze it. Let's look where this government has been and where previous Social Credit governments have taken this province.

First of all, I think that it is really interesting to look at the number of people on income assistance and compare it to the number of people on income assistance in 1975 when the New Democrats were government. It's interesting because if you look at the ratio of the people on income assistance, there are actually two times as many people on income assistance in the population now under Social Credit as there ever were under a New Democrat government.

Let's take a look at who those poor people in this province are. This government is more than happy to engage in corporate welfare, but at the same time kicks people, discriminates against people and insists that people on welfare do with less. The people who are on income assistance are the poor in this province, people in groups who are guaranteed of poverty: women, three out of five; native people, over 54 percent; disabled, over 57 percent. Workers in increasing number — even the government's own statistics — faced that last year. Still we see no relief. We see no plans to break this cycle. We see only a low wage policy in this province. We see only more platitudes and more promises of studies.

The Economic Council of Canada says that the average family with parents under the age of 25 had an income 14 percent lower today than they did ten years ago. That is the history of governments like this government across Canada. That is the history of this government in British Columbia.

That's another group. We've got women, natives, disabled, young people and seniors all living below the poverty line. It's really interesting to look at who the poor are in this province and dispel the myth that this government perpetuates. It's interesting to note the increasing number of men over the age of 50 who become technologically redundant. Where are the programs to help them? They are non-existent. What this government offers for re-entry into the workforce is topping up wages, low-wage subsidies for employers, and no assistance for families or working people. What this government offers is more platitudes. This government is out of touch.

In the throne speech we heard a lot about equity, whether that was employment equity or regional equity. I want to talk a little bit about that, particularly after following the Minister of Education, but I'll deal with that a little bit later.

We look at the opportunities for people to achieve that equity in this province, the opportunities to fulfil themselves and to be rightfully employed. We look at the number of jobs that have been created, in particular in the lower mainland. Over 90 percent of all the jobs created were in the service sector. In the service sector the wages are 44 percent lower than goods jobs. I ask where the leadership of this government is. Is this the vision that your government has for the people of British Columbia? The majority of those jobs that were provided were part-time, at $6 to $8 an hour. One out of every five of those part-time jobs has workers working involuntarily, looking for full-time employment.

I find this next statistic so staggering that it plays over and over in my mind. Do you realize — and I think this is important for the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) who likes to chat — that only 57 percent of all full-time jobs in British Columbia are year-round jobs? Out of all of the jobs that exist in British Columbia, only 57 percent are full-time, year-round jobs. Is that a vision that this government has for the people of this province, where a little more than half of all the jobs are full-time, year-round jobs?

When you look at the number of people in this province and look at the number of families where two income-earners have to work to keep the family income level above the poverty line, with no support from this government, no initiative around day care and nothing more than more taxes and platitudes and old rhetoric, is that the vision you have for this province, where people work harder, longer hours and more family members are in that workforce trying to keep the level of the family income above the poverty line? Is that your vision for families in this province? Again, it is sadly lacking in the throne speech.

Let's look at the impact of that 57 percent of all jobs that are full-time. What we're seeing in this province, in addition to having more people out in that workforce and more people working for less money, is an increased number of people who are moonlighting, an increased number of people who have to hold down two and three jobs because the income they are earning is too low to sustain the quality of life that they desire for their families.

That begs the question: "Is that what you want for families in this province?" When you have half a million Canadians, up 65 percent since 1980, moonlighting just to make ends meet, is that your vision for British Columbia? I tell you that it is not my vision, nor is it the vision of the New Democrats. We want decent jobs at decent pay and support for families to be able to provide for their children. You are not providing that leadership.

We know who the poor are in British Columbia. They are the people on income assistance that disproportionately can be guaranteed their poverty for no other reason than that they belong to a specific group: the disabled, natives, women and older men. We know that the majority of poor — two-thirds — are actually in the employed workforce. Why? Because of lack of leadership from the provincial government and a low-wage strategy that does not deal with the real needs of families in this province.

We've heard a lot about equity, and this throne speech talks about choices and change. I want to talk a little bit about some of that equity as far as it

pertains to regions, because very clearly this government's record on equity and the distribution of the wealth of this province is sadly lacking. More people are having to do with less.

But for the regions.... We're seeing this incredible growth in the lower mainland, and the stresses and strains that are brought about by unplanned, unmanaged growth and by the abandonment of these communities. We're seeing communities outside of the lower mainland that are not able to sustain the employment in their own communities.

I want to refer, as I have in every throne speech I have done, to the impact of that growth in my own municipality. I'm really sorry that the Minister of Education left, because he talked about his financing initiative. And he talked in pretty broad terms about what that will mean to the province. What that means to constituencies like mine — and to the constituency of the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, who also has left the House — is that we will forever be in a situation of catch-up. We will forever be the poor cousins in this province.

In municipalities like Surrey and Langley, in the suburbs like Coquitlam and north and south Fraser, where most of the growth is taking place, municipalities have suffered under the policies of previous Socred governments and continue to do so under this government. The Surrey per-pupil expenditure is grossly underfunded compared to the provincial average, and when you compare it to other school districts in the area — Burnaby for instance — Surrey has $4,500 per student where Burnaby has $5,000. It seems like a small amount when you talk about a $500 difference, but the reality when you compound that by the number of students we have in our municipality is huge dollars. And that inequity will continue.

Again, I point out that the throne speech's references to equity are nothing more than platitudes. We have the young communities in the province, where the young children are growing up handicapped, having their hands tied and having to go to referendum. This is creating more inequities and discrepancies in the education system. If that is not shortsighted, I don't know what is. There is no way we're going to be able to deal with the inequities in the labour market without being foresighted enough to deal with those young people, give them a chance at life and give them the support they need with a proper education system.

I am appalled when I go into our school system. This minister talks about being proud of the education system in this province. When I go into the schools in my constituency and realize that students are having to share textbooks and are unable to do their homework because there aren't enough textbooks to take them home, I am absolutely appalled. I don't know how this minister can say that he is proud of that reality. When I was at school, that was a given. You had textbooks.

The kind of funding formula that this minister has in place and brags about takes absolutely no recognition of salary increments for young communities like ours. It has no recognition for the cost of planning, for the managing of large capital programs. It has absolutely no recognition for the costs of moving and setting up portables. I would love any member in this House to come out to some of the schools in Surrey. They look like concentration camps. There are rows upon rows of portables, where kids are housed in temporary classrooms. It sounds like a small thing, especially for some of the members who grew up many years ago in those one-room schoolhouses, but they've got to realize what it means when you're talking about those portables. It means that there are no facilities to accommodate those kids, no libraries, no gymnasiums, no washroom facilities. It also means that those portables are taking up room on the playgrounds. This is not a healthy situation, and it has to be remedied. Under this minister's new funding formula we don't have a chance of remedying that situation. It can only get worse. The discrepancies and inequities will continue to be exacerbated.

The funding formula does not recognize the cost of maintaining and heating new portables. The funding formula is insufficient recognition for the increased maintenance costs due to portables and overcrowding — no recognition of the enrolment growth over the years which affects growing municipalities but not stable or declining districts.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would welcome the minister to come out and see the schools in my constituency. I would welcome you to sit down and look at the real numbers, because these numbers are right; these numbers are substantiated.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If that's the best the minister can do in defence of his government and in defence of his government's record and the reality that families and children face in this province, then indeed I am sorry. I welcome the change that this throne speech talks about, and I challenge this government to put it in place.... Drop that writ, and give us an opportunity for some real change in this province.

The minister is back. I'm glad to see the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) re-entering the House, because I want to talk about another thing that is of real importance to the municipality that we share: the hospital situation. I know all of the members have heard this before. I was surprised and quite appalled to attend a meeting with the hon. member and the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and have them act surprised and amazed at the information that was being put forward, because it's not new.

The situation with the hospitals and the schools in our municipality is absolutely criminal. The neglect that we have seen through poor planning and lack of attention is appalling. I am constantly asked in municipalities like Surrey and White Rock: if we had two such high-profile cabinet ministers, then how

could it possibly be so bad? Well, I shrug my shoulders, because I myself can't understand how two members of the cabinet — at one time — could sit around that cabinet table and not be advocates for their own constituencies.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale says we'll see the results. You've been in power for over three years, Mr. Member, and we have seen nothing but platitudes. If you think you can buy your constituents at the last minute, I suggest you're sorely mistaken.

The Surrey Memorial Hospital situation is one that impacts not only our community but also the whole region. We've received repeated reports of Surrey Memorial's emergency ward going on diversion. That is when the hospital is at 100 percent capacity and cannot take another person. It's not surprising that the hospital should go on diversion, because our emergency ward sees upwards of 200 visits a day with only 13 beds to service those 200 people — another indication that the throne speech and this government's record are sorely lacking, indeed quite pathetic.

When this hospital goes on diversion and when those people — my family, my next-door neighbour, the person down the street — end up going on diversion and being sent to another hospital looking for someone to take care of their emergency, all too often now we are finding that other hospitals in the region are also on diversion because the area is so saturated, so understaffed and so underserviced.

What's this government's answer? After years of neglect, after years of ignoring the situation, after years of ignoring the professionals and the cries of the families that need the care in our community, they take beds that are desperately needed in Vancouver and distribute them throughout this area that is so understaffed. Not an innovative program to deal with bringing those beds up to the average needed for the province, but shuffling the deck of cards. More smoke and mirrors.

We have a situation in Vancouver where they provide for many of the specialized services for the whole province for families that cannot get services in their own communities — and what are they doing but jeopardizing their chances for good health care? They're distributing them throughout the Fraser Valley with no promise of increased attention for planning. We see the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District repeatedly saying publicly that the only way they can plan for hospitals is in an ad hoc manner, because the province refuses to give them the mandate to do proper planning and deal with the real health care needs of British Columbians.

I think the Socred government and the Ministry of Health through the minister are more interested in helping their friends and their developer interests than in actually planning and providing good health care for the people of our constituency. I think the record bears that out.

I think the government's record stands for itself. The fact that the minister can't stand the facts.... I keep calling the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale the minister. God, old habits die fast. The fact that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale is so offended by the truth just shows how sensitive he is to the fact that our constituency, Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale, has suffered under this government and during the time he has been elected to represent them.

I think the record stands for itself. I am disappointed by the throne speech. I think this was an opportunity — as in every year that this government has brought a throne speech to the House — to show some real, concrete vision, some real plans for the future. Yet again and again, as we stand in our place, we look at the reality, we look at the facts, and the facts bear out that this government has not represented this province well. The only thing this government has been able to do is fight among themselves and look after the interests of their friends and insiders. It's a sad commentary on the history of this government. I, too, look forward to choices, change and the challenge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the previous speaker, the Minister of Education, at the end of his speech asked that a report be tabled, which was accepted, but he neglected to ask that leave be granted. Leave is required for a report, in the form of a letter tabled in the House. In order for the records to be kept scrupulously clean, I would ask: shall leave be granted for the Minister of Education to table his letter dated April 9, 1990?

MR. DE JONG: It is with a great sense of pride and enthusiasm that I rise to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne delivered in this House last Thursday. I view this speech as an extremely carefully drafted document. It is not a speech with idle words, nor is it loaded with promises which no one could expect any government to deliver on. On the contrary, this year's throne speech is a document which speaks of economic reality, of sustainable social, education and health programs, of improved, simplified justice and improved native programs, as well as of a continuing dialogue with industry, tourism, agriculture and fisheries in response to local markets and market conditions. In short, the contents of the Speech from the Throne are a diamond that sparkles on every side.

On the other hand, I was really taken aback last Friday morning — as I'm sure all members on this side of the House were — by the few comments that the Leader of the Opposition made on the speech just prior to adjournment, especially after the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) had just delivered one of the finest responses ever made to a throne speech.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition inferred that the member spoke only of the past 30 years. Let me

tell you, Mr. Speaker, as well as the Leader of the Opposition: British Columbians are proud of their past, except for the three years of 1972 to 1975. British Columbians have enjoyed enormous prosperity guided by a Social Credit government for many years, and the people of this province would have it no other way.

The people of this province want action, not just words and hollow promises. There's a familiar phrase: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I'm not inferring that I would compare people with horses, but I think the following comments will bear out why I used that saying.

Over the past year I have had a great number of letters and phone calls from people in NDP ridings, each with particular problems or concerns or lack of knowledge about programs and the process of getting information on these programs. Speaking to these people, I continually found that they could not get the help from their MLA. So, Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand the workings of the socialists a little better each year, and that really boils down to all talk and no action.

MR. DE JONG: While the socialists opposite are perhaps very much at liberty to say what they want while they are in opposition, such democracy and freedom of speech will have no place within the party should they ever gain the power to govern, which I am sure they won't. The socialist policies are developed within the party only, and those in government would be bound to them. We've seen this in other provinces.

The primary reason that the Speech from the Throne is such a jewel is that it reflects the needs, ambitions and desires of all British Columbians, not just those of a few hundred at a party convention. Good Social Credit government such as British Columbians have enjoyed over the past three years depends on open government, where accountability is achieved through communication and consultation.

This government has initiated more task forces, more advisory councils and royal commissions than any other government prior to its mandate, and many of these have provided a lot of information and assistance to this government which has led to the type of throne speech delivered: a careful, considered document. At the same time, the contents reflect the needs of every British Columbian in a most sensitive way in terms of services to the less fortunate. It also speaks of how fragile a strong economy can be should the government fall to provide a climate for it to flourish in times of high interest rates coupled with a very competitive market.

Again, I must remind the socialists on the other side that unless we continue to have a steady and growing economy, which takes a lot of effort on the part of government.... We've seen a recent experience in Kimberley where the government took immediate action. It's that kind of action that our government can continue to provide to improve for the social, education and health care programs so the people of this province are not only in need of but deserve.

As a member of this Legislature, and as a citizen of this great province, I am extremely concerned when I hear members opposite — more specifically the leader of the socialists — speak about all of the things they would provide if they were in government. Costing out some of these statements that have been made over the last few years, particularly the last two years, they would have had to extract in excess of $3 billion from the pockets of the people of this province in order to provide a balanced budget. In the same period of time the Leader of the Opposition has talked about a sustainable economy. How can any leader expect the people of this province to provide another $3 billion and make the people believe that such spending is sustainable when in many parts of this country, as well as other countries, governments are fighting hard to stay afloat financially and at the same time provide for their social needs?

Over the past few years the members of the opposition have criticized this government, saying that the Social Credit government is only interested in big business and that the programs put in place were designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Two years ago I made reference in one of my speeches, when introducing the topic of the family program, that the Premier of this province is a hard-nosed politician in terms of the business aspects of government. I also stated that he was a man of great compassion for the people who had been hurt by the storms of life. Well, Mr. Speaker, the information circulated by the various ministries involved in the provision of this specific program and other social programs is far beyond the expectation of anyone here in this room, I am sure. If the members of the opposition would have kept up with all of the good news stories that have arisen from that program — and other social programs, but particularly that program.... I believe it only proper for each of those members who have scoffed at the program to apologize for having been so negative at its introduction, because the results have been far beyond expectation.

I would just like to comment a little about an experience I had this past Saturday. We had a sod-turning ceremony in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area for a new building of the Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services. The manager and staff of Matsqui-Abbotsford Community Services were delighted when the Strengthening the Family program was introduced. Yes, they knew it meant more work. They knew it would take more volunteers, more staff and probably the need for a new building, because their building was rather cramped. They undertook to study the provision for a new building. They were informed by the government, just a couple of months ago, that the government, through its Lotto funding, would provide one-third of the cost, but that left $1.2 million to be raised from the local community. This was only two months ago.

With the fund-raising hardly begun, they have already raised $500,000 worth of pledges. In fact, one small company in our town donated $75,000 towards this worthwhile cause. The sod-turning event was attended by 200 or more people. Yes, members on the opposite side, this community is a Social Credit stronghold. Farmers, business people, store clerks, roofers, bricklayers, mothers, fathers and children were all there at the sod-turning. It was a total community effort having the compassion for those who need a helping hand — the real Social Credit spirit. They do not just talk about it; they act as individuals and as a community collectively.

Yes, members of the socialist club, what counts is where the people can be identified together with government support. Wonders can and still do happen even in a Social Credit community. Such are the results of the carefully prepared programs aimed to help those in need. Unless the members opposite become supporters and enthusiastic about the many initiatives already in place, as well as those contained in the Speech from the Throne, they or the communities they represent will never experience the results of programs nor the enthusiasm of those assisted through them.

This year's Speech from the Throne not only reflects the fragility of our economy, but clearly demonstrates that, as a government, we want to continue one of the most essential ingredients for good government, which is ongoing communication with industry, business and labour. Simply, in order to be successful with either of these three, as a government we must take all three into account Anyone in business or labour will tell you exactly the same: that by such a tri-level approach of government, business and labour in the exploitation of B.C.'s resources, British Columbia has been — and will continue to be — a success story.

It's a matter of protection of British Columbia's unique and precious quality of life and environment. When we talk about the quality of life, we're not just talking about the preservation of some open space. The financial ability of the individual to pay is just as important.

This government has been very successful, through the establishment of the youth corps, in utilizing the energy and enthusiasm of our young people to gain a better understanding and a greater knowledge of the preservation of our heritage, and particularly that which remains connected with nature and all the things that go along with it. That understanding gained by these young people will undoubtedly not only benefit the ministry and its future workings, but will also achieve a cleaner environment for all British Columbians.

I know — and I'm sure most of us on this side of the House know — that many of the members opposite have been very critical of the regional concept and the activities of the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development. Having served for almost two years as parliamentary secretary for this ministry, I must again emphasize the importance of getting involved in an attempt to make things work. I can only speak for region 2, because that's where the majority of my activities have taken place. I must say that the concept does work, and it works very well.

It's really a pleasure to see the enthusiasm of the local economic development offices of various municipalities and representatives of a great number of companies which needed a start-up loan that are now flourishing enterprises employing more people. Some have increased by as many as 50 people, depending on the demand of the product.

The transportation plan undertaken through the ministry has not only provided for participation of local people, but more so, it has given local governments and people who have a keen interest in the development of this province and their communities an opportunity to participate in one of the most comprehensive plans for transportation in this province. The recommendations and implementation of this plan, geared to accommodate the transportation needs and concepts of the twenty-first century, will be of lasting benefit to the economic needs of this province, which is rich with resources and a delight to the tourists who visit and enjoy it.

In conclusion, as people of this province, younger and older ones, are the most precious resource that we have, the contents of this Speech from the Throne embrace the most intimate, sensitive needs of all British Columbians in terms of developing the talents of our young people through the most modern and up-to-date educational programs and facilities for both elementary and high schools, as well as advanced education, colleges and universities,

The Speech from the Throne also ensures that justice, housing, women's programs and natives' issues are considered through new and exciting programs.

In spite of what the members opposite will say about the Speech from the Throne, I am convinced, recognizing the many positive changes which this government has initiated over the past three years and which have captured the imagination and enthusiasm of all British Columbians, that the same will hold true for the contents of this Speech from the Throne, one that guarantees a secure, progressive and prosperous future for all British Columbians.

MR. LOVICK: I want to begin my remarks today by offering some congratulations to the new Speaker. Certainly I congratulate him on his ascension to that high office, and I have every confidence he will do good work. I am reminded, when I think about the new Speaker, of a comment I made as a rookie MLA about Speakers in general. I said at the time that the Speaker clearly is someone who requires the finesse of a head waiter and the tact of a marriage counsellor.

Given what we witnessed in this session the other day, and given my suspicion that we will be carrying on with that kind of raucous and passionate debate, I would add a couple of other characteristics I think

you will require. I think you will require the shoulders of Hulk Hogan and the skin of an armadillo. I suspect, however, that you have both those attributes and therefore will have no difficulty.

For most of us in this chamber, this is our fourth throne speech. I want to start by offering this government congratulations. Mercifully, this is the shortest throne speech of the four. Mercifully, moreover, this throne speech restrains itself somewhat from the indulgence in purple prose so characteristic of the three that came before. Happily, those things aren't there any longer, and I congratulate the government for that.

The problem, however, is: alas, where's the beef? If you look at the document, you struggle somewhat to see much in the way of initiative. When I looked at the document and listened carefully to what was said, and when I read the document, I kept thinking to myself: this is a throne speech with a difference. This is a throne speech that seems to read more like an abdication-from-the-throne speech. This is the kind of speech that comes to us from a tired government, a government that seems to have lost its enthusiasm for governing. That's the point about this speech; that's what makes it remarkable.

When I listen to throne speeches, I usually make notes. I guess it comes from an academic background, but I usually pay close attention. I don't like to read things as they're coming to me; rather, I like to listen and make notes, and then go and compare the two documents. My notes tend to involve me in categorization. Predictably, I will use things like legislative initiatives, the number of task forces named, the commissions, etc., that have been established. I did that here again, but I also made use of four new categories. These are as follows: (1) fluff — hard word to pronounce, that, but it is the number one category; (2) reannouncements — things we've heard before; (3) overstatements; and (4) omissions.

I want to address those four categories today, if I might. Let us deal first with fluff. Fluff is a term that refers to statements that we can loosely call empty; statements that on the superficial level appear to be telling us something but, when subjected to close analysis, yield nada in terms of information content.

I would refer specifically to five areas, major policy areas that cry out for significant initiatives on the part of government but which in fact become fluff: (1) regional economic development; (2) trade; (3) forestry; (4) tourism; and (5) agriculture and fisheries. I would defy any member on the other side to show me under those headings anything of substance or significance that has been stated. Rather, I put it to you, what we get is the merest mush and fluff.

Let me give you a brief and specific illustration. I would refer members opposite — and I'm pleased to see that there are a few here — to pages 8 and 9 of the throne speech. One example is the agriculture and fisheries section. Let us listen to this insightful, profound and significant statement.

"Agriculture and fisheries create real wealth for the province. They are sustainable activities, sensitive to environmental needs. Government is promoting a stronger agricultural economy by fostering entrepreneurship and targeting economic development activities. Programs to encourage quality in all agricultural and fish products will be pursued. Policies respecting land use, to continue a viable agricultural sector, will be strengthened."

Let's look at that statement when we unpack it, to use a phrase. Let's look at what's actually said in there. What we discover is very little indeed. We're going to foster, target, pursue and apparently strengthen, but the obvious question is: what do any of those things mean? What are we being committed to? The answer, as I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, is nada; rien, if you prefer another language.

Let's turn to the area of reannouncements. I count some seven reannouncements in the throne speech, and they range all the way from SkyTrain reaching to the sky, it seems, to Access for All programs for community colleges — all of which we've heard before. Nothing new there, nothing new under this particular sun, and the obvious question is: why? Is it the case that government is so bereft of new ideas, so limited in its vision, that what we have to do is rely, rather, on old stuff? It looks, sadly, as if this government is showing serious signs of stasis and staleness, and we ought to have better.

Turning to the matter of overstatement, I recognize instantly, of course, that it's possible the entire throne speech represents an overstatement. I can recognize that, but I want to dwell on one particular example of the overstatement, if I might: the reference to consultation. This government says on a number of occasions in this throne speech that consultation is the hallmark of its activities. This is what it wants to be identified for. Let me just remind everybody that in March of last year we also had a ringing declaration about consultation. We learned in last year's throne speech that "...government has embarked on an unprecedented process of consultation with the citizens of this province on many strategic issues." That, I recognize, is a restatement and an overstatement, a reannouncement and an overstatement, but it's a glaring example of the overstated.

Tell the people of my constituency about this government's commitment to consultation. Tell the 5,000 people who stood outside city hall in Nanaimo protesting the establishment and building of a ferrochromium plant in Nanaimo about government's process of consultation. The people had literally to take to the streets to stop that particular measure from being forced down their collective throats. Tell them about consultation.

Tell the people of Nanaimo about the consultative process when we look at the so-called inner route for highways, when we discover, despite all the claims that nothing is written in stone, despite all the vaunted statements that we will indeed have complete consultation and discussion, that the route is fixed. Tell the people of my constituency then about consultation.

Tell the people of my constituency about consultation when you describe to them the upgrading of

Nicol Street. We all believe in the project; we know it needs to be done. We believed, however, that our input would be solicited, listened to and taken into consideration. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, once again we discover that the consultative process is essentially a sham. It doesn't really make much difference in the decision-making process. It is, rather, another hurdle that needs to be jumped.

Tell the people of the Saanich Peninsula about the consultation process. We've had the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) announce that, yes, indeed, we've listened to the people and therefore we've come up with a five-point plan for the Pat Bay Highway. The people of the Saanich Peninsula, however, are saying: "We have not yet been heard. We haven't had our opportunity and we're offended by that." The point I'm making is that the vaunted claims about consultation tend to be slightly hypocritical. They aren't exactly defensible when one checks the record.

Let me give you another specific example of a matter of overstatement in this throne speech. I refer you to the plan stated on page 8 to renew and bolster the ferry system, what is called a long-term plan to renew and bolster the ferry system. If that's a long-term plan, it was put together last week. There isn't a plan. There is no evidence of any kind of long-term plan. Rather, what we are seeing now is panic on the part of the corporation dealing with the crisis of its fleet, and that's why we've had to go offshore to buy a couple of ferries. To talk, then, about a plan that's going to encourage and foster the shipbuilding industry in this province is, again, the height of hypocrisy.

If, in fact, the government wants to be serious about its three C's, I would suggest that it add another one to "challenge, change and choice." The other one it ought to add is chutzpah, a good Yiddish word for gall. These folks have gall in unprecedented, almost unmeasurable amounts, to make the claims that they do in this document. It's evident, surely, that chutzpah probably should be number one in their list of C's.

I want to turn now to the area of omissions from the throne speech. First the obvious ones. The obvious omission, of course, has to do with economic development in terms of any kind of macroeconomic strategy, anything beyond the usual ritualistic references to fostering entrepreneurship and letting the private sector do its thing. The reality in this province is that we have two economies: a lower mainland economy and a bunch of other economies. I see nothing in this throne speech, or indeed in the activities of government in the last year, that addresses that reality.

Second, I see nothing here that deals with the reality of the low-wage economy that is developing in this province and with the attendant problem of a shrinking — nay, disappearing — middle class. That's the kind of reality we have to grapple with as a government in this province, and Lord help us if we don't do so soon.

In the area of housing, another omission, it seems to me, is that we have only the smallest reference to the Residential Tenancy Act and some amendments to be made to it. The signs aren't encouraging that the legislation will be modified in any way that will solve the problem. We know that, surely, because of what we heard the minister responsible for housing saying the other day.

You remember, first, that he talked about the danger of rent controls. More significantly, what he talked about was the reason we don't have sufficient supply. The reason he suggested for not having sufficient supply, why landlords in fact were jacking up rents, had nothing to do with an unregulated and open market. It had everything to do, rather, with the perception that somebody might come in and impose rent controls. The only person I've ever seen with the temerity to say anything as ludicrous and fatuous and facile as that is Walter Block from the Fraser Institute. It's scandalous that a minister responsible for housing would use the same kind of argument.

We on this side know full well what the arguments are about rent reviews, rent controls and so forth. We recognize that problem; we know the problem. But don't for a moment suggest that we are being well served by the operation of the market. We have not had rent controls or rent review in this province for 15 years. We have a crisis in supply. The answer to that from the government to that is — guess what? The reason we have a crisis in supply is — who knows? — maybe you guys will be back in government, and you'll impose rent controls. That has got to be the most classically stupid argument I have heard expressed in this House. But they use it, and they love it.

