[ Page 12051 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Barnes –– 12051

Hon. Mr. Mercier –– 12054

Ms. A. Hagen –– 12055

Mr. Loenen –– 12058

Ms. Edwards –– 12060

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

MR. BARNES: I am going to be very low-key this morning. The reason for that is that I was just reflecting over the years, and when I think back to 1972 — the year that I was elected and made my first throne speech contribution — I look around the chamber and see there are less than five of us still around. There are the members for North Island and Rossland-Trail, and that's it — except perhaps for the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, and I understand she's going to be resigning. But it's been a long time.

I thought I'd say just a few words about the throne speech. In fact, I don't think there's any doubt in any of our minds that the throne speech has been characterized as a last-gasp attempt by the government to try and correct some of its wrongs.

It states:

"As we we enter the last decade of this century, the greatest challenge we shall face will be to secure the future of Canada as a strong and unified nation. The task is formidable and will require all the strength, tolerance and skill at our disposal if we are to remain a vibrant country worthy of our place among the international community of nations. But it is a task to be met positively, welcoming the opportunity for the renewal of the spirit which has sustained us for more than a century."

There are several ways you could look at that statement. I prefer to say that with less than five months remaining before this government has to go to the polls, you might interpret that philosophical statement as saying that as we enter the final months before an election, we face the challenge of recapturing a majority of voter support. This task will require skills like never before.

When I listened to His Honour read the throne speech, I thought that in his usual graceful way he did an excellent job of delivering the government's message. He talked about the neglect of the government and how it was going to begin to catch up on its commitments. It reminded me of when I was a young boy and had been misbehaving, and my mother caught me. She said: "I've told you about doing those things. You've been naughty. And you know what I'm going to do." She got rough — she pulled out the old strap and took care of business.

If you listened closely to the statement, just about everything the government said it is going to do — respect for women, child care programs, pay equity and on and on — we've been demanding for years on this side of the House. Feeding hungry children in the schools, programs that should be basic in our society, the elimination of soup lines and food banks, all of the things that you would not expect to be so prevalent and growing as an industry in our society — all of these things were in the throne speech. The government is going to change all that. But where has the government been for the last five years? The question is: who should believe them?

Mr. Speaker, there are a good number of things that can be touched upon — and I mean really good. It's about time we stopped pretending. It's about time we realized that things are not good for a lot of people in this province, however, they may appear. We have more people coming to this province with big bucks, buying property, investing in businesses — all of the things that we say are the fruits of the free enterprise system.

But my day-to-day activities tell me that I'd like to see those people who really think that things are good, that things are better, because I don't think they really are. I took quite a few notes about all kinds of things that were concerning me, but every time I attempt to outline the things that bother me, it's overwhelming. This government is out of touch. That's what makes it so frustrating for those of us on this side of the House — to take the government seriously.

This throne speech contains promises, programs and ideas the members on this side of the House would gladly support. Why not? We've been fighting for them. But why have we been unable to penetrate whatever it is, that wall between that side of the House and this side of the House, when it comes to people's concerns, when it comes to programs that are going to make life better for all of us? Try as we may in this House.... You cannot run the province from a distance, from so far away, without being more involved and without getting a sense of what really is happening in people's lives.

The time has come. What has been missing the most has been the explosion of ethics and moral considerations when it comes to the design of public policies. I realize that sounds a little highfalutin, but we've all, from time to time, made glowing speeches about what the world needs, and we've studied the world's problems. In fact, just recently the new Premier suggested she's going to study the situation with respect to hungry children in the schools. We are constantly studying the failings of our system. But how do we get beyond the study to the action? How do we get beyond the promises to the commitment? How do we achieve that ultimate challenge for politicians of being able to say that the buck stops here when we come to these fundamental needs in society?

I could take a political slant in attempting to describe what I believe is the problem, but after nearly 19 years in this place I have found that to be generally counterproductive –– I don't suggest for one minute that the government is going to be let off the hook, because the government has had chance after chance, time after time, and has failed. There's no question about that. But at the same time, the political process, as it is constituted, has created a schism where on the one hand there are those who believe it is in their best interests to maintain the status quo in the distribution of resources and power and in the management of this so-called free economy, and on the other hand there

[ Page 12052 ]

are those people who are struggling and saying: "What about us? What about our fair share?"

[10:15]

We have long since gone beyond the point of calling ourselves simply left-wingers or right-wingers. We are saying that this is a country that is constitutionally guaranteeing everyone an equal opportunity — access to the resources, to a proper education, to an opportunity to compete, and to security of person — to be able to live with dignity and fundamental human rights and freedoms regardless of political affiliation and regardless of religion or race or colour.

What we are saying is: how do we get to that point? It's not good enough to tell people that they have certain rights but that we are going to do our best to ensure that they don't have access to them. As we stand in this Legislature and present our case to convince the voters that we are looking after their interests, we are going to have to recognize that the voters themselves are twitchy and questioning our motives. There's lots of evidence for that, Mr. Speaker.

Just consider the results of your most recent bill, Bill 82, which is basically a restraint measure forcing local politicians to scramble within a fixed amount of money when free collective bargaining is supposed to be the means by which we achieve cooperation and tranquillity in the workplace. The Vancouver School Board is faced with problems that simply cannot be coped with under that system.

Alternative education, the special-needs program, has to be addressed despite the other budgetary requirements in the basic school system. There is a program being operated by the Learning Centre in my constituency. It is at risk, and the centre probably will have to close its doors because the government has reclassified that facility, requiring that the Vancouver School Board take something like $100,000 from its designated funds to operate the facility. But this program has operated for ten years with special funds from the Ministries of Attorney-General and Social Services and Housing, because it is addressing a community requirement outside the conventional school setting. This is one example, but there are many examples.

Special needs also includes children we classify as gifted. People think they've got it all and that they don't need anything. But sometimes gifted children are the most at risk because of their sensitivity, their creativity or whatever it may be. They also need support.

There are some elements of the Year 2000 program which the opposition supports, because it is beginning to recognize individual levels of learning and to address a long-standing problem in the public school system. But you have to have the money. This is where I have great difficulty with the rhetoric — the dollars and the ability to function.

The same thing applies to street workers: they don't have the dollars. There are about ten street workers in Vancouver trying to address the needs of youth and people from different parts of the world: Latinos and people from the Middle East. Youngsters from different cultures who speak different languages have difficulty because of the lack of skills to communicate, and they cannot participate and compete successfully. As we all know, many of them are dropping out — at horrifying rates. What's happening is a disaster. I am lost for words to put it into perspective, because I cannot understand how we could sit and allow that kind of erosion among our young people.

For instance, headlines in the paper this morning suggested that, for whatever reason, at least 50 percent of the youth in public schools in British Columbia and something like 30 percent of young people nationwide are dropping out of school. Where are they going? What are they doing? Who is looking after them? Who cares? Who are they? These things should not be happening. Obviously we are failing young people; we are failing ourselves.

This isn't to cast stones at the government any more than it is at society. In the end, we may win the election, and we may be able to find the skills necessary to convince the public that we have learned from our mistakes and that they should give us another chance. But the point is that when you see growing numbers of young people becoming lost because they lack the skills and the ability to compete in society, the cost is ten times what it would be if we were to provide the funding for those young people. It goes on and on.

This is where the anger develops, and the backlash is tremendous. We find that the social workers and youth workers are frustrated because they're dealing with people who are frustrated. All of this is compounded by the fact that every now and then some of these people suffer a mental breakdown, and they may be admitted voluntarily or involuntarily to a mental centre for treatment. We all know the consequences of institutionalization without adequate resources and facilities, without support programs, with alienation from families — all of the things that are part of the problem of dealing with people who are cracking under the stress of a very competitive and oftentimes vicious environment where the bottom line is to get what you can for yourself. This is nurtured every day, and we know it. So we have people walking the streets who were once institutionalized and who suffered that negative environmental experience. Institutions obviously are not the ultimate solution for bringing people to a point where they can function to the best of their abilities and make the most of their capacities within our society.

The government started a program at least ten years ago, as I recall. I used to talk to the former Minister of Social Services from Little Mountain, and we used to ask her: "What are you going to do when you decentralize the institutions? Where are you going to put these people? What other facilities will you have available for them?"

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We agree that the institution is not the ideal place. People should be in their communities. They should be among friends and families. They should have the support they require. As much as possible, they should be able to determine for themselves the course of action

[ Page 12053 ]

they will take in a community. But that is not always the way it works. It has worked in some cases, but at last count there were at least 400 or 500 people who were formerly in institutions who are now basically cast aside — on the streets, staying in any shelter they can find, even in an abandoned parking-lot, under a bridge, in the public library or wherever they can go from time to time. They have no place to go that will accommodate their needs. They are at risk. Many of them are unable to take care of themselves. Many of them require regular medication, but because they don't have the proper environment that's sensitive, that cares, they're in the community impacting on communities, concerning people in those communities about what's happening, and rightly or wrongly increasing the stereotypical attitude that people with mental problems are not worthy of their fair share of a rightful place in society.

These are the kinds of things that I say exist and have continued to exist and are compounding and growing. The government is spending about 75 percent of its dollars, even at that, in institutions, and much less in dealing with these problems in the communities.

Mr. Speaker, it's a curious question as well.... We are talking about 5,000 or 6,000 people who were once institutionalized; through the program of the government that is now down to 1,000. That means 5,000 people or so are out, either in homes or on the streets. These numbers go back for years. What's happening to the new cases? Where are they going? How are we determining where those resources are? Who's monitoring the movement of these people? Who's ensuring that their needs are being taken care of? This is what I mean by the government being out of touch and not being sensitive.

I meet regularly with some of the young people that are working with youth in outreach programs. Most of these young men and women working with youth, who call themselves youth workers, are not really recognized. They are neither fish nor fowl when it comes to their ability to do the job and know that they've got the resources, both in the school system and out on the streets, that they need to do this work. At the very least, that should happen, from a government that is sincerely inspired — as this government claims it is in the throne speech — to do something about child abuse, to assist mothers who are being abused by their spouses and to try and liberate, so to speak, those who are bound to the home and give them the kind of child support, child programs and the kind of assistance they need so that they themselves can become more active in fulfilling their needs as human beings in this society. All these things by all means should take place in a modern society such as ours. The breakdowns that are happening in so many institutions that exist today imply that we don't understand the effects of the public policies that we are bringing in.

The government says it is going to bring in a bill that respects the rights of children — some kind of declaration of rights for children. But has this government considered that this country is signatory to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child?

Will the government go to the first ministers' conference, for instance, and demand that every province ratify that long-standing commitment and begin to take some leadership and say that there will be no hungry children in Canada, that we will eliminate this problem of 40 percent of those five years of age or younger who are in poverty in this country, that the millions of people who are unemployed...?

In this province alone we've got close to 250,000 people on welfare, living on rates that we know full well, when we provide them, are 50 and 60 percent below the poverty line. What we're basically doing is condemning people to abject poverty with no hope of getting out. So why shouldn't they be lured into illicit activities? Why shouldn't they be looking for something to try and get ahead? They are up against a deck that is constantly stacked against them.

No, we won't solve all of these problems overnight. In fact, we won't solve them at all by ourselves. We talk a lot about participatory democracy. The government is saying it is going to consult. It is talking about referenda. It is going to ask the people what it should do about national unity or any number of issues — all valid, all important. But how much consultation is the government doing right now on these issues? When was the last time a minister went to the streets and talked to some of these young people?

I have read profiles of youngsters who were abused by their fathers — young girls of 11, 12 and 13 years of age. And when their fathers were finished with them, they had the ability to go out and sell their daughters to their friends. These are the kinds of young people coming off the streets and going to the learning centre in downtown Vancouver — the centre, as I said earlier, that the government has put at risk because it is going to withdraw the funding, claiming that the Vancouver School Board can pick it up. Has this really been thought out, or is it just a short-sighted, ill-conceived, uninformed move to try and save dollars?

[10:30]

There is no doubt that some of us can be called "bleeding hearts," because we never give up. We keep on standing up and saying how important it is to look after one another. Every now and then the word "love" actually creeps into our mouths. We say that we care, that we can do better. Even as we look around the world and see the atrocities that some regimes are imposing on or meting out to their people — even with all of that — we are fortunate in this country, because some of us are in a position to take a breath. Some of us have the time to stop and not have to pant while we look around and see that the world is in need of care and compassion. It has to have leadership and a sense of vision beyond the immediate personal satisfaction of the individual — politician, practitioner, no matter what field.

This is why I'm encouraged when I see headlines about youth who are going out to save the universe or save the environment. These young kids are saying: "We may not make much money, we don't even know if we'll have a job this summer, but we're going to go out and do something, because we believe it is time we got our values straight." It is time we started really

[ Page 12054 ]

feeling good inside, whether or not our pockets are full, because we know that the game is up. We can no longer deny that we are destroying our environment by what we call economic development or industrial development or any kind of exploitation of resources. All these things have an up side and a down side. For too long we have allowed ourselves to curry favour with the so-called guy with the buck. The guy with the buck calls the tune. The guy with the buck used to call the tune. I wonder how many of those people with the buck are really feeling good when they look at how much their buck is at risk.

