[ Page 8909 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Establish a University in Northern British Columbia, 1990 (Bill M201).

Mrs. Boone

Introduction and first reading –– 8909

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 8909

Mr. Perry –– 8911

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 8916

Ms. Edwards –– 8920

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A UNIVERSITY
IN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1990

Mrs. Boone presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish A University in Northern British Columbia, 1990.

MRS. BOONE: This is a bill that allows for the creation of a northern university, something that has had the full support of residents in the north — both Socreds and New Democrats — for many years now. In fact, I originally mentioned this university and ran on this university in 1986. I mentioned this university in my original throne speech, and I'm pleased today to introduce this bill, because I think that we will eventually find a university in the Prince George region.

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: I'm pleased to see that the members on the other side are so raucous on this issue, because it is something that has full support. The people of the north deserve a university.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: I'm pleased to see that the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is also in support of this, because he was the one who originally said in 1986 that we needed no university, that we could have all our university education through advanced education.

This university will not only provide the people of the north with an opportunity to have educational advantages but will also provide economic advantages and social advantages for us. It's an absolute essential for us. It is part of the economic reality of the north, that we absolutely need a university to establish ourselves as the centre of the north.

We in Prince George are the centre of the northern part of British Columbia. We believe very strongly that this university will provide the economic realities that we need to make us a centre, to make us a true capital of the north — which is what we are in Prince George. We are the capital of the northern part of this province. For so long we have been a poor cousin. Our students have had to expend a lot of money....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your time has expired. Before I ask the member to move onto the next motion, I'd like to stop all members and remind them what the purpose of this brief introduction of a bill is. It is not to be argumentative. Today's introduction, the first bill of the session, was indeed argumentative.

In fact, it would be really nice if members on the other side would, on this one rare occasion, actually listen to the introductory remarks of the member, and then perhaps the member would have an opportunity to stay in order. I didn't chastise the member because she was certainly provoked to be out of order.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion under standing order 35 for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance.

Leave granted.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. There is need for this Legislature, on behalf of all British Columbians, to voice its absolute opposition to the imposition of the unfair, the unjust goods and services tax, which will be debated and forced through the federal House this very day as we sit in this Legislature. The GST will have a negative impact on the provincial budget of this Legislature. But more importantly, it will have a negative impact on every individual budget and every home, business and office in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I promised I would be brief. There is so much to say about the GST and about the negative impact that it will have on our province. I bring this to your attention because the vote is being taken in Ottawa today. And I would like to ask for an adjournment of the House to have a one-hour debate so that message can be clearly received by the House of Commons in Ottawa this very day.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the urgency of the motion as put forward by the member, but as is tradition in a situation like this, the Chair will reserve and consult with various journals and get back to the House as soon as possible. I hope to have a decision for you before lunchtime.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: When we adjourned last night, I was speaking about some of the many good things that the throne speech holds for the constituents of South Peace River. I'd like to pick up on that theme.

One item promised in the throne speech was a renewed gas line extension program. This has been a big issue in the Peace River region and other parts of the province for some time now. I think it's particularly important to provide natural gas service in the

[ Page 8910 ]

region that produces 95 percent of the natural gas used in this province.

The throne speech also recognizes the important link between tourism and transportation and highway development. In the Peace region we're planning to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Alaska Highway. A committee that calls itself "Rendezvous '92" has been formed. We're planning to invite many of our friends from south of the border back to Dawson Creek and on through British Columbia into the Yukon and Alaska to celebrate and remember the construction of the Alaska Highway in 1942. To that end it is important that we have the main highway links, Highway 97 and the Alaska Highway, in the shape we would like to receive our visitors. We also think it is important to make the area more attractive to those visitors and to have a road that goes into Monkman Park to the very scenic Kinuseo Falls.

The throne speech recognizes the importance of agriculture to the British Columbia economy. Certainly nowhere in British Columbia is agriculture more important than in the Peace. Most of the grain crops in British Columbia are grown in the Peace River region. This has been an industry that has not looked to government for handouts, for programs or for assistance. The grain-farming community has been very independent and has tended to compete very effectively on world markets.

At the moment, they are having a pretty tough time. Low world prices for grain and high production costs have put many farmers in serious jeopardy. I intend to continue to speak with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) and to look for some specific programs this year to deal with some very serious concerns the grain industry has in British Columbia.

This year, Mr. Speaker, I note that the throne speech refers to the University of Northern British Columbia Act, that being the one introduced by the government, mentioned last Thursday in the throne speech and followed up by the member for Prince George North. It will be interesting to see whether or not the bills the government introduced this year will be followed by a series of shadow bills from the members across the way.

[10:15]

Perhaps it's a new method of heckling. We bring in a bill, and they bring in the same bill a few days later, which is perhaps designed to give ministers particularly that uncomfortable thought: "Gee, did I really introduce that bill, or did I forget?" And they've done it across the way.

Mr. Speaker, most people in northern British Columbia look forward to the establishment of a university at Prince George. I think they felt comforted last Friday in Prince George when the Premier announced the makeup of the board of governors. So if our friends across the way had any doubt about the need to introduce a bill to establish a university, they might have taken some comfort from the Premier's announcement of the interim board of governors.

Anyway, it's an unusual way to start the morning, and I guess it's something a bit interesting.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest issues in South Peace River during the past 12 months has been the issue of residential school taxes. Last year tax notices came out with substantial increases in residential school taxes. It caused a great deal of concern in my community.

What caused even greater concern was an indication from the school board that only the first shoe had fallen, and that they could expect a second and even larger shoe to fall this year when tax notices come out. The concern was so great that, with about 12 hours notice, a ratepayers' group was formed. Some 600 members showed up on very short notice to form a ratepayers' association.

When the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. L. Hanson) came to Dawson Creek, there was a large turnout of people who were very much concerned with school funding in School District 59. They were concerned because they felt that the school district spending was more than was warranted, and they were worried that the province didn't contribute enough to education in South Peace. The calls that evening and from subsequent releases by the ratepayers' group and others in the area were for provincial funding for all facets of education within the school district.

Mr. Speaker, I think the block funding introduced by the Minister of Education deals specifically with the concerns that were raised by taxpayers in my community. Taxpayers in South Peace were concerned with the ability of the school board to enter into new programs, to enter into substantial new expenditures without any reference to the taxpayer.

The referendum proposal is very well received by taxpayers in South Peace River. It's the kind of measure that the ratepayers' association and other community groups were calling for. I believe we will see MY constituents strongly in support of all the measures introduced by the Minister of Education.

I would like to finish my talk this morning by very briefly touching on some of those issues that relate to the Ministry of Native Affairs. The throne speech talks about access to justice, and certainly access to justice for native people has been of real concern to our government, to many others and obviously most particularly to Indian people themselves. You have only to look at the statistics to know that the system today isn't working for Indian people. The number of Indian people in jail in relation to the percentage of the general population is far too high. Indian people are not having a good time with the courts, and the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) "Access to Justice" committee has recognized that. I would like to quote from the throne speech: "The Ministry of Attorney-General will work with our native communities to improve justice services, to expand victims' programs and to develop, within the justice system, a greater recognition and appreciation of the unique social and cultural traditions of native citizens."

The throne speech also recognizes the involvement of the Solicitor-General. He will broaden consulta-

[ Page 8911 ]

tions with bands and tribal councils to extend diversion programs. These are very positive measures, and the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are to be commended for taking the lead in this area. The throne speech also refers to the work of the Premier's Council on Native Affairs. I am pleased to say that this particular advisory council is meeting in the precinct today. They are meeting with the Advisory Committee on Post-Secondary Education for Native Learners. Those two committees are meeting to discuss 21 recommendations made this morning on access for Indian people to post-secondary education.

The Premier's advisory council had travelled around the province. We have met with eight tribal councils. We have met with urban native groups, such as the United Native Nations. We have met with bands that are not aligned with tribal councils. We have discussed social and economic issues, as well as the land question in detail and in length. We have talked about the need for education, for improved access to social services, about issues like child care and child apprehensions on reserves. This advisory council will prepare recommendations to the Premier, and ultimately to cabinet. I think these are very positive recommendations, and we look forward to them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the First Peoples' Traditions for Tomorrow Council will be created by legislation that I will introduce in this session — unless someone else, having read the words, introduces it first. Perhaps there will now be a great rush of ministers to get their legislation in before someone across the way introduces it, but I think we will be patient. The council that will be formed will administer a program to assist funding for the support of native language, heritage and culture centres in the province, as promised in the 1987 throne speech. The importance of preservation of language has long been recognized as one of the very important issues for Indian people in British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: By the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson).

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The first member for Victoria over the years has introduced a number of motions and recommendations to the House, and we welcome his participation. Certainly the government has responded to our commitments. The committee was chaired very ably by the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa).

MR. WILLIAMS: With glacial haste.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, Mr. Member. I think a commitment in the 1987 throne speech, followed by the establishment of an advisory council, recommendations to cabinet and legislation in this session, is not glacial. I think it's a measured, reasonable response to a perceived and recognized need.

I think the throne speech, having dealt with a whole number of specifics, carries a theme that's important to the people of British Columbia and certainly to the people I represent. That is a commitment to sound economic development and good fiscal management that is recognized around the world and across Canada as being the most able, effective and the best fiscal and economical administration.

It's the only government in Canada to balance its budget, to consistently look after the taxpayer dollar. They're going to look to this government this year and in the years to come to continue to deliver the kind of government that is respected across Canada and appreciated by the people of British Columbia.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I also take the opportunity to welcome you to your chair. I witnessed your struggle to resist the appointment, and I understand the profound historical basis for the Speaker's reluctance to be called on to represent the timeless traditions of Bill 1, the authority of parliament against an uncompromising and sometimes rapacious sovereign. I know that you will represent us well. We've seen in the first few days your fairness and humour, and I look forward very much to working under your guidance and supervision this session.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Ernst Heinrich Haeckel wrote that in The History of Creation in 1868. That is one of the most famous maxims in the history of biology. It describes the tendency for an organism in its embryonic development to pass through stages of morphogenesis which evoke the evolutionary development of its species. Government members may not be comfortable with the idea of evolution. Sometimes I even wonder whether the government is comfortable with biology — or the facts of life, as we used to call them in school. Those were the days, when we only thought about biology in school. We were not so bold as the former Minister of Health in my day.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. The phrase occurred to me while listening to the debate yesterday, but at first I couldn't understand how it applied to the throne speech. Last night it came to me in a dream. I used to think that this government conducted itself like an ostrich with its head in the sands of time. Now I understand better, and so should the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), so recently returned from the sun of Botswana. This government is but an embryonic ostrich struggling to peck its way out of a tough yet resilient eggshell into the light of day. It's a harsh, glaring light, sometimes as brutal as reality in southern Africa, where ostriches thrive. So I can understand why the ostrich might be tempted to linger a little inside that egg.

Perusing this elegantly printed if vacuous throne speech last week, it struck me that this government, however feebly, is making an effort to peck its way out from its hidebound ideology into the reality of this final decade of the twentieth century. It is recapitulating the evolution of modern progressive thinking over the last 100 or 200 years — but, oh, so painfully slowly.

[ Page 8912 ]

Yes, we, do see reference in this speech to the environment, to women's issues, to housing, to health and education — even reference to science. But, oh, such feeble peckings and such bright sunlight. Perhaps it would be safer to retreat for a few more years into the eggshell.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Your colleagues are embarrassed.

MR. PERRY: They're always embarrassed to look across at the government benches. But the real moral of this story is the age-old lesson of biology. That embryonic ostrich, once out in the day, will develop inexorably to the full expression of its inbred genetic pattern. Yes, it will strut and run for a while. Indeed, it will beat its stubby wings in a vain attempt to fly. But assuredly, as surely as the Botswana sun has tanned the pate of your predecessor....

[10:30]

I want you to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is laughing; she's finally smiled at me. It took me a year to do it. The muzzle-keeper from Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is laughing. It gives me pleasure to know that I could bring some lightness and some sunshine into their lives at this moment of political peril. Even the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is laughing, and it's the first time I've seen him smile in a year.

When the bright light of day reveals that great flightless bird, the ostrich, and what has become of its embryonic promises, that ostrich will hide its head in the sand just as it has done so many times before. But our particular ontogeny depends on the people of British Columbia. They will decide, sooner rather than later, whether this baby ostrich goes on to adulthood in the wild or is confined to the historical zoo it so richly deserves.

The moral of this story — to borrow liberally from Barbara Ward — is think developmentally, act prophylactically; and vote with your heads and your hearts.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: That's said in deference to the opposition House Leader, but I note in renewed deference it was not one of his lines.

Let me turn briefly to a critique of the speech that we also richly enjoyed last week. This speech does mention, oddly enough, some key words that concern the people of British Columbia. It mentions health, a subject fairly dear to my heart, Mr. Speaker, in a couple of brief paragraphs on page 13.

Where do we really stand in this province, and why was I so disappointed to find only such struggling peckings to get out of that shell of isolating this government from reality?

I want to quote once more from Sir Richard Doll, one of the great epidemiologists of this century — perhaps the greatest — who said....

I always hesitate to ask whether members on the other side can hear me or not, because one of them might reply that they can hear just fine, thank you, but they'd gladly change places with someone who can't. I hope they will say that, because I'm going to raise for your consideration some of the problems sadly lacking in this throne speech, some recognition....

I think back to what the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) said yesterday. He asked me if I was ashamed in the Legislature, and I told him I'd reply today. I regret that he's not here to face up to reality in person. I am ashamed of the state of the health system in British Columbia.

I've worked in it for a long time myself. I struggled to do my best within the system, and I'm ashamed when I get a letter from Dr. Wijeyesinghe — I'll send that spelling to Hansard later — a specialist in internal medicine in Kamloops, a riding represented by two powerful ministers of this government. He wrote to me on February 9 and described a 63-year-old patient dying from a dissecting thoracic aortic aneurysm. When Dr. Wijeyesinghe called the Vancouver hospitals urgently attempting to transfer this patient to a hospital where he could receive surgical treatment and the possibility of a cure, he was told there were no beds available anywhere in the province for a patient with an illness of this severity. After trying for 30 hours to admit this patient to a hospital where he could receive proper medical care, the Kamloops doctor finally had to transfer him by air to Calgary, where he died shortly after his operation. This is a disgrace in a rich province, which cannot handle the emergency care of a patient with a mortal illness who could have been saved had he received appropriate treatment at the earliest possible opportunity.

When I spoke to a colleague in St. Paul's Hospital last night, I was informed that the attempt in that hospital — which might have been able to save this patient's life, had there been a free bed — to make an urgent waiting-list for emergency admissions for desperately ill patients has been abandoned. The so-called "very urgent list" for patients who must be admitted to hospital within 12 to 24 hours, by medical judgment, has now been abandoned because patients on that list waited up to seven days to be admitted, including those with acute leukemia, cancer and acute illnesses requiring treatment urgently, if not emergently.

This is a disgrace to which there is no answer. The answer is not, as an emergency measure, to send patients to Seattle, where the province can pay three times the price that we pay in British Columbia and the relatives can be discomfited.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: If it's not true, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) are calling out across the floor, then perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) will provide honestly the true cost of those operations.

[ Page 8913 ]

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: He has not supplied that information, as the Attorney-General.... If the Attorney-General has it, perhaps he'll disclose it and table it in the Legislature this afternoon. This is an admission of a grotesque failure of our system.

Let me read you two other examples of letters I've recently received. Here is a letter written by the husband of a patient, Mr. Milt Freidman, describing his wife Leonore, with a copy to the Minister of Health, to her physician, Dr. Christopher Beauchamp of Vancouver, an orthopedic surgeon. This letter is undated, but it was received in February, 1990 — written some time in February, 1990.

"My wife has been waiting 11 months to have a hip replacement operation, in addition to the 11 months waiting to have an appointment with you — a total of 22 months.

"She is in considerable pain. Each step she takes brings another wave of suffering. She finds it almost unbearable to lift her foot over a three-inch obstacle." Later in the letter he writes:

"On a recent television program beamed from Washington State having to do with hospital insurance, the B.C. Deputy Minister of Health stated that in some cases of elective surgery a patient might have to wait as much as six to eight weeks to obtain surgery. My wife has now waited 48 weeks. It is impossible to plan anything for fear we will miss your call that a hospital bed is available that you are willing to use for my wife. We have given up vacations we have planned, out-of-town family affairs, and the attending of urgent out-of-town family emergency situations. Our life is a shambles –– I, also, require surgery, but have delayed it until my wife's problem is alleviated.

"May I ask you a question: If it was your wife that was involved, would she also have to undergo this distressful situation?"

The physician who received that letter has written back with a copy to the Minister of Health (Hon. J Jansen) and to myself. Let me say, before I forget, that the Kamloops doctor whose letter I quoted told me last night that two months later he has had no reply from the Minister of Health — no reply. An urgent situation. In Ontario that would have been front-page news and would have been investigated by the Minister of Health within days. In British Columbia that's regarded, sadly, as routine business.

Let me return to Dr. Beauchamp's reply to Mr. Freidman, the husband of his patient. He writes on 20 February, 1990, with a copy to the Minister of Health and myself.... Let us not pretend that the government is ignorant of these problems; it just doesn't care about them. Dr. Beauchamp writes:

"Since approximately September, 1989...my waiting-list for access to hospital care has increased from roughly an average of 12 months to now approximately 37 months. The problem is that our limited resources are being taken up solely now by patients who are in need of urgent medical care. These patients have malignant cancerous tumours, failed joint replacements with broken bones, etc. It is unfortunate that deserving patients such as your wife must endure unkind hardships."

Unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but true. That is the reality in British Columbia. Let me give you one final example of the hundreds of letters I have received. The minister has received similar letters. A Mr. Arnold Wells of Victoria, B.C., wrote to the Hon. John Jansen on March 2, 1990, with a copy to me:

"I have just been informed that I require a hip replacement and that the waiting-period for this operation is from six to eight months. I have been on Tylenol and anti-inflammatory drugs for months, and to consider waiting another six to eight months taking these discomforting pills when one's gut feels as though it is being eaten away is distressing."

He's mild — he says it's distressing. I'd be burned up if it were me, and I wonder how government members opposite would feel if it were they.

"Was there not a tax levied during Mr. W.A.C. Bennett's time, " he writes, "called the social service tax? Was this not set up to benefit the hospitals? Also, were not some lottery funds designated for the same purpose?" Perhaps they used to be. Nowadays we have better uses for them in British Columbia, don't we? In Surrey-White Rock we give them to our friends.

"What happened to these noble-purpose funds?" Mr. Wells writes. Well, Mr. Speaker, the government's response to that has been that the Attorney-General says maybe we should share doctors' fees and open more beds.

The silence speaks for itself. Maybe we should open more beds, but in fact the latest initiative of the Ministry of Health to cover up its absolute and abject failure to plan for hospital services in the South Fraser hospital district — again, shall we say, ably represented by two senior cabinet ministers.... For the Ministry of Health has left that region with by far the lowest hospital-bed-to-population ratio in the entire province — in a region that's growing faster than any other. The excuse for planning in this province is for the Minister of Health to announce ex cathedra that he will steal beds from Vancouver to move them urgently into Surrey-White Rock before the next election, robbing Peter to pay Paul. What kind of health planning is that?

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health turned over a new leaf in British Columbia yesterday. He acknowledged the death of Mr. Ryan White, a young hemophiliac who contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion in 1983 or 1984 and who unfortunately died a few days ago. Let's remind ourselves a little bit of the story of Ryan White.

Ryan White was a perfectly healthy young thirteen-year-old when he developed AIDS. His life depended upon the transfusions of clotting factors, which became contaminated and which ultimately led to his death. When he learned of his illness and his community learned of it, they refused him access to his local school. Parents, school board members and local politicians fought to keep him out of a school where he belonged. It was only after years of struggle by his family, and only after Ryan White had moved out of his own community, that the community was able to see their error.

[ Page 8914 ]

Last year in this House I was ashamed. The Minister of Health asked me if I'm ashamed sometimes. I was mortified in this House to hear the former Minister of Forests shout that the new NDP campaign theme song was "Sodomy Forever." Those words were not recorded by Hansard at the time, but it's appropriate that they should be because they were recorded widely in the media and were heard on tape. No apology was ever made for those words, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Forests has never apologized for that and in fact his colleague, the former Minister of Health, allowed on nationwide radio that AIDS is a self-inflicted disease.

[10:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How sleazy can you get?

MR. PERRY: The Minister of Education says it's sleazy for me to reiterate what the former Minister of Forests said in this Legislature. I'm replying to the comment of the Minister of Health yesterday: "Are you ashamed"? Of course I was ashamed of those comments. Any right-thinking British Columbian was. Most British Columbians were and remain ashamed of those comments.

What is the government's real response to this? We still face a burgeoning epidemic of HIV infection, Mr. Speaker. You know that as well as I and most of the thinking members of this Legislature do. Yet we do not in this Legislature, despite the sanctimonious words of the Attorney-General in introducing Bill 1 affirming the supremacy of the Legislature in our democracy, despite the sanctimonious unction of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) or the Attorney-General who wanted to go to eastern Europe to pretend to tell a new, struggling democracy how to act democratically, have access to the confidential report of the AIDS advisory committee to the Minister of Health two years after the first reports were turned in, just as we don't have access to the reports of the provincial advisory committee on ethics.

Last year we had in this House the disclosure of the amount of taxpayers' money spent on some of those reports, and yet they remain secret from us. That is a disgrace and an insult and, yes, I am ashamed to be a British Columbian when I know that that's how our supposed democracy operates.

What kind of an AIDS policy do we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker — while I'm talking about health? We still have an educational video produced by the Ministry of Health, with its own officials in the filming rooms supervising the filming of that production, which has now been shown in independent theatres despite the attempt by the minister through his deputy to threaten theatres not to show it, as a violation of copyright, when in fact that film belongs to the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. SMITH: "I'm ashamed to be a British Columbian."

MR. PERRY: The Attorney-General says he's ashamed to be a British Columbian. I never thought I'd hear him admit it, but it's a start at least. We desperately need some serious planning to deal with the AIDS epidemic. There are probably thousands of infected British Columbians coming down the pipeline needing humane hospice and home care, and yet we have no rational plan to deal with them. We have a Ministry of Health prepared to close hospital beds in the very hospitals which will have to deal with those hundreds to thousands of new AIDS patients in the next five to ten years.

HON. J. JANSEN: You know better than that.

MR. PERRY: The Minister of Health says I know better than that. I know whereof I speak, Mr. Minister, because I work in those hospitals and I know the situation in them in reality. I wish that some of the members opposite could actually experience for themselves what it is like to be a patient waiting in an emergency room in those hospitals.

I wish some of them could for once put themselves into the skin of a patient like Ryan White or other patients afflicted with HIV infection, and imagine what it is like to have that illness in a province where the former Minister of Health tells you it's a self-inflicted illness and the former Minister of Forests literally makes fun of such patients in the Legislature. I wish you could....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Your statements are completely inaccurate, and I think that you should extend some apologies here.

MR. PERRY: The Minister of Highways suggests that my statements are inaccurate. I would welcome any correction of them on the record.

Let me move on to some other issues from the throne speech. What about forestry? I have in my hands a speech given by the former chief forester of British Columbia, killed tragically in an airplane crash en route back to British Columbia in February 1941. The speech that he planned to deliver on his arrival back in British Columbia was printed in the Forestry Chronicle of March 1941, at page 34, entitled: "Sustained Yield From Canadian Forests for the Support of Permanent Forest Industries."

What do we find in the Speech from the Throne on forests? The management of forests in this province is an open scandal. If any one issue concerns the public in this province under the heading of environmental issues, it must be forests, if it's not agriculture. What did Mr. Manning tell us back in 1941? I read from his speech at page 35 of the Forestry Chronicle:

"Of late, we have heard considerable of the multiple use of forest areas, in which recreational use is being stressed. It has taken us a long time to recognize the economic soundness of multiple use and the value of it as a selling feature for our forest policy. Dr. Filbert Roth, the Doyen of Forestry in the Lake States, in a lecture in February 1907, stated: 'I consider that forest functions, and benefits in their

[ Page 8915 ]

totality, are many times as valuable and important as is the immediate log yield."'

That tells you where foresters were way back in 1907. Yet even in 1990 our Ministry of Forests has not caught up to any kind of ecologically sustainable thinking.

Witness, Mr. Speaker, the interview the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) gave with Mr. Ian Gill of CBC last week in a devastating series on the rape of the Chilcotin country. In the final interview the Minister of Forests stated that the sustainable yield can be increased dramatically in British Columbia. He thinks we can actually harvest far more trees than we're cutting now.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) sent me an article from the Shuswap newspaper that quotes me. He's asking whether I really meant to say that we're overcutting in the forest industry this year. I don't pretend to be an expert in this field, but I know that....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I may understand it a little bit better than the Premier, but I certainly don't pretend to be an expert.

I know that when I asked the vice-president of Fletcher Challenge Canada last year what he thought of the sustainable yield, he told me, in the presence of various members in the chamber right now, that if the annual allowable cut on Vancouver Island on public lands is about 27 million cubic metres, the sustainable yield is more likely to be 18 million cubic metres. That was a vice-president of Fletcher Challenge, and he agrees with the many scientists and independent foresters who think that we are grossly and dramatically overcutting our forests in British Columbia right now. I see nothing in the throne speech addressing that issue.

What about agriculture? There's a line in the throne speech: "Policies respecting land use, to continue a viable agricultural sector...."

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: How am I to react to that other than with laughter. The Premier was upset because some of us on this side of the House laughed when we got to that line in the throne speech. We meant no disrespect to the Lieutenant-Governor, obviously. This speech was written by the Premier's office. What kind of a joke is this? This is a Premier who has distinguished himself for his assault on the integrity of agricultural land. He has a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) in his cabinet who has signed an order-in-council, specifically benefiting members of his own family, to remove from agricultural land some of the finest lands in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that member has just made an allegation in this House that the Minister of Agriculture signed an order to specifically benefit the members of his own family. That is incorrect, and I would ask that member to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Tell us how good a farmer you really are and what you know about agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're dealing with the point of order. Could all members restrain themselves while we're dealing with this point of order.

MR. PERRY: I think the record will show that I stated that the minister signed an order specifically benefiting members of his family. I think the public record makes that clear. I did not say that his intent was to specifically benefit members of his family.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When a member makes a statement that another member finds offensive, and when a withdrawal has been asked for, it has been the tradition in this House that a simple withdrawal takes place. So I would ask the member simply to withdraw that.

I'm going to add a couple of minutes to your time because it was interrupted. Normally we don't interrupt these speeches with points of order; we reserve until the end.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd be delighted to follow your instruction and simple withdraw the offending remark.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that. Would you just conclude your remarks in the next couple of minutes and we'll proceed on to the next order of business.

MR. PERRY: There are so many other issues I'd like to talk about: education, native land claims.... I think we have discussed these matters in depth in the past in this House, and I'm very disappointed by the failure to address these issues in the throne speech.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to come back to one very specific example of a failure. I see no reference in the speech to the necessary amendments to the Vancouver Charter to protect trees in the city of Vancouver and to allow the city to help deal with the social impact of massive demolitions of rental housing. I refresh my memory by perusing the account of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Member's Services, under the chairmanship of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), who has recently taken the chair. I find that, in fact, the committee supported the amendments requested by the city of Vancouver last year. The second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) was quoted in the Vancouver

[ Page 8916 ]

Courier last summer as saying that the Social Credit caucus killed this bill in caucus. Although it was given first reading in the Legislature, it was never brought forward for second reading.

I'd like to take the final minutes of my speech to invite the government to bring the Vancouver Charter amendments forward promptly, and finish by quoting the words of the Mayor of Vancouver, Gordon Campbell, before the committee last year in the Hansard of that committee meeting of June 15, 1989. This is the flaming socialist, Mayor Gordon Campbell of Vancouver: "I agree with private property rights, and I disagree with the capricious use of the zoning bylaw, whether it's for a building's wall colours or whatever. We use it because we recognize that there are private property rights, and we also recognize that there are public rights and responsibilities." Our chairman today, the member from Dewdney, also recognized some of these problems in Maple Ridge during the debate in that committee.

Mayor Campbell went on to say:

"We have to deal with the fact that we have a built city that has a living landscape today, and we can't just use that asset and say that there are no public responsibilities that go with that. I believe there are, just as there are public responsibilities when you buy a piece of land. There are no outright property rights there.

"What this says is yes, there are private property rights, and yes, we do expect you to exercise them with sense and sensitivity. But if we don't have any authority in the charter to even try to deal with the problem, we will not have just that problem; we will have a whole series of other problems that build up around it."

The debate in that committee makes clear, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that the time has been extended to you to cover the period of time which was taken up with the order. I would ask you to complete your speech and take your seat now, please.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I hope very much that the government will correct this omission from the throne speech and bring forward promptly the Vancouver Charter amendments.

MRS. McCARTHY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to make it clear to the House, in reference to the speech from the hon. member for Point Grey, wherein he has quoted me as saying that the caucus turned down the private bills.... But we always quote the committee as turning down, and it was the private bills committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I believe that the reference made by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey was to the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat).

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I was going to comment on the member for Point Grey's speech, but I think I will leave that until just a little later on. I want to begin by congratulating the Speaker of the House, yourself as Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Committee of the Whole House (Mr. De Jong). These are very important positions, and I know that they will be well filled.

I also want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. They laid out very succinctly the government's plans given in the throne speech. They were excellent speeches, some of the best speeches I've heard in moving and seconding.

[11:00]

It was 1975 when — along with the Speaker, the current Premier and others — I was first elected to this Legislature. I remember myself coming in early 1986 and moving the first Speech from the Throne.

MR. WILLIAMS: That took a while.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It took a while. It took till March, you'll remember. You were out selling something at that time, and you seem to do pretty well at it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are we talking about free enterprise again?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Free enterprise, that's right.

Anyway, at that time, one of the big issues was the Oakalla lands and Oakalla prison. I'm very pleased to see that at long last, by the end of this year or early '91, we'll be able to move that blight from the landscape of Burnaby. It's been a long trip for me and a cause célèbre that I've taken on. I want to thank the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Smith) for working with me and helping us remove that prison from Burnaby.

I'd also like to thank the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) for her "Freedom to Move" policy. I realize that very shortly, many of the transportation needs in the Burnaby area will be met. I'm looking forward to the time when we can put some extra lanes into Highway 1 and resolve an infrastructure that has been overburdened for far too many years.

This is a democratic system that we work within. We have mandates. We're coming towards the end of this particular government's mandate, but it's time, I believe, to look at where we've been, where we're at and where we're going in British Columbia. I came in, in 1975-early 1986, and I remember the mess that we had inherited from the previous government.

HON. MR. FRASER: How bad was it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, they were here for 1,200 days and 1,200 nights. I always remember the former Minister of Mines, Mr. Nimsick, when he was interviewed right after leaving office. You will remember that he was the only Mines minister that ever turned ore into rock. They asked him what his greatest

[ Page 8917 ]

accomplishment was, and he said: "One of my greatest accomplishments while I was in office was the royalties and the super-royalties." They said: "What did that accomplish?" He said: "Well, we sure turned the mining industry around."

AN HON. MEMBER: They certainly did.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They sure did. They turned it into the ground. But I guess there's a bit of mea culpa even in the NDP. At the latest NDP convention in Vancouver, Mr. Barrett made a speech. Essentially what he said was: "Back from 1972 to 1975, we really did make a mess of things. We made a mess of things because we moved ahead far too quickly, and we didn't do things correctly." But he said: "We would have been better off had we listened to Bob Skelly. If we had listened to Bob Skelly, we wouldn't have had all these problems. Things would have been straightened out." All that time I remember watching in this Legislature, and Mr. Skelly was standing over in the far corner of the back bench. Mr. Barrett wasn't listening to anybody; he wasn't listening to Bob Skelly. He may have been listening to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), but he wasn't listening to anyone else.

That's the same individual who said he made a mess of things, who wanted to be the leader of the NDP nationally, who thought that someday he might want to be the Prime Minister of this country. It's the same leader who in 1983 — I remember the election very well — said that the first thing he would do if elected to office was throw out the compensation stabilization program. Do you remember that? He said: "We'll throw it out. No more restraints in this province. It's gone." Can you imagine what would have happened if, in 1983, that bunch had been re-elected, if we had thrown out the compensation stabilization program? Can you imagine the mess we would have in this province today had we elected the NDP back in 1983? They didn't learn anything in 1975; they didn't learn anything in 1983. I suggest to you, sir, that they haven't learned anything today, nothing at all.

In 1986 — Expo. I remember in 1979, after I was given the position of Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development, that a proposition was brought to me that was brought to the fore by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy). At that time it was called Transpo '86, and it was to be a small fair in Vancouver that would feature the world. Very shortly after that I remember the then mayor of Vancouver sending a letter to the people who control world's fairs in Europe, saying that we don't want this thing. "It's a circus. The people of Vancouver don't want it. They don't want anything to do with it. We can't have it. It's just a bunch of nonsense."

MR. WILLIAMS: But who opened the fair?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh yes, that Leader of the Opposition — even when he was mayor — was able to come down on every side of every issue at any point in time. He's the very same person who said in 1986 that we don't want the fair; we don't want Expo. What did Expo do? It opened the world for us; it brought the world to our doorsteps. I'm telling you it brought....

MR. REID: Did he change his mind?

HON. MR. VEITCH: He changed his mind. We invited the world to our doorsteps in British Columbia. The world came here, and I can tell you that has been the start of the ascendancy, with respect to economic terms, that we've seen in this province.

The university of the north. It's most interesting that this morning the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) decided to bring in a bill shortly after it was announced by the Premier that we would open a university of the north in northern British Columbia.

In 1986 the British Columbia Social Credit Party, at a democratic convention in Whistler, elected a new leader. We had a new thrust, a new election and an overwhelming mandate from the people of British Columbia to carry on with good government. At that point in time, the now Premier of the province of British Columbia said that one of his first objectives was to bring in a balanced budget as soon as possible. Again the Leader of the Opposition — that former mayor — said: no balanced budget. We can't have a balanced budget. We have to do this. We have to revert back to where Mr. Barrett was in 1983. We don't need this. It's going to mitigate against the people.

What happened? We brought in this balanced budget. Could you imagine what would have happened if Mr. Skelly — who Mr. Barrett was going to rely upon, if he thought about it, from 1972 to 1975 — would have won? What sort of situation would we have been in here right now?

Mr. Speaker, they said no in 1986, they said no in 1983 and they said no in 1975. This is the fourth session of the thirty-fourth Parliament of this Legislature. I honestly believe that we were able to bring forth the best throne speech this time that has ever been brought forth in this House. This is a clear outline of the government's policies, where the government wants to go and where the government is going to take this province into the next decade. I believe that very shortly....

MR. WILLIAMS: Just deadwood.

HON. MR. VEITCH: There are no empty promises in here, Mr. Speaker. There are promises that are attainable and that will be fulfilled, and they will be fulfilled by this Social Credit government.

We're going to bring in a budget soon. I don't know what the elements of that budget are, but I'll bet you that it will be the best budget that has ever been brought into this House. And I'll bet you that it will be another balanced budget. No empty promises — ever.

[ Page 8918 ]

The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada recently made a statement. It's easy for us to go around saying this is the best government, because it is the best government. I was up in Sechelt yesterday, and I talked with dozens of people. Some of them told me they even voted NDP last time around; this time they're going to vote for the current member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). They say that this is the best government they have ever seen. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada say that this is the best fiscally managed government in all of Canada. That doesn't come from us; that comes from the investment dealers of Canada.

British Columbia has always been a fragile economy. We have always had a fragile prosperity. We've always had a fragile prosperity, because always lurking in the distance have been the socialists who want to take apart and rip down everything that this government has built up in 34 of the last 38 years.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Where's the steel mill?

HON. MR. VEITCH: That will come too. You wait for the steel mill. You just wait for it. Hold your breath, hon. member.

The opposition are back at it again, Mr. Speaker. They're back to 1983. The first complaints that I heard in this House were: "You're worrying too much about public sector wage increases going up. You're worried too much about the escalation in public sector wage increases." That's the same kind of thinking that was evident in 1983, and it's the same kind of thinking that was evident during the 1,200 days and 1,200 nights that the opposition was in power.

We have quite a job on our hands. On one side, we have to fight the socialists who would give away the whole ship; on the other side, we have some interesting policies and federal action coming out of Ottawa: high interest rates. The differential in the federal bank rates between the Bank of Canada and the U.S. Federal Reserve rate has reached historic highs. The Bank of Canada has justified the high bank rate on the need to hold inflation in check.

While British Columbians support this objective, it cannot be seen in isolation of its costs, especially when the inflation being generated is highly concentrated in central Canada, and British Columbia is being made to pay for maybe 80 or 90 linear miles in the downtown Toronto area known as the Golden Horseshoe.

One of the most serious costs associated with the high interest rate policy is its profoundly negative impact on British Columbia's exports. As a trade-dependent, open economy, an economy that shipped about $18 billion in goods and services last year to other parts of the world, British Columbia has traditionally relied on its export market for its economic prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, roughly 26 percent of the provincial gross domestic product is exported, and one in seven jobs in British Columbia is directly tied to the export trade. The direct link, then, between high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar has resulted in a 22 percent increase in the value of the Canadian dollar over its U.S. counterpart in the last four years. In 1989 alone the Canadian dollar rose by almost three cents. This situation will be further exacerbated by the introduction of the federal government's goods and services tax, which will further stimulate inflation and thus induce high interest costs and, in turn, an even higher dollar.

There have been several estimates of the high-dollar impact on British Columbia exports. For example, the Canadian Exporters' Association has estimated that each one cent rise in the dollar sustained over a year would increase the price of Canadian exports by approximately $1.3 billion. For British Columbia, which accounts for 13 percent of Canada's exports, this translates into a cost of roughly $170 million for each one cent rise in the dollar. The Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia estimates that each one cent rise, sustained for a year, results in the loss of $100 million to the British Columbia forest industry, the province's largest economic sector.

[11:15]

Put in the context of what ought to be the attractive, market-opening aspects of the Canada free trade agreement, the higher dollar has effectively negated most of the first year's free trade tariff benefits. It's been estimated that the almost three cent rise in the Canadian dollar in 1989 resulted in roughly a $3 billion increase in the cost of Canadian exports, or nine times the value of all U.S. tariff cuts in the first year of the free trade agreement.

I say that the Canadian government must rethink its monetary and fiscal policy. I say nonsense to the way that it's going on. I say if they want to turn things around, if they want to cure inflation, get it at its source: the federal government and the province of Ontario. Don't make British Columbia pay for this; we're paying enough in this province.

Then we go on to one more item, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we have two fronts to fight on. On one side, we have to fight the socialists, who would give away the camp with no policies. On the other side, we have some sort of strange monetary policies blowing up from Ottawa, trying to solve a problem that exists in eastern Canada.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that the goods and services tax, which may be discussed later on in the day here, will add 1.4 percentage points to the rate of inflation in 1991, the year the tax is scheduled to be introduced. The federal government's own Finance department projected an increase in the consumer price index of about 1.25 percent. This is in addition to the existing inflation rate.

A national accounting firm has analyzed the GST and forecasts that the underlying inflation rate in 1991 will be 4.5 percent. This means we will see a combined inflation rate of nearly 6 percent with the introduction of the goods and services tax.

I was sitting with one of my counterparts in Ottawa recently, and for some reason or other we got around to talking about Shakespeare's melodrama, Julius Caesar. We went on and on and talked about this thing, and the individual said: "I'm glad we

[ Page 8919 ]

talked about this. I didn't want to talk about the goods and services tax." I said: "Mr. Minister, the goods and services tax was the last law that was ever passed in Rome." And that's what we're doing here, Mr. Speaker.

High interest rates inevitably lead to a downturn in the economy. This is a certainty if mortgage and consumer lending rates are permitted to climb, as we talked about before. Secondly — and of great importance to an exporting province like British Columbia, which relies on exports for one in every seven jobs directly; 26 percent of its gross domestic product is exported — high interest rates lead to increased short-term financial flows and investment in Canadian dollar assets.

An example of what can be expected as a consequence of such a policy is the Canadian dollar's recent climb to 86.5 cents against the U.S. dollar, hitting almost a nine-year high. The erosion of Canada's merchandise trade surplus over this period is well documented, and the federal government should not be surprised if Canada begins to slow and to show a persistent trade deficit. By the Bank of Canada's own estimates, the 4 percent rise in the Canadian dollar in '89 not only cost Canadians $3.9 billion but also cost Canadian exporters $4.3 billion and British Columbia exporters almost $570 million.

We depend, Mr. Speaker, on exports in this country and in this province for our livelihood. Here we have, on the other hand, policies coming out of Ottawa designed to correct a flaw in eastern Canada which is mitigating against the only province that has its House in order. Rather than this, they should be taking a leaf from the British Columbia book and reducing the size and scope of government rather than the silly financial policies that are being carried on at the present time.

MR. ROSE: How will you vote, then?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can tell you one thing: I will not be voting for the NDP.

A member of the New Zealand government visiting here, the Hon. Roger Douglas, who is, I believe, the former Minister of Finance, said New Zealand, which has a population of about 3.3 million people, had 1,000 people collecting their version of the goods and services tax. Now extrapolate to the Canadian scene, and you will see that it will take at least 8,000 additional people to collect the goods and services tax here in Canada.

High interest rates and a GST which is going to attempt to sap the reserves that we have in this country and adds to inflation and to increased wage demands — that is not the way to run this country. Don't listen to the socialists for a minute either, Mr. Speaker. Don't think that there's any panacea there.

I was just reading in the paper where a new candidate, a Mr. Krog, who is a lawyer in Nanaimo, ventured into what the columnist says are dangerous waters when he said — this was just a couple of days ago, speaking at an all-candidates meeting — that a New Democratic government, God forgive, would have to raise taxes to pay for its programs. He said: "If" — and I'm underscoring "if" — "we're going to be honest with the people in the next election, that's what we're going to have to tell the people of British Columbia: that all these things" — things they're promising — "are going to cost a great deal of money." Mr. Krog continued by saying that corporate taxes would be increased, and: "Believe you me, we're all going to have to pay higher income taxes." Higher interest rates, GST, higher income taxes with the NDP — please save us, Mr. Speaker. They've got to take a page from Social Credit.

If we had listened to the NDP in 1983, and if we had listened to them in 1986....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where would we be today?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Where would we be? We would never have had the fragile prosperity; we would never have had any kind of prosperity. We would be a have-not province like Newfoundland, which depends on largesse from the federal government for about 54 cents out of every dollar for its gross provincial product. That's the position we would be in. We would never have had services for people if we had listened to the socialist NDP, if we had listened to Barrett. We would never have had the implementation of the Sullivan report on education, which is going to bring about remarkable positive changes, Mr. Minister of Education, for K to 12 in this province. We would never have had any university of the north, because we would never have been able to pay for it. It wouldn't have mattered whether this member for Prince George North got up and promised it or not; it could not have possibly happened. We would not have the quality of social services that we have in this province. We wouldn't have 8,000 new rental housing starts, because we wouldn't be able to pay for them. We would never have had 40,000 housing starts in the province of British Columbia — more than any other place in Canada. We would never have had a balanced budget — the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a balanced budget. That's what we wouldn't have had if we had listened to the NDP. And they're back at it again, saying: "Trust us again. All we're going to do is raise taxes."

You know, to survive and to prosper, Canada has to remain competitive. We can't have the nonsense on one hand of high interest rates, and on the other hand the inflationary impact of a goods and services tax. We can't have the threat of a socialist government hanging over our backs either if we are going to remain competitive.

Canada is a small, open economy, and it doesn't take very much of a mathematician to figure out that British Columbia itself, with a population of a little over three million people and a budget that approaches some $14 billion.... It doesn't take very much of a genius to figure out that you've got to sell something to somebody else if you're going to survive in this business in this country. Exporting is what it's all about. We've got to remain competitive.

[ Page 8920 ]

We've had tremendous changes in our trading patterns over the last few years, and this hasn't happened by itself. It's happened by good planning; it's happened by vision — the vision that the current Premier has instilled into this government; it's happened through policy; it's happened through Social Credit economic policy.

You know, Mr. Speaker, about six or seven years ago, as Canada does today, we depended somewhere between 76 and 78 percent upon the United States for all of the trade that we send out — all of the goods and services products that we ship out of this province. As Canada does today, we depended about 76 percent. In the last few months, Mr. Speaker, we crossed that historic line in British Columbia where we sell about 40 percent of the products to the United States, 41 percent to the Pacific Rim and about 15 to 16 percent to the European Economic Community. On a percentage basis, British Columbia ships more goods and services to the European Economic Community than does any other jurisdiction in Canada, no matter the size.

We have purposely diversified our trading relationships. We can enlarge them. We will probably ship about $18 billion worth of goods and services out of a population of three million. It's amazing — between 26 and 27 percent of our gross provincial product. That's what we have to do in order to sustain the type of living and the type of economy that we have in order to build universities of the north, in order to pay for hospitals, medical fees and high education.

We have diversified the economy as well. We have diversified into a knowledge-based industry. Just recently, after the deregulation of the telephone industry in Norway, a small Richmond firm has shipped $700,000 worth of telephones into Norway — an opening. There are tremendous hi-tech opportunities. My colleague the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) can tell you that in his present and last portfolio we are moving more into the hi-tech industry, and we are doing very well. British Columbia's hi-tech goods are being well received around the world.

Companies like MacDonald Dettwiler are acknowledged experts in their field. We are growing — tremendous examples of what has happened. And this didn't happen by itself. It happened through planning, through government working with business and industry and working with and listening to the people. And it happened because the government had the courage to move ahead — an action government — to take the odd chance, to have vision based on the fact that the people know the difference, that the people are always correct.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker. I was in my office the other day...and I'm not going to name the individual. A socialist person who is an NDPer and serves on one of the school boards, came into my office and wanted to talk about referenda. He said: "This is just the worst thing that could have ever happened to the country." I said: "What's so bad about it?" He went on with a litany of things that were wrong with referenda, and I said: "Mr. So and So, tell me what's wrong. Don't you believe that the people will do what's right for you when you go to a referendum?" He said: "No, you can't trust them. They're not wise enough." I said: "My friend, that's where you and I fall out of the buggy." Social Credit has always trusted the people; we've always believed in the people. That's the fundamental difference between Social Credit and collectivism.

Recently I was in Europe in Davos, Switzerland, with the Premier of this province. I'm going to close on this note. There was an individual speaking at the World Economic Forum. This is the first time in 23 years that the eastern bloc nations were allowed to participate in this sort of endeavour. There was an individual from Moscow who had, 24 hours before, led a demonstration on the streets of Moscow with 250,000 people. He made a speech there in beautiful, broken English. The question period came.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, beautiful English with his own accent, and he was sincere all the way down the line. I remember one of the questions asked of him was: "Mr. So and So, when did communism break down in the Soviet Union?" His answer amazed me. He said: "Communism never broke down in the Soviet Union. After the Bolshevik Revolution, we brought in a form of socialism. That didn't work. We shored it up with communism for 70 years. Socialism, collectivism, broke down in this world — not communism." That's the same thing. The policies of the NDP that they had in '75, the policies they tried to bring in, in '83 and in '86, did not work then. They will not work now. And when we go to the people again, I can tell you that they will, once again, elect a Social Credit government in British Columbia.

[11:30]

MS. EDWARDS: It has certainly been a pleasure to listen to the Minister of International Business and Immigration describe what it's like to be under siege from everybody he knows around him — worried about this, worried about that. The fragile prosperity is certainly a difficult situation for that minister, and he sees a lot of threats from every side from where he sits. That's interesting.

As far as the throne speech is concerned, it was — as throne speeches go — probably as weak as one could find. Language in the throne speech is always very bad. I hate to get to the point where we begin to talk grammar, but the passive voice is so terrible. It indicates that somebody is going to do something somewhere maybe, but nobody knows who or when or why. Mostly, in this throne speech, you don't know what either.

I wanted to dwell a moment on the suggestion that there was going to be an environmental action plan. Certainly environment is the issue of the day. It's going to be the issue of the next election. It's the issue of all the discussions that we have at any political gathering, I believe. The throne speech promises that

[ Page 8921 ]

there is going to be an action plan. However, you get two lines down and discover that it's going to happen over the coming decade. I might mention that the coming decade is a little too long for us to wait for environmental action. It's very disappointing to discover that you may have something going and then find it's going to have to take maybe a decade to even get a plan together. That is a major disappointment of this throne speech.

It also says — very close to where it mentions this ten-year-long process in getting to some policy — that "environmental, fish and wildlife protection will be enhanced." I was quite encouraged at first. It looked like we were going to have environmental action, even though it said it would be a decade before we got real policy. I had all sorts of ideas, because, in fact, we need environmental protection. What that means in the first step, what it means right now and what we must have on a continuing basis, are inventories of our resources. That is a major issue, not only across the province but most particularly in my area where the resources are under almost as much siege as the poor Minister of International Business and Immigration. In fact, with scarce resources and their need to be allocated, there is a major need to have inventory of what resources we have.

The forest inventory, which the minister frequently tells us is quite adequate, is not adequate. We do not have the ability to make the kinds of decisions we need. As an example illustrating this, I'm going to talk about pine beetle attack. In my area if you want to log, you say there's a pine beetle attack and you can go in and clearcut.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's not right.

MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. Despite what the Solicitor-General says, it's true. Part of the reason it is true is that there is a lot of pine beetle attack in the area. He wasn't waiting for the complexity of the issue. The complexity of the issue is what requires the inventory. I would like to also use an analogy to describe this. I recognize the difficulty of the members of the government side in understanding metaphorical language; however, I will risk following my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) with a little metaphorical language.

I'm going to use an analogy and suggest that we all understand the problems of head lice. Were your kids ever in school when there was a head lice problem? You know what it takes to treat these kids for head lice, and how much trouble it is to shampoo their heads, wash the laundry, dry it and do the whole thing. Maybe you didn't have it, but in schools that my kids went to they came home with that a couple of times. There is an easier response to this — shaving heads. If you shave heads, you don't have problems with head lice. That seems to be the response of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the industry as far as pine beetle is concerned. They're going to shave the heads of the hills and forests because it's easier to do that than to treat the problem with the very difficult kinds of complex ways we need to deal with it otherwise.

In fact, there are ways we can deal with pine beetle. If we have a detailed inventory.... Models have been used in Idaho, just across the border from our area. They have detailed inventory and they apply a computer model. They have been successful in controlling pine beetle without shaving the heads of the hills.

MR. RABBITT: We're leading the world in research in that field.

MS. EDWARDS: We're not leading the world in research on pine beetle compared with what's going on in Idaho.

I think it's very clear that if we're going to resort to a response that increases the annual allowable cut in our forest district by 60 percent over three years, then we are not using the reasonable approach. We're using the shave-the-head approach instead of the reasonable approach. Even when you take it away and say that only 24 percent of that is borrowed from another district so that we can trade it back later, it amounts to 60 percent more of the forest resource being cut in our region over the next three years. That creates an even faster annual fall down. With inadequate money for tree-planting, we have a major problem with forests which could be addressed with reasonable inventory.

Another problem we have in our area involves wildlife. We need better wildlife inventory. We need wildlife inventory that is done basically under the ministry with public funds and not left to private funds and organizations such as the American Elk Foundation, who have been funding the kind of inventory that we are able to get together.

We have had an issue recently with bull moose being put on limited-entry hunting, because there is a difficulty with the profile of the bull moose population in my riding.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: It's a very serious issue in my riding, Mr. Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser). I know you never understand these issues that we deal with in the real parts of the world where the resources are right outside your door.

Without that inventory, there has been a major confrontation between resident and non-resident hunters and managers. That kind of confrontation doesn't need to be there, if we had adequate inventory, which the wildlife branch has been arguing for years and years. I have brought this issue up in every session that I have been in this House, and there has never been a reasonable response. There is going to be a limited-entry hunting requirement, and limited-entry hunting is absolutely anathema to every resident hunter in B.C. But that is what they're going to be considering for the elk population. We don't have that many moose in our area, but we have a lot of elk. If it gets to the point where we can't

[ Page 8922 ]

control it because the managers are working with such blunt instruments in their management and they don't have the inventory, we're going to have more problems and more confrontation — and it's going to be needless confrontation.

We need inventory on range land. We have agricultural land capability figures which are basic and largely preliminary. It is better than what we have on some of our other resources, but it's not good enough. We need soil studies, we need hydrological studies and we need to look at the range.

The throne speech talks constantly about policies respecting land use and sustainable activities. It talks about the agricultural industry and says that it's going to do something for the agricultural industry. You couldn't do anything better in my riding than to provide the tools for a real inventory of the land and the range in the area, and then in fact to use the knowledge you get from that not only to manage what range is there but also to decide whether the range should be used for scrub forest or as range for wildlife or domestic animals, and then to control weeds.

I suggest that another environmental need for the agricultural industry — and while I don't expect it to be in the throne speech, I would hope it would come out of the magnificently magnanimous suggestions here about support for the agricultural industry — would be to have better knapweed control. Knapweed is one of the major weed species that is beginning to invade the East Kootenay. It has already invaded the West Kootenay in a major way and has come from the Okanagan. It is a highly destructive weed. Our weed management programs have not been good enough to control it. It needs to be done. Again, we need an inventory in order to be able to work intelligently with that information and do what we need to do.

We need an inventory for clean air. The throne speech talks about clean air, but are we actually going to do some...?

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: You're spraying air over there, Mr. Member.

We need clean air standards so that we can in fact deal with the kinds of emissions that come from industrial stacks, but also so that we can deal with such things as wood stoves. As we've discovered, wood smoke can have, I think, at least 17 carcinogens. Everybody thinks wood smoke is a good environmental move — not necessarily so. We need to have some air standards so that we can actually deal with practical problems. The city of Cranbrook has a major wood-smoke problem, which is not something anyone anticipated. When they looked at it and wanted to do something about it, they discovered there was no standard by which they could actually work. So we have a municipality trying to do something, with no provincial standards. I think that's important.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: We provide our own air, yes.

It's important when we talk about environment that we also talk about the problems of mine dumps. Strip mining is a situation where you have all these huge machines out moving mountains. It's hard to think in terms of how much matter is being moved, actual physical rock and earth being moved in a day — or, let's say, in a year — by those machines. Obviously it's the biggest activity of earthmoving. The only comparable thing, I've heard from a number of people in the industry, is the building of the pyramids. When they built the pyramids, they were so huge and the actual activity was so large compared to the human and mechanical resources that were put to it.... This is even larger than that; in fact, they move mountains. Sometimes they knock half a mountain into a stream, and the stream is gone. Sometimes it wasn't planned to be gone; in fact, it was quite a mistake.

[11:45]

What's happening, as I understand it, is that it is going to become institutionalized, and we're going to teach the Ministry of Environment people how to do that instead of preventing it from happening. What we get, amazingly enough, out of the throne speech is not a promise of action but a promise of policies, standards, legislative review and statutory tools. This is from a government which says it wants less government. They want to get government off the backs of the people, as they said a year or so ago. But now they promise not action but policies, legislation and statutory tools. We need more than that. We need something very positive and concrete.

As those who aren't in on making up a throne speech, we have another worry: what do these promises mean? They promise monitoring and enforcement, but historically the personnel to do so is not there. We find, for example, when forest licences are being proposed, that we don't have enough Environment personnel. By statute now, they have to examine these things and approve them. We don't have enough people in the Ministry of Environment to examine all the forest licences, all the mining leases or any of those things. We have lots of talk about sustainable development — the promise is there — but there's no substance to it. We need to think in terms of prevention and caring for the resources that we have before we move onto the next step. But we do have a next step.

The throne speech talks about maintaining and improving the quality of community water supplies. That is called essential — supply is essential, and the improvement and maintenance is essential — and they will expand the funding. That is a good promise, but I don't see anything that goes along with it to talk about rules to control logging on private land, for example, which does interfere with community water supplies. We're going to need that kind of protection for water supplies. I'm hoping — maybe it's there, but it's not mentioned — that that will happen. In fact, there are a number of things that are going to

[ Page 8923 ]

affect our streams, particularly in rural areas where the community water supply is a number of wells; it's the groundwater that needs to be protected, not just the streams and rivers. We're going to have to have better legislation and better enforcement and better action.

In relation to this, there is encouragement in the province right now for independent power producers right across the province to be putting together proposals for the generation of electrical energy. That, of course, will impact on a number of streams and watercourses. We need action on this before we have damage, and I hope that this observation in the throne speech means that we are going to have action.

I might also mention that the throne speech promises a change in the funding of projects to keep water supplies clean and healthy. That is very welcome, considering some of the problems we have in our riding after the government changed the funding formula from 75 percent provincial and 25 percent municipal to the other way around, and you had to apply in order to get even 50 percent funding. That has created major problems for some communities. I mention Fernie in particular, which has one of the few water supplies in the province that absolutely does not need treatment in order to meet the health standards. Fernie is trying to carry on with having this kind of water supply. As a matter of fact, some of their municipal members have said they will resign before they will have the water chlorinated. They don't need it, but they do need some help with the funding. I hope that is what's in the throne speech.

Another promise that looks very good is that the government will help reduce municipal solid waste by 50 percent. That's linked, of course, to the safe handling of biomedical wastes. I'm not sure how deliberately that was linked, but there is a major connection. I hope — and it certainly will require — that the government will do more than allow $5,000 per municipality for a feasibility study, if in fact you're serious about reducing the amount of municipal solid waste. It will mean that more money has to be put into some recycling projects. We need to know that the community organizations that are promoting recycling are doing the work that's needed to reach the goal, which the government is able to articulate will be done.

The throne speech talks about safe handling and disposal of dangerous and toxic wastes. I hope this means the government is going to look favourably on the regional proposal for storing PCB waste from the Regional District of East Kootenay. That is a beginning for action: it is regional action which we need; and the government's assistance is needed to get this kind of regional activity going in the area of toxic waste, where it's always so difficult.

The throne speech talks about a knowledge industry and a knowledge-based economy, and it says it's emerging in B.C. It talks about how human resource development programs are solutions that will help families and children, and important tools in the equitable integration of some women into our economic system.

It goes on later in the speech to make some more comments about women and their social problems: "Government social policy must increase the opportunity for citizens to make individual choices and foster independence and personal growth." It talks about programs to bridge the transition to gainful employment, support for emergency shelters for the homeless, and transition and safe houses for women and children. It's amazing that the throne speech says this at the same time that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) says she's to be an advocate for women and does absolutely nothing for the very people in the community who are sponsoring and activating those kinds of things. Two women's resource centres in my riding, one in Fernie and one in Cranbrook, are providing for families and children and helping them out of poverty. They are making bridges to employment. They are sponsoring safe and transition homes — if they could get the funding for transition homes. They are actually providing safe homes and counselling, and working with the very problems that the throne speech talks about and does nothing about — in fact, works against.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: I know the government has been denying this kind of thing for years and years.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to look at the government's observations in the throne speech about aboriginal peoples. It is interesting to see that they begin by talking about justice services and expanding victims' programs. That's how they see the aboriginal peoples, instead of getting down to the real base, which is economic problems. There is a minor mention of economic programs with an advisory council, and that's not good enough.

I want to go back to the idea of a knowledge-based economy, because a knowledge-based economy depends on actually putting money into the knowledge base — into the industry itself that provides that knowledge base, which is the whole post-secondary system in British Columbia. In this province, where the post-secondary participation rates are below the rest of the country, the rural areas' rate is only approximately 60 percent that of the urban areas. That means my area, Mr. Speaker, where there has been no promise of any expansion in Access for All for university transfer courses, where the apprenticeship programs are either non-existent or not good enough and where, in fact, there is a major need for extended ABE and ESL — that's adult basic education and English-as-a-second-language training. The province loses out, and I am hoping, because of the mention of the literacy program earlier by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), that there will be some major expansion of ABE in our post-secondary education, particularly at our colleges. The only university transfer program in our area which was allowed is simply too slow to even talk about. There was one program proposed for schoolteachers that would allow approximately 30 people to enroll in

[ Page 8924 ]

third- and fourth-year education degree work, and about 250 people applied.

The discussion of a knowledge-based economy is dead-on; the response so far has been dead-off. There's no reason in the world why the people in the eastern part of British Columbia should not have the same kind of access to post-secondary education considered for them as for those in the rest of the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don't want to go ahead without making some observations that are extremely positive. I think it would be fair to say that I'm very pleased to see the suggestion that Mount Assiniboine Park become a world heritage site. I think we also need to declare the Flathead River area a world heritage site. I've done some work on that, and I'm hoping it will proceed.

Talking about parks and access to them, I would also like to say that there is general agreement — as a matter of fact, in some cases, some positive lobbying and very strong threats almost — that we need a road to Elk Lakes Park. We need a good road to Elk Lakes Park, we need it to be an extension of Highway 43 and it needs to be done right away.

I would like to say that we're looking forward to good pension legislation. We appreciate the suggestion in the throne speech and await with great interest and with our breath held to see what is going to happen there.

The gas line extension program. Good. Is it going to come into my communities of Wardner, Baynes Lake, Grasmere, Moyie and Yahk? Are we going to get a subsidy program which recognizes not only the economic but also the environmental benefits of extending gas lines to those communities?

I look forward to seeing what is proposed in the Energy Conservation Act, because I've been asking very clearly for this kind of action. I believe that we are already launched into some of these activities, but not far enough or fast enough. I hope this act will include the kind of provisions in legislation passed in mid-February in the state of Washington, which puts a building code in place that applies to all buildings and makes conservation the centre of what is required in that building code. I hope that there could be some requirements for industrial motors, industrial lighting, heating and cooling. I trust that the upshot of the whole thing will be at least an immediate tripling — if not quadrupling — of our goals in this province for energy conservation. The goals, at least as far as electrical energy conservation is concerned, are far too low.

I also want to say that I was pleased to see a reference to the community of Kimberley. It's not just the community of Kimberley, because the people who worked at the Sullivan mine live not only in Kimberley; at least 20 percent of them live in Cranbrook. It affects more than one community when a mine like that closes down. I will look with interest to see what kind of program assistance the government offers, although the mine at Kimberley may well reopen. We have every hope and expectation that it will be so. Nevertheless, there is the thrust, the threat and the shock of recognizing that when that mine closes, it can be so sudden and so destructive. That feeling was given to everyone in Cranbrook, Kimberley and the surrounding areas by Cominco's announcement back in January. There's no possible way we can countenance that kind of activity or announcement being made without some pre-notification.

[12:00]

Basically, the only other comment that I wanted to make — and I know I'm close to the end of my time — is about health care. I believe the referral of the whole health care issue to a royal commission was unacceptable, because there have been enough studies on what's going on in our hospitals, our hospital budgets, how they were done and everything like that. It's time to take action as far as health care is concerned. That is obviously the reason that health care has practically no mention in this throne speech. I'm sorry to see that.

Considering it all, I think that the thrust on the environment is totally inadequate. That being the centre of it, maybe we'll be able to persuade the government to beef it up if they want to appeal to the general mass of people in British Columbia.

Mrs. McCarthy moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Brummet moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

ERRATUM

Volume 16 Number 1, Thursday, April 5, 1990, afternoon sitting, page 8856, second column. An interjection by an hon. member reads:

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we break for coffee?

The line should read:

MR. BLENCOE: Have you made the coffee?