Let me tell you something more about the problem with rent controls. When we listen to members opposite talking about their fear of rent reviews and rent controls or any intervention or interference with the marketplace, what we get is the notion that somehow if we tamper with it, we will have a problem with supply. The point, however, is that we already have a crisis in supply.

I would remind everybody of a conversation I had not very long ago with a group of people in Nanaimo concerned about the problem with rent and the fact that they couldn't afford to live in their homes or apartments. When I went to talk with them, I coincidentally had been listening to the radio as I drove in, and I heard the National Citizens' Coalition, that bosom friend of members opposite — like the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who's going to get his chance next. Their slogan, you recall, is that great model of Jeffersonian eighteenth-century wisdom: more freedom through less government. What you have to say when you listen to that slogan is: tell that to all the folks who aren't benefiting from the society, because government and freedom can be used as mere shibboleths, as symbols, to hide behind. What we're talking about is freedom granted by the activities of government as well as freedom from the excesses of government. Let us never forget that both of those meanings ought to be taken into account.

When I talked to the folks In Nanaimo, the timing was exquisite, because there on the front page of my local newspaper was the story of the single-parent mother with two kids who couldn't afford both to feed her family and to pay rent. Tell her about more freedom through less government. Tell her we're sorry we can't do anything about your rent going up 50 percent because it might have an impact on the supply in the long term.

To hide behind the notion of the long term and the longer-term impacts on the market is inexcusable; it's wrong. That's why in Nanaimo we have something called the Affordable Housing Committee — a committee, you'll be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that is comprised of both tenants and landlords, people who recognize that the market, left to its own devices, won't sort out the problems, that we need to do something about it. We need to do something about it; we need to intervene in that marketplace.

Those folks have been writing letters to the minister and to the Premier, asking for some pretty simple answers. I'll just quote from a letter — the most recent one, dated January 16 — to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck): "In conclusion, we ask specifically what the government intends to do in the area of affordable housing in the immediate future." Two and a half months later we haven't heard anything, and the obvious question is: why? I suspect the obvious answer is that they don't know, because they are ideologically committed to doing nothing.

I want to touch on another area of omission in this budget. Not the budget; pardon me, the throne speech. We'll see it in the budget too, I know full well. Under the heading "Health Care," for years we have been talking about waiting-lists in Nanaimo. Indeed, members opposite — and I see the former Minister of Health is here; he knows the song very well — we've been talking about people who simply can't get the kind of service that we all assume ought to be provided as a matter of right. What is the government's response, after three and a half years, to the crisis In health care? A royal commission. Isn't that exciting? Isn't that inspiring? Doesn't it make you feel good? You know what it is, Mr. Speaker? It's shades of Mackenzie King.

MR. LOVICK: You remember Mackenzie King. I'm going to give you a little entertainment, folks on the other side. He used to be Prime Minister of Canada. He was first elected in 1921 in the constituency of York North, and his campaign slogan and song went as follows: "Hark the herald angels sing, William Lyon Mackenzie King...." Mackenzie King, you will recall, was the guy who on the one hand didn't know what his other hand was doing. Mackenzie King was the guy, you will recall, who thought that the solution to problems was to pile a parliamentary commission on top of a royal commission. That's what our new Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) is apparently accepting as his model for conduct in these difficult areas: delay, stall, postpone, don't deal with the problem in Nanaimo and don't deal with the problem of some 2,000 people on a waiting-list.

I could quote at considerable length from the brief that came from the board of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital to the minister. Suffice it to say here that what they point to is absolutely scandalous. Let me give you just a couple of examples of what this group of citizens — not enemies of this government, I would point out — had to say to the ministry.

They make the point that "during the week of January 15, 1990, of 35 patients booked for elective surgery, 29 were cancelled abruptly." They go on to say that "massive delays have become chronic." They go on to say that "if NRGH continues to be underfunded, it must begin closing down programs and services in the immediate future." They go on to say that "to achieve equity with its peers — that is, other hospitals of comparable size...." Note "equity," by the way. It's a concept with which the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) isn't familiar, but note it anyway. "To achieve equity NRGH would require an increase in its annual operating budget of $6.3 million, or 15.3 percent, immediately."

We're talking about equity. We're talking about making sure a facility in one community gets the same kind of assistance and support that hospitals in other communities of comparable size get.

To me, it's scandalous, it's shameful, that a board can make that statement and the government isn't immediately standing up, screaming and saying that's wrong. I am offended bitterly by that, Mr. Speaker. I think we should all be offended bitterly by it.

I want also to just make passing mention, because I see time is indeed flying, of another health care crisis in my community, one that is certainly well known by now; namely, the whole matter of Pharmacare and the program's failure to provide certain services to diabetics. All members here ought to be well and truly familiar with it; I would hope they are. Suffice it to say that our current policy of not providing that assistance under Pharmacare is probably costing us significantly more money than would an effort to actually change Pharmacare so that we did provide that kind of funding. That's the shortsightedness; that's the foolishness.

My colleague from Nanaimo and I have brought down some 2,000 letters to the Minister of Health. Our response, sadly, from the ministry has been, to put it charitably, confusing. We've had contradictory evidence given to us; we have had answers that tell us, "Yes, the program is under review," and then answers that say: "No, it isn't under review." What we need are some clear answers rather than the platitudinous and pious utterances of this particular throne speech.

I'm going to save my comments on my critic roles, under the heading "Omissions from this throne speech," for another time because I don't have enough today.

Instead, let me draw attention to the whole matter of social services. The government loves to point to

its economic record and suggest that we have turned the corner, that the economy is buoyant, that things are moving, that prosperity has arrived, even if it is — to use the newest coinage — a fragile prosperity. Based on an estimate of the public health officer in Nanaimo, we still have the predicament in my community — and I suspect we are not alone — of some 3,000 children who are literally living in poverty and therefore have need of what we're calling a hot-lunch program. That, too, in this day and age is scandalous. We ought to be addressing that. Sadly we say nothing of the kind in this throne speech.

I have already suggested the throne speech ought to be regarded as an admission of failure. It does indeed sound like it comes from a government that has lost its edge and lost its will. The only references to vision happen to be to the year 2001. This makes perfectly good sense, because nobody is paying attention to 1990.

The notion of the three C's — change, challenge, choice — ought to be replaced by the three T's. Sadly, what we're looking at in this throne speech is tired, trite and turbid. Turbid, in case anybody doesn't know, means dull, cloudy, not aware of a direction you're going.

MR. LOVICK: Interestingly enough, those who respond to that touch of education on my part are the ones least likely to know the meaning of the word.

I will rest my case on that note, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the attention of the chamber.

HON. MR. FRASER: Do I welcome the opportunity to support the throne speech? The answer, of course, is yes.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating you on your elevation to Speaker. We know you didn't want the job, because it is very hazardous. History says you lose your head very often, and I wish you a better fate than that.

I would also welcome to the House the new members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) and Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt). I am sure they will enjoy their stay here, even though it might be short.

I would also like to mention, with some regret, the passing of Mr. Chabot and Mr. Fraser, who both served the province and the chamber well, and who will be remembered by all of us for their commitment to the people of British Columbia, the parliamentary traditions of Canada and this province. I make special mention of them for the reason that I have great respect for them, as I am sure everybody has.

With respect to the speech I heard from the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, I must say I was not surprised, but I was disappointed. I would simply say to all my friends here and the members opposite, if that's a blueprint nothing will ever get built by the opposition. There was absolutely nothing in there. What I did see was a kind of reflection of the remark we heard from the member for Victoria, who said to my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston): "Have you made the coffee yet, Rita?" That's a little putdown we're going to try to forget about.

In question period today, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was waved down by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). How can they talk about women's issues when they just put them down with a wave of the hand. It was truly an incredible performance. I saw the sparkle in your eye, which looked more like daggers, Madam Member. But I guess you'll get your chance later on.

As to the member who just spoke, this is your lucky day, of course. This is the day when you're the first member for Nanaimo, but only because the other member was elected after you in a by-election. As we know, Coat-tails Lovick — pardon me, the member for Nanaimo — was swept in on the coat-tails of a man who's now in the federal parliament by the name of Mr. Stupich, who I gather gets funding from sources that are really being looked at quite carefully. However, now that he's the first member by an accident of fate, I must give him the due. I sort of regret it. I would like to think that we could have dual ridings one more time, and then one more time he could come in as the second member for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that remark; I wish I had. That little member from Point Grey.... "I'm a doctor; I've a bandage on my head." That little member there said: "You're moving the hospitals out of NDP ridings into Socred ridings." The minister said: "No, we're just moving them where the people are." Hard to grasp. What would he have said if he'd gone forward another election? Moving from Socred riding to Socred riding? That's what I really expect.

I think the government will do as it always has done. It will go with the flow, it will go where the people are, it will build where they are, it will build highways where they are and hospitals where they are. And that's why this government will be re-elected and re-elected. That little member from Point Grey over there will wonder what happened.

The most fascinating about the reading of the throne speech and the little ruckus we had — goodness knows that was a tone-setter, no question about that — was that we found out once again who t

Hi, Anne-Marie. Sorry I'm slightly late with my note. Hope you had a great day yesterday!

