Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce the 1996 legislative interns. I thought we should do this early in the session this year. I'd like to introduce Tania Garcia, Greg Gowe, Julie Jackson, Pam Jefcoat, Kevin Moorhead, Naina Sloan and Tom Syer. A special thank-you goes to Greg, Julie and Pam, who have been working with the New Democrat caucus over the last several weeks. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, young people represent our future, and I'm pleased to see a large group of them visiting the House from my constituency. I ask members to join me in welcoming a group of grade 11 students and their teachers from Pacific Christian School.

N. Lortie: I'm pleased to welcome another large group of people from all over British Columbia. They're here to witness the tabling of a petition in a few minutes in this House. I'd like to introduce two of those people. First is a young student from my constituency of Delta North, Bryn Hendricks. Bryn singlehandedly initiated this movement that the petition is all about, and she was a driving force behind collecting thousands of names to have American Sign Language be taught in our public schools in British Columbia. Bryn is joined by Ms. Celia Klassen, also of North Delta. Ms. Klassen is president of the Family Network for Deaf Children. Would the House please welcome this group of fine people.

G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to what the Premier said about the legislative interns, I just want also to thank those interns for the work they've done already this year. I suspect that while they won't have a long legislative session, they'll have an interesting one.

I hope that we'll continue to have this program year in and year out. It's a good program. The people who come and get involved in it often move into government in one way or another. Some, I suspect, end up running for office; others help out with ministries and work in the government; others move into the private sector. It's a real opportunity for them and, more importantly I think, a real opportunity for us to gain the insights and talents and abilities that they have. It's always fun to have them, and we always enjoy it.

L. Hanson: Just in reference to the Premier's remarks, I'd like to add the thanks of the Reform Party to his. We have, over the years, seen an awful lot of our young people gain some experience, and someday, if all else fails, they might even become politicians and sit in this Legislature. But most seriously, they have been a really valuable asset to all parties. I agree with the official opposition; I hope it is a continued program regardless of what happens in the next month or so.

Presenting Petitions

N. Lortie: I have with me a petition with 11,802 names from all over British Columbia. The group of people that is here has been working hard for months in order to collect all these names.

It says:

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, in legislature assembled. . ." -- at any time in the year 1996.

The petition of the undersigned, Bryn Hendricks, states:

". . .(a) American Sign Language (otherwise known as ASL) should be accepted as a second language, meeting university entrance requirements for a second language, and (b) should be accessible to all students in public schools. . .as a language course, giving credits for taking the American Sign Language course. Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House" stand up and publicly announce that "sign language is recognized as a distinct language and can be available to any school district in the province of British Columbia that requests this service, or take action in a manner that is similar to the above request without changing its intent, and may be done however deemed appropriate."

R. Chisholm: I rise to table a petition.

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, in legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned, the residents of the subdivision of Fairfield Island in the district of Chilliwack, states that a sewer system is urgently required for approximately 1,100 homes on Fairfield Island. Given the poor soil conditions and high water tables in the area, septic system failures over the past 20 years have culminated in unacceptable levels of contamination in the storm sewer water, which ends up in the Fraser River.

"The cesspool conditions of some back yards preclude children from playing safely at home. The health hazards have been well documented since 1992, but to date no remedial action has been implemented to alleviate the anxiety of coping with sewage problems both inside and outside our homes. Not only are our homes, soil and rivers in jeopardy but also the aquifer located 60 feet underground.

"Your petitioners respectfully request that the Honourable House assist this community in this time of need to rectify a serious health and environmental hazard, and ask the House to consider approving funds in the current fiscal year for community grant support from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for projects like this."

[10:15]

Hon. E. Cull: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill deals with any collective bargaining dispute involving boards of school trustees, employer members of the Health Employers' Association of B.C. and employer members of the Post-Secondary Employers' Association of British Columbia, where collective bargaining has proceeded to the point of an industrial inquiry commission or a mediator being appointed under the Labour Relations Code, and that individual has made recommendations.

One example -- just so that the members are aware of the examples that we are looking at right now with School District 36, which is the Surrey School Board, and their dispute with their CUPE union members. . . . This bill will provide that where collective bargaining options have proceeded as I've described and been exhausted -- including the IIC -- where 

[ Page 17026 ]

bargaining is in difficulty, where services to the public may be disrupted, and where reasonable and considered recommendations have been provided to the parties to resolve the dispute through the mediator or the industrial inquiry commission, under the Labour Relations Code, these recommendations may then be implemented as part of a collective agreement.

This bill protects the interests of students; it protects the interests of patients in health care; and it ensures that there is a fair and balanced collective bargaining agreement. The immediate concern, as I said, is School District 36 in Surrey, where 52,000 students may be unable to attend school on Monday. So there is some urgency. We need to place this legislation immediately, to enact it immediately and to be able to deal with it quickly.

Therefore, in moving the introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to advance through all stages today. I move first reading of the bill.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm surprised today to hear of this bill. I appreciate the brief advance notice from the Government House Leader on it. But I might say to the government -- while in the end we'll probably accede to allowing the bill to go ahead, although I realize it's the Speaker's decision -- that the urgency created for this bill to come forward and the demand by the government to place this item as a matter of urgency under standing order 81 are only a result of their incompetence and inability to deal with the collective bargaining process in this province. They've sat on both sides of the bargaining tables for four years, and we're seeing the complete destruction of any effective way of collective bargaining in this province.

If the Premier -- instead of running around the province promising, day after day, more promises and more money -- had called this House earlier and brought this House into session a week or two weeks ago perhaps, when we knew the crisis in Surrey and the crisis in health care were on their way, we wouldn't have to result yet again in an emergency debate to deal with the result of the collapse of collective bargaining. So it's apparent that now we do need to go ahead with it, but it's only as a result of the incompetence of the Premier and this government in handling labour relations in this province over the last four years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Just as a matter of procedure, we should put the question. There has been a. . . . Before recognizing the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon, I would like to settle the matter of the bill having been introduced a first time, and then we can proceed with the points of order.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon on a point of order.

L. Hanson: A point of order on the procedure. As I understand section 81, it deals with matters of an emergency nature. If you look closely at the bill, you find that the emergency nature is specified in one particular case; but it extends the authority of the cabinet for some time to deal with a number of other issues that are not at this time of an emergency nature -- whereas if the bill handled only the difficulty of the emergency that is imminent, it would probably be appropriate under section 81. But the way the bill is worded, it's another piece of legislation that gives the cabinet extended powers in anticipation of emergencies in other industries.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before us is that the bill be introduced and read a first time. The debate as to its being moved through all stages is to be considered as well.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: We are now at the point of deciding whether to proceed through all stages. Without further input from the members, the Chair would like to consider the advisability of doing so. Hearing no further. . . .

The hon. member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: Bearing in mind the comments of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, I could not support the transmission of this bill through the Legislature in one day unless there is a specific amendment contained in the bill which restricts it solely to the emergency nature of the situation in Surrey. If the government is willing to accept that obligation to restrict it to this one specific instance, then I would support the bill going through today. If they fail to do so, because of the overall effect of this piece of legislation, done in a most hurried and inappropriate fashion, I could not support the transmission of this bill in one day. So I ask the government to accept those particular concerns and that particular amendment, and restrict it to this one situation.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in light of the comments that have been made, we have proceeded under our standing orders as far as we can without some further instruction from the members. That would settle the matter unless there are further suggestions from members.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I can just clarify this, the point of order has been raised by the member for Okanagan-Vernon that in his opinion section 81 doesn't apply, given the nature of the bill in itself. I guess the next step is a ruling from yourself on whether or not that is the case.

To make this a little easier -- because there are concerns, now that we have the bill, as to what the contents are and its application under standing order 81 -- perhaps we could recess now and reserve our right of comment on section 81, have a look at the bill and come back in half an hour.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, even though the Opposition House Leader and I have had discussions about this outside the chamber, we're having a different discussion now. There is not a right. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: Nobody has the right to reserve on standing order 81. It would usurp your right, hon. Speaker, to make a ruling. And I understand very clearly that you are asking the House to take time to permit you to rule on standing order 81. That ruling will stand, and there is no right of any member in this House to challenge that rule through reserving a right.

[ Page 17027 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister misunderstood. I'm suggesting that we recess now. There are other members who haven't had a chance to look at the bill; the rest of the caucus only received it now. They would like to look at the content of the bill and reserve their ability -- not their right -- to comment on the applicability of standing order 81 to this bill at this time. . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, I'm not challenging the Speaker, hon. House Leader.

. . .and have a chance to raise their concerns under standing order 81. Once they've had a chance to look at the bill, they can raise those concerns. Then the Speaker has the opportunity to rule as he sees fit.

G. Wilson: It is my understanding that this House, if I count correctly, has not sat for 264 days. This government, if it had concern over this issue, has had ample opportunity to recall this Legislature, put in place this piece of legislation, and have adequate notice and debate on this matter. It is an absolute outrage to the process of democracy that we would recall this Legislative Assembly on a Friday morning, and without prior notice -- certainly to this member and our party -- introduce this bill and expect to ram it through in one day, with the ramifications it may have. It is an absolute outrage to our democratic process.

They've had 264 days to recall this Legislature. They bring it in on the eve of an election and expect to ram it down the throats of British Columbians and the working people in this province. It's an absolute disgrace. I, for one, would not accept it.

D. Symons: I'd like to second the comments that the member for. . . .

The Speaker: Order, please. Is the member rising on a point of order?

D. Symons: Yes, again on the propriety of this coming through as emergency legislation. It seems that a week ago last Monday the teachers in Surrey were advised that they would be in a strike situation and a strike vote could be taken.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

D. Symons: This government knew that a week ago last Monday. . .

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

D. Symons: . . .so they've had two weeks to act on it. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. members, the Chair has attempted to get sufficient input from members in order to determine the next procedure that we should be following. Unless there is objection, I think that we would have a brief recess in order to review all aspects of the matter. The Chair would so recommend, if this is with the approval of the House.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I move the House stand recessed for 15 minutes.

The Speaker: You've heard the motion, all members. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. If members wish to amend the motion, they would be recognized if they would stand in their places. Otherwise the motion is that we recess for 15 minutes.

[10:30]

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 10:30 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has considered the submissions that were presented on the emergency legislation. I understand that discussions among the members has been such that you would like to make further submissions. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to just give the House some new information and to perhaps expand on some of the points that members from the opposition have made. This is urgent. The matter before us today, whether we like it or not, is urgent. Surrey kids and their parents will not know. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, this is a very difficult and important time for the Chair. I'm sure all members realize that at the end of the day, we have to decide, as fairly as possible, as to the course of action to be taken. I require attention and respect for anyone who has his place in the House. I would ask members to please reserve their comments until they're recognized.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll lower my voice so I don't provoke people.

The situation in the Surrey district is urgent; there is no question about that. The union has received no indication from the employer that there is any settlement. They have announced publicly, since we last met minutes ago, that if this matter remains unresolved, there will be a strike in Surrey on Monday morning. That means tens of thousands of children will not be in school -- and double that number of parents will not have their children in school -- on Monday morning.

This situation is merely exacerbating what the parents of Surrey have already been facing: on again, off again school. No longer can we tolerate that. Free collective bargaining has applied, and it's not working. Now we must make sure that the parents and the kids in Surrey have the right to go to school on Monday morning. New information for you, hon. Speaker, that was just announced.

We also have the situation where the Coquitlam School Board employers are watching and waiting to model themselves after Surrey. We have situations where our colleges' collective bargaining has broken down as recently as this morning, hon. Speaker, since we last met. And we have a situation in health care where employers are unwilling to settle with the unions.

[ Page 17028 ]

I might add, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I might add that the opposition parties speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, and if. . . .

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, I have asked, with due consideration to the passions that members are obviously expressing. . . . It is impossible to make a reasonable decision without quiet in order that I may hear what members have to say.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just recollect for the hon. Speaker's memory the debate on May 30, 1993. It was the member for Okanagan West who made this argument:

"The matter was considered urgent by both parties of the opposition some time ago. . . . We have been told repeatedly when we have brought up matters of urgency and importance that they should have been brought up at the first available opportunity. That moment has passed. In no way may this matter be considered urgent under the standing orders."

The hon. member for Okanagan West was arguing that this government should have brought this matter into the Legislature at the first available opportunity. Today is the first available opportunity. We have been notified as recently as this morning that there will be a strike in Surrey unless this matter is resolved.

Let me go on to discuss what the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano said during the course of that same debate:

"I would make two points. Firstly, I'm surprised at the urgency of this matter this afternoon. We have been pressing for many weeks that this is an urgent matter. However, we'll probably deal with that in second reading."

The hon. member then goes on and says that this should have happened earlier, and he was concerned about it because of what will happen if the same situation happens in other school districts -- exactly the situation that is being considered here, right now.

I might also add, hon. Speaker, that the IIC report -- the industrial inquiry commission report -- only went to the Surrey School Board last night. There is absolute urgency to this matter. Coquitlam is sitting on the sidelines. The Coquitlam district -- just as the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi pointed out and made it a matter of urgency in 1993 -- is sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens today. The opposition can't say that was then and this is now just because they really don't care about parents and kids in Surrey.

Hon. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the opposition members have every right to get up and debate, clause by clause, the aspects of the bill that they think make sense. They have every right to put forward amendments that they think make sense. But the fact of the matter is that this bill deals with urgent matters that have come to the attention of British Columbians in the last 24 hours. For this opposition group to suggest in any way that this bill shouldn't proceed is to make them against education, against health care.

G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little shocked, quite frankly. If we want to talk about urgent, hon. Speaker -- and I think that's the matter for discussion right now -- the last time this House legislated somebody back to work was in 1993, and it was by this government.

At that time in the discussion about urgency, after we had gone through some 12 hours of debate in this House, after six weeks of strikes around this province -- two million student-days lost in this province -- I remember that this government finally started to care about students just a slight bit more than they did about the unions. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain stood up in this House at midnight and said how terrible it was that the opposition didn't realize the urgency of getting this bill through, after the students had been sitting at home for six weeks in ridings occupied by almost every single one of the members of the New Democratic caucus.

The House Leader says that this government is dealing with this at the earliest opportunity. Well, hon. Speaker, that's not so. They had the first opportunity when they brought in the changes to the Labour Code in the fall of 1992, and the now Minister of Forests sat in this House and sang "Solidarity Forever" when we were trying to ensure that education remained an essential service. That was their first opportunity. They voted, time after time after time in this House, against amendments from all members of the opposition to make education an essential service.

Then they had another opportunity, because the following year we brought in a private member's bill to make education an essential service. It never got before this House, because they never called it, because they cared more about their union friends -- the big unions who donate to their campaigns -- than they did about the students, than they did about the parents.

That was 1993, and that wasn't the last opportunity. In 1994 we brought this same bill in again, to make education an essential service, and it went nowhere. In 1995 we brought the same bill in again, to make education an essential service. Yesterday morning at 10 o'clock every member of this House had, sitting under their desk in their binder, a bill to make education an essential service. The opportunity was yesterday to make education an essential service.

Every opportunity that this government and this Premier and that minister have had to stand up for students, to stand up for parents, and to tell those students and parents whose side they are on. . . . Are they on the side of parents and students and kids, or are they on the side of the BCTF and CUPE and all the other unions that pay their bills? Every time they have had the opportunity -- every time -- they have told us who they are in favour of. They are in favour of the unions, and the kids and the parents be damned -- time after time after time. And here it is again today.

So we are at a stage today where we have an urgent crisis in Surrey.

An Hon. Member: We had it two weeks ago.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm making a point.

We have an urgent crisis in Surrey. We had it last week; we had it two weeks ago; we had it three years ago. But it's come back again because they haven't dealt with it. So we've got another crisis in Surrey.

But this bill. . . . Once one goes through it and looks at it, one realizes that it's not just for Surrey. It's for health care, it's 

[ Page 17029 ]

for education, it's for post-secondary education, it's for every school district in the province. There's even a section in there that says the government can pull in any trade union and any employer in the province and by regulation attach it to this bill. It's section 2; I'd ask the Minister of Finance to read it. So we have huge, broad, sweeping powers here for items that are important and significant. But are those items urgent?

I suggest that what the government do is this: they take this bill, they pull it, they go back, and they bring in two bills -- one to deal with their disaster that they've created in Surrey, so that we can tell the parents and students in Surrey, as the minister much belatedly has raised now, that they will be in school on Monday. We will accede to that bill going through under standing order 81 as fast as you want it to go through.

An Hon. Member: Let's deal with the crisis.

G. Farrell-Collins: But the other one, the other crisis that the government is describing as urgent, isn't urgent right now. It's only urgent because we're moments away from an election. As the Premier's principal secretary said to me walking down the hallway here: "Well, Gary, we can't have strikes during an election, can we?"

It's only become urgent because at the end of four years the NDP have made such a shemozzle of labour relations in this province and have made such a disaster of the public sector negotiations as they sit on both sides of the bargaining table that they've betrayed the patients of this province, and they've betrayed the students and parents time after time. We're now heading into an election, and the labour relations process in this province is about the crumble before their very eyes. We're going to have 1975 all over again.

[11:15]

So what does the Premier do? He brings in a bill to provide sweeping powers to this government -- not forever, not to fix the Labour Code, not to change the mess that they made, not to fix it for the long term, not to fix it for four, five or ten years. . .

An Hon. Member: How long?

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .but to fix it for 60 days. Just long enough for one or two more scandals, and then an election, and then they come back in and get rid of it. So six months from now we'll be sitting here in this House. And heaven forbid, if the government were to be the government again, we'd have another sanctimonious minister standing in this House ranting and raving and saying: "Whose side are you on? There's going to be another strike in health care, another strike in education." They'd be standing there and taunting the opposition and saying: "Don't you care about students? Don't you care about parents?"

Part of this bill is urgent. We need to deal with Surrey, and we can deal with that today. The rest of it is urgent to one man in this province, and that's the Premier of this province, who cares more about his job than he does about the students and the patients and the parents in British Columbia.

L. Hanson: Listening to the former member's speech, I can understand an awful lot of it and agree with an awful lot of it -- maybe not everything. But I think the fact is that the bill clearly has hidden issues in it, and it would be very difficult for anyone in British Columbia -- unless maybe it's the minister responsible -- to interpret those issues to be of an emergency nature. And I think that when a bill is presented to the House on the basis of section 81, there should be a limitation of that bill to the emergency nature, not to give the government a whole bunch of powers that go far beyond that. The bill is actually saying, in effect, that the NDP -- the government of the day -- agree that there shouldn't be strikes in the school system. They're saying that that should be removed; that's really what they're saying.

If the emergency that has arisen is an emergency because children are not going to be in school -- which I agree -- the logic automatically makes you think that the education system should be banned from striking. I suppose that you might say: "Well, if they want to strike during summer holidays, that will be all right, but if they want to strike at any time in the rest of the curriculum year, it should be banned." That's effectively what it's saying.

Dealing under section 81, which is the major issue that's before us today, is the fact that the emergency part of the bill is clouded by a whole bunch of other authorities that are deliberately put in there, in the hope that the House will let it slip through on the basis of this one emergency. And that's wrong. That should not be allowed to happen.

Hon. A. Petter: With respect, when you pierce all the histrionics across the way, the opposition is confusing two issues. One issue is whether or not there is an emergency or extraordinary situation that justifies the introduction of legislation, and I heard the House Leader opposite indicate that there was. The second issue, then, is whether or not this bill is the appropriate mechanism to deal with that situation, and that is appropriately the subject matter of second reading and third reading debate.

The opposition parties are trying to use a procedural device to argue the substance of the bill, to dismember the bill, to prejudge the breadth and other issues around the bill -- around the issue of whether or not there is an emergency that justifies. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: They obviously don't want to hear the argument, hon. Speaker, but I know that you do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Please address the Chair. Hon. minister, please proceed.

Hon. A. Petter: Thank you, hon. Speaker. There is here an emergency situation that has been well demonstrated and conceded by those opposite. We have a bill before us that addresses that situation. The issue as to whether this bill addresses it appropriately, and to what extent, will be discussed in both second and third reading. Amendments can be introduced; it can be broadened or narrowed accordingly. That is the appropriate role of that debate; it is not the appropriate subject of this debate. The appropriate subject of this debate is whether or not there is an emergency or an unusual, extraordinary situation that justifies the introduction of this legislation. The answer is yes.

[ Page 17030 ]

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. Clearly, under section 81, the final determination in this matter with respect to the urgency is in your domain, and I know you will exercise your responsibility in a very fair and reasoned fashion.

The reality is that there are sincere questions in my mind on whether the situation is in fact real or contrived. I noted yesterday, in listening to the throne speech, that the line between perception and deception is a very fine line indeed. We noted not too long ago -- in the past month -- for example, a contrived demonstration of government employee unions on the lawns of the Legislature trying to indicate, in a pre-election time, the concern of this particular government for the public interest. The public interest has never been a concern of this particular government, and it's not beyond the scope of one's imagination at the present time that the situation could in fact be contrived. The reality is that the union arm and the political arm are of the same body.

It was clear, hon. Speaker, that not too long ago the situation with the college professors in British Columbia was an imminent position to strike. It only took a word from Premier Clark and they stopped that. The negotiations are continuing.

The reality is that it is not an emergency situation, other than its effect on students in the Surrey School District. There are other remedies that the current government could utilize without bringing in this draconian type of legislation to solve a problem at this particular instant in time. All they are trying to do is use this as a ploy, not as a genuine concern for students, not as a genuine attempt for parents and the public at large. It is simply a political ploy to indicate that they are on the side of the students and parents, ensuring that the Surrey School District goes forward.

I do not believe that it is an emergency situation. It's under control. There are other remedies that the government could utilize in this particular course to satisfy the needs of the students in Surrey. The government has always been a champion of free collective bargaining and of strikes wherever necessary. There is the opportunity. . . . If the BCTF is as concerned about education as they profess to be, they can cross CUPE picket lines. But they will not do so.

So I would suggest that it's a pre-election ploy. It's an effort by the government to make themselves look good to the public at large -- in that they are in fact controlling the unions when they never have in the previous four and a half years of this administration.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We're still receiving submissions, but if the minister would defer to the hon. member for Matsqui, would he please proceed. I would say, however, that it has reached a point where the Speaker has received sufficient input to get the gist of the issue. While I will recognize the hon. member for Matsqui, I think we should quickly move to the Government House Leader in order to attempt to resolve the matter.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I will only say that the intervention of an election campaign, during which the government does not wish to have its agenda interrupted by labour disruptions, does not, in my view, constitute an emergency under standing order 81 of our rules.

We've heard from the Minister of Health. His comments focus entirely upon circumstances that exist in Surrey, and yet he stands by a bill with far wider-reaching powers than that: the war measures act of collective bargaining. These former defenders of free collective bargaining. To hear those comments from the Minister of Health suggests to me that this is far from an appropriate bill, and its introduction today shows contempt for this parliament.

The Speaker: I am going to recognize the Government House Leader in the hope that we can resolve the matter. I appreciate the input from the various members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will very quickly conclude on the matter. I would point out to the hon. Speaker the precedent set in May 1993 in ruling on standing order 81, where the Speaker of the day ruled that there was an urgent and pressing matter that is very, very directly comparable to what is occurring today. The precedent in this parliament has been set.

But I would also say, for those who are sitting in this chamber who wish to argue the width and breadth of the bill in terms of its necessity now, that we need to move forward, under standing order 81, to engage in that discussion, to have the broad discussion for which we will sit here. We welcome suggestions from the opposition on how to proceed to make sure that health care and education aren't disrupted in this province. The precedent has been set, and I would hope that we could engage in that nature of debate again.

The Speaker: That concludes the submissions the Chair is prepared to accept, and I would like to reserve a decision for a short while, perhaps half an hour. If we could proceed to the business as scheduled for today, then I would be prepared to come back with a ruling on that in very short order. Does that meet with the approval of the members, Government House Leader?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, if you take time to exit the chamber, it would be most appropriate for us to call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. If you would take one minute to walk slowly leaving the chamber, we would be ready to call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to have the honour of seconding this throne speech debate.

F. Gingell: On this short notice?

J. Pullinger: It wasn't short notice.

The throne speech that we heard yesterday demonstrates clearly that this government and this Premier are on the side of the average middle-class working person in British Columbia. It demonstrates. . . .

Interjections.

J. Pullinger: Are you finished?

Interjections.

[11:30]

[ Page 17031 ]

J. Pullinger: When the Liberals are finished, I will proceed.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

This throne speech demonstrates clearly who this government represents. It demonstrates clearly that we hold the values and the priorities of mainstream British Columbians as our first priority. It demonstrates that this government is prepared to continue to invest in people and the things the people of this province need to succeed in their lives and for our province to succeed in a world economy.

You know, the opposition members -- all of that group over there -- seem to have that old-fashioned, outmoded view that government's role somehow is about bottom lines and nothing else. We all know that the bottom line is important, but that's not what government's role is. Government's role is to show positive leadership to create the kind of society, the kind of economy that the average, everyday person in British Columbia needs and wants to have.

The difference has become so very, very clear. The average, ordinary, everyday person wants to see health care and education prioritized. They want to see the kind of society where we can all be prosperous and everyone can have a share in that prosperity. They want to see a kind of society where the needs and aspirations of the average middle-class working person comes first, and they want a government that will put those needs and aspirations first.

What do we hear from the opposition? Their first priority is a billion-dollar tax cut to big corporations, banks, developers. Their first commitment is to the banks, the developers, the big corporations. In order to pay for that, they want to cut another $3 billion out of the services that average British Columbians need to get on with their lives. The people who are now struggling to make ends meet, who work hard, who want to see their kids get the education they need, are going to receive a $3 billion cut in those services from the opposition members if they have the chance.

I am pleased to see that this throne speech says very clearly that we will continue to build British Columbia, we will continue to build on the progress we have made on the needs and aspirations of ordinary British Columbians, and we will continue to move ahead with the progress we have made.

The other side says that they'll protect health and education. They say that they'll look after all of the things we need in this province, but at the same time they're going to cut the heart out of health care and education.

J. Pement: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine on a point of order.

J. Pement: I would like to mention that the hon. member has some points that I would like to hear -- a most interesting speech -- and I cannot hear because of the comments from the opposition. I would like a little decorum, please.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for her intervention and would remind all members that we do function best when we observe a certain level of decorum. I would ask all members to be guided by that.

Member, please continue.

J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As I was saying, the opposition has made it very clear that they're going to cut the heart out of health and education spending. Health, education and social services make up 80 percent of our budget, and you can't cut $3 billion out of a $19 billion budget without cutting the heart out of health and education.

They say they're going to protect health and education; at the same time they're going to cut $1 billion in taxes for the big corporations -- cut the heart out of health and education. It just doesn't add up. Mike Harris in Ontario said he would protect health and education; look at what happened. It just doesn't add up.

So I am pleased that this throne speech says this government will continue to put the needs and concerns of ordinary people first. We're telling people what we're going to do, we're telling people how we're going to do it, and the opposition owes it to the public of this province to say how they're going to cut $3 billion out of the services that people enjoy. They owe it to the people to make clear which services they're going to cut, which hospitals they're going to close and which colleges they're going to close. They need to come clean and tell people how they're going to tear down the progress that was made over the last four years.

You know, we hear so much from the other side about how important the bottom line is. We agree that the bottom line is important, and we have made sure we have kept B.C.'s fiscal house in order. We're not asking people to take our word for it. We're not saying that you should believe us. What we're saying is listen to the investment firms, listen to the international bond-rating agencies. Listen to them tell us that we have the lowest per capita debt in the country, the highest credit rating in the country, the strongest economy in the country and the best job creation record in the country.

We have indicated from this side of the House that we're going to have a second balanced budget this year. We took the record deficit that we inherited from the right-wing government that preceded us, and we paid it off a year in advance. We're going to balance the budget again.

So why do we have these promises of draconian cuts that are going to tear down the progress that we've made? They're going to throw our economy into reverse, and it's going to hurt the average person in British Columbia. We need to have an explanation of why they're going to do it when there is absolutely and clearly no need for those kinds of draconian measures.

I'm pleased that our government is continuing to buck the right-wing tide in this country. Other provinces and the federal government have been cutting spending on health and education. While they've been doing that, we have been investing in health and education. I'm very proud of that. We have increased spending on health and education every year.

I think we've got our priorities right, and I think this throne speech demonstrates that we continue to have our priorities right. I am very pleased that in this throne speech we're making it clear that we're going to bring in legislation that will guarantee in law what other provinces, the opposition and the federal government won't guarantee, and that's the right of British Columbians to health care and education, to protect existing levels of services.

The people opposite would follow in the tracks of Mike Harris and Premier Klein of Alberta, who have cut health care up to about 20 percent. We're seeing hospitals in Alberta sold 

[ Page 17032 ]

off to private interests so that they can run eating-disorder clinics for rich Americans. We don't want that kind of system in British Columbia.

In my riding we have seen the three health care facilities -- every one of them -- upgraded. We've seen a new health care centre built. We have seen new screening mammography programs introduced, new eating-disorder programs introduced, new mental health beds to deal with ongoing problems that people have. We have the first comprehensive, preventive, wellness-focused health plans ready -- the first in our history. We have seen waiting lists for cancer and heart surgery and other kinds of surgery reduced. In fact, this year they are even shorter than they were last year. So we have made some good progress in the priorities that the people have laid out for us.

But none of that progress would happen if the opposition had its way. Because when the federal government gutted social program funding instead of cutting tax breaks for big corporations, and waste, and subsidies to business -- when they gutted social spending, instead of doing what they should have -- every opposition member on the other side of this House stood up and said: "Cut faster, cut more, cut deeper." And they promised to add their own $3 billion worth of cuts on top of that. So let's be very clear that the progress we've made in protecting and improving our health and education system in this province would not have happened if the opposition had its way.

The same kind of thing has happened in education. We've seen new schools built. The social deficit of the eighties, where we essentially didn't build any schools for a whole decade and had record numbers of kids in portables and in learning conditions that were simply inadequate. . . . We've started to fill that gap. We're making good progress in getting kids into good facilities, with computers -- the kind of technology they need in order to succeed in their lives.

You know what? That's going to be stopped cold if the opposition gets their way -- they've made that very clear -- so they can pay for their billions of dollars in tax cuts for the banks and the developers and the big corporations. The rest of us are going to see a $3 billion cut in services.

We've made some good progress. But people care about young people; they care about their future; they're concerned. They want to make sure that young people have the services they need, the educational opportunities they need and the jobs they need to get on with their lives. We're moving forward on that agenda -- not backwards, as the opposition would have us do -- and we're making some real progress.

Over the last four years, we've eliminated wage discrimination -- wage discrimination that the opposition wants so that young people can undercut wages and get paid even less than they want them to be paid. We've increased the minimum wage to a point where at least they can survive on it. We've lowered the voting age to 18. We've brought in a guarantee for youth so that every young person in this province can get the education that they need to get on with their lives, to get the jobs they need. We've frozen tuition fees to make sure that they stay affordable, and we've brought in a Youth Works plan under B.C. Benefits to make sure that those young people who fall out of the system, who are marginalized, have the skills training and the job opportunities they need to get on with their lives -- to get the training to get the jobs that they need.

Our young people are important, and we've made that very, very clear. The leader of this party, of this government, has created a portfolio for youth and taken it himself, and we've made some real progress on that agenda.

Our young people are very important and so are our other workers, so are the other average middle-class British Columbians. They also need a government that's on their side -- a government that will look after their interests, put their priorities ahead of the priorities of the big corporations.

In my riding, about half of the economy is based on the forest industry. In 1991 in the election campaign, we were in the middle of the kind of chaos. . . . I just can't describe the kind of chaos, anger and fear that was happening. Because all through the 1980s we had seen profits for the big forest companies go up, we had seen the cut of our public resource go up, and we had seen the number of jobs drop dramatically -- in my area by 43 percent between 1986 and 1991.

Our international markets were threatened by boycotts. We had demonstrations, boycotts, blockades and conflict in my area and in just about every area of the province. And we had a government in the eighties that refused to deal with the legitimate concerns of workers about job loss and the legitimate concerns of environmentalists about damage to our forests, our rivers, our streams and our fishery. We had a government that refused to work with the communities, the families and the people in this province to resolve those issues.

We've made some really good progress on that issue in the last five years too. We are now in a position where we have turned B.C. around. We have a Vancouver Island land use plan in my area that's supported by 80 percent of the population. And the conflict, for all intents and purposes, is gone. We have peace in the woods.

We have a Forest Practices Code that is increasing the number of jobs. A TimberWest executive reported to the Lake Cowichan Economic Development Committee that the number of jobs is up is because of the Forest Practices Code -- because it takes, in his words, more workers to cut a tree. So we have a Forest Practices Code that is protecting jobs, our forests, our fisheries and our international markets.

We have a forest land reserve that's protecting our working forests. It's keeping big forest companies from logging around the lake and then flipping the land for profit and taking that land and the area out of the active forest -- and at the same time, the rest of us get to pay for services in all sorts of illogical places. So we have a forest land reserve that makes development logical and provides the community with a voice in whether or not land should be developed.

We have Forest Renewal B.C. which invests the money that comes out of our forests back into the land, our forest, and the communities and people who depend on those forests. And that's good news.

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? In four years, we have taken B.C. from a situation of chaos and international shame to being one of the leaders in the world in forest practices, and we have increased jobs in the forests. Not only have we turned that mess around and moved to a truly sustainable industry, but today we're employing 15,000 more people in the woods than we were employing in 1991. That's about a 40 percent increase in jobs.

[11:45]

In my area, we haven't had any of those massive layoffs that we saw in the 1980s -- 450 people a pop just tossed out of work. And the government of the day did nothing, just like 

[ Page 17033 ]

the people across from us are saying: "You shouldn't do anything." The opposition candidate in my riding said not one cent of Forest Renewal B.C. money should be spent on laid-off forest workers. I say shame on the opposition. You know, in this throne speech we have taken forest renewal one step farther -- and I believe it's an excellent step -- in that we have tightened the link between laid-off forest workers and the jobs created by Forest Renewal B.C. We will be seeing that link tightened up solid, so that laid-off forest workers get the first opportunity at the jobs created by Forest Renewal B.C.

Those corporations that are defying the spirit, intent and purpose of the FRBC money and hiring people from the outside to come in and do the FRBC work will no longer be able to do that. I am sure that the opposition members will vote against that measure as well, as they have against every other progressive measure that was brought in to protect our forests, our forest communities and our forest workers.

I am very pleased that we've done that. It's something that I have been lobbying hard for for some time, and I know a number of my colleagues have. It will make a significant difference in my community, because the Forest Renewal B.C. money will go to those millworkers and forest workers who need the jobs, to either get them through a short period of layoff or to provide them with the training and the jobs they need to get on with their lives either in or outside the forest industry.

It's really clear to me in the forestry debate and in every other debate in this House that in every single instance the people opposite, the opposition members, have represented the interests of a handful of the corporate elite and the very wealthy in this province instead of the average, middle-class working person who needs government to be on their side. We have seen them in every instance vote for more corporate control and less community control. I'm sure that we'll see a continuation of that.

The promises that we have seen so far simply continue that trend: a billion dollars to the big corporations and a $3 billion service cut for the rest of us. I think that's shameful. They have promised, in terms of forestry, that if they were ever to be elected, they would reopen the land use plans that we have overwhelming support for. They have committed to doing that for their corporate friends. They have committed to rolling back the protection for the environment that we have brought in -- for their corporate friends. They say it gets in the way of the corporations. They have committed to going back and cutting the links between jobs and our forests that we have created and strengthened, and will continue to strengthen; they have committed to undoing that. And do you know what? I have seen, on at least two occasions, the leader of the Liberal Party make a commitment to review handing over our public forest lands to private forest companies, and I think that's shameful.

L. Reid: State the date and time, and we'll check it out for you.

J. Pullinger: The August-September Truck Logger Magazine is the place and time the opposition member wants. Have a look at it, because your leader, hon. member, is making it very clear that he will look at providing the big corporations with permanent access -- i.e., hand over our public forest lands to private interests. The member opposite should maybe read what her leader is saying.

But you know, hon. Speaker, this throne speech builds on the progress that was made in protecting our forests, forest workers and forest communities, and in making our province have the kind of economy that not just a handful of people or the big corporations or the wealthy can benefit from, but that everybody can have a share in. We have made some really good progress. We're acting on the priorities that British Columbians have laid out for us. We're investing in people. We're investing in our forests. We're investing in education and health care, and in my view, we need to continue to invest in this way if we're going to continue to prosper. That's precisely what this throne speech says we will do.

There's one other thing contained in the throne speech that I think is very indicative of who we represent and who the opposition parties represent. The opposition's first promise, despite the fact that we have a balanced budget, the lowest per capita debt, the hottest economy, the best job creation record, etc., in the country. . . . They have decided to make a draconian $3 billion cut in services to people. But that's only part of the story. They have also promised their corporate buddies a $1 billion tax break.

What we've said on this side of the House, and what we said in 1991, is that we need a tax system that's more fair -- and we have acted on that priority. We have put a minimum tax on the big corporations, as we said we would, and a surtax on that little tiny percentage of the highest-income earners, as we said we would. And we have provided a whole plethora of supports and reductions for people at the other end of the scale and for the average person.

You know, now that we are in a balanced-budget situation for the second year and now that we have put B.C.'s fiscal house back in order, we are acting on another important priority that the people of this province have laid out. We are implementing, as announced in this throne speech, a modest tax cut for the middle class, for the average working person. That lies in stark contrast to the opposition's promise to cut services for those same people and of a tax cut for the corporate elite. It's absolute stark contrast, and the choices have never been clearer. It is very clear that they will put the interests of the big corporations and the wealthy first, and that we will put the interests of the average working family first.

I am pleased that we have managed to provide a small tax break for that group of people who are struggling to make ends meet, who work hard to keep the economy of this province going. I'm also pleased that we're going to enshrine in law the extension of the three-year tax freeze for another three years and the freeze that we've already announced on ICBC rates, hydro rates and other things that everybody pays, to make our system fairer yet. The opposition will do the opposite.

This throne speech is very, very clear. It makes it very clear that this Premier and this government are on the side of the average, middle-class working man and woman in this province, that we will put their needs and their everyday concerns first, that we will continue to represent mainstream values and priorities, and that we will continue to invest in people and to build for our future, while the opposition -- and I can hardly wait to hear it -- is going to tell us how they are going to cut their billion dollars for the wealthy and the big corporations, that they are going to continue to represent corporate values and priorities, and that they are going to tear down the progress that we have made over the last four years.

The question, it seems to me, that the people have to ask themselves is: will they and their families be better off if banks and big corporations get a billion-dollar tax break? Will that make them better off? They need to ask themselves which party and which leader is going to best protect medicare and 

[ Page 17034 ]

education. Is it the people that are going to cut $3 billion out of our services? Is it the people that are going to egg on the federal government to cut the heart out of federal spending for health care and education? Or is it the party that is protecting education, that has fully funded health care and education, that is making long-overdue changes to improve health care and education, to ensure that every British Columbian has access, at an affordable level, to the services they need? So people need to ask themselves which party and which leader is going to best protect medicare and education, and which party and which leader is going to represent them.

J. Beattie: First, I would like to compliment my friend from Cowichan-Ladysmith on her speech, and for the wonderful words of advice that she has given the people of British Columbia. I think, truly, that we have come to a point in the development of British Columbia at which some clear choices have to be made, and I think the member has very eloquently laid out some of those choices. I notice that the members opposite were paying rapt attention to the member's speech, and I hope they try to integrate some of those words into their thought processes.

Before I begin my speech, I'd like to introduce to the House a number of students and a teacher who have. . . .

Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, member. On a point of order, could I ask the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith whether she indeed moved the motion of the throne speech? I'll recognize the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. There was some confusion, you recall, in the beginning, and I think the Chair would like that advice.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I did indeed move the throne speech as my very first comment when I rose to speak.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member, I appreciate that.

Member for Okanagan-Penticton, I recognize you again, and my apology for that interruption.

J. Beattie: I'd like to affirm that it was a very moving speech.

Before I begin, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House a number of students from Princess Margaret Junior Secondary School in Penticton. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Huebert, and his wife, Mrs. Huebert. They are here today, I think, fortuitously. As you know, the session is going to be quite short, and they've planned their visit well. So I hope they enjoy their stay in Victoria -- and welcome to the Legislature.

It's an honour for me to stand today in my place to second the Speech from the Throne in this the fifth session of the thirty-fifth parliament of the province of British Columbia. I feel there is a wonderful optimism today in British Columbia. It's an optimism that I feel with a great deal of intensity, and that I think we on this side of the House feel with a great deal of exhilaration. And I think part of that exhilaration comes from the fact that we are working hard on this side of the House to make that optimism a reality for the people of British Columbia.

Our desire as government and as elected officials is to lead this province into the next millennium with a population that feels positive about the future in British Columbia. And that's our one task: to give the people of British Columbia hope for the future. As politicians, we only lead if the people decide that they want to allow us the privilege of leading, and if they feel, too, that we can fulfil policies and directions that meet their needs.

Part of the new optimism I feel coming forth in the province today is a recognition that the leadership in British Columbia supports the aims of British Columbians across this province. But I suspect that the opposition has a feeling about this optimism as well, and I think that it probably manifests itself in a different way. I think maybe the members opposite have a pit in their stomach about the optimism they feel in this province: a kind of nervousness; a sinking feeling that they've made some wrong choices along the way. They have made some wrong choices along the way, and I think it's becoming more and more obvious to the people of British Columbia that the opposition parties in this province are not in touch with the people of British Columbia. It's obvious what side the opposition is on.

I want to talk about choices: choices that are made every day; choices that avail themselves to us and sometimes may seem to stand in an unconnected fashion. They stand like rogue tulips, one might say, in a field of wild grass and dandelion -- no order, just happenstance. But when these choices become part of a vision, when they become part of a plan or stewardship, they lose that roguishness. They lose that randomness, and they become part of a tended plan -- part of a vision for the province, one that can offer comfort in the form of its making, one that offers the joy of success in its implementation and a sense of security in the planning, allowing the vision to grow over the years.

[12:00]

I listened to CBC the other day, and Margaret Atwood said that she could never be a gardener. She said that it takes too much planning and work before you see the results. And it's true. Tending the garden is a commitment, and it takes a great deal of planning. And it's that type of planning -- that willingness to make an investment in the future by planning ahead -- that is one of the attributes and requirements of good government. You have to have the willingness to invest time, and you have to work in preparation to achieve the results that you want to achieve. And that willingness to plan means taking on the hard issues that come before you, like, for example, the war in the woods that this government inherited from the previous government. And step by step, piece by piece, with patience, persistence and most of all with commitment, we were able to fashion a solution that meets the broadest needs of the people of British Columbia.

It takes a sense of unremitting persistence to meet the challenges that the people of British Columbia place before us. And that's something that this government has been up to over the last four years. Let me speak about this government's clear vision of good government for British Columbia and how that's been implemented over the last number of years -- a brief retrospective, if you will.

First, I want to talk about the administration of good government from the view of the Legislature. In the last three years this government has introduced three important legislative officers to the people of British Columbia. First we brought in the ombudsman, a person who is a source for British Columbians to appeal to for a look at their situation in a way which helps resolve difficult and intractable conflicts in British Columbia. The ombudsman has been in place for three years, and in that time has met the needs of thousands and thousands of British Columbians who had, up to that point, been unable to find a resolution to their problems.

Second, just in the last year we brought in another officer of the Legislature, the position of child and family advocate in 

[ Page 17035 ]

British Columbia. Out of the tragedies that have existed in our province in terms of dealing with problems of children and families, we now have an officer of the Legislature whose one job is to protect the rights of children. And that position is separate from government, is free from the political cares of the day, and acts in an objective fashion to meet the needs of the province.

And finally, the freedom-of-information officer, whose task it is to make sure that all the information that should be available to the people of British Columbia is available. From an administrative point of view, in terms of opening up government to the surveillance of the people of British Columbia, these three key positions have radically changed how government in British Columbia is enacted.

It's not only in these major administrative ways that this New Democratic Party government has changed governing in British Columbia. There are also a series of things this government has done and will continue to do. At this juncture in the governance of British Columbia, we have the smallest cabinet that has existed in a number of decades. We're bringing more efficiency so that the money we spend is used to support services like education and health care. We understand that those are the emphases that British Columbians want us to have. We have undertaken a regionalization of health care in the last three years in order to bring greater control of health care to the regions and to downsize what the public has seen as an overburdening bureaucracy in Victoria.

We've continued, despite the fiscal restraints of the federal government and the cry for British Columbians to spend more efficiently, to fund health care and education in the last four years at the highest level of any province in Canada. Our commitment has been absolute. Health care and education are a priority to this government, and we will not back away from that commitment.

As part of that willingness to make sure that the youth, the elderly and young families have the education and the health care they need, we've made a firm commitment through B.C. 21 to invest in infrastructure in British Columbia. There is no point in saying that you're going to meet the needs of educating young people when you don't have the classrooms to put them in. In British Columbia we have unremittingly pursued a course of providing the infrastructure so that services can be delivered in the highest-quality way. I am very proud of the fact that we have not backed away -- given the harping from the opposition benches that it can't be afforded, that it's too much money and that we should put it off until we're in a better situation. That has been unacceptable to this government. We've continued to invest in the infrastructure in this province because infrastructure is good for every individual British Columbian, and, as well, it attracts the type of business investment that makes this economy continue to grow.

There have been a lot of criticisms over the years of our social safety net in British Columbia and across Canada. I'm proud to say that under the current Minister of Social Services, and led by our previous Social Services minister, we have now transformed the income assistance programs in British Columbia so that they are a hand up to those who want to be productive members of our communities -- working like everyone else, paying taxes, having pride in their province and having pride in the fact that they're contributing to the growth. We've taken an antiquated employment assistance system, turned it around with our changes to B.C. Benefits and said: "If you need our support, we're there. We'll help you if you have to stay home because of disability or children." Our prime thrust has been to bring people back into the workforce and make them productive members of what is really one of the strongest-growing economies in Canada. I think that makes sense, and I think that the people of British Columbia have found a new optimism in that legislative direction.

At the same time that we have worked to make our administrative house more efficient, attempted to show our commitment to education and health care and resolved some of the difficulties in income assistance, we've also been very tough on protecting the environment. We are moving rapidly towards doubling the protected areas in this province, coming right out of the Brundtland commission of the late 1980s. We are one government in North America that has focused on the vision of the Brundtland commission. We've worked unremittingly toward implementing that policy, despite the nattering from the opposition benches.

We have continued to say that for future generations, for the children sitting in the opposite gallery, we must preserve the ecosystems and the integrity of our environment. We've done that with the parks policy. We've done that with tough legislation that says no more dioxins in our watersheds. We've done that with our Forest Practices Code, which says no more mud in the gravel in the streams that our fish use to procreate. We've done that in legislation that talks about emissions. We've talked about purchasing those clunkers that are polluting our cities. We have been firm in environmental legislation. We're saying that enough's enough; the well-being of our future generations is dependent upon an environment and an ecology that can support a diversity of human life. We have continued, with vision, to implement those policies.

I'm giving you, hon. Speaker, a sense that when you make the commitment to take on the hard issues, there are no quick fixes. Things come of age as you allow them to feel the brunt of the legislation, as you feel the brunt of the discussions, and as people bring these policies into their minds and implement them with the naturalness that is required for a wholeness in our communities. We know it doesn't happen overnight. We have done, in a very orderly way, the implementation of a vision of what British Columbia should be. I'm proud to be part of that vision, and this throne speech continues that vision.

Before I move away from the retrospective of what this government has done in the last four throne speeches, I have to speak to the historic signing of the Nisga'a treaty, the agreement in principle. If anything exemplifies a vision of a government that has been willing to take on the hard issues and not back away from them despite the cries that we are giving away the farm, despite the cries that somehow aboriginal people are so greedy that they want it all, despite the cries that it's unaffordable. . . . We have proceeded to negotiate honourable treaties with the first nations of this province, and we will continue to do so in our next mandate until every aboriginal people has had its outstanding claims addressed.

This government has proceeded with a clear sense of vision, with an evenhandedness, with a sense of meeting the ambitions of the majority of people in this province. As I said, they're not quick fixes but long-term solutions that have public support, that are reasonable, and that in the end enhance the quality of life in British Columbia.

Let me speak to some exciting developments that have recently taken place in my constituency, which I think have caught the imagination of my constituents and have given them a sense of the reality of the optimism that is extant in this province right now -- an optimism that they, too, feel.

[ Page 17036 ]

Interjection.

J. Beattie: Well, let me tell you. The hon. member across the floor is expressing that he's very excited, too, about the developments in the tree fruit industry, and he wants me to speak to that. These developments in the tree fruit industry came about as a result of choices that this government made over the last four years, choices to move inexorably toward a healthy economy in the Okanagan.

Just two or three days ago the hon. Minister of Agriculture was in my constituency -- I see him sitting in his seat today -- to announce that this year the tree fruit growers of the Okanagan have committed to plant 700 acres of tree fruits in the Okanagan Valley. That's up 40 percent over the previous high of planting of acres in the Okanagan Valley. That is a significant statement of confidence in the direction that this government has chosen and in which it has led the growers in this province over the last number of years. These 700 acres represent $10 million of infusion of investment into the Okanagan. Some $2.8 million of that investment is provided by the provincial government, but $7.2 million of that is Okanagan growers' dollars. It's a clear statement of the fact that they see a future in tree fruits in British Columbia.

How did we get to that confidence, hon. members and hon. Speaker? We got to that confidence in a clear, step-by-step fashion, led by the Minister of Agriculture, who first convened forums so that the tree fruit growers could sit over the course of a year, discuss their needs, look at the economic picture as it existed, and talk about how they saw the Okanagan, as a niche growing area, fit into the international tree fruit industry. Through a process of bringing their ideas to government and through the lobbying of myself and the minister to the Finance minister and the Treasury Board, we were able to achieve a transitional funding program which gave the growers a sense that the government was willing to put their money where their mouth was. Out of that transitional program came a new optimism which replaced a resignation and a dejection that I saw for four or five years previous to this time.

[12:15]

As a result of all of these steps led by the minister, we have now got a future which means more jobs, which means a strengthened economy in the Okanagan -- because, as you know, tree fruits are an integral part of the economy in the Okanagan Valley -- and it means sustainability. It means that there are not going to be trees pulled out of the ground and these fields left fallow. Those of us from the agricultural areas of the province know that there's nothing worse than seeing fallow land in a province where so little of our land is really suitable for agriculture.

What I think this government has shown in the tree fruit industry in my constituency is that we believe in people, we believe in their vision, and we're willing to invest in their dreams. This is undeniable to those with eyes willing to see. We are making a commitment, not only to the tree fruit industry but to the whole resource sector, and we recognize that the resource sector will continue to be the engine of the economy in this province -- a province with the strongest economy in Canada, a province with the highest level of confidence from international bond agencies around the world.

It's because of our choices. Indeed I'm talking about choices, hon. members. It's because of our choices to commit to long-term growth and results based on sound biological and fiscal principles that we are bringing greater security to another important industry in British Columbia, and that's the wood fibre industry.

Hon. Speaker, I must add that the Liberal opposition have also made choices over the last number of years with regard to the forest sector -- their choices about the Forest Practices Code, which they chose to reject in the House; and their choices about Forest Renewal B.C., which they chose to reject in the House. Their choices will be remembered by the people of British Columbia. The people's optimism in British Columbia is based upon the solid policies that this government have introduced in this Legislature. That includes the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. The opposition opposite have been in the wrong part of the people's minds in this; they have made the wrong choices. That's why they're nervous about the optimism in British Columbia.

But fortunately for a company in my constituency -- Interior Joinery in Penticton, a small value-added company -- our commitment to boost the value-added sector's importance in our economic future has resulted in their achieving a wood supply of three years -- enough for them to meet the needs of their Asian markets.

Hon. Speaker, I see that I have. . . .

Interjections.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, as is my wont, I'm wanting to make sure that I meet the needs of the House, on both sides. I want to make sure that the debate on this important legislation continues in a way which suits the needs of the opposition and myself and my party. So I'll continue until my time is up, or rather, until the Speaker comes back in and says that we should wind up my portion of this debate.

But being on the side of small companies like Interior Joinery, being on the side of small business men and women who represent the tree fruit industry in my constituency. . . .

Interjection.

J. Beattie: The hon. member doesn't realize that, indeed, orchardists are small business people, but I'll remind her of that. Being on the side of the middle-class working people in this province is a choice that we've made, and we're backing that up with investments in their future.

Big corporations have shown that they can take care of themselves, and even though we have provided the regulatory and fiscal climate as well as the infrastructure to meet their needs, they have to pay their own way. They have to pay taxes; they have to pay fair taxes. The Liberals across the floor have made some choices. They've made some ominous and disturbing choices, hon. Speaker, about taxes. They say they want to give a $1.1 billion tax break to banks and developers and to corporations, and at the same time they plan to out-slash-and-burn those red-hot knife-wielders of Alberta and Ontario by cutting $3 billion in government spending -- if they should ever get into office.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. members, apart from the realization by an informed electorate in my riding that those types of cuts, those types of tax breaks, are going to mean a drastic reduction in services across the province, my constituents worry about the security of the investments in their community, investments that they've worked hard with government to achieve for their region.

[ Page 17037 ]

Let me give you another example of some successful infrastructure investment in my constituency. Okanagan University College, a growing institution that meets the needs of students in my constituency, will in a few short days see the opening of an enlarged campus. This campus is a far cry from what we saw seven or eight years ago, when young people were being turned away from institutions of higher learning because of a shortage of spaces. Again our belief in people, our willingness to invest in their vision and our determination to plan for the future have created a situation where our youth will get the tools that come with higher education, so they can work and succeed in our changing economy.

But what courses will survive the $3 billion cut of the Liberals? How much will tuition fees have to go up when these cuts are combined with the massive offloading and cuts from the federal government, cuts which the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party said didn't go far enough? Yes, hon. Speaker, the Liberal Party is transparent. The public sees that their policies don't add up. You can't give huge tax breaks to corporations and to the wealthy, and cut $3 billion from spending in the B.C. budget, without hurting education and medicare. The public, the ordinary middle-class working people in this province, know that it's they who will pay the price of Liberal policies.

Optimism grows when there is a knowledge that government believes in people and is willing to invest in them, when a community plans and consults together. And they want that vision to be realized by a government that is not going to cut them off at the knees.

Yesterday's throne speech adds to the vision of this New Democratic government. We choose to take a stand in support of one health care system for all. We choose tax relief for middle-class working people. We choose to invest in our children and in our future by creating more post-secondary spaces, so we can face the new economy with confidence, so we can succeed on our terms in the international marketplace. We choose to share B.C.'s prosperity by tying resources to jobs and to direct Forest Renewal B.C. dollars into the new forest economy by employing laid-off forest workers.

Optimism is a state of mind, but one that can be nurtured. This government has shown that we have stood side by side with the people of British Columbia and met the challenges as they've come. Sometimes we've failed, but we've learned, we've grown, and in the end we've continued to succeed. The belief is spreading across this province that we do have our priorities right in B.C. This throne speech nurtures optimism, and I am very proud to recommend it to this House.

G. Campbell: We have had quite a day today. Hon. Speaker, I would like to take some time to respond to the throne speech, as you would expect, this being the last throne speech of this government. But in view of the situation that's taken place, I would like to move that we adjourn debate.

G. Campbell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 12:25 p.m. to 1:06 p.m.

The Speaker: Hon. members, on the matter of an emergency which was raised this morning, I have considered, with very great care, all of the submissions made by all hon. members. I accept that there may indeed be a most serious situation in Surrey. I feel, however, that the bill in its present form goes well beyond the situation in Surrey, and does not satisfy the stringent guidelines -- and I must emphasize "stringent guidelines" -- applicable to standing order 81 to permit this bill to proceed through all stages on this day, and therefore it fails.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I would be glad now, if the government wants to introduce a bill to deal specifically with Surrey, to pass that today to ensure that. . . .

The Speaker: That is not a point of order at this time.

Hon. E. Cull: Having heard your ruling, I would now move that we move the bill to orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this very serious matter. On the basis of that, we accept your guidance on it, and I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Saturday.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:08 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada