[ Page 8925 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Kamloops cancer clinic, Mr. Harcourt –– 8927

Abortion services. Mr. Harcourt –– 8928

Proposed gas drilling. Mr. Peterson –– 8929

New Democrat press release. Mr. Sihota –– 8929

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 8929

Ferry safety. Mr. Loenen –– 8929

Tabling Documents –– 8931

Throne Speech Debate

Mrs. McCarthy –– 8932

Ms. Cull –– 8936

Mr. Mercier –– 8939

Mr. Cashore –– 8942

Mr. Vant –– 8946

Motion Without Notice: Proposed federal goods and services tax

Mrs. McCarthy –– 8948

Mr. Clark –– 8950

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8952

Mr. Lovick –– 8953

Tabling Documents –– 8955

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today are a number of certified general accountants and the guest speaker at the CGA-MLA luncheon which is held every year. Firstly, we have Mr. Ron Pickerill, the president; Bill Caulfield, the executive director; Mike Andruff, Geoff Thorpe, Bruce McConnachie, Casey Longbroek, Catherine McLean, Al Kerfoot, Bill Johnson and Ian Fraser. Mr. Minister of Finance, if you're anywhere within listening distance, hide your budget papers and lock the door. We have Doug Small, Global's bureau chief from Ottawa. Please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Mrs. Yri, political science instructor at Kwantlen College in Surrey, who is in the precincts and I believe in the gallery at this time with a group of students from Kwantlen College. Please make them all welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: In the gallery today are two gentlemen: Mr. Bert Klein, who is from Abbotsford and is a greenhouse grower; and Mr. Casey Longbroek, who is a certified general accountant and an alderman with the district of Chilliwack. Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Would the House please make welcome Adrian Cownden, who is representing the Restaurant and Food Services Association of B.C. here today. Please make Adrian and his guests welcome.

MR. CRANDALL: It is not very often that a constituent of mine is in Victoria, since my riding is quite some distance away. I would appreciate it if the House would make welcome Mr. Charlie Osterloh, a longtime friend of mine from Invermere.

MR. PERRY: May I also welcome to the precincts my constituents Michael Andruff and Al Dexter, members of the accountants' group visiting today. And I thank them for the delicious lunch they offered us.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I am pleased to introduce to the House the longtime mayor of the village of Midway in the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, Mayor Jim McMynn. With him is the clerk, Bob Hatton, and a business associate from the state of Washington, Mr. Van Hurst. I'd just like to note that as 90 percent of the employment in Midway is from forestry, they are here discussing long-term added value to increase employment. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I rise on a matter of privilege. On April 5, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) made several statements. At the time, I couldn't really quite believe my ears. We had an opportunity this morning to review the actual tapes of the statements made. The statement made by the second member — "Have you made the coffee?" — was thrown out in my direction when I rose to speak.

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

MR. CLARK: Having some passing acquaintance with the question of privilege, I might note that these matters must be raised at the earliest possible convenience. Clearly this is a matter which was in the public domain some time ago. This is clearly not the first opportunity for discussion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair must always hear what the member's position is before the Chair can even decide. It's very nice of the member from Vancouver East to assist the Chair in deciding these matters. Perhaps the member would have cared to assist the Chair in deciding the matter that the member himself brought forward the other day, which might have saved the Chair quite a lot of work.

It's a longstanding practice of the House to have the member who raises the matter of privilege state the matter briefly. The Chair will then reserve on the matter and decide what are the reasons for accepting it or not. I'd ask the minister to continue.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I will certainly be brief, Mr. Speaker. The comment made by the second member for Victoria and directed to me was: "Have you made the coffee?" It was stated not once but twice. It was clearly audible on the tape. On behalf of all members in this House, particularly the female members, I would respectfully request an apology from the second member for Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: As in any matter of privilege, the Chair will consider the evidence brought forward by a member and a decision will be brought forward. Whatever remedies to take place will be dealt with at that time.

Hon. members, at the opening of this morning's proceedings the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) rose under the provisions of standing order 35, requesting leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the goods and services tax legislation presently before the federal Parliament of Canada.

It has been stated many times in the House that in consideration of such a matter the urgency of debate and not the urgency of the matter is what the Chair must consider. In making this decision, the Chair notes that the House is presently engaged in debate on the Address in Reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Accordingly, an immediate parliamentary opportunity exists to debate the matter in question.

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

[ Page 8926 ]

possible opportunity. The measure in question has been under consideration in the federal House for days. Accordingly, even if the matter qualified other aspects, it should have been brought to the attention of the House on Friday last.

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

Hon. members, on April 6 the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) sought to raise a matter of privilege in relation to the tabling of the public accounts in the House by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. The essence of the complaint was that not filing the public accounts on the morning of April 5, 1990, when the House met to prorogue, violated the terms of the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

It should be noted that the public accounts were presented to the House by the Minister of Finance on the morning of April 6, immediately prior to my hearing the member, and that notice of the application was given to the House by the member prior to prorogation. I am satisfied that by giving notice in this fashion the matter was raised at the first available opportunity.

I have examined the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was adopted by the House on July 20, 1989. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"Recommendation No. 1. Your committee recommends that the government consider the ways and means by which the Public Accounts for the province of British Columbia can be made publicly available as soon as possible after the end of the fiscal year for which they have been completed."

The member claims that this recommendation has been violated, and the minister takes the opposite view. With great respect to the member, I cannot find the quoted recommendation a mandatory direction as to the time of filing, but rather a recommendation to consider the method.

Section 8(3)(e) of the Financial Administration Act requires that the public accounts "be laid by the Minister of Finance before the Legislative Assembly by December 31 next after the end of the fiscal year, if the Legislative Assembly is then sitting, and otherwise within 15 sitting days after the opening of the next sitting."

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

[2:15]

Hon. members, I will now rule on the alleged matter of privilege advanced on April 6 by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). The substance of the hon. member's intervention concerns announcements of proposed legislation by a minister and the subsequent communications relating thereto by a member of the public service to the principal permanent officers of municipalities.

The hon. member suggests that these communications improperly presuppose the passage of legislation by the House, and thereby the rights and privileges of all members have been improperly abridged. Further, it is argued that a contempt of the House has occurred because these communications have preceded legislative debate and the implementation by the House of fundamental changes to the property tax system.

The hon. member, in his submission, concluded that previous rulings by Speakers on questions of privilege resulting from similar announcements have by and large failed. The hon. member suggests, however, that this intervention differs, in that the communications to municipal officials concern matters of taxation, and for that reason he invites the Chair not to follow the long-established principles upon which similar — but not identical — applications have been disallowed.

The hon. member, in the course of his submission, provided the Chair with references to a number of Speakers' decisions, including a recent decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser, albeit that in every such decision the Chair had been unable to find a prima facie breach of privilege. It is apparent, however, that Mr. Speaker Fraser, in the course of his ruling of October 10 last, did deliver a stern warning that the general public must not be given any impression that the proposed changes to the taxation system were a fait accompli and that Parliament, in fact, had "no role to play in examining and approving the changes." To give such an impression, Mr. Speaker Fraser said, "may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public." With that warning I am in complete agreement, and would deprecate any action that fairly could be seen to derogate from the role of parliament.

Hon. members will know that the Chair's responsibility in an application of this kind is to determine whether or not the matter raised by an hon. member warrants the immediate setting aside of the regular business of the House. The Speaker does not rule on whether or not a breach of privilege or a contempt has in fact occurred; that question may only be decided by the House itself. I emphasize that the very narrow point the Chair must decide is whether or not, prima facie, material advanced in the application of an hon. member satisfies the Chair that the House must immediately set aside all other regular business. On any given occasion, should the Chair decide this question in the negative, it does not, of course, preclude the matter being raised in other debate at an appropriate time or proceeded with by notice of motion in the usual way.

In reaching a conclusion, the Chair has given careful consideration to the decisions cited by the hon. member as well as other decisions and authoritative references. Sir Erskine May's twentieth edition, at pages 70 and 71, explains that:

"The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."

[ Page 8927 ]

Mr. Speaker Fraser observed that the result is, when members claim that certain actions constitute a breach of privilege, they must specify which privilege is affected. He also noted that contempts are, broadly speaking, offences against the authority or the dignity of the House itself, while breaches of privilege involve the protection of its members from impediments to their functioning as members of the House.

Dealing first with the specific privileges of the House, the Chair cannot find that the announcements in question affect the privilege of freedom of speech or that any members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties. The proposed legislation announced by the minister, when presented to the House, must be debated by hon. members as they would any other legislation, and nothing appears to have occurred that would prevent members from attending to their duties in this regard. It is, as Mr. Speaker Fraser found on the similar facts before him, difficult to see how the work of the House has been prejudiced or any member impeded in the performance of his duties as a result of what has transpired in the present circumstances.

On the second issue of a possible contempt of the House having been committed, I have again examined with great care the observations of Mr. Speaker Fraser in the matter before him, to which reference has been made by the hon. second member for Vancouver East. The grave concern expressed by the Chair in that instance was that neither departmental officials nor governments ought in any way to give the general public the impression that proposed changes to the taxation system are a fait accompli, and that Parliament has no role to play in examining and approving the changes. The effect of this, it was said, "may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public."

The basis of the grievance considered by Mr. Speaker Fraser was that widespread advertising directed to the public had taken place which clearly assumed that certain goods and services tax measures were in fact a fait accompli, when such was clearly not the case. The Chair has been invited to draw a parallel in the matter before me, and it is suggested that the present case is even stronger because, unlike the situation in Ottawa, the legislation at issue here is not yet before this House.

In this regard, the hon. member's submission is a cogent one. However, the Chair must give at least equal weight to the following fact: namely, that the press release of March 9, 1990, stated that the minister had "unveiled key portions of the Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act slated for introduction during the next sitting of the Legislature." It is difficult for the Chair to read into these words any suggestion that the proposed legislation was either a fait accompli or that Parliament would have no role to play in examining or approving the proposed changes.

On the other hand, the circulars dated March 20 and March 29, by a ministry official, might be construed as if the proposed changes were indeed a fait accompli. However, consideration must be given to the fact that the circular of March 20 referred to the earlier press release of the minister advising that the legislation was "slated for introduction" to the Legislature, and that the circular was part of an information program to assist municipalities, and went on to set forth various guidelines.

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

"Without going into the merits of the case, one can readily conclude that it would be only prudent, if not incumbent upon a ministry of the government, to take preparatory steps in contemplation of the passage of legislation. I cannot see that to do so would impede the House or any member thereof in the performance of their functions."

The Chair must also give weight to the fact that the circulars complained of were not communications to the general public by way of a newspaper advertisement, but were in fact directed at principal appointed officers of municipalities. It would, I feel, be fair to assume that such senior officials of another level of government would be fairly aware of the normal legislative process. It would be difficult to conclude that experienced municipal officials were led to believe that this Legislature would not, in due course, be involved in the passage of the legislation.

The Chair cannot therefore conclude that the circular is analogous to or as offensive as widespread advertisements to the general public leading a large segment of the public to believe or infer that the Legislature would have no role to play in this process.

For these reasons, the Chair cannot find any sufficient grounds to give the hon. member's application priority over orders of the day, having regard to the facts of the case and the many Speakers' previous rulings on similar matters.

The intervention of the hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) presented on the 6th day of April last is essentially the same matter and must fail for the same reasons.

In closing, I will again say that the Chair fully agrees with the comments of Mr. Speaker Fraser to the effect that the Chair will at all times do its best to uphold the dignity of parliament whenever and wherever it may be threatened by matters occurring outside the House; as well, of course, within the House itself. In this endeavour I am sure the Chair will have the assistance of all hon. members and, of equal importance, the understanding and adherence of all public officials who may be necessarily involved in the process of government.

Oral Questions

KAMLOOPS CANCER CLINIC

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The people of Kamloops have long been promised a full-treatment cancer facility in their city. The riding is now represented by two senior cabinet ministers who astonishingly have

[ Page 8928 ]

failed to raise the issue in this Legislature, yet they supported the government's decision to locate the cancer clinic in Kelowna. Is the minister now prepared to locate a full-service cancer clinic at Kamloops?

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition isn't aware that there already is a full-service cancer clinic in Kamloops. I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that this government would allow politics to enter medical care.

We have in this province the best Cancer Control Agency internationally. It's recognized as being the best in the world. They have submitted to us a very detailed analysis of need in the province of British Columbia. I'm pleased to say that we have agreed in total with the recommendations, which means significant expansion of facilities throughout the province We are further working with the Cancer Control Agency to ensure that....

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

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it would be astounding news to the medical community and the community of Kamloops that they have a full-service cancer clinic. They certainly don't believe they do. Given the fact that the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops believes it can have a cancer clinic operating in 18 months — as opposed to 1996 in Kelowna — and given the fact that the local governments from Prince George through to Cariboo prefer the Kamloops location, is the minister prepared to reconsider his decision and locate a full-service cancer clinic in Kamloops?

HON. J. JANSEN: The Leader of the Opposition obviously has difficulty understanding what I said to him a minute ago. I said that the Cancer Control Agency put the recommendation forward, that we agree with those recommendations, and further that we were talking to the Cancer Control Agency to ensure the facilities in the interior would be further expanded.

We are now addressing the question of mammography. We will very soon have a mammography unit in the province in the Kamloops area. We're looking at other enhancements of service.

The Leader of the Opposition indicated.... Maybe we have to phrase his questions for him. The question related to radio therapy units. If that's the question that's the recommendation of the Cancer Control Agency of B.C.

ABORTION SERVICES

MR. HARCOURT: A question to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier failed to assure this House that he would uphold the law by ensuring that women throughout this province have access to safe, legal abortions. Has he reconsidered, and is he now prepared to instruct the Nanaimo hospital board and every other hospital board in this province that abortion is a legal medical service and that a woman's right to access to this service must not be impeded?

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

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to note yesterday, listening to the comments from some of the members in regard to this issue, that there was a sudden interest in the demographics and the democracy that exist in hospital boards. We have appointed hospital boards, but the socialist mentality feels that unless those boards, which are democratically elected, conform to their thinking, they're not suitable and require intervention.

[2:30]

The second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) made reference to the fact that abortion is a federal matter and should not be considered at the local level. We in British Columbia are ensuring that the surgery is available here, and we are doing it on the basis of the Canada Health Act.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Health to say that it's okay for a hospital board to democratically break the law. That's a new concept of democracy and the rule of law to me, because the law is very clear. Three court decisions have established that abortion is a legal medical service which all women are entitled to choose, so possibly we have a new policy of this government. I would like to ask the Premier: are they prepared to put the question of access to legal medical services to a referendum? Is that the new approach in this province?

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

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

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

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: The question of the policy of the referendum approach, Mr. Speaker, was in the throne speech. I take it that referendums will be utilized in this province, and I'm asking the Premier: based on the policy that was outlined in the throne speech, are you going to put this issue to a referendum?

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

[ Page 8929 ]

PROPOSED GAS DRILLING

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

My constituents are very alarmed by the potential environmental and safety hazards which may arise as a result of proposed gas drilling in the Fraser Valley. Part of this alarm results from some extremely provocative comments which have been made on the subject by the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure this House and my constituents that no drilling permits have been issued or, in fact, will be issued unless all legitimate environmental and safety concerns have been satisfactorily addressed?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that no drilling permits have been issued. None are likely to be issued for some months. None will be issued until the public in the area is fully satisfied that the operations will be safe, quiet and in the public interest.

MR. PETERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What assurances can the minister provide to this House that the public's concerns will be fully and impartially addressed in your ministry's review process? What steps has the minister decided to take to ensure that Fraser Valley residents will be fully informed concerning the safety and environmental implications of any drilling project which could, in fact, possibly be authorized?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, any significant energy project — certainly one of any size or concern to a large number of people — is subject to a review process. The smaller ones are exclusively in-house between ministries. But if there is a mounting public concern in the Fraser Valley, I would have no hesitation in recommending to my colleagues that we appoint a special inquiry commissioner and have a public review of the matter.

NEW DEMOCRAT PRESS RELEASE

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). Yesterday in question period he referred to a press release dated April 4 which he said that I had obviously written, and which made reference to the word "sleazy." I know of no such press release. I wonder if the Premier would be kind enough to table that press release in the House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I did give a wrong date apparently, and I apologize for the mix-up on that and the confusion perhaps. But yes, I did make reference to a press release, and I certainly would have no hesitation to table the press release. If there's any doubt about what was said in the press release, it will clarify this for the member opposite. It also includes my comments written across the top.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Marson submitted his report with respect to the GO B.C. fund to the government on December 12, 1989, and it was made public on February 28, 1990. Could the Provincial Secretary please explain the delay in presenting that report?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up in this House and answer questions concerning GO B.C. because it is a great program. What we wanted to ensure, between the date that report was turned over to me and our release, was that we had looked at it very thoroughly and studied it to see how we could implement the recommendations in that report and come forward with a very positive package of improvements that could be made.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. How was it that the Provincial Secretary came to learn that the RCMP had wanted to lay charges with respect to his predecessor and arising out of that report? How did you come to realize that?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Obviously the member opposite doesn't realize where my duties begin and where my duties end. I am the Provincial Secretary, and I believe he should be directing that question to another minister.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary question to the Provincial Secretary. You released Mr. Marson's report on February 28, 1990. Why did you not disclose at that time that a recommendation had been flowing from that report to lay charges against your predecessor?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Again, I would remind the member opposite that I am the Provincial Secretary. I don't make those kinds of recommendations. He ought to know that as a practicing lawyer, I believe.

FERRY SAFETY

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The question concerns the fact that all of us were recently much saddened by the fact that we had a fire on board a Norwegian ferry and that many lives were lost. We now have reports that some of the safety equipment was hopelessly inadequate and that there were inadequate fire alarm systems, sprinklers and smoke detectors.

The question is: since we have one of the largest ferry fleets in the world, can the minister give some assurance to the residents of this province that indeed our safety equipment aboard our ferries is much better?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am pleased to stand in the House today and respond to that question, but I guess the surprise I have is that it came from someone from the lower mainland. I was expecting it

[ Page 8930 ]

to come from a member of the opposition because there are several of them there from the Island. Expecting that the opposition might have done a little homework, I came prepared.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I didn't give him the question. I'm sorry, Hon. Member, I didn't. It's an important question and one that must be properly answered in order to put at rest the minds of our travelling public, those who use the ferry system.

The Canada Shipping Act regulates the type of materials that can be used in the construction of Canadian-built ships. In all cases we are only allowed to build with fire-retardant materials. For example, no untreated wood is allowed on the vessels, and all carpets have to be specially treated.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), I was expecting a member of the opposition to ask the question, so I did come prepared. Several of your members are from the Island.

In general terms, the Ferry Corporation has a watch cycle that has staff working ten days on, five days off. Once during this ten-day period throughout the entire year there is a fire drill conducted that involves all staff members aboard the vessel, and every one of these staff members is given a specific task to do in case of a fire emergency.

We could describe the crews on B.C. Ferry Corporation vessels as some of the best trained in the world. In addition, the corporation works with the Canadian Coast Guard and various training institutions such as Pacific Marine Training Institute, where fire-fighting courses are taught on a regular basis.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm really quite surprised that particularly the members who have ferry terminals in their ridings are not a little more concerned about what's happening.

On every sailing within the corporation there is a fire patrol made on each car deck, throughout the length of the voyage. Fire is regarded as the B.C. Ferry Corporation's number one potential enemy, and we do all that we can to prevent any fires. All fire drills on board each vessel are fully documented, and any observance requiring following-up is attended to.

In summary, however, because of the procedures we have in place, the materials on board and the highly trained crews, we believe that the potential for a serious fire is minimized because of our ongoing commitment to fire prevention and safety.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I rise on a point of personal privilege. I have had the opportunity this morning to view a draft of Hansard. This morning the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) made a sleazy attack on my family. This is the second one. There was another one by the Leader of the Opposition last Wednesday, April 4, in a television broadcast from channel 11 in Victoria which I will quote, because I have the tape: "Yes, you are right." This is in response to a caller: "We are not going to let John Savage sell his family farm on an order-in-council that he put through as Minister of Agriculture, which allowed him to sell his family farm and use it as golf courses and make a million dollar profit for his family. That's wrong."

My family has lived and farmed in Delta for over a century with a great deal.... They have done it with integrity and dignity, not to be downgraded by somebody like you. And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition has made a personal attack on my parents — seniors who have worked the soil for 75 years, as well as their predecessors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

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

Interjections.

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

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, the comments coming from the minister relate to comments which he said were raised back on April 4 during a television show. However, in raising his point of order, he made reference to comments that were made this morning in the House by one of our colleagues.

It would seem to me that in making his response the minister ought to be referring to the latter and not to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the start of this session has given us a number of points of privilege that the Chair has had to consider. The scope of the discussion that should take place is that the matter should be briefly stated. However, members have taken to abusing this particular scope.

What the Chair needs in order to assist it is for members who believe their privileges have been violated to state the matter so that the Chair can consider the matter. If other members wish to add something for the Chair's consideration after the member has made his statement, the Chair will be pleased to listen to those matters at that time.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to continue. If there are any further interjections, I would ask people to hold those and give them to me afterwards in order to assist the Chair in making a decision. Would the minister please continue.

[ Page 8931 ]

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

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

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You just listen.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is simply that the member opposite has already been told to get to the point; instead, he proceeds to base his entire comments on some phony appeal to emotionalism. If he has a point of order, Mr. Speaker, let him raise it. All we are hearing now is about farming in the past. The concern is whether your children and their grandchildren will be able to farm, given your policies.

MR. SPEAKER: The House should be reminded that we are not dealing with a point of order; we are dealing instead with a point of privilege. I am trying to hear the evidence in terms of a point of privilege.

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

Interjection.

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

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

I'll get to my point. I would like to remind the people opposite that some of you who sat at the time you were government took my grandfather's farm on Tilbury Island. It was one of the largest dairy farms in British Columbia at that time, milking 108 cows. I remind you that during the Depression that same farm provided food for people who walked from New Westminster because they couldn't afford to buy food. Our family donated it to them — and it's so bad that they should make a dollar off the sale of the land?

I think that is cowardly politics, and I will not sit down and let my family suffer for it. I am going to defend it. If you want to attack me, be my guest; I'm a politician. But you can damn well lay off my family.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

The Chair would like to ask all members to consider the scope under which the Chair has to operate on matters of privilege. If the matters of privilege are stated briefly, the Chair has some possibility of bringing back a ruling which makes good parliamentary sense. But when, in the process of bringing forward these points, it breaks into debate, the Chair is limited in its ability to restrict the debate.

There are lots of other opportunities. In fact, at present we happen to be almost at the point at of going to one of those opportunities, the throne speech, to debate these matters. It would be better not to bring the argument forward when asking the Chair for a decision.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia for the calendar year 1989 and the annual report of the Heritage Trust for 1988-89.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before proceeding with the next order of business, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) asked me for leave to make an introduction. The Chair would really appreciate it if all introductions were made before the formal business of the House is to take place. For future guidance, I would ask that all members do this.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I am indeed contrite. I would just point out that I only received the note a few moments ago.

I hope members opposite will join me in welcoming two groups of students to this chamber. First are a number of people with their instructors Paulette Dash-Hagel and David Hagel from the Nanaimo Skills Training Centre. The other group of students is from the Five Acres Alternative School in Nanaimo and they are with their teacher Mr. Martin. Please join me in welcoming these people.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before proceeding with the Address in Reply, I wish to inform the House that by agreement with the opposition House Leader, one hour will be set aside from 5 to 6 p.m. today to engage in an emergency debate on the federal goods and services tax, as put forward this morning by the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy). I'm sure all members of this assembly are concerned about the devastating effects that will surely flow from the GST and agree that the matter is too important to the future of this province to let it pass by without some degree of formal debate.

[ Page 8932 ]

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place in this debate on the motion moved by the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) to support the document read on Thursday last by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Before embarking on some of the reasons why this assembly and the citizens it represents want to support this throne speech and this government, I wish to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the Chair by unanimous vote of members present.

I would also extend congratulations to our Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), as well as our newly elected committee chairman, the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong).

I, too, on behalf of my constituents and many British Columbians, join with this House in mourning the passing of former members of this Legislature from the constituencies of Columbia River and Cariboo. I was very pleased to note that mention was made by His Honour of the widow and mother of two former Premiers from the constituency of South Okanagan. These three individuals in their own way provided outstanding examples of public service as British Columbians over many years during the development years of our society and economy, and each played important roles in building the infrastructure in Canada's westernmost province over three decades of growth.

I would like to bid welcome to the Legislature to the two new members of our House — the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull). We look forward to your contribution on behalf of your constituents, and I know that you will enjoy your public service immensely.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about literacy in the province of British Columbia. It's because this government and this side of the House puts a high priority on maintaining a strong, viable, sustainable economy that we as a government have revenues to make expenditures to serve the people in British Columbia and to look after our social needs.

I support the throne speech for many reasons, but one of the reasons is its recognition of the International Year of Literacy for the United Nations in 1990 and this government's commitment to continue to offer upgrading programs for individuals to attain basic skills. I congratulate the former Minister of Advanced Education and the present one (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for their involvement in facilitating the report of the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee entitled "Opening the Doors to Lifelong Learning," which was dated December 1989.

I believe that in addition to the excellent recommendations to this government in that report, we also should seek out the retired teachers of this province and call on them to assist those adults who cannot read or write. If this were a program conducted through night schools and community centres, we could bring freedom to those who are now illiterate and at the same time use the expertise of retired teachers and individuals who still have lots to contribute with their experience and love of teaching.

Not to give the subject undue time, but there is another area during Literacy Year that should not be overlooked, and that is our provision of resources for those who are learning-disabled. In 1989 this province had identified 9,800 severely learning-disabled students and committed $43 million in the '89-90 budget through our Minister of Education to assist these students. We contributed another $63 million for mildly to moderately learning-disabled through learning assistance programs, and $6 million for infrastructure assessment and planning for these children.

This government doesn't need an international year to demonstrate its understanding of these children with special needs. We have had that understanding for very many years, and we have had action behind that understanding. But I raise it now to point out that there is still more work to be done in this area, and this Legislature should never shirk its responsibility to fund these special children who need our help as a society to cope in future years.

I particularly want to mention and speak for greater resources and understanding for the dyslexic child and ask the ministry to concentrate on teacher training, giving teachers the ability to recognize dyslexia and to refer dyslexic children to the proper resources.

Mr. Speaker, another good news item in the throne speech is the reference to relief of taxpayer burden as a cornerstone of this government's fiscal plan. I know that we will see introduced after the budget speech an assessment and property tax reform act to, in the words of the throne speech, "bring greater equity and stability to the property tax and assessment systems in the province."

Great credit is due to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the former Minister of Municipal Affairs for initiating at the time a provincial property tax forum to listen to British Columbians. I can tell you that the property taxpayers in Vancouver–Little Mountain are looking forward to this budget and this legislation.

I would like to put in a word not only for the residential property tax relief, but the relief that is also needed by the commercial tenants in this province who will need some attention from this parliament if they are going to see an end to escalating assessments and resulting tax bills of more than 40 percent in one year, as they did last year. I urge the government to not forget them as we continue to bring reforms to our local taxation system.

I want to just mention a local concern in Vancouver–Little Mountain and in the city of Vancouver. We all know that transportation is a prime factor in economic growth. Nowhere has this been demonstrated so dramatically as in the success of the rapid

[ Page 8933 ]

transit system, SkyTrain, built by our Social Credit government. One has only to see the complete rebirth of the city of New Westminster to understand that SkyTrain has completely turned that city around, awakened its potential, creating growth and jobs of unprecedented number. Burnaby has seen a multi-billion dollar surge in building at Metrotown. Beside every station along the first phase from Vancouver to New Westminster we've had an explosion of building and investment that has improved each area, building new parks, apartment buildings and housing. The routes to Whalley and Coquitlam will bring the same remarkable service and economic growth, again creating jobs, housing and opportunities. Here it is: Social Credit building once again.

[3:00]

A committee was struck to address a new route from Vancouver to Richmond and, of course, to the Vancouver airport. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has stated that this new route may take the form of articulated bus service or some form of rapid transit. It will be up to the committee to make that decision. As representatives of Vancouver–Little Mountain, my colleague the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and myself are on record with the minister that we want to be certain that whatever route is chosen, the neighbourhoods along that route must be protected.

The Arbutus corridor, as well as Cambie Street, have both been suggested. I know we will have ample opportunity to present our concerns to that committee. I do think, however, that there is an exciting opportunity to use the Arbutus corridor as a tunnel or recessed trainway which would give a direct route to Richmond and leave all the air rights for valuable housing and landscaped park-like development. The value of the land could make such a plan feasible. Although many will at first believe that a tunnel would be prohibitive in cost, I would remind those critics that it will never be any cheaper and would be a tremendous asset to the transportation plans of the lower mainland as the ultimate destination would be Richmond and the airport.

British Columbia stands tall today in western economies because of previous decisions taken by Social Credit governments since 1953 to put in place infrastructures for future growth. Individuals who have served on this side of the House have had what it takes to make bold decisions to last for decades and to serve well the growth demanded by the passage of years.

I look quickly at the evidence of early Social Credit throne speeches that heralded the visions of decades of growth that lay ahead of those charged with the responsibilities of the government of the time. Just examine, if you will, the frameworks for important infrastructures that many of us take for granted today.

In 1953, the throne speech mentioned, expanded on and acted on the expansion of the building of highways without increasing the net debt of the province. There was legislation to authorize the development of the Columbia River basin, a policy for highway construction that up to that time had been unprecedented. It was proposed in 1953 to introduce certain measures to ensure fair remuneration for female employees. An act was presented to control the ribbon development on the main highways of the province.

In 1954, the throne speech announced the commencement of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from Squamish to North Vancouver, from Prince George into the Peace River district— the greatest development for the north that we have seen and the start of all the development in the north. We saw the continuing and enlarged program of highway construction and secondary programs for highways. At that time, as you know, we couldn't even take an automobile past Hope and have any hope at all of getting through at all without some safety hazards.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In 1955, the Disabled Persons Act was passed by the government of Canada and the legislation was adopted and proclaimed by the government of British Columbia of the day. Provision was made to encourage development of our natural resources, agricultural produce, industrial undertakings and tourist travel in a way unprecedented before 1955. The University of British Columbia got its first truly large capital infusion, an aggressive capital expenditure which has continued to this day, We were able to make available and extend the program of rural electrification to the power development throughout the province and improved arrangements for municipalities. Problems of apprenticeship were addressed and many other social programs.

In 1956, there was the establishment of the Capital Improvement District Commission for this area, Victoria, which has done remarkable things since 1956 to enhance the beauty of our beautiful capital city. Then there were other areas that had to do with making sure we tied in with the Trans-Canada Highway and that the construction was completed for highways in the Cariboo, the southern and northern transprovincial highways and the Trans-Canada.

We also introduced legislation to promote the observance of fair treatment to all men and women with respect to their employment. At that time, in 1956, we also passed legislation to financially assist the Association for Retarded Children of British Columbia. That was one of the breakthroughs for the mentally handicapped of this province at that time.

In 1957, legislation was brought in to remove the tolls of the bridges in the province. And there was an announcement that year that the opposition members laughed about at the time — they're not laughing now. The homeowner grant was announced: a tax relief grant of $28 a year, which has grown this year to $470, and to $700 for senior citizens. That was a Social Credit initiative, Mr. Speaker.

In that same year there was an aggressive marketing campaign for the tree-fruits industry in the Okanagan. It was given a great deal of observation as well as action at that time.

[ Page 8934 ]

There was legislation concerned with the welfare of blind workmen and also the authority to approve the extension of hospital insurance benefits to cover chronic care.

In 1958 there was a willingness to participate in the hospitalization program of the national government. One had been put in place by the provincial government ten years prior to that.

An agreement in principle to complete the highways serving Richmond, Delta and all of that area took place, as well as the completion of the Westcoast Transmission pipeline, which brought natural gas from the Peace River to the markets of the interior and coastal areas. We could go on to talk about the Upper Levels Highway, the Princeton-Kamloops highway and the Kitimat-Terrace highway, all of which have had an influence on each and every constituency represented in this Legislature today.

We had the initiation of ferry-building in 1959. The two ferries commissioned in that particular year were capable of carrying large numbers of passengers and cars. Of course, 1959 saw the beginning of one of the largest ferry fleets in the world in our own province.

Senior citizens' homes and housing were given great concentration in 1959 and since, and legislation respecting nursing homes was brought in.

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

There was a great loss suffered in 1957 with the fire at Government House. Of course, in 1959 we saw that this government had completed a brand-new Government House to take the place of the burned-out one.

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

I could go on to give you more from between 1960 and 1980, but I think it's important for us to remember that it was this government that saved very many homes in 1980 with a new housing program that resulted in a total of over 5,000 additional dwelling units in that year.

A women's office was established in 1980, and the Knowledge Network, which has led the world in education television service, was established in our province.

A new science policy, long before other jurisdictions talked about a science policy, was started in this Legislature through these throne speeches that I have read. Particularly, in 1980 the discovery park, near the Institute of Technology, was established.

I was interested also to note that in the 1980 throne speech SkyTrain was announced — our remarkable rapid transit. That initiative, which was at the time.... I can recall that just a year before that the NDP told us we didn't need a rapid transit service in the lower mainland.

I remember, too, that it was in the 1980 throne speech that Expo was announced. Expo and the initiative to bring the world to British Columbia was one of the great initiatives of this Social Credit government, and one which, I might add, the Leader of the Opposition tried to stop.

I would argue that when it comes to building for tomorrow there's no comparison between the side opposite and this side. The opposition has been short of vision for three decades. There was no vision during their three years of government in the early seventies, and it isn't there today. In the last two years we have had a plan in place which looks to not just today but to the future and for generations to come.

In 1988 we began the Asia-Pacific initiative, which has just been completed, to follow up some of the planning that went on early in the mandate of this government to have new economic initiatives that will prepare us well for the year 2000. This is the first parliament of a new decade, the decade in which we all want to have sufficient public dollars to do more for educating our young people, providing sustainable health care for all citizens and a clean environment as a legacy for future generations. It's the decade where those moneys will be available because of the vision of this government to plan ahead — the vision that this government has had to have the infrastructures in place and to provide focus to delivering stable government for the economy.

This throne speech is about choices. It's about ensuring the security of British Columbia's economic prosperity and quality of life.

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

Interjections.

MRS. McCARTHY: If you think that's a sexist remark — the negative Nellies and the negative Mikeys. The real difference is that the building force of Social Credit — the positive force — represented on this side of the House has the ability to always focus on building today's economy and infrastructure to meet tomorrow's needs.

I want to talk about that infrastructure which our government is working on for the next decade. First is the port of Vancouver. We need to acknowledge the overall planning of the White Paper on British Columbia ports policy, published last year by our Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). The White Paper states:

"Ports generate significant employment and are a crucial component of economic activity within the province. The port of Vancouver, for example, has recently estimated the economic impact of the port to be $1.9 billion annually and 18,875 direct or indirect jobs. Similar estimates prepared for the Fraser River Harbour Commission indicate a $5 billion economic impact and 33,000 people employed; and for Prince Rupert, $637 million in economic impact and 4,221 people employed.

"In the port of Vancouver, container traffic generates 500 jobs for longshoremen alone, yet nearly 45 percent of Canada's Pacific container trade is currently arriving in U.S. ports."

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

[ Page 8935 ]

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

There are several issues we need to address involving the port, and a big one is environmental protection, safe measures for cargo handling and urban encroachment in industrial lands. These issues, though, will need cooperation and understanding on all sides, because the greatest contributors to our gross domestic product are the exports carried annually by those ships out of the port of Vancouver. Both provincial and federal governments launched the Asia-Pacific Initiative to help maximize those opportunities in the decade ahead.

[3:15]

Speaking with port authorities, we know that there are two major targets for more business. One is filling ships with backhaul containerized cargo. We have to do it, and we are making progress as this government supports initiatives in our forest products industry to add more value and produce more specialty lumber products for export.

The second area is cruise passengers, and this government is doing its best to work with the tourism industry to encourage more packaging of tours out of Vancouver to sell our fabulous lower mainland, so those cruise ships will make Vancouver a destination and make greater use of our international airport so that more people can visit Vancouver first and then depart for other destinations in Super, Natural British Columbia.

In the harbour, our Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, so criticized by members opposite, has been a major contributor to our B.C. economy in just two and a half years' time. It's a total success, a remarkable success. It's infrastructure, it's planning, it's vision. The port itself needs expanded cruise-ship facilities in the next five years, and we as a government must help facilitate those plans.

The Tourism Task Force of the Asia-Pacific indicates a growing Asian customer market. The Japanese market alone is responsible for $8 billion a year in overseas international travel. Soon it is estimated that the annual number of outbound Japanese tourists will exceed ten million a year, and Vancouver International Airport is the major airport, the gateway in Canada for travellers to and from the Asia-Pacific region. It can be much more, and this government's initiatives and future planning are already underway with the federal government in planning for increased traffic.

Vancouver International Airport is now the second busiest airport in Canada and getting busier. It's the regional hub, and because of our improved regional airports through this government's freedom-to-move policy, same-day travel to and from Vancouver is a reality. In 1988 alone, jet traffic from the Pacific Rim increased 20 percent, and Vancouver International received more than its share of new business.

Deregulation of the air transport industry, introduction of new efficient aircraft, the dominance of Vancouver airport in the regional marketplace, together with a burgeoning economy, have all contributed significantly to the increased demand for air service. We have the opportunity of attracting major international aircraft maintenance centres.

It is interesting to note that companies such as Japan Air Lines fly over Vancouver and over North America now to Shannon Airport in Ireland on a regular basis for required monthly maintenance. So why not Vancouver? Why not indeed? We can expand our air cargo capabilities. Vancouver International Airport can be a tremendous economic generator for British Columbia beyond what it is today, and the airport committee established by this government and jointly financed by the federal government gives life to that vision.

You would know, Mr. Speaker, that we already see annual revenues to the airport of over $55 million for an annual profit of close to $10 million — over 325,000 annual aircraft movements. It's directly and indirectly generating approximately 3 percent of British Columbia's gross domestic product and directly employing 12,000 persons.

Tourism and international trade possibilities in this decade are better than we have ever seen. We are in the right place, we are at the right time and the further development of the airport with an added runway and the development of airport related industry is within our grasp.

The mandate of this airport is no longer national in scope, but regional. It is now recognized as a major tool for regional economic development, and for that reason this government has aggressively pursued the transfer of the control of that airport to a local airport authority by memorandum of understanding signed on July 14, 1989.

The vision, the plan and the foresight here is to facilitate the transfer of this vital infrastructure to a regionally responsible group mandated to compete to the very greatest extent for British Columbia and the Vancouver region and to compete against Seattle-Tacoma, San Francisco, Calgary, Los Angeles and even Toronto for the benefits to our region — Pacific Canada — in the year 2000 and beyond and for the benefits of a growing international trade and tourism business.

We have put together the infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. Most times, the Social Credit governments of the past — and the Social Credit government of the future — did it ahead of time, but we always did plan for the future so that we could achieve the social programs for our people.

HON. MR. DIRKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to interrupt the good member when she is going on so well, but I seem to hear the voice of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Yet I recognize no one sitting in his chair.

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

MRS. McCARTHY: But always, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party has planned for the future so that we could achieve the social programs for our people.

[ Page 8936 ]

In 1990, British Columbia has an opportunity. This year we have an opportunity to rekindle the flame of hope for our fellow citizens.

Some say it is an election year. Well, I hope so, Mr. Speaker, because in the midst of federal government deficits, in the midst of onerous tax reforms such as the GST and in the midst of the concerns we all have over the constitutional process in Canada, British Columbia alone stands out as the most visionary government in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it's important today to kindle the flame of vision and of innovation that we have started in the province of British Columbia and have continued for the better part of 37 years: to make British Columbia a place for Asia, Europe and North America to meet; to enhance the idea of tolerance with such things as the Dragon Boat Festival and the tolerance that we will have for each other; to ensure the security of our environment through vigilance followed by actions; to appreciate and enhance the best health care system in the world and to give expectation and opportunity to the young people through education — the best in the country, Mr. Speaker — while giving security to our aged with seniors' housing and health care.

In the midst of a national cynicism and radical tensions over the constitution, B.C. stands above the clamour with the greatest choice of all, Mr. Speaker: hope for the future in a growing, prosperous British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate continues. The Chair would just remind the House of the courtesy we extend to those new members who are making their first speech.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour and a privilege to be here in this assembly representing the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the first woman and the first New Democrat to represent that riding. I am honoured to follow in the footsteps of those who have held the seat before me, particularly Brian Smith, who served my community well for over ten years; and Dr. Scott Wallace, who, although it has been 12 years since he sat in this Legislature, is still well loved by the people of my community.

The Social Credit, government has characterized the throne speech as being about change, choice and challenge. I listened with interest to the remarks of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) when she talked about vision, because as I read the throne speech again last night, I found that it presents no vision for change in this province, it doesn't address the choices people in my community want to see, and it fails miserably to meet the challenges of the next decade.

I want to speak about each of these in turn, and I'll begin with change. I was elected to this Legislature last December because people in my constituency want to see change. One of the major changes they want to see is a change in the way we manage our environment. People in my community live here because we like the quality of life. We have proximity to a large city; we have a mild climate; and we have easy access to the ocean, to the Gulf Islands and to wilderness areas.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is a constituency blessed with many advantages. One of those advantages should be our beaches, but it's not, because our beaches continue to be fouled by human sewage and toxic contaminants. Most of the beaches in my community are posted with signs warning swimmers about the health dangers of swimming there. Even where there are no signs, parents are afraid to let their children play in the water because of fear of chemical pollution.

People in my community have been very clear about the need to clean up our local beaches. They know what needs to be done. They're telling their local politicians quite clearly, they're telling me quite clearly, and my election should have told you quite clearly, that they're tired of talk and they want action. They want an end to the dumping of raw sewage into our waters. They want a safe and convenient collection system for toxic waste and regulations against pollution that they know will be enforced. They want to see an end to ocean dumping, and they want assurances that oil spills will be prevented. They want a concerted effort to clean up our beaches now, not in the next century.

People in my community aren't looking for handouts; they're willing to do their part and to pay their fair share. But they also want to see leadership from the province, leadership that could guarantee fair funding and federal-provincial cost-sharing. I listened carefully to the throne speech for some mention of an enhanced and comprehensive municipal infrastructure program, a program which my colleagues have been pressing for at both the federal and provincial levels. I found nothing.

Environmental issues such as these are the number one concern of people in my riding. I was elected by the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head to deliver a message to this government on the environment, and it's this: talking like an environmentalist doesn't make you one.

The throne speech talks about agriculture, forestry and mining, but it doesn't contain any promise of change to the uncoordinated, ad hoc way we manage resources in this province. I don't draw any encouragement from the words in the throne speech which read, "My Minister of Forests will continue the government policy to balance timber-harvesting and conservation...." It is the current policies that need changing. How can you talk about continuing policies that produce the lowest number of jobs per cubic metre of wood in Canada when we have the richest resource? If we improved our resource management abilities to just the Canadian average, we could produce many more jobs from the same timber harvest. Think about the different light that would put on our ability to preserve significant wilderness areas and still ensure a sustainable economic base for our forest communities.

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

[ Page 8937 ]

about some of the social issues. Oak Bay–Gordon Head is often stereotyped as a community of wealthy senior citizens. The Oak Bay Tweed Curtain myth hangs on despite the fact that the riding contains the University of Victoria, with a sizeable young student population, and despite the fact that the fastest-growing part of the riding is Gordon Head, which is populated by young and growing families. Certainly senior citizens make up an important part of the riding, and I will return and talk about them in a few minutes.

[3:30]

For now I want to talk about the young people in my community, and some of the changes they and their families want to see. As a former school trustee, I can tell you that services for children and youth in this province lack coordination and contain many glaring gaps. Schools are in the best position to see this because children arrive at school with all their problems, whether it's being hungry, abused or stressed out from drugs and alcohol. It's frustrating to try to find help for those children and find out that there isn't any because the staff are already overloaded by heavy caseloads or the service simply isn't there.

For example, until this fiscal year, counsellors at the elementary school level were not considered a part of education as funded by the Ministry of Education, as if children don't have problems until they reach the age of 12. I'm glad that there has been a change in policy. I hope that this is a sign of better things to come, but I rather doubt it. I doubt it because this tiny ray of good news is overshadowed by the really bad news that anything the Social Credit government doesn't consider necessary for education must now be funded by referendum. Last year that meant elementary school counsellors. Maybe next year it will be arts programs or teachers for special education, because the government will not consider those things to be a part of education in this province.

People in my community are almost totally united in their opposition to school referendums, because they know the Social Credit record on education They've been through school closures and cutbacks to their programs. They've watched their children work with outdated equipment in industrial arts programs and technology courses. They simply don't trust this government to fund education adequately We can have fairer taxes for education, but referendums will not create fairness. On the contrary, they will create have and have-not school districts.

I want to talk now about some of the less fortunate young people in my community. Consider, first of all, youth who are dependent on drugs and alcohol. Where do they go in my community for treatment? There is no residential treatment centre for drug-dependent use in greater Victoria, even though less than one year ago the courts condemned this government for the lack of residential treatment facilities in the province. There are fewer than one dozen beds in all of British Columbia for drug-dependent use, and the alternatives are temporary stays in adult detox centres or outpatient counselling.

Promises of stronger law enforcement and increased budgets for advertising the ill effects of drugs and alcohol simply don't address the problem. These youth need help now. They need someplace to go now, or they're going to be ending up in the courts and the prisons in the future.

What about severely handicapped youth? We have, in my community, one of the finest centres for children with mental, physical and psychiatric problems. It is operated by the Arbutus Society for Children, which provides a variety of residential and out-patient services to children. But what happens to the young people in that facility who suffer from severe handicaps when they turn 19 years old, as will 13 residents of the Queen Alexandra Hospital by the end of this year? They go into geriatric wards with the very old and the senile, because there are no alternatives for them. What kind of callous society do we live in that can find money for videos but cannot find money to provide a living environment that affords dignity to those least fortunate among us?

I would like to see some changes to the way services for children and youth are provided in this province. I hoped to see them in the throne speech, but I searched in vain. I mentioned some specifics just now, and another change I'd like to see is the pooling of capital resources for the Ministries of Education, Health and Social Services, so that child care, community health and social services could be located in our neighbourhoods in conjunction with the schools.

The school district in my community is more than willing to cooperate with the province to provide community services in public schools, but they just can't provide the space, because they don't have the room in their capital budgets. They don't have the mandate. New schools in Ontario must provide space for child care. That's something we could do here in this community if the province would provide the leadership to allow it to happen. But it won't be done, because the school district doesn't have the mandate and this government is not providing any leadership. I was disappointed to see no mention of child care in the throne speech, but perhaps this is an issue that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs does see as her mandate, and I hope she'll take up this suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn now to the second theme, the theme of choices. One of the choices my community would like to have is affordable housing. While my riding contains some of the most expensive real estate on Vancouver Island, it is also the home to students, young families, senior citizens on fixed income and young people getting ready to set up separate households for the first time. They can't find housing they can afford. Some of these people can't find housing they can afford anywhere in greater Victoria.

Tenants in my community would like to have the choice of secure tenure, the peace of mind that comes from knowing your home won't be demolished, that

[ Page 8938 ]

you won't be evicted from it, that it won't be sold as a condominium or that rents won't go up 30, 40 or 50 percent in one year. But again, when I look at the throne speech, I see no leadership. I see no new ideas to tackle the housing problem. The throne speech promises that the budget will reveal the strengthening of our comprehensive housing programs. What comprehensive housing programs? That's precisely the problem. The Social Credit government has ignored housing for so long that it now thinks that a collection of band-aids stuck on the issue is a comprehensive solution.

This is a matter in which I know what I'm talking about, because I used to work in the government. The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) — I wish that he were here today to hear this — as reported in a Squamish newspaper, has said that I leaked all the good ideas that the Social Credit government had to the opposition when I was a member of the committee advising the minister on housing.

Let's not quibble about the fact that the government hadn't even appointed the committee I sat on when the New Democrats outlined our comprehensive housing policy during the Vancouver–Point Grey by-election. Let's move to the real problem here. I laughed when I heard the minister's remarks, because I knew that the government did not have an overall housing policy, and I knew that the government could not have one prepared for it, because the instruction given to that committee was not to solve the housing problem, the instruction was to get the issue off the front page of the Vancouver Sun before the next election.

The people who have been calling my community office about rent hikes, discrimination against children and the lack of student and senior housing have more than a media problem. These people would be delighted to see the government steal any of the ideas that we have about solving housing problems, like taxing housing speculators, eliminating the property purchase tax for first-time buyers or introducing a rent review system that is a little bit more sophisticated than having to lobby the minister to intervene on a case-by-case basis.

Another choice people in my community are looking for in the throne speech and have not found there is the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education. People in Oak Bay–Gordon Head know that education is a prerequisite of economic health. But post-secondary education is moving rapidly beyond the reach of many middle-income families. British Columbia has the lowest participation rate for university in Canada. One of the main reasons is the cost of post-secondary education. The provincial government "Access for All" study failed to address the most significant barrier of all, and that is the financial barrier. Tuition fees have doubled since 1980, while funding to post-secondary education has increased by less than 40 percent.

If we really want to take control of our economic future in this province, we have to rebuild our universities and our colleges that were gutted by the Social Credit government during the restraint year so that we can ensure our youths are not turned away because there isn't enough space. And we must ensure that ability to pay does not become the criteria for who can attend post-secondary institutions.

The last choice I want to talk about is health care. My community is fortunate to be part of the Victoria Health Project, a pilot project in community-based health services, and there is a wellness centre in Oak Bay providing excellent service to the frail elderly. I commend the government for this funding, but I ask for assurance that the funding will continue not at the expense of other needed medical services but as a complementary integral part of our total health care system. A decision in this matter must be made before the royal commission reports, because the funding runs out before the 18 months of the commission ends. This is a choice senior citizens in my community value and one they want to see continued.

I want to conclude by talking about challenges. The Social Credit government says it's ready to meet the challenges of the 1990s. Again, in looking at the throne speech and considering their record, I see no evidence that they are committed or able to meet the challenges.

I want to focus on one very important challenge that concerns people in my constituency, and that's the challenge of managing urban growth. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we live in this part of the world because we like the quality of life here. The quality of life in Victoria and Vancouver is attracting many people to this area. Over 60,000 people came to British Columbia in the last year, most of them other Canadians.

But rapid growth brings problems: threats to our environment, more untreated sewage going into the ocean, growing piles of garbage to be landfilled, loss of farmlands and open space. It brings increased congestion on our roads, which in turn increases air pollution, and it certainly adds to the housing crisis.

My constituents are concerned that the very things we like about our community are under threat as a result of poorly managed and unplanned urban growth. This is a case where the people in this community are way out ahead of their governments. They know we can't tackle housing problems or transportation or pollution and isolation in 11 different municipalities in greater Victoria.

Unfortunately the Social Credit government eliminated regional planning seven years ago, and nowhere in this throne speech is there any recognition that this shortsighted policy has failed. Nowhere in this throne speech is there any vision about our urban future. It doesn't even mention urban areas or metropolitan areas.

We have over five million people living around the Georgia basin — in Victoria, Nanaimo, Vancouver and the Puget Sound. But this government persists in viewing our urban region as simply a collection of small towns, no different from any other small towns in the province. The failure to recognize this complex nature of our urban areas has caused this government

[ Page 8939 ]

to have a blind spot when it comes to urban problems.

It's time we recognized that in addition to being a resource-rich province we are also an urban province. It's time we had an urban development strategy.

I would like to see some leadership, some co-operation with municipal and regional officials, with community groups and those who build our communities, to develop such a strategy and to address the major issues facing our metropolitan areas. We can't go on any longer compartmentalizing ourselves into these separate little governments and line ministries to deal with urban issues; otherwise, we're going to be like the proverbial blind men who each approached the elephant and touched different parts of it and each concluded that the beast was something different. We're all going to come up with disjointed solutions and disjointed conclusions about what needs to be done in our urban areas. It has to change.

The people of this province are looking to the government for leadership on the issues of concern for them. They are looking for someone to put forward a vision that they can identify with and support. Last December the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head had the opportunity to send the government a message. They evaluated this government's leadership and its vision and they found it lacking. If there is one place that the people of my riding agree with this government, it is that it is time for a change — a change that will only come about after the next election when we have a change of government.

MR. MERCIER: I'm proud to stand in this House and speak on behalf of my constituents and the people of British Columbia. I am speaking to the throne speech, and it provides the opportunity for an MLA to address a wide range of concerns. I'll talk briefly about the positive message in the throne speech, the excellent programs for people, and our Premier's steadfast demand for fiscal responsibility in government.

My main objective today, though, is to ask this House to unite in opposing the GST, which is just one more patch on Canada's historical fiscal patchwork quilt. I am seeking, through this House, reconsideration of the June 29, 1988, motion of this House with respect to the Meech Lake constitutional amendments. I am also demanding that a federal-provincial conference be held immediately to strike a fair formula for deficit reduction; and I am demanding that the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements become a specific and permanent part of our constitution.

[3:45]

Talking through the medium of the throne speech, I am thankful that our Legislature convenes within the framework of the constitutional democracy from which we so benefit and which we so often take for granted. It reminded us of the needs and challenges facing our nation, and that the government and Legislature and individual British Columbians reaffirm support for this great and complex country and embrace initiatives which can keep us together as a nation. The throne speech repeated our government's commitment to affirming the value of a strong, united country, such that will enable our future generations to enjoy the same greatness and be given the same opportunities that have been afforded to us.

I support the objective of maintaining the equality — and I underline "equality" — of all Canadians in all provinces. Our government has maintained an economic and fiscal approach such that British Columbia has set the example for fiscal management in Canada. Our government will maintain prosperity through a disciplined budgetary framework within which economic growth, environmental integrity, job security and social services are maintained. As I will comment on later, I regret that the uncertainty caused by federal action to unilaterally curtail resources and programs can sometimes impede our provincial progress. I truly believe, as our government believes, that the responsible course is to arrest our country's financial problems immediately. I condemn the federal government for its lack of fiscal discipline of the past many years, which will impact most seriously on and add to the social injustice facing the working poor, particularly those hard-working, single-parent families who live in virtual poverty in the midst of abundance.

I want to talk about Meech Lake and Canada's federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. To chart Canada's future it is necessary to review its past. What were the fiscal powers under the Canadian constitution of the British North American colonies at Confederation? In 1867, government activity was narrowly restricted and so, too, were governmental expenses. It had not been necessary to develop many sources of revenue. The bulk of the revenue of the British North American colonies was derived from customs and excise. Customs alone had 66 percent of the provincial revenue of the province of Canada, which it is interesting to note is now Ontario and Quebec. This was the financial background when the Fathers of Confederation met at Quebec in October, 1864, to frame a constitution for uniting all the British North American colonies.

Under the Confederation arrangements, the general government was to assume responsibility for defence, transportation and other functions, as well as the bulk of the provincial public debt. It was only natural that it should have or be given the most lucrative source of revenue. The functions and responsibilities assigned to the provinces, though important, were not costly at that time. All involved modest expenditures in 1867, and it was anticipated — incorrectly — that they would remain fairly static. The vast responsibilities now exercised by provincial governments could not have been foreseen. In those days, the main revenues to the provinces were subsidies by the federal government, and the power to levy direct taxation, as it finally appeared in the British North America Act, 1867, permitted direct taxation within the provinces for the raising of revenue for provincial purposes.

Special conditions applied to the west in those days. When the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan

[ Page 8940 ]

and Alberta were carved out of the Northwestern Territory, the federal government retained the ownership of the land and other natural resources. In return, these provinces were granted special subsidies. Later the federal government agreed to surrender to the provinces the resources that they justly deserved.

To conclude the early picture of Canada, it is noteworthy that the underlying issues that precipitated Confederation in 1867 were more political than economic. But in order to fulfill the major political purpose — the maintenance of the British connection on the northern half of the continent by building a large united nation — it was necessary to weld a number of regions together into a single economic unit. In today's context, the benefit of the federal parliament's economic policies from those days accrued to the central region — Ontario and Quebec. This concentration of industrial activity in the central provinces placed these provinces in a favourable position for raising revenues for the provision of essential services and for the development of their own economic policies, which they have not relinquished to this day.

Many joint federal-provincial conferences have considered but not actually dealt with the constitutional jurisdiction over federal spending power. The question is always how to meet the legitimate claims of the federal government over the control of the economy, the mobility of Canadians, and the equalization and alleviation of regional disparities, while still accommodating the equally legitimate claims of the provinces to maintain the character of their provincial societies. Not enough time has been spent on the constitutional distribution of taxing powers.

My argument is that it's far more important to properly divide control of the tax base between the federal and provincial governments. Under our constitution it appears that the provinces are vested with far greater responsibilities, especially in the social services sphere, than their financial resources can bear. Conversely, the federal parliament is vested with extensive fiscal resources and relatively narrow regulatory powers. We, as a country, are wrestling to this day over centralization of the taxation and spending powers, and that must stop.

Relating all this to the throne speech, I ask how our province can continue to provide excellent management of its affairs when at any time the federal government can throw a monkey wrench into the works. What Canada must have without further delay is a fair formula for fiscal management. The GST is not the way to beat the deficit. Without going into all the details, there is a better way. We have to determine what the acceptable accumulated debt level is for this country. We have to determine the annual requirement for carrying the cost of that debt. What is the acceptable debt-carrying cost? We have to specify the annual debt retirement requirement, to reduce the debt and the interest thereon to an acceptable level. We have to determine the maximum ability of the provinces to pay on a per capita basis or otherwise.

Before I move to my next comment, we all know that no matter how we handle it as Canadian taxpayers, we are going to pay and pay and pay for the federal deficit.

Interjection.

MR. MERCIER: I listen to the opposition speakers from time to time. They are the last people who know how to run an economy. They are the last people to learn how to deal with controlled spending, and in many cases they're the party that has prodded this country into the financial difficulties it has found itself in today.

MR. CLARK: Does this mean you're back in the fold now?

MR. MERCIER: I am back in the fold, and I'm proud to be back in the fold. In our party we have lots of room for people with energy, enthusiasm and different ideas; we're not all locked in step into doctrines that are 50 years old.

We have to set an annual base for the revenue required and allocate the load of this debt among the provinces. We can utilize both existing provincial and federal tax collection systems. We don't have to add 4,000 new federal employees to help us collect the tax. We have to incorporate a formula, however, that adjusts for transfer payments. That's a famous Canadian financial method— to have equalization payments everywhere from the Maritime provinces to the Canadian Football League. Everybody likes equalization payments in Canada.

By all means we must kill the GST. Can you imagine the hardship to the poor of the loss of the purchasing power by waiting on a monthly rebate system? What about the impact on the working poor who won't get a rebate?

Why is it necessary to find a better way than the GST to fight the deficit? As the Royal Bank shows in their recent newsletter, in the coming year they forecast that the interest rates will remain at current high levels, which reflects the Bank of Canada's concern about the inflationary impact of the goods and services tax. In the first quarter of 1991, they expect that the consumer price index inflation will jump up to the 7.5 percent to 8 percent range as a result of the tax. Can you imagine what that will do to people on low-income budgets? The extent to which all or part of this temporary jump becomes entrenched is a source of uncertainty. But I can guarantee you that politicians being what they are, there will be no uncertainty about the fact that the GST will rise and rise and rise.

Canada's fiscal problems are further compounded because a growing proportion of our debt is owed to foreigners — 30 percent of our federal bonds, 36 percent of provincial bonds and 50 percent of industrial bonds. That is the country's catch-22. The Bank of Canada governor John Crow's policy of high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar is strangling our economy. Foreign investors are unwilling to hold

[ Page 8941 ]

our currency unless we pay a huge interest rate premium, which in turn is aggravating Ottawa's deficit, debt and borrowing problems.

Our social safety net is the best in the world. But with a cumulative debt of $260 billion — $30 billion in payments going out annually — can we afford it, or are we in risk of losing some of the basic programs? The federal government has dilly-dallied over that question for the last five years.

I'd like to tie the Meech Lake resolution that we passed in this House in 1988 to the general sales tax, because I think we need a western formula. I think we need financial arrangements of Confederation, and they are far more important than language or cultural rights. The attack on the deficit is a national cause and requires a better national solution.

The funds that we're using to pay the annual debt interest, the accumulated deficit and the debt will come from our national economy. No matter how you slice it, it's going to come out of our economy. The formula for making those payments must be fair. The transfer payment system was, in effect, an inefficient and unfair transfer of wealth among provinces and disguised the true cost of subsidization of have-not provinces and of social programs. We now have to face the music. The allocation of income tax proceeds as it is now is arbitrary and was developed ad hoc over half a century.

The federal manufacturing tax is all the bad things it's accused of and never should have been, yet it's the foundation of the GST today. The proposal for the federal government general sales tax will effectively be just as bad and will definitely be a burden on the poor. It's an invisible tax and a deadly tax.

[4:00]

Dealing with Meech Lake, before I head into a conclusion.... In 1867 constitutional language rights and other special rights were granted to Quebec, especially in the areas of language and education Although my grandparents grew up in Quebec — or perhaps because of that — I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the meaning of distinct society. Quebec has been a significant beneficiary of transfer payments, yet Quebec has historically been a side-car of Confederation. Canada will only be Canada when all Canadians are, under our constitution, equal in every possible way.

I would like us to postpone dealing with debate on Meech Lake and the related amendments until all the financial programs can be renegotiated and the disparity of federal government spending comes closer to a per capita basis. Agreements on tax sharing are not new, such as refinancing the country after the Second World War and during post-war reconstruction. Most success was gained in reaching agreement in times of emergency, and I think we have a time of emergency. The world is going to pass us by unless we speed up the addressing of our fiscal responsibilities and weaknesses.

The questions that are a priority at our federal provincial conferences.... It amazes me that we can be talking about cultural issues when faced with the financial problems this country has. I note that provinces have in the past threatened separation to gain better financial arrangements with the federal government. I note that many of the provinces threatened to secede unless their subsidies were increased. Going back in history, you will find that this is true. But I also note that the central provinces have always had the preferred base for raising revenues, and this has to change. We've built our financial system in Canada on a crazy-quilt pattern. It has continued right up to current times — a patch here and a patch there — and that has to change.

It is indeed ironic that our country is actually strongly bound together by ambitious joint social security programs started after 1945, notwithstanding that in those times Quebec and Ontario refused to enter into some federal-provincial financial agreements. Politicians at the federal level took on more and more programs without provincial consent, and programs after 1945 centralized our federal government and our country as never before — and all that with little judicial support.

During conclusion in 1962 of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, all provinces accepted the federal proposal except Ontario and Quebec. In 1964 Quebec threatened to withdraw from fiscal program matters. In 1969 the conferences on taxes and spending determined to protect taxpayers against multiple taxation and supported federal equalization payments. All of this means that we should not be proceeding with the Meech Lake accord without dealing with the deficit, and also with a way of solving the deficit other than the GST.

There is a precedent for appealing to the Senate on a resolution that might have been passed by the federal Parliament. In the 1930s, so great were the pressures on the provinces that the federal government undertook to obtain an amendment to the constitution allowing them to impose an indirect sales tax. A resolution to that effect was in fact adopted, but it was defeated in the Senate.

In 1990 it is not the first time that the federal-provincial tug of war has arisen, but it must be the last, because the people of this country have had enough. They've had enough of free-spending politicians perpetuating too big a bureaucracy with the taxpayers' money.

All the way down from the first parliaments of the twelfth century, taxation has been a concern of parliament. We started our country with a population of about 3.5 million people. In 1990 we have over 27 million people. Surely we have to have a better financial and fiscal arrangement than was built in those earlier days.

Many inequities have been perpetuated by the power axis of the Quebec-Ontario coalition on the west and the Maritimes from early times right up to the present. If we don't deal with the deficit, Canada will be broke and discussion of Quebec's rights will be academic. The argument of how much help one province should give another has continued for the last 75 years. What we have to do is have a proper way to bake the pie, slice the pie and distribute the

[ Page 8942 ]

pie. I ask you, as politicians: have we yet exhausted our search for innovative ways to strip the taxpayers?

This leads me to say that in our province we are fortunate to have a government that is concerned about fiscal responsibility. There is room in this great country for all the cultural diversity. But our real strength in the eyes of the rest of the world today will be known by how we deal together to meet our financial crisis. This government and this province leads the way in financial management and delivery of the social programs that are required— and we want those programs to continue. It's important to note that Confederation will survive, that this unique country has unique opportunities, that equalization payments tie the country together, and that we're prepared to do our share to help the provinces that don't have all the natural resources and other benefits we have in this province. We have to adjust, as Canadians know how to adjust, to swings of opportunity and adversity in the various regions of our country.

In closing, I would state that I seek reconsideration of the June 29, 1988, motion of the House with respect to the Meech Lake constitutional amendments. I demand that a federal-provincial conference be held immediately to strike a fair formula for deficit reduction and that the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements become a specific and permanent part of our constitution. I am asking the support of my colleagues as a British Columbian, as a westerner and as a proud Canadian.

MR. CASHORE: It's good to see that my fan club is present in the House today, especially the government Whip.

It was interesting hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds going on about the GST. I know that there's going to be that debate later, but I just have to say that you people on the other side of the House were instrumental in trying to get those Tories elected. You're part and parcel of the same outfit, and you're standing here trying to convince people that all your wonderful protestations mean something. They don't ring of sincerity. The fact is that if you were in Ottawa, you'd be doing the same thing. Let's recognize that when you put forward something simply for political expediency, the public sees through it.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the throne speech, we're looking at that same type of an issue. When various perspectives are put forward for political expediency, the public sees through it. And nothing could be more true than the environmental aspect of the throne speech, which was surprisingly weak on environmental issues.

I don't know what the reason for that is. Everybody was predicting that it would be a green mandate and that it would be consistent with the scrambling that's going on the government's side to try to appear green. But they must be saving that part of their public relations campaign for some key point later on, and we'll look forward to the time when that comes.

However, just what is "Vision 2001"? It's vague. It doesn't contain details, and it talks about encouraging public consultation and framing environmental policy over the coming decade — ten years that we have to wait to find out what these people expect to be able to produce. Of course, we know that they're never going to have a chance to find that out, because they're not going to be in a position to even try to do that during the next decade.

The fact is that this government has really practiced using process as a means of governing. This government has tried to use public relations as a means of managing the environment. There's some kind of a belief that if you hold a press conference and if you make a statement, that's going to start to clean up land that's had toxic waste dumped on it, that somehow that's going to clean up the waters of Howe Sound or the waters around the Watson Island mill in Prince Rupert. There's some sort of a belief that all you have to do is say the words and everything will be okay.

But they're hollow words. The public knows that they're hollow words, because the public has had the opportunity to see the legacy of this government over several years now: the cumulative effect of environmental mismanagement, the cumulative effect of not taking the public seriously and not dealing with these issues, and the cumulative effect of a government that primarily seeks to support its friends in high places and see that they remain their friends in high places, while leaving the rest of the people — the taxpayers, the middle-income earners and the people who are victims of Socred mismanagement — to deal with the results of bad government.

When the government talks about setting up a process, consultation, they don't really believe in it. They don't really understand how to do it. It's not part of their operating philosophy. This government's operating philosophy is that you don't waste your time listening to what the public has to say; you go ahead and find out what's going to suit your interests. And this is how they've operated. That's the reason we are seeing so many conflicts in this province at this time.

Just look at some of the conflicts that have resulted from Socred mismanagement over the years. Just take a look at the ferrochromium plant fiasco, for instance. Here we have a situation where, because there has not been an appropriate review process, which should have been in place many years ago, we've had a proponent coming along and virtually indicating to community after community that if they didn't accept his plan and accept it pretty soon, he would take those jobs and that investment and go elsewhere.

The government did not come through to support the people of those communities at that time and to indicate to them that that approach and that attitude simply were not going to be allowed in this day and age.

Let's see where this floating crap game went, as this individual tried to place this ferrochromium plant. It went to Bamberton, and then the environ-

[ Page 8943 ]

mentalists in Bamberton realized that they were being sold a snow job. They started to bring their very good environmental work together and they made the point.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So what did he decide to do? He went to Nanaimo. Then, when the people in Nanaimo rose up and started to try to bring some kind of wisdom to this situation, he went to Campbell River. From there he went to Port Hardy. He's been learning a little bit as he has gone along the way. Who knows where else this may show up?

There are key questions that have to be answered in the process of developing any type of industry, any type of project in this province. We all want to see jobs created from environmentally responsible industry. But we don't want to see them if they're put in place without answers to the important questions: What is the water supply that this is going to use? What is going to be the result of the dumping of toxic effluent? And in the case of the ferrochromium plant, where's the raw material going to come from?

[4:15]

I understand that 90 percent of the world's supply of the raw material that goes into ferrochromium comes from South Africa. What sort of assurances will be given that the people of British Columbia will not be forced to deal with that racist regime? What assurances will there be that if the supply dries up in some other part of the world the government won't consider going after dealing with South Africa, as the Premier wanted to do during his first year, when he wanted to get into all sorts of weird and wonderful dealings with South Africa? I think the voters are appalled by the lack of democracy in South Africa and would be appalled at any type of process that would have truck with that.

What about the whole question of federal and provincial government grants going into projects like that? There's a great deal of leverage that can be used to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. We don't have to risk the environment for the sake of having jobs in the province, and we don't have to allow people to come in and ride roughshod over the people of this province. An appropriate process will bring harmony into the workplace. It will bring harmony into the communities that would be the locations where industries would take place. But it would be done in an appropriate manner. And if the appropriate answers are not being dealt with, then it should not be put in place.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) has come forward with a major project review process. I'm pleased to see that he has done that — I want to put that on the record. I am in the process of analyzing it, and the minister will be receiving my constructive comments, because I want to encourage everything I possibly can to see that that kind of process is in place and that it works. But the fact is that there really are some flaws in it. Those flaws are in the areas of lacking the kind of independence that's needed to make a process like that truly workable; lacking adequate opportunity for public input at the appropriate times during the development of a project; and lacking the assurance that construction will not begin until the major environmental questions are answered. All those things should be in place. Therefore it looks as though that review process is too little, too late. It looks as though it's being used again as a kind of window-dressing, as an attempt to indicate that the government is serious about the environment, when in actual fact it is trying to buy time and desperately trying to convince the electors, prior to the election soon to be upon us, that it really is green — and the voters aren't falling for it.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that there are areas of conflict in the province because the citizens of the province are really concerned about the way these projects are coming forward. I mentioned the ferrochromium plant, but there's also the whole issue of new pulp mills throughout the province. We hear it rumoured that there are at least ten new pulp mills coming on stream. Mr. Larry Bell of B.C. Hydro has talked about that in justifying the demand for additional hydro power. But the basic questions we need to be dealing with here in order to avoid what's been happening in Alberta are absolutely fundamental. Those questions have to deal with the effluent, with what's going to be happening to the rivers and oceans of the province, and also with the major question of where the wood supply is coming from. In answer to that question, I've heard: "Well, the wood supply would be aspen. And because aspen is not considered part of the annual allowable cut, then it's not really a tree, so we don't have to worry about it." There's a total disregard for the role of trees in carbon-fixing and dealing with problems of air pollution. It's ridiculous. We have to have the kind of procedures in effect that really do the job.

Another one, Mr. Speaker, is this very divisive issue of oil and gas drilling that's about to take place in the Fraser Valley. The fact is that the power exists to enable that process to go ahead notwithstanding what the minister said in the House today. I find it alarming that on the edge of Boundary Bay — the world-class wetlands that are so important to the migrating waterfowl which go all the way from Siberia down to Central and South America — we're taking a chance that there might be environmental damage, when there have been so many impacts in that area, where at a stroke of a pen, OICs have resulted in farmland suddenly being the basis of wild speculation and the loss of food production land in the province. Truly, when we look at situations like that, we realize that this government has a serious problem with its priorities.

What all this has led to is a state of environmental chaos in this province. I want to recognize that the Minister of Environment is not all to blame — not by a long shot. But he has to take responsibility, being the minister of this government. He therefore bears on his shoulders the responsibility and the blame, if you will, of the accumulated neglect that has resulted

[ Page 8944 ]

in causing so many environmental problems. So we have this situation where he's scrambling to catch up. I think it's rather sad that the Minister of Environment has been reduced to this major project since becoming the minister, spending — at a conservative estimate — half a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to hoodwink the voters into thinking that they should be re-elected, that he should be re-elected, because somehow there's the expectation that he's doing a good job.

MR. PETERSON: You be nice. He's doing a really good job. You know that.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my friend says he's doing a good job, but why does he have to spend half a million dollars to tell the people — the householders in my constituency and others — that he's doing a good job? Wouldn't his actions speak louder than words? If he was doing a good job, would he have to send something like this out to every household in the province and force the taxpayers to pay for it themselves?

MR. PETERSON: I've got nothing but good comments on that.

MR. CASHORE: That's incredible. It cannot be justified, that people are being forced to pay for the Social Credit advertising that's going out there simply and crassly to try to re-elect this government. That's very inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, and it diminishes government when that sort of approach is used. The voters see through it.

You mentioned that there have been calls to your office. I can tell you, Mr. Government Whip, that there have been lots of calls to my office as well, and people are disgusted with that.

Within the throne speech — just to tell you how vacant it is of solid environmental policy — there is nothing on dealing with waste management other than a mention of some kind of toxic waste agency, which I think is leading to yet another technofix which isn't really going to deal with the problem. There's nothing dealing substantively with tanker problems in the province. There is nothing to deal with protecting whistle-blowers, who are almost always the people who report illegal spills at pulp mills. There's nothing there to protect those workers, who do have the right to work in a safe environment and should not be forced to compromise themselves by participating in damaging the environment. This government should protect those workers instead of dumping on them as well as everybody else.

There's no mention in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, of a recycling agency in this province so that we can close the loop when it comes to the recycling of waste. There's nothing on environmentally sensitive spending by government and Crown corporations to make sure that there are environmentally appropriate products being used, and there is nothing to deal with the urban forest. There's nothing to ensure that an appropriate forest inventory takes place.

There's nothing to deal with the Brundtland report recommendation that 12 percent of the land base be preserved as parkland. I would remind this government that it has stated it believes in the Brundtland report. It says that but doesn't act on it, and that's appalling. That's the kind of thing which creates the divisiveness that's existing, setting community against community and person against person in this province.

There is nothing about dealing with the appalling shortage of conservation officers in this province. We all know that we went through that fiasco last year when it appeared that the government was increasing the conservation officer service by about 38, but in the final analysis, when you realize that some of them are actually clerical workers, the number is actually nine. Victoria went for so many months without a conservation officer, and when one finally came to this area just recently, that individual was pulled out of Duncan. So we find that we are dealing with a shell game here. We are not dealing with environmental protection.

There was nothing on spills. I would point out that there was nothing to ensure there would be 24-hour monitoring of spills. I notice that after the fact, the minister is scrambling to deal with the situation at Woodfibre. Those policies and procedures should be in place prior to these events occurring so that it can be ensured they don't happen.

There's nothing to ban the dumping of toxic waste which is going on in this province, in the oceans nearby. There's nothing about phasing out apartment and commercial incinerators which contribute to the air problem, and there is really nothing about returning the testing of motor vehicles to testing stations so that we could be dealing with questions of safety of automobiles and safety of the environment in such a way.

There's nothing on the urban future of this province, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) so eloquently stated in her speech a few moments ago.

There's nothing on the subject of land use planning, in which my colleague the member for Cariboo has a great background, and in which he's providing excellent leadership up in his area to develop new and effective ways of involving the people of this province in land use planning.

There's nothing about the cleanup of toxic lands — the Expo lands. The people in the downtown east side who make use of Crab Beach park — it's just a small park that's available to the low-income people of the downtown east side — have been asking the Minister of Environment for an analysis of the soils at Crab Beach park, so they can be assured that those soils are safe, that they are not toxic and a danger to their children and others who would be making use of that park.

Their very simple request for that kind of information has not been denied; in fact, it has been ignored.

[ Page 8945 ]

That is not appropriate. A government can be judged by the way it treats those people who have the least wealth, those people who are the most in need, and often we find that such is the situation with the people in the downtown east side.

There's nothing in the way of a freedom of information act to provide the information that is so needed, so that environmentalists and others can bring their concerns if there's a development or a project or whatever. Instead, they have a great deal of difficulty finding the information they need in order to bring their submissions to government.

As a matter of fact, I have a letter here from Neil Aitken of Gabriola Island, who wrote and asked if he might have the transcripts of the forest task force the Minister of Forests had that went around and received briefs over a year ago. That was refused, so he was not able to prepare a submission. I wrote to the Minister of Forests and asked if maybe these documents could be made available in the local library, and there was not even a reply; there was no response. Again, one of the people who is trying to be part of the solution to the problems we have in this province was ignored and treated as though he didn't count, as though he didn't exist, when all he wanted to do as an intervener was to participate by bringing his wisdom, intellect and research to help develop solutions.

[4:30]

There's nothing about the protection of agricultural land, which is so important in the wake of the erosion of the protection of agricultural land that has recently taken place in this province. I would say to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) that I respect his parents, and I would expect him to respect mine. But the business of this House is not to tell stories of the past to somehow justify misadventures of the future. We expect the minister to be responsible for his actions and not to appeal to some sentimental feeling on the part of the members of this House to let him off the hook. That's inappropriate. He has to answer for his actions, and he need not hide behind his parents in doing so.

I'm glad to see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is in the House. He has just made his announcement about the Carmanah. I have to ask what were they waiting for? What took them so long to finally come out with some kind of decision, especially when it was such an inadequate one, especially when this minister promised the Western Canada Wilderness Committee that he would make available the information upon which the decision was to be based? As of three days ago, they were telling me they still had not received that information. Mr. Minister, if you can correct me on that, I would certainly appreciate standing to be corrected. The fact is that my understanding, as reported in the press, was that the Western Canada Wilderness Committee was promised by this minister the information used in making that decision.

What have we got here? We have the same old nonsense of this going into the back room, into the boardroom, behind closed doors, where the people of this government, based on what they hear from their friends, are going to draw a line across the map and decide on that basis, and the public be damned. They're going behind closed doors when they really need to come out of the wilderness into the openness and involve the people of this province, so they're not setting working people against environmentalists, but so it is a process that could work.

While we're speaking of it, now that the Minister of Forests is here, why didn't he use that opportunity to protect 12 percent of the land base of the province, as this government promised to do when it accepted the Brundtland commission report? Why haven't those things been done? What we have with this government is one that is so hungry for power it is willing to do anything it possibly can to gain that power.

We saw the situation a few months ago when a great deal of dissension within this caucus was apparent. We had the Gang of Four. We had those four who were going to go away and start another party because they condemned their leader and had decided it was over as far as the leader of the party was concerned.

It reminds me of the time the Premier referred to crazed chickens. It seems to me what we've got here is a situation where the chickens have come home to roost. First of all, we have the gang of four chickens that came home to roost. You've heard about Chicken Little. Chicken Little went around saying: "The sky is falling." For the Socreds, what those four Chicken Littles have been saying is that the political sky is falling. It has nothing to do with the environment. Their political sky is falling, and they went running around saying: "The sky is falling."

The only thing is that nobody followed them. They thought they had this wonderful new movement and that one from their midst would be the new Premier, and that from their midst would come cabinet ministers. It didn't work, so the chickens came home to roost. I would call that chicken Kiev. The reason I call that chicken Kiev is that obviously they're trying to effect glasnost and perestroika within the Social Credit Party.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I have exhibit A over here — chicken Kiev.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't accept the NDP invitation, did we?

MR. CASHORE: One thing is for sure: there was no NDP invitation. The NDP has standards.

There was the chicken who flew the coop. Usually when I speak, he's in here heckling me, but he isn't in here today. That chicken is the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Fraser). He's the chicken who flew the coop.

Remember when the Whip of this House got quite upset on television two and a half years ago because that member had gone; nobody knew where. He was

[ Page 8946 ]

mad about statements the Premier had been making, and he took off. He didn't even tell the Social Credit Whip; he just took off. That was the chicken who flew the coop.

Isn't it interesting that this Premier has run so thin in terms of back-bench talent for ministers that he appointed that minister to be Solicitor-General. Now he's in charge of the coop; he's in charge of all the jails in the province.

When these chickens came home to roost, they did so without getting one concession from the Premier. It was just their desire to have raw, naked power. As a matter of fact, my one friend over here, chicken Kiev, actually said that the only reason to go back was that that was the only way he could be re-elected, and it was reported in the press. He said nothing about values, nothing about what he believes in, nothing about anything that has to do with public policy and winning a vision in the hearts and minds of people. It was the only way he could get re-elected.

The fact is that the chickens that came home to roost and the chicken that flew the coop.... By the way, I admire one chicken over there who is leaving. He's going out to find a new chicken coop, and I respect him for that because I think he stands head and shoulders above the rest of the members of that government. The fact is they have no concessions, and the reason they don't is because the leopard — the leopard being the Premier — can't change his spots.

With that delightful opportunity to mix metaphors, I rest my case.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the speaker just prior to starting that the House has previously agreed that at 1700 hours we will adjourn the debate on the reply to the Speech from the Throne to go into another matter, so his remarks may be interrupted today and he may have an opportunity to speak tomorrow. Please proceed.

MR. VANT: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your designation and election as Speaker of this House. You even survived the first day when that somewhat cheeky second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said you were wrong.

Also, congratulations to the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his re-election as Deputy Speaker.

I would be remiss if I did not welcome both the new second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull). I can't help but think that the new second member for Cariboo is thinking to himself: "Gee, this isn't exactly like those school board meetings back home."

We build on foundations — solid foundations laid in the past. For sure this House and this province will miss Jim Chabot, who for 23 years was the member for Columbia River. Certainly we will miss Alex Fraser, who for 20 years was the member for Cariboo. Both were good Social Credit members. They were both re-elected in 1972 and carried the torch for free enterprise through those 1,200 dark days and dark nights of socialist rule — as Alex would have said, "the days of Nimsick-itis," when the mining industry suffered horrendously under the super royalty, when over 100 men were laid off at Gibraltar Mines, just north of Williams Lake; we saw government-owned — probably left-wing — chicken factories, and we saw government-owned polluting pulp mills.

Indeed, after hearing the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) talking about pulp mill pollution, what did the socialist NDP do with that pulp mill they had on Watson Island near Port Edward? I know from first-hand experience. In my trade as a boilermaker, I worked in that pulp mill, and it had to stand out as one of the filthiest in the entire province.

Yes, Alex Fraser survived those socialist times and went on to contribute many lasting and very useful components to our transportation systems in this province on land and sea.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition's response to the Speech from the Throne. I thought it would offer at least some glimmer of inspiration. All I've heard are old clichés like: "Time for a change." Yes, after the next general election I'm sure that the members in the socialist corner of the House will be clamouring for change: they'll be wanting to change their leader.

He mentioned a few things they would do that have already been done. He said that this government had no value-added plans when it comes to forestry. What nonsense! No wonder his own members just sat on their hands during his speech. He spoke not of policy or projects but of a mere process of further study and more planning. He spoke of superficial things like televising the debates in this House. I am sure that after seeing the opening show, the opening day of the Legislature, the people have seen enough for a while.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this government, proud of this throne speech. It offers significant action on several fronts. It offers a balance in economic growth and care and concern for the environment. The establishment of the Round Table on Environment and Economy by this government is concrete evidence of the Premier's and the government's sincerity. Indeed, I'm proud that one of my constituents, David Ainsworth, of 100 Mile House, is a member of that important round table.

Let's remember too that....

MR. REID: Is he a friend?

MR. VANT: A supporter. Yes, we have lots of supporters. That's why we're on this side of the House and they're on that side of the House.

I'd like to remind every member of this House that it was a Social Credit government that founded the first Ministry of Environment back in 1976. Just this past year we substantially increased the budget. We brought in new enforcement legislation and increased penalties. The current minister has been very aggressive about the government's role in protecting our environment.

[ Page 8947 ]

In the Cariboo we need a conservation officer at Anahim Lake to cut down on all the poaching in the Chilcotin. Another thing we need is a wolf kill program in the Quesnel highlands, what I refer to as the Little Snowshoe plateau, to protect the caribou calves. I'll let the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) keep her elk for the time being, but we in the Cariboo need to protect our depleting caribou herds.

For sure, mining has been a very important part of the Cariboo economy for over 130 years now. The throne speech refers to a mine development review act and a mine development process that has been in place for over ten years. Mines certainly come and go; they develop and they close. It was sad in 1984 when the mine at Boss Mountain, east of 100 Mile House, closed, but Noranda and Mr. Garth Lee, the manager, are to be commended for their careful and environmentally sound reclamation work since the mine closed. Included in their plans is to carefully handle and store eight old transformers and some 20 barrels of PCB-contaminated material in a Ministry of Environment–approved storage facility in a secure site—  until, of course, these toxic items can be disposed of. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are not going into the toxic waste depot business.

[4:45]

This throne speech very properly at this time speaks of legislation creating a hazardous waste management corporation to develop, with the private sector, facilities for the safe handling and disposal of dangerous toxic wastes.

Tourism is very important to the Cariboo, and I'm pleased to say it is growing in the Cariboo. I will admit that many roads go through the great constituency of Yale-Lillooet, some 3,155 kilometres, but most of those roads lead to the Cariboo, where we have no less than 7,385 kilometres of public roads. Yes, the Coquihalla leading to the Yellowhead and eventually to Highway 24 out of Little Fort leads to the Cariboo Then there's the Gold Rush Trail through the Fraser Canyon and on to Highway 97 at Cache Creek, and of course that too goes on to the Cariboo. But also there is the Duffey Lake Road that connects Lillooet and Pemberton, which is another route from the coast to the interior. Following Highway 12 from Lillooet, it connects with Highway 97 just north of Cache Creek.

For sure, once the travelling public reach the Cariboo, there are many scenic circle routes available. They're available in the Green Lake–Watch Lake area and in the Kelly Lake–Jesmond–Big Bar–Clinton area

In the Chilcotin, there are several circle routes. One is through the beautiful, scenic Farwell Canyon. Looking eastward, there's the Mathew River road which connects Likely to Barkerville. Some people in the western part of the constituency see a need for a road to connect Anahim. Lake, which is on Highway 20, with Highway 16 in the Vanderhoof area. Some want the Goat River Road pushed through to connect Barkerville and the Bowron Lake area with McBride. For sure, two- and three-day packages can be put together to encourage the tourist to stay and never have to backtrack, thanks to this government's road building and improvement initiatives.

In the Cariboo, we have many beautiful parks such as Tweedsmuir Park, Bowron Lake Park — that chain of lakes — and Wells Gray Park, to mention just a few. This government recently added, as the throne speech mentioned, no less than 216,000 hectares to our parks. My colleague the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts), was largely responsible for that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm a little concerned, though, that the socialist NDP have said – and I believe their leader said just the other day – that they would double the parks throughout the province. Well, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that would be somewhat of a disaster in the Cariboo, because already no less than one third of our highly productive forest land in the Cariboo forest region is now in those parks that I have mentioned. We certainly need some forest left for integrated use and for sustained, long-term yield. I say that very emphatically because no less than 70 percent of the Cariboo's economy is still, directly or indirectly, based on our forest industry.

For sure, as we look to the future, we need to increase the value of our products per cubic metre harvested. We also need, of course, FRDA II. The forest resource development agreement just completed, that continued from 1985 to the present, contributed a lot to our Cariboo forest region. No less than 13.9 million seedlings were planted; 96,000 days of employment were created; 11,033 hectares received necessary brushing and spacing; 3,949 hectares were fertilized and 10,478 hectares were planted. That had great benefit to our Cariboo forest. So I do hope that in the very near future our Minister of Forests will be successful in renewing that very necessary FRDA II agreement with the federal government.

I was very pleased too, Mr. Speaker, that the throne speech mentioned that the small business forest enterprise program would be improved and expanded. Recently, I was very pleased that there was a small business forest enterprise program timber sale in the 100 Mile House area amounting to 150,000 metres to the Cariboo Log Builders' Association. This is definitely a value-added industry, currently employing over 103 people, and with this new licence, it will create 21 more jobs. It will allow for the increase in production of log home packages in 100 Mile House, which are exported to countries like West Germany, Japan, Korea and the United States.

This government cares. You know, when the socialists were in power, they took timber away from the little guy — the small mill owner. That first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) took away timber quotas from little outfits like Timothy Mountain Lumber Co. Ltd. You know something, Mr. Speaker? The owner couldn't even see the then Minister of Forests. They talk over there about open government. Indeed, the member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) just said something about things happening behind closed doors. My constitu-

[ Page 8948 ]

ent found at that time that the Minister of Forests' door was closed. Perhaps he was too busy getting another typewriter or spending all kinds of money refurbishing his office; I don't know. But we do know that when they're in power the door is often closed.

This government is restoring and, thanks to this throne speech, expanding the small business forest enterprise program. Yes, they are small quotas, but with value-added conditions. I'd also like to see a restoration of small direct sales to harvest small blowdowns, to ensure that there is no timber out there in our forests going to waste. This would ease the harvesting of small disease-infected stands or some select overmature stands. Yes, I would even admit there are places suitable for horse logging. Indeed, I've had discussions in that regard with constituents such as Lorne Dufour and Doug Gook.

This throne speech very properly mentions regional development. It mentions in that regard ongoing communication and consultation. You know something, Mr. Speaker? Lately even the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and the new second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) came to regional development meetings. I am amazed, because we heard in this House for month after month criticism of our ministers of state and the regional development process. Now they are becoming a part of it.

This government, through its regional development initiatives, spent money on waste-wood studies. This has led to important information being available so that for the very first time in this province a major co-generation project, generation of electricity from wood waste, is possible, creating jobs and providing a solution to a long-term environmental problem — providing jobs, providing energy and cleaning up the air in the Williams Lake valley. Recently I was so happy to witness that agreement between B.C. Hydro and NW Energy.

Also, with the identification of the amount of wood waste, it made possible a fibreboard plant at Williams Lake. This, of course, is still subject to the signing and sealing of PA 19, which will not be signed and sealed until all the very legitimate concerns have been addressed in light of the public hearings that were held in Williams Lake and Anahim Lake. This PA 19 is the key to no less than $170 million worth of capital investment in that fibreboard plant. It will create no less than 695 direct, indirect and induced jobs. Out of all that wood waste will be created no less than $91 million a year worth of value-added product. Who on earth could criticize that, which emanated from this government's vision to have regional development in each and every corner of our great province?

Also out of that grew the task force report for a northern university. Even the member for Prince George North, after moving her private member's bill today, wants to get on that northern university bandwagon. But you know something, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not leaders; they're followers.

MR. VANT: That's correct: they're followers.

Mr. Speaker, the original vision for a northern university was first spoken of by our first leader, the great leader W.A.C. Bennett, who had a vision for development in the north. That also included a northern university. It was Social Credit, after all, that founded all of the junior colleges, that founded Simon Fraser University, that founded the University of Victoria. But it's great that this throne speech puts some substance in that vision by announcing that in this session we will indeed pass a university of northern British Columbia act. What a contrast to those 1,200 dark days and dark nights of socialist rule when there was this minister without — the member for Prince George at the time, Mr. Nunweiler — who spent no less than $500,000 on one big, fancy office in Prince George. That was the socialists' idea of northern development, and I can't find anything in the records to show that the office of that minister without amounted to anything in northern British Columbia.

[5:00]

What a contrast to what I've just said about our regional development thrust in just the last couple of years. And now with Access for All, we have degree-granting colleges such as Cariboo College, Malaspina College and Okanagan College, which will offer degree-granting programs.

I will have the opportunity to continue at the next regular sitting of the House, so I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, as you will recall from an agreement reached previously today, we have assigned the final hour of the day's deliberations to debating the GST. It has also been agreed that the speech time for each person will be 15 minutes. We will begin with the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. ROSE: A slight point of order. When we debate motions or resolutions, we usually see a copy of them. We don't know anything about the motion and won't know until the member gives it, and I think it would be a courtesy to this side of the House if we could have a copy of the motion.

Motions Without Notice

PROPOSED FEDERAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy that leave has been given to suspend the rules that you are duty-bound to uphold, in order to allow this debate. Accordingly I move, seconded by the first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier): "Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the proposed federal goods and services tax and urges the government of Canada

[ Page 8949 ]

to immediately withdraw the GST legislation in the interest of all Canadians."

I want to begin my comments on this motion by saying that there are many ways that this question can be resolved in Ottawa. One would be for the House to turn it down and, of course, that has not happened. The other would be when it goes to the Senate, to have the Senate turn it down. But this debate is important, because it says to the Canadian public and to our fellow British Columbians that we in this House are wishing to have our clear decision, our clear comments, made on the GST, which has been presented by the federal administration — probably the most unfair tax and surely the most burdensome tax to have come forward to the Canadian people since the income tax was brought in 1917.

I'm sure there aren't many who would not agree that this tax is going to place an unfair burden on consumers across this nation, a burden that was formerly carried by the business community and one which the small consumer cannot carry.

British Columbians have paid their way. We have paid our way in Confederation. We have given our fair share, and sometimes we think we've given more than our fair share. British Columbia has kept its fiscal house in order. No other jurisdiction in Canada has been able to match our record of growth while controlling expenditures. Therefore it's particularly galling to have the freewheeling, free-spending federal administration — both this government and preceding federal governments — with their insatiable appetite for more money, more expenditures, telling us that they need even more money through taxation, through the GST. One has to wonder. Do they need more money for paintings for the National Gallery?

You know, when we first heard about the GST, our Premier spoke to the federal administration and told them that a better way to present a new tax regime to the people of Canada would be to do so after they cut unnecessary expenditures in the federal administration. Our Premier told the federal administration to live within their means. Mr. Speaker, can I tell you that today, since I first presented this motion to the House, we have spent $113 million just on servicing the national debt, just in interest? One hundred and thirteen million dollars has been spent today by the federal government.

When they first suggested the GST, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) went to meeting after meeting in Ottawa. The Ministers of Finance met and tried to bring some sense to the federal administration, and said over and over again that this was the kind of onerous tax the Canadian people and British Columbians could not tolerate. The record is clear that both the Premier and the Minister of Finance have given the message to an unhearing federal administration.

I wonder when is enough. When are we going to say enough is enough to the federal government? How long will British Columbians, who have long been fiscally responsible, tolerate the kind of expenditures we have seen?

I want to say that we are here today to try to save Ottawa from making a great mistake. Do you know that even Ottawa recognizes that this tax is going to be inflationary? Even the federal Minister of Finance tells us that this is going to be one of the greatest inflationary taxes we've ever seen. This in a year when we in this province are looking forward to a buoyant economy, but when the rest of the nation is saying that we are going to have difficulties in the year ahead. When every economist in the country is saying that we are going to have problems, the federal government gives us more. This is an inflationary tax.

British Columbians are fair people, and when the federal administration calls on us for more money.... I think British Columbians, if they knew it was fair, certainly would abide — although probably not gladly — by the decision of our federal masters. Surely they would say: "Well, we asked for some of these services; we have to pay for them." I think that's fair, but we have been paying dearly for the services.

Our tax administration in this country is not a reasonable one. Had the people in Canada been asked to reduce the debt through the tax, which was the way it was introduced a very long time ago by the federal administration.... Had they truly been going to reduce the deficit, I think that even in that case we would have said: "Well, we're going to get away from this incredible debt. We're going to reduce that debt which was handed to us, that national debt which is now $380 billion, costing us $113 million a day to service, $41.1 billion annually just to service...." Had we even been asked to give to the GST to reduce the deficit, I think that perhaps Canadians would have said: "Well, we've spent the money. It's in the deficit." But no, Mr. Speaker. We find out now that it is only for more services, which the federal government deem will keep them in power longer.

I have to tell you this: I don't believe it will stay at 7 percent. I believe that, as in every other jurisdiction in the world, jurisdiction after jurisdiction — and particularly with this federal government — this tax will increase to again satisfy the insatiable appetite of the federal Treasury Board.

The collection process which has been explained by Ottawa will mean that every small business in this province and across this nation will be encumbered by extra bookkeeping costs and added hours. It may not seem important to people who figure out these kinds of things in the bureaucracy, to the federal politicians who are out on the hustings trying to sell the GST and to Mr. Wilson in the federal administration, but I can tell you that it is an onerous thing for a small business to have to purchase equipment — and many will have to purchase different cash registers just to deal with this tax. Do you realize that every small business across this nation, every British Columbian in a small business, which represents more than 95 percent of all the business in this province — the greatest employer in our province and across this nation is small business — will now have to be

[ Page 8950 ]

encumbered by the costs of what we are told will be hundreds and hundreds of tax collectors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Thousands.

MRS. McCARTHY: Thousands and thousands. It's a bureaucracy that will grow and grow and again consume more of our people's dollars.

The throne speech has called the GST unnecessary, and so it is. Business groups have said that the increase in the large corporation's tax rate comes at a very bad time. "One of the things that has been sustaining our economy is business investment, and this tax increase effects that to the tune of $200 million," said Tim Reid, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "By increasing taxes to pay for the lower GST rate, the government is taking its hand out of one of our pockets to put it in another." We're tired of having the heavy hand of government in the pockets of our small business people, in the pockets of our consumers, in the pockets of our householders and in the pockets of the senior citizens who need to have security for the future.

[5:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The repackaging of the GST has taken place in the last few months. They've taken it from 9 percent to 7 percent and thought the Canadian people would buy it. I think that's one of the saddest commentaries, that we should even consider that we should be bought off by 2 percent.

I do have a solution. I do believe that Canadians and British Columbians would accept a line on the income tax form which addressed reduction in the deficit being carried by the federal administration. I think we would do our part. I think a line on the income tax form — no more bureaucracy, no added inspectors — that said 2 percent, or whatever it would take, on an annual basis would be our contribution to pay for that which we have enjoyed in the past and which we are paying incredible interest rates on today.

I would suggest that if we did that, it could be a solution. It would have to be allocated to the national debt. This GST is going to add to our national debt, and we will not get out of the mire of indebtedness for our children and our grandchildren for years and years to come. If our members in this House and our families ever see the end of the national debt, it would be a great surprise going with this kind of fiscal policy. It can't happen, because they spend faster than they collect and the interest rate adds up to a mountain of debt.

I am pleased to move this motion. I would hope that together in this House, in a spirit of cooperation for the good of the people of British Columbia, we can give a message to the House of Commons and to the Senate in Ottawa and to the federal administration that we do not want the GST.

MR. CLARK: I am pleased to rise to support the motion put forward by the government side. Unfortunately, the House of Commons passed the GST motion. It was implemented, essentially, a few hours ago. Where was the government for the last three years fighting the GST? Where were the emergency debates in the House? Where were the motions in the House to fight the GST so we could go on record as opposing the GST when it mattered, not when it's safely passed in the House of Commons? On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we have consistently and aggressively opposed the GST. It's regressive. It's an odious tax. We have raised it repeatedly.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I'll talk about the record in a minute. The New Democrat Members of Parliament have led the fight in Ottawa against the GST. In particular, a debt is owed to a former Premier of British Columbia, Dave Barrett, who fought for hours against the kind of tactics we've seen by the Tories in Ottawa to impose this on British Columbians. But they stood alone. No members of the government appeared before the federal Finance Committee to register their opposition, unlike other governments in Canada. We haven't seen any leadership against the GST from Socred members.

Three years ago, when the GST was first contemplated, the federal Tories talked about a sales tax on food. I put a motion on the order paper that this government join with the opposition to oppose a sales tax on food. It was never called by the government.

So we raised it in question period, and this side of the House asked the Premier, on the record — and we can get the Hansard — to oppose the federal government's attempts to put a tax on food. The government chose not to support the opposition's motion; they chose to stay neutral on the question of taxing food. We asked that three years ago, and we heard no support from the government; we heard silence on that question. Even though, when we raised it, all parties in Nova Scotia had moved a similar motion and adopted it. All parties in Alberta had moved a motion and adopted it. In this House, we couldn't get this administration and this Premier to go on record opposing the tax on food.

Why, Mr. Speaker, did they not fight the GST when it was first introduced instead of now, belatedly, after it's passed in the House of Commons? Because they secretly support it. The Tories in Ottawa are pursuing the same right-wing agenda that we have seen under Social Credit for years: higher taxes on working people, higher taxes on seniors, higher taxes on the poor and tax cuts for the rich and for corporations.

Under Social Credit, medicare premiums have been doubled; 600 fees have been increased, many over 100 percent; licences and permits have been increased under Social Credit, under this administration. We have seen Pharmacare user fees of $5 for senior citizens in British Columbia. We have seen income taxes increased in British Columbia. We have seen small business taxes increase under this admin-

[ Page 8951 ]

istration. And now they claim that they are opposed to the GST for doing precisely that.

At the same time, under this Social Credit administration we have seen corporate income taxes cut to among the lowest in Canada. We have seen the high-income surtax that Bill Bennett brought in eliminated in the first budget under this administration, at a cost to the treasury of over $30 million — tax cuts for the richest citizens of British Columbia under Social Credit and tax increases for everyone else; tax cuts for large corporations and tax increases for small business.

This government's philosophy is very clear. They believe the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much. It's exactly the same agenda we see under the Tories in Ottawa. And the GST fits with this agenda. But they know it's not popular, so they stand and say they are opposed. But their actions belie their true intentions. The Minister of Finance suggested that if the federal government dropped the GST to 5 percent, then the provinces would agree to a joint 10 percent GST. He said that; it's quoted. It's on the record: a 10 percent GST would be acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, it's like the old joke and I won't repeat it. It's not the principle of the tax they're opposed to; they're just dickering over the price. They agreed to a 10 percent GST. We heard it from the Finance minister.

Then the Minister of Finance stated on March 7, 1990: "Negotiations are underway with the federal government aimed at setting up a system of sharing expertise to collect the GST." They're now negotiating, Mr. Speaker; they're discussing with the federal government how best to implement the GST. That shows their true colours. They're not opposed to this tax. They're opposed publicly, but they have senior staff members meeting with senior members of the Tory government on how best to implement it. They're negotiating to implement the GST.

On March 26 in the House of Commons, the Hon. Michael Wilson states: "The facts are that we are meeting with the provinces. Those meetings have been taking place quite recently. In fact, there was a meeting with the provinces to discuss the GST as recently as last Friday." That was in answer to a question about whether they were meeting to discuss the implementation of the GST.

I checked, and senior officials from the British Columbia government met on March 23 to discuss the implementation of the GST with the federal government. That shows you their true colours. The province is cooperating. They should not be cooperating with the federal government through their staff levels or their political levels to implement the GST. They should refuse to meet on any level with the federal government on the implementation of the GST. They are in complicity.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make another point that demonstrates another reason why the government really isn't opposing the GST the way they could if they showed some leadership on this question. The province stands to make a windfall profit that people don't realize, because the current 6 percent retail sales tax by the provincial government will be applied on top of the 7 percent GST imposed by the Tories. In other words, the provincial government stands to gain 7 percent more revenue from their social services tax. On $1.852 billion in revenue, that means the province stands to gain $130 million in provincial revenue and windfall profits from the implementation of the GST.

No wonder they're silent on this issue, unless and until it becomes a political issue and they know they have to come out against it. That's why they haven't committed themselves to fighting the GST and why they haven't refused to cooperate. If they were serious, they would not only not cooperate, but they would tell British Columbians that the $130 million they're piggybacking on and that they're going to collect on top of the GST will be immediately returned to them in the form of a tax credit — a tax cut — so they don't profit from this regressive and odious tax.

I want to talk for just a minute about the tax because it falls disproportionately on those who can least afford it. It particularly hits women. It hits the poor disproportionately, as most Tory and Socred taxes have done over the last few years. Women represent 60 percent of the poor in this country. The largest proportion of poor people in British Columbia are single women with children. That is true in every province, none more so than British Columbia. We have seen that time and time again. That is who it is going to hit the hardest.

In addition, the other area of the economy that will be hit the hardest — and all economists agree — is the low-wage service sector. Again, it's an area in which women unfortunately predominate in terms of that job ghetto in British Columbia. Again, when the service sector is hit hardest under the GST, it means that it hits hardest on women in British Columbia.

I want to talk briefly about some facts with respect to the GST that show the GST is not necessary, and that we can have fair taxes and a balanced budget in British Columbia and in Canada. If the amount of direct taxes paid by corporations had increased proportionately to the increase in direct taxes paid by individuals between 1950 and 1988, corporations would have paid $63.4 billion in taxes in 1988. Thanks to the shift in the tax burden under Liberal, Tory and Socred administrations, we saw corporations pay only $11.4 billion in direct taxes last year. In other words, if corporations paid the same in proportionate terms as individuals, the federal government would have $52 billion more in revenue. If they had been forced to pay that $52 billion, the federal government would have run a surplus of $31.5 billion instead of a deficit. If they'd paid the same proportion as they paid in 1950, there would be a surplus in British Columbia, a surplus in every province and a surplus in Canada. Instead, in Canada and British Columbia we have among the lowest corporate income taxes in the world. The highest corporate income taxes are in Japan and West Germany, the two most successful economies.

[ Page 8952 ]

Government expenditures over the period '50-88 increased 55 times, but taxes paid by individuals increased 74.8 times. Corporation taxes increased only 13 times. In other words, it's not government spending that has fuelled the deficit; it is the government's refusal to tax corporations at the same rate they tax individuals.

It is a deliberate ideological agenda by Conservative governments in Ottawa and by Social Credit governments in British Columbia that has shifted the tax burden dramatically away from the rich, away from corporations and onto the backs of everyone else. The GST fits with that agenda, and that's why they haven't been as aggressive against it as we have.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I too of course oppose the GST, as do all members on this side certainly, and I expect similarly so on the other side.

Perhaps I should begin by responding to the charge that possibly no more can be done. The NDP takes the view that it's all lost in any event. I too am pessimistic, but I would remind all members of the House and the people of our province that if we had a proper and reformed Senate, we would still have a further chance.

[5:30]

I can't help but remind the member who spoke just before me that his party has consistently come out against the Senate. Only recently there was a speech by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) saying that he would, as his party would, abolish the Senate. If we have no Senate, then all the decisions will be made in the Commons, which, as we know, is very much weighted towards Quebec and Ontario. There wouldn't be a hope at all for western Canada and particularly British Columbia. So if we want to talk about protecting British Columbians, the NDP should reconsider its position that we must abolish the Senate. It is the safety valve. It could be the safety valve today on the GST proposal.

I'd like to go over some dates, because the member who spoke before me is obviously not aware that this proposal by the federal government was first made in 1986. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance in 1986 — before me and before the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — went to Ottawa to oppose what was then called a business transfer tax. Again, on October 31, 1986, we made representation in Edmonton to the ministers there assembled, opposing the GST or, as it was still called then, the business transfer tax.

On June 15, 1987, in Ottawa, the options were put forth by the federal government: a federal-only value-added tax, a joint federal-provincial value-added tax and a federal-only business transfer tax. We opposed it in June 1987. On December 10, 1987, in Ottawa, there was a general discussion on the national sales tax. We again opposed the GST in December 1987. On March 9, 1989, there was a general discussion on the national sales tax, again in Ottawa. A federal paper was presented. British Columbia again opposed the GST. On December 7, 1989, at a further conference in Ottawa, we again opposed the GST. On March 27, 1990, at a meeting in Ottawa to discuss all the implications of this, again we opposed the GST.

I have with me a press release from the Ministry of Finance dated August 25, 1989: "...very concerned about the inflationary impacts...." We again opposed the GST. On October 17, '89, our Minister of Finance presented, with others, a paper to the first ministers and outlined the negative impact of the GST and urged us as a body of first ministers to oppose the GST. At the first ministers' conference, November 9, 1989, the only speech of all those presented by the Premiers at the conference that specifically opposed the GST and urged the federal government to reconsider came from the Premier of British Columbia. We again opposed the GST.

As a matter of fact, when we discussed this in April 1989 among first ministers, British Columbia was the only province that presented an alternative. We said: reduce the federal bureaucracy by 25 percent and consider some of the programs presently in place — perhaps to that extent, or to a maximum of 15 percent— and you won't need a GST, you won't need a manufacturers' tax and you'll take care of the deficit. That was widely reported, but I would again remind all in the House that the NDP made no comment, because reducing the bureaucracy is obviously very foreign to them. But we did have an alternative.

When we first heard about the GST proposal — or with the other names that were first given it — we were, of course, extremely disappointed, and we were certainly very much opposed. I suppose part of the disappointment came because it was presented by the Conservative government in Ottawa, and we would perhaps expect such to be more in keeping with socialist philosophy.

As we look throughout the world and see where the GST was imposed, it was generally, if not always, initiated by a socialist government. Where we saw it initiated by a socialist government — whether it was New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden or many other socialist countries earlier on when socialism was somewhat catchy, before all of the happenings in eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world — it began as it did in Sweden, at about 10 or 11 percent. Today in socialist Sweden the rate is 23 1/2 percent.

That will happen in our province, in our country, if we allow this. If this happens, if the federal government proceeds — whether it's them or some more socialistic government that follows — we'll see the same thing. It will simply be increased time and time again. We are very much, and always have been, opposed to the GST.

As a matter of fact, our record shows that we have continually fought to decrease taxes. I appreciate the acknowledgment by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) in his remarks on the throne speech last year, when he too talked about the GST and said: "For a government that reduced the sales tax as you've done it, from 7 to 6 percent, you must

[ Page 8953 ]

be opposed." Of course, the response was in the affirmative. I appreciate the recognition.

When I was last in Holland, I experienced my cousin coming back from the vet. I've told this story a number of times, and I would like to tell it again because I think it's indicative of what has happened in socialistic countries. His little dog had been attended to by the vet, and the vet presented a bill for 300 guilders. When the cousin went to pay the bill with a credit card, the remark was made: "If you pay with other than cash, it's 400 guilders, because only if you pay cash can I do it for 300 guilders." Certainly the socialists, if they've studied socialism in other countries, would be familiar with this. That is what's called an underground economy. That's in fact what would happen. We would see an underground economy where people would pay with cash for goods and services in order to avoid paying the GST. Once having paid with cash in order to avoid the GST, obviously they would similarly try to escape the income tax, or they'd be caught on both. This is fairly prevalent in socialist countries and probably is part of why there has been such a downfall of socialism throughout the world.

We know as well that this will lead to a giant bureaucracy. There will be a tremendous negative impact on our tourism industry; it will hit the poor, as the former speaker said; and it will definitely be very inflationary.

We've met many a time in Ottawa and elsewhere on this matter. It was suggested by the finance critic from the NDP that meeting about this was wrong and that no meeting should be held. But I would suggest that in all our attempts and all our meetings we've not only opposed it, but we've also argued that the provinces should at least be more aware of what they're proposing or how they're proposing to implement it. Because if they're determined to proceed, we should, as much as possible, reduce the negative effects of this tax — and there will be many.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP is also opposed to this tax. They've said so, and I believe it. But I suppose there is a difference between the opposition as we've expressed it and the opposition as we hear it from the NDP, which might be expressed in some of these articles that I've brought with me today. One is a statement by a very prominent socialist New Democrat, David Schreck. His suggestion was that what we could do in the country — be it federally or provincially — was to continue to go into debt. He said:

"The public debt is no monster. The monster the Conservatives have created is made up of myths. Public debt is a loan within the family, like advancing your children's allowance. Clearly there have to be some limits to debt, but the available data shows that Canada's debt is not out of line by historical standards. In 1989 the indicator of debt is not a reason to be alarmed."

[5:45]

I would also read quickly from a statement made by a Mr. Krog on Vancouver Island, who is a lawyer in Parksville and a candidate for the NDP socialists: "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. We'll have to raise taxes for our programs." So they're talking about raising taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sorry, but under our agreement with the House Leaders, that will terminate the Premier's remarks.

MR. LOVICK: Well, well, well. Isn't this an interesting phenomenon? We are making history here. We are witnessing something that looks suspiciously like a rerun of Alice and Ralph from "The Honeymooners." We are suddenly seeing the first member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) talking together again and voting on the same side. Wonderful stuff!

And it gets even better. It also reminds one of another television show, the one called "Church Chat," because when we watch this activity and see both sides agreeing on this particular motion, we have to say: "Isn't this special." You know it's special only because this is the most artificial, phony, contrived debate we have yet seen in this chamber. This resolution comes to us at beyond the eleventh hour, and it comes from a gang of people over there who have suddenly discovered the reality of the political winds a blowing. This group of folks, these Socreds — who are really Tories on training wheels — are suddenly going to make the grand announcement that they don't like their big brothers and sisters anymore. They disagree. Come on. Spare us that, please.

If you believe as passionately and powerfully as the two members opposite appear to, where were you when we raised the question in the Legislature on two occasions? Where were you when the Leader of the Opposition wrote and said: "Let's have an emergency debate so we can present a unified front in Ottawa." Where were you? If your opposition is so powerful, one must wonder why most of us have never heard of that opposition. Let me suggest to you, Mr. Premier: bite the bullet and come out of the closet. Come on, let's do it. Come out and tell us what you really believe.

It is impossible to look at the opposition as embedded in this motion without believing and feeling strongly, based on evidence, that there is more than a touch of hypocrisy here. What we are looking at, remember, in the GST is fundamentally a shift in the burden to middle-income and lower-income people and away from the higher sector. That is a pretty clear and simple enunciation of a neoconservative agenda, precisely the same agenda that all of those folks over there have enunciated and defended on more than one occasion.

I would suggest to you that you have a look at your own record in the chamber, members opposite, and see what you've had to say about your solutions to solving economic problems, because they are as

[ Page 8954 ]

neoconservative as the Tories have ever been. You have the same agenda.

What I notice also in your opposition is that I had to search hard to find what you were opposed to. The Premier went on at great length telling us they were opposed, but he didn't say why. Similarly, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain didn't really say why. They just hid behind the old argument: "We've got to reduce the debt and the deficit." That's their only argument, and I wonder if it's the case that maybe part of their opposition — one of those many quiet meetings none of us heard about  — is actually based on the fact that the GST isn't big enough. Maybe they wanted more. We don't know, because we have never seen what your position is. What's wrong with the GST? Let's take a look at it. Let's see what's wrong with the thing.

The predicament we have with the GST is that it is carrying on that fine tradition called corporate welfare — hang on, Mr. Premier, I want you to hear the word — that socialists pointed to in this country in 1973-74. That's the predicament we still have in this country. And guess who's talking about it now? Not just a bunch of people on the left, but folks like columnists in the Financial Post. The Financial Post is talking about corporate welfare, and they are suggesting that what has happened is that government grants to businesses which in many cases have no need for them, which are profitable, which are successful, have become so endemic in our system, so much a part of the system, that we're not even scandalized by them anymore.

Moreover, that same analysis points to the fact that we could take away all of that corporate welfare activity and it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference in terms of employment or keeping Canadians employed. But the Tory government, wedded to the neoconservative agenda? Not likely. And this government, with its friends in the Tory caucus in Ottawa, trying to tell us it has suddenly become converted to the cause against the GST? Give us a break, to use a phrase. How are we to believe that?

Let's have a look at some other arguments. The other arguments that are developing about what's wrong with GST are coming from mainstream economists who demonstrate to us very clearly that this tax, besides being unfair and regressive, is probably going to have precisely the opposite impact intended, in economic terms. We know it's going to be inflationary. That's given: you can't do 7 percent extra tax without that. If we have an inflationary tax, invariably it will lead to greater wage demands; wage demands inevitably will lead to higher interest rates; higher interest rates will lead to higher unemployment; and higher interest rates — guess what, surprise, surprise — would increase the federal deficit, because a good chunk of the federal debt is made up of interest payments on the debt. The point then, Mr.
Premier, is that this tax, regressive as it is, will do exactly what it isn't.... On this part of the equation we can meet.

But when we look at what we ought to do to replace the GST, this is where we part company, Mr. Premier. And I for one am proud to part company, because your answer, in terms of what we ought to do.... I quote your member for Vancouver–Little Mountain — understandably from Little Mountain; the member from Shaughnessy. The argument is the oldest one in the book. It's Victorian morality written all over again. It says: live within your means, cut your spending and we'll all survive nicely. But it ignores, sadly, the fact that this tax is going to impose much more hardship on the lower end of the scale than it will on people in that bracket over there — I say, pointing to the member opposite.

The problem is that this tax is a continuation of a Tory taxation policy which is regressive and which is part of an ongoing process of making our entire tax system in this country less progressive than it was before. Nobody on that side of the House, however, is saying anything about what's wrong with the tax in terms of the impact it will have on those least able to bear it. You haven't given us any arguments at all of that sort. We could do some things, but I wonder how many members opposite would be able to handle the bold policies in fiscal and tax reform that we ought to have in this country. I would like to suggest that if the members opposite were really gutsy and really believed that this tax was so insidious and so evil, they might consider something like an amendment to the resolution. I know that's out of order, so I'm not moving an amendment, Mr. Speaker. But I would suggest that this resolution, this motion, if it wants the wholehearted support of members on this side, would say something like this: "Be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the proposed federal goods and services tax and urges the government of Canada to immediately withdraw the GST legislation in the interests of all Canadians, in addition to eliminating all corporate tax deferrals and immediately initiating a system of fairer taxation." That's what we should have. That's what we don't have, sadly.

There are ways we can solve our debt and deficit problems in this country, but we can do so in a fair way, not the Tory way. Sadly, this government, by its actions day after day and year after year in this House, demonstrates that it is committed to the same agenda, the same attitude and the same ideology as the Tories — because they are Tories.

It's interesting to note, that there was a story recently published that talks about the number of people who make healthy campaign contributions to the federal Conservative Party; and if one looks at that, one discovers all kinds of prominent British Columbia companies, the great majority of which, I think it's safe to say, have friends on that side of the House, friends of that government.

We can also pose the question, of course: how many members on the other side of the House are currently holding two membership cards? How many failed Tory candidates do we have over there? How many people do we have over there who aspire to higher office, like the current Justice minister in Canada? You can pretend all you want that you

[ Page 8955 ]

disagree violently with the Tories, but the reality is, as we all know full well, that you're the same folks.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is: "Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the proposed federal goods and services tax and urges the government of Canada to immediately withdraw the GST legislation in the interest of all Canadians."

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the 1988-89 annual reports of the British Columbia Justice Institute and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.