The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

F. Gingell: Joining us today in the Legislature is Phyllis Witt of Delta, and with her is a group of Girl Guides from Plymouth, England. I ask you all to join me in making them most welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the gallery today are some people visiting us from the Queen Charlotte Islands -- they're with the community stability initiative there: Bill Beldessi, Guujaawe, Ed Robinson, Dale Lore and Monique Schweitzer. If I mispronounced any names, forgive me. They're here to meet with government and talk about their progressive view for the future of their communities.

L. Reid: I have the privilege today of making two introductions. The first is the Cambie community centre youth council. In the gallery are Dr. Stan Jung, who is joined by Emily Kwok, Janice Tse, Simon Cheung and Krystle Donald. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today -- I just learned that they've come to visit from Bahrain -- are my dear, dear friend that I went to high school with, Lynda Turney, her husband, Murray, and their daughter Jennifer.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like the House to welcome a friend of mine and a former constituent who is in the gallery today: Mr. Phil Traynor.

R. Thorpe: Today sitting in the members' gallery is my very best friend and my wife, Yasmin John Thorpe. I would ask all members of the House to give my wife a warm welcome.

J. Sawicki: While we work in this place, some of the most important people to us are our legislative assistants. Mine, Anne Paxton, is in the gallery today, and with her she has her two children, Liam and Caitlin Haggarty. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Doyle: Today, all the way from Columbia River-Revelstoke, I've got two guests: Ellen Zimmerman from Parson -- which is very close to Golden, for those who don't know where that is; and John Bergenske from Skookumchuck. They're here today to meet with ministry officials, and no doubt they're also here today to hear the latest projections from the opposition on how the stars are lined up today. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a constituent of mine, Lesley Giroday from Fernie -- the other part of this province, right next door to the hon. member before me who just introduced two of her close friends. I believe that she too is here to make sure that those stars are in fact lined up appropriately. I wish the House would help me and join me in welcoming her here today.

C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce today my 16-year-old-daughter, Cara, who is having her second visit to the House. She was here several weeks ago for the swearingin. This is her first opportunity to observe question period; I know you'll impress her. Would you please make her welcome.

I. Chong: In the galleries today I have three of my constituents and hard-working campaign workers, who have come to watch the proceedings in the House. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, members will be aware that my government has been working hard with fishery workers, the industry and B.C.'s many fishing communities to ensure protection of our salmon resource. We have worked together to urge Ottawa to join us in developing an action plan to protect the salmon and the communities that rely on them. Today I'm very happy to report the first real signs of concrete progress. I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government on behalf of our province. This agreement sets up a process to address some of the concerns British Columbians have had with the way the Pacific salmon fishery has been managed. It marks, for the first time, recognition by Ottawa that changes will be made in salmon fishery management to give British Columbia a greater role in protecting our salmon resource.

Over three months ago I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that the federal government join with the province and the stakeholders in developing a new approach, a made-in-British Columbia approach, to sustaining and developing our fishery and to working on this initiative on a priority basis. Since then, we have had many discussions and meetings, including those that took place during the first ministers' conference in June.

I think this agreement is a good indication of what can be achieved when the government strongly stands up for British Columbians. It is a good, solid beginning. This agreement is a significant step forward to achieving the goals we set out in the spring when we urged the federal government to join the province and our stakeholders in developing a rescue plan for our fisheries. There is much more work to be done, and we intend to keep up the pressure on Ottawa to respond to the needs and concerns of British Columbians. Ottawa has now recognized that the province must be more fully involved in the management of the fishery. Every British Columbian has a role to play, especially people in communities like Sointula, in deciding how to protect the resource and strengthen their communities.

We have convinced the federal government to agree to a full review of the Mifflin plan, a review we expect will lead to changes in the plan to address its impact on the people and the communities of B.C. This won't undo all the damage the plan is causing but will help us jointly address some of the hardship and stop further harm from occurring in future years. This agreement is the result of some hard work with a broad spectrum of concerned British Columbians. It will take even more hard work and the continued involvement of communities and other stakeholder groups to win the changes we need to keep the Pacific fishery alive and healthy.

[2:15]

This announcement represents a very hopeful beginning. It is a sign of good faith from the federal government -- an indication that they intend to take British Columbia issues seriously. I hope members will join me in thanking the Prime Minister for cooperating with British Columbia on this important issue. I hope he'll continue to ensure that we move forward. For our part, my government will keep up the pressure. We will not stop until the future of fishery workers, fishing communities and the resource itself is assured, through a made-in-B.C. strategy. That was a commitment we made during the last election campaign, it was a commitment I made to the people of Sointula, and it's one I'm reaffirming today. Recognizing the importance of this initiative for British Columbians, I hope that all members will continue to support our province's position on this vital matter.

G. Campbell: The Premier may rest assured that this side of the House will continue to support the position that the British Columbia Pacific salmon fishery should be managed by the province, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure that that happens.

Having said that, I'm sure that the Premier and other members of this House will understand that this is going to be an arduous negotiation. It is going to require all of us to speak with one voice on behalf of the people of British Columbia and on behalf of the salmon fishery in British Columbia. I am hoping that the Premier will move forward beyond the first steps that we have taken today and make sure that the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee of this House meets on a regular basis to provide adequate input and to make sure that we can move on behalf of all British Columbians.

There is no question that our Pacific fishery should be managed by the province of British Columbia. There is also no question of the institutional inertia we find when we deal with the institutions in Ottawa -- and often with the politicians in Ottawa, who don't understand what's taking place in British Columbia. It takes a great deal of work, time and effort to break through that institutional inertia so we can move forward.

What I think is critical for us to remember, as we have ministers from the provincial and federal governments speaking, is that we all serve the same constituents. We all serve the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada when we deal with this issue. There is absolutely no question that our salmon fishery and the protection of its habitat, the protection of fishing communities, and the protection of the economy and the jobs that are so dependent upon it are things that we all share as goals. On this side of the House, we look forward to working with the Premier, with the government and with the federal government to make sure that future generations have the same opportunities and benefits that we enjoyed in the past.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I think the House must today congratulate the Premier and the government for the first steps taken in bringing together what I think must be a new relationship between the federal government and the province with respect to the management of this most critical industry, the fishing industry.

But more importantly, I think we have to realize that this step today is only the first of many steps that must be taken if we are to recognize the urgency with which we have to not only place our commitment to habitat management but, in the longer term, make sure that those coastal communities which have for so many years enjoyed the bounty of our salmon industry are not precluded from doing so because of a restructuring of the administration of this great resource.

It is one thing for this government to enter into an agreement with respect to the management of the fishery, in terms of habitat management, enhancement, and the re-establishment of stocks and stock relationship -- something that will cost this government and something that we must make sure the federal government will honour with respect to the transfer to this province of dollars necessary to do that. It is another matter entirely, however, to make sure that those people who live in coastal communities and who were previously licensed to catch fish will still enjoy the opportunity to hold those licenses and take advantage of the industry that they and their families have taken advantage of for so many years. Nothing that we have heard yet counters the move toward a centralization of control of the fishery in the hands of a few corporate enterprises that will benefit greatly from the work now being done with respect to habitat enhancement.

It's not enough for the province to agree to replenish the stock without making sure that once the stock is replenished, all British Columbians will have an opportunity to fish for that resource in a decentralized way, and that wealth from that resource is kept in the small coastal communities of the province and doesn't simply provide the stock to a centralized concern that is corporate-owned, corporate-controlled and dominated by a centralized market that largely extends outside the borders of Canada. If we are to make sure we protect our fisheries in the same way that we deal with our forests and other resource sectors, today's announcement must be the first step in making sure that British Columbians continue to own the salmon resource and that all coastal communities will find their long-term well-being and welfare protected by this agreement. They should not become simply suppliers of raw material to maintain large-corporation control over what has previously been under the control of the people of British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: I seek leave to respond to the statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I think we're all encouraged by the little bit of progress that is reflected by a memorandum of understanding signed by our government and Ottawa. Before we start doing cartwheels around the Legislature, let's understand how the process works. What the Premier has said to us is that the government of Canada has agreed to sit down and talk about entering into a memorandum of understanding. A little bit of progress is indeed noteworthy; half a loaf or a quarter a loaf is better than nothing at all.

But I would urge the Premier: let's look at the objective. The objective at the end of the day has to be provincial jurisdiction over the fishery. British Columbia should not be going hat in hand, time and time again, to discuss possible changes to the Mifflin plan and possible involvement of the province in management of fish stocks and the environment around fish stocks. We -- British Columbia -- should have jurisdiction over the west coast fishery. Let's not take our eye off that ultimate objective.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I want the House to know that the regional director of corrections is investigating that matter. As soon as I have the report, it will be presented to the House and to the public.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, I'm grateful for the assurance that there will be an internal investigation, but I want to say, with respect, that the time has come for more than just a one-off investigation. On this occasion, the spokesperson for the ministry reportedly said that the injuries may not have been caused by the tactical squad, but he couldn't come up with any other answer.

According to the news reports, a dozen guards were involved, batons were swirling, four inmates -- at least one of whom was sleeping at the time -- were hurt and someone was sent to hospital. Clearly, it appears that there have been serious violations of people's civil rights. In those circumstances, my question is this: given the litany of these incidents in the corrections system and the failure of one-off reviews, isn't it time for the Attorney General to initiate a broader review of the corrections branch of his ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, while all British Columbians are concerned that these kinds of incidents take place, one shouldn't be prejudging the issue. The regional director is looking at the matter. Once the investigation results are with the Attorney General, they will be shared with the public. At that time all options can be looked at, if need be.

Hon. A. Petter: It would be really useful if members opposite would read the material they cite before they present it to this House, be it of cosmic or earthly origin. The fact is that the auditor general's report said no such thing, made no such allegation, and the member should be well aware of that. What the auditor general's report suggested was that this jurisdiction lead the way in Canada by adopting guidelines that would assist in distinguishing between partisan and non-partisan literature. He thought this jurisdiction might wish to take some leadership role in Canada in doing so, and he provided some useful advice, which we are certainly considering. The members opposite may wish to assist us in that consideration.

R. Thorpe: Today approximately 1,500 patients in British Columbia are on waiting lists for hip replacements. They suffer from deteriorating mobility and pain. Does the Premier not know that this entire waiting list could be cut completely if advertising were reduced by 50 percent? Will the Premier commit today to banning all non-essential government advertising so we can get the waiting lists in this province cleaned up?

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's well known to the people of British Columbia that this government has done more to reduce waiting lists in the last four years than any government in the history of British Columbia. Wait-lists for both heart and cancer surgeries are down considerably, and as a result of further initiatives, they will continue to come down.

The issue here is the dissemination of public information. The auditor general has made some useful recommendations. The member is trying to capitalize on those for political purposes, rather than working constructively to review those recommendations and come forward with a plan that may see the possibility of implementation.

J. Weisgerber: My question, too, is to the Premier. The auditor general determined that the government of British Columbia lacks established principles and guidelines for distinguishing between government advertising and partisan political advertising, a fact that has been blatantly obvious to voters in this province over the last few months. Would the Premier agree today to ask the auditor general to conduct an audit into all government advertising, and advertising by currently sitting members of this assembly, over the last 12 months?

Hon. A. Petter: Maybe the member has also not read the report. The report simply noted the fact that this jurisdiction, like all others in Canada, has not yet established such guidelines. The auditor general looked, then, in other jurisdictions around the world, found some that had, and noted the difficulty in developing guidelines -- because they require judgments to be made. Nevertheless, he encouraged this jurisdiction to consider the adoption of such guidelines. I think it's worth considering; so does this government. Perhaps the members opposite, rather than trying to score political points, would consider it along with us and make some recommendations of their own.

[2:30]

J. Weisgerber: Every time the government doesn't like a question, the answer is that the people haven't read the documents. That's absolute nonsense. If the minister himself had read the auditor general's report, he would clearly see a criticism of the actions of this government and its MLAs, and of the way taxpayers' money is spent in advertising. . .

The Speaker: Question.

J. Weisgerber: . . .an example being the advertising done by members in their so-called mailers in February of this current year.

The Speaker: Question.

J. Weisgerber: Can't people understand right from wrong? The auditor general knows advertising and propaganda when he sees it.

The Speaker: Order, member. I need a question.

J. Weisgerber: What steps will the minister or the Premier take to ensure that this kind of abuse of taxpayers' money isn't repeated by this government?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'm sure the people of British Columbia find it a little tough to take, as I do, for a former member of that long-not-so-lamented Social Credit government to be lecturing anyone on political advertising.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I knew nostalgia wasn't what it used to be, but apparently sanctimony is.

The auditor general has presented a very useful report. It is a challenging report, because it asks this jurisdiction to do something that has not been done in Canada in the past -- that is, to seek guidelines to help distinguish between advertising that may cross a line and that which does not. He makes no suggestion that any advertising has crossed the line to this point. He simply says that it would be useful and constructive to establish some criteria. Maybe the member would like to assist, along with others, in exploring that possibility, and we can work on it in the years ahead.

Hon. A. Petter: This is first I've heard of any such suggestion. I'd be happy to look into the matter, find out more about it and get back to the member.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to stand here today and report that the government will stand behind the objectives originally outlined for the forest renewal program.

The Speaker: Supplemental.

W. Hurd: Will the Minister of Forests put his job on the line? Will he quit, resign, if one dime is diverted into the coffers of general revenue and away from forest-dependent communities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to repeat that this government stands behind the objectives originally laid out. I also add that there is a general program review going on to ensure that there's a cost-effective achievement of those goals by every program of government.

W. Hurd: We've heard from the Minister of Forests. My last supplemental is to the Minister of Finance, who made the same commitment in this House -- that not a dime would be diverted. Will the Minister of Finance commit today that he will not ask for one dime to be diverted from Forest Renewal B.C. into general revenue so he can bail out his own failed forest revenue forecasts?

Hon. A. Petter: If that opposition party had had its way when forest renewal was introduced, there would be no forest renewal fund today. How dare they lecture this government on forest renewal! We brought in the forest renewal plan because we believe in a program to reinvest in our forest resource. The objectives of that program remain intact. Yes, we are undertaking a review of all programs in government, but the objectives of Forest Renewal will remain intact. That party over there is the real danger to the future of forest communities, not this government.

F. Gingell: The words of the Minister of Forests and, even more, of the Minister of Finance have caused me to leap from my seat unexpectedly. How dare this Minister of Finance, who says one thing one day about the state of the finances and a balanced budget . . . lecture us about the state of the forests and the economy of this province! What we've heard from both the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance are not "wriggle words" from this wriggle room that the Premier likes to use, but weasel words. Will they please give us a straightforward answer? Is the purpose of this so-called review a means of restricting the future flow of dollars into Forest Renewal B.C. back into the consolidated revenue fund? Yes or no.

Hon. A. Petter: No amount of righteous indignation can hide the fact that the Liberal Party voted to a person against the Forest Renewal Act and the creation of the forest renewal fund. As embarrassing as that may be for them, those are the facts. I announced that we are undertaking a comprehensive program review of all programs in government; that applies to Forest Renewal as much as it does to all other programs.

I want to reinforce what I and the Minister of Forests have said: we remain committed to the objectives of Forest Renewal. It is a key part of our strategy to ensure the security of forest communities, that our forest resources are replenished and that we have a bright future throughout this province.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present the 1994-95 annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, in accordance with section 5.3 of the Financial Administration Act. I also have the honour to present the 1993-94 annual report of the Ministry of Government Services for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, in accordance with section 8 of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act. I also have the honour to present the 1994-95 annual report of the Ministry of Government Services for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, in accordance with section 8 of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act.

Finally, I seek leave to make a motion for the purpose of referring matters to Public Accounts.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the motion that has been circulated to the Clerks and to members opposite:
[By leave, I move that the following documents be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. From the office of the auditor general of British Columbia:

1. 1995-96, report No. 1 -- Report on the 1994-95 Public Accounts, Province of British Columbia.

2. 1995-96, report No. 2 -- Performance Audits: British Columbia Ferry Corporation: Fleet and Terminal Maintenance Management and Operation Safety.

3. 1995-96, report No. 3 -- Compliance-with-Authorities Audits: Home Support Services; Environmental Tire Levy; Safeguarding Moveable Physical Assets: Public Sector Survey; Consumer Protection Act -- Income Tax Refund Discounts; Financial Administration Act Part 4: Follow-up.

4. 1995-96, report No. 4 -- Performance Audits: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations: Revenue Verification for the Social Service Tax.

5. 1995-96, report No. 5 -- Issues of Public Interest: Special Warrants; Government Employee Numbers; Public Communications: Distinguishing Between Government Program and Partisan Political Communications.

6. Auditor general of British Columbia and deputy ministers' council -- Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and Implementation Plan: Second Joint Report.

From the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations:

7. The public accounts of British Columbia 1994-95, volumes 1, 2 and 3.]

Motion approved.

However, I do not want to congratulate the views of this government as expressed in the Speech from the Throne. The throne speech is an indication of the direction in which this government intends to take this province. I will definitely respond to this throne speech, as I understand that is the purpose of this debate. I intend to deal with particular sections of the throne speech based on my examination of it. I must say that this throne speech is, at best, a disappointment. Overall, it lacks vision; it is fiscally irresponsible and has the potential to lead this province to social and fiscal bankruptcy.

British Columbians deserve better. They expect this government to live up to its promises of protecting health care and education, but we have already seen those promises quickly fade now that the election is over. Hospitals and schools should not have been pawns in this election, and this government should be ashamed of its callous disrespect of them. Why did this government announce a six-month capital spending freeze? I think the answer is obvious: their incompetence and fiscal mismanagement left them no other choice. The wild spending-and-borrowing habits have seriously deteriorated our financial position and have now put our social safety net at risk. Health care protection means putting patients first. I ask: does this freeze put patients first?

This government continues to remind us that we live in a province with the lowest per capita debt in the country, but what it fails to acknowledge is that we live in a province with the fastest-growing debt in the country, hardly a statistic to boast about. So I place no confidence in this government's ability to reduce our provincial debt. The much-touted debt management plan is already an abysmal failure and a bad joke played on us all.

The province's total debt has gone from some $17 billion in 1991 to an estimated $28.5 billion in 1996. This level of growth in debt is absolutely atrocious. It is simply not sustainable, and if our debt is not adequately addressed, we can expect a number of things to occur. First, our debt-servicing costs will crowd out program spending. Next, B.C.'s fiscal position will deteriorate while other provinces show improvement, and eventually we may expect a credit downgrade. These are serious consequences, and it is contemptuous of this government to allow this to occur. We intend to hold this government accountable for their actions in this regard.

The throne speech speaks of two balanced budgets in a row -- another falsity, another deception. The initial budget introduced before the election was a hoax, and I am appalled that last year's figures will result in a $235 million deficit and that the current year's budget will likely also see another deficit.

[2:45]

The people of B.C. have been betrayed and will not tolerate a government that continues to mislead them. Clearly this government is not committed to fiscal responsibility. If it were, it would have the courage to adopt balanced-budget legislation immediately. As an accountant, I must applaud our leader, Gordon Campbell, and his courage to protect the taxpayers of this province. I will watch with interest to see how the members opposite vote on this proposed legislation.

I find it shameful and hypocritical that when this government was in opposition, it endorsed the Taxpayer Protection Act, which, among other things, dealt with balanced budgets. In 1992, however, when this government had the opportunity to pass this legislation, it made an about-face and quickly abolished the Taxpayer Protection Act. This showed us that this government had no plans to balance its budget or reduce the province's debt.

I would now like to move on briefly to the subject of relief for the middle class. I certainly welcome the offering of a three-year freeze on taxes, but let us not forget that it was also this government that raised personal income taxes in 1992, in 1993 and again in 1994. As for the 10 percent tax cut for small businesses, I again remind members opposite that it was their government that initially raised the small business rate in 1992.

This government continues to betray the people of B.C. when it suggests that there are opportunities for youth. We have seen the Guarantee for Youth program fail to deliver on its projections. I can only hope that this government learns from its mistakes and starts to work with businesses instead of against them, so that next year's youth receive this chance of jobs that they in fact deserve.

The throne speech emphasized that British Columbians want a government committed to health care and education by finding savings in other areas. I certainly do agree with that, but savings in health care must also be looked at. Health care is subject to fraud, and nowhere in the throne speech does this government address this costly expense. The fraudulent use of health care cards must be stopped. We will find savings when they finally have the courage to make that a commitment.

I am frustrated by the lack of commitment to education. Children should not be subjected to potential closures due to strikes. Students deserve a quality education, and this government has failed them by not making education an essential service.

I am terrified by where the future of this province is headed. There is no place for a domineering, top-down style of governance in British Columbia. We require cooperation that brings about responsible budgeting measures. We require cooperation to balance the delicate needs of our social safety net with fiscal responsibility. We require cooperation to resolve aboriginal land claims and to consider the impacts they have on municipal governments. It means that a meaningful consultative process must be adopted so all stakeholders have their voices heard.

The need to balance our environment with sustained economic growth is an never-ending challenge, but I am hopeful that this can be accomplished in a productive way.

I ask this government to recognize the need for a merit-based public service, and I dare them to have the courage to support such legislation.

In conclusion, I wish to state my disappointment with this ill-conceived, dismal throne speech. This government had the opportunity to offer real change to the people of B.C. Instead, it chose to offer more of the same, which over 60 percent of the voters rejected.

Now, hon. Speaker, I ask for a few more minutes to speak on a more pleasant subject: my riding.

It is certainly an honour for all of us to serve in this Legislature, and so I acknowledge all returning members and congratulate those newly elected members. Although we were elected to represent the people in our riding, our purpose here is also to serve all the people of British Columbia, and I will do so constructively and with good intentions.

My constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head is diverse. Not only is this evident by the wide-ranging age groups, ethnicities and income-earning abilities, but also by the philosophical and political beliefs. That is why I am very grateful to all those who put their faith and trust in me on May 28 by electing a new face to bring their voices to this assembly. It is indeed an honour to enjoy the privilege and responsibility of representing the people of Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

The election campaign in Oak Bay-Gordon Head was hard-fought by all candidates. It was a campaign based on issues, and not on personalities. I wish to thank my predecessor Elizabeth Cull for her past dedication to this community and to this Legislative Assembly.

I do believe that my experience in municipal and regional government and my financial background were factors in my election victory. That I am a native Victorian, who was raised and attended school in my riding, also assured voters that I have a keen understanding of local issues.

As a newcomer to provincial politics, I was encouraged by the many volunteers who came forward and offered their services to our campaign, and I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to all those campaign workers, supporters, friends and family.

Oak Bay-Gordon Head is a suburban constituency that straddles two municipalities: Saanich and Oak Bay. The boundaries stretch along the borders of agricultural land in the Blenkinsop Valley to Mount Douglas Park in the north and eastward to include Cadboro Bay and Ten Mile Point. The south encompasses all of the municipality of Oak Bay. There is an abundance of parks and recreational facilities, which appeal to both young and old alike.

Located in my riding is one of B.C.'s three largest universities: the University of Victoria. UVic has been ranked number one among the comprehensive universities in all of Canada, and people in my community take pride in that acknowledgment. Along with the university comes a large student population who recognize the importance of education to secure good-paying jobs, so I will work with this government to ensure not only that education is affordable and accessible but that employment programs are truly effective.

My riding also boasts significant parcels of green space: namely, Glencoe Cove and Mystic Vale. It was through the efforts of concerned citizens and local government that these areas have been protected and preserved for all future generations to enjoy. I have also learned that we must never underestimate the people in our community, because often it is through their concerns that our quality of life is enhanced. So I am eager to commence work in my community office and develop a stronger bond with the people I have been elected to represent.

Located in my riding is one of the oldest cemeteries in Canada. In fact, it is a Chinese cemetery situated on picturesque Harling Point, and recently it was awarded national status as a heritage site.

I mentioned earlier that my riding is diverse. Another example is in its housing requirements. Some of the most expensive real estate on Vancouver Island is located in my riding, but we also find many students, young families, senior citizens on fixed incomes and young people attempting to establish themselves there. For them, affordable housing is an issue. I will be requesting that this government review thoroughly how they intend to address this problem here and throughout the province.

My election victory is a signal to this government. People demand honesty and integrity from their elected members. They demand accountability about their hard-earned tax dollars, and they demand we put our financial house in order so we can tackle the debt. I intend to take every opportunity to provide this assurance to the people of my community and the province, and implore the members opposite to make that same commitment. If this government is truly on the side of all taxpayers, it must start listening now and accept the challenges I've outlined.

F. Gingell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the chair. I wish you well. I may not always agree with you, but we'll get you trained slowly.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected members and to wish them well in this House; and also, on the part of the people of Delta, to recognize and thank Norm Lortie for his service to this House and to the people of Delta as the MLA for Delta North. I would like to particularly welcome the new member for Delta North and to assure him that I give him free rein and encourage his involvement in all the issues surrounding Burns Bog, which may be in my riding but is clearly in the hearts of all the constituents of Delta North.

It's interesting to think of Burns Bog -- an important property in the lower mainland, many times described as the lungs of the lower mainland and terribly important in the environmental issue of dealing with oxides of carbon -- and the disappointment that this government in its last term was not able to arrive at an arrangement to acquire it, or a very large portion of it, on behalf of the people of the province.

That brings me to another subject. I was pleased that the government acquired and put together the linear parks program. At the start of each parliament we on this side of the House say things that I can assure you we have meant, and I had hoped that this government would have meant, about cooperation, about working together on issues. I can assure you that if this government had come to me as the member for Delta South and talked about the linear parks they intended to acquire within my constituency, the constituency I've lived in for 36 years, I could have given them some good advice. I know that we would have saved some money. They acquired property; they paid $8 million for property that had already been offered on other arrangements. But there was an opportunity for us to work together, and this government should recognize that some of us on this side of the House, particularly when we deal with local issues within our constituency, have something to offer and advice to give that is worth listening to.

[3:00]

An issue that the Premier has committed this government to revisit and review is the farmlands that were expropriated from the farmers more than 25 years ago for Roberts Bank backup lands but never used. This has been a big issue. The owners had previously brought up the subject to earlier Social Credit administrations and had not got very far. They brought it up to the NDP administration in its first term in office. There was some form of review done within cabinet in a very private manner. Just before the election was called, I think, the Premier made a commitment to revisit that issue, and I want to use this opportunity to ask him to do it in an open and public manner. These lands were expropriated from their owners for a specific public purpose; the purpose was never fulfilled. The lands have never been used for the purpose for which they were expropriated, and I think that common law, common sense and common ethics have us all on the same side, where we believe property expropriated for a purpose no longer appropriate should be returned or offered back for repurchase by the original owners. I wanted to use this opportunity to push that.

One of the important issues for the people of Delta South is transportation. We in Delta South are an important part of the transportation infrastructure, having both the B.C. Ferries terminal at Tsawwassen and the Roberts Bank-Port of Vancouver development, which, as you know, is rapidly completing its transformation from a transportation facility only for coal to one for containers and specialty grains. You'll appreciate that the world for us in Delta South is going to change. All of the coal has come in by rail. It has been inconvenient to wait while the train goes slowly by on Arthur Drive, but basically we've been able to live with it. But now, with a container terminal going in at Roberts Bank -- and hopefully a very successful container terminal -- there will be substantially greater traffic. We are presently living with the problem of an overpass being built on Arthur Drive, so that we won't be held up any longer for trains coming through or for the extension of Deltaport Way, which connects Highway 17 with the port.

I guess it's going to work, but what really bothers me is that we are building at Roberts Bank a world-class facility, and world-class facilities are involved, first of all, with the issue of time. Time and cost are the two key ingredients in decision-making for people moving their goods. This was, I believe, an opportunity, while the Roberts Bank expansion was taking place, for us to deal with the issues of an East Ladner bypass -- a critical issue for us -- the holdup at the tunnel and what solutions can be found to that. The big solution, of course, is the new road that has been discussed for some years, the South Fraser perimeter highway. They're all important, but Roberts Bank is moving ahead. If we want to have a world-class facility, it has to have world-class access, and this is an opportunity we shouldn't lose.

Irrespective of other issues, I would suggest to this government that those transportation issues should be given priority, because if we do it well at Roberts Bank, it will create a lot of well-paid jobs. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as this government knows, and as we know and we keep saying, good family-supporting jobs are the most critical and important issue to the citizens of British Columbia.

One other issue which is relevant and current, and of concern to the people of Delta, is the condominium development known as Tsatsu Shores. This development is on federal land that they hold in trust for the Tsawwassen first nation. The Tsawwassen first nation has been quite active in real estate development in our community. They were the owners of one of the early prime subdivisions known as The Village. A few years ago they subdivided on long-term leases -- 99-year leases, I think -- the remainder of the land they owned at the top of the bluff, a subdivision called Stahaken. Now we're dealing with a five- or six-storey condominium development on Tsawwassen beach, which many of you will have seen if you've come through the Tsawwassen ferry terminal.

It is sometimes difficult to separate the real concerns in these issues, whether it is that people don't want development down on the beach or the issue of stability of the bank behind, the concern for safety and all the environmental issues which, you can appreciate, are somewhat unusual and important because of the building of the two causeways -- the causeway for the Tsawwassen ferry terminal and the causeway for the Roberts Bank development. The Tsawwassen Indian band land primarily sits between those causeways. Their land does extend on the south side, and it is on the south side that this development is being built.

Because they were unable to arrive at an agreement with the municipality of Delta with respect to water, sewage, fire and other municipal services, the municipality has not been willing to provide these services. I would suggest -- and I believe it to be a valid statement -- that what has been the issue, more importantly, is the ability or the right of the Tsawwassen Indian band to move ahead with residential development within the municipality without going through a process with the municipality that would deal with what their future plans are: what kind of density, what kind of volume and how such development would be serviced.

From your newspapers, Mr. Speaker, you've probably seen that it has not been an easy discussion. I have been in communication with the Ministry of Environment -- and I acknowledge their help in this issue -- and with the federal department. It's kind of funny. You write to the federal minister. . . . If I may, I will quickly read a small section: "Dear Mr. Gingell: This is in response to your letter of November 27, 1995. I regret the delay in responding." That response was dated July 4, more than seven months later. My previous letter to the minister's officials was back in January, with a response dated April: "Dear Mr. Gingell: This is in respect of your letter January 12. We apologize for the late response." All we get are responses from the federal government on this important issue that are late. In the meantime lots of things happen.

One of the issues here is that the Tsawwassen Indian band, because they have not been able to make an arrangement with the municipality of Delta, have proceeded to build a sewage treatment plant that is located on the sand pad being built on the foreshore of the marshlands that sit between the two dikes between the two causeways. We were informed originally that this project was not reviewable under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, because it contained no federal funding.

If you take this to its extreme, it means that any kind of development could be built on that property without any environmental review of the project as long as there is no federal funding involved -- like a toxic waste treatment facility such as the one that was proposed in the valley some years ago. You might even stretch it to the ridiculous and suggest that a nuclear power plant could be built there. I have suggested that in letters to the federal government and have yet to have any assurance that such is not the case.

We all recognize how the order of government works and that federal governments don't have to take any notice of provincial governments or municipal governments. That's how it's been for many years, but times change. I went on the Fraser River Harbour Commission in 1975 and came off in 1987. During that 12 years there was a slow but substantial change in the attitude of this federal government agency, the harbour commission, as there was in our relations with municipal government. We recognized that we could no longer just decide what it was we were going to do, and go ahead and do it. We had to enter into some process where we listened to the municipality, where we advised them what we were doing, where we had public hearings, where we allowed the public to come in and talk about it, ask questions, and want details and reports on a federal project on federal land.

The federal government doesn't have to give up its rights, it doesn't have to give up its jurisdiction, but it is perfectly reasonable for it to agree to go through the same process that other developers are required to, and to agree to some form of arbitration. Where that has happened, 95 percent of the problems get solved.

When we wanted to put sand on to Steveston Island -- if my memory serves me right -- to stockpile it for construction of the third runway at Vancouver International Airport, we had planned on a little bridge. We had acquired a secondhand bridge, and we were going to remove the sand by road from Steveston Island to the Vancouver International Airport.

[3:15]

After we listened to the community, after people of Steveston came and talked to us, we agreed we would only remove that sand by water. And that's what happened. The third runway is being built, using large volumes of sand supplied by the Fraser River Harbour Commission, and we were able to meet the needs of the community by listening to them. If we don't listen to them, they will not be accepted within the communities.

Certainly it is true that the federal government can go ahead and do what it wants. But to make these things a success, to take the tension and aggravation out of our communities, we need to work together. I think that is critically important. The previous Minister of Environment wrote a letter to the federal Minister of Environment, pointing out this huge loophole in the federal act that allowed projects not funded by the federal government to proceed without evaluation. I have yet to hear back from him, but I do take this opportunity to read into the record my concerns and to encourage the present Minister of Environment to follow up that matter.

I would like to finish by referring specifically to the Speech from the Throne, which, as we know, was printed to ensure -- I should have the copy of Hansard here -- that there would be no misunderstandings and that the Lieutenant-Governor hadn't misspoken anything. So it is true -- it is printed here -- that it says: "Working together, B.C. has made impressive fiscal progress. The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years, and includes a reduction in overall debt."

I'd like to first of all deal with the issue of the reduction in overall debt. Yes, it is true, from the little table that was made up and is in the budget reports, that it came down. But this Minister of Finance knows, and I know, and we should let all the people of B.C. know, that in fact the tax-supported debt is going to go up this year by $1.086 billion.

There are two reasons that it doesn't show up in this little table. The first is the warehouse, the $888 million borrowed last year -- not planned to be borrowed last year; only borrowed, you will remember, because the government offered 1.5 percent over market rate for their B.C. bonds, and the money came flooding in. But there's that $888 million there and available for expenditures in this year.

There is also $305 million of greater Vancouver water district and drainage district bonds that have been defeased or purchased -- a better word -- by the Municipal Finance Authority from the provincial government. In the future, the GVRD has finally agreed to work through the Municipal Finance Authority for its future borrowings. To get it started, the MFA agreed to purchase from the provincial government $305 million worth of their bonds, so the debt would be in one place. The debt wasn't paid off. The money is still owed to the people who loaned it in the first place.

So for this government to suggest that the debt has come down is nonsense. They lose their credibility by not dealing with these matters in a straight-up fashion. If they just said the taxpayer-supported debt, which is what they normally talk about, is going to go up, but the total debt will not increase. . . . This portion that's not included as taxpayer-supported debt at the moment, because the money hasn't been spent and is in the bank, is going to switch to be used for purposes considered to be taxpayer-supported -- universities, hospitals, schools, B.C. Ferries or just general government requirements.

This government complains at us about saying things that are not good for the reputation of the province in international markets. That's because this government doesn't go out of its way. . . . In fact, it goes out of its way to carefully weasel around the facts to put them in a light that perhaps is mathematically correct, but they and we and the world know that it's not the true state of affairs.

So having dealt with that, I'd like to deal with the other statement in this throne speech, which we are assured is exactly what the Lieutenant-Governor said. That is that the budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years. Mr. Speaker, you're aware that it's what was said on Tuesday. You're aware that on Wednesday this Minister of Finance carefully omitted all reference to a second balanced budget from his speech. But you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that tabled in the House that day by this Minister of Finance were the estimates for 1996-97, which contained updated revisions for '95-96 that showed there to be a $16 million surplus, which by Friday had vanished.

Is it reasonable for us to accept that between Wednesday and Friday this minister became convinced for the first time that his boasted surplus was going to be a deficit? I take you back to this document, Interim Financial Statements for the Ten Months Ended January 31, 1996, signed by the Minister of Finance, this minister's predecessor, and issued on March 11. March 11, April 11, May 11, June 11. . . . Let me think. There were 20 days left in March, 30 days in April: that's 50. There were 31 in May: that's 81. We went to June 25 for the throne speech: that's 106. The next day is 107 days. That's 107 days after this document was issued, which clearly showed the forest revenues for the first ten months of this year were below the pro rata estimate by $268 million.

The Minister of Finance shakes his head. If the minister takes the amount of $1.396 billion that was shown as estimated for 12 months for timber sales, and adds to it the small business forest enterprise program figure of $473 million and takes ten-twelfths -- ten-twelfths because there are only ten months -- of that number, he will come to $1.557 billion. The amount that is in your own ministry's financial statements as income -- not as receipts, because you keep the books on an accrual basis -- for those ten months is $1.289 billion. There was a shortfall of $268 million, or 17 percent. I simply do not accept that this was suddenly discovered between a Wednesday and a late Friday afternoon in the last days of June. That is beyond my credibility. . . . Beyond my credulity, and their credibility.

So, Mr. Speaker, you will have to deal with this issue in my motion of privilege. I believe it's an important issue and a critically important subject. We all want British Columbia to do well. We just want this government to be upfront about things: don't say one thing when something else is the case. The longer you leave this special knowledge that you have, the worse it becomes. Get it out quickly.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: This minister says he brought it forward.

Let's deal with the issue. He actually had a press conference in his office on a Friday afternoon. He had all of the media there. He had phoned beforehand, if I'm correct in my reading of what was in the media, or had some communication beforehand, with a reporter from the Times Colonist, Mr. Les Leyne, to stay behind afterwards. He had all the media there, and Les Leyne was going to stay behind. But it was Friday afternoon -- getting late, I guess -- and Les Leyne forgot, and he left.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: They had to phone him to get him to come back. The minister said. . . . Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you know what I was going to say, so I will leave it with you.

H. Giesbrecht: May I take this opportunity, hon. Speaker, since I missed it during my budget speech, to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. Certainly you will be missed on this side of your House as someone who used to contribute some rather sharp wit to the partisan arena. However, I congratulate you.

I was working over the notes to my speech during the weekend in the comfort of my office up in Terrace. It was a sunny day, and people were lounging in the park across the street. I thought I would check my astrological chart to see how the week's events would transpire. I did find a publication which boasted a circulation of something over 11,000, so I thought it might be a reputable publication. It said that I would make a presentation today -- which I already knew, of course, so that wasn't much help. It also said that I would be very persuasive and have a massive audience. So there you go: you can't believe the alignment of the planets sometimes, considering the numbers in this chamber.

I was looking through Hansard the other day to find some kind of comment that might encapsulate many of the speeches that we've heard in this House on the throne speech and on the budget. Good heavens, we've heard lots of them. In fact, some days I don't know whether it's 1996 I'm sitting in, or 1995 or 1994. I've heard so many of them, and they all seem somewhat repetitious and very similar. I did find one that I thought I would use as a quote. I don't mean to pick on this hon. member, but it's very similar to the statements that have been made on the other side. I'd like to quote what was said on July 10:

"I notice with great interest the lack of genuine commitment to tourism by this government. Just check the throne speech. Small business is the creator of jobs; it is the engine that generates tax revenue. I wish this government had left small business alone. Stop interfering and putting unnecessary hurdles in the path of success. Eliminate the job-killing corporate capital tax; eliminate the health-labour accord, a fixed-wage policy. The fixed-wage policy has cost the taxpayer of B.C. tens of millions of dollars extra."

Then he went on to say -- there's a clue; it was a he:

"As a mayor, I have presented 11 balanced budgets, which included provisions for paying principal and interest on borrowing done for projects."

I thought that was an interesting comment, considering that we've always been accused of being a tax-borrow-and-spend government. But I digress. Back to the quote:

"Nothing is hidden or shifted. It's easy to balance the budget; we have to because of a law passed by the provincial government. It is time that this law applied to this government. Only then. . .will we have true balanced budgets."

[3:30]

On the surface, this all sounded very simple and clear, but I wanted to examine some of the statements one sentence at a time. Going back to the first sentences: "I notice with great interest the lack of genuine commitment to tourism by this government. Just check the throne speech." What are the facts? Well, the throne speech says, on page 7: "My government will focus on developing jobs in a broad range of economic sectors in every part of this province -- from tourism to energy to mining to advanced technologies and beyond." So it does make a reference to tourism.

In fact, over the past four and a half years we have made some remarkable progress in the field of tourism. According to the Conference Board of Canada, B.C. leads every province in tourism revenue growth. B.C. has increased tourism revenue by almost $1 billion since 1994 -- double the average of all other provinces. Tourism is a $6.75 billion industry in B.C., employing more than 220,000 people in approximately 12,000 tourism-related businesses. The Premier has set a target of an additional 23,000 jobs in this sector by the turn of the century. As a newly created agency with a private sector board, Tourism B.C. is now in a better position to work with industry to take advantage of new strategic tourism, marketing and promotional opportunities. So the statement from the member was clearly incorrect.

The next line is: "Small business is the creator of jobs; it is the engine that generates tax revenue." I don't think any one of us would disagree with that. He goes on to say: "I wish this government had left small business alone. Stop interfering and putting unnecessary hurdles in the path of success." The inference here is that small business is not doing very well in B.C. Well, wait a minute. The number of small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 50 employees is up 24 percent since 1991, while in Canada they are up 16 percent, so we're leading the country in that regard. Employment by small and medium-sized enterprises in B.C. has seen significant growth from 1991 to 1995: up 11 percent. B.C. leads all of Canada in retail sales growth according to Stats Canada. Retail sales have increased over $6 billion in the last three years, or 25 percent.

We recognize the importance of small business in the economy. That's why the budget reduces taxes for small businesses by 10 percent. That's why there is a two-year tax holiday for new business, and that's why small business is exempt from the corporate capital tax. So his facts were wrong again.

Now, the next line said: "Eliminate the job-killing corporate capital tax; eliminate the health labour accord, a fixed-wage policy. The fixed-wage policy has cost the taxpayer of B.C. tens of millions of dollars extra." I just finished saying that the 92 percent of B.C. business that is considered small business is exempt from the corporate capital tax, so I won't go into that. Clearly, the member suddenly jumped from small business to the real reason he made the statement. The real reason is masked by a concern for small business. The real reason is that over there they still favour major tax concessions to big corporations. They ran an election on that, and lost. They ran an election on removing school taxes from property, which would have given big corporations another big gift in tax exemptions, and they still lost. That's why they are still over there on that side of the House.

Going back to the quote. . . . This is the most shocking. At the end of the line, workers who are dislocated by major changes in how services are delivered in health care should just be turned out on the street. That's essentially the comment that we get from them: that there shouldn't be a health labour accord. You forget about them -- no health labour accord; no compassion. Don't give them a hand to support their families; just give them the Mike Harris finger.

Then there is the same tired old reference to a fixed wage. The people over there can't bring themselves to talk about a fair-wage policy; it's always a fixed-wage policy. They don't have a definition of a fair wage yet, and they've never developed one. For them it's a wage driven by downward market pressures. When we increased the minimum wage to $7, they even complained that that isn't considered fair to them. They have to refer to a fixed wage, because for them the only fair wage is whatever marketplace competition deems necessary for the workers.

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: Well, hon. member, that's exactly the way it comes across to any of my constituents when you are talking about a fixed wage and the health labour accord. Just come to the good community of Kitimat and talk to them about what your plans were for labour. They know. To them, workers shouldn't expect a fair wage on capital projects paid for by B.C. taxpayers. Oh no, to them we should allow the low-paying, non-union Alberta firms to come in and take the jobs and the paycheques back to Alberta and stimulate the economy over there.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, because where do those members think average British Columbians spend all the money they make in fair wages? They spend it in small and medium-sized business in their communities. Their consumer dollars create more jobs. Most people spend at least 95 percent of their total income in their local communities, and for any of the working poor it's a lot higher than that. From this income generated and spent in your local communities was probably how most of you made your incomes in your previous lives. But you don't dare admit it, because your new neoconservative leader won't let you.

But let's get back to the earlier quote and the next line. I know it would cause a major problem over there if you suddenly had to admit some of these realities; it wouldn't fit the mould. This is a quote: "As a mayor, I have presented 11 balanced budgets, which included provisions for paying principal and interest on borrowing for projects. Nothing is hidden or shifted." I thought this was a rather interesting line, because here was a municipal politician who actually admitted that he was a tax-borrow-and-spend politician. We've heard that comment levied at us on this side of the House in the last four and a half years, but here's somebody who admits that he taxed the residents and he borrowed when he felt it was necessary for long-term capital projects; then he spent the money on services like roads, sewers, water, recreation, libraries, police and what have you. And when the residents were out of work and couldn't pay their taxes, he might even have sold off their property on a tax sale. But the city still got the money.

One way or another, like all municipal governments, they still get their projected revenue. Their expenditures are fixed. There's not a problem with that, unless you have a heavy snowfall, which I don't imagine was the case in this member's riding, because they probably don't get much snow. They don't have to worry about increases in health. . . .

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: I know they are required by law, but they don't have to worry about increases in health, education and social services. They don't have to worry about sudden loss of revenue because of a drop in the economy, or a drop in revenue because of a slump in lumber or pulp prices. They don't have to worry about a loss of income tax revenue, because when people are unemployed or on welfare they still have to pay their taxes, and the city or the municipality still gets the money. So they have it pretty easy. Our government in previous years even provided them with 33-cent dollars through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program, so they got to do an awful lot of their infrastructure projects with 33-cent dollars. It's just an example, I guess, of people comparing apples and oranges and, as they say, going bananas over the result.

But perhaps I should clarify here that the quote I read earlier was from the member for Parksville-Qualicum. It's not to pick on him; he's an honourable member. It's just an example of the kind of comments that come back across this House that occasionally I feel compelled to speak to.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

All governments, from the very first that was ever created, levy a tax and then they deliver services to people. That's just the way it works. All governments tax, sometimes they borrow, and then they spend. What's different about governments and what's different about political parties is the priority in terms of who is taxed and how much, who gets the spending and how much, and what services are considered important. That's the big difference.

Clearly the throne speech -- and it was followed by the budget -- identified that low- and middle-income British Columbians would get a break. So it's the priority in the spending end. It identified small business, which we agree creates most of the jobs, would also get a 10 percent tax reduction. Clearly it identified the 130,000 working-poor families who would get a break in our B.C. family bonus plan. Taxpayers making less than $80,000 get a break -- one percentage point effective last July 1 and another percentage point effective July 1997. There will be increased benefit for first-time homebuyers: the threshold for the phase-out of the homeowner grant has been increased. But they're going to vote against the throne speech as well. The courage to change is obviously missing, and you'll never find it over there.

As for the concern about borrowing, capital projects are under review. For the past four and a half years I heard every day from members on that side of the House -- the ones that sat to my left, incidentally, because there weren't as many then -- that we shouldn't borrow. It didn't matter if it was borrowing to build equity; it didn't matter if we needed schools or hospitals. When they weren't spreading the fear about debt -- even though we had the lowest per capita debt in the country -- they were in their constituencies telling their people that the government wasn't building enough schools, enough hospitals, enough bridges, enough roads. It was kind of a convenient thing for them. They'd go back to the constituency and say one thing about how nasty the government was for not spending more, and then they would come into the House and say, "You're spending too much; you're borrowing too much" -- a kind of hypocrisy that I sometimes found fairly inconsistent.

I heard it again today from the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who said that we have failed to recognize that we live in the fastest-growing province. Good heavens, we've been saying that for four and a half years. We've been saying that there was a need out there that had to be addressed. It's not something new and not a revelation that the province is the fastest-growing province in the country. It never cut any ice in the last four and a half years with the Liberals, so you wonder why they are bringing that argument back to us now.

Before, it was all this paranoia about borrowing and debt, and now it's "spend" and "borrow and spend," because, good heavens, we've introduced a six-month freeze on capital projects. You can't have it both ways, hon. members. I'm not happy about the freeze, either. I have two projects that were identified to go ahead, one in Kitimat and one in Terrace. The locals identified these as needed projects. They were supposed to go ahead. I'm not happy about that, either, but I'm going to do my very best to make sure that the review is successful and that the review also results in the continuation of those two projects.

What will the members opposite do now that they've convinced their constituents that we shouldn't build in this province until we've reduced the debt? It would be interesting to know what you're going to tell them; you might send me some copies of your householders. Will they be honest and tell their constituents that the government is doing what the Liberals advocated during the election? Of course not. They're not going to do that.

The throne speech talked about jobs as well, yet over on that side of the House they'll vote against the throne speech because it's traditional that they do that. Fair enough. We have created 34,000 new jobs since December, and we will continue to focus on developing jobs. We already have a good record in the country in terms of job creation, and that's going to continue.

The throne speech talked about creating more jobs for each tree cut. It refers to a jobs and timber accord, which will tie the access to timber to the creation of jobs. This is long overdue, and it's one of the issues that my constituents will be very interested in. The issue of the value-added sector in the forest industry is something that will create a lot of employment in the rural or in the northern and interior regions, and we look forward to more progress in that field.

We're working with the industry. We did it on Forest Renewal B.C. We are saying to the industry: "You want something, and the people of B.C. who own the forest resource want something as well. Let's see if both our needs can be met." I think they can, and I think that's the way of the future.

The opposition still believes you can give the industry a blank cheque on our forests and then hope that jobs will be created somehow down at the end of the line. It hasn't worked for the last two decades. Trickle-down economics doesn't work for everyone.

Interjections.

H. Giesbrecht: Someone once told me that empty vessels make the most noise. I'm beginning to hear it from the other side.

The throne speech says that we're making education affordable by freezing tuition fees, while other provinces are raising theirs by as much as 20 percent. That's important to those of us who live in the north, where the cost of attending a college or university goes much beyond tuition fees. When you're trying to send a child to a university or college in one of the urban centres, there are a lot of costs involved, and it's a great barrier to many people getting that kind of educational opportunity. A lot more needs to be done beyond tuition freezes, but it's certainly a start to make sure that we can try to keep education affordable for everyone.

[3:45]

The throne speech mentions aboriginal land claims. It makes a commitment to continue with the work on treaty settlements. This is an important focus, because first nations have waited a long time in B.C. to see historical wrongs redressed, and we all need the kind of certainty that settlements will bring.

I witnessed an agreement today, a consultation process on fisheries, and it was a rather moving ceremony once one got past the media scrum that took place. Here's an opportunity for both the federal and provincial governments to cooperate in making sure that the salmon fishery on our coast is sustainable.

For a few minutes, I want to go back to prior to last May, because it was an interesting time. The Liberal opposition was out campaigning, and prior to their economic plan, they said they would cut $3 billion from the $20 billion provincial budget. They said they wouldn't cut health and education costs. Those were sacred. To me, it has always been an interesting calculation: that meant they would have to cut $3 billion from the roughly $8 billion that was left in the budget. I could never quite understand how they would do that. Even if they took $500 million out of Social Services and created untold suffering there among the vulnerable and the poor, you would still have to come up with $2.5 billion out of some $6 billion that was left. It was impossible to do that, and they knew it. Shortly afterward, in fact, they came up with their economic plan that had so many holes in it, as a number of people said earlier, that it was like a piece of Swiss cheese.

So we introduced a budget, and its focus was on the throne speech. In this budget, there's a tax cut for the middle class and for small business. In the Liberal opposition economic plan, there was no immediate tax relief for the middle class, just a tax break for corporations.

In the budget we have a $27 million increase for universities and colleges. The Liberal plan was a 5 percent cut to post-secondary education in the first year and a freeze for the four years afterwards. We froze tuition fees for students. The opposition proposed higher tuition fees and fewer student spaces, which would necessarily follow.

We were already spending $6.8 billion on health care -- that's a 2.5 percent increase. At the same time Ottawa is cutting back and off-loading more and more of the costs. The opposition leader at one point said $6 billion was enough -- we were already spending $6.8 billion -- but then he changed his tune, because he thought that wasn't very popular, and he came up with the magical figure of $8 billion. But remember, they were going to cut $3 billion out of the budget, so nobody could understand that. None of my constituents could understand that, either. It just didn't wash.

There is a $19 million increase in the budget for more police officers and a provincial homicide squad in action against gangs and youth crime. The opposition advocated a $19 million cut from police and jails, a $17 million cut from criminal prosecutions, and on and on.

We want to maintain B.C. Rail and protect the economic benefit to all British Columbians. The Liberals were going to sell off B.C. Rail.

They had this marvellous notion that they were going to cut down the number of MLAs to 50 and make it even harder for people to get representation than they did prior to 1991. That's kind of an interesting idea. It certainly didn't sit well in May when I was on the hustings and on the doorsteps. They might want to talk to the opposition candidate there and find out how that work went over.

In this budget there are 40,000 new jobs targeted for this year, with 43,000 new jobs next year. In the marvellous economic plan, there were 41,000 fewer jobs over four years according to Informetrica, an independent economic research firm.

It's easy enough to compare the throne speech to what the Liberals would have done; it's easy enough to compare the budget to what the opposition would have done. It's always clear, to me anyway, that that's why they're still sitting over there. That's why I hope to have them sitting over there for a long time.

This throne speech is the result of listening to people; it's the result of keeping a promise. It puts low- and middle-income British Columbians and small business first, and it builds on the strength of B.C. It's a direction that will be different from that pursued in the rest of Canada. You notice I'm paraphrasing what's in the throne speech. That is the vision I believe I heard on the doorsteps in May, and that's why I'm proud to support the throne speech.

G. Bowbrick: Of course, a throne speech is very much about where the government intends to go in the future, and it sketches out that plan in broad terms. I think it's important in my reply to this throne speech that. . . . I would like to talk for a couple of minutes about where we've been. There are a number of issues where the government, I think, has clearly led the way -- issues that affect my constituents in New Westminster directly, but also broader issues which I think are of more historic proportions.

In terms of my own constituents, in the last four and a half years this government has done an incredible job in the area, for example, of the Residential Tenancy Act. Sixty-one percent of the people in my constituency are renters, and I can tell you that they were rather shocked when they heard that the Liberal opposition was proposing to scrap rent review legislation, which is in fact very, very moderate. In fact, it is even being looked at by the Ontario government of Mike Harris -- quite stunning.

As well, the improvements that have been made by this government previously under the Employment Standards Act -- the minimum wage is an example. . . . There are many low-income people in New Westminster, and I don't believe they think it's too much to ask for seven bucks an hour. That's not too much at all. Unfortunately, the opposition feels otherwise.

There are two other areas where we've clearly delivered as a government. I wasn't a member of the government, of course, but broadly speaking, as a government we delivered in the area of the environment and in aboriginal land claims. On the environment, in the previous term this government created 200 new parks and wilderness areas in the past four and a half years. We've made a commitment in this throne speech to make sure that we complete this work and that we ensure that these boundaries are put into law.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I'm very pleased to see the concern of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour on this issue because, after all, it was that hon. member who in this House stated very clearly that. . . . There was incredible international support for the Tatshenshini -- what a wonderful park. The Vice-President of the United States supported this, and that hon. member said that park should be mined. I would suggest that if that hon. member was a federal Liberal, he might even be in line for a post in Foreign Affairs, with that kind of diplomacy.

On the issue of aboriginal land claims, once again it's my opinion that we've said in this throne speech that we'll continue with the fine work we've been doing. I would suggest in the greatest of seriousness that this issue is one by which history will judge us very well, as we're moving in the direction of justice, which has been denied for well over a century in this province.

To move more directly into this year's throne speech, we have made great commitments, for example, in the area of education. Education, I would suggest, is the great equalizer in our society. It ensures that those who may be born facing barriers may have barriers removed if they have access to education. We're increasing funding in this province for both kindergarten-to-grade-12 education and post-secondary education. We're doing this in the face of two major challenges: first, population growth, which in the last four or five years is in the order of 80,000 to 100,000 people a year coming into this province; and second, major federal cuts, which continue to the tune this year of approximately $435 million to both post-secondary education and health care. But this government doesn't pass on that cost to our universities. If it had passed on that cost, this government would have been passing on a cut of approximately 10 percent; instead, the budget has actually been increased by 1 percent. At the same time tuition fees have been frozen, whereas in other jurisdictions in this country they're going up by as much as 20 percent. I suggest that's very, very significant to young people in British Columbia today. This government has also made sure that there is funding to ensure that there are 7,000 new spaces created in post-secondary education in this province this year.

Once again, I'd like to refer to my own constituency of New Westminster. This government had the vision to establish and fund a skills centre in New Westminster. I've visited that skills centre, and the type of people you see in that skills centre are young people who, for whatever reason, weren't able to complete their education. Now they're there, and they'll have a future as a result. That's good government. Furthermore, there's a first nations education centre in New Westminster. It was quite a moving thing a few weeks ago for me to attend their graduation ceremony and to see these young people get up and say: "I never thought I would graduate from high school." That's really something, and that says something about the right direction we're moving in as a government.

When we talk about post-secondary education, the Liberal members opposite during the campaign set out this great plan with great fanfare. But when we looked at it closely, we couldn't find the figure for post-secondary education; it wasn't included. And we couldn't find protected education that the hon. members spoke about -- they forgot to spell it out. "Oops, sorry." What was this? Was it the hon. members collectively saying: "Sorry, it slipped our minds"? Unforgivable. I say that the people of British Columbia didn't forgive hon. members for that, and that's why they're in opposition today.

On health care, once again, in the face of huge federal cuts, we have increased funding. We're increasing funding for the fifth year in a row, and we're doing it to meet the needs of a growing and aging population. I know that in New Westminster -- which is in many ways a centre of health care, with the Royal Columbian Hospital, St. Mary's Hospital and Queens Park Hospital -- the high population of seniors appreciates that very much.

Of course we've delivered, as the throne speech sets out. We've delivered in areas where we've made commitments by freezing Hydro rates, ICBC rates, tuition fees for two years -- as I've already remarked -- and taxes for three years, which is a continuation of the freeze that has existed for several years now. We have given a much-needed tax cut and a two-year tax holiday for small business. As a young person, I know that more and more of my colleagues, who are going out and getting a good education, are finding that the good jobs aren't out there for them anymore. They're having to start businesses of their own; they're having to go into consulting. I know how important this is to young people of my generation and to young people in my constituency.

[4:00]

There are a number of other areas I wish to touch upon. Of course, jobs have been a major focus of this government. We've seen the highest growth in job creation of any province in this country in recent years. Since last December we've seen the creation of 34,000 jobs in this province; 40,000 more are forecast for this year. Why has this happened? I suggest it's because this government has had its fundamentals right. We have the lowest per capita debt in Canada, we have invested in infrastructure that is the basis of a healthy economy that produces good jobs, and we have the second-lowest taxes in this country. This leads to a confident province with confident people who are looking to a bright future.

By the same token, I suggest that these same British Columbians don't have a lot of time for misinformed and negative attacks by the official opposition when it comes to our economy and our record. I suggest that they have no time for astro-economics. This is quite amazing: the Leader of the Official Opposition, who wanted to be Premier of this province, stood up in this House last week and quoted an astro-economist who is involved in an organization that has bestsellers, apparently, such as The Sun, The Moon, and The Silver Market -- financial astrology and planetary effects on stock market prices. That's really something. This is the basis on which the hon. member who wanted to be Premier would attack this province and impugn its good name? It's absolutely unbelievable.

The hon. member for Skeena, who preceded me, alluded to today's announcement on fisheries. This is vital issue. I was at a news conference last week, and I saw real people from communities like Sointula talking about this and the Pacific salmon fishery. Their concerns about it were impacting upon their lives. As a government we've made a commitment, and the Premier has made a commitment, in this throne speech to ensure that the interests of British Columbia are watched out for on a national level. This is a prime example of that, and we look forward to working with the federal government to ensure that the salmon fishery continues to be sustainable for generations to come and that the people of communities like Sointula, and indeed of my own community, are not forgotten by any government.

This brings me to one of my favourite topics: debt. I'm a New Democrat member of this House, but I love talking about debt and debating the issue. I loved doing it during the election; I'm happy to do it any time. As an aside, I'd like to point out that the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head made a reference to balanced-budget legislation. I would commend to that member an article in this month's Atlantic Monthly which talks about debt and deficit in the United States from an American perspective and actually refers to balanced-budget legislation. Interestingly, in most if not all states in the United States that have balanced-budget legislation, that only applies to the operating side. It doesn't apply to capital investment. Even in the most conservative states they realize there has to be capital investment. In a province like British Columbia, with great and continued growth, that has to continue.

This government is listening to the concerns of British Columbians when it comes to debt. That's why we've announced a capital spending freeze and review. I heard this during the election campaign, and I was grilled on the issue of debt during the election campaign over and over again by my opponents, Liberal and otherwise. But not once did one of them have the courage to stand up and say: "A Liberal government would not have built Herbert Spencer Elementary School in Queens Park. We wouldn't have put the MRI into Royal Columbian. We wouldn't have built the Justice Institute. We wouldn't have done any of these things." There's no courage there; there's no leadership.

I would expect that the members opposite, when we have announced a capital spending freeze and review, would be saying: "Hallelujah! They've listened to the people of British Columbia." This is what I would have expected, because the government has listened to the people on this issue. But to my great, profound disappointment, this has not been the case. This government has only been criticized by the hon. members opposite.

What is this? I'm trying to come to terms with this. Is this a remarkable conversion on the part of the members opposite? Have they suddenly said: "Eureka! Capital investment is a good thing, and we must have it in this province"? It doesn't seem that that has been the case. All I've learned is that we have to expect this level of complete hypocrisy from the opposition. The opposition always makes the debt an issue, but when it comes to any debt that may be incurred for investments in their own constituencies, they suffer from NIMBY syndrome. It's absolutely unbelievable.

The opposition campaigned largely on debt. But we have to listen to what they're saying now. Just in the last few weeks, since this Legislature has been sitting, the hon. member for Chilliwack actually presented in his inaugural speech in this House a wish list. And those aren't my words, those are the words of the hon. member: a wish list.

He wanted a new technical university to be established in Chilliwack. He wanted a new courthouse. He wanted a new University College of the Fraser Valley. He wanted new facilities established in Chilliwack. He wants a new overpass. This is a member who, if he campaigned consistently with his party -- and I suspect he must have -- was going on and on about debt and now says he wants all of these things. A wish list.

Speaking of overpasses, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano has an investment in his own community which will benefit the people of his community, and that's the Westview interchange. That's an investment by this government of $32 million. But there has not been a peep of criticism from that member in the last four and half years about that investment. Indeed, I had the pleasure of attending the groundbreaking ceremony for that, and I saw that member wearing a B.C. 21 shirt. Imagine that: B.C. 21. I am so happy to see that that hon. member was so supportive of our investment program. Now, of course, that member and others are calling for a new Lions Gate Bridge. Wonderful.

The member for Matsqui has already said in this House that he wants to see MSA hospital improvements. Wonderful. Members in the Kelowna area, there's a new cancer clinic there. I didn't hear any criticism of that -- not one peep.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I'm so glad the member for Richmond East raises her voice now, because she wants an upgrade at Steveston Secondary. I'd like to say that even with the current freeze, in Richmond, which is all represented by hon. members from the opposition, there will be 11 schools -- count them -- either built or expanded under this government. What a wonderful investment. And there was not one word of objection about these investments, not even from the member for Richmond East.

The kicker is that University Hill, the old elementary school of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the Leader of the Official Opposition, is being upgraded by this government. What a good investment -- wonderful investment. These are all worthwhile projects. There is no doubt there's a need for them, but it's lucky for the people of British Columbia, especially those who elected Liberal members who don't seem to be speaking consistently on this issue, that this government has the vision to proceed with these types of investments. This government says that capital investment is good and is necessary in a province that is growing as fast as British Columbia is. We have a vision for a strong and growing province. We're going in a direction which reflects the priorities of British Columbians. We're protecting health care and education, and increasing funding in those areas. We are ensuring that jobs are created in this province. We're making the requisite capital investments to ensure that all of this takes place. This is all reflected in the Speech from the Throne, and that's why I'm so proud to get up and speak in reply to this Speech from the Throne and to support it wholeheartedly.

R. Neufeld: It's indeed a pleasure today to stand and speak in response to the throne speech. It's interesting to listen to the member for New Westminster talk; he gave a very good speech.

Talking about the over 200 parks created by the NDP government, I suggest that he, along with Elizabeth Cull, who found out last year very quickly that the 200 stated in the House was very incorrect. . . . It's not 200 parks -- go back and check some of the records and find out exactly how many new parks were created. If you want to add all the parks that had a little bit added to them -- which would have been in existence for a hundred years -- you may come to 200. So it becomes very difficult to believe some of the other statements that have been made.

It's also interesting to listen to the NDP talk about the throne speech this afternoon. They seem to spend more time dealing with what the opposition would have done than with what they plan on doing in the next year. The issue about capital debt seems to be constantly brought up, whether it's the throne speech. . . . It should be in the budget debate, but in the throne speech. . . . It's interesting to note that the NDP feel comfortable with increasing the debt by $10 billion in four years. It's absolutely shameful and it's unrealistic. It's not manageable. We can't keep up that kind of debt increase.

The other issue that I find interesting is the one about the Liberals and their discussing how they would handle debt. I would like to hear them tell us how they would build all the projects that have to be built around the province without borrowing money. Historically, British Columbia has always borrowed a certain amount of money to build those capital projects, and it will continue to do so. The magic is to try and get it down to a level that the taxpayer can afford to pay.

I'm going to speak briefly about the throne speech and how it relates to my constituency. The throne speech dealt with aboriginal affairs and mentioned the treaty process and that that was going to continue. Also, many members mentioned the fact that we have to look back and try to right all the wrongs of the past, and that it's time. It's a touchy subject, so I'm certainly not going to say that we don't have to look at what happened in the past. But I think that many things happened to many different ethnic groups or individuals in our country in the past that we don't accept today. We do it differently. When we start looking in realistic terms at treaties and how we're going to deal with them. . . . To move the pendulum from over here all the way to over there is not the answer, because it's just going to create problems later on for some other people who will be in this building.

The Nisga'a settlement is one that should be explained fully to British Columbians. I mean fully, so that all the impacts in the Nisga'a agreement are laid out for the public so they fully understand, because I tell you, they don't understand some of the impacts of the Nisga'a agreement. After that is done, as Reform said during the election, there should be a referendum on the Nisga'a agreement, so that the people of British Columbia can say yea or nay. That's the only way it's going to be accepted. That's the cookie-cutter for all future treaties for British Columbia. No one's going to take any less; it's guaranteed that they're going to ask for more. Somehow we have to get the magic figured out so that we get it acceptable to most British Columbians. You're only going to get that by explaining to them what's in the treaty.

[4:15]

Setting up a treaty that has the Forest Practices Code, for instance, apply for the first five years and then disappear, and their own rules can apply. . . . Same with the environmental rules: rules for the rest of British Columbians will apply for five years and then disappear. We set up little fiefdoms all over the province -- I don't know, 200 of them. It's just not going to work.

In 1993, British Columbians and Canadians voted down the Charlottetown accord. . .

J. Weisgerber: Absolutely.

R. Neufeld: Overwhelmingly.

. . .which had a phrase in it -- "inherent right to self-government" -- which was undefined and still is today. No one seems to be able to define it -- or "special status" for Quebec. British Columbians and Canadians said: "No, we want an explanation." That's what they're asking for in the Nisga'a agreement.

But what I find interesting is that we start negotiating with one band in the far northwest. It doesn't affect the majority of the people in the province -- I mean in Vancouver and Victoria. I say that probably the way to catch the attention of those people who live in the lower mainland, the media and the politicians about what's going to happen is that we as a province start negotiating seriously with some of the bands located right in Vancouver. Maybe we ought to put Stanley Park on the block, you know, and start talking about who owns Stanley Park. Then maybe those members for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant or New Westminster, who talk about righting all the wrongs, will all of a sudden sit up, take notice and say: "Just a minute."

It's easy for members. . . . I would say that many in this House who have never travelled further north than Prince George, and maybe not even that far north -- which is central British Columbia -- don't know the geography of British Columbia, what's really involved and what those people up there who have lived there all their lives, homesteaded up there and moved there 100 years ago really feel. What happens is that it's being negotiated by people who live in the lower mainland and who have a different viewpoint about British Columbia and that large land mass. So I suggest that's one way we get the attention of everyone: to start negotiating in the lower mainland.

The throne speech talks about protecting health care and education as a priority for this government. I want to talk a bit about health care in the north. The member for Peace River South spoke about it the other day in his response also. We have a small community called Hudson's Hope. Some of you may now know where it's at, because that's where the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and Peace Canyon Dam are located. They had a small treatment centre that burned down months ago. It burned down; it was in existence. What they do now is treat people in the basement of the municipal hall. There's no elevator, just stairs. They've been doing that for months. The government of the day, which talks about protecting health care, put that project under review.

J. Weisgerber: Shame!

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, that's shameful. That should be something that should not be under review. It should have gone ahead a long time ago. But for a government that continually talks about protecting health care and education, they leave the people of Hudson's Hope. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member opposite is starting to heckle me a bit about it. I guess she believes that the people of Hudson's Hope don't deserve what the people in the lower mainland get. That's pretty sad, but that's typical.

As far back as about a year, we have had in Fort St. John a doctor-patient ratio of about 4,000 patients per doctor. That's under this NDP administration. No help was forthcoming. . . .

J. Weisgerber: Equal access.

R. Neufeld: Equal access.

At the same time, in Vancouver, you have one doctor for every 400 people, but it's acceptable for the north to have one for every 3,000 to 4,000 people. Do you know what happens with those people when there are not enough doctors in Fort St. John to look after the population? They're a pretty healthy bunch, thank goodness, but we send them to that slash-and-burn Alberta -- Ralph Klein country, you know, where they cut all the hospitals, fired all the nurses and got rid of all the doctors. We send many of them there to be looked after. Something is definitely wrong, and we have to start looking at it. There has to be some way we can look seriously at assigning billing numbers to regional areas.

The other issue I would like to speak briefly about is travel assistance. The member for Peace River South talked about how we fall all over ourselves to pay for travel for people from the lower mainland to go to the U.S.A. or to other provinces if they need special care, but when they come out of the north or rural B.C. to Vancouver to get that specialized care -- and people up there understand that the specialized care would be in the larger centres -- they're told: "You get there by hook or by crook, however you feel. We have this travel assistance program you can travel by." Well, it's interesting. If you live on Vancouver Island you can go across on the ferry for nothing. Wow! Isn't that great? It doesn't cost you a penny. If you live in the north, you can pay half the airfare to get down south for help, and that's acceptable.

I introduced a bill in this House in 1993 that dealt with travel points, which people travelling on government business should collect and donate. It's taken me until now to get it through the bureaucracy that there are areas in Canada that do this. You can donate travel points. I can tell you: I've had Treasury Board, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health tell me all kinds of ways why it won't work for people working for government to collect points and donate them somewhere.

The last one, in fact, takes the cake. It's from the Ministry of Finance. I have just a few letters here, but I have tons of letters trying to explain about Mission Air, which -- my goodness! -- comes out of Ontario, another one of those slash-and-burn places. Mission Air, which helps British Columbians from the north travel for health care in the lower mainland. . . . You can phone Mission Air. They collect points from Canadian Plus, and they will help those in need to get to Vancouver. But this is the ultimate: the Ministry of Finance says that it cannot allow any personal benefit to occur from bonus points accumulated at taxpayers' expense. And they must be limited. . . . If you are going to do that, it has to be a program that's limited to British Columbia. So even though I collect airline points, I guess I can't legally donate them to Mission Air -- who in Ontario are helping British Columbians receive health care -- because someone from Finance says it's a conflict of interest.

This is a government that talks about health care, but it doesn't give a hoot about health care. As long as it's in the lower mainland, that's the only time. They could care less about those people up north.

The Ministry of Finance finally says to me: "I believe that you, as an elected member, stand a much better chance than we do of getting the airlines to cooperate by allowing donation of points to a B.C. charity." In other words, they put the final nail in the coffin. They don't want anything to do with it, and I think it's because we have quite a few people who travel, gather their points and use them for personal use. I find that hard to believe, but I find no other reason why I would have piles and piles of paper. Treasury Board has all kinds of reasons why you can't. Because -- get this -- it's only Canadian Airlines points that you can transfer to Mission Air or Ronald McDonald House. Treasury Board told me that the reason you couldn't do it is that it would look like we were endorsing Canadian Airlines if we asked people to fly on Canadian Airlines. Well, what happened when we wrote a guarantee for a loan of about $50 million to Canadian Airlines? Did that look like we're kind of helping one airline?

These are real issues that have to be dealt with. Fort Nelson has another issue with its airport. The provincial government doesn't seem to care. They're just going to let them die, because the federal government is getting out of airports. The provincial government says: "We don't care. Vancouver's airport makes money. The rest of you are on your own." Fort Nelson is 250 miles north of Fort St. John. Its closest hospital is Fort St. John -- or Whitehorse, 600 miles further north. That's how this government cares about health care: a two-tiered system at best. They talk about no two-tiered system. We've lived with a two-tiered system for a long time.

My constituency contributes to the well-being of the province. It is huge. It's the second-largest in the province. It takes in an area the size of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Vancouver Island, with room to spare. It's a huge constituency, and Peace River South is about the same size -- one of the ones that the Liberals wanted to combine for one person to be able to represent. That's a little ridiculous, to say the least. We contribute crude oil, which your gasoline and diesel fuel is made out of, to the economy of British Columbia. We are almost self-sufficient in British Columbia with crude oil. Every bit of it comes south from Peace River South and Peace River North by a pipeline south. When the price of gasoline in Vancouver goes up to 60 cents a litre, we ask for a royal commission. I've asked many times about the price of gasoline up north when it gets to 80 cents a litre. Nobody seems to care, because that's the north. "We'll leave it alone; that's rural B.C. We're just going to look after health care, education, and we'll worry about the people in Vancouver, because they have got to pay 60 cents a litre." Can you imagine -- for gasoline!

Natural gas. Every bit of natural gas produced in British Columbia for domestic and export use is produced in the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South. Billions of cubic feet are exported and burnt yearly in British Columbia. Every time you turn your heat on, every time you use your hot water, it's with natural gas from up north that comes down here through pipelines. In fact, in 1994 the so-called surplus that this government said they had was because of underestimated revenues from the oil and gas industry. So we contribute heavily.

Hydro. Thirty-eight percent of all domestic and export generation of hydro comes from the W.A.C. and Peace Canyon dams -- both in our constituencies.

Agriculture: grain, cattle, buffalo and exotic animals -- over a million acres are under cultivation. And we try to maintain B.C. Rail so that it can continue to haul our products south. Well, there are those who would wish to sell it.

Tourism: untouched, pristine beauty. Travellers come from the world over to Fort St. John and Fort Nelson to go into what we call the Rocky Mountain Trench to see some of the greatest scenery and hunting territory in the world. It's been dubbed the Serengeti of the North. People don't come there just to hunt; they also come to view, take pictures, fish and just plain hike. Some of the largest river systems in British Columbia, the Liard and the Peace, go through my constituency.

Forestry produces a tremendous amount of products for British Columbia: plywood, OSB, pulp, dimensional lumber and chopsticks. The largest chopstick factory in the world is in Fort Nelson; it produces millions of chopsticks a day. We contribute millions of dollars to the provincial coffers and FRBC. Today I was appalled to listen to the Minister of Finance talk about everything being under review, because we in the north haven't even begun to receive the amount of money that we've put into FRBC. It's not untypical; I guess we should be used to it. We should be getting used to getting the shaft, because that's what usually happens. We contribute and contribute, and nothing comes back.

[4:30]

Sixteen-wides -- that's another issue in the north that the last Minister of Transportation cancelled on the q.t. just before the election. We differ greatly in our country and our road system, from you down here, hon. Speaker. We have much more in common with Edmonton and Grand Prairie, Alberta, than we do with the lower mainland. We didn't have a railroad or highway links to the north until 1958, so it's understandable. Most people migrated from the east. So when we talk about the movement of 16-wides, it's important to the oil and gas industry. It's important to those people who want to buy a modular home that is five metres wide, or to those farmers who want to move their granaries down the road to different fields. It's important to them, but it was just cancelled -- poof! -- because some report came out that said it's too difficult to move these kinds of things in the wintertime.

This is the part that really gets me: some bureaucrat who lives and spends most of his time here in Victoria or Vancouver wrote the report. It says that you can't move wide loads in the wintertime because it's too cold and there's snow on the road. That's guaranteed; I live through it all the time. But that's when most of our business takes place. Most things in the north happen in the wintertime. So I read into that that someone who does not understand what really happens is making recommendations.

On top of that, it's estimated that there would be, just in the summer months -- in six months -- 4,000 permits issued. My goodness! That's a bit inflated, but even if you take that number -- 22 loads a day -- seriously, if we're missing that kind of commerce in the north, then something's wrong. Why don't we accommodate it? Why don't we get out there and get after it -- get some road tax; have these people start buying some rooms, meals and those kinds of things, and some trucks, parts and tires? That's revenue to the province. But oh no, we have some bureaucrat who is parked in Vancouver or Victoria who says: "You can't do it." Those are the things we need changed.

The fair-share program for the north was a program -- and I'm going to give the government credit. . . . It was lobbied for very hard by politicians: the member for Peace River South, myself and all the local politicians from the north -- from Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Chetwynd, you name it. The government put $2 million into the pot and the communities were allowed to tax industry $2 million, so it gave them $4 million to start putting some of the infrastructure back into our communities. The communities can't tax the oil and gas industries like you can in other parts of British Columbia, where you can tax the mills because they're located within your town boundaries. Out there you'd have to have a town boundary that was 66,000 square kilometres to be able to tax all of that oil and gas assessment, yet those people all live in certain communities and their children go to school there. So that was a step in the right direction, but we would like to see the government just take it a little bit further, to really recognize what these people need in terms of more revenue.

The throne speech debate deals with the size of government and the cost, both of which the NDP say they're dealing with. If one reads the auditor general's report, it would lead one to believe the opposite. Very clearly, that was demonstrated in question period. If savings were real, perhaps deficits would disappear. If the reduction of positions was real, government would not be increasing in size.

Bragging about freezing tuition rates and ICBC rates, as this government has done -- I listened to some speeches here just a few minutes ago -- is rather hypocritical, because that same government increased, two years previous, ICBC rates by almost 40 percent and tuition rates by over 30 percent. Today they're saying they're freezing them. They already give those car owners the shaft; they already give those people paying tuition the shaft. Today they're trying to lead us to believe that they really care about both and that they're freezing them.

Youth employment of 11,500 jobs. That's not real, and I think all of us know it. I don't know where the number came from. I guess it's not quite as large as 12,000 and sounds better than 10,000 -- I don't know. But saying that government creates all these jobs is incorrect, to say the least. Small business creates the jobs in British Columbia; private industry creates jobs in British Columbia. Government only costs British Columbians. So I would hope that we would get down to starting to really relay the facts as they should be relayed in the throne speech.

Fort St. John, for those of you who have never travelled north, who have never had the pleasure of going maybe past Prince George, is the oldest community in British Columbia -- over 200 years old. Alexander Mackenzie passed through Fort St. John on his way to the Pacific. The Charlie Lake Caves, which are just seven miles out of Fort St. John, have the oldest known remains of mankind in North America -- 10,000 years old. It's been dug and looked at by historians all over the world.

Actually, at one time the constituency that I come from, which is covered by Treaty 8, was part of Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The Alaska Highway goes through my constituency and joins the Yukon, Alaska and British Columbia. We also have a road link to the Northwest Territories out of Fort Nelson.

As I said earlier, it's a huge constituency. It demands a number of services. It demands good roads; it needs good air connections. For that, we need some help from the government of the day. I was hoping over the last five years that I would see a demonstration of some kind of this government talking about how they want to deal with the ordinary individual, finally looking seriously at the north and saying: "Yes, we do have to do something in the north."

But when I look at the news release that came out on June 28 about all the projects under review and the legally committed ones, I count them up and there are almost 700 projects that fall into both categories. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't seriously look at what they're doing. But when I go through it, I see two places in my constituency. One is Hudson's Hope, a project to rebuild a health centre that burned down months ago, and the other one is the Beatton River crossing, a project that has been in place -- they're trying to build, I think, six kilometres of road -- for the last ten years. That's all that has happened in the constituency of Peace River North; that's all that's happening with all these billions of dollars that the government says they're spending.

I want to read the last page. It talks about: "From the highways and bridges that W.A.C. Bennett built. . . ." They're trying to liken themselves to W.A.C. Bennett. At least W.A.C. Bennett looked at the north, saw its potential and invested in the north. This government isn't. They go on to say: "And we are doing it by listening to the priorities of people -- the needs of middle-class working families from one end of this province to the other. Those families deserve a government not beholden to any interest but working for a stronger, better, more prosperous British Columbia for all of us."

Well, it's darn sad, when I look at the projects that are actually happening in British Columbia -- the hundreds of millions of dollars and the tax revenue that comes south -- that only two projects are happening in Peace River North. That's sad, because I think you can read the name "Prince George" or "Prince Rupert" less than a dozen times collectively -- all the rest are in Vancouver, Victoria, Maple Ridge. You name it, it is lower mainland-driven. I've been saying this for a long time, and the government has finally admitted to it. I think it's time that we got a government that would finally look at all of British Columbia and start being a government for all British Columbians regardless of where they live.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate at the opening of this thirty-sixth parliament and to enter into debate on the throne speech. From my perspective, a throne speech is a list of commitments that the government has now shared openly with the citizens of this province. I believe it is a commitment that they must keep.

I spoke previously when we were discussing the budget. I talked about whether or not any individual politician has the right to tarnish all politicians in this province, and I fundamentally don't accept that notion. Every single time a promise is broken, whether it's a throne speech promise or a budget promise, it affects the character of public life in this province. That will be the tenor of my remarks today, because I think it's vitally important that we come to grips with whether or not we're prepared to do a decent job for the people of British Columbia. This is about decency; it's about honesty; it's about integrity; and it's about following through. There is no other way to do government than to do it responsibly and to do it honestly. The cynicism in British Columbia today is rampant because of a series of broken promises. Whether we revisit the Social Credit days or look to the previous government -- this New Democrat government -- it's a series of broken promises. We have individuals today who are prepared to stand and somehow suggest that they are reconsidering their options. What they're doing is back-pedalling like hell. You cannot be that fundamentally dishonest with the public and not expect some backlash. That's where we are today. It disappoints me that once again we're in a conversation with the public about whether or not they can trust politicians. That's where we are today, and that, I think, is alarming.

I've lived in my riding for the last 15 years, working as a school administrator, working as a teacher and talking to people about issues of trust -- whether it was their children or the future of their school -- but coming to the exercise with some commitment to honesty and integrity. It shouldn't change because one seeks public office. I've been absolutely privileged to serve the riding of Richmond East for the past four and a half years, and I'm again humbled by the fact that they have chosen to elect me for a second term of office. That to me is a trust. They indeed have trusted me with any future issues they may have with government or any problems that they may want to take forward to government. That kind of trust cannot be taken lightly, and I know, I honestly believe, that there are members of this chamber who do not take it seriously. You only have to look at the pre-election advertising and the post-election back-pedalling, and you will know that that statement is true.

I wanted to become involved in the political process mostly because I was passionate about education. I wanted the programs we deliver to young people in this province to mean something. Yet when we have students in the public gallery in this very chamber. . . . They look down and know they're being told to be decent individuals, full of integrity and honesty, able to see both sides of the question and to deliver on some sense of humanity, whether it's with their families, their teammates or whatever. Then they look down here, and somehow this is the exception. This chamber should not be the exception. This should be the leader, where the highest standard of behaviour is not just expected but actually delivered. That hasn't always happened in this chamber. I think we're sending the wrong message to young people in this province.

I would be the first to stand here and tell you that any investment we make with young people in this province is the best investment. We have to invest in young people in this province if we intend to have any kind of future as British Columbians. The best resource we have is education and educated citizenry, if you will.

[4:45]

Again, we need to model the message. Many young people come to this chamber knowing full well that talk is cheap, that somehow what they do is different, because they indeed look at politicians who don't deliver. They get to talk up a storm but don't deliver. I don't want my children or the children I have taught to come to this chamber and somehow allow that cynicism to overtake them. I want them to believe in the process, because all we have in this life is a sense of what it is to be fair and just. That, I believe, is why we value democracy to the extent we do. We know it's a rare and fragile thing. We know it cannot continue if the foundations start to crumble. The foundation is about honesty; it's not about anything else.

Certainly in the riding of Richmond East I've seen my constituents scrimp and save to make ends meet. I've seen this government, time after time, say they'd be as honest and hardworking as the people they would serve. We know it's not true when we look at the list of promises made in this throne speech and the previous throne speech about saving people money. It's about acknowledging full well that they know best how to spend their money, far better than government and far better than anyone else in their lives, and that they have some ability to make some really decent decisions for themselves.

Certainly, you only have to look at the fiscal facts of this previous administration. I intend to cite them into the record, because it concerns me that we've now had the budget dance around whether the budget was balanced, but all the indications were there that this government was not comprised of decent money managers.

Total provincial debt has risen from $17 billion when the NDP were elected to $28 billion in 1996. This represents an increase of 66 percent. Debt-servicing costs have gone from $531 million in 1991 to $1 billion in this fiscal year. This represents an increase of 89 percent since 1991 -- shocking.

The number of government employees, FTEs, has gone from 27,000 when the NDP were elected to 40,000-plus in 1996. This represents an increase of 44 percent since the NDP were first elected. I can assure you that my constituents in Richmond East have not seen increases like this that would have benefited them. This is not about honesty and decency.

This Premier, when he was Finance minister, in his first two budgets raised taxes 29 times, adding an extra $1.5 billion in taxation each year. When you look at the list of promises in the throne speech and at that level of taxation, you know full well there's no ability to deliver. What I'm questioning today is that there was no commitment to deliver. That is patently unfair. In fact, this current Premier has taken $6.2 billion out of B.C. taxpayers' wallets since the election of the NDP -- $6.2 billion. Indeed, those individuals, my constituents and yours, hon. Speaker, know better how to spend those dollars. And when is a tax not a tax? Well, when you call it a fee or licence. Again, we know for a fact that 800 new licensing fees have come into place since this government has been in office. That's not what my constituents were looking for when they read the throne speech from this government. They were looking for compliance around what was promised, not back-pedalling.

All of the financial foundation is a big part of today's debate on the throne speech, because it has to be. You can't promise what you can't deliver. This very same government are the ones who stood in this chamber and said: "We won't spend a penny that we don't have. . . ." Where were they when it was time to discuss Bonneville Power? The cheque wasn't in the mail and the money had been spent.

The same scenario exists today: a forestry revenue shortfall. You don't account to have spent that money before you actually have some certainty around the actual sum. You don't manage your books that way, hon. Speaker, and we couldn't survive if we managed ours that way. It doesn't become right because government has chosen to proceed in that way. It, frankly, is misleading yet again to the public at large, and it's misleading for students in this province, who should be able to look to this chamber for a sense of leadership, a sense of commitment, a sense of integrity. It saddens me that it's not in place.

You heard many times during the election that the British Columbia Liberal Party is committed to reducing people's taxes. Frankly, that is the only way to go. We have to create an investment climate in this province that currently does not exist. I will spend some time on that in my role as science and technology critic for our caucus, because this is about creating a community of investors, not continuing to be a community of borrowers. That is alarming to me. In terms of where we are today in the riding of Richmond East, I believe we have done some very fine things.

I did not appreciate the comment during question period today that this government has done more to reduce wait-lists in the province of British Columbia than any other. For the record, this government has done more to create wait-lists in the province than any other. No matter which part of the province you're in, there's all kinds of new jargon for it when they close beds. Whether it's going to be "corporate days," or whether the hospital simply isn't going to offer those services in June, July or August, at the end of the day, more people are waiting.

The previous minister, who was heckling today that he has done more, knows that he has not done more. I'll have the same conversation with you now that I had with him some months back when he yet again announced one-time-only funding to reduce wait-lists in British Columbia. Those wait-lists were created by the management of that ministry. You can't create a huge problem, put in a small solution that doesn't quite make its mark and try to take credit for that. If you create the problem, have enough gumption to stand up and take full responsibility. Don't come back and say: "We're going to put, again, more dollars towards trying to solve a problem we created." That's the part the public has tremendous difficulty with when it comes to that level of cynicism.

Frankly, I share the public's concern over the fact that the information they receive is not always factual. That is not right, when this chamber should be a leader. Everything that emanates should be based on fact -- not somebody's spin, not somebody's interpretation, but fact. We seem to have lost a sense of what it is to tell the truth. I can't accept that. I don't accept that as a teacher, and I certainly don't accept that as a politician. I want people, when they come to my office -- my constituency office in Richmond East or my office here in the buildings -- to know that they're getting information that is factual and that they're not getting somebody's spin on it. That's what alarms me about the response to question period over the last two weeks. It's not factual information; it never has been, frankly. It's rarely about being answer period and question period. I think the public looks at all that, and it contributes to their level of cynicism.

I want to talk a bit about preserving the heritage of Richmond East. I want to see some discussion in this chamber regarding the future of the Fraser River. My riding is an island, as you know. There are the north and south arms of the Fraser, which very nicely encapsulate Richmond. It's very important that the future of that river become an issue for every single member of this chamber, not simply for those who live in Richmond, because of the reliance each of us places upon the health of that river, whether or not it is a salmon-producing stream, whether or not it is going to be something that is decent for recreational use and that continues to bring people to this province.

We don't tend to take on those kinds of issues heartily in debate in this chamber. I would suggest that if any kind of credibility is going to come back to politicians, it's because we take the tough issues and do something with them, not this constant meandering with the press about what might happen next if we were to tell the truth. That is not credible, in my view, and I think the public tolerance for that is over, frankly. I don't think we're going down that road any longer.

A great chunk of my riding is in the agricultural land reserve. I would hope that we can continue to preserve agricultural land in the province. The individuals who continue to farm in east Richmond are urban farmers, there's no question about that. They're ten minutes from the city; they're sitting on some of the finest cranberry-producing land in the world. I very much want to see the recognition and commitment to preserving that farmland emanate from this chamber. I think it's vitally important.

I referenced earlier in my remarks that I am committed to seeing this province become a very fine science and technology community. When the Prime Minister was last in Vancouver, he said the future of Canada is the west. He meant that from an economic, entrepreneurial perspective. We do indeed have an opportunity to create something incredibly fine on this coast that will attract the finest minds and see them offer their services, skill sets and that gift to this part of the world. I want to see us reach out and grasp that opportunity rather than let it be another missed opportunity for this province. We can do some very fine things.

One of the issues around science and technology that I mentioned earlier is chipping away at the tax structure and creating a community of investors. We are now seen as a province that borrows tremendous dollars and does not create a significant climate for investment. We have a punitive tax structure in British Columbia, no question about that. We need to be in a position to attract science and tech opportunities. We need to bring those finest minds and have some understanding of intellectual property in this province. When we talk about health care being the largest budget, if we in the science and tech community were ever able to get a handle on the treatment and cure of Alzheimer's, breast cancer and anorexia -- any of those issues -- the cost-saving to the health care system would be absolutely enormous, not to mention that it would be a decent thing to do. The ramifications for family members, family structure and family dynamics when someone is suffering from Alzheimer's would be enormous.

We tend to talk about residential care and about how many different ways we can put that in place. What about investing and finding a cure for some of those very serious illnesses that don't affect just the patient -- and my heart goes out to the patient in every single case -- but their entire family? We don't have a handle on that yet, in my view, and we need to. If it were my decision, we would see some funded chairs at universities regarding Alzheimer's, breast cancer and anorexia research. Those are maladies that affect people's entire lives, and we have not risen to the challenge. We can, and I certainly believe we will.

You've heard me speak in the past about a manufacturing base in British Columbia. We can compete if we put some resources towards creating a manufacturing base. There's no question about that. We need to look at medical instrumentation, which will be one of the industries of the future. The communications industry will also be one of the industries of the future. What we have today, in the eyes of the experts, has barely scratched the surface of what we will have five or ten years from now. Let's be a leader in that regard; let's be out there on the front lines rather than back home buying someone else's technology. I believe we have the abilities; we certainly can attract the finest minds. Let's commit to putting that resource to work here in British Columbia.

You've also heard me speak many times of discovery parks and how vitally important it is to bring research to the business community and have businesses operating in this province that have a research component. We have two discovery parks, possibly three, that are functioning in British Columbia. Every time a post-secondary institution or public school is considered for development, we should look at what entrepreneurial programs we can offer and what basic science we can do on-site.

Talk is cheap. This is not just talking to people about how they might become involved; it's demonstrating how they might become involved. It's mentoring them through the process. All of that is vitally important for the future economic prosperity of the province. We're kidding ourselves if we somehow suggest that it will come to us. We have to reach out, bring it in-house and generate some revenues that make sense for our province. I'm absolutely committed to that.

Whether we're talking about biotech or information technology, no matter the avenue, all of them could fit under the umbrella of being part of an investment community and of attracting that kind of business to the province. There's no reason in the world that we can't deliver on valued-added. We're learning that lesson, but we're learning it incredibly slowly.

Again, a Liberal administration would deliver on centres of excellence and would put in place some funded shares for research. That is how we will get a handle on our health care budget and other spending within British Columbia. It's vitally important. It is about competition. It is about innovation. It is about intellectual property. It's about understanding the law that currently governs intellectual property and putting in place some harmonization, some seamlessness, around that process, so people who want to do business here and create a new product and take it to market can do so without tremendous backlog, tremendous waits and tremendous frustration.

If we want people to do business in British Columbia, let's truly have one-stop shopping around science and tech communities -- the same sentiment I expressed many times around health care. Let's have one-stop shopping. We as legislators are supposed to be ensuring that this province is more user-friendly. It should not be our role to make it more difficult to invest money or to secure health care. The processes we put in place should make sense for people.

[5:00]

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that I was delighted this morning to attend some meetings at the Workers Compensation Board. One of the individuals I met with was Peter Hopkins, who has just been appointed as the new ombudsman. That's his goal: to work through issues for claimants when their frustration level has not allowed any kind of certainty to their question.

The Workers Compensation Board has not been user-friendly, and they'd be the first to tell you that. Their most recent reports talk about putting an emphasis on service. What an alarming concept! I mean, that organization has a monopoly -- no question about that -- and they have not often put decency and service delivery at the top of their agenda. It needs to be. It's certainly something that I believe will happen, particularly because they have taken the initiative and put an internal ombudsman in place so someone can now help individuals navigate through the process.

That speaks to me, hon. Speaker, because I can tell you that I have now sat as a member for almost four and a half years, and some of the cases that I began with in 1991 are still before the Workers Compensation Board. Think of the incredible anguish of somebody having an outstanding claim for the previous four and a half years. They're not paying their mortgage; they're not getting retrained; they're not getting on with their lives; they're continuing to put all their energies into fighting the Workers Compensation Board. That doesn't make sense for them or their families, and it certainly doesn't make sense for the Workers Compensation Board.

I would suggest that we are deluding ourselves if we don't think we have some governmental responsibility for that organization. It's always been an easy copout to say that it's at arm's length. At the end of the day, if we're going to deliver on the promise. . . . People believe that the government has created this entity to serve them. The legislation emanating from this House created the Workers Compensation Board. It didn't magically appear; it is a creation of government. It needs to have some accountability built into the process. I've had too many claimants not having any recourse, not having any appeal, and it's not fair. It's not about decency in the process.

I believe that the first step has been the appointment of the ombudsman, but it's only a first step. That entire organization must come to grips with dealing heart-to-heart with people. They must come to grips with being a people organization. They are a service organization; they're not anything else. Yet that is not the impression one has when one first enters the building or when one tries to receive services from that agency.

Again, I speak very strongly to seeing government willingly acknowledge the responsibility they have for injured workers in the province. Legislation in this House created the Workers Compensation Board. When there were issues last year about its management, this House -- the previous minister -- sat down with some rules about a panel of administrators. We continue to suggest somehow that we're at arm's length. The fact of the matter is that we're not, and in my view, we should not be.

The public at large must know that government has taken responsibility, particularly when it comes to a monopoly. You can't say to people: "You've been treated badly, but too bad; there's nowhere else for you to go." It doesn't make decent sense, and it's not fair. If this government is committed to making government user-friendly. . . . The public sees the Workers Compensation Board as an agency of government. The legislation refers to the Workers Compensation Board as a corporation. There is little doubt in people's minds that if the road were to get rocky enough, the road wouldn't end here.

My question to the members is: why do we have to wait for people's lives to be absolutely devastated before government steps in and ensures that that organization responds to people as if they matter? We know they'll get here eventually. What I'm saying is that it's time to see this government be proactive around the future of the Workers Compensation Board.

I will look carefully at the appointment of a commissioner to head up the royal commission, but I think this government is deluding itself if it thinks that is an item that will return to the table in 16 or 18 months. I would hope that this government very carefully chooses someone who knows something about compensation services. To go in and conduct a royal commission as a complete outsider would be incredibly difficult. There are enough of those reports here in this building and in our Legislative Library. There are certainly enough of those reports in the Workers Compensation Board building.

What is needed is someone who understands the business and knows how to improve the business, not someone who is going to be on an 18-month orientation around what the building should look like or how the people should interact. That's useful, but in this case, enough outside experts have said that there's a problem, and very few of those recommendations have ever been acted on. If it's going to be any different this time, it will be, I believe, because the person has a background in compensation and knows how best to make that system user-friendly. That would be my goal. I can only trust that it's the goal of government in terms of striking yet another committee.

I have certainly been clear in my sense of how valuable such a committee can be. I would suggest to you that it's probably three or four years out in terms of a report. It's probably one or two years beyond that for any kind of implementation. It certainly puts it past the time of the next election. Some of these ideas get lost in electioneering. It seems to me that if this government is truly committed to rectifying the problem, they will. It's not just that injured workers and employers get good decisions; my concern is that they don't get the right decision the first time. They may get it eventually, but it may take two or three or four years. We wouldn't put our lives on hold for that length of time.

Many of us have had no difficulty standing on the government benches and saying: "We don't have any responsibility for the Workers Compensation Board; we don't have any responsibility for injured workers who might happen to be our constituents." I don't accept that. I can only hope that every member of this chamber takes that issue very, very seriously when that presentation comes before us.

Implementation is the key. This government has not been terrifically well versed in implementation; implementation has not gone swimmingly, if you will. The best example I can give you is the Seaton royal commission -- very, very tough. So I want a better response to a Workers Compensation Board review, but the critical decisions will come with implementation. Again, I trust that this government will be incredibly committed to a decent implementation plan -- or in fact that this time they might actually have an implementation plan, which would warm my heart.

Another issue I want to raise around the Workers Compensation Board is certainly an issue that I think all of us need to address. The ombudsman at the Workers Compensation Board currently does not have exclusion from Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. If you were to see Dulcie McCallum as the provincial ombudsman, that right would be guaranteed to you. It seems to me, by the very virtue of naming it "ombudsman," that people are going to have similar expectations for their private and very confidential information.

I would ask that this House and this minister look very carefully at granting that exclusion under the statute for people who willingly share their private information with the internal ombudsman at the Workers Compensation Board. I think they would be devastated to learn that that information is accessible under Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, and that someone can request their private, personal information. Again, I don't think that's fair to individuals who are seeking service in that organization. I would trust that this parliament, this minister, will look very carefully at making that change. I think that would be the decent way to proceed. People believe that they are giving that information in confidence. They need to know that the same guarantees would be in place for the internal ombudsman of the Workers Compensation Board as are currently in place when they deal with the provincial ombudsman. Again, if I had to suggest a course of action around the Workers Compensation Board, it's definitely about integration of services and about timeliness, but it's also about user-friendliness. It's about time that organization is welcoming to people who come through the door.

In terms of the future of Richmond East, it's a glorious riding, a wonderful place in which to represent my constituents. I'm delighted to speak on behalf of Richmond East today, and I'm delighted to continue as the Liberal MLA for my riding.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, it's always a privilege to rise in this assembly and address the government's throne speech. One of the benefits of being late in the debating order is that one has an opportunity to reflect on some of the events of the last two or three weeks, which have given new meaning to the throne speech.

As I peruse the throne speech, a couple of passages leap out at me. One on page four indicates: "In this session, my government will pursue a vision of a government on the side of working families and the middle class. It will be a highly focused session -- focused on the priorities of the people of British Columbia. And nowhere will that be clearer than in the budget you will receive this week."

An Hon. Member: And it was.

W. Hurd: And it was. It said that this will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. On page 5 it goes on to say: "Working together, B.C. has made impressive fiscal progress. The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years."

That was the information read into the record by the Lieutenant-Governor in this assembly, and it didn't even last two days. I don't know if there is a record for throne speeches that go off the rails, but surely one that collapses after two days is a record in the province of British Columbia.

After that setback for the government, we had the announcement shortly thereafter of a $250 million capital spending freeze. During the election campaign, and many times in this assembly, the government levelled the charge: "What hospital are you not going to build? What school are you not going to build?" That's what they said. Lo and behold, within a few days of the throne speech, we found out that in fact the government knew all along it wasn't going to build schools and hospitals, and it stuck them on a $250 million capital freeze.

The people of British Columbia had reason to expect that the government would have announced that capital spending freeze either before or during the election campaign. It's called being honest and open with the people of the province, but we found out about it after the government was re-elected.

Health care regionalization was another announcement the government made over the past two weeks: scrapping a three-year experiment which has been a disaster.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The member says it has not been scrapped. But it has been frozen and reviewed, something the opposition demanded of this government time and time again in this assembly over the past four years: at least slow it down and review it. Lo and behold, it happened after the election campaign again.

I wonder, at how many all-candidates' meetings throughout the province of British Columbia did members opposite stand and defend the concept of regionalization only to have the government announce that it was going to freeze or review it days after the election?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The member for Peace River North says "hundreds of times." It could well have been thousands -- who knows?

Finally, we had the spectacle of the budget being presented shortly thereafter, with its now-infamous $250 million revenue black hole. You know, hon. Speaker, it's not appropriate for me in this assembly to accuse members opposite of being deceitful or being liars. We're all honourable members here, and it's not parliamentary for me to do that. But perhaps what I can do instead is read into the record some of the letters that I've received from average British Columbians, people of working-class families and the middle class, who have seen through the last two weeks in the assembly.

A letter comes in from a Mr. Laverty in the Richmond East riding. He says:

"I am absolutely appalled that my tax dollars are being spent without my knowing by way of a proper budget where they are going. I am also appalled at the Finance minister's dissembling over the so-called budget foisted upon us during the election campaign. In politics it is said that perception is everything, and I perceive that [the Premier, the Finance minister] and the rest to be dishonest, untruthful, lacking in real leadership qualities. . . ."

In the pages of the Times Colonist, we have David Hopkins writing from Victoria. He says: "I am dismayed, appalled and disgusted by the budget antics of the sleazy, lying, slimy weasels who form the government of our province." Hon. Speaker, I would never make that accusation myself, but Mr. Hopkins has written that in the pages of the Times Colonist. But he does say by way of an apology: "I take that back; it denigrates the weasel, a fine rodent."

I have other letters accusing the government of appalling conduct.

[5:15]

The Speaker: Excuse me, member for Surrey-White Rock, and pardon the interruption, but you may have noticed that I've been consulting with the Table. I'm advised that the precedent and the practice in this chamber are that a member cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. So I would ask the member to please accept that caution and to be very careful about reading into the record statements that clearly would offend the propriety, decorum and rules of this chamber. Please continue.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'll be happy to table these letters for the government to review at their leisure. I think it's important for the members opposite to know what their constituents and the people of the province are saying about the last two weeks in the assembly, and about the concern they have about the way the election was conducted.

The Speaker: The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I would ask you to reconsider what this member has actually said. You said that he should not do indirectly what he cannot do directly. By tabling such documents, I think that is precisely what you had in mind.

The Speaker: The document obviously can be tabled. The question is whether it becomes part of the written record of this chamber. Therefore I think it is in order to table the document, though I would again caution members not to read that sort of material, that sort of reference, into the record. Thank you, though, for the point. Please continue, member.

W. Hurd: As these letters are addressed to the Premier of the province, I'm sure the members opposite would find them most interesting to review outside the chamber.

S. Orcherton: On your previous ruling, hon. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: On a point of order?

S. Orcherton: On a point of order. It strikes me, hon. Speaker, that your ruling is an appropriate one. But the fact is that the comments the hon. member opposite made are, in fact, now part of the record. I wonder if the hon. member would retract those statements for the purpose of the record.

The Speaker: I think the member for Victoria-Hillside has a valid point. Normally, when remarks are deemed to be offensive, it is the practice to voluntarily withdraw those comments. I would therefore ask the member for Surrey-White Rock if he would do so.

W. Hurd: If any members opposite have been offended by my comments, I'm happy to withdraw them.

The Speaker: Thank you.

W. Hurd: Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, the assembly has no ability to withdraw comments that appear in the public record, in the Times-Colonist, and I would commend them to the members opposite.

Further to the throne speech, I want to touch briefly on the remarks from my colleague for Richmond East about the Workers Compensation Board. I don't think there's a member of this assembly who has not dealt with the WCB on behalf of constituents over the last four years, and who has not been at times really appalled at the way in which those cases are being dealt with. The next time someone comes into my office with an injury claim at the WCB, I know, having dealt with that bureaucracy for two years, that they're going to be reassured when I tell them that in the government's throne speech, a royal commission has been appointed. There's no question that they will feel that somehow the government is addressing their needs by appointing a royal commission, which is a recipe to hurry up and wait. For the last four years in this assembly, the opposition has been calling for a cleanup of the WCB, for changes to that institution to help not only employers but injured workers. That has been steadfastly resisted by the government and finally appears in the throne speech, with what one would gather to be no time period for resolution.

There are injured workers in the province today, and this is a government that purports to be on the side of average British Columbians. Well, average British Columbians are being hurt on the job, and when they get hurt on the job, they are enmeshed in WCB. You would think that this government would have moved early in their first mandate to deal with the critical problems of that board. The best they can give us in a throne speech is a royal commission. The next time somebody comes into my office in Surrey-White Rock with an injury claim that's two or three years in the making, I don't know if I can really, with a straight face, tell them that a royal commission will get to the bottom of their injury. I'll leave that to the members opposite.

I also want to talk briefly about two areas that I've been involved in in the past four years that I think received only cursory mention in the throne speech. One of them is the state of the forest industry in the province. Over the last four and a half years in British Columbia, the forest industry has become the highest-cost producer of forest products in the world. The cost of harvesting a tree in British Columbia and turning it into a usable product is now the highest in the world. That fact alone has had huge import for the capital investment that has gone into the forest industry.

I commend to the Minister of Finance, who used to be the Minister of Forests, a review of the capital expenditures on the forest industry over the last four years, but particularly during the cycle when prices for commodity products were high. He will find that the level of investment is at historic lows. That capital investment, which modernizes the 25 pulp and paper mills in British Columbia and the lumber mills and the value-added sector. . . . It's absolutely essential that that capital investment be put into place in order for those industries to continue to thrive and to compete in the global marketplace.

That investment has not taken place. The reason it hasn't taken place is because of the level of regulation and cost that the government has imposed on this industry. There is no question that it's going to have a serious impact on the ability of that industry to compete when those commodity products go down, as they always do.

There was a photograph in the newspaper recently that showed the level of complexity involved in the Forest Practices Code. It showed a forest worker with a huge series of binders that stretched up beyond his height. These were regulations and standards that he had to deal with, all of which added costs and all of which were hardly being enforced, and which represented a major additional cost to the industry. Everybody agrees that forest practices need to be improved, but we're involved in a regulatory nightmare in the Ministry of Forests at the moment. I'm delighted the minister is here because he knows that's what's happening; he's hearing it every day. The cost of the Forest Practices Code implementation, of licensees dealing with the kind of paperwork that has to be pushed back and forth between ministry bureaucrats and licensees, is simply killing investment in the industry. I hope that over the next four years of government, they will commit themselves to reviewing the regulatory burden, to demanding better forest practices absolutely, but reviewing how much additional cost and duplication is resulting from the Forest Practices Code and its implementation.

The other portfolio I held during the last four years was that of critic of education, universities, skills and training. I can only hope that the current Minister of Education -- who has at times shown an ability to tackle some major problems, particularly with the Ministry of Environment -- will wade into the Ministry of Education and deal with some of the critical changes that need to be made in that ministry in order for it to begin to meet the needs of students in the twenty-first century. In the months that I spent as the critic, speaking with various interest groups and people involved in public education, I really sensed a desire for change within our public education system. There have to be more choices for parents and students within the system. There has to be a renewed commitment from the ministry to deal with the technological changes -- the computer revolution that is happening out there. Parents, teachers, educators and people involved in the software industry told me, without any equivocation, that British Columbia students are falling behind in that important initiative which is being embraced in other areas of the world.

Part of the problem is the nature of the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Education; it's the way we deliver program dollars within the ministry. Person after person that I talk to told me the budget for education was adequate. It just needed to be better channelled. We needed to begin to measure and audit the results that we get out of public education.

I read that into the record today because I know it comes from people who don't have a political bent, people who have been involved in public education for years who are telling me and this government that the system of public education in the province needs change.

I was disappointed that the throne speech contained little mention of this. It purported to suggest that government was protecting the budgets for health care and education. We now know that it was only operating capital, not capital expenditure, that was protected because of a freeze that will affect fast-growth districts like Surrey to such a great degree.

We know that education in British Columbia needs fundamental reform. I just hope that the government will realize the cry for help out there on the part of educators who want to see change and want to see a system respond to the needs of students and parents. They see a system entrenched in bureaucracies and interest groups that is seeing the welfare of parents and children slip away. It's something I heard about from one end of the province to another.

I talked earlier about the importance of the budget to public confidence. If the government was really committed to the well-being of average British Columbians and it produced a budget that fairly and equitably assessed the current financial situation of the province. . . . I don't know who the government was listening to during the election campaign, but the people I listened to in my riding of Surrey-White Rock told me they felt the budget was the most important economic blueprint that a government could produce, saying where you're going to go, costing it out and honouring those commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reflect on what has happened over the past two weeks in British Columbia, on the machinations of the Ministry of Finance in trying to explain how the budget was out by a total of $250 million. Now we learn that it could be higher. We could see a budget deficit of $300 million to $700 million, unless some rather drastic spending cuts are made. And the Premier and the Minister of Finance are asking the people of British Columbia to believe that during the election campaign they didn't know any of this. They're asking us to believe that they put it in the throne speech and only found out two days later that the Lieutenant-Governor had read into the record. . . .

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that I'm unable to read some of these letters into the record, but as one letter writer says, they must think we were born last night. The government's explanations simply aren't washing out there. They're laughing at the government. It's an issue of mirth that any government could campaign, not knowing the true state of the province's finances.

The thing that concerns people is that the government knew. They knew the state of the province's finances during the election campaign, and they chose not to divulge it. That's the explanation that is gaining great favour out there on the part of working families and middle-class British Columbians. They know they've been had.

I want to read into the record a letter that came in from an NDP supporter, somebody who voted for the New Democratic Party: "I know we would have liked to believe you at election time, but your backtracking now doesn't fool anyone. You got our votes with your empty promises." That comes in from one of my constituents who actually voted for the government, and there were 8,000 of them in my riding.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, but there were 18,000 who voted for you.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, 18,000 voted for the opposition, but 8,000 people in my riding thought enough of the government's promises to vote for them.

Here's a voter who realizes that they've been had. The last part of their letter says: "One promise we all remember, though, is your promise to resign if the budget is not balanced. The budget is very far from balanced, so at least keep this promise and resign." If that isn't a disillusioned NDP voter, I don't know who is.

[5:30]

I'm delighted that I have both Forests ministers -- the former and the present -- in the assembly today, because I just know that during the course of this debate, they're going to. . . . I have all three. One was around just long enough to make revenue forecasts, but I have all three. I hope that during the course of this debate they will rise and clarify their position on Forest Renewal B.C. funds. I welcome them to do that. I well remember being lectured by the current Finance minister about the commitment, the iron-clad commitment. . . .

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Well, I'm being heckled about astrology again, but the people of the province know that this government couldn't balance a budget in any universe.

The current Minister of Forests lectured the opposition. He lectured them about how inviolate these funds would be. Never, never would we consider raiding the future forests legacy of British Columbia. Given a chance to stand today in the assembly in question period and say it just ain't so. . . . It was another waffle.

An Hon. Member: A wriggle.

W. Hurd: Another wriggle.

I know that during the course of the debate, the members opposite will stand up and clarify the sanctity of those funds and the fact that they convinced the industry. . .

An Hon. Member: And the communities, too.

W. Hurd: . . . and the communities to buy into a huge revenue grab, with the guarantee that the money would never be eyed by a Minister of Finance who has a bit of trouble with revenue forecasting and the weather.

The sad reality is that the throne speech and the budget have lost total credibility with the people of the province. The opposition has asked the government to table a new one. We've suggested that the Finance minister go back and take another run at it. It's great weather out there these days. We might get the right results this time. I urge him to go out and bring in another budget that fairly reflects the revenue forecast.

A lot of attention has been paid to revenue forecasts over the last two weeks in the province. What did the government know, and when did they know it?

Interjection.

W. Hurd: Well, I mean, the people of the province will settle for astrology right now. They'd settle for anything. Because somehow, between the time that B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row was read into the record in the throne speech and two days later at a press conference, it had evaporated. It was gone.

People who run a budget -- the working families and the middle class of British Columbia who have to balance the books every month -- don't understand how a government can be out by that much with a revenue forecast. Imagine if at the end of the month, an average British Columbian were to phone their banker and say: "I can't make my mortgage payment this month. My revenue forecast was a bit out."

I know how much the government loves banks. We know that. They campaigned -- and this will be my final comment. . . .

Interjections.

W. Hurd: I want to talk about the corporate capital tax. This is classic wriggle-room economics by the government, because the previous Premier stood in the assembly in question period and promised the tax would be gone in the last budget. We remember it well. From that position, the NDP moved into the election campaign suggesting that the removal of the tax. . . . It was somehow defending average British Columbians and taxing those evil corporations. That is a flip-flop of epic proportions. It will have serious repercussions to investor confidence in the province. I mean, you can't have the previous Premier of the province go out there telling investors: "We're going to get rid of it. . . ."

G. Farrell-Collins: Internationally.

W. Hurd: Internationally, it went out there. It went out by fax, by phone, by weather satellite; it went out everywhere. Then, lo and behold, the Premier of British Columbia campaigns on the basis of the tax. . . . Not only can we not get rid of it, it's now essential for tax fairness in the province. Now, how would you like to go out there and sell that message internationally?

That's what we're talking about here: international investment confidence in this province. The members opposite don't believe the corporate capital tax has any impact on investment decisions in British Columbia. They also don't believe it has any bearing on the standard of living that British Columbians enjoy. The reality in the province today is this: if you bring more than $1 million of capital into British Columbia to invest, you'll pay a tax on it; if you go to the bank to borrow money, you'll pay tax on it. It's a tax on adding value.

The fact of the matter is that the government promised to remove the corporate capital tax. The previous Premier promised to remove the corporate capital tax. The ideologues hijacked the agenda and turned it into an election issue. I say shame on them, because that campaign has done more to damage investor confidence in British Columbia than any single thing this government could have done. It still isn't too late for the government to admit that a tax on paid-up capital -- a tax on investment, a tax on the wealth of companies that come to British Columbia to invest -- is a destructive, negative tax that will cost British Columbians jobs in the long run. The people it will cost the most will be the working families and middle class who can't all end up working for the government in British Columbia.

In closing, the throne speech had a two-day shelf life, the budget had a 24-hour shelf life, and the people of British Columbia only regret that this government didn't have a two-hour shelf life.

K. Krueger: Once again it's my privilege to rise in this beautiful room -- this place of dignity with a long tradition of honourable people serving their constituents -- and represent the people of Kamloops-North Thompson by making comments for them and by them concerning the throne speech. It's a beautiful room, but there is curious conduct in it. If a person cuts meat all the time, we call them a butcher. If a person teaches all the time, we call them a teacher. If a person delivers untruths all the time, we can't name that. There are curious traditions of behaviour in this room. Leaders speak and people representing government don't listen to them; idle conversations go on between members of cabinet all the time. It's curious conduct in a place of dignity and honour.

Unhappily for me, time is short this afternoon in that there is other important business to conduct in this House, so I am going to reserve further comment until tomorrow and move adjournment of debate.

K. Krueger moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

The Speaker: I'm sorry; it's my error. I understand that we do not yet have a motion on third reading, so I'll call the Minister of Finance.

Hon. A. Petter: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll then move third reading of Bill 6.

The Speaker: Thank you kindly. The motion is third reading.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, you'll remember -- well, maybe you won't remember -- that we discussed committee stage quite late in the evening on Thursday -- although you will remember, because you had to stay around for the committee to report that the bill had been passed without amendment. The "without amendment" bit was a great disappointment to us on the opposition benches.

We did suggest an amendment to the members opposite, and we did prepare one. We did speak to the issue of the child retail sales tax credit. We had hoped that when we pointed out the weakness of this bill to members across the chamber, they would set their legislative writers -- the people they employ to write legislation properly and correctly, to ensure that it will in fact accomplish its stated intent -- to work quickly to look after this critically important matter.

Also during the evening, we had spoken about an amount of $15 million, but $15 million dealt with all of the children who will be covered under the present plan. The issue, in our minds, was 120,000 children, kids on welfare, who will be worse off because of this legislation than they were before it was passed.

It's interesting to note that this government mailed out information in November to parents who were on welfare at that time. Parents who went onto welfare after the end of November, or after. . . . I guess it was the November roll. Between then and the time they got their good-news letter on April 23, which was mailed out just as the election was starting, they had not had the benefit of the information contained in the November one. I appreciate that this is third reading, but let me briefly quote from this April 23 letter: "The B.C. family bonus will help all low-income families." That is not true; this bill will hurt, by $50 per year, all families on welfare with children.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: It's not wrong; it is correct. The Minister of Education may say that it's wrong, but, Mr. Minister of Education, check with the Minister of Social Services, check with the Minister of Finance. They will both tell you that what I am saying is true, true, true, not wrong, wrong, wrong.

I was hoping that between Thursday night and Monday this government would have come in with the $6 million solution. You could have cut it off the people at the top end: families earning $58,000 or families earning in excess of $40,000. It's the people at the bottom end of the scale that are being hurt, and we showed our displeasure with that by voting against and calling for a division on section 1 of the act.

The Green Party recognizes the truth of this. We understand that the Green Party is phoning all the NDP backbenchers -- a waste of time -- to try to put pressure on the cabinet ministers and to point out the issue of the $50, because they think it's important. The families who discovered late last week and over the weekend that they are being deprived of $50 in annual income for each child are letting us know about it. And I'm sure they are letting you know, because when they phone us we tell them to phone you.

[5:45]

One last thing: this whole process is a very convoluted, complicated and awkward exercise the way it is being done. It's all behind the times. Your income for year one will give you a bonus for halfway through year two to halfway through year three, perhaps when you don't need it. People won't be getting it when they do need it. They can only get a change made if there have been changes to their marital or family relationship, not to their incomes. So we face the dilemma that oppositions so often face. You're doing the right thing, but you haven't quite got it right again. So we will support the government because we are not interested in trying to deprive the children and families that will be helped by this process. We just wish that all of the children could have been helped -- not the kids on welfare, who need it the most, being the only ones who are hurt.

The Speaker: The Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I will very briefly respond to the member. I appreciate his comments. I want to go back and re-emphasize points that were exchanged in debate the other evening.

First of all, this is a tremendously progressive step forward for British Columbia. In the B.C. family bonus and the larger B.C. Benefits program, we finally have a program that is going to make work a better deal than welfare and assist in moving people from welfare to work. That's something we must not lose sight of. That is the core of this program and this initiative.

Second, I'm glad the member referenced the November letter. In November it was made very clear to welfare recipients that the family bonus would displace an equivalent amount in their welfare cheque and therefore they would be no better or worse off in terms of their welfare component.

Third, I want to correct the member's statement that the loss of a once-a-year child sales tax credit leaves those on welfare and children on welfare worse off. It simply isn't so. More than three times the amount of the cost of that credit has been put back into programs for those very recipients and children, in the form of child care, dental care and transition support. That is something that simply cannot be ignored. This government is investing in those on welfare to assist them in getting better dental care, in getting child care, and to assist them in making the important transition -- the most important step up of all -- into the workplace so that they and others can be self-supporting and full members of society. This program is about making work a better deal than welfare and about assisting those on welfare to enjoy the benefits of work that all British Columbians want to enjoy.

Bill 6, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: Hon. members, on July 2, the member for Delta South rose in his place and indicated to the Chair that he wished to reserve his right to raise a matter of privilege. On July 9, he raised his matter of privilege, of which he had given notice -- namely, that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and other members on the government side of the House had deliberately misled the House with respect to what has been described as a "balanced budget."

First, with respect to the verbal notice given on July 2, I wish to make one or two observations. The purpose of giving verbal notice is to reserve one's right to raise a matter of privilege by giving notice without further comment at the earliest possible opportunity, where it may be necessary to make further inquiries. I am satisfied in this case that the member did give notice at the earliest possible opportunity. However, I feel that it is important to examine the content of the notice. The member was recognized and thereafter proceeded to make a statement. The statement contained argument and charges of wrongdoing, which the Chair considers inappropriate when one rises to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

My comments apply equally to the statement by the member for Vancouver-Fraserview on July 12, 1996. With respect to the raising of the matter of privilege itself on July 9, I wish to comment on the process adopted by the member.

The member was recognized and proceeded to present his case, mixing argument with fact while reading from his written statement. I cautioned the member to avoid argument and to present facts to the House. I subsequently advised the member that the Chair had heard sufficient material to consider the case, although I allowed him to file the complete written statement, which has been considered in support of his application.

I would refer all hon. members to the Speaker's decision of July 21, 1993, to be found at page 193 of the Journals, wherein the Chair remarked as follows:

"The Chair wishes to comment briefly on the manner in which the matter of privilege was raised in the House. Our guidelines are stated at page 36 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia and one of the essential elements required is 'a brief written statement of the matter which the member reads to the House.' This statement is intended to inform the House of the facts on which the matter is based and, in addition, any applicable authorities which may be of assistance to the Chair.

In this instance, regrettably, the Chair could not allow the completion of the statement in that several parts of the statement imported argument and conclusions. The Chair, however, has the full text of the hon. member's statement and has considered all the relevant submissions therein."

It appears to the Chair that the method of presentation in this case, the one we are considering today, was similar to that used on July 21, 1993. Accordingly, the decision of the Speaker on that day is particularly relevant. I have adopted those reasons as applicable for the stating of a matter of privilege in this House. The opportunity for argument and debate occurs in the event the Chair finds a prima facie case. Dealing with the present matter, the Opposition House Leader, upon objection being taken, referred the Chair to two matters of privilege raised in the previous parliament in which lengthy argument was used during presentation. In those instances, objection was not raised and the Speaker did not actively intervene.

It is the view of the Chair that the proper practice was affirmed as a precedent of this House by the Speaker's decision on July 21, 1993, and that decision clearly takes precedence. Improprieties recorded in Hansard on July 11, 1990, and March 11, 1991, which do not comply with the rules of the House, cannot set a precedent. For the guidance of members, there are many examples of privilege being presented for consideration by the Chair in accordance with the correct practices of parliament. See B.C. Hansard, February 23, 1984; May 1, 1984; and March 19, 1986.

I want now to turn to the merits of this matter, and wish to state that I have examined all the material filed by the member for Delta South, as well as components of Hansard wherein the views of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations were expressed during the previous week. The member for Delta South alleges that certain government members made statements during 1995 and 1996 in which they characterized the budget of that year as being a "balanced budget." Their viewpoints were actively presented in debate and actively opposed by members of the opposition.

The hon. member making this application presented Hansard excerpts from 1995; page 1 of the budget speech given by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations in April 1996 when presenting the budget prior to the election; and page 1 of the statement by the current Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations when presenting the budget in July of 1996. Finally, he tabled information that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations made a statement to a member of the press on June 28 that revenue forecasts would be less than anticipated and stated in the budget. Based upon this evidence, the member argues that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations deliberately misled the House in presenting the budget on June 26 by not advising the House that a forecast indicated that the budget would not be a surplus budget.

When a matter is raised by a member and characterized as a breach of privilege, the Chair has the duty to consider whether a prima facie case has been made, based upon the information provided by the member, so that the normal business of the House may be set aside to debate the matter. If a prima facie case is found, then the matter is debated and dealt with accordingly.

I have before me the form of the motion which the member tendered, the statement prepared by the member and the member's oral argument -- i.e., the first part of the statement -- and exhibits attached to the statement. In addition, I have reviewed Hansard of the previous two weeks and examined questions and answers presented in the House on the same issue which may further bear on the case at hand.

It is clear from the material tendered and the Hansard transcript that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and the member for Delta South disagree in their characterization of the budget -- a normal function of debate. In addition, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and the member for Delta South disagree with respect to their characterizations of the nature of economic forecasting and its relationship to the budget.

In none of the material can I find evidence that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations deliberately misled the House. In order to accept the argument of the member for Delta South, one would have to arrive at the conclusion that the minister had deliberately misled the House. However, the evidence provided to the Chair, while it indicates a disagreement amongst members, does not indicate a deliberate intention to mislead. In order to find a prima facie case it would be necessary for the presentation to have included some evidence which would displace the word of an hon. member, and that evidence is lacking.

Because of the importance of this matter, the Chair wishes to make some further observations with respect to quoted statements from the Speech from the Throne and from the June 1996 budget, both referred to by the member for Delta South. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations stated in the House that he did not receive confirmed and verified information on budgetary forecasts until Friday, June 28, 1996, following the Speech from the Throne and the budget address. He further stated that he released the information the day he received it. The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations said in the House on Tuesday, July 2, 1996:

"The moment I had reliable information to bring before this House. . .I brought it before the public and before this House.

"On Friday I was informed that, as a result of further review, those statements had now been verified, and at that moment I made the information public. I stand by that statement because it happens to be the truth."

It is well-established practice that a member's word will be accepted in the House. I refer members to Beauchesne's sixth edition at citation 494: "It has been ruled by Speakers that statements by members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted."

Unless there is evidence that a member has deliberately misled the House, a prima facie case cannot be established. The Chair's examination of the Hansard report and of the hon. member's submission leads to the conclusion that this is a question that falls into the broad category of a dispute as to allegations of facts, which, as stated in Beauchesne's fourth edition at citation 113 -- again I quote -- "does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege." The allegations against members of the former parliament fall into the same category.

Having considered the hon. member's submission, the relevant Hansard reports and precedents, the Chair cannot find, prima facie, that the House was in fact deliberately misled. Therefore the application must fail.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

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