[ Page 12095 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Throne Speech Debate

Mr. Miller –– 12095

Mr. Smith –– 12098

Mr. Blencoe –– 12102

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 12105

Tabling Documents –– 12108

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1991

The House met 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize and to ask the House to issue a warm welcome to John and Mary Vertin, who are former residents of Surrey now living further up in the Fraser Valley. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. DUECK: Since these lovely people now live in Central Fraser Valley, I think it's only proper that I also wish them welcome on behalf of my colleague the second member and myself. There are only two kinds of people in British Columbia — those who live in the central Fraser Valley and those who would like to live in the central Fraser Valley. Since they have found paradise, I welcome them, and I hope this House welcomes them as well.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

MR. MILLER: At the outset, as other members have done, I would like to pay tribute to two former members of this House: Mr. Davis on the Socred side and Mr. Williams on our side. I think that there was some similarity — although they were dissimilar personally — in their views of the responsibilities of public life. I think that they both had a deep appreciation of the importance of establishing public policy, and that our role as legislators is to establish public policy to protect public interest. Although we disagreed with many of the ideas that Mr. Davis had, I think that was foremost in his mind when he.... I think that's what he brought to public life, perhaps as a result of that old postwar Liberal tradition. I think that is all too often forgotten in the politics of the moment, if you like, and it's worth reflecting that we do have a broader responsibility beyond our narrow political interests. I think both of those members — Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis — brought that to public life, and I think that's worth acknowledging and paying tribute to.

We are responding to the throne speech, and as others have said, I have to say there is precious little to respond to. In fact, we find ourselves at this juncture in the life of this government — some four and a half years into their mandate — with a government which has tried a number of times to gather the courage to go to the electorate and has had a number of false starts. We find ourselves doing a reprise of the performance of this government over the last four and a half years. The throne speech has been characterized by many as a vague rehash of old promises, with no vision and no direction for British Columbia. It is a government that is focused on its own problems.

As I said three or four weeks ago to a rally of IWA workers concerned about losing jobs in the Alberni Valley, we essentially haven't had a government in this province for some time. We've had one that first of all spent considerable time prior to the change in leadership defending the former Premier. Since that change in leadership, it has been attacking the former Premier. The government has been focused inwards and has no vision for this province.

I took the time to read the first throne speech a couple of nights ago, and as I recall, it promised a fresh start. This new government, with many new members, was embarking on a fresh start in British Columbia. That throne speech was filled with promises about directions they were going to take and things they were going to do. We quickly discovered that every succeeding throne speech promised something new. They made all these promises: "We're going to do this...." Lo and behold, six months later, that was in the trash barrel: "Let's discard that idea; that one didn't seem to work. Let's have a new fresh start."

We have witnessed an unparalleled four and a half years, with the most unstable government this province has ever seen. The Premier is talking about it being the most productive government. As I watched her on the news last night, she seemed to be having second thoughts about whether she might want to lead her party. She seemed somewhat hesitant and overwhelmed by the weight of office, by the problems that have beset her party and her government. But the solution may be at hand, because when I turned on CBC news this morning, lo and behold, the lead item was an offer from the former Premier to perhaps run again — to relieve her of that responsibility. If she's having second thoughts, she might want to talk to the former Premier. Maybe they could strike a deal.

An unparalleled four and a half years of the most unstable government this province has ever seen, and it goes to the heart of our parliamentary and democratic systems. Stability of government is one of the cornerstones of our democratic tradition. What have we witnessed?

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: The few remaining members of the Socred back bench are heckling me, and I want to advise them that I have a few words of advice for them; but it's on page 2, so if they will just be patient I will get to them.

How many cabinet ministers have resigned, left, been pushed out, tripped out or fallen out? It's an unlucky number: number 13 — 13 cabinet ministers. I have to be fair. A few of them left on a matter of principle. Most of them left because principle didn't matter.

What has been the cost of these reorganizations of government? Mr. Speaker, 13 cabinet ministers have resigned or been pushed out. How many deputy-minister changes? How many reorganizations of government? What has been the cost of brass plaques for cabinet ministers' doors? What has been the cost of changing stationery because they have changed the

[ Page 12096 ]

names of the ministries as well. Not content with simply replacing one minister with another, they have to go through the entire thing and change the name of almost every ministry. They have to change the deputy ministers half a dozen times. They have to change the hacks and the flacks and the hangers-on. And every time they do it, they have to print new stationery and new business cards, right through the entire ministry. The civil servants are having a difficult time keeping up with which ministry they work for. There has been so much work reprinting, changing offices and moving furniture that this government hasn't had time to attend to the business of the people of this province.

[10:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, think of the cost in dollars of this unstable, irrational, disorganized government, as they trip themselves around the halls of this Legislature saying: "I'll have that office. No, that's my office. We'll change that." It boggles the mind.

There's hope yet; there's time left. I suppose that if this government — which I think realizes it's going down the tube — hangs on to the very end, we still have a few months left. As I understand it, there are still a few members of the Socred back bench who have not yet made it into cabinet. Believe it or not, there may be six members of the Socred back bench who haven't been cabinet minister for a day, a week or a month.

I remember when I was a boy I used to go to my grandmother's house, and she liked to watch a TV program called "Queen for a Day." It was quite a degrading program to women. The premise of it was that they had four or five women they somehow selected, and the one who told the hardest-luck story or who shed the biggest tears and talked about the misery of her life was made queen for a day and was showered with gifts and wealth. That's my advice to some of those backbenchers: in the short time they have remaining, they sharpen up their act, look a little more abject and try to make a case that they want to be a cabinet minister for a day or a week or a month. That way, we will have exhausted the entire supply of the Socred back bench.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Equal opportunity, yes. My colleague says, "Make them all honourable," and that might be difficult.

Mr. Speaker, it's a legacy of promise, promise, promise and break the promise, break the promise and break the promise. Let's talk about some of the impact of that instability on the people of this province and on people in my region.

I recall the profound announcements from the former Premier on the reorganization of government: "We're going to separate this province into eight regions; we're going to listen to the people." Well, what happened? We all recall. This government and its predecessor like to bring in those special warrants They don't like to subject their spending to the scrutiny of this Legislature. They'll do anything to do those deals in the back room, but they don't like to bring those special warrants before this Legislature and have them debated by the people's representatives. We recall the legacy in terms of that $8 million in special warrants.

At the same time — I think it was passed either after the Legislature adjourned or a day before it convened — there was $8 million in special warrants for regional development. I believe that bureaucracy is still out there. I think there are people floating around out there who think that they work for the government and who are drawing a paycheque. The only thing is, they're not sure what they're doing. There are offices rented in all of those regions; there are people on staff, on the payroll, who do nothing. There are millions of dollars being wasted. People are sitting in those offices; they're not doing anything and they don't know who they're reporting to.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Be specific.

MR. MILLER: I'll be specific: let's talk about my region. There's a pretty sorry history there, because the member in the adjoining constituency to mine — the member for Skeena, who used to be the Minister of Forests — was made the minister responsible for region 6. That came to a sad and sorry end. That was about a six-month tenure; I think he was the minister for six months in that regard. They fired him because he managed to offend almost everybody in the region.

But they told people there that they were going to do certain things. I discussed this with the Premier when she was the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Transportation and Highways, which she was responsible for, is a sad legacy of false promises. You led people down the garden path, Madam Premier. You said: "We will pay attention to your concerns; we're going to form these regions. We're going to get together; we're going to pay attention to your concerns. We'll prepare a transportation plan, and what the people in that region say, we will follow." That's what they said — another false promise that they made to the people of this province.

What did they do? They didn't pay attention at all. They didn't take any of the recommendations that the people put forward. They inserted their own political priorities.

Here's one of the amazing things. This government likes to talk about their fiscal record. Let's talk about a $400,000 study — almost half a million dollars.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask those members to try to listen, because they might learn something about spending the people's money. This is $400,000 to study whether they should build a general cargo terminal in Kitimat, 120 miles away from Prince Rupert, which has a general cargo terminal that is at only 40 percent capacity. They might as well have piled it up on Main Street and put a match to it.

[ Page 12097 ]

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: There were no cost-benefit studies done whatsoever. But through the efforts of a lot of people in that region who started to question it — including people in Kitimat, Terrace and Stewart who know their region — they discovered that the net benefit of that proposal, which would have cost the taxpayers of this province probably around $50 million, would simply be to transfer about 50 jobs from one community to another about 100 miles away. If that's the Socred idea of fiscal management.... If they wanted to run on that issue alone, they would lose in the election. What kind of public policy says that it makes any sense at all to spend $50 million of the public's money to move 50 jobs from one community to another? It's absolutely insane. People, when they finally see these government plans exposed, will shake their heads and say: "Call an election. Let us get at it. We want to express our opinion about these foolish economic proposals."

We move again into the area of forestry. These are extremely serious issues. There have been a number of reports in the last little while — going back a couple of years — that point to the abysmal failure of this and previous Social Credit administrations when it comes to forestry. They are absolutely damning indictments of Socred mismanagement in the area of forestry. Look at the Forest Resources Commission report — it took long enough to get it out.

As the Forests critic for a number of years now, I've pressed the government on a couple of areas. The Minister of Forests and I talked last year about the whole question of inventory, and I recall my attempts to try and get the former Minister of Forests, the member for Skeena, to deal realistically with the question of inventory. What do we have out there? How much timber do we have? What is the resource base? Compare that resource base to our manufacturing plants and try to give people in those resource-dependent communities some idea of their future. What does the future hold for them? The former minister absolutely refused to acknowledge there was any difficulty at all with inventory. We put forward private members' bills asking for that inventory to be done so we could quantify what our resources are and do some planning, and they refused to deal with it. In fact, the Minister of Forests last year compared the ministry's inventory calculations to a public opinion poll. He said: "We're right 19 times out of 20 with a plus or minus of whatever the percentage is." They compared their inventory of forest resources with a public opinion poll: "Don't worry, we think we're okay." He also wrote a letter to the paper saying the same thing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think it's out of your imagination.

MR. MILLER: It's not my imagination, Mr. Minister of Forests. Read the Sun of June 29, 1990.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: No, if the minister wants to debate that, he can question whether the Sun is correct. This is a letter signed by himself in the Sun. If he's saying the letter is incorrect, fair enough. If he wants to change his story, we've come to expect that from this government, because they're constantly changing their story.

The Forest Resources Commission report on inventories says this in one clear, definitive statement: "The commission believes that the current state of inventory information is a disgrace." You don't see the Minister of Forests ever admitting that. He says that everything is fine. Let's just cover it up. Let's not deal with it.

Why have we come to this sorry state? Why are we in this position of not knowing what our inventories are, of not being able to give some reassurance to communities?

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm having to shout above this vicious heckling from the opposite side. They're like unruly....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has a good point. The member has the floor; other members have had their opportunity to stand and speak in this debate. However, the member seems to be doing well with the heckling.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, please ask the hon. member opposite to address you, Mr. Speaker, and not to speak and become testy to this side of the House. He's creating that atmosphere in this Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, on the first member for Okanagan South's rather specious point of order, would the member please continue.

MR. MILLER: They're like unruly schoolchildren: they know they've done wrong, and they don't want to listen. They don't want to listen to us, they don't want to listen to the people of British Columbia, and that's going to be their undoing.

In the area of resource management, we've witnessed an unparalleled, abysmal failure. This government and its predecessors have essentially abandoned management of resources. Their belief is that they simply allocate those resources to others. They don't bother to monitor those other people; they don't bother to monitor the people they've allocated the forest to. They don't have the staff to do it.

What have we come to now right in this province? There are two economies in this province: the lower mainland economy and the resource economy out there. Those people in those communities don't know what their future is, and this government can't tell them. There's been no attempt over the years to balance the available resource with the manufacturing capacity. There was absolutely no attempt whatsoever; this government has failed. In my view, they deliberately did not want to manage those resources.

[ Page 12098 ]

That was confirmed in testimony from senior officials in the ministry before the Forest Resources Commission last year. There has never been an industrial strategy in forestry, if you can believe it. There has never been an attempt to relate the available supply to the capacity. As a result, some communities in the province are faced with a 30 percent to 40 percent gap between available supply and manufacturing capacity. People in those communities sense the future, and they know that it can't continue.

But nobody is working on that kind of planning or going to those communities and saying: "We've done the analysis that needs to be done, and we think this area is capable of a given capacity." We have to look at alternatives for workers who might be displaced, in terms of trying to diversify the economy. That kind of resource planning has simply not taken place in this province. Working people are going to bear the brunt of that, as we witnessed a number of weeks ago, when 400 or 500 people from the Alberni Valley came down to the lawns of this Legislature. They fear for their jobs and their future, and no one in any ministry of this government can give them any assurance that they're even looking at the problem.

[10:30]

This government has been inwardly focused. They have not been taking care of the people's business. They have been so caught up in their sad legacy of scandals and resignations that they're not taking care of the people's business.

We have a vast potential in our raw resources. They have been the cornerstone of our economy, yet we have not realized our potential. We have allowed opportunities to escape us. That is very sad, because if you look at some of the other statistics, what's the human cost of that? What do people think when they look at the auditor- general's report, which stated in 1989 that we don't have an adequate system of collecting stumpage payments? He says in this report that we don't have an adequate system of monitoring the licensees in terms of road building, harvesting and most importantly, silviculture. The auditor-general says that the ministry doesn't have enough staff to do their job. In responding to the document, the ministry said exactly the same thing: "We've suffered a 40 percent reduction in our staff. Don't expect us to deal with these issues that the auditor-general has identified, because we don't have the people to do it."

And worst of all, the Minister of Forests on television last night confirms that they don't have the staff in the ministry to do the job. Why don't they have the staff? Because in 1981 or 1982 or 1983 they cut that staff severely, and secondly, this administration and its ill-founded privatization program cut it even further.

So we've lost over 2,100 people in the ministry, which is unable to do its job. We get this plaintive cry from the ministry people saying: "That's true; we can't do our job. Don't ask us to do it." And this government wants people to have confidence in them. They want to stand up and brag about their fiscal record, and how they can manage the economy. It's absolutely shocking, Mr. Speaker. And the human cost....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You ought to talk about Ontario.

MR. MILLER: There's a member who wants to raise Ontario. In a sad attempt to divert attention from their own sorry record, this government wants to talk about Ontario. That's all they want to talk about. They don't want to talk about British Columbia, because they've done such a lousy job.

One small item on Ontario. B.C.'s only broadcast journalism school is facing the axe. Where will students have to go for that training? They are going to have to go to Ontario. Students from British Columbia will now have to go to Ontario to get training, and this government seems proud of that.

What's the human cost in this unrealized potential? Why are 25 percent of the people on social assistance between the ages of 19 and 25 — our young people, who are the future of this province? Because the opportunities aren't there for them. Those young people from small communities around this province don't have opportunities in their own communities. They're forced to leave their own communities. It's sad, all right.

Mr. Speaker, this current cabinet has been party to all of the scandals, no matter how they try to distance themselves. They knew all along, and they did nothing. They had a choice and they didn't take it. They could have dealt with the scandal. They could have dealt with the former Premier. The current Premier was the champion of: "Let's not do anything."

If you are honest with yourself, you know you can't take a house with a rotten foundation, slap a new coat of paint on it and say: "Our problem is solved." That's what this cabinet is trying to do now. This cabinet couldn't deal with the former Premier. I suspect they didn't want to deal with the former Premier. And now they're going to the people and saying: "Trust us to run the province." It will not wash. This is a lame-duck government. We have a very few months to go until the end of their term. The people of British Columbia are looking forward to the opportunity — finally — of passing judgment on this sorry gang.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise this morning and talk about a few issues — a potpourri of them, in fact — and to maybe put some forward as well. I hope to be able to further discuss them during the budget speech debate and the estimates coming thereafter.

I've been in and around the Legislative Assembly listening to throne speeches, participating in them and being an accessory to them before and after the fact since 1967. Indeed, I'm impressed by the currents in this throne speech that are asking for a change to the legislative role performed by each individual MLA. It is timely and important. We must never forget that we come here as MLAs. Whatever else happens is fine, but the voters who send us here as their elected representatives send us as their MLA. They do not elect us to any other job, and those who forget that have historically paid a pretty heavy price. I hope the issues that have been raised with respect to the role of the MLA

[ Page 12099 ]

will be listened to carefully, and furthered with regard to the auditor-general's report as well.

There are a number of things in the throne speech that touch on matters and issues that are very important to the people of British Columbia and to all of us in here. They should be looked at very carefully.

In that regard I'm glad to see a reference in the throne speech to a policy respecting roads to resources. It's a very important policy signal for British Columbia. For instance, we have on the table at the moment, because of the innovative uses of our resources with respect to transportation links, fully three-quarters of a billion dollars of capital investment from the private sector in the mining industry that can and will and should go ahead if we wisely expend those moneys on transportation links to resources. Of course, I refer to the Cirque mine area in the Rocky Mountain Trench, to the Mount Milligan area and to the road being put in to the Iskut, which will provide tremendous growth and potential in that area that is much needed.

This policy should be developed using a very broad definition of both roads and resources. As legislators develop it in this chamber, this policy should include not only highways and development roads, but railroads, transit roads and waterways. And resources should include not only natural resources but the resources of people, particularly in the more concentrated population areas. In this young and still pioneering province, it seems to me we must find new ways to build our transportation systems.

In the interior we need to grow, and build stronger economic and population units. We need more people, and we have to have as a fundamental policy choice those things that will attract more people to certain areas of the province, so that we can have the economic base that will allow them to cut across the vicissitudes of the swings and valleys of a resource-based economy.

On the coast we have to unlock ourselves from the 1960s transportation technology that typically permeates the way we move people and goods up and down the coast and between the islands. In urban British Columbia it seems to me that the land use problems that people in this chamber are going to have to face, and which are now upon us, demand solutions that will come only from applying innovative transportation solutions to those land use problems.

I think the issue of roads to resources, though it doesn't get a lot of attention because of the way it is put in the throne speech, is a signal of things that we're going to have to deal with in this session, and which MLAs are going to have to deal with in this chamber for a good long time to come. I hope we allow an expansive use of those concepts.

As well, the throne speech referred to the concept of access to information and the promise that there will be legislation before this House that will deal with that issue. I must say it's good to see that the trees which have been planted over the last couple of years in that regard will now be bearing some legislative fruit. While the notion of access is an old one, I think the methodology which should be used is one that is rapidly changing and should be the focus of that with which we grapple.

We have in British Columbia the potential to make access to information really meaningful to all citizens and not just available in a controlled way for various elite groups. I therefore suggest that if we're dealing with that issue in this House, we follow the technical models developed over the past few years in the land title system and in the pilots that are now being used for our electronic courtrooms. Our access process should start from an assumption that all information is public property. All information held by government should be made electronically retrievable, beginning with the present and systematically moving back in time because of the cost of doing that. Any restrictions on access should be justified by policy criteria that are laid out in advance. In that way, any citizen will be able to access the phenomenal volumes of information that are stored in government, directly from government, through the use of modems from their own home or place of business. Let us avoid establishing a system that requires physical in-house examination of files and is therefore useful to only a very few, typically at the margins of our society, rather than to the majority of people.

[10:45]

Just as the notion of access is an old one which can benefit in scope from new technology, so it is that the new technology which can be used for that access requires strict adherence to rules ensuring individual privacy. This issue of privacy, while perhaps not as attractive to some groups in our society as to others, is in fact a far bigger issue of much greater and growing magnitude than is the issue of access. It will increase in importance as we begin to use more and more of the technology that is available to us to provide that very access. So while we congratulate ourselves about moving on the old idea of access, let us also ensure that it is implemented to the benefit of the many and is balanced by the growing need to protect individual privacy in our society.

The throne speech also makes reference to the issue of native claims that are upon us throughout the province and indeed have been for many years. I'm pleased to see the throne speech signals that the very wise and careful course developed by this government will continue. We have witnessed an historic change over the past three years, and I think now is the time to move more rapidly some distance forward in resolution of many issues that are before us. Especially will it be important during this time not to let buzzwords create divisions in our society with respect to that issue. That is why the political promise to recognize notions that are unexplainable and undefinable, such as aboriginal title, is a process that is very unwise.

It is also why we should not be alarmed by the concept of having a variety of self-government structures throughout the issue and throughout the land. If anyone really wants to think about it, we now have many varieties of self-government by the way we have constituted our provinces, by the way we have chartered our cities, and by the way we have chartered all our regional districts. As I listen to the issue develop, I am very concerned that we make certain we keep a perspective on where we have been and where it is

[ Page 12100 ]

possible for us to go, and most importantly, that we move there as quickly as we can.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Looking ahead to the budget discussions in relation to our throne speech, I intend then to express some views about the role of administrative tribunals in this province. I think we must visit some assumptions about their utility, their methods, their personnel and their relationship to other fundamental factors in our system for resolving disputes. I say that because in this province, and indeed across our land, the presumption of innocence, sadly, is becoming a farce. If we are not giving and going to give respect to it through all the estates and all the elements who are parties to our social contract, then let's examine it. If we can't adhere to it, then as legislators, perhaps the time is nigh to begin replacing it with Western European models for inquiry in relationship to the resolution of disputes.

That need exists at all levels of dispute resolution in this province. While I personally very much support retaining the presumption of innocence, it is becoming ever more obvious that many public people and institutions in our society view it not as an anchor of our democracy to be respected, but rather as a challenge to be overcome.

Our forest sector was given a good deal of prominence in our throne speech, as it should. I want to briefly speak to the issue because in our constituency forestry is a major factor. We have greatly benefited from our forests and those who harvest them. Our people in the Kamloops constituency do not embrace the no-growth mentality that seems to be issuing forth in other areas. But we are concerned about access to the resource, about better utilization of the fibre and about the dynamics between open log markets and area-based tenures.

As I listen to talk about a comprehensive, wide-open provincial log market, frankly I cringe. I was raised in the North Thompson valley, where our very ability to survive as communities is rooted in having the certainty of an area-based wood supply for our area-based conversion facilities. I listen to people advocate one provincial log market, while at the same time they claim to support keeping the wood at home. The question is: how are they going to reconcile those concepts? The answer very simply is that they can't. Therefore, in my view, they should cease this New DemoSpeak that we hear around the land, promising systems of harvest which are fundamentally incompatible. Our small towns will rue the day if they succumb to the NDP promise to overturn the idea of area-based tenures tied to local conversion plants. That is the model in Washington and Oregon, and like the spotted owl issue, let's keep it in Washington and Oregon.

I want to speak briefly on the issue of diversification, which was touched on in the throne speech, because it has very important implications for our communities, particularly in the interior. In places like Clearwater we need diversification. We've made big strides over the last four years with respect to diversification in the area of tourism. But we need more. We need it in the area of wood products, where the capital necessary to get a start often isn't available from traditional lenders. That fact, all over rural British Columbia, speaks to a role for government to lend a hand. Let us examine our business assistance policies and ensure that they reflect the needs of Clearwater, as well as the choices that are possible in more diversified urban economies in British Columbia.

One such possibility for diversification is data processing. Clearwater has two broad-band systems running right through the middle of it, and that infrastructure means that data processing is an option for communities like that. A local group has begun to submit a proposal. They've asked Doug Kerley to examine the area's needs, and he has endorsed the idea. We should use our purchasing policies to ensure that real diversification occurs in Clearwater by ensuring access to government data processing contracts is not just the special preserve of Vancouver and Victoria.

The throne speech also talked about assistance for special health services for people living in rural areas. That is one of the great unsung issues in the throne speech, because it is the case that many of our people throughout this province have had lip-service paid to them about equality of access to health services when in fact they haven't had it, by simple virtue of where they live geographically. I'm very pleased to see that it has happened, the support will be there and is talked about in the throne speech.

Yesterday we received the auditor-general's report, and a rapid read of that report finds nothing particularly startling, which I suppose speaks well for the quality of the administration we've had over the last few years. One issue, however, begs raising, and that is the notion of so-called value-for-money auditing. I raise it in the context of all the discussions we've heard in here about the role of an MLA, because as MLAs, you should be very wary of this so-called value-for-money audit system. The fact is, the very root of responsible government means that you, the MLA, are the value-for-money auditor, not some appointed official. It is the MLAs' responsibility to deal with value-for-money auditing, not some functionary to whom the authority has been given.

Value-for-money auditing is a growing boondoggle invented by various self-seeking, self-administered professional organizations across this country. It will show over time that there will be two certainties as a result: (1) for auditors it will create more work than the GST; (2) for MLAs it will create a competing debating House about public policy choices. Value-for-money auditing is not an objective analysis and policing of public expenditures; it is, rather, the imposition of a subjective analysis on those choices and decisions by a non-elected person who does not have the responsibility for the trade-offs that public policy choices inevitably require. Therefore the value-for-money auditing exercise will begin without much notice; but over time, the auditors' value judgments will become the debating focus rather than your value judgments as responsible elected representatives of the people. I urge members in this chamber to really think through that

[ Page 12101 ]

process carefully, because over time it will not be good for this chamber. It will not be good for members serving in this chamber.

Yesterday we watched — I was going to say with amazement, but there wasn't any — a somewhat hackneyed, partisan stunt in this House when a petition from the so-called Friends of Royal Inland Hospital was presented. First of all, the member presenting the petition should know that 3,500 people is a puny imitation of the real number of friends that Royal Inland Hospital has. The friends of Royal Inland Hospital run into the tens of thousands, and if all he can summon up is 3,500 names, then his network is pretty weak indeed.

But after the House, he went on the radio in Kamloops to brag about his stunt. While on the radio, he was asked directly whether he supports a full-service cancer clinic for Kamloops, and he wouldn't answer flatly that he does. In fact, he waffled and he fudged, and that is because....

AN HON. MEMBER: What a surprise.

MR. SMITH: It didn't surprise any of us from Kamloops. That is because Mr. Flip, the Leader of the Opposition and Dr. Flop, his opposition Health critic, have been doing New DemoSpeak on this issue for the last year.

The Cancer Agency, which the NDP panders to in Vancouver, does not endorse two cancer clinics for the interior. They have diddled around the issue of location for 15 years. Their gain is to keep all of the action for themselves at headquarters in Vancouver. The NDP has played footsie with the Cancer Agency's gain, and Dr. Flop repeated that footsie again yesterday. The result is that Kamloops people now know that partisan stunts in health are easily done by the NDP, but a specific, unequivocal commitment to a full-service cancer clinic for the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops is very carefully avoided.

Speaking of friends of Royal Inland Hospital and the region he described, let the people know — all the people who are friends of Royal Inland Hospital, whether they live in the constituencies of Kamloops, Shuswap, Yale-Lillooet, Cariboo South or Kamloops-North Thompson — that if they vote NDP in any of those five ridings, they will not be assured of that much-needed facility. Only Social Credit has been prepared to stand up and say flatly that the Cancer Control Agency can take a hike and that we will set policy determining that the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops gets the full-service clinic promised by its MLAs. All of the partisan stunts performed in this House will not change that fact for the voters in those five constituencies, and let there be no mistake about it.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, I want to finish, if I may, by addressing some constitutional issues that I think we should be alive to in terms of the debate now going on. I think we have a great opportunity before us in this country to visit some of the important issues we have to visit in terms of restructuring our country and making it a better place to be, a stronger place to be, and more able to deal with the future that is before us.

I do not see what is before us as a great tragedy, a tremendous hardship or an event that is likely to rip us asunder; I do not see it at all in that way. It seems to me that what is upon us all around the world is great pressure on federalism. Secondly, another major trend that is around us all over the world is the issue of what the information age has done to people's ability to make choices about how they want to govern themselves and how they want to deal with government.

One of the most important issues we have to deal with, should deal with and should want to deal with in this coming constitutional debate is the question about the kind of government we want to have and the kinds of things we want government to do, and about whether or not we want to enhance individual rights in this country or in fact to enhance and endorse a greater system of collective rights. It is a very important issue, and I think it is a profound one that begs to be addressed, and can now be addressed because of the constitutional divisions that have occurred and the process that is taking place.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, we as citizens should not allow ourselves to deal with this issue solely in terms of the division of powers. The division of powers is an academic exercise that has gone on and on and on in this country; it titillates and interests lawyers, constitutional experts, professors at universities, and various and sundry politicians. But at the end of the day, the division of powers and the tinkering with them means that you take power and give it from one government to the other. The issue that should be dealt with at this time is what, if any, powers in certain areas the people want to give government at all, and what level they want to give them at. That issue has to be opened up. It has not yet been opened up in this debate, and it is the one that will not be opened up by government, because obviously it is the one that is most traumatic for governments to ever have to contemplate. As we go through this issue, as we go through this time, I think it is important that we open that issue up.

As well, I think that we should not learn the wrong lessons from what has happened to us in the past. In that regard, I refer particularly to the Meech Lake process. It has been said that the Meech Lake process failed; I think that if we learned that lesson, then we have learned exactly the wrong lesson. The Meech Lake process in fact did not fail; the Meech Lake process worked. What failed was that the predicted and presumed result did not happen. But the process that was designed for Meech Lake required unanimity or nothing — and in fact the process worked. Let us not lose sight of that. Indeed, the process worked precisely because a member of a legislature in this country was able to do what he felt should be done on behalf of his people, and indeed it turned out that he did it on behalf of the majority of Canadians as well. So let us not learn the lesson that the Meech Lake process failed, because it did not fail. Let us in fact learn the lesson that when we embark upon a process, let us do so understanding its implications, so that if we want to

[ Page 12102 ]

get to a certain goal, the process will support that desire.

As well, I think that we should not learn the lesson from Meech Lake that somehow you can start a constitutional renewal process from a negative premise. That was the greatest flaw of all in that process, having the premise of unfinished business from 1982 rather than a desire to have a constructive renewal for the 1990s.

I also think it is important to learn the lesson from that process that our parliaments failed — all of them; this Legislature included — to do their duty. And their duty is this: governments propose, oppositions oppose. Because that did not happen in our parliaments, because we had unanimity and close to unanimity in most of our legislatures across this land, the parliamentary opposition that naturally reflects the various views of the people did not take place. So what happened? There arose an extraparliamentary opposition to the process which manifested that opposition. It's a lesson that every one of us in all legislatures in this country should learn.

In closing, I want to say that one of the things most needed in this country is to have people travel this country and learn about it. We are not educating people at all about this country — ourselves and particularly not our young people. In fact, because our immigration patterns have changed dramatically over the last 40 or 50 years, we have people coming to this country who do not have the same traditions that support some of the constitutional premises that make up our country. There's a great and crying need for people to travel this country and learn about it.

One way that we might very well be able to support this need to travel is that every legislator in this place, bureaucrats all over this country, get bonus points for travelling hither and yon — and goodness alone knows they do indeed travel hither and yon. Those bonus points, it seems to me, should be available to be put in a great pot and divided up among kids in high schools and universities.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to say, first, that it's a pleasure to complete the discussion on the throne speech on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I want to indicate that my conclusion to our discussion will mostly articulate what some of the government members have been asking for and some of the things that we would do in government.

While this government has been mired in the controversy and scandal that has been taking up the government agenda — and the people's business has indeed suffered in British Columbia — this side of the House, the New Democratic Party of the province of British Columbia, has been hard at work preparing legislation, policies and programs to govern this great province.

Before I get to that, I want to reflect a bit on the throne speech. First, I want to say that people in my constituency and in my travels are wondering why the Legislature is meeting, why we have another throne speech in the fifth year, near the end of the term of this discredited government, and why we haven't had an election in British Columbia.

A throne speech is supposed to lay out a vision, a direction, accomplishments, some sense of purpose of a government which has some semblance of credibility. This government tabled a throne speech which speaks for itself. It was old and flat and had no vision. It was symbolic of a government that's lost its sense of purpose, lost its direction in terms of whom it serves. To whom do you owe your allegiance in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. RABBITT: Tedious and repetitious.

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Labour says we're tedious and repetitious.

Mr. Speaker, a government's direction and sense of purpose in terms of serving the people is important. There is no indication in this throne speech that this government has any new ideas for the people of this province. Quite frankly, it is a tired, worn-out government mired in controversy and conflict. People are exhausted and embarrassed by five years of scandal, conflict of interest, and botched privatization deals.

My constituents are saying: "Why not an election to clear the air? Let's have an election to clear the air in the province of British Columbia." My constituents and the majority of British Columbians are embarrassed. The ethical record of this government is the talk of the nation. We are the shame of the country. A revolving door on cabinet: 40 ministers in 54 months, 13 resignations — 8 while under investigation. The people are saying: "Give us a break! Call the election. Clear the air. Let the people decide what should happen in the province of British Columbia."

This government has run out of options. We have a list of scandals as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker. Let me just list a few of them, time permitting.

The Expo lands — the fire sale, the giveaway of the greatest land in the province of British Columbia in terms of its value to this province. We lost it; we sold out; we gave it away. These so-called managers of the economy, of our lands and of our public assets gave it away.

The Knight Street Pub — do you remember that little incident, Mr. Speaker? Forget that one.

The Lottery Fund abuse. Remember that — the scandal and embarrassment to the people of this province? Do you remember the tampering? Do you remember the memory? Thanks for the memories of tampering with the justice system. Do you remember that?

Do you remember your silence on Fantasy Gardens — your abject silence while the people wanted action? They knew what was going on. You knew what was going on in your abject silence. Finally Mr. Hughes had to tell the sordid tale of intrigue and conflict of interest of this government and Premier, and all of you bound up in that controversy. This is a government that no longer knows right from wrong.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.)

[ Page 12103 ]

What does the interim Premier say — the head of a caretaker government that should have been removed...? We should have had an election some months ago. When she was taking her position as the interim Premier, what did she say about her government? I quote: "When history is written, the period of 1986 to 1991 is going to be one most British Columbians will look back upon with pride." [Applause.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the government bangs their desks for that kind of pride.

AN HON. MEMBER: They still agree with it.

MR. BLENCOE: They agree with what they've done. They agree with the sordid details and conflict. I can tell you, call the election and the people will tell you what they think of your pride in your government, Madam Member, Mrs. Premier. Call the election and they'll tell you what they think of this government.

[11:15]

While this government has been mired in controversy, sordid details and conflict of interest, this side of the Legislature has been hard at work preparing legislation and alternatives to govern the province with honour and integrity. That's the number one issue: returning to honour, integrity and discipline about the people's business.

We are proud to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, proud of our role in this great democracy in the province of British Columbia. But we're also proud of the work we've been doing in leading legislation in the country on good government laws. What are those good government laws that we've had to introduce for the people of the province? Well, there is a real conflict-of-interest act and a freedom-of-information act so that people can know what their government does behind some of those closed doors, Madam Premier. There is a fair election practices act to guarantee fair elections and to lower the provincial voting age to 18, so that young British Columbians can participate in our great democracy.

Mr. Speaker, our laws — good laws — will stop the resale of B.C. lottery tickets, which has been linked to organized crime. That was another scandal by this government. We will guarantee a fair and open bidding process on all government projects, and we will require full disclosure of campaign contributions in the province. Yes, we are prepared, and we have the laws to bring in good government in order to protect the integrity of the province in the interests of the public. This is a side that will work for all British Columbians, not just for friends and insiders whom we have seen this government represent for five years.

Mr. Speaker, some months ago our research, our policy and our members on this side developed a leading document on sustainable development in the province, on how to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SERWA: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows full well that he's not allowed to hold up props, and that's what that hon. member is doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is such that it can be well overlooked.

The second member for Victoria continues with his throne speech debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's a pretty sad reflection when a member who was briefly a cabinet minister has to be a prop for this government.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed a very important document that will start to resolve the land use conflicts in the province. It will try to grant additional economic benefits from B.C.'s renewable resources. It's an important document that I would suggest the members may wish to read when they are dealing with a resource conflict in our renewable resources in the province.

We've put forward and worked hard on the environment and jobs accord. We need to sustain both our forests and our forest economy, but we also need to make sure each creates stability and economic security for our forest communities. We have an environment and jobs accord, which is a leading document that will be ready when this government finally get its walking papers and the people of the province tell it where to go.

Carrying on with that theme, we developed sustainable development legislation, policies for the environment and for the future, environmental action for the province, and laws that the people will know they can be proud of. We have a real agenda, as my colleague from Point Grey says, that the people of the province can understand, follow and know what our government will do in this great province.

What are some of those laws to protect the environment but, at the same time, to establish a balance between the economy and our forest communities? They are a Clean Environment Enforcement Act, a Spill Prevention and Reporting Act, a Pulp Pollution Prevention Act, an Act to Ensure Environmentally Sound Public Spending by Government, an Act to Enforce Pollution Offences and Create an Environmental Protection Fund, a Whistle Blowers' Protection Act to protect those who wish to report environmental degradation in our great province, an Act to Ban the Use of CFCs, an Act to Phase Out Apartment and Commercial Incinerators, a B.C. Recycling Act and An Act to Ensure the Agricultural Use of Farmland — and it goes on. While this government has been mired in controversy and conflict of interest, we have been preparing an agenda for all the people of the province.

Many members have asked, "Where are your laws?" in the throne speech debate, as if we're the government — and we will be very soon. Just send us a memo, and we will send you these bills. We will let you know what the people of British Columbia want to see in legislation.

What about laws for our forests, protecting our communities and those single-resource towns depen-

[ Page 12104 ]

dent on our forest economy — that great resource that my colleague from Prince Rupert talks about so eloquently in this Legislature? We have tabled legislation that will protect the forest environment. I wonder how many members on that side have read that legislation. I suggest you do. What are some of those laws? One is the Forest Resource Inventory Act, which will require an immediate comprehensive inventory of all public forests in the province. How long have you been in government? You still don't have an inventory of our forest economy and our forest resources; you still haven't done it. That's a first priority for our new government.

There's a Forest Waste Reduction Act and Act to Protect Parks and Wilderness Areas. Boy, do we ever need this! An Act to Establish an Environment and Land Use Secretariat can start to tackle the important land use conflicts in the province. With scientific analysis and rational understanding we can start to deal with the issues that face British Columbians today. There's an Act to Ensure Sound Forest Practices on Private Land — long overdue.

These are all things that we've been doing while this government has been embarrassing itself in front of the nation with all those scandals and the revolving door in cabinet. This side of the Legislature has been busy preparing legislation that the people know is required in the province.

I already referred to the environment and jobs accord — how to balance the environment with the protection of our forest economies and communities. These are difficult issues that this side of the Legislature is prepared to tackle on behalf of all British Columbians.

We're prepared to increase value from our forests. Again, many of my colleagues have talked about this over the years. We have introduced a Forestry Value Added Act that requires new value-added manufacturing and jobs when licences to harvest public forests are awarded. What a novel idea: jobs for public lands! That's alien to this administration: jobs, and public land and public assets.

We will do it. We've got the laws. Maybe you want to do it as a last-ditch attempt to get yourself reelected. The people, however, have seen through it.

Let me go on. Housing programs....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: The laws are there. Home ownership for young people, protection for tenants, An Act to Provide for a Rentals Mediator — these are New Democrat alternatives. There is the Housing Initiatives Fund Act, 1990: second mortgages for first-time young buyers to help them meet the dream of home-ownership. Again, if this government wants to see the legislation we have developed on housing, we'll be pleased to send it to them. It's here.

We've been working in the area of labour, protecting working people on behalf of all British Columbians with An Act to Improve Employment Standards. Boy, do we ever need that! My colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has been working diligently to protect and help the people of the province. There's An Act to Extend Workers Compensation Protection. My office and everybody on this side constantly deals with the problems of compensation and what people have to go through to achieve workers' compensation. We're prepared to tackle that. We are going to be looking at the labour code and bringing down legislation that's fair for all British Columbians.

We have policies on women's equality; policies on ensuring that women have a rightful place in the workforce; policies on job training for women; policies on protection from violence and sexual abuse; policies on affordable, quality child care; and policies that we've worked on while this government has been mired in controversy, scandal and chaos.

Health care for the nineties. Boy, do we need that in this province! Here are the policies. We've got them ready. We are ready to govern in British Columbia.

Transportation solutions in the nineties. We have clear, articulated, concise policies for all British Columbians.

Post-secondary education priorities for the 1990s. We have clearly thought out policies and documents, not developed behind closed doors, not subtly dumped on the people of British Columbia, not developed between the curb and the taxi door when it suits the government's political ends. These documents were prepared in order to proudly stand up in the election and tell the people that's what we're going to do in terms of being government in British Columbia.

We have a document on the eradication of poverty, something this government doesn't wish to do anything about, and a document on the eradication policies to deal with those less fortunate.

[11:30]

Labour. I already referred to some of the bills, but we have a labour statement and policy document called "Fairness at Work," something novel to Socreds. It's a document that we're proud of, and we will be pleased to send it to the government.

We have an important document towards a just and honourable settlement of Indian land claims in this province.

I don't want to hear from any member on that side again: "Where is the New Democratic Party?" We have the policies for the people of British Columbia in equality and income support — policies and legislation. Here's one this government won't want to read: "Open Government Fairly Chosen." They don't want to read that one.

In our party and caucus, we are now preparing legislation to protect the paycheques of British Columbians in these difficult times. We're not satisfied with dealing with this legislation; we're moving on to the future. We're going to protect workers from plant closures. Where have you been? Where has this government been?

The conclusion to our debate on this side of the Legislature is that New Democrats in British Columbia are prepared and ready, and like the people, they are tired, embarrassed and want change desperately. They want change in the province. They want an election as

[ Page 12105 ]

soon as possible to clear the air. No more memories of revolving doors, resignations, conflicts and scandals of Expo lands — they want honour, integrity, fairness and laws that represent all British Columbians.

If this Premier says that she is proud of her government for the last five years, as she said as she took over as interim Premier, if she is proud of her record, call the election and let the people decide. Let's have an election.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I rise today to conclude the debate on the throne speech. I'm overwhelmed with the attention given my participation by the members of the opposition. Throne speeches are about the general plans and programs of government, but they are more than that. They are about values, principles and the ideas which bind us together as a province. They are about the vision we have for the future and what it means to be an average British Columbian, and what it means to the average British Columbian.

This throne speech reflects attitudes which have held this province steadfast on a course of sustained economic growth and security for many years. It reflects the values of continued improvements in health care, education and social services for British Columbians of all ages, in all regions. It recognizes British Columbians as builders: a confident, positive people who know the worth of individual initiative and enterprise, yet who are also compassionate. It reflects values and attitudes which have enjoyed the support and confidence of the people of British Columbia almost continuously since 1952 — a tradition which we on this side of the House have every intention of continuing.

What we do in this House is important; it affects the lives of over three million people. It will be truly remarkable if anyone 100 years from now gives even a passing thought to the legislators sitting here today. Yet the decisions we take will affect the measure and quality of their lives, just as legislators 100 years ago shaped the province in which we live today by their actions and inactions.

A striking example is native land claims. They should have been fully settled by 1891 and not left as an omelette for the Legislature of 1991 to unscramble. We must not, and we shall not, leave a similar inheritance of financial and social troubles for those who sit in these chairs 100 years from now.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a world of constant and unpredictable change. British Columbians look to us to understand and manage that change in ways that will expand their opportunities and secure those things they value most: peace, prosperity and a sense of community. Those are the important ends that we are here to serve. Our own personal and party ambitions, strongly felt as they may be, are truly secondary. Let's remember who we are: a handful of ordinary human beings trying to do a good job today, right now, for three million other ordinary human beings who will see us and judge our performance by how we affect their lives.

Throne speeches are about their lives: the hopes and concerns of the average British Columbian. This throne speech reaffirms enduring Social Credit philosophy, the philosophy of effective and compassionate free enterprise government in the context of the daily life of British Columbians in 1991. Each of us is average in some ways and exceptional in others. Free enterprise encourages the exceptional talents of each of us. That democracy of talent, furthered by education, is the real secret of success in our society.

Education is the key. We are spending $650 million this year to build new schools or to improve old ones. We are looking at expanding an already fine post-secondary system with a university for the Fraser Valley, which would complement Access For All and the Open Learning Agency; a recent strengthening of college degree programs; and the development of the University of Northern British Columbia.

Expanding skills and knowledge are vital to securing our continuing prosperity. We have had considerable success in diversifying B.C.'s export markets; we must continue to diversify our economic base. New jobs will increasingly come from small business and innovations. We enjoy a tremendous potential advantage in attracting innovator-based industries because of our natural setting and our enviable quality of life. We must secure those advantages and at the same time maintain the climate for prosperity, which only affordable government and affordable taxes can provide, to small business. This means providing first-rate health care, education and social services, while keeping spending at sustainable levels.

The art of good government is getting the most out of tax dollars without having to squeeze the most dollars out of our taxpayers. It's not an easy job; it's an impossible job if you want to be universally popular. So government has an obligation to set sensible priorities and to stick to them. We serve the average British Columbian, not the special-interest group.

This government recognizes and affirms British Columbia's commitment to holding our country together. I am a westerner, born in Saskatchewan, and I am committed to British Columbia. So I understand the westerners' feelings of alienation — the anger and frustration. Yet I also know that the people of British Columbia expect us to manage the affairs of the country in such a way as to ensure the country remains united.

We are not alienated because we want to be less Canadian; we are alienated because we have been frustrated in our desire to be more fully participating Canadians. British Columbians don't want out; we want in. We want to be equal partners, assuming our fair share of the burden and enjoying our fair share of the benefits. Through a committee of this House we will engage the people of the province in a frank and constructive dialogue about our future. We will listen carefully to the people of British Columbia, and we will act only with their consent. We will, I am confident, say yes to Canada and a new constitutional arrangement that represents the best interests of all Canadians.

[ Page 12106 ]

My real fear for our nation's future lies not in the constitutional debate but in the horrendous federal debt, all the more frightening when you realize that it only took about 20 years to accumulate. Ottawa is not alone; Canadians are horrified by the ruinous course being pursued today in Ontario. There is nothing new or innovative about going broke. In British Columbia we stand firm in the conviction that only the most irresponsible government would burden future generations with uncontrolled debt.

We on this side of the House will live up to our financial responsibilities and work to protect the household budget of the average British Columbian at all times. Salaries and benefits make up the greatest portion of government spending. That's why you can't speak seriously about careful management without having regard to these matters. For the opposition to intimate otherwise is being less than honest with the taxpayers of British Columbia.

We have had considerably better labour relations and fewer paydays lost due to labour disputes since Bill 19 was passed, yet the Leader of the Opposition wants to rip it up. That's not in the interest of the average worker in this province, and the NDP knows this. That's the special interest agenda of the unions which dominate that party — virtually own it, in fact — and they preach to us about ethics.

I'm not a Shaughnessy lawyer, but I doubt that even the Leader of the Opposition could afford to run his household budget the way the NDP is running the province of Ontario. In the half-hour it took him to speak in this debate, Ontario taxpayers went half a million dollars further into debt. I don't think even he would want to apply NDP budgetary philosophy to his own finances.

Over the long run Social Credit is always better for people programs. Because our debt charges are so low we are able to spend 70 cents out of every tax dollar on health care, education and social programs — a higher percentage than any other province.

We are taking measures to strengthen the essential trust between citizen and state. We are improving conflict-of-interest legislation; we are introducing access-to-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. Perhaps most important, we are moving ahead with a profound change in how our democratic institutions operate — the referendum process. We will be seeking the views of the people on just what they would like to see in terms of direct democracy initiatives. The people want a greater say, and this government hears them and will respond.

Our system of democratic government has always survived by adapting. The parliamentary system itself began as a council of feudal warlords. On our worst days in this House it would seem that we haven't changed all that much. Society is changing. British Columbia is incomparably more diverse than it was just a generation ago. This government recognizes these changes and is responding to them. One simple but striking example of change can be seen by looking through photos of the UBC law school graduating class. Women do not yet outnumber men, but they are giving them a serious run for their money, something truly unthinkable in the 1950s.

[11:45]

This is a small example of some extraordinary changes to our society and to our economy. This government recognizes these changes, and we recognize that they have a price. We are living longer, yet new medical technologies cost more every year. Our children are learning well, but each year there is more to learn. Our natural environment attracts thousands to our province each year, but nature must then be coaxed into housing, feeding and caring for us all. We are affluent enough to provide success, but we must care for those whom success has passed by.

We cherish our children and our peace and security, yet we must redouble our efforts to protect them.

We identify strongly with our magnificent forests, yet we must work hard to replant and renew them if we are to sustain our economy. Each of our blessings brings a responsibility, and the greater the blessing, the greater the responsibility.

In this debate the opposition has painted a picture of this province that I really don't recognize. I never cease to be amazed, Mr. Speaker, at their ability to find a dark cloud behind every silver lining. Canada wasn't built that way, and British Columbia wasn't built that way either. I'm not sure whether the opposition is so negative....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you finished?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they're finished!

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe you are.

I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the opposition is so negative because they lose so many elections or whether they lose elections because they are so negative,

I've always found that if you look for the best in people, more often than not you'll bring it out in them. If you show respect for other people, you will earn respect for yourself. The NDP view diminishes people by telling them that they are all faceless victims of some economic force. The free enterprise view strengthens people by recognizing and celebrating the fact that individuals are responsible for the choices that they make and for the consequences that result. That is the basic outlook on life which separates believers in the individual from believers in the masses — this side of the House from that side of the House. We on this side are confident that we can achieve a careful balance of ensuring and protecting both our natural environment and our jobs. We deplore the growth of violence and lawbreaking in the name of protecting the environment. We prefer to work on strengthening our provincial, national and international programs for environmental protection, and I'm sure most British Columbians would agree.

We on this side of the House hear the concerns of the average British Columbian who says: "We are losing a quality of life in our neighbourhoods." We

[ Page 12107 ]

hear the concerns of people who say they are not comfortable walking the streets of their neighbourhoods. We hear these concerns, and we are taking action as outlined in the throne speech. We will not allow those who have no respect for the law or for the rights of others to diminish our quality of life.

I spoke earlier of changes in our society, of my confidence and optimism that these changes can be managed and encouraged within a framework of enduring values. To this end, I want to reiterate the importance that we on this side of the House place on the family as the cornerstone of our society. Our policies and programs always have and always will reflect this view. Programs to support the youngest and oldest of our community and those with special needs mirror our respect for and commitment to the family.

At the same time we recognize that the typical structure and life of the family have changed more in the past 40 years than in the past 400. Family life is changing and so too is working life. People change jobs faster than ever before, and their jobs are changing as well. There are more service sector jobs, more jobs requiring technical skill, more self-employment and much more small business. Our pension initiative is only one reflection of that change.

Government itself must rethink its unrelenting expansion of the past 40 years. Government programs have helped, but their cost has weighed down the average person and the average family. There is a real sense that government has reached its natural manageable limits. Enough is enough. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the opposition for their support.

Surely British Columbians deserve to keep the rest of what they earn for their own dreams, when nearly half their earnings are already absorbed by the demands of all levels of government. Surely we are mature enough to live within our means, set intelligent priorities and plan for a rainy day. There is nothing easier for a government than saying yes with other people's money. We all want things we can't afford. We all know that there is a limit to how much we should consume; the people know that. They expect politicians to know it as well and to act as if we know it when we are spending tax dollars. Also, they expect us to look out for their future. That's what they pay us for. If we only plan for the next election, we will have given up on the next generation.

In 1952 British Columbia elected its first Social Credit government, in large measure because people were concerned about health care and the lack of a strong economic vision in a province with incredible resources. That government pioneered in transportation, energy, health care and education. In large measure, our outstanding quality of life and financial health are blossoms from the seeds planted by that first Social Credit government.

Their plans were hotly criticized every step of the way. The NDP called the Deas Island tunnel, now the Massey Tunnel, "a highway to nowhere." The NDP condemned opening up the interior as "blacktop government." The NDP called the two-rivers power policy "too much, too soon." When asked about this criticism, W.A.C. Bennett just used to say: "Tell them I smiled, and I smiled, and I smiled." Today he would still be smiling.

Today we have a new road to travel; a road beyond the resource-based economy; a road which already stretches far beyond the simple cutting and selling of trees; a road to a fully mature and diverse economy, with the greatest share of new jobs coming out of innovative industries, services and small businesses, bringing a more human scale to our development.

The forest industry will remain an integral part of our industrial strength. Our quality of life will ensure that we have a natural, competitive advantage in developing knowledge and skill-based industries, particularly those which build on the basic strengths of our resource industries.

Our hospitality industry is environmentally friendly; it is environmentally dependent. Creative minds will find real business opportunities from the greening of North American consumers. If we avoid extreme attitudes and rhetoric, then real, practical solutions will be found that protect our natural heritage while securing our prosperity. As I've said, we need to get the most out of our tax dollars without squeezing the most tax dollars out of our taxpayers.

In the public sector no less than the private sector, managers will increasingly have to be accountable for results. For example, how much a government spends on education will always be an important measure of its priorities; how much you spend on education will always be a matter of public debate. But how much education the people actually get for the money you spend will be the real measure of your effectiveness as a government. The average British Columbian understands that.

When I meet young people at Kwantlen College, I'm impressed by their instinctive support for free enterprise as a real way to make their dreams come true. When I meet small business operators in Vernon, I'm impressed by their belief that the environment doesn't have to be traded off in order to provide good-paying jobs, When I meet loggers in Courtenay, I'm impressed by their genuine desire to see balanced, shared and sensible resource use. When I meet retirees in Penticton, I'm impressed at their desire to stay active and return something to their community.

These are just snapshots, but together they have the makings of a great movie: scenes of progress, hard work and enterprise, — scenes of happiness, as hard-earned dreams come true. The government has a role in this movie, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the leading role. The star is the average British Columbian.

For almost 40 years the Social Credit government has reflected the real hopes, aspirations and values of the average British Columbian. We continue to do so. We hear the voice of the hard-working, fair-minded average British Columbian, and it still guides our vision. We could ask for no better guide.

In closing this debate, I would ask that all members join me in thanking His Honour for the gracious

[ Page 12108 ]

speech he has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

[12:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

NAYS — 21

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind all members that there will be no sitting tomorrow or the next day. I wish everyone a very pleasant Victoria Day weekend, and we'll see you all back here on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1990 annual report of the ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.