[ Page 12001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12001

Ruling on Point of Privilege –– 12001

Private Members' Statements

Education a priority. Mr. Reid –– 12001

Ms. A. Hagen

Protecting polluters — government environmental policy. Mr. Cashore –– 12003

Mr. Serwa

A better way Mr. Serwa –– 12005

Mr. Rose

B.C.'s continuing health care problems: a plea for action. Mr. Perry –– 12008

Hon. J. Jansen

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Perry –– 12010

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 12013

Mr. Sihota –– 12015

Mr. Vant –– 12019

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1991

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of the Attorney-General for 1989-1990 and the annual reports of the Legal Services Society for 1988-1989 and 1989-1990.

RULING ON POINT OF PRIVILEGE

MR. SPEAKER: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley rose on an alleged matter of privilege, namely the failure of the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, now Minister of Environment, to complete and return a form required to be filed by February 19, 1991, pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

On April 15, 1991, the acting commissioner of conflict of interest advised the Clerk of the House that he had met with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on April 12, 1991, and that he, as the commissioner, was now filing the required public disclosure statement of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, prior to the member being sworn in as a member of the executive council.

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley tabled a letter dated February 15, 1991, written by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, addressed to the acting commissioner and copied to all hon. members, indicating among other things that he believed there were "deficiencies in the reporting documents which make it difficult for me to sign same because of the additional responsibility I have as a chartered accountant for making such declarations."

In any event, the required documents were completed and filed as required by the statute — but beyond the date prescribed by the acting commissioner. The Chair notes that as section 15 (3) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act has not been proclaimed, the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley does have the right to raise the matter in the House.

Section 15 (1) provides that:

"A member who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that another member is in contravention of this Act or of section 25 of the Constitution Act may, by application in writing setting out the grounds for the belief and the nature of the contravention alleged, request that the commissioner give an opinion respecting the compliance of the other member with the provisions of this Act."

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has not indicated whether or not she has availed herself of this section.

The Chair also notes that the acting commissioner may, by virtue of section 17, report to this House any refusal to file a disclosure statement should he deem it appropriate to do so. It must be noted that the acting commissioner himself, as an officer of this House, has not asserted that as an officer he has been improperly impeded or obstructed. Indeed, the acting commissioner has extensive powers under the act and the power to recommend severe penalties, including, under section 17, for failure to file requisite information to ensure compliance with the statute.

Joseph Maingot, in his authoritative text Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 12, gives a general definition for parliamentary privilege as follows: "Parliamentary privilege is the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators do their legislative work."

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has not, in her submission, indicated to the Chair any possible way in which she has been impeded in doing her parliamentary work by reason of the late filing in question. Other consequences may or may not flow from any late filing under the statute. I cannot, however, find that there has been established any prima facie case of either a breach of privilege or an offence described by the hon. member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley as a "contempt for the rights and privileges of the member of this assembly."

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It is private members statement day, and I believe the first member on the list is the member for Surrey-White Rock.

EDUCATION A PRIORITY

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take my place this morning to raise the issue of quality of education or priority of education by this government in the province of British Columbia.

Remember this: the strength of our education system is going to be the key factor to our success in responding to future challenges. We're living in an era of rapid change. Our education system is a key pillar of our economy. Our young people are among the most prized of natural resources we have at our disposal. That's why, as government, we place such a high priority on our education system to ensure its strengths for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, priority and quality.... When you deal with the question of finances, because it seems to be the issue of the day when you talk about priorities.... To show the evidence of the priorities of this government towards education funding....

In the years since I first served in this House, in the last eight years, our budget for education in 1983 in the province of British Columbia was a total of $1,907,589,000. There was an enrolment of 482,255 students in 1983. Subsequently, in 1984 the budget was $1,913,592,000. In 1985 the budget was $1,850,059,000. The budget in 1986 was $1,950,380,000. In 1987 it was $2,084,632,000. In 1989 it was $2,227,285,000. In 1990-91 it was $2,938,626,000.

Mr. Speaker, that is perceived by some as underfunding or as a lack of priority by this government.

[ Page 12002 ]

Twenty-eight percent of our current budget is allocated to education in the province of British Columbia. The interesting thing is that there are some issues related to funding which are in constant conflict between this government and the union movement called the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They said that it doesn't matter whether you work in a sawmill, a bank or a robotics company in British Columbia, we owe it to ourselves to make certain that these finances are used adequately for quality of education.

It's interesting that I had a visit a couple of days ago from two members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. These teachers in my constituency came and spoke to me for an hour — not about education, not one word about education, not one word about priorities and not one mention of a student in my constituency. You know what they mentioned? They mentioned money. They mentioned the fact that they aren't getting their fair share. They have been underfunded and cut back.

[10:15]

When I entered this political arena in 1983, a teacher's salary then was about $24,000 a year on average. I asked them why, after a 10 percent increment through the system over the last ten years, it has now reached a total, before the most recent incremental offer of 4 percent — they wanted 7 percent — of a staggering $51,000, on average. That's almost double since I entered politics. So I asked these teachers: what cutback has this government created for you? What concern has it created for you? What quality of education have you offered to the students because of, the incremental pay that we have continued to give you for the 190 days –– 1,045 hours, 5.5 hours a day — that you're contracted to teach? What have you offered, what concessions have you made for the students? Except that when I read about the most recent negotiations — I want to read this, because it's important — it talked about the settlements made with the teachers in the Victoria constituency. It was important because this was a rejected offer in February 1991 from the Greater Victoria School District. Some of the members for Victoria are in the House today — maybe they understand why this is.

They were offered an increase in salary of over 15 percent over the next two years; an increase in professional development funding from $66 per teacher to $106 per teacher for the coming year; an increase in elementary teacher preparation time from 60 minutes per week to 80 minutes per week out-of-the-classroom time; recognition of support for needed classroom teachers with regard to integration of special needs students; relief from all supervision duties before school, during recess and lunch hour and after school –– 5½ hours of paid time, no time committed for the educators now to assist with the students' education or their needs. Interesting isn't it, when you talk about priorities and quality of education?

I recall reading yesterday — the member from Abbotsford can probably emphasize this even further — where the teachers in the Abbotsford School District are refusing to provide the students....

MR. SPEAKER: Time is up, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of an education system that works well for our children is that it take place in the climate of frankness, openness and fairness. I find it passing strange that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale met with teachers for an hour and finds the only comment he can make in this House is a comment to criticize those important people in our educational enterprise.

I would note also that yesterday, parents and students from Abbotsford were in the precincts, and a number of times, as I chatted with them or passed them on their way, they asked me why their members for Abbotsford would not meet with them. I suggested they should speak to their members. But the fact that teachers did come to a member and talk about their issues is important. It is important that one reflect on the climate in which they came and on the issues before us. It is also important when people come to meet with their members in these precincts that, if humanly possible, members do make it possible to have those discussions.

Let me just turn to the issue of priorities. It is interesting that the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale quoted statistics back through the 1980s in terms of education funding. We note during that time how severely cut back education was in a previous administration. That affected his district very drastically, and we have some further statistics that I just want to table in the House this morning.

Surrey is the most rapidly growing district in the province, perhaps one of two or three of the most rapidly growing districts. It has 329 portables on school grounds in that district. It has been desperate for buildings to house children and to provide a quality of education.

The Social Credit government has an appalling record of providing the kind of funding that would build those schools. I could go back, and will, to the 1980s when growth was taking place, when portables were first cropping up, and when the capital budget — in a recession, I might note, when we could have built schools cheaply — for all of the schools in the province was $24 million; something like $300,000 a district.

Yesterday the government announced a dramatic increase in capital funding, an almost 100 percent increase in capital funding. We have to ask ourselves: does that have to do with the priorities they've set for education? Or does it have to do with the fact that members like this member and the member for Surrey-Newton, who is the Premier, are running for re-election very soon and they need to go to their electorate with an election bonus that will — too late — in a boom-and-bust way begin to deal with the issues of the quality of education in Surrey which have been around for a long time?

I want to conclude by commenting about the issue that has caused a number of public sector unions to speak with members on both sides of the House this week. I want to quote the Minister of Labour. When Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act, was introduced, he noted that it was unnecessary because "it would hinder better relationships between employers and employees." That is the basis for the thesis that I

[ Page 12003 ]

started my comments with: a climate of openness, fairness, stability and predictability is the most essential hallmark of a good education system. Having begun one of its few long-term plans stemming from the Royal Commission on Education, the government has undermined that plan with legislation and with actions, where the Ministry of Education, in fact, has been confounded by the cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. REID: It's interesting that the respondent to my earlier comments is a teacher in her own right. Of course she defends the system, and that's unfortunate. The dilemma that this government finds itself in is trying to defend the government's priority, which is education funding –– 28 percent of the overall budget towards education funding. My school district, which she wanted to equate to, has a request for a capital budget of $185 million this year for our district alone. So there's no question that there is a larger demand because of the growth in Surrey and because of the numbers of students entering the system.

The other thing that I should make quite clear to the people out there is that the Surrey district's current operating budget is $208 million. That's an increase of 11.3 percent over last year, funded to that amount — a total of a $19 million increase. In total over a two-year period the population growth is around 40,000. The student growth was around 1,000; the increase in funding was $19 million for that 1,000 student enrolment increase.

The other thing that is quite important to point out is that the pupil-teacher ratio has gone from about 18.7 in 1985 to 16.1 in my district this year. When you reduce the pupil-teacher ratio by a significant number like that.... Every time you reduce it by 1 percent, it costs you somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million.

The difficulty we have in this government trying to meet the priorities of quality of education and, at the same time, meeting the demands of the teaching profession who only demand compensation for themselves and not quality of education for the students, is unfortunate. As a member representing Surrey for eight years, I say that our system has been well administered. We have a quality teaching staff and a quality administrative staff.

We have a difficulty with the taxpayers — a small businessman trying to keep up.... When you see teachers making $51,000 a year on average.... I don't know many small businessmen in my community who have gone from $23,000 in '83 to $51,000 take-home pay in 1991. It's time the teachers started to talk about the quality of education and the quality of the students out there.

I have an adviser in Chilliwack, as a matter of fact — I wish the member from Chilliwack was here — who is a friend of mine, and his wife is a teacher. His name is Budsy Usher. I understand he is not feeling very well, so I hope that he is better soon. Anyway, Budsy and I talk at great length about the education system as it equates to his district, because I know very well what is happening in mine, and I know they wanted an additional $11 million in Surrey this year, over and beyond the $19 million that was offered and provided.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: It's highly unusual. It's normally asked when someone else is in the chair who is softer. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today is my daughter, Judith Cashore, and her friend Leah De Julius. Judith is from Coquitlam and Leah from Surrey. Would the House please make them welcome.

PROTECTING POLLUTERS — GOVERNMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the first member for Okanagan South for being present to respond to my statement today and also for agreeing to allow me to go in the second time slot. I appreciate that very much.

The topic of my comments has to do with the Socred government policy of protecting polluters. We realize that the closest this government gets to being principled is that it follows the principle of style without substance. This is a government in disarray, and another policy it is obviously following is that power must be achieved without principle.

Nowhere is it more apparent than in the government's environmental policy. Just to demonstrate how much disarray there has been during the term of this government, there have been six Ministers of Environment and three deputy ministers. When the acting Premier fired the fifth Minister of Environment, the deputy was fired also, thus putting the situation into a state of chaos and deepening the amount of despair and the serious morale situation that exists within the civil service of that ministry.

Excellent people trying to do a good job to protect the environment are caught in the disarray that is caused by the mismanagement and the conflict that has been the hallmark of this government. Scandal after scandal, conflict after conflict in this province have preoccupied this government; and therefore it has not been able to apply itself to the serious, urgent and pressing matters that need to be addressed in protecting our environment.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the throne speech, in which the environment was reduced to an afterthought. In this province at the present time there are still only 14 full-time employees in the Ministry of Environment to review over 8,000 logging plans for fish and wildlife values. What does that mean? It means that fish and wildlife in this province have no rights or protection.

[10:30]

[ Page 12004 ]

Also there is still a failure to obey the auditor-general's requirements as stated in the Public Accounts that the laboratory privatization fiasco has certain mitigating measures taken to try to get that disaster back on track. For two years in a row now the auditor-general has pointed out that his requirements have not been fulfilled.

This government still cannot get it right with regard to the Expo lands problem. The government entered into a very bad deal, and then as an afterthought recognized that it would accept responsibility for cleaning up those lands but would not apply that principle to those from whom they had purchased those lands.

Also the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation has been an abject failure in this province. Again, it's smoke and mirrors and an attempt to try to appear to be doing something for the environment, but doing something that is only window-dressing.

There is no reference in the throne speech to Vision 2001 as had been promised in the previous throne speech. As the member who will be responding to me will agree, it was something he had commented on while he was the minister. He had indicated this was going to be coming forward. I am sure he will update us on why it was not mentioned in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, there is one constant with regard to this government: constant turmoil and constant disarray. The fact is that the six Ministers of Environment who have been in this position have seen their role as one of protecting polluters, being an apologist for polluters and not being an advocate for the environment.

The third Minister of Environment, when there was a serious oil spill caused by the accident that happened with the Nestucca barge south of the border, said, "We're prepared to follow; just tell us what to do" — thus abandoning any responsibility for protecting the environmental interests of this province.

The fourth Minister of Environment, when commenting to the media on the situation with regard to fisheries closures in Howe Sound, invited the media to come down to Howe Sound and feast with him on crabs that glow in the dark.

The fifth Minister of Environment signed the order to bring in watered-down AOX standards with regard to organochlorines and admitted later that he signed it without having read it, recognizing the fact that the standard had been set by what the Premier was willing to accept from COFI. The cabinet, which had agreed on a different set of standards, knuckled under, and that minister went along with it. No advocacy for the environment, Mr. Speaker.

The sixth Minister of Environment — and I'm sorry he's not here to defend himself — said he didn't know why he was appointed and that he did not see his role as being that of an advocate for the environment.

During that time the value of the ministry in cabinet went up and down like a yo-yo. The third minister went from a junior to a senior minister by being on the policy and priorities committee. The fifth minister went from a senior minister to a junior minister because the saliency of the issue appeared to slip in the polls and it didn't seem to be that important any more. The sixth Minister of Environment, while being on the finance committee of cabinet, is not on the policy and priorities committee and therefore not in the inner cabinet and not in a position to be defending the environment when forestry issues, energy issues, and various other issues come to that seat of the most important decision-making that takes place in this province.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the environment is not being protected by this government. It shows that the only principle that this government has is the principle of seeking to be in power without being principled.

Look at the issue of the organochlorine reduction.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Perhaps at an other time.

MR. SERWA: It's a pleasure to get up on behalf of the Minister of Environment and respond to the opposition critic with his statement that this government protects polluters. It was really an interesting opportunity for me to hear how much political rhetoric can be enunciated that has absolutely no focus, filled with innuendoes, misinformation and partisan political bias.

The role of the Ministry of Environment is an exceedingly demanding one. The population of British Columbia has grown to over three million people. The impact of people is. such that the workload is ever increasing to the most important ministry in the provincial government.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Yes, it has been very demanding on ministers and on deputy ministers, and I can assure you that it is very demanding on those very committed, hard-working individuals in the Ministry of Environment who do such an awesome job to protect, to preserve, and to enhance the quality of the environment in this great and splendid province of British Columbia.

My hon. colleague opposite, a member of the opposition, has made a number of statements such as referring to the public servants who are so dedicated and so committed in the ministry — that there is a serious morale situation in the ministry. I can assure that hon. member that that is not the case. I have met with regional directors and with all the principal people here at the office in Victoria, and I can assure this assembly that there is no morale deterioration in that ministry. There is a strong commitment to do the best they can possibly do from day to day for the province and the people of British Columbia.

The fish and wildlife and integrated management section of the ministry is very competent and effective. They are doing a most impressive job of protecting the greatest legacy that this province has — fish and wildlife resources. In the integrated management field, which is a new branch of the ministry, they are charged with responsibility to work with other ministries on land uses. Land uses are a major and very high-profile element of interest in British Columbia, and I'm

[ Page 12005 ]

pleased to see that the Ministry of Environment has a leading hand in it.

The hon. member opposite made reference to Expo lands. I want to tell the member that the Ministry of Environment is doing a most impressive job with that. I want to enunciate to the public and the people of British Columbia that there are a wide range of soils in that Expo site. There are soils not contaminated in any way, shape or form; there are soils mildly contaminated through asphalt, sawmill waste or other material like that, which can be used for fill in residential developments; there are other soils a bit more contaminated with hydrocarbons, tar, asphalt or industrial and building waste that are useful as industrial fill. That is particularly the type of material being hauled at the present time to the Richmond area.

Further to this, the Ministry of Environment has a great deal of concern for the specific ability of technology in our province to handle hazardous waste materials which show up in some areas. A very expensive and extensive drilling program was undertaken in that site to identify those particular areas. Some six contracts have been issued to various firms in the province for pilot projects. The federal government, the companies themselves and the Ministry of Environment are all paying a portion of that to identify the best possible technique for mitigating the hazardous waste aspect of those contaminated soils.

So once again this government is on top of environmental issues. The Hazardous Waste Management Corporation has an awesome challenge, a very important responsibility in the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time is up, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons there is a morale problem in the ministry is that people there do very difficult work. They try to bring plans into place, only to have them smashed to smithereens. The organochlorine fiasco is a case in point. That's one of the reasons for the serious morale problem there, caused by the political agenda of this government.

The government chaos has destroyed program that had some possibility in cleaning up ganochlorine pollution, Just to give you a little background, in May 1989 the then minister announced proposed regulations that would achieve an AOX level of 1.5 daily maximum. That was considered to be absolutely essential. This was political damage control resulting from pollution which caused fisheries closures. It had denied people their livelihood and affected their health. In the following months, more and more fisheries closures resulted and, to protect the health of British Columbians, the federal Health ministry put out many warnings and closures. The fact is that hundreds of kilometres of British Columbia coastline are now closed to shellfish harvesting.

The deteriorating environment is a result of this government's benign neglect. And as news of fresh disasters has increased, the government claimed its commitment to 1.5 was secure. Then on December 5, 1990, cabinet approved a watered-down version of the promised regulations, a version which, because of daily and monthly averages, would have actually gone well over the 1.5.

Then the heavyweights went to work, and members of COFI leaned on the former Premier. The speculation was that the threatened loss of huge campaign donations resulted in the Premier's unilateral decision to kill the 1.5 AOX promise. What happened then was that in a frenzy of righteousness, the then minister resigned. Vaughn Palmer stated in a column that the minister also had met with COFI and said to them that if it didn't work out, he could always rescind the 1.5 regulations after the election. To my knowledge, this has never been refuted by that former minister or anybody else in the Social Credit cabinet.

Even though what he brought to cabinet was a shadow of the May 1989 promise, if his regulation had been brought forward, it clearly would have been a step in the right direction. Bill Andrews, of the West Coast Environmental Law Association, is a highly respected lawyer involved in an umbrella organization involving pulp unions, environmentalists and a wide range of responsible British Columbians. He stated in an article that this action on the part of cabinet was "an unmitigated disaster."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, your time has expired.

A BETTER WAY

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to have the opportunity to rise as a private member on Friday morning and bring issues to the Legislature that a member feels are very important.

Several days ago I noted an article in the publication called Parliamentary Government in the Legislative Library. The article was entitled "Crisis of Confidence: A Roundtable Discussion." In the article were opinions of a number of federal Members of Parliament. Their statements dealt with some of the challenges and weaknesses of the British parliamentary system that is in use in the House of Commons, the provincial legislatures and the two territories.

Over the past four and a half years, I have had the opportunity to participate in a number of conferences sponsored by the Canadian region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Invariably, in both formal and informal discussions, there is a growing awareness of the need for certain parliamentary reforms to take place.

About a year ago in this very chamber, I presented a private member's statement on my thoughts regarding the process and the role of private members. With the enhanced power — again through television debate — and with my perception of the importance of the issue, I felt it most important to reach out and share my thoughts with my fellow British Columbians.

But before I make my remarks, I wish to quote from the article "Crisis of Confidence." The quotes graphically illustrate that diverse partisan political perspectives support my previous private member's statement.

[10:45]

[ Page 12006 ]

Deborah Grey, a Reform Party Member of Parliament: "Concerning the House itself, I mentioned earlier the need to allow freer votes in the House of Commons so that thinking people could have discussions and dissensions within the party and be able to express those without being thrown out of caucus."

Brian Tobin, a Liberal Member of Parliament: "That said, I agree absolutely there is room for reform, for anything that moves Parliament towards less of a confidence system in the leaders of parties, that allows members more freedom in certain areas to express their views and to express their best judgment on behalf of their constituents."

I quote from Patrick Boyer, Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament: "You were asking for any suggestions about reform of Parliament, and I have three favourites. The first has to do with loosening the iron grip of the parties over the Members of Parliament. The role of the Whips and party discipline and the imperative to vote the party line have their own justifications, but I think the gradual result is the problem we have been talking about today. If we could adopt a rule of unity in essentials and diversity in matters of secondary importance, that would permit a more reflective House of Commons in the sense that members could reflect what their constituents feel, what they personally feel, and thereby enrich the process."

Mr. Patrick Boyer goes on to indicate that a second element of reform concerns the role of referendum and plebiscites. I was exceedingly pleased to note the emphasis placed on that measure in our recent throne speech.

Nic Leblanc, Member of Parliament from the Bloc Québecois: "You have alluded to the fact that Members of Parliament are not allowed freedom of voting in the House. It is a major problem. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have all the power. The Prime Minister appoints his ministers and committee Chairmen."

Mr. Leblanc goes on to observe that power in the hands of very few tends to cause other members to become uninvolved eventually. Yet when an opportunity arises to cast a free vote, the whole dynamic of the process was greatly improved.

In my private member's statement delivered on May 25, 1990, I carried a similar message and detailed my reasoning. The role of the private member has three primary elements: that of a legislator, a critic and a facilitator. Private members have a three-way accountability to constituents, to parties and to conscience. There is a great and growing crisis of confidence on the part of the public towards politics and politicians: playing politics versus representation of constituents.

A 1986 Canadian public opinion poll indicated 75 percent of those contacted felt that the Canadian parliamentary system is in need of reform. Only 42 percent believed their elected representatives are honest and sincere, and 60 percent of Canada's youth are cynical about politicians.

Members of government are elected by the public and are accountable to them. The faith, trust and confidence of our respective constituents has been given to us when they cast their ballots. Accountability and responsibility is what people want and what people deserve: our integrity and willingness to meet new and changing circumstances.

Canada is celebrating 200 years of representative government. A review of the Constitution Act of 1791 to the present shows the continuing evolution of our political system and parliamentary practice. I believe that both federal and provincial constitution acts should be reviewed again and amendments made. We need to follow the example set by the mother parliament in Great Britain, where it is possible to defeat government motions without defeating the government.

I recommend that the members of this Legislative Assembly seriously consider implementing the following list of positive improvements: (1) free votes; (2) fixed dates for sessions of the Legislature; (3) fixed terms between elections; (4) an expanded use of all-party committee systems as a fundamental aspect of parliamentary reform; and (5) I again heartily endorse the concept of referenda. The participatory democratic process will allow people a direct opportunity to make their views known and will allow a better understanding of the complexities of modern government.

In my opinion, party discipline needs to be relaxed in order to allow elected members to more accurately represent the views of their constituents. The British experience has shown that governments do not fall and legislatures do not become unworkable when members balance their responsibilities to parties and party Whips with their responsibilities to constituents and to personal conscience. I believe that the relaxation of party discipline....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sorry, your time has expired.

MR. ROSE: Talk about parliamentary reform and rule changes doesn't turn many on. I think the member does a service, though, in bringing it to the House, because this is a very conservative place around here. As a matter of fact, if you look rule 1, we base our rules on the traditions and the jurisprudence of the British House of Commons even before the Commons of Canada. So in terms of our rules, we're more like the British House of Commons was around 1890 than we are like the Canadian House of Commons in 1990, where considerably more latitude has been given to the private member.

There are some here on paper. They don't result in anything really meaningful, except I would remind him that under the chairmanship of the august Speaker and senator, we did come up with rule 25A, which gave an opportunity not otherwise available to opposition members to put forward things of concern to their constituency and to themselves. You're a perfect example of how one uses this sort of procedure and opportunity.

There are other opportunities, but they're denied to us — in the main. I'm talking about a book called the Orders of the Day which at the end of a term is filled

[ Page 12007 ]

with questions and with resolutions, and is brimming over with private bills that are never debated.

According to these rules, Friday is supposed to be private members' day. But if you look at the precedents associated with private members' day, you will see that government orders tend to take precedence. Even if we do get an environment bill debated, as the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam did a couple of weeks ago, he was only on for about five minutes, his bill was ruled out of order and we went back to government business.

It seems to me that if we want to have more opportunities here for the backbenchers — according to our own rules — then the government House Leader and the government should be devoting more time to that end. I would suggest that the member should not be bringing this material to us — we're all for this anyway — but that he should try and convince his own caucus of this. That's where the fault lies.

It's very difficult to get any change in terms of the rules of this House. We were able to get some. All the practice recommendations in the back of the rule book show efforts to give more opportunity to private members. The very fact that for the first time in 1985, when you introduced your private bill — even though it was never going to be debated and you knew that — you could at least describe what it was all about. Before that time that was impossible. Rules 60A and 78A permit the government to refer any part of motions and estimates to committees. Since 1985 that's never been done once. Do you know why? Because the government does not want to give the committee the power to call witnesses to look into estimates.

Efforts, have been made in the Canadian House of Commons, going back at least ten years. I was on those committees that travelled to Britain and elsewhere looking at various rule changes that were coming about. There were more just a little while ago — I think at the closing of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons. A lot of people say it was a retrogressive step. It took powers away, and it muzzled people, giving them no opportunity to speak. But in spite of the fact that a lot of things were said rhetorically about that, I'm not sure it is necessarily going to weaken the place. It was thought that once estimates were taken out of the Parliament of Canada in 1968, it was going to weaken the opposition's hold. Maybe it has. But it has certainly saved a lot of lip-flap. We've had the same problem around here, and it faces both governments.

What I'm saying is that it's very difficult to get changes around here. Even when you do, on paper, they don't amount to very much in the way of changes to our behaviour or activities. It's the government who's in charge of the business, and they are responsible to do this.

Let me just give you one other example. When we introduced standing order 35, we thought we would have all kinds of opportunities to bring up subjects of importance and urgency and that we'd have an opportunity during those debates to explore a great number of matters. Since 1985 there has been one example of a standing order 35 being approved and debate resulting. It's a very simple thing: an hour's debate. But it's never approved. Do you know why? It's never approved because you have to have the agreement of the government for it to proceed, because the rule says: "If objection is taken, the question of leave shall be decided on division without debate." We know pretty well that when we have a division around here and the government has the discipline that the member complains about, we lose the vote. That's why we've never had any 35s approved around here for a long time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: You're welcome, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hesitate in gonging you out.

MR. SERWA: It's always a pleasure to listen to a very distinguished and responsible parliamentarian. I have to say that, because the hon. member opposite was a teacher in the high school where I graduated at the time I graduated, so I continue my respect for him.

In listening to the comments of the hon. member, and perhaps the lack of compliance with opportunities that are already in the standing orders, I suppose we can look at water that's under the bridge and, to a degree, lament.

The purpose of my bringing this up again is the fact that I really believe it's very important that we recognize that each and every one of us here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is elected by people, by constituents, and it's our responsibility to serve those constituents to the best of our ability. I believe that the British parliamentary system, as practised throughout all of the jurisdictions and territories of Canada, has failed to evolve to the point necessary to achieve the effectiveness that the public demands.

I alluded to the thoughts of individual Canadians, to the cynicism that is out there, to the lack of credibility of politics and politicians, and I sincerely lament that. What we have is an incredible process. Democracy was developed in Athens some 2,500 years ago, brought and spread throughout all of the known world by the Romans, brought to Great Britain and eventually refined to the Westminster system over 300 years.

It's an outstanding form of democracy. It's the best possible form of democracy, but it is a fragile form. What we have seen is the strengthening of the party discipline. We can recognize it perhaps more clearly in the federal government, where we elect members from the west to represent the west's interests, but because of the dominance of central Canada and Canadian politics, our elected members are unable to stand up in the House and speak of conscience or of the desires, aims or ambitions of western Canadians. It's a very frustrating experience for them and certainly a disheartening experience for our constituents.

[11:00]

I firmly believe that free votes will enhance the credibility of politicians. I firmly believe that the objectivity of the debate in the House will be enhanced, because for the first time ever we will have the opportunity to perhaps develop debate and do our

[ Page 12008 ]

research, so that we can actually reach out and start changing the minds of members opposite. That is what participatory democracy is all about.

B.C.'S CONTINUING HEALTH CARE
PROBLEMS: A PLEA FOR ACTION

MR. PERRY: My statement is entitled "B.C.'s Continuing Health Care Problems: A Plea for Action," and I'm pleased that the former Minister of Health and present Minister of Finance has shown me the honour of attending to respond to my statement today.

B.C.'s health care system is in serious trouble. As our population ages and its ethnic diversity increases' as new diseases arise — like AIDS and the mysterious syndrome of chronic fatigue — the stresses on a complex system seem to grow continuously. Sadly, a health system once considered the envy of most nations now fails at times to meet its most basic mandate: the timely and appropriate care of life-threatening illness.

During our 1990 session we reviewed in some detail many problems of health care in British Columbia. The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, so ably chaired by Mr. Justice Peter Seaton, has travelled to the farthest reaches of our province, recently even to Fort Ware and Ingenika, to hear from the people and from those who serve them in our health system.

The problems are well known to the public: long waits for surgery; inadequate community mental health facilities; overworked nurses; marginalization of disabled people and of aboriginals. I will discuss some of them later today in my reply to the Speech from the Throne, but now I would like to address some of the possible solutions to our problems as I perceive them after two years in the role of opposition critic for health issues. In those two years my eyes, and I hope my mind, have been opened far wider than they were by my medical education and training. Some of you might say that the latter permanently closed my mind, but I can hope that process was at least incomplete and that the edifying debates of this Legislature will contribute to opening it further.

I have learned, in their homes, from disabled people and their families. I have learned from the mentally ill and from the sick or infirm elderly, who are often coping heroically at home with the barest minimum of support.

I have also seen at first hand the constructive innovation which has taken place, for example, in the Victoria Health Project, where I observed firsthand an experienced nurse of the quick-response team arrange within hours for the early discharge, with appropriate home support, of an elderly woman who had recently been blinded.

I have admired the sagacity, the incorruptible humanity and the practical abilities of John Turvey and his colleagues in the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society of Vancouver, with their pioneering needle exchange project, which has become a world leader in preventing the transmission of AIDS, of hepatitis and of other lethal diseases among injection drug users.

I have been impressed by the political courage of the public health doctors and the Vancouver city politicians who have risked their credibility, at a time when not everyone would have done so, to bring sound public health practices to a province which sometimes would rather look backward than forward.

Most impressive of all, Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed native people struggling to overcome the linked scourges of alcoholism, sexual abuse, chronic poverty, cultural extinction and oppression. I have followed the pioneering work of people like Angie Todd-Dennis of the native health professions program at UBC, and I have been encouraged to see that the understanding of the root causes of native health problems has percolated through to groups like the B.C. Medical Association and the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia, which have now joined the aboriginal communities in calling for a planned, coordinated, sustained, and provincewide effort to address those roots of poverty, of alcoholism and of abuse.

Although the Health critic's lot is to be exposed often and thoroughly to the tragedies of our society, I have also been given cause for great optimism, because I have met literally thousands of British Columbians eager to improve our health care system and to make it respond optimally to the needs of our citizens. From the mothers of disabled children through the front-line nurses, practical nurses and aides, the community support workers, the physicians, the medical scientists, and even the oft-maligned administrators, there is an enormous idealism in our people. Our job as legislators is to stimulate and tap that idealism, not to frustrate it.

Let me turn to what I view as some priorities for action towards the renewed health system and improved health for all British Columbians.

First, above all, prevention. We know in many areas what to do, but we seem to lack the will to act. Tobacco is our number one public enemy. The tobacco epidemic must be contained. The tobacco pushers must be shamed. The ten thousand young British Columbians who are succumbing to tobacco addiction this year alone must be protected, just as we would wish to protect them from addiction to cocaine, to heroin or to alcohol.

I have previously detailed in this House — on July 14, 1989, and July 13, 1990 — the measures I believe are necessary to protect our children from tobacco. Last year I presented private member's bills in this Legislature which could help British Columbia lead the world in preventing tobacco addiction. In the estimates debate last year I outlined additional measures which the Minister of Health — by the stroke of a pen — could take. I stand by those statements and encourage this government, even in its dying days, to salvage some measure of public esteem by acting forcefully against tobacco. Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Finance has that opportunity, even now as we await the budget.

Alcohol is an equal scourge, and what it does not cost in direct mortality or physical illness it charges back to us in social costs and so-called accidents such as motor vehicle "accidents, " more properly referred to as collisions. A broad strategy to combat alcohol abuse is far beyond the scope of this brief statement, but suffice it to say that there are concrete steps we can take, ranging from messages on product labels and at

[ Page 12009 ]

points of purchase warning against fetal alcohol syndrome and the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy through to'a sustained commitment to community and hospital treatment of alcoholism.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member. Time has expired.

In response, the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising and commenting on behalf of the Minister of Health, and also in taking the opportunity to give some of my observations on what happened in my term as Minister of Health and to respond as to how effective I think the Health critic has been in addressing some health issues in the province.

I think the public expects that a Health critic should bring forward broad issues of concern and suggestions for improvements to the system, and should present what are, in his opinion, community interests. I want to say that as I have seen it, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, during his term as Health critic, has been very ineffective in all of those areas.

If you recall last year, his debate on the budget was totally abysmal. His questions in the House have not reflected those broad concerns I talked about. His statements to the public exhibited an amazing lack of knowledge, no vision and no foresight. Perhaps he is too busy with other things.

Let me give you an example. We believe in bringing health care to communities. We believe that we should bring those services to the communities rather than demand that people come to the Vancouver area to receive health care. That is our initiative, and where that is impossible....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

HON. J. JANSEN: In listening to the throne speech.... We are bringing into position a travel allowance system to help families take care of the costs incurred as a result of that. I cannot recall one time that that member brought that forward as an initiative that that party stood for.

But let me tell you what he did do. The House will recall the cancer clinic initiative. We brought forward the initiative of bringing cancer treatment closer to people in the communities. What did he do? He showed nothing but contempt for the people of Kamloops. To use his own words, he said that the minister "spat in the face of the cancer clinic." He has spat in the face of the people of Kamloops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. J. JANSEN: Shame! I wonder if his feelings are the same for the people of Prince George, who want a cancer clinic in their community. Perhaps the member would like to comment on that. I know that the people in Prince George.... I see the member from Prince George is here and is disagreeing with my thought that maybe the people of Prince George would like a cancer clinic.

When we negotiated the agreement with the BCMA, he failed to understand his conflict of interest. He stood here in House and brought forward initiatives respecting that negotiation when it was for his own pocketbook. He was an embarrassment to that socialist party and to the people of British Columbia. I guess it's difficult to bite the hand that feeds you.

His presentation to the royal commission was an example of how ineffective, how lacking of vision, how poorly thought out... He appeared to be totally unprepared for the presentation. It's a shame, because that opportunity only presents itself once in a lifetime.

I also get mixed messages from this member. Let me quote what he said to my own community, the wonderful community of Chilliwack. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey said: "British Columbia's health care system is the most cost-efficient in the world. It runs 25 percent cheaper than the U.S., but costs still have to be cut, and errant hospital bureaucracies have to be brought into line." Well, I look forward to his budget debate when it comes forward.

I have another quote. I see my time has expired, but I'd sure like to carry on, because I have some wonderful things to put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey concludes.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'd love to hear more from the minister. It's been quite amusing and entertaining. Perhaps he will allow us the luxury of a budget debate, and maybe even an estimates debate. I'd be delighted to bring forward some response to the points he raised.

Just to reply to one comment regarding the regionalization of services, it was the member for Prince Rupert sitting on this side of the House who repeatedly insisted on the importance of travel assistance for sick people in rural and remote parts of British Columbia needing assistance.

I have begged the minister repeatedly by letter to allow travel assistance for people suffering from cancer who now must be exported from our province — to the humiliation of our citizens — to Washington State for routine cancer radiotherapy treatment. I have asked that minister to pay for their travel costs, and he has refused. But he doesn't want to hear. Of course, he has run away.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to return to the points I was making on prevention. Premature births are costing us millions of dollars in immediate hospital care for the newborn, with enormous family disruption for parents and untold costs and difficulties in the long-term care of babies who survive with severe disabilities. Are we doing all we can to prevent premature births? The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs was told last fall by professional midwives from the Grace Hospital in Vancouver that the potential exists to reduce premature labour by innovations in prenatal care and education. Last year we passed in this House the Health Professions Act. Mr. Speaker, you were presiding over part of that debate; you will remember

[ Page 12010 ]

it. Isn't it time for the Health Professions Council to move on the licensing of appropriately trained professional midwives so that we can turn loose that pool of talent on the problems of prematurity? We could become world leaders by extending high-quality and effective prenatal care to those pregnant women who for whatever reason are now marginalized.

[11:15]

Consider immunization, Mr. Speaker. Public health doctors tried for four years to obtain funds to immunize high-risk British Columbians against hepatitis B, which is a potentially fatal and transmissible disease that claims about 50 lives each year in this province. Only when Mrs. Bobbi Bower of Langley was willing to share with the world the story of her daughter Autumn's tragic and preventable death at age 16, did we see action.

I believe it may be time for universal childhood immunization against hepatitis B. I have been pushing the former Minister of Health as vigorously as I can in that direction. From my research I have learned that this might be achieved for something like $5 to $10 per child in this province. Is that cost too high a price to pay for protection of our children? I would like to see us join 42 other countries, including the United States and New Zealand, to move forward rapidly in preventive health when we have the opportunity

The same could be said for immunization against hemophilus influenza B, which is a cause of infant meningitis. Will we be among the first to use this new vaccine? I hope so.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out. Perhaps I can return to some of these issues in my reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, while your replacement is taking the chair, I'll just take a moment to organize my papers and perhaps explain — in case there is anyone watching this today — to such people as may have wondered why some of us on both sides of the Legislature are wearing carnations. Not only was this Mental Health Week, but also Multiple Sclerosis Week. While members are taking their seats, I'd like to acknowledge the courage of the people in British Columbia who suffer from that disease, and the dedication of the health professionals who look after them, including the scientists who are making an enormous effort worldwide to come to grips with that terrible problem.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition expressed an alternative vision for this province. I was proud to take my place on this side of the Legislature, hoping that the people of British Columbia were listening to him, because he enunciated a vision quite different from that which we see in this flimsy document camouflaged by the coat of arms of the province of British Columbia which, in my view, really represents the abdication of political responsibility.

I listened carefully as the Lieutenant-Governor pronounced the speech. I have read and re-read this document, and I find it remarkably flimsy as we enter and progress through a new decade and approach the twenty-first century.

I can only try to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition which we heard yesterday. It behooves us to once in a while pause and be thankful for what we have in this province and this country. It behooves us to think once in a while of the millions of people now facing starvation in Bangladesh or in Sudan and of those who are the casualties in a dozen different countries or more, as well as the casualties of the Persian Gulf War, and to remind ourselves that we are remarkably fortunate. No matter what the delinquency is of our governments at times, fortunately we have a talented population which keeps us somehow steered on a reasonable course towards the future. Fortunately, in the people resides not only wisdom, but enough power sometimes to prevent the harm that governments would do to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I was proudest of all yesterday listening to the Leader of the Opposition as he talked about the problem of resolving the aboriginal land question and the complex issues of aboriginal rights. The Leader of the Opposition — the first member for Vancouver Centre — has shown exemplary political leadership on that question, not only in this province but in this country.

When I entered politics a short two years ago, native land issues were scarcely talked about in this country One could hark back to the time of Tom Berger, who on this date 14 years ago produced the Mackenzie Valley pipeline committee report and directed the attention of many Canadians, for the first time, to the seriousness of aboriginal land issues.

But there was a long hiatus, and my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, was perhaps the first politician of prominence in this country to courageously tackle that issue consistently, no matter where in this province, no matter where in this country, before chambers of commerce, before native Indian groups, before women's groups, before environmental groups, before trade union groups, before every audience that I have ever heard him speak at, including immigrant population and multicultural groups. He had raised the issue of the aboriginal land question and the historical injustice to native people.

I remember well, when I first entered this House only two years ago, how members of the government side laughed at him; they laughed at me. They laughed at my colleague sitting beside me during the debate on the Pacific Spirit Park Musqueam land claim issue.

We've come a long way in this province in understanding those issues, and it reflects enormous credit on the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he will have the opportunity to show that leadership in a more challenging role soon, when he will have the ability to cash in on that investment — the investment he and others have made — and to finally help to bring justice to the native people who have sought it in their own dignified way for so long.

[ Page 12011 ]

I was impressed to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and the likely next Premier, describe careful, practical and far-reaching measures and policies that form part of a program for the protection of our environment. Virtually nowhere in this Speech from the Throne do we find any insight into the seriousness of the global environmental problem. Do we see any reference in this speech to global warming, ozone depletion, the global population problem, the poverty of the rest of the world and the impact that pollution and excessive consumption of resources and energy in our lifestyle and in our province and in our country have on the development potential of the rest of the world? Two short years after the establishment of the round tables, do we find any reference in this speech to the Brundtland commission report? If it's there, it eluded my notice. I've read that speech, and I listened to it carefully, and I see no serious commitment.

But I did hear from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday a carefully developed program to address those issues. I heard specific commitments to the need to preserve wilderness and parkland in this province, not the charade of a public consultation process, beautifully carried out by a ministry under one of the most effective ministers it has had in years or under a deputy minister who allowed and arranged for public consultation and serious input from the public all over this province, only to be sacked just as the process was completed, treating with contempt those people who had participated in that process — the minister to be sacked also, just in the middle of that process. In contrast, we see on this side of the House a clear commitment to double parks and wilderness in the province and a clear commitment to the Brundtland target.

And what did we see from government members at that time — soon, we hope, to be opposition members? We saw laughter when the Leader of the Opposition made that commitment.

What about the agricultural land reserve? It's something so highly treasured by British Columbians that even now I see that the Minister of Native Affairs, the first member for Delta, had in his own riding a public rebellion — the first popular revolution in Canada — in a sense. His own citizens held a plebiscite to overturn what his government's policies led to: the exclusions from the agricultural land reserve of land which belonged in there.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition renew his commitment to the ecological importance of the agricultural land reserve and his commitment to ensure that farmers are able to make a decent living in this province, and that agriculture, not even mentioned in this throne speech, is a sustainable industry in this province.

Believe it or not, members of the government side from rural constituencies, some of us from urban constituencies — like my colleagues beside me and I — take seriously the agriculture industry in this province and are willing to work for it and willing to fight for our own consumers to buy British Columbia produce and not simply truck over the border to buy the cheaper, contaminated produce that they can get from California. We take it seriously, and we're offended that there is no mention of agriculture in this speech, because that is our future, just as it has been our past, as an agricultural people that found we could no longer live as hunter-gatherers some hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I was disappointed in the Speech from the Throne in its short shrift to forestry, the principal industry in this province. In my riding, my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I have organized seminars. We have listened to the forest industry, to the unions and to the environmentalists. We have tried to educate ourselves about that industry, which is the backbone of this province. We have heard from the new dean of the school of forestry at UBC that a $1 billion investment is needed in forestry each year to make us sustainable and competitive in the future.

Did we hear any commitment in the Speech from the Throne to a serious investment in reforestation, in silviculture? I heard nothing. In the confusing budget announcements of the various ex-Ministers of Finance, I have heard no long-term commitment to serious silvicultural forestry. I see ongoing overcut.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: I see that members opposite are uncomfortable hearing about this. They're heckling and laughing because they realize how they have sold out the long-term future of our citizens by their grotesque mismanagement of the forest industry. I see the member for Omineca, who himself presided over that system as Minister of Forests for a period of a year or two and had the gall to stand up in this Legislature and denounce the then Minister of Forests for mismanagement.... And now again he has the gall to revert to the government side at the last minute, thinking that he can save his hide and deny what he said in this House before about the mismanagement of the forest industry.

In education, we heard this morning the statement from the former Minister of Tourism, the disgraced member of the hall of shame, who no longer sits here today to listen. We heard an attack on teachers at the very time when we need to be building our education system and when we should recognize, regardless of the complexities of funding and the ultimate limit which the Leader of the Opposition emphasized himself yesterday, that government must be accountable to taxpayers. Regardless of that, we heard mockery of the concept that education is the single most important investment we can make in our future.

Last year, in response to my questions about the importance of sex education and education about public health for our school students, the former Minister of Education urged me to investigate the "Learning for Living" curriculum. I did so despite that former minister's absolute paranoia and insistence that he send a couple of extra supervisors to the meeting to review curriculum to make sure that I wasn't doing anything political. I put that letter from the former minister into my humour file....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or wacko file.

[ Page 12012 ]

MR. PERRY: Or wacko file. He invited me and in fact urged me to review the "Learning for Living" curriculum. When I sat down to do so with his own officials, he became paranoid and worried that his officials might tell me something inappropriate. What he was worried about, I have no idea. But I did review that curriculum, and I satisfied myself it's an excellent curriculum. It reflects very creditably upon that Ministry of Education. But is it being put into action? In some school districts, yes. I've seen beautiful evidence of that in school-aged children with whom I've talked about tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse. In other school districts, no. I hear from educators, public health nurses and other sources that what is missing is the political leadership to ensure this program reaches our students. I heard no commitment to that excellent program in the Speech from the Throne.

[11:30]

I could talk about housing. I could and will talk about poverty and women's issues. We were visited during the last mini-session in March by representatives of women attempting to raise children on social assistance with single incomes. Last November I heard Ms. Gus Long of Burnaby address the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs forum on the impact of poverty on health. The reality is often shocking. I see a government unwilling to face it, a government whose ministers have distinguished themselves time and again by saying that young, single mothers are throwing their money away, are not dressing their children properly and are not making sandwiches for them in the morning — the root cause of those children's hunger in school. At the last minute, as the last gasp of a dying government, we see in this speech a mention of feeding hungry schoolchildren. That was forced on this government by the poor children themselves, by the Vancouver School Board, by — dare I say it? — physicians in Vancouver who recognize the problem, by End Legislated Poverty, by Ms. Gus Long, by the deliberations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and by the embarrassment caused by the British Columbia Nutrition Council, the organization of professional nutritionists in this province, when it pointed out publicly that those children do not have access to an adequate diet. It was a humiliation for us in a time of general wealth.

I could talk about disabled people. Do I hear anything in this speech about the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities? It is an excellent undertaking begun perhaps through the good offices of the former Minister of Health who sits here, the first member for Central Fraser Valley, and by the former Premier — an excellent body widely representative of the people of British Columbia which reports to government. Do I hear any commitment that their deliberations will now be made public? In the reference to access for information, may I take it as granted that the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities will now publish its reports, including those already submitted? Will we see them during the life of this House? I wish I were optimistic, but I doubt it. I challenge the new Minister of Health, if he's listening anywhere, and the Premier, if she is listening to anyone these days, to release those reports and respect their commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

Under freedom of information I could cite you chapter and verse of reports like the report of the Provincial Advisory Committee on AIDS, which was suppressed by the former Ministers of Health, never released, although we asked for it frequently Let us see that report if there is a commitment to openness. Let us see that, it recommended measures only now announced at a public international AIDS conference, at the very last gasp of a dying government, measures which could have prevented cases of AIDS in this province, could have helped prevent the spread of the epidemic, could have prevented the deaths of innocent British Columbians, had they been published and enacted earlier — and were not enacted purely out of ignorance.

I could talk about the scandal of the Expo lands sale, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to yesterday. It doesn't hurt to remind us once in a while, as we are barraged by charges from the other side of the House that we are fiscally irresponsible, that we argued against the catastrophic sale of that property — the absolute giveaway worth, at a conservative estimate, at least $150 million in lost money to the taxpayers of B.C. and perhaps as much as $600 million or even a billion dollars. If you look at the estimate of Brian Calder, former president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and friend of many members opposite, he thought that the Expo lands deal cost us as much as $600 million or more compared to what we might have made for the responsible sale of those lands. We're still cleaning up that mess. We're still paying for the cleanup of those toxic soils out of your and my pockets, Mr. Speaker, and more importantly, out of those of people less fortunate than us, who pay a higher share of taxes by virtue of measures like the GST and the lack of progressive taxes in this province.

I want to turn to a few health care issues, because we may not be allowed a debate in this House. The House has sat very seldom during this parliament. I do not take it for granted that we will.be allowed a budget debate, and therefore I will raise some measures today. I would love to have the opportunity to ask the minister questions face to face, but I see the minister doesn't have the.... Even the former Minister of Health who was here moments ago is afraid to be sitting here and listening to me face to face.

Let us turn to the problem of heart surgery. We know that British Columbians have died while on the, heart surgery waiting-lists. The case of Mrs. Mary Sallis was raised in this House. Mrs. Salfis's widower is suing the government of British Columbia and the Vancouver General Hospital because they did not provide a dying woman adequate basic health care guaranteed under the Canada Health Act and under the founding principles of medicare.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew says the government is responsible. I could not agree more. This government did virtually nothing to prevent such problems, and it moved at a snail's pace to correct them.

[ Page 12013 ]

Some measures have been taken. There is now a surgical registry. There is now a standardized policy for criteria for open-heart surgery and for rating the urgency of patients. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I would like to think that the opposition had some role, however small, in pushing the government into those initiatives. Perhaps it was the people of B.C. who did so; it doesn't really matter. What counts is that finally it's happening, but regrettably it had to wait until the last minute of this government.

Somehow methinks the Minister of Health has been a little too complacent. For example, on February 11, when he announced the opening of a new heart-surgery unit at the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, according to the report by Anne Mullens in the Vancouver Sun of February 12, 1991, and confirmed by the member for New Westminster — who, while not invited to the ceremony, chose to attend and heard the comments verbatim — he stated: "By the end of the year" — that would be 1991 — "we expect to have performed almost 600 more cardiac procedures than last year." He added that waiting-times for openheart surgery have been cut to an average of 11 days from 20. He repeated that untruth in a letter to the Vancouver Province a few days later, subsequently admitting a typographical error, that the correct figures were 20 weeks and 10 weeks.

I have in my hands the waiting-lists from the Vancouver General Hospital at the same time, the hospital that performs the bulk of open-heart surgery in B.C. The lists, compiled by the admitting services at that hospital, show that as of February 1, 1991, the average wait at that hospital for open-heart surgery was 20 weeks. That would mean that if the minister's statement was correct, the waiting-time for open-heart surgery at the other hospitals that perform it would have had to be zero or negative days. In other words, the surgery would have to have been performed before the patient even asked for it for his statistics to be right. That disturbs me, because it's misleading the people, and it betrays the former minister's ignorance of the real situation in this province.

I see that my time is running out. I want to briefly address one last question. I will go from here to a citizenship ceremony for new Canadians at Point Grey Secondary School in my riding. One of the most fulfilling jobs I can do as a member of the Legislature is to greet new Canadians, people who, like myself, have chosen this country because of their sense of optimism in what we can do. They feel that way not so much about this province but in fact about this country called Canada.

I would not want to sit down in this debate without saying to you and to the other members of this assembly that as someone who chose to be a Canadian citizen 21 years ago, I will fight for this country. I will fight for its unity, and I will fight with members of my party to make sure that it stays together, that it blossoms and that the optimism and the idealism and the talents of our people are genuinely fulfilled in this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair would like to comment that it is 12 years ago today that four members who are still here were elected to the Legislature. They are: the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) and the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I wish them a happy anniversary

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is certainly my privilege to respond today to the Speech from the Throne by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, David Lam.

As the new Minister of Native Affairs I am especially pleased that many of the areas highlighted in the Lieutenant-Governor's remarks are areas of concern to aboriginal people in British Columbia.

The announcement of a special legislative committee to hear the views of British Columbians on constitutional change is indeed a welcome one. A recognition that a new social era for Canada must include accommodation of native Canadians as an essential part of a strong Canadian community will be good news for all the aboriginal people of British Columbia. The government has made a strong commitment to address the difficult economic climate facing British Columbia today and a commitment to native involvement in the building of the Iskut road in northern B.C.

My ministry's Native Economic Development Advisory Board will continue to advise us on economic development and strategies that will ensure that native people are involved in the economic mainstream of the province of British Columbia.

The new employment equity initiatives targeting aboriginal peoples, among others, are a welcome addition to our existing efforts in this area. The $1.4 billion forest renewal program has been reaffirmed, and initiatives to preserve and protect our environment have been announced.

It is the government's intention to keep aboriginal interests in mind in the development and implementation of all government policies, and especially to fulfil our obligations to consult with aboriginal people on policies that might affect their traditional activities.

My ministry is currently participating in a joint task force on native forestry with the Intertribal Forestry Association and other government ministries. We are also participating on resource management plans with the Nisga'as.

The Lieutenant-Governor has announced that there will be new strategies for child protection and expanded services to help victims of family violence that will benefit native and other citizens of British Columbia.

The expansion of post-secondary education through the new University of Northern British Columbia and the proposed creation of a degree-granting university in the Fraser Valley will significantly increase the ability of aboriginal students to access higher education.

Perhaps most importantly, the government has made a commitment to build on its successes in negotiating a new relationship with British Columbia's

[ Page 12014 ]

aboriginal citizens. The Lieutenant-Governor mentioned the progress that has been made since last August when cabinet accepted the recommendation of the Premier's Council on Native Affairs to change its 119-year-old land claims policy and become directly involved with the federal government and native leaders in claims negotiations. I give credit to my colleague the hon. former Minister of Native Affairs.

[11:45]

Signing of the first land claims framework agreement in the province's history with the Nisga'a Tribal Council is the beginning of substantive negotiations with Canada and the Nisga'a people. We will participate with Canada and the First Nations Summit on a tripartite task force on native affairs. The native claims will be determined and a procedure will be put in place as how best to proceed with those claims. Cabinet is looking forward to receiving the recommendations of the task force as early as next month.

There will be creation of a third-party advisory committee, comprising both management and labour of major resource industries in the province, to advise us on land and resource negotiations. There will be a commitment by the province to contribute its fair and proper share of aboriginal settlements.

All the citizens of British Columbia deserve a degree of certainty, which modern-day treaties can provide. The vast majority of British Columbians believe justice has not been done in a moral, political or economic sense. Government must find honourable and just ways of resolving long-standing issues.

In addition, this government has undertaken and will continue to support significant initiatives in culture, heritage, language, education and native social services. A $10.7 million five-year grant program supporting native heritage has been announced for the establishment of language and culture centres across the province. The program is administered by a Crown agency whose majority of members are aboriginal people and which has access to advice from all tribal councils in the province. The first grants from the program will be issued later this month.

The Ministry of Education will continue to support native control and input into the primary and secondary system through local agreements between bands and school districts.

The Ministry of Health will continue to provide preventive services and health education programs for native people, such as its native AIDS education program.

The Ministries of Attorney-General, Solicitor-General and Native Affairs will continue to consult and work with native people to make the justice system more accessible, relevant and responsive to native concerns.

I would like to make the following points. The province is sincere in its commitment to resolve native land claims and any other outstanding grievances of aboriginal people. We are committed to representing the interests of all British Columbians in our negotiations with aboriginal peoples. We will be flexible in our approach to negotiations and will continue to press for processes that are faster, more open and more effective than in the past. This government is committed to reaching agreements that are fair to both native and non-native people and affordable to the taxpayers of British Columbia. At the same time, we take very seriously our fiduciary obligations to native people and our commitment to come to a new arrangement with aboriginal peoples in the province.

British Columbia is prepared to work with the government of Canada to examine and improve the economic, social and cultural situation of aboriginal peoples so that they can share more equitably in the opportunities of this great province.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment or two to talk about a number of things that were stated in the throne speech. I am pleased to be able to stand here today and remind people that the government of British Columbia has for the past four and a half years governed extremely well from the perspective of having the province be in the forefront of the economy of Canada. It seems funny — I was sitting here listening to the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey make some comments about different sectors. If you were to take a look at the commitment this government has made in a number of the sectors he referred to, I believe people would realize very clearly how lucky we really are in British Columbia. The government has done a fantastic job in providing for the people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'd like to refer to an often-used statement; it was used quite a bit around this assembly last year. That was the one made by Mr. Krog, the candidate in the Nanaimo area. It seems to me scandalous that Mr. Krog could not continue to say what he thought and what he knew. It is scandalous that Mr. Krog has virtually not been heard from since. What he did was tell the truth. What has the opposition got to hide? It's funny that Mr. Krog could get up and say that they may have to spend $3 billion more to deliver the programs that the opposition says might be required to be delivered in this province. Who would be paying for that? You don't hear very much from Mr. Krog anymore. He was being totally honest. Isn't that something, that we can't have honesty from the other side? Somebody wanted to espouse honesty, and he has now got a buttoned lip. I find that very hard to accept.

MR. MILLER: Take it easy on us.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, I'll take it easy on you, all right.

It's kind of nice to see the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew sitting opposite. It seems I recollect that member standing after the throne speech last Tuesday. If I recollect properly the words in Hansard, there was an attack on the credibility of my family and especially my parents. I take exception....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Sir, I ask you to look in Hansard.

[ Page 12015 ]

I again take exception to the fact that somebody could rise in this House and criticize the efforts of people who have worked very hard to establish themselves, who have worked the earth all their lives and I believe deserve a lot more credit than was shown by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in his statements. I don't believe the people of British Columbia are ready to accept that, Mr. Speaker. I think they will realize what that statement really means. I give a lot of credit to the people who have worked so hard to make this province what it really is. Their efforts should make us proud to sit in this assembly and debate issues on their behalf — not to criticize. I despise that type of attack on people who've given their lives to that sort of effort, for each and every one of us to have a better opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that I'd like to raise. I've heard a lot of talk from the people opposite about scandals. I'll tell you, there's a lot of paper here. I guess I could go on and on and use up the rest of my time talking about people on the opposite side.

For that matter I could go back to Ontario. Ontario seems to have a predominance of problems. The opposition in British Columbia likes to think that there's a problem here. I find it very funny that we can only concentrate on British Columbia, when in fact I believe there was a machine, or part of a machine, which headed east when the Ontario NDP government was elected. It went to draft part of the budget that was presented in Ontario. I think that budget is atrocious; in fact, it is scandalous.

The NDP in Ontario said they would deliver a budget deficit of $2 billion. What did they come up with? Nearly a $10 billion deficit. That is horrible. No wonder the people of Ontario have such low morale. I was talking to some people from Toronto yesterday, and they are appalled at what they may well face over the next three or four years. I hope the people of British Columbia come to realize that if the NDP gets in, I would lay odds that we'll be facing the same difficulties here. I don't believe the people will accept that. I believe they will realize that the government has managed this province extremely well on behalf of all people's interests and concerns. I could go on and on.

It was interesting that we introduced a federal member from Victoria in this House yesterday. I guess I could go on, with papers galore here too, about a gentleman who is supposed to set an example as a politician and show leadership. This gentleman declared bankruptcy because of his own inability to pay his debts. The taxpayers bore the cost of his debts. This gentleman draws his income from the taxpayers. If that isn't scandalous, I don't know what is. If politicians are to lead by example, then that is a terrible example of the ability to lead.

MR. MILLER: Gosh darn!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You're darn right it's "gosh darn!" It is a horrible example. Everyone else in society is obligated to pay debts. Above all, politicians should show leadership and guidance. I think it is extremely deplorable that some effort was not arranged to bear the cost, as everybody else would have to do if they were in debt or carried a mortgage — including politicians; probably some in this Legislature. That gentleman should have had the same obligation. Otherwise, he should have resigned.

I'd like to carry on with a couple more things, Mr. Speaker. I know very well that there has been a lot of discussion about a number of the issues before this House. Certainly I've heard a lot of discussion about education. I'd like to show the people what this province has accomplished. If I could show the expenditures....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not permitted and not acceptable to the Chair under any circumstances.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm sure the members opposite will get a chance to view the information that is available to them which will show that this province leads very well in presenting a proper funding level for education. I think we've done extremely well in providing for services. If you look at the amount that was committed from last year's budget, nearly 70 percent was expenditures for social programs. Whether it's for education, advanced education, health care or social services, it's a very large commitment by the province.

I'd also like to say that from the point of view of the options people have, I think they are going to realize that the government has done an excellent job in making sure there is stability for their future, for their children, and that there is opportunity for people. Not what we may well see in Ontario, where I'm sure many people are questioning what the future is for their young people. How much debt is going to be passed on to future generations by succeeding budgets that will be brought in by the NDP government in the province of Ontario? I think what they will be facing will be disastrous. I wouldn't want to be looking forward to sending my children — to have to look to a future in Ontario. I'd be glad to continue to work hard, and credibly, on my children's behalf and on everybody's children's behalf right here in British Columbia. I think we have done an excellent job as government, and I believe we will continue, hon. member, to serve the people of British Columbia come the time of election.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm offered an enormous amount of unsolicited advice from members who forget that if they stood in their place they'd be recognized.

[12:00]

MR. SIHOTA: You should never get out of this chamber and talk to a reporter.

Interjection.

[ Page 12016 ]

MR. SIHOTA: It's always bound to get you in trouble.

I want to talk about a number of issues. The throne speech gives us an opportunity, perhaps once a year in a rather unrestrained way, to talk about a number of concerns and to speak to matters in general. Therefore I want to talk at the outset in a general way about a number of issues and a little bit about some issues that pertain to my own riding.

I couldn't help but note the comments that were being made earlier today during statements, and yesterday during the course of debate on the throne speech, related to the whole issue of changes to our political process, the cynicism that people feel about politicians and how people feel alienated from the political process. I think it's fair to say that that concern is on both sides of the House, and I think that the debate, particularly this morning, demonstrated that that is of concern to all of us.

I really didn't want during my comments this morning to get too partisan, but I want to talk a little bit about the failure of right-wing politics and rightwing values, and the way in which the political approach of the right has gotten.us into one heck of a mess in this country These are very troubled times in Canada. I guess when you have troubled times, there are the challenges to meet those troubles.

There is, in my mind, a real vacuum in terms of leadership, particularly at the national level in this country, at a time when this country is in the midst of some confusion as to its own identity and where it wants to go. We have the strong feelings emanating from~Quebec; we have traditionally had a strong sense of western alienation. We've always had the view on this side of the Rockies that people in Ottawa don't listen, and often political mileage is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must ring the bells; we lack a quorum.

MR. SIHOTA: There is, in my mind, a legitimate need to sort of sit back and pull oneself away from the partisan rhetoric that goes on in here and think a little bit about where we're going as a country. I think that a lot has to be resolved among all of us as Canadians, and there needs to be some time or space or moment to reflect on why we're here — not so much here in the chamber but here in this country — and what we want.

There have always been discussions about national identity in Canada, but even those discussions don't seem to be as salient now as they were, for example, 15 or 20 years ago. People seem to be so locked into views — parochial views often, in terms of the province that they represent, and the views of that province vis-AL-vis national and constitutional issues, be it people from Quebec or people from British Columbia. They seem to advocate whatever seems to be in the parochial interests of their province. In addition to that, there just doesn't seem to be much in terms of leadership at the federal and national level in bringing together some of the divergent views in this country.

It seems that people are so wrapped up in their day-to-day lives, going from paycheque to paycheque, meeting the immediate concerns of their families and attending to some of the economic concerns which face them on a regular basis. People aren't pausing to reflect about this country — what makes this country tick and what values should underlie this country as we move towards the turn of the century and try to solve our problems.

There doesn't seem to be at the national level — and I think it is a legitimate concern — any willingness to bring Canadians together, to think about what we want and where we want to go as a nation. That's really unfortunate in terms of the times that we have.

People have to begin to feel good about this country again. They have to begin to feet good about what we are as Canadians and where we want to go. That sense of feeling good just isn't there right now as we remain in this period of political acrimony and parochial interests.

Interjection

MR. SIHOTA: If they want to heckle, that's fine. I'll deal with the points you raise, Mr. Minister. I'll be happy to talk about some of the political situations in this province. In fact, I will.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: In the interest of lowering the acrimony.

MR. SIHOTA: When I talk about acrimony, I'm talking about acrimony as it relates to constitutional issues in this country. There has to be some will nationally to pull people together. In developing that will, there has to be some give and take. Certain provinces are going to have to give, and others are going to have to take. There is going to have to be a commitment to national programs, institutions and standards.

At the same time, there is going to have to be a recognition that it is in the interests of this country to have Quebec be a part of this country. The culture and the values that they cherish in that province should be something that we as Canadians should take pride in and perhaps become more informed about.

For what it's worth, I am expressing a lot of concern about what's happening nationally and wondering how we're going to find our way out of the kind of mess. we've created. Some of the suggestions that people have made are reasonable. Suggestions along the lines of a constituent assembly are perhaps reasonable for remedying some of the concerns. It is clear that the kind of process used in Meech Lake is something that's unacceptable to people in Canada now. In that regard, that process ought not to be duplicated.

But even then, whatever flows out of the concept of constituent assembly has to be acceptable to the country as a whole. Therefore I think that there is legitimate room for debate around the need for some type of referendum to develop the Canadian consensus on where we're going on these issues. There must be some way we can draft a referendum question or document that gives people some hope and inspiration that this is a nation that's still worth preserving.

[ Page 12017 ]

So some of the suggestions that have been put out around the resolution of our constitutional problems are legitimate. Underlying all that is this view that people — and I will make a note to myself about a social and economic charter, because that's something that's worthy of comment in terms of where we're going today... But when you reflect on what's happened, one of the real reasons the process of Meech Lake and others hasn't worked to date and why people scorn even the Spicer commission today is that there's this underlying sense of cynicism about the political process — this view that politicians don't listen.

All of us in this chamber are concerned about that kind of attitude gaining some level of prominence in society, because I think each of us as individual MLAs likes to think that we listen to our constituents, that we endeavour to react to their concerns and seek to reflect their views and values both in terms of this chamber and outside.

As much as we may like to think that way, it's clear that there's a broad consensus of opinion that the parliamentary system as we know it does not in the minds of people seem to work or reflect the view that their voice is being heard.

I said at the outset that I wanted to talk about the failure of right-wing governments. To a large extent the cynicism of the public — the view that "Well, you guys are all in it for yourselves" — is reinforced by some of the stuff that we've seen go on in British Columbia over the last four and a half years and the activities we've seen in this province with this administration. I don't want to belabour the point, but there is an overriding view in British Columbia today that the Social Credit government is a government that works for its own friends and insiders, and that it is a government that is more interested....

AN HON. MEMBER: ...our friends in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: It's troubling to see that the former Minister of Environment, who no longer has his job, says: "That's right, I work for my friends." That's exactly what people think. It's amazing to hear that member heckle and take pride in the fact that he believes that it's the role of his party to work for his friends. It's not surprising, therefore, to come to the conclusion that this is a government which tends to think of themselves and forget just who it is that they're here to represent, because the overriding view in the province today is that they work for themselves, they work for their friends, and they work for their insiders.

The track record in that regard is one that speaks for itself. When you get principal secretaries like David Poole fired and he gets a quarter of a million dollars to walk away from the province, it's amazing. When you take a look at cabinet ministers who give a quarter of a million dollars to their friends through a lottery program without even asking them to so much as fill out an application form, you bet people come to that type of conclusion. When you see a former disgraced Premier using his office to benefit himself personally, you bet people have every right to feel that sense of cynicism.

There is an obligation on the part of this chamber to make it clear to the population at large that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. The fundamental responsibility to make that clear, under our system, comes from the government. I don't think that has been happening with this administration, and because of its unwillingness to deal with those issues, people continue to have the kind of cynicism they have.

For the 4½ years I've been a member of this House, I've tabled legislation which gets to the heart of the matter: tough conflict-of-interest laws. You see, the conflict-of-interest problem isn't something that just came in the last four years. It's been there for many a year, and in fact, one only has to take a look back prior to the 1986 provincial election and read some of the statements that the former Premier, Mr. Bennett, had to make in light of some of the conflicts that arose while he was in office.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to the government that there's a need to attend to the matter of conflict of interest. There have been other jurisdictions in Canada that have spoken to and addressed the problem in a way to give people some measure of confidence that the issue is being handled. Here in British Columbia there has been no legislative measure of confidence. There have been words by the disgraced former Premier, who said, when he got elected in 1986, that he expected honesty, high standards and moral integrity from his government.

Now we've seen cabinet minister after cabinet minister resign in scandal. Then we saw the current acting interim Premier, who was appointed by her caucus to be the Premier, say that she expected the highest moral and ethical standards from her cabinet. Even before the House began, on opening day, they had already tossed out the first cabinet minister.

[12:15]

It's true. People get fed up. Quite honestly, they can't stomach this government much longer, and they can't stomach the inexcusable behaviour and personal advantage that individual members of this government have gotten from their office. You would think that this administration would have, if I can quote the former disgraced Premier, "the moxie" and the courage to present legislation that attends to the problem and says: "Look, folks, we understand there's been a lot of wrong in the past, and we propose to you strong, tough conflict of interest laws."

We've got a committee from the government saying: "We'll set up another committee to take a look at it." Come on!

We have tabled, as I said earlier on, a bill in this House for the last four and a half years. It is predicated on what other jurisdictions do. It analyzed the law of the federal government. It analyzed the law of the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba. We extracted from those laws the strongest elements of their legislation and injected them in a private member's bill that we have put before this House.

Our bill is very straightforward. It says that when a politician gets their hand caught in the conflict-of-

[ Page 12018 ]

interest cookie jar — when they've put it into the conflict-of-interest cookie jar — they're gone. They lose their seat. They lose their pay. They're gone.

It has another element that I want to talk about in a second, but contrast that with what Social Credit has done. I'll give the most recent example. We have a case with the former Premier, the first member for Richmond, who violated the conflict-of-interest guidelines that he himself wrote. Having violated them, what has happened? He's still got his seat; he's still got his pay; he's still here in this assembly Surely if they violate the most basic trust given to politicians, and violate conflict-of-interest rules, they should be gone. I think that's what the public wants, and for the life of me, I can't understand why the current administration can't bring itself to introduce conflict-of-interest laws that say that.

I want to talk about another dimension of the law we've proposed which really hasn't been talked about in this chamber; it should be talked about in the context of the former Premier. Under our law we say that an individual ought not to be able to benefit from the fruits of their illegality. I see the Solicitor-General listening. I'm glad he's here, because I know he's made a lot of speeches — we'll talk about that some other time; if we ever get into estimates, hopefully we'll be talking about it — about the need to be tough with people who break the law. I've heard a lot of his speeches. He gave one in Kamloops, I think, when I was up in that area, and in Vernon, and so on. I am sure he would agree with me that someone who does wrong ought not to benefit from the fruits of that wrongdoing. I see the Solicitor-General nodding in agreement with what I've got to say

We have a situation here.... Let me put it this way. In the law that we've proposed as New Democrats in terms of conflict of interest, we have said that if a politician benefits financially from a breach of the conflict-of-interest laws, he should pay restitution; he or she should not be able to benefit financially from their wrongdoing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. SIHOTA: I will. Take the case of the former Premier, now the first member for Richmond. He bought Fantasy Gardens, I believe, for somewhere around $1.6 million. He made some improvements, put some money into it; I understand that. He sold it for $16 million. He made a profit somewhere along the line, but he made that profit as a consequence of the breach of his responsibility... Sorry, in the course of making that profit, he breached....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I realize that you're responding to some heckling from across the court, but because the Speaker has this matter under consideration, it is a matter of privilege — and the matter is also before the courts. There will be ample opportunity for you to discuss it, I believe, once those matters have been dealt with, either in debate on the budget speech.... So the scope is pretty limited under anything else. Would you just restrict your comments.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not use a specific example, but what I'm trying to get at is that if someone benefits financially from wrongdoing, they ought not to maintain the fruits. I think that should be a central piece of any conflict-of-interest legislation. Not only should you lose your seat and your pay, but you should have to return or make restitution for the profit you secured. I think that should be a very basic and central ingredient of conflict-of-interest legislation, and I think it also ought to be a very basic and central portion of debate, as we debate these types of matters. But I'm pleased to say that in the law that I've introduced in this House, that would be the case: if you are found in breach, you must return the profit. I think the average person would find some comfort in the fact that that kind of law exists, so that no one can seem to benefit from their illegality.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Name names.

MR. SIHOTA: One element of restoring some measure of faith in people is that if politicians do wrong, they not only lose their seats and their pay, but they also have to return the profit they made.

There are other elements that are necessary to restore a measure of public confidence in the system. The Solicitor-General expresses a real frustration and is heckling that I'm not naming names. I don't think he heard what the Speaker had to say.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I could go into others if you want. The member opposite says "broad sweeps." Let's take a look at the individual allegations of conflict of interest that have been found in this administration. The first one was in 1987.

MR. KEMPF: Name names and do it out of this chamber. Have guts enough to do that.

MR. SIHOTA: If you want to heckle, go to your chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must remind the member for Omineca that he may interject only from his own seat.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Omineca....

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if you address the Chair, you will provoke the members a little less.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Omineca was sitting in another chair, but the way cabinet ministers have been revolving in this government, I just assumed he was now a minister. What have we had? We've had one cabinet minister appointed every two weeks during this administration. There are only five or six members of the Social Credit back bench who haven't been in cabinet. So you can excuse me for getting....

[ Page 12019 ]

There are other elements of restoring some measure of integrity in the political process. The second very necessary piece of legislation which should be introduced to restore some measure of confidence in the public mind is that the activities of those who seek to benefit personally and who mix personal business interests with their public responsibilities.... I think the second measure that needs to be introduced to accompany what I've said is freedom-of-information laws. The public — after all, they are our masters — should have access to pertinent documentation that records why the government took or didn't take any particular action. It is their government, it is their documentation, and they ought to be entitled to get access to it.

Other jurisdictions have introduced freedom-of-information legislation. I know my colleague the member for Burnaby North, who's not in here right now, has for years, in the tradition of this party.... It's always been the member for that riding who has introduced a freedom-of-information law. We put those on the books because we think that it is important that the public have access to those underlying documents that form the foundations of decisions. There are often a lot of questions arising in this House that can be answered one way or the other by the presence of those documents. We have seen over the past few years a lot of questions asked about the Expo land sale. We've seen a lot of questions about the Coquihalla Highway. We've seen a lot of questions being put most recently in the House about determinations involving Mr. Emerson and others.

I guess, in some way, in opposition you tend to think that you've only seen the tip of the scandal iceberg. Freedom-of-information laws would address a lot of the concerns that we have as an opposition in terms of what may or may not have been done and would provide government with a defence in terms of saying: "Yes, this is what we did, here's why we did it and here are the documents that prove it." It would probably go a long way towards evaporating some of the tension that often develops in this House.

To my way of thinking, it would only be sensible if we had those kinds of laws so as to open up government — to provide, as someone says, sunshine laws to allow for better scrutiny of the decisions that are made, and to allow for far more informed debate than sometimes happens when you don't have freedom-of-information laws.

This government has been asked over and over again, for the past four and a half years, to produce those laws. They haven't. We've even said: "Here's what we propose. Here's our private member's bill in that regard. Take it. Say it's yours." You've stolen ideas from us before. Introduce it. It's good law. It would open up parliament. It will attend to many of the problems and evaporate many of the difficulties that often arise. It's a sensible way to go. It is a way that is consistent with what is happening elsewhere in North America and in provinces across Canada. If you've got nothing to hide, it would seem to me you would have no hesitation in having that kind of legislation in place and introduced.

I say with some regret that over the past four and a half years we have not seen this administration come forward with freedom-of-information legislation that would open up the process, give us some knowledge as to why what is happening is happening, and perhaps give government an opportunity to better explain the basis for a particular decision. There's legitimate room for that type of legislation, and in my view, it is illegitimate for government not to put it forward.

The third thing that I think has to happen is that the powers of the ombudsman should be expanded. I know that consideration is being given now to putting an issue before the ombudsman. I don't want to talk about the issue that's currently before the House that may go to the ombudsman, but I want to say that there are provisions of the Ombudsman Act that haven't been proclaimed. I haven't looked at the legislation, but if memory serves me right, the ombudsman's office was created sometime in the early seventies. I can't name the exact date, but it's been here for some time. It's hard to believe that over the last 20 years we have not expanded the powers of the ombudsman to allow that office to inquire into a number of matters that it is now forbidden to do.

Again, let us open up the process. Let us have some sunshine. Let us take out of the shadows those provisions of the act that have never had light shone upon them because the ombudsman has been prohibited by law or the provisions that are necessary have not been proclaimed. Surely, if we are to move towards a regime of open government, the ombudsman's powers have to be expanded.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, others have talked about free votes as if they were a panacea. I don't necessarily think that free votes are a bad thing, and in some measure I'd support them, but I don't think they are the exclusive answer. I think there's a greater role in our system here for parliamentary committees. Instead of doing what we often do, doing most of the work in the Legislature, there should be more use of parliamentary committees to travel around the province, consult with British Columbians and consider their views, to reflect those views in recommendations.

[12:30]

There's all sorts of room there in terms of laws and policies that need to be developed and could be developed if we made better use of parliamentary committees. If I may say, there's intelligence on both sides of the House. There are very capable people on both sides of the House, and they should be utilized in a far more effective fashion through more and better utilization of parliamentary committees, so that we get some of the stuff out of this Legislature and we get people out on the road talking to British Columbians, and some of the stuff out of the minister's office, which I'm sure would help as well.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my comments.

MR. VANT: In representing the Cariboo people, I am proud to stand in this House and support another good Social Credit throne speech. It is an inclusive throne speech that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor delivered in this chamber the other day. There is

[ Page 12020 ]

something in it for all people in every part of our great province.

What a contrast to the former mayor of Vancouver's idea that what is good for Vancouver is good for B.C.! As usual, the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre, has got it backwards. What is good for B.C. is good for Vancouver. I have a little bias, being a member from the interior of our great province. But let's face it — Vancouver would be nothing if it wasn't for the flow of resources from the rest of this great province: the timber, the value-added wood products, the plywood, the pulp and paper, the minerals, the natural gas, the wheat, even the beef for your hamburgers, that all flow to Vancouver from the interior of British Columbia. Let's not forget, of course, the dairy products, the produce from the Fraser Valley and Delta, the fruit and manufactured goods that flow to Vancouver from the Okanagan. Yes, Vancouver is dependent on the economic base and trade necessary for its existence; yes, as a very beautiful city and as a major port.

The Leader of the Opposition refers to the first inhabitants of British Columbia — and I quote from yesterday's Blues — as "our first citizens." I know the member for Atlin, who was sitting in this chamber earlier this morning, would be offended by his leader's condescending, ethnocentric, nineteenth-century colonialist attitude. The natives, the first citizens of our great province, are fellow citizens, not possessions.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday of the NDP's environment and jobs accord. He said: "That gives one process for citizens to sit down in each region of the province that's time-specific." I don't know what this means. Does it mean a moratorium on all logging in all disputed areas for perhaps 20 years? This frightens the people of the Cariboo whom I represent in this House. It even concerns the members of the IWA in the Cariboo, because 70 percent of our economy there is dependent on the forest industry.

Just a few minutes ago the member for Point Grey said that the primary industry in British Columbia is the forest industry. For a while I thought he was going to advocate clearcutting the forest out at Point Grey, but he didn't go that far in talking about the forest industry. But for sure, directly and indirectly, our economy in the Cariboo is very dependent on the harvest and use of our working forests.

Meanwhile I heard with much dismay that the Leader of the Opposition knocked the Social Credit strategy, as outlined in the excellent throne speech, of bringing together the results of many meetings, reports, consultations and public hearings of the Forest Resources Commission. The commission includes, I am proud to say, my constituent John Szauer, a forester of great distinction; also the results of the meetings of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Parks Plan '90, the old-growth strategy committee, etc. The results of all of this very valuable input from the people of the province will be brought together, with additional input from other appropriate sources, to create an overall strategy for B.C. land use decisions.

I must remind this House that there are many stakeholders in the use of our Crown land and our Crown forests in British Columbia. There are, of course, the first citizens: the trappers, guides, prospectors, timber harvesters, resort owners, ranchers. In other words, this has been a grass-roots Social Credit process from the grass roots up, not a top-down, imposed NDP process.

I was amazed, too, that the Leader of the Opposition fantasizes about being Premier of this province. He talks about making many trips to the east. He said he wasn't going to go to eastern Canada; he was going to go to the Orient. Well, I can certainly understand that in these troubled times that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew referred to he certainly would not want to be going to Toronto. He wouldn't want to be reminded of the results of the NDP brain trust inspiring the government of Ontario, considering the disastrous budget there.

He indicated that he would be making many trips to the Orient. Indeed, I believe he mentioned that he had travelled to the Orient as mayor of Vancouver no less than nine times. I remember reading in the Vancouver Sun that when he was mayor of Vancouver he made one trip to Japan. And guess what? He was budgeted $8,000 for that trip, and he spent double that. Talk about an overrun! He spent $16,000 on that trip, and he got chastised by the city council of Vancouver upon his return, and at the very same time they turned down his demand for a large pay increase as mayor of Vancouver.

Occasionally he goes to chambers of commerce meetings, and he brags that when he was mayor of Vancouver he balanced the city of Vancouver's budget. In actual fact, folks, we know he had to. It's the law. A municipality does have to balance its budget.

This throne speech certainly indicates appropriately that this Social Credit government will continue to provide financially responsible and affordable government. Indeed, it certainly mentions that the accumulation of government debt in many provinces of this country, and on the part of the federal government, is reaching crisis proportions. I'm very proud that expenditures to service the direct debt of this province are the lowest in Canada.

As a responsible Social Credit government, we would much rather spend money on services to people, money for our schools, money for our hospitals and money for social services than to spend it on interest of a huge debt.

We realize that the national debt will exceed $400 billion by this summer. That means a servicing cost in excess of $40 billion. Indeed, in the province of Ontario the projected deficits during their two or three year term of office will apparently raise the debt to no less than $70 billion. That means that at the end of the NDP government in Ontario they'll be spending about $7 billion a year to service that humongous debt. That is indeed getting to be a crisis.

I read in the Williams Lake Tribune yesterday that my colleague the second member for Cariboo stated, and I quote: "The NDP left a $540,000,000 rainy-day fund when they left office back in 1975." That statement rather puzzled me. I'm not sure of the source of that information, but I checked the public accounts and, lo

[ Page 12021 ]

and behold, the last year the NDP was in power they ran up a $410,000,000 deficit. That is according to the public accounts.

So if indeed there was a rainy-day fund there — because in two of the three years that the NDP was in power, they ran up a deficit.... Maybe there were still funds left over from the many, many years since 1958 that the province....

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have a.... Please continue. I'm sure it wasn't a point of order, but the member rose.

MR. VANT: Those funds were left over from the long-time, very responsible administration of W.A.C. Bennett. Those are the facts from the public accounts. It was exactly a $410.3 million deficit at the end of that last NDP budget year.

I notice there are many young people in the gallery here today. It's going back 16 years since the NDP was in power in this province, so they're too young to remember those days. But we should be reminded that it was people like Norman Levi who went overboard. He was their Human Resources minister, and had an overrun in the neighbourhood of about $103 million. There's really very little to show for that.

Of course, then there was the Mineral Royalties Act which was brought to this House by Leo Nimsick, and we in the Cariboo remember when Nimsickitis set into our mining industry, where thousands of people that worked in our mines found themselves out of work. Investments in mining fell by some 45 percent from the previous levels in 1972 that were present during the Social Credit regime.

I must mention that health care has always been a priority of Social Credit governments. W.A.C. Bennett was the father of medicare in this province. I was very pleased to note that in the throne speech the other day, a travel allowance system was announced for those in remote areas who must travel to Vancouver for complex treatment. I see this as a very necessary supplement to first-class health care facilities throughout British Columbia.

We are proud of our new wing at the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital in Quesnel, the new extended-care facility at Williams Lake, the new extended intermediate-care facility at 100 Mile House and the expansion of the out-patient department and the emergency ward at the 100 Mile House District General Hospital. We need these facilities in every community, but we do realize that sophisticated treatment, such as a patient who requires a CAT scan, may have to travel to a larger centre for that treatment. This proposed travel allowance system to enable every citizen in every part of our province to have sophisticated health care is most welcome.

I noted too that junior colleges, such as Cariboo College, will in the very near future — for the first time — be degree-granting and will have their first graduating classes. Just recently there was a convocation at Cariboo College where, for the first time right in Williams Lake, we had a class of nursing graduates That's because of increased facilities at the Cariboo College campus right in Williams Lake, and which inconjunction and with the cooperation of our local hospital, makes training there possible.

[12:45]

Our Access for All program is now beginning to bear fruit. We look forward with great expectation to the future as the University of Northern British Columbia has started. Recently I talked to Dr. Geoffrey Weller, the new president of the University of Northern British Columbia. He assures me that everything is on track, with the site being acquired at Cranbrook Hill near Prince George. There will be satellite facilities established to service the whole northern area of the province.

Social Credit also believes in real democracy. I was very pleased that there will be referendums to help us establish government priorities and to help us, the elected representatives, make those critical decisions.

I also noticed this in the throne speech: "...the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, remains committed to working with local governments to address the urgent need to undertake major water and sewer projects to protect the environment and the quality of drinking water." I hope that this hint in the throne speech means that there will be more funding available. Perhaps the cost-sharing formula for sewer and water projects will be made more attractive, so that this will indeed help the village of 100 Mile House relocate its sewage lagoons away from Bridge Creek so that they won't continue to threaten the water supply for the residents at Bridge Creek, along Bridge Creek and out at Canim Lake. Also, it could help solve the long-standing problem near Williams Lake along South Lakeside. That is very welcome news.

A great Social Credit tradition has been homeowner grants. For sure the ongoing program mentioned in the throne speech will help reduce net school taxes payable for many Cariboo residents — for the average homeowner probably down to nothing or very little. I know that they appreciate the significant help Social Credit gives to help pay school taxes.

Of course, for the Cariboo, the ongoing commitment to reforestation is most welcome. The $1.4 billion forest renewal program means a lot to us in the Cariboo. Yes indeed, by the year 2000 all the non-satisfactorily restocked forest land should be in great shape, so that we have a healthy, productive forest to harvest in the future.

I am told by the experts that there is still a lot of overmature forest in the Cariboo, and that at current cutting levels it would take another 80 years to harvest all of that mature timber.

I'm proud too that thanks to the small business forest enterprise bid proposal program, we are now seeing firmly established many value-added plants. People like Doug Floyd, in conjunction with West Fraser Mills, built a $4.5 million value-added plant at Quesnel which uses mill ends and less-than-desirable wood stock to create in the end value-added products.

Joe Cerasa established C&C Wood Products in Quesnel, and for 15 to 20 years has been so successful in producing and marketing panelling that he even imports rough cedar from the coast to create valueadded products right in Quesnel. I'm proud that Gian

[ Page 12022 ]

Sandhu established Jackpine Forest Products in Williams Lake and established a brand-new value-added plant. This too is a result of the small business forest enterprise bid proposal program.

In concluding — as I realize that this is Friday — I'm told by various sources and from what the leader said on one occasion in Kamloops that the NDP said that they would spend $3 billion more than what the current administration is spending. Well, guess where those extra funds would come from, folks. It means, just as one of their candidates very honestly said, that under the NDP your taxes are going to go up.

Yes, we look at Ontario — the former richest province in Canada — which is currently under the tyranny of the socialist minority which has a 37 percent mandate. We see that great province now being plundered.

Manitoba still hasn't recovered from years of socialist rule, because they have the highest per capita debt of any province in Canada. Yes, I did mention the track record of those three unfortunate years between 1972-75 when the NDP was in power here. They found the province in excellent shape, but left us with that huge deficit. Yes indeed, the throne speech points in the right direction in charting the right course for our great province.

Good management of our resources is assured, as well as care for our environment and wise use of the people's money, so that a maximum amount is available to provide services and the good transportation links to deliver them to all the people of the province.

This throne speech, Mr. Speaker, consists of more than recycled, unkept promises, as some of those members in the socialist corner of the House would allege. It continues to build on solid, substantial Social Credit achievements: fulfilled promises that make a bright future possible, a future full of opportunity for every generation throughout this province, thanks to good Social Credit stewardship.

Ms. Cull moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would advise the members of the sitting schedule for next week, so that people can make their plans. We will sit Monday and Tuesday as normal, and Wednesday we will sit from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. We will not sit next Thursday or Friday. With that, I wish everyone a very pleasant weekend, and move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.