Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 9 -- Thursday, April 3, 1997

G. Farrell-Collins: Last week I rose in the House and reserved the right to raise a matter of privilege with regard to the government's wilful violation of section 5 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. This section required the government to appoint a commission to review the electoral districts before the end of the last session. The government, when made aware of their failure to comply with the law, wilfully prorogued the last session, thereby violating the act.

This is no small matter. The issue of electoral boundaries has a less than stellar history in British Columbia and should not be messed with. However, in researching this matter of privilege, I came across a ruling in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, which states that the failure of the government to comply with the law is not a matter for the Speaker, but should be decided by the courts.

As a result, today I will withdraw my privilege motion and advise the House this morning that the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, the Attorney General critic, will commence an action against the government in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for violating the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his statement. I will regard that as a statement and therefore not debatable.

M. de Jong: I rise to reserve my right to bring a point of privilege to the House. I will give you a brief recitation of the facts pertinent to that.

Yesterday I received notice that what was formerly the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs was scheduled to meet today. I have communicated by letter to the former Chair of that committee that members of the official opposition will not be attending and, of course, reminding him of the fact that the committee is not duly constituted. The appropriate motions haven't been tabled in the Legislature, and therefore it is not duly constituted. I am advised that remnants of the committee are meeting now in the precincts.

The Speaker: Member, do I understand correctly that you are simply rising now to reserve your right?

The Speaker: I think you have made the point, and that is sufficient. Thank you, member, for doing so.

Hon. D. Streifel tabled annual reports of the former Ministry of Social Services for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

H. Giesbrecht: In our system of government, it's the government's duty to govern and it's the opposition's duty to oppose. Now, that may be an oversimplification, but in terms of what has happened here in the last few days, I think the fact that the opposition's sole obligation is to oppose has become abundantly clear. One expects that, of course, and certainly in the many speeches I have already sat through, that's been very clear. But one also expects the opposition to offer some positive alternatives, if they have any. Anyone listening should remember that without the alternative vision, the opposition is just so much useless rhetoric. So I want to talk to the throne speech today, but obviously the throne speech is a fairly general statement of the vision of the government, which is then fleshed out in the budget. The budget has already been tabled, so it's pretty difficult for me to avoid talking about the budget when talking about the throne speech.

Now, the budget we've been debating certainly has many good features. You wouldn't know it, listening to the opposition. To them, it's the equivalent of The Satanic Verses. In all the speeches I've so far heard, I haven't heard a single opposition member say one good thing about it. You really have to wonder what their vision is. You really have to wonder, and I do, whether or not the budget is really so bad, so I took a look at some of the specifics.

If the opposition were really honest, they would look at the item about $300 million to fund hospitals and physician services and to reduce surgery wait-lists. They might say that's got to be a good thing. One would think that $300 million more to fund hospitals and health care is a good thing. You might say that's not enough, in which case we would ask the question: well, where are you going to get it from? But you would at least expect them to acknowledge that $300 million more for health care is a good feature of the budget. If they were really honest, you would also expect them to look at the $63 million increase in education for K to 12 and say that's a good thing. It may not be everything they wanted, but it's a good thing.

If they were honest, you would also expect them to look at the $300 million to build and improve public schools as a good feature of the budget. Again, maybe they wanted to spend more, in which case we would certainly ask: well, where are you going to get the extra from? But if they were honest, you would at least expect them to concede that $300 million more is a good feature of the budget.

You would also expect them, if they were honest, to look at the 2,900 new spaces for students in universities and colleges and say that's a good thing. This is educational opportunity for British Columbia students. If they were honest, you would expect them to look at the tuition freeze that's maintained and say that that's a good thing. You would also expect, if they were honest, that they would say that another 2 percent reduction in personal income tax -- saving the British Columbia taxpayer more than $142 million -- is a good thing.

You would also expect them to say that providing $235 million in support for more than 200,000 lower- and modest-income families is a good thing. But what it doesn't say in the budget is that there's a billion-dollar tax break for big corporations. So because of that, none of this means anything. That's the real puzzle here.

You would also expect that if they looked at this carefully, if they were honest, they would say that maintaining the

freeze on ICBC premiums, B.C. Hydro rates and post-secondary tuition fees is a pretty good thing. And you would certainly expect, if they looked at the budget honestly and told the whole truth, that saving the average B.C. family $700 a year is a good feature. If they were honest, they would tell the whole story and say that it's a good thing for the people of B.C. But according to them, there is nothing good about this budget, and I think that's why most of their comments fall flat.

If you listen to members across the floor, you'd get the impression that everything is gloom and doom. This is my fifth year here, and I've heard the same speech from the opposition year after year. Only the Leader of the Opposition has the answer. He has sipped from the holy grail of the Fraser Institute; he has gazed into the crystal ball of the Princeton Institute; and his economic vision alone -- that adopted from the assorted gurus of the ultra-right -- will prevail.

I pose this question. Maybe they can answer it in some of their speeches. Why was it that in B.C. we created 44,000 new jobs in the last three months of 1996, compared to 83,000 in the entire country? I've said before that we actually make the federal Liberals look good. When Jean Chr�tien promised jobs, jobs, jobs, unfortunately we didn't realize he only meant three of them. So if it weren't for B.C., the country's job creation record would look pretty dismal. Why was it that B.C. recorded Canada's strongest employment growth in 1996 -- 4.2 percent -- as the number of employed grew by 74,000 during the year? Now, that's got to be a good thing. Why is it that B.C. alone has managed to put more resources in health and education for the last six years? Now, that's a better record. . . .

But it's a good record. K-to-12 spending has had the highest growth in the country in the last five years, the second-highest dollar per capita in the country last year, and this year it's the highest per capita spending in education. My colleague for Yale-Lillooet gave you the figures yesterday. In B.C. the five-year change has been an increase of 20.6 percent.

Guess what your friends in Alberta have done -- you know, those people you try to emulate and that you hold up as examples of what good government should be. They've had a five-year reduction of 5.5 percent.

The Speaker: Members, can we have just a little order. Obviously this banter and good-natured exchange is to be encouraged, but it would be nice if we could actually hear what the member is saying. So perhaps we can tone it down ever so slightly.

H. Giesbrecht: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I want you to be quite reasonable, because what I have to say is important.

Look at Ontario, that other province that you hold up as the model. Their five-year change is a negative 19.3 percent, a 19.3 percent reduction. Just in case you missed it, let me give you the figure again: in B.C. it's plus 20.6 percent. That's the growth in five years. I've got to say something about this stuff, because it's good.

We have managed to do more in health care and education than any other jurisdiction in the country.

H. Giesbrecht: You almost got me sidetracked to comment, but I'm not going to.

Remember the recent political firestorm about school construction. I was up north watching this stuff on BCTV news, and the opposition puffed themselves up with righteous indignation because the school in their riding still had a portable in it, or the school in their riding was still in the freeze. There was no talk of debt. None of them said: "Don't borrow any more money to build this school." No, they were out there fanning the flames and getting their constituents to demand more spending, more new schools. Here in the House, where your constituents aren't watching, all we hear about is debt and cutting spending, and all that kind of stuff. In any of the debate on your side, there is not a mention about the equity that is created, not a mention that building schools is an investment in the future citizens of this province.

A few months ago there was extensive media coverage of the school portable situation in the lower mainland. Not once did I hear anyone interviewed say: "I think it's okay to borrow money to build a school so that our students have some place to get an education for the future. I think maybe the government should do that." The opposition just seems to continue that. Even now, we hear the same one-sided -- I'm talking about the right side -- look at the $1.4 billion more debt in this budget. There is no comment from that side about the $1.1 billion in building the capital assets they demand. So the question that has been posed by a number of people on this side of the House keeps coming back: which school in your riding do you not want to build? I think it's a valid question. It's an important question that you need to provide an answer for. It seems like they're always asking for reductions, until they discover a school portable in their riding.

B.C. has had the highest growth in spending in post-secondary education, the highest dollars per capita in funding education in the country, and tuition fees are tied at the second-lowest level. This is for the past five years, and they still can't find anything good to say about this budget. As I said, in this budget there is a $63 million increase for the K-to-12 system, $300 million to build and improve schools, 2,900 new spaces for students in colleges, and a continuation of the tuition freeze. That's better than any other province, certainly better than was proposed in the Liberal economic plan in last year's election.

When we look at health care, over the past five years we've had the highest per capita spending of any province -- 10 percent more than any other jurisdiction. It's a better record than all of the other provinces that you always hold up as models, and we're still protecting health care and education. You know, we're doing it in spite of the cuts from Ottawa and in spite of the Liberal opposition across the way. They said that $6 billion was enough. We spend $7 billion now, and all they can do is harp on past issues. They criticize, while conveniently forgetting their $1 million mailout -- the misuse of taxpayers' money on a propaganda sheet. It goes on and on.

The members over there won't see that this budget provides working British Columbians with a reduction of 2 percent in their income tax. It will save the average family $700 a year. And why not a mention from the hon. members across the way? Well, I guess it isn't good news to them, because I keep remembering that it doesn't apply to big corporations and, of course, as I recall, they got considerable campaign contributions from corporations across the province. They won't see the $235 million in support for more than 200,000 poor and modest-income families; they won't see the increase of $300 million to fund hospitals and physicians'

services and to reduce surgery wait-lists; they won't see the $300 million to build schools. They won't see any of that, and they won't see any of the resources that are going to people, and you really have to wonder why.

During last year's election -- and I hate to go back and dwell on the past, but it's important to remind them -- they wanted to cut services to people. If I remember, it was $3 billion worth, and my colleague from Yale-Lillooet commented on that yesterday. The interesting thing is that they didn't even promise a balanced budget except in the last year of their term. I thought that was kind of interesting, given the criticism coming from them. They wanted to give big corporations a billion-dollar tax break. Well, they got $480,000 from banks and financial institutions for the election campaign; they got $1.3 million from resource companies; they got $240,000 from B.C.'s worst polluters. I guess one really has to wonder where their priorities are and where their vision is.

The strange thing is that we have to witness the hypocrisy on that side of the House from time to time. I know they are all honourable members, but I would think that sometimes they should tell the whole story in terms of this budget, rather than just the selected little parts that they want to talk about. If they were a little more honest in this debate, they would be remembering that they ran on an economic plan that called for a 23 percent cut in social services. They ran on an economic plan that had a 5 percent cut to skills training. And incidentally, they ran on a plan that provided an off-load to municipalities of $500 million.

Yesterday the hon. member for Shuswap dwelt on the issue of the $113 million off-load that we provided for municipalities -- about one-fifth of what they wanted. The interesting thing he said was that by them off-loading five times as much, it showed that they had a vision. He also used the analogy of Betty Crocker in terms of this budget, and I began to think that their vision was like a cake mix that never quite made it into the oven. So that's why it kind of flows, depending on which way you hold the cake pan.

The interesting thing about the off-load is that for almost five years we insulated municipalities from any off-load, considering what the federal government was doing to us. Their off-load amounted to billions over that time period. So at the end of it, when you can't avoid passing some of the restraints on to the people that rely on funding from the provincial level of government, they go ballistic. But it has to be remembered that their off-load was five times as much.

They're critical of a modest increase in charitable gaming, yet they took campaign contributions from Great Canadian Casino. They talk about ethics, but they spent a million dollars of taxpayers' money on a mailer. They rail at the government for wanting to use FRBC surplus funds to maintain government services to people in the north and in the interior, where most of the implication of cuts is, but they voted against FRBC.

And it's interesting that in the last month, they actually discovered the north. They were up in my riding. They have actually discovered that we exist up there. They came up north and they said. . . . They didn't say, "We voted against FRBC," but they did say: "We've got a new idea for FRBC. We now want to turn FRBC into a bank for big forest companies." That was the solution they offered. First they object to any surplus going to government revenue, then they say: "Well, turn it into a bank, a financial institution for major forest companies. Give them the money to pay off their debts." Now, did the fact that these forest companies contributed to the Liberal campaign have anything to do with it? I don't know. I don't think so, but one wonders. It's okay now, though, when it suits their purpose, to use FRBC funds for other than what they were originally intended.

H. Giesbrecht: I had expected some improvement in this session, hon. Speaker, particularly since I noticed that in their recent much-commented-on group photo there were a few head transplants. I thought maybe swapping bodies and heads might be an improvement. But it's still the same negative group, and I just wish that they would occasionally tell the whole story. But I'm comforted to know that the Leader of the Opposition has now been painted as a very stable kind of guy who can sit on a chair with only three legs and not lose his balance. I think that's great.

I also want to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition, because he actually did pay me a compliment. When he was up north -- and I have the article here -- he was quoted: " 'We have story after story of MLAs not returning phone calls from people who have been laid off or who are working at mills threatened with closures,' Campbell said, but did not suggest" -- and I can't mention my name -- "that [the MLA for Skeena] was one of the offenders." So I want to thank him for that. But I thought it was interesting, because all through the northern trip, that was one of the common comments they would make just to sort of stir up the people there. It was one of those hokey things that we sometimes have to contend with up north when people come up there and say: "Well, you never answer your phone calls." I've got to assure members in this House that I return all my messages, and sometimes I even have to call 12 times to make sure I get through. Anyway, I digress.

The opposition repeatedly claims that we're not helping small business, that they are leaving the province. We've made it easier than last year, with the two-year tax holiday for new business; we've reduced corporation income taxes by 10 percent. At 9 percent, it's the province's lowest rate in a decade. More than half the jobs in Canada were created in B.C. last year, and we have 12 percent of the population. Some 47 percent of B.C. jobs are in small business, and the repeated refrain is that small business is leaving. Well, small business is a growth area in this province; 98 percent of all businesses in B.C. are small businesses. They're exempt from the corporation capital tax. That's where the focus is, and that's where it should be. At the risk of repetition, where were the opposition tax breaks in the last election going to go?

Yesterday I had the good fortune to attend an announcement on a new agreement with Tourism B.C. We had senior members of the tourism industry standing beside the government and talking about what a great arrangement this was. There were compliments all around. All the opposition could come up with was: "Well, that was our idea in the first place." I thought: what a lot of nonsense. You have a tourism industry that has grown from $4 billion to $7 billion in six years. You finally have a historic agreement with the industry that gives them revenue that they have jurisdiction over, and the opposition can't say: "Good on ya; it's a good deal." All they can say is: "It was all our idea in the first place." Frankly, I thought that was a bit much.

Now, the local opposition rails at spending: more cuts, a balanced budget at all costs that affect services in the north. . . . It's interesting that I frequently have discussions

about when you cut costs, it's the outer core, or the periphery of the service that usually ends up feeling the impact. It's not felt down here in the lower mainland, because you have a lot of support services, but it's certainly felt up north. You cut one person there, and it might be half the staff in a particular service. So we feel it all the time. We're aware of that. I sympathize with the member for Peace River North, who spoke yesterday, because I've had discussions with him on this issue as well. The populations in the north and in the interior are sparser, and, of course, we don't have as many votes.

The core of the service is always protected. Any time people across the way talk about cuts, they affect those of us that live in the north more than they do other places. The opposition simply proposes more cuts and tax breaks to big corporations. As I said earlier, they recently discovered northern B.C., but I guess they didn't get the message from the locals there. They even discovered that their original plan of reducing the number of MLAs was not very popular in the north, so they had to change that. I could have told them, and I did. During the last election, I told them that it was an unpopular position. They didn't believe me then, but they certainly believe it now.

They discovered our forest industry. They came up north, and they discovered that pulp prices were at an all-time low. They discovered that our forests had a high pulpwood content. They discovered a stumpage calculation system that was worked out with the industry in 1987. They discovered Repap, a company that was so far in debt they couldn't make a profit, even if you gave them the timber for nothing and even if you exempted them from the provisions of the Forest Practices Code. They came up there and talked to creditors of Repap who were holding about $30 million -- possibly more -- of unpaid bills, and the only solution from the Leader of the Opposition was to let FRBC pay Repap's costs.

Imagine the implications of that in the forest industry. First they vote against FRBC, then they rail at the government for even thinking about accepting any surplus offered to us by the FRBC board, and then they want FRBC to pay off the debts of a major forest company. I think there's something terribly inconsistent, in that the debt accumulated by Repap was accumulated by them borrowing money on their capital assets in B.C. and spending it for ventures elsewhere, and the Leader of the Opposition can come up with only this solution: pay off their debts.

Fortunately, FRBC is involved in the issue up there, just as it is involved in Golden and just as it will be involved with the chopstick factory in Fort St. John. The Minister of Forests, the job protection commissioner and the Minister of Employment and Investment are all involved, and I'd certainly like to thank them for their efforts and their quick response to the needs that were there. For any of the people that have dealt with this issue, like my colleague here for Columbia River-Revelstoke, I think we have certainly appreciated the efforts of those agencies.

More, of course, needs to be done. I look forward to a successful conclusion of the negotiations around the jobs and timber accord. We need to resolve some of these concerns around higher-cost harvesting in coastal areas. The industry certainly needs to come up with some concessions on their part, and the government will very likely have to come up with some as well. But I think an accord is the way to go, and I'm optimistic that that can be achieved.

In the last election I ran on a campaign of building B.C., investing in people and protecting health and education. The opposition and my opponents sort of fuelled the paranoia about debt and deficit. The result, of course, was a building freeze on a couple of projects in my riding, and that disturbed me, because I hadn't run on that campaign. Nevertheless, the people voiced concerns about that, so we were into a freeze.

One of my schools, Skeena Junior Secondary, is out of the freeze. The Kitimat health centre is not, and I would certainly call on the Minister of Health to remove the Kitimat health centre from the freeze as soon as possible, and also to approve the renovations to Mills Memorial Hospital. Those are two issues that are of concern to my constituents.

I think I can do that with some honesty, because I believed then, and I still do, that we can build for the future. I think my constituents see equity. They don't just see debt. I recall yesterday that the hon. member for Langley across the way, when the usual banter was going on, said: "Well, it's not equity, because who are you going to sell it to?" I was rather surprised, because we have private companies that are waiting for agreements so they can build schools and then lease them to school boards. And that's not equity? So I thought that was a little inconsistent. It is equity. It's not as though you're pouring money into a black hole when you're building a school or a hospital.

It's interesting that the opposition sometimes still engages in that same rhetoric, that inconsistency about, "Pay down the debt but spend more money," on the one hand; then "spend less but deliver more services"; then "cut taxes but spend more" -- and it goes on and on. There are no positive alternatives, and certainly no consistency and no vision.

I recently delivered a petition to the Minister of Education from students in some of my constituencies across the northwest. There were 965 names on it. They were worried about courses being cut from Northwest Community College. The college is under some constraints; enrolment is down. Some of their soft funding from the federal government is gone, and there will be some difficulties in that regard. But here we have an opposition railing against spending and against debt, and when they met with these people in Terrace I'm sure they spoke about how there was a need for more spending.

There are some difficult issues in my constituency around an agreement with Alcan for a power purchase agreement. I'm hopeful that that can be resolved soon. Negotiations are underway, and I'm confident that there will be a resolution.

Under this government the province has done more to protect health and education than any other jurisdiction in the country. If the opposition were honest, they would at least concede that. They would admit that the provinces whose leaders they admire -- Klein and Harris -- have a sorry record on people issues when compared to ours. This is a good budget, it was a good throne speech as well, and it's based on prudent economic forecasting. It's not perfect; no budget ever is. But it will serve British Columbians well in the coming years.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a privilege to rise in response to the throne speech. We are all here on behalf of the people of British Columbia to make this great province, on a continuing basis, a greater province, a greater place to live for all of us. I have had the opportunity in the last many months to be out in various places in British Columbia, and I can tell you that people look to leadership -- to this chamber -- and I think it's incumbent upon us as legislators to provide that leadership to all of the people of British Columbia.

I had an opportunity yesterday to speak to over 1,000 students from all over British Columbia who were gathered at the University of Victoria campus in memory of the victims of the Holocaust. The title of the symposium they were participating in was Building Hope, and I was pleasantly struck with the sense of commitment and dedication that those students from all over British Columbia had to making this a province that we can all be more proud of than we are today -- that this province should have no hatred, should have no poverty, should have no discrimination, and that this should be a more just, more compassionate, more caring society. I know that in the throne speech we go partway towards creating more jobs.

The reason I want to talk about this particular visit I had to the University of Victoria is that one of the many questions -- I fielded many questions, and I can tell you, they were much tougher than the questions in this chamber -- I had to respond to when I talked about our hate crime unit in British Columbia, which we're putting together with representation from the Vancouver police department and the RCMP, with a senior prosecutor and a policy analyst attached to it to deal with the issues around hate crimes -- hate crimes based on race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious background, and all of the other factors that can sometimes generate some negative comment or activity in some places in British Columbia. . . . One of the students asked me how I defined hate crimes. Obviously, that's an issue the courts have defined under the Criminal Code, under hate communications in the Human Rights Code, and under civil rights protection. Promotion of hatred has either been defined or would be defined by the courts as they see fit.

However, I said to the students that when you advertently, intentionally, set out to damage someone's self-esteem by creating hatred against either an individual or a group of individuals, that, in my mind, is a hate offence. It is a hate crime and is actionable under various statutes in British Columbia. During the question period one of the students stood up and said: "If that is a hate crime, if that is an offence in your mind, you legislators in the Legislature do that every day to each other."

I'm not talking about any specific incident. This was a question from a student yesterday. I just wanted to share that with my colleagues, the hon. members. It's important for us to recognize that what we do here, how we do it and what demeanour we do it with has an impact, not necessarily on the grownups in British Columbia -- because as we grow older, we obviously become a lot more cynical -- but on the youth in British Columbia as they grow up to take charge of this place in years to come, to take charge of the leadership in British Columbia. I said to the student, honestly: "You know, I sit here in this place from time to time" -- and I'm not talking about any particular party; all of us engage in this from time to time -- "and I wonder whether I want to continue to do this." I just want to share that with you, because healthy banter is very important. It makes this place interesting. It makes it livelier. It obviously makes it a place where you can engage in some vigorous and rigorous debate. But I think we should take heed of what that student said, and make sure that we lead by example in British Columbia. It's important that the people of British Columbia have sent us here to provide that leadership on all planes, not just in terms of what policies we pursue or how we purse them, but in how we come to decide on those issues through vigorous and rigorous debate in this chamber.

That takes me into what I want to talk about. I know it's appropriate in the throne speech debate to talk about the throne speech. I said that we are creating jobs, as we are in the budget. But why are we creating those jobs? From my point of view, as the minister responsible for justice and the administration of justice, I want to say to you, hon. Speaker, and to British Columbians, that we want to engage in all of those activities in British Columbia to make it a more prosperous place, a more caring place, a more compassionate place and, above all, a more just place.

That brings me to justice. We are engaged in British Columbia, as never before, in a very, very important journey on justice reform. Why are we engaged in that journey, and what are the elements of that journey? We are engaged in that journey on justice reform because we are spending more money than ever before -- increasing amounts of money on courts and on corrections. We are spending more money on policing than ever before. The crime rate, violent crime in particular, has been falling for the last four years in a row. There has been some decline in the last year, even in the non-violent crime rate in British Columbia.

Yet when you go out and meet ordinary British Columbians in villages, towns and cities, they are more afraid than ever of walking the streets of British Columbia. And that concerns me. If we continue to do what we're doing, obviously the people of British Columbia and, I might say, the people of Canada. . . . I had the opportunity to be present at the national meeting of the Attorneys General from all over the country, including the federal Minister of Justice. All of the Attorneys General expressed the same view: that we continue to spend more resources, more energy, more money on all of the justice issues that we deal with.

Yet people feel alienated from the system of justice. More than ever before, people feel frightened. People don't feel that they are safer than before. It's important for us, then, to look at how we are doing justice. Are we doing it right? Do we need to change? It's important that I outline for you, in very brief terms, what the thrust of those reforms is.

A very important element of our system of justice is criminal justice. In criminal justice, our Corrections are overburdened, our courts are backlogged, and we obviously need to place more resources at their disposal. That's a simple answer, but that answer has not been sufficient. It hasn't done the job. So what we have started doing -- and I can tell you there is a wave across Canada -- is looking at the front end and trying to figure out whether we're doing everything right; whether communities should not have more ownership of the system of justice; whether we should stop sending non-violent, minor offenders through the criminal justice system and divert them to the communities, where mayors, counsellors and ordinary citizens who are interested in the system of justice, in owning and being part of that system of justice -- whether or not they should be dealing with those offenders in community panels, in accountability panels, in family group conferencing, in other forms of diversion. . . .

I can tell you that my ministry has been engaged in that discussion for the last several months. We've had many discussions with the bar, the judiciary, with other stakeholders -- for want of a better term -- across British Columbia. I am planning to go on the road again, once we finish the business of this House, to different parts of British Columbia to consult with the people to see if we can make it better -- if we can do it better. It's important that we divert non-violent, non-serious offenders who do not pose a risk to society in any way, shape or form, so that they can repay their debt to society. They can provide restitution, they can do reparation, they can make apologies to the victims, and the victims can participate in that

process as well, if they so choose. It's important that we work with the police agencies and forces across the province, the bar, the communities, the victims' groups and all of the people that have a stake in our system of justice. That's where we're going on the criminal side.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My hon. friend from Parksville says that we should do it in Parksville -- and we would be. . . . I'm sure that we're going to be doing it. It's important that we start in every area of the province.

On the civil side, we are very intensively looking at mediation, looking at arbitration and looking at precourt counselling, particularly in the family area. We are going to be establishing over 20 family justice centres across the province so that we can provide counselling to parents, so that even if they decide to separate they can do it amicably. In many families there aren't the resources to fight over, and if they fight over those resources, the resources would end up in the hands of those who advance their struggles through the courts. I don't think that's very appropriate. I think it's appropriate that we deal with those parents: educate them, counsel them, provide them with the tools to deal with custody, maintenance, access and those issues that can be dealt with in a non-confrontational, non-adversarial situation, so that only the cases that really need to end up in the courts do end up in the courts, so that other people who have other issues that have been waiting for years to get to the courts can do so.

It's important that we also look at that in a fiscal sense. If we continue the way we are going and we don't make any major, radical changes to the way we do justice in British Columbia, we would need at least 95 more courtrooms across the province in the next ten years or so. We would need several more corrections facilities, and the estimated cost of those is about $1 billion over the next ten years. That is just the capital cost. Then you have to look at the ongoing operating costs of those facilities -- the personnel, the staff -- and that would run into billions more.

So it's important that we look at it from both points of view. The people of British Columbia should get a sense of ownership of their justice system. We should do those things that impart that sense of ownership of the justice system to the people of British Columbia, and to do so would also be fiscally beneficial to all British Columbians. Those billions of dollars that we save should be put at the front end to provide skills to people to deal with inner-city schools, to deal with victims and to deal with those needs of the people of British Columbia that will then prevent them from having to go into the stream of the justice system, where they will have to be dealt with by the courts. That's essentially the general thrust of what we're trying to do in our reforms of the justice system. There are many details.

In terms of some of the other issues, as I said, we have established a hate crime unit, and we're going to be making an announcement shortly on that and the specifics of it. That hate crime unit would assist the police forces across the province to detect hate crimes in British Columbia and, after developing a clear definition of what needs to be detected, investigate and then vigorously prosecute those crimes so that we do not have little South Africas building up in British Columbia that are unknown to us. It's important for us to send a message to every citizen that we are very vigilant on this issue and that they have our support in dealing with those issues around the province.

I can tell you that I was in Creston several months ago on a very cold night, and at about 8:30 or 9 o'clock at night there were over 500 people there to deal with issues around hate crimes. To have 400 or 500 people in a small town attend a symposium on the issue around hate crimes tells you how important and deeply felt this issue is, at least in that part of the province. And I know that that issue is felt in many parts of the province.

As you know, we dealt with many issues over the last year and a half. We established an unsolved-homicide unit, and that is working. We established a provincial prostitution unit, and you are seeing the evidence of that in the charges that are coming before the courts. People are being sentenced or taken to task, of course, through the process of justice on these issues. While our prostitution unit is an exemplary one, and while other jurisdictions are learning from it and it is working with the police forces across the province to assist them in gathering expertise and evidence on these issues, we are still waiting for the federal government. I say that in a way to commend the Minister of Justice. He has actually introduced amendments that go some way toward meeting our needs on this issue. We have urged the federal Minister of Justice to go a little further, so that the police are better equipped to deal with these issues and able to better investigate these issues.

There are many other initiatives that we have engaged in. It's important that we work with the schools on prevention of violence. I can tell you that I've instructed my ministry to see if we can craft a program which might lead us, then, in consultation and conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Education, to have a no-violence policy or a violence-free environment throughout the schools in British Columbia. We have been doing some work in that area. It's very important that we start with our young in the schools.

There is a group called TCO2 -- Taking Care of Ourselves and Taking Care of Others -- and there is also a group called 841-KOZ. Those two groups have been performing before students across British Columbia. I understand that they have performed in front of thousands of students over the last several years. We are adding one more drama troupe to those two, and that drama troupe is going to be educating young British Columbians in the schools on the issue of hate crimes: how to deal with them, how to understand them, and how to become, essentially, activists and fighters in a cause to make British Columbia a more just, caring place.

Those are some of the initiatives that we have taken in British Columbia. There are many others. It's important that we recognize another area in our struggle to be more just in British Columbia. That is the area of violence against women. I believe this week is the anniversary of the Gakhal incident in Vernon. There were two inquests: one in the Gakhal matter and one in the Sharon Velisek matter, both in Vernon. I can tell you that right away that we put into place as many recommendations of the two inquests as we could, and we are working to put the others into place.

More importantly, we are waiting for a report from Mr. Justice Wood, who is looking at this issue in a very comprehensive fashion. I'm told that that report will be forthcoming at the earliest possible.... Once that report comes, we will be looking at it, consulting with the police forces across the province and making sure that we are more rigorous and vigorous in pursuing this policy against violence against women in relationships in British Columbia, because women in British Columbia deserve our attention, deserve our commitment. I can tell you that they are on my case almost every

day -- and legitimately so -- to make sure that the police forces across British Columbia vigorously enforce the policy that exists and that we amend, change and improve the policy if we have to, subsequent to any reports or recommendations that we get.

It's important that we all work together on both sides of the House. In my capacity as Attorney General I have attempted to deal with these issues in as non-partisan a fashion as I can. It's important that the justice portfolio in this province remains committed to dealing with these issues which are non-partisan, non-political, in somewhat of an impartial fashion. I'm sure that we have the support of the opposition on all of these issues that I have enumerated, and there are many others in my ministry that we're working on. It's important that. . . . Obviously we will carry on this debate in estimates, as well, and we will be better informed.

T. Nebbeling: I also rise to speak in response to the throne speech, and I should really stick to that. But I am really tempted by some of the things that have been said this morning, especially when the Attorney General spoke about the fear that he feels lives within the communities throughout the whole province of British Columbia. I totally agree with him. I feel that fear in my riding as well, and I will spend some more time on that. He feels there is a sense of hopelessness within the communities of British Columbia when they are talking about the political leaders that they have to face daily in the media, through the news and through their actions. I also agree with that, and I believe that that feeling and that sense of hopelessness is very prevalent in my riding, as well.

At the same time, I also must say -- and I don't know if this is the right place, but I'm going to try it -- that if the Attorney General, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, feels that way, why is it -- because this is all because of crime -- that the member can continue to support policies within his ministry? How can he continue to support new initiatives by this government, such as gambling, which will just create more fear within the minds of many people in British Columbia communities?

When I talk about policies that I believe created fear and hopelessness about how we as politicians work, I talk about the policy of not sending back criminals that are on warrants in other provinces, because the cost is something that this government will not accept. I think people know that there are 1,500 criminals -- at least 1,500 -- walking in British Columbia that have warrants outstanding from other provinces. They are not being taken care of; they are not sent back. I think that is one of the reasons that people have fear for crime on the streets.

I think the policy of closing down courthouses adds to that fear. When the courthouse discussion in Chilliwack was raging, one person, who had to face a criminal trial in another community. . . . That lady had to take a bus, as she had accused somebody of rape. I think you have heard the story. When she was on the bus to take this trip of approximately 60 kilometres, the perceived perpetrator of the crime was also on the bus. I think this is creating fear, and I do not understand why the Attorney General's office is even considering further closure of courthouses.

It is these elements that I think are part of creating that fear, and I hope that the member for Vancouver-Kensington can indeed look within himself and respond to that fear in a manner so that these elements, at least, can be eliminated from adding to fear within the hearts of so many people. I just had to say that quickly, because I did agree with a lot of things that he said otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about my riding, West Vancouver-Garibaldi. What I'm going to do. . . . I'm actually changing my speech considerably because of the shortness of time. I'm also going to respond, in a sense, to the member for Skeena, who finished his presentation with the words that this budget serves all British Columbians very well. I'm going to go through my riding and talk about the uniqueness and the demographics of my riding, and I will use some examples of why I don't think people in my riding believe that this budget serves them well.

My riding is unique in the sense that to visit every constituent, I have to travel four hours. It starts in West Vancouver and goes right on up to Anderson Lake in the north. But starting in West Vancouver, I spoke with a person last week, a senior citizen, who is 83 years old. This senior citizen has been living in West Vancouver for the last 48 years. He has owned his home for 48 years, and he came to me to talk about the fact that he now faced a property tax increase of $900. That $900 represented two months of food for him. He can't afford the $900, and he wanted to know why. When we talk about off-loading. . . . I'm very happy to hear the expression "off-loading" today, because in the past we used the expression "downloading." This is not downloading. This is off-loading the financial responsibility from the provincial government onto municipal government, and municipal government is forced to go back to the property owners and collect additional money.

This senior citizen has to cough up another $900 that he just does not have. He is on a fixed income: his pension. The fact that he has owned a property for 48 years that has escalated in value to the point that his property taxes today drive him almost into bankruptcy is something that has been totally neglected in the consideration by this government of how they could get more money out of the pocket of the taxpayers.

Because this is another tax imposed on people, West Vancouver will be forced to add 7 percent to its property tax. They have to recoup the cost created by the off-loading onto municipalities of what traditionally was grant money, which the communities were receiving as assistance to pay for the infrastructure needed in the communities. So that one senior citizen, I believe, speaks for thousands of senior citizens today who face the same situation: a fixed income, high property tax and no longer being able to afford it.

Now, I know it has been said that there is a program for senior citizens where they can actually defer payment of property tax and make it the responsibility of future beneficiaries of their will. Most senior citizens grew up, I believe, with the principle that you lived within your means. People did not have that easy attitude to just borrow and borrow and borrow and deal with the consequences later. To many senior citizens, the deferral of paying property tax is an offensive idea, and they will just not participate in it. They would rather cut other items that provide them with the quality of life to pay that property tax bill than go into debt and create a liability for the future generation of children who will inherit one day and then have to face that property tax bill -- including, of course, the interest that is added and compounded over all the years.

Mr. Speaker, off-loading is an extremely unfair tax to thousands of people in my riding, and I know that it is for thousands more in other ridings, as well. I think the govern-

ment promised very strongly that they would not add any new tax while they were in power, but that promise has been broken. It has been broken, and this has been felt most heavily by people that can least afford it. They are people on fixed incomes such as the seniors.

The same applies to the community of Squamish, but in the community of Squamish it is even worse. Because of the many initiatives that this government has undertaken when it comes to forestry. . . . These initiatives have eliminated for many citizens of Squamish, which is a resource town, many opportunities to make a decent living and thereby do what they thought they could do not so long ago -- and that's fulfil their financial requirements.

When you come to Squamish, Mr. Speaker, and meet with the people living there, you do meet a lot of people who are indeed living in fear and uncertainty about the future. And it is all related to: "Will I have a job? Can I fulfil my financial responsibilities I undertook when things were good in British Columbia and people were allowed to earn a living?" Because of the protected-areas strategy, the annual allowable cut reduction, the spotted owl issue and the other initiatives that have been introduced since 1991, very few people who traditionally used to derive a very good income from the forests in that area can count on that again today. I will speak a little bit later on the impact not just in Squamish but also in other communities throughout British Columbia.

I'm very proud to be living in Whistler -- part-time because of my job now. I'm particularly proud because Whistler is an example where people with little money were given an opportunity not so long ago to invest in their own future and to basically take charge of their own lives. I was fortunate that when I came to Whistler in 1980, it started to develop into that dream of becoming a world-renowned ski resort. But it was people like myself, with very little money but a lot of energy and willingness to work, that made the difference in achieving the success that Whistler today experiences.

It is not Whistler as a one-corporation-owned town that has led to the success, Mr. Speaker. It is the sum of all the small businesses that started in the eighties and dared to keep fighting to make a living and be successful. Unfortunately, again because of off-loading of grant money onto municipalities, on top of all the other bureaucracy and paperwork that communities like Whistler are facing, a lot of people today are saying: "No longer for me." They're throwing in the towel; they're looking for other opportunities. When it comes to the small business people, no new money is coming into town, and it's really a shame to see all these government initiatives killing that entrepreneurial spirit that has made this province so proud, and such a province of investment. I really regret seeing every person in my community of Whistler who says today: "Sorry, Ted. There was a time that I wanted to be there. I had some businesses I'm trying to sell off. Why? I can't get around it again financially. I cannot deal with the bureaucracy. I cannot deal with all the fees. I cannot deal with all the taxes."

Then on top of this, this year there's this additional cost to the small business sector, based on the fact that the government is not honouring its commitments to the grant program. It's just another example of why this off-loading is such a horrendously undermining element, and it will have a very long-lasting effect on how people in this province are going to consider their own future -- if they indeed are willing to take hold of that future.

The same goes for Pemberton, because Pemberton, D'Arcy, Devine, Anderson Lake. . . . Again, they're communities that depend totally on the forest industry, and the opportunities have just dissipated. At the same time, these communities are still forced to pick up more from the provincial tab. It's not right; for that reason alone, I have to obviously reject the budget.

But it is not just in my riding, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about jobs and job creation all the time. It's a shame that I only have a little bit of time left, but I want to talk about job creation. The member for Skeena made it very clear that he is a strong believer that this government has created all these jobs -- 40,000 last year. Well, I think he should look around.

In the lower mainland, the trend has started. According to a study done for this government by Simons Reid Collins and Lefebvre, 4,000 jobs will be lost in the very near future in the Fraser Valley, and that is already happening. We see in the member for Skeena's own riding that West Fraser Timber shut down a mill, and 400 people were sent home for six weeks. The only reason that West Fraser Timber opened up the doors again was that they were given a promise by this government that they would get consideration for a restructuring of the stumpage fees and the Forest Practices Code.

Every signal we are getting from this government today is that they will not reconsider stumpage fees or the Forest Practices Code and its negative implementations. Therefore, in the very near future, West Fraser will most likely have to stop operating again. Look at Mackenzie Mills in Surrey, 65 jobs gone; in Lillooet, 30 millworkers are gone; at Tolko Industries, 150 employees are out of work. It goes on and on and on. I have a whole list of these items.

Mr. Speaker, let me put it to you this way. This government committed to the forest industry and the workers in the forest industry that no jobs would be lost. Forest Renewal B.C. was going to be the tool to indeed create jobs. I have a quote here from Mr. Stanyer about how he has done with his job and what he has achieved within his job mandate. This week in an interview in the Squamish Chief, he said: "We have not been successful in creating the kind of forest employment that we wanted." Then Mr. Stanyer went on at another conference in February to say: "Yes, FRBC has created 8,000 person-years of employment." But then he said: "We concede, however, that the 8,000 figure is based on models, not on reality."

When we started to ask Mr. Stanyer specifics about this 8,000 -- how many people he could actually identify and how many jobs had been created over the last three years by Forest Renewal B.C. -- he came up with 843 jobs, in spite of his constantly saying to every organization he could meet with that they have created 8,000 jobs. I think the 40,000 jobs that have been produced in the mind of the member for Skeena are just jobs on paper. You will not find the jobs actually created and the income that people deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for a much longer period of time. I think my speech up to now has clearly indicated that I think this government is on the wrong track. I believe it is undermining the economy of the province. It is undermining the minds of many people who no longer would dare to invest in this province. It's a shameful performance up to now. I regret to say that I do not see any change in that shameful performance for the upcoming year, and I will continue to fight with everything I have in me to see the changes that are going to be needed to get the people of this province once again to believe that there is hope for all in the future of the province of British Columbia.

I. Chong: Today visiting us in the gallery are 18 students from Braefoot Elementary School, representing their student council. They are from grades 3 to 7. Accompanying them are their teacher, Mr. Merv Campbell, along with a number of the parents. They have just had a tour of the Legislature. It's their first time here, and would the House please make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: It is indeed a privilege to be here today and to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to say that I would like to be able to work together with this government towards their presumed objectives of economic growth and social justice, and I wish I could. The unfortunate thing is that we can't work together. Unfortunately, this government is ideologically driven and facts that stand in their way get run over. I don't believe that we can work together, because I don't believe we even agree on the destination, much less the way to get there.

I wish I could believe that we are talking about the same things. For instance, take the word "commitment." The throne speech was loaded with the word "commitment." The speech referred to the government's various commitments to the public at least 15 times. In light of all that has transpired, it seems incredible that the government would purport to make commitments. However, in the lexicon of this present NDP government, commitment might accurately be defined as "kind of like the idea of." Now, hon. Speaker, the public still has the quaint idea that a commitment is a binding promise, not just a casual interest. Knowing this, the government may have theorized that if it repeats the word enough, it will eventually be associated with some of the solid, dependable, trustworthy-type connotations of the common definition.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the real difference. The throne speech claims: "My government is committed to creating 21,000 new jobs in our forest sector by the year 2001." Hon. Speaker, your average guy in the street thinks that the government is saying: "We'll create 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector" -- no matter what, it will find a way. You can see how this is different from "my government kind of likes the idea of creating 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector."

Now, I'm not sure which is the greatest error: to ignore the manner in which the government deceived the public on the budget or to harp on a subject we are all somewhat tired of. Yes, I am tired of it too. I'm tired of the fact that I can't trust one word I hear from this government. I'm tired of the lack of accountability, and I'm profoundly and sadly tired of the government's cynical disregard -- or perhaps "contempt" is the better word -- for the people that elected them.

Well, the past is the past, right? The government grossly and knowingly misrepresented the province's fiscal affairs in the last two budgets, but there is a new budget tabled now, a fresh start. The debt management plan has been rechristened the financial management plan, having made no progress or serious attempt to manage debt. I presume "debt-proof" to be a word too difficult for even the most professional of spin doctors, and it had to go.

Let's deal with the new budget on its own merits, if I may. There has been some positive reaction to one aspect of the budget -- namely, its conservative assumptions, presumably with respect to economic performance. This lends the budget an air of reality much missed in previous budgets. Is it possible that the NDP will (a) come clean on a budget and (b) get its fiscal house in order? No.

What is happening here is that the NDP is lowering our expectations to the point where we will all be ecstatic if they do nothing more than come in under their current projection of $187 million. One year ago we were told we would have a $98 million surplus, but the government hopes this will all be forgotten if only it delivers on its deficit goal. I expect it will. I cannot conceive of them projecting another bottom line they can't attain.

Okay, let's suppose that they reach this budgeted deficit goal. What will they really have accomplished? Not a deficit of $187 million. Maybe $187 million so far as the government's general revenue fund is concerned, but not $187 million so far as the taxpayer is concerned. Here is how they plan to reach this $187 million deficit goal: dumping the cost of government services from the government ledger onto Crown corporations. FRBC will have to absorb the $200 million cost of funding the Ministry of Forests silviculture program. A new B.C. transport and financing authority will be created to pay for highways and roadwork. By demanding dividends from its Crown corporations far in excess of their ability to pay, they will reap $373 million in dividend revenue from B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation already $8 billion in debt, and another $56 million from B.C. Rail. That's $10 million more than its reported income last year.

The selling of $170 million in government assets represents a one-time cash infusion to government and permanent loss in capacity. The government has never realized anything near the value of government assets in previous sales. This fact, combined with the ongoing cost of leasing back necessary items, may well contribute to a deficit increase in coming years. The taxpayer must foot the bill for all of these things, regardless of whose book they appear in. It seems to me that if the government really wanted to come clean on its finances, the taxpayer would have to be told that the deficit is something more than a trillion dollars.

Enough about the NDP's budget. What about the economy? If the B.C. economy outperforms expectations, the deficit may actually be lower than projected -- all other things being constant and realistic, of course. On the other hand, if the B.C. economy performs poorly, the deficit will balloon. The economy does not perform in a vacuum, however. Economic performance is more than a roll of the dice. This government has blamed the economy for disappointing its fantastic projections, but government policies have something to do with the economy. B.C. is a have province. There are several have-not provinces that have run budget surpluses in the same general economic climate in which B.C. currently operates. I think the B.C. government must take some responsibility for this province's economic performance and develop its policies with an eye to improving the economy.

The biggest problem with B.C.'s economic policy is that it is not so much policy as ideology. I don't expect the NDP will ever be able to stimulate business in British Columbia until they dispense with the ideological blinders. The NDP has done nothing more than quibble over how the economic pie should be divided. Rather than seek ways to expand the economy and increase the tax base, they just increase the effective tax rate and the cost of doing business.

I think the essence of the government's entire economic policy is encapsulated in the throne speech reference to excessive corporate profits. Here's something that should cause everyone that does business in British Columbia to shudder. What is an excessive profit? I don't know. It would appear that the NDP is reserving that decision to itself, to be made on an ad hoc basis. It is obvious that they are presupposing a single-

sized pie, and that the only way that these greedy capitalists can wreak greater profits is on the backs of the workers. It is wrong to focus on whether corporate profits are excessive. That is like saying the economy is doing too well. We should be concerned, rather, with the mobility of these profits. I would like to see this government put some effort into encouraging that profit to remain in British Columbia rather than discouraging it altogether.

The throne speech reference I just alluded to related to pharmaceutical company profits. Let's continue with this explanation to re-examine the dirty little connotation the NDP has attached to corporate profits generally. Pharmaceutical research and development is prohibitively expensive. Much of the profit must be reinvested in research and development. I think we would all agree that we all benefit from the availability of drugs made possible through this research. Some of the remaining profits will pay for expansions, equipment, upgrades and new jobs, all of which stimulate the economy, and what is left would be distributed amongst the shareholders or investors, a great many of whom are now ordinary people purchasing mutual funds through RRSPs.

The government's interference in the pharmaceutical industry's profits through this reference-based pricing is a risk-free move politically that seems to save us all money, but that is only because the B.C. market is such a small sliver of the international market in which those industries operate. Loss of sales in British Columbia will have little effect on product development incentive provided by profit. For us, hon. Speaker, it is the ideology itself that is dangerous, because applied to British Columbia businesses or any business with a large investment or market in British Columbia, it will cause stagnation and, ultimately, collapse.

Job creation efforts by this government have been fruitless. Why? Because the focus has been on the effect -- the jobless -- rather than on the cause: a poor investment climate. The Labour Code brought in by the NDP sent all sorts of businesses packing. The lessons learned from broken government commitments like the Royal Oak mine, and the onerous taxes and fees and expensive regulatory requirements, have also contributed to making B.C. business just that much less competitive.

This is a global economy. I don't propose that we attempt to compete directly with China, but we had better be competitive with Alberta and Washington, because that is where B.C. business survivors will relocate. Now, I'm sure all those at Evans Forest Products Ltd. in Golden are appreciative of the job protection commissioner's efforts to save their jobs recently, and I'm sure that all the Repap employees will be similarly grateful if they are able to keep their jobs. But I do not believe that anyone, including the employees of these companies, seriously thinks that it is good for British Columbia in general to save these companies and these jobs, when it means that the creditors are forced to accept a fraction of what they are legitimately owed and the companies themselves become dependent on one form of government subsidization or another. The viability of the forest industry itself must be addressed, and this should include a review of all government policies that affect the bottom line.

The budget made reference to a salary savings of $100 million from government downsizing. Before the government brags too much about this, I think it should present the taxpayers with a bill for all the voluntary severance and early retirement packages, for the expense of moving employees to take positions in distant locations, for the cost of reorganizing and moving whole government offices. The cost of reposting employees to positions which they have little training, experience and often little interest in also remains to be counted. I would be very much surprised if any savings were realized this year or ever, for that matter. And we have yet to determine whether government has maintained the capacity to do its job.

Related to this is the government's boast of commitment to environmental protection and all the new legislation it will introduce to this end. With all due respect, how does the government intend to enforce all this legislation? I have heard from the rank and file of government employees that the enforcement of much of the existing environmental legislation was virtually non-existent with the previous staff and funding levels. The ministry responsible for much of this enforcement, the Ministry of Environment, was severely impacted in the budget cuts, and it has less capacity than ever. Enforcement and monitoring is presently an exercise in paper-shuffling.

Like it or not, we are highly dependent on the accuracy of industry self-reporting, as well as on their own self-regulating and self-policing efforts. In my view, it is the responsibility and social conscience of modern industry that is currently responsible for environmental protection, not the empty threats within restrictive legislation. Government should be giving industry some credit. I'm not saying that, left alone, industry will always favour sound environmental practices. Rather, what I am saying is that we live in an increasingly competitive global environment. You cannot couple restrictive, expensive legislation with a nominal enforcement and monitoring capacity and just expect everyone to fall into line. The Forest Practices Code, for example, has imposed a huge cost on the forest industry, much of it administrative, with which we may well be breaking the camel's back.

I challenge this government to audit the cost-effectiveness of this legislation, preferably by an independent auditor. We must encourage the profitability of environmental protection and give the industry an intrinsic motivation. We have seen this working in the forest industry. As it has become more accountable to the public and to environmentally conscious foreign markets, it has had to adopt more environmentally friendly practices to protect its bottom line.

At the same time, we must ensure that the capacity to enforce restrictive legislation exists within the government, that the legislation is not so onerous as to destroy the British Columbia economy and that there exist positive incentives, such as stumpage or tax rebates, as a reward for environmentally friendly measures, and perhaps some cost recovery for industry's environmental protection plans, systems and technology development. Can the government afford to give stumpage fees or rebate taxes back? I don't know. Can the government afford to force our resource-based industry out of business or out of the province? I guess we will see.

I've mentioned Evans and Repap already, and it is obvious that the forest industry is not as vital as it once was. Most of the communities in my constituency of Prince George-Omineca depend on this industry for their livelihood, and I am concerned about the survival of these communities. FRBC was foisted on the forest industry as necessary to forestall the protectionist lobby in the States, a point which is still debatable. It was accepted by the industry, however, because the FRBC fund was defined as one which would be turned back to the forestry-based communities themselves to ensure their long-term viability.

We have seen how the FRBC board, largely NDP appointees, was prepared to turn over some $400 million into

general revenue. Now, in response to the dimly heard roaring of the public, it appears that the government has opted for the more circumspect route of simply assigning former ministry functions to the FRBC account. I'm sure the government will make some announcement in the near future -- with a straight face -- about how it hasn't had to touch the FRBC fund.

Well, it's all the same to the taxpayer whether the government takes FRBC funds to pay its bills or sends the bill directly to FRBC. This account was supposed to be a sacred trust established in cooperation with the forest industry with certain ground rules. One of those rules was and is that FRBC will not fund non-incremental government activities -- in other words, those things that the government is already doing. Where does this government get the nerve to take the $200 million silviculture program from the Ministry of Forests budget and dump it onto FRBC? To add insult to injury, 40 percent of FRBC's take is absorbed in its own administrative cost.

I think the forest industry, its employees and all of those that live in forestry-dependent towns have the right to be outraged. This fund is taking money out of forestry towns, not investing in them. Besides paying the operating costs of government and perpetuating itself, what else has FRBC done with its windfall surplus? Many good things, I am sure. At what cost? No one knows. How effectively? Again, no one knows. I have even heard that FRBC is measuring its success by how quickly it can spend the money. Does that sound like prudent management? But the whole thing is just running over with good intentions, and that is the main thing.

Unfortunately, in my own constituency of Prince George-Omineca, we have seen some of these good intentions take a bizarre twist. PG Wood, an established and successful value-added timber processor employing some 120 men and women, may yet be put out of business by the reallocation of its balsam supply so that some other speculative enterprise may attempt to do much the same thing with FRBC subsidization. Any jobs that might be created, however short-term, would no doubt be reflected in the proud proclamation of job creation successes. But where would we note the negative ledger of jobs lost at PG Wood? I challenge this government to keep job destruction statistics.

The issue in all of this is control. Whether it be the budget or job creation, the government is only interested in control: control of information and what reaches the public; control of job creation to emphasize its own artificial capital infusions and according to its own criteria; and now, finally, control over principles, ethics and morality.

A good example of the latter is the regionalization of health boards. I believe that regionalization once meant that Victoria was yielding control to the individual regions, so that those best able to determine the particular needs of the area could determine the funding priorities. It now means that local and community boards must be consolidated into regional boards so that Victoria is better able to dictate its terms. It is no secret that the hospital board in Kelowna was dismissed and replaced because of opposition to abortion. It is no secret that the recent dismissal of the health board in Langley had a similar motivation.

This regionalization is not intended to find even more savings, as was so blithely claimed in the throne speech. It is a measured design to replace elected members and local control with party appointees that all share a taste for the NDP's particular ideological brew. The Hon. Joy MacPhail has as much as admitted that she intends that no one opposed to abortion sit on a health board. This government has made it clear that it does not recognize the sanctity of human life; neither does it recognize the legitimacy or the rights of those that would uphold it. The government has also demonstrated its contempt for democracy by brazenly dismissing dissenting elected boards and replacing them with their own choice.

In school boards, too, we've also seen some very high-handed tactics. Schools that were, for instance, teaching creation theory alongside the theory of evolution were forced to drop creation from the curriculum. This was not a scientific decision but an ideological one. The NDP has always been for choice, so long as your choice agrees with theirs.

This government is an ideological juggernaut. It is destructive of the province's economic health, as well as of the institution of democracy itself. It is so arrogant as to presume that it is best able to determine what is best for every person in every circumstance, irrespective of the business and financial community's protestations. This government supposes it can stimulate the economy better than the profit incentive and can create jobs better than the private sector, irrespective of the moral or ideological views of the majority. This government is hastening to implement its own nightmarish utopia. It continues to pursue a strategy aimed at disenfranchising those who hold views which differ from their own, whether those views be held by regular folks or by elected representatives on local boards.

Irrespective of the public's right to be informed and to make decisions on election day, this government has withheld and misrepresented vital information to the public for the purpose of staying in power. I am reminded of a quote from George Orwell's 1984: "Whatever the party holds to be the truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality, except by looking through the eyes of the party."

Finally, I wish to close with one more quote. It is from the Bible, but I'm sure that people of all faiths shall be able to identify with it. It's found in Isaiah 59:14: "So justice is driven back and righteousness stands at a distance. Truth has stumbled in the streets. Honesty cannot enter."

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, after the doom and gloom that I just heard, I'm wondering whether the roof of this building is going to collapse and whether we should vacate. I wonder if we're living in the same province.

Before I begin my remarks, it's a real pleasure for me to make an introduction. In the gallery today, we have a number of distinguished visitors -- three to be exact. They are: Gillian Trumper, the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities; Steve Thorlakson, the mayor of Fort St. John; and Richard Taylor, the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Will the House please make them welcome.

I rise today to give my response to the throne speech and to outline how I believe that it will impact on my own community, my riding of Port Coquitlam. I'd like to talk for a few minutes about my riding and some of the things that have happened and that I see happening over this coming year and over the next few years. One of the things I find really important in talking to my constituents is that they place a great emphasis on the government following through on its commitments. We heard a number of comments a few moments ago about commitments from the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca. I always find it interesting that the opposition seems to feel that if, one week after the election or one week after the throne speech or a month later, you haven't

built every school you said you were going to build or every road you said you were going to build, or you haven't protected every park that you said you were going to protect, somehow you have completely betrayed the trust of the people of this province and you have broken every promise that you made in the election campaign.

Well, hon. Speaker, I want to remind the opposition that governments are elected for a four- to five-year mandate -- not a month, not a week, not a day, but four to five years -- and they're judged on their record at the end of that time. I am confident that at the end of four or five years when we next go to the polls, I'll be able to return to my constituents and point out to them all the things that we said we'd do at the last election and show them where each and every one of them has been done.

You know, my riding is a fast-growing constituency. In fact, census figures should come out in the next month that should show it has grown from the 42,000 people that lived there at the last election to over 85,000 people in this past year. So in a five-year period, the population of my constituency has more than doubled. It's an unprecedented rate of growth in the lower mainland, an unprecedented rate of growth throughout the province. Why has it grown so fast? Well, it has grown for a whole host of reasons: because we have a great climate, a lot of scenery, a host of opportunities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: My hon. colleague from Vancouver-Fraserview says: "Good government." While the rest of the country has been struggling under moderate growth, through a recession, through a lack of opportunity, this province has been booming and continues to boom because of the actions of this government in encouraging investment.

Hon. Speaker, housing starts in my community alone create thousands and thousands of jobs each year, and they can't keep up. It has created an unprecedented demand for services, for schools, for roads and for hospitals. In the past few months, I helped open up the new replacement for the Bailey bridge. It was a project done under the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program. It was an important project for my community, because it replaced the one-lane Bailey bridge, which was the only point of entry and egress for a community of 50,000 people. I said that when elected we were going to get it replaced, and we did. It's a commitment met.

Later on this year, I will be there to help open the counterflow on the other side of my constituency, on the border of the Pitt River, where another major bottleneck will be eliminated thanks to an investment by this government in the people of British Columbia and in the people of my riding. It has recognized that as populations grow, infrastructure needs to be built and services need to be provided. Those investments create jobs, and that's what the throne speech is about: jobs.

You know, I find it really interesting. Over the last few months, we have had considerable discussion and debate around construction of new schools. We hear bellowing every day -- every week -- from the opposition: "You're spending too much money; you need to make cutbacks." At the same time, they're out there saying: "Build our schools; build more schools; you're not building enough schools; there are too many portables." And they can't seem to get the message that to build a school we have to borrow the money, and it means an increase in debt. Well, talk to the people, the parents and the families in my constituency, and they'll tell you that it is important to do long-term investment in construction of schools.

Since becoming a MLA, hon. Speaker, I have presided at the opening of over 11 brand-new schools in my constituency. It's a huge investment. It's a huge number of jobs, from the people that built those schools to the people that teach in those schools to the people that maintain those schools. Yet the Liberal opposition seems to think that somehow those aren't valuable jobs, that somehow it's a waste of money, that we have been increasing the debt of this province and bankrupting the people, and that we shouldn't be doing that. They have two standards; they have two faces. They don't want to put it up front to the people of the province that in order to invest, in order to build infrastructure, we as a province do have to borrow the money. In this province, 8 cents of every dollar goes towards debt. That's the lowest of any province in this country.

You know what, hon. Speaker? They say that there's not enough money being spent in education. Yet we in this province spend more money than any other province on education. Last year alone we spent over $7,000 per student. That compares with $4,400 in Prince Edward Island and just over $6,000 per student in Alberta. This year, when just about every other province is cutting funding to education, this province is increasing funding to education. For the last five years this province has increased funding for education every single year. No other province can claim that record.

The opposition always points to Alberta, saying that they are the province we should be emulating and that they seem to have all the answers. Well, if the answer is an increase in the price of a barrel of oil, I guess they're right. But look at their record of what they are doing in terms or providing services to people. Look at what they're doing in terms of school construction. They have been cutting education for the past number of years. Over the last five years we've increased funding to education by over 20 percent, and student populations have increased by 14 percent, whereas the province of Alberta has had a 5.5 percent reduction in spending on the students in their province.

In Ontario it's even worse. The Harris government has reduced spending on education by almost 20 percent over the last five years. This year alone, they reduced spending on education by 7.2 percent. Those aren't my figures; those aren't this government's figures. Those are the figures of the government of Ontario. What's really interesting and what's really fascinating about this whole thing is that for the last election in Ontario, when the Tories -- the Conservatives, under Mike Harris -- campaigned, which party did the official opposition support? Which party did the B.C. Liberal Party go and support? Was it, as you would think, the Ontario Liberal Party? No, it wasn't. They sent their staff to observe and take lessons from the Ontario Conservative Party, the party that is cutting education by 7.2 percent. I find it more than a little fascinating that in the last election campaign, the B.C. Liberal Party -- as they like to refer to themselves -- tried to model their campaign on that of the Ontario Conservative Party, the same party. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, we did read the plan, hon. member, and we realized that in your forecast you had forgotten to mention that there was a huge amount of money -- $3 billion, I think -- that had to be spent on post-secondary education. When you included that number in your plan, your numbers just didn't add up. We did read your plan, hon. member.

Anyway, hon. Speaker, knowing the lateness of the hour as we approach the lunch hour, I would like to take this opportunity to adjourn the debate.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Point of Privilege

Point of Privilege

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Official Report of DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Point of Privilege

Point of Privilege

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY