[ Page 299 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd like all members to note the presence in the galleries today of the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I'll briefly read the names of the members attending: Councillor Joanne Monaghan from my neck of the woods northwest of Kitimat, Mayor Steve Wallace from Quesnel, Mayor Bill Trewhella from Warfield, Councillor Don Bellamy from Vancouver, Mayor Joseph Judge from Pouce Coupe, Chairperson Hans Cunningham from the Central Kootenay regional district, director Joe Tatangelo from the Kootenay-Boundary regional district, Councillor Lynne Kennedy from Vancouver, Councillor Pam Lewin from Surrey and Councillor Patricia Wallace from Kamloops. At their convention in September this year the theme of UBCM will be low-cal government -- kind of a clever play on words, but perhaps a timely message for all of us in government. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Abbott: On behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to join in welcoming the distinguished guests from local government today, the executive of the UBCM. I've had the privilege of working with many of them over the years. They're a delight, and we look forward to meeting with them this evening.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce a delegation from China to Canada's Pacific province: Dr. Ye Jiakiang, president of University Jiangmen City, Guandong Province; Ms. Chen Zhaoping, vice-mayor of Jiangmen City; Mr. Liang Qing, English lecturer, Wuyi University; Mr. Yik Fung Au-Yeung, special adviser to the president, and his wife; Mr. Brian Lo, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Ms. May Sie Lo, daughter of Brian Lo; Mr. Joy Koy Tom; Mr. David Strong of the University of Victoria; and Mr. Allan Berezny, assistant to David Strong. I ask all members to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like the House to welcome my partner of 25 years and the mother of three great sons, Susan Zirnhelt.

R. Kasper: It is my pleasure to introduce a longtime volunteer, friend and supporter during my campaigns, Dawn Cropp. She has also been very active with the Women's Institute in British Columbia.

J. Pullinger: It's a real pleasure to introduce some very dear friends today. Up in the gallery are Skye Creba, Cori Creba and Will Creba. They brought along their dad, Doug Creba, who is also my constituency assistant. I would ask the House to make them all very welcome.

M. Coell: In the House today are the most important people in my life: my wife, Corinne; my mother and father, Norma and David Coell; and lifelong family friends, the Duncans -- Murray and Bernice. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Robertson: With us today from the North Island are Teresa Ransome, who is a regional director for the region of Mount Waddington; Mr. Bruce Burrows, a fisherman and a prolific writer, also from Sointula -- Bruce is also a member of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union; and Mayor Russ Hellberg from Port Hardy. Please join me in welcoming these North Islanders to the House.

Hon. G. Clark: I notice in the gallery today a longtime community activist from Surrey, a poet, Darshan Gill. I'd ask all members to make him most welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today are two people I'd like to introduce. For gays and lesbians, terminology is often difficult for family. However, my partner's mother, my mother-in-law -- not in-law yet -- is here, Marjorie Paterson from Victoria. She was the founder of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays here in Victoria. She also is a longtime NDP supporter and worked on Elizabeth Cull's bid. Also, my brother-in-law -- not in-law yet -- Craig Paterson from Peterborough, Ontario, is here. As well, I'd like to introduce Chris Childs, who was the Liberal treasurer for Vancouver-Burrard in the last election. He saw the light across the floor and worked in my campaign in Vancouver-Burrard. I'd like all members to make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us in the precincts today to attend a press conference and receive Doug Kerley's report on the fishing industry in about an hour are: Mr. Robert Morley of the Fisheries Council of B.C.; Phil Eby of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association of B.C.; Roy Alexander, Pacific Seafood Council; my old friend, Jim Sinclair of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union; John Radosevic of the same outfit; Belma McColl, Sports Fishing Institute; Rose Davison, chairperson of Coastal Communities Network; Eric Tam of the secretariat for the network; Dan Edwards, West Coast Sustainability Association; Skip McArthy, Pacific Salmon Alliance; Jim White of the Native Brotherhood of B.C.; Craig Davidson, Cathy Scarfo and Don Millaird, fishers; Ben Robinson of the Kitasoo band. Would the House please make these people welcome, as they have come here.

G. Janssen: With us in the galleries today are four Korean students studying English at UVic, and undoubtedly they speak English better than I will speak their Korean names. I ask the House to welcome Dong-Yeop Lee, Hee-Eun Kim, Moon-Cheong Han and Hey-Sook Joo.

[2:15]

S. Orcherton: I see in the House today an individual who works tirelessly on behalf of the interests of working people in this province, particularly on behalf of the interests of people employed in the construction industry. Joining us today is the president of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, Len Werden, and I ask the House to join in welcoming him to this House.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have four introductions: the former administrative assistant in my office, Barbara Clague -- welcome, Barbara -- and Norma Selwood from Saanich; a very close friend, Evelyn Grimston of New Westminster; and a young man who had his picture taken with the Premier at lunchtime, and who asked some very insightful questions about how this parliament works, Fraser Betts of South Surrey.

E. Conroy: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome my 12-year-old son Ben to the parliament buildings and to Victoria, and also to welcome a large portion of the UBCM delegation, who are my constituents: Joe Tatangelo, Bill Trewhella and Hans Cunningham. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: In keeping with its overall goals of improved services and lower costs, the government announced in March its intent to merge the motor vehicle branch and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. We remain committed to the merger and introduce for first reading a bill that will enable that merger to occur. It assigns to ICBC direct authority for the transfer of functions now with the motor vehicle branch, including vehicle registration, licensing and records, driver testing, driver licence administration and records, AirCare, violation-ticket administration and fines.

Ultimately, this legislation will provide British Columbians with a single administrative umbrella for several existing road safety initiatives. It will improve customer service by providing a single point of contact for driver licensing, vehicle licensing and insurance; deliver a more sharply focused and effective training and safety program; reduce the size of government; reduce costs through the elimination of redundant functions; achieve greater systems efficiency; and enhance business operations. This merger is good for ICBC, good for the motor vehicle branch and good for British Columbians. I move that the bill now be read a first time.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to introduce for first reading a bill that will significantly enhance road safety in British Columbia. This bill also addresses the very serious problems of vehicle fraud and unauthorized use of parking spaces reserved for the disabled.

These amendments beef up our fight against vehicle fraud by making it harder to use vehicle identification numbers from wrecked vehicles to alter the identities of stolen vehicles and fraudulently register them, to circumvent the requirement for rebuilt salvaged vehicles to pass a safety inspection and to suppress information on a vehicle's previous accident history.

This bill makes it clear that municipalities have the authority to create disabled parking bylaws and to enforce them with bylaw tickets. Additionally, this bill fine-tunes several safety initiatives, notably the photo radar program and vehicle impoundment for unlicensed and prohibited drivers. A critical component of B.C.'s photo radar program is its ability to process information quickly and accurately. This bill provides authority for the electronic processing of documentation and clarifies authorities for delivering violation tickets by mail. It provides a dispute mechanism for mailed tickets and authorizes the 45-day time period for disputing or paying a ticket. Our aim is to reduce the tremendous toll that excessive speed takes on our roadways, while ensuring that a dispute process is in place that is both timely and fair.

The vehicle impoundment initiative will reduce the number of individuals driving while prohibited or unlicensed. The traffic safety bill enhances this program by ensuring that drivers who have never been licensed before are included; that vehicle owners, not the taxpayer, pay for the cost of towing and storage; and that vehicles can be released efficiently to those who are entitled to them. These changes strike a balance between the need to apply rigorous sanctions against those who break the law and the requirement for simple fairness. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 7 makes a number of amendments to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and the Range Act. There are three main objectives of these amendments. The first is to enable a new ministry program called the innovative forestry practices experimental trial. This program will allow the ministry to enter into a number of pilot agreements aimed at improving forest productivity and increasing jobs. The second is to make minor improvements to the Forest Practices Code, intended to clarify and improve its administrative provisions and ease implementation. The third is to make minor improvements in the Forest Act administration provisions. I move that the bill be read for the first time now.

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

I was very concerned to read in the report something that I have never wanted to read and never expected to read about British Columbia. The report says: ". . .stay out of government debt in B.C. There is simply too much risk in B.C., given the corruption with the NDP in particular."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We want to hear the question.

[ Page 301 ]

G. Campbell: My question to the leader of the government and the NDP is: how do you feel about a world-renowned economic institute describing your government as corrupt?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I do think it's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition would raise this matter here in the way in which he has done, because this is irresponsible, in my judgment.

I'll just read you some quotes: "B.C.'s economy is poised to return to the fast track," Bank of Nova Scotia; "British Columbia's economy should bounce back in '95 to lead all provinces this year," Royal Bank; "British Columbia has been one of the strongest performers of the past nine years," Investment Dealers Association, February '96; "A survey of provincial economies says British Columbia will be the country's powerhouse this year," Conference Board of Canada, May 1996.

I could go on at great length about that. After the election I asked the treasury branch what was happening with B.C. bonds internationally, what was happening with the spreads as a result of our election. They have not changed. So the international community is judging B.C. bonds by the market every day, and we not only have the highest credit rating, we have one of the lowest borrowing costs in Canada. The market today judges British Columbia very, very well indeed.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I agree that it's unfortunate this has to be raised in the House, but we didn't write the Princeton Economic report; they did. In fact, what is irresponsible is when the leader of a government looks a citizen in the eye and promises one thing before an election and reneges on that promise immediately after the election. What is unfortunate is that while the Premier was looking through press clippings from 1995 and 1996, he didn't direct his Finance minister to look at forestry revenues for 1995-96 and for 1996-97.

My question is to the Finance minister: does the Finance minister believe that by tabling a budget about which even his Premier says it's credible that it could have a $700 million deficit, he's done anything to re-establish the credibility or reputation of the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to make clear for the record the issues that the member across the way has raised. There are different forecasts with respect to economic growth in British Columbia; there are different forecasts with respect to revenue. There are competing forecasts every year in British Columbia; they are all credible forecasts. These are credible agencies that look at them. Any different assumption can be adjusted, which would impact on government finances. That's the way it has always been. Our forecast is within the range of private sector forecasts. It is a credible forecast; it remains a credible forecast. If, in the future, over the course of the year, there are revenue shortfalls, we will adjust spending accordingly, as we have done consistently over the last four years.

[2:30]

G. Campbell: One of the most globally respected economic forecasters is the Princeton Economic Institute, and they have said: "Beware of NDP corruption." The problem the Premier faces is that he has not presented budgets that are straightforward. The Premier has not looked at forecasts that represent the true economic picture for British Columbia. He has picked forecasts that suit his political agenda. We know that, and the people of British Columbia know that.

My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he believe that the last two budget reports that he made, referring to the 1995-96 budget and the 1996-97 budget, which may have deficits of up to $700 million for the 1996-97 budget and which he presented as balanced, have done anything to re-establish the credibility of British Columbia's finances in the eyes of international investors?

Hon. A. Petter: I really do think that the Leader of the Opposition raising these questions in this way is demonstrating his lack of regard for the province of British Columbia and its finances. If he would look at competing forecasts, he would see a range of forecasts. The forecast from CIBC in May of this year was 2.7 percent growth, the same number that has been used by this government. The forecast from the Conference Board of Canada in the spring was 2.7 percent growth -- the same as this government. The report from the Business Council of B.C. was predicated on a 2 percent rate of growth. It is at the very opposite end of all continuums. Even the Liberal Party rejected that forecast in the last election; their forecast, as I understand it, was 2.5 percent. There are forecasts and there are forecasts, and the forecast we have made is absolutely within the range of credible forecasting.

M. de Jong: I don't think I've ever read of a provincial government in this country being accused by reputable international agencies like the Princeton Institute of being corrupt. But I think. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the question, please.

M. de Jong: I think the article is unfair to one extent: it doesn't really particularize the corruption that it refers to. So my question is to the Minister of Finance, and I'll make it multiple choice for him.

Does he think the Princeton Institute was talking about the NDP's involvement in theft from charities in Nanaimo? Does he think perhaps they were referring to the NDP's friends' and insiders' involvement in the Cayman Islands debacle? Does he think perhaps the Princeton Institute was referring to the budget tabled in April of this year, which we all now know was a fraud? Or perhaps was the Princeton Institute referring to the budget tabled last week, which even the Premier admits could be out by as much as $700 million? Maybe it's all of the above. What is it? What does the Minister of Finance think?

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I always assumed that in this House there was a line between fair and vigorous debate . . . and that of those who might otherwise cross that line into scurrilous attacks that could be damaging to the reputation of British Columbia. This opposition has crossed that line.

British Columbia has had and continues to have the strongest economy in Canada. British Columbia has the lowest per capita debt in Canada. We have the greatest number of jobs created in Canada -- 40 percent over the last year. Housing starts are up. Retail sales are up. Most economic forecasters describe us as the powerhouse of the country. The opposition chooses to use a selective report to try to denigrate the reputation of this province, and that is disgraceful and unacceptable.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I always thought there was a line between truth and dishonesty, and this government 

[ Page 302 ]

crossed that line a long time ago. The problem is that the black eye that has resulted from this government's mismanagement and dishonesty with respect to the budget taints all of us, not just this pathetic group sitting on the government benches over there. The Princeton Institute says the budget is a fraud; the Business Council of British Columbia says the budget is a fraud. My question to the Minister of Finance is: when is he going to come to his senses, renew and restore some credibility for British Columbians and withdraw that budget, which isn't worth the paper it's written on?

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thought I'd seen one of the most shocking things I'd ever seen in the years that I've been in this House when I read what I read about the province of British Columbia and the New Democratic government. But it's not nearly as shocking as seeing the members opposite laugh when their credibility and their corruption is challenged internationally. As a British Columbian I am ashamed and I am embarrassed for the New Democratic Party in this province. Hon. Speaker, count them: Bingogate, Hydrogate, budget fraud. When will the Minister of Finance admit that the deception before, during and after the election with regard to the finances of this province is just one more notch on the NDP rifle aimed at the heads of British Columbians?

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the opposition may not want to face up to the truth about British Columbia's economic condition, but let me tell you: British Columbians know that truth. Let me report from the Angus Reid quarterly B.C. Reid Report from the spring of 1996:

"British Columbians are far more optimistic about their provincial economy than they are about the Canadian economy. Overall, 66 percent of British Columbians are quite positive about the state of the provincial economy, while most British Columbians -- 60 percent -- feel that the Canadian economy is poor. This divergence of opinion may be influenced by the fact that B.C.'s economy has been outperforming those in other provinces."

That's how British Columbians feel. It's time the opposition got in sync with British Columbians. Maybe if they did, they wouldn't be over there for the next eon, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: If that was the truth, I'd have to agree with the Minister of Finance. The problem is that all those banks, the bond-rating agencies and the people on the phone to Angus Reid were basing their concept of British Columbia on a lie that was told to them by the New Democrats before, during and after the election.

When I read a reputable international financial investment newsletter encouraging people to not invest in British Columbia, to stay away and to run from British Columbia because of the corruption of the people in power -- not because of the economics of the province, its economic standing or our great reputation internationally as a great place to do business, but based on the corruption inside the New Democratic. . . .

The Speaker: Is there a question here, please?

G. Farrell-Collins: How does the Minister of Finance think the deception around this budget and the spurious, ridiculous claims they're making for next year's budget impact on people like this, who are investing around the globe?

The Speaker: Minister of. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I am trying to recognize a speaker, please.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, it's a little hard to take this member seriously. He purports to have a concern for British Columbia, but then he insists on repeating this information selectively, which he no doubt hopes will be covered widely in the media and thereby be damaging to British Columbia. It's a little hard to take.

Let's go back to the facts. The growth projections in this year's budget are based on a 2.7 percent growth projection. That is the same growth projection as the one reached by CIBC in May, and by the Conference Board. Scotiabank has said that growth will grow in the spring to 3 percent. They describe B.C.'s economy as a powerhouse. They understand that B.C. has tremendous potential. In the last election, even the Liberal Party understood it, when they projected 2.4 percent. But now it suits their political agenda to trade, in this selective and scurrilous way. . . . They have changed their tune, and that is regrettable. It's regrettable, destructive and counterproductive, and it crosses the line.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. D. Miller: I have the honour to table two reports: the 1994-95 and the 1995-96 report of B.C. Transit.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995.

Mr. Speaker, I request leave of the House to move a motion without notice.

Leave not granted.

Hon. J. Cashore: I have the honour to present the financial statements of the B.C. Treaty Commission, which I should have presented when I presented the report two days ago.

The Speaker: I also have the honour to table two documents: auditor general's report No. 5, 1995-96, Issues of Public Interest; and auditor general's report No. 4, 1995-96, Performance Audit: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations: Revenue Verification for the Social Service Tax.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

[ Page 303 ]

Columbia and express my hope that the Premier, his cabinet and other members of the governing party will bring good government to the people of British Columbia in the next few years in this Legislature.

May I also offer my sincere congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Deputy Speaker, who has been a friend for many years. These are important roles in the Legislature, and I wish you well.

I would like to say that it is an honour to be a member of this assembly and to represent the people of Saanich North and the Islands. Saanich North and the Islands is a beautiful part of our province, including our very fragile and magnificent Gulf Islands. It contains virtually all types of development, from urban to farm.

My riding is also known as the transportation hub of Vancouver Island. It has the major ferry services to the Gulf Islands and Vancouver to the north, and it has the ferry service to Anacortes and the Victoria International Airport. Also, the most significant concentration of high technology business on Vancouver Island is centred at the Victoria airport.

My riding also boasts the largest agricultural land area on the lower Island and some of the finest dairy farms in British Columbia. My riding has a long history of fishing and farming. It is highly independent and diverse. It also has some of the finest marine parks in Canada and untouched natural heritage. From the world-famous Butchart Gardens to the individual hobby farms, it is truly one of the most beautiful places in this province.

This is an area that needs to be protected and preserved. It is a great challenge to many municipal politicians and provincial politicians, and a responsibility I will live up to as a member of this Legislature.

[2:45]

I would also like to thank the people who helped me be here today -- the many campaign workers, friends and family, especially my wife, Corinne.

But once elected, it is important for all of us to remember that we represent all the people in our riding, not just the people who helped us get here today. I make that pledge to the people of Saanich North and the Islands today: that I will do my best to represent all their needs in this chamber.

When each of us is elected, we bring with us our experience, our education and our background. I was lucky enough to be born in Kamloops, where my family had lived for many years. [Applause.] Thank you to the member for Kamloops. I also had the privilege of growing up in the municipality of Saanich. I take great pride in my family and the friends I have made over my lifetime. My professional background is that of a social worker. I have worked in the fields of alcohol and drug rehabilitation, services for children and adults with mental handicaps, and on community volunteer boards such as Silver Threads and the Queen Alexandra Hospital. I was always taught that it is important that we as individuals put more back into the community than we take out. I have had the privilege of serving our community as a councillor for the municipality of Saanich and as its mayor for the past six years, before being elected to this Legislature.

The reality of being elected an MLA is that it is an awesome responsibility, whether you are in government or in opposition. This is a $20-billion-a-year corporation that the citizens of British Columbia have elected all of us to run on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some of the initial thoughts I have on being elected an MLA in British Columbia. One of the most important aspects of our job is that we must not lose sight of our contact with the people in our ridings. The immediate difference that I find between municipal and provincial government is that the closeness to people at the municipal level is replaced by the closeness to politicians at the provincial level, which does not necessarily give you the variety of opinions that you might get in a council chamber or on the street. So I think one of the most important aspects of our job is to make our community office a place where everyone in our community feels at home, a place where they can come and express their opinions and needs to us on an individual basis, and we can carry that message back to this House.

Another observation is that over the past ten years a B.C. Premier has not completed a term or run successfully for re-election in this province. It is obviously a tough job -- one that demands integrity, intelligence, courage and an understanding of the hopes and fears of all British Columbians. People are expecting more and more of Premiers, ministers and governments, and they are trusting us less and less. It's important for all of us to help re-establish the integrity of politicians, whether they be MLAs, cabinet ministers or the Premier of this province. As an opposition member, I will be endeavouring to do that at every opportunity.

I would now like to make a few brief comments and observations about the throne speech. A throne speech sets the tone of a government. It spells out the government's estimates and expectations for a year. A throne speech should be positive and give people hope for the future. There were a number of areas that I found disappointing in this year's throne speech, and others more promising. The first disappointment was the lack of attention to debt and debt repayment. Second, the government's freezing of capital projects in health and education, while maintaining its costly deals with their friends in the province, reinforced for many of us that it is business as usual with the NDP and big labour unions, while the projects needed by B.C. citizens came a distant second.

The throne speech also set out the government's intention to continue with its interventionist policies in many more aspects of our lives. The fact is that British Columbia is one of a handful of political jurisdictions on this planet that is still pushing ahead with an interventionist style of government. What we need is a more pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach to problem-solving. There isn't one perfect philosophy, be it socialist or capitalist, that will answer today's problems. We need to take the most practical approach that will serve the most people. We need to act decisively on issues rather than fall back on old philosophic beliefs.

I believe the throne speech also fell short on job creation, especially for youth. This government has not created the jobs promised the young people of British Columbia, and the throne speech has left them out in the cold once again.

On a positive note, the throne speech promises greater roles for individual MLAs in the democratic process through the use of committees, and I look forward to, and congratulate the government on, the development of those promises in the coming months.

I want to emphasize how proud I am to be part of this Legislative Assembly. I also wish to say a special thank-you to the Pages who work with us, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his staff, and the legislative staff who assist us in our day-to-day duties. These people, young and old, are the backbone of this assembly, and should never be overlooked, for theirs is also a proud history in British Columbia.

[ Page 304 ]

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the role the media plays in the democratic process and free speech in this Legislature. I know you know that in ancient times the role of the media was to come down out of the hills after a battle had been fought and shoot the wounded. But, of course, their role has changed much, as ours has over the years. I value the contribution that they make to this chamber, although I do not always agree with them.

As a new member of the Legislature, I realize my learning curve will be rather sharp, but I welcome the opportunity of working with all 75 members of this Legislature in providing good government for the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your attention to my brief comments and introduction.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, as I rise in response to the Speech from the Throne, I think that it's interesting to reflect on various throne speeches that we've had during my tenure in this Legislative Assembly, as they have been brought in by the government opposite and their focus has perhaps sharpened on some issues. Now, perhaps their ideas and attitudes have changed a little. I'd like to think that, at least in part, it is the discussion and debate in this chamber that has allowed those individuals opposite to see that there is a value in a constructive opposition -- if that constructive opposition is directed to the best interests of British Columbians -- whether or not we have an opportunity to actually draft the legislation that's involved.

As I rise this afternoon to respond to the Speech from the Throne, I want to focus on two areas that are of critical importance to people in my riding, for sure, but certainly for coastal communities. One is the well-being of the B.C. fishing industry and what is going on in the commercial salmon fishing industry right now with respect to the Mifflin report. The second is the matter of our relationship with the federal government vis-�-vis the taxation that British Columbians are facing, and the loss of transfer payments into this province and the effect that that is causing on our ability to provide adequate health care and education for the people of this province.

On the first issue, there was mention in the Speech from the Throne that this government was concerned with and prepared to come forward and try to deal with matters relating to the salmon fishing industry. As I speak right now, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is holding a press conference, talking about a report of a Mr. Gislason, who is essentially part of Mr. Kerley's operation -- the job protection strategies people. They tell us that the current federal plan -- cumulatively, with both the direct job loss as a result of the plan and those who are going to be affected as a result of the poor salmon season -- is going to result in 8,390 jobs lost in the province.

This minister -- the same minister who is now holding a press conference -- tried earlier to bring all parties of this House together to send a united and concerted message forward to Ottawa from members of this Legislative Assembly, which was prepared to say that we are not going to play politics on this question. We're talking about the well-being of our coastal communities and about maintaining what it is in coastal British Columbia that keeps us viable as communities, as families, and how we in this province are able to benefit from it. It's regrettable that both as I rose to make comments in support of what the minister was requesting and as the leader of the Reform Party stood to comment, the official opposition in this House said nay and proposed that they would invoke a censorship on this debate. I find it incongruous, frankly, to hear members -- in government too, but more particularly with respect to the official opposition -- stand up here in response to a budget speech time and time again, stand up here just now, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands did, and say that there is a need for us to have some kind of concerted effort to work on behalf of the people, and yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever about invoking censorship on one elected member of this chamber when that member wishes to speak to an issue that is critical.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, read the rules.

G. Wilson: I hear the Liberal House Leader saying: "Read the rules." The rules are, for the edification of the Liberal House Leader, that a member may stand and request leave to speak, and if leave is given, that member will be given the opportunity to speak. The fact is that leave was not given, hon. Speaker, and it was not given by members of the official opposition, which I think is a shameful record and one that they are going to pay for, I'm sure, in the minds of voters when they go out there and pretend to be something that demonstrates a democratic organization.

Hon. Speaker, on the matter of the fishery, I understand why there is a certain sensitivity by members of the Liberal opposition, because it is the federal Liberal government that is going to have to. . . .

J. Dalton: Here we go.

[3:00]

G. Wilson: I hear the member for West Vancouver-Capilano say "Here we go," and that member is quite correct. It is more important for us to put aside a partisan issue and the protection of some federal cousins to look after the interests and well-being of the fishers of British Columbia than it is to simply hide behind that guise and allow this plan to devastate coastal British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, what this member who says "Here we go" might know is that in my own community of Madeira Park, this Mifflin plan will cause 18 percent of the people who live there, fishers, to be unemployed -- 18 percent. It's the same federal government that closed down the Department of Fisheries, got rid of our inspections, got rid of our enforcement officers, closed the fisheries programs on the Sunshine Coast, moved one fisheries officer to Powell River to look after the entire south coastal mainland region in terms of enforcement and inspection, and then wonders why we have problems in the west coast fishery. That's an absolutely shameful thing to have to deal with.

On November 22, 1994, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Fisheries, one Mr. Brian Tobin. He is now the Premier of Newfoundland. It's a province that doesn't have a fishery anymore -- we might just make that as a side note. I complained that there was inaction on the federal level for the fishery, that nothing was being done and that we were finding that the federal government was not paying any attention whatever to the legitimate concerns of British Columbians who are fighting to try and preserve this resource. This is the response. He suggests that it is most unfortunate that I had written that letter:

"It is most unfortunate, because generally speaking the fish stocks of the west coast are in a healthy state, and their management is sound. Through careful management and enhancement programs, salmon stocks have been rebuilt to historic levels in some parts of British Columbia."

[ Page 305 ]

He goes on to suggest that:

"The facts simply do not support the conclusion that the west coast fishery is at risk, as you have suggested in your letter."

That is from the federal Minister of Fisheries in 1995.

It was so evident, so clear, to those who had any knowledge whatever of the industry that we were in a crisis in 1993, and nothing was done. The federal minister writes a letter that says: "Everything's just fine. Don't be Chicken Little. Don't say the sky is falling. You are being irresponsible in your comment, because everything's just A-Okay."

Well, it isn't A-Okay, and the Mifflin plan makes that very clear. When we start to look at the cost impacts of the Mifflin plan, as put out in Mr. Gislason's report today, we see that the cost impacts on families on the west coast are absolutely devastating. Nothing in the Mifflin plan speaks toward conservation and long-term management of the fish stock -- nothing whatsoever. What it does is concentrate licences in the hands of wealthy fishers and large fishing interests in British Columbia. If you look at who's buying them up, this report is very clear: they are being picked up by people on the lower mainland who are contracted primarily to one or two or possibly three large fishing companies.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Corporatization.

G. Wilson: That's what it is; it is corporatization of the fishing industry, to be sure. Coastal communities such as Madeira Park, in my riding, Powell River, Gibsons, Sointula, Alert Bay. . . . We could go on; they're all listed here. I hope the members of the government and the members of the official opposition, take a long, hard read of them, because these numbers reflect families. These numbers reflect people like you and me, hon. Speaker. These are people who now no longer know how they're going to make a living. They're people who find that they can no longer make ends meet. I met with a group of them a week ago. Do you know what happens when people find their well-being and livelihood destroyed? Alcoholism, family breakdown, violence -- social decay generally.

If I feel passionate about this, it's because it was so unnecessary. It was completely unnecessary. Yet even today, when the federal government has to see, hear and understand the actual cost to the people in the coastal communities of British Columbia, it is unwilling to do anything positive to change the situation. We have to have Mr. Kerley's office -- the job protection commissioner -- come and tell us what we have to do now on a provincial level, using provincial money, to try and deal with this situation. That's why it's a crisis. That's why those of us in British Columbia need to point the finger squarely at the federal government and say: "Therein lies the problem that we must correct."

I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food was saying today in the briefing with the stakeholders that he didn't want to bash Ottawa, because he wants to keep them involved. Well, I want Mr. Mifflin to come with me at my expense, and we will travel on my boat up the coast into these communities. I want him to see firsthand the suffering he has caused. It's easy when you're a minister sitting back in Ottawa: nice expense budget, all kinds of gratuities, lots of travel allowances. He's all right, Jack. But we're not. Bring him out here, hon. Speaker. Let's make real what we do in this House. Let's recognize that what we do in this House affects people. Meet them, hear them, understand them and see their suffering. Then tell me, Mr. Mifflin, that your plan is in the best interests of the west coast fishery.

The second area I want to talk about in this response to the Speech from the Throne is the whole proposition of federal transfer payments. This province is a net contributor to the confederation. I am a strong and loyal Canadian. I believe first and foremost in this country and that we need a strong and united country. But we can no longer be taken for granted in this nation as we continue to send moneys through our federal tax collection system to Ottawa, only to find that they continue to refuse to send our fair share back to us. The crisis that we see in the fishery is one of inaction, an inadequate response to a crisis that I, and many others like me, many years ago sent letters and urgings to the federal government to correct. They did nothing with it. The loss of transfers is exactly that in our financial situation.

I hear, quite frankly, that the problem with debt and deficit management has to preoccupy those of us in politics because debt and deficit management are something that the people of British Columbia are really concerned about. At what cost are we going to try to deal with this debt and deficit? What level of suffering are we going to permit, as we start slowly once again to demand that British Columbians tighten their belts, when we continue to send our fair share to Ottawa and continue to find that the transfers back are reduced? Therefore we need to be taxed again for what we've already been taxed for once. How long are we going to put up with it before we stand and take a united front in this province to say: "No more"?

There is a better way. During the election campaign, members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance urged strongly that we put in place a tax collection system that would move to a single integrated tax being collected provincially. I'm not talking about a duplicated tax here; I'm not talking about duplicating Revenue Canada. I'm talking about an integrated single tax, and tax collection provincially. We would then remit our fair share federally.

I know that on the international stage now the Canadian national debt is an issue being talked about by a number of investors. We heard today in question period the Princeton Institute talking about. . . . If you read their document fully, it says that Canadians have not yet learned to take debt and deficit seriously, and that they elected their party of choice. Well, I didn't stand up and vote for the members opposite to be government; I ran to put a second proposition forward. We were unsuccessful in this election; we may do better in the next one. But as a proud Canadian, I'll be darned if I'm going to have some investment institute in Princeton stand up and tell me how I have to vote in this country to satisfy their investment concerns, because that may not be the strategy we want to look at right here.

Why should those international business houses, who are talking to people who are simply looking to shift money in and out so they can make a profit, profit off our resource base, our labour base and this country? They couldn't care less about the well-being of our health, education and social service systems. That's not what that investment institute is all about. Where would we be if we had a government in power that simply went running to those investment institutes before they made any decision on policy or direction, because they wanted to make sure they didn't get some negative comment in some investment journal that goes out to a bunch of people who are simply there to make a buck? We'd be in sorry shape.

What we need in this province is to move forward, to take control of our finances. Let's not worry so much about what that situation may be with respect to the investment houses; let's worry about what the situation is within the 

[ Page 306 ]

houses of British Columbians -- the families that vote for us and work to build this province and this nation. Let us invest in the people, not in those institutions that seek to take from the people so that they can advance their own cause and agenda on the national or international stages in their financial biddings. That's what we need to do.

The way to do it is to collect all taxes provincially and to take control over those finances so that for the first time Ottawa will listen, take us seriously and understand that what we are saying is: "Yes, we are going to be proud Canadians, but we in this province will no longer stand as a patsy, essentially, to federal policy-making that does nothing whatsoever to recognize that the well-being of this province can be better determined, dictated and directed by those who are directly in the first line of providing for the people of this province." That needs to be done in a concerted effort, so that we can move to put in place the tax changes we require.

It's interesting that in this Speech from the Throne there is talk about new directions in spending. Frankly, I have to say that there's a bit of a storm swirling at the moment about whether or not the projections were right or wrong, good or bad, or whatever. When you go into an election campaign, most of the people of British Columbia take what they see written down there with a grain of salt anyway. That's unfortunate, perhaps, but that's a product of our political system. The fact is that I thought: "Well, all right. If we're going to really look at new directions in spending, as outlined in this particular Speech from the Throne, let's take a look and do some analysis of the two main planks that were there." I'd be happy to do ours. I mean, my book is pretty clear -- not that I should be promoting it in this chamber, but. . . .

Certainly, if we look at the two main platforms, it's interesting that when you do the breakdown and analysis, there's no question that the government's projections were wrong. What they put out there was wrong, and whether they knew it or didn't is a point that you're going to have to decide for yourself. It was wrong, and now they're having to deal with the fact that they took projections to the people that were wrong.

What's ironic is that the only thing that saves the Liberal opposition from having to do the same thing is that they didn't win. Their projections were equally wrong. I challenge anybody to go through it and look at those numbers, and I'd be happy to sit down and do it with you. I've done the analysis in detail. They used precisely the same levels of projections for forestry revenue coming into this province as the members of the government, and they were equally wrong. The only reason they don't have to account for it is that they didn't win. Otherwise, they'd have to. Of course, they talked about selling off B.C. Rail: "Let's flog off our northern railway system to the highest bidder." That was a problem for me personally and, I think, for a lot of British Columbians.

But we need new directions in spending, so I offer to this government. . . . To get away from this notion of annualization of budgets, go to four-year-based financing. Allow base budgets to be carried over a four-year period so that you can front-end-load or back-end-load expenses or costs on program delivery as required.

What this whole thing points out, more than anything else -- this whole debate on whether the projections were right or wrong or indifferent -- is that balanced-budget legislation is just a crock. It's nonsense, because you cannot accurately and adequately project to the dollar in any given year what government revenues are going to be. I don't care who you are. I don't care how tightly managed your financial advisers may be. It isn't possible to do that with any degree of certainty. Therefore if you want to move toward a balanced budget, inevitably there's going to be juggling within the delivery of those dollars throughout the fiscal year; there has to be.

[3:15]

What I'm now suggesting to the members in government -- and I hope they take my suggestion seriously, because I think it's a valuable one for them as they prepare the 1997 budget -- is that they should look to a four-year-based budget, so that when the prospect of revenues are not good, as in this year, you can essentially carry the load of that over the second and third year. You don't suffer the problems that we face this year, with some kind of final budget numbers needed at the end of the fiscal year. Four-year-based funding makes a lot of sense. It allows for you to do long-range planning and for there to be proper capital expenditure planning, which we can't do right now. We wouldn't need the freeze, because what we would be able to do is advance the most important, urgent projects that are there now, and put on hold those projects we could carry into the second or the third year. But the certainty of that funding would be there, because you would have a four-year financing package put in place.

We need also to provide serious tax relief for British Columbians. The bill that we'll be debating a little later in the House just doesn't go far enough. One percent is not what we're talking about. We need to introduce deductibility of first mortgages for primary residents. Mortgage tax-deductibility is a way to put into the pockets of British Columbians dollars that are necessary for them to spend in the communities. It will be a stimulant for the economy. In order to return the money, we have to take the bold and necessary step to require chartered banks doing business in British Columbia to file an audit and to tax those profits that come off that mortgage revenue.

I know there are various legal opinions on whether that would fly within the Bank Act. I certainly have my set, and I know that there are a bunch of others being prepared now to look at this issue. It's time we took that step, because the chartered banks. . . . You might say that all they'll do is simply pass it on to the consumer. Well, the market has something to say about that. Take a look at what's going on with market values now in terms of real estate, and you'll see that is not going to be quite as easy. What it does is allow the average British Columbian the right to deduct the interest on that mortgage, and that puts it back in their pocket on an annual level of somewhere between $5,000 and $7,000 on an average mortgage now. That's money they can invest in their communities. That's money that will be of value to them, not 1 percent. The government plan, I think, is going to return to the people something like 28 bucks. That's what we're worried about: whether you get the 28 bucks in January or July. I think it's kind of a moot point, unless you're worried about the interest on it -- which is, I think, about 37 cents.

So we can see that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether we have a sensible plan of mortgage deductibility. Similarly, we have to recognize that within communities, now that the rental accommodations are starting to rise in corresponding ratios to that which is a purchase value. . . . The monthly expenditures that people are finding with respect to those accommodations are high, even for those people who are renting. So we must consider that there should be a rental allowance as a deduction from income in order to be able to provide people who are renting the opportunity to have that deductibility.

[ Page 307 ]

Those are sensible programs. They're programs that will provide tremendous tax relief to people immediately, and they will provide them an opportunity to have money to invest in their communities. Fortunately, in the Speech from the Throne, there was a vague reference. . . . I offer that to the members of the government in the hope that they will take seriously the need for both four-year-based financing and adequate income tax reform. But, more importantly, it is necessary for British Columbians to recognize that now is the time for us to move toward the collection of all taxes provincially, so that we are able to put in place the tax relief programs we need. We will then send our fair share on to Ottawa.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Let me close by talking for a moment about the inevitability of the referendum in Quebec next year. After the election, the Premier and I had an opportunity to get together and talk -- as has the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations -- about what may or may not transpire in Canada as the people of Quebec are once again being prepared to be put to a referendum. There are three issues that I would like to address and to have on the record today in this House and that I hope will be considered by British Columbians as I put them forward.

The first is the notion of the referendum itself: whether it indeed is legal. That's a notion that has been advanced and will now be heard, with legal judgment to be rendered. I suggest to you that with an amending formula such as we have, which, as you know, hon. Speaker, is seven out of ten provinces, constituting 51 percent of the Canadian population. . . . That amending formula itself would prohibit one province from holding a referendum that would then decide that they would somehow indelibly alter our constitution. Whether they wish to say they're signatories or not is another matter. The fact is that they are a functional part of the operations of this great nation.

That's an issue that we in British Columbia need to get some clarification on, because it's going to be an important one. If that precedent is set in Quebec. . . . Keep in mind that there are other areas in which that may impact on us as well, in terms of whether or not you can have, by referendum, addendums or amendments to the constitution. The precedent in constitutional law that will be set by that is going to impact on the resolution of aboriginal land claims, potentially, because there are calls there for referenda on those matters in terms of addendums to the constitution that may bypass the normal process for constitutional reform. That's an important issue for us to resolve in this province before it happens.

We also have to recognize that in the event that the people of Quebec vote yes -- and we hope that they don't -- the people of British Columbia are going to want to know where we stand vis-�-vis Ottawa and the other provinces with which we will now have to enter into a different and renewed relationship, if we choose to do that. Does it mean, then, that all ten provinces will have the same latitude granted Quebec with respect to the provision of a referendum to decide our course of action? Constitutional lawyers will quickly tell you that no, that won't be provided. There are a whole host of reasons I'm not going to get into here to tell you why they would argue that that would be the case. The problem is that the people of British Columbia don't know that.

We haven't ever sat down and said: "All right, this is what's likely to occur in the event of a Yes vote in Quebec." In fact, I don't know of anybody who would challenge the fact that if the vote was to go yes in Quebec, the first thing that should happen is that the Prime Minister should tender his resignation; he should resign. If we are going to take seriously the proposition that Quebec will no longer be a functional part of Canada, the Prime Minister can hardly represent us from a foreign nation -- I think you would agree that that's true -- in which case we put ourselves into constitutional crisis in this country as to where the chain of command and the lines of command may be. Similarly, we have to then consider the notion of how we divide this national debt that we are so concerned about and which we are paying so much into.

I don't pose this to be an alarmist. I don't pose this to be anything more than perhaps slightly ahead of the debate, so that we in this province can come together in a non-partisan way and talk to British Columbians, and let them understand what the functional part of the law is, what it means within the constitutional framework of that vote in Quebec, and what that means to their well-being and the well-being of future generations of British Columbians. That debate hasn't happened.

Throw into the mix the fact that we are moving ahead -- and I think rightly so -- with trying to resolve in a just way the aboriginal land issue and land claims, and understand that when the nature of Ottawa changes and the provisions vis-�-vis the constitution change, that changes the relationship of one of the three partners sitting at the table. . . . That's a problem that we'd better have some answers to. Let's know it's a problem. Let's advance it, and let's get ahead with it. Let's not try to deal with it by some $20 million committee that's set up, with the Deputy Prime Minister in central Canada talking to central Canadians about issues that are important to central Canadians, without realizing that there's a whole host of other Canadians -- British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritimes, not to leave out Manitoba and the north, the Yukon and the new territories in the north -- who should have an equal opportunity to have input into this issue.

While this Speech from the Throne sets the tone and direction for government, it seems to me that it fell short of addressing those two primary, critical issues. I hope on the first one -- the fishery -- that we will see no more politics in this chamber on that question, and that we will start to see people committed to making sure that the well-being of the families in coastal British Columbia is looked after, because their time is now. It is a critical issue that we must move on today, because their inability to look after their families is immediate. This is not something that may happen; it has happened, and there's serious suffering. There are children at risk, families are breaking up, people are in serious trouble, and they need our help. So let's have no more politics on this question. Let's get down to doing something about it.

On the question of our nation, this province should take a lead role. We must stand up, we must come forward with solutions and answers, and we must take it to the rest of the country so that we can show that British Columbians are prepared to take head-on the issue of this nation -- of what it is about this nation that is worth saving, about what our vision for a new Canada may be. With that vision, we will proceed.

J. Dalton: Before I get to the remarks I was going to make about the Speech from the Throne, I want to make some observations about what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast commented on about the B.C. fishery, even though he may have felt somewhat closed out of the debate -- or lack of it -- the other day. There are rules in this House, and they have to be observed. I would be the first to argue that some of those rules should be amended, or that there should be some contemplation of change, but that's not the issue.

[ Page 308 ]

I agree with two things that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast commented on about the fishery. As a British Columbian, I would be the first to argue that the Pacific salmon is a B.C. resource and without question has to be managed in this province, not from the Ottawa River. I am not aware that the Pacific salmon spawns in the Ottawa River. Perhaps the bureaucrats in that capital think so.

The other thing that the member had to work in is our so-called kissing cousins from Ottawa. Well, that is not the case. B.C. Liberals speak for British Columbians, and I believe that is true of all members in this House, whether on the government side, on the opposition side, or in the third, fourth or whatever other parties we have down there.

I also want to pass on one other observation to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I was in his riding last weekend, enjoying the sunshine and the salt air. Unfortunately, I spent two solid days on the fishing grounds off Halfmoon Bay and Pender Harbour, which, of course, is his former home. I am sad to report to this House that I did not catch a fish, although I had lots of company. I did not see a fish being caught. There were a lot of rumours going around the area that there were fish out there, but there was no evidence of them. Whether that reflects on my ability as a fisher, I don't know. But I think it does reflect the message that the member did convey: the fishery is a serious issue, whether it be sport fishery, commercial fishery or aboriginal fishery. I would also add that I have friends who are the holders of fishing licences. They are taking this year off, and that's a sad commentary. It's also a sad commentary that the job protection commissioner has now had to enter the scene and make a report and recommendation, which has just been tabled today on this very issue. So we will have to address that as we progress.

However, I am on my feet to comment on the Speech from the Throne, a speech that I would describe in a generic sense as saying one thing and doing another, a speech that certainly has some deception in it, and also a speech that clearly contains some misstatements and some wrong information. We saw that with the budget, which we just finished debating and voting on yesterday. We saw it with the previous budget, the '95-96 one that has certainly sparked a lot of controversy -- the so-called balanced budget that all members will recall became unbalanced. Now we have to face the issues, going into the next fiscal year: whether the $87 million surplus that we find in the '96-97 budget will in fact be realized. We in the opposition have very serious concerns about whether that will be so. We read in the Vancouver Sun today, from the B.C. Business Council examination, that we may be in the glue anywhere up to $700 million. A $700 million deficit is projected as a possibility for the current budget year.

[3:30]

What does the Premier say in response to that? He says it shows how variable they are. He is referring, of course, to the projections of revenue and the budget figures for the current budget year. We at least have to give credit to the Premier for one thing, hon. Speaker. He is acknowledging that in fact the budget for '96-97 may come unglued, the very same thing that we know did happen to the '95-96 budget. I hope the Premier is prepared to struggle further and address that issue, because it may come back to haunt this government many more times than it already has in the past two weeks.

We have to ask ourselves: how did the budget last year that initially had a $114 million surplus and then was revised to a $16 million surplus suddenly turn into a $235 million deficit? I don't keep my bank book very well, I must confess, but I can certainly keep track of money, so that I don't turn something that looks very favourable and is in black ink into a terrible splash of red ink almost overnight. That is what has happened with the previous budget. That is part of saying one thing and doing another -- the deception that this government has practised and that we saw through the previous budget and the current budget.

Let me turn my remarks now to the topic of the day, which is the Speech from the Throne. We can also find some deception in what this speech, this game plan of the government, contains. We read, for example, that British Columbia has the strongest economy in the country. Of course, we're getting second and third opinions on that topic. We are getting opinions both from within the province -- from the B.C. Business Council, for example -- and from other provinces and other countries. Today's question period certainly highlighted a major concern that a world-renowned economist has presented about the state of the economy in this province. But, more shamefully and more importantly than what I'm commenting upon today is the deception of this government which is evidenced both in the budget presentation and in the throne speech. We have the so-called strongest economy? It will remain to be seen whether that works out.

We also read that the budget will be British Columbia's second balanced budget in a row. I needn't comment further on that. We know that the first balanced budget, last year's, is no longer balanced. I might ask the government and some of the members opposite. . . . I just noticed in yesterday's newspaper that they are still running the ads promoting the virtues of the budget for '96-97, but they've dropped the "balanced" reference at the bottom of that ad. So at least they have come to their senses in realizing that false advertising is not something that you should admit to publicly.

D. Symons: Who's paying for those ads?

J. Dalton: A very good point that my colleague from Richmond Centre raises: who is paying for those ads? Well, of course, the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying for those ads.

What purpose do they have? They are not advancing the cause of the economy. They're not advising the public of any useful government service or function. They're simply self-serving, self-promoting exercises that are a waste of money. Yet we have the same government saying we have to have a capital freeze. We have to be worried about other issues such as the possibility of having to make cuts over the next year, which the Premier has now publicly admitted may have to happen, and they're still running these misleading ads. I encourage this government at least to pull those ads from the newspapers and get back to the issues of the day, which are the proper management of this province. It's long overdue.

Now, what else do we find in the Speech from the Throne? We find that in the coming weeks a royal commission on workers' compensation will be announced. Well, it goes without saying that everyone in this province -- in particular, injured workers and their families -- knows full well what is wrong with WCB. It's a mess. It has been a mess for a long time. It's an administrative nightmare. It makes no sense. You have appeal upon appeal, layers of bureaucracy.

We don't need a royal commission to state the obvious. We don't need a royal commission to trot around this province making the observations that we know people will present to it. We've heard those observations. The MLAs opposite have heard those observations. The new members, if they haven't 

[ Page 309 ]

yet heard them, will be hearing them very soon, I can assure you. We don't need a royal commission to waste time and money on a very vital public issue.

We need someone to sit down and correct the problem. It can be done. We'd be happy to advise the government through our task force, which went around this province and gathered information firsthand as to what the problems are. I can assure this government that we in the opposition would be very pleased to lend a hand in correcting that situation. But I fear that we probably will be shut out because of my next point, again from the Speech from the Throne. We read that there will be a new role for MLAs. Well, perhaps a very good role for MLAs, as I've just suggested, would be to sit down and wrestle with the WCB problem, instead of a having royal commission.

However, with regard to the new role for MLAs, we got off to a bad start on that one. What happens? The Minister of Health correctly puts regionalization on hold because, of course, it's not working as it's designed to work. What does she do? She appoints four government backbenchers -- government only, no opposition, no third or fourth parties. So we have four government MLAs -- the chair from Port Coquitlam and members from Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Kootenay and New Westminster -- sitting on a government-MLA-only panel that is going to go around the province gathering information on regionalization. Well, what happened to the opposition? What happened to the new role for MLAs? It's not happening.

I would also give some advice on the topic of regionalization to this government. Maybe the four MLAs who are on this committee would care to take note. If they want a good example of where regionalization is in place and, I believe, working as well it can -- with the control that Victoria wrongly exercises, of course -- I suggest they come to the North Shore and look at the North Shore health board. It's fully in place. It is one example of very few -- perhaps the only example -- whereby if this government had listened to the opposition and put a pilot project in place, they wouldn't be going though this nonsense today of having to put regionalization on hold and trotting four government backbenchers around the province to find the obvious.

I'm not on my feet just because I'm an MLA from the North Shore extolling the virtues of the health board. I've seen it firsthand. I attended their pre-planning meetings before the board itself was inaugurated. I've met many times with the board, individually and collectively, since then. I know the directors of the board. Many of them are personal friends of mine. They're all volunteers. They're all slavishly working with no remuneration to make something that we all had our suspicions would only be another layer of bureaucracy. But they're making their best efforts -- and it is happening on the North Shore -- for it to work. So let's see whether those four MLAs will take up that invitation and come to the North Shore to see how regionalization may, in fact, work.

Another comment I want to put on the record. . . . I've done so already in my remarks on the budget, but I want to come back to it with regard to the Speech from the Throne. This is a topic, of course, that the government neglected to mention in the Speech from the Throne; we had to learn about it three days later. I'm referring to the capital projects freeze. I'm wondering how many NDP candidates went around their ridings and around this province making promises both before and during the campaign. Then three days after this parliament is called back into session, we learn that many of the capital projects promised and alluded to are under review, are frozen.

In particular, I must make some further comments about the Lions Gate Bridge project. I don't even know whether that's the right term, because I don't consider it a project at the moment. I consider it more as something that the government treats as rather a fanciful and unimportant issue, but I can assure you it is anything but. What do we see in the capital projects list? The Lions Gate "construction" -- that's the word they use; it's right in the document -- is under review. I don't know what construction they're referring to, other than the revamping of the sidewalks that they do from time to time. It's described on the list as "bridge renewal." I don't know whether that begs the question if one day we may have either a rehabilitated or a replacement bridge, but the way this government is limping along with this issue, I don't think we're going to have anything -- other than a body of water across the First Narrows one day and nothing other than either swimming across it or maybe taking one of those hang gliders. We could glide across it from Prospect Point to the Capilano River. That's the only expectation we have from this government.

Let me remind the government members, just for a moment, of the so-called planning that has gone into the Lions Gate crossing issue over the last three years. It's this government, to give them some credit -- even though the minister is no longer in this House. . . . When Art Charbonneau was the minister in 1993, he set a time line of five years for community consultation on the crossing, a shortlist of options, and a decision. The engineers, by the way, advise us that the foundations and the basic structure of the bridge are sound engineeringwise. Obviously the problem is -- and any of us who use the bridge regularly will know this firsthand -- that more and more that bridge is falling into a state of disrepair. It's becoming more and more unsafe, and it is unfortunately also becoming more and more unsightly. I don't like to say that, because it is the gateway to the North Shore and many other important parts of this province, but that is a fact.

So one of many previous Highways ministers set a time line in place. We felt on this side that the government would stick to that time line; well, they haven't. In no way, shape or form has the five-year guideline been adhered to. Three years later, and what are we seeing today? Well, last December. . . . We only discovered by accident that the community focus group, which was one of the community groups put together to look at the shortlist of options, presented a proposal for a new four-lane structure to parallel the Lions Gate Bridge where it is today. That was placed on the desk of the then Highways minister, Jackie Pement, and I presume was transferred onto the desk of the next Minister of Highways, who is now the minister of. . . . What is it? Nelson-Creston is his riding, and I can't remember which ministry he has now. That's where it sits. Perhaps the current minister from Prince George-Mount Robson has the report. We'll have to find out in the estimates, I guess. But that's all we've had, and that's what they describe as planning. They say that the planning can go ahead; it's not frozen. But the construction, which is the other reference in the capital projects document, is frozen. I'm confused. The planning can carry on; the construction is on hold. Yet there's been very little planning and certainly no construction.

[3:45]

We have learned a very painful lesson from the partial closure of the Second Narrows Bridge, which, of course, is ongoing. I point that out because there is no question that the two bridges crossing Burrard Inlet. . . . There are only two. We don't have any alternatives. I see firsthand the buildup of traffic in my neighbourhood, which is near the Lions Gate. If 

[ Page 310 ]

you can't cross one bridge, naturally you divert to the other, but you have no third or fourth choice. The mess that the Second Narrows rehabilitation has caused is unbelievable. It has caused people economic and social hardships. You can't even get from one neighbourhood on the North Shore to another, let alone across the inlet.

If we don't realize the importance of maintaining the integrity of both crossings, in particular with the Lions Gate being the important economic and social link to the downtown core and other parts of Vancouver, and the heritage value of that bridge. . . . The bridge was opened in 1938, so we're approaching the sixtieth anniversary of the Lions Gate. As somebody who grew up with that bridge literally in my front yard and looked at it and travelled on it probably every day, I'm hoping that we can come up with a proposal that will maintain that heritage and that tourism value. But this government would literally allow the bridge to fall into disrepair and decay and fall into the inlet, and then we'd be down to one bridge. Good luck when we have one! So we must move on with that.

Yesterday I happened to be in the House when the member for Vancouver-Burrard made some comments about the Lions Gate, and I'll give him credit. At least he recognized that it is an important crossing. Of course, the southern part puts the traffic into the West End and into his riding. But what did the member tell us? He really didn't tell us anything other than that he's concerned that if we improve or replace the Lions Gate crossing, we're going to have more single-occupancy vehicles travelling through the West End.

There is a certain reality to this entire exercise. People have to get around. They have to be able to transport their goods. They have to be able to have access to the downtown core. They have to be able to use the crossing for other destinations. People have to cross to the North Shore to get to the ferry terminals, to Whistler, to another alternative route to the interior. There are many reasons that that bridge must go forward as a project and not be frozen. So I encourage this government and us in the opposition. . . . Certainly my colleagues from the three other North Shore ridings will be doing so continuously, probably to the point where you'll almost think that it's another Westview, which I'm happy to say has gone ahead. We are going to continue to press this issue, because we have to; it's not just our function as four North Shore MLAs to do so. It is an important economic, social and tourism link to the entire lower mainland -- and to this province, I submit. So we'll have to see how that one plays out over the months, but to put it on the frozen list really does give the lie to anything this government has presented.

I'll make one other observation with regard to the capital projects freeze. The government is obviously trying to take a second look at its spending, which we know is somewhat out of control, and, just as importantly, its revenue projections, which are certainly out of control. There was an article in yesterday's news about the proposed new convention centre and whether it would be frozen by the capital projects review. The article -- quite correctly, I think -- points out that there's no need for that proposal to be frozen, for two reasons: (1) it's an economic generator -- and it will be once it's constructed; and (2) it will be built by private funding. We don't need to dip into the public purse to advance the new convention centre. I point out that example because I feel we can come up with a plan whereby something as important as the Lions Gate crossing can also be considered as an economic generator, which it is, and constructed with private funding, as I believe it can be.

I believe we can certainly give some advice to this government. They probably won't listen to it. They never seem to listen to anything that makes sense, and they certainly never listen to anything that may have some business or management connotation to it. I would encourage this government to take a second look at many of the projects they have put on hold and ask themselves: is this good for the future of this province? Is there going to be some economic downturn by doing nothing?

Interjection.

J. Dalton: My colleague from Yale-Lillooet says, "Spend, spend, spend," but excuse me -- he, if I recall, in the Hope Standard or whatever community newspaper, was inviting our Liberal candidate to indicate where he would put his priorities. What do we find? Everything in his riding is now under review -- frozen.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Most of it's completed, yes. He got to spend all his money before re-election. Broken promises: that's what I was going to end on. My friend from Yale-Lillooet has opened up the door.

I'm sure that every NDP-held riding, previously or now, is experiencing some good times -- they certainly did experience some good times. He's admitted it; he's on record. He said that everything was done in his riding. Well, it hasn't been done in mine. I've got a bridge that's falling down and three high schools which were put under review. Do the kids of the North Shore not count? Do the travellers who want to go back and forth across the inlet not count? No, they don't, not to these people.

It is not a question of "spend, spend, spend." That's why I made reference. . . . And I invite you to read Hansard; you can take it home with you. You don't have to try to collect your thoughts now. Take a look at the proposed new convention centre. It's not going to cost this government any money, because there's private funding that's willing to step in and do the job where government fails. I'm submitting to the members opposite that if we start getting a little smarter with the funding that's available, we won't get into this problem.

However, we know that the throne speech contains many broken promises and deceptions. We know that last year's budget certainly was a broken promise; this year's budget, I'm sure, is going to fall into the same trap. We will be tracking the projected revenues very closely. The estimates will give us further insight into the projections for the upcoming year.

It is very disappointing to me, being returned to this House, to know that this government was re-elected by deception and misstatements. It doesn't do any of us in this House any good to be thinking on those lines, but that is a reality, and that's what the people of this province are saying. When the government members return to their home ridings this weekend, if they care to read the editorials and comments in their local newspapers, they will find, without exception, that every community newspaper will be commenting on the deception practised by this government, as evidenced both in the throne speech and in the budget.

Hon. J. Cashore: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano uses the word "deception," but he conveniently forgets that during the last week and a half of the election campaign, which resulted in him being on that side of the 

[ Page 311 ]

House and us being on this side of the House. . . . His illustrious leader spent a week and a half trying to explain the fact that he was involved in backroom deals. Every night he was talking about backroom deals. This member has the temerity to talk about deception when he's just come through an election campaign where the voters were absolutely disgusted with the behaviour of that recently converted Liberal leader.

It was interesting to listen to the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, responding to the very good speech of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. He alluded to the criticism that that member had the temerity to make. That member was pointing out that when we were discussing an issue of very vital importance to British Columbians -- the issue of the fishery and the decline of the fishery, which we're all so concerned about. . . . Certainly the Liberals, whenever they get a chance, say how concerned they are and how important this issue is to all British Columbians. He said that when the leader of the Reform Party and the leader of the PDA asked for leave, they denied them leave. They denied them their democratic right to comment on this. What was his excuse? What was his lame excuse? His lame, limp excuse was: the rules.

J. Dalton: Yes, the rules.

Hon. J. Cashore: He says, "Yes, the rules," but the rules provide for this House, including the Liberals, to grant leave so that that member can stand up and add his voice to the voices of British Columbia on this vital issue. He says: "The rules." He hides behind a very narrow and very sad interpretation of the rules.

It's good to be here and to rise to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. Hon. Speaker, I want to congratulate you as Deputy Speaker and the Speaker for having been chosen for this very important task. Both of you are very competent to perform that task, and I wish you all the best.

I want to say a few words about my constituency of Coquitlam-Maillardville, which is historically very significant in the province. It's the geographic centre of the lower mainland. We've seen it go through a transition. It was mostly a community where people commuted elsewhere to go to work, and it became a living-room community where people live and have a very good quality of life.

If we look at the Coquitlam town centre, which is not in my riding -- it's in the riding of the member for Port Coquitlam -- and if we look at the Maillardville area, which is my riding, we have two hubs in that community where the quality of life is certainly being established as a result of the leadership of the people in Coquitlam. They are to be commended for that.

It's important to note that one of the main reasons the member for Port Coquitlam and I were returned to the Legislature was that we did well our job of representing our constituents to Victoria. It's a very simple philosophy that as MLA you represent your constituents to Victoria, not the other way around. We have done that effectively and cooperatively. I believe that it has been recognized by the voters of that area.

[4:00]

I just point out that in the Coquitlam town centre, for instance, we have the art centre, which the provincial government has had a very significant role in developing. We have the new Douglas College centre. We have the high school in the area. All of those are projects that the provincial government has been involved in. There has been very good leadership from the MLAs in enabling that to happen. If you add to that the aquatic centre and the Coquitlam Town Centre Stadium, we have there an area that is going to be very worthwhile for people interested in the arts, education and athletics. All of those people who take a position of leadership in developing those facilities in Coquitlam certainly deserve to receive a great deal of credit.

Then when we look in the area of Maillardville, which is very important in terms of being the only francophone community in British Columbia -- it goes back to the days when people from Quebec came out to operate Fraser Mills, and they and their descendants have stayed there -- we have the Village Credit Union, for instance, a francophone credit union which serves people in both languages. Together they have worked to develop the Place des Arts -- the Maillardville heritage square -- and the Foyer Maillard, which is a centre for intermediate and extended care. It's a way in which it has shown that, because of the pride of those people, they have been able to maintain that francophone flavour in that part of Coquitlam. That has been a very wonderful legacy for all of British Columbia.

Again, in order to be able to represent our constituency, we in the area of district 43 have been able to provide more school construction than in any period in the previous 20 years. In other words, more went into new school construction in that rapidly growing area than had gone into that area in the previous 20 years. We think that is very significant.

Also, we have become known as the MLAs who delivered on the commitments that were made. I point out that those commitments and those deliveries took place over a period of the five years in government. Yes, there are times when something needs to be reviewed. There are times when matters get set aside for awhile, while certain work has to be done. But the fact is that we delivered very well, in making sure that one of the most rapidly growing areas in all of Canada has been addressed in a way that reversed the neglect that had been the hallmark of the previous Social Credit governments.

Therefore we have delivered with regard to a process that has ensured that Colony Farm has become a regional park. Many people cynically said: "Politicians will never follow through on that." Yet we did follow through on that, just as we're following through on a process for the Riverview lands, to enable a citizens' committee to have significant input with regard to the future of that project, and to ensure that we save that very outstanding arboretum of wonderful trees.

Again, in the area of transportation, we have delivered with regard to the horrible congestion faced by commuters who are trying to get to work. The Johnson-Mariner connector is nearing completion. The Broadway connector is nearing completion. The high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the 401 and the Barnet Highway are nearing completion. The Mary Hill bypass is being completed, and so is the Bailey bridge across the Coquitlam River. These projects were absolutely essential so that people would be able to find their way to work and to participate effectively in their activities. I would also add that the West Coast Express, which many members of the Liberal opposition have said they would do away with, is of very real benefit to those very large numbers of commuters who use it every day. For those who would say that they think it would come to an end, I would say that it would be a very interesting project for the new member from Port Moody to go there in the morning, talk to those commuters about the Liberal plans to do away with the West Coast Express, and see what kind of a representation she would get.

[ Page 312 ]

I would also like to point out that I believe this government has provided the kind of government that is going to make sure that five years from now we get a result that is even more successful than the result we had in the previous election. After all, this government has provided for two dates on which there will be significant tax cuts for people earning less than $80,000 a year. This government has provided for all individual and family taxes to be frozen until the year 2000. This government has provided for tax cuts and a freeze on B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC rates and post-secondary tuition. These cuts will amount to $500 a year for the average family. This is very worthwhile.

Not only that, but the small business interest rate will be down 10 percent, and new businesses that come into existence after May 1 and before March 30, 2001, will have a two-year tax holiday. Those are very significant, concrete measures that will be very well received and are being well received by the people of British Columbia.

On top of that, the family bonus has been introduced and will be debated later on this day. For the first time there is a positive process that helps to enable and encourage people on welfare to get into the workforce, and enables people who are the working poor to have a very needed supplement. That's a very positive measure, and it's going over very well among my constituents.

The fact is that our government, which is very clear in its commitment to invest in young people and jobs, to protect health care and education, and to make sure that there are tax breaks for working British Columbians, is on the right track. And while doing that, we are making communities safer. We have a good record in job creation, and this year alone, more than 34,000 jobs have been created. Again, that's an indication of the kind of positive work that this government has been doing.

Speaking about what I said earlier -- that our role as MLAs is to represent our constituents to Victoria, and not the other way around -- I think it is shown in the kind of result that we had in that election. We simply have to have the recognition over there on the opposition benches that when you say over and over again in my constituency to cut debt, cut debt, cut debt, and spend, spend, spend, it has a very hollow ring to it.

When the last of the five years of this term are concluded, and when the members go home to face the judgment of their constituents, I want to say that the NDP will still be on this side of the House and that amalgam of Socreds and a few federal Liberals will still be on that side of the House.

H. Lali: First of all, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity you're giving me to respond to the throne speech. I also want to congratulate all members of the House for getting elected for the first time, or for a second or third time. I would also like to congratulate all the candidates from the various parties who put their names forth on those ballots and were unsuccessful. As you know, hon. Speaker, when you're elected as a politician to represent constituents, your life is in a fishbowl; constant criticism comes from all sides. It takes a special person to get elected, but also to have the courage to actually put their name on the ballot to serve people around them in their various constituencies. I think it's very important to recognize all of those individuals who did that during the 1996 election.

It is an honourable profession, despite the opposition that is put forward by the media in running down people who represent the public interest. Every one of us is here trying to do the job to the best of our ability. Nobody here is taking from the public purse or trying to rip anybody off, but if you listen to the media and read the newspapers, they like to think that everybody who has ever been elected has done and continues to do that. It's a real shame that the real story doesn't get out.

I also want to thank all those people in my constituency who put that X or checkmark beside my name to send me to represent them for another four or five years, depending on when the election is called. I especially want to thank all of the 300 or 400 people who took time out from their busy schedules to make sure that I was going to represent them again for another term. I want to thank all those people who donated financially to my campaign, as well as all the organizers who put in lots of long hours, 16- to 18-hour days, to make sure that I was going to get here. I also thank the members of my executive, especially the president, Mr. Roger Robichaud, who put in a lot of time and took time off, without pay, from his job to make sure that I was going to get elected.

Last but not least, I want to thank all the members of my family -- my wife, kids, mom, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, nieces and nephews -- who all did a lot of stuffing of envelopes and phoning lists to make sure that we were going to get as many checkmarks as possible. I want to thank everybody who made sure that I got here.

M. de Jong: It was a huge campaign.

H. Lali: It was indeed a huge campaign, as the member for Matsqui has noted.

As a matter of fact, my riding is one of the largest in the province. I serve over 50 communities. It takes seven hours to drive from the U.S. border to Gold Bridge and Bralorne in the north. From east to west it's a three-and-a-half-hour drive. It's a huge constituency. It's actually quite a task, and I take my hat off to all of the members of the Legislature who represented Yale-Lillooet before I got elected, especially Tom Waterland and Bill Hartley, who served three and four terms respectively, and also Jim Rabbitt, who spent one term here. My hat is off to those individuals who worked long, hard hours to represent the constituents I now serve.

This government is going to continue to build on the successes we were able to put forth over the last four and a half years, and on some provincial programs, just to name a few, that were funded in my riding: the forest renewal plan and the new Labour Code that this government introduced during the last term -- which, incidentally, has resulted in the lowest number of strikes and lockouts since the end of the Second World War. We have record investment coming into this province from all over the world, and it is as a direct result of this fine Labour Code that this government has put forward.

Our environmental record is of protecting parks and creating wilderness areas. Also the forest land reserve that we're setting aside so there will forever be land for those workers in the forest industry. . . . The Treaty Commission resulted in the agreement-in-principle with the Nisga'a in the latter part of our term. The B.C. 21 program has built and rebuilt our highways and our courthouses, schools, hospitals, fire halls, community centres and indoor swimming pools. All sorts of items like that have been built all over the province.

People, especially on the opposition benches, like to talk about this government having increased the debt. Yes, the debt has increased -- a little over $8 billion in the four and a half years we were in office in the last term -- but we have also created assets for the people of British Columbia, unlike 

[ Page 313 ]

previous administrations under Premiers Bill Vander Zalm and Bill Bennett. Most of the debt they created was operational; they were not creating assets such as W.A.C. Bennett had done for the 20 years that he was Premier of this province. It took an NDP government from '91 to '95 to continue the program that the senior Bennett had started almost four decades earlier.

[4:15]

A lot of those achievements, as I've mentioned, took place in Yale-Lillooet. One of the previous speakers alluded to some of the projects in my riding. He thought that all of them were not going to be funded, and most of those have been completed. There are a lot of new bridges: Mayor Allan Collette Bridge in Merritt, the Fraser-Hope Bridge in Hope, the Whipsaw Creek Bridge near Princeton.

There has also been a lot of highways resurfacing work done. Highway 5A between Merritt and Princeton had a lot of resurfacing done -- and Highway 3 -- as well as a downtown revitalization in Lillooet. It was a $2 million program. Most of the moneys came out of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Actually, $200,000 of that came from a downtown revitalization grant from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It was the largest grant ever given to any municipality in the province.

There was the indoor pool in Merritt, as well as the now-under-construction indoor pool-library facility in Hope, a skills centre and sheltered housing for seniors in Princeton and the Missezula Lake rural electrification, which was under the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program.

Many other projects were funded throughout the riding, including the Nicola Valley affordable housing project in Merritt, for 32 units. Some infrastructure grants were also given to Logan Lake, Ashcroft and Cache Creek, as well as Princeton and Lillooet. As a matter of fact, every municipality that applied for something was able to get some capital projects started and finished in each one of those towns.

I'm quite happy that this government had the fortitude to bring in the B.C. 21 program. I know the members opposite voted against every budget that this government introduced, including the one three years ago when B.C. 21 was introduced. They voted against it unanimously, because they were saying to us that we shouldn't be funding those.

I also want to point out that this throne speech will continue to protect health care and education. I want to say at this moment that we are the only government of any province in the country that for the last five budgets in a row has increased funding year after year in health and education. We're the only province that has been able to do that, and we're going to continue to do that in the future.

We're giving tax breaks to middle-class workers in this province -- one point this year and one point next year -- and also for small business.

I see that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is joining us to listen to this great debate that is taking place in this great assembly of British Columbia.

We've also frozen tuition fees for students for the next two years to make it easier for them to access educational opportunities. We've frozen ICBC rates. I think the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain might be most interested in that, since it may affect him in the future. We've frozen taxes to the year 2000. I'm happy to say that we have frozen the opposition to the year 2000, as well.

In the last election, I know, my friends opposite were counting on being on this side of the House, because they thought they were going to win the election and we were going to be on that side of the House. But the people of British Columbia listened to us, not to them, so we're going to continue to be on this side of the House -- on the government side -- and they're going to be on the opposite side of the House. I particularly want to point that out to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. You're going to be on that side of the House for at least another four years, and maybe five years. So enjoy yourself, while your term lasts, on that side.

I'm just going to change the tenor here a bit. I was talking to my son -- he's five years old and his name is Ajhmair -- before I came into the assembly here for my speech. I know he's watching right now, and I told him I would wave at him. My daughter Suman, who is three and a half, is also sitting there watching, as well as my nephews Steven and Jessie. I just want to point them out, because I told them when I got up to speak I would say hi to them, so I'm doing that right now.

I want to talk about the Liberal opposition for a few minutes. We've heard them speaking -- some of whom have been here for the second time. A lot of the members. . . . I think there are two dozen members across the way who were elected for the first time.

An Hon. Member: A lot more than last time.

H. Lali: That's right, a lot more of them than last time. It's good to see so many people on the other side there.

I want to point out that they keep saying that we shouldn't heckle them when they're making their speeches. But it's hard not to heckle them, because the inaugural speeches are supposed to be non-partisan, and none of them -- with the exception of one or two -- has stayed within those bounds. So they're open to be heckled while they're making all these partisan speeches. They talked about the government having broken promises; they talked about corruption; they talked about all sorts of things.

There are two speeches. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: I'll get back to that in a minute.

There are two speeches in particular and one was from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. When he made this speech, it was a God-awful speech, a terrible speech while I was sitting here listening to him. He was talking about disciplining people. When I looked across the way at the Liberal benches, I saw some members of his caucus hiding their heads in shame at some of the comments he was making. He was talking about disciplining people. When he was talking about disciplining people, he was talking about beating them up in some way, striking them, hitting them or -- what's the word? -- whacking them in the head if they didn't listen one time. If they didn't listen and made the same mistake again, he said: "Whack them again. Whack them a third time." He talked about whacking. I think the hon. member. . . . In this day and age when all sorts of programs about anti-violence are out there, he's talking about perpetrating some sort of beating up on people. This is what he was doing.

It reminded me of how my children sometimes watch television -- the WWF. They watch that. There's this Australian wrestling couple who walk onto the stage doing this sort of stuff, and they called them "the bushwhackers." My friend opposite reminds me of one of these wrestlers -- one of these bushwhackers -- with the kind of attitude he's bringing to this House. I think he should go back to the bush.

[ Page 314 ]

The other member was the member for Cariboo North, when he got up to make a speech. It is customary in these chambers that when you talk about some of the predecessors in your riding, you say something honourable about them and talk about what a wonderful job they have done and about some of the successes they had. The present member for Cariboo North was talking about the last member for Cariboo North, whose name is Frank Garden and who represented the government side of the House in the last Legislature. This is what the present member said, and I quote him from his speech:

"There may be some confusion in the mind of government as to where this riding actually is. Our first representative described the riding boundaries to this House, and he described the mighty Fraser River as its westerly boundary. It would appear he was somewhat disoriented or, at best, confused as to whom he actually represented. This could be partially responsible for his recent demise from this House."

That's the kind of statement this present member made about that individual.

I want to talk about Frank Garden for a minute. Frank Garden worked day and night to represent his constituents, and he did a great job on behalf of those people who elected him. He was there working on committees, and you could see him at least two or three nights a week sitting in his office burning the midnight oil, making phone calls or writing letters on behalf of his constituents to represent them in Victoria for the job that he was elected to do. He did an exemplary job, and he was a great member of the Legislature.

To the present member for Cariboo North, I would say that if he could do half the job the former member did, then he would be worthy enough to carry the other member's shoes. As it stands right now, the kinds of comments he made are not worthy of the kind of work the other individual did.

One of the comments that the present member for Cariboo North made is who he actually represented. Who did he actually represent? This is what he said. Frank Garden and the present members of this government represent the ordinary middle-class workers of this province. That's who we represent. We represent those people who are downtrodden, the people who are poor, the people who are weak and who can't stand up for themselves. We represent those people. But who do you represent? Who do you on the opposite side represent? Who do the Liberals really represent?

I'll tell you who the member for Cariboo North and the Liberals really represent. They represent big banks. They represent multinational corporations. They represent their developer friends. They represent the Howe Street boys and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, because during the election and before the election they said they would eliminate the corporation capital tax for big banks, multinational corporations and developers. They said that they would eliminate the school property tax for big banks, multinational corporations and their developer friends. They were going to give them an accumulated $1.1 billion in tax breaks on the backs of the very people Frank Garden represented, and that was the average middle-class working people of this province. And how were they going to do it? They said they were going to do it by cutting $3 billion out of the budget if they were ever elected.

Well, thank God, they never had the chance to represent this side of the House, and I hope they never do if that's the kind of policy that they're going to bring in. They're going to take from the average working people and give it to their friends -- the big banks, the developers and the multinational corporations.

I'll talk about some of the broken promises they were talking about. Let's look at the broken promises that the folks across the way were a party to. Before the election, for four and a half years, it was getting pretty hard to take the kind of message that was coming from the Liberal benches. Day after day and hour after hour for week after week, we sat here listening to them saying: "Cut, cut, cut. Make those cuts; cut those programs. Cut the B.C. 21 program; control the deficit; control the debt." All we ever heard from the folks over there was: "Cut, cut, cut." They wanted us to cut in health and education. As a matter of fact, they said they were going to cut $3 billion. That's what they said before the election, and they were going to make most of those cuts in health and education.

During the election they changed their tune when they found that it was not politically expedient for them and that they weren't gaining any votes. They have been saying: "Spend, spend, spend." Indeed, they changed their whole platform during the election. They said: "We're going to increase the budget 14 percent." Before the election they were saying that they were going to cut the homeowner's grant. During the election they actually said they were going to raise the homeowner's grant. Before the election they said that they would raise post-secondary funding by 14 percent, and when the Leader of the Opposition was questioned during the leaders' debate, he stood up with his book and said: "Right here. It's in the plan." They were going to raise it. Then they got caught with a big lie -- on one side, they were saying that they were going to make the cuts and, on the other side, they said they were going to increase it. When they said, "Here, look at it in the plan," it wasn't even in their plan.

I've already talked about the $1.1 billion in tax breaks that they said they were going to give to the banks and the big corporations. Well, that's what they said before the election. But during the election they changed their tune and said: "Actually, we're going to eliminate the banks from that; we're not going to give them these big tax breaks. We'll give them to the middle-class workers." One day they were saying one thing to one audience; the next day they were saying another thing to another audience.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I want to talk about the capital review that we're having. During the election we went out there and we listened to the folks all across the province -- whether we were up in the Peace River country, down in the Vancouver Island area, in the interior, in Merritt or in Hope. People were saying: "Look, the debt has to be controlled."

We listened to the folks and we responded. The Minister of Finance has ordered a review of those capital projects that we said we were going to fund that hadn't gotten underway or were not legally committed to. Now these folks are saying: "Spend, spend, spend. Why are you freezing those projects? Why are you having a review? We want you to spend." Do you know where they want us to do the spending? In their own ridings -- in their own particular ridings. Yet not a single one of those Liberals during the election had the courage to stand up and answer which projects they would have liked to have seen cut. So we see all sorts of different things.

[4:30]

In some of these speeches, they've been talking about supposed corruption on the government side of the House. They talk about the NCHS, something that happened 15, 20 years ago; then they talk about B.C. Hydro. They can imagine whatever else they want to put forward there, and they talk about all sorts of things.

[ Page 315 ]

Let me talk about some of the corruption in the Liberal ranks; let me talk about some of the corruption that actually took place. What about the $2.4 million worth of contracts that the Leader of the Opposition. . .?

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: The allegations being made by the member opposite regarding corruption are things he should repeat outside the House. The corruption involving the New Democratic Party has been proven by the courts, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. This is not a point of order, as I think we all know. I would caution all members, however, that the level of language and the rather cavalier use of language in the chamber has not gone unnoticed. I would caution that we would all, I think, do better if we were to comport ourselves in a somewhat more dignified and, dare I say, restrained manner. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain on the same point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am offended by the comments made by the member, given that they're not true, and I ask him to withdraw them.

The Speaker: In the interests of maintaining some veneer of civility in this chamber, I would ask the member if he would take that into account.

H. Lali: Well, if it offends the member opposite, I'll use a different word, then. I'll withdraw that, but I would also like. . . .

The Speaker: Member, I would just say, please let it. . . . When that kind of request comes across the chamber, it seems to me we're all better served to simply withdraw without qualification. We should all learn to do that. I would ask the member to please do so.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, I've already done that. I said I would withdraw that if it offends the member opposite.

The Speaker: Thank you. Please carry on.

H. Lali: Just to continue on with my speech. . . . I will be wrapping up in a couple of minutes here. I just want to point out to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain that he has had a great tradition, since he's been elected, of standing up day after day and dishing it out to this side of the House, making all sorts of accusations -- and 90 percent of the time those accusations are totally false. He makes them up as he goes. But when, for once, somebody gets up on this side of the House to say something that is factual, that person does not have the guts to sit there and take it. That's the kind of individual he is.

I was talking about the $2.4 million that Jim Moody got when the former mayor who sat there and voted on those contracts -- and also some of the backroom deals the Liberals made during the election with Socred and Reform candidates, asking them to withdraw their candidacy in the interests of trying to elect a Liberal, and all sorts of things. . . . I think the Liberals need to sort of look at that -- especially the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who was personally accused during the election of having made some sort of phone calls like that.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver - Little Mountain on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hate to do this, hon. Speaker, but I have to demand a retraction from that gentleman, given that I had a legal letter withdrawing the accusation that was made.

The Speaker: Member for Yale-Lillooet, would you care to respond to the point?

H. Lali: Well, again, I'll withdraw it. But that member can't take the heat when it comes up towards him.

The Speaker: Thank you for the withdrawal. Members, the yelling from the other side does not help the kind of environment we are trying to create here. Member for Yale-Lillooet, will you please proceed.

H. Lali: I have one point before I wrap up. During the election, one of the things that the Liberals said they were going to do. . . . One of the points they brought up again was that they wanted to see the debt drawn down. One way they were going to do that was to privatize B.C. Rail and some other Crown corporations. As you know, B.C. Rail had a profit of $44 million in 1994; in 1995 it had a profit of $46.6 million. They wanted to sell off a profitable Crown corporation, leave communities like Lytton, Clinton, Seaton, Portage, Shalalth, Prince George, Williams Lake and other communities where B.C. Rail goes through. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: Sorry, I meant to say Lillooet. I'm glad that the member pointed out Lillooet. It's a little confusing -- Lytton and Lillooet.

They wanted to leave those small communities to hang out to dry. It's like trying to sell your house to pay down your mortgage, and then you don't have an asset anymore. That was their idea of drawing down the debt.

In conclusion, I rise in support of the throne speech, in support of the government, in support of continuing to build as opposed to tearing down like the opposition wants to do -- to build British Columbia so that we can continue on the path of prosperity. In that vein, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Vancouver-Fraserview on a point of order.

I. Waddell: I didn't know that the member for Yale-Lillooet was going to get up today. I notice that he made reference to corruption and so on. In question period he mentioned a report from the Princeton Institute and referred to it. I wonder if he could table it for the House so that I could have a look at it.

The Speaker: I'm having difficulty seeing this as a point of order, but perhaps the request that was made in the statement will be responded to. I can do nothing now except acknowledge the next speaker on my list in this debate: namely, the member for Matsqui.

[ Page 316 ]

M. de Jong: Who will do his best to bring a sense of decorum and calmness to this debate, as usual.

I didn't realize that the member for Yale-Lillooet's riding included Bralorne. But when I hear his regurgitation -- or his version -- of what took place during the campaign, I understand that. He must have spent the majority of his time in one of the mine shafts in Bralorne, where there were no newspapers and no television coverage, because he has a significantly different recollection of how that campaign unfolded than I do. Perhaps that is explained by the fact that he was buried subterranean, as the Minister of Fisheries might have described.

I want to devote some time in this throne speech debate to acknowledging what I see as some of the aspirations and concerns of the constituents that I represent in the riding of Matsqui. I will do that in a couple of ways. I want to say at the outset that we've only been here for just over a couple of weeks, and when we arrived much of what we heard focused on the hopes of members that there would be a new era of cooperation, that this House could operate in a way that was more conducive to getting things done, to employing the talents of members here who have been elected from various parts of the province by British Columbians.

We lament that in a matter of just a few days that spirit seems to have evaporated. There is no better example of that than the committee that we have to manage the affairs of this House, the LAMC, and the contempt. . . . Maybe that's a bit strong at this stage of the game, so I'll withdraw that comment. But the disregard that the government seems to be showing for the LAMC and that agency that we as members have to govern the affairs of hon. members, and this House in particular. I think it's sad that having reached an initial understanding that it would meet weekly or biweekly to discuss issues of import to members -- a range of issues from remuneration to the management of the House, the committee system -- that spirit, which we thought would prosper and would continue to exist, has apparently disappeared very quickly. Now the government isn't interested in having that committee meet regularly. It is not consistent with what we heard in the throne speech about the government's intention to proceed down a new path. I think it's regrettable.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister says it's a two-way street. Then let me say on the record that we are prepared to meet when called upon, wherever -- name the time, name the place. We thought we had that arrangement. The minister's party is apparently unprepared to follow through, and no number of excuses on his part, I'm afraid, can change the fact that that arrangement, which we all hoped would continue, has apparently been reneged on by the government. I again say it's regrettable.

Let me turn to the original point, which was the concerns, hopes and aspirations of the people in the Abbotsford area, the Matsqui area, which I represent. During that campaign, the weeks leading up to the final result and what predated the throne speech that we are now debating, I heard from those people about their concern for security. It manifested itself in a number of different ways. It began, in my part of the province, with a concern for physical security. No one should be surprised about that, given the series of tragic events that took place in the past number of months in that end of the Fraser Valley -- the brutal murder of a young woman -- that really terrorized the community. I grew up there, and I've never seen anything like it.

I've never been as aware of an issue affecting men and women differently, quite frankly, as I was when the community was in the grips of terror that arose around what has been called the Abbotsford Killer. It gave one pause to think about how men and women respond differently, particularly when there is a threat to physical security. It is continuing, and it is ongoing. I think it is a challenge we all face as legislators: to take account of that growing sense of fear that exists in communities right across the province. It's regrettable, again, because the incidence of violent crime perpetrated against individuals is actually decreasing, yet there is this sense that we are not safer in our communities. The incidence of family violence, domestic violence and, again regrettably, in my own community ample examples of how that has ripped families apart, led to tragedy and led to death. . . .

As a Legislature, we have to acknowledge this problem, not just lament the fact that it exists but try to be proactive in identifying alternatives. I have spoken to the Attorney General -- I will continue to do so -- about employing things like the electronic monitoring technology that exists, so that it's not just available when an accused person has been convicted, as a tool of sentencing, but is available as a tool when people are released pending trial. In my community, two of the murders are alleged to have been committed by individuals who were awaiting trial on other matters.

I am as much a defender of the notion that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. . . . That is a fundamental tenet of our society, and one that I will defend until the end, yet there is this call that we as a society acknowledge: a need to empower the courts with different tools to guard against the kind of violence that has been perpetrated in domestic situations and has led to such tragic results.

If that is a sense that people have about the need for preserving their own personal and their family's physical security, there is also a sense in communities right across the province, including my own, of fear for our national security. Now we are happily not at a point in our history where we are contemplating war -- international strife -- in the way that we perhaps knew it 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The Cold War has thawed.

But the threat to our national security comes from within. Though 99.9 percent of the people in this province will tell you that they don't want to talk about constitutions or national unity, on days when they turn their mind to it, like the Canada Day weekend that just came along, they will tell you that they are very concerned about the future of our country. They think back to that day in October when they were watching their television screens and the results were coming in from Quebec. But for a few thousand votes, they would have woken up the next morning to find their country significantly altered. They know that the time has come for us as a nation to address that fact, to employ all of the resources, intellect and ingenuity we have to develop solutions.

We have come to a point in our history -- I regret to say, standing here in this place that I deem so hallowed -- where our political institutions as they presently exist seem to lack the legitimacy that is required in order to sponsor and implement the kinds of solutions that can bring this country back together again. That's why as a party and as an opposition we are talking about things like constituent assemblies, about letting British Columbians be more directly involved in reaching the solutions that we can take to the national stage. The people in my community, as I'm sure people right across this 

[ Page 317 ]

province tell other members in this House, are quite frankly tired of having this agenda driven out of eastern Canada, and more particularly Quebec. This is a chance for British Columbia.

[4:45]

This is a chance for us to take a leadership role, to develop solutions and to take them to the national table. It's more than simply going to Ottawa and kicking up a fuss. There may be days when that's necessary. But it goes much further than that, beyond that. It goes to developing workable alternatives that, as we can say to our colleagues right across this country, represent viable alternatives for renewing our country, our federalism.

That debate is coming. Let us brace and prepare ourselves for it as a province. It's an issue and a debate that need not take place along partisan lines. God forbid it does, because the risk is great: what we might lose is the country itself. I know that all hon. members will want to work together to satisfy and live up to the expectations of the people who sent them here, in facilitating the people's involvement in finding those solutions.

That threat to the national security in British Columbia is particulary acute in that what we are dealing with -- and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was here earlier -- has another issue overlapping it. That is the unique challenge that's facing us in accommodating our aboriginal peoples within the Canadian fabric, within British Columbia society. No one can have travelled across this province and not have been touched or affected in a very real way by the living conditions of some of our aboriginal peoples, by the historic injustices that have affected their ability to function and to prosper within our society.

So we have to find those solutions. We have to negotiate agreements that will bring these people within society in a meaningful way. That doesn't mean that the solution a particular minister or government happens to favour on any given day is the best solution and that there can't be debate about what the government of the day is proposing within the realm of those negotiations. Yes, we've had a historic signing of an agreement-in-principle with respect to the Nisga'a people, and everyone should celebrate the fact that those negotiations are carrying forward.

But when those documents are tabled, there should be no hesitation on the part of members of the opposition or of government to listen to the legitimate, well-thought-out criticisms that might be directed at particular clauses or approaches employed by the government, which is charged with negotiating on behalf of British Columbians. In those negotiations -- in the case of the Nisga'a, they are represented by very able, noble and worthy representatives at the table -- the government of British Columbia negotiates and is charged with protecting the interests, particularly, of non-aboriginal British Columbians. There should be no hesitation or constraints on the ability of British Columbians to involve themselves in a meaningful way in those negotiations and debates. It happened during the campaign; it happened prior to the campaign. Regrettably, we again saw members of the government party suggesting that if you weren't foursquare in favour of this agreement, you were anti-Indian, you were racist. That's unfair, inaccurate and destructive, because this debate can take place in a civil way.

Yes, there are some very different interests, and we'll get into them during the course of this session. We'll get into the differences that separate those of us on this side of the House from government members, perhaps, when we talk about things like self-government and jurisdictional issues. But let it be said now that the interests of all British Columbians will be served by reaching these agreements and by establishing the certainty that comes with reaching these agreements.

I ask of the government an understanding that when we present our criticisms, they are indeed meant to be constructive and to represent what we believe are the views of the majority of British Columbians. Decry not our involvement in that debate, and charge us not with things like racism and anti-Indian sentiment, because nothing could be further from the truth as far as the people representing the B.C. Liberal Party are concerned.

When you speak to people across the province -- again, more particularly, to those people who I represent in the Matsqui-Abbotsford area -- they ask to have their financial security protected and for an ability to plan. They want security for their families, financial security for their communities and to plan, save and invest -- and indeed vote -- on the strength of the promises made by the people seeking public office in this province. They rely on that on a day-to-day basis to a far greater extent than I think we in this House tend to accept, but they particularly rely on it at election time. They were misled in this election.

They were misled by budgetary promises that were based upon projections that the government knew at the time to be false. I've heard the members saying during the course of their speeches: "You Liberals over there, you continuously harp on the broken promises. Look at all the good things this government has done." Yes, I'm sure it is disconcerting for them, but everything this government does, purports to do or says it intends to do is tainted by virtue of the fact that they have perpetrated a fundamental lie on the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: The Minister of Employment and Investment on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'll seek your guidance, but I want to say at the outset that I consider myself to be an honourable member, and I consider all members to be honourable members. I'm not sure technically where the line is, but I think we've gone over it with respect to those last comments. I don't mind vigorous debate. I engage in it myself, but I do so, I hope, respecting all members in this chamber. Hon. Speaker, I think we have gone over that line too often in the last number of days. That can only lead to a terrible relationship developing here, and I think all of us need to look at that question.

The Speaker: I want to thank the minister for the point of order. Without judging what the member for Matsqui may have said, I want to acknowledge the validity of the point made and to remind all members -- I did this not very many minutes ago in the course of debate in this chamber -- that we do come perilously close to degenerating into a kind of disorder on a too-regular basis here.

I would therefore ask all members to please be guided by those rather well-established principles and traditions that are the best part of this House's operation. Let me remind everybody that if they wish to have a more detailed citation of the principle, have a look at Sir Erskine May's references to personal allusions and unparliamentary expressions. I think all members on both sides of the House could indeed profit from doing so. Having said that, I ask the member for Matsqui to please continue.

[ Page 318 ]

M. de Jong: I wasn't sure if the hon. Deputy Premier was seeking a retraction, hon. Speaker. But if he was, and to the extent that he may have felt that comment impugned him personally, I'm happy to do so.

The Speaker: I thank the member for so doing. Please proceed.

M. de Jong: I think it's worthwhile for us to relive the chronology of the budgetary process. It's not a happy story, quite frankly; it's a shameful story. I haven't been here long, but I was here long enough in the last session to have been present in the spring of 1995 when the '95-96 budget was proclaimed. I recall the dancing in the streets by members of the NDP proclaiming the balanced budget: "We've done it. We've balanced the budget. Foursquare, it's there for all to see." They tabled budget documents -- estimates, revenue projections, expenditure projections -- that on the face of it, at least, suggested that perhaps that was the case. Of course, those documents didn't take account of a whole host of different cost items that weren't there, and they didn't take account of the fact that the money from the Columbia downstream benefits hadn't quite arrived yet.

G. Farrell-Collins: The cheque is in the mail.

M. de Jong: The cheque is in the mail.

So the budget was balanced on the back of a fallacy, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

The year rolls on. We get through Christmas, and now we're into the spring. The budget is purported to be balanced partly on the strength of forestry revenues. It was $1.52 billion worth of forestry revenues.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The minister talks about the number of trees that were cut down at the time. Well, already he's demonstrated he has more knowledge of the matter than the former Forests minister, because he sure didn't know. He didn't know how many trees were being cut down, and he apparently didn't know how much revenue was flowing in at the time. When you look at the documents even as early as January '96, it's clear that those revenue projections aren't going to be met. It ain't gonna happen.

The government responds in a very interesting way. They wait; they wait; they wait. Then, in April they decide: "We're getting close to the election, we better adjust the figures, because after all our budget should bear some resemblance to what's actually happening." All of the evidence. . . . This, of course, depends on who you believe and on who's speaking on behalf of the government at any given time. But if you believe what some ministers now tell us, all of the evidence suggested that revenues were going to be down. Forestry revenues were going to be down. So I guess the government decided that the logical thing to do in the budget documents was to adjust revenues up. Well, that was very curious: evidence suggests down, budget and government decide to go up. Now, that's one story. . . .

An Hon. Member: The Gunton formula.

M. de Jong: The Gunton formula, I understand. That's one approach, and that's one explanation.

But we have to piece this together, because it is kind of like an archaeological dig. The Minister of Forests, who was actually responsible at the time, won't speak. He won't answer any questions. In fact, I can't think of a time -- and others who have been here longer can perhaps help me -- when a member who has been so embroiled in a controversy, who has been so central to the issue at hand -- and that is the member for Mission-Kent, who was the Forests minister of the day. . . . I can't remember a cabinet minister not speaking to either the budget or the throne speech.

I think it's quite amazing. Here is the individual, who is in this House and in this cabinet, who was responsible for the Forests ministry at the relevant time, and he doesn't want to talk about it. He doesn't want to speak to the budget, the shortfall for which he presumably shares much of the responsibility. He either didn't know or he didn't tell someone, or someone didn't tell him, but he's not talking. Well, he's not talking in here. You know, the people in Mission-Kent know that. They all know that. They're waiting.

[5:00]

In fact, I got a number of calls today asking me whether I thought their member was going to offer some explanation today. I said that I presumed so. I presume he will. He has let the budget pass without explaining his involvement. He wouldn't possibly let the throne speech pass without offering some explanation. But time is marching on. He has another hour today, and he is going to have some time tomorrow, so we'll see if he deigns to come in here and offer some explanation.

Who knows what the explanation will be this time? The Minister of Finance offered a number of different explanations. My favourite, of course, was the weather. In fact, the Minister of Finance will be interested to know that the same individual from Mission-Kent who called to ask me whether his member would be speaking to this issue said that down at the plant the guys have a new saying for the Minister of Finance -- because they do call him the weatherman -- and it goes: "Red ink in the morning, B.C. take warning; red ink at night, NDP delight." That's what they're saying down at the plant.

Quite frankly, I think that the performance we've seen from the Finance minister and the Premier more closely resembles a Disney double feature. The Premier, of course, is starring in Fantasia, and I think the Minister of Finance has a starring role in the Lion King. So we get these conflicting explanations -- when we get any explanation at all.

But the bottom line is that the people of British Columbia were misled on a fundamental issue. The government members don't like to think of it, they don't like to talk about it, and they certainly don't like to be reminded of it, but it's not just cabinet. I want to read. . . . This is from the riding of the member for Alberni. The gentleman's name is Andy Elvish, and he writes to the Alberni newspaper. It's funny, because his letter encapsulates not just the deception that is the budget but a whole host of other deceptions. "I am an unemployed forestry worker who used to have a good, steady job in the Clayoquot Sound, but due to our government's land use decisions, I worked a total of five weeks in 1995."

I should tell hon. members that at the same time that I was looking at this material, I came across some material from January '95, and some of the headlines are very interesting. Referring to the then Forests minister: ". . .Promises No Lost Jobs." Here's the quote from the now Finance minister: "There will be no jobs lost as a result of land use planning decisions." He said it a couple of times. He went to a whole host of different communities, and he said: "Trust me; there will be no jobs lost."

[ Page 319 ]

But let's get back to Mr. Elvish, who continues:

"Forest Renewal B.C. was, up until June 28, 1996, supplying funding to our crew for re-education to better our futures. On that date they informed us, with no warning, that funding had been cut, effective immediately, and to file for UI. Fine, I suppose, but what happens after that? Welfare? We have families to raise and mortgages to pay.

"The way I see it, our government stonewalled us. They promised that this education program would continue until at least the end of '96, got our votes, then kissed us goodbye."

That is what people right across this province are saying: "They got our votes and they kissed us goodbye."

You see the Finance minister on TV every night explaining that the forest industry hasn't been logging enough due to weather. Come on, Mr. Finance Minister! Can't you realize that we're not logging because of your decisions? This spring and summer has seen some of the best logging weather we've had in years. They're not buying it anymore. When hon. members on that side of the House go back to their communities like Alberni, that's what they're going to be hearing: "You got our votes and now you've kissed us goodbye." But they won't forget. [Laughter.]

The Finance minister thinks it's funny. The Finance minister. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, I have to tell him that there has been much in his performance, in his wriggling, over the past two weeks that has been humorous. But they're not laughing anymore.

In the weeks and months to come, those of us on this side of the House hope we can contribute in a positive way. We will be holding this government accountable for one of the greatest deceptions in the history of British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour to again rise and speak to the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne is an important document. It lays out the government's plan, the government's vision, for the current fiscal year. They're important. It's important, first of all, that they be accurate and that they be truthful.

There has been a lot of talk over the last couple of weeks about the unfortunate situation that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor found himself in when having to read from this document, particularly the statement that it will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row, da-da-da-da-da. We all know that the government knew on the day the throne speech was presented, the day it was given to the Lieutenant-Governor, that there wasn't a balanced budget in 1995-96, nor would there be a balanced budget in the current fiscal year.

One of the assumptions one makes is that a throne speech -- a pretty benign document, normally -- is at least accurate, is at least truthful. When we look at this document, it seems to me that three things are important. First, what does the throne speech contain? What vision for the future does it have? What path do we see the government following as a result of the throne speech? Second, is it accurate? Is it basically a truthful document? Did the government at least believe on the day it tabled its throne speech that the information, the plan or the vision was an appropriate and accurate one that could be fulfilled? But perhaps most important for me and for members of the opposition is what's not included in the throne speech. The way to assess a throne speech, to judge it, is to look at it, examine it, consider it and decide what isn't in the throne speech that might have been or should have been in it.

Today, for the most part, I want to spend the time I have talking about what's not in the throne speech, what wasn't covered in the government's vision for the current year and what wasn't included in those words spoken by the Lieutenant-Governor. I'm going to pass over the temptation to talk at any length about the reference to a balanced budget, because that has had a lot of debate. It has had a lot of discussion, and I don't think there are many people in British Columbia who need to be convinced that British Columbians were deliberately misled by the New Democrats, by the Premier, and by the Finance minister and his government when that throne speech was brought in.

As I look through the throne speech, I see no reference at all to what's going on with ICBC or to what was planned for ICBC. We had legislation tabled today that would give ever more jurisdiction, ever more power, to ICBC -- to shift functions from government to ICBC. We understand that there are considerations going on within ICBC -- apparently, at least, with the consent of the Premier -- to consider no-fault insurance. Yet we hear not a word about that in the throne speech. It seems to me that if the government were presenting a vision, unless it's making up policy on the fly. . . . Some time between two weeks ago when this document was tabled and the situation we find ourselves in today -- that short period of time -- the government has decided to give greater responsibility to ICBC and to consider no-fault insurance. Or did the government consider it not worthwhile to advise British Columbians about it?

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had had some courage, they would have looked at privatizing ICBC. At the end of the day, what British Columbians want is an opportunity to have competition for their automobile insurance dollar. It seems to me that if you enjoy competition with your homeowner policy, or with the insurance you have on your property, your boat or your lake cottage, why in the world should you be denied an opportunity for competition in automobile insurance?

I live in the area immediately adjacent to the Alberta border. Weather conditions, traffic conditions and road conditions are identical on each side of the border. Yet people consistently ensure their automobiles in Alberta for substantially less money than they have to pay in British Columbia for the same coverage, in the same geographic conditions, the same weather conditions and the same road conditions.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member says that there is a flaw here, because private insurers are difficult to collect from. I'd ask the hon. member: when was the last time he claimed from ICBC? When was the last time he came away smiling from a confrontation with his insurance adjuster? I would suggest to the member that there are just as many people in British Columbia dissatisfied with the settlements from ICBC as there are under the private insurance system.

I would argue further, if you want to enter into that debate, that private insurance and competition would not only affect rates but would affect service and settlements. So don't give me that business about how difficult private insurers are to deal with. Indeed, it suggests to me the fundamental bias that separates us from those people across the way. I have confidence in and respect for the free enterprise 

[ Page 320 ]

system, for competition; these people across the way do not. They believe that the best system and the best way that government can be involved is to be ever more involved in our lives. I reject that. Indeed, I commit myself to working and continuing to work to privatize ICBC. But that's not what the throne speech is about in its entirety.

I'd like to talk a little bit about another statement in the throne speech. The government talks about protecting jobs and protecting the environment -- and that after four and a half years of this government consistently and regularly ignoring the possibilities, the opportunities and the benefits that wood waste generation of electricity offers to British Columbia.

I look at some of these members across the way. The member for Yale-Lillooet has mills and communities who are suffering because of the difficulties with wood wastes and beehive burners, and with the inability to continue to function.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member says no, there are none in his community. Well, when he had his running shoes on he should have slowed down and talked to some of the people who were creating jobs and who were losing jobs in this province as a result of the regulations brought in by this government with respect to beehive burners and the very deliberate decision to ignore the opportunities like the one that exists in Williams Lake. In Williams Lake, wood wastes contribute to our electricity supply, contribute to employment in the community and create electricity -- which, despite everything else you hear from this government, is in increasingly short supply in this province.

[5:15]

Here we have a government, almost five years in office, that is only very timidly and very reluctantly moving to consider expressions of interest with respect to wood waste generation. This from a government that talks about its environmental conscience, talks about its commitment to creating jobs, and ignores probably one of the best opportunities in British Columbia today. There are tens if not hundreds of proposals waiting to be put in place. There are communities and mills that are suffering with wood waste and are looking at very near closures as a result of their inability to get rid of wood waste. That is but another issue that this throne speech is silent on.

This throne speech talks about the commitment of the government to health care, and that's a laudable thing. I guess everyone recognizes that the responsibilities of our province and our government are to provide good-quality health care and education. We certainly hear a lot about it day to day. We heard about it ad nauseam during the campaign. Time and time again we heard the New Democrats warn British Columbians: if you don't re-elect us, you're going to be facing a two-tiered health care system. I would suggest that we already have a two-tiered health care system in British Columbia and have had one for as long as I can remember.

The quality of health care that British Columbians have access to is based on how much money they have, whether they're able to travel to the United States for treatment, and, perhaps most importantly, where they live in British Columbia. If you live in the Peace River country, the central interior or the Kootenays, you do not have equal access to health care. If you need cancer treatments or surgery that can only be done in a major centre, British Columbians are expected to travel at their own expense for that kind of treatment. If the government of the day wants to implement a promise of equal access to a single health care system -- a one-tiered health care system -- then they would address themselves immediately to the problem of travel for rural British Columbians for health care.

I and my colleague for Peace River North have talked about this issue for the last number of years. We have presented proposals to the government to use travel points earned by public servants for health care travel. I believe there should be a budget available for people who need to travel.

I've related this before in the House, and I think it's worthwhile relating again: a constituent of mine, over the last four years, has travelled every month with her son to Vancouver for cancer treatment. The son is not old enough to travel by himself; his mother travels with him. They pay for two return trips from Dawson Creek to Vancouver every month. If they buy a regular ticket, it's about $800. If they buy a ticket two weeks in advance, it's about half that. Unfortunately, they can't predict with that kind of certainty what day they are going to get treatment.

The plan introduced by the current government in the previous session actually increased the travel cost by that individual. She had been able to arrange a fee schedule with Air B.C. that she had worked out. It was a very good and very fair one from Air B.C.'s point of view. The government brought in legislation and a B.C. travel plan that actually increased her costs -- and that's not an isolated situation.

If we want to talk about a one-tier health care system, let's look around the province and see the difficulties that British Columbians have getting down for specialized services. I never argue for a minute that we should have open-heart surgery in every small town in British Columbia. There are logical services that are provided in central areas. But I can tell you that with this government, the previous government and the one before, when we decided it was appropriate to ship people to Seattle from Vancouver for open-heart surgery, we fell over ourselves assuring people that they wouldn't be expected to pay the transportation costs, that the province would pay the costs of that travel -- about a three-hour car drive. Still, we expect British Columbians in the Peace, the Kootenays and the northwest as well as the northeast to find their way to Vancouver for health care treatment. It's an ongoing inequity in our system. It's not a partisan issue. I think it's something that should be dealt with, and dealt with with some vigour.

I see the Minister of Health nodding, and I'm encouraged by that. Think about the number of frequent-flyer points that are earned by people across British Columbia: provincial employees, municipal employees, school board employees, health care workers, etc. I believe that every airline ticket purchased with a tax dollar should have the frequent-flyer points pooled and available for travel. It wouldn't cost any money, and it's a workable system. I think we should pursue it. What it takes is a government with the determination to make it happen.

We also need to recognize the importance of health care services in our communities. I'm going to continue to push for treatment within our region for things like CAT scans, updated accommodations, etc. But that's for another day.

Another thing that this throne speech doesn't deal with at all is the issue of B.C. Rail. It's silent on the issue. Members of the Liberal caucus will recognize that, in fact, they campaigned on a privatization platform. We know also that it was rejected by British Columbians in the interior, who recognize 

[ Page 321 ]

that B.C. Rail is part of the fabric and the heart of British Columbia, and it provides an essential service for the province.

I'd like to see us take it a little further. I'd like to see us take the headquarters from North Vancouver and move it to Prince George, the heart of British Columbia and the centre of the province -- the centre of B.C. Rail's network -- and then put that organization in a position to be in closer touch with the people it serves, the people in the interior of British Columbia. I think we should consider that.

We've got congestion and ever-increasing traffic problems in the lower mainland. There are communities in the interior that are looking for responsible and sensible decentralization, and B.C. Rail genuinely provides one of those opportunities. If we had B.C. Rail a bit more focused on its shippers, rather than on the people at the other end of the track, we might recognize the tremendous opportunity that changes in the Crow rate present in the transport of grain. It's no longer financially sensible -- and it has never been operationally sensible -- but it was cheaper, because of the Crow rate, for people living on the Alberta side of the Peace to ship their grain either to Alberta, into Edmonton and then back to Vancouver or Prince Rupert, or to ship it to Edmonton and on to the Lakehead, than it was to ship on B.C. Rail through to either Prince Rupert or Vancouver.

That has all changed. For some reason, B.C. Rail doesn't appear to be moving quickly or aggressively to take advantage of that change. That's something I intend to work on, as cooperatively as I can, with B.C. Rail and with the minister and others who are interested in it.

The throne speech talks about safe communities. We've heard from various speakers around this House that that is an important issue. I recognize that the government has committed some extra funding for police officers. Now, it's not often that you're going to hear me say that you're not spending enough, but let me say that this is one occasion where I will say that. I believe that the province should be putting more money into policing. We should be dealing with drugs, with drug trafficking, and we should be attempting to provide a genuine deterrent for that kind of crime.

I think that with the cost-sharing arrangements that we have with the municipalities, the province could, for a relatively small amount of money, quite dramatically increase the number of police officers. Indeed, the calculation I did suggested that for about $64 million we could put probably 600 more police officers on the streets around British Columbia. I would like to encourage the government, the Attorney General and others to look very carefully at that opportunity. I think it's a very genuine one. I would encourage also that perhaps we take a few of those police officers, put them on the street, make them visible with respect to speed enforcement and then put that miserable photo radar out of its misery -- take a gun to it. When a horse is crippled and lame, sometimes there's only one thing to do, and that's to put it down. I think, with photo radar, the only solution for that wounded animal is to in fact put it down as well. It's not going to work. It isn't the deterrent to speeding that we believe it should be, and I think it's something we should get rid of as well.

The one other point that really struck me about this throne speech was how little it said about the issue of aboriginal affairs, how vague it was in its commitments. What was most startling for me was to see the minister responsible stand in the House only hours ago to respond to the throne speech and ignore the topic entirely. He talked about the responsibility of MLAs, and he talked about other issues, but he had a marvellous opportunity during the throne speech debate to stand up and tell us about the vision that he and his ministry have for the resolution of one of the most important problems facing British Columbia, not only this year but this decade, and still we heard very little.

The throne speech says that the government has a commitment to consulting carefully and thoroughly with British Columbians everywhere. But how? We don't see any movement. We don't see any activity. We don't see any action. We don't see any vision from the minister. Both the New Democrats and the Liberals rejected the notion of a referendum on the Nisga'a accord. I suggest to you that it would have provided a marvellous tool for a debate on both sides of the issue. There would have been a reason for all of us to focus our minds on this most pressing issue. I find it amazing. I understand the NDP were opposed to the Charlottetown accord; they didn't like the notion that we would have a national referendum on constitutional change. The Liberals didn't seem to know exactly where they were on it -- with all due respect.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: On Charlottetown. The member asks where. Some were for it; some were against it. There seemed to be a mishmash, and no one really knew where they were.

But I was surprised to see them consistently resist the opportunity to support a call for a referendum on land claims. The Nisga'a deal is going to be the blueprint for all future settlements. It isn't an isolated settlement for a remote part of British Columbia; it will be the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia. And it will be on the table. It will be the central document for all future negotiations, but I still haven't seen any move toward engaging British Columbians in a debate on what is in the Nisga'a agreement. We've had these public meetings where people had an opportunity to come and express their concerns, but they were all held before the document was tabled. The government said: "Come and tell us what you like or don't like about the agreement, and then we'll show it to you afterwards." But now we have an agreement-in-principle. Where are we at? Where are we going? What's the process? What's the method? Both the Liberals and the NDP have rejected the idea that I put forward. So what's the new plan? What's the agenda? Are we going to have a committee of the Legislature travel the province? Are we going to pick selected NDP MLAs and put them with some experts, and then have them travel around and come back and tell British Columbians what they heard? I don't know.

[5:30]

This is the throne speech. This is the vision for the coming year. This is the government's blueprint for the coming year, and it's silent on it, other than a motherhood statement about consulting carefully and thoroughly. It's July. The year is at least a third over and the clock is ticking. We have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs rising in this House to speak to the throne speech and not even mentioning the topic. It's one that causes anyone real concern if indeed they have any interest in an issue that should have the attention of British Columbians.

I want to talk a little about local issues, because I think we have an obligation, and I certainly have a very keen interest in coming to this House to talk about issues like health care and travel in the north, which are important to us. There's also an ongoing issue in the Peace River region around the movement of 16-wide manufactured homes. They are available ten miles 

[ Page 322 ]

from Dawson Creek, in Alberta. They are transported day in and day out, year in and year out, on roads that are similar and in weather conditions that are similar, and still our government, after months and months of study, after a pilot project that was successful by every measure, had rejected before the election the movement of 16-wides. I'm looking to the new minister for a fresh look, a change in direction, because that's an issue that needs to be addressed.

I hope that minister will also consider -- again, in a very serious way -- the whole issue of the rural grid road system. It's particularly an issue in the northeast, but it's a problem all across British Columbia. Our roads are deteriorating faster than they're being upgraded. In fact, the roads in the northeast are in deplorable condition.

It is a problem that I took to the previous government and to the one that I was part of before that. It's not a new problem. It's been going on for some time now. But I'll tell you, if we allow our transportation infrastructure to fall behind, as we have been, then we are going to one day face a very, very serious problem in this province, like the one we are already focused on and facing in the northeast.

I also want to talk a little bit about revenue-sharing, because the northeast region of this province provides a tremendous amount of natural resource revenue. When I look at gas and oil revenues, when I look at coal revenues, and more recently, when I look at the water being spilled over the W.A.C. Bennett Dam -- and we are told by Hydro that that represents millions of dollars a day -- I suggest that perhaps some of that should be coming back to the Peace region. Maybe some of those millions of dollars a day that have been going through the generators for the last 20 years might have found their way back into the Peace. In much the same argument that government members across the way are quite willing to make -- or were willing to make -- with respect to the Columbia River when they needed those votes prior to the last election. . . . I suggest that exactly the same principles that the members across the way embraced with such vigour on Columbia River should be applied to the Peace.

What's the difference between water generated out of Williston Lake through the Peace system and the water generated in the United States out of the Columbia? What's the difference in the arguments? I haven't heard any substantively different arguments. What's the difference between revenues generated by gas and oil exploration in the northeast and revenues in forestry that are put into Forest Renewal B.C. and, at least in theory, plowed back into the community and infrastructure and economy of the rest of the province? I can't find that difference, and I challenge the minister and the government, because I don't think there is a difference. I think we have two precedents with respect to revenue-sharing that should be applied to gas and oil revenues and Hydro revenues in the Peace. Those are Forest Renewal B.C. and the Columbia downstream benefits agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I see the green light is on. It's time to wind up. Again, it is a throne speech that is silent on too many issues, a throne speech that doesn't touch those issues that are important to my constituency and doesn't deal satisfactorily with many issues that are of importance to British Columbians generally. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 6.

This bill is part of a very important and forward-thinking initiative that was pioneered by this government and is now coming to fruition. People recall that in the last election campaign we made a commitment to British Columbians that we would cut taxes and ease the burden on middle-class and working families. We've delivered on that commitment in terms of tax reductions in the budget this year, which we will follow up on again next year. Another important component of that commitment was the commitment to introduce the family bonus. What Bill 6 does is introduce that new family bonus program, which will provide lower- and modest-income British Columbia families with a monthly benefit to help them with the cost of raising their children.

The government last year undertook a major review of the province's income assistance and support programs, which have essentially remained unchanged for 60 years. That review identified some very significant shortcomings in those programs, and in our ability to maintain a welfare system and pay for it in the face of federal cuts. It also underlined some shortcomings in the system of assisting British Columbians to move from welfare to work with dignity and independence. The human costs of these shortcomings, especially for those trapped on welfare, are severe. They probably fall most severely of all upon children and youth, who bear the brunt of the cycle of poverty that exists for many welfare recipients in this province.

What we did therefore was try to look at a completely new way of approaching the problem: to look through and beyond the current system. The current system simply was not an option. The current system, had we decided to stay with it, would have simply led to more caseloads and continued barriers for people trying to re-enter the workforce.

British Columbians indicated to us, through consultations and discussions, that they wanted to see a change in the way we approached social welfare. They wanted people to receive a hand up, not just a handout, but they also didn't want to see the kinds of punitive policies that have been practised by other governments across Canada and elsewhere in North America. They were particularly concerned by the approach of the Harris government in Ontario, an approach that weakens the social safety net and forces people to work at menial tasks in order to receive support; an approach that is really a make-work project by government to try to satisfy some self-serving instinct with respect to those on welfare, rather than to try to assist those on social assistance and welfare to become full and meaningful participants in the marketplace, to gain the assistance they need to enter the workforce and to become self-sufficient. The approach of the past and the approach being pursued in other jurisdictions like Ontario is one that will only undermine people's dignity and will not be effective. It simply trades off one cycle of poverty for another.

The approach articulated by the official opposition in the last election was not much different. In particular, the suggestion of the Liberal Party to cut welfare rates for all employ-

[ Page 323 ]

ables by $30 a month was, in my submission, punitive and would only have sought to punish the poor. It would not have provided the kind of forward-thinking response that the B.C. Benefits program does and, in particular, the family bonus does.

So instead, British Columbia introduced B.C. Benefits, a major restructuring of the social safety net, and it has a number of goals and objectives. One is to encourage independence by helping people get back to work. The second is to provide security for people who are unable to work. The third is to continue to fight fraud and abuse within the social assistance system, and, finally, to ensure a fair share for working families.

The family bonus is a key part of that B.C. Benefits set of initiatives. The program will encourage financial independence and provide support to low- and modest-income working families with children. British Columbia families with annual net incomes of $18,000 or less will receive a maximum bonus of $103 per month. For families whose incomes are in excess of $18,000, the maximum annual bonus is reduced by 16 percent of net income in excess of $18,000. In the case of those single-child families, it's reduced by 8 percent of net income in excess of $18,000. One- and two-child families with net annual incomes of up to $33,000 will receive B.C. family bonus payments, and larger families will receive payments at higher income levels.

In result, the family bonus will be paid to about 200,000 families, including 70,000 income assistance families, and that means that for approximately 130,000 low- and modest-income working families, the B.C. family bonus is a new benefit that will assist those working poor and those who are working for minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage in meeting the challenges of their day-to-day lives, while giving them encouragement and support in seeking better opportunities.

Through the family bonus, families on income assistance will receive the same support for their children as they currently receive through income assistance. That's because the bonus will replace the benefit currently paid to income assistance families for their children. In the month of May, that was made very clear through communications that were provided to social assistance families. Bulletins were sent out, making it absolutely clear that the bonus was in replacement of current benefits under income assistance. So there was no mistake among social assistance recipients, as some members opposite seem to suggest.

What's the purpose of this? The purpose is to make it easier for those families who are on income assistance to become independent, because the bonus will have the effect of enabling them to retain that benefit when they enter the workforce. As a result, it means that the step from welfare to the workforce is a step up, not a step down. That is the key. To put it another way, B.C. Benefits makes work a better deal than welfare. That's really what it's all about, and let me just give an illustration of how that works.

An income assistance recipient, to take the example of a single parent with two children, would currently be receiving $1,417 as a monthly income assistance payment. If that person were to leave income assistance and get a minimum-wage job, their remuneration would drop from that level to $1,262. But with the B.C. family bonus and the ability to retain that bonus as the step is taken from welfare to work, instead of stepping from $1,417 down to $1,262 -- a step down that discourages people from leaving welfare -- that same single parent with two children will be able to take a step up -- a modest step up but an important first step -- on the staircase to self-sufficiency through the job market: a step from $1,417 to $1,460.

[5:45]

That's what the B.C. family bonus is all about: providing assistance to those who are working at minimum wage or slightly above -- the working poor and those on moderate incomes -- in order to provide them with needed support on the one hand and at the same time to provide an incentive for those on welfare to become members of the workforce. Along with other elements of B.C. Benefits -- training, support and child care -- we now have a program that I think speaks very directly to the future. It is already starting to have benefits in terms of reducing welfare loads, and with the addition of the bonus, it will have additional benefits.

Bill 6 also eliminates the $50 annual sales tax credit for children. The sales tax credit was available only once per year when families filed their income tax returns. For modest-income working families, the family bonus will more than offset the loss of the credit. For those on welfare, the total loss of the credit amounts to about $6 million per year, but I want to make it clear that that loss is more than made up for in benefits found elsewhere in the B.C. Family Benefits package. There are significant benefits provided to assist those on welfare in a number of ways: through increased dental coverage, through transition-to-work payments and through child care support. In fact, $18 million of additional benefits, targeted to those on social assistance, is three times larger than the loss of the sales tax credit. So I want to make it clear that within this comprehensive program, the loss of this credit is more than offset by other benefits, even for those on welfare.

The program will be administered by the federal government, because the federal government already looks after the federal child tax benefit. This will avoid duplication in overhead and will save taxpayer dollars. But policy control of the program will remain in British Columbia. The B.C. family bonus will strengthen the social safety net and make it a fairer system, as it extends assistance for all low- and moderate-income families with children. It is not another welfare program; it's about making it easier for families to move off welfare and into the workforce. Parents will know that when they take a job, they continue to receive the family bonus that will help with the cost of raising their children. That means that important first step, which is so crucial in reducing welfare caseloads and assisting people to become full and meaningful partners within the economy, will be a step up and not a step down.

The family bonus is a first in Canada. It's the first social policy initiative in Canada that acknowledges and provides support to the working poor. Things have changed in Canada in the 50 years since the social safety net was first introduced. The B.C. family bonus represents a significant shift in thinking that recognizes the changing nature of poverty, of work and of the family. It recognizes that to combat poverty today, we have to make work a better deal than welfare and to ensure that the needs of working poor families are met. For all of those reasons, I'm extremely proud to be able today to introduce the second reading debate on this important legislative initiative. I invite all members to support this bill. With that, I move second reading of Bill 6.

F. Gingell: Why is it that every time I stand up I have some scurrilous remark that's been made by the government benches to deal with? What a pity. Here is a program that we 

[ Page 324 ]

can probably all support. But why did the minister have to stand up and say that the Liberals, during their campaign, were going to hurt families, that we were going to reduce welfare payments? That is not true. It's another mistruth -- or misspeak, if they call it that -- that comes out of their mouths. We talked about single employables. That's who we spoke about; that's what the program was. What a pity for that to have been brought up when we look at this program and at its makeup.

Does this program address the issue of child poverty? Yes, it does. We support that. Does this program address the issue of the working poor? Yes, it does. We support that. Does this program help families? Yes, it does. We support that. Does this program work towards helping people get off welfare and into the workforce? Yes, it does. We support that. In fact, it would be nice if we could support all of this program.

Now, it's all very well for the minister to say there are other programs in the B.C. family bonus plan that will look after the loss of $4 a month. But when you're poor and on welfare, cash in your pocket is terribly important. Four dollars per month per child is four litres of milk; it's two loaves of bread; it's two Kraft dinners. Why couldn't you have developed this program so there weren't any negative provisions in that area?

We are at this moment, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 6 and the program this government has brought forward. We can support -- and I'm sure we will -- the majority of this bill. We agree with you that the working poor need help. We agree with you that families need help, that children need help. But we're going to bring forward an amendment, Mr. Speaker, during committee stage of this bill that we hope you will allow and that we hope the government will support. It will restore to these people the amount that will be lost: $50 a year through the retail sales tax credit.

When you look at the way this whole program has been put together and the way it is going to be paid through the Income Tax Act, it's your '95 income that determines '96 payments. They start in July, and it's all working behind. I'm concerned that it is cumbersome and awkward. I hope the minister and his policy advisers thought about all the options there were to make this program work simply.

I appreciate that the movement of money, that the payment of the cheque, can work well. It's going to come from the federal government; there are already payment programs going on. One of the concerns I have is that it takes a long time for the effect of a loss of employment to flow through and start the benefits. If someone with children, with a large family, goes from a high income to a low income, it takes a long time for the payments to start to kick in. I appreciate that there are provisions that deal with changes in family circumstances -- marriage breakup -- and the ability to go in and get an approval for commencement of payments. But my understanding at this point -- and I'd be most interested to hear if it can in fact suit other circumstances -- is that it only deals with changed circumstances that arise through changes to the makeup of the family, not to the makeup of the family employment.

I think there will be some continued debate on this bill this evening by other members of our caucus, particularly members who are involved as critics in the social services and family areas. Seeing that the time is almost 6 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate.

F. Gingell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that this House stand recessed until 7:05 p.m., which would be approximately 70 minutes, and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.

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