Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1992

Volume 1, Number 3

[ Page 21 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, in continuing my response from yesterday, I would go back to a position that I stated: it is my view and the view of our caucus that we are indeed at a crossroads in this province. It's a time when the people of British Columbia wanted to see, and wish to see, greater leadership -- leadership with a vision that will look toward a future generation of British Columbians who are able to live together with dignity and with an assurance that the natural wealth of this province will be maintained.

That vision must reflect a society free from the concerns people have about the maintenance of equality within our society, and must be respectful of a vision that British Columbians have of their province as an equal partner in a united Canada.

I listened with interest to the direction and priorities that this government has outlined, and it would seem that the government has a limited vision -- one that is less committed to the overall wealth of our society and more directed to the agenda of only a selected segment of our society. The Liberal members of this House are committed to a broader view. It is for that reason that I'm especially interested in the commitment that has been made by this government to the provision of good government, which is more open, honest and fair. I listened with interest, but I failed to hear that this government has made a commitment that they would not be favouring friends and insiders but favouring an open, accessible government -- one that is open to all British Columbians. Regrettably, within the last five months this has not been the case. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been committed by this government by special warrant, without debate and without public tender.

I also listened with interest, hon. Speaker, when I heard the Lieutenant-Governor say this government was making a commitment to gender equality. They would be eliminating barriers which currently face many people in the workforce and in society. I can tell you that the Liberal opposition will support any initiative brought down by this government that will help remove such barriers. We recognize, however, that economic barriers our people face will not be changed or overcome easily, and no government should create unrealistic expectations or make promises in an attempt to gain votes -- promises that it knows it cannot keep.

Madam Speaker, what I am referring to here is trust. It will not be enough for this government to introduce new conflict-of-interest legislation and provide a greater commitment to freedom-of-information measures, which we support, if the people cannot have faith that what is promised to them during an election campaign will indeed be delivered by their government. The people must have faith that when a potential Premier states there will be no new taxes and no increase in taxes, indeed that will be so. The people of British Columbia cannot afford any increases in their taxes. They cannot sustain an ever-increasing demand upon both taxation of their income and taxation of the goods they consume.

Hon. Speaker, it's time we implemented an economic strategy for this province that has, as a component part, comprehensive tax reform. It is time we corrected the rising cost of government and righted the size of government by integrating services and reducing the demand currently placed on the working women and men of this province.

It is our view that we must start to develop an economic strategy that is founded upon some fundamental realities that exist in the province. We must understand that British Columbia's economy is in large measure dependent upon a primary, extractive, resource-based industry called forestry. Regrettably, over the last few years we have faced growing conflict in this industry. In my own riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast there has been growing conflict over the protection of our watersheds and old-growth forests, as is seen in the drive to protect the Tetrahedron and Caren Range, respectively.

Our caucus welcomed and supported the appointment of former ombudsman Stephen Owen to head an environment and land use commission in B.C. Mr. Owen had a fine record as ombudsman, and I'm sure he will do well in his new role. But Mr. Owen's ability to succeed will be measured by the extent to which he is able to stay at arm's length from cabinet. It is for that reason that the official opposition took the position that any recommendations by Mr. Owen be made directly to the public, this House and its members, rather than to the cabinet.

We must understand that in our commitment to an integrated land management plan, we must do more than simply create an inventory of trees and the potential number of logs and an assessment of the markets, either domestic or abroad. Rather, we must create a comprehensive integrated land management strategy. It is time that this province approached the economy in a manner that expands its industrial base, in order to diversify the economy of our communities so that we will be able to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

Indeed, an integrated land management strategy is something that as Liberals we have been talking about for many years in British Columbia. Such a land management strategy must advance our mining potential and must also include a much greater commitment to the farmers of British Columbia. It is not enough to simply freeze farmland in an agricultural land reserve. We must also help to maintain farming as a viable enterprise in this province. Through our policies on farming we must also be mindful that it is all too easy to throw money at the problems farmers face, and by so doing create only temporary relief for those lucky enough to get funds, while others go without.

[ Page 22 ]

It is encouraging to see the commitment that this government has made to fruit-growers in the Okanagan, but most discouraging to see that the wheat farmers in the northern part of British Columbia suffer tremendous hardship today. So far their voice has received no hearing from this government. The time has come for a real commitment to the maintenance of farming as a viable growth industry in British Columbia.

I would say also that as we start to look at an economic strategy for the province, we must realize that the strength and wealth of our communities is dependent upon the health of their people. A greater commitment to the provision of community-based health care is something that the official opposition welcomes in British Columbia. A commitment for dollars to go into the community, where more money can be spent on behalf of the people and less on the institutions that govern them, is something we believe is long overdue. We also believe that there is a very real opportunity for us to examine new and different ways of delivering health service to the people of British Columbia. We have to examine carefully the merits of the Seaton commission report and accept many medical services not currently covered by MSA that should be covered. Therapeutic, preventive and chiropractic services have a real benefit to the people of the province and should be included in an overall medical package.

Similarly, we must recognize that there are many services delivered at the community level by non-profit societies and organizations. Women and men who toil within their community tirelessly and without pay require our assistance -- not so much in terms of the lip-service that is paid to them in the awards dinners and in the notoriety given to individuals on occasion in their local community newspapers, but in tangible commitment through the provision of core funding to non-profit societies and organizations.

[10:15]

Let me say, as someone who has served on the board of directors of the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society, that I understand only too well how the good women and men of Sechelt, Gibsons, Pender Harbour and the community of Powell River have worked hard to provide services to their neighbours. In communities all over British Columbia, neighbours are helping neighbours, and yet past governments have not been responsive to their call for core funding to be able to provide for a proper budgetary process. The provision of core funding will be a more responsible and more cost-effective way to provide assistance to many who need it.

These services are essential to British Columbians who require our help. But let me caution that this side of the House will not support core funding that is given to special interest groups or societies who do not represent a broad range of services. Neither should it detract from a substantial commitment to adequate health care funding.

The province needs to invest in the people of British Columbia, and it is through such investment that future generations of British Columbians will be well-positioned to meet the economic challenges that they will face. Our young people need a solid commitment to the provision of educational services, not just at the K-to-12 level, but also in post-secondary institutions. We must put equal emphasis on education and on training. Only through a solid commitment to education and training will our people be able to meet the challenges they face from a new global economy and a very quickly changing society. This must be an integral part of our economic strategy.

Within that economic strategy, we must also recognize that there must be a greater commitment to infrastructure development. We cannot hope to realize greater wealth and a sustainable economy unless we are prepared to invest in the infrastructure that such an economy will be dependent upon. Of course, I refer to the maintenance of existing sewer and water systems and the upgrading and provision of those services where they are lacking. I refer also to the maintenance and construction of our highways and our highway services, which are the arteries through which the economic blood of the communities flow. As I indicated to the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities only days ago, the economic well-being of Island communities is dependent upon a greater investment in capital infrastructure.

Recent actions taken to increase the rates on B.C. Ferries will have a very negative impact on those citizens who live on Vancouver Island or in coastal British Columbia. The B.C. Ferries service must be seen as a natural extension of our highways. It is a philosophical position that we in the Liberal opposition will continue to address on an ongoing basis.

