[ Page 12023 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 2). Hon. R. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 12023

Tabling Documents –– 12023

Oral Questions

Sale of Fantasy Garden World Inc. Mr. Clark –– 12023

First Citizens' Fund. Mr. G. Hanson –– 12024

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Loenen –– 12024

Funding for Pap tests. Mrs. Boone –– 12024

Silver Drake Resources. Mr. Sihota –– 12025

Member's Statement. Mr. Couvelier –– 12026

Point of Privilege

Former Premier's ownership of Fantasy Garden World Inc.

Mr. Vander Zalm –– 12026

Throne Speech Debate

Ms. Cull –– 12028

On the amendment

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 12031

Mr. De Jong –– 12036

Mrs. Boone –– 12038

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 12040

Mr. Jones –– 12043

Mr. Vander Zalm –– 12046

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LONG: In the House today we have a special group of students from Ocean Falls. We have their teacher, Mrs. M.P. Steenhuus; Mr. Gerard Paquin; and students Chere-Anne Paquin, Jennifer Carpenter, Dianna Archibald, Megan Archibald, James Nicol, Elizabeth Nicol, Jamie Linden, Robyn Joyal, Jenny Johnson and Bob Arnault. I have a special recognition here to Dianna Archibald, who will be 13 tomorrow. I would like to have this House give them a very special welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would like to introduce two wonderful people from Burnaby: Mrs. Lana Kask and Mr. Bill Kask. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of students with us today from the Native Education Centre in Vancouver. They are with the native public administration program. They are studying small business, community organizing, native legal issues and communications. They are with their instructor, John McBride, and Lou Demerais. Would you make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, we have the pleasure of the company of six Young Socreds in the House today. I had the pleasure of meeting with these fine young people this morning, and they are representative of a much larger group. They are: Norman Fiss, MaryAnn McLuckie, Sandra Montgomery, Trenton Poy, Randy Signorello and Mary-Beth Whyte. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome today two more volunteer parents. These gentlemen have been co-opted as bus drivers for the St. Joseph's School in Smithers. Would the House please welcome Barrie Carter and Jim Teves.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. FRASER: This measure will further enhance the one-page conveyancing documentation objective of the Ministry of Lands and Parks. As you know, you passed an act last year to this effect. This act will cover documents such as agreements for sale and leases. It contains a number of minor amendments which will not change the thrust of the act, but it completes the highly progressive reforms of the Land Title Act.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Solicitor-General and the nineteenth annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

SALE OF FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. CLARK: A very simple question to the Minister of Finance. Were you aware of any information prior to the tabling of the Hughes report that led you to believe that the former Premier was in a conflict of interest?

HON. J. JANSEN: The answer is no.

MR. CLARK: I want to be clear to the Minister of Finance. Are you saying that the information that would allow you, and possibly cabinet, to determine whether the former Premier was in a conflict of interest was not available prior to the tabling of the Hughes report?

HON. J. JANSEN: The answer is no.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Finance. I want to read him a quote from himself on April 9 in the Chilliwack Times: "After reviewing information, I told the Premier a month ago I thought he was in a conflict of interest." So before the Hughes report you went to the Premier and told him you thought he was in a conflict of interest, after reviewing information. Can you tell the House how you reconcile your two previous answers today with your statement of April 9 in the Chilliwack Times?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member refers to a comment in the media in which I said I thought the Premier was in conflict on the basis of information that I read in the newspaper, and that he read in the newspaper. I was not aware of any more information. As the Premier indicated earlier, we became aware of the details concerning this transaction at the same time you did. So I'm surprised at the line of questioning.

MR. CLARK: If you thought the Premier was in a conflict of interest, the question that you have to answer today for the people of. British Columbia is: why did you take no action a month prior to the Hughes report?

HON. J. JANSEN: We saw the information in the newspaper, as all members in the House did. We understood, too, that Mr. Hughes was going to have an inquiry, and we were prepared to wait until the facts were on the table, as you saw them and as we all saw them. There is "nothing that we were aware of any earlier than anyone else, " to quote the Premier.

[ Page 12024 ]

MR. CLARK: You wanted Mr. Hughes to do the job which you and the rest of cabinet wouldn't do; that is, protect the public interest. The Legislature sat from March 11 to 22. You knew that the Premier was in a conflict of interest; yet you stood here in this House and supported him during the last session of the Legislature. How can you justify occupying a chair on the executive council when you knew the Premier was in a conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order. Beauchesne is very clear on what questions are and are not in order. One of the questions that is definitely not in order is what chair a member should occupy in the chamber.

FIRST CITIZENS' FUND

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Native Affairs. A long time ago the First Citizens' Fund was established by W.A.C. Bennett. It was first announced in 1968 as a perpetual trust. I don't think the former Premier envisioned that those funds would be frozen in mid-April, along with other business loans and so on, with the freeze on regional and economic development funds. The minister must know that the $25 million in this fund is not new money; that the interest is supposed to be disbursed by aboriginal people for social and economic benefits. Has the minister alerted the Premier that this fund should not be frozen and requested that it be exempt from the Premier's actions?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes; I have alerted the Premier and have had some discussions.

MR. G. HANSON: Just to follow up, clearly that particular legislation should be separate and apart from the disbursement. Did you get a confirmation that the freeze will be lifted and that the money will be disbursed to the aboriginal people?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I hope the member knows, the fund is being administered by the ministry, and the native committee is looking after it. The ones that were continued and processed have been allocated. As for the others that you're talking about being frozen, I've asked for a review; but I cannot comment on future policy of a cabinet decision.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. LOENEN: My question is to the Minister of Environment. In Richmond there is considerable concern about the possibility of soil and water contamination and a threat to health because of the alleged dumping of contaminated soils from the former Expo site. I wonder if the minister can assure the residents of our community that their health will be protected.

[2:15]

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I visited with farmers in Richmond on Saturday, and I called the mayor of Richmond this morning. I can assure the people of Richmond that their health will not be affected by the transported soil, because the subject soil is not toxic. The only reason anyone might have been concerned is because there was an erroneous statement released on May 9, 1991, by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. In fact, the statement by that member was, according to my information....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The scope of the answer cannot exceed the scope of the question.

FUNDING FOR PAP TESTS

MRS. BOONE: I have a question to the Minister of Health. British Columbia women have seen the waiting-time for Pap tests doubled because of the government's refusal to fund sufficient positions for speedy processing of the tests. The director of the B.C. Cancer Agency's cytology division says the waiting-period is currently twice the desirable length. Has the Minister of Health decided to provide the necessary funds now to shorten the turnaround time for Pap test results?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The House should be informed that approximately 600,000 Pap smears are conducted annually at the British Columbia Cancer Agency's lab. There has been a significant increase in the last year in the overall number of samples submitted for testing, up about 10 percent from the previous year. The B.C. Cancer Agency decided on its own to cut back on six employees whom they had hired. They are really autonomous in terms of that type of decision. They have since taken the six casual employees back to shorten the waiting-time for the tests.

I will seek further information from Dr. George Anderson, head of cytology at the B.C. Cancer Agency. If he identifies this as a crisis or an undesirable situation, then we will take appropriate action. Until such time, there's not much more I can say about that except that I certainly do not want to see any undue backlog. We must provide the best medical care for all the citizens of our province.

MRS. BOONE: The six employees have only been taken back on a temporary basis until the end of May, which is not adequate for the women of this province, Mr. Minister. The new fiscal year started six weeks ago, and we still don't have a budget. These women are only one example of the people who are suffering from this government's fiscal incompetence. Can the minister confirm, as the B.C. Cancer Agency did for us, that the cost of keeping the four extra technologists employed for another year is $160,000? Mr. Minister, that's $160,000 to employ those people to ensure that women receive proper testing procedures in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is some interesting budget debate, which should take place at a later opportunity, but let me repeat the answer that I gave earlier to the member. It is my opinion that we cannot,

[ Page 12025 ]

in any way, see a cutback in this type of service or any other medical services to the people of British Columbia. I will ensure, acting on the advice of Dr. George Anderson, head of cytology, that in this instance there is no undue delay in terms of the processing of these tests.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for Prince George, may I remind the members that questions would be preferable to speeches during question period.

MRS. BOONE: A new question to the Minister of Health. I'd like to give you an idea here. Four weeks ago, the government froze a $30-million-a-year advertising budget, and that's saving approximately $80,000 per day. Two days' worth of advertising funds would equal the four technologist positions that would service the people of this province for one year. My question is this: have you asked the Finance minister to immediately divert two days' funding of advertising, which we've seen in profusion in this province, to the Cancer Agency to ensure that women in this province receive the necessary services?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the first time I've seen the member here on a Monday for a long time, which is really odd.

What I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker — for the third time — is that I understand the concerns expressed by the member and the concerns expressed to the ministry by Dr. George Anderson, head of cytology at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. I will, however, remind the House that this was an autonomous decision made by the British Columbia Cancer Agency. They are autonomous to the extent that they make these types of decisions. Clearly, with this increase of testing required, as I said earlier, of 10 percent from the previous year, it's a situation that we are going to have to address. I find any of those delays unacceptable — from the point of view of a layman. When I have been advised by Dr. George Anderson that we do have a critical situation, then we will certainly consider the appropriate remedial recommendations. As we do have the information that this is not a crisis situation, I'm prepared to see it through. However, we will ensure that we are watching this very closely and that no undue delay is experienced.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to go through the business of what questions are again, but it's all clearly laid out in the book. Both the questions and the answers are becoming a summary of estimates rather than questions. I will try the member for Prince George North again.

MRS. BOONE: Dr. Anderson met with the minister last week to bring the urgency of this situation to his attention. My question to the minister right now is: will you please — immediately, today — meet with Dr. Anderson and put in place the necessary funding to ensure that women in this province are not denied the proper services to ensure that their cancer tests are processed properly and quickly?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that I detect another question, but it's your choice. The Minister of Health.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there clearly wasn't a question, Mr. Speaker, but give me the.... The member says that I met with Dr. Anderson last week, which is incorrect, and I don't know where she got that information. The ministry staff are monitoring any backlogs that exist, and I want to assure this House and all British Columbians that if any situation becomes unacceptable in terms of testing delays, we will address it as quickly as possible.

SILVER DRAKE RESOURCES

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to Silver Drake Resources. On April 11 a press release indicated that it had acquired a licence to certain environmental technology. Could the minister advise the House whether the superintendent of brokers' office is investigating the matter to determine whether or not the technology has the capabilities that it was represented to have?

MR. SPEAKER: The question might be better put on the order paper.

MR. SIHOTA: A new question on Silver Drake Resources. The company has issued a number of statements indicating the skills of Mr. Ferchichi and others working with the company. Based on the representations that the company has made in its public pronouncements, the investors have now been investing in the company. Could the minister advise the House whether the superintendent of brokers' office is investigating the affairs of the company in light of the stock's fluctuation in the past few days?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is inappropriate for me to comment on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a number of procedural matters to deal with. The Attorney-General is first on my list.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report and recommendations of the compensation advisory committee for 1990 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice for the purpose of recommending a resolution to the Legislative Assembly for fixing of salaries pursuant to sections 7(1) and (2) of the Provincial Court Act.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposition House Leader, do you not wish to move your matter?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we decided to postpone that resolution by 24 hours.

[ Page 12026 ]

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a member's statement.

Leave granted.

MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, to my colleagues for allowing me this rather unusual opportunity to expand on a matter of great concern to me personally and possibly to all members of the Legislature.

Members will know that I had intended today to bring a motion before the House that would have the effect of instructing the ombudsman to investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation by myself of section 217 of the Financial Institutions Act. For what appears to be a variety of constitutional problems, it would appear that option is not practicable for me to pursue today. Therefore I wanted to first of all put on the record clarification of some of the circumstances around this issue that I feel have been misrepresented. Secondly, I wanted to serve notice on my intended course of action.

First of all, I want to make it plain that, contrary to the suspicions of some, I requested that the actions of myself as Minister of Finance be the subject of a written report by the Attorney-General's Ministry. There was a feeling abroad that this initiative was somehow undertaken by my staff, independent of my knowledge. I want the House to know quite clearly that I requested that clarification.

Secondly, I'd like the House to know that I have not had access to all of the particulars and opinions around this issue. As a consequence, I find myself unable to speak with any authority on the allegations laid against me.

Thirdly, I'd like to point out for the record that the Attorney-General and the leader of the government party have, in effect, received one opinion, three times — with variations each time.

Fourthly, I'd like to confirm for the record that there is nothing new in these allegations which was not already included in Ted Hughes' report and Ted Hughes' material. There seems to be some confusion on that point.

I'd also like to make it plain on the record that my remedies, as I pursued them, were to first of all ask for a charge under this act, if I have violated the act. As you know, that does not appear to be an option. Secondly, I had asked that all of the opinions be disclosed; that also was refused. Thirdly, in the absence of those things, I said, "Let's embark on a judicial inquiry"; that also has been refused. I am left then only with an appeal to the ombudsman.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will today formally ask the leader of the opposition party and the leader of the government party to join me in a reference to the ombudsman, where I would ask him to judge the truthfulness of the allegation that I have broken the law. I do this in the interest of clarifying future roles and responsibilities for anyone else who may hold office in government; and also, obviously, for the purpose of clarifying my integrity and my character, which I think have been impugned unfairly.

[2:30]

Point of Privilege

FORMER PREMIER'S OWNERSHIP OF
FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the opposition member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) stood in this assembly on May 8, 1991, and accused me of a deliberate and wilful attempt to suppress information concerning a reorganization of the shares of Fantasy Gardens from this assembly on March 11, 1991. The member alleged that by my conduct on that date — March 11, 1991 — I was obstructing and impeding your parliamentary duty as a Speaker in relation to the motion of privilege made by the member for New Westminster.

Mr.Speaker, those accusations are not true. I hardly need to say that I find such an accusation to be offensive. It is made even more outrageous by the fact that the materials filed by the opposition member do not support in any way the bringing of such a serious and offensive allegation.

In making her statements to this assembly on May 8, 1991, the member for New Westminster seems to have forgotten the materials included in her motion of privilege made on March 11, 1991. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, those materials included the company documentation that evidenced the share reorganization of Fantasy Garden World Inc. in April 1989. Indeed, those documents formed the very foundation of the member's motion.

As I understand it, the member for New Westminster takes the position that these documents show that in April 1989 and later I must have known the full extent of my share holdings in Fantasy Gardens. But when you read the member's statement to this assembly on May 8, 1991, you are left with the impression that there was no discussion of the April 1989 share reorganization in this assembly on March 11, 1991. You are left with the impression that I somehow concealed the facts of the reorganization from this assembly because I did not specifically mention the reorganization in my statement on March 11, 1991.

I must say that I fail to see how I can be accused of a deliberate and wilful attempt to suppress information concerning the reorganization of the shares of Fantasy Gardens in speaking to this assembly on March 11, 1990, when the details of that share reorganization formed the basis of the allegations made against me by the member for New Westminster. Those details had been fully disclosed to this assembly before I rose to speak in response to the allegations against me. My response to the member's comments on March 11 — and my response now to her comments of March 8 — is that I was not, and never have been, concerned with the details of the shareholdings between my wife and myself. So there is no misunderstanding of my position.

I would like to repeat what I said to this assembly on March 11, 1991, with respect to the suggestion by the member of the opposition that the April 1989 share reorganization must have made apparent to me the

[ Page 12027 ]

true extent of my shareholdings. This is from page 24 of Hansard:

"You know, if I were in a partnership with anyone on the other side, I may want to know exactly each and every day of the week, week of the year or month of the year, where it is my shares or somebody else's shares.... My partnership was with my wife, and I have been married to my wife for 35 years. It's a lifetime contract. I don't have to check on my wife; my wife doesn't have to check on me. It doesn't matter what you put to paper, the fact remains that when you're married for 35 years — and, I would suggest, for a whole lot less, for that matter — whatever is yours is your wife's, and vice versa. That's how I have always gone through life, and that's how I intend to continue going through life. I hope to be married to Lillian for another 35 years, and I'm not going to be checking contracts or be worried about what perhaps might have been signed by one or the other."

That statement reflects how I dealt with the April 1989 share reorganization. The testimony given by my accountant, Mr. Vegt, which was placed before this assembly by the member for New Westminster on May 8, 1991 is also helpful, in understanding the share reorganization and my view of it. Mr. Vegt testified that the purpose of this share reorganization was to permit capital gains to be crystallized in the event of a possible sale of the assets of Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Vegt's testimony makes it clear that the relative relationship of the shareholdings of my wife and myself was not an issue in that reorganization. All that had been changed or reorganized was the nature of the shares held.

Again, so there is no misunderstanding, I would like to quote from page 5 of the testimony of Mr. Vegt before Mr. Hughes.

"At that time, in that there were some potential sales out there, we knew that likely a potential purchaser would not be buying shares but would be buying assets of the company. We also knew that by selling assets, neither the company nor Mr. or Mrs. Vander Zalm would be eligible to claim the capital gain exemption, the $500,000 tax-free gain that they would be entitled to if they would have sold shares. So we did a reorganization in order to allow them, even on an asset sale, to utilize this capital gain exemption. So we reorganized the company, to allow them down the road, if that's what would have happened, by exchanging shares.... We exchanged the existing common shares for preferred shares in the same pro rata relationship as was there before and reissued new common shares also in this same relationship. So the pro rata relationship between Mr. and Mrs. did not change as a result of this reorganization. It was strictly an exchange of shares to allow certain things to happen if a sale would be consummated."

As I said earlier, I am at a loss as to what information about the share reorganization I am accused of concealing from this House on March 11, 1991. The member for New Westminster, in her statement on May 8, 1991, referred to the testimony of Mr. Vegt, Mr. Kendler and Dr. Emerson before Mr. Hughes concerning the preparation of my October 5, 1990 letter to the people of British Columbia and to documents prepared by those individuals and produced to Mr. Hughes which pertained to the preparation of that letter.

There is no information in that material about the share reorganization that was not before this House on March 11, 1991, other than Mr. Vegt's succinct and very helpful explanation of the purpose of that reorganization which I have just read. Of course, it was not available on March 11, as Mr. Vegt had not yet testified before Mr. Hughes. The opposition member put particular emphasis upon Dr. Emerson's testimony that he found some weakness in my explanation with respect to the ownership of Fantasy Gardens. I appreciate that it was Dr. Emerson's view that my explanation may not be persuasive to some. The very fact that I am standing here today responding to this motion shows that Dr. Emerson was quite perceptive in his advice. But the fact remains that the explanation I gave was the only one I could give, because it is the truth.

In this regard, I note that the opposition member did not refer to the testimony about the October 5, 1990 letter given by the two individuals who originally advised me as to my shareholdings — Mr. Kendler and Mr. Vegt. To assist me in the preparation of my October 5 letter, both these gentlemen prepared for me documents setting out the advice which they had given with respect to my shareholdings. They did so to ensure that my explanation in the public letter would reflect the events as accurately as all involved could recollect them. In addition, both these gentlemen reviewed a draft of my October 5, 1990 letter and made comments on it. Those comments were incorporated into the October 5, 1990 letter.

Mr. Speaker, all the materials put before you by the member for New Westminster on May 8, 1991 reveal the process of my consultation with my advisers about my October 5, 1990 letter to the public. I engaged in that process to ensure the accuracy of the explanation given in that letter concerning the misstatements I made about my shareholdings, but there is nothing in this material which shows that those misstatements about my shareholdings were deliberate or wilful.

The opposition has been quick with its allegations of deliberate and wilful misconduct on my part as a member of this assembly. In my respectful submission, this is an abuse of the motion of privilege. I submit that the motion and statements made by the member for New Westminster are nothing more than a political attempt to divert this assembly from the important business of the day. The motion is a tactic to keep the attention of this assembly focused on the issue of the sale of Fantasy Gardens, because the opposition perceives it to be to their political advantage to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I say this because the materials put before you by the member for New Westminster on May 8, 1991 provide no foundation for the serious accusation that I withheld important and relevant information from you. The materials were designed to supplement those materials already before you on the motion that accuses me of the serious offence of deliberately and wilfully misleading this House. But in none of the materials filed on either March 11 or May 8 is there any statement made by me to this assembly where I have stated something to this assembly which is false — not one statement.

[ Page 12028 ]

Mr. Speaker, these materials do show that I ought to have known the extent of my shareholdings in Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed once again to have to say that I was mistaken about that matter. I have admitted this mistake time and time again since September of last year. It was a mistake, but that's all it was; it was not a lie.

I also recognize that this mistake has caused the Speaker and this assembly to have been misled as to the extent of my shareholdings. I refer in particular to page 4308 of Hansard from May 5, 1988, which was placed before you by the member for New Westminster on March 11, 1991. The Speaker is reported as stating:

"What emerges from the material before me is that apparently a leasing arrangement exists between the company owned or controlled by Mr. Toigo and the company known as Fantasy Gardens, in which the Premier is a minority shareholder.

"It further, appears from material filed and from excerpts from Hansard that the lessor company is not operated by the Premier, although his interest in the, company is fully disclosed in his filed declaration with this House and is apparently freely admitted in Hansard and in the press reports."

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I was not involved in the operations of Fantasy Gardens. There is no dispute about that. It is also true that my interest in the company was disclosed in the manner required by the Financial Disclosure Act in the declaration filed with this House.

[2:45]

However, the statement that I was a minority shareholder is not correct. I accept this misstatement by the Speaker to be my responsibility. I ought to have known the extent of my share holdings in Fantasy Gardens. I ought to have been in a position to correct the Speaker when the misstatement was made about these share holdings. I did not do so, because I was mistaken about the extent of my share holdings. In the result, the Speaker and this assembly were misled to believe that I was a minority shareholder. For that I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members of this assembly.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

MS. CULL: The Speech from the Throne is the government's main opportunity to set out their vision for the province. It's the time when the governing party can set out clearly for all to see what their values are and what their vision is, what are the challenges as they see them and what are the priorities that they're going to pursue in the next year.

We're certainly at a time in this country and in this province where we have a very great need for leadership and vision. The challenges that face us with respect to the constitution, the economy and our environment require bold new thinking. The persistent social problems related to poverty, and the immense changes that are being brought about in our society as a result of aging, immigration and changes in the roles of women and the family, mean that it is very important that the government be clear about their values and their priorities for tackling these new and emerging and the long-standing problems that face us.

I think also that it's not unreasonable, in the fifth year of the government's mandate, to expect to see some continuity, a sense of progress, some sense that directions that were set out in earlier years are being achieved or, if they're not being achieved, that new ideas are being proposed instead. Unfortunately, this Speech from the Throne fails to do this.

The failure cannot be blamed, however, on any lack of analysis of the problems facing the province. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that we have no shortage of royal commissions, round tables, task forces, committees and whatever. We have a very dedicated civil service. But what we have is a vacuum at the top. We have an almost total, lack of leadership and ideas coming from the Social Credit politicians who are supposed to be governing this province.

Instead of a visionary statement that sets out concrete ideas about how government's going to manage our natural resources so that we and our children have jobs; instead of making it clear that we must protect and enhance the environment and our quality of life, our urban areas, our education, our social and health programs; instead of making it clear that these are the key to attracting investment to this province and also to meeting the needs of British Columbians; instead of reassuring British Columbians that this government recognizes the turmoil that it's in and is prepared to provide open government and stability and an end to the special deals for friends and insiders; instead of all that, this throne speech is simply a rehash of old promises. It's a vague shopping list without any sense of direction. When it's not vague it's unbelievable, because it contains policies that until very recently the Social Credit government ridiculed and opposed. It sounds like something that's been hastily patched together by a government which had other things on its mind than the welfare of British Columbians.

Last year's Speech from the Throne, the first that I was privileged to hear in this assembly, was characterized by the government as having to do with choice, challenge and change. The government this year hasn't attached any labels to the speech, but I would like to propose that instead of the three C's from last year we have the three R's: rehash, recount and retreat.

I was elected some 16 months ago, not because the people of Oak Bay-Gordon Head were happy with the policies of this government, but because they wanted a change. After reviewing the speech, the people in my community will have to conclude that the Social Credit government simply isn't listening to them, that instead it has grown arrogant and stale and is concerned only with holding onto power.

One of the major issues of concern to my community is the environment. Whenever I'm out talking to people in the community, it's still the number one issue they bring up. They know what needs to be done, but they're tired of talk and want some action. They want action to clean up the beaches and the water around

[ Page 12029 ]

greater Victoria; they want action on hazardous waste; they want a provincial plan to reduce solid waste and to promote recycling so that we don't have to drain Heal Lake to fill it up with our garbage; and they want major changes in the way our forests are managed. It's not unreasonable that my constituents could expect to see some results on these matters, not just more talk.

The throne speech, for example, says: "My Ministry of Environment will be releasing ..specific action plans in the area of water management, fisheries, wildlife, pesticides and environmental enforcement." Mr. Speaker, that's what the throne speech said last year. It talks about "the urgent need to undertake major water and sewer projects." It said that last year too. But we don't want high-sounding phrases; we want action.

Unfortunately the revolving door of the Environment minister's office spits out a new minister every couple of months these days who says something different about sewage in greater Victoria. Only two Environment ministers ago we were told that the government would consider 75 percent funding for sewage in Victoria. The last one said 25 percent, maybe 50. The new one is silent, and he has left the chamber.

What my constituents want is for the Minister of Environment to sit down with the capital region municipalities and work out a fair funding formula for Victoria's sewage treatment. One recent Environment minister said it was up to the CRD to take the leadership on this matter. Let me tell you that they are taking the leadership, they have done the studies and they are proposing to put a referendum to the people of this region by the fall. But how can you put a sensible referendum question when you don't know what it's going to cost and when you don't know what the provincial funding is. While all of this is being debated and the government is being silent, we continue to get the heckling from the other side of the floor and from those people in the interior and the north who conveniently forget that there was 75 percent funding for sewage treatment in their communities in their time.

This year's speech is silent on hazardous waste, which is absolutely astounding considering that there are 400,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in storage in this province and another 110,000 tonnes being produced every year. Last year the government proposed the creation of a corporation to deal with hazardous waste. I said at the time that this would just hide the problem, and that's precisely what it seems to have done, because one year and $3 million later, I still have constituents who phone me up and say they have made eight phone calls, including one to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, trying to get rid of surplus paint before they move. The only answer they can get from any of these various bodies within the government is to dump kitty litter into it and put it back in the garbage. That's a solution to hazardous waste?

This throne speech doesn't even deal with solid waste. I can appreciate that the government's rather short of ideas when it comes to this matter, but if they really don't have any ideas of their own to deal with this very critical urban issue, let me suggest that they take a close look at the British Columbia Recycling Act that was introduced by my colleague from Coquitlam last year and take some ideas from that. The government doesn't seem to be above taking ideas out of our private members' bills. More power to them if they find ideas there that they can support.

Last year I introduced the Georgia Basin Commission Act to establish a commission to guide the growth in the Georgia basin, and I said at that time that it would achieve a reduction in air and water pollution, provide strategies for reducing the impact of urban growth in the Georgia basin and also involve international cooperation with Washington State. This is an idea that the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about for some time with locally elected politicians and with those elected in Washington. In the last number of months the Leader of the Opposition and I have had the opportunity to talk to many people in the Georgia basin about this idea and have received a lot of positive encouragement to implement it.

So it was with considerable pleasure that I listened to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor announce just such a commission. It's ironic, though, because last year members on the other side of the House ridiculed the idea and called it a bureaucracy. Last year they didn't like it; this year they do like it. Unfortunately it's like another idea you ridiculed last year and are now embracing this year: the legislative committee on ethics and conflict of interest. We're going to have to wait and see whether there really is any substance to this change of heart, or if it's just another government announcement to make it look like it's doing the right thing, even though it fails to do it.

After environment, one of the issues I hear most about in my community is health care. People are concerned about the shocking deterioration of the health care system in British Columbia: of crowded hospitals and overworked employees, of long waiting lists for surgery and cancer treatment, and about rising user fees. Like most British Columbians, people in my community are looking forward to the report of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. Many people in my community made thoughtful submissions to the commission, and have high hopes that they will be seeing thoughtful answers when the report is received.

I was pleased to see two other ideas that have been long promoted by members on this side of the House: travel allowance for those residents who have to go long distances for treatment, and a reversal of the government's long-standing, stubborn and very irresponsible policy on AIDS in this throne speech.

But it's difficult not to be cynical, because even though there are a few good announcements, there have been so many times that this government has said the right thing but continued to do nothing. For example, reading from the throne speech, it says: "...my government will continue to improve on the health care system through the building of partnerships with hospitals, community groups and health care providers."

[ Page 12030 ]

To those of us in Victoria, that sounds rather like the announcements in the 1988 speech about the Victoria Health Project. You'll remember the Victoria Health Project: it's a tremendously successful initiative involving community-based partnership. It's been the subject of international attention, and although the evaluation studies are not yet complete, it has been pronounced a success.

You would think that the throne speech would mention such a project — that it would be used as an example of something that should be tried in other communities — but it didn't. The reason it didn't is because, having launched this hugely successful program, they've simply lost interest in it. Mind you, it was three years and three Health ministers ago, and it's kind of hard, as we move along with the different ministers, to keep track of the initiatives and to keep the enthusiasm up.

But this is a very successful program, and earlier this year, with funding about to run out with the end of the fiscal year, it took a tremendous community outcry and the resignation of a senior official before the government reluctantly, seven weeks prior to the end of the program, agreed to continue with more funding.

Unfortunately that's been the legacy of this administration. They announce something with great fanfare one week, then lose interest and move on to something else that's caught their attention. If a project is successful, the community is just going to have to find a way to continue it on their own or do without because they can't stretch the resources that far.

One of the saddest cases of not acting on health care issues in my community involves mental health. The Speech from the Throne said that the Mental Health Act will be reviewed, with the goal of improving the rights for those people who need voluntary admission and treatment in hospitals. What about improving the services for these people right'now?

Last year the government said it would expand and improve community health services and replace Riverview Hospital, but last week when my colleague for Vancouver-Point Grey read to this House a letter I received from one of my constituents, we heard how Riverview continues to consume the lives of our mentally ill because there is nowhere else in the community for them to go. Unless they are in crisis, they get no service. They get into the hospital and they're back out on the streets. There simply isn't any place in this community to provide for their needs.

Disabled people don't fare any better. The promise of community care for these individuals rings very, very hollow. A few lucky individuals do get out into group homes, but the great majority are trapped in geriatric wards with the senile. This very sorry state has caused the Arbutus Society for Children in my riding in Saanich to keep young adults over the age of 18 in a children's hospital. There simply isn't anywhere else for them to go except into the geriatric wards.

[3:00]

There is no mention of the disabled in this speech. It's just not in there. The Arbutus Society has been waiting patiently for a long time to hear the results of the committee that's supposed to be reviewing the funding for orthotics. Last year members on this side of the House brought up the shameful practice of this government refusing Pharmacare coverage to children who require many kinds of orthotic devices. Finally in the end, the then Minister of Health decided to investigate. In trying to follow through, you can't find the committee and you can't find out who's chairing it. The last frustrating example I got from one of his senior officials who is supposed to be in charge of the committee is that she wasn't even aware there was a problem.

MR. PERRY: There probably is no committee.

MS. CULL: There probably is no committee, as my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey says. There certainly hasn't been any action on this issue.

Another concern that I want to talk about which is of great concern to my community is education. People in Oak Bay–Gordon Head recognize that investment in their children is the best investment they can make, but again this government talks and fails to act.

Whenever concern about post-secondary education arises, the Social Credit government trots out the access for all policy. It sounds fine, but simply saying that you're going to raise the level of post-secondary enrolment to the national average in the next five years doesn't actually accomplish it. You have to put some resources behind it.

In fact, the policies of this government are moving us in the opposite direction. At the University of Victoria next year, 800 students are expected to be turned away because of lack of operating funds and a 25 percent space deficit — 25 percent less than is needed to service the students who are there now. Students who are going to the University of Victoria can't even complete their degrees in the four years that one would normally expect it to be done, because third- and fourth-year students can't get the courses they need to graduate. So they carry on: five years, six years, running into difficulties with their student loans and taking up spaces that could be made available to other students if they could proceed as was intended.

MR. SIHOTA: Access for some.

MS. CULL: Access for some, that's what we've got here — access for those who can get onto the list, who can get up ahead, who have the resources. Don't expect Camosun College to pick up the slack from UVic, though, because we've now learned in discussions with the people at Camosun College that they will be turning away hundreds of students next year as well. They have run out of space and operating funds. So where are these other students going to go? All the other colleges and universities in this province face the same problems.

It's not just a question of throwing more money at education; it's a question of our priorities and principles. What that means is that we have to make sure that we put the limited tax dollars we do have where they're going to be most effective — not waste them on

[ Page 12031 ]

ideologies like privatization and the economic regions, which came and went with hardly any benefit to the people of this province that anyone can perceive.

It also means that we have to provide stability and predictability in school funding for both the K-to-12 and post-secondary systems. That's what the Royal Commission on Education called for as the most important element of funding: stability. But that's not what we get. We get a government that announces this year an increase in capital funding. There isn't a member on this side of the House who isn't glad to see that increase, but we have to be a bit cynical. Please forgive me if I have to wonder why this announcement comes at the eleventh hour of a government's mandate, when, districts have been crying for funds for so long. During the term of this administration we've seen as little as $20 million available for capital funding for schools, and now we see $650 million. Forgive me for noticing that there's an election coming along down the line and thinking that the two items might be connected.

It has been announced. We know that there is going to be more money, and I can tell you that I and the parents in my community — particularly those of Willows School — will be looking to this announcement to see that we finally get the money we need to bring the schools in greater Victoria up to earthquake safety standards so that they don't fall down on our children during an earthquake.

Mr. Speaker, the speech mentions housing hardly at all. It doesn't address student housing or the one million tenants in the province. It doesn't talk about helping more families own their own homes, even though less than 10 percent of the families in Victoria right now can afford to buy a home at the current interest rates. It doesn't say anything about housing for seniors. These are matters of concern. The people in my community were looking to the government for leadership and equality.

What's really in this speech for women and women's equality? Pay equity was announced, but it was announced last year, and you can't just keep on announcing programs. We're looking for something new, something that shows that there's some thought behind it, some direction that shows that this government knows where it's going on these issues.

Employment equity is the only new thing I could see in there for women, in terms of equality. You talk about employment equity in the public sector. Last year, though, when I raised that matter and talked about the lack of employment equity in the public sector, the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs said it really wasn't a problem. She disputed my figures and said that there were far more women in government than the statistics showed. She wasn't prepared to act on it.

I could go on with some of the issues of concern to people in my riding, but I would like to get to the point about why this throne speech really fails to address the concerns of people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head and throughout this province. It's clear that it's because the government is unable to come to grips with the turmoil it is facing. It is simply not governing. It's a government in disarray, in turmoil. It's a government so concerned with its own internal problems, its scandals, its leadership crisis, that it has no time or energy to spend on the needs of British Columbia.

Twelve cabinet ministers, Mr. Speaker, have had to resign amid controversy about conflict of interest or other things. Just look at one particular ministry and at what happens there, the Ministry of Environment. Then you can see why nothing has been done. Six cabinet ministers in five years — no wonder nothing is happening in the Ministry of Environment.

The real problem lies in this situation: nobody is minding the store over there; nobody is governing. No one is looking after the interests oil people in British Columbia; they're looking after the interests of themselves. Instead of dealing with the priorities and the needs of British Columbians, this government is saying anything it thinks will allow it to hold onto power. There's no vision and no leadership, and I think the main reason is that this government has lost the basic prerequisite of effective leadership: the authority to govern. It's not listening to the people.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the session" — amended by adding the following — "and this House regrets that the speech fails to address the urgent issues confronting our province and fails to arrest the political chaos and crisis of confidence engulfing the present administration, which can only now be remedied by means of a provincial general election."

On the amendment.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to rise in this debate and second the motion that's just been made. I'm doing this because I've been in this Legislature for approximately a year and a half, and I've been reflecting on what's happened in that period of time.

HON. MR. FRASER: Another good speech.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Another good speech. I note there's heckling this time. Last time, which was my first throne speech debate, you didn't heckle. In fact, you listened. That was really nice. You've done some of what I suggested you do in that speech. Not enough, but some.

During the by-election, there was a gathering of businessmen, government officials and so on, and I attended. We were asked what the main issue in this election was? Rather than blame any one man for the issue in the Cariboo by-election, I chose to focus on some of the issues that got me into politics. I'm here speaking, a year and a half later, on some of the same themes.

I've watched very closely from this place where we can see many more things going on in the province, where we have an opportunity to raise them and watch closely what the government's been doing. I see there's

[ Page 12032 ]

been insufficient progress. As a result, we have a lack of confidence in the government, That's the reason why we passed this. As the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head said, the only way we're going to resolve this is to give to the people the final referendum on government, which is the general election.

The lack of leadership is probably occurring in this province because those tools of leadership, which are vision, integrity, good information, due process and the recognition of public opinion and finally acting on those recognitions of the public's feelings.... This government has failed. Instead, going back seven or eight years, the government chose to react to a powerful lobby of the timber industry, which basically set in motion a number of forces that have led us to crisis in forest planning and land use planning in British Columbia.

This government has drifted away from what the mainstream of the public has felt is really essential to do in the forests and with the bountiful resources that we have in the province. Instead of leadership, we see chaos. We see a lot of tired ideas that have been recycled through the throne speech. We see a government that has been totally unable to develop an economic strategy to meet the needs of British Columbians today.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to spend a few minutes and deal with the state of resource management in British Columbia. In all the public consultations, we don't see an impact analysis for any of the land use proposals that have come forth. Instead, we see fringe groups that collect themselves together, such as the Valhalla Wilderness Society, and make recommendations for a land use plan. At least, they brought some ideas together. We don't see a reaction from the government. We don't see an analysis of the impact of that. People are left wondering what the impact is. No analysis is being done, even though time has passed. It remained for Simon Fraser University to do an impact analysis, to give us some idea of what would happen if that kind of land use plan was followed in the province.

I referred a little earlier to the 1983 memorandum from the Council of Forest Industries of B.C., which really said that we should get the government out of resource management, let the companies do it and all will be well. The government acted on that. They downsized the Ministry of Forests. They got the public out of the public's business. Now we find that there is absolutely no uncertainty in the minds of the public: it was the wrong thing to have done. We've lost seven years of valuable time when we could have been asserting the public interest in respect to forest management.

Now we see the B.C. Forest Resources Commission has come out and basically concluded the same thing: we have got to do a better job of managing the resources in the interests of all British Columbians.

The people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin have gone for two years and better without any audit of the silviculture programs. We're looking at reinvestment by companies, and they're doing it without any recourse to review by the public from the Ministry of Forests. We cannot downsize and minimize the auditing and monitoring role of the government and expect that we're going to take good care of the forest resource.

We've seen decentralization of resource ministries, which really meant the collection of a lot more experts who were relegated to paper-pushing roles in regional offices, instead of having the resource managers out in the field where they can see what's going on and can be the public presence while the private users are developing the forests. This consolidation of centralized power has resulted in increased alienation on the part of the people who live in the watersheds and who are most affected by the development of the resource.

[3:15]

I'd like to comment on the inventory of the province. We're running a business here, and we don't know what's on the shelves; we don't know what has been sold; we don't know how much is growing, how much is going to be provided to us in the future. One short quote from the Forest Resources Commission: "Both the Ministry of Forests and other users have been applying these inventories beyond their limits of reliability." In other words, we're not managing within the confidence of any measure that we can put before the people and say we have looked at the use of the resource, we know how much we have, and have confidence in that. We can't do that, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, a direction has been put forth by the Forest Resources Commission, calling for decentralized planning; conversion to small, area-based tenures; a natural resources ministry; independence in the operation of the management of the forest industry; increased sensitivity in harvesting; more community control; regional forest base management committees; more value-added; more competition in log marketing; an education that relates to the need for truly integrated resource management; and a more well-rounded education for forest resource workers. These are not new ideas, but they've finally been recognized.

The first member for Cariboo in his speech the other day talked about the NDP and top-down planning processes. Quite to the contrary, we've been on record for years calling for more empowerment of local people in resource management and other issues. Indeed, the Social Credit record is that of creating provincewide commissions and only ad hoc public processes at the local level.

The first member for Cariboo also mentioned that the current cutting levels of overmature timber would allow cutting for 80 years. I suggest to him that the public will not believe that until those areas are mapped and presented, so the people can see the impact and see that in fact those resources are there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are there.

MR. ZIRNHELT: They aren't mapped.

HON. MR. PARKER: You should know better.

[ Page 12033 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT: I know better. The former Minister of Forests is commenting that I should know better, and I am saying: show me. I can read numbers, but I also hear growing unease by foresters from the government and from industry, doubting the numbers that are being presented, because of poor inventory.

There were some good processes in place to deal with these matters, Mr. Speaker: a coordinated resource management planning process, regional resource management committees. There was a public involvement process that was virtually stamped out of existence. There was a folio system that had the overlay of different land users, so that resource managers and companies could see and make better plans — see the impact of some of the uses. All that was set aside.

Now we're seeing the reinvention of the wheel. The excuse is that now the public is demanding it. It seemed to me that the public that I knew had been demanding that for years; it just took an inordinate amount of pressure. As a result, the public remains very cynical about what the government is doing. So initiatives in the throne speech to pull together all the ad hoc processes, I say, are long overdue.

This is the government that eliminated the progressive environment and land use secretariat that was established by the New Democrats. The strategy developed by the initiatives recognized in the throne speech will again be a top-down strategy. We do need a top-down strategy with respect to creating a provincial land use strategy, but we also need a bottom-up strategy That, I suggest, is going to take a long time, and there's absolutely no excuse why this isn't occurring at the moment.

I'd like to make some comments on the whole notion of consultation and the government's record with respect to consultation. A lot of the consultation that's been going on was designed to have its results after a planned provincial election. I'll just give you three examples: the Forest Resources Commission, the round table, the Royal Commission on Health-all due to report. One has reported, the Forest Resources Commission. But we know the government wanted to have an election as soon as last fall and earlier this spring; it just didn't work out. Most of the major consultative processes were designed to have their results known after an election. We're going to see most of these tabled before the election, and we're going to have a chance to debate all these. I think the people will have a chance to judge the government on its lack of progress in most of these areas.

One other thing that I'd like to point out that was close to our area is the Cariboo Local Advisory Council, which was set up in response to a blockade by native people in the Chilcotin; and they agreed to take that down upon a very strong lobby to the government by some of the working people in the area. The government set up a committee, and it's one of these ad hoc processes that suspended normal planning for developing a resource management plan and set up a local committee that's looking again at process. But we've lost valuable time. I remember that in and around that time before the committee was set up, I put forth an agenda and a plan that would deal with some of the problems.

We are faced with a situation where the native people from one of the tribes refused to participate, because it was not hooked to the settlement of land claims. They were invited after the fact to join the process. I think the failure to involve the people in the Chilcotin is a major oversight, and as a result we haven't seen the impact of resource management on those people out there being addressed at the grassroots level. I think we could have avoided a lot of bad feelings that have developed over the last year.

I'm not predicting doom; I'm just saying that there is a better way, and that it wasn't for the want of ideas. It was for the want of will, and establishing a regional committee to somehow deal with all the local problems just isn't sufficient, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Forests admitted in this House — upon questioning by me — that he would set up a process that would successfully involve those people. I'm speaking here of the Chilcotin bands who were given one representative on this group. Although later the group did say, "Come on in, you can all join, " it was too late. Those people felt offended that they were not there up front, when they have been pushing for years for recognition of their rights in the land use planning process.

It's true that when we get to land claims discussions, which this government is now reluctantly getting involved in — first of all by recognizing they have a role and latterly by recognizing that there's going to be some cost to the province — it's going to be a difficult process. I think that we have to start to build trust at the local level. In fact, I spoke to the Task Force on Native Forestry and said that it's really essential to take some small steps to develop the trust that is absolutely essential if we are going to enter into negotiations in good faith and if we aren't going to be mean-spirited about it.

I feel that the danger of reaction of local communities is so great that we have to start slowly but surely and get a common information base. One of those would be mapping the resource base in the Chilcotin plateau, for example, which hasn't been done in a form.... It's easy to do. You take a satellite photo, you map out the mature forests, the immature forests and the sensitive sites, and you put it on the table and say: "This is the...."

HON. MR. PARKER: It has been done.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It hasn't been done.

HON. MR. PARKER: Oh yes, it has. All you have to do is go across the street and get it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: No, it hasn't been done. They're telling me it has been done, but it has not been presented in any way to the public. If you ask for information from the Ministry of Forests on the effect of the old-growth deferral, or if you look for information on any of the Parks '90 plans as to how much mature timber is in there, they can't tell you a figure. They have to study it some more.

[ Page 12034 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: Misleading the House.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm accused of misleading the House, when I think I know of which I speak here.

HON. MR. PARKER: Well, I'm afraid you don't.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Well, if I don't know what's going on in the Cariboo with respect to forest management, then nobody knows, because I've been asking for the information for a long time.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Then I suggest you table those maps with the people and have a public involvement process to discuss them.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: We're not talking about simple little maps that nobody can read; we're talking about information presented.....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Lands and Parks may have his own opportunity to stand. In the meantime, the second member for Cariboo has been recognized. Possibly you could extend the courtesy of letting him complete his speech.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must be hitting close to home on some of these issues.

I'd like to give an example of the lack of successful public involvement processes that's affecting the people in the Cariboo. For example, the beetle-kill licences, which expanded the cut significantly — by about 50 percent — were extended a couple of years ago with no public hearings. There was no public involvement and no attempt to tell the public what was going to go on. As a result, people feel somewhat distrustful — to the point where I think it's of crisis proportions. I think that the only way we're going to re-establish that is to collapse all these regional land use planning processes into one, bring all the people around the table and get on with it.

One of the problems with the consultation being presented right now by both companies and the government is that it's a walk-through process. Maps are put up on the wall, and you can walk into a room and discuss it one on one. That's good for information transfer, but in my view it's not adequate for debate on the essential issues with respect to forest use and land use management.

I think we singularly lack an opportunity for government ministries to be on the stand to answer questions about resource management in the future and their past performance. I think the government has wanted to govern from its own narrow view of economic growth, and I think this is the kind of growth that cannot be sustained without chaos. It seems to me that this approach has resulted in rampant ad hockery — as the Leader of the Opposition calls it — and it's just not good enough in this day and age when all of the technical tools are available to us to do better.

I'd like to mention the role of the education system and welcome the emphasis put by the Forest Resources Commission on developing programs in schools. I know this is underway. But there is much more than just information about resources being put into the school system. We need people to fully understand the public involvement process. People need to be encouraged to take an active part in the communities and look at the real-life resource planning as it goes on. With that, people would develop the ability to become active citizens and leaders, to help us resolve the crises that we find ourselves in.

A word on local resource-use plans, Mr. Speaker. The problem with local resource-use plans is that they are generally driven by the Ministry of Forests. They don't successfully involve the other ministries, and they are only created in reaction to crises. Rarely — I'm not saying it never happens — does it ever happen on a proactive basis, to solve problems and do the planning before we have a crisis. The Ministry of Forests has the majority of the staff; the Ministry of Environment generally only has limited staff to put into these planning processes. That isn't good enough.

It seems to me that if we're going to empower local communities to seriously help make decisions about the economic future of their regions and their valleys, they need information, and they need a recognized established process. I welcome the fact that the Forest Resources Commission recognizes that, but we're a long way from doing it. As I said, these ideas are not new. This government is going to be judged for having failed to have put these processes into place, because most of them take some time to create results.

We know that people want jobs and employment; they don't want welfare and unemployment. It seems to me that 10 percent unemployment is totally acceptable. But we've gotten into a situation in the interior with respect to modernizing the forest industry that is totally unaccountable to the public when downsizing the work force. We've only kept it afloat by cutting more and more timber. While you could argue whether or not this is overcutting, I think the point is that as soon as you cut more than grows, you are overcutting.

As a result, we have created communities that are overly dependent on what we call the "spaghetti mill." We need to develop the value-added. To do that, we have to keep the pressure on the people who have the timber licences to develop alternative economic structures in these communities that will result in employment. I'm talking here about the businesses that will be involved in reforestation and the businesses that will create further products out of the timber base that we have.

[3:30]

My next topic has to do with changes to the Election Act, which I think will make people more cynical. When people arrive on voting day to find out they can't sign up, they will blame this government, and this will create some further alienation. It seems to me that the fundamental right to vote is absolutely essential. When

[ Page 12035 ]

we see that people are disillusioned with political processes, we should be doing everything we can to encourage them to be there. As a result, I think we have to reinstitute section 80 in the Election Act, and we've called on the government to do that. There are hundreds of thousands of people off the voter list. We cannot have a healthy system without them.

In his reply to the throne speech, the first member for Cariboo also took issue with my view of the record of the New Democrat government. I don't want to talk about Ontario, and I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about our record from '72 to '75. But as we're headed into a deficit this year, it's really important to remember that last year this government predicted we were in a fragile economy — they knew. We are having trouble getting a budget into the House, because they are afraid of the word "deficit."

Contrast the performance of the last few years to that of the New Democrats from '72 to '75. I'm mentioning this because in the context of fear about balanced budgets, we are committing ourselves to balancing the budget over the business cycle, and we intend to take a responsible approach to doing only what the people can afford.

When in government, the New Democrats never produced a deficit budget and never ran up direct debt. During the New Democrat administration, B.C. had the lowest income tax rate for small businesses and the second-lowest personal income tax rate. Billions of dollars were brought in from investments that the government had made. The New Democrats put real cash, totalling $201 million, into special rainy-day funds. When Social Credit defeated the NDP in '75, these special funds contained a total of $550 million. That was real money from real budget surpluses. The 1975 Public Accounts shows that when the NDP left office the budget surplus was $45 million higher than when it came to power. Now the Socreds have planted seeds of poison in the minds of people. They've had about 15 years to repeat some untruths about our record. Hearing it over and over again, some people will believe it; however, I think the truth will be known.

The argument that the NDP left the province with a deficit of $500 million comes from the fact that the Socreds cooked the books. Perhaps we should use the same people who cooked the books when we get into government, and maybe we'll reveal an even greater deficit.

This is how the books were cooked: by underestimating revenue, particularly sales tax and forest revenues, $80 million; by considering as grants loans to Crown corporations that should have been paid back to the province, $82 million; by rejecting the federal-provincial rail agreement, $30 million; by not transferring to the province cash earned by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, $27 million; by making a totally unnecessary grant to ICBC, $181 million; by making totally unnecessary grants to B.C. Hydro and the transit bureau, which had adequate borrowing authority to meet their needs, $59 million; by refusing to use the Housing Corporation of B.C. to finance capital expenditures on housing, $63 million; and by calling a deposit in B.C. Central Credit Union a grant, $2.5 million. All this totals $524.5 million.

In 1972 the new NDP government could have been able to show that the Socreds had left the province with a $1 billion deficit, which is twice what the Socreds claim was left by the NDP in 1975, by taking the Columbia River and B.C. Rail expansion costs and including them in the financial review. The NDP chose not to juggle the figures to score some political points; instead, they presented the financial picture in a straightforward fashion. It's too bad the new government did not do the same thing in 1976. I just wanted to set the record straight on the financial performance of the New Democrats.

I remind you of the government's record here: the $500 million overrun on the Coquihalla; probable loss of $100 million on Expo lands; and SkyTrain being $700 million over budget. Compare that with our record. It looks pretty bad.

I'd like to speak about a few of the needs of the people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and how the throne speech has dealt with some of those, I hope. First, we need clear land use planning processes in order to reduce the uncertainty about the economic future. That hasn't been done in this throne speech. We need a government here and evidence that they are willing to introduce measures that will protect drinking water and manage the watersheds, which are both polluted by sewage, cattle and other uses.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The former Minister of Forests is trying to slur my name by saying that the fertilizing that's brought in by horse loggers is in fact pollution. He should know that the horse loggers are very careful around streams — and the horses are too. They're very well trained for the purpose, and he knows that. He's been a great supporter of horse logging, I know.

We need to know that our school budgets will provide us with a stable, predictable and fair funding formula. Increases in funding in the order of 0.6 to 2.5 percent in the districts that I represent are just not good enough. In spite of the recommendations by yet another royal commission for stability in funding, we haven't seen that developed.

I have one other comment about an initiative that's mentioned in the throne speech — the planning of resource roads. I remember back some 20 years when it was well known in planning circles that when you put a road into resources, you plan for all the resources. And here we are 20 years later, trying to develop legislation to require a coordinated approach to the planning of resource roads.

The first member for Cariboo, whose speech made such an impression on me that I have to rebut some of the things he said, took issue with the Leader of the Opposition being from Vancouver. I'm sure he would recognize that he's proud of being from Vancouver and proud of his record when he was mayor of Vancouver. I would like to say this about the Leader of the Opposition: he was successful in his position and you have had lots of time to expose scandals. There haven't

[ Page 12036 ]

been any uncovered yet. This was the second-most powerful job in the province, and I predict to you that he will be successful in the most powerful job in the province, which is that of Premier. This is because he will listen to the people of the Cariboo.

I would like to remind you that in the past two years he has been to the Cariboo at least seven times. That's a better record than any other Premier or Leader of the Opposition. I'm proud to say that when he did visit the Cariboo, he listened to what people had to say, and he showed that he was knowledgeable about the issues raised by the timber industry, the native people and the chamber of commerce. I know that he will continue to listen to the people of the Cariboo and that if he doesn't listen, I will be reminding him of it.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The member opposite wanted to know if the Leader of the Opposition knew what an agricultural lease looked like. Well, the next time I see a good one, I'm going to be sure to point it out to him. But I would like to say that when he goes and looks at agricultural leases, he won't have to borrow snowshoes from the Ministry of Forests to look at them on top of the snow, as the present Minister of Lands had to do when he was looking at agricultural leases. If we have consultants like the Minister of Lands when we do resource management, we can do all our planning from snowshoes; we won't even have to look at the soil.

HON. MR. PARKER: Is that right?

MR. ZIRNHELT: We might hire you; there might be a job for you in our administration.

HON. MR. PARKER: Do you know what horse logging is?

MR. ZIRNHELT: It seems like the Minister of Lands wants to talk about horse logging. He knows that it creates a lot of jobs and is very sensitive to the forest. He's worried about the fertilizer they spread, but the forest needs that in places.

I don't want to be distracted by the heckling from the other side. The very knowledgeable member over there is kind of getting me off the point.

I would like to remind the House that in spite of all the crisis, chaos and scandals going on around us, New Democrats have been putting forward very sincere, well-thought-out programs that the people will be able to learn about more specifically when the election happens. We've got reams of policy, but the issues we have been concentrating on and have spoken thousands of hours about are ensuring fair and open government, equality for women and fairness for all British Columbia families. We want to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians during economic downturns; we want to achieve tax fairness for British Columbians; we want to provide more affordable housing; we want to renew the forest industry; we want to ensure a longer-term economic future for the resource-dependent communities in B.C.; and we want a better balance between economic growth and protecting our environment.

In fact, we took the initiative to establish what we call an environment and jobs accord, which deals with the need to do time-limited regional planning in the crisis areas and eventually in the whole of the province, so that we can get away from the ad hoc negligent approaches that have been taken in the past.

In conclusion, I want to remind the House and the people of the province that this is the same old gang that's a little tired, that's left us living in chaos and that has failed to instill confidence in the public. The morale in the political arena is very low among the voters. The failure to plan for a changing economy has left us with a nervous feeling about the future. However, we feel that the future in this great province can be great if we seriously put our heads to working together and not confronting one another in a way where somebody has to lose. As I said when I opened my speech, the resolution of the crisis and chaos is going to be by the ultimate referendum: the vote of the electorate.

I'm not sure that people will rush to the polls in as great numbers as we had hoped, because some of them are going to get there and find that they're not on the voter list and there's no way to put them on. But we will be doing our part to ensure that people are not disfranchised. I think that to elect a New Democratic government, under the leadership of a person who will listen and a party which has a well-thought-out and affordable platform, will give people hope. If they elect New Democratic members from every region of the province, we will ensure a voice in government for those regions, under the Leader of the Opposition, who has spent considerable time and effort planning to be in that position and consulting broadly with a full range of people in the province.

MR. DE JONG: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in this House. I would like to say first that I'll be speaking against the amendment, but I'm very pleased to speak in favour of the throne speech. It's loaded with many good things; it covers just about everything, even though the Leader of the Opposition didn't think so. Particularly in view of the circumstances — and we are all familiar with the circumstances and the time that was allowed to put this speech together — I think it's a good document.

[3:45]

Not unlike some other governments, though, this government has without a doubt experienced some trying times, which I would like to compare to a gardener or a farmer preparing his field or garden following fall or winter, when the elements of nature have taken their toll on trees, shrubs, plants, etc. Storms cause delays, and damage has to be assessed. Some of the various types of storms do leave their mark, and it takes time and energy just to do the cleanup job, let alone planning the crops for the following season. The people of Sumas Prairie who were affected by the floods of the Nooksack River last November, as well as the people of the Chilliwack River valley — some of whom lost all of their belongings, including their homes — will tell you all about

[ Page 12037 ]

what it is just to finish the cleanup and re-establish themselves after winter storms.

In similar fashion, the clouds of uncertainty displayed themselves over Victoria. The short windup session provided the government with the opportunity to do some cleanup caused by the storms. It also provided the preparation of the soil to establish some of the basic direction for the coming year. We think of the bills that were passed in that short little session.

In the Chilliwack River valley, it wasn't just that properties were damaged; the river became a total ruin on account of the storms. Sport fishing was almost, if not entirely, eliminated. I must give the former Minister of Environment, the first member for Okanagan South, a lot of credit for the work he did on the rechannelling, as well as on the protection of the clay banks that have been seriously damaged by the storms, and for the work done on the stabilization that this river needed. Undoubtedly a lot more work is to be done, and I'm sure that with good government the river will become what it once was — a sportsman's paradise.

The Nooksack River had its effects on Sumas Prairie. Even though it is very difficult to get some negotiations going with the government in Washington, I believe that we must continue, at all three levels of government, to seek an agreement with the people in Washington so that proper dikes can be built to protect not only the farmers in British Columbia but also those south of the border.

It's not, as members of the opposition would like to have the people believe, that this government is not governing. This government has recognized throughout its mandate that in order to continue to maintain the level of services which people are accustomed to and deserve, any government has the responsibility in good times not to spend all the money but rather to save some dollars so that when recession does take place there are still some resources available. From the resources available they are to provide those essential services which the people are depending on: education, health and social services. What would we do if the coffers were empty? We can only pass it on to the next generation.

This is why the Compensation Fairness Act was essential. The act was not designed to take a stab at a particular group, even though it may be felt that way by some. It was simply designed to ensure that the cost of services to the public would not be in excess of what they could afford to pay either in the short term or over the long haul.

On this side of the House we know how much the taxpayer can afford. We also know that the quality of those essential services which the people of this province are deserving of should not simply be gauged on the money placed towards these services. It is, and has been, the dedication and determination that British Columbians have displayed and practised for many years that this government wishes to see continue. If governments do not practise fiscal responsibility, who will? We run the risk of losing the dedication and determination of the people if we do not practise fiscal restraint.

If there's ever a time when the general public appreciates what the pioneers have achieved through determination and hard work in less than 150 years of Confederation in terms of infrastructure, cities and towns established, it's during times of depressed economic conditions. I believe that the opposition would do themselves a lot of good if they looked at some of the positive things rather than complaining about the present, as they have been doing for so long.

I'm pleased that while there was very little time — to put it in gardener's terms — to plant the seeds which we find in the throne speech, I am proud to find that one of the first items touched upon deals with the constitution of our country. We in British Columbia are a vital part of Canada, and British Columbians from all walks of life will have an opportunity to participate.

Recognizing that British Columbia, like any other province, is of a multicultural makeup, our problems are the same. However, our objective to solve these problems in a harmonious way may be somewhat different than those of the other provinces and obviously quite different from the socialist policies from across the floor. I believe that many politicians over the past year have tried to grab headlines labelling many of the small cultural groups as "minority groups, " often stating that governments at all levels have a special responsibility to these "minority groups." Well, having come as an immigrant to this country myself, and while I'm not in one of those groups that has millions of people in Canada.... We are probably also considered a minority group. As I consider myself as a person within such a group, and if I consider that every culture or ethnic group has a tile within that Canadian mosaic, which some people can display very accurately.... I believe that all Canadians — including the new immigrants, those that are of a minority group as we may call them — have a responsibility to keep their part of the tile to which they belong shining in a Canadian society. The entire ethnic group has a responsibility to keep their tile shining so that there are no dark or unpolished blotches. I believe that every British Columbian — no matter of what race or nationality originally, or what cultural or ethnic persuasion — wishes to be a part of polishing that tile and keeping it polished, and works hard at it.

The reference in the throne speech to the cultural building in our province.... I trust and I know that this government will continue to provide that freedom and ability to allow every British Columbian to shine forth in our Canadian society.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to see the direction in this speech in expanding services to victims of family violence and sexual assault. Perhaps I'm somewhat biased on this one; however, when the effects of such violence in society hit home within one's own family circle, as it happened to our daughter in California this past March.... I suppose you will all understand that the trauma of such acts of violence has a long-lasting effect on the person involved, perhaps for a lifetime.

I agree totally with the point made in the throne speech that the only and effective means for those active in creating such violence must be aggressively addressed, and punishment of such acts should not be

[ Page 12038 ]

minimized. I have no doubt that the people of this province, and especially the women, will applaud the government for this initiative.

The Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues have made reference to some areas in the economic structure not being addressed in this throne speech. Likewise has the Leader of the Opposition failed to respond to some of the very positive points in the speech — which I am sure leaves many British Columbians wondering about the leader of the socialists.

The Leader of the Opposition made special reference to the agriculture industry. He said that a socialist government would provide $47 million to the fruit industry in the Okanagan valley. He said it as though this government had totally ignored the problems of the fruit industry Quite to the contrary, this govern ment has provided close to $30 million in assistance to the fruit industry. This government has initiated the

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and started a ten-year replanting program at $2 million for this year, plus some other incentives which I'm sure we will hear about in due time.

This government is involved in tripartite agreements with various components within the agriculture industry, as well as crop insurance. For example, this government has just signed an agreement for the grain farmers of the total province with the federal government called GRIP. This again is a participatory program by the industry. All of these programs are infrastructure-enhancement programs, long-term stabilization programs, not short-term election promises.

Yes, the free trade agreement is of concern to the agriculture industry. Just because there's no mention of it in the throne speech.... Both levels of government fully recognize these concerns. This government has never denied that the free trade agreement would have an affect on agricultural commodities. Therefore I have no fear of what this government has already done to balance these concerns. It is fully prepared to consult with the industry for stable, long-term programs on which the farmer can build, plan and succeed in a competitive marketplace.

I will add that, at the conference I attended in February and in discussions with Mr. Mazankowski and Mr. Jim Hewitt, representing the Farm Credit Corporation, their goals are exactly those our government has been looking at and busy implementing. We are not looking at a short-term bandage approach; we are looking at long-term success instead.

The only other place the Leader of the Opposition can think of to throw more money at is the Agricultural Land Commission. I find it rather strange the Leader of the Opposition would make such an outrageous statement regarding the Agricultural Land Commission without really looking at, in any depth, the effectiveness of the institution and the benefits it provides for the industry and to society as a whole. There is no doubt: trends in the agricultural industries are changing, and the Agricultural Land Commission, together with government, must work along with those changes — which will mean, again, the survival of the industry as well as the land. I'm all in favour — and I know the members of this side of the House are as well — of preserving the prime agricultural land but at the same time providing a climate for the entrepreneurial, industrious, energetic farmers to succeed and be able to make a positive contribution to this province's economic standards.

[4:00]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the other day that if we wanted to comment on Ontario — I believe he was addressing this to some members on this side of the House — then perhaps we should move there. Well, I'm sure that after eight months of socialistic government, many of us would be welcomed by that government to help them out of their mess. I got a letter from my brother the other day. He lives close to Toronto. He wrote me that for every car that's sold in excess of $35,000, $2,400 in additional tax on top of all the other taxes has to be paid by the purchaser of that car.

In conclusion, the general message in the Speech from the Throne is the same as it was in this little booklet provided by the government back in 1957-58 after the first five years of Social Credit government in British Columbia. It still has the same message, except it's expanded considerably. But the basic message is that unless we continue to build the infrastructure and provide the climate for private enterprise to operate, we will not be able to provide the services the people of this province deserve. The people cannot get that under socialism, as has been proven in other countries which are now turning towards private enterprise after years of a substandard lifestyle under socialism, and because of it.

The people of British Columbia have given it their best for many years. Governments have not built this province; people have built this province. The people are prepared to give it their best. Let's give them a hand.

MRS. BOONE: I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment and the motion from my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the throne speech last week, the question on everyone's mind is: "Why bother?" What was the point of calling us all back and putting us through the pains of listening to a rehash of the former Premier's promises? One could have saved us all some time by showing us a tape of the Premier's televised speech of last January, throwing in a few NDP promises for good measure and then saying: "Me too." It's clear that this is a tired, old government that will say and do anything to stay in power. Had the acting Premier wished to make her mark and to make a difference, she could have repealed Bill 82, which is causing tremendous unrest and disturbance within the school system.

I'd like to quote from the Citizen newspaper. I think it's rather interesting that trustee Bob Holtby said at a meeting of the school district there.... Bob Holtby, who sought to be a Social Credit candidate in the Prince George North riding, said he found the act "personally offensive." He went on to say: "I've been sitting here for five years, and every time I think

[ Page 12039 ]

they've done something stupid, they turn around and do something more stupid." To which trustee Doug Walls quipped: "That's pursuit of excellence." Walls also said that "if the goal of the new act is to draw the public education system into a pre-election controversy, the government doesn't deserve the public's trust."

Mr. Speaker, it's clear that this is the same old government. You can change the leader, you can change the ministers and you can shuffle the deck all you want, but you end up with the same old jokers in the end. It's almost funny the way the members of this government are scrambling to distance themselves from the former Premier. In fact, one can almost feel sorry for him suddenly finding out the type of people he was dealing with, whom he thought were friends. All you had to do was to watch the performance of the Social Credit government today when the former Premier made his speech, to find out just how lonely he probably feels right now. Those who desperately clung to his coat-tails — and I do mean desperately in many cases — are trying to claim that they didn't know that the coat was made of polyester, and they didn't know that it was dirty.

If the cabinet truly didn't know what was going on, and if they really didn't know what this man was like, then they were the only ones in British Columbia who didn't. Quite frankly, that makes them incredibly stupid. Candidates were quitting, presidents were resigning and leadership reviews were being called throughout the province, yet cabinet ministers stubbornly stood behind their leader until he could no longer win. Once they thought he could no longer win, they abandoned him like a sinking ship.

Mr. Speaker, all of British Columbia wants to know where the cabinet was when Bill 19 was developed behind closed doors without the knowledge of the Labour ministers. Where were you when the Premier centralized control of his office and made all deputies report to him? Where were you when $40 million was spent to get the government message out, while people waited in line for open-heart surgery? Where were you when the use of the government jets for ambulance purposes was decreased by 34 percent, yet costs increased by 32 percent and cabinet used the government jets as a taxi service?

Where were you when the minister of state program was instituted without thought, and $8 million was raised unnecessarily through special warrants? By the way, where are those ministers today, and where are all of those wonderful programs of decentralization? Now we don't even have a ministry that talks about regional development; instead we have something else combined into a big ministry, but no talk about regional development anymore.

Where were you throughout the discussions of the Knight Street Pub affair or the sale of the Expo lands? Where were you when a single minister was granted the power to give loans and grants up to $1 million on his or her own authority? Where were you when the independent advisory committee to approve lottery grants was dissolved, and the minister was given that full responsibility? We've seen what that full responsibility has resulted in: a shamed fiasco, with the transfer of funds to the friends and insiders of the minister. We've seen that grants and lotteries have gone from $14.5 million in the seventies to $83.1 million in 1988-89. From that tight control in the seventies, it has gone to where a minister may grant a lottery grant for any purpose the minister considers to be in the public interest.

I think we should all ask all of those cabinet ministers where they were when the government, time and time again, refused to fund AZT, the drug for AIDS. Where were you when they refused that? Where were you when you refused time and time again to fund lunches for schoolchildren? All of a sudden you found heart, you say? I think not.

We know where you were. You were all in cabinet. You were all sitting there voting and supporting these initiatives. You sat silent and went along with your leader, and by that silence you agreed with him. You showed us and the province of British Columbia that you, along with the Premier, don't know the difference between right and wrong.

If you didn't agree, why didn't you resign, or at least speak up? Others did. Changing leaders just isn't good enough. It's a little bit like removing a noxious weed: you can remove one, but that won't help a whole lot, because those others will still take over. You have to get rid of all of those noxious weeds. All the throne speeches in the world won't help, because we are still left with the same noxious weeds as before. This government has totally failed the people of British Columbia.

Several years ago the Minister of Finance announced his famous BS fund — a rainy-day fund, he called it. He said it was there for when times got tough, so that they could implement programs and keep the government in operation. He stated, when he implemented it: "My definition of a rainy day is not an election, but that's not to say that we won't have to spend it in an election year." Guess what? We've just come through a time that I think the government thought was going to be an election year, and I think they actually thought that we would have been through an election by this time. The money has been spent; it's not there.

We're in a situation right now where we need those funds to keep programs going, and no money whatsoever has been saved. We've been through some very good times in this province. The economy has been doing well. Did this government save money? No. Revenues were high; this government didn't save money. Do you know what they did? They increased spending by 12 percent; in good times, they increased spending by 12 percent. Now when we really need it, when there are programs suffering and revenues are down, we don't have any of that rainy-day fund. We don't have any cushion there at all.

They even have the nerve, in this throne speech, to suggest a tax hike — a tax hike from this government, which condemns taxes at all times. A tax hike is what they say they're going to give us. What happened to the rainy-day fund? The rains are here now, and we

[ Page 12040 ]

have no cushion whatsoever. This government does not deserve a second chance.

Last week we heard whining from Socred members that New Democrats are not the only ones who care. More than one member got up and said those words, over and over: "You're not the only ones who care. You New Democrats aren't the only ones who have a social conscience." Well, forgive us and the public for not recognizing it.

Forgive us for not being impressed with the medals that were given, instead of action on women's issues. Forgive us for misunderstanding this government's constant refusal to fund the drug AZT, and forgive us for misunderstanding the Minister of Parks' comments that AIDS was a self-inflicted wound. Forgive us for misinterpreting some government members' heckling when welfare moms brought their plight to the Legislature. And forgive us for being disgusted when the Minister of Health said that cancer patients in the north will be well served by clinics in the lower mainland and Kamloops. That's just not good enough. Forgive us for distrusting a government that prefers to send patients to Seattle rather than investing in our own health services.

I think that we can all be forgiven for not seeing this as a caring government. When the needs of the people are put ahead of the friends and the insiders of this government, then and only then will the government be able to lay claims to caring. It's not good enough to find a social conscience just prior to an election.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close my remarks with a quote from Breach of Promise, by Graham Leslie, former Deputy Minister of Labour. Mr. Leslie states:

"I believe that the B.C. Social Credit Party is no longer fit to govern British Columbia, and that it has disqualified itself ethically as well as on the basis of its management incompetence. If the party is ever again to offer itself as a free enterprise candidate for government office in this province, I believe it urgently needs time in opposition, where it can identify for itself and its allies the ideals it stands for, other than the acquisition of power apparently for the sake of friends and financial supporters."

This comment comes not from a long-time New Democrat, and not even from a short-time supporter of the New Democratic Party, but from somebody who admits that he has voted Social Credit for the past 30 years. He has voted Social Credit for the past 30 years, and he says it's time for a change. This government doesn't deserve a second chance. I think the rest of this province believes that it's time for a change as well. Let the people decide. Give us an election today.

[4:15]

HON. MR. MESSMER: I am privileged to take part in this debate on the Speech from the Throne, in support of the government's initiatives for the session and against the amendment.

Firstly, I would like to say how proud I am of our caucus, in that they elected a highly capable woman to the office of Premier of the province of British Columbia. The Premier is the first woman in Canada to hold the position of Premier, and it proves once again that we are an equal-opportunity party

Last Thursday the second member for Boundary-Similkameen talked about the government's supposed neglect of small business and agriculture in the throne speech. He omitted to say why. By tradition, the throne speech sets out the government's new proposals for a session. The member conveniently forgot to point out that this government has spent the past five years putting in place programs and policies to assist small business and agricultural industries.

Having, served as co-chairman of the provincial government's small business task force, I can tell you that small business is big business in British Columbia. Provincewide, up to 95 percent of the net new jobs created in the last year came from small business. When you consider that British Columbia created almost half of the new jobs in all of Canada last year, this number is all the more impressive. In addition, the greatest contribution we provide to small business growth is maintaining a healthy free enterprise climate and keeping our outstanding people-programs soundly managed and affordable to the taxpayer.

Figures released by this government in November 1990 showed that 1,615 jobs are being created as a result of the government's new financial incentive programs. Since May 1990, a total of 194 approvals have been provided to small businesses, including 132 under the business start-up program and 62 under the small business assistance program. A wide variety of small businesses are being assisted through these programs, helping to further diversify the province's economic base.

Unlike the member's NDP counterparts....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the fact that there is not a quorum has been brought to the attention of the Chair. I'll ring the bells, and when sufficient members have returned to the chamber, we'll continue with the business.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Unlike the member's NDP counterparts in Ontario....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The quorum is leaving as you are speaking. Either the Whips can organize it so that there are at least a minimum number of members in the chamber, or I'll accept a motion to adjourn; but I will not tolerate members walking out just because we've established a quorum. Would the member please continue.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Unlike the member's NDP counterparts in Ontario, whose actions are choking small business recovery and ensuring that jobs are lost forever to the citizens in that province, this government has acted responsibly in developing small business policies which emphasize innovation rather than handouts. B.C.'s agricultural community has diversified greatly in recent years, as new, more specialized market opportunities have opened up. At the same time, however, there is a need to address the serious

[ Page 12041 ]

adjustment pressures which world market conditions are imposing on some of our traditionally strong production sectors.

The orchards of the Okanagan, Similkameen and Creston Valleys are more than just an industry. Historically they have been an integral part of British Columbia's identity, defining both how we see ourselves and how others see us. It is no secret that the fruit industry has been struggling for a number of years and for a variety of reasons. Last year the government of British Columbia undertook a strategy to retool the industry, to get it ready for the nineties, to reposition the industry in a competitive, market-driven global economy and remarket our superior products both at home and abroad.

The first step was emergency assistance totalling some $13 million, which was shared by the federal and provincial governments. The second step was the formation of a Crown corporation called the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. The corporation's mandate was to work with British Columbia tree-fruit growers, processors and marketers to begin a grass-roots restructuring of the industry. This restructuring is well underway. Local industry leaders comprise the corporation's board, and local growers are providing input to the program development on the basis of their own personal experience.

This is an example of the democratic process in action. The people who work and own orchards are mapping the way to their future. This is the free enterprise way, rather than the socialist, centralist way. This method of expediting the change will not keep people in bondage to government handouts as a method of control. Our plan for restructuring has seen an estimated expenditure of close to $20 million on the fruit industry in the past year. But that expenditure is being made in the context of making this important industry more competitive in the free market of the 1990s. The grape and wine industry in my own constituency has been going through a wonderful renewal that is a credit to the growers and the government that has supported them.

Once again, the strategy to retool, reposition and remarket their product under the $28 million federal-provincial cooperative agreement has been a model that others would do well to follow. The industry led the way in forecasting market demands, and they designed a strategy to meet those demands by the year 2000. Our grape and wine industry wanted to compete, they wanted to be players in the free enterprise system and they wanted to win. That is what the government wanted them to do as well.

This industry has already achieved a tremendous response from British Columbians. The industry is developing and marketing superior product that is rapidly becoming a favourite wine beverage both at home and abroad. I understand that the demand is increasing so fast they're going to have to work extra hard to meet it.

The cooperation of the liquor control branch, the liquor distribution branch and the Ministry of Agriculture has led to the formation of the B.C. Wine Institute. This institute was launched last summer to place quality B.C. wines in world contention. I understand that this past Christmas the demand for B.C. wines grew by some 30 percent-plus over any other period on record. This is yet one more example of people using their own individuality, experience and creativity to prosper in the free enterprise system.

Tourism is also small business, and this government has assisted local governments and non-profit societies to provide tourism attractions to invite people to British Columbia. Let me list some examples from my own riding of Boundary-Similkameen. We've assisted with beach and lakeshore resort improvements: Rotary Beach in Surnmerland, Kinsmen Beach at the Osoyoos lakefront, walkways in Osoyoos, the Kiwanis pier and walkway in Penticton. This is called working with service clubs. We've provided funding assistance for a harvesting machine to keep the lakes clear of milfoil — cooperation with communities, sharing that responsibility.

Fish and wildlife programs — again, working with the fish and wildlife organizations. The Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Social Services have provided funding assistance to staff information centres coordinated with the chambers of commerce. Assistance with the establishment of the Coquihalla information centre, in cooperation with the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association, and donated land for the use of information centres such as the one in Christina Lake.... The Partners in Tourism program has assisted the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association with promotion and advertising. It's called sharing with local business to promote tourism to people from outside of our area.

Special events such as agricultural fairs in Rock Creek and the Harvest and Grape Fiesta in Penticton, just to name a few; sporting events such as Ironman Canada, an international event; promotion of cultural events such the B.C. Festival of the Arts, which provides an annual operating grant for the Okanagan Summer School of the Arts and attracts visitors from around the world; Music '91, which encourages British Columbia residents to vacation in their home province, assisting communities to help their major attractions....

Besides all of that, we have assisted with golf courses in the Okanagan, community centres, arenas, hiking and biking pathways. I'll just name a few of the golf courses we have assisted: Christina Lake, Kettle Valley, Osoyoos, Oliver, Penticton and Surnmerland. Besides all of that, we have helped with 16 kilometres of walking paths in the Oliver area. All the events are not only needed by the people who live within the area, but are a means of attracting tourists to the beautiful valley we live in.

Heritage sites such as the Keremeos Grist Mill, the SS Sicamous and the CPR station on Railway Avenue; cultural site attractions, by providing operating grants for museums and art galleries, and the Boundary Museum improvements; enhancement of tourism-related industries through the establishment of the farm winery and estate wineries, and a grant to assist the Okanagan Wine Festival Society to stage the festival

[ Page 12042 ]

and promote B.C. wines; downtown beautification programs and village square programs....

I believe our government has assisted Boundary-Similkameen in the small business and tourism field, as well as assisting communities to spruce up their downtown areas to attract business. And the member opposite said we have done nothing.

The throne speech recognizes that sound environmental management and protection must encompass more than one community, and often more than one particular river system. Just recently we heard from Oak Bay–Gordon Head about the fact that government should be doing something about the sewage system within their community. I can tell you that it's a cooperative field.

The Penticton sewage treatment is an excellent example of an imaginative solution to waste management taken by this government and local government. The plant is a tertiary treatment plant which uses a biological nutrient removal system. The province kicked in more than 75 percent towards this project, the first of its kind in North America. This new technology is not only protecting the quality of our environment but also has created export opportunities.

With the provincial government's assistance, the communities of Okanagan Falls, Osoyoos, Oliver and Keremeos in my constituency have also done a tremendous job in doing their part to preserve and protect our precious lake system. I'm proud to represent a government and a constituency which does more than talk about environmental protection.

I had the privilege of serving as Parks minister for a year, and I can tell you that the preservation of the pristine quality of life in British Columbia is important to this government and to its citizens. Through initiatives such as Parks Plan '90, we are securing employment and social values associated with our forest heritage at the same time as promoting tourism.

It is the policy of this government to involve the public, and over 11,000 British Columbians attended public meetings and made their views known concerning the priorities for parks and wilderness areas for the 1990s. In my area alone, we operate 368 campsites and 600 day-use beach and picnic sites. Visitors to those sites enjoy the natural surroundings and, through participation in nature programs, gain respect and understanding of our forest heritage and resources. Campgrounds from Christina Lake to Surnmerland to our western boundary at Hedley supply our tourists with a parkland setting — an invitation to stay in beautiful British Columbia.

As Solicitor-General, I am responsible for law and order, and it pleases me to inform the House of the active and positive enforcement measures that this government is taking. The Attorney-General and I will be taking a submission to the federal government asking for tougher enforcement of deportation laws for gang members in this province who commit serious criminal offences. The stance we have taken, I can assure this House, has wide public support.

[4:30]

If a person is in British Columbia on a permit or interim status, short of having qualified for citizenship, and if we have solid evidence to show a person participates in a group whose dominant purpose is proven to be lawlessness, and they have a right to a full hearing with counsel, then there is no reason, in fairness to them or to the British Columbia taxpayers, not to call on them to show cause why their interim status should not be revoked and they should not be sent back to the country of their origin.

I want to make an important point: we are not singling out immigrant groups. We are very concerned about the insufficient penalties in a number of fields, particularly the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, and with the need to protect witnesses to get convictions. In fact, it is the immigrant communities which are vulnerable and bear, by far, the brunt of this despicable gang activity. Let me assure the people of this province: we will not abandon the streets of our cities to these thugs.

On the subject of conflict-of-interest guidelines, it should be remembered that it was the Social Credit administration that brought in conflict-of-interest guidelines and legislation, and it is the Social Credit government that proposes to refer the act to a committee of the Legislature for a full review of its adequacy and effectiveness.

One wonders about how the Leader of the Opposition would have fared had his party formed the administration in the fall of 1986, given his record as mayor of Vancouver. As the mayor of Vancouver, calling himself "Robin Hood," he let a developer break a zoning bylaw by buying his way out with a payment of $500,000 to the city. The Court of Appeal of B.C. had dismissed the company's application to stop the city from ordering demolition of four oversized luxury condominium units that were illegally built in the Shaughnessy Two development. As mayor, the member opted to turn a blind eye to the illegal units in exchange for $500,000, even though he himself had voted with council in support of demolition there earlier, saying that trust and rules are vitally important to the development of the city. A quote in Sunday's edition of the Vancouver Sun on June 13, 1984, attributed to the former Leader of the Opposition, says it all: "I, without blinking my eyes, am prepared to take the $500,000 as a Robin Hood to the downtown east side."

I was particularly pleased to support the motion by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to expand the conflict-of-interest select standing committee title to include ethical conduct. While the member seems an unlikely source for the motion, let me assure all members of this House that on ethical grounds, I am prepared to stake my reputation against the opposition's any day.

The throne speech promises to continue to manage provincial finances responsibly while protecting taxpayers' jobs and government services. We could have opted for short-term political gain, as the socialist Ontario government did when it brought down a $9.7 billion deficit that will either kill or choke the economic recovery in that province, but in the best traditions of parliamentary government we have chosen to continue to act responsibly in trying to balance expenditures with revenues.

[ Page 12043 ]

I would remind members that to service debt you need more income or more loans. In a business you need net revenues. If you don't get revenues, you have to cut back. But you don't cut back on debt service, not unless you're ready to declare bankruptcy. Government revenues come from taxes and borrowing, but even governments sometimes have to cut back on spending, as the cash-strapped state of Maine has discovered, having to cut their public payroll to meet the $77 million gap for their fiscal year, which ends on June 30. As Gov. John McKernan is quoted as saying, in Saturday's Globe and Mail: "...the symbolism of shutting down government, I think, is important as well because hopefully it's going to make people realize we have to make some difficult decisions."

The old saying in United States politics was: "So goes Maine, so goes the nation." Let us hope it is not, "So goes Ontario, so goes the nation, " or we may all wake up to "Nightmare on Queen Street, Part II."

MR. JONES: It's my pleasure to rise to support the amendment in our throne speech debate, the address in reply. It's my fifth such opportunity to do so. Having five throne speeches — five sessions in a particular Legislature — is a rare thing. I think probably the last time that happened was 1933, when the Tolmie coalition, which was breaking up, ran its mandate right to the end. There are likely interesting parallels with this government.

I always approached the throne speech debate with enthusiasm and interest, because I knew that the government of the day had a mandate to carry out its promises and there were always things that I, my constituents and British Columbians had concerns about and that were my responsibility to raise.

However, I do approach this debate with some ambivalence. First of all there was an important statement by the Premier — and I accept this statement: "Judge our actions, not our promises." Very clearly she was saying to the people of British Columbia and to the opposition: "Beware of hollow promises, beware of lip-service." That's what we have in the throne speech, so I have some concern that this is a government that does not have a mandate to carry out the promises in the throne speech.

According to the Canadian constitution, the mandate of this government will very shortly run out, and we will see a new government and a new throne speech. Therefore I do not approach this throne speech with the same enthusiasm I did in the past. But I do want to point out some conspicuous areas in this throne speech — some conspicuous by their presence and some conspicuous by their absence.

First, one that is conspicuous by its presence is the promise to introduce freedom-of-information legislation. When I saw this item in the throne speech, my first reaction of course was to applaud a measure that would see British Columbia join with the majority of other provinces in Canada. Members of the opposition like Scott Wallace, Gordon Gibson, Eileen Dailly and myself have fought for this kind of legislation to be introduced in this House over many years.

But I have to say to myself: wait a minute; I think I've heard this song before. Something makes me think that these words are hollow, are lip-service. I happen to recall that we had these kinds of promises before. In fact, it was September 1981, when the Municipal Affairs minister of the day — the former Premier, the first member for Richmond — promised he would introduce freedom-of-information legislation at the municipal level. So there was a former promise in 1981.

There was also one in 1982 by the Attorney-General of the day, Allan Williams, who confirmed the authenticity of a confidential report that the government was seriously considering the introduction of freedom-of-information legislation. However, we didn't see that legislation hit the light of day either.

It was 1985 when former Attorney-General Brian Smith finally came clean with Social Credit's attitude towards freedom of information. He said he would not promise legislation at all because: "I don't see an immense demand for it."

What we've seen in the past is very clearly a lack of enthusiasm and interest and a lack of commitment to providing the accountability that is part of freedom-of-information legislation.

This government has never understood — let alone embraced — freedom of information. They've only made hollow promises time and time again. I was reminded of all the times — and some very recent ones — that the government opposed releasing information. It was only a few weeks ago that the former Minister of Finance, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, refused to disclose the amount of special spending warrants that he was introducing. That was the report from the Vancouver Sun of March 28, 1991. Only a few weeks ago the government was unwilling to release the fact that it was introducing special spending warrants of some $2.5 billion; it would not even confirm the amount that it was going to introduce as a special warrant — clearly contempt of this Legislature in terms of the government's need to be accountable and to provide timely information to the public. They would not even tell us that they were going to get special warrants to the tune of $2.5 billion.

It was only a few months ago that the recommendations of an inquiry into the suicide of a prisoner detained in the Vancouver Pre-trial Services Centre was denied with the Solicitor-General's assistant deputy minister.... The Solicitor-General is here. This information was refused on the grounds that: "We are not prepared to release those recommendations because some of them we may not agree to." That was the assistant deputy minister for corrections in the Solicitor-General's ministry. It seems that the criterion for the release of information is whether the government of the day agrees with it.

That was only a couple of months ago. We go back less than a year to the Provincial Secretary of the day, the member for Nelson-Creston, who would not even release the name of the four cabinet ministers who sat on the lottery advisory committee. Of course, we remember less than a year ago it was the Minister of Government Management Services who would not release the flight logs for government jets.

[ Page 12044 ]

It was a year ago that Glenn Bohn, the Vancouver Sun reporter, reported that his request for information from the Environment minister on class-one polluters remained unanswered for almost a year and a half — a year and a half of stonewalling. Now there's a record that indicts this government, in terms of its willingness to be accountable and to provide timely information. So surprise, surprise, we now see in the throne speech hollow promises, lip-service, to introduce freedom-of-information legislation.

The history is clear. The history is one of denying information, stonewalling, covering up. It is not one of believing in the fundamental right of citizens in a democracy: the public's right to know, the right that taxpayers have to information, which is their information. That information is provided at taxpayers' expense. It is their information. They are the government of British Columbia, and they are being ignored and have been ignored for years and years. This government has not, does not and will not accept that fundamental principle of the public's right to know — a fundamental right.

The words are there; the hollow promises are there. The Premier says: "Don't judge us by our promises; don't judge us by our words. Judge us by our actions." Well, I've seen no action; all I've seen are the hollow promises. I've seen the record, and it is shameful.

[4:45]

Very clearly, even the language in the throne speech suggests — and I have read the throne speech: "My government will introduce legislation on access to information and protection of privacy." The approach there in providing access is sort of the benevolent dictatorship of information. It's not on the fundamental right; it's not on the freedom of information; it's on introducing legislation on access. "We'll allow the public access."

The choice of language is interesting. It's different than in other jurisdictions. The language in many other jurisdictions talks about the fundamental right, talks about freedom. The 1966 U.S. legislation uses that language, as does Sweden — which has had freedom-of-information legislation since 1766. Similar language is used in France, Australia and in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. They understand, even in the title of their freedom-of-information legislation, that it is a fundamental right of the people in a democracy to have the right to know.

We have language here in the throne speech that suggests that legislation will be introduced. I support that principle. I heartily hope that the legislation is not just introduced; I hope it's introduced and approved by this Legislature. In fact, we in waiting for the budget that never seems to want to come down have an extra several days of sitting. If the government sitting on that side of the House is serious about this legislation, introduce it now. I promise that it will receive speedy passage, and we will support freedom of information legislation from the government. If you are serious about it, don't give us the hollow-sounding words, in the throne speech. Bring that bill forward now. We guarantee this side will be fully cooperative. We will see speedy approval of that legislation. I challenge you to do that. We're not sitting Wednesday afternoon. We're not sitting Thursday. We're not sitting Friday. Bring in that legislation. If you are seriously interested in freedom of information legislation, we have lots of time to pass that legislation.

The fact of the matter is that we will see that legislation die. That legislation will die on the order paper, and we will see the next throne speech, after the election, with real freedom of information legislation there brought in by a New Democrat government.

I would like to raise another point that is in the throne speech, and that is a statement on the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley is mentioned in the throne speech as the fastest-growing region of our province. "My Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology will be considering the establishment of a full university-degree-granting institution in the valley." Very clearly, everyone knows that the Fraser Valley is the fastest-growing region in British Columbia. In fact, the growth is six times that of the urban core of the lower mainland.

We know also that the participation rates in that particular region of our province are one-third the national average and one-half the provincial average. Note that the provincial average is much less than the national average. So we have low participation rates in this province as a whole, compared to the national average, but in the Fraser Valley they are even lower. You would have to go to the Yukon or the Northwest Territories in order to get participation rates as low as they are in the Fraser Valley. I was quite surprised to see that, after years of Social Credit neglect, the words used in terms of providing post-secondary opportunities in the valley are: "will be considering."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What has this government been doing? They knew for years the participation rates were low and the population was growing. This area of the province was ignored. This area of the province has been studied to death. It was in 1988, when the Access for All considerations were being conducted throughout this province, that the president of Simon Fraser University, Bill Saywell, argued strenuously for the fastest-growing area in the province not to be ignored. There is no sense in only having a policy that will see expansion of post-secondary opportunities in Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Nanaimo, while ignoring the fastest-growth area in the province.

It was March 21, 1989, the first day of spring two years ago, when the then minister, who was again the minister — you really have to have a program to keep track; it is very difficult for this province to keep track of who is heading up what ministry now — announced that the president of Simon Fraser University would be conducting a study to determine the needs for post-secondary opportunities in the Fraser Valley. The president of the university at that time said: "We will be looking at a whole new satellite campus of Simon Fraser University with an enrolment of 5,000 to 6,000 people." He even indicated on that date — March 21,

[ Page 12045 ]

1989, two years ago — that he had a location in mind. Study after study after study.

Following that, we had the dean of arts from Simon Fraser, Bob Brown, who headed the Fraser Valley planning committee, announcing in August 1989 a $50 million satellite campus to Simon Fraser, with 2,500 students starting in September 1992. In October 1989 we had the Fraser Valley College proposing an advanced education centre, which would see degree programs offered by the four institutions — Simon Fraser, Douglas, Kwantlen and Fraser Valley colleges — happening at that education centre.

In June 1990 we had the Fraser Valley committee report. That was the presidents of Simon Fraser and the three colleges. In September 1990 we had the Fraser Valley College proposing the university college model, and the appointment at the same time of the Fraser Valley public consultation group, a group headed by the former Speaker, Harvey Schroeder, who was to report on November 15. And we finally saw in March of this year, after a long wait, that report — or, in fact. a non-report; one of the most vacuous reports I've ever seen.

This issue of providing access to post-secondary opportunities for the people in the valley has been studied to death for three years. And what do we see in the throne speech? We see in the throne speech: "will be considering." How long are the people in the Fraser Valley going to have to wait for this government to recognize what everyone has said for the last three years: yes, participation rates are the lowest in the province, and yes, it's the highest-growth area in the province? And why don't you do something about it?

We've had 15 years of Social Credit neglect in the valley, in particular in the last three years. Everybody in the Fraser Valley recognizes the need and recognizes that opportunities are being denied to young people in that region. It is typical of the lack of planning of this government, and what we see in the throne speech is shameful.

Those are two comments that are in the throne speech: the promise of freedom-of-information legislation, and the promise of consideration of providing post-secondary opportunities in the valley. I'd like to talk about a couple that are not in the throne speech.

One is the whole question of literacy. Very clearly, it must be an error. I mean, in the chaos and the cabinet shuffles and the scandal that has happened, there must have been an omission in the throne speech, because it was essential that some mention of concern for literacy be there. But in this throne speech, we did not even see lip-service; we did not even see the hollow promises that so often characterize Social Credit throne speeches.

I can't believe that the current administration is willing to ignore the 31 percent of British Columbians between the ages 16 and 69 who have no or limited reading skills and experience difficulty dealing with printed matter encountered in normal day-to-day activities.

MR. BRUMMET: Your nose is growing.

MR. REID: You're wrong again.

MR. JONES: I'm quite prepared to document any statement that I make in this speech. If those from the hall of shame down there don't accept those statistics, I'd be quite happy to meet with any of them afterwards.

I can't believe that this government has ignored the correlation between crime and illiteracy. We know that half of the federal prisoners in this country have less than grade 8 education. I can't believe that they are willing to ignore the link between illiteracy and poverty in this province. I can't believe they are willing to ignore the $8.8 billion lost annually in earning power due to accidents, due to mistakes, due to lost opportunities and lost income, and I can't believe that even this government is willing to ignore the incalculable damage in terms of lost self-esteem and lost opportunities.

This government demonstrated even more concern in years previous. At least in the past we had lip-service; at least in the past we had the hollow promises. Two years ago the government appointed a very worthwhile committee that went throughout this province, studied the issues and came back with the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee report, which has 34 recommendations. It was unveiled a year and a half ago with some great promise held out to those in need.

On May 11, 1990, almost exactly a year ago to the day, in a rare moment of unanimity in this House, we voted unanimously to approve, on a motion that I presented, the 34 recommendations of the PLAC report. That was a motion unanimously approved by the Legislature of the province of British Columbia on a private members' day, and it has been totally ignored.

[5:00]

On May 15, 1990, what did the minister responsible say? He said in this chamber: "I have a considerable amount of money in my budget for this ... but I can assure the member that the money will be spent wisely and will be forthcoming...." He added: "The results will speak for themselves." Well, the results have spoken for themselves: we have seen no results. In fact, a few days before September 8, 1990, International Literacy Day, in International Literacy Year, the minister announced to literacy groups throughout this province that there would be no additional funding, totally contradicting the statement that he made in this Legislature a few months earlier, and totally contradicting the motion that was unanimously approved by this Legislature. He said to wait until next April. Well, next April has come and gone, and we have not seen additional funding for the literacy programs. Those 360,000 British Columbians are struggling daily with a need that is remaining unmet due to the callousness of this government.

It is shameful that there has been absolutely no mention in this throne speech of any concern for those in need of literacy training in the province of British Columbia. Very clearly the government is not concerned about its image, to not pay lip-service or not even to provide in the throne speech the hollow promises that we see in so many other areas.

[ Page 12046 ]

One more in the area of advanced education has to do with the fact that within the throne speech there was no reassurance to the colleges, universities or institutes in terms of their budgets. They have been scrambling and struggling, and ' they have gone through the confusion, chaos and scandal and have watched this government dilly and dally. Normally, early in the year the institutions have some indication of what their budget lift will be. They have to have that information. They have to plan and to know what funds are there. They have to know what programs they can afford and what staffing has to take place.

What are they doing now? They're guessing. It is tragic that very expensive institutions with large budgets have to go by guesswork in the province of British Columbia. Even though the Minister of Advanced Education indicated recently that they would need 9 percent to 10 percent to maintain a status quo budget, institutions are budgeting for much less than that. This is going to provide tremendous hardship to those institutions and to those the institutions serve.

Camosun College is budgeting for a 4 percent increase. What does a 4 percent increase mean to that institution? It means that rather than increasing access, they will lose 250 full-time equivalent students. It means that they will lose 16 occupational programs. It means there will be tremendous service cuts and staff cuts. So much for a commitment to post-secondary education. So much for a commitment to improved access. So much for the commitment to the belief that post-secondary education is an effective strategy to improve our economic competitiveness. So much for even lip-service to those issues, when there is no mention in the throne speech that would provide some reassurance to those institutions.

What's happening at BCIT? It's expected that the nursing program will be cut by a third. We know there is a shortage of nurses in this province, yet the kinds of cutbacks that are anticipated and the guesswork that is going on are resulting in cutbacks of essential programs.

What's going to happen to tuition and the fees young people will have to pay in British Columbia next September? They are going to increase at two to three times the current inflation rate. That is going to impose a tremendous hardship on those students. I see members opposite nodding and suggesting: "That's quite all right; they can pay for their education." We know that the demographics of our institutions in advanced education are now primarily comprised of those from higher socioeconomic groups. The disadvantaged groups do not have the opportunity, and increases in fees are going to exacerbate that problem.

Mr. Speaker, what we see in this throne speech that we cannot take seriously is a government that has run its mandate out. In fact, its mandate ran out some time ago. We've seen that although they have the legal authority to continue to govern for a few more short months, they have not been governing by the mandate of the people. They have not been governing by the public will. In fact, they have not even been governing. They have been immersed in scandal, chaos and confusion. They do not enjoy the support of the people of British Columbia.

We are debating the throne speech that has an amendment before us. Just as it has been said so many times in this House, the honourable thing to do for a minister who has gotten into difficulty is to resign. The only honourable thing to do for this administration — given the kind of history we've seen in the last four and a half years — would be to call an election.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell too long on the amendment, because I believe the amendment is certainly very premature. I would like to get on with some other issues that I believe are of greater concern to the citizens of British Columbia, and to everyone in Canada for that matter, that were also identified in the Speech from the Throne: unity and the survival of Canada. A great deal of significance has been placed on the failure of the Meech Lake accord as the reason for our present constitutional crisis. In retrospect, however, most would now have to agree that had Meech Lake been ratified, we would now be arguing the meaning of "distinct society." This has been made crystal clear by the Allaire report, which is nothing more than a list of distinctions that Quebec wants. In fact, it's an insight into what Quebecers mean by "distinct."

In reading the Allaire report, it becomes quite clear that Quebec is never going to be a party to any Canadian constitution. It is equally clear that once Quebec has negotiated the division of powers it seeks with Ottawa, has the list of powers and prerogatives which are to be solely Quebec's, those powers and prerogatives will be entrenched in a Quebec constitution. Once Quebec has done this, the other provinces will be scrambling to get the same powers and prerogatives Quebec got. The Ottawa government has no intention of giving in to the other provinces to the degree and in the way it will with Quebec. Therein is the next constitutional crisis shaping up.

Quebec's beefs, if I may call them that, are the same beefs that the west has had for years. Quebec's beefs, however, are seen to be people things, a cultural rights thing, while the west's beefs have been seen as a regional thing: the imposition of political wrongs. I have never been convinced, but now no longer believe, that the crisis we face is the result of Quebec versus Canada, or French versus English. The root cause of disunity and dismay in Canada is and has been the drive by those governing Canada, ignoring the obvious fact of the vastness and diversity of Canada, for greater standardization and centralization.

The present constitutional crisis in Canada began the day Her Majesty the Queen and Pierre Trudeau signed the constitution for Canada presently in force. Few Canadians understand what really happened in the so-called patriation of our constitution from Britain. Back in the nineteenth century, Britain was having economic troubles, much as Canada has today. Its parliament was hard-pressed to find the funds to run the empire. To cut down the expense of running the whole, the Parliament enfranchised some of its parts.

[ Page 12047 ]

In, by and through the British North America Act of 1867, the British Parliament created a corporation to be the management company to manage the colonies in British North America. The BNA Act created a corporation having the sovereign colonies as the shareholders and a CEO in the form of a national government. The present crisis in Canada, in simple terms, has been brought on by the executive of the corporation gradually taking over the voting rights of the shareholding colonies. The BNA Act was, and still is, a political instrument used to deal with the problem of dollars-and-cents shortfalls, as a cost-cutting way to deal with the commonalities of the colonies to their individual yet mutual benefit. This took the form of a confederation, which is a getting together — not a federation, which is a joining together, a union.

The BNA Act created a national government in Canada, not a federal government. It created a government for the people — nation-all — not a government for the country. The words change, and so hide the truth. The common understanding in early Canada was that we had a national government. That gradually changed, and the acceptance of the term "central government" was then changed again in the introduction of "federal government."

Canada is the legal name for the territory defining a confederation of provinces, like Great Britain is the legal name for Scotland, England and Wales. The constitution for Canada has not replaced the BNA Act or negated it; the act is still in force. To cancel it would be to cancel Confederation and so dismiss the national government.

The present Trudeau constitution for Canada is simply the political instrument which gives the national government the means to be a federal government. Few Canadians realize that this constitution for Canada is exactly as its title implies: a constitution for Canada, not for Canadians. You are only covered by it by the fact of being in Canada, not by the fact of being Canadian. Anyone in Canada is covered by it — Canadian or not.

While no one is explaining this fact to Canadians, immigration lawyers and others are telling millions of people outside Canada this very fact, and that explains all the refugees coming to Canada. They know they have the same rights as Canadians the minute they set foot in Canada. We're now the favourite choice for refugees. An example of one who has obviously benefited from this very fact is Charles Ng, the Californian murderer who escaped. We've been keeping this person for many years, at great expense to the taxpayers, because apparently he too is entitled to all the rights that anyone here might be entitled to.

[5:15]

The constitution for Canada has been used to move Canada closer to being a federal state. Acting as a federal government, the national government has assumed greater powers and authorities. The provinces began to share responsibilities with the national government because the national government promised to assume part of the cost. Now the national government is reducing its responsibility by cutting back on transfer payments, yet retaining the authority it was given as part of the original deal — a neat trick. Since sovereignty rests with the people of the provinces as provincials, the provincial governments do not have the authority to surrender anything to the national government. By agreement, the provincials can lend the authority in certain areas to the national government, but in legal fact cannot surrender.

Sovereignty means having the final say in any matter. If Quebec is free to choose whether or not to stay in Canada, free to have the final say, sovereignty is confirmed. Why then all the hue and cry in Quebec for something it already has? The Blackstone dictionary, a source document for the profession of law, defines the word "constitution" as "an instrument of the people." Accepting this as the legal fact, then the constitution for Canada is in fact simply a political instrument, not a true constitution.

The first British settlers in North America brought their constitution with them — common law. This constitution existed in custom and tradition. Together with a few historic documents such as Magna Carta, common law was a true instrument of the people. In changing over from a common-law society to a constitutional society, Canadians surrendered their prerogative over rights and freedoms in exchange for those allowed by government in a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If the constitution of Canada was an instrument of the people, it should commence with the words: "We the people." The constitution for Canada does no such thing. As a matter of fact, the rights and freedoms of "we the people" are contained in a charter which in turn is contained in this constitution. This means the constitution only guarantees the Charter, not the rights and freedoms per se. Blackstone defines a charter as, an instrument of the sovereign." Legally, the sovereign in Canada is the Queen in right of the people. However, in operative fact, the Prime Minister is the sovereign in a politicized Canada. The PM could withdraw the said Charter at will, so withdrawing our rights and freedoms. No need for a War Measures Act — simply suspend the Charter.

Those who will say this is not so — and they will be many — should explain why our rights and freedoms needed to be contained in a Charter before being included in the constitution. Why were those rights and freedoms not entered directly into the constitution as separate numbered articles?

People everywhere in this country are asking how many constitutional crises we are to experience before harmony is established in Canada between Canadians. The way we appear to be heading may lead to acrimony, not harmony Even the Prime Minister now talks about a new Canada being inevitable. The Canada we once knew is a thing of the past.

The government of B.C. is to be commended for its consultative approach to seeking constitutional reform, and most especially the people of the province are indebted to Mr. Melvin Smith, QC and constitutional expert. He has performed a remarkable task. But despite all of these best efforts, I now don't believe it can work. Under the present process of horrendously expensive commissions, boards and committees, the

[ Page 12048 ]

final decision will still come from the politicians, and we continue with the fear that this new Canada could well end up taking its form from what's left over after Quebec gets its demands. That is not good enough for the people of B.C., their children and their children's children. We deserve better; we're entitled to better.

There are those who advocate convening a constituent assembly as the way to go in resolving the constitutional crisis. A constituent assembly consists of people appointed by some agreed-upon mechanism based on representation from across the land. It is, in fact, a mini-parliament convened for a single purpose. It is a last resort, because implicit in such an assembly — and this is something not being pointed out — is that it is agreed beforehand that whatever the assembly comes up with will be mandatory for all those party to the assembly. That is, the people agree in advance to accept the recommendations of the assembly; otherwise there is no point to it.

Canadians are not ready for that kind of commitment. As a matter of fact, Canadians are not even ready to amicably select members to an assembly. There would be a terrific argument as to who should be on it. I am sure, all of the special interest groups would want to be represented. It would never get off the ground.

By the nature of it, a constituent assembly is asking the people of Canada to buy a pig in a poke, to agree to something not knowing what it would turn out to be, and they won't do it.

I urge this Legislature to research the enactment of a provincial constitution, wherein a statement of claim is made on behalf of we the people of British Columbia. A British Columbia people's constitution can and will be the genesis, the square one of resolving where we want to go and how. It can become the cornerstone of a new confederation by being copied in kind by the other provinces.

The constitutional crisis in Canada is nothing more than a dispute over the distribution of political and spending powers in Canada, in an Ottawa-versus-the-provinces struggle. The simple way to resolve the dispute is for each province to enact its own provincial constitution wherein its sovereignty is established over provincial affairs and where it identifies those things that can best be entrusted to the national government to manage on behalf of the whole — the confederation known as Canada.

Only provincial governments should enact on behalf of the people; the national government should act on behalf of the people. This approach to solving the constitutional crisis — the enacting of a constitution by each province — is the only way to provide a lasting, acceptable solution. Any other can only be temporary. Those who wish to keep Canada together — and I'm sure that's most of us — must accept that we must first define Canada. To do that, we start at square one.

Under this scenario of a provincial people's constitution for each province, there will be no need for a constitution for Canada. The provinces, on the basis of the authority allowed them by their own constitutions, can sit down and in effect rewrite the BNA Act, this time with the provinces as the principals rather than the British Parliament and the Privy Council, who were the principals in the original document in behalf of the colonies as they were then.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Canadians are never going to arrive at an acceptable consensus as to what form a new Canada should take if we do it as Canadians; we must do it as provincials. This, I believe, is a commonsense solution.

I could go on about this, but I recognize that there is a limit on time. I think, though, we should seriously consider these suggestions, because I believe it's the most important issue facing us as a nation. I'll forget the remarks made by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey with respect to the rights that he believes ought to be given to those who are perhaps refugees — in particular, I mention Mr. Ng. We as Canadians, however, need to really carefully assess that.

A Speech from the Throne is also always an opportunity to outline the accomplishments and successes of government. This government can relate many excellent accomplishments from the past year, and similarly from the last four and a half years, which saw six legislative sessions.

There were tax reductions. We saw increased funding for education, post-secondary education, health care and social programs, environmental funding and funding for infrastructure. The improvements in infrastructure were many, and one only needs to drive.... I am sure I can look at my neighbour here, at all of the development that has been done with respect to highways in the Coquitlams, in the Surreys, in the Deltas and Richmonds, in the Cariboo, on the Island and elsewhere in this province.

We can look at what's happening to ferries; we can look at airport improvements, railroad improvements. If you drive to Whalley now, you can see the tremendous construction taking place with respect to SkyTrain. We have made tremendous progress — perhaps more than we've seen at any similar time in history and more than we've seen anywhere else in the country.

We've also witnessed enormous economic growth. We've seen new markets; we've seen a diversification of markets; we've seen employment opportunities created in all the regions of the province — a success story that's being watched by people in all of the other provinces throughout this country. While perhaps the throne speech makes reference to many of these, there's one further that I would like to make reference to, and that I believe was perhaps one of the most outstanding achievements of any government in the history of this country: the Taxpayer Protection Act. I believe it was not only a perfect discipline to contain the growth and subsequent cost of government, but also a message to people out there in Asia, Europe and elsewhere in Canada and North America, and to many businesses in Ontario who must be looking for another place to locate, that B.C. Is a place where we've not been afraid to say we're going to freeze the tax rates; we're going to give you that certainty you deserve and

[ Page 12049 ]

that you require if you're to make major investments in this province.

B.C. has a national and international reputation gained much in the last four years for being on the leading edge of new approaches and reform. We lead the country, and I'm honoured to have been a leader in making this happen. It's been a tremendous record, and one we must all be extremely proud of.

[5:30]

In closing, let me say that all that I've mentioned I deem to be extremely important, but the most important challenge facing us — all of us, not only the politicians, perhaps least of all politicians, but certainly it applies to all of us — is the challenge to teach understanding and, most of all, love, particularly to our children. We live in a society where oftentimes this is sadly lacking. We as people in political life, and people that are leaders in community, have an obligation to help foster whatever it is we must do through the many organizations we're a part of to ensure that our youngsters, all of the children, are taught love and the importance of love.

MR. SPEAKER: Members will be familiar with the standing orders, which state that if an amendment or subamendment is before the House, it shall be put 30 minutes prior to the normal hour of adjournment on the fourth day of the debate. We are on the fourth day. We have an amendment before us, moved by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and seconded by the second member for Cariboo. "This House regrets that the speech fails to address the urgent issues confronting our province and fails to arrest the political chaos and the crisis of confidence engulfing the present administration, which can only now be remedied by means of a provincial general election."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 31

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to the adjournment, the Chair would like to remind all members that tomorrow's noontime activities will require members to bring with them to the House a fairly sturdy windbreaker. With that admonishment from the Chair, I'm sure everyone will want to participate.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:38 p.m.