It was good seeing you and the kids in Brooklyn. (Did you get the link I sent with some photos?) Since we got back from Nova Scotia, I've been working four days a week at Hansard. It's been hectic, but nice for the bank book. Janet's doing well (and says hi), although she's got a cold right now and has been home sick.

Janet's siblings are coming over this weekend for a celebration. I'm looking forward to it. They're a fun bunch (one brother and three sisters -- two live in Greater Victoria, and two on various Gulf Islands).

I've been watching the baseball World Series, although I don't particularly care about either of the two teams. It may well be over after tonight, if Philadelphia wins again.

Anyway, I'm at work right now, so I've got to get back to it. I hope you're doing well and the kids have readjusted to school. Take care.

HON. MR. FRASER: The fellow from Vancouver East — you know, the first one. The one we used to know — and still know — as the power behind the dome. Yes, the little notes, quarterbacking.... He's leading his troops: "You go here, you go there; you do this, you do that." It was amazing. What a display. I'm thrilled that we had TV in here on that particular day. Otherwise, the world would not have seen it.

HON. MR. FRASER: If you could see him from here, you wouldn't want television in this place ever again. Someday you should sit over here as a guest. Be my guest someday, and look and watch and say: "No, no, no." Then the real leader will stand up, as he should.

It's like I said: if that's a blueprint, there will be no construction in B.C. by that group over there.

He said: "Talk to Mulroney. Take on Mulroney." No problem; we've done that. Then he talked about oil shipments at sea. Do you know what he said to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) the other day? "When we're elected" — as if there was ever a chance of that — "we'll have a tugboat going through the narrows with those big tankers." As we all know, the Minister of Environment already has four tugboats going with them. So he was calling for a reduction. That's at Second Narrows. At First Narrows he had two, and all the way out to the harbour in Victoria he had one. Now who's leading who in this thing?

He was doing a study of pollution controls in Vancouver harbour on a yacht. Can you believe it? It was a little white yacht floating down the harbour. What do you bet he had a...? No, no, not during the day. Just amazing.

He said: "We're going to have clean air, and toxic waste...." And, oh, good grief, fisheries. In the Speech from the Throne we talked about driftnet fishing and the fact that we're against it. We are against it. Who wouldn't be against it? It's a stupid policy. It's this government that's leading the pack on that one.

Do you know what I didn't hear from the other side today? I didn't hear anything about electoral reform; I guess they don't like it anymore. But maybe because we didn't hear, they do like it. Remember when it was first introduced, Mr. Speaker. Who said: "I can't trust the judge"? Wasn't that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)? He said: "It will be discounted in advance."

HON. MR. FRASER: He said exactly that, Mr. Member, because I was here and I listened. It's in the book. We can read the book.

We talk about health care. The greatest health care system this province has ever known is in existence today. One-third of every dollar goes to health care. I don't really want to know my doctor if I'm having a heart operation; I just want to know that my doctor is good. I don't care what hospital I go to or what doctor does it; I just want to be assured that he knows what he's doing. That's what this government is doing. If you want to go to Seattle....

HON. MR. FRASER: The greedy doctors? Is that what the member for Point Grey said?

HON. MR. FRASER: He talked about the greedy doctors. This is the same member who wears the BCMA tie right in this chamber. I guess that means he's impartial.

When you get a chance to go to the hospital, does it matter where it is? If you get health care, that's what matters. Is it paid for? Yes, it is. That's what matters. That's the plan. Let them know that it's out there. Let them know that 32 cents of every dollar goes to health care. Let them know that the commitment of this government to health care is phenomenal — because the people want health care.

MRS. BOONE: Does it matter that $20,000 to $30,000 goes out of the province?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Prince George North says: "Does it matter that $20,000 or $30,000 Is going out of the province?" Does It matter if you get health care? That's what matters — not where the money goes, not who does it. It's being done is what matters.

Then he says: "We're going to sit down with the environmentalists. Then we're going to sit down with the loggers, and we're going to come down with a policy." I guess each one of those parties gets half of the tree. Right? You know, there's no doubt about it: what we need in this province are jobs and common sense, and we get that from over here.

Then he said that we don't look after the wine growers. Guess what, Mr. Member from over there? We do look after the wine men, as you know. Didn't we help them with a big replanting? You bet. It's a government of action. The grape growers replaced the red grapes with white grapes, and that's why they're doing so well. We'll hear from that member over there. What will he know? Now we have red and white.

HON. MR. FRASER: My friend, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), has come back. The man from Vancouver East is a wonderful man; he's been around a long time. Got into the airline business. Started seat sales, didn't he? Wonderful stuff.

Talking about reforestation, has there been a big commitment? Are we planting millions of trees? Yes, we are. Are they growing? Yes, they are. Will we do more? Yes, we will.

HON. MR. FRASER: He said: "Did you go out to look at the kids when you were looking at the oil spill in the harbour?" The Minister of Environment and I were out there like that.

HON. MR. FRASER: Isn't that nice that there wasn't any oil out there? Isn't that great that there wasn't any oil out there from some careless ship? But my colleague the Minister of Environment is going to do some tracing to make sure that we can find out whose ships are dumping their sludge and their bilges out there, because we don't like it. Nor do you, I presume; otherwise you wouldn't be here.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, I'll tell you what: not only was I there, but the provincial emergency program was there like that, and the people were rescued just like that. All the compensation programs were put in place as quickly as possible, and the claims were paid as quickly as possible.

Here we talk about education being important. It is. I remember that it was the NDP government that fixed those budgets on education, wasn't it? Not to be remembered by them, but remembered by us and everybody else out there who will remember that her name is Eileen Dailly. A very nice lady — no question about that — but she did shoulder some of those burdens and get everybody all mad at her. No wonder.

We're talking about regionalization and how well it's working. It is working. Then you said, "Let the people speak," and we said: "You want referendums." "No, we don't." Then the Leader of the Opposition said that they don't want rent controls, and this member here says he does.

I've got some interesting quotes from the Leader of the Opposition. On March 9, 1990, he said: "When did I ever sound like a socialist? I've never been a socialist."

HON. MR. FRASER: He said he's never been a socialist. But on another day to another audience, he said: "As a successful business person and a successful socialist...." And he goes on a little further. So what is he? Where does he stand? What does he do? Does anybody know? He's a capitalist with capitalists; he's a socialist with socialists; he's a social democrat when he forgets he's supposed to call himself an NDPer.

I'll tell you, I'm a Socred, I'm proud to be a Socred and I don't have any trouble calling myself a Socred, because that's what I am. But these guys don't know what they are. They're trying to change their titles all the time. Why are they afraid to admit they're socialists when everybody knows they're socialists? That's what I want to understand. I can't understand why they wouldn't just admit: "I am a socialist. That's what the NDP is all about: socialism for everybody — because we know how to do it better." That's what they said: "We know how to do it better." Goodness knows, I don't believe that.

But, you know, when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition I didn't hear anything about pay equity for women. I didn't hear that from you or anybody else. And why? Because it's a good program, and we wouldn't want anybody to know the Socreds are doing a good job — again.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's going to be very interesting, Madam Member. I didn't hear you mention one word about pay equity today, or anybody else over there. But we're doing it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was asked by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) if I'm doing anything in my ministry. The answer is yes, absolutely.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's the man who would call for mandatory car inspection — and did. But I'm here to tell you, Mr. Speaker and all of you in the gallery and the members here assembled, that something less than two and a half percent of the accidents in British Columbia involve cars that aren't fit. It's a big price to pay.

HON. MR. FRASER: About 2,006, and that's two and a half percent. That's why we have the inspection program. That's why we want people to get their cars tested and inspected. And that's why we have 1,300 inspection stations all over British Columbia. That's why we do it. You can have your car fixed by the man who inspected it, fixed by somebody else or fixed by yourself, but it has to be fixed. That's all we want: to make sure the car is safe.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we talk about traffic tickets. We do all the things that try to make the roads as safe as we can at all times. We want to involve you and we want to get your cooperation. We know that we will.

HON. MR. FRASER: They are down in B.C. We are doing a good job with safety in British Columbia, but I'd like it to be even better. I would really like to think that the drivers in B.C. would spend more time paying attention to the road conditions, because when it says that the speed limit is 60 kilometers or 100 kilometers or whatever, it doesn't always mean that you can drive at that speed, because sometimes road conditions change, making them unsafe.

HON. MR. FRASER: "Go, back to the Old South" — the old Vancouver South. What a beautiful riding, Mr. Speaker — as you and I know so well! The wonderful people there have consistently elected you and me. I would compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that you are probably the longest consecutively serving member from that riding — four terms. I know you can't respond, so I'll do it for you. You've done a great job down there. And not only that, I've done a good job down there too, and that's why they re-elected me. They know they can count on me — that's important. The beauty of a riding like Vancouver South is that it's so diverse. We have little businesses and big businesses, large homes and small homes, and people from every background on earth almost, and we get along well because....

HON. MR. FRASER: He didn't say that when they won it, did he? Well, they don't like it now, and they won't like it next week either. Vancouver-Fraserview and Vancouver-Langara are just going to be swell when that election comes along and we get to beat those little fellows there again. They can't help themselves. They will ultimately say what always costs them the election: they will say they are socialists, one way or the other. Everybody hates it, because it doesn't work.

How many times do we have to remind them about what's happening around the rest of the world? What a remarkable year! Who would have believed 1989! Who would have believed those walls would come tumbling down!

HON. MR. FRASER: That's why we have you, so we can have a two-party system here.

HON. MR. FRASER: You and I know that it's going to be tough for you to win any election. You did once, and people will never forget how awful it was here.

I really like education, Mr. Speaker. I spend a lot of time in the schools in my riding. I like to go out and see what those students are doing. The opposition nags us about education all the time, saying how bad it is out there, but I'll tell you that our students do really well. They are winning contest after contest across the country.

HON. MR. FRASER: I accept every little bit of help. I'm not like you; I don't think I can do it all by myself. I like help; I like cooperation; I like to talk to people.

I say our education system is great, and our kids are doing well. I would like to think they will do even better when we keep improving the system — and they will do better, as they always have.

The thing I find very disappointing, Mr. Speaker, is that if we keep hearing from members opposite or the people out there who are fussing about a political problem, saying that the education system isn't good, someone might believe it, and that would be a crime. The education system is good, our teachers are good and the work is good. They really do a great job out there, and they will continue to.

My colleague down the row here who was Minister of Advanced Education a few years ago, and my other colleague who is doing that great job now.... Talk about expansion! Talk about a post-secondary system! Is there another one like it anywhere? The answer is probably no. Who built the college system? The Social Credit Party did. Who carried on our policy when we were out of office for a little while? The opposition. We got back, and we built and built. Now we have colleges throughout the province becoming university degree-granting organizations.

HON. MR. FRASER: And in your riding, Madam Member, we will now have a university of the north. What did you do to help that? I suspect that you did absolutely nothing.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's another topic, Mr. Speaker. Distance education is another area where we lead the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if you would address the Chair it would assist.

That member from the north says: "We would do it by distance education." We should, of course, have a great combination of systems. Get the message out to the students. Help the people in B.C. learn, whether they're old, young, male or female. It's open; it's even; it's access. Education for all is the key. Let it happen.

I want to see more women in engineering, and the percentage is gradually growing. That's very good. There are more women in science; that's very good. There are lots of bright women taking up these traditional male occupations: driving trucks, taking engineering, taking science. It's very important to let your own interests prevail when you take an educational course. It doesn't always happen, you know, but it will continue to happen more and more.

HON. MR. FRASER: Which program am I going to leap on to try to find out about you?

The Leader of the Opposition talked about the starter home, first-time buyers, rent controls and demolition controls. He already knows that demolition controls are in the hands of the municipalities.

HON. MR. FRASER: The demolition crew indeed. As you said, my friend, they may have gone from red to green on the outside, but they're still mushy in the middle.

You know, one thing about the Leader of the Opposition that I find very disappointing is that he's unable to decide, ever, about anything. And I thought: well now, there is a chance for him coming up pretty soon, and the chance has now gone by. There is a chance for him because there is a leadership campaign in the federal NDP. Of course he never says he's an NDPer; he says he's a social democrat. But being an NDPer, he actually went to the meeting. So here's the choice — surrounded by all his NDP allies; I guess there weren't that many of them — between a westerner and an easterner, a man or a woman. You would have thought that in a group of friends, he would be able to decide who he was going to support.

HON. MR. FRASER: You'd think so. What do you mean? How can you make an enemy when you're voting with friends, right? He didn't decide for Mrs. McLaughlin; he didn't decide for Mr. Barrett. He said nothing. But I'll tell you, our federal NDP member — his name is Simon de Jong — brought a whole new meaning to the expression Simon Pure; there's no doubt about that. How do you like that? Simon Pure.

It's interesting. You talk about the NDP. You know, I'm really proud to belong to a party that dedicates its entire effort to British Columbia — all of it. We can talk to the federal Liberals and the federal Conservatives, and we can talk to the federal NDP if we want to — if it made any difference.

I think I heard my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) say that some members in Victoria talked about cancelling the Polar 8. We're in favour of the Polar 8 around here. We are, on this side of the House. But then we had Mr. Brewin — wonderful Mr. Brewin. "The department made me do it," he said. But he said: "Don't worry, no working man got hurt." How about that! Well, who else pays the taxes but the working guys? They got hurt, didn't they? It's a shameful story.

But you know, if you want to talk about some of the proud achievements of the Social Credit government of British Columbia's balanced budget.... Balanced budget, Mr. Speaker. No wonder the rest of the country is envious. We spend four cents of every dollar on debt, and the rest of the country spends 35 cents or 40 cents. We've got money left to provide for those who need help, to provide education for those who need it and to provide health care for those who need it. That's why we're government, that's why we will be government and that's why we're here.

We were listening to the.... He's gone — probably gone for good soon. Anyway, he's gone now. He was talking about a royal commission, and he said: "I don't like a royal commission on health care." He liked the Royal Commission on Education. He sure liked the royal commission on forests; he liked that. He didn't want it on health care. Isn't that amazing? What a good idea: a royal commission on health care. Isn't it time we had a good look at what happens in the province, when it involves so much of the taxpayers' money?

HON. MR. FRASER: That Port Alberni man.... The amount of money spent in the U.S.A.... I think

I've touched a soft spot here, Mr. Speaker. That member over there is upset, and he should be upset, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

HON. MR. FRASER: We have it good here. You're saying to me that in Port Alberni we don't have a good health care system, but I say we do, and you know it.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's right. We've got good health care here, and it'll be even better because of the management of the Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia; it'll be better.

HON. MR. FRASER: As I said earlier, if that statement by the Leader of the Opposition was a blueprint, they won't build anything ever. There's nothing to pin your hopes to there. Nothing, nothing, nothing. How does he do it endlessly? No substance and old clichés. That's all we heard. It's very difficult for the people of British Columbia to think that man is the leader of a party that thinks it ought to run the government. That man right there thinks he should run the government, and it won't happen. That's the real leader over there: the man from Vancouver East. The other one....

HON. MR. FRASER: Any man who has 50 friends is lucky in this world, so maybe....

I think that royal commission on health care will be terrific. Can you believe a doctor's wife is on the commission? That sounds like a pretty fair deal. And we have a health care economist; that sounds pretty sensible.

HON. MR. FRASER: How many working nurses would you like? But you see, my friend, anybody could make a submission to the royal commission on health care. That's the whole idea, and if you....

You know what the NDP would do? They'd have 100 people on the royal commission at minimum, and then they would get nothing done except spending money to hold meetings. This way, we have a decent sized committee. We'll get the job done, and we'll come down with some answers. The Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) has said to the doctors of the province: "If you get a better offer from the royal commission and we agree to it, it's retroactive way, way back...."

HON. MR. FRASER: You must be, but I'm not; I'm for jobs. I like to have people working. We want them all to work, to carry their load, do their share.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's a chance. There have been some of those, as a matter of fact.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think I know what the next career for the Solicitor-General will be, after he concludes with his run in either Vancouver-Fraserview or Vancouver-Langara — wherever he finds a home in the future — and that will be as a Gilbert and Sullivan patter singer. He's either a little Liberal or a little Conservative. There's the long list and it goes on and on and on. I'm not quite sure what the hon. member said through all of that, but he sure got a good workout. I hope you feel good, Mr. Member, after all of those histrionics.

We're looking at a House that's finally called to order after months of us being in our constituencies, and it is clear, watching what's happening on the other side of the House, that people over there are scared for their electoral skins. I think I know some of the reasons why they're scared for their electoral skins, Mr. Speaker. Unlike some of the hon. members who from their tans look as if they've been travelling far and wide in the world, I've been staying very close to home in my riding of the royal city, New Westminster.

In my first opportunity to address this House today, and in response to the throne speech, I think one task that I would like to take on is telling a few stories about the people I've been talking to on their doorsteps and in my constituency office — the real people who are living in 1990, not in 1950, or 1972, or 1980, or whenever else those people across the way want to deal with. We're dealing with the here and now, with the economy and social fabric of our country here and now and with our communities and constituencies.

The people I've talked to are people who are waiting for the next election, and they are waiting for a choice in that election. They're waiting for a choice because of some of the inaction of this government on matters of importance to them. In the time I have available to me this afternoon, I want to tell a few stories about some of those people and talk about some of the ways in which I believe we as New Democrats will deal with their needs and their lives

The first issue in my riding, as in almost every riding in the lower mainland, is housing. It's not an issue for those of us who own a house and have owned one for a time, but it is an issue for those who rent and for young families. Let me just tell you two or three stories of those families in my riding and what they're facing.

The first story is of a 74-year-old woman in an old three-storey frame walkup, a very modest apartment. In the past two years her rent has gone from $410 to $595. For that woman the rent is 60 percent of her income. She has about $400 left to do everything else that is a part of her life, including trying to run a car so she could visit her elderly mother who lived in Queens Park Hospital — a mother, I would note, who has recently died. She had never heard of the government's SAFER program, because this government doesn't advertise that program. Even with SAFER funds, which I helped her to obtain, she's still paying in excess of 50 percent of her income for rent.

