Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 10 -- Thursday, April 3, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf and on behalf of the entire Legislature, I am delighted to introduce the delegation of the Legal Constitutional Administrative Review Committee from the Queensland Legislative Assembly. They are here, and they have been studying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as native title. Those questions, as you know, are very important in British Columbia and in Canada as well.

I am delighted to be able to introduce: Mrs. Judy Gamin, MLA, member for Burleigh, chair of the committee; Mr. Frank Carrol, MLA, member for Mansfield; Mr. Darryl Briskey, MLA, member for Cleveland; Hon. Glen Milliner, MLA, member for Ferny Grove; Ms. Fiona Simpson, MLA, member for Maroochydore; Mr. Neil Laurie, research director; and Mr. David Thannhauser, research officer. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: In the House today is the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Gillian Trumper, and the mayor of Fort St. John, Steve Thorlakson. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

L. Reid: Seated in the gallery today are 56 grade 6 and 7 students from Mitchell Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers: Mr. Sellitti, Mr. Allison, and student teacher Ms. Hannah. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like the House to welcome two old friends of mine that are visiting Victoria from North Vancouver, Elizabeth and Bill Burge.

Hon. D. Miller: I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mayors Trumper and Thorlakson from the UBCM. I'm delighted, because they advised me that they'd missed me.

R. Kasper: It's my pleasure to ask the House to welcome a friend, a very active member involved with the labour movement and also a very active member in my constituency association, and a former constituent of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. His name is Tom Harkins. Please join me in welcoming Tom.

G. Abbott: I'd like to introduce today two constituents from Shuswap who are both students at the University of Victoria. Jon Fleming is a former student of mine from Okanagan University College, in political science. Obviously he's done very well: he's become a senator now -- regrettably, perhaps, not at a senatorial institution that actually pays for his services, but a senator at the University of Victoria. Jay Schlosser is also a student at the University of Victoria. Make them welcome.

B. Goodacre: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today my son Murray and his new bride Penny, who have just returned to Canada from their marriage in Maui, where I was pleased to have been able to be there for at least three days to witness the event -- and their dear friend Trent, who lives here in Victoria. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have a delegation from the Pacific Northwest economic region. Accompanying them is a delegation from the Ocesund Committee, which is a region encompassing part of Denmark and southern Sweden. In the delegation are Ilmar Reepalu, mayor of the city of Malm�, and his son Anton; Jans Kristensen, the senior managing director from the city of Copenhagen; and Burgar Olafson and wife Marianne Lanabeth from Copenhagen. Accompanying them is retired Washington State Senator Alan Bluechel. They are here to look at the Pacific Northwest economic region, of which British Columbia is a part. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

I. Waddell: I hope the House will allow me to rise dressed in my kilt, because it's a very special day and I have some people to introduce who are connected with it. The Attorney General has kindly declared April 6 Tartan Day in British Columbia. This continues a tradition that was started by my colleagues who were in the last House, Frank Garden and Fred Jackson, who could speak Scottish a lot better than me -- one of them spoke Gaelic.

Just to give the House a flavour of this, it says: "Whereas the Scottish people have made contributions in a number of areas, including exploration, settlement, government and social progress in British Columbia. . . ." I want to introduce it. There are a series of events in Victoria around Tartan Day: at the Hillside Mall starting today and going on to the Kirkin' o' the Tartan ceremony on April 6 at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church on Douglas Street.

I want the House to make welcome the following people who are all in their tartan and their kilts: Art Sutherland, Derek Rhind, Mike Hanna, Mary Hanna, Vern Whittaker, Ian Sutherland, Charles MacLean, Bill Weighton, Betty Weighton, Bill Young, Bill Johnston, Nancy Johnston, Lynneve Stewart, Anne Fraser, Mary Robertson and the chief of the clan here, Gerry Dunn.

And would the House give a special welcome to a woman who 50 years ago brought a little boy, who was dressed in a tartan kilt, to Canada on the plane. That little boy is down here now and up there is my mother Isobel Waddell -- "waddle," in Scotland.

G. Campbell: I can only assume, now that the Attorney General has declared Tartan Day, that everyone in British Columbia will be able to wear plaid at least one day a year.

The Speaker: Let Hansard note that the Leader of the Opposition rose on a matter of privilege.

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Job Protection Amendment Act, 1997.

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

The bill is very, very straightforward and simple, and I know all members of the House will support it. It simply

rescinds the sunset provision in the Job Protection Act and makes that office permanent, but allows for future rescinding by regulation.

I don't need to go on at length about the work done by the office of the job protection commissioner. I think all members of the House should be familiar with the literally thousands of jobs that have been saved through the activities of that office -- most recently in the community of Golden: Evans Forest Products Ltd., 600 to 700 direct jobs. So it's doing its work; it's helping British Columbians. I'm sure all members will join me in giving the bill speedy passage.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Weisgerber: This bill repeals the Senatorial Selection Act of 1990 and replaces it with a permanent mechanism for senatorial elections. Passage of this Senatorial Election Act would ensure that all future British Columbia senatorial vacancies are filled only after voters have selected their choice for a Senator by way of a provincewide election.

Under our current system, an appointment to the Senate continues to be based on political patronage. Appointments are made at the whim of Prime Ministers, who appoint political cronies -- often as a reward for longstanding loyalty and party service. Senatorial elections would be a major step forward in reforming this discredited institution into a body which is elected, equal and effective.

This bill provides for a senatorial election to be held concurrently with the next regular municipal, provincial or federal election that first occurs after the vacancy arises. By holding the senatorial election in conjunction with another election, the electoral machinery is already in gear. Voters would go to the polls only once but vote in two different elections.

Selecting a Senator by popular vote is long overdue in British Columbia. The imminent retirement of B.C. Senator Len Marchand will free up one seat for our province, and that vacancy gives us the perfect opportunity to have the first publicly elected Senator from British Columbia.

The current Senate is an ineffective and unaccountable institution in desperate need of reform. This bill gives all political parties in this Legislature the opportunity to categorically reject the current Senate appointment process in favour of one that is truly representative of British Columbians.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour to present four reports: the Legal Services Society 1995-96 annual report; the British Columbia Council of Human Rights annual report, '95-96; the Ministry of Attorney General annual report, '95-96; and the British Columbia Police Commission annual report, '95-96.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, on Friday, April 5, nearly one year ago, Rajwar Gakhal and eight members of her family were murdered by her estranged husband, Mark Chahal. Two other family members were injured, and one child was a witness to the murders. Out of the horror of this event arose questions around firearms acquisition policy and about the way police handle reports of violence against women in relationships. These questions are being dealt with by the Attorney General, who has taken strong action in the wake of the Vernon massacre.

Evidence from the subsequent investigations shows clearly that not only did Rajwar Gakhal experience violence in her relationship, she was also the victim of criminal harassment -- what we call stalking. Despite the fact that Rajwar documented the escalating pattern of threats and harassment, despite the fact that she provided this information to the police, despite her efforts, still this tragedy occurred. As a result, the police are more aware of the need to vigorously enforce the policy on violence against women in relationships.

This was an extreme outcome of violence against women in relationships -- the horrifying consequence of a series of criminal acts. Criminal harassment is a pattern of threats and actions that are intended to frighten the victim and, as in this circumstance, can lead to death. The trauma has long-term and devastating effects on the victims, their families and their communities. We are all affected by this kind of violence.

Hon. Speaker, I ask that we take a moment today to remember the victims of this crime and to rededicate ourselves to stopping the violence against women in this province.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise and express, on behalf of the Liberal opposition, our profound sadness and regret for the tragedy endured by the Gakhal family of Vernon. The coroner's jury did highlight a number of issues and policy changes that must be made to make sure that women are protected from criminal harassment and that these kinds of acts do not happen again.

I want to take this opportunity to remind the Attorney General that a private member's bill of mine, which has been before this House since 1994, deals with acts of domestic violence, and is one that the Attorney General should consider.

It is important to remember the victims of this crime. All members of the opposition join in expressing our commitment to stopping the violence against women in British Columbia.

A. Sanders: My question is to the Minister of Education. On April 1 the Minister of Education received a letter from school district 38, which says in part: "We urge you to stop

telling the public that the provincial budget will protect classroom services. This statement is simply not true." According to school district 38, "districts are being asked to absorb a cut of $27 million, and the per-pupil allocation is reduced."

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think all British Columbians recognize this government's commitment to protecting education funding and making it one of our government's top priorities. Instead of reading letters, the member opposite might wish to consult the estimates tabled during the budget speech by the Minister of Finance, which reveal that education funding for the K-to-12 system will not go down but will go up $34 million in the '97-98 school year. This is not a one-year phenomenon. Every year for the past six years, budgets tabled by this government have shown an increase to education funding. Over that period, education funding in this province has gone up 20 percent -- 20 percent, hon. Speaker. That's better than any province in Canada. Compare that with Ontario, where funding has gone down 19 percent.

A. Sanders: The Vancouver school board is facing a $16 million shortfall. Drastic measures are needed to balance their budget. Their proposed budget includes significant layoffs. These layoffs will translate into a reduction in services for our children. They will include cutting 165 instructional-support staff and 92 teachers. How can this minister tell us that cutting 165 instructional-support staff and 92 teachers will have no impact on our kids in the classroom?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last year, when the school districts and the Ministry of Education were debating and consulting on amalgamation, they jointly said that we need to find $27 million in efficiencies that do not affect the quality of classroom education. School districts came to me and said: "Do not amalgamate us. We will find those savings in our budgets without affecting the quality of education." Now it is time for those school districts to deliver.

Hon. Speaker, the budget of the Vancouver school board has indeed gone down this year. They have a falling enrolment, and their budget has gone down $1.6 million -- not the $16 million. While I recognize that school districts would like more money -- and I would like to see more money for kids in our classrooms -- the reality is that this is what we need to do to preserve quality education for all students in British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: I couldn't help but notice the tepid response of the member from Esquimalt, and I was not surprised to note his self-promoting comments in the paper today, hon. Speaker.

He seems to be so intent on getting back into cabinet that he's willing to sell out his fellow MLAs. The member, hon. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: Member, this is pushing the limit, as you well know, so please get to a question.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the member insinuated that the reason for the shortfalls in the Ministry of Education is that the current minister wasn't strong enough to protect his budget from the rest of cabinet. Can the Minister of Education rise and tell this House -- and more importantly, the member from Esquimalt -- exactly how much money his presence at the cabinet table has cost the students of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Had the member opposite spent a little more time reading the estimates of the Minister of Finance and a little less time reading newspaper columnists -- and their own self-serving speeches -- he would have discovered that education funding is up in this province. And, hon. Speaker, it needs to go up. This year we have 14 percent more students in our public schools than we had when our government took office in 1991 -- 14 percent more. Over that time the budget of the Ministry of Education has gone up nearly 21 percent. We're not only keeping pace; we're doing better than keeping pace.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister should spend less time trying to convince the opposition and more time trying to convince the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin went on to blame the minister's inability to prevent these cuts on his "steep learning curve" -- this despite the fact that the present minister is on his second tour of duty in the ministry, and has served longer as the Minister of Education than the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has.

Can the minister tell us if, indeed, his budget shortfalls are the result of his steep learning curve or whether they are the result of his not taking the advice of the self-proclaimed real Minister of Education, the member from Esquimalt?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The only steep learning curve I perceive is the members opposite attempting to become an effective opposition.

C. Clark: In June of last year, 6,000 tonnes of toxic waste were illegally transported and dumped at an old minesite near Cawston, B.C. Despite Ministry of Environment direction to remove the toxic slag, the waste still sits openly on the ground, right beside some organic farms.

Why hasn't the Minister of Environment moved to stop a potential environmental disaster and ordered the removal of this toxic slag immediately?

Hon. C. McGregor: I agree with the member opposite, and as minister responsible for the environment, I too have been very concerned with the dump at this old minesite. We have been monitoring the situation daily; in fact, we've put in place mechanisms to monitor surface water drainage as well as groundwater effects and erosion through wind.

But I am pleased to report to the member opposite that, effective today, we have an agreement from Metalex that they will immediately seal and cover it until such time as there has been a full review. There are also charges pending that are being reviewed by regional Crown counsel.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, I can only assume that this error happened when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was minister.

The fact remains that this ministry has done five tests on this slag, each of which determined that it was indeed toxic. At the Richmond plant, Metalex has already been required by the ministry to store it in special containers, because the ministry knows it's toxic. The NDP club in Keremeos, Cawston and Hedley has written letters to the minister, telling her it's toxic. But in Cawston it's not considered toxic. Can the minister tell us why, all this time, she has considered this toxic slag toxic in Richmond but fine in Cawston?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'm pleased to recognize, again, that it is indeed toxic slag. We have been monitoring the situation on a daily basis, we have forced Metalex now to act immediately in a way to cover and seal the slag at this point in time, and we are continuing to investigate the situation. It is before the Environmental Assessment Board, and we're expecting to have further action at another time, once that ruling is complete.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question won't include a reference to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. We're only permitted to speak via counsel these days.

Over the past six months, hundreds of British Columbians in communities right across this province made submissions to a standing committee of this Legislature. They were assured by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that their views on the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle would be taken seriously. How does the minister reconcile the assurance that he gave to those people and to all British Columbians with the actions of the minister and the Ministry of Environment, who are intent, apparently, on implementing the terms of the agreement-in-principle by commencing the land transfer process?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by assuring the member opposite that there will be no transfer of lands until a final agreement is signed and it's been ratified by this Legislature. I would further point out to the member -- as I'm sure he's aware, because he also has been on the standing committee -- that section 45 on page 15 of the agreement outlines the process through which we identify the sites as a part of the Nisga'a agreement and where we go through a process of public consultation.

What the member is describing is an advertisement in a Skeena newspaper which describes those sites that are being considered at this time for part of that transfer. But it is subject to public consultation, as outlined in the agreement. This is the opportunity for the public to give their opinion on whether or not these are appropriate sites that should form a part of the final agreement. This information will be provided to the negotiators so they can continue to negotiate the agreement before it is finally agreed to and then ratified.

M. de Jong: The ad I'm referring to gives people a 30-day deadline -- or forever hold their peace. It's a far different process described in the ad than that which the minister is describing now. But here's the point: we don't have a treaty; we won't have a treaty for some time. That's the fact: we don't have a treaty. This House has been assured that when we do have a treaty, it will have an opportunity to ratify or reject the terms of that treaty. That is going to be a highly irrelevant process. . .

M. de Jong: . . .if the minister is already embarking upon the land transfer process.

My question to the minister, as one who has sat on the standing committee and toured this province, is: why should anyone have any faith in the assurances we've heard from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the chair of the committee and herself, when, for all intents and purposes, implementation of an agreement-in-principle has already commenced?

Hon. J. Cashore: This member has been a good member of that committee, and he's made valuable input. I want to commend him for that.

I think it is extremely tragic that this member, now that we're into the time when we have some polarization in the context of this House, would choose to reverse what had been the approach of the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign and return to an overtly political approach, grasping at straws and seemingly deliberately misrepresenting what is stated within that ad. That is most unfortunate.

The Speaker: I will entertain the point of order, though it's not our practice.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it doesn't even require explanation, but a retraction is due to the member.

The Speaker: I think, for the furtherance of the House's activity, if the minister would reconsider what he said and perhaps withdraw, it would save us that difficulty.

The fact of the matter is that this member, as a member of that committee, is familiar with the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. He's familiar with page 15, where, in section 45, this process is outlined. He has never, ever availed himself of the opportunity to complain about it -- until he sees that process being carried out in a concomitant approach in the ministry of Crown lands.

Now, the point is that this member, as has the member for Peace River South, called for improved consultation. Why would he now oppose improved consultation? Why would he try to stop us from consulting with those third parties whose opinions need to be made available to the negotiators, so that as they draft that final agreement. . .

Hon. J. Cashore: . . .they are informed of the issues of those very third parties? Why would he deprive them of that? [Applause.]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 1,600 British Columbians, calling for their right to elect a senator. The petition states as follows:

The Speaker: Members, I know we're all basking in the euphoria of question period, but could I, for just a moment of your attention, remind members that there would seem to be a tendency developing in the chamber, I've noticed, in terms of petitions being presented, where the introductions are getting longer and longer.

I would simply like to refer all members to the standing orders governing presentation of petitions, where it is made very clear that a brief statement to accompany the petition is all that is permissible.

J. Dalton: It's always a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the House on what should be an important document, and that is the throne speech. But unfortunately, as my comments will reflect, we in the opposition are very disturbed by the fact that this throne speech contains so little of substance and also fails to address many issues that the public is truly concerned about, and that obviously the official opposition can be supportive of very little, if anything, that is contained in the throne speech.

We know the track record of this government: very quick to criticize the sins of others but very slow, if at all, to acknowledge its own sins. And I suppose we only need to think back to the budget discussion and the fiasco of last May, leading up to the election, and of course the aftermath when the Finance minister had to admit that his second consecutive budget was, in fact, a fifth consecutive deficit. We know the same Finance minister has tabled this spring a sixth consecutive deficit. But they don't want to talk about those things in the throne speech; those things go silent.

It's interesting to look in "Budget '97 Reports." On page 65 is an example of the hypocrisy of this government -- by criticizing on one hand and ignoring on the other. On page 65, the heading on that page, literally, is: "Cuts in Transfers to Provinces Continue Unabated." The discussion in that budget report goes on to criticize the federal government for its downsizing or off-loading, or whatever the members wish to term the fact that this government, in particular, is dumping on whoever happens to be below them on the totem pole. But again, as I will comment later, they don't wish to acknowledge that they have done that. On the same page of the budget report, page 65, commenting on the federal budget and the cuts to the provinces, the document states that these cuts are not mentioned in the 1997 federal budget. As I say, they're quick to point out the shortcomings of, in this case, the federal government by its failure to acknowledge reality. Yet they are very quick to criticize those when they are equally guilty, if not more guilty.

We have a similar reference on page 6 of the throne speech. There is a comment on page 6 dealing with federal cuts. So again they acknowledge and criticize what's happening elsewhere but refuse to acknowledge -- or, more appropriately, I think they stick their heads in the sand -- and give any credibility to the fact that they themselves are doing equally whatever the other level of government is doing -- and far more so, I would submit.

In particular, I am concerned about, and I will illustrate with a few examples, things that the Speech from the Throne, 1997, has failed to give any reference to, things that this government has trotted out around this province in the form of trial balloons and otherwise. Yet when we get to an important part of the parliamentary process whereby the so-called blueprint the Lieutenant-Governor delivered at the start of this session. . . . The so-called blueprint, in fact, provides no guidelines whatsoever as to what this government is likely to be doing this session. It doesn't want to admit what it is going to be doing.

I guess gaming has to be an example that many people would cite. We dealt with that issue yesterday in our subamendment to the budget that, unfortunately, was defeated. I think, equally unfortunately, members opposite who were clearly on record as being opposed to expanded gaming had the. . . . I don't know what the phrase is, but certainly many come to mind. They got to their feet dutifully, like the robots they've been known to be, and supported the budget -- they voted against our subamendment. We know that many members opposite recognize the adverse effects of gaming: the social consequences; the very fact that gaming is likely addictive, and in many cases will be, to people who should not even be exposed to such a situation; the fact that the many charities in this province that rely on gaming in the form of bingo and otherwise as a source of revenue will be compromised by the expansion of gaming.

I would add the very fact that many communities are upset, needless to say, by the prospect of expanded gaming in their own vicinities and jurisdictions. I say that because we know the track record of this government in its consultation process. It says that the communities will be involved in the process and the decision-making if there is expanded gaming. We just note in the news this week that the city of Dawson Creek is going to be holding a referendum soon on the issue. That's fine. I don't necessarily believe that the city of Dawson Creek is really doing the right thing by even getting into that process, but at least they're inviting the people of Dawson Creek to comment and make the decision. But this government has no such track record. Its consultation process is one that is either severely lacking or, in most cases, doesn't exist at all.

On the same subject of gaming, we don't know the position, for example, of an aboriginal nation or community that

wishes to entertain expanded gaming. We don't know the position of that aboriginal community within the neighbourhood of the surrounding municipalities, such as we heard about recently in the news that the Squamish nation may be entertaining a proposal in the Squamish Valley. What is the position, not only within the Squamish nation? They can, of course, make their own opinion known, but what is the position of the municipality of Squamish and the municipality of Brackendale? I would submit that other surrounding municipalities like Whistler and Lions Bay could be impacted directly or indirectly by this expansion process. So it's a very disturbing item, and again, there was no reference in the throne speech.

Another very important item that has been discussed at length over the last few months is no-fault insurance. As my colleague for Vancouver-Seymour pointed out in a question the other day, the taxpayers of British Columbia paid $1.4 million for KPMG to investigate the no-fault concept. That is more than this government paid KPMG back in 1991 for an entire review of government. It certainly begs the question, as my colleague pointed out: what value for money did we get there? What value did this government receive for a $1.4 million report, other than -- as we strongly suspect on this side -- that the government will be rubber-stamping some form of no-fault? But there was no reference in the throne speech. Surely something as important as taking away one's civil rights to access the courts should be one that this government would at least have the courage to comment on in its throne speech, but they have not done so. We also know that there are many members on the other side who are opposed to no-fault for one reason or another, but they don't have the courage to stand on their feet and say so.

Another item that is only briefly referred to in the throne speech is forest renewal. We know the controversy that has surrounded Forest Renewal B.C. -- the raid that is or is not being conducted on the funds that have been set aside for that corporation to deal with job losses and related activities in the forest industry. That was the purpose of Forest Renewal. The Forest Renewal Act, which is an act of this Legislature, dictates the mandate of Forest Renewal. But this government is prepared to ignore that mandate, and is quite likely to go ahead on the raid of forest renewal funds. As well, this same government has already raided forest renewal funds by diverting them or -- as the Minister of Forests, the member for Cariboo South, stated the other day -- by a sideways shift in budgeting, whereby money has disappeared from his own Ministry of Forests and suddenly reappeared in Forest Renewal. That is not the purpose of forest renewal funds.

Forest renewal funds are set out by mandate for job loss, retraining and things of that nature, not for a minister of the Crown -- particularly one who lives in the forest-dependent community of Williams Lake -- to take this sideways shift; and suddenly he looks good and his budget looks good. But the fact is that money that has been properly set aside and put in trust has been improperly. . . . Quite frankly, "misappropriated" is the term. But there was no reference in the budget to that, of course. They don't want to talk about the things that are inappropriate or even bordering on unlawful. They only want to tell us the so-called good news.

I guess we could also comment on balanced budgets, as far as what's missing from the throne speech. All members will recall that last year, at the opening of the spring session, a statement appeared in the throne speech, and I think the quote that I have written down is essentially what came from that throne speech, that it was a second consecutive surplus budget.

J. Dalton: A second consecutive surplus budget. And my colleague from Delta South, of course, without question the financial wizard in this parliament, comments that figures can lie. Of course, I would make no reference to any activity of the government in that regard, but we do know that the second consecutive surplus budget went up in flames or down in smoke, or whatever you wish, and as I commented earlier, that turned into a fifth consecutive deficit. Now the same Finance minister has tabled a sixth consecutive deficit, yet he proudly describes that as the lowest deficit in this decade. How can this government take any pride in the deception and confusion of surpluses that were in fact deficits, and then try to tell this House and the people of British Columbia that we can be proud of a sixth consecutive deficit because it's the lowest in this decade?

What happened to the debt management plan of this government? Well, it's gone the same way as the surplus. We no longer call it a debt management plan, we call it a financial management plan. So we hide the debt; we don't even talk about debt anymore. Again, something that this throne speech is significantly lacking is upfront honesty to tell the people of British Columbia the state of the economy and the state of our finances, and the government doesn't wish to discuss those issues.

One other thing that is missing from the throne speech is the question of municipal downloading, or as our critic likes to describe it, off-loading. Whatever term you put on it, the fact is that there are very significant cuts in local grants, as all mayors and councillors in this province know. In fact, the UBCM executive is in Victoria today to try to break through the barrier that this government sets up whereby they won't listen to the concerns of our elected officials. I wish them well in their ongoing discussions. It's not going to be easy by any stretch, but I hope the government will at least be prepared to sit down with the locally elected people who represent every taxpayer and property owner in this province, and give some thought to the impacts of downloading. But the throne speech doesn't talk about downloading.

Yet it's funny that, two or three days after the throne speech neglects to talk about municipal downloading, we have Bill 2 introduced into this House, which in part will amend the Local Government Grants Act of 1995. What Bill 2 is going to do, unless the government will have a change of heart -- hopefully, but that is highly unlikely -- is repeal section 2 of that act that guarantees annual municipal grants. I think this is ironic. If you go on and look at another part of Bill 2, section 6 of the Local Government Grants Act is going to be amended to provide for consultation with the UBCM "at least annually."

So that means that once a year, I'm sure only on a token basis -- and that will probably be the only time there will be consultation -- the government is going to sit down with the UBCM and say: "By the way, good luck for next year, because you're going to face one of two things: either further cuts or -- and this is a possibility -- no grant whatsoever." And that's downloading in its extreme. I don't think this government can say that Ottawa has got to the point where they've cut the pipeline off altogether, because that is not true. But I'm certainly sure that this government is entertaining the prospect and the possibility of cutting off the pipeline to our municipalities.

Another form of downloading I wish to comment on for a moment, because it involves an important issue in my own riding, is the West Vancouver courthouse which this government announced would be closed. I believe that August 1 is the target date. Hopefully, that can be delayed or put aside. But it was interesting. I was in the House this morning listening to the words of the Attorney General. I thought he made some valid comments as he started on the concept of diversion -- that is, taking the less serious offenders and offences out of our traditional court system and diverting them into community service, restitution and other things that are certainly worthy of comment and worthy of discussion. But as I thought about it, I thought that the Attorney General is actually dealing with diversion in two different aspects -- neither of which is as positive as he was presenting in his comments this morning -- that I think really are part of this downloading process.

I would submit to the Attorney General in this House that when you divert the responsibility of the administration of justice to the local municipalities, that is a form of downsizing, and that's what this government is doing. Under our constitution, this government has the responsibility for the administration of justice. Using the example of West Vancouver, I submit that the off-loading onto that municipality. . . . And they estimate that if that courthouse is closed, their increased annual policing costs will be $350,000, plus the general inconvenience to the public. Like many other communities, West Vancouver has presented a proposal to the Attorney General's ministry saying that we are prepared to waive the rent for the courthouse, which in West Vancouver's case is right next door to the police station. But that has not been accepted by the Attorney General, even though he's prepared to listen to the similar arguments of Chilliwack, Richmond and other communities. As I say, that's a form of diversion. In the case of West Vancouver, the Attorney General is diverting a very viable courthouse and facility to North Vancouver. I have already commented on the extra policing costs and the general inconvenience to the public that that creates, and I also submit that is both a form of diversion in the negative sense and a form of downloading from the responsibility of the government of this province to a local municipality.

So I am hoping that the Attorney General will give a second thought to the West Vancouver situation in particular. I don't cite that just because of the importance of that courthouse, but I cite it also as an example that there is such an inconsistency coming from that ministry. Some courthouses are closed today and opened tomorrow; others are closed today and may still be closed tomorrow. You cannot function that way. It's creating endless concern to the local council in West Vancouver as well as concern to the police force of West Vancouver and the citizens of that community.

Let me make a couple of comments about one or two things that are mentioned in the throne speech, because to this point I've talked about things that are not there. There is mention -- I don't know if "happily" is the right term -- of the Lions Gate crossing in the throne speech. I was very surprised to see it. I don't recall, thinking back, any reference in any previous throne speech to the Westview interchange which, happily, with enough pressure over the years, is almost a reality.

J. Dalton: It's only days away, I believe, hon. member. I believe it's only days away from completion of the exit ramps. The lights, of course. . . . Through a very funny ceremony that the Premier conducted on February 27, we know that the traffic lights disappeared, but in fact they didn't. I happened to be in Kamloops that day. I came back that evening. I purposely drove to the Westview intersection, and there were the traffic lights. I thought, well, what was the Premier doing earlier that day? Of course, it was all a nice little show. He got himself on television in a fancy convertible that he drove through, but the fact is that it did take extra time. I don't need to compliment this government, because it was actually the previous government -- the Mike Harcourt government -- that got on with it and allowed the commuters and the people of the North Shore to pass through the Westview exchange.

In the throne speech we see that the Lions Gate crossing is a possible example where a public-private partnership will be used to answer -- and I needn't overemphasize this -- the long-overdue decision on the Lions Gate crossing, but we have no detail. More importantly, let me just remind the members opposite that at one time this government announced what I thought was a good five-year time line for the decision-making process and getting on with the project of the Lions Gate crossing. That was under the jurisdiction of the former Highways minister, Art Charbonneau. He was an engineer, so he had some understanding of the issues of the Lions Gate and the importance of getting on with that project. Back in 1993, Art Charbonneau announced a five-year time line to have community consultation, to have a process in place to short-list the options for the Lions Gate and make a decision and, most importantly, get on with the construction based on that decision.

That was four years ago, and where are we today? We've lost four years of that five-year time line. In particular, the bridge deck of the Lions Gate is in disgraceful condition. I don't say that just from a visual point of view; I mean disgraceful from a public safety point of view. There are now parts of the bridge deck, particularly at the south end as you approach the causeway, where you can literally see through the bridge deck to the ocean or the sea wall below. I'm just hoping that one of my constituents or perhaps myself doesn't one day have the misfortune to encounter a hole in that bridge deck so large that you won't be able to avoid it. But that's the situation.

J. Dalton: Right on. Twice the size of the deficit, hon. member -- three times the size.

J. Dalton: Well, we know the deficit is actually $886 million and growing, and we know the public debt would be $30.9 billion as of March next year, again things that this government can be proud of.

There is one other area that I want to make sure I comment on before I conclude, and that's the treatment by this government of education and health care. As you thumb through the throne speech you will see that they are two things that they at least comment on, and they apparently do so with some pride. I do not know how this government can take any pride, for example, in health care, when we learned yesterday -- and it was the lead item on one of the news coverages last night -- of the heart patient from Salmon Arm who was on a 52-week -- an endless stream, it seemed -- wait-list for bypass surgery. He came down to Vancouver all ready to go into the operating room, and guess what: they

delayed him even further. It was only because of the pressures of our Health critic and the member for Shuswap that the government was embarrassed into action. We understand, happily, that the gentleman will be in the operating theatre on Friday. Is that the way to run a health care system? You have to get the attention of the media and that way get the attention of the Health minister, and then we get action. It's disgraceful.

With regard to the regionalization process with health care, I might add that we know what a chaotic situation that is. The hospital boards have been fired and replaced, and severance packages are ballooning by the minute, because anyone who is dismissed has to be compensated, and all of these things are eating away at our very precious health dollars. But this government, shamefully, speaks with pride of its treatment of health care.

The other one I certainly must comment on. . . . I see that the Education minister is here. I'm hoping the Attorney General listened to my previous comments, and I hope the Education minister will listen to my comments about the treatment of education in this province. Again, the minister and the government tell us that funding is up, the world is right, and public education need not complain and need not fear about its position as a very important government service. Well, that is not true.

We know that many, many districts in this province are in a deficit position, including my own district of North Vancouver, which has a $0.77 million deficit. It has already gone through some very protracted difficulties with funding in the past, as we know. To add to the situation in North Vancouver, on April 19 the school district will be conducting a $2 million referendum seeking funding from the local taxpayers to pay for a mandated new technology program -- a program mandated by the government and by the Minister of Education, yet not adequately or in any way funded. I think it's a disgraceful situation that a local school district has to be placed in, that it has to go to the voters, in this case in North Vancouver, and say: "By the way, your school tax bill is about to arrive in the mail, but don't worry about that. In the meantime, we're asking you for a $2 million referendum to put into place something that this government says it must do, yet it won't fund." We know that's just part of the blackmail process that this government goes through. They say to the school districts: "Well, you've got to do it this way, otherwise your funding is going to be compromised." Even if you do it that way, the funding is still compromised.

Hon. Speaker, I see my time is up. I have covered the important topics. There are many, many others, and I think my colleagues will have nothing but a field day in so commenting.

F. Gingell: First of all, I would like to express my thanks to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for allowing me to take her place in this debate. I have to catch a ferry and do my turn tonight on On the Line Live in Delta. So if anyone wants to tune in between 7 and 8 o'clock this evening on Delta Cable, I'm sure they'll see a show that is well worth it. Phone in on 946-1144. I would like to assure the most important person in this TV audience this afternoon that her daughter will be on next.

Annually we have the opportunity to respond to the throne speech, and the throne speech is really a message from the elected government of the province about their vision. What do they see as the things government can do to make this province the kind of community that we want our children and our grandchildren to grow up and be raised in? When you look around this House, there are members who obviously didn't become legislators because they thought it paid well. There are members of this House who came from service in the church to do a different type of service, where their congregation shouts back at them during the course of their sermons.

F. Gingell: It's happened before. Well, it doesn't happen at St. David's Anglican Church in Tsawwassen.

F. Gingell: I would like to assure the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville that he will be most welcome there any Sunday morning at 10 o'clock.

Many of our members have had honourable and distinguished careers in municipal politics: the member for North Coast, the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, the member for Port Coquitlam, the member for Shuswap. Many of the members have a history of commitment and work on school boards and college boards. So why do we all come here?

Well, I think that the most important thing in everybody's life is that they really do want to make a difference. They are concerned about this province, they are concerned about its future, and they are concerned more, I guess, in their own selfish ways, about the kind of future they see for their children and grandchildren. So what do we hear from this government? What's their vision? How do they see this province? What are the messages that we get?

The first message I get is that they believe that the quality of life for this province will be improved by expanding gambling, by bringing slot machines and VLTs into our communities. That is what this government believes is necessary to improve the quality of life in this province. And I say shame on them.

What's next, Mr. Speaker? No-fault insurance. Turn ICBC into a Workers Compensation Board operation. What a disaster that is. It's been one of the biggest sores in this. . . . I'm not sure where it is, but it's certainly in the soul of this government. They have had difficulties in dealing with Workers Compensation Board issues. Those MLAs who work in their community offices -- and I know that we backbenchers do -- know that Workers Compensation Board problems are one of the greatest sores in our communities, because there are problems in more people's minds: lack of closure, always dealing with bureaucrats, trying to find someone who works for the corporation and whose job is on the line to make what you believe to be a fair settlement.

Bringing no-fault insurance or any form of it into this province is certainly not going to improve the quality of life in this province. You cannot take away democratic rights that citizens have fought for for centuries and wipe them out, and believe that you are making an improvement to the quality of life.

What else has this government done? We had some differences of opinion on the issues of forest renewal, but the issue was that we didn't want to see a big bureaucracy created. We wanted to see the arrangement that the government had negotiated with their licence holders -- concerning the

sharing of increased values for fibre products that we would receive from the natural resources of this province -- used in a thoughtful and sensible manner, without being used to create large administrative organizations, but invested back into the forests and into the communities, and helping the quality of life of the people of this province. The first rule was this strange word "incrementality." Every expenditure by Forest Renewal B.C. had to be incremental. It had to be incremental to the roles and responsibilities that currently existed within legislation and within the practice of the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment and any other government agency; i.e., this money was not to be used to do those things that the Ministry of Forests was already doing or that its licensees were responsible for doing.

So when this ogre came out of the mire -- which they've kept a lid on for more than a year -- of reduced revenues and increased expenditures that was turning their surplus into a very substantial deficit, and they looked for ways to get around this, their first thought was: let's suggest that the funds in FRBC are not a reserve for the future, that the forest industry prices will always stay up, and that there will always be more and more funds coming into FRBC. They will ignore the laws of normal economics, where we all know that market prices go up and down in cycles, as supply and demand changes.

So because a fuss was created about that, because local communities got up and tried to defend this fund that would help their communities survive -- putting a lot of pressure onto individual members of this Legislature, I'm sure -- they found a different way: "Instead of taking the money out, let's push the expenditures in." And that is what this government has done. Just look at this year's estimates, and you will see that somewhere around $100 million in expenditures for silviculture is going to be pushed into Forest Renewal.

What else has this government done to improve the quality of life? Well, we all know that when someone like Mr. Allen is asked to do a consulting job for ICBC. . . . The instructions that Mr. Jaccard got to look into electricity and hydro issues in the province. . . . They get their marching orders. So let there not be any mistake about whose idea opening liquor stores on Sundays is, allowing people to put their liquor purchase on their Visa credit cards -- or what I call the never-never. Actually, during the budget debate -- and I mentioned this; I was trying to find it in Hansard, but Hansard didn't pick it up -- I felt that I almost got a commitment from the Minister of Finance that the proposal to open liquor stores on Sundays and allow credit card purchases was not going to fly. It was another one of the balloons that this government regularly blows up, puts up in the air, and the citizens then blow it up a second time.

What else does this government believe is an appropriate way to improve the quality of life? Let's deal with the people in the most difficult position: people who have to rely upon this government for income support, people on welfare, the 800 people on welfare who live in my riding in Tsawwassen and Ladner.

F. Gingell: Eight hundred people, 800 customers of the welfare office in South Delta. It's the correct number, I'm told. If it's proven to be wrong, I'll be surprised, but I will certainly retract that.

They now have to go to the North Delta-North Surrey office, and it takes an hour and 30 minutes to get there by bus. That is a fact. And if you miss a bus. . . . It takes three buses to go from Tsawwassen into the Ladner exchange, up to the North Delta exchange on 72nd, and then on through to the welfare office. If you miss one of those connections, add, hopefully, 20 minutes -- more likely 40 minutes, and you can take an extra hour. The fare is $6 for an adult and $3 for a child. People on welfare don't have those kinds of funds, and they certainly don't have automobiles to drive there.

What else does this government consider will improve the quality of life of British Columbians? Let's deal with some very important and committed citizens that really have made a major difference in some young handicapped people's lives. The adoptive parents of special needs children in this province, through a means test only when it was necessary, have had an arrangement whereby they received a monthly cheque to help defray the costs of maintaining and looking after these special needs children. Now, you can imagine the cost to the province if these special needs children were in some form of institutional care. The amount, as I understand it, was $368 a month: a little bit that helped to buy those extras, that helped to pay for taking the special needs children to the local ice rink or to the pictures -- or cinemas, I guess we would say in this country -- or whatever. This government, effective November of 1997, I believe, plans on cancelling those monthly payments. If that isn't true, if any member on the other side of this House tells me that I am wrong on that, I really will be pleased. Because we have a lot of special needs children in my riding, and we have three or four quite large families of children that have been adopted, and they are facing difficult times.

The quality of life in this province is also going to be affected by the credibility of this government. The credibility that they hold in the minds of the citizens is important; even more so is the credibility that they have in the minds of our creditors. Their debt management plan, as the previous speaker said -- my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano -- went down the drain. Let's write another; put in the financial management plan. What sort of credibility, when you dump one plan two years later. . .? I think the debt management plan came in in 1995. It missed every single target, and in 1997 you throw the old one in the ditch, put it through the recycling machine and come up with a new one that you call the financial management plan.

What sort of credibility does this government have, when in 1995 they brought in a bill called Local Government Grants Act, promised local government certainty, promised them consultation. . .? UBCM even have a consultation protocol. And this government, effectively, one year after that was brought in, dumped it.

You can't have credibility when your word has no value. So what has the Premier said? Relative to this year's budget, the Premier was quoted in the paper, saying: "We've learned our lesson; everything's up front here." In his speech, the Minister of Finance said: "For the first time since 1958, there will be a year-over-year decline in budget expenditures."

Well, during my response to the budget I listed some five items that had been taken off the consolidated revenue fund this year and put somewhere else, like road rehabilitation for provincial roads being put into the Transportation Financing Authority and tourism expenditures of $20 million being put into a new special operating agency. Wonderful! I support that. Good stuff. But let's be honest about the $20 million. In silviculture, which I mentioned earlier, $100 million is pushed off into FRBC and $35 million for renovations and renewals in schools that had always been included in their operating

budget. . . . This year: "Oh no, we'll let you spend the money, but put it in your capital budget." This government talks about paying for capital assets with their credit card. Well, this is paying for groceries with their mortgage.

Municipal grants: $60 million. Does anyone really believe that that is a reduction in expenditures, that those expenditures aren't going to be made by the municipal governments, that the taxpayers of this province aren't still going to pay this? Well, I expounded on these the other day, but I didn't have a conclusive list, because yesterday, in reviewing Bill 2. . . . I think the second section of the bill deals with the issue of the annual costs of the court of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board. I believe it's about $2.5 million. It's not a lot of money, but the point is that it's been moved out of the consolidated revenue fund, out of this calculation of total expenditures, and over to somewhere else. Well, where has it been moved to? It's an unfunded mandate that has gone to the municipalities. It's going to be included in your municipal tax bill.

So this government never comes clean. You know, for the Premier to say, "We've learned our lesson; everything is up front here," and then to have a statement that what's up front here is that the total expenditures in this budget are less than last year's, is a load of hokum. You know, I think that the members of this government have found the key or the password into the holo-deck of the starship Enterprise. They can walk through the door, and there they are on the holo-deck. Whatever you think, you can turn it into what is happening. But the people of this province are just like Scotty. When you say, "Beam me up, Scotty," I'm sure he's going to respond one of these days: "Och, Mr. Speaker, the people can't handle it anymore."

So what should the message have been? Should this government have come forward with a message of hope and good governance for the people of British Columbia? Well, I think that on both sides of the House we all agree that the most important thing for the people of British Columbia is to have respect -- to be treated with respect and to be responsible for their own well-being. That's what people want. And that, as we say on both sides of the House, comes from jobs. Now, the difference is that the government side of the House believes that government creates jobs. This side of the House believes that enterprise creates jobs -- entrepreneurs, the private sector.

What do you need for that to happen? First of all, this government needs credibility again. You've got to create the right kind of climate in which people are encouraged to come and invest and create jobs in British Columbia. The choices are too simple. It's just as easy to start your business in Washington State or Alberta or wherever. As the world becomes more technical and as communication systems improve, the world becomes smaller and the location of your business -- if you are not dealing with the need to be close to natural resources -- is less important.

People want safe streets. We have them here. They're better around us than they are there. They want a nice environment. It's not as good as it could be, but it isn't bad, and it's a lot better than many other places in the world. We have a health care system which we will complain about, because it could be better. But it is better, I agree, than that below the border.

F. Gingell: Education, too. Yes. Not as good as when I was on the school board, but. . . .

So we've got all these positive things. And what we don't have is credibility from this government. We don't have a belief in the minds -- true or not, but it's important -- that this province is welcoming to investment. We have the highest personal tax rates, period. I know you can work out someone here and someone there, but the people who come to start up businesses believe they're going to be in the high-income brackets. We have a corporation capital tax that taxes you before you've made a profit, and we have a provincial sales tax on manufacturing inputs. I do not expect this government to stand up and say: "We're cancelling them all tomorrow." That's not on and wouldn't be sensible. But I've been waiting, anxiously, year after year, in every budget for them to say: "We recognize that these are barriers to investment. We recognize that these are barriers to the creation of good jobs, and we are going to start doing something about it."

When this government was first elected in 1991, and in 1992 came in with a budget where it took the corporation capital tax -- which, as we all know, has been in for many years for financial institutions -- and expanded it to include non-financial institutions, there was such an uproar that the Premier of the day, Mr. Harcourt, made the commitment that it would only be there until the budget was balanced. Well, no one realized that all the promises they were making at the same time were as worthless as the commitment to get rid of that tax, because we all know there hasn't been a surplus. When the Premier was Finance critic he said: "I can't imagine there's anything easier." But there's never been a surplus, and this government has never said: "If we come in with a surplus, one of the first taxes we will get rid of is the corporation capital tax on non-financial institutions."

But if we are going to get the kinds of jobs that our children deserve, that our education system is trying to educate our young people to be able to perform, we have to have a commitment by this government that they're going to do something about some of these issues: taxes, certainty of tenure in the forest and mining industries. A review of tenure in the forest industry is long overdue: a proper, meaningful review of regulations, where we make them descriptive -- we identify what the regulation is to accomplish -- rather than proscriptive, in which we tell people what they must do. We need to revisit our labour laws. Those are the things that will give this government credibility with the people of British Columbia and entrepreneurs all over the world that British Columbia is open for business.

We have a wonderful environment. We have safe streets. We have a health system that is certainly better than many others, although I wish they would worry about the concerns of the patients before they worry about the concerns of administrators and unionized staff. We have young people who are capable and trained to work in knowledge-based industries at the end of the twentieth century. All we need is a message from this government that we're open for business. They didn't give it in 1997, and if they're still here in 1998 -- I know we all pray and hope that they won't be, but should they be -- I really do hope that they spend the time between now and then thinking sincerely about how we can make this province a better place with a better future for our children. We've always been proud of this province. We're all here by choice. But the time has come, Mr. Speaker, for us to look at our priorities and to think about the important things that will maintain the democratic institutions that we all hold so dear.

J. Sawicki: I just want to say to my colleague across the way, the member for Delta South, that I was pleased to step aside for him to make his comments. I certainly hope you now have time to go to the ferry.

I am pleased to rise and participate in this throne speech debate. I want to start by thanking the constituents of Burnaby-Willingdon for again choosing me to represent them in this House. I am very proud to represent such a vibrant, growing and caring community -- a community that cares about high-quality, integrated health care and decent long-term facilities for our elderly citizens; a community that cares about access to education. I want to say that whether it's for new citizens who are choosing Burnaby as a place to live or whether it's for young people looking to attend post-secondary institutions. . . . And certainly with the thousands of new spaces and the freeze on tuition fees that our government has brought in, more and more young people are now able to do that. But access to education also means access to training and retraining. I am very pleased that in my constituency we have such institutions as BCIT and the Open Learning Agency, which are offering more and more programs to allow people to do that.

I'm also proud to represent a community that cares about the environment: clean air and clean water. I am also proud that Burnaby, of all of the communities in the lower mainland, was recently acknowledged as having the very highest percentage of green space -- 25 percent of our land area. That's important, because my community is densifying. It's converting from the traditional single-family, two-car garage, front yard-back yard, into ground-oriented, medium-density townhouses and mixed-use developments that accommodate seniors and families -- like our development in the Oaklands, and co-ops like the new Rainbow's End co-op, which I was very pleased to attend the groundbreaking of just a couple of months ago. I think these kinds of developments are really important, because the sooner that we in the more urbanized parts of our province reverse that trend of urban sprawl, ensure that we've got inclusive communities where people can live close to where they work, close to where they shop, close to where they play, then the sooner we can wean ourselves from the private automobile and finance proper transit systems and clean up the air that all of us breathe.

But local communities cannot do that alone. That's why I think it's important, at the provincial level, that we have a government that understands the need to invest in job creation, to invest in health care and education, despite federal cutbacks, and to strive to improve the standards of environmental protection.

Also, that's why it's important to have a government that's taking leadership in combatting what the throne speech rightfully refers to as a "national shame" -- that is, the issue of child poverty. My community has its fair share of families who are poor, families that are working really hard for low wages at part-time jobs and still struggling to make sure that the kids can grow up healthy. I want to tell you that our government's B.C. family bonus has been a real help to those poor families in my community.

Indeed, in listening to the Speech from the Throne, I believe our government has set out a clear vision of where it wants to go. Thus far, I have to say I'm rather distressed at not hearing any alternate vision from the opposition benches. What little I have heard is pretty scary indeed. Just the other day, the Leader of the Official Opposition -- and it was reiterated by my colleague who spoke before me -- trotted out that sort of right-wing mantra that says: let the marketplace dictate our future; let the private sector decide who works and who doesn't, who shares in the province's resources and who doesn't.

I think the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition even ridiculed our government's inclusion in the throne speech of a reference to looking at shorter work weeks, as espoused by progressive economists like Jeremy Rifkin. I was actually astounded, quite frankly, to hear the leader make light of this being in a throne speech. I'm probably more charitable than some of my colleagues in terms of my comments across the floor. I've been reluctant to believe that the provincial Liberal Party is so reactionary. But obviously I was wrong. They are indeed demonstrating that they are eloquent defenders of their friends in the Fraser Institute, who are well known for their dinosaur thinking on these kinds of issues.

Not that I personally agree with everything that Jeremy Rifkin has to say, but he's not alone in his identification of the problem. If members opposite don't wish to read The End of Work, then I have a couple of other references here that I might suggest to them, such as the book that my colleague the Minister of Forests just recently lent me by Robert Thiebald, called Reworking Success. He equates our need to reassess the role, the value and meaning of work and the need for all species to constantly adapt to changing situations. Of course, that's particularly difficult for us as humans, because many of these changing conditions are of our own making.

Or opposition members may wish to read Alan Durning's How Much is Enough? He also makes the point that we've got to release ourselves from full-time work, which means we've got to release ourselves from the overproduction of things just to keep ourselves employed. As he so eloquently has said: "Especially in western civilizations, we've got enough stuff. We need more time; more time to care about our planet, to care about our families, to care about each other."

Finally, if opposition members don't wish to read at all, they can view the recent CBC "The National" documentary that was running, entitled "The Working World." Just last week they featured the experience in the Netherlands, a country that, contrary to the trends in all of Europe, has turned their economy around and has cut their unemployment rate in half. How have they done it? They've used initiatives such as shortening the work week. They have even taken what I'm sure the opposition members would consider an appalling step: they're actually creating jobs in day care centres and schools to provide work opportunities for the unemployed. Government has taken that initiative.

What I'm saying, hon. Speaker, and what I believe our government is saying in the throne speech, is that change happens. In this, one of the fastest-growing provinces in North America, change happens very quickly. We can drift aimlessly toward a future, or we can take up the challenge to create our own future. We can buy into the current panic to slash budgets and cut essential services and jobs and reduce wages, or we can continue the best we can to invest in people, in health care, in education, in decent-paying jobs and livable communities. It's that latter route that our government has taken in the throne speech, and it's a direction that I support.

I want to talk a bit, hon. Speaker, about the main tenets of the throne speech and how I believe they will impact my constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon. Clearly, our govern-

ment's first priority is jobs. I think we can be very proud in British Columbia that we have led the nation in job creation for several years in a row, but I also know that in my community, as in probably all our communities, there are still thousands of people who want to work and can't find employment.

While I represent an urban riding, I want to applaud our government's commitment to a jobs and timber accord and to major initiatives such as Fisheries Renewal B.C., which will protect not only fish habitat but also fishery-based communities. These initiatives will have important employment spinoffs for the entire province, as will our initiatives to promote tourism, support our rapidly growing film industry and deliver on the budget commitments to reduce the financial tax burden on existing and new small businesses.

I was also pleased to hear in the throne speech our government reaffirming its commitment to maintain and indeed increase spending on education and health care. We're the only province in Canada to do that. I recently met with some of the directors of the chamber of commerce in Burnaby, who urged us to continue our support for education. They explained it this way. They specifically mentioned the new CAPP program, which is the career and personal planning program.

It's one of the many initiatives our government has brought forward to ensure that young people come out of our education system not only as well-rounded citizens ready to participate in a democracy -- and I think that's really an important goal for education -- but also as people ready for employment. They were telling me that from a business perspective -- whether it's a large business, a small business, a retail or industrial or service business, and we've got them all in Burnaby -- what employers are looking for today are good all-round employees, young people with basic skills in getting to work on time and in customer service, ready to learn and grow. I'm pleased to note that in Burnaby in the CAPP program this year, over 1,500 businesses are now partnered with our school district to provide young people with this really meaningful work experience.

I just want to mention one other example of how our government's commitment to education has benefited my community, and that's the community school program. Two years ago, just down the street from my community office, the school board reopened Maywood school. The extra funding that will now come to Maywood school, associated with its designation as a community school, will really help build that community network in an area where we have a lot of new Canadians and a lot of single-parent families, the Metrotown area. So I was really pleased when that announcement came through just a month or two ago.

I want to turn to another key feature of the throne speech, and that is health care. To be honest, for me -- and I think I probably speak for my other two Burnaby colleagues on this side of the House -- it's been a bit of a tough six months in Burnaby in terms of health care. Despite the significant infusion of extra provincial dollars, Burnaby Hospital does continue to struggle with surgery wait-lists and crowded emergency rooms. There was what I might call an animated discussion around the new-to-Burnaby CT scanner.

As part of the Minister of Health's final regionalization announcement, after three years of tremendously hard and productive work by a lot of our citizens, it was announced that the Burnaby health board would be merged with our neighbour to form the new Burnaby-Simon Fraser health region. So it has been difficult, but we've worked it out. Contrary to the opposition's claims, I want to assure members that the Burnaby-Simon Fraser health board, a government-appointed health board, is doing just fine. That's because the appointments that were made were representative of our community, and because people in our community are committed to working through the difficulties with each other and with our government to deliver the best kind of health care we can.

The final aspect of the throne speech I want to comment on is our commitment to continue our progress on environmental issues. I'm extremely proud of our government's record in establishing new parks. I was very pleased, of course, to hear in the throne speech the assurance that we will continue to complete the province's network of protected areas.

Just recently, I was reminded of one of the many other environmental initiatives our government has taken -- perhaps not quite as high-profile, but significant nonetheless -- and that is some of the work the B.C. environmental youth teams are doing in our various communities. One of the programs that the B.C. e-team funds have assisted is the LIFEboat flotilla, where every year, 200 young people spend their spring break out on the waters of Georgia Strait learning about and discussing environmental issues. This year I joined them for part of their week. Some would say that in typical politician fashion, I didn't join them the first three days when we had the horrific storm. I waited until the sun came out on Thursday and then I joined them. I want to say I was profoundly impressed with the optimism and the tough choices these young people are prepared to make in order to protect the environment.

I mention this example today, hon. Speaker, not so much to give credit to our government, although I think some credit is due for that program, but because I want the opportunity to congratulate LIFE, the leadership initiative for earth, and all those young people who participate in the program. They are demonstrating in a very tangible way that they are committed to saving this planet and taking leadership roles in their community to convince others to care about it as well.

The second example I want to mention about the e-team is happening right in my own community of Burnaby. I've already mentioned BCIT, but provincial dollars have been offered through that program to fund a project coordinator to institute worm composting of all the cafeteria waste. Some members of this House may recall that during my term as Speaker in this House, I introduced worm composting in several offices, but this is on a much larger scale. In just a couple of weeks, there will be 100 pounds of worms at BCIT -- probably red wigglers -- busily working away in an ecologically responsible and economically efficient manner to convert food waste to good soil and thereby reduce the amount of solid waste that's going into the Burnaby incinerator.

Which brings me to the final point I want to make about the throne speech, and that is the commitment to improve waste management and encourage recycling by expanding the deposit-and-refund system for beverage containers. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, my assignment for the last eight months has been to address this issue, which so many people inside and outside government have worked on and promoted for such a long time. It's hard to believe that in British Columbia we use over two billion beverage containers a year. While some of them have been under a deposit-and-refund system, many of them have not, and they're taking up space in our landfills and littering our roadways and other public areas. I can't tell members how much I am looking forward to the announce-

ment that is foreshadowed in the throne speech around this issue, because it will take us a significant step forward to realizing our goal of reducing solid waste by 50 percent by the year 2000.

On that note, hon. Speaker, I want to close my comments and say that I am proud to stand in this chamber and speak in support of this throne speech. I do believe that most fair-minded people in this province, on hearing the government's priorities, will agree that they are the right ones. They are obviously going to look with some skepticism at our ability to deliver upon the budgetary commitments that accompany them, and that's understandable. I think we on this side of the House recognize that, and while the opposition haven't been very fair-minded about their criticism of the budget speech, I guess that's understandable too, because that's how they see their job.

But I believe that my constituents, and perhaps all of our constituents, do expect that while we in this House may disagree with each other across the floor, we should do that with dignity and respect for those who hold different opinions. In the final analysis, I think our constituents expect that we will roll up our sleeves and work together the best way we can to serve the needs of all British Columbians, and I trust that we'll be able to do that.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker and hon. members of the Legislature, it gives me great pleasure to be here today as part of the NDP government and to speak on the Speech from the Throne at the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The focus of our government is on job creation. And we have the best job creation record of any province in this nation today: 220,000 new jobs have been created in the last five years, and I'm very proud of that, hon. Speaker. The jobs and timber accord is well underway, and by the year 2001, we should be able to create 21,000 new jobs in the forestry sector within this province. I think that's great news. It's a great initiative, and it's good news for the young people and the workers of this province.

People are coming to British Columbia because, without a doubt, it is the best place in the world to live today. We are investing in our provincial infrastructure, and the world is investing in British Columbia. We are investing $1 billion annually in schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure in our province. In my riding since 1992, our government has invested $70 million in school districts 72, 84 and 85, and I'm very proud of that.

Total public school expenditure per student is the highest in Canada. We've frozen tuition fees, and if you look at the national average for post-secondary education, it's around $1,500 a year for tuition fees in this province versus $2,500 a year for the rest of Canada. Again, I think that's good news for the young people of this province. We've added tens of thousands of new K-to-12 spaces, and we've freed up 7,000 university and college spaces within this province.

My government will be proceeding with renovation and construction projects on almost 100 schools within the next year, and I think that's excellent news. The construction projects also have associated with them smart, cost-saving measures.

High-tech corporations are locating in British Columbia because of the educational institutions we have in this province. That's why people come to British Columbia. That's why we have some of the best universities in the world today, and that's why our youth will have opportunities in the future.

Hon. Speaker, my government is protecting health care by a $300 million increase to fund hospitals and physician services and to reduce wait-lists. It's the only province in the nation today that is putting substantial amounts of money into health care. We've had increased health spending for six years in a row in this province.

I was really proud to work with a young gentleman from Tahsis, Gordon McNeil. I've been working with him since before the last election. He has multiple sclerosis, and he was taking a drug called betaferon. Working with our Minister of Health, that has now been added to the Pharmacare list, and we will be funding that. It's good news for MS sufferers in this province that we can fund a drug that is going to make their lifestyle and their family's lifestyle better. I'm very proud of that, and it's been good news.

The Guarantee for Youth program will continue creating opportunities for young people by offering job experience, training and education. My government will generate 12,000 new job opportunities for young people in this province this year. My government will ensure that youth has a voice in government.

Investing in infrastructure will create an additional 13,000 new jobs in British Columbia this year. That's excellent news for the trades people, union and non-union alike, and all the workers in British Columbia and their families.

B.C. fisheries need help, and I think all of us in this House recognize that. We need a good Pacific Salmon Treaty. B.C. needs a bigger role in managing the west coast fishery in conjunction with the communities throughout our coast. We need to enhance our stocks, and we need a partnership with everybody that's involved in this industry.

Investing in the fishery is investing in British Columbia. B.C. salmon is synonymous with this province. In my mind, it's a reflection of our environment and how we're doing in British Columbia, and we have some work to do in that area. Investing in our coastal communities -- Sointula, Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Campbell River, Gold River and Kyuquot -- is paramount. They depend very much on this fishery and have for generations.

The family bonus program is going to put $225 million into the pockets of needy families and single parents in this province this year. I'm very proud of that initiative, and it's a model for all Canadians to take a look at.

We will reduce taxes again by 2 percent this year, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of working British Columbians. New small businesses will continue to enjoy a tax break, and I think that's good news for small businesses. They are creating a lot of jobs in this province, and I think we have to encourage them however we can to invest in this province.

I would like to talk a bit about my riding, if I may, hon. Speaker. Campbell River has been absolutely booming in the last year. Campbell River hosted the B.C. Winter Games, and they put on just a spectacular show for all British Columbians to enjoy -- young and old alike. Joan Stephens, Joan Miller and Stephanie Tipple, to name a few of the volunteers, did an absolutely outstanding job, and I was very proud to be part of it.

The new tourism agreement that was recently reached with the tourism contingent in the province and our Tourism

minister is excellent news for British Columbia and also for Campbell River, which relies so heavily on tourism in the summer.

The Western Premiers Conference will be coming to Campbell River at the end of May to highlight this great community on the North Island on a national level. I think that's absolutely great news for Campbell River.

We're going to be working with the film industry in British Columbia this year. Again, I think that's good news for the thousands of people who work in the film industry in the province. We had the good fortune of having a movie made in Campbell River a couple of years ago, starring Demi Moore -- I believe it was called The Scarlet Letter -- which put a phenomenal amount of money into the Campbell River economy.

And I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, it was done in Strathcona Provincial Park, which is becoming a world heritage site. I remember a few years ago, actually, a woman by the name of Myrna Boulding, who received the Heaslip Award from the United Nations for environmental stewardship, had a great deal to do with the stewardship and protection of that park. Today it's a world heritage site where people are coming from all over the world to visit and make films there and add to the economy. And that's good news.

The other good news about the film industry is that I can remember when I was a young fellow, five or six years old, and my two brothers and I would line up in front of the television every Sunday night to watch Walt Disney productions. Well, guess what? Walt Disney is coming to Campbell River this summer to do a production. I had the opportunity not only to watch Walt Disney for all those years but to meet with the production staff a few weeks ago -- and with the people from Campbell River, the municipal government, the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Parks and the chamber of commerce -- and all those people are working very cooperatively together to make this happen.

Anyway, the Walt Disney production will be a $50 million production, and it's good news for the people that work in the industry in British Columbia.

The provincial government was also front and centre in funding a $22 million sewage treatment plant in Campbell River. The Norm Wood environmental centre will be looking after sewage in Campbell River, obviously, for a great number of years -- for generations -- and that will be enhancing our environment in Campbell River. That's good news. And I recently delivered $2.8 million in an infrastructure grant to Campbell River so that they could continue with their sewer program.

There's also a $250 million cogeneration plant, a joint venture between B.C. Hydro and Fletcher Challenge Ltd. It will create, I think, 500 man-years of work, and when it's finished -- well, there's more good news -- there will be 25 high-tech jobs in Campbell River. Not only that, they'll be buying as many supplies as they can locally and enhancing the local economy. And there are a great many other things, such as the pollution of our environment associated with the Burrard plant. . . . We won't have to turn it on as often. It will consume a lot more gas, which is a much better alternative, and it will create 25 high-tech jobs for Campbell River people.

Campbell River is also going to have its fiftieth anniversary of incorporation this year, so it's going to be a busy place.

Port Hardy is doing quite well with the addition of the northern inland ferry. It's bringing a great amount of tourism to the North Island and that, in conjunction with the inland Island Highway, is good news for the North Island.

FRBC recently funded a community economic development forestry strategy for the North Island. Port Hardy is front and centre in that initiative, and that will be good news for all the people of the North Island. They are also putting together a north coast trail, a multimillion-dollar project that will be funded by FRBC and will bring tourists from all over the globe to the North Island. FRBC investment in the North Island has approached $40 million in the last couple of years, and we want to spend more money up there.

Tahsis, Gold River and Zeballos on the west coast of northern Vancouver Island have just had delivered to the Nootka Sound Economic Development Corporation a non-renewable forest licence. It will be signed tomorrow at noon, which is good news for those three communities. They've worked hard for a number of years to bring this to fruition, and my hat goes off to them. That will afford them an opportunity to participate in forestry planning and to be front and centre in forestry issues, as well as creating employment. The Mowachaht-Muchalaht band was also awarded a non-replaceable forest licence, which is good news for first nations people on Vancouver Island.

In regard to highways, we're going to be doing a lot of work with infrastructure in British Columbia, particularly on the Island and northern Vancouver Island. The inland Island Highway is well underway. Right now they're working on the Campbell River bypass, the Campbell River southern connector, the extension of the one-way system over the Campbell River, the Willow-Tamarac one-way couplet system, improvements to the local storm sewer system and paving of the rural mainline.

The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is investing $9 million in roads to service the Quinsam coal mine near Campbell River. In '96-97, they invested $5.63 million in infrastructure on this project and $696,000 in road and bridge rehabilitation. They've put up new mileage markers from Campbell River to Port Hardy, which is good news for the volunteer fire departments on the North Island, to locate accident victims. I'd like to thank Glen Boyd from the Port McNeill fire department and John Bulcock from the Woss fire department. Both these departments are involved in search-and-rescue operations, and these signs will help facilitate them getting to accident scenes because they go between such long spans.

In regard to labour, I'm very pleased and proud to be part of this government, looking at the labour initiatives that our government has done. Some of the things we've brought in are a minimum wage act, the fair-wage policy, the Employment Standards Act and fair labour laws. I'm very pleased to see now that a WCB royal commission is underway. I expect some positive things there.

Hon. Speaker, what really concerns me is that our Liberal opposition opposed these labour laws, and pre-election, they talked about revisiting the Labour Code. In particular, it's no secret that they were talking about certification and also right-to-work legislation. I find it interesting when I hear the Liberal members refer to organized labour as "our friends" with disdainful glee. That concerns me. Their referring to Ken

Georgetti as a "labour goon" is nothing but an attempt to pit one group against another. "Goon" is a hateful term. It's an example of causing hurt by inflicting hatred. It's scurrilous, and it's inappropriate.

When I think of labour leaders, I think of people like Dave Haggard from the IWA, Pat Booth, Darrel Wong, Rick McRae, Bob Freer, Dave Rushton, Joe Skrlac, Tom Curnow, Ed Bennett, Bob Nicholson, Linda Hargraves, Marian Davies -- family people who have dedicated their lives to making the lives of ordinary working people in this province better.

The Liberal opposition has shown its obvious disdain for organized labour. The Liberal opposition have also come out against minimum wage, fair labour practices and employment standards. They have shown that they do not support any progressive labour initiative that benefits any worker in this province. I think they've shown that they're elitist and insensitive, and not friends of B.C. workers.

Labour has built this country. Organized labour has brought about decent wages, decent working conditions, fair labour laws and safe job sites. If you look at any statistics in this province today, particularly in the forest industry, the IWA's record for safety on the job is exemplary. It's because of trade unionists and trade union leaders that we have these standards in place in our province today. We talk about gender equality. The IWA was the first union in Canada to get equal pay for equal work for women 50 years ago in the Port Alberni plywood mills. They recognized that and brought it to fruition. IWA loggers are the most productive woodworkers in the world today. IWA past-president Pritchard was calling for a forest practices code and sustainable cut levels 50 years ago. With our government, sustainability and more jobs will become a reality. In 1986, cut levels were historically high, and we had 86,000 forest workers working in this province. Today we have 106,000.

Hon. Speaker, the throne speech speaks to British Columbia's future. It speaks to our youth and the opportunities they will enjoy. It speaks to responsible, sustainable resource development, and stewardship of the special attributes that make this province so unique and special. I am proud to be part of the NDP government and look forward to continuing to work towards a bright future for all British Columbians.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to take the opportunity in the Legislature today to make some comments on the throne speech. I first want to make some comments about jobs; then I'll address a number of specific issues within the throne speech, close with a few comments about the Election Act, and that will be about it.

I'm concerned that the government continues to stick to its media line that it is protecting health care and education. Clearly, the government is prepared to jettison almost anything to maintain the illusion that it is protecting health care and education. It seems to me that it is prepared to sacrifice support for natural resource industries, for small business, for adequate highway maintenance and upgrades, for sufficient staff to protect the environment, and for assistance to local governments.

The throne speech talks about the government creating jobs, which in my view is a contradiction. A government does not create jobs. It does not create wealth in society. I regard more public sector jobs as more overhead for the taxpayer to bear, although I acknowledge that there is a base level of services that we all expect. Overall, the overhead of government has gone from about 15 percent to 20.9 percent of the provincial economy in the last six years.

In assessing the current government's role in the B.C. economy, a disturbing pattern is emerging. In my view, the government has not provided a supportive and proactive economic climate for business generally, including natural resource industries such as agriculture. Rather, recognizing its economic vulnerability at the present time, the government is now falling into a pattern of bailing out failing enterprises -- such as Evans Forest Products, Repap and Canadian Airlines -- with ad hoc deals, to give the impression that everything is okay. At the same time, the government cloaks itself in virtue by saying that it is saving jobs. It would be far better for all of us financially if the government focused proactively on developing a positive business climate and staying out of business bailouts. I feel that a lot of businesses and industries, large and small, are being hurt or ignored by the government, mainly because they do not have union involvement to lever attention from the government.

I want to comment on a number of specific items in the throne speech, starting with the election promise of reduced income taxes for middle-income earners, the freeze on hydro rates, and the freeze on car insurance premiums and tuition fees -- all those items.

I'm concerned that the reduction in income tax is misleading to the taxpayer. In fact, that reduction is being accomplished with borrowed money. This is not a sign of good government; it is not a sign of good management. I'm concerned that it gives citizens a false sense of security and of reality.

The issue of tuition fees. Certainly there has been more and more discussion about funding of education. In my own riding, the University College of the Fraser Valley is facing a funding crunch. I recall a meeting with the board of governors of the University College of the Fraser Valley a number of months ago. I recall the comments of the student representative on that board, who was an adult student, in response to the announcement by the Premier at the time that tuition fees would be frozen. In viewing the video of that announcement, she indicated that there was a fairly disquieting mood among the students, because while they were pleased that tuition fees were frozen, they realized that there would be cuts and there would be problems with getting funding for courses, etc. So I think that while the public pronouncements are a commitment to the funding of education, students and people within the education system understand the reality.

The second area that I want to address for a moment is the comments dealing with the economy and working with business: the suggestion that the government is going to work to maximize the employment capacity of B.C.'s economy, and its stated intention to "move aggressively to harness the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector."

I note the previous speaker's comments about the need for respect for unions and union leaders, but I think it's also important that government -- and all of us -- have more respect for businessmen and the business sector. As I get to know people in my chamber of commerce, business people in my community, business people throughout British Columbia and business people in Vancouver, it concerns me that that sector of our society does not have as much respect as I think they should have. The business people that I know bring a lot of energy, dedication, brain power and effort to their jobs, to their businesses. They are very much an important partner in developing the economic potential of this province. I hope that the government does make a big effort to work with those people and, in particular, to cultivate some respect for business people.

Thirdly, I want to comment a bit on the issue of resource industries. In particular, I note that there was no mention in the throne speech about the agricultural industry. I recognize that agriculture is not as big as forestry, and possibly other sectors, but agriculture is very much a mainstay in many of our communities. The level of rationalization that is taking place within the food processing sector concerns me greatly. I don't know that enough people are aware of what is happening there. I certainly brought it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture about a year ago.

I just want to list off a few of the plants that have shut down. These are food-processing plants mainly around Vancouver, but some throughout British Columbia. In some cases the rationalization has taken place within British Columbia, but in many cases the jobs have gone elsewhere. This is distressing to me in terms of the viable primary agricultural industry we have and the fact that in Vancouver we have one of the largest consumer markets in Canada.

In September 1993 a fruit- and vegetable-processing plant in Chilliwack shut down: 360 union workers; good-paying jobs that the government talks about. In July 1994 a bread plant with 89 workers shut down in British Columbia. In December 1995 Fraser Valley Foods, a fruit and vegetable plant with about 500 people working there, shut down. In May 1996 a milk plant in Burnaby shut down. In August 1996 an egg-grading station in the Abbotsford-Langley area shut down. In September 1996 a jam and jelly plant with 80 employees shut down. In October 1996 an ice cream plant employing 17 people moved to Winnipeg. In November 1996 an ice cream plant -- the largest in British Columbia -- shut down and moved to Edmonton. More recently, just last week, another milk plant shut down. Some of that processing will probably stay in British Columbia.

We're in a situation now where we have lost a lot of our food-processing capacity in this province, and I'm not sure that anybody has even really noticed. I would really urge the Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to take a serious look at this. I would really like to see some analysis of why we have lost all of these mostly union, good-paying jobs. I think there might be some insights from that.

I want to make a quick comment about the jobs and timber accord, because it represents what the government is saying their response is to the kinds of losses of jobs that we're seeing in the agrifood-processing and the forestry sectors. To me this kind of a concept is really an artificial crutch or an artificial approach to dealing with a problem where there are more serious, systemic problems that need to be addressed.

An interesting comment was made to me recently by one of the operators of one of those food-processing plants. It was kind of a shocking comparison, because he said: "We had to consider moving our operation to Alberta" -- and in fact, that's what they did -- "because our profits in that operation were less than our WCB premiums. We couldn't afford to operate anymore." That gives you some sense of the kinds of numbers that people in this province are facing.

So I consider the jobs and timber accord as sort of a band-aid approach which avoids addressing the really fundamental problems.

One of the members talked earlier about the WCB royal commission. My perspective on that is that the royal commission is an abject waste of public resources. We know what the problems are at WCB; lots of studies have been done. Most of them are management problems; some of them are legislative problems. I think it's important for the government to get on with addressing those things. My concern about the royal commission is that we won't see the end of it and the results of it. We won't see actual implementation of some of the solutions that are discussed there for years down the road. And it's disturbing to me, when I see the injured workers who have been affected by that operation.

I know that the Minister of Forests is doing some kind of review of the Forest Practices Code, and I regard that as a good thing. I don't think anybody is quarrelling with the objectives, but it's the implementation that is the difficulty: too much bureaucracy and a very high cost to arrive at a result.

I want to make a quick comment on the recognition in the throne speech -- I think it's a positive recognition -- of the economic activity and the jobs which are provided by the recreational fishery. I think it's long overdue that the government did recognize that sector: the commercial fishing lodges, the recreational fishery. I note that the government recently named a Sport Fishing Sector Development Committee, headed by the member for Comox Valley. I wish her well in that position and hope that that committee does work on some meaningful projects on behalf of the sport fishing sector.

Just a comment about tourism. Tourism is certainly a great industry in the province, with even greater potential than we now see. I have two comments. One is that I'm concerned about both the scale and the timing of the increase in fishing licences, the angling fees. The need to forward-plan these kinds of decisions continues to be a problem. I know that the federal government has made mistakes in this area in the past, and I think that the industry got a sideways hit this year by the announcement of the angling fee increase. It's a very difficult thing for them to absorb on short notice, but I think even more problematic is the fact that they have to develop their marketing plans, put out their brochures and do their pricing far in advance of the timing of this announcement in March.

The other comment that I would make in respect to tourism, which is a similar comment, deals with the ferry schedule for the Inside Passage, which was mentioned previously by one of the members. I recently had the opportunity to speak to people in Prince Rupert, and they expressed great concern about the lack of coordination with the government on the ferry schedule. I think one of the comments was that at the end of the season last year, they had their record day four days before the season ended -- and really, the season could have been extended. The season can be and should be extended at both ends. I would encourage the government to take a look at that. I think the rationalization, or the justification, for starting the ferry late this year was a budget consideration with respect to some large repair costs at B.C. Ferries. I don't think that trying to move expenditures into another fiscal year justifies not having a good forward-planning, cooperative arrangement with the tourist industry on ferry schedules.

I want to talk about hours of work. I found this a very interesting comment in the throne speech, and while I don't disagree with some of the theory of distributing work amongst British Columbians, regionally and otherwise, I guess the question I have is: is the government talking about less hours for the same pay, or is it talking about less work for the same pay? It reminds me of the clause in the WCB contract a year and a half ago where employees of WCB would work for an extra minute a day and have another day off in the year.

I submit that it's those kinds of agreements -- those kinds of clauses in our labour agreements -- that add unnecessarily to the cost of operating government. That's just one example of it. But it was a very disturbing thing to me that the Workers Compensation Board senior management would agree to a clause like that, because it's simply adding overhead; it doesn't do anything for productivity and for value for taxpayers' money.

I want to make a few comments on environmental concerns: one general and one with respect to my own riding. There's been quite a significant cut in the Ministry of Environment budget, and this is a real concern for all of us who value our environment.

I want to first of all mention what I think is one inconsistency between what the government says and what the government does. We've had that very serious series of mudbank slides -- claybank slides -- in my riding in the Chilliwack River valley. There's a very active, broad-based group there called the Chilliwack River Action Committee that is working very hard to try to get some help and to work on some solutions for that situation. I think we all recognize that it's a difficult situation.

I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Environment is in the Legislature today. This group has been attempting to get a meeting with the minister, and recently got a response from the deputy. I think that we would very much like to have this meeting with the minister. For me, the inconsistency is that the government literature -- and I've read the literature myself -- talks about the need to maintain clean, free-running rivers and that sort of thing. Yet we have here a very serious situation where we had a mudslide and a lot of silt going down the river that is not only silting up the river but almost blocked the river, it was such a significant slide. The land involved is owned by the Crown. It's owned by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- or managed by them. So to me it's a very significant issue that I hope we can address with the minister in the near future.

The other that I want to mention is in terms of some of the staffing cuts. It seems to me it's a pattern that's following the pattern in the Ministry of Agriculture, where we're losing a lot of very good, experienced senior people. I am concerned about these major cuts in a lot of the smaller ministries. The Ministry of Environment is not one of the largest ministries. I'm concerned about these major cuts, and I'm concerned as we look down the road two or three years. I think we need to ask ourselves: how long can we continue to take these kinds of significant cuts in an effort to maintain actual increases in levels of funding in health and education? I'm worried that we're not doing enough in terms of trying to address costs of operations in those large ministries. We're taking big cuts out of the small ministries, and it's only a matter of time.

The Ministry of Agriculture had a cut of $17 million in the 18-month program that the government set out. We only need to do that three more times, and that ministry is completely gone. That ministry now is down to $51 million -- somewhere in there. Three more cuts of $17 million and there is no ministry. I simply raise this because I am concerned that we're not looking at the issue seriously enough and addressing some of the fundamental cost-drivers that we need to address.

I want to reference an article in the Vancouver Sun today by Mark Hume. This article extensively quotes people much more experienced than myself in the areas of fisheries preservation and wildlife. I think there are some comments there that need to be addressed. It talks about the collective loss of some very experienced staff members within the civil service, as I've said. The comments by Dave Narver of the B.C. Wildlife Federation are:

He is a former branch manager from several years ago and is now with the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

Bruce Hill, the president of the Steelhead Society of B.C., said the impact of the departures will be terrible:

I realize those are pretty strong comments, but I want to raise them as comments from knowledgable people in observing the operations of the Ministry of Environment.

I also want to address briefly the issue of child and family services and the reference to the tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil. In my riding, we recently had an equally tragic death of a young child. A nine-year-old boy committed suicide -- and he was known to the ministry. I'm not going to make any conclusions, as I said to our local paper, without discussing it with the ministry and going through the proper process. I want to be very clear about the need for all of us to be careful about assessments not based on full information.

I did have the opportunity to meet with social workers recently in my constituency, as well as in the office of the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I happened to be in his constituency the day the social workers went to his office. In the throne speech I note a comment about the need to work together to strengthen families. I think that's a laudable goal, and I hope that the government does put program dollars and effort into that goal.

It seems to me that some of the difficulties we face in the Ministry for Children and Families and in the Ministry of Human Resources have as their root cause the breakdown of families and the breakdown of marriages. Anything that we can do in a proactive manner to deal with that situation in our society, I regard as a good thing.

In the course of thinking about the issues in the Ministry for Children and Families, it seems to me that we need to give more thought and discussion to the responsibility of parents: first of all, parents having the primary responsibility for their children, and government being there in a supportive and backup role. I think that, too often, we go after the social worker and the government as having the primary responsibility, and I'm not sure that's the right sequence and order of things. I'm simply raising it as an issue that I have an interest in and would like to see more discussion of. I suspect that within the profession itself -- the people who make their living looking after children and families -- maybe there's been a lot of discussion about that, but I think it's something we need to revisit.

I note a comment in the throne speech that the government has a constructive working relationship with the federal government. While that may be true -- I'm not going to render judgment on that -- I do know that our provincial government has a very poor working relationship with our local governments in British Columbia. We just had the opportunity today, as opposition members, to meet with some of the officers of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They're very, very concerned about what have been unilateral decisions that very seriously impact their operations, and I would hope that the new minister makes an extra effort to work with municipalities on a constructive basis. There are opportunities for common effort to rationalize some costs and to review programs, but it can't be a one-way approach. So I hope the government makes a note of that.

I note that in the 26 or 27 pages of the throne speech, there was only one page addressing fiscal management. That concerns me, because it is fundamental to the management of any business, household or operation that over the long term, you can't spend more money than you have coming in. We have continued to do that in this province for some time now. What we're doing when we do that is running up debt and taxes for our children, so I hope there's an effort made to try and balance that in the future. There is no commitment in the throne speech to a balanced budget.

Missing from the throne speech was virtually any comment about justice and public safety issues. I note from the Attorney General's comments this morning. . . . It was certainly interesting listening to some of his comments. I would have hoped that some of those were in the throne speech. I support a lot of the goals and objectives of the reforms he is initiating, but I hope he will continue to be more active and more proactive on issues revolving around legal services, mediation -- particularly in family situations -- and those sorts of programs.

I think that partnerships with local governments are important, as I mentioned, and they were absent from the throne speech. There was no mention of some very significant aspects of the government agenda, such as the expansion of gambling and the initiative toward no-fault insurance.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, are you winding down? The red light is now on, and I just draw it to your attention.

I just want to mention the Crown Corporations Committee, which was announced by the government in the last throne speech. I would have thought that there would have been some sort of announcement for that committee in this throne speech. There has been a review of Crown corporation accountability and governance by the auditor general, and I would have hoped for some announcement. I was disappointed not to hear one.

In closing, I want to remind the government that while it was elected by only 39 percent of British Columbians, it has the duty to govern for everyone. All of us, including the opposition, have a duty to seek out and represent the public interest, based on an honest, informed and competent assessment of the facts. I'm not always convinced that the government wants to hear constructive ideas, especially from the opposition, and I note that there have been some invitations in that regard today. In the coming year, I will be looking for the government to embrace a broader range of views and ideas than it has in the past. Certainly, I am willing, and will continue to try, to work with the government in a proactive manner on a number of policy issues.

G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to stand up and respond to the Speech from the Throne. While I sit and listen to the comments from the opposition and their criticism, to a large degree, of the Speech from the Throne, I reflect back on what the speech might have said had they achieved government and had they achieved power. I'd just like to reflect back to 1996 for a moment, if we could, upon what I call "A Fickle Fable of Failure."

Now, in the spring of 1996, the Liberals were on a roll. They climbed ever higher and higher. Their numbers went up, but this bothered them. It really bothered them -- because how would they convince British Columbians that they could manage when their numbers were so high? Was it like the deficit they complained about? Was it too high? Was it too big? Was there a correlation between those two numbers? Would their people relate the two? Would they relate higher popularity with higher debt and higher deficits?

So they became obsessed with bringing their numbers down. In January 1996 they were at 32 percent in the polls, with a lead. They caucused; they pondered; they consulted. The member for Delta South, that cruncher of numbers supreme, that Nero of the numbers who fiddled while Rome burned. . . . They met in Vancouver. They had a latt�, and they devised the plan. And that great leader, that leader of the latt� Liberals, announced the plan. He said: "Let's reduce the ridings. After all, I come from Vancouver. All my friends live in Vancouver, and we know what we want. We know what's best for British Columbia. I was the mayor." So he said: "Let's reduce the ridings by 25 percent."

So he put on a plaid shirt, and he said: "We'll reduce those rural ridings." And it worked, my friends. It worked. Thirty-two percent became 28 percent. And the people of rural British Columbia said: "We know whose side they're on."

But, my friends, they said: "It's not enough. We're on our way, but it's not enough." So they had another latt�, and they came up with another plan. They said: "We'll sell B.C. Rail." And 28 percent became 25 percent.

I just want to quote here. Just a little while later -- as a matter of fact, on March 27, 1997 -- the member for Prince George-Omineca said: "I'm concerned that the NDP are going to engage in a desperate fire sale in order to raise money quickly. I can guarantee the NDP will not use any money raised from the sale of B.C. Rail assets to enhance economic opportunities for communities along the line." Whose side are they on, my friends? What is their policy? Do they want to sell? Do they want to buy? But the numbers were going down, and they cheered: "Down! Down ever further!" And the people of the north said: "We know whose side they're on."

Were they satisfied? No. "It's not enough," they cried. "More! Lower, lower -- ever lower!" they said, and they devised another plan. Again they huddled, and they caucused, and they debated. They had a brainwave. They said: "This should do it." Those latt� Liberals came out and said: "We'll eliminate the corporation capital tax." What a plan! Their friends on Howe Street needed a break. I mean, it's pretty hard to get by on a half million a year, you know? I mean, get rid of that dreaded tax. And it became 20 percent. Their lead went down to 20 percent, and they celebrated, those latt� Liberals.

As a matter of fact, they held a party. You remember the scene on television. They showed it. One of their Liberal friends threw a party at her house. I remember the cars: there were Mercedes and Lamborghinis, and there were some Jaguar convertibles. They had on furs and jewels. . . .

G. Janssen: No, there were no more latt�s. It was martinis on tap, my friend -- martinis on tap that evening.

But was 20 percent enough? No, my friends, it was not. It was not enough, they said. And again they huddled, and this time they said: "Let's eliminate the Labour Code. Let's get rid of that dreaded Labour Code, my friends. That'll do it." And again it did, brilliant as they were, and the number became 15 percent. Ever lower! They were achieving their goal. They were wiping out their numbers as they would the deficit, they said. And the working people of British Columbia said: "We know whose side they're on."

Yes, they rejoiced that the number was getting lower and lower, ever lower. And guess what, my friends. They said: "While we're on the Labour Code, let's get rid of the minimum wage." Remember that? Seven dollars was too much. How could companies compete in British Columbia? How could they ever compete? "Let's reduce that dreaded minimum wage." And they did, and the number went down -- down to 12 percent. And the working people of British Columbia said: "We know whose side they're on." The working poor said: "We know whose side they're on."

But it wasn't low enough, said that Liberal leader of latt�s. "The people want zero, and zero it will be," he said. And they chanted: "Zero, zero, zero. We want zero." Under pressure now, the election ever looming closer, they came up with an answer: "We'll eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality." Remember that, my friends? Remember that? "We'll wipe that one out. We've got too many ministers, so we'll get rid of the Ministry of Women's Equality." It was in their platform. It was a great announcement that they made -- they would make the cabinet smaller. How would they do it? By eliminating programs for women of this province. "Brilliant! Outstanding!" they cried. "That'll do it." And it did. They dropped by ten points that time, and the women of British Columbia said: "We know whose side they're on." Yes, my friends. It was a brilliant plan they had. Can you imagine what the throne speech would have looked like if they had put all that in?

But now the election was called. They called an election, and every party in British Columbia entered into a great debate for the hearts and minds of British Columbians. They promised and they debated. They increased; they decreased. They made points; they made counterpoints. But the 5 percent eluded the Liberal latt�s. But on the eve of the election, their leader, pondering his fate over yet another latt�, suddenly leapt up. He said: "I've got it, my friends. I've got the answer. I know how to get rid of that dreaded last 5 percent. We'll prove to British Columbians that we can bring numbers down -- not just our numbers but deficit numbers. They'll all vote for us." And their members jumped up and said: "What is it, O Great One? How will you bring that number down?" And his aide said: "Tell us, what should we do?" And that great leader said: "Get me Larry Gillanders on the phone." Can you hear it, my friends? "Lar, this is Gord." And the people of British Columbia said: "We know whose side we're on."

Yes, my friends, they went and voted NDP. They voted for this government, and that's why we have this throne speech. Now we hear the Liberals from one side of their mouth saying: "Spend, spend, spend. There are not enough schools. There are not enough hospitals. More roads! More staff for the ministries! Less fees, but less taxes!" From the other side of their mouth? "Cut, cut, cut." Yes, my friends, can you imagine what that throne speech would have looked like?

G. Janssen: I don't want to talk about what we do in NDP ridings, because we've heard it. I want to address the concerns of the Liberal opposition. They have talked about their concerns for their ridings, mainly, and for the province as a whole. So I just want to read about a Liberal riding -- the Liberal riding of Parksville-Qualicum, which is next door to Alberni. There was great rejoicing there, because if you read the disclosure statement of political contributions for that member, we know how happy all the developers were there.

Lost Lake Properties, Sun Rite Village Properties, Triple H Construction, Lauzer and Son Contracting, Morningstar Golf Course Ltd., Knappett Industries, Fairwinds Development Corp., Coast Realty Group Ltd., M. Lay Investments -- $1,700, that one. But there's a winner in this one, I'll tell you. Are you ready for this? I bet you don't know this one: Party Time Services, $1,810. Yes, my friends, why did they donate all that money? Well, I'll tell you why: because of the investments that this government made in that riding. The investments we made in that riding. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. members. I recognize that it is the 5 o'clock period and that things change at that point -- but a little less noise, if we could. Also, may I remind the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain that she does not have voice unless she is in her seat. Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Janssen: We had 18 community grants in four years in that riding, totalling $625,000. We invested in the Island Highway, which goes right through that riding from Parksville to Mud Bay -- completely in that riding: $174 million. We invested in schools in that riding: $25 million in four years. That member stands up, my friends, and says: "It's not enough." This year alone, two schools: Errington Elementary. . . . Oh, three -- a new Qualicum-area secondary and a Qualicum-area elementary. Those contractors who gave money should be elated. They should give twice as much, but they're giving it to the wrong party, my friends.

Why do I bring these numbers out? Because I've got an offer for the opposition. They complain about the deficit, and they complain that we're not spending enough. Here's the deal: we will cancel every single one of these projects, because that member has said the deficit is too great. And that's

for every other member over there. Here's the offer; here's the deal, my friends. We will cancel. . . . We will not put that money into a New Democratic Party riding. We will not put the money into the general revenue fund. We will apply those dollars to the deficit, my friends.

Do I have any takers? How many of you are willing to stand up and say it? "Cancel a project in my riding. Don't do the school. I will go back to my riding, and I will say that on behalf of the deficit in this province, I will cancel that school. We don't need it. The deficit needs the money more." That's the offer. How many of you are willing to take us up on it?

I want you to stand up. . . . There's a Liberal member speaking directly after me. Let him stand up, and let him take us up on the offer. We will apply those dollars directly to the deficit and bring that dreaded deficit down, just like the Liberal leader brought down the numbers and lost the election.

The Speaker: My goodness, we have heckling before the member begins. I recognize now the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure for me to address the House on behalf of the constituents of my riding, Okanagan-Penticton. Since we left this House last August, I have been working for and with my constituents. I have continually travelled throughout my riding, holding town hall meetings in Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton. I have met with many groups and numerous individuals, and I regret to report that the hard-working people of Okanagan-Penticton are not happy with the performance of this NDP government. People in the riding are very upset about the continuing string of broken promises.

My constituents are very concerned about their very basic needs, which this government is charged to provide to families and to individuals: namely, health care, education, care for children and families truly in need. Taxation -- which is totally out of control -- the never-ending layers of red tape, the lack of accountability of this government, jobs. . . . Yes, jobs -- they are harder than ever to find, and this NDP government continues to strangle opportunity. The debt has grown to $31 billion, a level that people cannot fathom, quite frankly. And finally, people are very concerned about their personal future, but most importantly, about the future of their children and their families.

Time and time again, the residents of my riding have told me: "Get this government just to tell us the whole story and the truth, to stop making promises when they have no intention of keeping those promises." People want a government that has a workable plan, a government that will walk the talk, a government that can truly make a plan happen and work for all British Columbians. The citizens of Peachland, Naramata, Penticton and Summerland want an honest government, a government that gives them the straight goods and not doubletalk.

British Columbians expect a basic level of service. Under this government, they are not getting that service, as evidenced by the citizens who continue to experience delays in health care and the overcrowding in our schools. What is incredible is that B.C. taxpayers are paying some of the highest taxes in Canada and a never-ending increase in fees and licences. The people of Okanagan-Penticton want this government to stop picking their pockets. Families work hard, single parents work hard and our youth work hard, but their jeans are being picked clean. This NDP government has more and more of their money in taxes and never-ending fees. The increases continue, and now we have an increase of 133 percent in probate fees for those who pass away. It must stop. Enough is enough.

The residents of Okanagan-Penticton want honest bookkeeping from their government. People tell me they deserve the truth about the province's finances, just as they all must do in their own small businesses and with their family finances. Just tell people the truth about the deficits. Forget the smokescreens, the mirrors and the untruths about balanced budgets, especially when this government knows that the two promised balanced budgets are, in fact, deficits -- the last one was $395 million and growing.

The citizens of Okanagan-Penticton do not ask for special treatment or extra treatment. We just want to be treated fairly and equitably with all the rest of the citizens of British Columbia. Thus, when we are promised a new middle school in Summerland after ten years of meetings and political rhetoric, the people of Summerland say: "Just keep your promises." When government promises to rebuild the Snowdon school in Penticton, the people of Penticton say: "Just keep your promises." It's the truth people want, not more and more stories and certainly not more and more broken promises.

I am a very positive person; I believe in people. I'm very optimistic. I want to solve problems for people and, quite frankly, to work with this government to build real solutions for all British Columbians. Less than a year ago, the Premier spoke about working together in a new spirit of partnership -- yet another broken promise. I was very hopeful that this year's throne speech would be the beginning of this government's announcing that it was now going to work for all British Columbians to stop the political rhetoric. Did that happen? Unfortunately, no.

Let's forget the doubletalk; let's deal with the facts. Perhaps the member for Yale-Lillooet would like to listen. Let's deal with and talk about real family situations. A promise. . . .

R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the member for Yale-Lillooet listen to a promise from his government from the throne speech. Please listen: ". . .a health care system that ensures all our citizens, particularly our seniors and children, have the care they need when they need it. . . ." Well, Mr. Speaker, the facts and the truth: seniors. . . . Recently, in our riding, we had a 91-year-old lady who only received care because of the courage of a social worker, a home care giver, a hospital social worker and an MLA who said no to the bureaucracy; 91-year-old seniors deserve care immediately. We had a senior, Mrs. Gregoire, who recently spent three degrading days lying in emergency waiting for surgery. Health care for our seniors is not working in British Columbia. These seniors built our country and province, and they deserve respect, not insults, from this NDP government.

Now let us look at health care for youth, and a government that says they care about the health care for youth. Let's look at Javad Gibbenhuck, an eight-year-old young boy who has hepatitis C. The hospital acknowledges, and the province

agrees, that it was the hospital blood transfusion that was responsible for Javad's illness. However, because of bureaucracy, Javad's care has not taken place in British Columbia. Care for children should never come behind a bureaucracy. Care for children must always come before the bureaucracy.

Now, I understand that this very government that is concerned about health care for our youth has cut funding for interferon and PCR testing. I plead with this government to provide care for our children. Let us stop the rhetoric; let us all listen to the plea of Javad's mother. As she wrote to a minister: "Please conduct investigations into why our care system has failed this child so miserably." Let us listen to these pleas. Let's truly provide care to Javad and other children of British Columbia before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever noticed -- and I'm sure you have -- how this government always blames someone else? It's always someone else's fault -- always passing the blame, never solving the problem. "It must be the federal government's fault." Enough is enough. This government must stop blaming others. Our problems are not caused because there is not enough money. This NDP government has created more debt than all other governments in the history of the province.

The problem is that the NDP government has no vision, no plan, no leadership. But worst of all, it breaks its promises. Quite frankly, this NDP government does not listen to all British Columbians, only their friends. Mr. Speaker, as you very well know, government is to serve all, not just a few friends.

The throne speech attempts to talk about the need for provincial infrastructure. This government must stop the politics in schoolbuilding and roadbuilding and in other major capital needs. The people of British Columbia want a government that establishes priorities based on real needs, fair measurement and non-partisan priority-setting. Above all, they want a government that gets the job done and serves all British Columbians every day. Perhaps this approach is too simplistic for this government to understand.

This government says: "My government intends to move aggressively to harness the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector as we build our province." I ask this government to please leave these successful people alone. Do not kill more businesses and more jobs. Please do not give more people the reason to move their job-producing businesses to Washington or Alberta. Enough is enough. Mr. Minister, I appreciate you listening.

With reference to our key resource sector -- forestry -- this government has caused the problems and the disasters. Loggers, millworkers, contractors, small business operators and investors have all told this government what the problems are. They have all given this government the solutions. I ask this government to listen to those who know how to solve the problems. Let them do it. To stop the bleeding in our forest sector, we must listen to those who work in it, those who know it and those who know how to fix the problems. The NDP government has punished workers, punished families, and is destroying communities and driving investment to Alberta and Washington. This NDP government is exporting jobs. Enough is enough.

This government talks about introducing legislation and partnership with the tourism community. This is the third time we've heard this announcement. This government has caused serious delays to this industry and has created uncertainty. The solutions are really quite simple. Let the industry look after itself. These people are professionals; they know their businesses. Get government out of their way. Give them certainty. Keep your promises to the tourism industry of British Columbia. Remember three announcements: three strikes and you're out.

The government leader makes bold comments on his Guarantee for Youth. As a father of three young adults, as a person who has worked and helped youth, I ask this government to please stop the rhetoric. Stop the political rhetoric, stop the photo ops, stop playing with these young lives, stop the self-serving political advertising campaigns. It truly is time to start working for our youth and to provide a business climate which produces real training opportunities, creates real apprenticeship programs, real on-the-job experiences and, most importantly, lasting jobs for our youth -- jobs in a private sector which are rewarding to our youth, which provide them with the very same opportunities that most of us had. We have a responsibility to our youth. This NDP government must stop the rhetoric on the futures of our youth. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, as I near the end of my speech, I must make some comments on this government's irresponsible fiscal management. This government must stop the tremendous buildup in our debt, now closing in on $31 billion. The citizens of Okanagan-Penticton know who will have to pay this money back: their children and grandchildren. They know that this government will continue to pickpocket them through taxes, fees and licences, and now downloading to municipalities. This government just does not understand that there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. The people of Okanagan-Penticton ask this government to stop their irresponsible approach with their money and their future, and to start listening and acting on the wishes and wants of all British Columbians, not just their very special friends and insiders.

This 1997 throne speech also fails to address a number of key public policy issues -- namely, gaming, no-fault insurance and the repeal of the notorious gag law in British Columbia. The people of my riding want these issues debated in an open, democratic way -- debates where all voices can be heard. These debates must be held in this House. I challenge this government to make this commitment to all British Columbians. Thousands and thousands of Canadians died to protect our rights to open, honest government. We need open debate on these very key public issues. I ask this government to listen and to act. British Columbians deserve open, honest government. This throne speech does not provide that. Unfortunately, British Columbians have learned that what the NDP government says is always different from what it does. I believe this throne speech continues the tradition.

I would very much like to thank all of my constituents. I am proud to serve the citizens of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton. On their behalf, I will vote against this throne speech.

B. Barisoff: I'm pleased to stand and speak on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan-Boundary. Some of my colleagues have already provided very eloquent, articulate responses. Particularly in the area of finance, the member for Delta South has done a fine job of scrutinizing the government's performance in this regard and continues to unveil the trickery of high finance.

It's common knowledge that financial figures can be easily manipulated to present a variety of pictures, depending on the agenda. It's a little creative force at work. Unfortunately, sooner or later there is a day of reckoning, as any

disguise of the truth or sleight of hand will only delay the inevitable and painful consequences. It has been the practice of many governments, including this one, to believe mistakenly that accountability can be delayed or passed on to someone else at a later date. Unfortunately, in our case it will be our children and grandchildren who will be burdened with the consequences.

I would sincerely like to convey a message in this House to this government regarding the feelings of many voters and taxpayers. I hope that my response to the throne speech and budget will properly and responsibly convey those feelings. In my riding I'm responsible to some 15 different communities, a number of different municipal and regional governments, three school districts and a point of view that spans from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Okanagan-Boundary exemplifies broad diversity in culture, economy and industry -- from ranching, logging and mining to agriculture and tourism. As a retirement destination point, it's home to one of the highest per capita populations of seniors in the province. This also places an additional burden in the area of health care and housing options.

I'm certain that many members in this House will concur with me when I say that many people don't trust government. They don't believe politicians. In fact, "politician" has become a dirty word. They are losing hope. They live in one of the greatest provinces in Canada, with an abundance of natural resources, and they are truly losing hope. Why? Because they have lost faith and trust in their leaders, in those elected to serve them. They have lost respect for this government, and for good reason. Some of those reasons have already been mentioned. So with a small glimmer of hope, they look to spring, to the throne speech, to the Premier for some sign that trust can begin to be restored.

According to the recent surveys, there is no doubt in the minds of 75 percent of the voters that the government was negligent in presenting the true facts about the state of the finances in the province. The desire for power was greater than their integrity and principles, and that is a shame. There is no doubt in the minds and hearts of many British Columbians that they were made victims of a clever demonstration of financial wizardry -- a kind of magic show designed to distort and impress the viewer. That explains how a projected $87 million surplus suddenly becomes a $369 million deficit after this election.

So we look to the throne speech and the budget for a sign: a sign of hope, a sign that the government has changed, a sign that they will recognize the error of their ways and will turn a clean page. We look to the Premier for leadership, because like other dictators, he loves to say "my government." We look for signs of remorse for misleading the hard-working taxpayers of this province. We look for some sign that there's a desire to restore faith, confidence and trust -- to offer us hope of renewed integrity on the part of this government. They want to believe, to trust in the fundamental goodness of those who would provide leadership and who are entrusted with the public purse. So with anticipation, all of us wait for the new day, a new speech, a new direction, a new throne speech and at least one new idea.

What do we get? I believe we're going to discover what we have: the same old lines in a new wrapper. Like the song "That Old Black Magic," it continues to play over and over again. There's a saying that could not be more true: "I can't hear what you're saying because what you're doing keeps ringing loudly in my ears."

Let's examine what this government is so clever at saying, and then compare it to what they're actually doing. I coach high school basketball, and I tell my kids: "It's easy to talk the talk, but it's harder to walk the walk." Without disrespect, I would like to put some of the words contained in the throne speech to the test.

I quote: "My government has committed to build on the strengths that set this province apart: the opportunity to work at decent-paying, family-supporting wages. . . ." It sounds great, doesn't it? In actual fact, the NDP has been a number one job killer in B.C. High taxes, pro-union, anti-small business policies are actually driving jobs and investment out of B.C. into Alberta and Washington State. In the forest sector alone, 5,500 jobs were lost last year. I've spent the last two months working with two small primary producers in my riding who were not properly represented at the negotiating table when the softwood lumber agreement was reached. Consequently, they and other small producers in this province are in danger of going under, with significantly more job losses to B.C.

The fixed-wage law on the public sector projects has raised the cost of construction. The Vancouver Island Highway project and the Trans-Canada HOV projects are union-only. We have a pro-union Labour Code. We have an Employment Standards Act that is so inflexible that we get dozens of calls and letters from constituents and small business owners who are suffering. It's actually reducing job opportunities, not increasing them.

This government does not understand. They never have -- they never will -- appreciate the principles of free enterprise and sound business practice. The understanding may come around sometime -- maybe the same time that they come up with a balanced budget.

According to StatsCan, there were 8,000 fewer jobs for youth aged 15 to 24 in the summer of 1996 than in the same period of 1995, a rise from 13.5 percent unemployment to 22.7 percent in 1996. But this is the same government that has promised and continues to promise thousands of jobs for young people.

Taxi drivers, restaurant owners and single parents looking for part-time work are writing me about the hardships of the inflexible Labour Code and the job-killing features of the Employment Standards Act. A constituent wrote to me just recently, and I will quote just a few lines from his letter:

I could go on for a lot more pages, but I think you get the idea, hon. Speaker. It's signed "An Unhappy Person." I don't know this person, but I have a feeling that he's not alone with his frustration. I hope this government is listening. This isn't rhetoric on the part of a political spin doctor. This is the heart and feelings of a frustrated taxpayer out there.

When we walk down the hallowed halls of these parliament buildings, the Legislature, far removed from the front lines in the constituency and the back yards of rural British Columbia, I think that we can sometimes forget why we are here. But we should never forget the real lives and the faces of our neighbours, who are working hard and hoping there's a future for them and their children.

In the throne speech: "My government is committed. . .to education to ensure our children have the skills they need to compete in the global economy." Let's compare these words with what is actually taking place.

The government has announced that it will build 95 new schools over the next four years. Only 30 are actually on the construction list; the others are in planning stages. The list of criteria necessary to obtain approval for most of these schools is dependent on such factors as a decrease in the size of the school, cost reductions, redesign, length of the school day, etc. If these conditions are not met, then schools will not be built. Some of these conditions, such as longer school days, are in direct conflict with current teachers' union policy.

A constituent wrote me on March 24 in response to a CBC Radio interview. Let me quote what he said:

These are not my words. They are just another example of how the ordinary, everyday people are feeling and responding to this government. It's my job as MLA and member of the opposition to convey what I'm hearing on the front lines and in the back yards of rural British Columbia.

Not only do our children need education, but we are facing unprecedented demand for adult basic education in order to meet the demands of the rapidly changing economy. This government threatened the funding of the ABE program and only backtracked when there was public outcry. I'm glad that the minister listened to the cries and to the people who wrote hundreds of letters protesting this action. I received copies of many of these letters, which were sent to my riding. There are cries from parents, teachers and special needs children who are shortchanged as a result of the special education funding formula. This government needs to listen ever more.

The throne speech goes on to say: "My government is committed to. . .a health care system that ensures all citizens -- particularly our seniors and children -- have the care they need when they need it." Let's compare the words to the actions. The government has wasted $40 million on a regionalization experiment, which has yet to be proved, and another $125 million on a health labour accord. It is not directly change for the better. The life of the cancer patient or the patient wait-lists for cardiac surgery. . . . Cardiac lists have grown from 365 in March '96 to 500 by December. Patients are waiting as long as a year for cardiac surgery.

The minister has proceeded to appoint all the members to all 45 regional health boards and councils, despite a longstanding tradition of public and community input. In the process, this government has broken its promise to allow communities the right to choose.

Ambulance fees have taken a substantial increase for those who are unfortunate enough in their circumstances to require help. I'm told that one-third of all medical specialists in Prince George have left the province. Health care is deteriorating in northern and rural B.C. In my own riding, a multilevel care facility was promised to the citizens of Keremeos by an area cabinet minister and an MLA. He said that if his government was elected he would ensure that this facility was built. I thank the government, because they have instituted some funding money that is starting up. I hope we do see shovels in the ground in that area. I would like to suggest that if this is true, it will have to be followed with real action, and that's the actual building of the multi-care facility.

The number one polluter in the lower mainland remains the Burrard Thermal plant. Yet the ministry has failed to respond. I hope the minister will show the necessary leadership in this regard.

I'm also personally acquainted with other examples, for which I plead with the minister for resolution. In Osoyoos we have the warmest lake in Canada, and it's located in a prime tourist destination. The lake is in trouble. This government completed a report last year which cited the water quality as poor. Osoyoos has been lobbying for years to get some assistance in order to install a sewer system around the lake. The continuing neglect of this issue will have real, damaging effects on the water quality, the environment and the tourist-based economy. I hope the minister will review this issue, in the interests of achieving a world-class standard of protection.

We have another major issue. This is another critical issue that is gaining a public groundswell of opposition. I've spoken to the minister personally about it, and I hope she will move as swiftly and decisively as she can in this area. Metalex, a Richmond-based company, has illegally deposited 6,000 tonnes of contaminated special waste material at the old Dankoe minesite near Cawston in the Similkameen Valley. This is one of the prime agricultural environment-sensitive areas in the province. There's a real danger of groundwater pollution and, being a very windy area, there are already signs of airborne contamination. The residents are upset; the ranchers, the orchardists, are upset; the local regional government is upset. The public is demanding intervention by the minister. I might add that I listened to the minister in question period today. I hope that some of the things that she mentioned will be done there are actually taking place.

What is the definition of "prudent?" Prudent means cautious, discreet, managing very carefully.

The speech goes on to say: ". . .my government believes we can do more." Not more damage, we hope; not more deficits, we hope; not more debt burden, which has ballooned to $31 billion. What this government needs to do more of is listen. Listen to the people, because ultimately they will prevail.

I know that this government recognizes the need for continued and expanded investment. The throne speech clearly identifies this when it states:

Speaking of roads and bridges, as opposition critic for Transportation and Highways, I recently examined the auditor general's report of the Vancouver Island Highway project. There are a number of critical issues here. There are a number of critical issues facing this province as we move into the twenty-first century. The area of transportation and infrastructure is one of the major ones. In the interest of time, I hope to have the opportunity to share some of these findings later in the estimates debate and to once again compare the words with actions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the words are no longer enough, because this government's actions are screaming too loudly in our ears. I'd like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Members, before I call on the House Leader for adjournment, I want to respond to the two motions of privilege that were brought before the House on March 25, 1997.

First, on March 25, 1997, the member for Delta South sought to raise a matter of a breach of privilege -- namely, that the Minister of Finance had misled the House when presenting the 1996-97 budget in June of 1996. The complaint is essentially the same complaint he raised on July 9, 1996, which was dealt with by the Speaker's decision given on July 15, 1996, albeit with reference to an additional document.

The new complaint is founded on an analysis of a forecast on which the budget was based, viewed in light of the public accounts for 1995-96, which were tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance on March 25, 1997.

When a matter has been dealt with by a Speaker's decision, it ought not to be raised at a later date unless material information which was not available at that time has been subsequently discovered. In the case at hand, the public accounts for 1995-96 were not available until the spring of 1997, so it seems to me the matter can indeed be raised.

Secondly, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The member gave notice at the time of prorogation of his intention to raise the matter, and I am satisfied that this was the earliest opportunity, as the public accounts for 1995-96 became available during the adjournment of the House, after the summer of 1996. I am also satisfied that the House can address the matter after prorogation in these circumstances.

The member indicated at the time he made his application that he was prepared to move a motion, should the matter be accepted by the Speaker. It has been established that the more appropriate practice is to table the proposed motion at the time of making the application.

The role of the Speaker in matters of privilege is outlined in part by the following quote from the sixth edition of Beauchesne, page 29, paragraph 117(2):

I have reviewed the ruling of July 15, 1996, in light of the new material submitted by the member for Delta South. That ruling was based on the consideration of a wealth of material and resulted in the conclusion that the matter involved a disagreement between members as to facts and the nature of forecasting. Has the new material changed the conclusion of July 1996? In my opinion, it has not.

The budget is based on forecasts, and the record shows that the Minister of Finance indicated that the forecasts are based on not one but a number of indices. The material tendered does not indicate an intention to deliberately mislead, a key element in the complaint. I am of the view that the reasons adopted in my ruling of July 15, 1996, would also apply at this time. Accordingly, I cannot find that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made out which would justify setting aside the ordinary business of the House.

I turn now to the second matter. On March 24, 1997, the member for Matsqui rose in his place to indicate to the Chair that he wished to reserve his right to raise a matter of privilege. This satisfied the earliest-opportunity rule, as well as the courtesy requirement of giving prior notice to the Speaker pursuant to practice recommendation No. 7 of our standing orders.

On March 25, 1997, the member for Matsqui raised the matter of privilege, stating that the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and the then Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations "deliberately and wilfully misled this assembly by claiming in this House that the 1996-97 budget would have a surplus of $87 million, when important ministry documents obtained through freedom of information were all projecting a deficit." The Chair also heard representations on the matter from the Government House Leader.

On July 15, 1996, the Chair ruled on a question of privilege raised by the member for Delta South -- namely, that in 1996 the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations had deliberately misled the House in statements made in the House characterizing the budget of that year as being a "balanced budget." It was ruled in that matter of privilege that there was a dispute as to allegations of fact between two members with respect to their characterization of the matter of economic forecasting and its relationship to the budget. The ruling also determined that there was no evidence that the House had been deliberately misled by the minister.

It appears to me that the case at hand is predicated on facts similar to those which gave rise to the matter of privilege of July 9, 1996. In the course of his submission, the hon. member tabled documents on budget preparation containing economic forecasts and projections, including Treasury Board and Ministry of Finance correspondence with the former Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. The member also tabled Finance ministry transition documents dated May 22, 1996. The Chair has examined the tabled material, which spans the period from February 1995 to June 1996, and considers the key documents to be the transition documents dated May 22, 1996. As well, I have reviewed the relevant statements in Hansard, which the Government House Leader referred to in her intervention.

The question, then, is whether the key documents tendered introduce a new element into the matter. The Chair must determine whether a prima facie case has been made, based upon the information provided by the member. The minister made several interventions in the House with respect to budgetary forecasts, the principle of which is that "one forecasts based on the best information, and the forecasts are subject to change." For reference, see Hansard for July 30, 1996, page 1166.

In my opinion, the material tendered by the member does not constitute new information in this case that would change the findings of July 15, 1996, on the same issue. The evidence provided to the Chair does not indicate an intention to deliberately mislead the House. The Chair considers the matter to be one of disagreement between two members as to allegations of fact. It has been ruled on numerous occasions that a dispute as to facts ought not to form the basis of a complaint of a breach of privilege. I therefore cannot find that a prima facie case has been made, based upon the information submitted by the member.

The Chair wishes to make a further important point in order to assist members in future applications. While the member's statement met the test of brevity, and while he appropriately informed the House of the facts on which the matter of privilege was based, the member did not at the end of his statement tender the required motion to be moved, had the Chair found that a prima facie case was established. This is clearly stated in our guidelines on page 48 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, as one of the essential elements required in raising a matter of privilege: "A copy of the motion the member intends to move should the Chair find a prima facie case has been established must be tabled." This requirement is also recorded in the Journals of the House, April 11, 1990, page 20; June 25, 1982, page 174; and April 13, 1982, page 41.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Introduction of Bills

Tabling Documents

Ministerial Statement

Oral Questions

Petitions

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

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

Official Report of DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY