[ Page 287 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

R. Neufeld: I would like to introduce to the House Bill and Linda Dueck, relatives of mine from Winnipeg. Linda I've never met, and Bill I haven't seen for 40 years, so it's good to see them today. Along with them are Connie and Brian Cooper, their daughter and her husband, who reside in North Vancouver. Would the House make them welcome.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Anyway, hon. Speaker....

An Hon. Member: Don't harp about the budget -- just the throne speech.

M. Farnworth: I intend to, hon. member. I've already given my budget speech, and I wouldn't want to relive the highlights for you again.

Hon. Speaker, we came into this House with a throne speech that I feel gives a vision of where this government wants to go and where I would like to see this province go and where it needs to go over the next four years. I'm going to talk about that over the next few minutes.

I also want to lay out some views and some feelings that I have on issues that I think are important in my own constituency of Port Coquitlam, which, as I like to tell members of this House, is the second-largest riding in the province, after Okanagan West. It's one of the fastest-growing; there are approximately 85,000 people. It is slated, if one is to believe the reports in the Vancouver Sun and the media and the projections of the greater Vancouver regional district, to have a considerable population increase over the next ten, 15 years. The growth that's currently taking place will continue to take place.

I live in and represent a part of the Fraser Valley that, as I said, takes in a great deal of growth, but it has a lot of attractive features and a lot of potential. There's a great deal of community concern that we need to do some correct and proper planning and put in place infrastructure to ensure that the quality of life we have is maintained over the next few years. It was, to me, one of the most important things over the last four years, and it will be one of the most important things over the next four years.

The people of Port Coquitlam are very concerned about a number of areas -- primarily education, transportation and the environment. Over the last four years we've made great strides in all three of those areas.

On the environment, as many of you are aware, we made some important environmental land use decisions: the protection of Mount Burke, the preservation of Colony Farm, the protection of the mouth of the Coquitlam River and Douglas Island and the important salmon habitat found at the mouth of the river. But a great deal more needs to be done, particularly on the Coquitlam River. There are a number of gravel pits that are polluters, and we need to address that. Over the next four years we need to examine the problems the gravel pits are causing on the Coquitlam River -- whether it's a question of new regulations or enforcement of existing regulations. To me, that is a priority over the next four years, and I will talk further on that in a few minutes.

We also have considerable growth in the area of housing starts, and this has created pressure on the school system. Before we took office in 1991, there hadn't been a single high school built in the riding since 1972. Currently there are three high schools under construction, one of which is scheduled to open this fall. There are a number of other schools scheduled to open this fall -- the Scott Creek Middle School and elementary schools -- and this is going to help to relieve some of the pressure on parents coming into the area and will relieve some of the pressure on portables. It will in fact reduce the number of portables. But I want to see that we continue to build schools -- not as they were done in the past, but as housing and subdivisions take place and as construction takes place. School construction needs to take place as the subdivisions are built.

One thing that has happened, and one of the problems that we addressed prior to our taking office -- and many people don't realize -- is that Crown land could be sold....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Hon. member, when your party was in government, it sold off the Westwood plateau, currently the single largest housing project in this province. They sold it off for a song, without reserving school sites, and the taxpayers of this province have to buy the school sites at full market value. It was a lack of planning, hon. member; that was a clear case of "take the money and run." That was what the previous government's attitude was to planning and to finances in this province, hon. member.

What the government did was bring in legislation so that from now on, whenever Crown land is sold, school sites are set aside at the beginning, so that taxpayers aren't picking up the costs at an inflated value five, six or seven years down the road, whenever the development takes place. It's not just Crown land; it's whenever lands over five-lot parcels are developed. Either land must be set aside or money must be contributed. That is going to have a major impact on the quality of life in my constituency; in fact, it is already starting to bear results.

The other area that needs to be addressed in my constituency is transportation. While the hon. member for Peace River North's government was selling off land and telling everybody to come and develop in the Port Coquitlam-Coquitlam tri-cities area -- and that's great, you know, the private investment that has come in and the jobs that have been created -- they forgot a very important thing. They forgot that people have to be able to get in and out of the community. That never took place; no improvements or investments in infrastructure ever took place.

[ Page 288 ]

One of the key functions of government is to build roads and transportation systems, to put in place the systems that are required so people can move. Well, over the last four years we did that.

R. Neufeld: And there were no roads until last year?

M. Farnworth: As a matter of fact, hon. member, there weren't any roads in the tri-city area until last year. [Laughter.] In fact, you know, hon. member for Peace River North, I really am enjoying you today, because you're making my job of this speech a little easier.

[10:15]

One of the highlights of the last few weeks has been watching on the media the kerfuffle over the Second Narrows Bridge and the Lions Gate Bridge and the traffic tie-ups that have occurred. Well, I remember one newscast in particular, where the reporter who lives out our way did a story on the tie-ups at the Second Narrows Bridge. He wanted to see what all the fuss is about. He said: "Yeah, there is a problem out there at the Second Narrows Bridge. But let's go out to the tri-cities area and talk to the people who live in Port Moody, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam. Let's go to the Bailey bridge. A little one-lane bridge, it takes 26,000 vehicles a day and has done since 1983. Let's go ask those people what they think of the problems at the Second Narrows Bridge." At the end of it, he held up a quarter. He said to the people on the North Shore: "Here's a quarter from the people of tri-cities. Go call someone who cares."

We have lived with previous governments' neglect of transportation planning for over 20 years. The Bailey bridge that served a population of 25,000 people is the same bridge that serves a population of 50,000. But the fact is that this fall that bridge will open, and it will be a new two-lane bridge. That's because of the foresight of this government.

I'm looking forward to opening the widening of the Mary Hill bypass this fall, removing one of the last major bottlenecks on the Lougheed Highway north of the Fraser River. What happened before was: "There's growth taking place out there; we had better build some highways up the valley." So they built some nice four-lane roads through Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, but they forgot that in Port Coquitlam there is a big train bridge, and they narrowed it all down to one lane, so you have backups for miles.

An Hon. Member: Poor planning.

M. Farnworth: It's poor planning. It's lack of investment and lack of foresight.

Anyway, we dealt with that. That is now being eliminated, and this fall the widening of one of the last major bottlenecks will take place, as I said. So we've been addressing transportation problems, and we've addressed environmental and school problems.

The throne speech sets out the direction we want to take over the next four years. Now what I want to see us do is build on what we've accomplished so far. We've accomplished a great deal, and it's a record of which I'm extremely proud. What we need to do now, and what I campaigned on in the election campaign, is address the Cape Horn interchange. The Cape Horn interchange is probably the biggest and worst nightmare in existence for anybody who lives on the north side of the Fraser. It is a mess; again, it's an example of extremely poor planning. It was built in 1965, and there have been virtually no upgrades. In fact, when the Mayfair-Cape Horn area was last looked at, it was, "Development can go in," but no foresight was used to say: "Okay, let's improve this intersection." Consequently they restricted the options the government has available to it.

But we've said that we're going to deal with that, and I intend to hold this government to account to make sure that we do. If we deal with that, then we will have started to put in place a proper road network so that we can accommodate the growth that people want. People out my way aren't opposed to new people coming in; what they're opposed to is new people coming in and neglect by government in not providing the infrastructure so that people can get in and out of the community properly. That's one of the things we want to do.

The second thing we have to do is bring in light rapid transit down the Broadway-Lougheed corridor, through Lougheed Mall, up through Coquitlam-Port Moody and out to Coquitlam Centre. We've got to get going on that, because that's going to be critical.

An Hon. Member: It's been frozen.

M. Farnworth: Hon. member, it's going to be opening in nine years, as we said it would. I feel extremely confident about that, because work has taken place, and what is required over the next four years will be in place by the next election. So, hon. member, that's going to take place.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Hon. member, we said we'd put in commuter rail, and we did; we said we're going to build LRT, and we will. LRT into the Coquitlam Centre area is going to do two things: it's going to attract a great deal of private investment, and it's going to generate a huge amount of jobs, enabling us to plan development in the lower mainland so that we can accommodate people. In my own area it's going to create for the first time a network of transit that people can actually use, and start to get around the lower mainland. You're going to have the commuter rail line along Burrard Inlet, you're going to have SkyTrain from New Westminster, you're going to have the Broadway-Lougheed LRT line, and you're going to have the line from Lougheed Mall to New Westminster. So you'll have a circle route that one will be able to travel around the lower mainland. You can't do that now. That's going to be able to accommodate the growth. That's critical, because if you look at the growth projections, we're going to -- they say now -- add another 2.5 million people over the next 20-25 years.

I read today that we need to send some of those people off to Kelowna or Vancouver Island, and I think that's true. I think other parts of the province should share in the opportunities and in some of the burdens that come with increased growth. One of the things that happens is that communities see green space under threat, they see roads become busier, and they see a strain on the school system. It is a burden for the local area to have to deal with that. But it does create opportunities, and other parts of the province should share in those opportunities. I still think, though, that the bulk of the people will settle in the lower mainland. That, to me, is important, and that's what I want to work on over the next four years.

In the next four years we have to make great strides in the environment. Fish have become an important issue over the last couple of years. The problems with the Alaskans....  

[ Page 289 ]

We've seen what has happened with the east coast fisheries. We don't want that to happen here on the west coast with our salmon stocks. We've paid a great deal of attention to the Fraser River, the Skeena and the major rivers and salmon-producing streams. But they're not the only major rivers, because the salmon runs depend just as much, if not more, on the small streams -- on the creeks, brooks and rivulets. Every single one of those, like the branches of a tree, is feeding into bigger and bigger streams. Those are the key ones. If they look at them, they may say: "Okay, there's one or two or three salmon, and covering this one over or filling it in isn't going to make much of a difference." Maybe for that one stream it doesn't make much of a difference. But one added to another, added to another, added to another makes a huge difference.

The biggest salmon-producing river in my riding is the Coquitlam River; in fact, my riding takes in the Coquitlam River from the point where it enters the Fraser all the way up into the headwaters of the Coquitlam watershed. There was a dam put on that river in 1914, a dam which forever ended the run of sockeye which used to go up the river. In 1948 the last chinook was seen in the Coquitlam River. In the late 1950s the Coquitlam River was strip-mined of gravel, and the pink salmon became extirpated from the river. By the mid-1960s the run of salmon in the Coquitlam River was down to probably 300 coho and maybe 1,000 chum salmon. The vegetation had been stripped from the banks, the water in summer was hot enough to take a warm bath in, and there was very little life.

Over the last 25 years there has been a great deal of improvement. We've tried to deal with some of the siltation problems from the gravel pits, but in my opinion we haven't done enough. What has happened is a restoration of the vegetation on the banks of the river. There has been channel-straightening on the river. And we put in place a stream flow agreement on the Coquitlam River two years ago, a stream flow agreement that for the first time since that dam was built almost at the turn of the century takes water from B.C. Hydro and puts it back into the Coquitlam River to ensure that there's enough of a stream flow for salmon fry. This is especially true in the critical summer months of July, August and early September. Whereas three years ago, if you looked at the Coquitlam River in those months, quite often you would see that in a hot summer it would be dry and there would be virtually no water -- maybe a couple of inches at most -- last year, and you'll notice again this year, there was water there. That's because this government went to Hydro and told them that not only is their mandate to generate power, but their mandate must now start to take the environment into account. We now have in place a stream flow agreement that's taking water from Hydro and putting it back for fish. But the Coquitlam is just one stream of many, because into the Coquitlam River flow Hoy Creek, Maple Creek, Scott Creek and Hyde Creek. Well, Hyde Creek actually flows into the Pitt, but it's part of the same system.

Some of those streams are in pretty good shape; some of them aren't. Maple Creek, for example, because of development, now runs dry for months of the year. One of the things that I'm trying to do is ensure that we get a stable water supply in that creek. Recently the stream keepers there have received a grant to try and determine what work needs to be done. I'm hoping that it will be something as simple as a well at the headwaters of the creek. That water comes out of the ground 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's not a great deal of money, but a practical solution will ensure the survival of that creek. The same goes for Hyde Creek. It too runs dry at certain times of the year in a hot summer. We have to ensure that there's a stable water supply for it.

We need to educate people, and there hasn't been a great deal of education done. School kids are now engaged in hatcheries on Hyde Creek and on Scott Creek, and there are programs in place that show kids at a very early age the importance of salmon and the importance of the environment. That's going to take the next stage. When those kids grow up, it won't be a question of: are those salmon important? It won't be a question of: "The river is dead, and there's not much we can do about it." People will know the river is alive, and there's a great deal we can do about it, if only we have the will to make the decisions to protect it. So those are some of the key things which I'm concerned about.

Another area on the environmental front is.... Now that we've set in place the Burke Mountain Park, and the Colony Farm lands have been protected as a regional park, we need to ensure that what park development takes place takes place with the agreement of local communities. There are huge population bases next door to some very significant protected areas. Already we're seeing pressures on their use and conflicts between those who feel that there should be no active recreational use of some of these areas.... We've seen conflict over the Pitt River between those who feel that the Pitt River should not be used by boaters and those who make the argument: "Sure, the Pitt River is a working river; sure, it's an important environmental issue; but we have to take into account that there are important economic considerations." We've got to try and find a way of solving those problems, and I intend to continue to do that over the next four years.

What I've laid out over the last few minutes is a little idea of who my constituents are, where we've come, what we've accomplished over the last few years and where I intend to see us go.

Hon. Speaker, the throne speech speaks to the people of the province about the direction the province needs to go. I believe we need to build on the successes of the last four years and carry ourselves in the next four years to build on our prosperity and ensure that this province continues to remain the most attractive province in this country for offshore investment, for people seeking a new and better life, and for, wherever possible, providing innovative and new ways of addressing problems.

[10:30]

You know, hon. Speaker, yesterday we tabled legislation in this House on the family bonus. That's the first innovative social program in this country by any province or by the federal government in almost 30 years. It's something that I'm extremely proud of. What we're doing is addressing the problem of working families. We're helping them build and make a better life for themselves, and we're providing more opportunities for them. That's something we said in the election campaign that we wanted to do, and that's something that we're following through on in this first term in the Legislature.

We have many problems in this province. Last session we dealt with the problems in the forest industry. We brought in the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal. We sat down and looked at where this province needs to be over the next 40 years. "What things have to be put in place now?" We did what was required in the forest industry. We made the land use decisions that had been crying out to be made for 40 years and hadn't been made. It was this government that did that, in the face of opposition from the opposition, in the face of criticism from environmentalists, in the face of criticism from industry and in the face of criticism from our own supporters, 

[ Page 290 ]

who were saying: "It can't be done; there's no way you're going to be able to bring business and labour and environmentalists to the table and get them to agree on everything, because no one has been able to do it before."

The fact of the matter is that we did it. I think it's something that all British Columbians acknowledge, and it's one of the reasons we're back on this side of the House. At the end of the day, what's important to people is results. What's important is not the day-to-day problems that occur in governing; what's important is the future of people, the future of their children and the future direction of this province. The forest industry contributes 50 cents of every economic dollar. The people of this province knew that it was in trouble. They knew that there had to be tough and drastic steps taken and innovative changes made. They wanted the government to do that, and the government did that.

I believe that over the next four years one of the areas that's going to call for innovative change and for a government to take action and stand up for what's right is the area of fisheries. We have very serious problems. We have a federal government involved in the fishery that doesn't seem to recognize that there's a problem on the west coast, that somehow seems to think a band-aid solution is what's required -- if we can just do a quick political fix that will get us through to the next election, that's the answer. Well, it's that quick-fix solution, that band-aid solution, that led to the collapse of the east coast fishery.

An Hon. Member: Will you guys drain the ocean?

An Hon. Member: That's the all-stars.

M. Farnworth: All-stars, hon. member? I don't know if I'd say they're all.... There are some stars over there. They're definitely not all-stars, but I'll talk about that in a minute.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I'm sure there are a lot of stars over there. I'm sure there are some white dwarfs, some red giants and some blue giants. There are probably even a few black holes over there. But I haven't seen any shining stars yet.

Anyway, back to fishing. Band-aid solutions are what resulted in the collapse of the east coast fishing industry, because the government would not take the steps that were required to ensure the sustainability of the cod stocks and then later the turbot stocks. It has resulted in the collapse of the fishery and the collapse of communities on the east coast. There are no solutions in place.

We right now are at a critical junction in the history of the west coast salmon fishery. There have to be dramatic changes. There have to be substantive decisions made by the federal government and by the province to ensure that the fishery remains a viable economic generator, that it remains an important source of jobs in this province. If we don't make those changes, then we could very easily go the way of the east coast.

We've made dramatic strides in education. We've built more schools than any other province and any other government in the history of this province. We will continue to build more schools.

Our throne speech sets out a vision for this province, a vision which I'm proud of. My constituents asked me to articulate what I wanted to do and what I thought was important over the next four years. I've done that. I am confident, in the same way that we delivered on our commitments at the last election in '91.... Going into this current election campaign, I was able to point to all the accomplishments of our government, all the positive changes that we've made. I know that four years from now we will be able to do the same thing, to point to the accomplishments in our riding, to the issues that we've addressed. Whether it's the Cape Horn interchange, the salmon streams...

R. Neufeld: Don't do more than you can afford.

M. Farnworth: ...or the work on the LRT, we'll have done that. The hon. member for Peace River North says: "Don't do more than you can afford." Well, hon. member, I have just got this to say to you: the people wanted the West Coast Express. We said we'd do it and we built it. They wanted the Bailey bridge replaced, hon. member, and we replaced it. They wanted the Mary Hill bypass widened, and we replaced it. They wanted a Pitt River counterflow done, and we're doing it. They wanted a courthouse built in Port Coquitlam, and we built it. They wanted Mount Burke protected, and we did that. They wanted Colony Farm protected, and we did that. They wanted Douglas Island protected, and we did that. Every single thing that had to be done in 1991 was completed by 1996, and four years from now it will be the same thing again.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me pleasure to stand here in support of the throne speech. It's a throne speech that clearly shows which direction this government is going and whose side, basically, this government is on. It recognizes the concerns that individuals talked to us about during the election. However, it doesn't take the opposition's naysaying attitude that everything is wrong in the province. Instead, it recognizes that this is the best province in Canada, and that British Columbia is doing the best of any province throughout this wonderful country that we have, and that people are proud of what's going on in British Columbia. They don't want to see B.C. go the way of Alberta or Ontario. They do not want to see the type of politics that is taking place in those provinces taking place here. They know that we have the best economy in Canada right here in British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada.

British Columbians know that, they're proud of it, and they want to keep it. They do not want to see us going the way that they have gone in Alberta; they do not want to see our programs slashed and, particularly, they don't want to see privatized medicare coming into this province. They do not want to hear the Health minister-in-waiting from Kamloops -- who got defeated, I'm sure, because of his statements -- say: "Get out your Visa card and MasterCard. Be prepared to pay for health care in this province." That was rejected by the people. That is what this government is standing up for.

Hon. Speaker, if you go across Canada you'll recognize that this province is the envy of all Canadians. They recognize that this is where they want to live, and that we have the best economy in Canada. We have created the most jobs in Canada for the past few years. Ever since this government has been in, more jobs have been created in British Columbia than in any other province, and the people of this province want to see that maintained. They do not want to see us going the way some of those other areas have gone.

They did say they were concerned about the debt, even though we have the lowest per capita debt in Canada. They 

[ Page 291 ]

did want to see us do something about it, but they wanted to see us continue to invest in our people. That meant investing in our health care, education and post-secondary education.

We have put in a tuition freeze on post-secondary education that our young people are proud of and very grateful for, because they recognize that the federal government was making such incredible decreases in the budget for the province that their whole future was threatened. Their whole future was at stake because they didn't know whether they would be able to afford the increases that would be required to offset the federal off-loading that was taking place. This government and this Premier recognize that our young people are our future, that we have a reputation we must keep, that we have to continue to invest in our young people, that we have to make sure that their futures are viable for everybody, that advanced education -- whether it be in a technical institution, a college or a university -- should not be available just to the wealthy and that it must be available to everybody out there. Therefore the tuition freeze came in.

We have continued to invest in our people, and we will continue to invest in our people. The tax breaks that we have brought in for low- and middle-income earners are something that everybody is grateful for.

No, it's not as much as what I would have liked to see; it's not the 12 percent that the opposition say. How on earth they thought they could give a 12 percent decrease in taxes and still provide more money for everything, plus give tax breaks to the corporations, I have no idea. And you know what? Neither did anybody else. They knew that they couldn't possibly achieve those things. They knew it wasn't possible to give all those tax breaks to the corporations and the wealthy and still provide health care and education. It wasn't possible; they know it and I know it. You know what? The members over there also know that that wasn't possible. They know as well.

So this budget and this throne speech actually give tax breaks to those that really need it: the low- and middle-income earners of this province. I'm really proud of that. It also talks about B.C. Benefits and about the advantages that are taking place in trying to give some incentives to move people off welfare and into the working world.

The family bonus was just brought about. The $103 child bonus that will be going out to every low-income family is, I think, the most progressive move that we have ever taken as a government and that anybody has ever taken as a government.

Over the time since I've been elected -- and it's almost ten years now, though it seems longer sometimes -- the thing that has frustrated me most is that we have been unable to assist the low-income people -- what I call the working poor out there. These are individuals who find themselves with a job but earning minimum wage and actually having an incredible problem of making ends meet, of trying to assist themselves. In many cases, they find that in fact they have been better off on welfare than they have been in working at a low-income job.

[10:45]

The changes that are taking place in B.C. Benefits have given the working people of this province -- the working poor of this province -- an opportunity to actually get out there, earn a living and make it worthwhile to get off welfare. We are now providing dental care for those low-income people, for their children. We are providing eye care for the low-income people and for their children.

We have provided a family bonus that is going out not just to welfare recipients or to those on income assistance, but to the working poor out there. And that is an advantage. It's $103 per child for the working poor that will be given to them. They will be receiving a cheque through the mail. Hopefully, the members over there won't hold this legislation up, because we need to get this passed today so that we can provide those services to those individuals.

We need to make sure that the working people, the low-income people out there, have as much opportunity as they can. B.C. Benefits will actually provide some advantages to 200,000 B.C. families. This is benefits to B.C. families, to the working people out there; it's not benefits to the corporations. It is not a giveaway to the large corporations, and it is not a giveaway to the wealthy. You won't find the millionaires out there cheering this; you won't find the corporations, the Mac-Blos out there, cheering this. But you will find the person working at McDonald's or at Zellers or what have you actually standing there and saying: "Yes, someone's on my side. Someone is listening to me, and I'm going to be able to provide a little more care for my family as a result of these things." Those are the things that I'm proud of, and those are the things that this throne speech talks about.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we listened to people and we did put a freeze on capital spending. Hey, this was not done because any of us particularly wanted to see our projects frozen. Lord knows I've got projects in my area that I would like to see proceeding, but I recognize that we need to make sure that every single dollar spent in this province is spent on essential services.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: You know, it's amazing how soon the members opposite suddenly change their tune -- you know, it's like a revelation has suddenly occurred. "Hey, in order to provide the services to my people, to meet what they are asking, I have to spend some money." And you know what? Amazingly, they are asking: "What about my project?" Member after member has stood in this Legislature.... If you ever added those things up, it would boggle the mind. They are standing there saying: "Well, what about my bridge? What about my road?" In fact, the member for Peace River North -- who just said, "Don't do more than you can afford" -- came across the House to me and said: "I need my roads fixed, and I don't care where the money comes from." Amazing!

R. Neufeld: You got 'er.

Hon. L. Boone: "You got 'er," he says. "I don't care where the money comes from." That's a slightly different attitude from what they had in the past, isn't it?

Well, hon. Speaker, we do care where the money comes from. We do care that every dollar that is spent is spent on essential services -- and that includes your projects over there. That includes the projects from this side of the House as well. We will make sure that the dollars are spent on essential things for the province. That's something I think we can all be proud of, and it's something that I don't think any British Columbian would object to.

The throne speech that we have seen today clearly shows the direction that this government is going. We are continuing to invest in people. We are continuing to give tax breaks to the 

[ Page 292 ]

working man and woman, not to the corporations and to the wealthy. We are continuing to work on crime and safety issues.

Now, just a little talk on that crime and safety issue. This is something that is coming up and is there, and that's the speed radar cameras. I want to talk a little bit about this, because I know there are a lot of people out there who are going to go: "Oh, my God, speed radar cameras." Well, you know, speed radar cameras are essential to maintain safety on our roads. They are going to be put in, and only in those areas where the councils agree. If councils do not agree on them, they are not being implemented. They are working with the RCMP, ICBC and the communities to identify those areas that are high-risk and those areas where there have been a high number of traffic deaths. They are going into only those areas, so each community will in fact have identified them. I think there are about ten sites in my Prince George region that have been identified as high-risk areas where deaths have occurred on our highways. Those are where the cameras will go, not any other areas. The communities will know where they are going; they will know when the cameras are going into action.

There has been an assessment of each and every area to determine the average speed that 85 percent of the people go. If 85 percent of the people are going 15 kilometres over the speed limit, then that is what the speed radar cameras will be set at. This is not meant to entrap the average person out there; this is meant to catch those people out there who are speeding dangerously, who are causing deaths on our highways. I think it's to the advantage of all of us to have those cameras out there to make sure that we can save lives on our highways. We have far too much carnage on our highways -- far too much -- and if having the cameras will slow people down and stop people from this dangerous driving, then they are an advantage to us.

Also mentioned in the throne speech is a royal commission on the WCB, something that has been welcomed very much by members of my community. I think over the years we have tried.... I know, when I came into this House, first as an opposition member, I spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with the WCB. As a government, we have tried to fix it. We've done some things, and they have not helped. There are still a lot of problems out there. We recognize the difficulties that the average person is having with the WCB, and we want to make sure it is fixed. There will be a royal commission on the WCB. Everybody will have an opportunity to participate in this. In fact, we will, I hope, get some changes that will make this system work for everybody.

This throne speech is a throne speech that recognizes the concerns of British Columbians, and it recognizes whose side we are on as a government and what we will be doing for the average British Columbian out there. We will continue to work to deal with the issues that they have brought to our attention. We will continue to strive to improve our economic situation in British Columbia with regard to jobs and taxation issues, and we will continue to stand in this House and fight on behalf of the working man and woman of this province, not on behalf of the large corporations.

D. Jarvis: I wish to respond to the throne speech of June 25, 1996, where this government, in essence, said that they were committed to protecting health care, education and neighbourhoods, protecting and creating jobs, cutting taxes and continuing to work to reduce government debt. These were the priorities of this government, and as it turned out they were very hypocritical. It was a ploy that will cause pain throughout this province. These were the priorities of this minority government. They received only 39 percent of the vote in British Columbia, but due to a glitch in the electoral system they won more seats and therefore became government, unfortunately. However, 61 percent of the people in British Columbia voted against this government, and that should be remembered.

They did not vote for questionable dealings with charities, for a government of offshore scandals, for friends and insiders, and they didn't vote for a government that flip-flopped in balancing their budget. They didn't vote for it because they didn't vote for all these Pecksniffians -- the whole gang of them. Anyway, we can't change history and we can't pay for it, so what is, is, unfortunately. Now we learn that they are unable to conform to these priorities. Not only are they morally bankrupt, it now appears they are monetarily bankrupt.

The cynicism and mistrust of politicians grows because of this government's actions. I object to it, and everyone in this room should be objecting to it. All of their problems, of course, are blamed on someone else. Patients in this province are crying out for care while the health delivery system lies in chaos and has now been temporarily abandoned until they can figure out what to do with it. Educators and students shake their heads in disgust and bewilderment over this government's imposition of policies that ignore their educational needs. They are closing students out of their schools and ignoring the resources that are necessary to provide our young people with the education they need. This government fails to appreciate the significance of education as a primary resource to cure our social and economic ills. My associates and I will be speaking out for those students and their parents and teachers, so they can be sure that they will get the education they deserve.

In order to protect those core services, we also have to create an environment to maximize the wealth that we need to achieve our goals. These last four and a half years have seen our resource values shrink under this socialist government. Investment and development have been drained as a result of NDP policies. They have gone to every other jurisdiction in the world, and there has been no leadership, no policy, no gain for British Columbians -- just the slow, inevitable drift of British Columbia investment dollars to other countries: countries that know how to set goals and capitalize on the resources that they have inherited.

The other day the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith suggested -- and she had a lot of audacity -- that their party will continue on their record of fiscal responsibility and will continue to see record investments and record mining and exploration, and that they continue to lead the way in North America. Well, in 1990 the exploration figures indicated that we are way down, approximately 23 percent. Free-miner certificates in 1990 totalled almost 7,500 in this province; today they're down to 5,500 -- a 23 to 30 percent reduction. Exploration expenditures: in 1990 we had $226.5 million spent in this province, and last year we had $83.5 million -- down 63 percent.

Then they said that they lead over other jurisdictions. Well, exploration levels across this country.... For example, in B.C. we have minus 60 percent since 1991 with this government, while the rest of Canada has grown by 172 percent. I suggest that they look at the figures before they talk about them.

We in British Columbia have been blessed, perhaps like no other province or country, with natural resources. This is ostensibly what has separated us from the rest of the world: 

[ Page 293 ]

our natural wealth. However, there are public misgivings about resource extraction and its impacts on our land. Led by the environmentalist movement, the public's anxiety and awareness have been overemphasized to the point that many people who rely on what is.... Reportedly, there is complete environmental degradation still going on by the resource-extraction industry. Nothing could be more wrong in today's world. Yesteryear, yes; today, no. The bad old days are gone, and we have a new awareness that is changing.

This change is, I must admit, due partially to the environmental activists, but like all movements, that pendulum swung too far and has now dug in so deep that only a full stop to resource extraction will satisfy them, unfortunately. There are no halfway measures and no positive aspects for the activists. They are reluctant to concede how positive change has occurred in mining and forestry, for example.

[11:00]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I hear some comments across the floor, Madam Speaker. People are shaking their heads, and they think that we're not environmentalists over here. We are all environmentalists. We don't intend to leave a legacy of waste in this province. We believe in proper management and sustainability as well as they do. But this government, if they continue, will lead us into a debt that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will never get out of.

The question remains whether this government is still bought into the activists' pendulum, or can they see that there's a long-term future in our natural wealth? We must recognize that economic activity is natural and not hostile to nature. Business and sustainable development are good. It makes sense if it provides new wealth that educates our children and keeps them healthy. It comes from this Earth's resources.

Having said that, it is paramount that resource industries should be allowed access to the land. This government should permit reasonable access for exploration and development. For example, on those rare occasions when an economically viable mineral deposit is discovered, then our society, with safeguards, can make an informed, rational decision as to its benefits. As it is now, land is being closed off to extraction. This government has made access virtually impossible to a large sector of our society, to the point where our economic foundation in British Columbia is in danger.

The Greenies have even gone so far as to want it to be illegal to cut down trees on private property. The aspect of public rights takes precedence over private property. It tears away at the difference, at why this country was developed by our ancestors who came from other oppressive societies. Environmentalists cry for more government regulations, rules and supervision. It must be stopped or slowed down. This type of socialism has to collapse and some rationalization be brought back to this province. Environmentalism as a political program leads to impoverishment if not controlled so it is relevant to basic sustainability. Uncontrolled, it will lead to a decline in investment in this province, a decline in economic growth and employment opportunities and, ultimately, as the pendulum swings, to the environmental degradation that it was trying to save in the first place. In the last few years, eastern Europe has shown us what their oppressive systems have produced: environmental degradation and pollution on a scale undreamed of here in British Columbia. The message here is that British Columbia is still the best place in which to live. If you can't make it in British Columbia, you can't make it anywhere in this world.

As we go through the cycle of a possible downturn in our economy, we certainly can't rely on the service and tourism industries to carry us. We are in deep, deep debt, and there is no healing in sight. Construction is slowing down due to political decisions. As evidenced by the budget fiasco, forestry was also down. Mining growth is either stopped or being held up by environmental decisions. How do we reduce debt, increase employment, protect health care and education, cut neighbourhood crime and cut taxes, as promised in the throne speech, without significant wealth creation in this province?

I will conclude by saying that there are answers, and this government had better take heed. Change is needed, and we have to open the doors to investment and development, and send signals to industry that there is a change in British Columbia, that this government respects private property investment and that tenure is a right. This government's land uncertainty has to be changed. The Premier says mining has access to everywhere except for 12 percent of this province. We see real difficulties now for any mining coming into this province when it's at 9 percent. What evidence is there that another 3 percent is going to make this any better? We have uncertainty in this province. We have a lot of red tape, and it's driving big business and big jobs out of this province -- and big pay.

We cannot exist on the service industry in which this government tends to create jobs. It's very low pay. How will people buy houses and cars and keep our economy going with jobs at minimum wage? So there are the answers. This government better take heed and make a change, and support investment and development in this province.

G. Abbott: I'd like to make a few observations about the throne speech of June 25. My friend the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour is noted, of course, for his non-partisan and non-controversial speeches, and I'd like to strike a similar note today. However, I must first note that the throne speech, regrettably, continues the rhetoric of class conflict which characterized the NDP's election campaign.

Early in the campaign the NDP emphasized its solidarity with the working class. When this was deemed too narrow for electoral success, the NDP claimed to be the party of the working class and the middle class. Obviously, at some point a clever NDP spin doctor realized that this appeal -- this spin, as well -- was too overtly divisive. As a consequence, late in the campaign the NDP became the champions of "the working middle class," a phrase which undoubtedly would have elicited hoots of derision from Marxist pioneers in the CCF like Ernest Winch. The flights of rhetorical fancy which characterized the NDP's election campaign were carried over into the throne speech. In the throne speech we find repeated references to working people, working families, the middle class, middle-income earners, middle-class families, working people and middle-class families, working families in the middle class and, of course -- my personal favourite -- the middle-class working family. All these well-worn phrases are reflective of the politics of division and class conflict. However, the real corker is found on page 18 of the throne speech, where, with respect to national issues, the speech states: "My government will stand up for working people and middle-class families."

Interjection.

[ Page 294 ]

G. Abbott: Pay heed to this; this is your speech.

"Indeed, it will stand up for all of British Columbia...." I just thought for a moment that this government might have been on to something here. If it's possible to stand up for all British Columbians in one area of public policy, is it possible to stand up for all British Columbians in other areas of public policy? Judging by the throne speech, it's obvious that this government has decided that such an approach is not possible.

The throne speech serves to underline a fundamental difference between B.C. Liberals and B.C. New Democrats. We believe in the politics of inclusion; they believe in the politics of exclusion. We believe that politics is a difficult and frequently complex matter of mediating conflicting interests and arriving at fair solutions. The NDP believes politics is a matter of beating up on the bad guys who wear the black hats. The NDP approach to politics was reconfirmed by the comments of the mover of the Speech from the Throne. The mover, the hon. member for Rossland-Trail, claimed: "...people will look back at our government and this throne speech as an island of sanity and compassion in a sea of selfishness and greed."

Certainly we've known for a long time that this government was out to sea. In fact, we've known they've been out to lunch as well, but this confirmed that they were out to sea. Only the NDP, however, would characterize this province as a "sea of selfishness and greed." It certainly goes some distance to explaining the envy and bitterness which frequently appear to underlie public policy in this province. Numerous other examples could be cited of this outmoded, class-based view of the world. I think it's far more important, however, to demonstrate how ideology is getting in the way of good government in this province.

The throne speech emphasizes the importance of the Pacific salmon industry, and we on this side of the House certainly agree. The throne speech calls for a broader role for British Columbia with respect to fisheries, and again we certainly agree. However, I would submit to you, hon. Speaker, that when the Premier went to Ottawa, ostensibly to win a broader role in fisheries for this province, he went with every intention of failing. I submit that what the Premier sought was not a broader role in fisheries but rather a high-profile soapbox from which to lash out at the federal government. I submit that the hon. Premier would have collapsed in horror had the Prime Minister suddenly surrendered jurisdiction over fisheries to him.

My intention is not to deprecate in any way our provincial Minister of Fisheries, who I am very pleased to see is with us today -- the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. The hon. minister has certainly proved his mastery of the many portfolios he has held in the past few months. It's common knowledge that members on this side of the House, with the exception of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, deliberately stay away from this Minister of Fisheries in question period, preferring instead to concentrate on weaker links in the NDP chain, like the Premier and his Minister of Finance.

Like me, the Minister of Fisheries is an avid outdoorsman from the interior, who has undoubtedly spent a number of pleasant days on the ocean chasing salmon, and like me, the Minister of Fisheries could, with relative ease, correctly identify a salmon in a lineup that included an oyster and a killer whale. Nevertheless, I don't believe our Minister of Fisheries is ready to become the czar of salmon in this province.

That is why the hon. Premier's attitude in Ottawa is so disappointing. According to press reports, some progress was being made toward an expanded provincial role in the area of fisheries. I certainly don't think these gains should have been thrown away simply for the opportunity to paint the federal government as villain.

I'd also like to offer a few comments on forest issues raised by the throne speech. The throne speech correctly notes that forestry has been the cornerstone of our economy in this province, and no one is likely to disagree with that assessment. The speech also notes that the provincial government would develop a jobs and timber accord, tying access to public timber directly to the creation of new jobs.

An Hon. Member: Good policy.

G. Abbott: Well, I'll explain why it isn't. But thank you for that introduction. He's pretty quick over here.

The throne speech also promises to create 21,000 new jobs over the next five years. This program appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the forest industry, and I guess that shouldn't be surprising, given some of the fairly fundamental misunderstandings about the revenue that could be derived from that industry, which have been reflected in the House in recent days.

Forestry is a cyclical industry. It was a cyclical industry 100 years ago, and it will continue to be the same 100 years from now. Markets, jobs, profits and losses are all cyclical. The Ministry of Forests uses certain mechanisms, such as elasticity in year-to-year cut, to even out some of these humps and hollows to some extent. These are useful, beneficial mechanisms, generally based on common sense. But they can only temper, not change, the broad upturns and downturns in world markets. The Minister of Finance, at least, must be only too well aware of this fact after events of recent days.

[11:15]

The danger in the jobs and timber accord is that it attempts to impose an artificial quota for new jobs on an industry that must, for its own survival, expand and contract in response to local, regional, provincial and international market conditions. This is reality, whether my friends across the floor like it or not. We will not expand the number of long-term sustainable jobs in the forest sector by demanding the industry become less efficient and less productive.

There are grave dangers, as the throne speech notes, in taking the experience of Washington and Oregon, and trying to duplicate it in British Columbia. Unlike some members opposite, when I look at the forest industry in this province I don't see greedy corporate capitalists. I know they do, because it has been reflected in their comments for the past few weeks. When I look at the forest industry, I see people who have invested their lives, and frequently every penny they own, in building a piece of British Columbia. The throne speech....

Interjections.

G. Abbott: For some reason, the members opposite constantly focus on the largest elements in the industry. Many thousands of people are employed in very small industries, as they should well know.

An Hon. Member: They're getting smaller and smaller under this government.

G. Abbott: That's for sure.

The throne speech suggests that expansion of the value-added sector is key to new job creation. When people are 

[ Page 295 ]

considering investing in a new value-added enterprise or are considering expansion of an existing enterprise, there are a number of factors they must consider. First is the availability of skilled labour. The second critical factor is the availability of capital and financing. New enterprises do not appear without investment and commitment. Investors need to believe that their investment is welcome, that the political and regulatory climate is friendly, and that there will be a reasonable and secure return on investment. The government could certainly help....

Interjections.

G. Abbott: If you would only listen, just for a moment! The member opposite was briefly the Minister of Forests, yet he appears to have a rather limited knowledge of it, and I'm trying to help him here.

An Hon. Member: He needs the help.

G. Abbott: He certainly needs the help, and I'd be glad to give it. In another couple of months he may be back in Forests, given his brief tenure in his other portfolios.

The government could certainly help the value-added sector by eliminating the corporate capital tax on these businesses, as it's an obvious disincentive to investment. People accept that they will have to pay taxes on returns from their investment. The corporate capital tax, unfortunately, is not sensitive to whether a business is struggling or flourishing. The corporate capital tax is a way of saying: "Sure, we'd like you to invest in this province, but the first thing we're going to do before you have any prospect of a return is penalize you for investing your hard-earned dollars in this province."

Interjections.

G. Abbott: It's quite obvious from the comments here, hon. Speaker, that this suggestion doesn't mesh well with the doctrine of class conflict, but this government really should consider the elimination of this regressive tax if it wants the sort of expansion envisioned by the jobs and timber accord.

The third factor which must be considered is the availability of raw materials. As others have noted, there is a considerable diversity in the types of forests across this province. As a consequence, some kinds of value-added production may not be suitable to all parts of the province. Indeed, in some areas the production of dimensional lumber may be the best available use of available fibre. We should not be disappointed by this. This province has been built, physically and metaphorically, on dimensional lumber. Value-added production should certainly be encouraged, but it cannot be created by edict. We'd all like to see more value-added plants in this province, but the government should take care not to undermine the dimensional lumber business in the process. Many jobs in this province and much government revenue are based on dimensional lumber production. For the jobs and timber accord to enjoy even limited success, I think this government will need to assess the serious backlog in the small business forest enterprise program -- a backlog which, regrettably, the former minister across the way did nothing to ease.

As well, we have serious problems and delays in cutting approvals resulting from the cumbersome application of the Forest Practices Code. Again, that's a problem which the former minister was unable to improve. I understand that there was a serious undercut in 1995 due to these problems and that there will be an even larger undercut in 1996. This means lost jobs and lost revenues in this province. I think we've seen some very obvious evidence of that over the past couple of weeks. Given the obviously precarious financial position we find ourselves in today as a result of this government's mismanagement, I think a lot of attention ought to be devoted to this issue.

A fourth factor when considering new investment in this province is the market for the value-added product. If I want to produce cedar widgets and I know I have the skilled labour, the necessary capital and the appropriate fibre, to ensure sustainability I will still need a market for my product. The world, as you know, needs only so many widgets. Members on this side of the House believe that the private sector is better placed and better equipped than government to make informed judgments about markets and investments.

Members on this side of the House believe in the skill, energy and ability of British Columbians. We believe that British Columbians respond to opportunities where they exist, but they do not respond to edicts and quotas from Victoria. Some members opposite may find it surprising, although they may not be surprised by anything I say now, that the new Minister of Forests....

Interjections.

G. Abbott: You may find it surprising, hon. members, but I think that the new Minister of Forests is a good, commonsense minister with, fortunately for us, some practical experience in forestry. I don't want to compare him unfairly to any of his predecessors, but he does have some experience, and I think that will be a very welcome change. He does, as we say in the business, know the difference between a lawnmower and a power saw. This is a very good start for a Minister of Forests. Nevertheless, the challenges faced by the new minister are daunting. As noted, the Forest Practices Code and the small business forest enterprise program cry out for reform. As well, the performance of Forest Renewal B.C. has to date fallen well short of expectations. This is most unfortunate, as there is so much work that could be done in our forests through FRBC. If this government is seriously looking to create more jobs in the forest sector in this province, it should begin by enhancing the performance of this agency.

To conclude, Liberal members are motivated by a different vision for this province than the one which underlies the throne speech. While we believe that government can play a constructive role in social and economic life, we believe that government should be supportive, not intrusive. We believe that when it comes to investment and market decisions, we should look to the experience and ingenuity of the private sector. If members opposite believe in creating a collectivist utopia through edicts and quotas, then they should say so in a forthright fashion and fight the next election on that vision. That vision, in combination with some honesty about where they've taken this province financially, is a guaranteed ticket to political oblivion -- a destination which this government so richly deserves.

R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the throne speech. I thank the previous speaker for actually rereading what we talked about during the election. It clearly demonstrates whose side we're on, in fact.

The trouble with the opposite side of the House is that they don't really tell anybody whose side they're on. They're 

[ Page 296 ]

very secretive about that, especially their leader, especially when it regards donations for his leadership. We don't know who was backing him, and we don't know whose side....

Interjections.

R. Kasper: We don't know.

I think it's important that we talk about the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. You know, I had the pleasure of speaking on the budget, and I must note that that side of the House voted against the budget. They voted against additional expenditures for education; they voted against additional expenditures for health care. At the same time, when they talk about the throne speech, they talk about all the wonderful things that they want to see for health care and education. But when it came down to ponying up and demonstrating whose side they were on, they voted against the philosophy of that throne speech and what we stand for. Shame on them! Every voter in their riding should know exactly what these people stood for: what they voted for and what they didn't vote for -- and that's increased funding for education and for health care. There's a big difference between what you stand for and what we stand for, and I'm proud of that. I'm glad the previous speaker mentioned in great detail whose side we're on. We had a hard time, and so did the voters, figuring out whose side they were on.

One of the important elements was mentioned earlier by previous speakers, dealing with the family bonus program. In Canadian history, Canadian society, this is probably one of the most fundamental changes that has ever occurred in the past 50 years: a recognition of giving the opportunity, creating the opportunity for lower-income, working families -- the working poor -- to get on with life, to make things a little better for their families. Just to give an example: for a family earning less than $30,000 -- roughly $30,000 and under, net income -- there will be dental care and eye care for their children. I think that's important. That is a historic precedent in this province. I challenge the members opposite to support that legislation. The challenge is there: support it and demonstrate what you stand for.

The previous speaker gave a clear indication of the difference between that side of the House and this side. You know, this is what astounds me, and I heard this throughout the election. It was just incredible. I would hear this whine and bleat from the Liberal candidates throughout the lower Island area about the dreaded corporate capital tax. So let's just put it in perspective. The forest industry, earning net profits of $1.3 billion -- that's $1.3 billion, not million -- paid $44 million corporate capital tax. I didn't hear many people complain about that on the hustings. The ordinary voters thought, well, give me a break. Like, let's put it in perspective. What does $44 million in the provincial coffers mean? That could pay for anywhere between two and three high schools to be built.

Now, it's nice to point out that that side of the House said: "No, we shouldn't be doing those things. We shouldn't be spending money on those types of schools, but heaven forbid, we shouldn't tax those who can afford to pay." It's an insult to the intelligence of the voters to present that kind of message. But they kept that hidden, and when it was pulled out about the dreaded corporate capital tax and what they were going do, especially eliminating it -- they were going to eliminate it from the banks and the large corporations.... Oh no, no. They had to change their story. As soon as you opened the door and pulled it out of the closet, they changed their minds. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

[11:30]

Anyway, I talked about the number of high schools. Now, let's also put in perspective how many elementary schools you could build with $44 million. How many? You could probably build anywhere between seven and nine elementary schools, and these aren't 100-student, 200-student or 300-student elementary schools. I know there's one on the drawing boards in my riding. I'm going to be fighting for that, because philosophically that's where I'm coming from: to make sure that our children get a decent education in a decent facility. I think the cost will be around $5.5 million, maybe $6 million. But if that money isn't generated from the forest companies or other corporations that can pay -- that can afford to pay -- those schools may not be built. So I would urge them to go out and rethink this philosophical position on eliminating the corporate capital tax. Put it in perspective.

The other thing that they don't talk about is the fact that there are a number of small businesses that have had exemptions since the corporate capital tax was introduced. They never talk about that. They never talk about the threshold rate being increased so that those companies don't have to pay.

Interjections.

R. Kasper: Oh, it's nice to hear them on that side. They have so much to say when they stand up, but they have even more to say when they're sitting down -- it's incredible -- most of it unprintable.

You know, the difference between this side and that side.... The throne speech touches on many aspects, but during the election we heard that residential tenancy laws and a lot of the good, progressive legislation that the previous government brought in should in fact be revisited and perhaps wiped out. Well, we have landlords over in Vancouver actually scurrying around bringing forward heavy donations to that side of the House -- to that political party, to the Liberals -- to rewrite the laws. That was a concern to me. I think I did a lot of hard work during the last parliamentary session to bring forward some innovative legislation that was actually supported by landlords, by tenants and by this House. As a matter of fact, it was unanimously voted on in this House. But no, the Liberals wanted to change that. They wanted to take away some of the good. They wanted to wipe out, because of pressure put on them.... I think it boiled down to this stuff: money. There is a big difference between this side and that side.

I would just like to talk about something. It's in relation to what I actually spoke about the other day, but I think it's important to re-emphasize and restate my beliefs. I'm a very strong advocate.... I have been an employer and an employee, so I understand both sides of this issue. During the last parliament we made some substantial changes to the Employment Standards Act, which I think was good, progressive legislation. We opened up some opportunities for workers in getting a better understanding of their rights and, at the same time, opened the door for employers by bringing in some mechanisms so they would have opportunities to present their side of the equation. I don't think the previous laws were fair. This is what astounds me, and I've got a real clear understanding as to what that side of the House stands for when it comes to employment standards.

An Hon. Member: Don't quote from the Blues.

R. Kasper: Well, I think it's important, though, that we put it in perspective.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson.... I think he has some background in dealing with labour issues, and I 

[ Page 297 ]

think that's important. I'll just read this out, because I'm proud of the fact that I have a different point of view than the member I'm going to quote. I'll have to just repeat it, and perhaps the member might be interested in this:

"Think of the disruptions of business because of the Employment Standards Act changes." He says disruptions. "We're not at all sure that it's just a performance problem. We see a lot of indication that it's a conduct problem. The way good managers deal with conduct problems is called progressive discipline. You whack them once. If they do it again, you whack them again. Eventually you turf them right out."

I'm glad that that member is on that side of the House and I'm on this side of the House. I'm sure that the voters and constituents in Kamloops-North Thompson would gladly hear about this. When they do, there will be one whack for him, and it will be from the voters, and it will probably come 18 months from now. Remember, recall in 18 months. Whack, whack, whack! Whack, whack, whack! Oh boy, I just can't believe it. Whack, whack, whack!

What really gets me is that that member really believes that the Employment Standards Act and the changes that were made have caused disruptions to business. That's scary. I don't think it has. I haven't had an overture. As a matter of fact, when the business community have been offered opportunities to seek amendments, changes and exemptions, in many cases they've chosen not to; they've chosen to sit and bellyache.

But some common sense has come around. For example, the local newspaper, the Times Colonist, has in fact rethought their original position. They were concerned. They had some very valid issues. The opportunity was presented to them to go and seek some exemptions under the act, which I don't think was ever there before. That's where we made changes that will represent all interests. It's a good thing.

And it's a good thing that members like the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- and the philosophy that he carries and brings forward, the whack, whack, whack with the workers -- sit on that side of the House, and will hopefully never have an opportunity to be on this side. Never. It clearly demonstrates that the philosophy they carry with them....

An Hon. Member: Wacky.

R. Kasper: Wacky. God, no. No, it does a disgrace to one of our former Premiers to even make that reference.

It's a good thing that those members cannot hide what their real intentions are, what their real philosophical beliefs are, because when they have an opportunity to speak in this House, this is what I'm sure we'll be hearing more of in the future.

An Hon. Member: I sure hope so.

R. Kasper: Well, you know, I think that's a good sign, but it's also a very unhealthy sign. If we hear the whack, whack, whack and out you go, that is not conducive to good labour relations or a good working relationship between employers and employees in this province. I can appreciate it, because I've been there. After ten years of my family -- the same background -- running a small business and having employer-employee relationships, I understand trying to work out problems and differences that you may have. But to whack somebody and then whack them again and out they go, I don't think is conducive to a healthy economy in this province. It's not conducive to the principles that I believe in, and I would hope that side of the House would also share those views. I really felt there were some pretty decent people on that side. I still think there are some basic, good, decent underlying feelings there that can make this province better. When I read this and I hear it, I think: "God, did I really hear that?" I had to read it, and I read it again, and I would put a challenge out to the member to perhaps retract what he had to say, but I don't know if he will do that.

The other thing that I think we should touch on in the throne speech is that it gives a clear direction as to where we stand. I'm glad the previous speaker read out in great detail the many versions of where we stand, but it boiled down to the same thing. Working people, middle class and low-income families in this province know whose side we're on, and I'm proud of that. That's why we have what I consider a decent Employment Standards Act. There are some changes that should be made.

We need better education, as I've touched on before. We have to make sure that our young people coming out of high school understand what their rights are, and that the young entrepreneurs leaving high school understand what their obligations are if they're going to employ people in their future life. I think that's very important. Greater education and greater enforcement is important.

Also, the difference between this side and that side is that we've made some fairly tough decisions, and there are costs. But things like the family bonus program to actually address concerns of working families, to get them out of the welfare trap and make it more attractive for those individuals to actually get and keep a job.... It is fairly tough -- and I think everybody here would admit that -- for those earning minimum wage, $8, $9 or $10 per hour. And when that opportunity is presented to them and they look at the fact that if they are on welfare and they have children, it is not attractive for them to go off that.... I think the attractiveness of going and seeking jobs at those lower-paid levels is good public policy, but there needs to be.... That's why this program has been introduced. I think other provinces will follow suit; they will see exactly the right way of doing it and the wrong way.

But we don't hear that from that side of the House. This is not a policy that they've come up with. No doubt they'll probably.... No, I shouldn't prejudge. I would hope that they would support it, and that when the debate starts on that issue, they will bring forward some constructive options. You know, if they think there should be some changes made to the legislation or whatever, then they should talk about that and bring those forward -- but that's the difference between us and them.

It's important that we all work together....

Interjection.

R. Kasper: I think that's important. You'd be amazed, hon. member, to know that I think I've actually helped establish good working relationships with some of the members here prior to being elected to this House. I notice that the member for Saanich North and the Islands comes from a local government background. We've had our differences, but I think we both did the business of the public in the public arena that we both served in, with a mind to doing the best job possible for the people we represented.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I think that's what this is all about, too, so I would encourage that relationship to carry on. Actually, we have a 

[ Page 298 ]

common interest. There's a local ferry that we're both concerned about. We want to make sure that the B.C. Ferry Corporation doesn't shut it down. I raised that issue, actually, and I think he jumped on the bandwagon. It is very good for his constituents and for mine that we fight to save a local commuter run, and I look forward to carrying on that working relationship. That's what I talked about before and what I continue to talk about: working together, trying to solve the interests of our constituents in a fairly agreeable way without getting into too much "no, no, no." You know, we don't want to be fighting all the time, but this is not a nice place, as I've said here before. This is a not a very conducive place for being pleasant to each other. It's not great.

Interjection.

R. Kasper: Well, that has its problems.

Interjections.

R. Kasper: Oh, boy. You know more than you say; you'll have your opportunity to talk about those things.

Anyway, noting the lateness of the hour, I would move adjournment of debate.

R. Kasper moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Boone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

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