[ Page 12065 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 12065

An Act to Expand the Powers of the Ombudsman (Bill M202). Ms. Cull

Introduction and first reading –– 12066

Oral Questions

Lottery grant to Eco-Clean. Mr. Sihota –– 12066

Restraining orders against abusive husbands. Ms. Marzari –– 12066

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 12066

Nitrate traces in Fraser Valley wells. Mr. Peterson –– 12067

Public hearings on Kemano project. Mrs. Boone –– 12067

Heliski industry safety standards. Ms. Pullinger –– 12067

Public hearings on Kemano project. Ms. Pullinger –– 12068

Silver Drake Resources. Mr. Sihota –– 12068

Fantasy Garden World Inc. sales tax. Mr. Clark –– 12068

Presenting Petitions –– 12068

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Brummet –– 12069

Mr. Cashore –– 12073

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 12077

Ms. Smallwood –– 12080

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 12082

Mr. Guno –– 12085

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen –– 12087

Mr. ReI'd –– 12089

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1991

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce His Excellency Sergio Silvio Balanzino, the Ambassador of Italy to Canada. He is accompanied by his wife, by Mr. Gianfranco Manigrassi, consul-general of Italy in Vancouver and by Mrs. Yolanda McKimmie, vice-consul in Victoria. Benvenuto.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for all our MLAs on both sides of the House as May is recognition and awareness month for motorcyclists. The B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists have once again gathered on the legislative grounds and allowed our MLAs to join them for a ride in the park, which many of us thank you very much for. They are here also to meet government on various subjects on behalf of the 142,000 owners of motorcycles in British Columbia. Would you please join me in welcoming Peter Jack, the provincial organizer, and Robert Fenton of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, visiting from the Kootenays today are two women involved in outstanding work in their own communities and across the land, Marcia Braundy and Tish Lakes. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon are Mr. Philip and Mrs. Jan Mansfield from West Vancouver and Mr. John and Mrs. Jackie Carnell, who are moving to West Vancouver from the United Kingdom. They are joined by my wife Yvonne.

MR. ZIRNHELT: We have in the House today about 40 grade 10 and 11 students from Correlieu Secondary School in Quesnel. They are accompanied by Ed Nielsen, Marjorie Sinclair and Adrian Monych. Please make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: I take great pride and pleasure in....

AN HON. MEMBER: Easy for you.

HON. L. HANSON: I'll start over again, Mr. Speaker. I take great pride in reminding the House that the greatest junior A hockey players in Canada come from my own constituency of Vernon. On the weekend they defeated the Sudbury Cubs 8-4 to win the Centennial Cup, which is emblematic of junior A supremacy in Canada. I know the House will join me in congratulating them on their accomplishment.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's the wish of the House, the Chair will be pleased to send a message to the team on behalf of the members.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have a number of very important people from my riding. They are the volunteers who were responsible for mailing over 70,000 pieces of information for me last year. I'd like the House to welcome Peggy Price, Del Thyer, Grace Race, Ruth Lindsay, Jacquie Ackerly, Norma Mann, Lois Sutherland, Barbara Gravenor, Michael Evans, Eric Graham, Mary Anne Ellens and my constituency assistant, Jocelyn Jenkyns.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Visiting the House today is Mr. Jim Corlett from Portland, Oregon. He's the executive director of the Western States Legislative Forestry Task Force. I would ask the House to make our American visitor welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, among the students who are visiting here from Quesnel is Sarah Hilbert, president of the Cariboo North Young New Democrats and vice-president of the YND. Would you give her a very warm welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed Prof. Don Balmer from Lewis and Clark College in your gallery. I know he's here with 15 or 20 of his students this afternoon, because I'm going to be seeing them later. I wish all our colleagues would welcome our friends from the United States who are here to see how the parliamentary system works and to find out why they have the system they have.

MR. JONES: I too want to welcome Professor Balmer and his 25 political science students, who are from all over the United States, although they attend Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. Would the House again please welcome them in our usual warm, desk-thumping manner.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce my sister, Norma Beech, who is visiting from Calgary. It's the first time she has had the opportunity to visit the House since the election, and I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I know you would want me to welcome the other people in the gallery who haven't been mentioned yet. I'd like to make them welcome as well.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the 1991 annual report of the B.C. Law Reform Commission.

Hon. S. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the period July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990.

Hon. J. Jansen tabled the annual report of the auditor-general, dated March 1991.

[ Page 12066 ]

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO EXPAND THE POWERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ms. Cull presented a bill intituled An Act to Expand the Powers of the Ombudsman.

MS. CULL: This bill addresses the failure of the government of British Columbia to proclaim sections of the Ombudsman Act passed by the Legislature in 1977.

These sections permit the ombudsman to investigate complaints about the operations of other public sector bodies, including municipalities, regional districts, school boards, universities and hospitals. As of July 1, 1991, this bill would finally broaden the powers and duties of the ombudsman with respect to matters of administration on a complaint or on the ombudsman's own initiative to investigate a decision or recommendation made, an act done or omitted, or procedure used by any of the authorities listed that aggrieves or may aggrieve a person.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY GRANT TO ECO-CLEAN

MR. SIHOTA: A question for the Attorney-General. Could the Attorney-General update the House on the status of the effort to secure return of the Eco-Clean funds advanced under the lottery grant and advise us whether those funds have indeed now been returned?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm sure the House would like a detailed answer on that, so I'll take that question on notice.

RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST
ABUSIVE HUSBANDS

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Attorney General. The throne speech suggested that violence against women had to be aggressively addressed at all levels of law enforcement and the justice system. Can the Attorney-General confirm that, by a change in his ministry's policy, women facing violence at home are no longer guaranteed expedited service when they seek an emergency restraining order to protect them against abusive husbands?

HON. MR. FRASER: The question was a little convoluted, but the fact of the matter is that this government is very concerned about violence in the home and justice in general. So we do everything we can to make sure that people are protected at all times everywhere.

MS. MARZARI: Until a few weeks ago, Mr. Attorney-General, women had an insurance policy. They got contract counsel paI'd by government so that they could get special service when they sought a restraining order. Now when they seek court protection, they're potentially at risk — sometimes for as long as two weeks — until the regular procedures roll into motion to give them protection. Are you going to reintroduce a restraining order program?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical question that I would address in a more technical nature at a better time. So I would be happy to take the question on notice.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment. The Environment minister saI'd yesterday that he stands by the decision to dump contaminated soils from the Expo site next to Richmond farmland. Will the minister admit that those soils are being removed from the Expo site because they are too contaminated for residential use?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam had not put out an erroneous news release, which amounted to a lie, then he would not have....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member take his seat.

We're in the fifth year of a parliament. I am very surprised that I would have to bring this to anyone's attention. But members, it is totally and completely inappropriate to use the word "lie" in this chamber to describe the actions of any member. So I would ask the minister to withdraw that remark and then continue with the answer to his question.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the remark. Perhaps I should use the word "erroneous"; perhaps I should use the word "hyperbolic." Perhaps I should use the words "certainly out of tune with what the situation was."

The soil in question is not toxic, the tonnage is not 10,000 to 20,000 truckloads, and the soil is of a residential grade as to 75 percent of the content. If the member who has raised this question had taken the time to read the information on this, he wouldn't be asking the question today.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary. This minister should know that it requires more than bafflegab to protect the environment. The minister knows that the soils are too contaminated for people to live on or near, and if he didn't know that, then he wouldn't be condoning them being removed in the first place. Will he admit that it makes no sense to drop these soils next to food-growing land? If they're not allowed on residential land, why are they allowed on land next door to food-growing land?

[ Page 12067 ]

HON. MR. MERCIER: I should inform the members here that the site in question is an industrial site. It's a reclaimed garbage dump that the soil is going to cover. If the member had studied the site where this soil is being located, the member would realize that the material being covered over and the material used to cover it are entirely safe in the end result — in fact, it's safer than leaving the garbage dump material that was already deposited there over many years so close to the surface.

MR. CASHORE: I have studied the site. I have been on the site. The site is next to food-growing land. The Richmond Farmers' Institute, among others, has a right to be heard. Will the minister now agree that the people of Richmond are entitled to public hearings before truckloads of contaminated soils arrive on their doorstep?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member opposite has probably not read the material on the material. I had the pleasure to talk to the mayor of Richmond, and the information I have is that the mayor was not fully apprised of the information on the soil. I have asked him to inform himself; I'd ask the member to inform himself. Then perhaps you might like to ask the question of me again someday.

NITRATE TRACES IN
FRASER VALLEY WELLS

MR. PETERSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment, and I'll only ask it once. Recent tests have indicated that nitrate traces may exist in some Fraser Valley residential wells. What I'd like to know is: what steps is the ministry taking to protect groundwater supplies, particularly in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. MERCIER: At the present, I can advise that discussions have been held between my ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Health. Those ministries are in the process of developing a joint action plan. In fact, they've gotten to the point where they're drafting regulations to deal with the problem.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON KEMANO PROJECT

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Environment. Last year one of your many Environment ministers stated that there would be public hearings on the Kemano project. Have you decided to carry out the former minister's commitment by holding public hearings?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'll take that question on notice, obtain the information and respond to the member.

HELI-SKI INDUSTRY SAFETY STANDARDS

MS. PULLINGER: My question is to the Minister of Lands and Parks. As we all know, heli-ski accidents have killed 12 people in the last year, and twice heli-ski operators have asked the province for regulatory legislation. As well, a coroner's jury recommended "that a provincial regulatory body to establish safety standards for the heli-ski industry in B.C. be established." Can the minister confirm that no such legislation or body exists to set and enforce safety standards for this industry?

HON. MR. PARKER: The issue of helicopter skiing is one that has been investigated several times. With the combination of the two ministries — Lands and Parks — we are undertaking to address this issue and will have a response for the House in the not too distant future.

MS. PULLINGER: A supplementary question to the same minister. Sports Illustrated, one of North America's most widely read sports magazines, has criticized B.C. for the lack of heli-ski safety regulations, and obviously that doesn't do much for tourism in this province. In last weekend's paper, the minister invited proposals for a new heli-ski business in southeastern B.C. My question to the minister is: can he explain his decision to encourage new projects before he has even moved to secure the reputation of this industry and the safety of skiing visitors to British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: The heli-ski operations in the province are enterprises that are recognized worldwide, draw on a worldwide market, and hence the operators go to great lengths to make sure that it is a safe operation. We've been very fortunate in having safe operations. However, when you ski in the mountains, you can expect there will be slides from time to time. That sort of exercise is a considered risk by everybody that chooses to ski the high country. The ski operators have well-trained guides and assistants and, as I said before, go to great lengths to make sure the sport is safe in the area they are operating in.

By the way, the opportunity in Fernie has just recently been offered. It's a day-trip operation and will add to the tourism opportunities in the southeast Kootenays.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, another question to the same minister. We see the minister sidestepping his responsibility again. I would like to ask the minister: how many deaths is it going to take before you will address the concerns of the industry and implement the regulations and the regulatory body that the industry itself, as well as the coroner's jury, has asked for?

HON. MR. PARKER: Apart from repealing the law of gravity, I don't know how you'd stop avalanches in the province of British Columbia. The tour guides in this province operate well-respected companies. They have the opportunity to enjoy repeat business, which tells me their clients are quite satisfied with the way they conduct their operations. They are an asset to the province. We do work with them to help them over any of the difficulties they may have in their business.

[ Page 12068 ]

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON KEMANO PROJECT

Ms. PULLINGER: A new question to the Minister of Environment. The last Minister of Environment said that the government's agreement with Alcan requires the taxpayers to pay Alcan all costs of any hearing that Alcan participates in against its wishes. Can you confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The question was taken on notice earlier today, but perhaps....

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say the same thing. I'll take that on notice in conjunction with the previously asked question.

SILVER DRAKE RESOURCES

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance — and it relates again to the matter of Silver Drake Resources, a company whose stock value has fluctuated significantly. There has been a lot of attention paid to the role of the former Minister of Environment with respect to his involvement with that company. There have been a number of representations made by the company as to the environmental technology that it possesses and whether or not it has the patent rights that it suggests it has. On top of that, there are additional questions with respect to the qualifications of the so-called scientific mind involved with the company.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have the question please?

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House whether he thinks, in light of the publicity around the matter, that there is no need for the superintendent of brokers' office to examine the affairs of the company?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I commented yesterday, and I'll repeat that comment. It is not appropriate for me to comment on any aspect of whether there is an investigation or whether the product is viable, or on any aspect relating to the Securities Commission.

FANTASY GARDEN WORLD INC. SALES TAX

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister confirm that Fantasy Garden World Inc. paid no provincial sales tax last year, in spite of the fact that many thousands of small businesses in British Columbia are required to pay promptly?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who pays sales tax and who doesn't pay sales taxes until such time as those matters are presented in the normal course of events.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. Will the minister undertake to inform the House as to whether or not Fantasy Garden World Inc. paid sales tax in 1990?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, if any corporate entity in the province of British Columbia is required to pay sales tax, it would do so. If they are in default, the normal process would happen. It's not my intention to bring forward every single defaulter of sales tax throughout the province, and I'm surprised that the member would ask me to do that. The normal situation applies, regardless of the ownership of the company

Presenting Petitions

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 3,265 residents of the great city of Kamloops. As you know, Kamloops is home to the historic Royal Inland Hospital, which is now approaching the centenary of its service to the interior of British Columbia. This petition from the Friends of Royal Inland Hospital is in the appropriate form, and I have signed the first page, as required by our rules.

The petition states that "health care be made a priority in the province of British Columbia," and it goes on to express concern over the closure of beds, the layoff of health care workers and cuts in medical services in Kamloops:

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as to reinstate the above and that Royal Inland Hospital receive fair and equitable funding to deliver quality health care to its referral area. Please ensure that Royal Inland Hospital is not singled out for further cuts, but is allowed growth to serve the residents of the referral area."

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by 3,265 residents of Kamloops and its environs who are concerned about the deterioration of the regional referral role of Royal Inland Hospital under this government. I would like now to tender it for the consideration of hon. members, if the Clerk can take the petition.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I've got a couple of items here, one of which I've given you notice of. The first one is that I seek unanimous consent to substitute the name of the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley for that of Mr. Williams on the special committee to name members to the standing committees of this House.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: Secondly, I don't know if everyone knows that today marks the tenth anniversary of the election of the hon. government House Leader from Kamloops. Congratulate him for that and also advise him that Bob Williams has sent a small package. It's now gaily ticking away in my office.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I want to thank the member for his congratulations. Indeed, it was ten years ago today when we won a significant by-election in the city of Kamloops. I might point out to the members opposite that going into that by-election, we were a full 20 points behind in the opinion polls. So don't read too much into them is all I want to say.

[2:30]

[ Page 12069 ]

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of the things that are in the throne speech, unlike the opposition, who talk about things that aren't in the throne speech.

I think anyone who has been in parliament for any time — and even many members of the public — recognize that the throne speech was never intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of everything that the government has done, everything that the government intends to do, and everything that government cares about. It is simply a list of some of the highlights of the programs. We've heard so many times over the last week that we don't care because it's not in the throne speech. What a ridiculous comment. I could point out that His Honour last Tuesday did not say: "Today is Tuesday." I'm surprised the opposition hasn't accused us of not caring what day of the week it was — because it wasn't in the throne speech. We've had these attacks.

MR. JONES: Unfair, unfair.

MR. BRUMMET: It's certainly warranted. Any attack on the opposition is more than warranted. Wait until I get into the text of my speech.

I'm very pleased that the suggestion has been accepted to provide travel allowance assistance for those people from the remote areas who have no alternative but to come to the major centres for specialized health care. It may be of interest to members that a person from Fort. St. John has to pay $620 return airfare to come down to Vancouver for an inspection by the medical services. If that person requires a companion, that means it's about $1,300 without hotel rooms, without anything else, to come down and get an examination that is only available in Vancouver.

I might point out, further, that the return airfare from Fort Nelson to Vancouver is about $893. That means that a couple coming down because one of them needs medical attention would have to pay at least $2,000. And we still talk about equality. So I'm very pleased that this has happened. It can be done. It doesn't need to be total refunding, but it needs to be assistance. Most of the people in the remote areas in the north do relish maintaining some of their independence, but they do want some equality and some help. So I'm very pleased with that.

In the throne speech we have a further commitment to forest renewal. We hear constantly from the carping critics of the opposition that we're not planting enough trees and not doing enough. And yet a lot more money has gone into it. The program has been accelerated, and there is a lot being done. More trees are being planted today than are being cut. That's a combination effort by the government and the private sector.

We've heard quite an attack about: "Well, the government has not made a firm commitment to put a university in the Fraser Valley, so this government is not committed to education." What they neglect to mention is that this government put aside — and I forget the exact amount — literally millions of dollars in the Access For All program, which now provides degree-granting at Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo.

Government started out some years ago saying we need a university in the north. That is now a fact of life. I would like to remind members of this House and certainly members of the opposition that the people in the Fraser Valley have much more ready access to SFU and UBC than do the people in the remoter areas. So if there's got to be a priority, it's got to be up there. When those degrees are available closer to those people, the pressure comes off UBC and SFU, and these people have all kinds of opportunities. Those who already have three universities within driving range should not get priority over those who have to travel great distances. So I'm very supportive of what the government has done.

The throne speech talks about a pension plan for all. I don't know whether that's achievable, but I can assure you that this government has looked at the difference between those people who, through their employment, have pension plans and those people who, because their employers don't provide pension plans — and that's many of the small businesses and the service industries — don't have access to a pension plan. An opposition member can irresponsibly say, "Well, give it them," but it has to be done, it has to be possible and it has to be pragmatic. The government has looked at this, and it's coming up with ways to do it. Yet they say that it should have been done ten years ago, or something of that nature. The government is reacting to the needs to the people of this province; this is another example of how this government cares about those people.

In the throne speech there's additional support to families, and the details of some of these have been announced in government programs to date. There's additional support going to families, to day care and to all of these. But sometimes we have to be careful that we don't try to do everything. If we as a government decide to look after everything from cradle to grave, then we have a situation where people are discouraged from helping themselves to look after their own needs.

We've had some criticisms that the government does not care about education, because in the throne speech they did not say how much they were going to spend on education. This is from supposedly knowledgeable members who know the amount to be spent will come from the budget, not the throne speech. The throne speech does renew our commitment to education.

We have heard all the attacks about the cuts in education and how we are putting down education, and yet, over the last four years, when the cost-of-living index rose by something like 17 percent, the financial commitment of this government to education was about two and a half times that, almost 40 percent. Now that is a commitment to education, and a great deal has been done and a lot more is being done.

[ Page 12070 ]

What we have — whether you take the federal throne speech or the provincial throne speech — the critics simply.... You can almost write their attacks in advance and expect them. The Leader of the Opposition got publicity this year for saying exactly the same thing he said last year and the year before, but he somehow or other keeps saying the same thing — nothing in there.

In his response, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said: "Here is what we would do." We heard a listing of a number of generalizations and a number of platitudes. Now this is the difference between an opposition member and a government member. If a government member says, "We are going to do more to protect the environment," then immediately that person is asked: "How? In what way? Exactly what way?" The Leader of the Opposition gets away with saying: "We're going to do more for the environment." He doesn't get challenged. He doesn't have to answer in this House. And the press doesn't even bother to ask him: "How would you do it?" He said: "We're going to generate more cooperation in the forest industry." Nobody asks him how. That speech by that member was very lacking in any specifics. And their basic platform is personal character assassination of the members on the government side.

There is another difference: the members on the government side are held responsible and accountable for what they say; but members of the opposition seem to be able to say anything, whether it's correct or not, and they are not asked to account for it and are not even asked to be responsible for what they say. They could make any accusation and leave it hanging out there — and who cares? So that's the difference. We have to be very responsible.

As I indicated, this government has a commitment to the continuance of a quality education system, not rash promises. I could use the Ontario example. I spent a number of years on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. There's a lot of concern about how we measure performance in education, how we determine whether or not pupils are making progress in reading, science, mathematics and English. So the CMEC set out to say: "Let us try to determine what the educational indicators are." That is to find some criteria against which we can measure progress. That was moving along very nicely. We had $500,000 in commitments from a private sector organization, because they too were interested. If we're going to make comparisons, how do we determine whether some progress has been made? It was moving along very nicely until the NDP election in Ontario. That Minister of Education came to the meeting and said he couldn't speak to this until he checked with the teachers. He told us to remember that the teachers committed their full support. Now there's an obligation. Shortly afterwards that minister wrote back and said that the teachers thought it was standardization, and therefore Ontario was not prepared to participate. Without Ontario's participation....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: It is facts, but you wouldn't understand facts, Mr. Member from Victoria. They go right by you.

So we have a situation where a good program has been taken down for political reasons because of a debt that's owing by the Ontario-elected members to the teachers who supported them in their election campaign. I hope that does not happen in British Columbia.

We've heard a lot about education. Education is very important. In question period this afternoon, we heard Dr. Strangelove — I'm sorry, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey — say that he's supporting a petition to make health care a priority in this province. From the $15 billion budget, 40 percent or so goes into health care. I would think the fact that one-third of the money in that budget goes into education indicates that education is a priority. The per capita spending on education is high in British Columbia.

Yes, we've spent a great deal more than we did in the mid-eighties, when the money wasn't there, and have caught up on a lot of things in education. But you just can't go the NDP route. A couple of years ago, when we said we had put in a 15 percent increase, they said it was not enough — cutbacks in education. Last year it was 10.9 percent, and they called it a cutback in education spending. So you have this constant statement about cuts. When a 10 percent, 11 percent or 15 percent increase is a cut, then I wonder what sort of financial difficulties we're going to get into in the future.

Let me deal with some things that the Education critic was saying this morning. Remember this person was saying that it's time for a change. They want the people to vote in an NDP government so that she can be Minister of Education — a rather frightening thought. I guess that member went to the BCSTA convention on the weekend and told them that they would repeal Bill 82. I guess that's notable because nobody likes Bill 82; nobody likes constraints. But in the private sector there are real constraints. So when people don't act responsibly, there have to be some restraints.

[2:45]

They keep talking about figures. In February the teachers' average settlement was 7.1 percent; the settlement in the private sector was 5.6 percent. They make a great case about the 3.75 percent increase in the operation budget, which the government announced is not in line with the consumer price index. If the consumer price index is running at around 5 percent or 5.5 percent, why don't they make the case and say that they want increases in line with the 5.5 percent? If that were the case, there would be plenty of money for all the other programs.

So what do we have? Whatever this government has done, it has never been enough. Then they have the gall to say that it's not money; it's commitment. When we ask what they mean by commitment, they ask for more money. Somehow or other the fact escapes people that money does not come from government; it comes through government from the people.

[ Page 12071 ]

Maybe it wasn't very politically smart of me, but when many people in my constituency have said that they wanted more, I said: "I love giving out other people's money. I try to do it responsibly, but I do love to spend it. If you want $100, please send $125 to Victoria." When they asked why the $125, I said: "To collect it, process it and feed it back to you probably costs 25 cents on the dollar. Therefore if you want $1,000, send me $1, 250. I'd love to give you $1,000 back. Make me look like a good guy, and you pay the bill." That is exactly what the socialists are advocating. In other words, they say that we and the government should provide that.

That Education critic, and would-be Education minister, also said that if they became the government, they would give full taxing authority back to the school districts. When I was Education minister, I can remember all the flak I got that the government shouldn't expect local people to raise the taxes; the government should provide. I got all these blasts. So we agreed that 90 percent of the education funding would come from provincially collected taxes, not from provincial revenue; we would give 90 percent of the costs back, and only 10 percent of it would be on the taxpayers.

As soon as we did that, we had this admonition by the opposition that the government should pick up 90 percent of the cost of education, and we were already doing a great deal of it. When we spent all this money, they said that it was not enough.

The member for Prince George North spent quite a bit of time on education and on how we don't do the right thing by it. Implicitly, I assume that if we aren't spending enough at a 15 percent increase, then they would spend more. Yet she comes to Fort St. John, to the NDP candidates' nomination meeting, where all 80 of the local NDPers turned out....

Interjections.

MR. BRUMMET: Some of them were observers. I don't think there were 80 members. She comes up there and says: "We would spend within our means." So you have all of these situations where they constantly imply.... They tell the health people that they would spend more money. They tell education people that more money would be spent. They tell social services people that more money would be spent. They tell the people who want roads that more money would be spent.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen sent out a newsletter which I happened to read, and he said that this government is so stingy that it has only given the producers 2.2 cents per pound — I'm not sure whether that's the correct figure — for the apples they produce. "We will live by the promise that our leader made to give you 10 cents per pound for the apples you grow."

AN. HON. MEMBER: What about the facts?

MR. BRUMMET: Those are the facts, unless that member distorted them in his newsletter. I'm quoting from his newsletter.

MR. JONES: You're not quoting anything. You're quoting your own printed notes there.

MR. BRUMMET: I've got the newsletter here, but I'm not going to take the time....

MR. BLENCOE: Table the document.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BRUMMET: Maybe those members should read their own garbage sometimes, and that way they would be as knowledgeable too.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the member would address the Chair.

MR. BRUMMET: We're talking about the conflict and confrontation in education. Mr. Speaker, we tried valiantly to eliminate that. We set up a royal commission that came in and listened to people — educators and everybody else, including students — and asked: "What is the direction we need to go in education?" They came in with recommendations. Yes, one of them was that we should avoid confrontation. I tried for a long time to avoid that confrontation. We had an opportunity because we called together the educators, the parents and a lot of people on the education advisory committee, and we said to them: "Here are the recommendations of the Sullivan report. How do we translate this into operating practice?"

These people came up with these documents, and they came up with the Year 2000. First of all, the outline got a lot of reaction. We've been accused of no consultation. The original Year 2000 document prepared by educators was sent out to everyone in the province interested in seeing it, particularly to all the schools. Teachers, parents and a lot of people had an opportunity to react. Those reactions were considered, and the document was modified for the Year 2000 program. We are accused of no consultation. I don't know what you need.

First of all, when the document went out for the reaction from teachers, the BCTF told them to ignore it. As Education minister, I offered each year to speak to the annual general meeting of the Teacher's Federation — now teachers' union — as ministers in every other province do. I was told no. I was finally told I could come and watch. So one year I did and surprised them, and the next year I declined. I had other things to do than to come and watch. I asked: "Why won't you let me speak to the teachers and answer their questions directly?" They replied: "We'll tell them what you think." These are the people who talk about freedom of speech and freedom of access to information. A lot of work went into keeping me away from talking to teachers directly.

Because I had taught in the Okanagan for many years, I was finally invited as a speaker to the

[ Page 12072 ]

Okanagan Valley teachers' convention. The word went out from the BCTF to boycott that meeting. I don't know how many teachers there are in the Okanagan — it must be well over 1000 — but 250 of them didn't accept the BCTF instructions. Imagine that: a convention of teachers asked me to speak to them, and I agreed to speak for half an hour and to answer questions for an hour. The BCTF sent out a bulletin through their union reps to the teachers saying: "Don't go to that meeting. We'll tell you what he thinks."

When the Year 2000 program went out, I continually met with the BCTF executive and said: "Let's talk about how far we should take it, in what way; to what extent we should implement this." I would leave that meeting. The next day there was an issue-alert bulletin that went out to all the teachers, distorting the information and telling them: "It's no use; they have not made a firm commitment to funding this change."

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what more you can ask, when you can get a government to say we're serious about this, and we will commit, above the operating budget for education, $1.4 billion over the next ten years; because it's going to take time to implement this program, in conjunction and working with the teachers. When we say we're going to commit $1.4 billion.... To get a ten-year commitment from any government has to be near a miracle. But that was forthcoming — a firm commitment. And what did we get? "Not enough, and give it to us." And then the attack kept going out: "Don't let them do this. Don't let them impose this on you."

I think we came a long way, and it was thrown back in our face. We got the moral commitment and the financial commitment from this government to support the recommendations that the royal commission report had brought forward, and that the educators had translated into operating practice. We got that support, and we had the opportunity to do it. As a matter of fact, from other places in the world, in North America, we were getting accolades for what we were talking about. But the BCTF kept sending out issue alerts saying: "Don't let them do it."

I know that the government now has said that we're going to review this program. It's always subject to constant review. I guess my fear is: is the government going to become convinced that since the teachers don't want it, since the BCSTA fights against it, why are we committing this money towards it? That's my fear. But when I talk to individual teachers, who are very impressed with the opportunity for professional autonomy in the classroom — which their own organization seems to want to prevent.... They have the opportunity.

We've heard about the dropout rate; it's of great concern. The federal throne speech.... Everybody is concerned about the dropout rate. One of the things from the royal commission was that if you want the kids to stay in school, to grade 12, you've got to make the program relevant to them as individuals, not just relevant to those who are going on to university. That is incorporated in the Year 2000, and that is what we are fighting about.

We see the juvenile action of teachers in Surrey, who are throwing their Year 2000 manuals into a pile and saying: "We're not going to participate. We're professionals." Can you imagine doctors, even if they were fighting for more money, and even at loggerheads with this government, saying: "We are not going to use a CAT scan, because this government bought it; we are going to go back to surgery to find these things"? Can you imagine those people acting that way? I'll tell you, if a bunch of students came back to the office and dumped their books on the desk when I was a school principal, and said, "The questions in here are too hard; we don't like the book," I would have thought that that was juvenile behaviour. Yet we have these role models, wanting to be called professionals. I'll accept and treat any teacher as a professional who acts like a professional. But I'll tell you, I cannot praise them as professionals when they pull these antics.

When you think that it's clearly in the act that giving the marks to students is part of a teacher's job.... It's in the job description. We have the teachers in Abbotsford taking full pay for supposedly doing their job, and for two months refusing to give the marks to the students. When as Minister of Education I tried to interfere, I was told: according to the Human Rights Act, according to the constitution, according to all of this, the deal is between the employer — which is the school board — and the teachers. The only persons that can castigate the teachers for not doing their duty are the school boards. Of course the school boards, I think, are more interested in keeping the kids in school, so they don't want to create confrontation.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I don't think teachers have the right, in good conscience — whatever other reasons, even as a union member — to draw full pay and refuse to do a part of their duties that is required. When you get a headline in the Vancouver Province saying that the Vancouver School Board has voted not to disobey the law... When that warrants a headline, that the people responsible are going to obey the law, that's something else.

[3:00]

While I'm on Vancouver, when you think of it, last year, when we said 6 percent in a 5 percent economy, they immediately said: "Not enough." This year the minister announced 3.75 percent-plus. "Not enough." But they went to Commissioner Lien and said: "Why are you holding us back from paying the teachers? We can afford to pay 9.1 percent."

Mr. Speaker, there is so much concern about education. The case is being made that it has to be in line with the cost of living. As to the cost of living, I would say 5 percent is generous right now, that the private sector is averaging 5.6 percent — certainly more in line with the economy. Teachers are demanding averaging and depriving pupils of services because they want at least 7 percent. They say: "We're not on strike for money; we're on strike for other things."

Interjection.

[ Page 12073 ]

MR. BRUMMET: I would be quite happy, as that advanced critic.... I say advanced critic because that's his specialty — criticism. Building bridges? No way. Criticism? You bet. Anything. But I would be glad to give.... I asked school boards: "Do you want full taxing authority? Do you want all that? Because with it goes the responsibility." Oh no. They wanted full taxing authority with the government paying 100 percent of the education cost, and they wanted full taxing authority for extras.

Yes, I'm all in favour of democracy, but democracy has two aspects to it: rights and responsibilities. When you're willing to take the responsibility for something, then you have the right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must advise you that your time has expired.

MR. BRUMMET: Such a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. I was just getting into full flight. Thank you.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: Visiting us today are some grade 6 students from St. Joseph's School in Smithers, their teachers, Cheryl Teves, Margaret Sikkes and John Lankester, and two volunteer parent drivers, Jim Teves and Barrie Carter. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the hon. member who just finished speaking, I'm reminded of a rant that he gave earlier in the House — I think it was back in 1987 — and he got so excited that the opposition House Leader suggested he should go home, have some milk and cookies and maybe calm down. I think he would still benefit from that advice. Anyway, I want to remind him that I didn't heckle him once when he was speaking and, given that he has a very loud voice, I am counting on him to return the favour.

It's a pleasure to stand in my place and speak during the throne speech debate. I want to take this opportunity to recognize that this is the centennial of Coquitlam. It's an excellent year that we're having in Coquitlam, where so many of our people have their homes, but whose place of work is outside the community. People rely on the transit system and roads to be able to get to work in Vancouver and other places. It's a tremendous thing that our centennial is providing the focus that enables that community to draw together and work on some very worthwhile projects.

One of those worthwhile projects is the B.C. Summer Games, which are being hosted in Coquitlam between July 25 and 28. I'd like to invite the members of the Legislature and, indeed, all the people of British Columbia to visit Coquitlam during the B.C. Summer Games, because there's going to be a tremendous time presented in that delightful community for those who come to visit us.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll be there.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you.

Also, we are going to celebrate as part of our centennial in Coquitlam the B.C. Seniors' Games, and I really want to emphasize these games which are taking place September 4 to 7 in Coquitlam. Mr. Les Robson is doing an excellent job as the chairperson of the committee which is planning that. There are going to be over 1,600 participants and hundreds of other people coming to the community to participate at that time. I think it's very important that we recognize the role of seniors in our communities and that we affirm the value of their presence in that activity. Mr. Robson is himself an outstanding marathoner, and I believe that probably he would put most of us in this Legislative Assembly to shame if we were to enter into a race with him.

He is in a race, along with the members of his committee, to try to find the funding to be able to make the Seniors' Games the success and the economic benefit that it potentially can be. I have written a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, asking that this government consider providing support to the B.C. Seniors' Games committee as they do to the B.C. Summer Games. They are similar events in terms of the amount of work that is required, and yet the one activity receives no provincial funding at all for the committee that has to put on the games.

This committee is experiencing a $58,000 shortfall, and they should be able to go about their work of putting on an event that's an economic benefit to our community, and indeed to the province, without having to get bogged down in the fund-raising. In the scheme of things, that money would be realized for the province many times over because of its spinoff effects.

I also wish to say with some sadness that there's a lot of concern in my constituency about Bill 82. The bill is consistent with the bad and unfair labour legislation that we have seen during the term of this government. It represents another addition of the piecemeal and ad hoc approach to labour legislation that we find in the way this government has been mismanaging things in this province. They simply have a failing grade when it comes to finding policies that will help get people working through a carrot approach. Instead they are constantly putting people down.

We had an example of that listening to the last speaker, who spent three-quarters of his speech teacher-bashing. That is totally unnecessary, when you recognize the importance of teachers to the people of this province and the development of education. Teacher-bashing is all very convenient and very simple, an activity for someone who has the immunity of this House to indulge in that, but it's highly inappropriate. What we need is good, fair labour legislation that enables this province to work appropriately in its multifaceted ways.

One of the things the member said that I want to refer to was that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't put forward a program. I'm here to tell you today that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that, because we've had to endure the disarray of this

[ Page 12074 ]

government and the constant soap opera that has been on the front pages and the lead item on the news day after day, night after night, matters of urgent and vital importance to this province are not getting the benefit of public debate. They are not getting the benefit of being dealt with in the media, because the media are constantly engaged with the soap opera that has been the hallmark of this government.

While that has been going on, the Leader of the Opposition has instructed his shadow cabinet to come forward with a legislative package, a program that would show the people of the province where we stand. Therefore, during the last session of the Legislature, the official opposition in this House introduced a combination of over 50 pieces of private members' legislation, motions and other documents on the order paper that state very clearly where our government would stand. The leadership has been coming forward and presenting a program, which has unfortunately been obscured by the amount of mismanagement experienced by this government. After all, there's only so much space that can occupy the newspapers, television and radio.

We do have an excellent program. We have private members' bills, 13 of which I have introduced myself, that outline very clearly what an NDP program is with regard to the environment. The legislation deals with items that this government has not even touched. It deals with other items where this government has some legislation but where there are serious gaps. So don't talk to me about this opposition party not having put forward its program. We've put it forward very clearly and very thoroughly, and the people of British Columbia are becoming ever more aware of that program.

Mr. Speaker, there's a saying that is very important to me. It's biblical. "Where there is no vision, the people perish." I've just been through the throne speech of last year and the one from this year. In last year's the government announced an environmental program entitled Vision 2001, which was to be this province's answer to the federal Green Plan. We have not seen Vision 2001. Vision 2001 is mere window-dressing, smoke and mirrors and rhetoric. Vision 2001 was an attempt on the part of this government to indicate that they were about to do something. But the fact is that because of the disarray, because of the six Environment ministers in four and a half years and the four Environment ministers in the last two years, because of the three deputy ministers during the term of this government, we have a situation of disarray in the Ministry of Environment.

They talked about Vision 2001. Then we just had our throne speech — where is Vision 2001? It is not mentioned. It was the hallmark; it was one of the news items coming out of the throne speech a year ago. Where is it now, Mr. Speaker? The fact is that a government in disarray has forgotten to go back and read its own promises and has failed to even in some way put forward the fact that they remembered that they had promised that.

The fact is that there is a very serious morale problem within the Ministry of Environment. The excellent people that work in that civil service have found that their work has been smashed to smithereens time and time again because of the inappropriate political agenda of this government. For example, during the time that the No. 4 environment minister resigned in a fit of self-righteousness over the Premier's interference in deciding to squelch the AOX level which the cabinet had agreed to — which these members of cabinet who are now heckling personally agreed to.... When the Premier overruled that cabinet decision and the minister resigned, the fact is that that sent a message to good people working in the ministry who had worked hard to develop that program, only to see it turn to ashes and dust because of the interference by friends and insiders of this government.

It is simply inappropriate that those people who worked so hard to develop that program to address a serious environmental concern with pulp pollution only saw their hard work turn to ashes. Who would not suffer a morale problem in having to deal with that kind of treatment? After all, these are people that deserve the affirmation of seeing the work that they do bear fruit and come into something worthwhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you'd do.

MR. CASHORE: The member has asked what I would do. What I would do is contained in this book, "Sustainable Development," the program of the New Democratic Party. It's contained within Bill M204, and I recommend it to that member. It's all spelled out there — 1.5 with a zero AOX by the end of the year. The member has asked for it, and he has received an answer.

[3:15]

At that time, in its attempt to waffle out of this embarrassing situation, the government stated that they needed to study the issue. So what did they do? They called on the three universities to enter into a study of AOX requirements with regard to organochlorines. They called on the universities, they were saying, to develop a study and research project that would enable them to get answers with regard to the importance of dioxins and furans and the other nasties that come out of the organochlorines.

The fact is that that research project is not even off the ground. It's not even to the point where it's up and circling the airport — it isn't even off the ground. It is true that there have been some meetings, but they are not able to agree on the research objectives that are required so that they can get on with that.

So again, the words that were spoken at an embarrassing time for this government have turned to ashes. They never meant anything. Clearly this is a tired government that is not dealing with the urgent and pressing environmental issues. This indicates that it's very much time for a change.

Let's take a look at another situation in the Ministry of Environment. A few years ago, as part of restraint, the Ministry of Environment stopped keeping up its database. That was simply a tragic thing for this province. All kinds of inventory data that is needed to enable us to deal with a wide range of environmental

[ Page 12075 ]

issues from forest practices, matters dealing with the Waste Management Act, matters dealing with effluent discharges.... Nobody is looking after the database. That treasure, which was part of an amenity for the people of British Columbia, has been allowed to go fallow. It's going to be a tremendously difficult task to get that database up and running again.

What about the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation? It has become an embarrassment to this government. It has not done what the government said it would do when they brought in the legislation. As a matter of fact, they have had to fire the person who was the manager of the corporation. Nothing has happened through that corporation that has dealt with the objectives given to it.

Let's look now at the situation with regard to the Expo soils. The fact is that the soil classifications in this province were developed after this government had entered into a deal with Concord Pacific and as an afterthought recognized that it was going to have to answer the question: "Who pays for the cleanup of the lands?" And so the government said: "Yes, we will pay for the cleanup; the taxpayers will pay for the cleanup." Yet the government was not willing to apply that principle to the previous owners of the land. Surely if the government feels the people of B.C., the present owner, should pay for the cost of cleanup, the government, looking after our interests, should require that CPR and others of previous ownership should have paid for the cleanup of that land. It's simply inappropriate.

Then they scrambled to come up with standards that would classify the lands at Expo. These standards were not based on Richmond, Prince George or Prince Rupert; they were based on the Expo lands, and they came up with a classification system.

They have decided the site they are now removing soil from is a site they want to use as residential land. The fact is that Concord Pacific, not through any fault of its own, wishes to proceed with its plans, but the government is holding it up because it can't get its act together. Now they've started to remove the soil to a site in Richmond, which is an industrial site, but it's an industrial site that's in the midst of food-producing land. The Minister of Environment is simply incorrect when he says the soil is not contaminated. The soil is slightly contaminated. It is not contaminated to the point that it is defined as a special waste in the Waste Management Act, but it is contaminated to the point that they have decided it's not suitable for residential land, and therefore they have to remove it.

Where do they take the soil? They take the soil from the Expo site and put it in the midst of farmland in Richmond. That is simply inappropriate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where should it go?

MR. CASHORE: The fact is that the soil admittedly contains heavy metals, and we hear the member opposite saying that they believe that the soil should go on food-growing land or adjacent to food-growing land. That shows where they stand; that shows the extent to which they are willing to play chance with the health and the safety of British Columbians. They are quite happy to see soils that have been denied for use for residential land go into food-growing land out in Richmond.

Do you know something else? They're prepared to do that without allowing the people to have public hearings. I find it absolutely offensive to think the people in Richmond do not have the right to sit down in an appropriate public hearing and ask their questions and have them dealt with in a responsible way. Through some sort of an anomaly or technical point, because it's land that belongs to the National Harbours Board and because the provincial and federal governments can ride roughshod over the municipality and over the people of Richmond, we're ending up with this situation that the people of Richmond are disfranchised. They don't have an opportunity to have a say about what is going on in their community. That is simply inappropriate.

The hon. member asks: "What would we do?" We've introduced the Environmental Protection Act. It deals with those situations. Those questions are answered and dealt with before anybody asks them. Public hearings would be available to the people. That is leadership; that's the way it should be done.

I'd like to turn now to the government's record with regard to the Agricultural Land Commission. We see the situation where, with the stroke of a pen, cabinet interfered in the work of the Agricultural Land Commission and decided that golf balls are a vegetable crop. They decided that golf courses are a form of agriculture.

It's not that golf courses can never be placed on marginal agricultural land. The point is that cabinet has decided to make that decision and denied the expertise of the people within the Agricultural Land Commission. It's simply inappropriate. It's interference.

The hon. member asked me: "What are we going to do about it?" I will answer her. What we are going to do about it is to rescind that order-in-council. The members opposite keep asking me what we're going to do, and every time they ask, I have an answer. We have the answers about what we're going to do: we're going to wipe that order-in-council out. It never should have happened.

If those members look at a map of the Boundary Bay area, it looks like a patchwork quilt with Panamanian-registered companies all over the place. The people in Boundary Bay have seen their provincial treasure — Crown land — sold to people on the basis of lease-to-purchase arrangements. It never should have happened, and it's happening in a way that is putting the wildlife in the Boundary Bay area into jeopardy. It's putting into jeopardy the Pacific flyway....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Let the record show that the Minister of Parks is making fun of the issue with regard to Boundary Bay and the protection of the wildlife there. What kind of a Minister of Parks do we

[ Page 12076 ]

have in this province that would tend to make fun of the issue of protection of wildlife in Boundary Bay? That is absolutely appalling. But it's not surprising, because it's consistent with some of the very inappropriate comments that he has made in this House, which I will not go into.

I also wish to refer to the issue of bulk water exports in this province. This is a very important subject that has come to our attention lately. This government has no policy. In a panic and under intense questioning from the opposition, the government decided to knuckle under and call for a moratorium until the end of June. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that with the issue of bulk water exports, the hearing process they put into place simply does not give Mr. Carter, an excellent person, the tools to do the job. This process is going to require public review, not only with regard to the environment but also with regard to the trade issue. Do Canadians want to get involved in bulk water? And if they do, to what extent? This government denies the people of this province their right to participate in that debate.

We have a very thorough policy on this. There are five points in this policy. It calls for a thorough review process dealing with the implications of bulk water export for Canadian sovereignty, for the environmental implications to be dealt with thoroughly, for the implications for land and water resources in related industries to be thoroughly reviewed, for any areas subject to aboriginal claims to be part of the equation for a system of groundwater licensing being established and for a reasonable form of taxation of this valuable resource being implemented.

The member opposite asked me what we would do. I've just given him the answer, Mr. Speaker. We have a very thorough policy. Just keep asking that question on what we would do. We have answers to that, because we've done our homework and have our policies in place.

I turn now to the major project review process. The major project review process is this government's attempt to fool the public into thinking that there is an appropriate process for environmental review when major projects are coming forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. The major project review process is something that happens by virtue of what is decided in a cabinet group: whether there will be public hearings; the kind of review it's going to be; and whether there's going to be a relationship with the federal review process. Our Environmental Protection Act will put that into legislation. It's something that will be decided within the Legislature, and it will be subject to a public debate. It's not the type of thing we are ashamed of; it's something we're very proud of. We're going to be making sure that the people of this province have the opportunity to have their voices heard when it comes to issues like this, whether it's having contaminated soils dumped next to farmland, whether it's the issue similar to what we've seen with the Kemano completion project — whatever it may be. With these major projects, the people of the province have the right to be heard and the right to do so in an appropriate legislated process.

I want to turn now to an issue that relates to my own community, Coquitlam. The GVRD is dumping the toxic ash from the Burnaby incinerator on the Coquitlam landfill at the confluence of the Brunette and Fraser Rivers, in an area that could be subject to liquefaction if there were an earthquake. That's not really a small issue. The municipality of Coquitlam only receives $1 a tonne for that ash, yet future generations might be charged with the cleanup of that situation. That is simply not appropriate. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this makes the Coquitlam landfill the largest illegal toxic dump site in this province? It's illegal because there's no permit. This government, which has promised to go through the permitting process with regard to that situation, has never followed through. They said they'd do it and put out a news release. This government seeks to manage the environment by virtue of public relations and news releases rather than substance. They simply haven't dealt with this issue, and that's unfair. The ash is going there by virtue of a letter, written by the minister, giving permission but violating the Waste Management Act and denying the people of Coquitlam and others the right to appear at hearings and speak on the permitting process. That's simply not a way to run a government.

The member opposite asks me what we would do with regard to air quality. What we're going to do is have an authority that recognizes that the GVRD and the Central Fraser Valley Regional District and the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam all have a mutual issue on their hands with regard to the quality of air. Those people recognize, as Dr. David Bates has pointed out, that when there is an inversion, the people going to emergency wards seriously and dramatically increases. This indicates that if we don't address the issue of air quality, there's an impact on the cost of our health care plan. So it behooves us for economic reasons, if not for other more humanitarian reasons, to address this issue. We will set up an airshed authority that goes across political boundaries and enables that issue to be addressed in an appropriate mariner.

[3:30]

My colleague from Oak Bay has also mentioned the Georgia basin authority, which will recognize our mutuality with people who happen to be on the lake of the Georgia basin, in the jurisdiction of Washington State. We have a mutual concern to address this environmental issue together. There are some things they do better than we do, and there are some things we do better than they do. Through mutuality and neighbourliness with our friends in Washington, we can start to address some of these issues together. So the question is: what would you do about that? That is my answer.

There are so many more items I would like to address with regard to the environment. I fear that we may not even get to the estimates this year because of government mismanagement and the fact that the throne speech was delayed because of government mismanagement; then the budget was delayed because of government turmoil; then the continuing soap opera left us without being able to deal with the vital things.

[ Page 12077 ]

I do hope we get an opportunity to speak in estimates on some of these things.

Better still, I wish they would call an election. I think it's time for the Social Credit government to put itself out of its misery. I used to say, "Put the people of B.C. out of their misery," but now I'm saying: "Put yourselves out of your misery." You don't have to go on with this anymore; your time of suffering is over. Call an election. Spend your time in the exile of opposition where you belong, and let's get on with doing it appropriately in this province.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a real pleasure for me to stand and join in the debate. Before getting into the substance, I think it's worth noting that the members across the way have had some 20 years to contemplate the exile of opposition, after only three short years in government and a 20-year exile before that. So certainly if I ever want to know about the exile of opposition, I'll call you. I know that if you don't have the experience, those who have gone before you have more than enough experience and knowledge about that particular area of the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you're going to do.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a real pleasure for me to stand and tell you about what we have done. That's the question, Mr. Speaker: what have we done during the past four years? Why are we the best province in Canada? Why do we have the best record of any government in the country? Why are we the best government in Canada?

I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and to note first of all that the industries regulated by this ministry make an enormous contribution to the well-being of British Columbia and to the communities of British Columbia. These industries and the people employed in them are understood and appreciated by the people in the communities where the wealth is created. Those people in rural British Columbia understand the mining and petroleum industries. They understand the benefits of hydro generation. It's the people in urban British Columbia.... For some reason, many of them think that money simply pours into Vancouver from some outback. They don't understand that there are people out there working, striving and trying to make a living. We in Social Credit understand that you have to create wealth for there to be wealth.

The mining industry is probably one of the great unsung success stories of this province. It's the number two industry in this province, creating huge wealth in British Columbia. We should support those kinds of industries. We should support the mining industry and the petroleum industry. We in northeastern British Columbia — probably more than anybody in the country — understand the benefits of resource extraction.

The petroleum industry contributes huge amounts of money to our treasury. It creates economic activity in the areas where resource extraction is taking place. People in those communities support that kind of activity. They also support hydroelectric generation. They like to see jobs being created. They like the jobs created when new projects come on stream. They like the construction jobs that bring new projects on stream. These things are important to British Columbia.

The NDP don't seem to understand that. All they want to do is criticize: tighten up, more environmental controls, more restrictions, more regulations. We hear it continually. "We would tighten up. We would make life more difficult for industry." But tell me, is it the industry that you want to hurt, or is it the people who work in the industry who are your real targets?

B.C. Hydro is probably one of the great....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, anytime the members want to take their place, if they'll stand up I'll be delighted to sit down. If not, then I would hope....

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got nothing to say. Carry on.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I want to spend a few minutes talking about Jack Davis, the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, someone who I think made a tremendous contribution to British Columbia and to Canada.

It wasn't really until I served as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that I had an opportunity to understand the work that he did, the depth of his intellect and the dedication that he had to his province and his country. I was delighted that the Premier chose the throne speech as an opportunity to announce that the new Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources building would be named in his honour.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest tribute to Jack Davis over time will be the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. That project required someone who had the drive, the sincerity and the dedication to push it forward. The Vancouver Island pipeline had been talked about for decades. No one could put it all together. It was the efforts of one individual, Jack Davis, that made it happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It is over budget, and I don't think that over the fullness of time it's going to make a great deal of difference. I believe that the improvements to the environment and the economic activity that this pipeline will generate far outweigh any additional costs that may have resulted.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much is it over budget?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I don't know how much over budget it is, but I don't think it matters particularly, when you look at the effect on the environment. Those members across the way talk so bravely about protecting the environment, but they don't want to spend any money to do it. Fine somebody. Put a regulation in place to make somebody else do it. But

[ Page 12078 ]

make an investment to improve the environment? Never. Never make an investment. Fine industry. Force somebody else to clean up the environment. That's your answer; that's not our answer.

I think over the next ten or 20 years, when we look at what happens to the economy of Vancouver Island, even those nay sayers across the way will understand that one of the most important things to happen on Vancouver Island in decades has been the natural gas pipeline over to the Island. Industry will benefit from cheap, clean power, and I think it's going to be a tremendous asset not only to Vancouver Island but to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech spoke in some detail about native issues, and I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the considerable progress that this government has made over the last three years on native issues. I'm pleased to have had an opportunity to play a part in moving that issue forward.

We started three years ago with some serious differences and difficulties with the native community Last August, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, cabinet agreed to negotiate a resolution to native land claims. We agreed to join with Canada and the first nations to find an answer to the difficult problems that have plagued this province for longer than the province has existed. Last September, after undertaking to start negotiations, we actually began negotiations with the Nisga'a Tribal Council toward a framework that would guide negotiations on native land claims. One of the most important and memorable days I had as Minister of Native Affairs was the signing of the framework agreement in New Aiyansh last March. I'm pleased also that talks are underway with Canada and the First Nations Summit to find a way of moving native issues forward and to find ways of resolving, not only for the Nisga'a but for all tribal councils in British Columbia, a solution to a problem that has plagued us for too long.

We were able to achieve those kinds of successes while maintaining our belief that aboriginal title did not exist. We continue to believe that there is no aboriginal title in British Columbia, and this position was supported clearly by Chief justice McEachern in his decision on Delgamuukw v. the Queen. The much-talked-about Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case supported the province's belief that aboriginal title does not exist in British Columbia. It was with that belief that we undertook to negotiate land claims and a resolution to the land question. We are still committed to finding a resolution, but not on the basis of native ownership of all land in British Columbia.

That is in absolute contrast to the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP. Last year he and other members of the NDP stood in this House and said that if they were the government, they would recognize aboriginal title. What a serious mistake that would have been, given the decision by the Chief Justice. They would recognize not only aboriginal title but also claims for sovereignty and self-government.

Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition said: "We wouldn't pay any more than 25 percent of the costs of settling native land claims." The result of that poorly-thought-out statement was that within a matter of weeks Tom Siddon, the Minister of Indian Affairs in Ottawa, announced that Ottawa would expect British Columbia to pay 30 percent of the cash costs and provide all of the land and resources necessary to settle claims in British Columbia. Most calculations would indicate that would mean 70 percent of the costs for the province and 30 percent for Ottawa. I believe that federal position was a direct result of the NDPs indication of their willingness to contribute substantially to the cost of land claim settlements. I think that this issue demonstrates as clearly as any just what a disaster the NDP would be if they were ever to be elected to government.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, they made a mess of it in 1972, 1973 and 1974, and the people kicked them out in 1975. They have shown again that they don't understand issues, and most importantly, they don't understand the consequences of their actions. They stand up and make statements without any understanding at all of what the issues are or what the consequences would be for British Columbia. This issue demonstrates more clearly than any just how inept that group across the way would be as government.

Even with good management, with a good Social Credit government, these are going to be difficult issues to resolve. Land claims negotiations are going to be tough, and it's going to be difficult for anyone to find a resolution to this problem that will meet the needs of all British Columbians. Our new Minister of Native Affairs and our very capable staff are probably best equipped to handle this issue, but these folks across the way don't understand that issue, and they don't understand most issues in British Columbia. This one demonstrates as clearly as anything just how incapable they truly are.

The throne speech also dealt in some length with the alarming increase in debt in Canada. The national debt in Canada now exceeds $389 billion. The deficit in Canada is increasing at $120 million a day, or $5 million an hour.

The NDP government in Ontario didn't take very long to get into the game in a major and scandalous way. Their very first budget has a $10 billion deficit. Their deficit in Ontario, the first year they're government, will be more than 20 percent of the total budget. Imagine — one dollar in five for debt spending. What's so shocking about that is that 18 months ago Ontario led the country in economic activity. Financial analysts were concerned with the rate of growth in Ontario and the way Ontario was leading the country in inflation. Eighteen short months, and after eight months the NDP government brings in a $10 billion deficit and throws the whole country into shock.

The NDP promised, during their election campaign, that they wouldn't increase the deficit. No debt, no increase in deficit: that was the promise. But it sure didn't take them very long, did it?

I don't think Ontario, after two or three NDP budgets, will ever get out of debt again. I believe that after two or three more NDP budgets, Ontario will be so far in debt it will find itself in exactly the same

[ Page 12079 ]

position as the government of Canada, with a debt load that they can't service, never mind reduce. I believe that Ontario, for the last time in the foreseeable future, has seen a situation where it is debt-free. Ontario has started down the slippery slope to finding itself so deeply in debt that it will never get out, and I don't think the people of Ontario can do a darn thing about it. These guys are going to be there for two or three more years, and the deficit will be beyond their ability to repay.

The NDP here in British Columbia do their very best to distance themselves from the NDP in Ontario. It really is fun to watch them say: "Oh, but it's different in British Columbia. Things are so much better in British Columbia than they were in Ontario. We would never have to do in British Columbia what they did in Ontario." My goodness, why do you think things are so good in British Columbia? Because we've had a Social Credit government for 40 out of the last 43 years.

I don't think for one minute that British Columbians believe the socialists here when they say they're any different than Bob Rae and his gang. They're exactly the same bunch of people.

The NDP here sent a team — an implementation group — down to Ontario. NDP MLAs from British Columbia went to Ontario to help the Ontario government bring in its new budget. They won't tell us who it is. They're not very proud of what they did down there. As a matter of fact, it's obvious that they're ashamed of what they did in Ontario; they're ashamed of their connection with Ontario; and they continually refuse to tell us which of those 20 stalwart folk went to Ontario to help the Ontario government. They hang their heads; they won't tell anybody; nobody went; we didn't have any part of it; none of us went. That's the answer.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They really are embarrassed by their colleagues in Ontario. They distance themselves from Bob Rae as if he had the plague. They don't want to talk about Bob Rae; they want to read newspapers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Do you? You're proud of what he's done? You like his new welfare system? You like his new taxation systems? I'll tell you, Bob Rae is a model for you guys. He's your role model, and we all understand that. It's your denial of it that causes me some trouble.

What a contrast between the NDP in Ontario and the Social Credit government in British Columbia! Over the last four years the Social Credit government in British Columbia actually reduced our accumulated debt by $800 million. Over the last four years we reduced our total debt by almost a billion dollars. In 1986, British Columbia had accumulated a debt of $4 billion. At the present moment it's about $3.2 billion, so we've actually more than balanced our budget over the last four years; we have written down the debt, something no government anywhere else in Canada has been able to accomplish.

It's a record that any other government in Canada would be proud of and one that most governments and people in Canada look to with envy. These folks across the way are all of a sudden confronted with the reality in Ontario and of what would happen if they were ever to govern British Columbia. Quite frankly, I don't think that's going to happen. When people analyze what's happening in Ontario and compare it with what's happening here in British Columbia, they will decide again, as they have so many times, that they want Social Credit to continue providing good government here in British Columbia.

I wonder how many times over the last 20 years the NDP, as an election drew near, thought they were going to win, and how many times they were disappointed. In a way, I feel sorry for the members across the way, because that disappointment is coming once again, and it's going to be a big disappointment to those folks, because they've really worked up the belief that they're going to win. It's going to be a letdown for them. My condolences in advance to you.

During the last session we passed some important legislation to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia. We understand, as no other government in Canada understands, the need to protect the taxpayer and that the taxpayer is at the limit of his ability to pay. As a result of that, we introduced the Taxpayer Protection Act, the Compensation Fairness Act and the Job Protection Act. These will help us through the difficult times ahead.

The throne speech makes reference to the $1.4 billion forest renewal program, again an issue where this government has shown leadership that will allow us to ensure our forest industry is sustainable at a level that ensures the ongoing prosperity in British Columbia. The maintenance and enhancement of our forests is extremely important. No one expected our government would come up with $1.4 billion. Most industry analysts were calling for $500 million to $600 million. The NDP even thought we should spend $700 million or $800 million over the next five years. We haven't heard much in this Legislature about our decision to spend $1.4 billion. They're rather quiet about that, because they understand they could never match that kind of commitment to the forest industry. They're worried they're going to have to pay for it. Well, you can't have it both ways, my friends.

I was particularly pleased with the announcement in the Speech from the Throne of a travel allowance system for those in remote areas who have to travel to Vancouver for health care. It was an important decision and one we should have taken before today. I don't have any doubt that it's long overdue; but we've done it, and that's the important thing. We have undertaken to do that, and it's going to be extremely good news for the people in South Peace River and for the people all over rural British Columbia who have to travel to Vancouver for treatment.

If you live in Dawson Creek and you travel to Vancouver for treatment, it will probably cost you in excess of $1,000 for a trip to Vancouver — $600 or $700

[ Page 12080 ]

for airfare, a couple of nights in the hotel and $1,000 is gone. Many people need somebody to travel with them, and obviously, it increases the costs. Some assistance for those people with the costs in travelling to Vancouver is an important step forward.

There are more important implications from that decision. For the first time, when government starts to pay a portion of the cost of travelling for health care services, then government will start to think about the economics of locating all of the specialized services in Vancouver. It's pretty easy for economists in the Ministry of Health or in the health care system to sit down without any thought to transportation costs and decide that it's most economical to provide all of the services in one location — to centralize. Once you start figuring in travel costs, then I expect you're going to find there is a lot to be said for locating things like cancer care in Prince George, not only for humanitarian reasons but for economic reasons. I don't think any bureaucrat understands the true costs, and so I welcome this initiative, not only for the immediate relief that it will bring, but in the expectation it will bring greater relief in the long run.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents were also pleased with the recent announcements by the Minister of Education regarding residential school taxes. They were particularly pleased with this new approach, coupled with substantially increased homeowner grants. I'm pleased that homeowners in British Columbia and in South Peace River will for the most part either face no increase in residential school taxes or in fact enjoy a decrease in school taxes.

In closing, I want to take a few moments to comment on some of the tactics, processes and ways in which the members of the opposition in this House have chosen to convince British Columbians that British Columbians should choose them as the party to govern them next time around.

It seems to me that selling a political party is a little like selling any other commodity or item. There are really two ways, if you've ever been in business, to sell an item. One is, if you have a very good product or the very best product, to go out and tell the customer about your product and how good it is. If you're selling a second-rate product or something that's kind of slipshod — like an old car in which the transmission's not too good — then don't talk about your product. Talk about your competitor and his products. Run down the opposition or the competition.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say that in the years I was in business, I had the opportunity most of the time to talk about how good my product was and how it would benefit the person to whom I was trying to sell.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well, actually it was General Motors, but there are good products in all lines.

It's the folks selling the Edsel across the way who have the trouble, and they understand that the product they're trying to sell doesn't meet the mark. So we hear them stand here day after day saying: "The government doesn't do this; the government doesn't do that; the Social Credit Party doesn't do that." We never hear what your plans are. We asked the last speaker to tell us what he was going to do. He paused and then went on to criticize the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: Today in the members' gallery is a very hard-working, dedicated mayor: the mayor of Abbotsford, His Worship Mayor George Ferguson. I would like the House to give him a cordial welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm tempted to say I'm glad to take my place in this speech, but quite frankly I think that most of us would much rather be facing an election at this time than dealing with a throne speech that has very little credibility and a government that very clearly has lost the confidence of the people of this province.

It's very difficult for us to deal with the issues in this throne speech, because they are rehashes of previous throne speeches — as one of our earlier speakers said — with a few NDP platforms thrown in for good luck.

There are a couple of issues that I'd like to talk about, and I think that this opportunity to do that.... The previous member said: "Tell us what you are going to do." Well, I welcome the opportunity to tell the House and the people who are listening to TV what's important to us. Very clearly most of the members in this House sought election in 1986 because they wanted to work on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to start by making some references to the constitutional debate that we, like all other Canadians, are involved in. I think that it underlies many of the concerns that the public has about politicians generally. What the people in British Columbia and in Canada said in the last go-around is that they will not tolerate the old style of governance. The old-style politicians such as we see in the Social Credit Party and the Conservatives in Ottawa are more likely to make deals in the back room with their friends than to actually serve the interests of the people they were elected to represent.

The issue of the constitution and the message that this government — until it gets up enough nerve to call the election — has to keep in mind is that the people of British Columbia will no longer be excluded. They demand the right to participate, and they demand the right to have the politicians in this province address the relevant concerns that affect their daily lives. To have the previous speaker talk about selling his party as a product completely underscores the difference between that party and the New Democrats. We very clearly understand our responsibility. It's not to be one

[ Page 12081 ]

of selling a product, Mr. Member, but of representing the people of this province, and of doing the people's business and serving the people's interests. That's the difference between the Social Credit Party and the New Democrats. I think that if the government ever does get up the nerve to call the election, that will be the issue: who serves the interests of the people of British Columbia?

I'm in a particularly good position in this House to have some experience with the interim Premier.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You see, Mr. Member, the interim Premier has been serving the municipality I live in for the past 20 years. For this say-anything, do-anything government, the kind of throne speech we just saw, that all of a sudden, in the last dying days, decides that it cares about women and about the family... It's very interesting to look at this interim Premier's record in Surrey and at what she has done for our community, in the hope that the people of this province don't have to suffer the same fate.

As I said, in the last 20 years Surrey has been represented by the interim Premier, as well as by another senior member of subsequent Social Credit cabinets. The reality that families in Surrey are having to deal with — and I've said this time and time again; this is the fourth or fifth throne speech.... We in Surrey have 350 portables in our school district. That's the size of some school districts — some 28 schools. What that means, to members who aren't that aware of the functioning of real life in their constituencies, is that those portables are covering the playgrounds. It means that the kids have nowhere to play. It means that the kids have to line up to go to the washroom because washroom facilities were never built for all of those portables. It means that when a child has to go to the library for a book, there aren't enough books there for him. That child has to go through the rain and the mud to be able to get to the gym.

The facilities in our school district are abysmal. That is the direct history of the interim Premier's effect on her own municipality.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's interesting, because the members find that amusing. I want to quote one of the past — it's hard to keep track — Ministers of Education. When the school trustees were lobbying him for fair funding, he said: "Better portables than tents." That's the vision he had for our school system, and it was backed up by a silent member from our municipality. We never heard a word from the interim Premier, and we never heard a word from the member for Surrey-White Rock on these important issues.

Let's talk a little bit about health care. We recently had the Royal Commission on Health Care in Surrey. It gave us an opportunity to pull a lot of statistics together and get a real picture of the services. Again, I want to remind the members that what we're talking about is that our responsibility as members of this House is representing the needs of the people of British Columbia. In Surrey the reality is that in the Boundary Health Unit — that's our preventive health component — they have not had an increase in staff for preventive health since 1975. That is for services like AIDS, communicable disease testing, counselling and post- or prenatal care. Those are services to families directly. Since 1975 our population in Surrey has tripled, and we have not had any additional support in the way of staffing for these much-needed services.

I want to again remind the House that this is the direct reflection of the service of two senior members of this government and the interim Premier, who now says, all of a sudden, that she cares about children and families. Where was she in the last 20 years? Why did we not hear her lobbying strong and hard, and why was she not impacting the policies of your government? She is now sitting as the first cabinet minister for your government. Did she not have any influence before, and will she have any influence now?

We talk about the care for violence against women and children. In Surrey, our mental health division of the Ministry of Health is in a peculiar situation, in that it was the second-highest area for cases in the deinstitutionalization of Riverview. They got no relief, no additional staff to help them with that problem.

In the last number of months we have seen services to children, through the mental health section in Whalley, diminish even further. For the longest time, for counselling for children that were sexually abused, there was a waiting-list of something like four to six months. Just recently the government negotiated a new fee structure for sessional psychologists, then turned around — through the Ministry of Health, through mental health — and decided that they no longer could afford to pay the fees that they themselves negotiated, and laid off sessional psychologists.

What that means to the children in my community is that now those who are the most severely abused have to wait a full 12 months for services. I want the members to think about that. Again, that is the direct response, and it falls to the member who is now the interim Premier and the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale. Where were they, and why haven't we heard anything from them in the past?

It's a little bit late and, quite frankly, this government's words in the throne speech lack credibility even before you begin to look at the reality of what has happened in this province. They lack credibility because of the ongoing turmoil, the ongoing conflict within their own ranks and the fact that they are more interested in fighting among themselves than they are in governing the people and delivering services that taxpayers pay for.

[4:15]

All of a sudden in the throne speech, this government would have us believe that they have repented and that they care about children. When you look at the facts, the fact that under this government we now have specialized food banks to serve women and children only in this province, in Vancouver.... Where have they been, and why have they not said anything until now? Quite frankly, can you believe? Can you

[ Page 12082 ]

give any credibility to what they are saying at this time?

I'll talk a little bit more about sexual abuse. I told you that the waiting-list for mental health is now 12 months for children. If you can envision a child.... I'm going to talk to you a little bit about a case that came through our office. There was a little girl; she was eight years old. She was in a foster home and, thankfully, had very good care. The family that was looking after her had extensive training in the care of severely abused children.

This little girl was a very sweet little child. The only trouble was that she had been so abused in her home that she couldn't stand to be around anything that was pretty or nice. The foster parents, when they brought her home, redid her whole bedroom. That child wasn't in her room much more than an hour before she had torn all the wallpaper down and completely destroyed the work that this family had done. The reason the child was acting out like this was because she was so angry at what had happened to her in her very young years. As our office continued to try to get help for this foster family and this little girl, it came to our attention that she was diagnosed as being very close to a psychotic break. The information I have is that this foster parent could not find any service for that child in her home community of Surrey. They finally had to take her to downtown Vancouver to a specialized facility. Again, that is because our government has been silent on the care for families and children.

The very municipality that the interim Premier would represent has been grossly neglected. The two previous ministers from Surrey-Newton and Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale have been silent.

In the last little while there was a newspaper report which I'm sure you'll all recall, about a woman who was very brutally attacked and left tied up in her bathtub in Surrey. I don't know if the members are aware that when that woman was finally brought to Surrey Memorial, she waited in the waiting-room in the emergency room for five hours, because our hospital is so backed up that it is unable to deal with the needs of our community. She waited five hours after being left in such a brutal situation.

As if that wasn't bad enough, this woman never did get any counselling from our community. No services were available in Surrey to counsel a woman that had been so violently attacked. This interim Premier would have us believe, all of a sudden, that she cares about women in British Columbia and that she cares about families and children. Her record is one of silence. Her record is one of ignoring the needs of the people that she has directly represented for the last 20 years. We have yet to hear her speak out on issues of concern to women and children.

That's the reality, and yet we hear the fine words of this government in their last, dying days. Not only does this government not have any credibility with the people of this province, they very clearly do not have any credibility with the members in this House. Rather than going on with this façade, the only decent thing to do is to call the election and allow us to get on with dealing with the real lives and the real needs of the people of British Columbia.

In closing, I want to go back a little bit to the challenges ahead of us for British Columbia and for Canada. This challenge is allowing and supporting all members in our own constituencies throughout British Columbia, whenever we are players involved with the building of Canada, to be full citizens. That's the role of government. The role of government is one of enabling, supporting, enhancing, building on our strengths and ensuring that everyone in this province can be the best that they can be.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: When we talk about being the best that we can be, the Attorney-General brings up Expo. The fact of the matter is that they just don't understand. They don't understand that people with disabilities can't be full citizens if they can't participate. They don't understand that women are denied full citizenship if they are not equal economically. Having the vote isn't enough. You have to be equal to participate. You have to have the right to be able to support your families and yourselves on equal footing. That is the challenge of government: to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute fully. I suggest to the member across the way that if we're talking about building a great Canada, the best way to start is ensuring that everyone can participate fully and be equal and full citizens in Canada. Through that, we will indeed be a great country.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It is my pleasure to rise today in support of the throne speech. I take great pride in representing the great riding of Yale-Lillooet. From March 16, 1987, when I first stood in this House and replied to a throne speech, up until today in the fifth session of the thirty-fourth Parliament, it has been a very interesting and educational time.

I'd like first of all to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on maintaining your role as Speaker. I'd also like to congratulate both the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Committee of the Whole on their unanimous appointment by this House.

Over the past four and a half years I have spoken many times very fondly of that great riding of Yale-Lillooet, because it is a very special place for me. You can ask why. It's because if it wasn't for that great rural riding, I wouldn't be here today. Yale-Lillooet is the reason I have a seat in this House and an opportunity to serve the constituents and the province alike. The riding has a great, colourful history dating back to before British Columbia was a province. Its history started in the early 1800s with fur-trading and went on to have three of the four great gold rushes of the province's history. The people are a special brand as well. They still have a bit of the pioneer spirit, and I guess with those pioneers came a right-wing philosophy, where you do for yourself rather than look to government to give you a handout — and that still exists today.

[ Page 12083 ]

And the geography. It extends from the Coast range through to the rolling plateau grasslands, from the U.S. border through to the south Chilcotin. It's a great place. It includes eight municipalities, 34 unorganized communities, four regional districts, seven hospital boards, six school districts, three college boards, four highway districts, four forest districts, and 28 native bands on 276 reserves. I can tell you that Yale-Lillooet is a very diverse riding. It has many needs. Of course, to an urban representative in this House, it may be hard to fathom that it can take ten hours to go from one corner of the riding to the other.

In that geography, we've got just about every major river system in the province, the Trans-Canada Highway, Coquihalla Highway, southern transprovincial highway, Duffey Lake highway and also 97C. All those networks are important to the provincial infrastructure.

Utilities. All the major B.C. Hydro transmission lines running from the north down to the lower mainland run through that riding, as do the natural gas lines from the Peace River, the oil lines from Alberta, CP, CN and B.C. Rail. It's a key riding, and it is very key to me.

The first term has been a learning process, and I think many of you have found that as well. I've learned from all my colleagues in the House, both government and opposition members. Two of our members, Jack Davis and Alex Fraser, are not here today, but they taught me two valuable lessons. Jack Davis was a very accomplished individual. He was an academic and a sports hero. He had credentials that I could go on for ten or 15 minutes reciting, but I'll tell you the one thing that Jack Davis never forgot: rural British Columbia. I'm glad he was able to pass that on to me.

Alex Fraser was also a very grand individual. In his last ten years he was Minister of Highways and a very busy man, yet Alex Fraser had the time to meet with any constituent that wanted to meet with him and sign every letter to that constituency. I learned a lesson from Alex Fraser: there's nothing as important as your constituency.

There was a member from the opposition who taught me a lesson too. He's not with us, but he's not dead. I'm sure we'll hear of Bob Williams in the future. Bob Williams, as we've heard, had a very cutting tongue at times, a very sharp wit, a way of getting to the nub of an issue very quickly. I watched and I tried to learn.

One day, a couple of sessions ago, we were discussing a piece of legislation which involved the credit unions, and I listened to Bob get up and deliberate. He spoke for a while, and I agreed with some of what he had to say, and then he went on a tirade. Anyway, the House ended up that day. We met at the ferry, and I asked Bob a very simple question. I said: "You know, that bill was 95 percent good, maybe 5 percent questionable. Why did you spend 95 percent of your time telling the House what a terrible bill it was?" He said: "I'll tell you; it's very simple. My job is to tell the people out there how bad it is, even if it's only 5 percent or 1 percent. It's your job to tell them about the 95 or the 99 percent that's good."

You know, we sometimes lose that little bit of focus because we have a tendency on this side of the House to react to the opposition, but today I'm going to try not to do that. I'm going to try to talk about the 95 percent of what government does that is very good.

[4:30]

The throne speech was a very responsible throne speech.

If the first member for Nanaimo will refrain from his heckling, maybe I can continue with my deliberation.

This is an election year, and we all know this. This could possibly be the last sitting; it is the last major sitting of this House. But I can tell you that this government did not get into an election-year bidding war, a giveaway contest, with the NDP. This is a throne speech that has both balance and fairness. Isn't that what government is all about?

I've heard my colleagues over there on the other side of the House — members of the opposition — attack Bill 82. It's known in this House that Bill 82 was not one of my favourites. But I'll ask you, hon. gentlemen who are sitting in the House today: have you come up with one alternative? Not one alternative came forward. We've heard a lot of bellyaching, but not one positive alternative.

I'll tell you what the alternatives were, and I'll tell you why they didn't come up with them: because these individuals are going to end up delivering the same type of government, if they are given the chance, as we see in Ontario. What were the options that the Minister of Finance of the day had? I can tell you. He could have frozen wages, as some provinces have done. He could have picked a low cap of 2 percent, as some of the provinces have done. He could have done nothing. But let's look at the alternative. If he had done nothing, what would have happened? He would have had to raise taxes and go into serious deficit financing. Does that remind you of something that's happened in Ontario? Even now, with 20-20 hindsight, I haven't heard the opposition NDP come up with an answer. It's rather sad.

I've heard a lot of criticism about the throne speech — not what's in it, because I'll tell you, this is a very positive throne speech. It's a down-home one that deals with basic issues, but it's a very solid, balanced, fair approach. Really, the only way they can attack it is by trying to invent some things that they think should be in it.

I don't want to dwell on the Ontario scenario, but we hear about the 14 taxes that went up in one shot. That cost the workers and consumers in Ontario over a billion dollars; that happened overnight. We know that they have an approximately $10 billion deficit, and if that was in $1 bills, it would fill this chamber. It's a lot of money: it's $1,000 for every man, woman and child that live in the province.

Prior to the Ontario election, we heard a lot of criticism from the official opposition about what the Liberals were doing. Let me tell you: when these people who have been trying to sell themselves as pinstripe-suited Liberals here in British Columbia took office there, they raised taxes, they raised the deficit,

[ Page 12084 ]

and we're told that at the level they're going, in four short years they will have a a $70 billion deficit. The economy of Ontario is important to British Columbia, because it's important to Canada.

I'm not going to spend time today, because we don't have the time, to talk about Meech Lake or to talk about where we all stand on the issue of Canada. That's a debate I hope to talk about in the future.

What we have to look at now in the short term is where the economy of Canada is going. I have a press clipping here that says: "Industrialized countries must curb inflation, cut deficits and correct structural deficiencies in their economy." That was a quote from the head of the International Monetary Fund. These are the people who finance the world's economy.

And folks, it's got to start at home. It's got to start right here in British Columbia. I'll ask many of the people here and especially those people at home that may be watching today: do you remember when you got your first credit card? Do you remember what it was like to have that instant credit and be able to go out and buy what you wanted, when you wanted? But do you also remember when the bill came in? And do you remember when you had to pay it off? It was awful easy to buy, but it wasn't awful easy to turn around and pay the bill off. Let me tell you, whether it's Ontario, Canada or British Columbia, the bill has to be paid. The buck stops with government. There are no more tomorrows. You can only spend a certain amount of money, and then it runs out. As much as you people across the way may think there's a money tree, it ain't so.

I guess we can look back in history, because we hear people across the floor talking about recent history. I'm going to talk about history, going back to '72, '73, '74 and '75, when the government of the day came in — the NDP government of the day came in in '72 — took a surplus, and in three and a half years turned it into a deficit. I can tell you folks, we were able to work our way out of that one. But if the actions in Ontario are any indication of what they would do to British Columbia this time, we have a major problem.

British Columbia cannot afford the spending of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, '72 to '75 was a disaster in British Columbia. I can tell you that '90 to '91 in Ontario — déjà vu — is another disaster. And if we in British Columbia were so foolish as to do that one more time, there would be another disaster right here in British Columbia. We can't afford that. I'll tell the members in this chamber and I'll tell the people of British Columbia: Social Credit, warts and all, is miles ahead of the socialist NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RABBITT: The first member for Nanaimo continues to heckle. Take your place; save your breath.

What has the NDP said that they would do? I'm not going to go through, because all the quotes.... But let me tell you: the Leader of the Opposition, near my home constituency, just north in Kamloops on a local radio station, told the community there and the people of British Columbia that if they were elected, there would be an additional $3 billion for social programs. That's in the first shovelful off the back of the truck. Yet on the other side of his mouth he says he's going to balance the budget. I'll tell you, he has something on Houdini. What does this mean? He could spend another $3 billion and balance the budget? But it's going to come out of your pockets, folks — three billion bucks out of your pockets. And how will he do it? He will raise taxes. If he doesn't do that, he has only one alternative: deficit finance. The NDP lied in Ontario. I don't think they are doing anything different here. What did Leonard Krog say? He said: "I'll tell you the truth, folks. To fulfil our promises, we're going to raise taxes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Leonard Krog today?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I think Leonard is up in Parksville. He was the NDP candidate. Or have you disowned him yet?

What did the second member for Vancouver East have to say? I remember sitting in the House while the debate went on. What was he going to do? He was going to tax all the money on farms over and above the cost of the farm, because you shouldn't make profits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you explain that?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I would have a tough time explaining that, my friend.

What did the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey say? She said that they would introduce a municipal income tax. This is an interesting scenario.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that again?

HON. MR. RABBITT: A municipal income tax.

Somebody has to tell these people across the way that government does not have any money of its own. The only money that government has is what it extracts from the taxpayers. I guess this is one of the lessons you learn when you are in municipal government. I look over on our benches, and I see lots of people who have gone through the trenches. They have paid their dues, and they were very successful. They've come into government and, for the most part, I can say they have been very successful here.

But we must look to the future. Looking to the future, I'd like to spend a few moments talking about my ministry before my time runs out. It's a very quiet ministry It doesn't grab a lot of headlines, but it affects every individual in the province of British Columbia. An individual, when he's elected to this House, is given a mandate to serve his constituents, to serve this Legislative Assembly, and if so chosen, to serve his government. I'm very pleased that I was given the opportunity to serve this government as a member of the cabinet.

My mandate is very similar to that of the government's. I am to carry out my role as minister with both fairness and balance. Fairness and balance are the fundamental foundation that we can build on as a government and as a ministry.

[ Page 12085 ]

I would like to spend just a little time talking about the people — in excess of 6,000 people — who are in that ministry. Six hundred work directly for the ministry, and the balance of them work for agencies that are the responsibility of the ministry. I think that it's rather unique. You can get up in the morning, and you can be asked a question about something as remote as cemeteries or funeral directors, or it could be something as intricate as a major labour dispute involving a class of labour throughout the entire province. I can tell you that out of the 30 acts my ministry has to administer, police and govern.... The ministry develops a great rapport with the people who work there. I have to thank the people who have helped me in the first six months to meet the challenge of the ministry and that which comes with government. With the vastness of that ministry, I could never stand alone and do the job all by myself. I want to commend the deputy minister and, right through the organization, each individual who has helped me over the last six months.

[4:45]

We can ask ourselves on the labour side where we are going. We've heard some criticism from across the way. The role of the opposition is to be critical of government. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was asked about labour legislation, said that he was going to scrap Bill 19, the most effective piece of labour legislation that this province has seen. There may be warts on this legislation, but it is the most effective piece of legislation that we've seen in this province to date. Why? Because what it has done — inadvertently, possibly — is make the party sit down and solve its own problems.

As the Minister of Labour I want to tell you that I believe in a hands-off approach. Solutions found by the parties are usually the solutions that work. If we keep our nose out of those contractual obligations and only protect the public interest, then we'll see agreements that stand up and that both parties and the public will support.

One of the things we have to look at when we're talking about the throne speech is where we have been and where we are today. And the throne speech itself says where we are going. You have to know where you've been to measure where you are today and to project where you're going to be going in the future.

In 1986, when this government came to power, we were in the midst of a mini-recession. With legislative change and good government policy, we were able to see the economy of British Columbia turn around. Today we have the strongest economy in all of Canada here in British Columbia. While Ontario lost 226,000 jobs, British Columbia created 21,000 jobs. We will get attacked because the jobs that are being created aren't some of the jobs that some of the members of the opposition feel they should be. Government in itself does not go out and create jobs unless it goes out and starts hiring people. What we have to do is create a positive atmosphere that will let private industry, whether small or big, create the jobs. That's why British Columbia's been successful.

I would like to spend some time replying to the member for Prince Rupert, who is making allegations about certain operations in my riding. I'd like to tell you that one of the government policies brought forward was the value-added policy, which has brought jobs to Lillooet, Merritt and Princeton. Hopefully, when it's over, it's going to bring many more jobs into the riding of Yale-Lillooet.

One of the areas that we have to look at, of course, when we're developing an economy, is a legislative package in a budget. Very shortly we will be moving into a budget that will reinforce our economy and get us off into this next year. One of the things that we're looking at is a substantial reforestation program — $1.4 billion committed to British Columbia forestry. This is targeted job creation that is absolutely essential if we are going to build the interior and the north. We have to target where we want to be if we're going to be able to get there.

One of the plans that I'm seeing developed right here in my ministry is the B.C. pension plan. We're going to be bringing in standards very shortly that will certainly improve pension standards in the province and make a firm foundation for individuals to build their future, so that when they retire, they can retire with some dignity and some coins in their jeans.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their attention this afternoon. I would like to say that it has been a grand opportunity representing Yale-Lillooet and the 36,500 people from that great little riding, a riding that was there before Vancouver, before Victoria, and before B.C. was brought into Confederation. I'm very proud to be their representative, making their case known in this House.

MR. GUNO: I must begin by first saying that I have always found the member for Yale-Lillooet to be an entertaining speaker, and not hearing him anymore is going to be one of my enduring regrets in not coming back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take him out there.

MR. GUNO: Yes, I can take him with me; he's quite welcome to come to Atlin.

Like the rest of my colleagues, I'm a bit ambivalent about taking part in this debate. For one, I had not expected to be here. I thought I would have been back in private life quite a while ago. But it is always a distinct honour to represent the beautiful riding of Atlin. I regret that it is not being represented as a riding per se. As you know, it has a very rich history. I think that the people who live in the four corners of that riding have always felt that they had an historic right to be represented in these chambers.

I also want to note one feature about the riding. I'm only the second aboriginal member to have been elected to these hallowed chambers, the first being Mr. Frank Calder, who I understand served for 26 years and was actually present here for the throne speech. I think the highlight of the throne speech was the fact that the little chief was here. At any rate, it has also been the only riding where an aboriginal person has a chance of being elected. I think that's an important perspective.

[ Page 12086 ]

I know that now, with many constitutional discussions going on across the country, the concept is being floated that there should be parliamentary seats for aboriginal people across Canada. I haven't really examined that concept in depth, but I do think both parties should make every effort to ensure that the aboriginal perspective remains in the Legislature.

[Mr. Huberts in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I have examined the throne speech in some detail in the hope that I, like the rest of my colleagues here, might find some sign that there have been some new initiatives, some new bold steps, that would provide British Columbians with some hope that we are dealing with some very pressing problems: problems involving the economy and huge layoffs in the forest industry; the continuing environmental issues that need to be resolved; and of course the growing poverty among our people throughout the province.

What we see instead is the same old song sheet that this government has been trotting out for just about every throne speech since they were elected in 1986. True, in this throne speech the interim Premier has attempted to put on a human face by touching on some of the more popular social programs that really do need attention. But I would suggest that it's only a cosmetic job and really does not conceal the fact that we have a rather pale Thatcherite agenda.

Turning to my critic role, the Solicitor-General, I have forgotten how many Solicitors-General we've had since 1986. But again I was not able to detect any new initiatives in that area. In fact, the most innovative idea I can recall the Solicitor-General having — the previous one, not this last one — was that one way to control traffic or highway speed was to use cutout policemen. At any rate, I have searched through the throne speech and have found very little to assure British Columbians that this government has given any attention to preparing for any large-scale catastrophe, such as the one that many seismic experts have predicted. In fact, there is little to indicate that this government has done much to assess the adequacy of our school buildings should such a major event or earthquake occur.

[5:00]

I want to turn to some issues relating to my riding. The throne speech refers to the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs that the government established last year, which supposedly is examining the cost, quality and accessibility of health care in British Columbia — an important issue as far as my constituents are concerned. It's gratifying to see that this government has responded by at least promising improved access to services such as the mobile mammography screening unit. But I would suggest that much more has to be done to improve health services in the riding that I serve.

I recently visited Dease Lake, Iskut and Telegraph and was struck by the fact that very little has changed in the last five years, in spite of the fact that I have gotten up here in the House and pointed out the inadequacies. For instance, the airport at Dease Lake is first-rate, but it has no night lights. If there is any night Medivac required, it simply can't happen, and the situation has been like that for some years now. The clinic there is totally inadequate for the growing population in that area. It is designed very poorly. It is not what I think the people in Dease Lake deserve.

Another problem brought to my attention was that the public health service remains inadequate. There are problems in terms of facilities, health personnel and priorities, and I think the people in the north deserve much more.

The same thing applies to education. In the Nisga'a School District, for instance, they have for years and years abided by what they have considered a gentleman's agreement, whereby this government would recognize and fund their bilingual and bicultural program. But I understand now that the district is experiencing very severe cutbacks in that very important and innovative program, a program designed to at least come to grips with the fact that our aboriginal language is fast disappearing. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed to see that there is little indication in the throne speech that much will be done to improve the quality of health, education and social programs in the north.

There is reference in the throne speech that this government, in conjunction with private industry, will be commencing early construction on the Iskut road to access potentially valuable gold and mineral deposits in northwestern B.C. We are assured in the throne speech that the road will meet acceptable environmental standards and will be constructed with the assistance of the native people in the area. I decided to talk to some of the leaders of the Tahltan nation to find out exactly what is meant by "acceptable environmental standards." There are some real concerns about this particular development in the Tahltan tribal territory.

What is needed.... I can backtrack. We can log the short-term economic benefits and opportunities that will arrive in the construction phase. The question is: what happens after that? It's the same old question, the same old story, when it comes down to dealing with the interests of aboriginal people. We offer them short-term jobs and say: "This is it; this is what you get." But at the same time, we ignore the fact that there is an incredible intrusion in the traditional ways of the Tahltan people, and there's been no thought of compensating those who are going to lose their trapping rights and traditional guiding areas.

Moreover, there has been no plan on the part of this government — it's certainly not reflected in this throne speech — for any kind of training to introduce those who have been displaced from their traditional pursuits into the mining industry. There have been no dollars allocated to provide these people at least some opportunity to compete and obtain jobs in the mining and tourist industries. In fact, the tourist industry will suffer if real planning is not put into place.

The other concern that has been passed on to me is that there has been very little thought about involving the Tahltan people in establishing land use priorities in the, area. I implore the government to try and come to grips with this particular problem.

[ Page 12087 ]

An hour ago I listened with interest to the speech of the member for South Peace River, for whom I had always held some grudging respect while he was the Minister of Native Affairs. I had witnessed some new initiatives on the part of this government which I thought were spearheaded by him. But I think he has revealed that maybe the effort has not been all that heartfelt, if I may use the expression. If I read that member's speech accurately, he has served notice that this government is backing off from its earlier position of entering into a new era of accommodation with the aboriginal natives of British Columbia.

To me, his tone suggests he is now reverting back to the old rhetoric of the past Socred governments to try and undermine or deny the aboriginal people their aboriginal rights. He is attempting to cast a very complex issue in a simplistic way to undermine the whole process he himself initiated. That's unfortunate. On this side of the House, we have for years and years been calling for that kind of accommodation to try to cool down the confrontation and avoid what has happened in other parts of Canada. If it is a signal that this government is backing off from its earlier position of accommodation, they are actually playing with fire. They would do well to read the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which looked at the situation that occurred in Oka, Quebec, last summer.

I've always felt a bit skeptical about this government's good faith when they talked about accommodating the aboriginal people's aspirations. For years, at least since I've been in this House, I've always pointed out — and other members have before me — a very grave injustice which exists within our correctional institutions. I refer to the fact that we have a very gross overrepresentation of native people in our correctional institutions. It should be noted that in Canada, something like 10 percent of the inmates in the federal penitentiaries are people of aboriginal descent, yet aboriginal people only represent 2 percent. I think that in the women's penitentiary in Kingston it is something like 13 percent. If you look at the provincial institutions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, you'll find that the overrepresentation is even greater. In British Columbia the native inmate population is something like 16 percent, while native people supposedly represent something like only 5 percent of the population. By any standards, Mr. Speaker, that is a tragedy, a miscarriage of justice and a travesty of our whole justice system.

I recently read the report on the Donald Marshall situation. It's appalling to see how the entire criminal justice system fell down and failed Mr. Marshall. Even after it was found that he had languished in jail for over 17 years, the whole matter of compensating him was still a problematic thing.

I think that if this government is going to demonstrate that it wants to enter into a new era in order to include the accommodation of native Canadians as an essential part of a strong Canadian community, then it has to look at the root causes of this overrepresentation. I don't think we need a royal commission to find the answers, to find the solutions. The Penner report has indicated that one of the biggest problems is the continuing colonialization going on within the aboriginal community, and the fact that for our people freedom is only a fantasy. The fact of life is that an institution like Indian Affairs continually runs the entire affairs of aboriginal people in Canada.

I really have very little else to say, Mr. Speaker. I think that after all the sound and fury, the fact remains that this government is bereft of any moral authority to continue to govern. I think they have broken the public trust, and I think they have only one alternative: to go to the people and call an election.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's a pleasure for me to take my place this afternoon to support the throne speech.

The throne speech outlines the government's continuing commitment to education, health, housing, social issues, women's programs, the environment, job protection, compensation fairness for public employees, and fiscal responsibility. It seeks to continue B.C.'s record of being the number one province in Canada: number one in fiscal management, number one in job creation, number one in new home construction, number one in its commitment to education; and the list goes on. It promises the continuation of a government that has the ability to take the long-term view, to have the vision and commitment needed to further the public interest and to understand that that very much includes the legacy we leave for our children and for future generations.

In concrete B.C. terms it means having a balanced choice between our province's economic development and our concern for environmental protection. It means taking leadership, as we have done on cross-border issues like driftnet fisheries and coastal oil spills. It means respecting the differences within our regions, and their interdependence. It means playing a strong, constructive role in constitutional affairs. It means having the vision to invest in transportation, energy and education. It means having a positive view of the enormous and increasing social and cultural change we see so evident in this city and indeed in our own constituencies.

[5:15]

It means understanding the new role of women in our society and being willing to promote equality, fairness and justice for them. It means dealing with family violence, not only by providing services to battered women and enforcing tougher laws against the abusers, but also by breaking the chain through treatment and education of the abusers, many of whom are themselves victims of past abuse; and by working with families to help overcome that problem by being willing to speak out against pornography and the saturation of violence in our entertainment, which plants the seeds that ultimately create much of the violence that women and children experience.

It means recognizing the needs of the elderly, the disabled and many children in our society, and providing for them the financial security and support that they may not be able to provide for themselves.

It means understanding that in today's complex and changing society, many individuals and families,

[ Page 12088 ]

through no fault of their own, experience temporary loss of income. The government must act not only to provide financial support but also to provide assistance, encouragement and training to help these people return to the workforce. This policy is based on the premise that all employable people have the desire and the responsibility to do their part towards becoming financially independent.

It means setting out a clear policy for the children of this province and achieving a sensitive balance of protecting children from abuse, while at the same time respecting and recognizing the rights of parents. Above all, it means having the courage to lay open for public scrutiny the services we provide for families, children and the disabled, and to seek public advice on how to improve them.

It also means law and order: that people are held accountable for the harm they do to others, that our streets are safe and that our immigrant communities are being protected to the best of our ability from discrimination and from gangs that single them out as having a particular vulnerability.

Finally, it means having faith in our province and in our people. In my mind that means that we have to stand up for free enterprise, because a free, open society prospers best, as both history and our daily experiences around the world show us all too clearly.

Let me say that I believe there is recognition of the good job that this government has done. For all the attention being paid to the government by its critics, precious little has been by way of criticism of our record and our policy, and even less by way of affordable, constructive alternatives. We have had very large political problems, no doubt about it. Yet when all is said and done, we have clearly provided good government. Everyone, including the opposition, knows it.

I found it interesting listening to the opposition's response to the throne speech. They criticized the government, but their statements have many discrepancies. For example, in his response to the throne speech, the Leader of the Opposition condemned the government but talked glowingly about the conditions in British Columbia and the fact that 40,000 Canadians choose to move here each year from other parts of Canada. He predicted that that trend will continue. Please, Mr. Opposition Leader, tell us: why are all these people coming here? Is it because they are impressed with our opposition party? I think not. No, they come to British Columbia because they recognize the potential for a good future for themselves and their children in this province. I agree with the opposition leader that this movement of Canadians to British Columbia will continue; it may well increase. If the recent NDP budget in Ontario is a sign of things to come, I suspect that there will soon be many Ontario taxpayers looking for new homes.

It was interesting, I thought, to hear the opposition leader talking about providing our citizens with greater individual freedom if his party was elected to govern. At the same time, he promised bigger and more extensive government. Well, I'm sorry, but the two are incompatible. It demonstrates a long-standing NDP blind spot. Where you have big government, people do not have real freedom, because big government takes away the rights, the freedoms, the choices and the money that belong to the people. The art of governing, in my view, is to keep it small and to squeeze the most service out of the tax dollars available, not to squeeze the most tax dollars available out of the taxpayers.

Speaking of dollars, the opposition leader also mentioned the prospect of the NDP providing value for the taxpayer's dollar and operating within a balanced budget. Now there's a couple of revolutionary thoughts. Those of us who remember 1972-75 know that they weren't too proficient in either of those areas at that time. Do you suppose the NDP has really changed that much...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: ...or is it that they're just good at making promises? It sort of runs in the family. If you recall, the NDP government in Ontario also made a lot of promises but haven't been too successful in keeping them. I'm told that they made 76 promises during the last election; so far they've already broken a third of them. That's nearly a promise a week gone since they took office.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: They had their share of those too. More money was promised for education; less was delivered.

There were 20,000 day care spaces promised — 5,000 are to be delivered; $400 million promised for northern development — nothing has been forthcoming; a $2 billion budget deficit was promised — a nearly $10 billion deficit was delivered. It kind of shakes your confidence in NDP promises, doesn't it?

Let's take a closer look and see what the people close to the scene say about Ontario's NDP government performance. The Toronto Sun's Tony Reid termed the NDP budget a blueprint for disaster. The Wall Street Journal compares Canada's federal NDP philosophy on the economy to superstitions of medieval peasants. The amazing thing is how fast intellectual bankruptcy leads to fiscal bankruptcy.

One of the best comments I've seen on this subject comes from William Thorsell in the Globe and Mail, where he wrote:

"It is nothing less than astonishing that a major Canadian government would deliberately and proudly set out to double the public debt within four years, raise already high tax rates, contribute to an already high inflation, add to the cost of doing business within its jurisdiction and colonize an even larger portion of the economic landscape for government activity. None of this makes any sense in Canada's current circumstances. It is not in the public interest. It is, however, the policy of the best and brightest the New Democratic Party can bring to public affairs. It is 'pulling a Barrett' in spades.

"Now in case you think Ontario is carefully planning how to dig its way out of the temporary trough,

[ Page 12089 ]

take notice that the NDP has actually planned to run $35 billion worth of deficit over the next four years. That compares to $42 billion accumulated provincial debt for all of past history. Some plan!"

One of Canada's most respected business writers, Diane Francis, estimates that under Ontario's new welfare rates, a couple with two children and earning less than $35,000 per year would be better off on welfare. Welfare in Ontario has apparently now worked out to an effective minimum wage of $18 an hour.

Even if we give them credit for this initiative being well motivated, it will ultimately lead to disastrous consequences. It clearly demonstrates the NDP's lack of ability to comprehend fiscal reality. I don't believe the people of this province are planning on placing their future in the hands of the NDP. Member after member on the opposite side has called for an election. That will happen soon, and when it does, people will vote on the substance of the past four years. Even more importantly, they will vote on the substance for the next four years. It will be a clear win for a continuation of responsible, effective, forward-looking free enterprise government in our province under the banner of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I take my place in the House, following those other dynamic speakers on our side, and speak about the good things in the throne speech and the issues about British Columbia, the economy and the good things that are happening.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want to make reference at the very start to Argentario, or Swedentario — I mean Ontario — and their $10 billion deficit. For those viewers out there who can equate to smaller numbers, that means the interest alone on that deficit projected by the NDP government in Ontario equates to $2.8 million every day of the year; 365 days a year the interest rate is $2.8 million, which must be met initially to pay the deficit alone. Remember this, viewers and members.... Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I thought you were in your office watching me.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no opportunity or possibility that I was in my office watching. I would ask you to address the Chair. If you address the Chair, then you will perhaps be restrained from these ramblings of yours about where we are and what we're doing.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had come back into your chair, so I thought I was addressing you in another venue. Remember this, as was pointed out earlier today when there was some discussion out there about elections.... I want to remind the House and these members of elections and election results since 1933.

In 1933 the Social Credit government won the election. We also won the election in 1937. We also had some opposition called the NDP socialists in 1941, and we also won in 1941. We also won in 1945 and in 1949.

In 1952, no other surprises — we also won. We also won in 1953. Then we went again and won a Social Credit government in 1956. In 1960 we also ran and won. Some of the members here won't remember; but I know that you, hon. member, almost remember, but not quite that far back. I'll get close to yours soon. In 1963 we also won. In 1966 the Social Credit government again won. In 1969 we went again to the electorate, and what happened? We won again.

[5:30]

Lo and behold, August 30, 1972, was the start of 1,200 dark days and nights in the province of British Columbia. I could tell you that the electorate had an opportunity on December 11, 1975, to choose again. Do you know what they did? I'm not going to surprise you or keep you waiting. We won again in 1975. We corrected all that mess. We picked up all the money that went off the back of the truck from Norman Levi, the minister of the day, and some of those other problems. We cleaned up the mess that was left behind in those 1,200 dark days, and we governed again. We corrected those problems and got the province back on an even keel where it belonged. We then decided to ask the electorate again in 1979 if we were doing a good job, and lo and behold, they gave us the election again. Then in 1983 — that's eight years and two weeks ago — I ran, and some of my colleagues over there ran, and we won again. Then they asked in 1986: "Do you really believe these people are doing a good job?" We went out again. Do you remember that? In 1986 we asked the same questions; lo and behold, we won again. We elected 46 elected Social Crediters and 22 NDP. I can tell you that there's another election coming up very soon. We've won them all before — except one, and the people out there remember that one, and it isn't going to happen again. What's happening in Ontario is strongly reflecting....

MR. G. JANSSEN: Tell us about the by-elections.

MR. REID: I can tell you that this government went to every by-election and told the truth. We went out there with some stories about the problems of the day. We almost won them, but we'll win them whenever we go to the election in the very near future. Don't forget, we got 46 last time around, and we'll probably get 55 to 60 next time around. Most of you won't be here; we enjoyed your company. You'll probably have to go out into the real world and do something else. You'll manage in your little store in Port Alberni.

Getting back to the throne speech, there were some comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I want you to remember them. He talked about the great things that he would do. I want to just remind you of the great things that he was able to do when he was the mayor. As a matter of fact, I've looked at cartoons in the Vancouver Province over the last years. Look at the one today, if you've got a Province within your reach. It describes the Leader of the Opposition as a pill needing to bring people back from their sleep.

Do you remember that Leader of the Opposition as a strong politician in the lower mainland and greater Vancouver area? He was opposed, as you know, to the

[ Page 12090 ]

Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, which is probably the most successful facility of its kind in North America. He was opposed....

Interjections.

MR. REID: I'll get to all the things he was opposed to. Don't coax me; I know them all.

He was opposed, as you know, to SkyTrain, the most successful transit system in North America. He was opposed because his union colleagues wanted him to man any system that was offered to the lower mainland, and lo and behold, this government decided to put in an automated system which required less manpower, more efficiency, more accuracy, and more carrying capacity according to income. SkyTrain, as you know, is ahead of any other system in North America relative to passenger loads; it's absolutely phenomenal. And the more extensions we get for it — out to Richmond, and it's coming out to Whalley now... I'm hoping that I'll be around to see it in downtown White Rock. It's going to Coquitlam very shortly. It's a system that provides such efficiency for the lower mainland and the province. It's the best system in North America.

I know the new minister has had suggestions that he try other alternatives, but, Mr. Minister, let me encourage you, as a user of it and one of the ones that worked on its implementation and its installation: don't get snowed by anybody else. We've got the best system in the world. Listen to the proponents.

One other concern the Leader of the Opposition wanted to be a detractor of, lo and behold, was that nasty Expo 86. "Don't spend any money in British Columbia. Don't clean up that site down in the middle of my city that's got all of those sawmills, toxic materials, old buildings and other stuff. Don't do that. Let it stay that way Don't bring people into British Columbia and help the economy Don't do any of those things."

As a matter of fact, he sent a telegram, which I don't have a copy of but wish I had, to the organizers of world fairs and pleaded with them, as the mayor of Vancouver: "Please do not recognize and authorize Expo 86 to come to my city — the city of Vancouver — because my colleagues, the NDP members of the government of the day, don't want it, my colleagues in local civic government don't want it, and we don't want it in the city of Vancouver, so please don't approve it."

Lo and behold, those people had a bigger vision. They saw the opportunities in British Columbia, and they approved it. You don't have to be told the success story of 1986, from May to October. We created the most successful world's fair in history We created an economic and tourism thrust in this province which has not receded today We created an interest in the best product, the best location, the most hospitable people and the cleanest and safest community for tourism in the whole world: British Columbia and Vancouver. The people that came during those record days stayed longer at our fair and have been coming back ever since.

The minister of the day who was responsible for Expo 86 — who is now the Minister of Forests and doing just as good a job with the forests.... As a result of Expo 86, tourism is the second-strongest industry in British Columbia today. It's no thanks to the leader of those people in the forest industry, Mr. Munro. He speaks at great length about: "What's tourism to the province of British Columbia? They're nothing but a bunch of popcorn vendors, all the service industry. If they don't put out a 2-by-4, they're not worth their salt." Well, that man stood on the steps of this Legislature, critical of the tourism industry, and said the whole tourism industry in British Columbia was nothing but a bunch of popcorn vendors working for minimum wages. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a very strong industry doing a tremendous job. We're thankful for it, because we've had the highest increase in tourism of any jurisdiction in Canada since 1986, and 1991 will be no different.

Anyway, we call him Mr. Against, because he's been against everything. As you know, he was against Expo 86.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you sell the land for?

MR. REID: We sold the land to the highest offer. Secondly, we sold the land that was reclaimed as a result of Expo 86. Without Expo 86 the land would have been worth nothing. Nobody would have bought it; nobody could have used it, because it had to rehabilitated. We rehabilitated it as a government, turned it into the finest site in the world and attracted investors from outside British Columbia. As a result, the site is the attention of all the proponents....

Interjection.

MR. REID: I can tell you one thing about the NDP, because they had a mayor.... Their leader is the former mayor. He didn't want to do anything with the site while he was mayor. Fortunately this government had the foresight to do something very dramatic and turn it into something very valuable.

I want to talk for a minute about small business as it relates to tourism, because the tourism industry is made up of an abundance of small industry in every community across the province. And as a result of them struggling on a daily basis.... They have to compete against dollars that are being generated by every employee in the community.

When I see teachers crying and bleeding over $52,000 of income for 200 days a year of employment and I see a small businessman in the same community working six days minimum — seven days a week, 12 hours a day — maybe taking home $30,000 or $35,000 a year and paying all his own bills.... He's not the one that says: "This government underfunds the operation of every small business. This government underfunds this, underfunds that." Fortunately for us, the business community out there understands that, and as the former minister said today, we've reached the level where government can only transfer money that we

[ Page 12091 ]

collect from the people out there back to them. But we've also decided that 11.9 percent interest in a given year is all that's available.

It's ability to pay. These members on the opposite side of the House all voted for section 15 of Bill 82, which talked about the ability to pay. They even agreed in this House — they stood and voted in this House for....

AN HON. MEMBER: How did they vote?

MR. REID: They voted in favour of the question that the taxpayer's ability to pay should always be paramount. With this government's fiscal management over the years, it has been able to say convincingly: "We will offer whatever's available, we will be fair, and we will provide."

You talk about fairness. To the Surrey School District alone, for instance, they provided an additional $19 million. In the last few days we just came up with another $134 million for capital construction in my constituency, in the municipality of Surrey, to show that this government does care about the fastest-growing school district and does have a concern for students who have to be housed in portables.

Portables are a necessity. For people to continue to harp about portables being a disgrace to any community.... When the community is growing so fast, my constituents don't say: "Mr. Reid, I want you to destroy those portables and throw them out. Don't put portables in. Better nothing than portables." Unfortunately, that's not true. In the fastest-growing school district, we've been satisfied — and I as a as a politician representing my constituency have been satisfied — that each minister who has addressed the questions of education and advanced education in my constituency has done an admirable job of providing the dollars available.

This year we received an additional 11.3 percent on a $200 million budget, an additional $19 million. They had to bring in their final budget because they can't have deficit funding. A month before they brought in their final budget of $209 million to the Minister of Education and before they agreed that $209 million would be what they'd work with, they had a budget of an additional $11.3 million that they wanted for some other purposes. They were able to balance their budget of $209 million within two weeks by reducing their budget by $11.3 million. There's no chaos in Surrey at the moment that I know of. Isn't it interesting?

I take exception to some of the things they did. They didn't reduce the teachers' increment that they offered them. The teachers were getting $51,000 on average prior to the 7 percent increase this year. They didn't reduce any of that. But they did cut some special education classes, which I regret; they cut out street-crossing guards, which I regret; they probably aren't going to wax the floors as often this year, which I regret; and they're not going to fix some of the roofs that they said they needed the money for. But they reduced it by $11.3 million inside of two weeks. I can tell you that if a district the size of Surrey can reduce its budget by $11.3 million in 14 days and still keep the system in place, that's very interesting.

I want to make reference to what was presented in the House today during presentations by the Minister of Education: the 1990 annual report of the Ministry of Education. It's very interesting, because it talks about all of the nice things, the great things, this government is doing, including the Sullivan commission and the Year 2000. All of the things we've being doing are very positive. But I thought I'd read through it before I came in here, because there are some questions and answers in it for students.

What are the graduates saying? I want to read just a few references:

"Graduates agreed almost unanimously...that schools should teach them 'the basics' of reading, writing and mathematics. However, only 75 percent of the graduates felt schools were doing a good job in this area.

"The value of lifelong learning was felt to be important by 86 percent of the graduates, but only 32 percent thought that schools were doing a good job at promoting this attitude. Ninety-seven percent of the graduates felt it was important for schools to encourage independent and creative thinking" — that's pretty dangerous, you know — "but only 38 percent felt that schools were doing well in this area. Ninety-five percent of...respondents felt that schools should encourage personal initiatives. However, only 31 percent felt that schools were successful at this task."

[5:45]

Interjection.

MR. REID: These are the students.

Unfortunately, what happens in the system today.... I had a meeting the other day in my office with two representatives of my Surrey school union. They came to my office and spent an hour with me trying to convince me to vote against Bill 82 and some other things. I want to repeat it one more time. They spoke to me for an hour, and not once in that hour, speaking to me as a representative, did the words "student," "quality of education" or "need for education".... Money for teachers was the only subject they raised and continued to raise in a whole hour in my office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you listen to your constituents?

MR. REID: Now you go to the constituents, who are the graduates, and you ask them a question. They say:

"Ninety-two percent of the graduates felt it was important for schools to teach them tolerance and respect for others. Only 30 percent felt schools were effective in this area."

That's right out of the Ministry of Education 1990 annual report.

"Graduates considered fine arts to be less important than other subject areas. Sixty-one percent agreed with the statement, 'It is important for schools to teach students to value fine arts,' but only 33 percent felt schools were accomplishing this goal."

[ Page 12092 ]

We're almost finished. This is some pretty important stuff about schools, when you want to talk about schools.

Interjection.

MR. REID: No, I'm almost finished.

The report deals with one more item, and that's the question of quality of education and how Year 2000 came about. It came about as a result of some requests from the parents, communities, the education system and all the participants who wanted a royal commission. This government had the foresight to put a royal commission in place. Mr. Sullivan presented, after a long deliberation across the province of British Columbia — meeting in almost every community and hearing from students, parents, teachers and educators — a dramatic report called the Sullivan report — the Royal Commission on Education. Out of that, with the help of the educators, one of the prime concerns was the future of education and where we were going. It dealt with the year 2000.

Do you know what happened in my district just last week? The teachers in my district hand-delivered 2,100 file folders on training and education basics that they helped construct and produce for the Year 2000. They laid them on the desk in the office of the current Premier and my colleague representative from the Surrey School District 36. That's the respect that I see the teachers have for the quality of education in the education system. In my opinion, the majority of them don't have any respect for it, because they are attacking the system by doing those things which they encourage us to do and, after we agree to do them, take on and attack the system by those immature acts.

There are other problems in the school system that we must deal with. There are other jurisdictions in North America that are having very difficult problems in relation to funding in school districts. I read, for instance, where Santa Paula, California, was going to close its schools down for the balance of the year because they ran out of funding. There were no concessions offered on behalf of the employees, so they had to close the schools down.

I notice also that the state of New York — this is what's happening in the real world — called all the teachers together and had them agree to either a reduction in compensation in order to retain 350 or 400 teachers or they'd have to lay off 350 to 400 teachers. In that jurisdiction, those teachers had the foresight to say that you can only go to the well so often, so they agreed to concessions in their pay in order to be allocated up to those 350 to 400 teachers, and they stayed in the system.

In other jurisdictions they face and bite the bullet. In ours, they continue to demand more and more. So when we come back to the question of ability to pay, which this government has been very able to deal with, we brought it into this House in order to discuss Bill 82 and the province's and the taxpayers' ability to pay now and during tough times. When we brought it in, I recall that we got concurrence not only from our own members but from members on the other side of the House to vote entirely in support of the section of the bill which dealt with the taxpayers' ability to pay.

I want to remind you that it was a unanimous decision of this House. So when I hear the members opposite refer in the last few days to this government being heavy-handed, that they don't care, or that they should find more money and give it to some of these jurisdictions....

We know for a fact that as government — because we are good fiscal managers — we manage the money the best we can, because it's not our money; it's somebody else's. We put it into the system, and we make it work. But we also constantly have on our minds the question of ability to pay. Taxpayers continue to ask governments to look at the ability to pay.

When you talk about ability to pay, you also must measure what the province of British Columbia does as it relates to the rest of Canada. Most citizens of B.C. have received some information that has been circulated by different sources or publications about comparative statistics on provincial debts. For instance, British Columbia's debt is currently the lowest of all the provinces of Canada. Of course, with the most recent decisions made by Ontario — I should say "Argentario" — we will continue to do that.

As we talk about fiscal management, the throne speech and issues which are of major concern to my constituents, and in talking recently to the Minister of Education, I recall the subject of when the direction was given to school boards on how to deal with the 1991 budget.

I have as a reference a letter which went to all school boards and was dated October 23, 1990. It's a long list of instructions, but the most critical one was the instruction to the boards: "When you negotiate collective agreements with your staff, you must keep in mind that if settlements exceed the economic indicator increase, they will have to pay the difference from some other area of their budget, since the 1990-91 budget will not be increased." Those were instructions to the school boards on October 23, 1990. Lo and behold, I don't think a school board in the province of British Columbia settled for less than 7 percent and 14 to 15 percent over two years, even with that instruction which was given by the former Minister of Education in October 1990.

So you talk about ability to pay and having team players working in different segments of the community — administrators of governments and school boards — and not following the instructions of the minister of the day, who told them emphatically that these are tough times that we're heading into and be cautious when you negotiate agreements. When you settle agreements, know what the bottom line is. And so we did....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't trust school trustees.

MR. REID: This member over here from Port Alberni said we don't trust school trustees. Nothing could be further from the truth. But what we tried to tell them is, please know for a fact that there is a bottom line. There is a source of funds; there is an

[ Page 12093 ]

ability to pay you must always recognize, and if we offer you 3.75 percent at a given point we don't expect you to go out and double that and offer 7 percent and then cry: "Underfunding!"

My district, as I told you earlier, received a 10.3 percent increase on a $200 million budget. That increment had to cover increased enrolment and some of the other incremental needs — special needs and so on. But it also covered sufficient money, obviously, for $51,000-plus benefits for a teacher plus 7 percent. They didn't have to cut any of the teachers back in my district as a result of the most recent budget submitted to the Minister of Education.

I know the member for New Westminster, who spoke earlier today, continues to harass me and others about the fact that we want to bash teachers. I don't want to bash teachers. Teachers are tremendously constructive. In my district the ones I've met with, except the two, are tremendously supportive. But we do have a problem when they're led by a union movement that demands that they not attend certain meetings or that they do certain things to counteract government's initiative in order to meet the ability to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place again, and I want to make reference to one other publication which came out and was quoting Carol Goar, who writes on national affairs. It's the Times-Colonist of May 8, 1991. She talks about the education system: "Our educational system is shortchanging many Canadians and imposing a severe burden on national competitiveness. The problem is urgent. The Canadians who will join the workforce in 2000 are already in school." Now this is the most critical thing; remember this: "Approximately 100,000 young people will drop out of school this year."

The member for Victoria made light of this earlier today, but I have the Times-Colonist dated May 14, 1991: "Schools Take Aim at Dropout Rate." How they're taking aim at the dropout rate is interesting. The school district has been offered $150,000 by the federal government to assess and research as to why the dropout rate in the Victoria area is 35 percent. We must be concerned about that, because that is what equates to quality of education. If the dropout rate is that significant, we have a problem. I'll go back to Carol Goar, who said: "Already, 60 percent of those who will form Canada's labour force...have left school. One in six high-school graduates is functionally illiterate." Quality of education? One in six high-school graduates is functionally illiterate.

In scientific achievement tests Canadian 17-yea-olds ranked second to last out of 13 productive countries — not very encouraging for a government and a country that talk about quality of education. A recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business showed that 50 percent of employers were unsatisfied with the way high school prepares students for the labour market. Well, I can tell you as a former employer that when I interviewed potential employees who were right out of the school system, some very sad applications crossed my desk — some incomplete, from almost illiterate graduates from the high school system.

MR. MILLER: In reference to the comments from the member for Surrey-White Rock–Cloverdale, I guess that's what the former Premier must have meant when he said that students don't write good.

Mr. Miller moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind members that tomorrow we will sit Friday hours, from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.