Even in the ministries' offices today they are beginning to put up the barricades to protect themselves from the irate patients and clients who are coming in angry and frustrated. Wouldn't you be frustrated if you were told to exist on an income far below the poverty line, if you were told that that's the best you can do and that the government is only trying to help you and that it's only temporary and not meant to be permanent, if there is no strategy in place to help you get out of it? Think about that. You've got to do something.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, my concern now is what we are going to do about the young people. This thing is fraught with all kinds of misconceptions. We talk about youth gangs, people from foreign countries, Asians — whatever is other than the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant people in this country. We know that the demographics are changing fast. So what are we going to do about this? The federal government says we are not having enough births to keep our numbers up. We have a policy of bringing in new Canadians — why don't we have it rationalized so that it makes sense? We're not prepared for that. We talk about multiculturalism — we don't even know what that means. It means a lot more than people of different colours. We're talking about changing the fundamental nature of this country. Constitutionally, it has always been people of different colour, different dress and different religion. But now we're talking about an institutionalized kind of multiculturalism that says that people have fundamental rights — equity, fair opportunities. All these things mean the system has to respond. And the system is not responding.

Since my time is up, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your attention. During the budget debate I hope to be able to get into some of these points more specifically.

HON. MR. MERCIER: The package of initiatives described in the Speech from the Throne confirms our government's commitment to maintaining the highest possible standard of environmental stewardship on behalf of all British Columbians. These new measures also complement and reinforce the Ministry of Environment's present strategy for enhancing and building on the dynamic environmental programs we already have in place.

The proposed establishment of an international commission to attack water and air pollution in our south coast region is a logical outcome of the leadership British Columbia has already shown in cross-border environmental problems. We will not only provide unprecedented opportunities to meet these challenges in partnership with neighbouring jurisdictions and the two national governments, we will also enhance our ability to find solutions that reduce the impact on our own communities and natural resources.

Two years ago, amid growing public concern over two major spills, our province was instrumental in setting up the States-B.C. Oil Spill Task Force involving British Columbia and the coastal states from Alaska to California. British Columbia co-chaired that task force, and we are better equipped to prevent and to deal with potential spills because of the cooperative effort that grew out of that initiative. As a result of the work of that task force, we are better prepared, and there will be better coordination among the federal, state and provincial agencies on both sides of the border in the event of a major spill.

For B.C.'s part, we are becoming recognized as a world leader in this area. I would like to draw the House's attention to the fact that one of B.C. Environment's emergency services staff has just returned from the Persian Gulf, where he was part of an international team assisting in the cleanup of the widely reported disastrous oil spill in that region. He took with him a copy of our province's contingency plan for oil spills. I'm proud to say that the British Columbia plan was adopted as the basis for this international effort.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to set the pace for Canada and to exercise the same level of leadership in other areas where we share environmental problems with others. We are also going to continue meeting the enormous challenge of looking after our own back yard by addressing the ongoing complex issues of resource and land management facing our province.

What is the NDP's position on these issues? The NDP talk about sustainable development, yet they oppose the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline which will cut sulphur dioxide emissions by up to 8,500 tonnes.

I will be working closely with my colleagues on the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, and Ministry of Environment staff will be cooperating at the technical level in support of the comprehensive land use strategy which our government will implement in partnership with all resource users and concerned citizens. The recommendations of the Forest Resources Commission and the ongoing consultation and consensus-building being carried out through the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and through Parks Plan '90 are all creating the path towards this goal.

Isn't it strange that the Leader of the Opposition, while we're doing all this public input work, is calling for more democratic involvement and is so critical of the democratic mechanisms we've implemented to make this possible? Last week in the House, he said that British Columbians are being participated to exhaustion. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the people of B.C. want to continue to participate in the future of their environment.

As the throne speech mentioned, B.C. Environment is releasing a number of action plans in key program areas, including water, fisheries, wildlife, pesticides

[ Page 12055 ]

and enforcement, which set out the ministry's objectives in those areas and our approach to achieving them. We are already well along that road. We have substantially strengthened the ministry's enforcement arm, with additional staff in our regional operations devoted to pollution investigations. We've released lists clearly identifying B.C. operations that are sources of pollution concern to the ministry. We are the only province that releases such information. We've intensified the laying of charges against offenders under the Waste Management Act and provided incentives to compliance by dramatically increasing the penalties. In fact, since last December, 32 charges have been laid against polluters in this province, and 19 companies have been fined under the Waste Management Act, including one fine of $270,000 — the highest ever levied against a polluter in B.C. The maximum fine under this act is now $1 million. For those who show flagrant disregard for the health of the environment and our citizens, the maximum penalty can reach $3 million with possible imprisonment.

To comply with regulations introduced last winter, the pulp and paper industry is making major improvements to their effluent controls. This work represents capital investment in the billions of dollars and will raise the level of protection to world-class standards.

We have the most dynamic and rapidly expanding program in Canada for reduction and recycling of municipal solid waste and for related private sector initiatives. The goal we've set for this strategy, which is already well underway, will cut the output of garbage from B.C. households in half by the end of the 1990s.

Although other provinces, such as Ontario, have set comparable goals, B.C. is moving faster towards its target. We're encouraging individual British Columbians to share in the solutions. Anyone in British Columbia can dial the provincial recycling hotline — 1-800-667-4321 — toll-free and find out what they can do to help reduce waste. The number is given just in case the members opposite didn't know where to call.

As another example, motorists throughout greater Vancouver will have to drive AirCare cars, and the Fraser Valley will have cleaner air as a result of the new AirCare program for motor vehicle emission standards.

We're involving British Columbia's youth wherever possible in our environmental initiatives. I am sure that every member of the House is aware of the fine work being done in communities across the province by members of the Environment youth corps of B.C., and we're sticking with that program. Since the Youth Corps program began two years ago, thousands of these young people have worked on worthwhile cleanups and improvement projects. Governments from around the world have asked us how it's done so they can set up similar programs for themselves.

Our environmental programs are forward-looking and outward-looking. I mentioned that one of our staff has just returned from the Persian Gulf. I would also like to add that two other B.C. Environment employees are currently completing a full year of work in Jakarta. They were invited there by the government of Indonesia to assist in developing environmental planning and assessment processes similar to those we have been using. Those we have recently expanded to ensure sustainable development in British Columbia.

By all current standards this government must be doing something right. More accurately, we have been doing a lot of things right, and we are carrying out these programs within the context of the most fiscally responsible government in Canada. For that performance, I compliment the staff of my ministry.

Without diminishing the real challenges we face, I have made it clear that British Columbia takes a back seat to no one and no other jurisdiction in Canada in the protection and enhancement of its environmental resources.

In conclusion, B.C. Environment welcomes the new challenges and opportunities which will be provided during this session and during the coming years to build on that record.

[10:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: It's my pleasure to rise this morning to enter into the debate on His Honour's Speech from the Throne.

I want to address my remarks this morning primarily to the domain of education in our province. It is, along with health, the most important domain for government activity, and it is an area in which a style of government is very much represented. Cooperation among the partners in education, working with parents, with trustees and with communities, has to be a hallmark of an education system that works for the 500,000 students who are in our K-to-12 schools in British Columbia.

As I enter into this debate today, I very much regret the climate in our education system is one of confusion, consternation and frustration. That is the hallmark of five years of this Social Credit administration and is one of the main reasons why this Social Credit administration must not have another term of office in British Columbia. Our children and the parents of our children cannot bear another five years of Social Credit.

Let me just note that this is a domain in which the government held out some promise to us that it might have some new ways and some new approaches to providing for our children, and therefore, to providing for the future of the province, because no endeavour is as significant for the future of our province.

The royal commission, which reported about three years ago now, was a consultative process and was one that many people in the province participated in. The report was one that provided some kind of a guideline for us to develop an education system for the nineties and for the twenty-first century.

Quite often I go back to the concluding remarks of the royal commission — of Barry Sullivan and that hardy group of people who worked with him to shape this report on how we might achieve an education system worthy of our children, of our province and of our future — and the very last section of that report, which is called "The Challenge, " is one I read because it provides me with the road we should follow. It's a

[ Page 12056 ]

very practical challenge. Let me just read a couple of lines from it: "We know that our goals can be achieved through the creation of a climate of trust and good faith." It goes on to note that in this province, where political activities have often been fractious and confrontational, there is a need to put an end to that kind of approach. In fact the report concludes: "There is ... no greater challenge facing the educational community in British Columbia as we approach the end of the twentieth century" than — and I'm not quoting here — to put an end to that approach.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, we did hold out some hope. However, over the last period the people in British Columbia have realized that they cannot rely on this government to bring fairness, stability, evenhandedness and genuine consultation to the education process.

Let me just look at a few recent events to bear out my comments. I'd like to quote from the remarks of His Honour in the throne speech debate about educational reform, the reform that is in fact stemming from this royal commission report, A Legacy for Learners. There are four lines about that reform: "While education reforms currently underway will be reviewed in cooperation with the province's school trustees and educators, it is my government's intention to proceed, as scheduled, with the implementation of the primary program covering the first four years." That is a very brief, enigmatic commitment to this major reform initiative in which our schools, teachers, parents and students have been involved over the past two years.

Let's look at what is actually happening out there in the real world of schools in respect to that commitment. Note that the throne speech says: "It is my government's intention to proceed as scheduled with the implementation of the primary program...." Yet not three or four days ago the Minister of Education announced out of a clear blue sky a review of the dual-entry program, one of the most controversial aspects of that primary program. I want to say right off the bat that what the Minister of Education should have done immediately was to have apologized for having foisted this particular program on the children of the province without pilots, without commitment to dollars and resources, and without a clear indication of where that program was going.

So the review is long overdue. It was not mentioned in the throne speech. Most people recognize that the nature of that review has more to do with political expediency and the upcoming election than with a careful, steady, evenhanded approach to looking at a program that clearly is not working and to looking at how we might address that problem. That kind of ad hockery and political response is all too evident in much of how the Socreds deal with matters they believe might be harmful to them at the polls.

There is a need for a review of the dual-entry program. It would have been helpful if the government, when it introduced that program, had responded to a couple of districts who said they should pilot another program, a program that would have continuous entry, like continuous progress, that said whenever a child turned five, the parents would have the option of that child starting school.

We should have been piloting the idea of a full-day kindergarten to see whether that might be a timely introduction for the primary program. But no, Mr. Speaker, the then Minister of Education and the present Minister of Education have steadfastly refused until now to enter any discussion about this program: "It's there. We've decided. It's done, and we are going to continue regardless of the concerns among parents, teachers, administrators and trustees."

That approach to educational decision-making is an approach that we can ill afford for another term of government. The minister saying last Thursday that he will review this program and in two weeks will have an answer to what will happen to it is simply an indication of political decision-making, not good education decision-making.

Let me look now to the matter of the broader reform: Year 2000. The Premier, who took her oath of office on April 2, announced that there would be a review of that whole program. The nature of that review is very unclear. Let me emphasize again that this program — this move toward revitalizing our school system toward the next century and toward the needs of our children and the economic, social and democratic needs of our society — is one of the most significant initiatives we've ever undertaken.

Let me note the substance of the review as it was announced by the interim Premier, where she stated — and this goes back to April 2: "In cooperation with the BCTF and the BCSTA, recommendations in the Year 2000 document will be reviewed with a view to the practicality of implementation. Report to cabinet the first week in June."

I want to fix for a moment on the word "practicality, " because one of the elements of the royal commission reform — the Year 2000 initiative — was that the government made a financial commitment to support the very significant changes that would be a part of this program. I am very dubious about any kind of genuine review of a major initiative of this nature that is educationally based and can be accomplished within a couple of months. But I do believe that this government probably is looking at its financial commitment.

The member for Vancouver Centre commented a short while ago about changes that have taken place in health and the fact that in many of those instances there have not been the resources to bring about changes in the interests of mentally ill patients, for example, living in the community.

In this domain, I believe that this government is looking at a way to get out of its financial commitment to that education reform. I am concerned that the nature of the review is not spelled out. Two weeks before that review is supposed to be finished and the Minister of Education is to report to his colleagues in cabinet, there is not yet an open and clear definition of what the review is intended to accomplish and a process for consultation with the two groups that the Premier identified. So at the very last minute of a mandate, we have a sudden, very unclear and dubious review of a very important initiative — not a steady,

[ Page 12057 ]

evenhanded, fair, predictable and understandable approach that would give to people working in the field some knowledge of where they're going.

Let's put this in very practical context. Right now the schools of the province are engaged in planning for the next school year. They're engaged in planning for those initiatives that are a part of the Year 2000 initiative. They're engaged in looking at what kind of teacher training and pilot programs will be ongoing. And so far they don't even know whether this government's commitment to reform, renewal and the support of good practice is going to continue.

Let me use the words of one of the chairpeople of a school board around the dollars that did get into districts even under previous years. For example, the Greater Victoria School District got $24 per pupil in the last school year to implement the new primary program. Last fall the allocation dropped to $16. This year it doesn't look as if we're even going to be able to identify those dollars. Even with the commitment that was there, the dollars to do the job have not been directed into the school system, and my concern now is that those dollars and the commitment are about to evaporate. That kind of approach is something our education system cannot tolerate, and we surely cannot bear that for another term of this government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just comment about an announcement last Thursday that the government plans to pour a lot more money this year into the building of new schools than it has for a very long time. It's interesting that in the four years this government has been in office, it has built 21 new schools out of 1,500 schools in the province,

[11:00]

In Surrey alone; right now there are 329 portables on the grounds of schools throughout that district. In one high school where I once taught in 1960 — my last year of teaching in the public schools in British Columbia — there are 19 portables; that's more than all the classrooms that exist in that school.

MR. REID: What does that have to do with the quality of education?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale will have an opportunity to stand in his place and make his comments. But in the meantime, the Chair has recognized the member for New Westminster, who must at least feel good that somebody is listening to her.

MS. A. HAGEN: I thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale did have an opportunity on Friday to make some comments, which bore out the climate of confrontation that this particular government wants to engender within our education system.

Let me go back to the point, Mr. Speaker. There were 21 new schools built in four years. Within the last three or four months of the mandate of this government, a doubling of a capital budget, with about 20 percent of that money going into the riding of the Premier. It is a decision that people question, not because we don't need those schools, but because we needed them a long time ago. Where was this government in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, when schools in Surrey, Abbotsford, Kelowna, Nanaimo and many parts of the province needed to be built or maintained so that they would stay in good condition or be made safe from the possibility of earthquakes?

We have gone from a bust of $24 million in 1983-84, at the start of the mandate of the administration previous, for all the schools in the province, all the roofs, all the maintenance, all the building and all the upgrading that needed to be done, to — let's face it — an election commitment in the last two or three years of a mandate. I believe that the people of the province know that that is simply an election commitment, and that if this Social Credit government is elected again, we will go back to the bust in terms of support for building schools and keeping pace with the physical plant and its needs.

I just want to note the cost of this to our children in terms of dollars that could go into programs. About a month ago the Minister of Education announced that he had suddenly found $22 million in the 1990-91 capital budget to build a much-needed high school in Abbotsford — a school that should have been started not this year but the year previous. That school is going to cost, if my memory serves me right, about $22 million. But the cost of portables on that schoolground, the cost of the delay in that announcement and the failure to move ahead with that school in the last fiscal year have meant that that district, which is having a hard enough time finding enough operating money for the quality programs its trustees and parents demand, has lost something like a million dollars because of the poor planning of this particular government.

Every portable we put on a schoolground costs money to move, to maintain, even with the limited quality of educational environment it provides. Every delay we've had with this government around those budgets has a cost, and that cost is some of the resources that we need to have for providing programs in our schools.

Whether we're looking at long-term planning for our physical facilities or for the quality, calibre, appropriateness, relevance and richness of a school system for our children, this government has come up wanting. In its style, in its approach, this government has made a few efforts, but it has come back to its fundamental style of operation, which is to look at decisions on a politically expedient basis, to make those decisions on an ad hoc basis, to leave the "Partners in Education" trustees, educators and parents at loose ends in terms of their goals. The result is that after five years of this administration, our education system is back in a climate that is chaotic, conflictive, fractious and frustrated. That is a very sorry record for this government, and it's a very sorry legacy for the learners of the province.

A group of people worked on a legacy for learners, for British Columbia children, and this province had a government that made an initial commitment to deliver. It has failed to do so; it has failed to provide consistent leadership; it has failed to make clear the

[ Page 12058 ]

steady, stable, predictable environment in which a legacy could be developed. For that reason, in 1991 our children are once again faced with an education system that is not in its healthiest and most productive state. We cannot tolerate that kind of approach to our most important activity: the education of our children, the development of our future. For that reason, it is with regret that I note again that this government is failing in its most important endeavour.

MR. LOENEN: I welcome this opportunity to speak about some of the experiences that I've enjoyed, some of the frustrations that I've had while I was a member of this House over the last four and a half years. I've learned a great deal. I want to talk particularly about the role of cabinet, the role of private members and the role and function of the House here.

Before I get into that, I just want to say a few things in response to the comments of the member for New Westminster regarding education. I am proud of a lot of the things that this government has done for the people of British Columbia. I am particularly proud of our record in education. Our commitment in education has been absolutely outstanding.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: I'll just give you one quote, one set of facts, Mr. Member. Over the past four years the consumer price index has increased by 17 percent. During that same time period we increased education spending by 39 percent. The record will speak for itself. We will go to the people, and they will recognize that we were not held captive by the BCTF and that we did what was right for all the people in British Columbia, not just for some limited, special self-interest group.

I want to get back to the main topic. I want to say that I believe we can make the Legislature and parliament work better, but we need to introduce some very dramatic and radical reforms. There is, as we all know, a tremendous amount of skepticism and cynicism, if not outright contempt, for politicians, parliament and the Legislature. It's sad to see that. Perhaps as never before, we see among the people we represent a disillusionment as to what politicians and parliament are all about.

It's not merely that people are disillusioned with certain faces, certain names, certain people — the politicians themselves. It goes a lot deeper than that. They are disillusioned with the very institution of parliament. It's the very institution that we need to look at, address and think about. We've seen the Meech Lake impasse. We hear the discontent about regional disparities. There is no hope, no real trust.

There are at least two different ways of looking at the role of parliament. One is to look at it as a forum which promotes the public good, which somehow, in a disinterested fashion, stands above narrow partisan politics and special interests and looks after the interests of all people. People do not see parliament or the Legislature as a means of obtaining or delivering the public good, because it seems that the narrow self-interests, the narrow regional, special interests somehow always predominate.

Others look at parliament and our institutions of government as a means to deliver the goodies, to bring home for them what they would like to see for themselves. They, too, feel disillusioned because somehow there are always other special interests, other goodies, other regional or partisan interests that stand in the way. On both counts we see a great deal of skepticism directed at the institution that is supposed to deliver the public good.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? The result is that we see decline in the importance of political parties. People somehow do not identify with political parties as readily as all kinds of special interest groups and pressure groups. People join the Save the Farmland Society, or the Shaughnessy Residents Against Rapid Transit, or the Save the Whales Society, or this or that pressure group. All of us in public life are confronted daily by people who want something for themselves, whether it is farmers, fishermen, doctors, lawyers, senior citizens or single parents. They all want something for themselves or their particular little group.

Interjection.

MR. LOENEN: Yes, that includes the teachers as well.

What that does is raise the question of who is looking after the store. Who is defending the public interest? Who looks after the good of all? It is no wonder that we're always bickering. It's no wonder that we're always fighting together, if all we hope to get out of it is something for our own special, narrow, regional or partisan interests.

What is wrong with our systems? What is wrong with the institutions to which we look? If we do not have the kind of political parties that we used to have, if they have faded in importance, do we still have a vehicle to articulate a public vision for the whole of the province or for the whole of the country? Do we have a means of articulating, together as a society, a vision that represents the national or the provincial will?

What we have seen as a result is that politics has largely become a brokering of interest groups. We have all these various interest groups that want something for themselves. Politics does not answer the question of what is best for all, what is good, what is necessary, what is objectively or disinterestedly true and correct; rather it is a brokering of interests. It's sad to see that, because surely if we want to deal with the cynicism that is about, we have to find a way to deal with problems that confront all of us — as a nation, as a province, as a community — rather than carry on the way we do right now.

I've delineated some of the problem; it's more difficult to find a solution. I want to do that. But before I do, I want to suggest that there is one avenue that I believe we should be somewhat wary of. There's a lot of talk right now that because parliament and legislatures and politicians are not doing their job, therefore we go back to the people. Let the people decide

[ Page 12059 ]

through referenda, through constituency assemblies — whatever that means — and through initiatives of various kinds, or perhaps through recall. Give the power back to the people.

[11:15]

Now I think in some limited instances that is a good thing to do and is important. But we have a long tradition of representative government, and I do not believe that that kind of approach, of going back to the people, is the panacea that it's cracked up to be. When I have something wrong with my car I go to an expert; I go to a mechanic who's qualified and trained. When we sit in an airplane we hope that the person at the controls is an expert. I believe — and it may sound a little bit elitist — that we should be somewhat wary of this drive to think that if only you go out and ask everyone's opinion then you will get a proper or correct or the best result.

I wanted to just illustrate that by an example or two.

For instance, we know that in California the idea of initiatives and referendum has really taken off. What it does is allow people, through massive advertising programs, to lobby not just one or two people but whole sectors of the electorate. In 1988, some $100 million (U.S.) was spent just trying to influence public opinion one way or another. I'm a little wary of that, and I don't think that's the way of wisdom.

Another example. As a member of the advisory committee that looks at selecting a route as well as the technology for the proposed Vancouver-Richmond rapid transit link, we visited both Portland and Seattle. We talked to the administrator of the Metro council looking after transit in Seattle, and this person said that he had a board of some 42 people, all of whom are elected in their local counties, little municipalities or little cities. The way the system works is that he cannot get anything through unless there is at least a majority who feel this particular initiative will bring some goodies or some benefit to their particular little local interest. He said that it's immensely frustrating. This is the third time now: they will go to the people with an initiative to get some money to build a decent public transit system. They failed in the sixties, they failed in the seventies and now they hope to do it in the nineties. What is objectively, technically, professionally right and correct is frustrated because it's a very difficult process. They first have to go to the state Legislature to ask permission to go to the local people to ask for a tax increase.

Another example. They have a tunnel in downtown Seattle which cost them the equivalent of $750 million (Canadian). It runs for a mile and a half. They put tracks in the bottom, because really they should have a rail-based system. But they're running buses through there. Why? Because they cannot get the funding from the local ratepayers to do what they really ought to be doing, namely have a rail-based system in there. But they're running buses because they could get 50-cent federal dollars to do that.

What I'm suggesting is that when we ask ourselves how the public good can best be looked after, it is not always the case that by somehow increasing what on the surface may seem to be more democratic or that it is necessarily going to deliver.

At the local level, we have seen that as well. I remember as an alderman in the seventies we had participatory democracy: everybody needed to be consulted. That process, good and idealistic though it was, has now been co-opted by all the special-interest groups which say "not in my back yard." I think that process, which is a good process in itself, sometimes thwarts what is in the public interest. We see, for instance, the Shaughnessy people — a relatively small number of people — trying to hold up and frustrate that great project of building the rapid transit link between my community and downtown Vancouver. It shouldn't be possible for a few people to frustrate what is clearly in the public interest.

We can go on and on. What, then, is the answer? I don't believe that it's necessarily the case that going back to the grass roots is the answer, but I do believe that parliamentary reform is the answer. I came here from local council and I was frustrated. At local council there is genuine debate; here there is no genuine debate. As someone said, a debate means that somebody talks and other people listen. We all talk here, but nobody listens. There is no genuine debate, and why should there be?

At least in a local council you go in and discuss the merits of an issue, hoping to persuade someone to see it your way and vote your way. Out here, everybody has decided beforehand how they are going to vote, so what is the sense of trying to appeal to good reason, or appealing to anyone? We just use this as a stage for a bit of theatre, but there is no real debate going on here. We all know that.

I just want to propose four solutions: (1) we should have fixed election dates; (2) we should have fixed dates for the sittings of the House; (3) between elections governments can be defeated only on a motion of confidence, and all other votes should be free votes; (4) committees of the House should be used, and used so as to permit public input.

Many people have suggested this, Mr. Speaker, and it's certainly not new with me. The reason it has never been implemented is that it favours those who hold the reins of power. We know that; everybody knows that.

We are in some ways more British than the British, because Westminster, certainly since 1970, allows free votes to a much greater extent, and things run a lot better. That's what we should be doing here.

Under our system, a Prime Minister or a Premier holds far greater power within his respective jurisdiction than the President of the United States. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Lord Acton's dictum is well known: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We need to address the question of how much power there should be in cabinet, in the Premier's office, and we need to address the role of the private members here.

Nationally, we face some very serious constitutional problems. The events of the last six months within this province have shaken people's faith in this institution. We can address those issues, but it will require that the people who hold the reins of power address the issue

[ Page 12060 ]

of parliamentary reform in a way that will restore the faith and confidence of the people of this province.

As a private member I think we are often frustrated about our roles, particularly on the government side. We don't know what our roles are. In my opinion' ideally the role of the executive — that is, cabinet — is to be true to the oath of their office, to represent the public good in a disinterested and nonpartisan way, to do what is good for all. As private members, our role is to be a representative, an agent of the people who send us here. The system as it is now confuses those roles, because we are co-opted into supporting whatever the government brings here, and as a result we can't do our job. But it's equally true that the job of cabinet is compromised by the fact that they have somehow lost sight of the fact that they should be disinterested and that they should be true to their office and the oath of their office.

I believe the kinds of proposals I have put forward will more clearly define the distinctive roles of cabinet as well as those of the back bench, and will in fact ensure that this becomes a genuine debating chamber.

We're faced with an election soon, and I believe that no leader can go to the people and regain the people's confidence without addressing in a very dramatic way this whole question of the function and role of our governing institutions, namely this Legislature. I firmly believe that unless a leader is willing to do that, that person does not deserve the trust of the people of this province.

Since I have a few minutes, I'd like to draw attention to an excellent little book by Walter Lippman, The Public Philosophy, which discusses this at length, This was written in the 1950s, but it's still relevant today, particularly about the role of the executive as opposed to the representative role. He writes as follows:

"When we move over to the representative assembly, the image is different. The representative is in some very considerable degree an agent, and the image of his virtue is rather more like that of the lawyer than of the judge. In the general run of the mundane business which comes before the assembly, he is entitled — indeed he is duty-bound — to keep close to the interests and sentiments of his constituents and, within reasonable limits, to do what he can to support them. For it is indispensable to the freedom and the order of a civilized state that the voters should be effectively represented."

Now this is critical, the last sentence:

"But representation must not be confused with governing."

I think too often in our setup here we confuse those two roles. We think — and I certainly did when I came here in '86 — that we're part of government. We're not. The executive council is, not us. We have to fulfil that representative role, and that would allow the executive council to be more true to their oath of office.

In brief, I believe that in cabinet there is too much politics, and the way we have the setup right here, for the private members there's not enough politics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would like to make an introduction

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues for their indulgence. I'd like to ask everyone here today to welcome 28 grade 7 students from Kelowna Christian School, accompanied by Miss Armstrong. Would you please make them welcome.

[11:30]

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to congratulate the previous speaker for his subject in this throne speech debate. I wish that we had more time to discuss this kind of thing more often, and I wish that something relating to that had been in the throne speech. It might have been very useful. We could bring this up and discuss it in more detail.

However, in my response to the throne speech, I want to bring an analogy to the minds of the members here, and I want all of you to think of being in someone else's kitchen where you see on the fridge a little note that says: "Remember, inside that fat, sluggish, ugly person is a slim, muscular, beautiful being ready to emerge." You've seen those notes on people's fridge doors, and in service to those kinds of notices, you will find people doing absolutely amazing things. They will nearly starve their bodies to death; they will exhaust their patience; and they will drive their muscles, bones and joints to superhuman performances with the expectation of shedding that fat, sluggish and ugly body.

The recognition they actually have of a fat, sluggish and ugly body comes slowly too, I might say, for most of us who prefer to think that if we are dieting and exercising, we are doing so to maintain that slim, muscular, beautiful body that already exists. But at some time, somehow, the recognition has come — and we may call it the moment of truth or the epiphany if you like — that we are dealing with a fat, sluggish, ugly person rather than the slim, muscular, beautiful being that is inside.

This is similar to what has happened in British Columbia. We have had what most British Columbians believe to be a government that is similar to the fat, sluggish and ugly person they want to shed for the beautiful being inside. You know, it's taken them a bit of time, but they have finally recognized that such things as the overspending on advertising and so on — which is really the beer belly of the provincial person — and the unfulfilled promise of our young people, who basically do not get post-secondary education at the same rate as people in other parts of the country and who in fact have the largest percentage of unemployment within their ranks, even to the point of the younger children not having adequate lunches and the nutritional fortitude to carry on as well as they could.... That is basically the flab on the arms. The damaged young people and women who find no help for abuse or assault when they call the free numbers are really the charley horses that impede efficient muscular flow. The constant conflicts of interest, cabinet shuffles, and so on are like a regularly recurring

[ Page 12061 ]

night on the town and hangover the next morning for the poor struggling body.

B.C. has finally had to conclude that the bags under its eyes were too voluminous and too dark, and the flab was accumulating far too fast and too loose. The lungs have been struggling, but they're too tight to enable the government to last the course. It has recognized its government for the fat, sluggish, ugly person that it wants to shed.

British Columbia people have made very outstanding efforts and attempts to release the inner beauty they see there. Ordinary British Columbians have in fact ended up having 784 increases and additions to taxes and fees, and have come to pay $3,000 more per year in taxes than they did before the new government of 1986. They have paid more for their Queen's Printer things; they've lost their Environmental Lab; they have suffered the costs, expenses and decreased service of privatization; they have suffered the incompetence of this government's land sales, which has cost them millions of dollars for Expo, Westwood and other pieces of land; they have discovered that there is no control in their highways' building and maintenance projects; they have said that they recognize that there is not an adequate public process; and as far as environmental protection goes, there is nothing but suspicion and failure and a recognition that the government doesn't know what's right and what's wrong. We have suffered long lineups for health care, which is another major issue, Mr. Speaker.

So what happened? We got a new Premier. I might say that British Columbians were hoping that after this long struggle to release something new from inside, this new Premier would wear that sylph-like body. Is this the slim, muscular and beautiful being that we suspected existed inside the other person? Well, not at all, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, we have discovered that it's the same old government and the very same corporal presence that we had before. This government is no prettier than the one we had before; it suffers the same shortcomings. It's going in the same direction as the government we had, the same direction as the government we perceived as being considerably larger and less lithe. The arms and legs and lungs are the very same ones. The constraints are nearly identical. The shell is out of touch with the essence — which is the people. So although the people of British Columbia have worked long and hard to find the essential matter of government, they haven't found it, and they now want results.

This throne speech shows the same old patterns, the same unfairness, the same centralized control — all those things that British Columbians want to be shucked. Changing leaders hasn't been good enough. British Columbians want a government that represents them, that listens to them and reacts to them. It's really time for an election, Mr. Speaker. The Social Credit government deserves to be defeated. This throne speech shows that. It shows that we can't afford another five years of this fat, sluggish and ugly person, and it's time for a change.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a bit about something that gave me some hope when I read the throne speech, the promise that says the Minister of Health will be implementing a travel allowance system for those in remote areas who must travel to Vancouver for complex treatment. That is very hopeful for people in my area who frequently have to travel away from our area for complex treatment.

In the overall health system, we know that we are not going to have the facilities for every kind of treatment in every part of the province. When it comes to a complex facility and the need for very well-trained and centralized treatment for people, it is only fair that people in parts of the province that are remote from these facilities should have some assistance in their travel. I assume that the promise is not only for assistance on the cost of travel but also for the accommodation. You will recognize that people who need this complex kind of treatment frequently need to have some other member of their family or friend with them, and this is extremely costly. The difficulty with this is that the promise is for people who travel to Vancouver.

This government must recognize that far more people in eastern British Columbia go to Alberta for their complex treatment than go to Vancouver. The travel costs may be slightly less but the accommodation costs are every bit as burdensome, and for some people it is beyond "ability to pay" They do not have the ability to pay for it at all, and some people can't go.

It would be only fair if this promise were not simply for people who must travel to Vancouver for complex treatment but for any British Columbian who has to travel for complex treatment. The majority of people in the Kootenays go to Calgary for their treatment; I am sure the people in the northeastern part of the province go to Edmonton for theirs.

There is another point. If we are talking about the principle on which this announcement was made — as cited in the throne speech, that "universal access and affordability of health care must be protected" — and if that universality is to be protected, it seems to me there are some other ways we could go with this. We should look at regional hospitals, some of which seem to be more equal than others.

One reason for the need to travel out of our area in Kootenay is to go for a CAT scan. CAT scans are very common these days, and there is no facility in our area. We have to travel to Trail, which is considered to be a short travel span. But it's not. Anyone who goes to Trail for that kind of treatment has to be sure that they have a full day free in order to get there. Getting to Trail isn't easy at the best of times. You may be able to go by bus if you're fairly well. You may be able to go by car if you're not quite so well but you have the facilities to do so. But some patients really need to fly. They can't take that long three-hour trip over the mountain passes, particularly in the wintertime. If they have to fly from Cranbrook to Trail, a matter of some 250 kilometres, they have to get on a plane and fly to Vancouver and back to Castlegar and then drive to Trail. That is not only long and arduous; it is extremely expensive.

[ Page 12062 ]

I would suggest two possibilities, Mr. Speaker. If a travel allowance system is being proposed, the system should also include anyone who might have to go to Trail. Perhaps if that were examined it might be found that there is no reason in the world why we don't have the equipment to do CAT scans in Cranbrook. It is a regional hospital. It serve the whole of the East Kootenays, a region of somewhere between 50,000 and 80,000 people. For some reason or another there is no equipment in Cranbrook to do CAT scans, a common requirement these days, a diagnostic tool.

Not only do the people in my area, and also in Columbia River to the north, suffer extremely from this problem because they have to travel away to get the treatment, but it makes it more difficult for our regional hospital to attract specialists. What specialist is going to want to come to a hospital when they do not have access to this kind of diagnostic ability? It puts our community into double jeopardy.

I would like it to be considered that this is a more reasonable way to provide universal access and affordability of health care and to protect it than to require that everybody travel away for a medical treatment which has become as common as CAT scanning.

I'd also like to mention before I move on, as far as health care is concerned, to talk about another problem in our area. At the moment there is no universal access and affordability to the people in my area, because we do not have 24-hour ambulance service. We are fighting to get 24-hour ambulance service, but guess what? We end up being treated as if, and believing, that we are the forgotten corner of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, why do you suppose there are occasional moves to secede to Alberta? It's because people have a very deep-seated and honest anger and indignation at this kind of inequity that happens. When it comes to health care, that kind of anger and indignation is even deeper than it might be with other services. So let's take it the whole way, and when the throne speech. says universal access and affordability, let's make that something real.

[11:45]

Mr. Speaker, I searched the throne speech to see what the government proposes to do as far as land use strategy and resource inventory are concerned. I could go into the background of why that's so crucial. It's crucial in my riding and throughout the whole area, the whole of the Kootenays and all of British Columbia. The recent hearings from various commissions, task forces and groups that are touring the province have indicated that that is the case.

All we have in this throne speech is a slight promise on page 8 that says: "The recommendations flowing from the Forest Resources Commission and the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and Parks Plan '90" — some of which are finished, and some of which are in progress and not finished — "will be brought together with input from other sources to create an overall strategy for British Columbia land use decisions."

Every year that I have been in this Legislature and have responded to the throne speech, I have asked, and the government has answered. I have said that we need land use strategy and resource inventory, and the government has answered: "It's coming." This is not any better at all; it's probably a weaker response than we've had before. But the point is that "it's coming" is not enough.

Has the government mistaken this for the Second Coming? This is the first coming of any land use strategy that we would have. It's needed; we need it now, and we have been hamstrung without a land use strategy in British Columbia.

The Forest Resources Commission, which has put forward its report, has made the very same point. They say we need a land use strategy. They have been critical of the extent of the resource inventory that we have in order to do our land use strategizing. We need to be able to know that we are going to have some significant action on this issue, and that we need the commitment for a land use strategy based on reasonable resource inventory.

Where in the throne speech, and I haven't found it at all, do we look ahead in terms of the research and development we need in British Columbia? British Columbia's record is so bad in this area that it is worse than anywhere else in Canada, and Canada's record of investment in research and development is poorer than any of the other major industrialized countries in the world. This is at a time when we're talking about having to compete on the world market. We're talking about our visions of how we're going to succeed industrially and how we're going to economically survive in a free market environment. But where is the vision for this? Where is the talk of how we are going to, like the rest of the industrialized countries, do our research, develop what we have to sell to the rest of the world and put forward the fruits of one of the best industrialized countries on the planet?

At other times, even this government has boasted about the proven returns that come from investment into research. Research brings huge returns. It's amazing to me that we do not have some plans for doing some research. A chronic deficiency I've noted on a number of occasions is in coal technology. Very clearly, you can see Japan has expanded the number of products that it extracts from our coal and other people's coal. They've developed all of these products, but we have none because we have no dollars for the research and we have not developed any secondary products from our coal.

The U.S. and other countries have developed the mechanics of mining our coal, and we have done practically nothing in developing and selling the technology for mining the coal. We buy our technology from foreign countries. We don't do the research and development in our own industries. The coal industry is representative of many sectors in the economy.

You may have noticed in the last few days that Robert Kadlec, the president of B.C. Gas, has mentioned that we should have more research into natural gas. Natural gas is on the edge of just exploding into being a hugely important, effective and efficiently returning industry in our country, but there is not even an allowance that the gas industry raise the money to do research. The Canadian natural gas sector is on the

[ Page 12063 ]

threshold of major expansion, with growing markets here and in the U.S. It's replacing oil as the most favoured fuel for environmental and economic reasons, and we have massive gas reserves, says an article in the Province of May 14, which cites what Mr. Kadlec has done.

Canadian gas exported to the U.S. attracts a levy for research and development, but there's no such thing here, Mr. Speaker. The Japanese, who don't have natural gas, are spending 40 times more than Canada on natural gas research and development, and Mr. Kadlec says: "Here's a real opportunity for us to create new jobs and new ventures, and we're blowing it." It's an area that we should be paying some attention to. We very clearly need to move that extra step further that goes with the success we see ourselves having in the free trade world in the industrialized countries.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that from everything I see in the throne speech, I return to the same conclusion I had before, and the conclusion of many of my colleagues: it is time for a change. It's time for an election; it's time for a lean and lithe B.C. government. That's what we need. Let's let it emerge.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to.... [Applause.] I'm not sure whether that applause is a suggestion that I have concluded, but I am not ready to conclude. I have missed several opportunities to conclude in the past, so I do want to speak in this throne speech debate. I will have an opportunity this afternoon.

Mr. Brummet moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.