The day before I came over here, I had a phone call from a 25-year-old woman who is an articling student. Her very small apartment — around 500 square feet — for which she pays all utilities, including heat, was going up. She had just got a rental notice of increase which said that her rent would increase from $430 a month to $625 a month. That was well in excess of 50 percent of her income.

We are dealing in my office with a 43- or 44-year-old severely disabled person. He's on provincial disability. Once he pays his rent, he has $60 left to live on, and we've just begun to try to deal with that man's crisis situation as he tries to survive with food banks and the help of other people.

Finally, I think of the young woman with a two-year-old child in an apartment that was not safe, where she had to watch that child constantly if she opened a window because there was no protection for her on the fourth floor. She is going to be evicted from that house because she has a child.

I could add to my list of stories about people in my riding accounts of young couples looking for a starter home: a place where they can buy a modest house somewhere that isn't going to require them to drive one and a half hours each way to their work in greater Vancouver, something that would allow them to begin to think of having a family and having some of that security.

What did the Speech from the Throne that we've just heard promise on housing? What did it say to the 74-year-old woman, the 25-year-old student, the disabled man and the young single parent? It said we'll do something about emergency housing for the homeless; we will rehash the promises that I've heard in this House every session this term of parliament. Every time, we've heard promises of rental housing, of something that is going to deal with the crisis in housing and something that's going to provide people with an opportunity to settle down and to know that they can afford to raise their families, to live with some dignity and not to be fearful about their basic financial security.

There's nothing happening from that side of the House. People know that. They recognize that it is true. When they add that to their knowledge of the Expo land deals, the New Westminster waterfront land deals, the Westwood Plateau land deals — where no housing is going up that anyone can afford unless they are very wealthy people or have sold a house in west Point Grey — then they despair of what this government is going to offer them in housing. That's one of the reasons they're waiting for an election and a choice of a party that has a commitment to that basic need of people for secure housing for their health and for their financial stability.

I hear that concern on almost every doorstep. Even with people who have secure housing, there is an awareness of the crisis and of the failure of this government to deal with it.

Let me look to a second area that I hear about over and over again. Most of the people I've been talking to are young women or people with families, They recognize that the opportunities available to them are very much diminished by virtue of this government's policies. I want to speak particularly of opportunities for women, because — as my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) noted — many women in our society are poor, and they are poor because in many instances they lack the support they need at critical times in their lives to get the education that would put them into jobs that are available within our communities.

Again, let me tell you a couple of stories. Just a week before we came back to this House, the Leader of the Opposition and I visited Douglas College, where many students of different walks of life and of different needs are in attendance. We visited a class where young men and women are learning literacy skills. We talked to those people, who in many instances came from a background of almost no reading, writing and numerical skills. What shone out from those people was their knowledge that their future depended on educational opportunity; and in spite of the difficulties they faced, that commitment and optimism was very dominant and strong in their persons and in their sense of commitment.

But over and over again, as we talked to people who had a long road to go before they would arrive at some of the skills they were going to need, some of the literacy skills they were going to require, we found that there was always a roadblock that they saw ahead. They were committed to finding their way over that roadblock, but what the Leader of the Opposition and I noted was that those roadblocks in fact should and could be alleviated to the betterment not only of those people but of all of us. In almost every case the students we spoke to had virtually no assistance to help them at school to get on with that literacy education and see a road ahead for further training.

For example, one woman's ambition was to become a teacher in the field of literacy. She herself had

to become literate and then go on to school and university. She had no help at all in her courses at that school, and she knew that once she got to the point where she had the equivalent of a high school education she would be able to get some help, perhaps for six months. She would probably be counselled to go into secretarial work or something of that nature. The kind of help she might need to get to be a teacher would not be available to her from any government programs.

The same thing was true of a young man who was very far along the line towards achieving his goal with literacy. He needed help in terms of vocational programs. Again, he had been told there would be limits in what was available to him.

These are the people we need in our province right now. There will be critical shortages facing us soon. Critical shortages of nurses, teachers, health support workers, technicians and trades people face us now. These people are committed to using their newfound skills toward training that will put them into the highest level of achievement and productivity that they might possibly attain. But everywhere we look, there are roadblocks in that goal.

My final story in this particular segment is of a man who came into my office and spent half an hour talking to me about his passionate desire to learn to read. He actually had a trade and he had a working wife. Two people in his family were being supported by this working wife. She was a government worker and was earning an income for her family that was at the poverty line. This man was told that he had a trade; he didn't need to do anything about his literacy because he could manage with that trade. He was not encouraged to overcome what had been a lifetime of discouragement, a lifetime of being put down because he had never learned to read, a lifetime of people saying he was retarded. He was not going to be encouraged to overcome that inheritance.

This was a skilled tradesman, a locksmith, and he had learned by virtue of using tape recorders and having his wife read programs to him. He desperately wanted an opportunity to become a person who could learn because he could read himself, and he was being denied any assistance with that opportunity. He was managing to go to school a couple of days a week — not enough for him to upgrade — and he was seeing the road closed and doors blocked for his future endeavours.

Those kinds of messages are out there for women, for families and for people who need help in adding to their educational resources. We need them in the economy of our province, and those people are being shortchanged. In the throne speech we had a reference to the good programs that are there, and the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made a great to-do about those programs. The only figures we had mentioned were that there were another 700 people in post-secondary education. We have a deficit of 18,000 people who should be in post-secondary education. Those people need to have assistance to acquire those skills, and we need to provide that assistance for them if they are to contribute to the economy that we're going to have in the 1990s, in the year 2001 and beyond.

I hear people talking about the big areas that serve so many people in their day-to-day lives: the area of health care and the education of young children. First of all, let me say a word about health care. Quite bluntly, this government has lost the trust of people in respect to health care. This government failed to act early in its mandate. The Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) had a standard line that I heard over and over again: "We have no money." They had a standard plan, which was to add fees to those who could least afford it — Pharmacare fees for seniors, user fees for important therapies, huge increases in Medicare premiums, to the point where many — and particularly those who are elderly and less able — came to fear for their health security.

Now the government has announced a royal commission and said that everything is on hold until that royal commission reports. The idea of a royal commission in health is a worthy idea, but coming at the end of this government's mandate, it's seen for what it is: a way to get off the hook for its record in not having acted sooner. I think people recognize that the royal commission is too little, too late, rather than a genuine effort and concern on the part of this government to deal with the health care issue.

Specifically, seniors are feeling that the consultation and the work that they have put into advising the government has been a hollow exercise. There's one line in the throne speech about seniors. It's a meaningless, hollow promise. I quote exactly what the throne speech says to seniors. It says: "Their needs will be addressed as fully as possible." What a hollow promise after a task force has reported to the Minister of Health, a task force that heard a year ago from seniors who put their very best effort into advising government on important issues, a task force that covered all the bases and then tabled its report to a government that has a hollow promise of "We'll do what's possible" in the throne speech.

Seniors know too that this government doesn't live up to its commitments to consult regularly. Almost a year ago legislation was passed in this House which required the government to appoint a seniors' advisory committee, a council of seniors who would be a fundamental resource for the minister responsible for seniors. Almost ten months later, Mr. Speaker, that council still is not established. There has been not a word from the Minister of Health except to say: "Someday, someday, someday, one day, we may have that council." The message that goes out to those people who may be asked to serve on that council is: "Someday we'll get around to this, and someday we may pay attention to you." The promise of that particular effort is very much sullied by the government's failure to act.

I want to conclude with comments about what people are saying in the field of education, particularly for our young, the children in kindergarten through grade 12. Very bluntly, the message I am getting is that people do not trust this government

with the education of our children. When I ask them why, they say it is because they feel that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and the Premier of the province sit on the edge of provoking conflict in that domain rather than working in consensual and cooperative ways with the many people who play a part in the education of our children.

Many of us remember that the most solid advice which the Sullivan commission gave in its royal commission report on education was the challenge for those who laboured in this field to find ways of being sure that people were well-informed, and that cooperation and consensus would be the style by which decisions were developed. Indeed, as I have noted on many occasions in the House, it appeared that the government had heeded that message. But when I listen to the Minister of Education today making derogatory remarks about teachers, when I hear him on many occasions suggesting that the 28,000 people who are the professionals who teach our children have some agenda other than the best education possible for children, when I hear the Minister of Education almost threatening that anyone who questions his view of the universe is a subversive, somebody who doesn't care about education.... There's not much there that gives inspiration towards cooperative and consensual decision-making.

When I talk to parents from the Langley School District, as I did this morning, who are concerned about the funding available in their district and are having difficulty getting information that enables them to get answers to their very legitimate questions about why children in their district are funded at $600 or $700 less than the province average.... That doesn't give people trust and a sense of stability and reliability about how this government is dealing with education.

When this government, which refused last year during the School Act even to discuss the failure of the act to say anything at all about how important it is to teach the principles of democracy in our school system, ignores the democratic process by proposing legislation, revising that legislation and promoting legislation outside the House — I speak here of the referendum proposal — then surely people wonder whether we can trust it with the education of our children.

This side of the House has stated at its convention, in its meetings with people and in its discussion of the issues before us that we want to ensure that there is time, information, opportunity for discussion and clarity of purpose as we move forward to the very important changes that need to occur in an education system in a computer age, in a global village, in a world that is very different from where we were as parents and grandparents when we were going to school.

The awesome responsibility of the Minister of Education and the Premier of this province is indeed to provide the environment in which education can be fostered and can flourish. People must be able to trust a government to be open — which is what education is all about — to questions, concerns and their aspirations for their children. To have the minister impugn our motives, the motives of teachers, the motives of parents, the motives of trustees, especially around legislation that he has never even deigned to introduce in the House, is a very regrettable state of affairs for all of us.

I am hoping that within a day or so the legislation on referendums will come into this House so it can see the light of day, so we'll get beyond the extra parliamentary method of dealing with public policy and making significant changes in public policy. I think one of the most wonderful things that could happen in this House would be that all sides would recognize that the referendum proposal is opposed in the extra parliamentary world very strongly — by trustees, by city councils, by parents and by business and community leaders — and that proposal will die and never see the light of day.

I fear that this government is bent on introducing this nefarious and ill-conceived proposal, one that I lay squarely at the feet of the Premier, who has an absolute commitment to a referendum process for the annual operating budgets of school boards, a commitment that will mean that inequities, instability and additional costs will be built into the system, and the reform and change that we need to have in the interests of children cannot go forward.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I note the only possible way for us to resolve these issues is that we can indeed have a choice, and that choice will come with an election. It will come with an election that is not fire and brimstone, as the Premier or the Solicitor General or the Minister of Education, who have spoken in this throne speech to date, have accorded us over the last few days; it will come with a steady commitment to ideas and programs and people that we have been talking about since we were elected in this House and that people trust us to deliver for them. That's the reason we will be dealing with those issues throughout this session on behalf of people: so they know where we stand and they know what choices are available to them when the Premier decides to dissolve this House and give people an opportunity to exercise their choice. I'm confident about what that choice will be. That's what I'm hearing, that's what we are speaking for, and that's what we'll continue to do for the constituents of the province, my riding and riding by riding across the province.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the Speech from the Throne. The first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) referred to it earlier today as puffery and omission. Indeed, that's not the way the throne speech appears to my constituents in South Peace River. They see in the throne speech many references to accomplishments and to things they would like to see accomplished. I'm going to take the time I have today, and perhaps a bit tomorrow, to speak about those issues and to issues in the throne speech that refer directly to my Ministry of Native Affairs.

To start off with, this government promised electoral reform. I remember at the time — the first sitting of this House — the naysayers across the way said we would never see electoral reform in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that we are seeing electoral reform in British Columbia. It will be a fact of life in the next election.

It's important, I think, for all of us in this House to recognize that there are certain principles of justice that apply to electoral reform and to recognize also that there are some downsides to what we're embarking upon. What we're going to see in British Columbia is a fundamental shift of representation from rural representation to urban representation. I think all members should recognize that. When we support this electoral reform, we are really talking about a fundamental shift away from rural representation.

Most members' ridings in the interior and in the northern parts of the province will be larger. It's going to require a considerable undertaking from members to be able to serve their constituents in the future as well as we have in the past. I'm not talking particularly about myself or people on this side of the House or the other side of the House. If you expand the size of the constituency, if you make larger and larger the number of people that we represent, and you add the difficulties of travel to it, it's going to be much more demanding on rural MLAs. We have to recognize that.

The fact of the matter is also that northern and interior areas will not have as big a say in what happens in British Columbia in the future. We are more and more going to be dominated by the desires of urban residents. We're going to have to fight harder for the needs and the wants of rural residents in British Columbia. I'm certainly prepared and intend to do that, but I think we have to recognize a fact of life.

The constituency of South Peace River will almost double in size as a result of this redistribution. It will take in the district of Mackenzie and the native communities of Ingenika and Fort Ware. It will be the only constituency in British Columbia that has the Rocky Mountains running through the centre of it. That in itself will cause some travel difficulties as the MLA moves back and forth. It will double in size geographically, and it's going to provide a challenge to represent all the constituents in that new constituency fairly and equitably.

But there are some common interests in that northern part of the world. One of them is forestry. It's the primary industry in the district of Mackenzie. It's an industry that's becoming increasingly important in the rest of the Peace River region.

We suffer some common difficulties in the north, one of them being the recruitment and retention of professionals: educators, health care workers and others. These are common problems in Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge and Mackenzie, and even larger problems in communities like Ingenika and Fort Ware.

We face some common threats, one of them being the federal government's decision to eliminate northern tax allowances from all the communities in my constituency. That's going to be a tremendous hardship for the people who live in South Peace River. When you combine that with the additional burden a GST will impose, we're really worried in that part of the world about taxation.

There's general opposition, I guess, in British Columbia and western Canada to the goods and services tax, and with good reason. Particularly there is concern in the northern parts of British Columbia about the goods and services tax. Goods cost us more, travel costs us more, services cost us more, simply by where we live, and they will now cost us even more proportionately. They will not only be higher, but they will be relatively higher because of the effect of the goods and services tax. In any event, there are issues in the north that need to be addressed, issues that I will continue to try to address and that I will seek to address in the next House.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to seek the nomination, and hopefully to be a candidate for the Social Credit Party in the next election in the new constituency called South Peace River, rather than Peace River South.

To get into the issues of the throne speech, many of my constituents will recognize and support the government plan to introduce a pay equity program for women in British Columbia. The B.C. public service, I am sure, is the right place for us to start with this undertaking. Many of the poorest-paying jobs in government are those held by women, and I think we must address this problem. We've got to work within government to find a resolution to that problem, and we've got to work with the public service unions. If this is going to succeed, if we are going to see greater pay equity in the public service in British Columbia, we need the cooperation and support of the public service unions. My understanding is that at times in negotiations that has been difficult to get. What we're going to ask and to sincerely seek is cooperation In the next round of bargaining and perhaps the rounds after that before we achieve our goal of equity within government service.

Equally important, Mr. Speaker, is the government's plan to establish a British Columbia pension plan. I can't think of any group — homemakers, farmers and employees of small businesses — who will welcome more than my constituents the government's undertaking to establish a retirement plan that will assist them in accumulating retirement income.

The government's economic policies, ones that will attract new industry and create employment opportunities, will be most welcome in the north. There is a boom in the greater Vancouver area, and there's a boom in the Okanagan, but certainly in parts of British Columbia there is a slow recovery in the economy. We still look for new sources of employ-

ment. We look for new investment in the north and in the northeast, and I'm sure in other parts of northern British Columbia. This government has an outstanding record in South Peace River — in the area of job creation — of sincere and solid economic development. I think of the assistance we've provided to Fiberco to build a new pulp mill at Taylor, and of the assistance that we've provided to Louisiana Pacific to create the first waferboard plant in British Columbia, where we employ about 150 people In the plant and about 300 working in logging- and trucking-related activities.

As a spinoff of that we now have a chopstick plant in Dawson Creek that is going to employ in the very near future 75 people, manufacturing chopsticks from high-quality aspen. This undertaking is only possible because of the waferboard plant there and the large volume of wood that they harvest, making available the select grades of wood for chopstick manufacture.

The government has also assisted and supported with infrastructure a new pulp mill at Chetwynd. And perhaps the biggest and most important job creation project ever undertaken in the northeast was northeast coal, now an industry that supports the town of Tumbler Ridge, a very attractive and prosperous community of some 5,000 people in the Rocky Mountains, which relies almost exclusively on coal extraction.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), the very learned member, asks who put the money into that project?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: How much money. Which part would you care to know? The cost of the road that opened up coal development? Forestry activity? Tourism? Is that what you're interested in, the cost of that road?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Then perhaps also you're interested in the cost of hydro lines that came in and helped develop industry and opened up the town. Is that what you're interested in?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: A cost-benefit analysis, Northeast coal is a tremendously important undertaking, one that was sponsored by this government, one I'm proud to see in the province and one that will continue to return not only direct revenue but also tax dollars from those good steelworkers and others who are working up there. I don't suppose you folks are supportive of the kind of job creation that provides good, high-paying jobs to people previously unemployed.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey obviously has changed his focus from northeast to the south. Before I move on, we know there's only one government in British Columbia that has consistently supported northeast coal and will continue to support northeast coal. We have only to look at the returns from elections to understand that the folks in Tumbler Ridge know that there is only one government in British Columbia that supports northeast coal.

There are many other projects that are planned in the Peace region, projects that will rely on a sensible government to bring the kinds of decisions that will allow these projects to proceed. Among these projects are a second waferboard plant and a small dimension sawmill at Tumbler Ridge. These will require an allocation of timber, and we must be sensitive and recognize before we make these kinds of allocations that we balance the need for economic growth with the need to protect the environment. I'm confident that the minister and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) and others will assess the risk to tourism, wildlife and water and come up with a plan that allows for economic development and a sustainable environment.

Reforestation is critical in the northeast region. During the past three or four years that the FRDA plan has been in place the northeast region is the one area that has not received significant amounts of reforestation. Most of the remaining NSR lands in British Columbia are in my constituency and in the constituency to the north. A renewed FRDA agreement is absolutely essential to us. We expected a FRDA II to come as a result of matched funding from the federal government. We've been disappointed from the signals we're getting from Ottawa.

MR. PERRY: You thought it would come without having to lift a finger to fight for it.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, we expected fairness. That was something, I guess, that one comes to expect.

In any event, I see that the time is drawing near 6 o'clock. I would move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY