[ Page 11971 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11971

Ministerial Post-Employment Conflict Act (Bill M201). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 11971

Oral Questions

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 11971

Gang violence witness protection. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11972

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 11972

Mr. Sihota

Ministerial Statement

Mental Health Week. Mr. Loenen –– 11974

Mr. Perry

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11976

Mr. Barlee –– 11980

Hon. Mr. Bruce –– 11981

Ms. Marzari –– 11985

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11988

Mr. Lovick –– 11993

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11995

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would like to introduce the Ambassador of Lebanon to Canada, His Excellency Dr. Assem Salman Jaber.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure today to introduce two federal MPs. As you know, the House is not sitting and won't be sitting until next Monday. We are very pleased to welcome Mr. Phil Edmonston, who is the member for Chambly and the first New Democrat elected in Quebec. We're pleased to have Mr. Edmonston here. He's accompanied by another MP who has a famous name, for his father and his wife and perhaps even himself: John Brewin from Victoria.

MR. DUECK: On behalf of my colleague the second member for Central Fraser Valley and myself, I would like to introduce to the members of the Legislature Cathy Goodfellow and Laurel Parks, co-chairpersons from the Matsqui-Abbotsford committee on education. They will be meeting with the Ministry of Education this afternoon. Accompanying them are another 70, 80 or 90 people, including parents and students from the valley. Would this House please make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to join in welcoming the group from the Matsqui-Abbotsford Citizens for Education, with whom I've just had an opportunity to meet on the steps of the Legislature. I'd like specifically to ask the House to extend greetings to Shirley Cooke, who is the NDP candidate in Abbotsford and is with that group today.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to introduce Michael Logie, son of my ministerial assistant, Barb Logie. Michael's back here for the summer, returning from the University of Toronto, where he is taking his law degree.

Also, I am pleased to introduce Nancy Stitt from Toronto, who is visiting the Logie family here in Victoria, and of course, staying in Delta. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. BARLEE: We should recognize Mr. Charles Stone from Rock Creek, who will be running for the Social Credit Party against me in Boundary-Similkameen in the coming election. Welcome to the House, Charles.

MR. SPEAKER: There are so many members in the gallery who want to be on the floor. We could exchange.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the precincts today from that great city of Vancouver — one of the most romantic cities in the world — are representatives of the Talmud Torah School in the Vancouver–Little Mountain constituency. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. MILLER: If you think Vancouver's romantic, you should come to Prince Rupert.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome today a gentleman I've known for over 20 years. He used to live in Prince Rupert; he now lives in the Fraser Valley and is a candidate in Matsqui: Mr. Dave Dutana. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Railway Group for 1990.

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia for 1990.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTERIAL POST-EMPLOYMENT
CONFLICT ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Ministerial Post-employment Conflict Act.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that former ministers of the Crown, their parliamentary secretaries and appointed officials, for a period of up to 24 months after leaving government, will not be able to use their public service for purposes of personal profit or private gain.

The prohibited activities include: (1) accepting a position with a corporation with which the official had significant dealings or a corporation which is likely to have dealings with the official's former agency or ministry; (2) lobbying on behalf of such a corporation or entity; and (3) giving counsel for commercial purposes concerning the programs or policies of the agency or ministry with which the official was formerly associated.

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

Oral Questions

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday you told the House that your deputy minister was directed by cabinet to review the sale of Fantasy Gardens and report back to cabinet. Your deputy's lawyer has confirmed the detailed directions issued by cabinet.

It is now abundantly clear that cabinet knew about the details of the Fantasy Gardens sale from last fall until April. Yet on April 8 you said: "As to the issue of the former Premier's private affairs and the sale of Fantasy Gardens, we the cabinet were not dealing with those, because we didn't know they existed. We thought he had transferred ownership of the gardens to Lillian, and we did not know he was involved in the sale."

[ Page 11972 ]

In light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will the Premier now acknowledge that her statement of April 8 was incorrect?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. CLARK: You told British Columbians on April 8 that you and the cabinet were unaware of the details of the Fantasy Gardens sale until the Hughes report came down. The public record now includes the former Finance minister's admission yesterday that the cabinet discussed the Fantasy Gardens sale on at least two or three dozen occasions, including before October, 1990. Will you set the record straight today and explain to the House why your statement of April 8 differs from the public record that we now know?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my statement does not differ from the public record.

MR. CLARK: I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the minister's statement. The statement on April 8 said that cabinet did not discuss the Fantasy Gardens sale. "We thought he had transferred ownership of the gardens to Lillian, and we did not know he was involved in the sale." That is patently false.

[2:15]

Your statements yesterday indicated that David Emerson was asked by cabinet to review the sale documents of Fantasy Gardens. How do you reconcile that with your statement of April 8?

The Premier should know that last week in the newspaper she reiterated that cabinet asked Mr. Emerson to look into the sale of Fantasy Gardens. It is very clear that those discussions took place, and she has confirmed that in this chamber. That differs from her statement of April 8. I'd like her to explain how she reconciles the statement of April 8 with the statements we have before the House now.

The Premier refuses to answer the question. The question is clear. Yesterday you said that David Emerson was asked by cabinet to review the sale of Fantasy Gardens; on April 8 you said cabinet did not discuss the sale of Fantasy Gardens. Those are completely contradictory statements. How do you reconcile them?

PROTECTION OF WITNESSES
TO GANG VIOLENCE

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Attorney General. In view of the shocking situation in Vancouver yesterday, in which charges were stayed against a youth gang because teenage witnesses' identities could not be protected, could the Attorney-General investigate this case and, if necessary, review it with his federal colleagues and consider a witness protection fund to protect witnesses from retaliation by vicious gangs or any others?

HON. MR. FRASER: The problem of crime affects all of us. It's a serious problem in some sections of the province today. It is not one to be dealt with lightly, and I thank the member for her question. There is no doubt that what your question suggests is that witnesses are being intimidated. I don't think that's new, but it's not acceptable either.

Certainly I will make every effort, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, and presumably with the support of the members opposite as well, to make sure that witnesses feel secure when they come to testify in courtrooms, that people guilty of crimes are convicted, that people who are innocent of crimes are acquitted and that the justice system of B.C. lives up to its honourable reputation.

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: To the Premier. You said on Monday that you had nothing to hide, yet the evidence is clear that there was a cabinet cover-up of the Fantasy Gardens sale. Four and a half months after the sale we heard repeated denials that cabinet knew what was going on. That is contradicted by the public evidence; it contradicts your statement of April 8. I'm asking the Premier; I'm giving her an opportunity to tell the truth. Which statement is correct — your April 8 statement that you knew nothing about the sale of Fantasy Gardens, or all the documented evidence from your deputy, from your comments in the House and from the former Finance minister that cabinet discussed the Fantasy Gardens sale on dozens of occasions?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, prior to even attempting to respond to that outburst, I would ask that the member apologize. His statements with regard to a cover-up by cabinet are an out-and-out lie, and he owes this House an apology.

MR. CLARK: The evidence is clear, and you have an obligation to set the record straight. First you said on April 8 that cabinet was not involved — that you didn't know what was going on. Yesterday you admitted that cabinet....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point or order from the first member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is somewhat unusual, but during this line of questioning my position has been mentioned twice. I'd like your guidance as to whether it would be appropriate for me to respond, at least in part, to the question phrased.

MR. SPEAKER: Regretfully, the only persons who may respond to questions are members of the executive council and the member of the opposition party who is the Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It is appropriate, however, for members to ask questions from the government side of the House if they need to.

Before we proceed with question period, I would remind members — which I reminded them of this morning — that acrimony in this House is acceptable, but personal allusions are not. The member made a

[ Page 11973 ]

statement about cabinet in general, and that blanket accusation carries to all members of cabinet. As a tradition in this House we have discussed facts separate from personalities. If we can continue to do it in that way, the public's business could be done without personalities being involved.

I'd ask the member for Vancouver East to continue.

MR. CLARK: I'll let the public decide the facts on the record.

I want to quote for the Premier the former Finance minister's very clear statement yesterday: "In terms of the discussion at the cabinet level and at the various cabinet committee levels, it must be two or three dozen times at least that the Fantasy Gardens sale was discussed." I ask you: which is correct — that statement from the former Minister of Finance or your statement of April 8 that cabinet did not know what was going on with respect to the sale of Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, the discussions at the cabinet table are confidential. But it is not difficult to assume, as a result of the day-by-day newspaper articles which referred continually to Fantasy Gardens, that in very broad and general terms the Fantasy Gardens issue was a matter of discussion. That is the extent of my comment.

MR. CLARK: I want to remind the Premier of her statement of April 8, 1991: "We the cabinet were not dealing with those, because we didn't know they existed. We thought he had transferred ownership of the gardens to Lillian, and we did not know he was involved in the sale." The evidence is clear. Your deputy's lawyer has made clear his directions from cabinet. You said in this House yesterday that cabinet directed Mr. Emerson to review the sale documents.

Mr. Speaker, one of those versions is the truth, and I'm asking the Premier which version is the truth — her statement yesterday, the statement by the Finance minister which corroborates that or the statement of April 8? Which is correct?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, they're all correct.

MR. CLARK: Can the Premier explain and reconcile the position she took on April 8, which I just read to you, and the position she's just saying? She's saying both are correct. Clearly, on a plain reading of the evidence, they're both contradictory. I would ask you to reconcile those contradictory statements.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the Premier is this. She made a number of statements on radio on April 8, 1991. They were clearly calculated to leave the impression that cabinet knew nothing, and that the current Premier was shocked by the revelations in the Hughes report. On April 8, she calculatingly made statements to suggest that cabinet knew nothing. All of the uncontradicted evidence to date points to the fact that cabinet knew everything. The question to the Premier is: which version do you prefer — the version that cabinet knew everything or the version that cabinet knew nothing? Which is correct?

The Premier says she didn't hear the question. Which of those two versions do you prefer?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question to the Premier. The Premier said a few minutes ago in response to a question from my colleague that it was a lie to suggest that cabinet knew everything. Mr. Emerson, through his counsel, has said that he was asked to report to cabinet to the fullest extent possible, to tell cabinet everything about the details. If you are suggesting that my colleague is lying by saying what he said, are you now also suggesting that Mr. Emerson was lying?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I find it very distasteful that members of this House would, during question period, purposely malign a career civil servant working for the people of British Columbia. I am just wondering how you feel that you are entitled to do that. The deputy has absolutely no opportunity to defend himself or his actions; he has to do it through a lawyer's office. Members on the opposite side of this House stand up because of the immunity we have in this House and make whatever statements they care to. I think that's shameful.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, what is shameful is that this Premier is unwilling to answer the basic question: what did she know and when did she know it? That's the basic question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Members, the questions must be questions, and the answers must be answers. There's no requirement for a member to respond with an answer, but the subject of the question cannot be as broad as some of the questions put, and I think the preambles are tending to make the House a little testy. Could we just stick to questions during question period.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has indicated that somehow she believes that Mr. Emerson has been maligned. It is now open to her, then, to correct the record and tell the truth. The question to the Premier is: did cabinet know the details of the sale? Did they know the details of the vendor financing? Did they know the details of the structure of the transaction? What did you know, Madam Premier, and when did you know it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I knew that the then Premier and his family lived at Fantasy Gardens, they had for some time and they developed the property. I visited the site on numerous occasions, as did many other people of British Columbia. But I never did feel it was any of my business to pry into the personal and business relationships that were con-

[ Page 11974 ]

ducted at Fantasy Gardens. So I knew the details of the sale at precisely the same time that you did, hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell mercifully terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Minister of Health it is my pleasure to make some brief remarks in recognition of Mental Health Week, May 6 through 12.

To give the House some idea of the magnitude of this health issue, Mr. Speaker, consider that one in every six British Columbians will experience a mental illness at some time in their life. Today an estimated 150,000 residents of this province have some form of mental illness.

[2:30]

Many members of the House will recall that in February 1990 the Minister of Health introduced the B.C. mental health initiative. A major objective of this ongoing initiative is to strengthen community services for the mentally ill to enable these people to live more independently. By achieving this objective, we can reduce the pressure on institutional care services and at the same time promote a well community.

Since this initiative was announced, the Ministry of Health has worked closely with the Mental Health Communications Council, which represents the major mental health care agencies in the province, to increase overall public awareness of mental illness. As part of this campaign, the council has developed a theme line entitled: "See mental health in a new light."

One of the first uses of this new theme will be on our mental health community resource kit, a prototype of which I have right here. This kit, which has been developed by the Ministry of Health in conjunction with the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics, will be issued to more than 500 health care agencies and care providers throughout the province. It is designed to inform communities about services available to people with a mental illness and about the B.C. mental health initiative. To accomplish this task, the resource kit contains a video and printed information on the initiative, a directory of community services for people with mental illness, a booklet on schizophrenia and brochures on services available through the mental health services division of the Ministry of Health.

I would like to briefly comment on the progress that has been achieved in the past year since the B.C. mental health initiative was first announced. The initiative provides for $20 million to be added to base funding for the mental health care system in the next three to four years. The first instalment of $6 million was made this year. In partnership with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, financing of $3 million has been set aside for new community care services for mentally handicapped people with a mental illness.

As well, a provincial mental health advisory council has been created to represent the major consumer and advocacy groups, community organizations, municipalities and mental health care providers in the province. Other advances include increases in the level of services provided through rehabilitation and support programs. The assessment and treatment of mental illness has also been substantially enhanced. Housing is another area where we're making great strides.

The central focus of the mental health initiative is to create caring communities that accept and support people with a mental illness. Towards that end, support groups for families and friends of people with mental illness have been greatly expanded, along with caregiver training programs, respite care and other formal services.

A $1 million special competition for mental health research has been established through the B.C. Health Research Foundation to coordinate mental health research and evaluation.

With regard to the child and youth mental health initiative introduced in 1986, $10 million has been allocated to increasing the local availability of specialized services for children, youths and their families.

The personal and social costs of mental illness are enormous. However, I'm proud to be able to tell you today that during Mental Health Week we will make great strides. We are pleased to be helping British Columbians who suffer from mental illness to live more independent lives within communities that support their hopes and ambitions.

MR. PERRY: I was pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health on his feet. It shows that the new Social Credit slogan "Forty-three-fifty-four or Fight" is not dead. For those of you who missed the historical allusion, they've redefined the old "Fifty-four-forty" to be 43 ministers in 54 months. So perhaps there's hope for the member yet.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: The former Minister of Education asked if I'll deal with the issue, and I assure him I will. I'm pleased that today, when this statement has been pronounced, there are members of the Friends of Schizophrenics.... I see one very active one, Ms. Shirley Cooke of Abbotsford, and I hope there are others here to listen to what we are debating, because this chamber has not always taken the issues of mental health seriously.

In fact, this has not been a particularly good year for mental health in this province, nor have any of the last four years. I have a long interest in this subject. My father — who I hope is watching now — is one of the first scientists in British Columbia to seriously investigate schizophrenia. In the old days he had to force his way into Riverview, past physicians, nurses and psychiatrists who felt that schizophrenia was a disease foisted upon children by their overbearing parents, in the era of grotesque ignorance about mental illness. I've had a long interest in that. I worked as a volunteer in laboratories when I was a university and high school student in an attempt to understand schizophre-

[ Page 11975 ]

nia. Regrettably, we're not much further ahead, but we're beginning to get somewhere.

That's why it is disappointing to know that in this province no progress has been made on a centre of excellence for schizophrenia. In fact, only a few years ago we lost Dr. Barry Jones, who was one of the promising young investigators in this field. The discovery of a heritable form of schizophrenia made in this province at the Children's Hospital and the University Hospital in Vancouver has led to no progress on that centre of excellence.

Last year we witnessed the sad spectacle of a strike in the psychiatric services brought on largely by the intransigence of the former Minister of Finance, who said that a nurse is not a nurse is not a nurse. He revealed his attitude on the importance of nursing and psychiatric services for people who require hospitalization.

I was called in to Riverview Hospital in the midst of that strike because the former Minister of Health, now the Minister of Finance, was not aware of the suffering that was going on in that hospital at that time. I had to draw those facts directly to his attention because of the ignorance of and contempt for the suffering of people with schizophrenia that occurred at the time.

As I listen to this boast about the $6 million which has been expended under the mental health plan, I wonder how the Minister of Health would reconcile that with the recommendation made two years ago by the medical health officer of Vancouver, Dr. Blatherwick, that $20 million was needed urgently for housing for people who now are on the streets of Vancouver. There are people sleeping in the park in Comox, who are mentally ill and have no place to be housed. There is a Triage centre — a last-ditch centre — for the most desperately mentally ill about to be imposed upon the east-end neighbourhood of Strathcona in Vancouver, which already is overburdened with social problems. In this province the government does not believe that mentally ill people should be looked after in their own homes. It has not provided the resources to look after them and to house them properly in their own communities.

What progress has been made — and there has been substantial progress — has come from the communities themselves, thank heavens, and from groups like the Friends of Schizophrenics who have worked hard and have raised their voices.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about the layoff of sessional psychologists in the Surrey and Whalley mental health program, where children with mental illness are now waiting on lists for up to 12 months to receive basic psychological assessment. I could talk about the letters I have received from psychologists during the recent dispute that the government forced on psychologists in mental health centres. I could talk about what we learned yesterday from Debra McPherson, the president of the B.C. Nurses' Union, who described an attack on nurses with sharpened sticks by a mentally ill patient in the Kamloops Royal Inland Hospital, because the facilities do not exist there to look after acutely psychotic and violent patients adequately. I could talk about the situation at The Maples, where adolescents with schizophrenia and chronic severe depression have been threatened — and their families have been threatened — with their being moved into a locked ward, when they did not need to be locked up. For a year now those families have been living with that anxiety. My colleague from Burnaby has received letters from the families of children suffering under that threat.

But I can't express the issue any more eloquently than in the words of the mother of a schizophrenic patient who wrote to my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I request the patience of the House to communicate to you what she has said, because it speaks for itself better than any of us could put this issue. It's dated May 1, 1991, from Mrs. Elizabeth Holden of Victoria.

"Last week my husband and I visited our son in Riverview Hospital for his thirty-seventh birthday. He has been there since he was 21 years old. He was then a tall, well-built, handsome young man in good physical health but unable to fit into 'normal' life. He was eventually diagnosed as schizophrenic, but not to an extreme degree. There was no place for him on the Island, so he was cut off from his family and friends at a time when he desperately needed their support. He, who would not take even an aspirin at home, was heavily drugged every day.

"Several years later he had a massive stroke, which resulted in permanent paralysis on one side, and he can no longer speak. He is now in a wheelchair, too weak to sit upright and bent over like an old man. His teeth are rotting and gradually falling out. He is so emaciated that his shoulder bones are sticking through his shirt. The only semblance that remains of our beautiful young son are his big dark eyes, which are his only way of communicating with us, and his long graceful hands with which he used to write poetry and stories.

"His companions are old, brain-damaged men. His home is an old, dark, small building with windows barred and doors locked. The patients walk up and down the short corridor, up and down, endlessly, as if looking for a way out. Not one word was spoken by any of them whilst we were there. They were like robots with staring, desperate eyes on their stiff, expressionless faces. Some were sitting like our son, who cannot walk, bent over motionless, just breathing. Life imprisonment is their sentence 'for not fitting in.'

"My last correspondence with the present government was in 1988, when I was told that plans were underway to provide suitable accommodation for our son and similar patients on Vancouver Island. We are still waiting.

"Our son has suffered more than it is humanly possible to imagine, both mentally and physically, but the sense of abandonment must be the cruellest and most unbearable of all. In the name of mercy, let us not be ignored any longer. Is there any way that you can help us?"

She wrote that letter to my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I reluctantly conclude that the statement presented by the government member represents little more than hypocrisy. If I thought I could believe it seriously, I would not raise these points. But having fought in this Legislature for two years, and knowing that my colleague the member for

[ Page 11976 ]

Maillardville-Coquitlam has fought much longer, and that my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has fought unsuccessfully in every way possible to bring relief to families and suffering people like this, I see little on the horizon. I see relief from the professionals, the nurses, the physicians, the families and the social workers, but from this government I see nothing but contempt. I hope that will change soon.

[2:45]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, you all have a copy of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. I would commend it, especially to members of the executive council who prepare and have prepared on their behalf ministerial statements that seem to me like a summary of estimates speeches. We have badly violated our own rules this afternoon. I trust that there will be some guidance when ministerial statements are made in the future.

MR. SIHOTA: Inasmuch as I did not have an opportunity to read yesterday's Blues until 2 o'clock today, I wish to reserve my right, and give you notice of this, to raise a matter of privilege arising out of yesterday and what may have been said today — a matter of privilege with respect to the Premier. I just wish to reserve my right to that, and give you notice of that at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take that matter as notice.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first opportunity that the member has had to raise this point. The House did sit this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The determination of that matter will be made by the Chair.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

HON. MR. FRASER: It is my pleasure to take my place in this debate on the address from the throne, and to join with all members in this lively debate, for I know it's going to be interesting. It's particularly a pleasure for me to sit with the first woman Premier in Canada, an undoubtedly strong lady. Indeed, I look forward to being back here after the next election, as the member for Vancouver-Langara, and on the government side of the House.

To those on the government side who will not seek election again, I say thanks to you on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and I extend the same greetings to the members opposite who will not seek office. A special thank-you to my colleagues who have been the victims of unwarranted criticism; for this is a tough business, not for the faint of heart. Those of us who sit in this chamber have special privileges of immunity with respect to what we say, and accordingly that presents us with a great obligation, for now that we have television in the House, and now that everybody across the province can see and hear us, we do have a special obligation to protect the reputations of those people who are innocent.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'm pleased to say, as Attorney-General of this great province, that the justice system is in good shape. We have come through every review with flying colours. By comparison, those who made those unfounded charges do not look as good. They have been exposed for their attacks on the system for what can only be political purposes, and that's unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition will either have to take credit for that unwarranted attack or deny that he's a leader, neither of which is a particularly good choice.

I was reading the paper the other day and looked at the Leader of the Opposition wrapped in a flag like a dummy. I know that our Premier will never do that. This is a lady who will keep B.C. on course, on target, on budget, on time, in tune with reality, in harmony with her schedule of the vision for the province of British Columbia. This is a lady who will make this province hum. We are waiting, by the way, for the next election.

Incidentally, she's not the acting leader, or the interim leader, or the whatever; she is the Premier. For those who of you who don't know, now you know.

I'm sure there will be some attacks on this good lady who happens to be the Premier of the province of British Columbia, and people across the way will say she doesn't have much education. Well, she may not have a lot of formal education, but she's received good education working out in the community since the day she could first work. I know that she can stand in her place anywhere in this province with her husband and say: "Every dime we have we earned." She understands the demand from the taxpayers for fiscal responsibility. Yet as you can see, that demand is tempered with compassion for those who are not as fortunate as some of us might be.

If we stop for just one minute to think about what makes this country great, you'll hear two opinions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Women.

HON. MR. FRASER: Three opinions.

There are two basic reasons, whether you happen to be a man or a woman, why this country is great. The opposition is likely to say this country is great because of the social safety net. But anybody who understands will say the country is great because of hard work and an abundant land which gave us the money to provide the social safety net.

If we don't know that now, we're going to know it soon. I'm here to remind you, although I know I don't have to, that the good people of Ontario just found out that they have 9.7 billion reasons to realize why they don't want an NDP government.

In the unforeseen event that there are people out there who do not know about these problems, I thought I'd bring a few of them to light. We have found

[ Page 11977 ]

already that 26 out of the 76 promises made during the last election by the NDP in Ontario have been broken. We have found that while they promised a deficit of $2 billion, they went beyond their wildest dreams and made it almost $10 billion. They promised more money for education but less was delivered. They promised 20,000 day care spaces, but 5,000 were delivered. For northern development, $400 million was promised and nothing was delivered. Some great revolution. The NDP strategies in the last eight months have cost 200,000 jobs — some record!

Need I go on? Maybe I will. It's as if they consciously set out in Ontario to destroy the entire economy of the province, let alone the country. What for? Why would they do it? I can only think of one reason: when the whole thing crunches, they want to buy them all up and take them over as government enterprises, just like they tried to do here. Somehow our old friend Bob Williams lives. His spirit is there, isn't it?

What about this glorious little transition team we hear about? The Leader of the Opposition talks about open government. How about open opposition? It wouldn't be such a bad start; it might improve it. He says three or four members of caucus — apparently not knowing how many — plus a few resource people form this crack transition team. They went down to Ontario and helped Bob Rae take over. "We're ready to go," he said. This crack team of three or four resource people — we're not sure how many or who — went and put Ontario on the course to economic ruin. Who are they? Why won't he tell us? The Leader of the Opposition — remember that fellow wrapped in the flag, ready to take over. I doubt it.

In this newspaper article he talks about the NDP playbook — the macho sports lingo of a man who says he has no gender bias, by the way. Imagine that. The road to disaster. These are the people who say they want to run British Columbia. Spare us from that, Mr Speaker. There's no way.

What have they promised so far? A couple of little tidbits to keep you warmed up, to make you feel warm and cosy They've said that they're going to have a minimum corporate tax. Isn't that great? Just think, we're going to tax somebody else; we'll be saved. Mr Speaker, you and I and everybody who understands knows, and every working taxpayer knows, that if a company has to pay taxes in the year of a loss and can't make it, they go under; they go bankrupt. What's the result of that? Job loss. They can't seem to get a grip on the fact that if you don't have the work and you don't make the money, the social net is gone. They have no idea that the more debt they pile on our system, the more trouble they cause for the social network that we're so proud of in this country. Surely we'll have to get a grip on that. If we don't, we're in trouble.

With the kinds of policies they have, Mr. Speaker, I'm reminded of Woody Allen, and I'll paraphrase a little bit. But the kinds of choices they would give us are these: we have a difficult choice to make today.... As Woody Allen would say: "We have two roads to go down: one leads to chaos and disaster, and the other leads to extinction. God give us the wisdom to choose the right one." That's the kind of choice we'd get from that side of the House. That's why we don't want it, and that's why the people of this province won't give it to us. Thank goodness for them; at least they understand.

I intend to show that the claim for consistency led by the Leader of the Opposition doesn't hold any water; it has no foundation. Let's begin. As I said, he says he believes in open government but obviously not open opposition. Who is this transition team he talks about?

Tell us about your platform. What is it? Who paid for it? Who's going to pay for it? The crack transition team went to Ontario. We see articles here from a former worker, who incidentally was let go, about the welfare system we now see in Ontario. Spare us from this — the system is so open-ended that the former employee suspects that organized rings are scamming taxpayers by collecting multiple cheques from many different welfare offices around the province using false identification documents such as passports, birth certificates and drivers' licences. They don't even ask if it's true or if the documents are correct. They don't cross-reference.

In Ontario you can be on welfare and own two residences. You don't have to do a thing with your own wallet until you've been off six months. You don't have to live there. A welfare recipient in Ontario can live in Mexico, and they'll send you the money by electronic mail. Is that what you want? No, we don't. No job check, no checking, and no residence requirements. Why do we care in this great province of British Columbia? Because we pay for part of that disaster. How can we understand that point of view? Nobody can. Don't they sound soft and syrupy? Aren't they warm and cuddly? Look at the bank-book.

Now we talk about social services. Here's what the Leader of the Opposition said four or five months ago: "In terms of health care, we have to stop endlessly pouring money into hospitals, into high tech, into drugs, into doctors, and cap the sickness part of the system and shift the resource into preventive community services." Finally, as we underline these critical words from the Leader of the Opposition — the man who would be Premier, the man who would break your bank and your back at the same time — he said: "So I don't think that we're getting good value, either in education or in health care or in social services, for the tax dollars that people are putting into them." By the way, "either/or" means two, not three, so he's even grammatically incorrect.

Let him tell the doctors that they're getting too much money in health care. Let him tell the nurses that there's too much money in health care. Let him tell the teachers there's too much money in education. How about that!

Let's look at education spending. I have a little graph here that says education expenditures, as a percentage of total expenditures in British Columbia, are the highest in the land. Take that. Education as a total expenditure in B.C. is going up, and guess what it's doing in Ontario? Down, down, down. How do we do this?

[ Page 11978 ]

Let's talk about job protection. According to an informal survey of top executives, 76 percent felt that an NDP victory would be negative for the British Columbia economy. Surprise! The Leader of the Opposition wants to create 9,000 jobs. Too bad. We created 28,000 jobs. He's the same one who would put one tug on a ship going out of the harbour; we've got four on it now.

B.C. has the lowest commercial bankruptcy rate in Canada and the highest average weekly wages. The rate of capital invested in B.C. is double the forecast for Canada as a whole. That's how you protect jobs. You make the economy work.

The fact is that value-added manufacturing exports have been growing at more than twice the rate of provincial exports. That's how to create jobs. He talks about value-added Asia-Pacific trade. What have we done? British Columbia exports have enjoyed a very strong period of growth since 1986. Total B.C. exports in 1986 were $12.1 billion. By 1989 this had reached $17.8 billion, an increase of over 40 percent. That's how you protect jobs; that's how you protect the social net; that's how you fund health care; that's how you fund education; that's how you fund social services. Value-added manufacturing exports have been growing at more than twice the rate of provincial exports.

He said this morning that he would adopt the David Anderson report right away. It just happens that we commissioned the report. We made it happen. Here are some of the reports that he would adopt instantly: "That as a matter of environmental policy, there would be no further development of export trade of crude oil from the port of Vancouver; that as a matter of environmental policy, existing exports of crude oil from the port of Vancouver be phased out; that until such traffic ends, no crude oil tanker would be permitted to load for offshore destinations until a contingency plan for spill response," da de da de da.

Who killed the Mackenzie Valley pipeline? Who was that? It was the opposition — Mr. Barrett and friends. There wouldn't have been a Valdez spill if you'd had the wisdom to do it right. There's no party like the NDP to have 20-20 hindsight; even that sometimes makes you wonder. I'm not sure about that.

The Leader of the Opposition says: "Within two months of being the Premier of the province, I will take a trip to Asia." To join with the other seven junkets he took as the mayor of Vancouver. Two months on the job and he wants a day off. What does he know about working? He says it's important to link the Asia-Pacific countries. It's fascinating material.

What does the Finance critic say? Nice young fellow from Vancouver. He says: "They" — talking about the government — "are keeping the campaign promise of linking our economy with Asia-Pacific. I agree the government's moving in that direction. I'm not as convinced as the government that this is necessary."

The leader said: "Oh, it's very important. I'm going to go to Asia. I'm going to review all my old friends and see them all again like I did when I was the mayor of Vancouver." The critic says: "Oh, I don't think that's so important."

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of them are out of office now.

HON. MR. FRASER: Right. Then he says: "We're going to set timetables now. We're going to do it right like this country.... We're going to say that's terrific." He said that in six months we're going to settle the land claims. Just what are you going to do with all the loggers? Here's what the Leader of the Opposition said: "New Democrats recognize what the courts have said, and the courts have said clearly that aboriginal title exists."

The courts never said that. That's not true. The Leader of the Opposition said: "Native Indians still hold aboriginal title to British Columbia's land mass and no sustainable resource development can occur in B.C. until the provincial government admits it." The courts didn't say that.

[3:00]

The Leader of the Opposition said: "The NDP would in particular, as soon as elected, institute a moratorium on all major logging, mining, hydroelectric development within the following areas: South Moresby, the Stein River watershed, Meares Island, proposed Stikine watershed, Khutzeymateen River valley, the southern Chilcotin and the proposed Cascade addition to Manning Park. Isn't that interesting? What are those loggers going to live on? What are those miners going to live on? Do you realize how much territory that is? Do you realize that is just one-sixth of the area they're going to set aside for parks if they get elected?

If they double the parkland like they promised, 3,500 jobs will be lost in the forest industry alone. What a policy! What an idea! So the idea is that these guys are going to become park rangers. Terrific.

They complain about corporate taxes and personal taxes. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this. Corporation income tax revenues have grown at an annual rate of nearly 26 percent since 1986-87 — twice the rate of personal income taxes. Who cares about people? The government does. Who says they care? They do. They can't demonstrate that with their policies. They can't do it.

We'll go on to that later, Mr. Speaker. But in the throne speech there was some mention of our colleague the late Hon. Jack Davis, who had a great career as an athlete, a scholar, a philosopher and a decent human being. I was pleased to see that his name was mentioned and that a building will be named after him in the energy and mines portfolio. He was a man who worked hard all the time, who was determined to serve his country constantly and who worked night and day. I am pleased to see that tribute to him in there. He was a man we shall not forget easily; he was a decent human being who worked hard, cared for his family and loved his country. He made the country go because he was a builder.

Of the many things that were not mentioned about this great individual was the pipeline he brought across to the Vancouver Island area so that we could burn natural gas and take pollution out of the skies on the west winds blowing over to the mainland up the

[ Page 11979 ]

Fraser Valley.... He did that. He pushed and struggled, and he got it done.

He was the man who struggled to bring the ALRT to the city of Vancouver over the objections of the former mayor who sits as Leader of the Opposition. That transit system is equivalent to 24 lanes of highway. That's the kind of thing he did. That's the kind of leadership this party has delivered.

Do you remember when we built highways out in the province, and they said, "highways to nowhere"? We opened up the north and the interior. When we put a tunnel under the Fraser River, they said, "a tunnel to nowhere." Some nowhere! The Deas Island tunnel — some tunnel to nowhere!

We're building on the science and technology of our students. Our students are doing well in exams and beating out other students all over the country. That's the future: education. That's the money that's going in. Our children are doing well. Let them work in school; it's good for them. We're going to give them the chance.

As I said, while the Premier has not had extensive formal education herself, she understands the value more than some who have those fancy degrees. That's why this government will do what it has to do to give the children and the students in the province of British Columbia the chance to go as far as they can in their education.

I'm not suggesting to you that the system is perfect. No system ever is. But that lady understands why we should have it, and that's why her motivation is in the direction it is, and that's why the spending on education in B.C. is going up. Why would it be going down in Ontario? Ask them. Ask their crack "transition team," as we say. What do they know? Look at the province. The whole country is just astounded at the social network damaged by debt. How can they do it? There's no comprehension there.

We talked briefly about the system of justice. My colleague the Solicitor-General and I will be working on a joint task force to respond to a problem not unlike that brought up by my colleague from Little Mountain earlier today in question period. We are concerned about safety in the streets in every town and city in the province, no matter where it is, how big or small, and whether they've got a full-time mayor or a part-time mayor or a large or small police force. We want to make sure that the people who come to live in this country understand that we want to be able to walk on any street in any town at any time without the fear of being assaulted.

We want to have witnesses able to go to court to testify without the fear of being intimidated or without being intimidated and having fear. In harmony with the Owen Discretion to Prosecute Inquiry, we will be bringing in legislation. I propose to bring in legislation that will address those needs so there will be no attack on a system that works so well, so there will be no damage to personal reputations when they have done their job right and so the people who work in the system — the policemen, the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges, the citizens, the volunteers, those on the jury — can serve and defend the system. We have probably the best justice system in the land.

Let me remind you that in a recent decision called the Askov decision, it has been determined that if you have a systemic delay in the justice system, your trial should be stayed and the charges dropped. In the great province of Ontario, run by the New Democratic Party, 34,000 trials have been dropped because of systemic delays. They've had to pump in nearly $40 million to bring it up to speed. They have stayed charges of homicide. It's not right. The system here is working. We can be really proud of our system here.

How are we going to approach the country in the next months and years? What do we think about this great country? What are we going to do with it? Let's reach out as individuals, as members of a community, as a committee of the Legislature and go to the towns, cities, communities and say: "What do you want to do? How do you want to make this country work? Is there any way anybody that knows anything about this great country can sit there and let it crumble?" And the answer ought to be: "No." Are we trying to do it? Yes, we are.

What are we doing? We're asking for people to submit papers. We're trying to give the public an outline of what they might want to address. Instead of being mad at one province or another, let's see if we can make it work. It's too good to let go. It's not sensible for us to have six Senators and have a population of three million, when the province of New Brunswick has 11 Senators in a province of 700,000. That doesn't make any sense. We can address that. But we can't rip it up first and put it back together; that won't work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: We're going to do that. How else are we going to protect the people of the province? What are we going to do? The Leader of the Opposition said that they participated right out of it. "Overparticipated" was what he said. Too much participation. How can you have too much participation in a democratic system? You can't. They want to run it all. "We're so smart. We're so great. Make me the government. I'm good, therefore, what I do is good." Is that the circle they tell? It's not right.

You want to reach out and let people vote on referendums. Let's start the process gently, a step at a time, one inch at a time, before we're.... How would you like us to behave in this area or that? You can trust in this government the confidence to deliver the future to the children of the province intact. We have to encourage people to participate in the democratic system. We have to give them the chance to do that. And we can do that by getting into a referendum system. Let's start the process. It has already been started.

[3:15]

In spite of the problems we've had, we've had the best government in Canada by a wide margin. I'm proud to stand here as a member of Premier Johnston's cabinet and say that and to work with her and everybody else in the House to make this province work. We want changes to the charter.

[ Page 11980 ]

The disappointing part of the opposition party.... I remember how upset I used to be when the media would say: "We have to behave as the unofficial opposition." I was told directly, eyeball to eyeball, that it's what they have to do. And it used to upset me that they would do that. But now I don't think that way anymore.

I want the opposition to be spoon-fed, as long they're willing to take it, because if you're on the spoon, you're not old enough to do it by yourself; you never grow up, and you never would. Running in and out; running in with notes, one to the media, one to the NDP. What do they want? Nothing. Oh, good grief! What do you want then? Listen to the slogan. "Time for a change." What else? Can't you think of anything else? It's the weakest thing you could do.

It's not that they're dumb; it's their attitude. Everybody is a victim, according to them. They never think of people as individuals and little groups. They never think of people as being responsible, successful, creative. Oh, no. They think that if they were the government they could solve all the problems of the world. I've got to tell you that there's not a hope of that being true.

They don't even call themselves socialists anymore. They don't call themselves social democrats anymore. They're sort of Liberals with a west-coast accent.

It's like this: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hangs out with other ducks, you want us to think it's a flying squirrel. I'm not going to do that.

What do we see in the news here? In the Globe and Mail after the budget speech in Ontario: two grown men laughing that they've dumped a $9.7 billion deficit. That's not funny. The provincial treasurer there likes to call himself Pink Floyd. It will be blood red before it's all over.

What did Jeffrey Simpson say? "They failed to innovate."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Attorney, your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. BARLEE: I find the previous member very amusing, very interesting and easy to listen to, but perhaps we should be a little more analytical of the throne speech, which is really the subject of the debate

I listened rather attentively to the throne speech two days ago. I noticed that there were a few new initiatives and a number of recycled initiatives, but the interesting thing were the errors of omission. These errors of omission are quite important. I'll tell you why.

I represent a riding, one of two members in this particular constituency. It's rather a poor riding in British Columbia — one of the two poorest. We've been hard hit by the free trade deal. We've been hard hit by the slide in the tree fruits industry. We've been hard hit by the closing of many of our small businesses. When I listened to that speech, I noticed that the errors of omission were almost damning for a government. I'll tell you why. The errors of omission were these. They forgot some very important areas. They forgot the agricultural industry.

The Lieutenant-Governor went through 20 pages. I listened extremely carefully and I read the text. There was no mention of the agricultural industry in British Columbia — not one word. Last year it was remarkable: there was a whole 30 seconds. An industry that employs 75,000 people, brings in $1.2 billion per annum in annual receipts and preserves the quality of life for many in British Columbia.... The agricultural greenbelts are extremely important. I didn't notice that from the previous speaker. He was very jocular and pleasant to listen to. He was funny. But that isn't what a government is all about. A government is really more serious.

When I discuss these issues, I think about a farmer of Portuguese origin in my riding. He works eight hours a day, five days a week, then he comes back and works seven days a week on his orchard. He has 20 acres. Because that land base, which was once an asset, is now a liability — and he can thank this government, and you may be sure he will in the next election — he pays interest of $34,000 a year just to hold on to his land. This government didn't find that important enough to discuss in the throne speech, which is the major speech on their strategy for the future. I find that incredible.

What else didn't they discuss? They didn't discuss the tourism industry — not a word. The tourism industry is the fastest-growing industry in the world. It is soon going to be our number one industry It employs tens of thousands of people. It can pick up the slack in some of our ridings.

The previous member mentioned all the jobs created. Let's take a close look at the jobs created by this government. I just went over the figures about four days ago. Alberta has a lower unemployment rate than British Columbia. So does poor Saskatchewan, and so does Manitoba. Yet we say we create all these jobs. Indeed this government does create a lot of jobs, but how long do they last? They last six weeks usually. They're short-term jobs. And how much do they pay? They pay the minimum wage. Often they are part-time. Anyone can create jobs like that, because there is really no strategy.

It isn't just agriculture. It isn't just tourism. It goes right down the line. One of the backbones of this particular government, the bedrock of their support, has been the small businesses in British Columbia. You've essentially abandoned the small businesses. Eighty-five percent of the new jobs in British Columbia are created by small business — and not one word about it in the throne speech. These errors of omission are not good enough.

There are a number of other things. For instance, I was astounded not to hear one mention of the impact of the free trade deal. The free trade deal is impacting negatively on virtually everyone in British Columbia. It cost this province $800 million last year. Those are one-way dollars. They go into the States and stay there. The prognosis for this year is $1.5 billion in one-way dollars. That's $500 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia flowing out of British Columbia into the state of Washington. That $500 per capita is

[ Page 11981 ]

incredible. With it go thousands and thousands of British Columbia jobs.

This is a government that supported the free trade agreement. You wonder why Ontario lost their 200,000 jobs. You can lay it at the door of the free trade agreement. That's the manufacturing centre of Canada.

They did lose 200,000 jobs — in fact, slightly more.

Those jobs are continuing to be lost 50 and 100 and 1,500 at a time because of the free trade agreement, an agreement that every member of the opposite side supported wholeheartedly. I frankly don't think it's good enough. It isn't good enough for British Columbians, for British Columbia business, for British Columbia agriculturalists or for the people in the tourism industry. It absolutely amazes me. All of these things are glossed over.

You talk about your record. Well, let's take a look at your record — and it's quite a record. When you really analyze it, it isn't very good. I'll tell you why it isn't very good. Out of the last ten years, you've balanced the budget twice. Isn't that marvellous! In eight out of ten, you've had a deficit. When did you balance them?

In the two years when you sold the assets of British Columbia. B.C. Petroleum Corporation went down the line for $250 million. What did it earn for British Columbia? It earned a billion dollars, and you sold it for $250 million. That's why you showed a surplus for those two years: because you sold out part of the stock.

When you didn't sell part of the stock, you started selling the store. There is very little left. So your record of financial management is incredible; it's financial mismanagement. Any other government in Canada would have been long gone.

I can reiterate just a few of the areas of mismanagement. You talk a great deal about the Coquihalla. Did it come in on budget? I guess it didn't. It was $500 million over — that we know of. Let's not stop there; let's look at some of the other issues. Let's look at SkyTrain. I agree with SkyTrain.

Couldn't you bring it on budget? Did it have to be $720 million over? Not $50 million, not $70 million — $720 million.

Let's take a look at northeast coal. That was really a marvel. What did you do up there? You didn't even put the mine in the right place, and you fired your chief geologist because he said you didn't. That was a billion dollars over.

You make much of Expo. Well, let's take a look at Expo.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Oh, I see from the member for Okanagan South that we're hitting a little sensitive chord.

Well, let's take a look at a bit more; let's look at Expo. Expo was really quite marvellous. The only problem is that, again, it was another $350 million over.

Ah, but we were going to cure that; we were going to sell the Expo lands. Well, we did — to an offshore buyer, Li Ka-shing. Do you know something? Instead of leasing it, which any knowledgeable businessman would have said, Li Ka-shing stands to make $1 billion net profit from the Expo lands. Now that's pretty tough to take. Does that billion dollars stay here? You bet it doesn't.

This government says it watches taxes. Well, here are your taxes since 1986 — almost 800. I can stretch his list of taxes 24 feet — right from here to the member for Cariboo. Twenty-four feet; 800 taxes. Everyone watching has paid $3,000 more in taxes in his province than they should have.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let's take a little look at some of those taxes. What's the most common tax? The most common tax is the gas tax. Go right outside and stop at Chevron, Esso or Shell. Do you know what the price is in British Columbia? I find it very interesting: the price in British Columbia on average is 54.9 cents per litre for a low-grade gas. Our federal and provincial taxes — by the way, our provincial taxes on gas are among the highest in the nation — are 22.8. You take 22.8 off 54.9, and that means that the multinational oil companies — Shell, Esso and all the rest — make 32 cents a litre; 32.1 if you want to be precise. That's their gross revenue per litre.

It's very interesting. Drop into the state of Washington — Seattle or Spokane — and you will find that gas there averages 30 cents a litre, and their state and federal taxes are 10 cents a litre. Their gross revenue per litre — this is all converted into Canadian funds — is 20 cents a litre. So in the state of Washington, the oil companies make 20 cents a litre, and in British Columbia, they make 32 cents a litre. That's a 60 percent difference, and they're even buying some of our gas. Why the difference? I think it's a little agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the multinational oil companies.

What does that mean to every driver in British Columbia? It means $200 goes directly out of your back pocket every year in extra profit to the oil companies, over and above the 20 cents. What does that extra 12 cents per litre, which is not staying in British Columbia, mean? It means $435 million a year. That's $36 million for every cent — $36.2 million, if you want to be exact.

So as far as fiscal management is concerned, this government is absolutely astonishing. To me, the throne speech was absolutely unbelievable: errors of omission.... Really, it did not cover the ground that I expected it to cover. I don't think it covered the ground that a lot of other British Columbians expected either.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUCE: I'm pleased to join in the debate today on the throne speech. Five sessions ago, I guess it was, when I was able to take my seat in this chamber and speak for the first time, I mentioned a good friend of mine, a good friend of this House and a good friend of the parliamentary process. He's not with us any longer. His name was Ned DeBeck, and he was actually kind of adoptive grandfather to me. As a much younger guy, I spent many nights and evenings with him in his home debating the pros and cons of the

[ Page 11982 ]

parliamentary process and playing rummy. I used to get whipped thoroughly every time I did, but I found him, although an older gentleman, to be light-years ahead of many of us when it came to the process of parliament and how it should function.

Today I'd also like to mention another departed colleague who I think was light-years ahead, the Hon. Jack Davis. He had many thoughts and wrote many papers and books with respect to how parliament should operate. I quote him in one aspect of what he wrote in his book Popular Politics, and I would urge others to take the time to read this.

"...the slender power base of the individual must be strengthened, the powers of big government, big business, big labour constrained. These collectives must be our servants, not our masters."

That, my friends, is why I got involved in politics years ago. That is why this side of the House today represents us in the province of British Columbia as government. That is why this side of the House must continue to do what we can to bring to the people of this province the message that big labour, big government and big business must be constrained.

I'd like to quote a few other things. Jack Davis wrote some very interesting articles in this book. I'd just like to take the time to read into the record a couple of comments that I think truly represent what Jack was all about. He said:

"In politics, small can be beautiful. Quality and sincerity count. So does the will to act. Citizens need a vehicle through which they can express themselves. They need the right institutions; they need leaders with missionary zeal. Individualism, given these qualities, can succeed, make its mark in a society which is willing to listen, hear advocates out and make rational decisions based on facts."

I go on quoting from other portions of this book that Jack wrote.

"The family unit is precious and must be preserved. Private clubs and voluntary bodies have their virtues. There is also a place for partnerships, local chambers of commerce, professional associations, cooperatives. But the bias, if any, must be in favour of the person, the individual, the basic unit in society.

"The key words are 'decentralize' and 'democratize.' Their advantages to the individual must be extolled repeatedly. While majorities rule, minorities must be respected. Weak collectives must not be wiped out by strong collectives. Their membership must be given many of the privileges the citizen enjoys.

"Protest must be possible, always. Different ideas, no matter how strange, must be considered on their merits. Welcome dissent, for how, otherwise, can truth prevail?

"This is the road to human betterment, culture and civilization. As the late Kenneth Clark said in his internationally acclaimed television series, 'Civilization requires a modicum of material prosperity...but, far more, it requires confidence — confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its philosophies, beliefs in its laws, and confidence, above all, in one's own mental powers and possibilities.'

"Most great works, says Clark, call for a certain vigour, energy and vitality: all of the great civilizations of civilizing epochs have had a weight of energy behind them. People sometimes think that civilization consists of fine sensibilities and good conversation. But these are the agreeable results. They are a manifestation of its existence, not its fountainhead, not its driving force. People are. Gifted individuals are, citizens who are both able and take it on themselves to influence mankind.

"Remember, everything of value invented, developed and introduced beneficially to society has been due to single minds of genius, not collectives, groups, corporations or states.

"Many of the great figures of history...were a reflection of their times. They stood out, daring to be different. They attracted attention, expressed feelings, did things to which their contemporaries could relate. They caused others to venture into matters of intellect and passion. They helped to change their world, yet they were alone. They were individuals whose impact on society must, through their example, give us a feeling of confidence in ourselves.

"To be effective politically, the society wherein we live must be open to new ideas, welcome competition, encourage the best. It must reserve the largest area of activity for the individual, contain collectives, direct the state. This will happen when popular opinion is sought on all issues, when democracy extends to the workplace and when moral and ethical issues are left to each of us separately in the privacy of our own home. This is the world I want to live in. This is the kind of politics I espouse — populism at its best."

These are the words of Jack Davis, a man whom I greatly respected and who I think contributed greatly not only to British Columbia but to this great country of Canada.

And I will read to you one other quote with respect to the workings of the House and Parliament itself. We should spend much more time in this House on how we conduct our affairs — and likewise in the other legislatures across this country and certainly in the House of Commons.

"Herewith a word about party loyalties and party discipline. The party concept itself is anti-individualist, anti-representative and anti-constitutional in the sense there are many points of view and many plans circulating in the community. Once elected, a politician must do his best to represent all his voters, putting forward pros and cons on each issue, voting as the majority of his constituents would have him vote, not following the party line day in, day out, regardless of what he hears from whom."

The Hon. Jack Davis spent many years in both this House and the House of Commons and understood better than most of us how the real workings of parliament should take place.

I look forward to having some discussion in a forum dealing with the constitutional changes that will be brought about in Canada. But we in this House, whether as government or as opposition, or whether those roles — God forbid! — may change, should take the time to reflect on those words, particularly on how this House operates. The people of British Columbia want representation in this House not solely from a party perspective. They want those elected as representatives to come to this House and speak as individuals on behalf of their constituents — not to take the party and government line back to their constituencies but to bring to this House the thoughts of the people and to debate in a serious and meaningful way those aspirations the people of their constituencies have. It's not

[ Page 11983 ]

new. It's been done, and it is done. We're certainly not reinventing the wheel; it's operating already. All we have to do is have the will in this House, as elected individuals and as people who represent our constituents and the people of British Columbia, to make those changes.

Whether it is I who stands in this House after the next election or whether it is some of my colleagues or those of you on the other side, I request of you, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that this Legislature look at these types of changes in a meaningful, real and positive way.

It is the way that small-town British Columbia can be represented in this House, and we all know that the majority of us come from small-town British Columbia. It is what makes this province and what makes this country. There is a fundamental restructuring taking place in the small towns throughout British Columbia. Communities that have been for many years based on a single industry, with the economy revolving around one mine or one mill or one sector of the industry, are now changing.

This government has taken steps to alleviate the restructuring of our community economies. But the changes that are the most meaningful, resilient and long-lasting are the changes that come from the communities themselves — the types of initiatives that most communities have and many have brought along in their own way.

I have seen that firsthand with my own little community in my riding, Chemainus, where in 1983 we saw a very large milling operation go down. Rather than wait for big government, big industry or some other wonderful force to solve our problems, the community there took it upon itself to make the difference. They understood that meaningful and lasting change had to come from within. It could not be put down from the top. That little town today has a bright and rosy future because the people — not the state, not the large corporation, not the large union, but individuals within that community — seized the opportunity. They are the real pioneers of what has made this country great.

I hear all too often from many who talk about tourism. The comment is made that we have to diversify and move into tourism; and on the other side I hear the argument: yes, but they're only popcorn-paying jobs. I have seen what a real thrust into tourism can mean. Let me tell you, I take offence when I hear that people talk about them as "popcorn" jobs. I take offence because my sister, who I know and love well, has done well in developing two small businesses which employ a couple of people in each store. She has done well for herself and for that community through the development of tourism.

There is a future throughout this great province. There is a future in the tourist industry. But, my friends, there is also a future in the forestry sector. All too often we hear comments that we have to move from forestry. But in my view, the future of the economy, the social fabric of this great province, is intertwined and based in the forestry sector.

Yes, there is a change in how the forestry industry operates. There are fewer jobs in the traditional milling side as we know it. As examples have been relayed here by my colleagues in respect of other value-added operations, I too have seen them directly within my community. There are many more jobs in that way.

There are also jobs in the intensive aspect of growing those trees. In planting those carrots, tending them row by row and in brushing and weeding them, there are literally thousands of jobs. But society as a whole — not government alone — has to make a commitment to understand that that is an investment. When one spends those types of dollars on the actual tending of that forestry crop, in the end result, when all is said and done, you'll have to cut those trees down. As difficult as it may be in some instances, you still have to cut some trees down.

[3:45]

There's nothing more beautiful than a forest that's growing in a resilient, healthy state; there's nothing more tragic than seeing a forest after it has been harvested. But it's what this country is all about. It's what makes the economy not only of this province but of Canada tick. It's what pays for the social nets that we have. It's what pays for our health and education. It's what gives the jobs and the purpose and meaning for so many hundreds of thousands of people in this country. It's simply not good enough to say we will save this particular area and walk away from it and leave those who live in those communities — the small towns of this province — who are dependent upon those jobs, to fight it out on their own.

There is a very strong future in the forestry sector. It's the role of this House to talk about those forestry issues and to bring to this forum the discussion that's necessary so that we all have a better understanding of what's actually happening in the forests of this province and of this country.

I speak with not great experience but with some, having seen the effects of taking the small forest that we had in the municipality of North Cowichan, of which I was the mayor at the time, and being able to use the resources and knowledge of the people of my community who had been involved in the forestry sector. We put together what I and others consider a model of how community forestry can operate, a model of how intensive management ought to be taking place and a model of how the jobs and the social fabric of the community can be strengthened by a strong and healthy forestry base. It's a challenge for all of us. But let us keep in mind that even when those steps are taken, there will come a time when one has to cut that tree down, as sad as it may be.

The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition collectively, in times past, have spoken about the aspect of log exports and often make it sound like we are exporting every log and every job out of this province. I had the good fortune of chairing the Standing Committee on Forests and Lands, an all-party committee. The Leader of the Opposition should know that his forestry critic was part of that committee. Let me just quote from our report that we presented to this House in regard to the issue of log exports.

[ Page 11984 ]

Factually speaking — not the political harangue and rhetoric that will go on, and I'm sure will come again when we get into the election — the log export aspect of things has been very minimal. If you want to go back as far as the 1930s.... Log exports since the turn of the century have averaged less than 2 percent per year of the allowable annual cut. From 1930 to 1939, log exports contributed proportionately more to provincial revenues and averaged about 8 percent per annum. That was way back in 1930-39. More recently, if one just refers to the work that this Legislature did, you will see that in 1988 the percentage of the annual allowable provincial cut which was exported was just over 4 percent. In 1989 it was reduced to just over 3 percent, and in 1990 it was just over 2 percent. I quote from the report: "It can be seen that log exports have been reduced by almost 50 percent over the last three years." British Columbia has had a long requirement to manufacture the province's logs originating from lands alienated from the Crown after March 12, 1906. There has been a commitment by this province, by this government, to manufacture those logs at home. The actual total export of logs has been minimal.

The Leader of the Opposition should think twice before he stands and brings out this type of information which makes it sound like we are exporting all sorts of logs and jobs. Particularly when he thinks of his own colleague from Prince Rupert, whose community of Stewart is dependent today upon the export business. It would be fine and great to shut it all down and not let one log leave this province, but what do we say to the people of Stewart? Bye-bye? Adios? Farewell? What do they do?

It's a developing province, and there is reason from time to time to allow for the export of logs. But let us remember that when we talk about that, we talk about it in very small numbers. I was quite taken aback that the Leader of the Opposition had not realized that the aspect of log exports in this province was well in hand and the actual exported logs were very few.

We also talk about research and development. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about that too, whether he had just found out, or whether he was thinking about something that he'd dreamed about. We have been leaders in research and development.

Forintek is a fine example of forest research across this country and here in the province of British Columbia. I know that you'll join with me in congratulating this government on its commitment to and investment in Forintek. I can hear it now from the other side: great applause congratulating the people of the province of British Columbia for investing their dollars in Forintek, because the research and development that has taken place has helped so many small mills in each of your constituencies. There is a little mill, I'm sure, that has adapted some portion of the research and development that has come from Forintek. I know within my community that's the case, and I know it's the case in your communities too.

Certainly, let's put more money into research and development. Let's put more money into every single thing we can do. Great — providing the taxpayer can afford to pay it. But let's not given the impression that there's not been any research and development. There's been tremendous research and development in the forestry sector. Let's not pretend or give the illusion that the forestry sector in this country has not been the leader in many ways in respect to the forest industry around the world. Yes, there are things we have to improve upon and that we can do better; but my friends, there are many things that we do well.

I'm pleased to see in the throne speech reference to the issue of the native Indians and the commitment by this government to move ahead and resolve that issue. I have in my riding the Cowichan Indian band, the largest Indian band in the province in population. I have worked with the Cowichans and several other of the bands within my constituency to do what I can in a small way to improve the economic and social well-being of our native Indian people.

I would encourage all of you to take the opportunity, the next time you're in my community, of attending the Native Heritage Centre. It's had some problems, yes, but it's going to continue. Attend the movie house there and take in the film called Great Deeds, a production they've put together on the story of the Indian people in Cowichan, a story of the trials and tribulations and the persecution and racial prejudice that they have felt and been through. I can guarantee you that on seeing that film and leaving the theatre, there's not a dry eye. It's a very moving production.

We do have to make some major steps in respect to the concerns of our native people. I can remember as the president of my student council at Mount Prevost school, a few years back....

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. BRUCE: A few years back. I can remember how the Indian students who came to that school in grade 8 would come in full of life, still reaching to the future, still not really having faced and understood or been opened to the pressures of being a minority group, and the prejudices there in hand. I can remember seeing those faces as some of them would get involved in those student council activities. Not that there was anything that we did as a larger student body which was specifically pointed at those students, but over time, by grade 9 and certainly by grade 10, we'd been able to put them in their own compartment. We'd been able to put them aside — put them in their place, so to speak. As I say, not by any intent, but by how society was not responding. Society was not understanding the problems of the Indian people. I feel better today, but we have a long way to go — this House, this government — in looking after the concerns of the native Indian people.

There is much that has been going on in my particular community. I noted a comment from the second member for Nanaimo, talking about the concerns and aspirations of the WAVAW organization — Women Against Violence Against Women— whose office is right behind my office in the same building. I've come to have a fair interest in what has been going on there. I listened to her comments this morning, and I was concerned that she left the impression that this

[ Page 11985 ]

government hadn't done anything in that way, that things were in a crisis, and that we really hadn't paid much attention. I take exception to that. I've taken great interest in what has been going on there.

Just to point out in the dollars and cents thing, although it would always be nice to have more money, we were able — in the Cowichan area — to increase our funding from $48,000 to the current level of $64,000 for that operation. That's not a bad increase. I'm not prepared to simply stand here and say that's great; leave it at that; that's all you need. Certainly, they need more. But I didn't want this House to think that there hadn't been anything done in that respect in our community Far from it. The WAVAW organization in my area is a very vibrant and active organization.

I also have great concern and am deeply troubled by this whole discussion of conflict of interest. We are the supposedly honourable members in this House. And whether you sit in government or in opposition, or you are a member of the Social Credit or NDP, the day will come — as only your colleagues in Ontario have already found — when conflict of interest or some conflict engulfs you, whether you went and knowingly did it or whether you were caught in it.

I am pleased that we are going to take this whole conflict-of-interest issue to a standing committee of this House, because this is an honourable profession. But the people today in the province and the country do not see politics as an honourable profession. There is wrongdoing. But when one looks at the great number that have had to resign across this country in one government or another, you will find that the details of it — their resignation — was done in an honourable tradition.

I'm offended that we in this House collectively have not seen fit to clear my colleague from the Fraser Valley — a man who is clean and is respected, who resigned in an honourable way.

Regardless of the political party that you may be in, regardless of the political persuasion that you may have, we do no favour for the people of this province or this country by going on in the manner that we are in respect to the conflict-of-interest issue. I hope this committee that is being set up will work in a fashion that will bring to us a process in which we can discharge our duties in an honourable way.

[4:00]

MS. MARZARI: Interestingly enough, I found the most articulate and most cogent part of the throne speech addressed the issues that affect women. The passages that described promises around child care, promises to deal with domestic violence and promises to listen to women in their communities were carefully thought through and well presented — better than the rest of the throne speech.

In retrospect, the words were carefully chosen to attract the attention of women who wrote off the Social Credit government back in February 1988, when, in a fit of what can only be described as hysteria, the government attempted to refuse abortion services to the women of British Columbia, even after — or directly after, I should say — the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that women were full persons under the law.

We have to look closer then at the throne speech to see below the shining surface of the carefully chosen words and to understand what exactly women are being offered by the throne speech, particularly in respect to their physical protection against violence in the home, at work and on the streets. We on this side of the House believe the government has given women a dead-end phone: one which encourages them to call but takes them nowhere. Literally this is the case with the violence line: advertised extensively and expensively, seen by everyone in this province with a graphic image of an ordinary man being removed from his home in handcuffs by police officers after a phone call from his obviously beaten wife. It's a horrific scene. It has imprinted itself on everyone's minds in this province. But we have to ask ourselves: is this what really happens when that first call is made? Do the police really press charges? Is the man truly convicted? Does the court listen? What happens to the woman and her child in the morning, or next year?

We say these questions don't have positive answers for women in British Columbia. We feel B.C. women have been given a number with no connection. Metaphorically speaking, this can be said to be true of many of the programs offered. We fear that promises made about child care won't be followed through on. Task forces on violence have been established. If they do make the connections they need, we will find ourselves in much the same position we're in now, because those connections require a massive change of attitudes in our community towards women, children and the vulnerable.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prof. Christine Boyle, a visiting professor at UBC law school from Dalhousie, said at a conference here in Victoria in 1990 called "Women's Lives": "If women are seen as appropriate objects of abuse, we are hardly also seen, therefore, as equal partners in the political, economic, social and reproductive lives of our communities...the fear and reality of abuse helped to define what it means to be a woman in our society. Domestic violence affects us all."

I liken the cycle of violence towards women to a bicycle wheel with endless spokes. Each spoke maintains the shape of the wheel. The hub of the wheel is a centre of preconceived social and cultural notions about the place of women in our community. It is encircled by a rigid and inflexible rim of public agencies, policies and case law. The spokes themselves represent attitudes that we carry in our community about women and the vulnerable in our society. This wheel is driven on poverty; it's driven on poor health; it's driven on women's sense of helplessness. Most importantly, it is driven in silence.

We don't have to go very far to find the statistics on violence in our community. We need only pick up our paper almost every day to see the statistics on violence towards women. In fact, the statistics are almost overwhelming. After a while you almost become satu-

[ Page 11986 ]

rated, completely filled with the statistics on abuse of women.

On February 21 in the Province, it said:

"Family violence is 'one of the most serious and persistent problems plaguing our society today.'

"At least one in every ten women in Canada is battered by her male partner. Vancouver's Battered Women's Support Services say the most recent statistics are one in six women. In Canada, one murder in five is linked to family violence. One girl in four and one boy in ten is sexually abused before they reach age 16."

These are statistics brought to us by Mary Collins, federal Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Here in British Columbia we have constant reminders of what violence is doing in our communities. Heather Nelson at the Port Alberni women's centre says: "Many of the women who come to us are as a direct result of problems associated with job loss or lengthy layoff. Alcoholism, drugs and wife-beating are all part of the scenario leading to women turning to us for help." Community dislocation and community instability lead to violence.

On Monday, February 25, 1991, the Province said: "One in six Canadian women are regularly battered by the men they live with — 119 of them were killed last year. Seventy-five percent of all assaults on women take place in the home, and 62 percent result in physical injury."

These are dead-end phone calls. These are the metaphorical dead-end phone calls that we are faced with as women in our communities.

The economics of women in poverty are connected to health as well. Hélène Cadrin in Montreal produced a study which claims: "Battered women are almost four times more likely to suffer mental and physical problems than other women in their socioeconomic group.... Violence destroys a woman's control over her own life, and that control does not automatically return when the beating stops. These women are wounded, anxious, stressed. They are affected to the depths of their souls." I'm talking about one in six women.

Beatings can be deadly. The dead-end phone call is not good enough when we read this from the Province on Monday, February 11: "Three Edmonton women who were battered by their husbands recently filed for divorce. Today, two are dead and one is clinging to life. Maria David-Evans, chairwoman of a local committee investigating family violence in Edmonton, said: 'The greatest danger to life and limb is when a wife leaves her husband'."

Calls to Rape Relief, WAVAW, sexual abuse centres and transition houses have quadrupled or quintupled.

They have increased tenfold over the last eight or nine years. In 1983-84, phone calls to the crisis line in Vancouver show that 438 were for sexual abuse, child sexual abuse and battering. In 1989-90, the equivalent number is 2,051. That's just for the crisis line.

Women Against Violence Against Women say that their calls are up by 46 percent in the last two years.

Rape Relief in Vancouver claim that in 1974 they received 112 calls. In 1989 they received 848 calls. In 1989 the Vancouver police sexual offence squad received 560 complaints of sexual assault, with 301 involving adults.

Does this mean that the actual offences are increasing? The people on the front lines claim no, that's not necessarily so. What is increasing is the willingness of women and children to bring their cases into the public eye, to finally blow the whistle and to say that this is happening to them.

What do we give them? What has this province given those women? A phone line. A well-advertised, well-publicized phone line, but a phone line. Where does the phone call lead to? Laura Anderson of the women's ministry says in the Province on March 17: "What callers really get is information about services available in their area. But you are right," she says to the interviewer, Fabian Dawson, "quite a few think they can get counselling or direct help by calling the number."

I've travelled about the province recently, and I've been in Smithers at the transition house that was housing about five more women than it could possibly hold. I was talking to five very tired workers who had put in a whole weekend without sleep as families were coming through the door. I was there when the call came from a woman 50 miles down the road who was reporting a beating. She had no money and no car. There was no bus to Smithers at that time. Were one of the five women going to try to reach her in order to bring her back? Did they have the money for a cab to be able to tell her to come? No. Neither the money, the facilities nor the vehicle were available for that woman. The woman spent the night down the road — hopefully in a friend's house. We don't know; she was distraught.

The whole system we're talking about here and this huge number of cases that I've just read into the record — how can it be? How can we have a system that lives on so much suffering of one gender? It's because of the silence — that's the answer to that question — that women have been encouraged to maintain by the spokes in the wheel I talked about.

Every study that has been done by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and other publications, has talked of the silence that women are encouraged to maintain about domestic violence. When they do make that first phone call, they are occasionally encouraged not to press charges — not by police maliciously telling them not to bother bringing it forward because it's not worth anything, but by sometimes overworked, undertrained police officers who don't think they're ever going to be able to take a case through to conviction. They actually will advise a woman not to be bothered carrying the case any further than that first phone call. That is a dead-end phone call.

Crown attorneys very often report that women who have been battered often ask to have the charges dropped after the charges have been laid. Obviously the woman thinks twice, understands what her chances are going to be away from the home, sees the full transition houses, understands that there won't be a lot of support for her in the community and says: "Where

[ Page 11987 ]

were you when I last needed you?" Then she returns home and drops the charges. That is a dead-end phone call.

So you can see that the silence we seem to build into our systems is essential for the maintenance of those systems, and that silence, in itself, is a dead-end phone call. What we must do in this province is move away from that dead-end phone call — providing services and changed attitudes and talking to changed and reformed public institutions and policies at the end of that phone call.

[4:15]

First of all, we have to look at changing policies. When that first phone call is made from a woman who has previously been silent, we have to make sure that there is someone at the end of the line who is prepared to come, who has been trained, who knows what they're doing and can help that woman go through the process she needs to go through to make things better for herself and her children. The police officer who first emerges on the scene should be appropriately accompanied, assisted or helped by that front line of defence — possibly someone from a women's centre, a sexual assault centre or the community who is going to be there to act as an advocate for that woman. Police must start to encourage women to lay the charge. They must be specially trained in what domestic violence is and be encouraged to think of it as something that is top priority, not bottom priority.

We have, announced in the throne speech, an intention to double our gang squads in Vancouver. There was no such promise to double the domestic violence squads. In fact, I'm not sure that there is a domestic violence squad in Vancouver, let alone in the rest of the province.

We know that throughout the province there is a huge discrepancy between regions. Native peoples do not receive the attention they need. The north does not receive the kind of attention it needs in terms of violence against women.

Legal aid. These battered women and kids are very often without representation whatsoever. Legal aid lawyers are very often overworked and undertrained in dealing with family and domestic violence. In the far north, there are virtually no legal aid lawyers. In fact, lawyers are flown up to the north by Legal Aid. The tariff for legal aid excludes hundreds of women. It is too low. You know yourselves that legal aid lawyers have served notice on this government that unless the tariff increases, they will not be serving. This is their final line of defence. We also know that people who apply for legal aid very often don't qualify for it. You have to be so poor to qualify that thousands of women literally do not have access to it.

We find out today that there is a new moratorium on restraining orders. Your government has traditionally paid an extra dividend to lawyers for emergency restraining orders. That restraining order is absolutely essential if a woman has finally made that phone call. In an abusive situation, she is entitled to receive a restraining order. Your government in the last two days has put the kibosh on that and declared a moratorium That woman is not going to be allowed to have access to special attention from a lawyer. Mr. Attorney-General, I'm not even sure if you know about it, but she might have to wait, in an emergency situation, up to two weeks.

When the woman gets to court, if she gets to court.... I'm told by very tired, very disillusioned family lawyers that when they get to court, the Crown prosecutor's office is very often overworked, once again not especially trained to deal with domestic violence, very often unable to spend more than a few minutes with the woman, who is now a client, and having very little time to work on cases. Victim Assistance doesn't do this; in fact, nobody does it. Consequently women, once they reach the court, very often find they are dealt with in a very superficial manner — if they get there in the first place. They find that the Limitation Act restricts them to suing within two years of the abuse, so they have two years in which to actually bring a suit. Very often, women will take much longer than that before they make the decision to go to court; the two-year limitation is artificial.

After court, there's very little opportunity in the community for women to regain any semblance of stability with their kids. We know that second-stage housing is as bad as it has ever been. It's hopelessly underfunded. Transition houses are full; second-stage housing barely exists. We know that women have a really difficult time getting themselves into retraining programs, because the fabric of our society seems to be built around access to post-secondary and training programs for men, but not necessarily for women. They don't have a pretty picture facing them before, during or after a court case.

We can't leave this debate without turning for a moment to what actually happens in court. I want to turn for a few minutes to a discussion of the Letendre case, which was tried a few weeks ago in Vancouver. The Letendre case was basically a case of date rape, of violence against a woman which was brought by the woman to the court. The details of the case itself are not important for this House. What is important is the fact that in the transcript of the judgment, the judge revealed a particular attitude towards date rape, towards the actions that had been taken and towards the case itself. On page 27 of a 33-page decision, the judge said:

"The mating practice, if I may call it that, is a less than precise relationship. At times, no may mean maybe or wait awhile. The acts of one of the participants may be easily misinterpreted, a participant may change his or her mind, one way or another, partway through it, and cooperation as well as enjoyment may be faked for a number of reasons.

"However, my main concerns relate more to what she didn't say and didn't do than what she did say and did."

These comments encapsulate what I've been telling this House about silence, about a woman's fear and vulnerability, and about a woman's temptation to stay silent for two years, for 20 years, in order not to cause disruption to herself or her family and in order not to disturb her sense of well-being. In fact, her sense of

[ Page 11988 ]

well-being has been hopelessly shattered on many occasions.

In this case the judge was basically using language to express his attitude towards what he called "the mating ritual." He makes these statements clearly and unequivocally; they are the backdrop against which the evidence was displayed. Oh, the silence we want from our women. Oh, if only they would be clear and unequivocal, the judge says. Oh, the judge says, the defendant honestly believed that the plaintiff had consented. Well, we have to ask ourselves, just in this one case — and there are many others like it — what no does really mean. We have to ask, first of all, whether the judge knew about Queen's University male students saying: "No doesn't mean no. No means harder; no means more." We have to ask whether the judge knew that and, if he did, whether he was just being malicious. If he didn't know that, how come he was so out of touch?

We have to ask what the legal implications are for future law on date rape. What does no mean? Should honest belief be a legitimate defence in law in a criminal case that deals with rape? Can we ever look forward in British Columbia and in our country to equality in the courts in issues of sexual consent, where adult people say no or yes to each other? Can we look forward to some kind of sexual equality there?

We can ask the Hughes committee, the committee investigating gender bias in the justice system and the legal profession, to attempt to answer those questions. We can ask the federal Minister of Justice, when she sponsors her special symposium on women, law and the administration of justice, for some answers around these questions, because they are pertinent to the future of the interpretation of the law in our country.

The last question that has to be asked before this House is this: what's the impact on a woman who's been raped — date-raped or raped by a stranger? I'll tell you what the impact is. The impact on that woman is encouragement to remain silent, because the judge's decision suggests that no matter what she would say, her defence was not forcible enough. There would be the chance that she would be dragged through the court as a victim of the court as well as a victim of the assault. The very thing that the Criminal Code amendments had attempted to get away from could well be happening now as a result of that particular decision.

There are a number of things that Mr. Hughes's task force has to look at in terms of public policy: Rape Relief, sexual assault centres, the integration of services, advocacy, and education for women who need assistance and for the general community, which desperately needs to have its attitudes looked at and gradually changed.

In the last analysis, what women seek is not piecemeal sympathy or lip-service. They're not looking for chivalry any longer. They want the phones connected to protection, which is their right as citizens, and they want that wheel I referred to dismantled and rebuilt to include them. Women want respect. They want recognition for the responsibility they have for holding up half the sky. They want fairness in our systems, and they want justice in our courts. B.C. women understand as never before that their silence is finally breaking and that their ringing phone has to be answered. Their voice is stronger than it's ever been. Their call has not been answered by this government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate you in your elevation again to the position of Deputy Speaker of this House. Sir, you are a good parliamentarian, a good friend, a good member of this House, and above all a gentleman. I congratulate you.

I also congratulate the member for North Vancouver–Capilano on being chosen as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House for this Legislature. I know he will also carry out his duties, as we enter the committee stages and the debate on estimates in this House, in a very forward, direct and good way.

Mr. Speaker, we're looking forward in British Columbia to a new future. We're looking forward to the nineties and to an election. As we look at that election, which will certainly be coming up this year, we look at the issues around which that election will be framed: the economy, the environment, health care and how it's delivered, and political leadership.

More importantly, the issue that will really come down in British Columbia is the same choice that every British Columbian of voting age has enjoyed since 1952 when the first Social Credit government was elected to office in British Columbia. That's the choice between NDP or CCF socialism and the free enterprise concept of Social Credit. Those are the only real choices in British Columbia. Those are the choices you are going to respond to at the polls: the difference between socialism and all that it embodies, and free enterprise and the freedom that goes with it. Those are the choices you're going to have in British Columbia.

[4:30]

We are going to talk about the real choices that face the people of British Columbia in the next election — choices of who will control the purse-strings of the province and how that control will be exercised. And we're going to tell about how the transition team that was made up here — some of them, I believe, are members of the opposition — went to Ontario and put in place the policy that's driving the industrial heartland of this country down the economic drain. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about those choices as we go across the length and breadth of this province. It's instructive to remember, because if we don't remember the lessons of history, we're certainly going to be condemned by history.

The NDP say that 1972 to 1975 is no longer relevant in British Columbia, that it doesn't matter anymore, that they're a new breed now, that they're fiscal conservatives. They're no more fiscal conservatives now than they were back in 1972 to 1975. It's important to remember, and it's important to tell the people, that when the NDP took over the purse-strings in 1972, in current dollars of that day, W.A.C. Bennett left behind $97 million. That was a huge legacy — a huge amount of money — in 1972 terms and a legacy that any government in Canada would have been proud to have. It should have set in place an era of prosperity, because we remember that from 1972 to 1975, the

[ Page 11989 ]

economy all over the world was on the ascendancy. The NDP, through its mining policies, through other actions and through legislation, literally turned ore into rock in British Columbia. It went down, down, down.

I remember, after the election, the Minister of Mines at that time was the Hon. Leo Nimsick. He was interviewed, and they asked him what he thought about his mining policy. He said: "I sure turned it around; I sure turned the mining industry around." He turned it around, and he turned it down. He buried it.

In 1975, by the time we were elected — I was elected to the Legislature along with a group of other new, fresh-faced MLAs and free-enterprisers — and by the time Bill Bennett pried the chequebook out of the cold, stiff, politically dead fingers of Dave Barrett, there was a new colour of ink in the books of British Columbia: it was NDP-deficit red. To the tune of current dollars in 1975, $588 million in the glue — that during the best economic times this country had ever seen. What do you think about that? I don't think they've learned anything. In 1,200 days and 1,200 nights, the NDP under Dave Barrett and the same thinking that prevails today — the same thinking that prevails in Ontario — turned a $98 million surplus into a $588 million deficit. They sure turned things around in British Columbia.

The choice is clear: the choice was clear in 1975, and the choice is going to be clear in 1991. People will once again vote for free enterprise in British Columbia. Don't forget it for a moment.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I hear the new and improved leader of the NDP saying that they are now fiscal conservatives, that '72 to '75 are no longer relevant. The new NDP are no more conservative today than they were then. Look at what their transition team did to Ontario. It's instructive to look at Ontario; it's instructive to see what they've done to their budget.

Mr. Speaker, they didn't believe, anymore than Mr. Barrett believed at the time, that they were going to get elected to government. They didn't know; they didn't understand that. They were elected by a quirk of our electoral system. They were elected with around 39 percent of the popular vote. They received an overwhelming majority in the House.

I want to tell you that by the time an election rolls around again in Ontario, the people of Ontario will throw them out — to a person. It's instructive for us to tell the people of British Columbia what has happened in Ontario. On top of the $700 million deficit that was left behind by wanton Liberal government spending in Ontario, the new NDP government immediately increased that deficit to $1.5 billion. By the time the year was out, that deficit had reached $3 billion. These new fiscal conservatives that took over talk about us having problems here. In one year, cabinet minister after cabinet minister has gone down the tube in Ontario. One MPP even wound up in jail under that great and wonderful government.

The new budget from Pink Floyd from Sudbury — Floyd Laughren, the Treasurer of Ontario: what does he bring in? In the 1991-92 budget, he has gone from a $700 million deficit left behind by the Liberals — yes, they spent and — to predicting almost $10 billion. That's in the heartland of Canada's industrial.... It's right in the heartland of where industry starts — in Ontario. That's the place where they should be doing better than anywhere else. In Ontario 200,000 jobs have been lost since the NDP took power. Do you know that, Mr. Attorney? They're heading to British Columbia in droves.

When I was Minister of International Business, I had people coming to me from Ontario and saying: "We're waiting for an election." I said: "So am I. Why are you waiting for it?" "We're waiting so that when you win again we can move from Ontario to British Columbia." That's where the growth in British Columbia is going to come from.

What are they looking at for '92-93? They are looking at $8.9 billion, and I believe it will be more. What are they looking at for '93-94? It's $7.8 billion. The total debt will double in Ontario to nearly $70 billion over three years of socialist bliss in that province. Some fiscal conservatives. It's instructive to look at what is happening in the province of Ontario and remember that some of the transition team came from the NDP benches right here in British Columbia.

Who are they? Who paid for them? I don't know. These are questions that the people of British Columbia need answers to. Who paid for their bills? Was there any British Columbia money, either directly or indirectly, that wound up in financing that transition team? If it did, we wasted our money on a huge scale. Those are questions we need to ask.

Tax increases in the province of Ontario — fiscal conservatives; gas is up 30 percent; tax on auto insurance premiums.... They've got a mining tax increase and a capital tax increase for financial institutions. Doesn't it sound all over again like déjà vu, as Yogi Berra used to say? Doesn't it sound like that? Isn't that shades of 1972 to 1975? Remember what they did here? Remember the royalty? Remember the super-royalty, Mr. Minister of Labour? You were involved in that business. That's what they're planning for British Columbia.

If that Leader of the Opposition ever becomes Premier, that's the story. That's the choice we've got to make. That's the story that you and I, Mr. Speaker, have to take out to each and every hamlet in British Columbia. We're going to do it, and we're going to win. Don't hold your breath, NDP. I can tell you that right now.

The reason I'm mentioning this to you is that the Leader of the Opposition said in his address, and has said it before, that Ontario — not Sweden anymore, because, you see, Sweden is passé now; it's gone — is now the model for the new fiscal-conservative socialists, the NDP. Ontario is now their model. Welfare costs are up 40 percent due to fiscal policies that discourage business and investment in the province of Ontario. Reduction of coverage for out-of-country medical expenses, which will mean loss of universality and the need for purchasing private medical insurance when

[ Page 11990 ]

travelling — that's all gone. Under a socialist heaven, that's all gone.

An increase in the cost of new government housing — that's what they plan for British Columbia. New units to be built in '91-92 will cost $1,250 per month each to the taxpayers of Ontario. That's what they need to do. That's what they're going to do, Mr. Minister of Housing. But that's not what you're going to do; you're going to build housing for people.

How do the NDP respond to the loss of 200,000 jobs? They respond the only way that socialists know how to respond — by doubling welfare rates. You see, we've got a choice in British Columbia: it's jobs with Social Credit or welfare with the NDP. That's the choice we've got for the people in this province, that's the real choice.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about Canada. He commented on Canada, and I agree with him. I agree with his comments that we live in a wonderful country. Some of my people on one side came here as United Empire Loyalists, living in this country of Canada for many years. I've had the privilege of living in Ontario, in la belle province. I've had the chance to live in Nova Scotia. I've worked in Saskatchewan, and lived in Alberta and in the greatest province of all, British Columbia, for many years. But I want to tell you that there are people around the world who are looking to what we have in Canada and the basis of what has made Canada great. They're not looking to socialism in Canada. They don't want to emulate socialism; they don't want us drifting down that road. The people coming to Canada are trying to escape the bonds of slavery — economic or otherwise — that constrain people, Mr. Speaker. That's the difference.

I was reminded of this the other day when the ambassador from the Czech and Slovak Republic was here. I was talking in Davos, Switzerland, to the minister of economics and finance for the new Czech and Slovak Republic. He was telling me about a young gentleman during the 14-day general strike, the Czech revolution. This gentleman in Prague, Czechoslovakia, stood up in Wenceslaus Square in the middle of all this furor.... Some of us saw it on television: the white-helmeted police, the tear-gas and the rubber bullets, when the socialists and communists were trying to put down democracy. This 26-year-old brewery worker stood up and repeated these words: "We believe these truths to be self-evident. We believe that each man is endowed with certain inalienable rights. Not the least among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." He wasn't talking about socialism. He was looking to the right to pursue life. We forget these things. We know what they are. We understand that that is some of Jefferson's independence address. It's the preamble to the great constitution of the United States of America.

[4:45]

I'll tell you, socialism is the antithesis of all the things that built this country and all the things that this province stands for. We are not going.... We have a duty to make choices clear and available to the province of British Columbia. That's the choice again, between what private enterprise stands for in the long run, the security it provides for the family and the future, and the bonds which come under any form of socialism. Those are the real choices, the only choices in British Columbia, and we've got to make that message clear.

The Leader of the Opposition was talking about our Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I guess I understand from his comments that he's going to scrap that. So much for sustainable development, I guess. He's going to scrap it and set up some new kind of commission. I suppose it's going to be involved with some friends, cohorts who couldn't get a job in Ontario so they are going to come out here and work in this new commission.

He talks again about the fact that we should be working, as the Attorney-General pointed out, to build up our links with Asia. We should be looking for better international trade. The Leader of the Opposition has a keen grasp of the obvious, does he not? He always wants to get onside once something becomes successful. Before that, he's "agin" it. He's the greatest "agin-er" in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was he against?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll talk about him in a second. I'll talk about all those things.

I just want you to imagine for a moment what could happen. I hope this never happens, and I hope you can do this in the theatre of your mind for just a moment. Imagine the swearing-in ceremony of an NDP government in, say, late 1991. Think about it. Close your eyes for a minute. Close your eyes, Mr. Member for Omineca. Don't let it happen, but close your eyes and think about it. Gathered in solemn pomp and circumstance — if you can think about this in the theatre of the mind, Mr. Speaker — is the plethora of politicians representing the combined brainpower of all British Columbia's socialist elite. They are gathered together, perhaps in this chamber, and backing them up and working for them is every NDP hack from any place in Canada who couldn't get a job in Bob Rae's administration, crowding in — the new transition team.

I want to introduce you to the new Premier of British Columbia, in the theatre of the mind: the president of the executive council, now the first member for Vancouver Centre; the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Anti-Expo, Mr. Anti-SkyTrain, Mr. Anti-B.C. Place, the puppet of every special interest group from huge unions around the province that want to pick the public purse and of every extreme radical who wants to shut down the economy and blockade roads. Mr. Successful Socialist, Mr. Successful Businessman — it sounds like a real contradiction in terms to me.

May I introduce to you, in the theatre of the mind, for your acceptance if you will, Mr. Speaker, another gentleman: the new Social Services minister, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who is in favour of doubling welfare rates for single employable males. You see, that's their way to economic success — for the government to spend. That old adage:

[ Page 11991 ]

My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But, ah, my foes, and, oh, my friends —
It gives a lovely light.

That's the way this man thinks. He's in favour of driving the minimum wage up to somewhere around $10 to $15 an hour. We already pay $900 million for single employable males in welfare payments. The hon. member — oh, the hon. Minister of Social Services — wants to double that to $1.8 billion. That's another successful socialist.

Next I would like to introduce you to the new Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, the only member for Vancouver East. The member has stated that to increase government revenue, he's going to double taxes. Not just any taxes, I want you to understand, Mr. Speaker; he wants to double corporate taxes. You see, there's nothing that makes the adrenalin pump more in the socialists, nothing that makes the blood run more pure, than to get at corporations.

Remember the Aesop fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs? If you just got that goose and split it open and killed it, you'd get all those eggs. Well, under NDP policy from 1972 to 1975, the goose didn't die, but it was darned near terminally ill when we took over.

He says he's going to double corporate taxes — the very source of wealth. He doesn't say what kind. I guess that means the majority of businesses in the province. That's the only way they're going to get any money. That means small business. Look for it, businessmen around the province. The NDP are going to double your taxes. Isn't that great for industrial growth? He's obviously another successful socialist.

Last but certainly not least — and there are going to be many more in this cabinet — that champion of human rights; that defender of life, liberty and personal privacy; that pillar of integrity.... Ladies and gentlemen, may I present for your acceptance the new Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia, the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Doesn't that do something for your soul? Doesn't that do something to you, hon. member for Omineca? Doesn't that make you want to get out and tell the people about the choices in the province? Doesn't that make you want to work? Ladies and gentlemen on television, doesn't that make you want to vote Social Credit and say to heck with socialism, as they've done all over the world? Isn't that enough?

Choices are what it's all about. We've got to tell people here about the choices; we've got to tell them around British Columbia. We've got to get that message out. Those choices have to be clear, absolute and definitive. We've got to say it in straightforward, simple terms. We've got to say it in Omineca language, Mr. Member, as we walk around, and in Columbia River language...

HON. MR. RABBITT: Straight talk.

HON. MR. VEITCH: ...in straight talk, in Merritt language, in Kamloops language and in Burnaby language as we go from place to place. We've got to tell the people; we've got to tell them about the choices in British Columbia.

We've got to talk about international trade, because as I said, the Leader of the Opposition has a keen grasp of the obvious. We're doing wonderfully well in international trade, no thanks to socialism. Look at the countries around the world that have done well over the years. It's not East Germany; it's West Germany where the development is. It's not Sweden, is it? It's not Sweden at all. It's northern Italy. It is countries like Japan, like Canada.

It's the freedom that Jefferson talked about in his preamble to the constitution. It's the same thing the young Czech brewery worker talked about when he stood up on that stage in Wenceslaus Square in Prague, Czechoslovakia: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

British Columbia has the most diversified trading economy in all of Canada. The Attorney-General pointed out that in just 4½ years we've increased our trade 40 percent, and we live in a small open economy. That simply means that in order for three million people to sustain budgets of over $15 billion, they've just got to sell something to somebody else. There are just not enough folks here to buy it, so we've got to keep trading with other folks and selling more and more. You've got to have a government they can look at and know they're not going to be taxed to death when they come here and establish their business in this province. That's what it all starts with. You can't do like the socialists want to do.

A friend of mine, Dr. Kenneth McFarland, used to be the educational director for General Motors. He used to say that government aid was a process whereby you gave yourself a blood transfusion from the left arm to the right arm, and you spilled half on the way over. Well, they're spilling more than that in Ontario now.

We've got to depend on trade. British Columbia has fared best in this recession because we're diversified. At one time we used to depend — like the rest of Canada; like Ontario does — something like 78 or 80 percent on the United States of America. They're good trading partners. We used to depend upon them for our livelihood, for our international trade. You know, we've changed that through policies that have been represented in Social Credit. We've changed that so that we are now doing as much business with the Pacific Rim as we do with the United States of America. We're selling 16 percent into Europe; on a percentage basis, that's far more than any other province in Canada, relative to our size.

We're diversifying. Because of this government, because of our policies, do you know that Vancouver is now becoming an international maritime centre?

HON. MR. FRASER: What would have happened...?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh, it wouldn't have happened. I talked to the president of Teekay Shipping, and he said: "I came here because of the policies of this free enterprise government." Do you think they're ever

[ Page 11992 ]

going to invest money? Will they ever be able to put the money in if a government is going to double the corporate rates? Do you think anybody is ever going to invest money in that kind of jurisdiction? Don't think about it. No.

Reasonable taxation to encourage investment makes our business competitive. It makes sense. It puts money into the government coffers to look after the social services. It puts money into the government coffers to look after the $13 million a day that a province of three million people spends on health care. You wouldn't be able to do that with socialism, without going into the hole. Fair labour legislation, Mr. Speaker, that gives freedom to both the employee and employer is one of the things that the NDP wants to tear down.

We're going to be moving around this province and spreading a message of free enterprise and a government that is able to deliver that — not socialism. I believe that when the ballots are counted, you'll once again find that people will opt, as they've opted since 1952 to 1972 and from 1975 to 1986, for freedom and enterprise as represented by a Social Credit administration.

MR. LOVICK: I must say that I quite enjoyed listening to my hon. friend the Provincial Secretary, formerly and recently the Minister of Finance. When I listened to him proceed on his passionate assault on my colleagues and me, I was reminded of the old prizefighter who went through 11 rounds and was getting rather mercilessly beaten. What he finally did was drag himself over to the corner at the sound of the bell and say to the coach: "What am I doing? What can I do? This guy is murdering me." The coach said: "There's only one thing you gotta do: go on the attack." It seems to me that's precisely what the minister and this government are doing, because this is a government that is demonstrably on its last legs. This is a government that is going down — we all know it — and therefore the attack and the intensity of the attack increases.

Those of us who have spent any time at all in this House know the importance of the throne speech and the debate on the throne speech. We know about the importance of that tradition. It's a very significant tradition. I suspect that people in the gallery and people on television, however, aren't really aware of just why it is important. So let me just sketch out, if I might ever so briefly, the point.

The point is that a throne speech outlines the vision, the view that the government has, for what a society ought to be and what government ought to do to make a society better by that government's vision. It also provides the opposition to argue the case that the government presents, to challenge the vision presented, and to suggest its alternative. That's what a throne speech and the debate on the throne speech are about.

[5:00]

My predicament, I must point out, is that I find it today very difficult to deal in the traditional manner with the throne speech for two reasons. The first is, of course, is that there isn't very much substance in the throne speech. Members opposite may want to suggest there is substance, but I would suggest there is very little. I would offer one small bit of evidence; namely, there were three or four members of the executive council opposite who couldn't stay awake for the throne speech. That's one little bit of evidence.

Let me give you another. Let me quote from a Vancouver Province editorial:

"...the throne speech makes it obvious this reassembled government is still relying too heavily on Vander Zalm policies rather than its own vision. The new Premier did manage to punch a few correct buttons in the speech.... Unfortunately, they are too little, too late. Most have been announced before, and the rest of the speech was a rehash of old government rhetoric. If the government ever showed half as much 'commitment' and 'leadership' as it used in those words in the speech, it wouldn't be in its present mess."

That's one reason I find it difficult to do the traditional thing with this particular speech.

The other reason, though, and the more fundamental one — and I'm going to choose my words very carefully — is that it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of people in the province today don't think that the fundamental question before this Legislature or before them has to do with what the government is proposing to do, what the government is currently doing or even what the government is failing to do. Rather, I think the fundamental question in the minds of most people in this province today is whether this government has the right or the ability to govern any longer. I think that's the question.

To substantiate that claim, let me quote another brief selection from the same editorial. I won't make a big thing of the fact that the headline says, "Let's Vote," because that's not the editorial writer's duty. But let me quote the opening paragraphs:

"Take us to the polls, please. Yesterday's fiasco in Victoria was the last straw. The people of B.C. deserve better than to be subjected to the chaotic blunderings of this incompetent government. No twentieth-century democracy should have to put up with the stupidity, malfeasance and lack of vision Social Credit has foisted on B.C. for the past five years. Please, give us an election and the opportunity to remove 42 thorns in the side."

That, I submit, is what people out there are saying now. Whatever you say in the throne speech, members opposite, I would put it to you that nobody is listening. You've lost credibility. You've lost your moral right to govern. Right now people want, above all, an opportunity to choose. They've already drawn the conclusion. They believe that changing leaders isn't good enough and that Social Credit deserves to be defeated. They believe that we can't afford another five years of this government, a government that some argue is the worst in Canada — with some justification, I think. They believe that it is finally time for a change of government, a change of approach. In fact, they want an election.

Interjections.

[ Page 11993 ]

MR. LOVICK: If members opposite feel confident, why don't you push in cabinet for an election? Why don't you show us how courageous you are? Let's have an election.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I'm glad at least one person wants to. You come and do the same with me. The member opposite is suggesting that I should run in his riding. I offer you the same invitation: come on up. Love to see you.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I was pleased to note — a little praise here — that the throne speech did indeed devote some considerable attention to Canada and the desire, in the words of the speech, "to secure the future of Canada as a strong and unified nation." The throne speech goes on to talk about the government's plans — that it's conducting various hearings and giving people an opportunity to participate, and that various studies are being prepared. I'm pleased by that, and I'm very pleased that the government is indeed giving the citizens of this nation an opportunity to participate.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, there's a problem with that. The problem, I'm afraid, is that most people, as we've seen with the activities of the Spicer commission in Ottawa, regard politicians as the problem. They want an open and consultative process, to be sure, but whenever they've been given an opportunity to talk about what is wrong with the country, the first reference they make is to elected politicians. I'm afraid they do so with some considerable justification, certainly in this province. I remember well, as a brand-new MLA first elected to this chamber, as an ex-academic and ex-student of politics, as somebody who had thought long and hard about the theory and practice of government, that I talked about the danger of a growing wave of cynicism that threatened all our institutions in government.

I remember vividly that I was perfectly willing to participate in an ugly debate a year and a half ago about the need to establish a committee on privileges and ethics. I said that because this government, the Social Credit government of the time, had obviously been caught out in a number of activities that were indefensible, they had cast a bad light on all politicians, and we needed to clear the air. I spoke to that motion. I said that we needed to give notice to the province that hon. members would behave honourably and therefore we would establish a committee to ensure that this occurred. The resolution was defeated. It was peremptorily rejected by the government. Therefore we brought in another in this Legislature. Happily our amendment to it was accepted by the government. It's worth noting, though, that our motion from the past was introduced before the Premier resigned, before the Minister of Finance was asked to resign.

My conclusion is this. I do not think that this government will be regarded by the people of the province as a body of individuals who can be trusted with the delicate and difficult task of renegotiating and redefining British Columbia's place in Confederation. Rather, I submit that we have lost that right; we have lost that credibility. That's too bad, but it's very true.

I want to turn to some specific omissions as well as statements in the throne speech, however thin the gruel may be. I want to do so from my perspective as the opposition critic for Transportation and Highways as well as for privatization.

Let me refer briefly to the reference to ferries in the throne speech. The speech talks about a capital expansion program and the fact that some 3,300-plus person years will be created. Good stuff; no difficulty; pleased to see it. The point, however, is this: where has the government been all this time? It's worth reminding ourselves that B.C. Ferries in 1989 carried twice the vehicles and twice the passengers that it did in 1975, with just three more vessels. That statistic tells us volumes about having been asleep at the switch at the planning throttle. We have not been doing the kind of planning we ought to have been doing. Therefore we have unacceptable delays and long lineups as an integral part of the system, and insufficient and inefficient backup vessels to deal with breakdowns and routine scheduled vessel maintenance. So let's put the bragging about capital expansion in the ferry fleet into that necessary context.

I also want to refer to the whole concept of the ferry fleet — its maintenance and correct operation — by referring briefly to a speech made a short while ago by the chief executive officer of the corporation while addressing the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities in my constituency of Nanaimo. I read what he had said as reported in the paper, and I made a point of calling Mr. Rhodes and saying: "I'd like to receive a copy of your speech. It sounds interesting." He was kind enough to give me a copy, and I read it. I was impressed with what I saw, because he talked about the need for consultation, for long-term planning and for examining various options and possibilities — in other words, getting in tune with the late twentieth century and its demands on transportation.

But I had difficulty reconciling that commitment to planning and rational decision-making with an announcement about a new ferry that had been made a few weeks earlier in this Legislature. I'm referring to the replacement of a ferry terminal and to a change in the ferry system by moving a ferry from the Vancouver Island side to the Powell River side.

Let me establish very clearly that whether that decision was good, bad or indifferent is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the process, because it sadly illustrates that the decision was made on the most crass, short-sighted and politically partisan of purposes, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with planning or needs assessment. That's the tragedy of this government: it continues to subvert what ought to be the normal processes of governing by making everything political and partisan. There is evidence there.

How about transportation in general? I have a couple of comments. What does the throne speech have to say about transportation? It's traditionally a big-

[ Page 11994 ]

ticket item for this government. What's the vision? What is the new sense of direction, in this particular throne speech? Let me quote page 9, Mr. Speaker. There are two paragraphs devoted essentially to the subject. On page 9 we begin with this wonderful statement: "British Columbia is a huge and diverse region, larger than California, Washington and Oregon combined, yet our population is only one-tenth of California alone. Transportation is therefore essential to bind us together as a province and allow us to realize our social and economic potential." Isn't that informative? Didn't that tell us a great deal? Suddenly we have a sense of vision. We know that here is a government that knows where it is going. When I read this, I found myself wanting to break into a Peggy Lee kind of song, saying: "Is that all there is? Is that all there is, my friends?" I really expected more, and I didn't get it.

Then I started to wonder. I said to myself: why is it that this government, which prides itself on being the great roadbuilding party of the province — with some justification — makes so little reference to it? I thought and thought and finally came to the conclusion that it is probably because the government is embarrassed about what it has done lately in the name of roadbuilding — specifically the Vancouver Island Highway. I would ask the hon. member opposite, now Minister of Labour, to listen. You probably don't know this, and it might help you in your calculus. The Vancouver Island Highway project was of course announced as an election campaign platform in 1986. The Premier at the time said that the cost was estimated to be some $350 million. Moreover, he went on to break it down and to talk about what part each of the bits and pieces would contribute to that total cost.

On November 8, 1988, almost a year after the receipt of the MacKay commission and after all of the debate unfolded on the Coquihalla overruns and that rather sad episode in our history, the Premier travelled to the community of Parksville with the Highways minister of the time and announced that it would be built in 1996, but it was no longer $350 million; it was $600 million. When the Minister of Highways was asked about that, he said: "Well, in excess of $600 million maybe, but we don't know" — in effect. "We don't know" is what came across from that meeting.

[5:15]

Well, what we know now is that less than a year later the total figure is now being called $1.3 billion. The next question is why. How could that be? How could a project that was apparently costed out in detail by ministry staff, who had a long and proud tradition of competence and ability...? How could they be so far out? How could that happen, Mr. Speaker? I submit that the answer is pretty straightforward. The answer is reorganization of the Ministry of Highways — about three times in the last 4½ years; the answer is downsizing of the Ministry of Highways and the loss of human capital — the early retirement initiative and other such things. The reason is in part that we've had five different ministers responsible for highways in the last 4½ years. Finally, it is because of something called privatization. That leads me to the next main point I want to make.

There's not even a mention of it in this throne speech; the word doesn't even get mentioned. Three years ago this was the flagship of the government; this was its ticket to success; this is what it was bragging about; this was going to revolutionize the nature of the province; this was going to make us roll in money. All would be wonderful and good in the land of milk and honey, etc., etc. blah, blah, blah.

What we know, however, is that that particular dream has turned to dust. Let me give you just a couple of brief references to make the point. I have been saying for over two years that we could end the debate on privatization very quickly if the government would come clean with the actual evidence to show us the cost-savings. The government has never done that, and I doubt it ever will.

I see that that particular crusade is being taken up by some others — a challenge issued to the new Premier by the Times-Colonist in an editorial dated Friday, May 3. The headline reads: "Privatization: Blessing or Mirage?" What the editorial writer says, in effect, is: "Madam Premier, if you want to show that you're competent, if you want to show that you're capable, if you want to show that there's a new broom; if you want to show that your decision in fact makes sense, tell us. Give us the evidence that we've saved money." Because the evidence is coming in now, and it would seem to suggest — more than suggest; it would seem to indicate very strongly — that it isn't saving us anything. Indeed, it's costing us money. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to argue that all of the arguments that I have been presenting for the last 2½years will eventually be demonstrated to be absolutely correct.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I'm arguing the case for that member across the way, who demonstrates the truth of the old folk wisdom adage — namely, that the empty vessel makes the loudest sound. I'm arguing for his benefit that the evidence we've got tells us that you, the government, have not saved anything. It has cost money, largely because when you downsized the ministry, you didn't remove the need for services that were being provided by ministry employees. Instead, all you have done is create a whole new bunch of employees called consultants and private firms. The question now being posed — quite legitimately, in my mind — is whether we are paying more for those consultants than we paid for ministry staff.

I would suggest, then, that the other so-called great economic argument that will demonstrate the ability of this government to function is very much in question. I don't think you have the evidence to show that you are even good at what you claim to be. And there isn't much that you can any longer claim to be good at, but even in that I don't think you've got the evidence to support the conclusion.

I have argued that what the fundamental question is has less to do with what the throne speech proposes to do, is doing or even is failing to do, and more to do fundamentally with what the government — or

[ Page 11995 ]

whether the government, I should say — in the minds of British Columbians any longer has a right to govern, an ability to govern. The evidence is overwhelming that it doesn't have that right.

Mr. Speaker, my I ask you for a report on my time, please. I'm not sure how much more time I have.

MR. SPEAKER: About eight minutes.

MR. LOVICK: The government now suggests that, with the election of a new leader, all the old sins will somehow be forgotten. They have been trying to distance themselves with indelicate and indecent haste from their former leader. You almost get the sense that what we're looking at is a kind of refined form of scapegoating, or that somehow the former Premier was just a terrible accident. He was the evil twin; it didn't really occur. Of course, they all had nothing to do with all that nasty stuff; they were all good and noble and decent people, and were all, of course, innocent of everything. I don't think it works, because the throne speech indicates, among other things, that the policies we directly associate with the former Premier of the province are alive and well.

One example will make my point. Let's look at Bill 82 and the alacrity and the enthusiasm with which the government endorses that particular measure. You'll recall that the bill — now the act — is called the Compensation Fairness Act. The throne speech makes reference to the fact that this legislation will still make collective bargaining possible. Those two statements — calling this a fairness act and suggesting that it preserves collective bargaining — are a glaring manifestation of doublespeak. It is demonstrably unfair, and it does anything but make collective bargaining possible. It simply doesn't work.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Why did you vote for section 14?

MR. LOVICK: Let me pursue this, Mr. Speaker. I want to suggest to you that the evidence tells us very clearly, just as with Bill 19 — and the resemblance between the two is significant indeed — that this legislation is vindictive, punitive and not necessary. What the legislation is, is the old Premier's legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you vote?

MR. LOVICK: We voted against the bill, in case members opposite have such a short attention span. We voted against the measure — no question. We did so proudly and without any hesitation.

I'm making the point now that this is old legislation. This is the old Premier's legislation and the old Premier's approach to labour legislation. If in fact this is a new government, and you want to demonstrate that you aren't guilty of the old sins, then why don't you do something really simple? Why not simply scrap the old legislation? Why not rescind it? Why not find the courage to do with this what you did — albeit you didn't do it very graciously — with Bill 79, the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act? That silly, demonstrably foolish piece of legislation was laughed at by everybody, and even you people finally had to recognize that it didn't make sense, and you pulled it off the table.

Right now we have the curious situation in which all the folks on the government side support the old legislation from the old Premier. They have a new leader, but they are supporting the old policy. The obvious question is: why should that be? We know what happened with Bill 19. We know how that came to be. We know that the Minister of Labour didn't even know what was going on, and that the real legislation was written by the Premier. We know where it came from, and we knew what the motive was behind it. It was to effectively destroy trade unions and to destroy collective bargaining in this process. I would submit to you that the same motive is clearly evident in the latest one, Bill 82.

Mr. Speaker, most citizens would agree that this government's right to govern is now at least in question, if it hasn't been lost. I submit that they have lost the confidence of the people — that much is glaringly evident — and that we need an election to clear the air. When I say that, I recognize that my saying it doesn't mean very much. Let's face it: this is a partisan environment, and I have — I'm sure the phrase will appeal to members opposite — a conflict of interest. I want that government defeated, for all kinds of reasons. But there are lots of other people arguing the case that this government has also lost its moral right to govern. Let me quote just one unimpeachable source. I'm referring to Graham Leslie, the guy who was never a member of a political party but voted Social Credit for at least 15 years, and now has decided that, as a matter of principle, he has to write a book entitled Breach of Promise, which he has written with the single avowed purpose of defeating this government. He claims this government has lost its moral right to govern. Three hundred pages plus of dense text, providing what I think is a compelling case as to why this government ought not to be re-elected.

I want to quote just one small part of it, because I clearly don't have time to quote 300 pages, however tempting it may be. Mr. Leslie says:

"The only conclusions for British Columbians to reach when they review the conduct of" — the former Premier's — "Socreds are either that they sought advancement too much or that they did not have consciences to heed. In either case, they broke their promises to the voters. That breach of promise is of such huge proportions to me that I will not be ready to forget or forgive the Social Credit Party until it has spent considerable time in opposition in order to regroup and to search for a collective conscience."

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the time has come for the people to decide. The time has come for an election. The time has come for a change.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MRS. GRAN: It gives me great pleasure to rise and support the throne speech, particularly because it is brought down by a government headed by the first woman Premier in Canada. I'm extremely

[ Page 11996 ]

proud, and I'm sure that even with the differences in philosophy the women on the other side of the House feel the same way. It's been a very long time coming in this country. I would hope that through the 1990s we will see at least five women sitting in Premier's chairs, and it would be wonderful to see a woman sitting in the Prime Minister's chair.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think so, yes. I have to say to the members opposite that even given the philosophical differences, I was very proud to see a woman elected as the leader of the federal NDP opposition. I don't hold views that are so partisan that they sway my common sense, as sometimes happens across the way.

[5:30]

I want to talk about the Premier a little bit. I want to talk about why I am so supportive of the woman who now holds the position of Premier in this province. She is a very brave woman. She has taken over the position at a very difficult time. She has handled it with great courage and wisdom, and she has done that because she has paid her dues: in this society, in this House, as a politician, as a human being, as a participant in our society.

I've seen a couple of articles written by columnists, one in particular, that talked about the fact that she was married at 16 and didn't finish high school. I think it's important for all of us in this House not to be self-righteous about our education if we happen to be among the fortunate ones that were able, in those years, to finish high school and, even more so, to go to university. I'm in that age group, and I dreamt always of being a nurse, but my family situation did not allow me to do that. I would guess that well over 50 percent of people my age and older did not have that opportunity. So when someone criticizes the fact that anyone who rises to any position of power does not have a degree from a university, they take a very great risk, because there are a lot of people in this province who didn't have that opportunity and learned from the school of hard knocks, like many of us in this chamber.

Occasionally I hear snide remarks from the other side of the House about education and Social Credit people.

AN HON. MEMBER: It works both ways.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, it does work both ways, hon. member. I think it behooves us to remember that, and it behooves the members of the media to look a little bit further than their noses sometimes.

The throne speech brought down by this government is a conservative, compassionate and competent document, and without a doubt it has a woman's touch. Even those from the opposite side of the House must recognize that there is a difference with this throne speech.

The effects on my ministry, the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services and responsible for families — will be significant. I don't want to downplay what has gone on in the last year and a half in this ministry under another Premier. To do that would be wrong on my part. The previous Premier was extremely supportive of every initiative that was put forward in this ministry. In fact, I have to pay tribute to the assistance given to me by that man, the first member for Richmond.

We have put forward an initiative for child care in this province that is unprecedented. That initiative is long overdue and recognized by this government as being long overdue. There will be, I'm told, no help from the federal government. Provincially, we will be on our own trying to provide for families in this province the kind of child care they choose. It's very important that we remember that child care should be the choice of the family, that we not build, in the socialist image, little boxes that are extensions of the education system and institutionalize children from birth to grade 12 and beyond. That is the image of the NDP philosophy on child care.

This government's philosophy on child care is quite different. Our view is that child care should be created in communities by communities for the families who live in those communities.

Mr. Speaker, 53 million additional dollars will be spent over the next three years to put in place better, more affordable child care throughout British Columbia. Hon. members, that means that in addition to the $60 million in subsidies that will be in the budget of the Ministry of Social Services, we will also see over the next three years an additional $53 million.

It's important for us — and it's important for the opposition members when they criticize the government — to remember that we already spend $60 million on subsidies for child care. It's important to remember that if you're going to continue to pretend to be fiscally responsible, you must remember those little items — that people care.

MR. MILLER: What government? You never had a government.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Oh, I'm sorry. That was a slip of the tongue.

But I would hope that the opposition would remember that we do spend a substantial amount. It's difficult to provide all the help for everyone that is needed out there, but I think we've tried and that we will continue to try to do a better job.

Workplace employment and fairness are also very important items mentioned in the throne speech. In our own government, almost a year ago, we acted to put in place a pay equity initiative which will cost the taxpayers of this province some $40 million over the next four years to see fairness brought into the public service for the employees who work for us, the majority being women. I'm very proud of that and very proud of the hard work of the former Minister of Finance, the first member for Saanich and the Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're opposed to that.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, I think they are opposed, as the member says. The NDP is opposed to anything

[ Page 11997 ]

they think belongs to them, and for a long time we on this side of the House allowed the NDP to convince people that they were the ones in charge of caring. It's time, hon. members, that we all stood up and talked about how Social Credit has cared, for all the years that we have been government in this province.

All of the programs in place have been put there by Social Credit governments, not NDP. In fact, at the announcement about a week and a half ago of a child health conference in British Columbia in 1992, a prominent doctor, Dr. Brazelton from Massachusetts, said that we were fortunate in this province and in this country to have the kind of safety net and social services that we do. He said it over and over again. When he was asked a question about the six-month period that Unemployment and Social Services have for mothers with children, he said: "That long?" You see, in the United States they don't give mothers that long to look after their children; they have to go right back to work.

So let's not fool ourselves in this chamber. We do have a good safety net for people. We can always do better.

The other initiative in the throne speech is the B.C. retirement savings plan which I was able to table in the last session of the House. That retirement savings plan will be of particular benefit to parents, both men and women, who choose to stay at home to look after their children and do not have any access to a retirement savings plan. We have just this week sent out brochures to every household in British Columbia and we will be giving people the opportunity to tell us how us they feel about it, whether they think it's necessary or not and what options they would choose. We will hopefully be bringing the legislation back into the House in the fall after we have won the next election.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The members opposite ask: "Why not now?" The answer very clearly is that we agreed to consult with people. Now that's something new for you; that's not something you understand. But that's exactly what we're doing: we're consulting with people. That's why the legislation will be coming in in the next session.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the violence task force that I have put in place. They have had their first meeting — a wonderful group of people from all walks of life; most of them, though, involved in some way in assisting women and families who are victims of violence. I was thrilled to see the commitment in the throne speech not only to the victims of violence but to the abusers, to the counselling services that are needed to break the cycle of violence. I look forward to the deliberations of my task force and to their findings and recommendations. It's my hope that we will be able to make an early announcement about additional moneys for counselling for violence victims and abusers.

On behalf of the staff in my ministry and myself, I would also like to say that we have done a tremendous job in a very short period of time. Without the assistance, though, of my deputy minister, Isabel Kelly, and all of the other dedicated people who work in that ministry — and I include Government Services in that.... They have worked very hard to do all of the wonderful things that have been announced over the last year and a half and are currently in place.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The member for Victoria obviously spends a lot of time sleeping, because he's asking me what we have done. I've just finished talking about a lot of the things that we've done, so I would also suggest he might need his ears cleaned out.

I also want to talk about how proud I am to have been given the responsibility for families in this province. What's happening to families, not just in British Columbia but in North America, is something that we all need to pay attention to. When I was in California for a very short holiday about a week ago, I watched the news and saw what's indicative of what's happening in places like California and in some ways is happening here. They were interviewing a father who was looking for his eight-month-old baby. He and his wife were so drunk the night before that they couldn't remember where they had left the child. When I left after a week, they still hadn't found that eight-month-old baby.

I think we all know in this House that if the family continues to disintegrate and fall apart at the seams, our society, no matter what we do in this House, will not matter. In everything that we do, we have to think about the family and all that's sacred about the family, the support services that are in place and the support services that need to be put in place. But what's more important is that we analyze what we've done over the last 20 years — how we've come to the place that we're at where drugs and alcohol are such a big part of the fabric of our society.

[5:45]

The doctor that I spoke of earlier, Dr. Brazelton, talked about the babies born with alcohol and drug syndrome. He talked about those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the middle class of our society and how we look after our children. But what is going to happen down the road? Are the children who come from homes with caring families going to meet those children who came from homes that were less than that? That is going to end up in murders and problems that we are seeing on our streets today Teenagers are killing one another at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Suicides are up, but murders among teenagers are up at a very alarming rate. The effects of our societal beliefs on the family are devastating. We all need to examine how that happens and what we can do as legislators to assist in supporting families and turning around many of the problems that they have.

Yesterday the first member for Vancouver East — or, as the Speaker says, the only member for Vancouver East — talked about his former seatmate Bob Williams. I want to talk about Bob Williams. Bob Williams is someone that I grew to like a lot — and it took a while.

[ Page 11998 ]

When I became an MLA my first job was that of Chairman of Committee of the Whole. When I came here, I came here after ten years of schooling in the Bill Bennett government, and the animosity between the NDP and the Social Credit members was extremely high. I came with some preconceived notions of what NDP people were like.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you were right.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Some of those notions were right. But I found out that a lot of them were pretty basic human beings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. BLENCOE: I feel so much better, Carol.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The member for Victoria is not one that I speak of.

I remember talking to one of the Clerks and being told that it was important for me to be unbiased in the chair. I thought: how do I do that? I spent a lot of time.... The member for North Island was the kindest member on the other side. No matter what kind of animosity we have between us, I will always have fond memories of the member for North Island. He was very helpful. The member that I had the most difficulty with, though, was the then first member for Vancouver East. It took a long time to break through the shell that Bob Williams has around him; and when I did, what I found was a very kind, warm, loving, dedicated human being, and someone that I hope I will be able to maintain a friendship with for many years to come.

But I want to be a little bit political now about why Bob Williams left. I suspect — and I wish the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew were in here — that Bob Williams did not like some of the ethics that have been practised on that side of the House in the last while. I suspect that the prospect of one of his colleagues listening in to private telephone conversations was repugnant to him. I'm just guessing, because I found Bob Williams, over the years, to be a very ethical person.

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find the Minister of Government Services impugning the motives of some members who are not here to raise the privilege matters that the minister has raised. I would urge her to do the appropriate thing, and I'm sure she will.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I could enlighten the member of the fact that we're not in committee, and as such, it would be appropriate to address the person in the chair as the Speaker, rather than the Chairman.

Secondly, it's only during the throne speech that we can allow a wide-ranging debate. All members are required to be in the House at all times; that's their obligation. Whether or not they are able to do so remains a subject for them to decide, of course. It's only up to the Chair to decide if there is a quorum. I have been keeping careful track, and we do have a quorum this afternoon.

Other than that, if the member strays into personal allusions, and members wish to bring it to my attention, then I shall ask the member who is speaking to withdraw. But so far it seems like a tribute with other additions put into it. It would be nice if the tribute was for past members and we left sitting members out of it in terms of personal things. Did the member wish to continue?

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is the allusion to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew as "listening in."

MR. SPEAKER: Now that you're specific.... I have a difficult time deciding whether that's unparliamentary language or not, if that's what you're asking me to determine. It's not unparliamentary language to say that someone is listening in. It may be that it is an allusion that the member wishes to speak to, but certainly not the language.

One cannot cast an aspersion. If you're suggesting that the member is casting an aspersion, I would ask the minister to withdraw the aspersion. But if the minister is not, she will advise the House. Was the minister...?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the matter stands corrected.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I would never want to be accused of doing anything like that. In fact, I listened in, along with everyone else in this House, to those same telephone conversations brought to us by a member of this House, and I found it very objectionable.

I won't continue on in that vein because I've made my point. I feel very strongly about the fact that it happened in the last four and a half years, and that we think in this House that it's okay to do that. I have great difficulty with that.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, but it's condoned when it comes into the House and it's read into the record. In some way, it's condoned that private telephone conversations being monitored is acceptable. I don't find it acceptable.

Anyway, I was simply giving my own opinion on why I thought, along with a lot of other reasons, Bob Williams might have left. I'm sorry he's gone, because he was a wonderful debater and certainly got everybody excited on this side. I will miss him greatly.

The NDP members might want to reflect on what they are doing in this session, and that constantly talking about scandals and tearing us apart personally will not enhance your own images, either. You might reflect on what's happening in Ontario and how easily ministers go down for small infractions. Some of the things that have happened in Ontario are small infrac-

[ Page 11999 ]

tions; nevertheless, those people are no longer ministers and their reputations are no longer intact.

When you sit in a very self-righteous way on that side of the House casting aspersions.... I'm amazed to hear anybody over there talk about casting aspersions, because the aspersions that have been cast on us as a government are incredible. It doesn't matter whether it's in this House or outside — the comments made by some members of the NDP are unacceptable to many of us, because we feel we are as honourable as you feel you are.

Most of us, as most of you, are here for all of the right reasons: because we care, because we want to make a contribution, because our communities and the people in them mean something to us. If the NDP believe that they're going to ride to victory in the next election on the backs of scandals and people's reputations — they are sadly mistaken.

Down the road somewhere you are going to have to produce a reason for people to want to vote NDP. You're not going to do it on the backs of people who have worked hard in this province, who have made great contributions, by slandering their reputations, and that's what's happening in this House today. I would suggest to the members opposite that they start talking about policies. Start, in question period, going after us about some of the policies in our own ministries. Start asking questions of ministers about the policies and the things they're doing in their ministries. It's time, hon. members, to be honourable.

MR. MILLER: What about the air logs?

HON. MRS. GRAN: You can ask me about the air logs. The member asks about air logs. Why don't you ask me a question about the airplanes? I'd be happy to answer it.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Ask me a question about anything in my ministry, because that's what question period is supposed to be all about. That's your opportunity

I want to end my comments by just saying a few words about the wonderful constituency that I have the honour to represent, Langley. In Langley we have many problems that are related to growth and to some of the societal problems that I talked about earlier. We have more families in Langley than anywhere in British Columbia. I look forward to the next term as MLA and as a member of government serving Langley.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege for me to stand and speak to the throne speech.

Mr. Perry moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.