[ Page 9023 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Game Farm Act (Bill 9). Hon. J. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 9023

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 10). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 9023

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Ms. Pullinger –– 9024

Fraser Valley air pollution. Mr. Peterson –– 9024

Abortion services. Ms. Pullinger –– 9024

Supplies funding for diabetics. Mr. Perry –– 9025

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 9025

Golf course development on farmland. Ms. Cull –– 9026

Swartz Bay ferry terminal. Mr. Lovick –– 9026

Ministerial Statement

High-seas driftnet fishing. Hon. Mr. Savage 9026

Mr. G. Hanson

Tabling Documents –– 9028

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Michael –– 9028

Mr. Miller –– 9029

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9033

Mr. Guno –– 9038

Mr. Mowat –– 9040

Mr. Sihota –– 9043

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9047

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm very pleased to introduce two representatives from the Republic of Panama who are in the members' gallery today. Visiting us are Se�or Alfredo Jimenez and Se�or Orlando Reyes. Please give them a hand.

As well, we're very fortunate to have with us the potentate from Gizeh Temple, representing among other Shriners the House Leader and myself, Mr. Ed Billows and his wife, Thyin. Please give them a hand.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Dr. T.A.M. Peet, an Oak Bay resident who's making a tour of legislative assemblies around the world. Let's hope we put on a good show for him today. Accompanying Dr. Peet is a colleague of many of us, an ex-cabinet minister of the government and MLA from the Fraser Valley, Mr. Bill Ritchie. Mr. Ritchie was one of that small army of Social Crediters who got more votes than I did at the leadership convention.

MS. PULLINGER: First I'd like to introduce to the House a friend and a constituent and a long-time New Democrat party worker, Ms. Debbie Buxton. She is with us today in the gallery. Would the House help me make her welcome.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a birthday. A member of the press gallery, Debi Pelletier, has her birthday today. Would the House join me in wishing her happy birthday.

HON. MR, PARKER: I'd like to introduce to the House constituents of mine from Skeena, and I ask the House to make them welcome. It's not often we can get people down from as far away as Skeena. I don't see them in the gallery just yet, but in the precincts today are Vernon Smith, hereditary chief of the Eagle clan of the Gitksan people, and Glen Williams chief councilor at Kitwancool; Andy Johnson and Peter Martin are both councillors on the Kitwancool council, and Richard Douse is clerk of the council. Will the House make them welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is a friend who is active in my riding association, Alexa Cartwright. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Alexa.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, Marino Schicchi. He's also on the executive of the Social Credit Party in South Saanich, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to bid welcome today to representatives in your gallery from the Canadian Diabetes Association. They are here to participate with about 25 Members of the Legislative Assembly in a campaign entitled "Give It Your Best Shot, MLAs." This campaign is to help raise awareness of the problems and needs of the more than 150,000 people in British Columbia who are diabetics — one in 20 British Columbians, one out of every 20 Canadians.

Would the House please welcome Melanie Crombie and Tory Ross of the Canadian Diabetes Association. In welcoming them I would like to express to all MLAs on both sides of the House our appreciation of the association and my appreciation to all of the MLAs who are cooperating.

MR. PERRY: On behalf of this side of the House I would like to join the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain in welcoming the Canadian Diabetes Association representatives. Members on this side are looking forward to meeting them this afternoon and discussing some of the issues they have to raise about diabetes care in B.C.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is my privilege today to welcome to the House one of the fine teachers from School District 71, Rick Rodriguez, and his wife Grace, who are here with 22 grade 11 honour Students from George R Vanier Secondary School in the city of Courtenay. Would the House please join me in bidding them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GAME FARM ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Game Farm Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. This bill, as a lot of you will recognize, was in this assembly in a bit of a different form during the last session. We have reintroduced the bill with a number of changes, and I expect that the changes that have been put in place by regulation will be supported by all.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce this bill today which contains revisions which provide a role for regional districts in electrical safety inspection. It provides them equal status with municipalities in these matters if they so request. The amendment clarifies some technical terms

[ Page 9024 ]

and prohibits persons from advertising as an electrical contractor without being certified.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question for the Premier. Last week the Premier refused to instruct the Nanaimo hospital and other hospitals that abortion is a legal medical service that all women are entitled to. Now Socreds in Nanaimo are recruiting candidates to contest elections for the hospital board. Will the Premier confirm that it is now his policy to block access to legal abortions by encouraging friends of this government to take over hospital boards?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All questions on policy matters related to health should be put to the Minister of Health.

MS. PULLINGER: Supplementary to the Premier, Will the Premier agree to explain to all British Columbians that his government recognizes that women in B.C. have a legal right to abortion that must not be blocked?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have already said the matter should be referred to the Minister of Health.

FRASER VALLEY AIR POLLUTION

MR. PETERSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The Mainland-Southwest regional advisory committee, consisting of five regional district chairmen and a sixth regional district representative, at their last meeting raised the serious issue of the growing problem of air pollution in the Fraser Valley. In view of the fact that the combined population of Langley city and district municipalities grew by over 23,000 people between the '76 and '86 census dates, and the growth rate of just under 50 percent.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: Listen. This is important.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member to come to the point of his question.

MR. PETERSON: My question is: what actions are being taken by his ministry to ensure effective, long-range planning to monitor, reduce and eliminate air pollution in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member may or may not be aware, I attended a meeting in Chilliwack a couple of months ago with a number of my officials, and at that meeting we promised that we would add two additional monitoring stations to the Fraser Valley. I can advise the member that those stations have been approved...

MR. PERRY: Is that your idea of preventive action?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: ...are in the process of being worked out with the municipalities and the GVRD and are being installed.

As I am sure the member is aware, the major problem in the Fraser Valley is car emissions from the GVRD — the lower mainland — and if the member for Vancouver is so interested to know what we're doing.... We are working with the GVRD in making sure there are emission tests in the lower mainland so we will reduce the emissions going to the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland by 1991. It is positive action worked out between this government and the GVRD and a job that should have been done years ago when the Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver.

[2:15]

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: He was too busy trying to stop Expo instead of trying to solve the problem.

I would hope to be able to announce in a couple of weeks the exact locations for the monitoring stations in the Fraser Valley.

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. PULLINGER: Given that the Premier refuses to answer my question, I would like to put it to the Minister of Health. Given that the Social Credit Party in Nanaimo is actively organizing to block women's access to legal abortion services, will the Minister of Health confirm that it's now his policy to block access to legal abortions by encouraging friends of the government to take over hospital boards?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Nanaimo posed this question last week. I answered the question then that the opposition has trouble with democracy. We put in place a board structure for hospitals in British Columbia, and we expect them to exercise judgment in terms of running their hospital.

The NDP thinks that's fine up to a certain point. When it goes against what they believe in or their policies, then the government must step in. They are also opposed to a referendum structure because they feel that the people can't have the answers to some of these problems and that the people can't decide what's good for themselves. The policy of this government is to allow democratically elected boards to function as boards of trustees for the hospitals.

[ Page 9025 ]

MS. PULLINGER: The minister seems to be skidding off into tangential issues and is unable to answer the question.

In response to local democracy, we in the New Democratic Party are proud to participate in local elections to defend individual liberty and freedom of choice. Is the minister prepared to show leadership and renounce any attempt by friends of this government to deny women access to safe, legal abortion services in Nanaimo or elsewhere?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think I've answered the question. I'm not sure what I have to do in terms of getting through to the other side. The second member for Nanaimo was quoted recently in the paper saying that abortion is a federal issue. I'm surprised that she's bringing it up again in this House as an issue.

As you know, we set up boards in this hospital to manage the affairs of the hospital. I am surprised that the second member for Nanaimo and the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that we should intervene when we don't agree with some of their policies.

SUPPLIES FUNDING FOR DIABETICS

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will recognize, in answering this question, more of his statutory responsibilities.

Diabetes is a serious, chronic disease that affects somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 British Columbians. My question is: has the minister finally decided to provide full Pharmacare funding for the supplies required by diabetics to monitor and manage their condition at home?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, but the minister may wish to answer it.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I was going to take the question on notice and indicate that we are reviewing Pharmacare rules. We will respond to the question at a later time.

MR. SPEAKER: A new question from the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: It's a supplementary, but maybe I'll phrase it as a new question then, Mr. Speaker.

Diabetics now must pay up to $1,800 a year to cover the costs of the supplies they need to monitor their condition. The minister is in receipt of numerous reports from his continuing advisory subcommittee on this issue. Will the minister agree to table those reports in this Legislature so that we can see the information on which he's been sitting for the last two years?

MR. SPEAKER: When the Chair advised the member that a supplemental question was out of order and the original question was out of order, I allowed the member to put the question in the unlikely event that the subsequent question was in order. That didn't come to pass, either. The matter is to be dealt with.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary now that he's had a weekend to think about it. Will he advise the House whether he knew, on that day in February when he had his press conference, that the RCMP had recommended the laying of charges against his predecessor?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I gave the answer to that question last week. I guess I have to repeat it. Even after a weekend, the member hasn't done any homework or studying. That certainly is a question he should direct to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).

MR. SIHOTA: We'll come back to the Provincial Secretary a little later on, in terms of questions along those lines.

In this case, the RCMP has recommended that charges be laid against the minister. One of the lawyers looking at it for the ministry did not agree with the view to not refer it to the courts. Now the former minister himself has requested that the charges be laid.

I have a question to the Premier. Will the government now comply with the request of the former minister and lay the charges?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is under investigation.

MR. SIHOTA: The public inquiry is now looking at this matter. Let me ask the Premier again, when he refers to the whole matter: is he now saying to the House that the matter of laying charges against the former minister is now under review, again, by the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Attorney-General has explained it for the member a number of times. I'm sure the member is aware that the matter as to process and procedure is being investigated, and a report will be forthcoming. The member has been advised of this; however, we'll advise him again.

MR. SIHOTA: All of us understand that the matter of process and procedure is being investigated by the public inquiry. This issue is not within the terms of reference. I'm sure the Premier has looked at the terms of reference. My question is: given the request by the former minister that charges be laid against him, will the government now comply with that request? Will you acquiesce to the request of a member of your own caucus?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I, too, like many in the House, am aware that some statements were

[ Page 9026 ]

made by a member across the floor about laying charges. I think he said he was proceeding with them on the 19th, so we're all anxiously waiting and watching. In the meantime, the whole matter is under investigation.

MR. SIHOTA: The point the Premier should understand is that his government has the constitutional responsibility and the mandate to lay the charges. If you don't do your job, we'll do it for you. In this case we're asking you: given the fact that the RCMP and now your own colleague have asked that charges be laid, will you comply with his request?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was just reminded that tomorrow is the 19th. It is with the Attorney General.

GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT ON FARMLAND

MS. CULL: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Over 70 golf courses have been proposed for farmland since the minister signed a cabinet order allowing golf course development on farmland. The head of the Agricultural Land Commission, the B.C. Institute of Agrologists and even the minister himself have said they do not agree with golf courses on farmland. Has the minister decided to rescind the cabinet order pending a review before any further golf courses will be permitted?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the simple answer is no.

MS. CULL: The minister has actually said: "If it's good farmland, it shouldn't be a golf course." How does the minister reconcile this position of his with the order-in-council that he signed allowing golf course development on farmland?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As the question was out of order in the first place, I believe any supplement to that would also be out of order.

SWARTZ BAY FERRY TERMINAL

MR. LOVICK: I also have a question to the Minister of Agriculture — a very direct question that is indeed in order.

B.C. Ferries wants to expand....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: How fascinating! At last they heard something they understood.

B.C. Ferries wants to expand the Swartz Bay ferry terminal onto agricultural land, and wants to do so against the express wishes of the North Saanich council. Can the minister advise us if it is indeed the policy of this government to respect the wishes of the North Saanich council in this matter?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'll take that question on notice, since I have no knowledge of that particular correspondence.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to the next order of business I would like to just review question period.

Question period only lasts for one hour a week, and the Chair is guided by the wishes of the members. But if the questions themselves involve a long preamble and a vaguely worded question, then a long answer with a vaguely worded reply is sometimes in order. The whole House would be better served if all members would review our Standing Orders and the second edition of MacMinn, which clearly points out how questions could be more productively put.

Ministerial Statement

HIGH-SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to bring you a summary of the province's efforts and achievements surrounding the issue of high-seas driftnet fishing by international fleets in the North Pacific.

On July 13 of last year I spoke to you outlining the threat posed by driftnet fishing to our salmon fishery, marine mammals, seabirds, other non-target species of fish — indeed to the entire marine ecology of the Pacific. The government of Canada placed five British Columbians as observers on the Japanese squid-fishing vessels during the summer of '89 to collect scientific-based data on the by catch. We financed one of those observers.

From July 17 to 19, I hosted, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a North Pacific driftnet conference at Dunsmuir Lodge in Sidney. Experts on marine biology, international law and administration — from Canada and the Pacific states of Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and California — met with their British Columbia counterparts to pool their knowledge. A close working relationship was established in the conference among delegates.

In October I represented Premier Vander Zalm in Juneau, where an agreement in principle was reached with Alaska's Governor Cowper on the wording of the North Pacific driftnet declaration. And over the next few weeks the governors of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Hawaii joined us as signatories to this document. The declaration spelled out six realistic, achievable goals to be pursued by the governments of both Canada and the United States. Together we requested that our federal governments increase pressure on Japan to reduce its high-seas salmon fisheries and to find alternative fishing technologies which will impact less strongly on the marine ecology. We asked that Canada, the U.S., Japan and the U.S.S.R. establish a new convention to manage the North Pacific fisheries in the high seas beyond the 200-mile zones established by coastal nations and that they commit the financial and

[ Page 9027 ]

personnel resources for both research and management.

[2:30]

We also asked that nations begin negotiation of international agreements to prohibit the sale, importation or trans-shipment of salmon illegally harvested on the high seas. The North Pacific driftnet declaration was presented to the governments of Canada and the United States on November 6, 1989, just prior to the annual meeting of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Within hours the governments of both Canada and the United States responded decisively to the concerns of their Pacific coastal citizens and regional governments. In the General Assembly of the United Nations, they joined with nations of the South Pacific Forum to sponsor a major resolution recommending a moratorium on all high seas driftnet fishing by June 1992. On behalf of the people of British Columbia and of the Pacific Northwest, I compliment the governments of Canada and the United States on their decisive and speedy action in this regard.

Since that time there has been considerable activity on the international stage surrounding the issue of high-seas drift netting. Japan has agreed to a number of progressive measures. The most important of these is a moratorium on all large-scale driftnet fisheries on the high seas by June 30, 1992. British Columbia would at this time like to thank the Japanese government for acknowledging the problem created by their high-seas squid fleet. The Japanese have responded positively to international concerns for the ecology of the North Pacific. In February of this year, Taiwan agreed to phase out and ban driftnet fishing by mid 1992.

Earlier this month, both the United States and Japan agreed to increase the number of American, Canadian and Japanese observers deployed on Japanese squid vessels. The total has risen from 66 last year to 98 during the 1990 season. I am pleased to inform this House that British Columbia will this year be financing two of the ten Canadian observers.

In terms of a score card for our driftnet declaration, hon. members, of the six objectives that we set out, three have already been accomplished. Attitudes are changing, but the battle is not yet won. Pressure must be maintained by our federal government to ensure that commitments made by Pacific nations are honoured and to encourage Korea to comply with the same rules agreed to by Japan.

Over the next weeks and months, the government of B.C. will be asking the government of Canada to maintain its vigilance and its pressure in the international arena. Future generations of British Columbians are depending on us to protect, conserve and sustain the fragile marine environment essential to the survival of the fisheries. This government is meeting that challenge. I'd like to thank the hon members for their attention. We will continue to press for an absolute ban on driftnet fishing.

MR. G. HANSON: Industry is so far ahead of this government that it is unbelievable. StarKist Co. is now boycotting any tuna caught by driftnet. They will purchase only tuna on the high seas that is driftnet-free.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The member from Burnaby Metrotown doesn't know that albacore is in the Pacific. Too bad.

The fact of the matter is that the public has pushed industry into leading. Now we have a document here.... Some modest changes have been made. The fact is that thousands of miles of nets are going to be laid in the north Pacific from Alaska to New Zealand every night for the next 800 nights. That is not enough. It's time for action.

This government could provide some leadership. They could tell industry and the institutions not to purchase any salmon or tuna from the countries that still driftnet fish in the north Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to urge Korea. Korea must be told that to be a responsible partner and friend of Canada and share the Pacific Rim.... We will no longer tolerate the nightly high-seas driftnet fishing of Korea and of Taiwan. It is time for action.

That minister sits there with his little prepared statement on how he's urged, asked, hoped and pleaded that somebody would sign something somewhere for the next 800 days, when we are literally losing thousands of processing jobs up and down the British Columbia coast on the GATT agreement, which allows the United States to take 20 percent and up to 25 percent — of all our fish next year and for the next four years. Twenty-five percent of what number?

When you read the last point in this — and I agree with it — you'll see the shortcomings in this statement. He says that....

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: I'm caught in a high-seas driftnet myself.

Future generations of British Columbians are depending on us to protect, conserve and sustain the fragile marine environment essential to the survival of Pacific fisheries. Who could disagree with that?

The point of the matter is that this House.... These guys would rather be playing golf on all those golf courses on farmland for the last nine months while we've been taken to the cleaners up and down the coast. We're losing.... The closure of the B.C. Packers plant in Victoria, the closure of processing plants up and down this coast....

It's fine for this minister to give us a summary like a Camosun College fisheries management 101 paper, but the fact of the matter is: if you really want to do something, you'll stand up and urge industry in British Columbia not to purchase salmon or any fisheries products from countries that are currently driftnet fishing. It's time for action.

[ Page 9028 ]

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the year ending March 31, 1989.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, as required by section 5(3) of the Financial Administration Act; the annual report of the superintendent of insurance covering the year ending December 31, 1988, under section 351 of the Insurance Act; and a statement detailing amounts remitted or refunded in the 1989 calendar year under section 23 of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

Orders of the Day

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a little quiet, please? Those members who wish to leave may leave quietly. Mr. Minister, you have 18 minutes to go. Please continue.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Just prior to lunch, I was reviewing the performance of the socialist government in the province of Manitoba, I think it's fair we do that. I think it's fair that the citizens of British Columbia familiarize themselves with the actual results and actions of past socialist governments in Canada. Look at Manitoba, with eight years of absolute disaster, leaving a burden of debt on that province making it so they will never see black ink in a balanced budget as a result of that inept government in the province of Manitoba.

I would predict that for the rest of this century we will not see the NDP either form the government in Manitoba or even be the official opposition. The people of Manitoba were so fed up that they never even put the NDP in opposition; they put them right into third position.

I somewhat chuckle when I listen to the members opposite talk about such things as reforestation, recycling and agricultural land reserve policies. .

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in this past year British Columbia planted 232 million seedlings? We planted more seedlings in 20 days in the fiscal year 1989 than the NDP opposite did in 1,200 days of power.

Further to that, I hear the members opposite talk about recycling paper. Let me tell you that this province and this government is recycling more paper in one month in government buildings than the opposition did in three and a half years. I think we on this side of the House should be proud of that kind of action and that kind of result.

I listen to the members opposite talk about the ALR. You know, I look back to the years 1972 to 1975 and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was more land taken out of the ALR in three short years by the NDP in my community of Salmon Arm and the entire region of Salmon Arm than there has been since 1975.

They talk about the protection of ALR land. It is somewhat of a joke listening to those kinds of results.

I have to say that I am extremely proud of this government. I have been extremely proud of the leadership that's been shown and extremely proud of the throne speech.

I look at the results, the kinds of things that are happening in the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke. Everywhere I look I see progress; I see advances being made. I see all kinds of results beyond belief.

I look at Chase and I see the new diagnostic and treatment centre. I go into the north shore and I see the new Squilax Bridge about to be opened this coming September. I look at museums. We have three brand new museums in the constituency in the last three years. We have a new health centre in Salmon Arm and a new health centre in Enderby. We have all kinds of improvements in health care facilities. We have a new intermediate- and extended-care facility being built right this minute in Armstrong. It will be finished in the next few months.

We have a brand new grandstand in the community of Falkland for the Falkland Stampede. We have new agri-buildings in the IPE. There is planning underway for a new hospital in Enderby.

We have downtown revitalization brought in by the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, the current Premier of the province of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). We've got some of the most exciting downtown revitalization projects that you could find anywhere in the province, thanks to the forward-thinking vision of this government.

We've got park improvements in all constituencies and all areas in the province of British Columbia. We've got legacy projects. I look around the constituency and the province, and I am just overwhelmed at the success, the positive feeling, the positive attitude, the construction, the growth, the prosperity and the cost-effective delivery of government services.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Since I've been in politics in 1983, this government has trimmed its workforce. A lot of people ridicule our Premier for making statements to the federal government that it should cut its bureaucracy by 25 percent. We cut our bureaucracy in seven short years in the province of British Columbia not by 25 percent but by 31 percent, with it being the fastest-growing province in the Dominion of Canada.

I think we've got lots to be proud of. If the federal government would listen to our Premier and our Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, I'm sure it could go along way toward balancing its budget and not bringing in this GST, which is going to have tremendous harmful effects on tourism.

I wonder sometimes when I listen to the opposition. I go back in their records and check a number of things that they've criticized this government for. I think of the current Leader of the Opposition, the former mayor of the city of Vancouver, and his tremendous efforts to stop the construction of Expo

[ Page 9029 ]

86, a shameful act. We look at their opposition to the Tumbler Ridge project — the creation of thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity for British Columbia. I look back at the Mica Dam or the Revelstoke Dam, and the opposition they put forward to those massive construction projects that created thousands of jobs for British Columbia. Their attitude towards the Coquihalla from day one; their opposition to SkyTrain.... They were against the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge; they opposed B.C. Place Stadium.

I just happen to have a release covering the B.C. Place Stadium. An American magazine has just done a study of the ten top stadiums in North America, and do you know what? B.C. Place Stadium ranks sixth as far as volume and growth are concerned. It's sixth in all of North America and number one in Canada. As a matter of fact, this year we have some 234 event-days booked for that domed stadium, and I think it's something we should all be proud of.

[2:45]

Every time we look at the record and listen to the opposition, it's negative, negative, negative. Everywhere I go in the province, Mr. Speaker, I see positive, good, solid economic growth; good social programs; good hospital care; and good health care throughout the province. I am ashamed to sit here and listen to the negative attitudes of the members opposite.

MR. MILLER: I start by offering my congratulations to the new Speaker and to you, once again, as deputy. I've always appreciated your interest while you are in the chair in listening to the remarks of members in this House.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I'm being heckled already, Mr. Speaker. I'm being accused by the Socred member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) of being too kind.

I also want to congratulate the Premier.... I must admit there were a few tense moments. I thought he might actually leave. Believe me, I was worried, because it would have been unfortunate had the Premier decided to vacate the office prior to an election.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: That's an interesting prospect, Mr. Premier, that you offer; I know that we on this side of the House are quite eager to give it a try. If you're feeling rather itchy, I invite you to drop the writ any time you feel like it.

We were a bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier might actually vacate the office, given the enormous pressure he was facing in his own party. I'm glad to see he withstood that and that we will indeed have the opportunity to review the record in the forthcoming election. I think a review of the record is important, because after all, that's how we form our judgments — on the basis of how a government has performed, what people have said. It's a far more accurate Indication of a government than what they say they're going to do. It's really what the record has shown.

One of the features we — and, I think, the electorate — demand of the administration in the government, hopefully, is some degree of consistency. Certainly, in terms of administrative stability, there is a requirement that we have that consistency in the process of government; indeed, I think it's fundamental to good government. Yet when we look back, we find that in fact there has been the opposite— a great deal of inconsistency.

I want to go back and highlight some of that, Mr. Speaker. The response to the throne speech is an important and timely time to do that. I will refer to some statements that have been made in previous throne speeches and try to point out that indeed the government has a history of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Clearly, when we look at our cabinet today.... Really, these aren't issues that will make the government rise or fall; nonetheless, they illustrate a pattern. For example, back in 1986 the Premier unveiled what he called a "new-look" government. The new look government was described as being a leaner government. The Premier, in his news release, took some pride in pointing out that fact: "We have a smaller cabinet. We only have 18 members in cabinet now, and that's really a feature that I want to promote as the Premier. It's better to have a leaner cabinet."

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. MILLER: Now we have 23 members.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this little contradiction is not an issue that's going to make the government fall, but it's illustrative. I might add that despite the addition of five cabinet members, I don't think it has really improved the performance of the government. But some of these contradictions can be quite damaging to the province.

I could cite another one where the Premier said.... I think it was in that same release on Thursday, November 6, 1986, in those heady days before they actually had to face an opposition and be accountable. The Premier said that he will seek early approval by MLAs to have the proceedings of the Legislature televised. Maybe the Premier had some reasons, I don't know. But it's another little promise that was made and that was not carried through. It makes you wonder. We see that the House of Commons is televised, and I think it's quite common in legislatures in other provinces in Canada to have the proceedings of the House televised.

In my own small municipality of Prince Rupert, the proceedings of council meetings are televised. It's just one more way in which the citizens have access to their government. It allows them to watch the proceedings and to see what was said, by whom and in what manner. It's one of those little things, but one of those important things. Again I'll make the point that I don't think the government will fall on this

[ Page 9030 ]

issue, but it's illustrative of a series of statements that were made and then not followed through.

I would remind the House that there really is some inconsistency in Socred history with regard to making government more open and accessible to people. It did take a New Democratic administration to bring in the first written Hansard in British Columbia — a fact I'm very proud of — and it will take a New Democratic government to bring television into this House as well.

There are other more important issues that I think need to be canvassed in this debate today: some of the statements that were made and the apparent contradictions in them. If I say they're apparent, I think they will become crystal clear as I read them into the record in this particular debate.

First of all, I want to deal with a document that has as its title: "Opening Statement: The Hon. William N. Vander Zalm, Premier, Province of British Columbia, First Ministers' Conference, Vancouver, November 20-21, 1986. "

Mr. Speaker, if I've offended the rules by reading from the cover  of this document, I certainly apologize; I did not intentionally mean to call the Premier by his name.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's not the reading of the document, I think it's the naming of a person sitting in this House. The title should be used and not the person's name.

MR. MILLER: I'd like to thank the Minister of Environment for that, Mr. Speaker. He certainly has not forgotten the lessons he learned as Speaker.

Nonetheless, having gone through that....

MR. CLARK: What was the date of that again?

MR. MILLER: It's the text of the Premier's statement to the first ministers' conference in 1986. He was dealing with the fundamental issue of fairness for British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: David Poole was there.

MR. MILLER: My colleague for Vancouver East reminds me that perhaps David Poole wrote this, but that's simply no excuse.

The Premier was dealing with the issue of fairness for British Columbia, and certainly that's in his purview. In fact it's a requirement of the office that that issue be addressed. The issue is raised really, if you examine the document.... It's rather remarkable In fact, you can look at the document, and it becomes a testament to the failure of this government to achieve the issues they had identified back then in terms of their negotiations and dealings with the federal government. So despite their very close ties with Mulroney's Tories — or as my colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) has referred to Social Credit: "Tories in training wheels" — this government has had a remarkable lack of success in achieving its objects and desires for British Columbia.

Looking at the document, one particular statement leaped out at me, and I want to cite it. On page 5 of the speech, the Premier said:

"Federal government employment per capita is lower in British Columbia than in all other regions in Canada, and as of December 1985, federal employment in our province was 16 percent below the Canadian average. If it was increased to that average, the result would be thousands of additional jobs and an increase of more than $300 million annually in wages and salaries in our province."

The Premier then went on in the next line to describe that this was a major consideration. He was making a pitch to the federal government to increase federal employment in British Columbia. I find nothing wrong with that. I find it quite reasonable that the Premier would undertake to do that. It must be as much of a disappointment to him as it is to the rest of British Columbia that he's failed to achieve anything like what he pointed out as being desirable.

Having looked at that record in November 1986, we follow the issue through to the throne speech in March 1988, some 16 months later. The government admitted in that throne speech that their efforts to establish a Canada-B.C. council of ministers to improve the kinds of economic performance in British Columbia that could come through better federal cooperation had accomplished little. Those were the words in the throne speech: they had accomplished little. The throne speech then went on to really hurl an incredible amount of invective at the Mulroney Tories, In fact, it was as if the Premier were having a temper tantrum.

We want to complete the circle in terms of that particular issue. We go to April 1989, when in a remarkable about-face — a truly outstanding about-face — the Premier said that the federal government should slash the civil service by 25 percent. You don't know whether to laugh or cry when you're dealing with this kind of inconsistency. On the one hand, having properly identified the fact that the federal government was not committing its proper share of spending to British Columbia, and moving from that to a bit of a tantrum because they were unsuccessful in their negotiations, then coming around to the complete contradiction that the federal government, instead of increasing their employment in British Columbia to bring in those identified $300 million annually in benefits and thousands of jobs.... The Premier moved to a position of asking the federal government to slash the civil service by 25 percent across the board.

In response to this conflicting and, I think, contradictory series of positions expressed by the Premier, the federal government weighed the two options presented by the Premier: on the one hand, increase your spending, increase the federal civil service in British Columbia; and on the other hand, cut it by 25 percent. It's hardly any surprise as to which option they chose. They chose to follow the Premier's advice and cut.

[3:00]

This is an example unlike the issues I cited with regard to televising the Legislature, or some others

[ Page 9031 ]

that pop up to mind. I recall, in the early statements in 1987, the government and the Premier issuing a statement that their cabinet and their planning were going to make B.C. recession-proof. I now understand that we have a fragile economy. Again, it makes me wonder how the government seems to want to take both positions at once —- contradictory positions. I'm sure I'm as puzzled as the average British Columbian.

I see a very small matter. We talk about the issue of Meech Lake. It's very important to us in terms of maintaining Canada as we know it. It's very important to me, as a Canadian who was born in and grew up in this country. On the one hand we have the Premier pushing for Senate reform; and on the other hand we have the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) asking the Senate to block the GST. I don't know: do they want the reform after they block the GST or before?

Just one other minor contradiction, I guess, if I could point it out. Despite the overwhelming calls over the last two years for a royal commission on forestry — the most fundamental underpinning of our economy in British Columbia — it was turned down by the government. The minister said: "It would take too long. We can't do it." They appoint a commission that just now is starting to take action, a year later — just now starting to get out on the road. They refused the royal commission despite the fact that an overwhelming number of British Columbians thought it was timely. Instead they call a royal commission on health, when there really has been no call for one.

You wonder about these contradictions, and whether or not the government is really prepared to listen to British Columbians and the concerns that British Columbians have.

I want to turn to what I think are the very damaging effects of the contradictory positions put forward by the Premier in terms of this issue of federal spending. I want to do that in the context of the need to have a renewed forest resource development agreement. I have said that I think this agreement is one of the most significant that British Columbia could enter into. It is fundamental — I repeat, fundamental — to the underpinnings of our economy.

We have badly damaged our credibility in terms of the federal government and our ability to negotiate with it. Like everybody else in British Columbia who watched that news clip of the Prime Minister laughing at the Premier's suggestions, I was offended, because as a British Columbian I want statements made by my government to be taken seriously. I don't want our positions to be tossed aside and considered secondary because of their source.

I think it's worth going through a chronology of the forest resource development agreement — the acronym is FRDA — because it illustrates again the contradictory statements that have been made.

I issued a warning back in May 1989 that we were in trouble with regard to this second agreement. The signals coming out of Ottawa were pretty clear to me. Anybody who had taken the time to read the stories coming out of Ottawa and to talk to people in the industry knew that there were some serious problems ahead. I said at the time that it was unlikely that the federal government would accede to our request for a second agreement. Despite that warning issued on May 12, 1989, to be precise — on May 19, in response to the concerns I had raised, the provincial Minister of Forests at that time tended to downplay any suggestion that we might be in trouble. In fact, in a press scrum in Victoria on Thursday, May 18, 1989, the Minister of Forests at that time, the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker), indicated that, well, in any event, if there is a problem with the federal government, British Columbia is prepared to go it alone. Those weren't exactly the words used by the minister. He said: "We will have to carry the can ourselves provincially." Back a little less than a year ago the early warning signs were there, and the position of the provincial government at that time was: well, don't worry, we'll carry the can ourselves provincially if we get into trouble.

On May 15 the then Minister of Forests issued a guest editorial dealing specifically with the issue of silviculture and reforestation. He described in that statement the importance of the FRDA agreement and the work done to date. For example, during the first three years of the past agreement, the backlog of not sufficiently restocked land was reduced by 25 percent, 434,000 days of employment were generated throughout British Columbia and the program had created 500 full-time and 15,000 seasonal jobs. But he then went on to point out, really just to reinforce what he had said in the newspaper, that they were aiming for a second five-year agreement — the acronym for that was FRDA II — and that the province was ready to commit its share of a $700 million five-year agreement.

Later on that year in a paper produced in the riding of the then Minister of Forests, there was an interesting article quoting both the provincial and federal Ministers of Forests, again dealing with the issue of the renewed FRDA program.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, to also state that British Columbians receive their information in many instances through these kinds of reports. This August 30, 1989, report in the Terrace Standard again quoted the former Minister of Forests that it was vital to have a second agreement. In fact, he went far beyond the original outline of the agreement that British Columbia had suggested— a $700 million agreement — and suggested that British Columbia wanted a $1 billion agreement. The story referred to a statement he had made the week previously about a $1.5 billion agreement. It's significant to note that the federal Minister of Forests was also quoted in the same article. The statement was made by both of these gentlemen that talks — and I presume by that, negotiations — on the new agreement were going well. The federal minister forecast that a new agreement would be in place well in advance of the expiry date of the old agreement. I should note, Mr. Speaker, that the old agreement expired on March 31 and no new agreement has been negotiated.

[ Page 9032 ]

Again in December 1989 the new Minister of Forests for British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Richmond) circulated a letter. I received a copy, and I think all MLAs may have received a copy, as well as other individual British Columbians. Again, he emphasized the importance of the program, the fact that by the end of four years in the original agreement, $212 million had been invested in B.C.'s forests, providing for more than 800,000 days of employment and the planting of 118 million trees. The letter went on to highlight the importance of this agreement.

But then things started to go sour, Mr. Speaker. Things became very confused in terms of just what was happening. As we approached the deadline, I and others in British Columbia started asking questions about where we were, what was happening, what was the federal position and what was the British Columbia position. There were some other references made, in addition to the reference made by the former Minister of Forests last year, that British Columbia would be prepared to commit the $350 million that they had originally said they would commit. They seemed to back off that. The Premier was quoted as saying: "We're going to have to cut reforestation."

In looking at some of the correspondence, it strikes me that there's again a real contradiction between what has been said publicly and what was subsequently said publicly. For example, on March 2, 1990, the Minister of Forests wrote to the chairman of the federal standing committee on forestry, saying he was very anxious to renew this critical agreement — he called it a "critical agreement" — for at least another five years. He asked, some 28 or 29 days before the agreement was to expire, for serious negotiations to begin, completely contradicting the statements made by the former minister in August that talks were going well. So the public was led to believe in the summer of 1989 that negotiations were proceeding, that talks were going well and an agreement would be in place before the expiry date; and 29 days before the agreement expires, the Minister of Forests writes, in almost a pleading way: "Please, we have to get serious about these negotiations; they have to start."

Again, despite statements to the contrary — for example, the federal minister telling British Columbia not to hold its breath for a new agreement, basically saying you're not going to get it in February 1990 — the province wrote another letter on March 12. In this case the Minister of Forests wrote to the mayor of Vanderhoof. These small communities really understand, far better than some British Columbians, the importance of forestry and the importance of forest renewal, because they've seen the results of some of the disastrous policies that this government has Put in place, particularly in terms of over committing the resource that we do have.

In this letter the minister — again in almost a pleading way — first of all described the agreement as critical and then said: "My staff and I continue to press for the start of formal negotiations at every opportunity." This is a little over two weeks before the expiry of the agreement, and the minister has admitted in a letter that formal negotiations had not even started. But he still insists that the agreement is important, and he still insists that $700 million is what British Columbia needs. After all, we continue to have very high amounts of not sufficiently restocked land in this province. Over 500,000 hectares in British Columbia have simply not been treated. They have been denuded through logging, fire or pests, and they have not been treated.

Having come through this series of contradictions, it's with some dismay that on March 27 the Minister of Forests, in an interview with the Financial Post — which I assume the federal people read — described British Columbia's position as "Utopia." In less than ten days he abandoned his position in his letter to the mayor of Vanderhoof that this is a critical agreement to which B.C. is fully committed, and went to describing the agreement as "Utopia." In that respect, he is simply parroting the words of the federal Minister of Forestry, who on March 1 described B.C.'s position as unreasonable.

[3:15]

Here we have sent the minister to negotiate a critical agreement for British Columbia, critical to those small communities that are facing timber shortages, and the Minister of Forests for British Columbia is in full agreement with the Minister of Forestry whom he's negotiating with; and the likelihood of our now receiving the kind of agreement that can head off some of those timber shortages and that can continue to maintain employment in some of our small communities is, I think, dashed.

If we trace the contradictory performance of this government back to its original source, we find it lies squarely at the feet of the Premier, who in 1986 was prepared to call for increased federal spending, to call for increased federal employment in British Columbia and to say that that would increase benefits — specifically $300 million in benefits — in British Columbia. We now come to this sorry stage where there is no agreement, people are wondering what is happening, and the blame lies squarely with this government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: Although I haven't seen them, there are some 60 students here from Terry Fox Senior Secondary School in Port Coquitlam — a school, incidentally, that was attended by Terry Fox and has since been renamed. They're here with their host teacher, Mr. Provost, and they have some guests from St. Paul, Quebec. I would be very pleased if the House would welcome these students, who are here studying a little bit about our history and learning firsthand a little bit about our democracy.

[ Page 9033 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be here.

Before I start my remarks, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his election. It's a very honourable post, which I enjoyed myself for over three years, and I know he will do this House proud, as Speakers in the past have done. I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), one of the finest members in this House, on his re-election.

I would also like to thank the Clerks-at-the-Table for the good job they do in this House — and, I know, the good, impartial job they do for all members of the House.

I would also — seeing that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), the official opposition critic, is here — like to congratulate the staff that works for the Ministry of Environment. All 1,200 of them do a tremendous job for this province and sometimes take criticism from the opposition which I think is unfounded, because I know they are dedicated. I've met a great number of them — not all of them yet, but I've made a point of going from office to office meeting each one individually. If I hadn't stopped and talked so long to some of them, I might have seen them all by now. But I intend to see them all over the next few months, and I can tell you they are dedicated. Their minds are set not only for the betterment of British Columbia but also for Canada. I congratulate them for the good job they do.

I would also like to mention something that is important to all of us in British Columbia and the world: Earth Day, 1990, April 22, this Sunday, I'm participating with the mayor of Vancouver in a hazardous waste operation, something we have been working on for a long time, and a very positive aspect. I hope that all members of this House will take the opportunity on Earth Day, 1990, to sit down and think what they could do to help the environment.

It's great for us to criticize; it's great for us to talk, as the socialists do all the time, about the big corporations and what they're not doing. But how many of them have hazardous wastes sitting in their houses? How many are buying certain things in the store when they could be replacing them with something more environmentally friendly? I commend the people who are involved in the organization of Earth Day, and I commend to all members of this House, their families and their associates to make sure they get out and think on Earth Day of what they can do to reduce a little bit the impact on the landfills we have in our province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There are lots of environmentally friendly protest signs. We've seen some of them; we've held some of them.

I would like to talk a bit about the Leader of the Opposition, the man who would be king. They talk about ethics; they talk about morality. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) talked in his speech about contradictory statements. The NDP, as we get closer to an election, in all the statements that they make, are only looking forward to the next election. Everything they talk about is "to the next election."

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Prince Rupert says we're right. Yes, we are right: you only look to the next election.

This government doesn't just look to the next election; we're looking to the next generation. Because this government is always looking forward to the next generation, we win election after election after election. We don't just throw out programs the day before an election. We don't throw ideas out that are maybe smart at the time. We don't throw ideas out just to get the TV cameras. We don't go down to Oak Bay with our hazardous wastes advising CKTV and all the others to be there so we can make a little bit of a story. We're working with municipalities around this province to solve the problems. Our success rate in working with municipalities has been so good we get elected election after election after election.

MR. MILLER: Oak Bay, Boundary-Similkameen....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Prince Rupert can throw those names out, but I remember a member from the Okanagan who got elected in a by-election. Where is he? Defeated in the last general election in this province. We won again. Right here, sitting on this side of the House.... The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) defeated the short-term by-election winner of the NDP, because when it comes to the crunch, the people know there is one party that doesn't just make pitches for elections; they make a pitch for the next generation. There's a responsibility on this side that isn't there on the other side.

Now let's talk about ethics and what the members from that side talk about. Let's give them some quotes from their leader, the man who would be king. He has made lots of statements outside and inside this House about the leader of this party, who has Christian ethics. He's proud of those Christian ethics, and I'm proud of them too. But the Leader of the Opposition and members of that side try to play games by painting a name and number around it, saying that our party is a certain way. Just listen: what did the Leader of the Opposition say in 1984, when he wasn't in this House? What did the Leader of the Opposition say about it? Well, let's read it: "My personal and political values have been inspired by the social gospel contained in the Christian ethic, which commits one to actively apply Christian ethics to society's problems and issues." That was the Leader of the Opposition in the Vancouver Sun on October 22, 1984.

[ Page 9034 ]

Mr. Speaker, he says one thing, but the election's coming closer and he says another thing. Let's see what else suits him.

The Leader of the Opposition says one thing to one group and another thing to another group, and that's where this party across here — the socialists — is going to have problems in the general election, because people will start to look seriously at what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.

Listen to what he said to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce, which is the group he's trying to impress.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's hard to keep them quiet over there, I know, Mr. Speaker. But it's tough to listen when you start to tell them the facts, because they probably haven't heard some of these things themselves: what their leader says when he's outside this House, what he says inside the House and whether they match up.

What did he say to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce on March 8, 1990? That's not that long ago; see, the election's getting close. He says: "When did I ever sound like a socialist? I've never been a socialist." That's a speech to the chamber of commerce — the business people. That's the man who would be king trying to paint himself as the liberal — the nice liberal — not the socialist anymore; he's never been a socialist.

What did he say in July 1987 right in this House? "As a successful business person and a successful socialist...." Mr. Speaker, one day he's a socialist; the next day he's not a socialist. It depends on whom he is talking to. That's the Leader of the Opposition.

He also gets up in this House and talks about what he would do about pollution. He has made comments outside this House about sewage treatment, about pulp mills and about Burrard Inlet. We'll talk about Burrard Inlet. What did the Leader of the Opposition do in July 1985 when there was a coliform count on the beach and pollution in Burrard Inlet and on the beaches? What did he do as mayor of Vancouver? Not what he does in this House; not what he does outside this House. He went for a swim with his little son, and he said: "Come on in. The water's fine."

It was a little cold and a little polluted, but he was the mayor of Vancouver then. So he went for a swim instead of looking at the real problem and instead of standing up at the time and asking the provincial government: "Why aren't we solving the pollution problem in Burrard Inlet? Why aren't we solving the sewage treatment problem from Vancouver going into the Fraser River and into the ocean?"

What does he do? He goes for a swim. He didn't want to solve the problem. That's the Leader of the Opposition. He does one thing one day and another thing the next day. He's not trying to solve the problem. He was the mayor of Vancouver for an awfully long time. Why didn't he work then, back in 1972?

When I ran in the federal election, I ran on the issue of not putting sewage into the Fraser River and into the ocean. But I was told by the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Vancouver city council that it was unnecessary; there was nothing wrong with it. It's like Victoria. They go out and hire a scientist who says: "No, no, it's all right to put raw sewage into the ocean. It's good for at least 25 years." But he doesn't say what he's going to do at the end of the 25 years.

We don't need rhetoric from the other side. We need an opposition who want to work with us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Now let me tell the member over there.... He talks about funding formulas. This government had a program for a period of time that gave 75 percent to municipalities, cities and villages that wanted to work on sewage treatment. A lot of them did the programs around this province.

But where was Victoria, and where was Vancouver? No, it wasn't necessary. The ocean's a big cesspool. The Leader of the Opposition was there then. He was an elected official in Vancouver and did nothing whatsoever about that sewage.

Let me just talk a little about the man who would be king and about his own party and about a letter sent to The Democrat by Svend Robinson, the MP for Burnaby-Kingsway. His letter said:

"On Thursday the Leader of the Opposition and the member for North Island spoke to a group of 120 top business officials in Vancouver about the economic policies of our party. Certainly we must get our message out to as broad a spectrum of the B.C. community as possible, even though we must be under no illusions that the corporate elite will be seduced by the soothing nostrums about the creation of wealth.

"Clearly our priority as a democratic socialist party must be the redistribution of wealth and power."

He goes on to say:

"My primary reason for writing is to express my concern and anger at the offensive remarks by the member for North Island to that crowd. Certainly the member for North Island was free to make his own confession of youthful, political naivet� during the Barrett government years, although this was certainly sad, coming from an MLA who at one time articulated a thoughtful and serious analysis of our direction as a government and a party."

MR. CASHORE: What is "youthful naivet�"?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You'll have to ask Svend Robinson what he meant by that.

Mr. Speaker, they go out and say one thing, but they even write in their own papers something else — something totally different.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you one other quote. When I was reading the quotes about being a socialist one day and not a socialist the next day, I also picked up one that he said to Vaughn Palmer. He said: "I'm a very pragmatic person." I asked for the dictionary and looked up "pragmatic." I don't know what

[ Page 9035 ]

dictionary this is. The Concise Oxford Dictionary — good enough: "Pragmatic: meddlesome...." That, Mr. Speaker, I think explains the Leader of the Opposition: meddlesome. He'll say one thing one day, change it the next day, and the people of this province will know that when it comes to an election. They're going to ask: "Is he really the socialist or is he really the free-enterpriser?"

MR. MILLER: Is that your definition of "pragmatic?"

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's not my definition; it's the Oxford Dictionary's. That's probably not good enough for the socialists, I'll have to find a socialist dictionary and see if it's any different.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does it say about socialists?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I didn't look up what it said about socialists, because I'm sure there are not enough pages.

I would also like to quote the Leader of the Opposition. This is a right-up-to-date one in the Vancouver Sun today. It says: "Open, Honest Government NDP's Election Vow." I can tell you there is no more open, honest government than this one right here, and that's why it's been in power since 1952. You only have to look at the number of commissions and task forces. This government is more open than any other government in Canada. It's also the best run government in Canada.

[3:30]

1 know it must be pretty tough when the New Democratic members travel to the rest of Canada and meet some of their political colleagues, because they're not in power anywhere. They must have a tough time talking to them about the province they're in. They must be able to sit back and say: "Boy, it must be lucky to be an NDPer in Ontario where you can shoot holes in the Premier and his cabinet because of all the money they owe and the bad economic state it's in." It must be great to be a New Democrat in Manitoba where they've got a deficit. And it goes on and on.

But in this province, the New Democrats can't complain about those things. This is a well-run province with no deficit, the best programs for the environment, the best hospital care and the best education of any province in Canada. Added to all that — and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) knows this — is the greatest scenery, the greatest ocean and fishing anywhere in North America, if not the world.

MR. MILLER: Did the Socreds create the scenery?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Prince Rupert asked: "Did we create the scenery?" No, I won't give us credit for that. I will give us credit for preserving it, because I remember.... The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) looks at me, but I'll tell you that when you want to talk about preserving the scenery and the environment, this government was the first in Canada to bring in tough regulations on pulp mills, which we're living up to and working to.

It was this government, way back in 1972 to 1975, when that member's party was in power.... If you want to go back and talk about scenery and what would have happened if we'd had a socialist government for too long, back in '72 to '75, the New Democrats wanted to put an oil refinery right in the middle of Surrey, the fastest growing housing subdivision in Canada. That was their policy. Who helped shoot that down? Do you know who the mayor of Surrey was at the time — now the leader of the government of British Columbia, the great environmentalist? But there was no credit for that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let me tell you what else those New Democrats wanted to do when they were in power just for three short years. They talk about preserving the scenery. They wanted to put a major project, a coal port, into Britannia Beach right in the middle of Howe Sound. That was their solution. Nowadays, it's preserve Howe Sound. They're the greatest tree huggers in the world, but when they were in power, Mr. Speaker, there were no environmentally conscious members over on that side of the House — none whatsoever. In fact, it was this government that created the Ministry of Environment after it took over power again.

This party across the floor — and I quote again the Leader of the Opposition in today's Vancouver Sun, where he's writing as a guest columnist for Nicole Parton: "British Columbians can expect strong environmental action that serves the public interest, not public relations, and action to reduce and recycle garbage, curtail pulp-mill pollution and enforce clean-air laws." Then: "A...government's top priority will be an 'environment and jobs accord.' No longer will B.C. be told we must choose between jobs and the environment."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition — the man who would be king — that he check with his environment critic who is going around this province taking quickie tours of pulp mills, telling the people and the schools that his government will close down the pulp mills. They won't work with them to solve the problems like this government is doing. This government is working hand-in-hand not only with the companies but also with the unions.

MR. MILLER: I'll say you are hand-in-hand!

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Let me tell the member for Prince Rupert that I met this morning with Woodfibre, which has met every condition that I laid down a few days ago. I also met with the president of their union, who is as concerned as the management of that company that it stays open and has jobs and keeps this company moving. He doesn't want the pulp mill shut down, yet he knows from the opposi-

[ Page 9036 ]

tion party that if they take over, they will just shut the mill down. They don't want to work with people.

What does the Leader of the Opposition say? That no longer will we choose between jobs and the environment. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing; the critic says another. In front of the young kids In a school, he says: "We'll shut the pulp mill down." But come into this House and go out and make a speech to the chamber of commerce, and he says: "We want to work with you business people." Mr. Speaker, you can't say one thing in here and another thing outside. That's why this government has been elected and re-elected since 1952, except for one sad, short three-year term.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about a "Georgia basin environmental action plan." He also talks about a moratorium on increased oil tanker traffic and offshore drilling. He doesn't know that there's already an offshore drilling moratorium. He says: no more dumping of toxic wastes, etc. All these plans that he.... He started off his great campaign.... If you remember a few weeks ago, he announced that he was going to tour the province and talk about what his government would do when it took over. His first visit was to Burrard Inlet, touring the harbour in a yacht, finding out what was going on. Then he said to the media: "When we form the government of this province, we will make sure that every tanker leaving this port has a tug with it." He didn't realize that just six weeks before, the Minister of Environment had met with the oil companies and agreed that there would be four tugs with every ship going under the Second Narrows Bridge, two tugs going under the Lions Gate Bridge and one tug going right out to Victoria. Something he's promising after the next election we've already done before the election.

The Leader of the Opposition didn't realize when he called for a pilot that we already announced six weeks before that two pilots would be in every ship from the harbour in Vancouver right out to Victoria. Twice as many as he's asking for, we'd already put on six weeks earlier. He's behind the times before he even gets started.

Mr. Speaker, he also asks that there be standby ships available. We've already got three of them. The Vancouver harbour has done a superb job on oil. There has never been a major spill, and yet he wants to talk about "there could be one in the next two years." I ask him: where is he getting his Ouija-board from? We're doing a good job in this province. Is he also going to make sure that the oil going out of that harbour, the majority of which goes to British Columbians...? He wants to place a moratorium on it. He wants to stop production in this province.

The Leader of the Opposition had a very sorry start to his election campaign around this province. I can't wait until he makes a few more announcements, because it is going to be very interesting, as he goes around saying what he will do and then he finds out we've already done it.

MR. MILLER: Call an election.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member says to call an election. I'll have an election anytime. I've been around this province a number of times In the past few months, Mr. Speaker, and the closer we get, the bigger our majority is going to be again. I've been here enough to listen to the member for Prince Rupert, and thank goodness the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) isn't here today. I haven't made a speech in this House for three years, but three years ago, every time I made one, he was here, and he was very hard to listen to. Maybe he got tired, and after the next election, if the member for Prince Rupert comes back here, maybe he won't be here half the time either while we're making speeches, because he'll be tired of saying: "Next time, next time." The opposition learns, as tough as it is, that they can have lots of fun in this House, but when it comes to the next election we'll win. We'll win with a good majority, because this government has done a good job.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get to the critic for the environment, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who I hope is listening in his office. In his speech to this House on the throne speech debate he talked about a number of things in the environment, and I would recommend very strongly to him that he take some time out of his very busy schedule, sit down with the staff in my department and look at some of the issues he talked about. As a member of the government, I want a well-informed opposition, one which will criticize accurately. Good governments need criticism; none of us is perfect. But when I read his speech and look at some of the things he said.... He said: "However, what is Vision 2001? It's vague; it doesn't contain details." That's interesting, Mr. Speaker, because we haven't released it yet, and yet he knows it's vague and contains no details. I haven't even read the first draft yet and I doubt he has, but already it's vague and doesn't contain details. It will probably be the speech he'll make on the day we release it. I would hope he would take some time and sit down with that staff I talked about earlier that does such a good job in this ministry and works very, very hard and doesn't deserve that kind of criticism.

He said in his speech there was nothing on spills in the throne speech. Again I recommend he sit down with our staff. Our government, in the last two years, has increased our ability on oil spills to one of the best in the world. In fact, when there are major oil spills in the world, we get called in British Columbia for advice.

When there was an oil spill in California — and maybe the member of the opposition doesn't know this — it was this government, this Premier's leadership, that got the task force together between California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and British Columbia. This Premier did it, not the Governor of California — one of the largest states in the United States — not the Governor of Alaska, nor the Governor of Washington. This Premier was the initiator; he put it together. It's working extremely well, and they've had meetings up and down the coast, putting to-

[ Page 9037 ]

gether a plan for the west coast of North America, not just British Columbia, where we can all work together if there is a natural disaster. Nobody in this House, no matter what side they're on, can have any effect on those things happening.

We live in an area.... In fact I was out this weekend in Bamfield on the west coast doing some whale watching, and it was quite interesting. The fellow in our boat was saying: "It's interesting to hear you fellows talk about oil spills; it only happens maybe once in a while. I was here during the war when some 100 ships went onto the shore. Oil all over the place: it cleaned itself up." And he said: "You're spending a lot of money." I told him that we are doing it because we think it's important. We know that we must be prepared.

I would suggest to the critic on the other side that he might also want to spend a day with the Environment Youth Corps, created by this government — one of the best, hardest working groups of people you'll meet in this province. These are young people getting experience in working on the environment. When I hear the opposition talk, why don't they tell us what they'll do with those kinds of programs? Maybe they don't like them. I'd like to hear from them because we think it's a great program. It's working all over this province — a thousand young people learning about the environment: putting pathways through, cleaning up little rivers, doing tremendous projects around this province. And I would hope over the next few months, in working with private industry, we can even increase the size of the Environment Youth Corps because it gives us a body of people who are trained for six months on oil spills.

Anyone who had a chance to look at the oil spill in Sooke — and I was there, as was the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), within hours of it happening.... But the important part was that the Environment Youth Corps was there, and they were prepared. I can remember the Coast Guard.... I can remember the local publisher of the paper coming up to me and saying: "Boy, your people are prepared. I can't believe how well organized they are." The Coast Guard especially, who are professionals, had nothing but praise for these young people who were there doing their job, cleaning up a disaster that we all wish wouldn't happen. But disasters like that do happen, and I want to congratulate all those youth corps members who were members in the past and those who will be members in the future. I suggest to the critic on the other side that he sit down with our staff and find out a little bit about oil spills, a little bit about the Environment Youth Corps, and a little about what he should be saying.

He mentions there is nothing about the cleanup of toxic lands and the Expo lands. Well, where has the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam been? We've been issuing statements on the Expo lands and the cleanup of the Expo lands. We've made agreements with the federal government on the cleanup of the Expo lands. I would remind that member for Maillardville-Coquitlam that the Expo lands are in Vancouver, where for twenty years the Leader of the Opposition has been on council and mayor, He has as much responsibility for those lands as anybody on this side of the House. It's a responsibility that we all have, but I would suggest to him that the method we're looking at is the best method there is to clean it up, and also that there are other areas in the province that need to be cleaned up.

When we're finished with this project we'll have the knowledge and the capability of cleaning up these sites anywhere in British Columbia. I would remind him that these sites are right across Canada, and I would congratulate Superburn, a company in British Columbia which won the contract to clean up one of the worst sites in Nova Scotia. I would also remind this House — they know, of course, our federal government is always fair — the federal government is paying 100 percent of that cleanup cost in the Maritimes, and they are going to pay a very, very small amount of the costs here. It will be done, it will be done properly, and it will be well organized.

[3:45]

He mentions there is no mention in the throne speech of the recycling agency, This government is leading Canada when it comes to recycling. This government is the first one to have a garbage recycling plant, the BRINI System, put into Nanaimo. And for those who say this government only looks after their own constituencies, we don't have a member in Nanaimo, yet we've given them grants and loans to start up a system that other communities in this province would have liked to have had first. But they're the first community we've chosen. For the member to stand up in this House and say this government didn't mention recycling in the throne speech, maybe we didn't put the word in because we don't like to brag. We were just giving the facts in our throne speech, all the good things that are coming up. Recycling we've done, we're working on. We're leading Canada in every area. I defy that member to stand up and tell me where else they are starting a de-inking plant. We're also looking at a de-tinning plant; we're also looking at two tire factories — one's already in operation; another one for recycling tires and recycling plastics will be announced in the next couple of weeks. This government is not only looking at getting the products in; we're making sure there's an industry to look after the products after they're collected. That's something the NDP don't seem to know anything about.

I see my time is just about up, and I know we have a couple of other speakers. I'm anxious to hear the Premier talk. There are many other things I could talk about, and I will talk on more detailed items in the budget speech about what we're doing in the environment. There will be some programs announced there that I'm sure will have these members so excited across the floor they'll all have to vote for them, because if they don't, I think their constituents are going to wonder why they're really here.

I say again, the Leader the Opposition, the man who would be king, says one thing here, one thing there. The people of the province are going to realize it, and when it comes to an election, I look forward to

[ Page 9038 ]

the day after the election. I hope, Mr. Premier, that after the election we can call this House back within a week just to sit here for a day, just to look at those members across the floor and have them get up again in their negative ways. Nothing positive. That's the socialists for you.

MR. GUNO: Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not normal, but in this case we'll let the member proceed.

MR. GUNO: I have a special guest in the gallery from Dease Lake, Linda Edzerza. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak today. First, I want to join the previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker. I know it's a most responsible role, which I have confidence you will meet.

The pleasure I enjoy in taking part in this debate today is mixed with a certain sense of poignancy: the realization that the opportunities for me to speak in this House are running out. I want to say that I have enjoyed the experience. It's been challenging, educational and at many times amusing and entertaining — like the last speaker — but always with a great sense of responsibility. The only consolation I have is the certain knowledge that after the next election a great number of Social Credit members will be joining me in early — and in some cases, long overdue — retirement from politics.

I agree with most of my colleagues' assessment of the throne speech: that it is not a realistic, responsible blueprint for action to respond to some of the pressing economic, environmental and social issues. I agree with most of my colleagues' characterization that this throne speech is all about this government's desperate search for an election issue. Sometimes it is difficult to take a debate like this seriously, when what is said here has little effect on a government bent on its own political survival. This is evident in the growing hysteria from the government side, the increasing demagoguery and the overreaction we have witnessed in the last few days. There is an element of fear emanating from that side of the House, and with great reason.

I am reminded of a line from a poem written by a Spanish poet, Antonio Machado: "People possess four things that are no good at sea: anchor, rudder, oars and a fear of going down." We can take poetic licence and restate that to suit the situation we have here in British Columbia. Here we have a government completely adrift at sea with no rudder, a helmsman who has no idea where he's at, let alone where he's going, and a crew totally paralyzed with a fear of going down. To continue that analogy, the people of British Columbia think that the time for a change in the crew of the ship of state is now due.

There are really two issues I want to deal with today. I think that our leader and the rest of my colleagues have done a great job in dealing with the inadequacies of the throne speech. They have dealt with the lack of political foresight and will in environmental issues. I think their sudden conversion on this sad matter is a deathbed conversion. They have dealt with the strange myopia of this government when it comes to conflict of interest. I think they have dealt very well with this government's recent discovery of the concept of choices. I'm proud to say that for the New Democrats choice is not a slogan; it is a way of life.

What I really want to address are the issues that relate to northerners and aboriginal people. In Atlin — still there, I understand, until the next election — highways remain a very important issue. The people in the Nass Valley are still waiting for major upgrading to be done in the Nass system north of Rosswood. I have tried at every opportunity to get a commitment from this government to deal with this very urgent problem. It is probably one of the worst highway systems in British Columbia, and I think the people there deserve better from this government.

Highway 37 is a major route to the Alaska Highway. There is an increasing volume of tourist traffic, but if we are going to maintain that volume, we are going to have to address the need for major improvements to that route, because I don't think any major economic development initiative is possible without significant improvement being made in those areas.

In the matter of health, I don't think the throne speech gives very much hope for people from Dease Lake, Telegraph Creek, Stewart and the Nass Valley that the high costs of health care will be alleviated. For instance, aside from the aboriginal people who have Indian status, the cost of receiving specialized care is enormous and is borne by each individual who has to pay transportation and accommodation costs and the disruption to the family. Yet there is very little done by this government in meeting this very serious need.

Mental health care is virtually non-existent in my part of the north. Both Stewart and Dease Lake have been fighting for better facilities. Stewart has a wholly inadequate diagnostic centre that needs substantial improvement. They have been fighting for this and have not been responded to. There is a desperate need in the Nass Valley for a second doctor to provide more comprehensive health coverage.

In addition, the throne speech does not address the need for better air medical evacuation in the area of the Nass Valley. We need to have helipads established in New Aiyansh, Canyon City and Greenville that will be equipped for night medical evacuation. This is very serious because the Nass Valley can be — and often is, in certain times of the year — cut off from the rest of the world due to flooding.

Education remains a high-cost item in an area where the tax base is extremely small. We have a situation in the Nisga'a School District where its capacity would be extremely constrained to deliver equal educational opportunities to its young people, They have no tax base so they have to live within the very small budget that they receive from this government, and many of the unique programs they offer

[ Page 9039 ]

are being threatened. This is another area where this government has reneged on its promise to the aboriginal people.

In the area of forestry, overharvesting remains a very serious concern in my riding. The pulpwood agreement, for instance, will invite overharvesting that will result in over commitment of our ever-diminishing forest resource. This is true in the northern Kispiox TSA, in Cariboo-Chilcotin, and certainly Canfor has said that it will result in overcommitment in the Prince George TSA. Pulpwood agreements are non-competitive. Parties wishing to enter into these agreements don't have to bid. Unlike TFLs, there is the prospect of low stumpage, so I hope the government will rethink this disastrous and unpopular policy

I want to turn to the issue of aboriginal rights, There is nothing in the throne speech that would allay the fears of the aboriginal people that this government remains steadfast in its racist intransigent stance on this fundamental question. Yes, the throne speech talks about a few programs that are high in rhetoric but low in substance. In effect, they make virtue out of necessity.

I want to refer to the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis). They were gratuitous and offensive remarks about the aspirations of a people whose plight equals that of the poor from almost any Third World country, remarks that reflect the total ignorance of this government when it comes to this question. He talks about the totality of Indian land claims filed in Ottawa exceeding 100 percent of the land area in B.C. He said "perhaps" with tongue in cheek. This demonstrates an insensitivity that I think is pervasive throughout this government about the whole matter of the land claims. It seems to me that when it comes to facing the prospect of negotiating this issue with the native people, suddenly the government is cowed by the prospect of sitting down and negotiating this very fundamental question, as if somehow we had super negotiators who would obtain a land mass that would exceed the land mass we already had. I think this is the same old rhetoric that they're going to trot out election after election.

He talked about there really being no difference between the rights of aboriginal people and those of recent immigrants. This is a member who was once the Minister of Fisheries some decades ago, who also oversaw some of the most disastrous policies introduced in the whole fishing industry, who dealt extensively with aboriginal people in terms of fishing rights and who knows that under section 91 (24) the aboriginal people enjoy — or maybe we should say suffer — a unique constitutional status in Canada This is a well-known constitutional fact that courts after courts have affirmed.

This is a minister who is a member of this Social Credit government which signed the constitution of Canada in 1982. It includes section 25, which talks about the fact that nothing in the Charter will derogate or abrogate the rights of the aboriginal people. This is a minister who is a member of the Social Credit government which signed section 35, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights. Yet he stands there and says that the rights of aboriginal people and recent immigrant arrivals are the same.

[4:00]

He's wrong on that count. There are certain rights that recent immigrant arrivals have, but they certainly do not equal the rights that we as Canadians enjoy under the Charter. I would challenge him to produce any kind of court decision that would substantiate his assertion.

The constitution does recognize certain rights that all Canadians share. As I said, section 35 recognizes and affirms the rights of the aboriginal people. The minister and this government may not like that fact. They may abhor it; they may say it is not fair. But it is in the constitution of Canada, the most supreme document of our country.

They may deny the fact that our people once had a vibrant society, a vibrant sense of property and institutions, and think that by just merely coming here and passing certain ordinances we somehow do not exist anymore as people. That is why I brand their stance racist, because I think it has no substance if you read history, anthropology and international law. It ignores all these.

I think that this government has to start realizing there is growing public opinion that calls for some kind of accommodation. I don't think any sensible aboriginal leader has said that it will result in huge land transfers or somehow empty the public treasury. I think it is really an attempt to renegotiate fundamentally a relationship between the aboriginal people and the rest of Canada. I think it's going to mean a certain amount of adjustment in terms of land base. It's going to mean a certain opening up of opportunities for not only the native people but the rest of British Columbians.

Certainly this concept was examined at a recent conference held at the University of Victoria on February 21 and 22 this year. The title of that conference was "Reaching Just Settlements: Land Claims in British Columbia." Over 300 participants joined in the proceedings, and they represented almost every part of Canada and many of the major interests in British Columbia,

I was there and I witnessed that speaker after speaker made it abundantly clear that they wanted a solution to the land question in British Columbia. There were representatives from business, labour, municipalities, environmental groups, the legal and academic professions and the first nations of British Columbia. just about every speaker said that there was a need for just settlement and negotiations that might lead to it.

I think that they also were able to identify the many forces that will eventually drive the provincial and federal governments to the negotiating table in British Columbia. I quote the summary of this conference by Frank Cassidy, who is a member of the public administration faculty of the University of Victoria, wherein he says:

[ Page 9040 ]

"There is an accelerating sense that the absence of settlements is causing uncertainty which is negatively affecting the economy. Developers wonder who their real landlords are or will be. Investors are concerned about the conditions that surround and will be surrounding development. Working people worry about their jobs. Small businesses such as those in the fishing industry are concerned about who will pay for settlements when they do come. Large businesses are thinking about going or just staying elsewhere."

These are serious uncertainties that exist and will continue to exist as long as this question is not met realistically by this government, and it is not evident in the throne speech that it will be.

We have to recognize that this question has been going on since the time of contact. In fact, if you study our history, there was a period of cooperation, coexistence and sharing. What happened when settlement began? We talk about Christian ethics. I thought that two of the tenets of Christian ethics were "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet." Those are the very driving forces that eventually drove the native people to reserves and to the kind of third world class they are now in. As long as we ignore this question, not only in British Columbia but in the rest of Canada, we can't point fingers at Mandela and say: "Hurrah for your freedom." We have to address this problem at home before we can start pointing fingers elsewhere in the world.

It ss a problem that, as Mr. Cassidy has pointed out, is rooted firmly in our history. It has been there since the beginning, and it's not going to go away. This government's continuing strategy in trying to deal with it in the courts is really just staving off the inevitable.

Mr. Speaker, I don't really want to be lengthy today. I know that my colleagues have covered many of the other areas in the throne speech that I have concerns with, but I just want to conclude by continuing the analogy I opened with. We have a captain, our leader, who is experienced and knows where he's going; we have some very top-rate navigators; and we have a committed and competent crew. I've been proud to share this brief three and a half years with them, and I'm certainly going to be there with them in the coming election.

I think that the heat emanating from the other side is the passionate intensity of the desperate, and they have every reason to be so.

MR. MOWAT: I wish to take my place and speak in the debate in support of the throne speech. As always, when I speak it's great to see the House full with so many members.

I would first like to offer congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the honourable position as elected Speaker of our House; to the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) as Deputy Speaker, a position he has filled so well in the past; and to the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) on being elected Chairman of Committees. I would also like to welcome the two new members to the Legislature this session: the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt), an area which I have a great fondness for, and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull).

Members on both sides of the House have spoken to the throne speech and covered many areas. Because of the time, my speech will be brief, but I would like to focus on some areas that I feel very strongly about. I want to speak on the "Freedom to Move" transportation plan, and in particular how it will affect Vancouver-Little Mountain.

Vancouver-Little Mountain is changing very rapidly in its makeup, from the exciting development on the south side of False Creek and the continual expansion of Granville Island to the development of higher-density housing to the south of Broadway and the development of many highrise office buildings all along Broadway. Many of our neighbourhoods are being changed by the building of new homes.

My colleague the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) has already addressed the House on the role that transportation has played In the past and will play in the future of our province, particularly in economic growth.

SkyTrain, a project of this government opposed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was mayor, has been an unparalleled success and has by far surpassed the projected rides in the planning stages. It has proven beyond a doubt that people like it, that they are finally getting out of their automobiles. SkyTrain is convenient, affordable, clean, safe, fast and efficient, and, on a personal note, it is accessible to all citizens, particularly those who have mobility problems and use walkers and wheelchairs as a means of mobility transportation.

In Vancouver-Little Mountain we are concerned that the proposed expansion of the SkyTrain to Richmond will have a very strong impact on our neighbourhoods. The planned extension to Richmond, we understand, will pass through Vancouver Little Mountain on possibly two routes, and these two routes will be the Arbutus Corridor and Cambie Street. My colleague and I want to ensure that the needs of our constituents are protected, and we will be addressing the transportation committee and asking that they review the cut-and-cover approach and that it be investigated regardless of where the rapid transit route finally goes. We want to ensure that both the visual and noise concerns are well canvassed and that proper solutions are attained before the commencement of this exciting and challenging project, which will benefit the members of Vancouver-Little Mountain.

I'd now like to speak in some more generalities. I wish to go on record as supporting the following subjects covered in the throne speech. When I was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1983, it was just the beginning of the restraint program. British Columbia led Canada, and this government showed the leadership that brought about economic growth, prosperity and benefits that we enjoy today. We know only too well, by looking at the federal deficit and the amount of interest that we as Canadians are paying daily on this debt, that unless the federal government

[ Page 9041 ]

makes dramatic changes by reducing the federal staff and readdressing their spending allocations, the federal government will still continue to increase. We know our children and grandchildren will be paying for the mistakes that have been made and are still being made by the federal government.

I commend the throne speech for pointing out to the citizens of British Columbia that while our prosperity and economic situation is the best in Canada — with a balanced budget — we must ensure that we continue to present government's program of financial responsibility and disciplined budgeting. We know that other parts of the economy in Canada and in the United States are on a downward trend, but with the sound financial planning of this government in the past, the present and future of British Columbia is ensured, and British Columbia will weather any economic downtrends.

[4:15]

The environment is on the minds and the lips of everyone today. I believe our government has developed economic environmental programs and has taken action to enforce these programs. The environmental action program called "Vision 2001" will target our main environmental problems and will be achieved with public input.

I understand that the city of Vancouver is at long last starting a testing program for curbside recycling, which I again state is long overdue but a positive step to the problem of how a large metropolitan city can handle its disposable waste.

Mr. Speaker and members of the chamber, you know that I'm involved in the health care field. Vancouver-Little Mountain has the majority of hospitals which are provincial referral centres: the University Hospital, Shaughnessy site; Vancouver General Hospital; the Children's Hospital; Grace Hospital; Mount St. Joseph Hospital; St. Vincent's Hospital; and the G.R Strong Rehabilitation Centre; plus numerous intermediate and extended care units.

Our government expenditure in the past year on health has been over $4 billion. I'm sure we would all agree that the health industry could use the total provincial budget each year. I believe that the Royal Commission on Health Care will be an opportunity for all citizens to give input on the kind of care they wish to have delivered through our health care system. It will also allow medical professionals to discuss both the ethics of allowing persons to die with dignity and the advisability of programs for those who require heart transplants and other organ transplants.

As we all know, there are concerns in the health care system. Often we hear only about these concerns, and not about the many outstanding achievements being made in the British Columbia health care system. I know of a personal friend who ran into health care problems on Thursday last, was operated on and given a triple heart bypass on Monday. We have been told repeatedly by the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) that emergency cardiovascular surgery is handled very properly. It is handled not only properly, but promptly.

We need more technicians and more nurses, but the hospitals are meeting this problem. I note that the University Hospital, Shaughnessy site, has just recruited 75 nurses from Great Britain to help fill some of our vacancies. With our government's policy on deinstitutionalizing persons, many of our disabled persons are returning to the community, in spite of their tremendous disability and the requirements for attendant care and medical assistance, in order that they can have a quality of life that was not available to them in health care institutions. Many other persons with different medical problems are now being returned to our community with the benefits of a very strong and supportive in-home support service of home-care nursing, home-care attendants and other programs such as Meals on Wheels. This government has been a leader in North America in these programs. Again, many of our citizens are returning to their homes in all areas of British Columbia — not just in the lower mainland as some did in past years — to lead again a meaningful and productive life.

The government has announced a home-support program for parents with disabled children. The budget of $14.9 million that was brought forward in our last session has allowed many disabled children to remain in the family home with their parents and brothers and sisters. Many children who are born with disabilities or become disabled through injury, accidents or disease are now able to return to their homes and not spend their years in health care institutions.

There is one area that I'm pleased to report this government is addressing: the care of persons with AIDS. I recently attended a workshop dealing with persons with physical disabilities and also AIDS. This made me more aware of this subject, and I'm pleased to congratulate the Minister of Health on the new draft discussion paper on further development of the provincial AIDS strategy. I say further development, because I believe the public has been left with the unfortunate impression that little has been done by the province to combat this dreadful disease. Quite to the contrary, large sums have been and are being spent, not only on testing and treatment but in a variety of other ways, both directly and in cooperation with others, including the screening of the blood supply, mandatory in-school education, the B.C. AIDS line, an excellent pamphlet program which reached every household in the province, a multilingual video program which has received wide distribution, and specific outreach programs for high-risk groups, including addicts, street people and inmates. Excellent guides have been produced on AIDS in the workplace, and government staff and caregivers have been provided with sensitive guidance on dealing with this extremely sensitive and intimate topic.

As a Vancouver MLA, I must say that the minister's initiative in bringing forward priorities which include a truly comprehensive educational and prevention strategy and his review of medication policies is extremely welcome and will go a long way to meeting the great concern in our community. Homo-

[ Page 9042 ]

sexuality and bisexual males form a significant and stable community in our city and are by far the largest group at risk at the present time.

My own background is in working with the disabled, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this disease plays no favourites. We are finding increasing numbers of disabled persons testing HIV-positive, mainly from non-sexual forms of transmission. I hope the minister will ensure that the unique problems of the disabled are also taken into consideration in the comprehensive report.

I look forward to the major expansion of AIDS funding to renew the educational effort and to deal with the great range of relative concerns, not the least of which is hospice services. There is a tendency for this issue to be lost in the shuffle. We simply must not let this happen. AIDS is a relentless killer which killed more of us this year than last and will call for still more next year. It has already killed more Americans than the Vietnam war.

I am delighted that our students led Canada in a survey of those with AIDS knowledge. At the same time, I am determined that we do not become complacent. For example, the level of early teen-age sexual involvement has accelerated dramatically over the past 30 years. It is a reality we must acknowledge, and it must be dealt with. We must recognize that even awareness is not enough. Full marks to the Minister of Health for his progressive effort in what we know will be a long and brutal war.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak of employment and the aspects and prospects for the citizens of British Columbia. Only yesterday I was able to represent the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) at a ceremony in Vancouver at which this government, through that ministry, made a loan of $200,000 to a company called Venture Technologies Inc. This company has built and is marketing new computer hardware and a software program that will allow disabled persons to interact with computers. This device, known as Turbo Select, will allow persons who cannot speak or cannot move their limbs to access computers to remotely control home appliances. This will enable them to perform many tasks which we take for granted, such as opening doors and turning switches, telephones and televisions on and off. The machine will become a voice for those who cannot speak. The product they have developed will be produced in British Columbia and sold not only in Canada but exported to the United States and then to the world.

I would also like to touch briefly on education how well the Royal Commission on Education has been accepted by the general public. I'd like to comment on the actions of this government in already implementing the recommendations of that royal commission. The members of the opposition and other persons in the school system have stated that there are problems in British Columbia's education system. I strongly believe the royal commission will provide an in-depth look at education today and the needs for the future, and those recommendations are now being put into action. However, we find that some of these educators who complained in the past are now complaining that this government is moving too fast.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has informed the citizens of British Columbia of the new funding formula. In this funding formula, all dollars that were allocated to a district in past years will be allocated in the same amount this year, plus a 6 percent increase, This is outside the block funding. There are funding increases also for increased enrolment, English as a second language, the continuing and expanding of mainstreaming of special-needs children, the provision for computers and other programs brought to the attention of the minister that are not in the block funding but have been agreed upon.

This government has given citizens who wish to spend more funds on education an opportunity to go to a referendum. The history in Vancouver since the restraint program of the provincial government, which shows how effective this program has been, is that Vancouver residents voted yes for nine referenda since November 20, 1982, and no referenda were turned down. I believe the citizens of Vancouver know how they want their tax dollars spent, and the referendum allows them the choice. Because we must all remember it is their tax dollars we are spending.

I want to talk about the value-added forest programs, in particular one firm, Norvik Timber, which has purchased the Fletcher Challenge mill on Tilbury Island and is processing alder. This program is now underway and the second phase will now take place where the value-added product will be put into that mill. It will employ 70 disabled persons who will be responsible for taking what was a weed wood and turning it into a very value-added white wood which is used in furniture manufacturing and will be exported to many areas of the United States and the Pacific Rim.

I would like to talk about the pay equity programs for working women in British Columbia. This will be fully discussed in the budget speech, but I think it is a step in the right direction and long overdue.

I want to speak about the British Columbia Ferries. It is without a doubt one of the most unique ferry systems in the world. It is very efficient and very effective. When we compare it to the cost of other ferry systems in the world, it is relatively inexpensive. The program for new ferries is an exciting one, and we must commend the government for looking at that program. We must get on with building those ferries as they are needed now and will be needed more so with the continued growth of our province.

The crews on board the ships and the crews in the terminals do an outstanding job. This past Easter weekend they were tested again, but again the ferry system came through with flying colours. We will note very shortly, I am sure, that we have again broken the record for the number of persons and vehicles transported on this weekend.

[4:30]

On May 1, the motor vessel Alberni will start to travel between Tsawwassen and Nanaimo, and this

[ Page 9043 ]

will bring a new and exciting transportation link to many users in this area and give additional service to the truckers.

Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about housing in British Columbia. I must say that the B.C. Housing Management Commission has done and is doing an outstanding job. Through that commission we are now bringing on stream 8,000 units of affordable housing. In the coming year there will be 42,000 new housing starts in British Columbia alone, as well as 20,000 new social housing starts. The Housing Management Commission is now responsible for over 53,000 housing units for social needs persons.

There are many more positive programs spoken about in the throne speech, and I look forward to an exciting budget tomorrow which will lead us into the nineties. I am very proud and pleased to be part of the team, and I look forward to being part of that team for many years to come.

MR. SIHOTA: On one hand it is a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate on the throne speech, a debate which, of course, is broadly based and deals with a number of issues.

During the course of my comments, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a number of issues that are important to my constituents, issues which have been left untouched by the government's throne speech. I know many of my constituents are going to be surprised to know that the issues that matter most to them were either passed over quietly in the throne speech or not touched on at all.

Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, in many ways, it's unfortunate that we are even here on this April day discussing the government's throne speech. It's my view that we shouldn't be here. It's my view that we should be out on the hustings and that there should be an election. More than anything else, my constituents want a change in government. They're fed up with this current administration, with a government that imposes its moral values on them, favours its friends and insiders, and will never admit it's wrong. People in my riding are saying: "Enough is enough. We've had enough of Social Credit, and we want a change in government. We want to bring forward a government that is imaginative, that represents the mainstream views of British Columbians and that is prepared to deal with the issues that face us all in the nineties."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair. Would other members afford this member the courtesy that he afforded them when they were speaking.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the members over there — particularly the one heckling the loudest, who's got his pension due on May 5 — would prefer that we not be on the hustings, so they can secure their pensions. Some of the others would prefer to maintain their current status and not be out on the hustings. Members of the Social Credit Party, in my view, are afraid to face the electorate. If they weren't, we'd have an election right now. Instead, what we've got is an unimaginative throne speech which has all the texture of pablum. It's unfortunate when you take a look at the throne speech and note the omissions and the things the government doesn't talk about and chooses to overlook.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to talk about the things that are important to my constituents and what my constituents want to have addressed. I'm sorry to see that the Premier is not in the Legislature right now to hear our concerns, but that's not surprising from a Premier who would prefer one-man rule and who thinks he's got all the answers.

One of the things the Premier and members of the government don't like to hear about is the state of health care in British Columbia today. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, my constituents are deeply concerned about the deteriorating standards of health care in British Columbia. The members opposite can heckle as loud as they want, but they should be silent for a moment and let me quote just one letter out of the hundreds I have received from my constituents in the past few months, talking about their deep concerns about health care.

I want to put this letter on the record because it is representative of the concerns my constituents have. It's dated March 21, and it's from a constituent who has given me the authority to read it into the record. It says:

"Dear Moe:

"Re the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia. My experience over the past several months is certainly a good indication of the degree to which health care is being rationed in British Columbia, and gives one cause for concern about the future of medicare in this province.

"In February of 1989, tests conducted at the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria showed the presence of two giant cerebral aneurysms, which I was told represented a life-threatening problem. I was referred to Dr. F.A. Durity of the Vancouver General Hospital, and in March I consented to the recommended surgery and was placed on a waiting-list for same. The waiting-period extended over ten months, and needless to say, this was an anxious time for myself and family.

"Finally, in January of this year, Dr. Durity was able to make arrangements for the surgery to be done by Dr. F.J. Peerless at the University Hospital in London, Ontario. I was admitted on January 24 and discharged on February 10. Two operations were performed during my stay.

"Thankfully, the surgery was quite successful, but vision in my right eye is now seriously impaired. I am told this is the result of the prolonged crushing of the optic nerve, which no doubt worsened during the extended waiting-period. Surely the B.C. health care plan can do better."

Mr. Speaker, that is one example of countless letters that I have received in my constituency office and here at my office in the Legislature from constit-

[ Page 9044 ]

uents who are concerned about the deterioration of health care in British Columbia.

The throne speech — and I'm glad the Premier is here now — made little reference to solving these kinds of problems, to dealing with the frustration that British Columbians face every day when dealing with hospital waiting-lists and delayed surgery, and the stress that comes with their not knowing what effect that delay is going to have on their lifestyles.

I say, Mr. Speaker, shame on this government for not making a commitment to top-quality, first-class health care in British Columbia.

If I might digress for a moment, as I see the Premier in the House, the government has been sending people off to foreign jurisdictions for health care services — to the United States. You know, the one thing that we as Canadians have always bragged about when we talk to Americans is the quality of our health care service. We point with pride to the type of health care service we have traditionally had in Canada. The Premier and this government have humiliated and embarrassed Canadians and British Columbians by sending people south of the border for health care, by admitting that our health care services in this province are substandard compared with the Americans'.

As a representative of the party that first brought medicare to Canada, I want to say that it would be our commitment, after the next election — I want to encourage the Premier to call that election now — to make sure that we have a top-quality, universal health care system in this province that serves the world as the symbol of what we can do in health care services; not something substandard. What we have in this province now is a second-rate health care system run by a second-rate government, and people in my riding want a first-class health care service run by a first-class government. That's why people in my riding want an election. They want a change in government, Mr. Speaker — through you to the Premier — so that we can begin to implement the kinds of programs that British Columbians want.

There is a crisis in housing in the Victoria area. Again, if the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) doesn't think there is one, I would like to invite him to come into my riding to talk to my constituents. Obviously, on the North Shore, or in West Vancouver where the affluent live, he wouldn't understand what a housing crisis is all about.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the throne speech should have made a number of tangible promises to deal with the housing crisis in British Columbia. Yet not one promise, not one commitment was made in this throne speech to deal with the housing crisis that we have in British Columbia.

For example, young families in my riding — because I have a lot of growth in Colwood and the Western Communities, in Langford and Metchosin — want affordable and accessible housing. Yet the government throne speech was silent on the matter of providing affordable housing. We, positively, as New Democrats, have offered concrete solutions.

I see the Premier looking at me. I would have been delighted if he had taken up some of our positive suggestions to remedy the housing crisis in British Columbia. I want to tell the Premier what some of those positive solutions are that were missing from the unimaginative throne speech of the government, the kind of imagination the people now want in British Columbia that is so sadly lacking from the Social Credit administration.

We've said, as a party, that we would help young families break into the housing market by providing a program of 5,000 starter homes in cooperation with the private sector. I want the Premier to know — because he's listening now, Mr. Speaker — that the Vancouver real estate board has said that the program that the NDP has introduced for starter homes, for young families, for young people starting out, is an exemplary program that they endorse.

If we were elected, we would provide tax breaks for first-time and modest-home buyers. We would exempt first-time homebuyers from the property purchase tax that this government, the Social Credit Party, introduced: the 1 percent surtax on young families in my riding that want to buy homes. People who struggle to save money to buy a home are now hit with a 1 percent surtax, while at the same time large corporations in downtown Victoria and Vancouver can transfer real estate from one corporation to another by share transfers and not pay a penny in property transfer tax.

What we would do, Mr. Speaker, is make those corporations pay and let young families off the hook, so they can get into the housing market and get affordable housing. That's the kind of imaginative, sensible program that people in my riding want, and they want an election now so that they can get a government that will implement it.

We would increase second mortgages. We would provide second mortgages up to $20,000 for first-time homebuyers, to double what the government is doing now. It doesn't cost the treasury anything significant in dollars to implement that type of program, because that money is repaid.

We would put a tax on land speculation to take flipping out of our market. We would encourage renovations to encourage energy efficiency in homes. Those are the types of concrete solutions that young families look for, and that's why more and more young families in my riding are looking to our party, not to the Socreds. They want these types of programs so that they can achieve their dream of owning a home.

[4:45]

In my riding, particularly in Esquimalt, 50 percent of my constituents are renters; they live in apartments or duplexes. They can always be held to ransom by landlords wanting to gouge them with incredible rent increases. In fact, in the last few months alone, I have seen rent increase notices in my riding that go as high as 163 percent — a 163 percent increase in rental rates. Surely a government with imagination would introduce a rent stabilization program that would establish a rent referee to roll

[ Page 9045 ]

back unjustified rent increases, protect tenants and introduce the type of legislation we need to provide tenants with rental protection. Yet in this throne speech this government is not prepared to provide that type of protection to our renters.

We would introduce a program of ending discrimination against tenants. Right now, amazingly, landlords can discriminate on a number of grounds, including age and sex. We would protect renters from unfair evictions, because people require protection in the midst of a housing crisis.

Those are the types of programs that should have been mentioned in the throne speech but that are absent — programs such as providing public land to increase housing, because British Columbians don't want any more Expo land deals. They want land for housing, and they want Crown land put aside for that purpose.

While I'm talking about Expo, most of my constituents are most disturbed to learn that this government, in the middle of a real estate boom, somehow managed to sell one-quarter of downtown Vancouver at a loss to the taxpayers. Well, they don't want this government to sell off our public land anymore. They want that land to be made available for housing.

Mr. Speaker, those are the types of initiatives that people in my riding want when it comes to housing Those are the types of initiatives they would expect from any government. It is tragic indeed that this government chose not to make mention of any of those types of protection in their throne speech and not to make any reference to the need for renters to be protected.

As I read the throne speech, I was saddened to see that there was little or no reference to shipbuilding. I want to talk about shipbuilding for a moment, because it is a fundamental part of the economic fabric of my riding. We lost the Polar 8 contract, and there was not a whimper from this government until it was too late. But to add injury to that insult, this government, through its Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston).... I'm sorry to see that she's not in the House now, Mr. Speaker; I'll address my comments through you to the Premier.

This government has said that they will go out and buy a new ferry to service the routes to the mainland. Well, I want to tell you that that announcement sent a chill throughout my community and throughout the shipyards in my riding, because right now on the drawing-boards we have all the engineering plans for class C ferries. We could announce today that we're going to build, and we could have new ferries on line within 18 months. I have hundreds of shipyard workers in my riding, of whom a number have contacted me, saying: "What is going on with this government? Why are they so insane as to say that they want to go overseas and buy ferries when we could be and should be building ferries here in British Columbia?" When they've got the skill and the desire to be working, this government decides to go out and buy ferries overseas.

That flies in the face of the promise the Premier made — made when I asked him a year and a half ago in this House; made to this Legislature and through this Legislature to the people of this province — that this government would not go overseas to buy ferries. Now this government wishes to go overseas to buy ferries, when we could be building them now in my riding. All the engineering and drawing plans are there.

I see the Premier chatting away to another minister. He doesn't want to hear all this bad news about the way his government is causing harm to our shipbuilding industry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where did you get that information about the building of the ferries?

MR. SIHOTA: I want to put this on the record; I'd be most delighted to put this on record. The Premier is heckling: "Where did you get this information?" I will be happy to provide to the Premier — to table in this House — the information provided to me by the shipyard workers in my riding. By the way, I'm still waiting for the Premier to table a certain press release he said he had. We'll wait for that, Mr. Premier.

The shipyard workers in my riding are ready to work. They want those jobs. They're ready to build. All they need is the green light from this government, and it's frustrating to see that this government wants to go overseas to go out and buy ferries.

Talking of planning, surely this government knew full well there would be a demand for more ferries on the west coast. They should have announced five years ago that they were going to implement a 15-year plan for shipbuilding on Vancouver Island. Think what that would have done for our economy. Because of those dark days of restraint when the government chose to cut the shipbuilding budget, we now have this problem a tremendous demand for service and not enough ferries to meet it. So this government's solution is to go overseas. My solution is to build them here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Not one word was uttered in the throne speech about day care. Coming from a riding where we see more and more young families, I want to tell you.... In fact, last year we had a 29 percent increase in single families living in the Western Communities, in my riding.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I know those members that heckle don't want to hear this, but there was not one mention of child care or day care in the throne speech. People in my riding want a program to look after their needs as they relate to child care and day care. Yet not one word was uttered in the throne speech about this. Talk about a government that doesn't care about children! Talk about a government that doesn't care about young families! Talk about a government that's run out of ideas! Talk about a

[ Page 9046 ]

government that has no imagination! That's why people in my riding want an election.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're history.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says I'm history. If you think I'm history, then tell the Premier to call an election, and we'll see who's history, Mr. Minister, me or you.

The day care operators in my riding are saying this government should increase the subsidy for day care through Social Services and Housing. They're saying it ought to be available for every day they provide those services— not some number set by some bureaucrat in that ministry. They're saying very clearly that they'd be happy to participate in a bulk buying program through the school boards to provide supplies for day care operators in my riding. That's a very sensible kind of program. That's a very sensible suggestion. It's the kind of sensible suggestion you should have found in the throne speech, but it was lacking.

They're saying they'd like to see some grants for capital acquisition and improvements with respect to day care operations. Again, no mention of that in the throne speech. No mention of the situation as it relates to wages — the poor wages paid to those people who work in the day care field. Again, operators in my riding that I talked to would like to see those types of steps taken by government. Yet it's not happening, because this government doesn't even mention child care or day care in its throne speech. It would prefer that the matter not be attended to at all by government.It’s tragic, indeed, that this government is not paying attention to these needs.

I see the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is now here in the House. I would like to encourage him to look later at my remarks in the House. I look forward to him, soon, in this session, maybe with the budget tomorrow, announcing that the government will introduce some of these kinds of sensible programs to assist day care operators in my riding.

I want to say that individuals in my riding are, as I am, utterly opposed to the GST. They think the goods and services tax should not be implemented by this government's Tory friends. When I tell them that this government would say that, on the one hand, it's against the GST, but on the other hand, is in Ottawa negotiating with the federal government to implement the GST, they're astounded and horrified to think that this government would be in bed with its Tory friends to implement the goods and services tax, that it wants to implement the goods and services tax. I say shame on this Socred administration that would want to get in bed with its Ottawa friends to implement the GST.

What really upsets me more than anything else, because I see the Premier here, is his supposed solution to the GST. He says it's simple: just reduce the federal bureaucracy by 25 percent. I know that the Premier doesn't venture into Esquimalt-Port Renfrew very often, but I want him to come out to our military base in Esquimalt, walk around and tell one out of every four workers there that they'd be out of work, that he thinks they should be out of work. I invite him to come down to that base, which we treasure in our community, and where members opposite know I spend a fair bit of time. We work daily with the commanding officer and so on, because a lot of our constituency problems come from there. I want the Premier to come out to my riding, walk around that base and tell one out of every four workers that he thinks they should be out of work. That's his solution to the GST.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I would be happy to deal with all of these issues that all the other people over there on the other side of the House are heckling about — that unimaginative corps — but I've only got a limited amount of time, and I want to touch on those issues which are important to my riding.

My invitation to the members opposite, to the Premier and his caucus, which is now assembling in this hall to listen to these words, is that if you have confidence in what you're proposing, call an election, because that's where we should be right now. We should be out on the hustings.

I want to tell this House that I am deeply concerned about the spending practices of this government, because some of the things that I've talked about will obviously cost money — day care, solving the health care problem, the highways and that kind of stuff. I see the minister responsible for highways is here and I'll be making some comments to her now. These things cost money; I understand that. I'll tell you what my constituents are upset about. They see their taxpayer dollars being wasted on a $7 million jet for the Premier that doesn't even fly anymore; $8 million on a decentralization program that doesn't work; $11 million every night on television advertising; $250,000 to David Poole in severance payments; $100,000 to the former minister from Vancouver-Little Mountain in office furniture. Those kinds of expenditures upset me and my constituents. When we have the type of crisis that we have in health care and in housing, it's absolutely amazing that this government will spend those taxpayers' dollars, wasting them on jets for the Premier and crazy schemes in the Premier's head that don't work and cost us $8 million.

There's money there. What's wrong is that the priorities of this government are out of touch with the priorities of ordinary people in my riding. They want the money spent on housing, health care, highways, transit and day care, not on jets for the Premier and nightly advertising designed to improve the complexion of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about transportation and highways because I see the minister is here as well. I want her to know that people in my riding are waiting for the Island Highway. They're waiting for all those improvements along the Trans-Canada out to Sooke, and along Millstream Road. I've invited the

[ Page 9047 ]

minister to join me in the Colwood crawl so she can see on a firsthand basis how bad the traffic problems are. I want to re-issue that invitation today to the minister to come to my riding. I'll provide the car. You can drive with us, Madam Minister, to see just how bad it is and how badly we would like to see a feasibility study done into light rapid transit in the Western Communities. Those are the kinds of things that people in my riding would have liked to have seen attended to in this throne speech, but they were sadly missing.

[5:00]

I see my time's up. I regret I wasn't able to get into the environment and talk about the dumping of raw sewage into our ocean and the need for this government to provide funding for sewage treatment — which it did not mention in its throne speech — particularly out in the Western Communities. So we continue to have this catastrophe off our shores. Those are the kinds of imaginative things that people in my riding want. It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government is not prepared to deliver on these types of sensible programs for ordinary people in my riding.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to congratulate you on your election to this most important post and to wish you well during the time ahead in dealing with what may be — from time to time — a very difficult House and some difficult situations.

I also want to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman for the Committee of the Whole. I know they will do an excellent job, as they have done in the past.

I would like to respond to some of the things that have been said by members of the opposition in response to the Speech from the Throne, I regret that there are so few members from the opposition here, and that the Leader of the Opposition is again absent. But perhaps if they are somewhere within hearing distance of this assembly, they'll come back to participate in the legislative session by taking in some of the good information I have to provide for the House.

First of all, I think it might be interesting if I could somehow set the stage a little by asking all members here three questions that perhaps will clarify some of the confusion that people have about the NDP socialists in particular.

I would like to begin by asking which of the following statements correctly identifies the NDP's position on the province's plans to upgrade the Island Highway. These are positions that have been put forth by the NDP. I'll let you guess which: (a) the proposal for the Island Highway is intelligent and gutsy; (b) money could be better spent on other things; (c) work should be fast-tracked; (d) big projects should not be fast-tracked; or (e) all of the above.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: All of the above.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All of the above. You guessed it. That's tremendous. I commend you; you had it right.

I would like to ask you another one. When Expo 86 was being planned, the Leader of the Opposition: (a) called it a second-rate Disneyland; (b) described it as an unwanted frivolity; (c) wrote to the Bureau of International Exhibitions asking them to refuse the application for what he called "a multimillion dollar birthday bash"; (d) visited the Bureau of International Exhibitions to ask for their support of Expo; (e) all of the above.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: All of the above,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All of the above. You're right again. Phenomenal! Well done; I'm impressed.

Last one. The NDP is always looking at ways to spend more money, because they believe public funds have no limit. Does the NDP want, from the statements we've heard, the following: (a) an increase in income taxes; (b) an increase in business taxes; (c) to impose a municipal income tax; or (d) all of the above?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: All of the above.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: All of the above. You got it again. I'm impressed.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, we can well appreciate why there's such great confusion throughout the whole province about the NDP socialists and what they stand for, because we really can't get a handle on policies or positions. It's extremely confusing. I'd like to take a bit of the time I have available to elaborate on some of this confusion, so that those who are following this session or reading Hansard will have a better understanding of why we too on this side are very confused about the socialist policies in the province.

The Leader of the Opposition in his reply to the throne speech talked about grass-roots democracy. He said he wanted to open up the decision-making process to all British Columbians, and in a column he wrote for the Vancouver Sun on behalf of Nicole Parton today he elaborates on that too. He wants to provide for grass-roots participation: give the people a say in those things that directly affect them; somehow permit that opportunity for people to express their views. Yet for days now in this House we've heard the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite condemn the referenda, a proposal which without a doubt is the ultimate in grass-roots democracy, because you ask the people whether they agree with particular proposals, especially spending proposals.

You see, the socialists don't want the people to be involved in the decisions made with respect to spending, because that's their favourite pastime: having their hands in other people's pockets and spending other people's money. So much for socialist, NDP grass-roots democracy — only when it suits us, they

[ Page 9048 ]

say, do we allow for grass-roots democracy. But when it comes to referenda or any type of participatory democracy that really allows the people a say — no, they're against it. Confusing for people — understandably, too.

For years the NDP have whined and screamed that the provincial government should implement the McMath report. You'll all remember Mr. Robert McMath. He's an alderman in Richmond — my constituency — and a fine gentleman. As a matter of fact, if he wasn't NDP I'd give him a 10. People do go astray from time to time, and that's perhaps what happened to Bob, but he is a good friend and a fine fellow. He did a report for the NDP during the period '70-75 to determine what was a fair share for the province to provide with respect to educational funding, what ought to be paid directly from provincial treasury and what could be raised by taxes on property. Mr. McMath, after a full study throughout the whole of the province as commissioned by the NDP socialists, came back and said a fair funding formula would be 75 percent provincial and 25 percent from property taxes.

For years and years I recall the NDP whined about this. They said: "Why don't you implement the McMath report?" You see, again, the Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn't do his homework very well, or like the former speaker perhaps makes up some things from time to time. But now he says: "Well, the province provides 83 percent of the funding, but it ought to be 90 percent." So the NDP would like the province to pay 90 percent of school costs, and they would like this to be paid without any controls over the school boards. Where would the NDP get this additional funding? Higher taxes, that's where they would get it.

Then the NDP policy continues in a letter to one of the Vancouver newspapers. The Leader of the Opposition incorrectly stated that the block funding to school boards is well below the Canadian average. In fact, of course, it's above the Canadian average and one of the highest in Canada.

The NDP are not only confused about education funding; there's confusion within the opposition over health care. This party makes a habit of always demanding a royal commission. Whenever there's something they would like to see pursued for their own ends or whatever, they're calling for a royal commission. They can't make up their minds whether they want a royal commission into health care or not. In his reply to the throne speech, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) scoffed at the idea, while the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) described it as a worthwhile action. Again, they can't make up their minds. It's one way now, it's another way next time, whatever it is, however it suits.

The NDP health care critic — unfortunately he's not here right now — had this to say last year in the House: "In British Columbia we probably have one of the very best health systems, if not the best." But what did he say after the Royal Commission on Health Care had been established? He said: "I'm ashamed at the state of the health system in British Columbia." So last year one thing; this year something else.

Confusion, confusion, confusion within the NDP ranks. It's everywhere. The socialists can't make up their minds. The NDP solution is always to throw more money at the problem. How do you think they're going to get this money? Higher taxes.

[5:15]

The NDP confusion doesn't stop with education and health care. They're also confused about the environment. Last month the Leader of the Opposition — as the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) said earlier in the House today — took the media on a boat tour of Vancouver harbour. He rented himself a yacht and he went out on the yacht with a few media people. He took a tour through the harbour. This Leader of the Opposition, who's so concerned and knows so much about the environment, thought he should show the people from the Vancouver Sun, the Province, BCTV, CBC and CKVU the Vancouver harbour firsthand and what it was he knew about the harbour. So he said: "You know, if we should get elected, oil tankers will be accompanied by a tug. We're going to have a tug with every oil tanker." What he didn't know is that we have a policy that requires four tugs to accompany oil tankers — not one but four.

This same Leader of the Opposition called for a moratorium on increased oil tanker traffic. Now think about that. He takes the position that we ought to have a moratorium on increased oil tanker traffic. Fine, but yet, when the Vancouver Island gas pipeline was announced, which will reduce oil tanker traffic by almost one a day, he was opposed to it. He called the pipeline a fraud and a sham. Here we have a pipeline bringing natural gas— our own product — from the great Peace River country down here to be used. It's the cleanest fuel of all for the people on Vancouver Island — a good, efficient, clean fuel produced right here in B.C. — and he was against it. He wanted the people to continue burning dirty, greasy, thick oil from California or some place. That's what they wanted; that's what they know about the environment; that's how much they care. They were against the pipeline; they called it a sham.

We'll remind the people of Vancouver Island where it is you stand on the Island Highway, what you think about that, where it is you stand on the Vancouver Island gas pipeline and what you think about that.

The Leader of the Opposition is also very confused about forestry policy. He wrote in a Vancouver newspaper last September that immediate action is required to replace every tree cut. Little did he know that in fact we plant three to four trees for every one cut. He wants one to replace every tree cut.

We have more on weak and confused leadership being displayed by the opposition. Let me give you a further example. It again happened in my constituency. I'm sure all of you know Larry Kuehn, that staunch, left-wing NDP member. He wrote in the party's newspaper called New Directions: "The Leader of the Opposition, at a Vancouver-Richmond regional

[ Page 9049 ]

convention of the NDP, made an impassioned plea to the delegates not to pass a resolution calling for a moratorium on logging in the Carmanah." Now, get this. In my constituency last July, he gets up in front of a hall filled with NDPers and said: "Don't pass a resolution calling for a moratorium on logging in the Carmanah." He wanted them to carry on, I guess. He didn't say that logging the Carmanah was good, I'll grant you that; he didn't say it was a bad thing, either. In fact, he didn't say anything. Rather, he claimed that passing the resolution would upset a portion of the party's constituency and threaten the party's chances in the next election. I mean, that's really caring about the environment. "It might affect us In the next election. Oh, the Carmanah is so important — provided it doesn't affect our chances in the next election."

All of you socialists across the way will get a chance to vote on establishing the most beautiful park in the province at Carmanah, and I want you to stand up and vote for the establishment of this beautiful park. We're going to watch very closely to see what you do. I want the Leader of the Opposition to be in the House for a change on that day. We want to see what happens.

The Leader of the Opposition is very much afraid to make a decision when he has to make one, and he's not quite sure which decision to make or how it ought to be made. The Leader of the Opposition wants to avoid answering the tough questions that are required of a leader.

When the federal government announced a reduction in transfer payments to British Columbia, the leader of the NDP was asked by a television reporter, for the whole of the province to see.... I'm sure you've all played it over a few times on your video machines. Right here in the legislative buildings, he was asked by a television reporter how he would deal with the problem. Would he raise taxes or would he cut programs? The Leader of the Opposition wouldn't answer. Instead, his reply was: "Wait until we get in. Trust us."

There's more policy confusion; the story goes on. It's too bad we're limited for time, because it goes on.

In his reply to the throne speech, the Leader of the Opposition demanded that the Vancouver Island freeway be built as soon as possible. Yet in a television interview not quite a year back, he said: "We're not going to fast-track big projects. No way." Confusion, confusion, confusion.

There's one member of the NDP who is not confused, though, and he will tell us about the NDP. Leonard Krog is the NDP candidate for Parksville Qualicum, and he told British Columbians what they have suspected all along. He said that an NDP government would have to raise taxes to pay for its programs. In fact, he said: "If we're going to be honest with the people in the next election, that's what we're going to have to tell the people of British Columbia - that all of these things are going to cost a great deal of money." Corporate taxes would be increased.... Believe you me, we'd all be paying higher income taxes.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition has that message from Leonard Krog. I think Leonard Krog has been a great addition to the NDP, probably the best thing that's ever happened,

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Good old Leonard! I like Leonard,

I guess the difference between Social Credit and the NDP is that we're in favour of lowering taxes while they want them increased. Our party believes that more money should go into the family budget, and the NDP socialists believe that it should go into the provincial budget— higher taxes.

Mr. Speaker, small business is the major generator of employment in British Columbia. It creates about 80 percent of all new jobs. Since we came to power, more than 64,000 new businesses have started up in our province, an all-time record. Men and women who expressed confidence in the future of our province's economy, who saw that the province was being managed and governed well, and who knew that the opportunities were here, were prepared to invest in our beautiful province. As we all know, the NDP in the last while has been courting the business community, trying to leave the impression that they're friends of business, particularly of small business. But let's look at what kind of friends they really are.

At their convention two years ago the NDP voted against a resolution supporting small business. At this year's convention — one year later — small business was ignored. In the NDPs resolution book, under the heading of small and medium-sized businesses, was the notation: "No resolutions." They either believe that small business is doing so well under our government that further discussion was not necessary, or they have no interest at all in the well-being of the small entrepreneur.

Let's remind the people of the province what former NDP cabinet minister Bill King said about those in small business, who create most of the jobs In the province. He stated: "A new NDP government would bring in anti-business legislation if business supported Bill Vander Zalm's version of industrial relations bliss in Bill 19." Imagine that. If small business should decide that they could somehow be supportive of the legislation we introduced, then, he said: "If we become the government we'll introduce" — he blatantly said— "anti-business legislation." Some friends of business!

We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that Bill 19 would bring instability to our province and hamper investment, but again he was wrong. Let's look at the facts. We've had more labour peace in the last few years than for a long while. We've had record investments in 1987, 1988 and 1989, and we'll have record investments again in 1990. If the Leader of the Opposition calls that hampered investment, then I'd like to see a little more of it.

The Leader of the Opposition's confusion was again illustrated when he spoke in Victoria a few weeks ago about the NDP's housing policy. The story

[ Page 9050 ]

in the local paper said that he also backtracked, after lunch guests criticized it severely, on a private member's bill introduced by the NDP last year.

[5:30]

We heard the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) talk about NDP housing policy a little while ago. Well, let me tell you a bit about NDP housing policy where it really counts. Our Minister of Housing came to government and had approval quickly for the moneys required to get 4,000 housing rental units on stream; that's more than we saw built during the whole of the NDP time. It was so successful that he came back and got approval for a further 4,000 units. The program has been an enormous success. Yet the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who's a good friend of the NDP mayor of Esquimalt, must know that only a few days ago, I think it was, the council there turned down a beautiful rental housing project because they didn't want it in their community.

Where is the NDP housing policy at the local level? We have these NDP mayors fighting it at the local level in Surrey, Burnaby, Victoria and Esquimalt. That's what's killing rental housing; that's what's denying our people a place to live. It's your NDP mayors who are making it impossible for these projects to get approved at the local level.

You could be an influence at the local level. If you really cared, you would approach these mayors and say: "Help us." It's not a political question. We're not building rental accommodation for the NDP or Social Crediters or Liberals or Conservatives or Reformers. It's for people, and you should be out there assisting us. You should be out there telling these mayors that they have a role to play. They can help. They could see these things I happen if they'd only cooperate with the government, which has provided the resources and the incentives to see this housing built. You have a job to do; get with it, please.

The NDP opposition can make promises, accusations and innuendoes, but it cannot demonstrate an ability to make decisions or a capacity to serve all British Columbians, not just special interests. You can't do that.

If you're as concerned about housing as you say you are, then help us in approaching these councils that are making it so difficult. I specifically appeal to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who stood in the House and made a. speech condemning everyone here for not doing enough, when he knew all the while that only days ago a project was turned down in his own community that would have assisted a lot of needy people.

Ever since I first entered this House I've heard the NDP talk about all of these socialist models. They talked about the great things happening in New Zealand, in Australia and in Europe with socialist governments and how wonderful these socialist governments were. Well, they haven't mentioned Australia much in the last while, because they know of the economic circumstances there. They haven't talked a great deal about New Zealand, because they know that British Columbians would not accept that standard or quality of life when they have what they've enjoyed here for so many years under good government; they don't want socialism as they have it in New Zealand. They haven't talked a whole lot about socialism in Europe, because everyone in our province, in this country and throughout the world, knows what has happened to socialism in Europe. They know that the people really don't want socialism, and that's why these socialists across the way have suddenly become very quiet and don't mention the word "socialism" a whole lot anymore.

No, the Leader of the Opposition said in this House in 1988: (a) "I'm a businessman and a socialist and proud of it"; (b) "I'm not a socialist, never have been a socialist — do I sound like a socialist?" (c) "I'm a social democrat"; or (d) all of the above.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: All of the above.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's it. You got it again.

Let's look at the model that was held forth by all these members across the way. Every one of them talked for so long about how great things were in Sweden, that beautiful model Sweden. The whole world should be like Sweden, and if ever they were elected to government, they would introduce government like Sweden, because that was the model, that was great; this is what they could copy.

So let's look at Sweden. They have more strikes in Sweden than in any place in the world. They have a wave of strikes right now in support of big pay raises. They have the highest inflation in the whole of Europe, interest rates are the highest and input is stagnating. It has the world's most generous welfare state and the most highly subsidized industry and public sector projects anywhere in Europe. It has public sector spending at 62 percent of gross domestic product. Everybody works for the government. Sweden has the highest income taxes in the world at 72 percent -— 72 percent is the top rate. Swedes work fewer hours than any other nationality. Doctors, for example — I see a doctor across the way; nice chap — work only 1, 600 hours a year and spend the rest of their time doing other odd jobs. On a typical day in Sweden, one in every four workers is absent from his or her job. About 10 percent of workers are sick or away for numerous other reasons. There's no limit on the number of days' sick pay a worker can claim in a year in Sweden.

That's the type of society the NDP wants to turn British Columbia into. They want everybody to be working for government — highest income taxes of any place in Canada, North America, maybe the world. They'll invent a whole lot of other taxes. They don't mind if they have high inflation and stagnation all at once. But, you know, we say there is a better way, and we've shown it in this province year after year.

Over the past year British Columbia has moved to the forefront in economic development in the whole of Canada. Last year almost half of all the new jobs created in the whole of this country — even though

[ Page 9051 ]

we only have 12 percent of the population — were created right here in British Columbia, and we should all be proud of that.

In its annual report on the provinces, the Toronto Dominion Bank predicted that the B.C. economy would grow the fastest of any province for the second consecutive year. Here's one that really pains the NDP: the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada said that B.C. sets the example for fiscal management within the whole of Canada. The investment dealers also said that the ratio of net direct debt to gross provincial product is the lowest for all Canadian provinces, right here in beautiful British Columbia.

The whole of Canada knows this. They're moving out in droves from all over Canada. They want to be a part of British Columbia. They want to live in this beautiful province. They know good government, they know where it's happening and they know where the future is. Because of all of these people moving here, we've had a housing boom. We had more homes constructed right here in British Columbia than in the whole of Ontario in the last quarter. We're leading the country again.

During the last fiscal year, we put an additional $1 million per day into health care in this province. I agree with the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) when he said last year— I quote him again and I hope he'll say it tomorrow too: "We have the best health care system of any place in the country, maybe the world."

During the next school year the school board budgets will be increased in every district by an average of more than 6 percent; I think it's 6.17 percent. Funding for post-secondary education has increased dramatically. Our Access for All strategy will create 15,000 additional spaces in degree-granting programs over the next few years.

I tell you, it felt good to be watching television last night and to see all those young people— those proud young British Columbians who are attending our colleges and universities — saying: "There are lots of jobs, We don't need government. We'll do it ourselves." They didn't want a socialist program. It felt good when the former president of UBC, George Pedersen, said— and it's echoed by the other presidents — that we have perhaps one of the finest university systems, if not the finest, in the country and we should be proud of that.

We are creating a post-secondary education system that is diverse and flexible and responsive to the people's needs, and I am proud and happy that we're working closely with the native tribal councils in this province to see it happening for them as well, because they too ought to have those equal opportunities. We're going to do it.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) already spoke about the pollution laws and the things we have done there. I'm proud of our Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the "Freedom to Move" program and the great things it's doing for highways and transit throughout this province.

I'm proud of our positions on all of the social programs and the Improvements made there. And yes, we'll continue to fight the federal government on the GST, as we did from day one when it was announced.

I'm running out of time, Mr. Speaker, but let me say it again: it was a wonderful throne speech, it was a positive throne speech, and we're blessed with good government in this province.

[5:45]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 35

NAYS - 20

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.