[ Page 11955 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Harcourt –– 11955

Mr. Michael –– 11962

Ms. Pullinger –– 11965

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. HARCOURT: While listening to the Speech from the Throne from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I think we all agreed with the sentiment that this great country of ours is the first priority and that over the next few months the legislative committee that needs to be established and the other initiatives that need to be taken for British Columbians to feel that this time, after the disappointment of Meech Lake, they can fully participate in helping to renew and reconstitute Canada are very important and should take place as soon as possible.

While I was listening to those words from the Lieutenant-Governor, I was thinking that before we go into those meetings or participate in the town hall forums and our family dinners throughout this province and express the very real feeling of western alienation coming out of British Columbia and the Prairies or of the problems of economic restructuring in Ontario and Quebec, to a certain extent, and the fears that our friends and fellow Canadians in Quebec feel that their language and culture is threatened, and of course, the consistent poverty in the Maritimes and the stagnant economy.... While we're concerned about those matters and others, I think we should all step back, as we should step back even from the throne speech.

All of us realize two essentials of Canada: first, that as free and probably among the most prosperous people in the world we should count our blessings of what we have created in this country over the last 120-odd years. We really are a model to tortured federal systems that are having terrible civil wars or are on the verge of breakup or separation, with violence in countries like the Soviet Union, some problems in India and some of the problems we're facing — and even unitary countries like Great Britain with the Irish challenge and the tragedies there.

We should count our blessings of what we have all created in this huge country of ours, which is the second-largest in the world, with a sparse population of people who are immigrants. We're all immigrants. We've come from all over the world, except for our first citizens. The more that Canadians reflect on what we've accomplished, the better we'll all be before we go into the next round of renewing and reconstituting Canada.

We should ask ourselves: what other country in the world wouldn't trade its problems for Canada's? That will put in perspective the very real changes that are required, not just in our constitution, but the economic changes and the environmental and social improvements that need to take place in Canada.

I felt called upon to comment on that, because I feel very strongly, and I know that my colleagues in caucus here feel very strongly, that this is a country that's worth saving, renewing and reconstituting to be an example to the rest of the world of how you can have a tolerant, diversified democracy.

It is with that feeling of confidence and optimism about Canada that I want to talk this morning about the increasing role I see British Columbia playing in that new Canada. It's my belief that British Columbia is going to be the major centre of growth and opportunity in Canada. Our population is going to grow over the next 30 or 40 years from three to six million people, and they're mostly other Canadians, who — like most of us here — have come from other parts of Canada to enjoy British Columbia, and of course, the continuing increase of new births over the number of people who are passing on and new Canadians who are coming here from other countries.

But we have a series of challenges, all of which can be met with some very specific actions, and I want to talk about those this morning. The challenges are quite straightforward to all of us. They are, first of all, to take full advantage of the natural resource wealth of this great province, which is the size of West Germany and France combined: 360,000 square miles of the most abundant resources and beautiful areas in the world.

Just as important — probably more important — is to realize that our greatest strength is our people: three million people who know all of the cultures of the world. I want to talk about that a little more when I get into the opportunities in the Asia-Pacific area and other opportunities for British Columbia. But we have to realize that investing in our human capital is absolutely essential, and there are a number of ways we can do that so that all of our citizens can lead free, prosperous and fulfilling lives.

A high quality of life is something that British Columbians feel strongly about: that the air is clean, that the water we drink is pure and that the land is not poisoned with toxins, pesticides and insecticides. We have a lot to do to clean up some of the problems we have and to deal with the challenges of growth. I don't have to tell some of you from the high-growth areas of the province about those challenges, which I'll talk about later on.

Just as important, Mr. Speaker, is for all of our citizens to feel that they are playing on a level playing-field. A number of our citizens don't think they are: women who don't have an income equal to men and who face other barriers to equality, workers who feel they're not being treated fairly, and of course, a number of our minority communities who feel that we need to strengthen some of our human rights and race relations provisions in British Columbia.

There's a feeling that some people need to be dealt in. We need to deal in citizens who feel alienated, cynical and distrusting of politicians in government, who want to bring about open, accountable and participatory democracy and to have a sense of trust that should exist between us temporary employees of the people, as well as the public employees, and the

[ Page 11956 ]

citizens who pay our salaries and to whom we are accountable.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about doing that along with getting full value for the heard-earned tax dollars that our citizens have to work long hours and take big risks to earn and about using those hard-earned tax dollars to carry out the above goals and values.

[10:15]

As I said at the beginning, it is indeed beautiful British Columbia, and we are endowed with some substantial natural resources that no other area of the world is blessed with in terms of diversity, richness and renewability. But to be able to make the most of those natural resources we have to respond to some key challenges. Those challenges are to achieve greater economic prosperity from our timber, land and water resources, to bring peace to our forests and to protect our children's environmental endowment.

There are a number of specific actions we can take to realize solutions to all three of those challenges. Our citizens expect it. First, our forests have to be sustainable. They are not now. They have been overcut, and they haven't been sufficiently replanted. We haven't been as active as possible in our reforestation programs, but that too can be turned around. We're starting a move in that direction, but some of those changes need to be accelerated.

When I say that, I want to emphasize again that our problems are resolvable in British Columbia. When people talk about our forests being the Amazon of the north, they are wrong — for a whole bunch of reasons. Such talk "overblows" the debate that needs to take place in British Columbia. I want to emphasize that our forests are indeed going to be here for a long, long time. We have to treat them better; we have to get them back to a sustainable level. That can be done.

People should realize that over 50 percent of British Columbia is forest. That is a lot of forest area when you're looking at British Columbia being the size of West Germany and France combined, being basically the size of Washington, Oregon and California together. So it is a large, large area.

What we need to do is to bring all those British Columbians who are fighting each other in every watershed throughout this province together to make common cause. I have proposed an environment and jobs accord that gives one process for citizens to sit down in each region of this province. That's time-specific and takes out all of the rampant ad hockery going on right now in terms of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the royal commission on old-growth forests, Parks '90, and all the other task forces and square tables and rectangular tables that are exhausting British Columbians right now. They're being participated into exhaustion without it leading anywhere, without it connecting.

What we need is one process for our citizens to sit down and deal with three very valid goals that all have to be looked at together. The first is that there is a future in our forests and that we have stability for our forest workers, families and communities. There are a number of ways we can do that. The member from Prince Rupert, our forestry critic, has laid out time after time a whole series of very practical, positive and exciting initiatives that can be taken.

For example, we can restore the link between jobs, manufacturing plants and people having access to community forests instead of the unlinking that has happened in the last 18 months. And we've seen the results, with closures of plants in Lillooet, just outside Kamloops and in Princeton. We need to restore that link and say that if you want access to community forests then jobs have to be provided in those communities. We want more value. We want logs kept in those communities, not shipped out of the province. We're shipping jobs out of this province.

We think there is a tremendous opportunity to get more value out of the logs that we cut down and that we could process here. A good example is Scott Paper, where they take cottonwood, which was looked at as a weed tree, and turn it into a very large number of jobs, with a tremendous increase in value and tax revenues. It's a very good employer in this province. That is the right way to go. It provides 20 times the number of jobs that a pulp mill does and 12 times the number that a straight 2-by-4 and prime lumber mill does. If you look at the opportunities for that in B.C. Until the Koerners came, for example, hemlock was looked on as a weed tree. It's now one of the major areas of economic activity. Pine is being used as flooring by a small entrepreneur in McBride who is looking for new markets. It was never looked on as flooring before.

There are all sorts of value-added products that could be introduced into B.C. to get more jobs right here instead of shipping the logs to Japan, the United States or elsewhere and having somebody else have those jobs in manufacturing plants. To do that, it's important that we increase the investment in research and development, to work with the industry and communities in making sure that we do get those extra jobs, entrepreneurial opportunities and manufacturing plants.

I think it's starting to happen, Mr. Speaker. MacMillan Bloedel, for example, has just put together one of the best research and development facilities anywhere in North America. I've had the pleasure of going through that facility and talking with the research scientists and the very skilled people there. They've come in with the Parallam beam and other new products. I think we need to accelerate that investment in research and development, in a province which unfortunately is the lowest of the low in research and development, compared with other provinces in Canada. We spend about 0.75 percent of our GPP on research and development; Canada spends about 1.5 percent; and the OECD countries, the economically advanced countries of the world, spend 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent of their gross national product on research and development. We have a ways to go.

Mr. Speaker, those are opportunities still to be taken advantage of. It can be done. I add those as some examples of what we can do if we realize our first goal, which is getting more jobs, more stability and more products for our forest workers, families and communities.

[ Page 11957 ]

The second goal is to make sure that when our population increases from three million to six million people we have the breathing space for our own population. That means more park and wilderness areas. The government has adopted the Brundtland report, as we have, and one of the key commitments in that adoption of the report and the setting up of round tables was to increase the park and wilderness areas to about 12 percent of British Columbia. We agree with the government; we just hope they're moving in that direction too, and it's not just a quote from the Brundtland report but a genuine commitment to preserve these unique ecological systems, representative systems throughout the province, for future generations. It's not just forests. For example, we need to preserve the nesting areas for the 1.5 million waterfowl that go up and down the coast every year; the wetlands like Anderson Lake outside Tofino; the marshlands and bogs around Boundary Bay and in the Fraser River estuary — we provide that as part of an international treaty with the Soviet Union, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and down into Mexico and Central and South America.

The goal of increasing our park and wilderness base for the new British Columbians who are coming here.... As well, for the many hundreds of thousands of people in other countries — who have messed up their wilderness areas — who will have the opportunity to come here as tourists and visitors and add to our economy, it has tremendous potential to add to our tourism business.

Just as you cannot look at a more viable forest economy without looking at park and wilderness areas and sorting out what should be in the working forest and what should be in park and wilderness, we cannot leave out the third goal of the environment and jobs accord: to reach a just and fair settlement with the aboriginal people of British Columbia. We believe it is possible, and whatever the courts say on the issue of aboriginal title or rights or a fiduciary duty, as Mr. Justice McEachern said, I think we can all agree that we want to see the aboriginal people in this province move from being governed by Indian Affairs to running their own affairs and see that huge bureaucracy dismantled. Secondly, we want to see aboriginal people move from being on welfare — with the lack of hope in a reserve economy — to self-sufficiency and work, and young aboriginal people getting good-quality education and having good jobs.

I believe that that settlement is there, that it will be a win-win settlement, that it should happen as quickly as possible and be done in a way that our citizens are assured that private property is not on the table, and that third-party interests and concerns are represented at the negotiating table.

That's why the province has to be at the negotiating table, and that is what I have said since becoming leader of the New Democratic Party — that the province has a role and that we have to be at the table and have some responsibility. Mr. Justice McEachern made it very clear in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case that we have some responsibility. Now we can sit down and start negotiations as part of an environment and jobs accord that will bring peace, stability and prosperity for our citizens who live in the richly endowed natural resource areas of British Columbia.

I think we all agree that with British Columbia being 95 percent mountain, the 5 percent of prime farmland in the river valleys and on the floodplains of the great rivers of British Columbia –– 2 percent of which is arable and good soil — has to be preserved for future generations. That is why we are committed to strengthening the independence of the agricultural land reserve and the commission, which we were proud to pioneer in the 1970s to make sure that there was food for future generations.

When California is running out of water, when it is blacktopping its agricultural land, when Mexico is poisoning its soil with pesticides, we will have farmland for our farmers to make a good living and grow the agricultural products we need in British Columbia and can export around the world.

That is one of the reasons the member for Boundary-Similkameen is a candidate. The second member from Penticton is working with me on a tree-fruit grower recovery program, where we are prepared to invest $48 million in the industry to get it off the ground and up and walking, to get that industry running with some long-term changes to be more productive, to move to pesticide-free methods, to better "Buy B.C." programs, marketing of our products and generally working with the industry so it can be alive and well for future generations.

Those are just some examples of the changes that New Democrats are prepared to introduce to make sure that we have prime agricultural land for future generations and that farmers can make a decent living while they're farming to provide that food.

Another opportunity to take advantage of British Columbia's natural resource wealth is in an area that I am very excited about, and I know that our member for North Island and Trade critic is too. He completed a four-month visit to the Asia-Pacific area last year. We are convinced that this is still a huge opportunity for British Columbians, this area which has over half the world's population and the fastest-growing economies in the world. Over 40 percent of B.C.'s trade is still untapped, and there are incredible opportunities for us there.

When I was the mayor of Vancouver, I led nine different trade missions to the Asia-Pacific. I am convinced that if we are more aggressive and strategic in the way we work with each of the countries in the Asia-Pacific, there are still huge opportunities. I have been working with a number of people in our business and multicultural communities. If I have the honour of becoming the Premier, my first trip after the election will be to the East. By that I don't mean Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal; I mean Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo.

What we need to do is take the tremendously skilled people in our communities in the province who have come from Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Thailand, South-East Asia and India, and pull their talents together, along with the people at the Asia-Pacific Institute and the board of trade — all these tremen-

[ Page 11958 ]

dously skilled British Columbians in our universities, business and labour — and have a long-term strategy for each country in the Asia-Pacific on the basis of the very successful model in Japan, the Keidanren, where the top leaders in business, labour and the government work together on a long-term strategy for developing trade throughout the world. We have the talent; it's just not being pulled together into a long-term strategy yet in British Columbia.

[10:30]

The second thing that we need to take full advantage of is our best resource — the people of British Columbia. We believe that investing in our human capital — the three million British Columbians who are talented, entrepreneurial and come from all over the world — is the best investment we can make, particularly in the emerging modern economy. The challenges to do that are that we invest in people's potential; that we not leave people out because they're poor, because they are women, because they are aboriginal, because they have a disability or because they live in remote communities; that everybody in British Columbia is included, so that they can all be free and prosperous as individuals. But while we are investing in those people, I think it's very important that we maintain the social safety net and not let it be torn asunder; that we not let medicare be taken apart and dismantled, so that we do not have the resources for the unemployed or for people who are having personal or family problems.

Mr. Speaker, we think that we can meet those challenges. We can do it by maintaining medicare. I'll tell you, as the party that founded medicare, we're not going to let it be dismantled. We're going to preserve medicare. We're going to make sure that the 1,000 British Columbians who are on waiting-lists for heart or cancer surgery get that surgery instead of having to wait and wait and wait; that the 300 nurses we're short are found and hired so we can open up wards so that those people can have their operations; and that we shift from a health care system that is far too oriented towards hospitals, doctors, drugs and high-tech, and not enough towards prevention, wellness, community-based facilities and public health approaches.

We believe also that our education system is the best investment we can make in our people's potential and in the new economy we're entering. We want to make sure that the school system and the changes — some of which we have approved — are properly funded; that the Education 2000 program has funding so that the people who are making those huge changes to their professional lives, our children and the parents who are adapting to it have the resources to make sure that those reforms are successful.

We would also like to see, particularly in the post-secondary education system, opportunities continue to open up for our young people in the north, with the University of Northern B.C., which we've enthusiastically backed — that that facility comes on stream as quickly as possible and is available to all northerners; that the university courses being extended through Nanaimo into the northern part of the Island, and into the Kamloops and Kelowna areas and the Kootenays, be extended so that young people can become teachers, business people, accountants, nurses, lab technicians and foresters, and can get that training in their own communities instead of having to go to Vancouver. That will stabilize the communities of the north and of the interior.

We need to end the battles, wars and demoralization in the education system and allow teachers to teach, students to learn and parents to be satisfied that their kids are receiving a high-quality education. We need to have some stability, some peace, in the education system.

The other specific action that I'm sure all members of the Legislature could agree on is that our disabled British Columbians fully realize the potential of their lives. I would like to say that my recent discussions with Rick Hansen — as all of us are inspired when we meet with that great human being, when he says that everybody should live their dreams.... I agree with him when he says that instead of looking at people with disabilities as having liabilities, we should look at the assets they have — the tremendously skilled, talented assets — and take full advantage of them, and be sensitive and open up work opportunities, and be aware of the talent that we're not taking full advantage of by not taking full advantage of disabled British Columbians. We as New Democrats intend to make sure that every disabled British Columbian realizes their full potential.

An area that unites all New Democrats is at the core of our values: the eradication of poverty. It is not acceptable to us that single mothers who are on welfare or who are living on the minimum wage have to raise their children in the conditions that they have to, getting them off to a disadvantage at the start of their lives. We want to make sure that those single mothers can get into the workforce, can have proper child care, can live in safe and comfortable housing and can have an investment in them for two or three years so they can get a good trade, good training, a good education, and become taxpaying citizens for 20 or 30 years. Instead of these make-work projects and cutting them off welfare one year and putting them back on the next year, we want to invest in people. We're going to make sure that those women and their children have a future.

We're also going to make sure that the plywood worker in Port Alberni and his family or her family have a viable future too, and that there is plant closure legislation and retraining and relocation programs, and that we diversify some of the local economies in communities like Port Alberni so that those workers and their families can lead a dignified life. We're also going to make sure that the widows — most of them between 50 and 60 — who are living in terrible poverty because they cannot collect pensions, because they cannot get into the workforce, have decent pensions to lead a decent life.

So the eradication of poverty, and hope for families in British Columbia, is a very major challenge, and one that New Democrats are prepared to meet.

The last specific action among many to invest in our human capital is to make sure that new Canadians

[ Page 11959 ]

become fully participating citizens in this country of ours as soon as possible. That's why we're prepared to invest in stable funding for immigrant reception societies, to increase ESL programs, and to make sure that there are proper race relations and human rights legislation and initiatives in British Columbia, so that all new Canadians can become fully participating as soon as possible.

The third major challenge that British Columbians are facing is the maintenance of a high quality of life for all British Columbians. As I outlined earlier, I think the challenges are that we have to plan for the population growth of three million to six million people that is going to occur over the next 30 or 40 years and that we're not preparing for right now. Too much of that growth is going to the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island; not enough is going into the north and the interior. I think that the NIMBY symptoms we see in a lot of areas of British Columbia against growth are because of a lack of foresight that this government has had in anticipating that growth. We know that there are 20,000 more British Columbians being born than are passing away every year; we know that there are 40,000 other Canadians coming to British Columbia; we know that there are 20,000 new immigrants coming. There are 80,000 new people a year coming to British Columbia. They're coming from Saskatchewan, from Nova Scotia, from all over the world. They are coming from some of the industries that have been closed down in Ontario under the free trade agreement. They are coming from all over this great country of ours.

While we're planning for this population growth, we also need to strengthen our local communities and regions, so that we have more growth in the north and interior and more people coming not just to the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island but throughout British Columbia.

Lastly, the challenge is to protect our natural environment, to make sure that British Columbians have clean air and water and non-toxic soil. To do that, the New Democrats are prepared to take a number of specific actions. For example, a couple of years ago I proposed a Georgia basin strategy. This area encompasses the Strait of Georgia, the Juan de Fuca Strait and Puget Sound, where there are two million people in southwestern British Columbia and three million in northwestern Washington State — five million people, all told. It's going to grow to ten million people over the next two decades. It will be the size of the Los Angeles basin, with the same challenges that Los Angeles has. We have the sea breezes, a ring of mountains inversions that trap the automobile exhaust to the point where we already have a worse per-vehicle pollution count than Los Angeles. So it's very real, and it's here now with five million people. Just think what it would be if we didn't do anything until we got to ten million people.

I have talked with Governor Gardner in Washington State and the mayor of Seattle, Mayor Rice, about putting together a comprehensive strategy whereby all of us would move, for example, to secondary sewage treatment throughout the Georgia basin; would bring in motor vehicle emission standards; would move toward cleaner fuels and good public transit systems; and would deal with the very real threat of oil spills from tankers. We would plan this together as neighbours, as friends, and put together a Georgia basin strategy as soon as possible, so that we could accommodate the growth and make sure this area stayed the kind of community that we all want to live in.

We are prepared to take some specific environmental actions that this government, unfortunately, was afraid to bite the bullet on regarding pulp mill pollution. We intend to clean up pulp mill pollution. On top of that, we intend to work with the largest polluters in the province, who are us folk. We have seen the enemy and it is us, Mr. Speaker. We have not put enough funding into sewage treatment or dealing with municipal waste. We are prepared to work with municipal governments throughout British Columbia to develop a proper municipal infrastructure program, so that they can be funded and we can clean up our pollution problems at the municipal and regional level.

As well, we take to heart the commitment that David Anderson asked for in his report — but he hasn't received — to clean up the oil spill potential. That still hasn't been acted upon satisfactorily by this government. We're prepared to carry out David Anderson's recommendations so a Valdez oil spill does not happen here in British Columbia.

The fourth challenge, Mr. Speaker, is that we want to make sure that all British Columbians are on a level playing-field by bringing about greater equality and fairness in the workplace, by showing respect for our multicultural diversity and by having a more open and tolerant attitude toward individual views and goals. That is why we are committed to bringing about equality for men and women as soon as possible and a pay equity program of substantial proportions that goes beyond just the provincial government and takes in all provincial institutions. That is why we have an aggressive commitment to child care throughout British Columbia, to deal with the terrible violence that is happening to women and children. We won't just talk about it. We'll deal with it through enforcement, proper facilities and having assistance for victims in court, who have to testify in court and go through that traumatic experience. We'll make sure there are specialized health services for women throughout British Columbia at the community level.

Finally, to bring about — as we were promised but didn't receive — fair labour laws for the working people and the employers in British Columbia, we are committed to replacing Bill 19 and to bringing in a fair labour code by fully consulting with workers and employers. We are committed to restoring one of the great rights that citizens have in a free democracy: the right to free collective bargaining.

We are committed to having a far greater emphasis on human rights, not just on the traditional political and legal rights to vote, to have different political views, to have due process and to be represented by a lawyer. We will make sure there is proper funding for

[ Page 11960 ]

the legal aid system so that poor people can have access to a lawyer.

[10:45]

As New Democrats, we think that the Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative and Reform Parties do not have as extensive a concept of human freedom as we should have. We believe that there are certain inalienable social and economic rights that free citizens have too — not just legal and political rights. That's why we're New Democrats: because we believe in the greatest level of individual freedom that we can bring to each citizen in a democracy.

We intend to make sure that our citizens have the right to affordable, safe housing and the right to work. In terms of social rights, we intend to ensure that there is no discrimination between men and women, and that you are not discriminated against because of the colour of your skin, your religious beliefs or your orientation. We believe in an extension of human freedom, and I can tell you that if we become the government, we're committed to carrying out that commitment.

As New Democrats, we believe in dealing people in and in moving beyond a government that's just for friends and insiders or just for people who vote for you. We think that the key challenge is — and I spoke about it earlier — to restore a sense of trust between electors and elected and to raise the integrity of our democratic system and institutions. That's why we are prepared to take many specific actions, and we have tabled in this Legislature 35 specific changes we want to introduce in order to bring about a more open, accountable and participatory democracy.

For example, we will bring in the toughest conflict-of-interest laws in the country. If a cabinet minister or a top civil servant does not know the difference between the public interest and their own private interest and that of their friends and insiders, then they will lose their position, their paycheque and their pension — they'll be gone.

I can assure you that within the first session we will bring in a freedom-of-information law — not an access-to-information law. I think that shows the difference between the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit government. They talk about access, and it's almost a grudging word: we may give "access" to citizens. We believe in freedom of information. It's your information — the citizens' information. It's not our information.

We'll guarantee open bidding and tendering on all government projects.

We'll bring about fair elections. That's one of the reasons we were disappointed to see that there wasn't a reference in the throne speech to correcting the mistake of eliminating the section 80 vote in the Election Act, which allows British Columbians to register up to and including election day. We feel that taking away that right could eliminate the voting rights of up to 600,000 British Columbians. Why would this government want to do that? We want the people of British Columbia to ask them: "Why won't you let us register up to and including election day? Why are you making it harder for us to vote?" We want to know why we didn't see a reference in the throne speech to reducing the voting age from 19 to 18. We have confidence in our young people; we know that our 18-year-olds are good citizens and want to fully participate. We're prepared to lower the voting age from 19 to 18.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have to put an end to the political abuse that we've seen around lottery funds. No more. Never again should that be allowed to happen. We are committed to carrying out the recommendations of the auditor-general and to bringing in a more accountable use of lottery funds whereby local communities make those decisions — not a minister trying to help out a best friend or a campaign manager.

But to carry out those goals and values, taxpayers expect us to make sure we get the most out of our natural resources and our people, to provide a high quality of life, to deal people in rather than deal them out and to have a level playing-field for all British Columbians.

British Columbians expect us to do that within a balanced budget and within the means of the taxpayers of this province. Taxpayers expect value for their hard-earned dollar, and we're going to provide it.

We think it's important that we have stable government to build investor and consumer confidence and to get government spending priorities right. It has been very hard on international investors and our citizens to see the tremendous instability with this government: over a hundred cabinet changes in 54 months — almost one every two weeks. Twelve resignations. We have had something like four major reorganizations of the 30,000 employees here. As a matter of fact, in one day one of the brainstorms of this incompetent government was to give early retirement to the top 2,600 civil servants in this province. It's ironic that it was April Fools' Day, April 1, 1989, when this all occurred, because 1,600 of the top civil servants showed the confidence they had in this Social Credit government: they left. It was budgeted for $30 million; it has cost over $110 million and is still climbing, and a lot of those people have been hired back on a consultant's salary at double or triple what they were paid before. It is absolutely unbelievable, the instability and incompetence that we've seen over the last four years.

There's more to come, Mr. Speaker. We expect one more cabinet shuffle, because there are 46 people in the Social Credit caucus, and six of them haven't made it into cabinet yet.

The people of British Columbia are fed up with that kind of instability and preoccupation with survival. It's one of the reasons people are expecting New Democrats to get our spending priorities right, and we intend to do that. There are some very specific actions that can be taken.

First of all, have careful and steady policy-making — no surprises and no rash decisions. I can assure the people of British Columbia that when we finally get to the election — when Social Credit finally screws up the courage to face the people of this province — New Democrats will be ready with a platform that deals with the challenges and actions that we need to take to make this great province of ours the key leader in the

[ Page 11961 ]

renewed and reconstituted Canada. We believe that that platform is what is on the agenda of the mainstream of British Columbia. It has been costed out; it is doable and affordable. It is what is on the agenda of most British Columbians. We are looking forward to the opportunity to place that before the people.

We are also going to have a balanced approach. We're not going to have double standards whereby we give 20 percent pay increases to our political aides at the same time that we're freezing nurses' salaries. Those double standards are going to stop.

We are going to end the bad business deals. Aside from all the other elements of the Expo sale, one of the worst parts of that deal was to take one of the five best urban development sites in North America and sell it in the middle of a real estate boom and lose $150 million. To not only lose that land when we could have leased it out and made it available in smaller parcels to B.C. entrepreneurs and developers and contractors, but to lose it and then see the very astute business person who bought it get double his investment back in the first three years — and he's still got three-quarters of the site to develop — just shows how inept and incompetent as business people this Social Credit government is. Those kinds of bad deals will end.

A New Democrat government will make sure that there are fair taxes in British Columbia and that everybody pays their fair share of the bill. The tax unfairness that Social Credit tried to freeze in with their tax freeze — the 784 tax and fee increases they've introduced in the last three years — isn't good enough. It has cost every working family in this province $3,000 extra out of pocket at the same time as $2 billion in tax breaks were given to the wealthiest and most privileged in our community. That is unacceptable to British Columbians. Everybody should pay their fair share, and New Democrats will make sure it happens.

MR. REID: Use the Ontario example? Is that it? Follow your leader?

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to living within the means of the people of British Columbia.

I hear from the disgraced former Provincial Secretary, who was involved in making sure that his best friend and campaign manager got $287,000 of Lottery Fund money that we still haven't had back yet.... He says: "Divert your eyes to Ontario. Look at Ontario." If he likes Ontario so much, move there. I happen to like British Columbia.

What that disgraced former minister is saying, basically, is that he wants to divert attention away from the fact that this government has introduced 12 percent increases in their budget for the last two years, which is what they brought in this year in Ontario. On top of that, they had almost a $600 million deficit last year and a deficit this year that potentially will be $1 billion That's what they're trying to divert attention away from — those huge increases in spending, those deficits. They're trying to divert attention away from the mythical BS fund that just evaporated finally in its own embarrassment. They are trying to take attention away from the revolving cabinet and the civil servants who have left the mess that Social Credit has created by talking about Ontario. If they like Ontario so much, move there.

What you will get with a New Democrat caucus is honesty about the state of the province's finances — no mythical funds, no election budgets that are brought in two years in a row. That's what those 12 percent increases were: they were election budgets. They said they were going to have $20 billion of capital spending. Then they put on the brakes a month later when the election got called off, and said: "We're going to be tougher than tough." Then they took off the brakes and went back to the overspending and the $20 billion. When the polls showed they were going to lose again, they took off the spending budget and went back to a restraint budget.

They're getting whiplash, they're changing direction so much. They're going to have to wait in line behind the thousand British Columbians waiting for operations before they can get their whiplash taken care of. They're going to have a sore neck, because they're hiding their heads in shame at the real state of the debt in this province.

The government-purpose debt is expected to increase from $3.2 billion to over $5 billion during this government's term in office — an over 50 percent increase in operating deficit. And they talk about balanced budgets. Please don't balance my family budget, any of you in the government benches.

It is clear the New Democrat approach to government is very different than this Social Credit one. We're not promising miracles, fresh starts or entertainment with a shallow, charismatic leader. We are talking about dealing with the real issues that are important to the real British Columbians, not the friends and insiders of this desperate, caretaker government led by an interim Premier. We are prepared because we know we can do a better job with British Columbia. Our bills and initiatives during this legislative session will reflect the priorities of the mainstream of British Columbia. We are ready, not just for this session, but for the election, because we know that British Columbians realize it's time for a change.

[11:00]

MR. SPEAKER: just before we proceed, I ask all members to review the use of unparliamentary language. The business of casting personal aspersions on other members while giving a speech has not been brought to the attention of the Speaker, but the Speaker has noticed a number of members using it. It's not in our normal parliamentary practice, and we would all be better served if we refrained from casting those aspersions on other members while in the chamber.

The opposition House Leader has asked leave for an unusual request — unusual when I'm in the chair, at least — and so leave will be required. I know it's granted at other times. He wishes to introduce someone in the chamber. This is unusual and not called for under our standing orders. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 11962 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Some days I pray for a no.

MR. ROSE: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your generosity and courtesy. I know we're all waiting with bated breath to hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who will tell us a lot of interesting things. But I have a school group from my riding, from Ranch Park Elementary, a grade 7 group with their teacher Mrs. McDougall. They're here to study government, and they came on a fine morning to hear some excellent speeches. I welcome them. I hope the House will as well.

MR. MICHAEL: It's a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate. In listening to the Leader of the Opposition's speech.... If there is one example that would display to the citizens and the people of British Columbia that Leader of the Opposition's lack of understanding of the interior of the province, it was his reference to the second member for Boundary-Similkameen as the second member for Penticton. That, to me, displays ironclad evidence of his complete lack of understanding of the interior and the north country of this great province of ours. I will make further reference to that later on in my address.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I was trying to identify with his vision for British Columbia and what he has in store for us as a possible future Premier. I had to reflect for a minute on that person's previous role as the mayor of the great city of Vancouver. I happen to have a telegram that was sent by that member addressed to Patrick Reid and having to do with Expo 86. Here is the wording of the telegram, Mr. Speaker, sent by that member while mayor of the city of Vancouver:

"Dear Mr. Reid and fellow committee members of the Bureau of International Exhibitions,

"Please stop plans for Expo 86 on the north side of False Creek in downtown Vancouver. Most Vancouver citizens do not want Expo 86 to proceed on this site. Instead, five out of ten aldermen, 26 out of 57 Members of the Legislative Assembly...."

It is interesting that he admits in this telegram that every member of the NDP in the opposition was against Expo 86; it's clearly set out in this telegram to Patrick Reid.

He goes on to say that not only "26 out of 57 Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, but significant numbers of concerned Vancouverites and members of the media feel that housing, public amenities and transportation should receive greater priority." And he then says: "A letter dated June 5 is on its way to you with backup material. Do not make a decision until you have read that material and have investigated further." The telegram is signed by Michael Harcourt, the past mayor of the city of Vancouver and the current Leader of the Opposition, who wishes to some day lead this province as its Premier.

I would suggest that this is a very poor example of vision. When you think of the benefits brought to this province in economic development and tourism as a result of that exposition held in 1986.... That member spoke out and went so far as to send a telegram speaking against it. He talks about cleaning up the pollution in Vancouver. I find that very entertaining, interesting and very surprising.

That's the person who went two terms as the mayor of the largest city in British Columbia. And guess which is the worst polluted area in all of the province. Guess which city has no secondary treatment for its sewage but is dumping it directly into the ocean. All the citizens of this province.... I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is now choosing to leave the chamber. He talks about the environment. We should reflect back to 1972-75. Why is it that the NDP government of the day did not choose to name a minister of the environment? I find that absolutely fascinating that they had that tremendous opportunity and didn't take advantage of it. He talks about women's programs. Why is it that back in 1972-75, when they had an opportunity, they did not name a minister of women's programs? Why is it, when they talk about native affairs, that in 1972-75 they did not name a minister in charge of native affairs, as this government has done?

He talks about the immigrants and the growth in British Columbia. I don't know about other areas of British Columbia, but I know my constituency, and I can tell you that people from Ontario are coming into the Shuswap-Revelstoke constituency by the hundreds. These immigrants are coming to B.C. because of the fear of the kind of government that they are getting provincially in the great province of Ontario.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about access for all and degree-granting institutions outside the lower mainland and Victoria. He wants to bring those about next year. Surprise, Mr. Speaker. It's already in place and has been for two years. Perhaps he should visit Kamloops and go to Cariboo College. He should visit Prince George. He should go into the Okanagan and visit Okanagan College and examine the degree-granting status that those institutions currently enjoy.

He talks about the terrible shape of our forests. I don't know whether he's ignorant, whether he doesn't know the facts or whether he's deliberately putting cases forward that are just simply not true. But every forester and every person in this province who is familiar with the forest industry knows that we are currently planting three trees for every tree that is logged. They also know that the program is in place and that all of the NSR land — the not satisfactorily restocked land — will be completely caught up and planted by the year 2000. He knows that; his advisers should be able to give him that information. But he stands up in this assembly and leaves the people with he impression that the job is not being done. Mr. Speaker, it is clearly being done, and it is being done in parcels. There are currently in the neighbourhood of 280 million seedlings being planted each year, and I think's that something we should all be proud of.

He talks about added value in the forest industry. I hereby give the Leader of the Opposition an open invitation to come to the constituency of Shuswap-

[ Page 11963 ]

Revelstoke. If he will give me a bit of notice of when he's arriving, I will take him on a tour of the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I will show him secondary manufacturing plants in spades. I will take him to Falkland and show him the little sash-and-door plant that's operating there. I will take him to Spillimacheen and show him the new plant currently being built, near completion, that is going to provide window frames, door frames and door stock to the overseas marketplace. It will employ 40 to 50 people.

I will take him to Enderby and show him a small plant taking every little bit of waste-wood to make items as small as birdcages, clocks and souvenir items. It employs 25 to 30 people. I will take him east of Enderby and show him a plant that just started a very few years ago, already employing between 70 and 75 people in the added-value area.

I will take him to the Salmon Arm industrial park and show him two plants: one sash-and-door and one factory that is high-grading rough lumber into beautiful panel siding. I will take him to Malakwa, where another plant is high-grading lumber from sawmills in the area.

I will take him on a tour of the constituency and show him at least a dozen log-home builders, all of whom are exporting log homes to Japan and the European marketplace.

For me to sit in this assembly and listen to the Leader of the Opposition talk about added value and what he and his government intend to do.... I would really appreciate it, if the Leader of the Opposition — who has now left the assembly — is in his office listening, if he would please explain to me and to this assembly, in the form of a letter or another speech at some opportune time, the NDP policy on logs.

As I listened and read the NDP policy, I found a complete contradiction. On the one hand, they talk about an open provincial log market; on the other hand, they talk about tying logs to the community and the plants in the communities. I find that somewhat of a contradiction that I cannot comprehend. I would appreciate, perhaps some time in the debate of the throne speech, if someone from the NDP could explain that to us.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the agricultural land reserve and all the changes they're going to make to that when they get into power. I find that somewhat amusing. In my constituency, in my town of Salmon Arm, there was more land removed from the ALR in 2½ years under NDP rule between 1973 and 1975 than there has been in the ensuing 16 years.

[11:15]

He talks about removing Bill 19. I suppose there are lots of things that this government has done right and certainly some that we've done wrong. But I have to tell you that when he talks about the removal of Bill 19, he had better look at the record of lost days through work stoppages, and he had better look at the record of average wages across this country of ours, whether they be by the week or by the hour. He should look at trade union membership in British Columbia and compare it with any other jurisdiction in Canada or, indeed, North America. He will find that British Columbia is either at the top in all of those areas or close to the top. We have reduced confrontation between management and labour by 80 percent since the introduction of Bill 19, and I stand proud of being part of the administration that brought in that bill. The citizens of this province should clearly understand where the Leader of the Opposition stands on the question of what's going to happen when Bill 19 is removed.

I find another item of interest. The Leader of the Opposition deliberately made reference to political servants, executive assistants, receiving increases of 20 percent. He tied it in with what the government is doing in its legislation. Yet I can recollect, a short time ago, in the last four or five weeks, the minister whose assistant received a 20 percent increase clearly explaining to this House.... It's in Hansard, and the Leader of the Opposition was present at the time. It was clearly explained by the second member for Kamloops as to how that 20 percent increase came about. For the record once again, it came about as the result of an error in an order-in-council. The error was a reference to an employee being named as an executive assistant when the reference should have been to a ministerial assistant. That correction was made, and that was the cause of that single 20 percent increase. For that member, the Leader of the Opposition, to deliberately make reference to that again, I find somewhat distasteful, because he was in the House at the time the explanation was given.

He talks about the budget stabilization fund. I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we have stabilization funds in B.C. Hydro, in the Workers' Compensation Board and in every municipality in the province; we've got huge stabilization funds in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Yet that member makes derogatory reference to our former Finance minister having a budget stabilization fund.

He refers to debt. I can tell you that the Crown corporation debts today have never been in better shape. It doesn't matter how you cut it, with or without the budget stabilization fund. Take the public accounts, closely examine the debt back in 1986 and compare it with this past year. It doesn't matter how you cut it: the debt is less today than it was back in 1986.

I listen to the Leader of the Opposition and look for his vision for the province of British Columbia, and I reflect on such subjects as SkyTrain. I think of the position taken by the NDP on SkyTrain. They were dead against it. Today that facility is growing exponentially in ridership. It's doing a fantastic job in serving people along the entire route — Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and Surrey, and extensions to come.

I reflect on the fifties, and I think about the homeowner grant. This was the first province in all of Canada to bring in a homeowner grant to encourage home-ownership. The NDP were against it. They were against Expo, against SkyTrain, against the homeowner grant. I think of my own constituents, and I think of the Columbia River dams and the Columbia River Treaty. I think of the fantastic benefits we have gained from that in British Columbia. We have some of the

[ Page 11964 ]

lowest-cost energy of any jurisdiction in North America, if not the world, made possible by the developments that have taken place on the Columbia River. Further, in the later part of the nineties, about 1996 or 1997, there are going to be billions and billions of additional dollars coming to British Columbia as a result of the Columbia River development and treaty. Those members, that party, were against it.

I think of tourism. I reflect back to 1972-75, and the advice and contribution to tourism of the Minister of Highways, Graham Lea. I may not have the exact words, but the message to United States tourists was clear: "Go home. You're clogging our highways." That was the NDP contribution to tourism in 1972-75.

I look at that industry today. I look at tourism and what it means to this province: the growth, the jobs, the taxes coming into the provincial coffers. Indeed, I'm sure most members are aware that in 1990 tourism had a 5 percent growth of U.S. tourists — the only province, other than Alberta.... Alberta had a 1 percent growth. Every other province was flat or in severe decline. Ontario is in very severe decline.

Mr. Speaker, I also reflect back to the W.A.C. Bennett days, and think back to the Social Credit drive to open up the north, to extend B.C. Rail. What do I remember about that? I remember the NDP were against it. They fought against the extension of B.C. Rail to open up the north.

I think of one of the greatest things that has ever happened to Vancouver Island — I put it in the area of greatness — and that is the connection of the Vancouver Island pipeline. I sat in this House and listened to speaker after speaker of the opposition speak against the Vancouver Island pipeline. I watched the performance of the NDP members in Ottawa. I read Hansard. I was looking for some NDP member from this province to speak up in favour of the Vancouver Island pipeline. They were against that too, Mr. Speaker. But very shortly we are going to have a B.C. resource, British Columbia natural gas, available to the residents of Vancouver Island, and I predict that there will be tens and tens of thousands of people — residents, industries, commercial enterprises — who will hook up to that gas line. It will reduce the need for further expansion of our hydro facilities. It will reduce our dependence on offshore oil. It will eliminate a large number of tankers up and down the coastline servicing pulp mills with heavy oil. It will eliminate the need to bring oil in from outside the boundaries of British Columbia. It will add wealth to the economy It reduces acid rain. It does all kinds of positive things. It saves people money, which will give people additional dollars to spend in other areas.

Where were the NDP during those years, when this government fought so hard and lobbied the federal government, and insisted that they treat us equitably and fairly?

I think back to 1984-85, and think of the construction of the B.C. Place Stadium, a stadium of which all citizens in the province of British Columbia are proud, the most-booked stadium on the continent. It has more days of occupation than any similar facility anywhere in North America. Guess what, Mr. Speaker. The NDP were against that too.

How about the Coquihalla Highway? How about Coquihalla 1, 2 and 3? Name me one instance where one NDP MLA had one good word to say about opening up that large section of British Columbia with one of the best-constructed, first-class scenic highways you will find anywhere in North America.

I also find it somewhat amusing when I discuss the subject of privatization. The NDP were 100 percent against the privatization initiatives brought in by this government. Perhaps we should reflect for a couple of minutes on the 123 privatization initiatives brought about in the last 4½ years by this administration. Out of that 123, it might be argued that four were not what you would call first-class success stories. Four were perhaps not first-class successes, but I can say with pride that there were 119 out of 123. Not bad — and the record will clearly show a savings of tens of millions of dollars.

How many people who drive the highways and byways of British Columbia can reflect back on the highways the way they were five, ten or 15 years ago? How many times did we drive down a highway and shake our heads because there were four, six or eight people standing around at the back of a truck having a cigarette or looking over a job and milling around. No criticism of the employees involved — it was the system.

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: The member for Nanaimo says the public sector was lazy. I am not saying that; I am saying the structure of the enterprise was not correct. We fixed that up, and I challenge you to drive those highways today and look at the workers. You will see high productivity, good efficiencies, lots of savings and a great deal of pride, because those workers know they're getting more production and greater productivity today than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a part of a government that has vision — not only vision but performance — for the youth of this province. The expenditure on universities and colleges and all levels of education has never been greater. We are spending far more of our provincial budget than any similar jurisdiction in Canada.

I look at the kind of work that has been done by this government for our seniors — the progress that has been made in the last three years in native affairs, grappling with many of those difficult problems. There has been more progress — in spades — in the last three years than in the previous 120 years.

I look with pride and satisfaction on the programs, the consultation and the work being done by our Minister of Women's Programs.

[11:30]

I'm also very proud of the diversification taking place in the province. It wasn't that many years ago that if the forest industry was down in the dumps, the entire province was too. We depended so heavily on forestry and mining that any dip in those two indus-

[ Page 11965 ]

tries meant disaster for the business community throughout the province. I'm proud to be a part of a government that has given encouragement. We have growth in tourism, in high tech, in added value; we have secondary industry; we've got high-tech industries in spades. We have tremendous progress throughout this province.

I'm proud of the work done in decentralization and regionalization. I see tremendous growth in all areas of British Columbia, not just the lower mainland. That was brought about by the initiatives of this government in giving special attention to those regions needing assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to taking part in further debates in this House. When we get to the budget, we're going to have a few words to say about what's going on in other areas of Canada. I know that all other members of this House are looking forward to the budget, and I'm sure we'll all be doing a lot of comparisons of the great things going on in British Columbia with a certain other province in this country of ours.

It's been a pleasure participating in the debate today. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is my last term and my last opportunity to participate in this debate. It has certainly been a pleasant, exciting and very fulfilling eight years of my life.

MS. PULLINGER: I can't resist the temptation to comment on the context in which I rise to take my place in this debate. I'm not referring to the fact that the government is in chaos, because that has become the status quo. I'm not talking about the fact that the interim Premier and her former Minister of Finance are engaged in battle again, because after all, we know that resignations, scandals and conflicts of interest have become the trademark of this government. What I mean by the context is the fact that, where I stand here at the end of the opposition benches, it sometimes feels like I'm in a Social Credit cabinet meeting. On my left, next to me, sits the former Premier of the province, and next to him sits the former Minister of Tourism, who sits next to the former Attorney-General, who sits in front of the former Minister of Education, who sits next to the most recent former Minister of Tourism. It seems that much of the Social Credit cabinet has been recycled here to the back of the back bench in the Socred hall of shame. The context in which I speak — the fact that much of the former government, or this government, now sits back here — probably speaks more loudly to the people of British Columbia than just about anything else that has been going on today.

The throne speech, it seems to me, ought to present a vision of where this government wants to go and the plans it has for British Columbia. But what we see, unfortunately, in this throne speech is an awful lot of backwards-looking. A huge amount of this throne speech has in fact been a lot of comment and recycling of old programs and comment about legislation introduced a while ago. It seems to me that we need to look forward and decide where we're going in this province, rather than look backwards and watch these people on the other side do a lot of mutual back-patting. But rather than a vision of the future, what we have is recycled forestry programs, recycled legislation, recycled bills of all kinds.

I'd like to make a few comments on some of the issues facing us today in British Columbia. Some of them were touched on in the throne speech, but not too many. It seems that no one on the other side of the House is around to mind the store. With all the problems and scandals and so on, B.C. is left with a revolving-door cabinet. I think everyone but five or so have been in this government. I'd like to just touch on some of the issues facing British Columbians and the things we ought to be doing.

One of the primary issues facing us today is the whole question of land and resource use, and particularly forests. What we keep seeing under this government, under benign neglect at best, is an increase in confrontation and conflict, and ongoing job losses all over the province. Vancouver Island has been hit particularly hard. These are serious problems, not only to individuals, but to the communities around British Columbia that depend on the forest industry and the wages of forest workers for their health.

It's a serious problem, as I say, and we have seen no action from this government to address it. Rather, we've seen a lot of evidence that it is still pandering to its friends and insiders at the expense of working people. We see a continuation of the status quo and no new action, and this throne speech continues that trend under Social Credit.

We need a comprehensive inventory of all our forest resources. We need to have a hard look at what we're doing in our forests and how we're doing it. We need to redesign the Forest Act.

The Leader of the Opposition would like to ask leave to introduce someone.

Leave granted.

MR. HARCOURT: I have the pleasure of introducing some students from Vancouver, from the Talmud Torah School on Oak Street and West 26th Avenue. They are here watching the reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like the members of the Legislature to welcome the students behind me here. The son of a very good friend of mine — Ken Glasner — is here. He is Jeffrey Glasner. They're all grade 6 students. Would you give them a good, warm welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: As I was saying, we need to take on the challenges and make the tough decisions to create a sustainable forest industry in this province, and we need to give our communities greater say in the decisions around land and resource use in British Columbia.

The fact that several months ago this government secretly cut the access link to our timber resources and the sustaining local forestry jobs is indicative of how this government functions. It was cut without any comment, behind closed doors. It has resulted in numerous job losses. We see that continuing to happen on Vancouver Island and in other places around the province. It is clearly the wrong direction, the wrong

[ Page 11966 ]

way to go in this province. The people own the forests, Mr. Speaker, and the people ought to benefit from them — not just government friends and insiders. This government is clearly out of touch.

We need a concrete commitment to value-added manufacturing. We need to encourage new community-based reforestation products and new standards of silviculture. We need to have competitive bidding for harvest rights, instead of political interference, as we've seen. We need a B.C.-wide log market so that smaller competitors, smaller players in the industry, can become involved and have access to logs.

We need to work with our communities to develop new forest-based economic opportunities and things such as tourism and recreation. A prime example of that happening in the mid-Island area is the communities fighting for a community forest. They're working towards integrating tourism with those resource-based jobs that sustain the industry in this province.

There's an awful lot that we can do. There's an awful lot of hard work and creativity happening around this province. Unfortunately, we see community after community forced to fight with this government to have any kind of say in what happens in their communities and how the resources are allocated, and that's simply the wrong way to go.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We've had little help from the government. There's nothing in this throne speech to start to address those problems. What we see is a recycling of old promises about federal government money for silviculture. There's simply nothing there that will make any difference to the people. It's time we had some action, Mr. Speaker, rather than promises.

I mentioned tourism and its relationship to our resource community. It's very true that tourism is the second-largest industry in this province; it's a very fast-growing industry. I think it's worth noting that over half of the tourists in this province are British Columbians. As this government works to cycle down wages through its support of the free trade agreement, through its support of the GST, through Bill 19 and Bill 82, and through the loss of many forestry jobs, it's also undercutting the tourism industry and many other industries and small businesses. It doesn't seem to understand that resource paycheques feed our small businesses in numerous communities around this province. They're undercutting us; they're shooting us in the foot. It's very short-sighted.

What's really fascinating, in spite of the fact that tourism is the second-largest industry in the province.... In spite of that fact, again this year there's no mention of tourism in the throne speech. Last year there was no mention; this year there's no mention — nothing.

Like all small businesses, the tourism industry in British Columbia requires, above all, stability. We hear that from business and industry all the time: they want stability. Mr. Speaker, I would offer that we have had anything but stability for the last five years in this province. In the last three months alone, we've had four different Finance ministers. Every one but five of the caucus on the other side has been in cabinet. We've got a revolving-door government, and that does not work for the tourism industry or for the small businesses around the province that are the lifeblood of so many communities. The fact that this government has imposed the highest small business tax in the country is not helping either.

It's really clear — we have ongoing internal battles, scandals, resignations and conflicts of interest — that there is no one minding the store in British Columbia. We need a government that is stable; we need a government that listens to people and responds to the needs of all British Columbians, not just a few friends and insiders.

Tourism is complementary, and can be complementary, to the resource industries. Sadly, the government's ongoing mismanagement of resource industries in this province — particularly forestry — is having a very detrimental effect on tourism. If we had well-managed resources, they would work together in a complementary way. They would support each other, and it would make our forest communities and the communities that depend on tourism thrive. Sadly, the work that is going on at the grass-roots level is so often undercut by the policies and the actions of this government.

It seems to me that this government has a lot of ad hoc policies. We've seen that particularly in terms of lottery grants and liquor policy. It's time that we had a hard look at the whole area of liquor licensing for hotels, pubs and restaurants. It's time that we had a review of how that liquor licensing happens, who gets the licence and on what basis. It's very clear that it's highly political under Social Credit. We need a review of liquor licensing, of liquor taxes and of all taxation that small businesses and individuals are faced with in this province.

I think the fact that tourism has been entirely ignored in this throne speech is indicative of where this government is.

[11:45]

I'd like to mention that this morning my colleague the first member for Nanaimo, who's the transportation critic, received a fax from Tourism Nanaimo on what we have indicated already is a very negative step. That's the fact that this government has decided — in spite of the enormous lineups at the ferries during the summer — to cut six sailings every day from the Nanaimo–Horseshoe Bay crossing.

What the president of Tourism Nanaimo has to say about this government's ability to plan for tourism and its focus on tourism is this:

"Our association, along with other marketing bodies and the private sector, invest hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in attracting visitors to central Vancouver Island. Our investment is paying off and is largely responsible for the increase in ferry traffic. We will lose a great number of visitors, as people will not put up with excessive delays due to lineups. Tourists will make other destination choices, resulting in a decline of tourist spending in our region."

Mr. Speaker, I would offer that this government does not support the tourism industry. In many cases — there are many others I could cite — it is undercut-

[ Page 11967 ]

ing it, such as they are in Nanaimo. I hope this government will have another look at that stupid policy.

I mentioned that a healthy tourism industry depends to a large degree on the people of British Columbia having decent wages and fair paycheques, because those translate into small business profits.

I think it's worth mentioning that a couple of promises in this speech were noteworthy. One was the promise of higher taxes. I think that's an indicator of where this government is, because since 1986 we've seen a shift of taxation from corporations onto individuals and families. The average family in British Columbia today is paying approximately $3,000 more in taxes and fees every year, while there has been a $2 billion tax break to corporations. We've seen young families, working people, people who need to buy a home for their families, stuck with the property purchase tax while the corporate friends have a loophole they can use so that they don't have to pay the tax.

Rural British Columbians have been hit with a 37 percent tax increase in their property taxes. The wealthier, higher-priced houses are getting tax caps. Mr. Speaker, that is patently unfair; it's as regressive as the goods and services tax that this government supported until it discovered that the people were overwhelmingly opposed.

At the same time that this government is promising more taxes and higher taxes again in this throne speech, it's also promising a continuation of its policies designed to weaken trade unions, lower wages and lessen working conditions.

Anti-labour legislation has become the hallmark of Social Credit in British Columbia. Bill 19 on the one hand and Bill 82 on the other — both of which have been dubbed unfair, oppressive, anti-labour legislation — are the bookends of this government. It doesn't work to cycle down wages trying to provide a stable business climate and support communities. This kind of labour legislation doesn't work for individuals or families or working people. The most recent one, Bill 82, is Draconian and unnecessary and undercuts the entire public sector's free collective bargaining process. It's heavy-handed, and this kind of Draconian legislation, I would offer, has no place in a democratic society

Interjections.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm hearing all this heckling from members on the other side, all of whom voted for both pieces of legislation. Let's not forget that the International Labour Organization, a body of the United Nations dominated by business and government — the third party in there is labour, but it's dominated by business and government members — has condemned Bill 19 as unfair and oppressive. Not once but six times it condemned Social Credit's old compensation stabilization plan, which is just about an identical bill to the most recent Bill 82. Six times that was condemned by an international body as being unfair and oppressive.

MR. REID: And they're proud of it.

MS. PULLINGER: They're proud of it. The first former Minister of Tourism continues to beat that drum.

This government keeps beating the drum about ability to pay, and I think that all of us in this Legislature are sensitive to that fact and sensitive to the necessity to live within the means of British Columbians. And let's not forget, in the context of Bill 82, that it's the government that sets the budget in which public sector unions and employers bargain. So the government has control of the budget and of the agenda in that way. A fair budget ought to be given to these people. I don't know what these people are saying — that they're shovelling money off the back of the truck to employers. I don't know. But they certainly seem to find a need to intervene in the free collective bargaining process. That simply doesn't work.

What's very apparent through this budget and its approval again is that the change of leader has made absolutely no difference to the approach of this government. Changing leaders, I would offer, is clearly not good enough. It seems to me that we need to change governments in British Columbia if we're going to have fairness for working people.

I'd like to make a few comments on a couple of other things that were in the budget.

MR. LOVICK: The throne speech.

MS. PULLINGER: Pardon me, the throne speech. We may never see a budget in this province. I understand it's been delayed yet another week. This government is so busy with the Socred hall of shame beside me, and its ongoing battles between the interim Premier and the most recent former Finance minister, that there's no one looking after the store, and it is unable, it appears, to bring down a budget. That was wishful thinking on my part.

I'd like to make a few comments on a couple of the other issues that were touched on in the budget. One of them is women's equality and the other is health care. There were a number of promises in the budget. We've seen a lot of eleventh-hour redemption happening in this Legislature in the last few months as we lurch from one almost-election to another. Some of those things have been in the area of women's equality and programs for women that are desperately needed in many cases. One of the promises that shows up again this year is a promise for a child care program. This has become a stock item in Socred budgets. It goes back a long way.

MR. REID: It's good stuff.

MS. PULLINGER: It is. Day care or child care is good stuff. It's necessary. The former Minister of Tourism is intervening and is absolutely right. The problem is that we keep hearing about it in every throne speech, and we see absolutely no action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if we just had one member at a time participating in the debate, it would make it easier for everybody. If the second

[ Page 11968 ]

member for Nanaimo were the only one actively participating in the debate at this time we'd be better off. Would the member continue.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased you recognize what the former Minister of Tourism is doing here.

In any case, the child care program has been promised again and again by this government. We see no action. I think that women in British Columbia will remember very clearly that the Tory Conservatives — as opposed to the Socred conservatives in this province — as well had a promise of child care before the federal election. Where's the national child care program? We don't have one. It disappeared when the Conservative government was returned to power. Given that the Minister of Women's Programs is on record not once but many times saying that she sees no place for government in child care, I doubt very much the sincerity of this promise that comes up again and again.

Pay equity is another issue that is very important to women and to all of us, as obviously it's a social justice issue when two people are working side by side. We determined years ago that it was unfair to pay a non-white person less than a white person; we are now very clear that it's also unfair to pay a woman less than a man simply because she's a woman.

That's an important social justice issue and one that we're determined to deal with on this side of the House. What we've seen so far from this government is, again, tokenism. It's a narrow, limited program. I congratulate the government, for taking that very small step, but Hansard, the record of debates, is riddled with comments from the other side of the House that pay equity is not necessary, it's unfair interference in the marketplace, and so on. It seems to me that there's a lack of commitment to this program, especially in the light of Bill 82, which affects public sector workers, most of whom are women and who will now have their wages capped.

The government argues that public sector wages are out of control, that they've exceeded private sector settlements. Let's not forget that it's been a 0.7 percent difference. Let's not forget, too, that under this government wages have fallen in many cases far behind the private sector. So we're not talking about women who are making excessive salaries when we talk about Bill 82. We're talking about women who need pay equity more than they need interference in the free collective bargaining process. There is no place for that kind of legislation in a New Democratic government.

Another issue is violence against women. I congratulate the Minister of Women's Programs for bringing forward a program to raise awareness of the ongoing — and increasing, it appears — problem of violence against women. However, what we see is a set of political ads that give the government some profile, and there is no substance behind them. We're hearing that there's somewhere for them to go, that there's something that they can do about the cycle of violence, but they phone and find that they have to stay in that violence for at least two more months because the resources simply aren't there. The funding is going to the political ads; it is not going to the resources that we so badly need. It seems to me that women are being used for this government to try to re-elect itself — and that, Mr. Speaker, is despicable.

In my constituency of Nanaimo, for instance, we have an alcohol and drug program particularly for women, and there are proportionately few alcohol and drug recovery programs for women. Its funding has been frozen at the budget of two years ago; therefore, it has had a 10 percent cutback. Women Against Violence Against Women — WAVAW — in Duncan have contacted me, and their funding has been cut back in that it has been frozen for two years. While we advertise against violence against women, the resources are being cut back.

This is what the sexual assault centre in Duncan says:

"The Ministry-of-Attorney-General-funded sexual assault centres did not receive even a small cost-of-living increase to our contracts for the year 1990-91. Most centres have sexual assault centre contracts, such as the community-based specialized victim assistance program. The community-based specialized victim assistance program contracts were also not increased for 1990-91."

This letter goes on to comment about the ads that this government has put forward:

"The ad states: 'Here in British Columbia, ministries of the provincial government are working with community groups to solve the problem'" — and that's the problem of violence against women, of course — "but it seems that the provincial government does not want to do its share of the work, but is only taking the credit. And it's sending overworked and underfunded programs more clients in the process."

I think we can do better than that.

[12:00]

The final issue I want to comment on is the issue of health care. According to the throne speech, it seems we're going to get some kind of surgical registry. I'm not too sure what a registry is going to do for the 2,000 people in my community who have to wait for surgery. The Nanaimo hospital, let's not forget, is the regional hospital that serves the whole mid-Island area, and it is desperately in need of adequate funding. My colleague the first member for Nanaimo and I have written again and again and raised the issue in the House on numerous occasions of the fact that the Nanaimo hospital is grossly underfunded. It is simply inadequate funding. In fact, there's a mountain of evidence, to show that it's the worst in the province.

This government continues to refuse to act. It seems that if you can't put a plaque on it with a minister's name they're not willing to fund it in this province. I might point out too that those plaques in Socred ridings have not only the minister's name but that of the local MLA if it happens to be a Socred — just a little extra expenditure of government money to boost local candidates.

I think that we all recognize the need to exercise caution in health care spending. It's the biggest single item on the budget. Technological change and an aging population are putting pressure on the system — there's no question. But we need a little bit of creativ-

[ Page 11969 ]

ity. Instead of just leaving people to wait for two years for surgery, which causes terrible hardship, the government needs to move to what we keep hearing rhetoric about but no action: to preventive health care.

Let me talk a little about preventive health care in my riding. While we hear old rhetoric about how we need preventive health care to get people out of the institutions, at the same time we see Contact House for schizophrenics cut back and those people ending up in hospital. We're seeing mental health programs slashed. We've seen ADAPT drug and alcohol programs slashed. The provincial specialist is gone. Maiya House is underfunded. All those programs are being cut.

I see my time is just about up, so I'd like to conclude with a comment about the throne speech. It's very clear to me that this throne speech lacks vision. This government lacks direction. We're seeing more of the status quo, more of the same direction that this government has been going all along. It's a say-anything, do-anything government in its bid to hold on to power, and it's simply giving too little too late. It's a government that deserves to be defeated. It's time we had open and fair government rather than revolving door government.

I'd just like to finish with a short quote from the editorial in the Province yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time has expired.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.