We were pleased to hear -- albeit leaked in the media -- that this government is now considering extended service on the Horseshoe Bay-to-Nanaimo run. I know the good citizens on the Sunshine Coast, if extended ferry service is to be provided to the people of Vancouver Island, will welcome this government's doing no less for the people on the Sunshine Coast. We look forward to seeing later sailings, an extension of sailings and better ferry service to the people in the riding that I represent.

We must also recognize that in our economic strategy we have to think beyond the urban centres on the lower mainland. We must understand there are people who live in communities in southeastern, central and northern British Columbia. There are many who live in the isolated communities who require provision of services to allow them to adequately build a base of economic growth that will attract new families to those communities. This is an economic strategy that is essential to the economic well-being of the province as a whole. That is why the provision of new, cost-shared capital infrastructure is so critically important at this time, and that is why the government priorities read out by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor are so disappointing to us.

Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say that all of us in British Columbia, and indeed across this great country, are going to have to address the question of the Canadian constitution. I was saddened and distressed that there was barely a line in the Speech from the Throne which provided any indication that 

[ Page 23 ]

this government would provide leadership on this most pressing and most important of issues. British Columbians, by law, will have to address this question by referendum, and I welcome that opportunity.

For our part, the opposition Liberals in British Columbia have been presenting a consistent message, a consistent line, that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian regardless of their race, colour, creed, language, religion or gender, and that every province must have equal legislative powers and authorities with every other province.

By virtue of the fact that we will always have representation by population in the Lower House -- the Commons -- the majority of seats in the Lower House will always be determined by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Therefore, in a reformed Upper House, we must have an elected Senate, where the individuals are accountable to the public, and an effective Senate, where the powers of the Senate have real teeth and ability to protect the interests of the provinces.

We must also recognize provincial equality that has a recognition of equal provincial powers. We must no longer tolerate executive federalism, where the first ministers gather together, often behind closed doors, and make decisions affecting the lives and welfare of Canadians from coast to coast to coast without any method or provision for input, discussion or scrutiny.

Madam Speaker, over the past eight years we have seen this country increasingly balkanized. Since Confederation, our people have not felt a greater threat from continental forces that threaten to destroy this very nation. It is time for British Columbia to show leadership on Canadian unity. It is time we recognized the damage that has been done by a federal regime that has sold out Canadians on a poorly-negotiated free trade agreement, that has damaged the regional economies through the implementation of a goods and services tax, and now proposes to divest the national government of its central powers and authorities to appease the separatist forces in the province of Quebec. Such actions will only advance the cause of those whose interests lie in the continentalization of our economy and the divestiture of the sovereign authority of Canada.

It is time, hon. Speaker, that all members of this House stood up and fought for Canada. In that fight we must make a real commitment to the aboriginal people of this province. There must be an honest attempt at the resolution of the question of aboriginal title, rights and self-government. It is the view of this caucus, hon. Speaker, that it is the height of hypocrisy to pay lip-service to the concept by acknowledging on the political level that aboriginal title exists -- and that is an explanation that this government must make -- only to be arguing the exact opposite in the position advanced in a court of law. It would appear that this government is confused on its position. Now is not a time for confusion; it is a time for real leadership on the question. The people demand it, the aboriginal people deserve it, and as British Columbians and Canadians we must now start to deliver on that proposition.

The Liberal opposition will be vigilant in making sure that we make provision for the interests of British Columbians in the final constitutional debate. But let me say this: while in the first instance we will always put British Columbians first, in the final analysis this opposition will speak out for Canada -- one Canada, united from coast to coast, where every Canadian knows that they are equal to every other Canadian, regardless of their race, colour, creed, language, religion, gender or the province within which they reside.

It is also very important that in the priorities of government there is a restoration of the level of honesty, and I would argue that we cannot restore the trust of the people in government if the government is spending the people's money by special warrant. When in opposition, the hon. members opposite said that it was a practice that was dishonest and deceitful and that it was the wrong way to proceed. They were right then, and they have been equally wrong by continuing the practice of their predecessors by spending roughly $2 billion by special warrant since their election last October. Honesty is everything in life, and so it must be in politics. The people demand nothing less. We must recognize that the people want to know where their politicians stand. That is why, when I stood in Kelowna during the election and was asked where a cancer clinic should go, I told the people of Kelowna that it would go to their city, because that was the sensible medical decision to be made. And when I was in Kamloops on the same day, I was asked the question: "Where should that cancer clinic go?" I told the people of Kamloops that the cancer clinic would go to Kelowna, because that is the sensible place for a clinic to go.

It has been argued, hon. Speaker, that that statement cost our caucus two seats in the election. It is possible that I could have had two worthwhile and very strong colleagues with me today, had I told the people of Kamloops that I would be delivering the cancer clinic to Kamloops, as members opposite did. But that would not have been an honest approach to government. And so while this caucus may have lost two MLAs, we believe that we have advanced the concept of honesty in government and have gained the trust of the people of Kamloops. When they hear the Leader of the Opposition say what he believes to be correct and in the best interests of the people, they will have confidence that what he says will in fact take place and that his word will be kept.

In closing, let me say that what we needed to know and sadly did not hear in the Speech from the Throne was that there was a broader vision for British Columbia for not just 1992 through to 1995, but through to the year 2020. Perhaps they could have been so bold as to argue a blueprint through to the year 2050. We needed to know that there was a government that had an economic strategy to move British Columbians off an economy based on fossil fuels toward a new and better system of energy production. We wanted to see a blueprint that would provide for new sources of fuels that would not have the same destructive effect on our atmosphere and water systems. We needed to hear from a government that had a vision of British Columbia where not only was there going to be a concerted effort toward an integrated land management plan in our forests systems, but there was a real economic strategy 

[ Page 24 ]

that would change the nature of our economic growth and develop us to move forward to a sustained economy built upon a base that includes secondary manufacturing and processing industry -- one that would look after new product from old and that was going to address some of the concerns that we have with respect to our environment, by developing an industry that removes materials from the waste stream and creates markets for our recycled product. We wanted to hear from a government that had a vision that would provide us the opportunity to be able to become equal trading partners with people of the Pacific Rim, whose economy is expanding so rapidly and will cause us such great challenge over the years to come.

[10:30]

We also wanted to know that we had a government that was squarely facing up to one of the biggest challenges that will face this province and, indeed, the people of this country. We wanted to know that there was a government that had an economic strategy that would be able to deal with the pending free trade agreement among the people of Mexico, the United States and Canada. We wanted to know that this government had a strategy in advance, so that we were not reacting as we reacted once the MOU was turned around, through U.S. trade law, to cause us such serious difficulty in British Columbia. We wanted to know that we had a government that was in advance of the issues and not constantly chasing them from behind.

Madam Speaker, we wanted to hear from a government that had a vision of British Columbia that would give a sense of future and hope to our young people. In our role in opposition, the Liberal caucus of British Columbia will put such a vision before this government, and it is our hope that this government will listen carefully to the message that we take to them.

It is our hope that this government will work cooperatively and constructively with the opposition so that a vision of British Columbia for the year 2050 -- the blueprint that we are drawing today -- can start to be put in place tomorrow; so that we can ensure that British Columbia is moving toward a new and progressive way of dealing with our environmental crisis; and on the question of social equality among our people, so that we are moving toward a new and progressive way of dealing with our economic challenges so that we can meet the needs of our people with respect to their health care, education and community service.

Above all, it was our hope that we had a government that was truly interested in reforming the institutions of government, to allow the people of British Columbia to restore their faith in their elected officials and in government, so that they are not told one thing at election time, only to have something else delivered to them when that party forms the government.

While we were disappointed in much of what we did hear in the Speech from the Throne, there was much there that we can and will accept and will work with the government on to implement. We are buoyed by the fact that as the opposition we have a real challenge to take our message forward; a challenge to be able to provide an alternative vision, a vision that is more progressive and more directed.

We have an opportunity to allow the government to realize that on this side of the House, in this caucus in opposition, we want to work in a constructive manner toward building a future British Columbia that is the envy of all provinces in this great country and, indeed, to make this country the envy of all other countries worldwide. Toward that goal, we will work and work tirelessly.

While in opposition, it is our goal to be the most positive force in the province of British Columbia. It is our view that when the government brings down policies and legislation that we cannot accept, we will make sure that they hear a positive and constructive alternative from us. It is our sincere wish and hope that this government not close its ears and eyes to what it hears and sees from the opposition benches of the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

It is our view that they must listen more carefully to the people of British Columbia. The opposition of British Columbia and the Liberal caucus, in our role in opposition in this House, intends to do no less and, by so doing, intends to provide service to the people of British Columbia. It is our view that if all members of this House work together in a spirit of cooperation, to respect the dignity and role each of us serves as we serve our communities and our constituents, we will not only advance the interests of government in the province, but we will advance the welfare of all British Columbians and, through so doing, advance the welfare of this great nation-state, Canada.

Thank you, hon. Speaker.

J. Weisgerber: Let me start this morning by congratulating each and every member of this assembly on their election. It's a tremendous achievement for anyone to be elected to a provincial Legislature. It's a thrill every time it happens, but the first time is particularly important. I want to congratulate particularly the new members, but each and every member.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you on your election -- and the Deputy Speaker as well. I'm sure you'll serve this House very well. We have every confidence in you and look forward to working with you.

Last October, 60 percent of the electorate said no to the NDP, 69 percent said no to the Liberal option and, unfortunately, 76 percent said no to my party -- a party that had governed this province for most of the last four decades. Hon. Speaker, the people's verdict is sometimes tough to accept. It can be very harsh and painfully blunt. But the people's choice is democracy's last word. That's what every election is all about. This time democracy's last word was a vote of protest -- a vote of protest that saw the NDP form a government with 2 percent less popular support than it had in 1986, when it got thrashed; a vote of protest that saw the Liberal Party rise from oblivion to the official opposition on the basis of an eight-second clip; a vote of protest that decimated my party and altered the political landscape in ways no one could have predicted.

It was a humbling experience to watch the returns on election night. Many fine Socred candidates when down to defeat in a massive stampede from the status 

[ Page 25 ]

quo. Nevertheless, I was personally gratified by my constituents' support. So I stand here today, honoured to take my place in this debate and committed to working for real changes and positive choices for all British Columbians in the years ahead.

As I have often said of late, my party has a lot of work to do to regain the confidence that allowed us to win 11 of the last 13 elections. For too long we kept our heads in the sand; we avoided our mistakes; we ignored our failings. For that we were properly tarred and feathered at the polls.

That's not to say that the previous government didn't serve the people well. As a matter of fact, I've very proud of our track record. I do, however, regret the way the record was communicated and reported in the annual budgets. But, hon. Speaker, if keeping taxes lower than any other province is a crime, then I happily plead guilty. The fact is our government outperformed any other jurisdiction in Canada by almost any measure of fiscal management. We had the highest credit rating, the lowest per-capita debt and the second-lowest taxes.

So it's no surprise that B.C. led the nation in capital investment, job creation and interprovincial migration. It certainly wasn't an accident, nor would it have been possible if we had listened to the New Democrats. Never once did they call for spending cuts. It was always: "The Socreds are underfunding services and undertaxing corporations." Even now they have not grasped the fact that our economy has become more prosperous, more diversified and less vulnerable to recession because of our competitive tax situation. We streamlined taxes, starting in 1985, and continued the trend right through our mandate. We reduced corporate taxes to the lowest in Canada; and because we did, small businesses thrived. In fact, total corporate revenues nearly doubled as companies started making profits.

It's not a dirty word, you know -- profits -- but you'd think it was, listening to the NDP. They've promised to target corporate profits for large tax increases next week. The trouble is, after this government gets through with its assault, there won't be any profits left to tax, only red ink and red tape. Yet those private sector profits generated under our administration are the lifeblood of prosperity.

You see, hon. Speaker, they get reinvested in people. Private sector profits in B.C. created half of all jobs in Canada, under Social Credit. These jobs led to increased income tax and sales tax revenues. We increased funding for people programs at an impressive rate. Health care spending was nearly doubled over our mandate. Education funding was increased by 40 percent per pupil over four years, and advanced education funding jumped by nearly 60 percent during that same period of time. Under Social Credit, in fact, spending on health, education and social services accounted for 72 percent of the budget; that's more than any other province. This was all possible because we had the lowest debt-servicing costs in Canada, about 4 cents on the tax dollar; the next province paid double that amount.

On one hand, our government served the people well. Yet on the other, there is no doubt that mistakes were made; they shouldn't be minimized and they can't be defended. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we got what we deserved. Unfortunately, the people of British Columbia did not. They did not deserve this official opposition party on my right, a party that is so plainly to the left of most British Columbians; and they didn't deserve an NDP government. This throne speech makes that very clear.

When I compare this throne speech with others in the recent past, this one seems pretty thin. I recall the 1987 speech that spoke of the royal commissions on electoral boundaries and education. Reform was the watchword of that speech, which advised us of Bills 19 and 20. Subsequently the Industrial Relations Act was passed, and teachers were given full collective bargaining rights. As a result of those two pieces of legislation, British Columbia embarked on a period of labour stability that was tops in 20 years. The NDP screamed blue murder at the time. Their leader said that Bill 19 was untenable, unworkable and would harm British Columbia's economy. Organized labour leaders promptly boycotted the IRC. They picked up their ball and went home. There were no attempts to work with the commissioner, not even an expression of good faith. Nevertheless, those same union leaders who were so critical of the IRC in public had a very different agenda in private. They spent four years putting out feelers to successive Ministers of Labour, trying to find a face-saving way to end their boycott, but they always had one condition: they demanded Ed Peck's head on a platter. Now they've got it.

[10:45]

In the final analysis, it wasn't the Industrial Relations Act that the unions rejected; it was Ed Peck. Now that one of their own is running the shop -- Stan Lanyon -- organized labour has agreed to terminate its boycott of the IRC. They have great expectations of their NDP friends, and in the coming years we will all watch with interest to see how long their new-found good faith holds up.

In 1988 the throne speech spoke of many important achievements of that year. These included initiatives to promote international trade, the TRY program to combat drug and alcohol abuse, and the $20 million program to strengthen the family. The following year the story was much the same. The government announced the pay equity program for public sector workers, the Freedom to Move initiative, the Access for All program, the justice reform findings and a new provincial housing action plan. In 1990 the throne speech announced the Referendum Act and the Senatorial Selection Act to bring about real democratic reform. Environmental initiatives were also featured, including the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Parks Plan '90, the Forest Resources Commission and Environment 2001. There was also the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. I was pleased to hear this throne speech refer to the Seaton commission, because the Closer to Home document clearly says that we cannot solve our health care problems with money alone.

As an MLA from the north, I will strongly support this government's actions to reform our health care 

[ Page 26 ]

delivery system so that will improve services at the community level. It's not simply a question of funding. The royal commission points out we are already spending one-third of our entire provincial budget on health care. In the commission's words: "The people of British Columbia must reform and improve the health care system within the current levels of spending." My party will work closely with the government as it seeks improvements to the health care system in the months and years ahead.

One of my proudest moments as a member of the previous administration was when we passed the University of Northern British Columbia Act in July 1990. By the same token, I was deeply disappointed to learn yesterday that the university in Prince George is now going to be delayed for a year. What disturbs me even more, though, is the paragraph in the throne speech that seems to hint at the possible downgrading of UNBC. I know my caucus colleague from Prince George has concerns about that as well. Make no mistake, Prince George was promised a full, free-standing university, not a university-college, not a degree-granting institution that is aligned with a sponsor university. Northerners were promised a full-fledged university, nothing less. Already the rumours are flying that the NDP is trying to back away from this promise. I would therefore ask and expect the Minister of Advanced Education to reassure all British Columbians today that northerners will get the university they were promised.

Hon. Speaker, Social Credit throne speeches were always important road maps of where the government wanted to lead this province. Certainly the 1991 throne speech was no exception. Members will remember that we had two legislative sessions last spring. Both of them were televised. As a matter of fact, it was the first time in B.C. history that this assembly was televised on a gavel-to-gavel basis. Social Credit, not the NDP, was the government responsible for televising this assembly. The state-of-the-art system we have today is the finest in the country, and for that we all owe a debt of thanks to the past two Speakers.

We accomplished a lot last spring. That's when we passed the Compensation Fairness Act, the Job Protection Act and the Taxpayer Protection Act. Each of these addressed important principles that we will not soon forget. Nor will we forget the $1.4 billion forest renewal program that was announced that same year; or the comprehensive child care strategy; or the B.C. Retirement Savings Plan Act; or the commitment to a new university in the Fraser Valley; or the historic commitment to negotiate native land claims; or the law-and-order initiative. Moreover, we should all remember that it was Social Credit, not the NDP, who brought in B.C.'s first conflict-of-interest act.

This throne speech promises improvements to our conflict-of-interest legislation. Somehow I doubt that it will address the inherent conflict of interest we see in this particular government. I'm referring to the fact that at least 13 of the members opposite are either on leave of absence from public sector jobs or will likely return to their public sector jobs, probably after the next election. Others, including the Premier, are married to public sector employees in the education field. These people have a vested interest in government policies that affect all public sector employees. Yet the Premier says his wife is an entrepreneur. It shows just how little he understands about entrepreneurial enterprise. These same individuals are making policies that affect their own employers. It's like putting the fox in charge of the chicken house.

I look forward to the improved conflict-of-interest legislation, hon. Speaker. I just know that there will be many opportunities over the life of this government to be thankful for it.

The government promises a new freedom-of-information act, because it wasn't happy with the law we brought in. But I wonder, will it require the NDP to release the names of the people on their provincial council? Will we finally have a right to learn who this mysterious group is? After all, under the NDP constitution this Star Chamber -- the unnamed NDP council -- is the group the Premier is required to report to for his marching orders.

Will this legislation give us access to the so-called entity papers that Peat Marwick used for its thinly veiled political attack on the previous government? Forty-seven entities were reviewed by Peat Marwick, and not one word of their written findings has been made public. Why not?

Yesterday the government finally made public the $155,000 salary for Wilson Parasiuk, but we still don't know the bonus details that describe the full cost of this package. Will this new, improved freedom-of-information law allow us access to all government contracts?

It is ironic that the two people who have been hired by this government to expose the full costs of contracting policies are themselves contractors on secret pay packages. I'm referring of course to Judy Korbin and Bill King. Will their salaries be made public? Promise No. 1 of the NDP campaign platform said a New Democrat government would put an end to secret deals and special favours for political friends. The contracts for Korbin and Parasiuk show exactly how empty that promise really was. They were both secret deals, and they were both very special favours for pals of the Premier and the NDP.

Hon. Speaker, it's not what the throne speech says that disturbs me; it's what it means. For example, a fair wage policy sounds nice. But in reality, doesn't it really amount to wage-fixing? Surely a decent wage isn't the issue, because most of the people affected are already making four times the minimum wage. The Premier brought in this policy for one reason: the union leaders who got him elected are now calling in their markers. And to appease them, the Premier is willing to funnel some $200 million a year to unionized workers. That's how much this fixed-wage policy will cost B.C. taxpayers -- $200 million a year in higher wage costs for government construction contracts. Is this fair? Absolutely not. Not for the taxpayer and not for non-unionized construction workers.

The requirement to restrict public sector contracts to workers with a certificate of apprenticeship or qualification will cost hundreds of people their jobs. The Independent Contractors' and Businesses Association 

[ Page 27 ]

estimates that this wage-fixing policy will cost as many as 1,300 construction workers their jobs next year alone. By this policy, our Premier has just fired hundreds, if not thousands, of non-unionized workers who will no longer be allowed to work on provincial construction projects. He has just handed pink slips to an untold number of support workers and clerical staff who were employed by independent contractors.

The proposed wage-fixing policy is job discrimination pure and simple. It is an infringement of human rights and equality rights if I've ever seen one. And what does the government mean when it talks of strengthening these rights? By fixing wages for union chums, the Premier is widening the gap between men and women. Where is the Minister of Women's Equality on this debate?

This policy will make it even tougher for independent contractors to pay their clerical workers the higher wages they deserve. The guy with the hammer on the job site will now make $30 an hour, while a secretary working back in the office will get cut back. The fact is, she has just gotten a thank-you note from the Premier. It might read something like this: "Your services are highly valued. So was your vote. Thanks for both. My government recognizes that women are underpaid and that they only make two-thirds of what men make on average. However, due to these tough times, I have directed your employer to hold the line on salary increases for all employees who don't have a union card. I'm sure you can appreciate the need to pay your fellow employees out in the field substantially more. They work with hammers, you know. Sincerely, the Premier. P.S. Don't forget me in '95."

Hon. Speaker, the throne speech is often a benchmark against which a government's promises can be judged. This government is at last forced to lay its cards on the table. And guess what? We've been had. All that talk about trust and honesty was nothing more than election-time chicanery. I understand that it's unparliamentary to accuse a member of lying in this chamber, and I won't do that. But let me say this: promises that are made to be broken are really just lies; statements of fact that have no basis in fact are also just lies; and commitments that are made by politicians in pursuit of power are far too often just lies. Exactly how many promises, statements and commitments will be honoured from the throne speech, we won't know for some time, but we now know that much of what was promised by the NDP last fall was never meant, was simply not true and was utterly concerned with winning votes at any cost.

[11:00]

Consider the NDP leader's statement that he had talked to former federal auditor general Ken Dye about coming to work for the NDP government. Mr. Dye would be hired by an NDP government, it was stated matter-of-factly, to identify savings that would amount to about $300 million a year. But wait. That's not true, says Mr. Dye. He never agreed to any such thing. In fact, he had never even discussed the matter with the man who told us it was a done deal, our current Premier.

Hon. Speaker, it seems our new Premier is more pragmatic than we had bargained for. He has a disturbing tendency to tell us what we want to hear, whether it's true or not. The Vancouver Sun noticed this tendency way back in 1981. An editorial at the time noted that: "Vancouver mayor...is fast becoming the ultimate politician. He knows how to say things that can mean almost anything." How accurate that assessment seems today! Consider his election promise of no tax increases for working people. People are suffering tax fatigue right now. Deficit financing is out, the NDP leader said on July 23, 1991. He was saying the same thing on his return from Asia last November. The Vancouver Sun reported that the Premier "...told" -- Vancouver -- "business leaders he intends to stick to promises not to raise taxes despite bleak budget predictions." Oops! "He really didn't mean that," the Finance minister explained. Never mind that three major papers in the Far East had reported his commitment. Never mind that the Premier had been making that promise in virtually every interview he gave over the previous four years. Apparently what the Premier really meant to say was not that there would be no tax increases, but that there would be no new taxes.

How they will explain themselves after next week's budget is anyone's guess. But there's no mistaking the Premier's comments to the B.C. Federation of Labour convention. To put the matter in context, it's important to remember that the B.C. Fed is formally aligned with the NDP. When the Premier is not sitting beside his pal Ken Georgetti at NDP strategy meetings, he's standing in front of him at B.C. Fed conventions. And when he's not knocking on John Shields's door for political donations, he's sitting across from him at the bargaining-table negotiating public sector wages. There's nothing wrong with that, the Premier assures us. That's not a conflict of interest, and rest assured there's no need to worry about even a perception of conflict in this situation.

Still, the Premier had damage control on his mind when he stepped up on the stage at the B.C. Fed convention. His earlier speculation that the new labour code wouldn't be ready for a year had not gone over well with his union sponsors. "I'm here to tell you today that if we put our minds to it we could see new legislation during the upcoming legislative session," the Premier proudly reported. He said he was: "delighted to hear from" -- his Labour minister -- "that his discussions with business and labour are moving... more quickly than he had anticipated.... Both sides are prepared to proceed quickly." There was one little problem with that statement, though. It wasn't true. It took the president of the B.C. Business Council to set the record straight. As Jim Matkin responded in a letter to the Premier: "This statement is untrue.... There have not...been any discussions between business and" -- the Labour minister -- "on this matter."

Hon. Speaker, the members opposite can be excused for blushing. For those aren't just little fibs. They are very serious, very fat lies. These statements are only made to mislead people. And they do. Especially investors.

The throne speech talks a lot about encouraging investment, but comments such as the ones I've described aren't helpful. The Premier spent the first few 

[ Page 28 ]

months trotting around the world at our expense. While he stayed in $400-a-night rooms and rubbed shoulders with all those capitalists across the water, what do you suppose was happening back here? Every major industry in British Columbia was losing money. The forest industry was laying off people and shutting down mills. The dairy farmers were fighting the GATT to preserve our supply management system. Retail business was losing its shirt to cross-border shopping. The grain-growers in my area were asking for help to survive.

But no industry needed the Premier's immediate attention more than the mining industry. Cassiar shut down. The government locked the doors and threw away the keys. Two thousand people were abandoned at the stroke of a minister's pen. Try and tell them that they're experiencing a soft landing.

Northerners have been isolated as never before under this NDP government, especially mining communities. While the Premier was off on his world tour, Quintette waited nervously for B.C. Rail to approve its restructuring. Westar bordered on the brink.

Where was our Premier while all this was going on? If he wasn't lying on the beach in Hawaii, he was having lunch with Swiss bankers. While our Premier was off scaring up investment, his Finance minister was scaring away investors at home. "Our fiscal situation's worse than Ontario's," he warned -- or more to the point, "Our provincial finances are just a nightmare." Not only were these comments overblown, they were terribly irresponsible. This is no time for fearmongering and political games. Our economy is under the gun. We don't need any help from our Finance minister to make things worse. What we do need is a Premier who's prepared to stay home and deal with the problems that now confront our economy. Sadly, this government seems to have a habit of saying one thing and doing another.

The ICBC rate increases are a case in point. First the government misled the public about the need for such a drastic bump in rates. There was no justification whatsoever for a 19 percent rate hike, let alone the 24 percent figure that was floated out initially -- to soften the blow. But the government made a commitment. It promised that higher rates wouldn't go into effect until the the end of the month in which the announcement was made. Yes, it was a dumb move on the government's part, but the people who buy insurance are a little smarter than this government. In fact, any amateur would have anticipated that the original announcement would lead to a flood of early insurance renewals that would cost ICBC dearly. But when the minister responsible finally grasped the financial impact of his misguided announcement, he suddenly reneged on his commitment. The date was changed at a moment's notice. It was tough luck for those who got burned. All those people who trusted the government to live up to its word were left holding the bill for the NDP's action. The moral of the story is: don't bank on the word of this government -- it's not worth the news release it's written on.

We all remember the campaign promises that went up in flames just as soon as the Premier moved into office. Kamloops would have a cancer clinic, he promised. There were no ifs, ands or buts about it. Not content with the level of NDP support in Prince George, he promised that city a clinic of its own as well. The facts were already on the table. The recommendations had been made. The leader of the NDP knew very well what he was promising. He also knew when he made those promises that he was going to break them, yet he had the gall to run on the issue of trust and honesty.

Safely in office, the Premier didn't even have the courage to do his own dirty work. He literally flew the coop, leaving his new Health minister to break the news while he hid from the cameras in Europe. Where were the local NDP MLAs when the decision was being made by cabinet? Two of them were there at the table. The Minister of Government Services and member for Prince George-Mount Robson was there. So was the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the local MLA for Kamloops. Did they stand up for their constituents and say no to the cabinet that made them break their word? Not on your life. After all, they never planned to keep their promise any more than their leader did.

The minister from Prince George intimated that she had never expected her leader to keep his promise. The decision was "not a surprise to any of us." They all expected the Premier to break his word. That sorry comment may come as a surprise to the people of Kamloops and Prince George. They thought the Premier was a man of his word who made a commitment in full knowledge of the facts.

So what was the Premier's response when he was finally cornered by the media? "I would have liked to have kept my opinion," he said, "but I couldn't honestly do that." That's incredible. That's how the Premier explained himself to the Kamloops Daily News. He didn't break a promise; he broke an opinion. That's a first.

That's not the way one former NDP constituency president saw it. The government will remember that individual, the one who burned his NDP membership card in front of the cameras. He hit the nail on the head when he observed: "The anger of the people isn't even over not getting the cancer clinic, but that we were lied to." To be sure, that's what most British Columbians are beginning to realize as they see more and more of this government.

That's what this throne speech suggests. It lays bare the Premier's campaign promises as cheap political ploys. No promise was too great or too expensive. The sky was the limit. For five years the NDP stood on this side of the House and demanded more funding. They demanded lower taxes and new services that would vastly increase the size and scope of government. In the process, they raised public expectations of government to unbelievable heights. With their heads in the clouds they promised the world, and now they complain that they've got the weight of the world on their shoulders. For the past five years the NDP opposition divorced themselves from economic reality. Not content with promising the world, they held out the moon and stars and well. We identified at least 197 promises that were made, and that was barely scratching the surface. But at last the forces of gravity have caught up with them.

[ Page 29 ]

Gone is the three-year promise of a Robson ferry. Gone is the Island Highway. Gone is the new Powell River ferry. Gone is the promise of a university at Nelson. Gone is the promise to raise school funding in Surrey to the provincial average. Gone is the promise to preserve the Parksville estuary from a planned RV park. Gone is the Premier's commitment to protect forest industry jobs in the Cariboo Mountains. Gone, gone, gone. All of these promises were rays of hope for local communities facing tough times. They are now simply dark and distant artifacts that will never see the light of day.

Hon. Speaker, what happened to those other promises that all British Columbians were watching for in the throne speech? Promise No. 4 of the NDP platform clearly committed the government to balance the budget over the business cycle and hold the line on tax hikes for so-called ordinary people, but last week the Premier threw that promise out the window. A balanced budget is simply too difficult, he said.

The Peat Marwick report offered a wonderful smokescreen to raise taxes. It gave the government room to move, as the Minister of Finance likes to say. Only three short months ago the Premier had been singing a different song. Indeed, the NDP had been promising tax cuts for years. On April 19, 1990, our current Finance minister rose in this House and promised: "We will, in our first budget...reduce the tax burden on middle-and lower-income British Columbians." The next year he cried: "British Columbia taxpayers urgently need some tax relief." Well, hon. Speaker, if you think taxes are too high now, just wait until next week.

[11:15]

Ontario once thought it had room to move on taxes, and what do you suppose the government learned? It learned that there is plenty of room in Canada as well. People and investors can move, and they do -- in fact they did. All of those tax-strapped people from Ontario moved to British Columbia. If they can move here, they can move away, and they will if the NDP goes through with its tax plan.

Hon. Speaker, a few months back the Advanced Education minister was warning us that he would have to break his promise to freeze tuition fees. The NDP official party policy is to eliminate tuition fees, but let's not get too picky. Whatever happened to its commitment to freeze tuition fees? It's history. Institutions like Malaspina raised tuitions by as much as 20 percent. Reality is finally hitting home. The Premier promised he was no miracle worker. Well, he's not, and he never was, but that didn't stop him from promising all those universal programs that he knew he couldn't afford to people in need. No government can afford these things.

We said during the campaign that it was cruel of the NDP to be raising the expectations of those people most in need when they knew there was no money in the bank. They not only allowed people to believe huge funding increases would be forthcoming under an NDP government, but they encouraged this deception. Now the Premier is forced to deal with the facts. He can no longer pretend that eliminating medicare premiums, doubling welfare rates or reducing class sizes are simply a matter of getting our priorities right, as he used to like to say.

To be fair, I'm encouraged by the sense of realism that is slowly dawning on the NDP. After floating out there in never-never land for its entire history, spaceship NDP is finally looking for a place to land.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Be careful, or it will land in Dawson Creek.

J. Weisgerber: It probably already has.

Their promises have already been abandoned -- jettisoned like so much space junk. That bodes well for all of us.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to turn to a subject that is truly close to the hearts of this government, something that they really believe in. I'm referring, of course, to the matter of patronage. It's safe to say that no government in B.C. history has mastered the issue more thoroughly or more quickly than this government.

Forget promise No. 2 of the NDP's "A Better Way" document. Forget the Premier's promise that you don't need an inside track to get fair treatment from this government. The government has now made it clear that all you need to get a job or a contract for the next few years is an NDP membership card. It won't cost you anything; they tell me there's no membership fee. Party membership fees aren't tax-deductible under our tax laws, but political donations are. So if you seriously want to get a job under this crew, you might want to offer a small donation to the NDP when you're taking out your membership card. Job applicants must know, however, that their political credentials will be carefully scrutinized by the front-room boys on Belleville Street.

One of them is safely ensconced in the Wax Museum, where I suppose he really belongs. Who is this silent figure? Why, it's Bob Williams, of course. Like the invisible man, he's back; his mark is unmistakable. It's like a rerun of an old movie, when he resigned his seat for an $80,000 contract with the NDP caucus in 1979. Only this time he's collecting $108,000 a year of our tax dollars to serve as king of the Crowns. His mark is everywhere, but nowhere more apparent than in the contents of the Peat Marwick report, which we are told had nothing to do with him.

Consider the list of NDP hacks that he and his protégé, the Minister of Finance, have brought into government. George Ford, now deputy to the Premier, was a long-time civil servant under the NDP in Manitoba. Wilson Parasiuk is now chairman of B.C. Trade, but he used to be an NDP cabinet minister in Manitoba until he came to work for Bob Williams at VanCity. John Walsh is now Deputy Minister of Tourism, but his greatest credential is that he was an NDP political hack in Manitoba before he got here.

Linda Baker is another Williams disciple from the NDP caucus. She now pulls down $100,000 a year as deputy to the Premier. Bill King, a long-time NDP MLA, was hired on contract to tell the Minister of Finance why contracting out should be scrapped. Ray Payne, yet another of Williams's army.... [Applause.] He was 

[ Page 30 ]

previously hired as the NDP caucus research director, and by the applause, he must have done a good job. Now he works for the government as director of the planning secretariat. The list goes on and on.

The worst minister of patronage is the one responsible for government propaganda. I'm referring, of course, to the Minister of Government Services. Indeed, the communication and policy branch is overflowing with NDP political appointees who now hold the title "civil servant." Now they are supposed to be neutral bureaucrats who preside over the public tendering process to ensure the system is fair and impartial. Two of them are associate deputies. We don't know for sure how much they're getting paid, because the OIC didn't say, but I assume these guys are making somewhere around $100,000 a year.

Chris Chilton is now the associate deputy of policy coordination; he used to be principal secretary to the NDP leader and the NDP caucus research director. Evan Lloyd is the associate deputy minister of government communications; he was the NDP communications director. Under their neutral command, we find a raft of NDP partisans now disguised as bureaucrats. The names Rob Egan, Sheila Fruman and John Heaney come to mind; two of them worked as key campaign workers for the NDP tour, and the other worked for the NDP caucus. Let's remember we're talking about supposedly non-partisan civil service positions.

In addition to these people, there are the usual political appointees in the minister's office. The minister responsible for politicizing the civil service apparently sees no problem with this arrangement. "It's fair to say that those people who reflect" -- our -- "values...will obviously be put in position...." That's what she's quoted as saying in the Times-Colonist on March 8.

She is the same minister responsible for awarding a $165,000 advertising contract to NOW Communications, the same company who did the NDP's ad campaign during the election. This was the same company that was caught red-handed trying to smear the reputation of the member for Matsqui in one of its TV ads -- one that it was forced to withdraw. And who is at the helm of this company? One of the partners is the NDP's former communications guru, the often unsuccessful candidate, Ron Johnson. Another is Mr. Karl Struble, the infamous negative ad expert.

Hon. Speaker, the Premier claims he's concerned about the size of the deficit. Well, he should start looking at those around him as a place to cut. I'm sure if the government really wanted to save money, it wouldn't have fired Ed Peck or Ed Lien. It wouldn't have abandoned the compensation fairness plan that held public sector wage increases in line with those in the private sector. This decision flies in the face of the Peat Marwick report, which argued that public sector wage increases must be held to the rate of inflation.

Indeed, if this government really wanted to save money, it would have retained many of the competent employees who were fired. It would never have fired capable deputy ministers like Isabel Kelly. The minister responsible for severance estimates it will cost taxpayers $2.3 million in severance for the 73 people who have been fired so far. I truly hope that the final figures will one day be revealed under the new freedom of information act.

I would be remiss, hon. Speaker, if I did not comment on this government's lack of representation on constitutional issues. Constitutional reform is simply not a priority of this government -- a fact very evident from the throne speech. Senate reform is certainly not a priority. It used to be an NDP promise. The NDP leader told every reformer within earshot last year that he would stand up for an elected, effective Senate. Promise 48 of the NDP platform stated that the NDP government would push hard for constitutional reforms which were fair to all regions of our country. What do we find instead? The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs is telling the rest of the country that he wants to abolish the Senate. We see our Premier cosying up to Premier Bourassa, telling him: "Don't worry. British Columbia is prepared to sacrifice any principle at any cost if Quebec will come back into the fold." "Let's make a deal" is the Premier's only position. Hon. Speaker, it's precisely that attitude that resulted in Meech Lake. It wasn't acceptable then, and it's even less acceptable now.

British Columbians deserve a government that is prepared to stake out a firm position on constitutional reform. We need a government that is prepared to fight all the way for a triple-E Senate, because some principles are too important to compromise. Some principles can't be sacrificed for a deal at any cost. A triple-E Senate that is elected, effective and especially equal is indeed one of those principles.

Another is the principle of equality. Most British Columbians believe that every province should have equal rights under the constitution. No province should have special status. Where the line gets fuzzy is over the concept of distinct society. If distinct society means special status, the majority of British Columbians don't want any part of it. However, if the term means anything less than more powers for Quebec, it's confusing as to why it means so much to Quebec.

I would urge the Premier to be careful not to give away the farm just to get a deal. I would urge him to be careful before signing his support for terms he doesn't understand. The term "inherent right" is one of them. We all support self-government for aboriginal people, but an inherent right to self-government means very different things to different aboriginal groups. It would be a tremendous mistake to enshrine this term in the constitution unless we are absolutely clear about what it means.

[11:30]

The throne speech committed the government to a fundamental shift in native land claims policy by recognizing aboriginal title. That's another trick you turned. It's so tricky, in fact, that we've been wrestling with its implications in court for many years now -- indeed for far too long. By firing the law firm that was successfully defending the province's position, the 

[ Page 31 ]

government has effectively sabotaged its own case in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en trial. That was the final nail in the coffin, and no one knows how much it will cost B.C. taxpayers in years to come. That's the biggest lurking expenditure of them all, and this government has just upped the price tag by an unbelievable amount.

Constitutional reform is a major issue. This government should be forceful on the issue. It should know what it's negotiating, and it should be urging all provinces to support a national referendum on the final package. Social Credit brought in the Referendum Act in British Columbia, which gives every voter the right to a vote on the final constitutional package. The concept should be extended, with the same question put to every province on the same day.

In closing, hon. Speaker, let me congratulate the government on the few positive initiatives that were contained in the throne speech. I've already noted a few, but I would like to credit them for establishing the Commission on Resources and Environment. Under the capable direction of Stephen Owen, I'm certain the commission will pull together all the fine work that has been done by the previous government's many mechanisms. As a matter of fact, it was our initiative, so of course it pleases me to see the government follow through with the work we started.

I should applaud the government for its commitment to a consultative process that will result in a new medical and health care act. I'm sure all MLAs will welcome an independent review of their salaries and benefits. As we begin this session, hon. Speaker, I look forward to expanding the committee system. We took it a long way down the road, and I will work hard to make it even better.

With that, I thank the House for its patience, and I wait for the budget debate with great enthusiasm.

B. Copping: I am privileged, honoured and humbled to be the first MLA representing the new constituency of Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to join the others in congratulating you on your election and to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his election. He has served the people of this province for 20 years, first in Vancouver Centre and now in Vancouver-Burrard.

When I decided to run for provincial politics, it was on the basis that we could and would have a better province. The throne speech has clearly shown that there will be a better way. It has shown that we care about people. People will be a priority of this government. As a woman, a physician and a human being, I care about people. In medicine we are trained to listen. The throne speech shows that this government will also listen to all British Columbians.

I know a few people will say they want immediate action on everything. However, in the past too often we have seen action on major decisions with little or no consultation. We have had to live with the expensive and bad results.

The majority of people want and in fact are demanding to be part of government and to have a government that pays attention to the issues that affect them. People want to be a part of their own destiny.

I would like to say a few words about Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. It is a new riding, and I am honoured to follow in the footsteps of those who represented parts of the riding before me: the hon. member for Burnaby North; the hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks from Coquitlam-Maillardville; and of course Mr. Mark Rose, who represented the largest portion of the riding.

Mr. Rose served the public for many years. In 1968 he was first elected federally, and then in 1983 and 1986 he was elected provincially to this assembly. He is a very special person, known for his parliamentary skills and for his wit. I remember one morning when Mark phoned me at home quite early in the morning. I was still in bed; it must have been about 11 o'clock. My dog didn't like being disturbed, so he was barking quite a lot into the phone, and Mr. Rose said: "Barbara, why don't you give your husband some cough medicine?" That is the kind of humour that Mr. Rose always had. But he is mainly known by his constituents for his dedication and compassion in serving them. He is an exceptionally caring person, and he has certainly earned a long, happy and healthy retirement. But I don't think he is ready to be retired; I think he still has a lot to do yet.

I have noticed that many of us talk about how unique and beautiful our constituencies are, and that speaks something of British Columbia, because I think those words are sincere from everybody. I also happen to have a unique and beautiful constituency. It is represented by five areas, each with a mayor and a council. We have Belcarra with Mayor Ralph Drew, Anmore with Mayor Pam Blackman, Port Moody with Mayor David Driscoll, part of Coquitlam with Mayor Louis Sekora and part of Burnaby with Mayor Bill Copeland. It also contains Simon Fraser University, which of course is a community unto itself. It is a beautiful urban area with lakes, Burrard Inlet, Indian Arm and Burnaby Mountain, and it is well represented by people from all walks of life -- youths, seniors and working people.

There are many issues that affect the people in my riding. My constituents wanted a government to be open and honest with them. We have shown in the throne speech that this government can and will restore the public's confidence in the administration of this province's assets. This government will have a freedom of information and privacy act. We will strengthen the Members' Conflict of Interest Act as a step in making it the toughest in Canada. The ombudsman's jurisdiction will be increased to include municipalities, schools, universities and hospitals.

Hon. Speaker, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has been one of the most neglected in the province regarding transit and transportation. The gridlock is severe. I have pledged I will work on this issue, which is number one with most of my constituents. Environmental and land use decisions are important issues in the riding as well. There are so many people in the riding who work in this area. I must mention Elaine Gold, Rick Simpson and Mark Haddock -- very dedicated citizens.

If we care about people, we must care about the deadly chemicals pumped into the air and dumped into 

[ Page 32 ]

the water. The throne speech has addressed many environmental initiatives. Air quality is of particular concern to my constituents, and I am pleased this government will begin public consultation on a comprehensive clean air strategy.

Many of my constituents are Simon Fraser University students. The throne speech, I am happy to say, stated that this government will take action to decrease financial barriers to post-secondary education. We will review access to post-secondary and ways to improve student financial assistance.

When one looks at issues in a riding, one must look at the people. If a person has poor health or is on a surgical-waiting list, that is their number one issue. If they don't have a home or they don't have food, that is their number one issue. If they suffer discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion, income or sexual orientation, that could be their number one issue. And if they are unemployed, that is their number one issue. This government is addressing these issues and recognizes that a strengthened economy is necessary to provide a social safety net for the people of our province and to secure the future of our children.

As a physician and ex-school board chairperson, I am encouraged that this government is giving both health care and education a priority. It is good news to hear that this government will spend capital investments in schools to move children out of portables. In health care, this government will devote more resources to community care, mental health services, home care and immunization. Hon. Speaker, I feel that the earmark of a civilized society is the health of its public school system. It provides hope of a better future for us all. This government has shown it is committed to our children's future and will not permit erosion of the public school system.

Despite universal medicare, however, the major determinants of good health are shelter, food, education, income and gender, a stable ecosystem, social justice and equality. This government has shown commitment to all of these conditions. This government is going to ensure that affordable rental and special-needs housing are provided for in official community plans. This government is going to ensure fair labour legislation and fair wages and has already raised the minimum wage. Hon. Speaker, this government has shown it cares about human dignity, hungry children and the homeless. This government knows there can be no true justice while poverty and hunger remain and while there is discrimination against any person.

I found it very significant to have the disease AIDS even mentioned in the throne speech. This government will not hide its head in the sand. We are dealing with a preventable disease that is affecting men, women and children throughout the world. This government understands that the answer to prevention is education.

The throne speech mentions new legislation for wildlife and fisheries and their habitats. I wish at this time to serve notice that one of my very special personal interests is the welfare of all animals, be they wildlife or companion animals. Our animal abuse laws are vague and ineffectual. Too often enforcement can only take place when it is too late for an animal to be helped. I shall be keeping a watchful eye and will do whatever I can to ensure that these laws are amended and strengthened. I will fully consult with the minister to see what we can do to protect all of our animals. Many of us could learn so much about respect and understanding for our animals and the environment from the people of our first nations.

Hon. Speaker, the throne speech stated that this government seeks the help of all British Columbians to carry out its priorities. For those people who have their health, for those who have a job, for those who have a home, for those who have food, for those who have a decent income and for those who are less fortunate, we need your support and input. Become active in your community. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, individuals must see beyond themselves and work to perfect their city and their country instead of furnishing their own house to be better than their neighbours.

[11:45]

Hon. Speaker, given what I have heard in the throne speech, I look forward to the challenges. As a medical doctor, I believe this province will be a healthy one.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House on the maiden speech of the first member on this side of the House.

I would like to congratulate you, Madam, on your appointment as Speaker, and I trust that this House will treat you with the honour that the position deserves.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the members on the other side of the House. I know it was a long time coming, and it must be very satisfying to you to finally sit on that side. Congratulations. I'm sure it was a surprise to you to find us over here. Frankly, it was true that some of us were surprised as well.

I would particularly like to congratulate two of your members -- the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine and the member for Yale-Lillooet -- because they were the first two new members to stand up in the House and address us. I should tell you that I knew we had an address from the largest constituency, and for a moment or two I thought we had an address from the most populous one.

The throne speech which we heard yesterday had two or three points that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The independent salary review is an excellent idea. But, government, please instruct them to be frugal. The freedom of information act is long needed, but please instruct them to be expansive.

Tougher conflict-of-interest legislation is necessary, but please address it with caution. While it sounds great to the public out there that we need greater conflict-of-interest legislation, there are many small businesses like myself who will have difficulty if you are too stringent. Frankly, in the long run it's the honesty of members that will support this House, not the honesty of legislation.

It is also the intention of the government, according to the throne speech, to expand the powers of the ombudsman. That is fine, but let us keep an eye on the costs, and let us perhaps give consideration to the fact that some of the municipalities -- one of them on this Island, at least -- have ombudsman legislation in place. 

[ Page 33 ]

Perhaps the government should consider giving the municipalities that power instead of being everything to everybody.

I live in a constituency which most of you pass through to get to this House. When you land at the airport in Victoria, you land in my constituency. When you come by a ferry -- overpriced as they are -- you land in my constituency. My constituency consists of the peninsula which abuts the city of Victoria. It also consists of the Gulf Islands -- Pender, Saltspring, Mayne, Galiano and Saturna -- which that government's predecessors had the intelligence to place within an Islands Trust. I appreciate what they've done. It now might be time to expand that Trust.

My constituency consists of the town of Sidney, which is the commercial core of the peninsula. I could recommend that on your way back and forth to this House you might well spend some time in the town of Sidney taking advantage of the only whale museum in British Columbia, and one of the few very good aviation museums. A large part of my constituency consists of North Saanich. North Saanich is the place where many of our bureaucrats and public servants choose to live, rather intelligently I think, as do some of the more enlightened politicians. The other part of my constituency is Central Saanich, which is famous for its beautiful farmlands, Butchart Gardens and the need to protect that type of rural environment, which we must make a priority in this House. Even in spite of what you've heard yesterday and this morning, I probably live in the most desirable part of Canada, and certainly the most desirable part of this province.

I'd like to bring to the House's attention the fact that the last Liberal member representing my constituency, in 1952, was Arthur Ash. Arthur Ash's widow sat in the House when we opened; the first time in 40 years. She sat to see the resurgence of Liberalism in this province. I am the second Tanner to sit in this House. The first Tanner represented the same constituency. He sat from 1903 to 1906. He was a Liberal and one of 17 opposition members. He came from Britain. He came from Somerset, and Somerset, as all of you know, is the heart of Liberalism in Britain even today.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting in a House prior to this time. It was in the Yukon, from '70 to '74. I would bring to the House's and Madam Speaker's attention the long tradition of association between the city of Victoria and the Yukon. It applies not only to its politicians but to its trade. In fact, it was the gold rush of 1892 that put Victoria on the map. It did a little for Seattle too. Many B.C. politicians got their start in the Yukon. I would bring to your attention that great Liberal Duff Pattullo, who was secretary to the Yukon gold commission for 12 years and then moved to Prince Rupert, where he had the intelligence to become an alderman and eventually Premier of this province.

I am not the first member to sit in both Legislatures. I am pleased to tell you that Mr. John Grant, after being a mayor of Victoria and a member of this Legislature in '82, '86, '89 and '90, sitting as a Liberal, finally decided to go to the Yukon, and he represented Dawson South in the Yukon Legislature. I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that he died there, but like a true Liberal they couldn't put him down. They brought him down to Victoria and buried him here.

Interjection.

C. Tanner: I anticipated a remark such as that, because I didn't think the members opposite could come up with anything better. You are seeing the resurgence of liberalism, not the death of them.

Madam Speaker, I would like to read a letter to the House from my very good friend, the leader of the longest-serving NDP government in this country, Tony Penikett. With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I will read my letter.

"Dear Clive:

"On behalf of the Yukon government, I am pleased to send greetings. I extend congratulations to the government of British Columbia on its election to office and congratulations to all members of the Legislature, especially to former Yukoners, as well as those who represent former Yukoners, of whom there are many in your fine province.

"Regards, Tony Penikett."

I note by the clock that I am running out of time. I would be quite happy to continue after we meet again, should that be the case. However, I should point out to you, Madam Speaker, that in the House in which I used to sit, you were not allowed to read speeches. It has the inconvenience that you have to think on your feet, but it has the convenience that you can contract them very quickly. If that is the wish of the House, I would be happy to contract my speech from the next four pages. Is it the indulgence of this House that I should carry on further, Madam Speaker?

Some Hon. Members: Move adjournment.

C. Tanner: In that case, I will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada