[ Page 2469 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have 75 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my constituency, with several adults and my good friend, the teacher, Mr. Boulding. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Coell: I'd like to welcome to the House today a former MLA and cabinet minister, Cyril Shelford. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Whittred: Seated in the gallery today are three constituents from my riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Dorothy Bell, my good friend and in fact my former boss when she was a Burnaby school trustee, is here today with her two sons. Dorothy is the former hazardous waste commissioner for the province, and her presence here today is as coordinator for the wine industry of British Columbia. Her two sons, Adam Caddell and Dylan Bell, are grade 3 and grade 1 students respectively at Ridgeway Elementary. They are getting a day off to learn the mysteries of the Legislature. Will you join me in making them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my great pleasure to welcome and introduce in the House today my parents, who are visiting Victoria: Bert and Shirley Woodbury. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: It is a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House some visiting dignitaries from the British Columbia grape and wine industry. As most of you know, we have achieved world-class standards with our grape and wine industry. Would the House please welcome Mr. Ian Tostenson, Mr. Steve Bolliger, Mr. Gord Fitzpatrick, Chuck Easlie and Keith Davis. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Janssen: With us today is a good friend from Nanoose Bay, in the riding of Parksville-Qualicum, Sue Egers. Sue is a women's advocate, a court advocacy worker and the federal MP nomination candidate for the riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan. I ask the House to make her welcome.

B. Goodacre: Today we have some constituents from municipalities in Bulkley Valley-Stikine -- actually, in municipalities that used to be in the old riding of Omineca, which was served by our good friend Cyril Shelford for many, many years. So with us today we have His Worship Paul Jean, who is the mayor of Burns Lake. We also have a director of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako, Eileen Benedict. And from the district of Houston, we have His Worship Mayor Tom Euverman, councillors Bonny Hawley and Sharon Smith, and the administrator Bill Beamish. Tom asked me to share with the members of this House that two of the most efficient mills in this province happen to be located in Houston, and, through those industries, they supply the people of British Columbia with $65 million a year in stumpage. So could you please welcome the benefactors from the north.

C. Hansen: In 1995 the NDP announced a $1.9 million program, the tourism employment program, to place 300 people into tourism-related jobs. Unfortunately, the results are now in, and they expose the NDP's job training program as a sham. Many of the training spots that received the $7,000-per-person subsidy were in large, American-based fast-food chains with only a slender connection to tourism. Can the Minister of Education tell us how many tourism careers have been launched by this program?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be pleased to take the question on notice.

C. Hansen: The reality is that every person who receives a subsidy from the tourism employment program bumps a teenager or a part-time worker who doesn't get a subsidy.

To the Minister of Education: will the minister confirm that there is not one job under this program that would not have been created had the program not existed?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the type of question and the detail requested in the answer are more appropriate for estimates debate. But it is outrageous for this Liberal caucus, who have constantly campaigned against job creation projects for young people in this province. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Constantly in the last election they attacked the young people from the downtown east side who were able to find employment with Livent. . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .in the new theatre.

I don't know why this Liberal caucus, this Liberal opposition, is attacking government programs that provide opportunities to young people in this province. They have attacked tuition freezes. I don't know why they don't act positively in favour of these kinds of programs.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Minister of Education, Skills and Training, but if the learning curve is too steep, I'm sure another member will jump up and answer for him.

The tourism employment program in Gibsons just shows how outrageous the program is. The taxpayers of British Columbia trained and staffed a joint Wendy's and Tim Horton franchise -- trained half of the entire staff in the restaurant. The total cost was $165,000.

Can the Minister of Education tell the House why taxpayers are subsidizing Wendy's, a U.S. fast-food giant that made almost half a billion dollars in profit last year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again, if you wish to provide me with the information, I'll look into the details of what you appear to have found. But let me say this more generally: I have met with the Council of Tourism Associations, which is a partner with this ministry in doing workplace-based training; 

[ Page 2470 ]

I've met with ASPECT, which is also a partner in workplace-based training; and the word from these employers is that they welcome the partnership of the government. . . .

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The word from these associations is that they welcome the partnership we have with them in creating not old jobs but new jobs, that they welcome the training initiatives of this government and that far from there being displacement, we are creating additional jobs for young people in this province. That's part of what we intend to keep on doing in British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: In this program the NDP promised relevant industry training and "networking opportunities with leaders in the industry." In reality, what this meant at Wendy's was that they were able to earn full certification in such categories as bacon, lettuce and french fry preparation.

Wendy's and other fast-food outlets have training programs. They train their own employees, and they have the money to train their own employees. Can the Minister of Education tell us if he feels it's appropriate for taxpayers to be subsidizing a company that had sales of $4.5 billion last year?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is really just more of the same. We are going to continue to train people for jobs in this economy. We've created 23,000 new jobs in the tourism industry in British Columbia in the last five years, and we're going to work with industry to provide opportunities for young people in entry-level positions.

The member raises some specifics about a specific training program. As my colleague has said, this is far more appropriate for estimates than for this House. I'd be very pleased to investigate it and get back to him and to his caucus.

M. de Jong: Wendy's isn't the only fast-food restaurant that has benefited from this program. The A&W Root Bear is dancing down the street with a pocketful of taxpayers' money. In fact, the documents we've received indicate that in Nanaimo, 30 government-sponsored, minimum-wage positions were financed by this government. My simple question to the Minister of Education is: tell us why taxpayers are subsidizing A&W.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: The coupon I got in the mail the other day says: "There's nothing like. . . ."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please -- on both sides of the House -- let us do the courtesy, one to another, to hear and listen to questions.

M. de Jong: I'd like to read from the coupon I got. It says: "There's nothing like the taste of a free Teen Burger." Won't the taxpayers be thrilled to know that they subsidized the cost of that promotion!

The Premier promised young people "comprehensive training and employment programs that will provide youth with the experience needed to start a meaningful career." I didn't realize that financing American-based fast-food restaurants was part of that plan.

Let me ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: Please.

M. de Jong: Let me ask about another American fast-food company that's been in the news lately. He'll know about this one.

The Speaker: Member, if I don't get a question. . . ..

M. de Jong: Let me ask him to tell British Columbians why they as taxpayers should be subsidizing Starbucks, a company that made over three-quarters of a billion dollars last year.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Did you win a contract in your riding or something?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this government has committed itself to providing young people with good-quality jobs, appropriate training and tuition freezes so they can access that training, and we're going to continue on that line.

For this Liberal opposition to stand up here and question a few contracts, which I have said I will look into and get back to him on. . . . For this Liberal opposition to stand up and criticize it, when they ran against this sort of commitment to education, when they aggressively said they were going to cut education spending, when the member sitting behind you has aggressively criticized the tuition freeze and called it simply a political stunt, is outrageous. We're going to commit it to education and training. We're going to follow through on it.

C. Clark: Taco Time, the U.S. fast-food giant, is another corporate billionaire that has cashed in at taxpayers' expense. They also got training money from this NDP minister, despite the fact that they train over 10,000 people worldwide on their own, without help from the NDP.

Can the minister tell us why he is spending precious taxpayer dollars to subsidize this corporate billionaire?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I do recognize that the Liberal approach to assisting people in finding jobs is different from this side. They prefer not to help individuals get the training they need or help small businesses get the trainees they need. They prefer to simply cut the corporation capital tax by a billion dollars and then cut services to everybody else.

C. Clark: I don't think David Lewis is guiding this minister's deliberations when he makes a decision, because the list of fast-food outlets being subsidized by this govern-

[ Page 2471 ]

ment continues to grow. The minister also deems Dairy Queen, another American corporate giant, to be worthy of a training subsidy. Can he tell us why he is prepared to subsidize this multinational, which last year reported sales of almost half a billion dollars?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've toured a number of workplace training sites in the province so far. I've talked to people who are working in the tourism industry -- indeed, working in restaurants. I've talked to people who are fabricating truck parts in the Okanagan. I'm amazed: is it the Liberal opposition's point of view that you only help with training for those who don't have a profitable corporation; that the only people they'll help is some multinational they want to give a corporation capital tax break to? Through tourism associations, through ASPECT and through our other training partners we're going to continue to focus on helping to provide the opportunity for young people to get entry-level jobs, to get the skills they need to get a foot up in the job market.

G. Plant: I note that the questions concern a program intended to enhance employment opportunities in the tourism industry. In that regard, I'm sure the minister will be delighted to learn that another corporate pauper who is partaking of NDP generosity in this program is the toy company Toys "R" Us. Last year, Toys "R" Us had net sales of almost $10 billion from toy stores all over the world. Can the Minister of Education tell us why he thinks a multibillion-dollar American company, which has nothing to do with the B.C. tourism industry, needs an NDP job subsidy?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's amazing to hear the Liberals stand up today and say they do not want training programs in this province.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: They don't want training programs. Now, they have a variety of specific circumstances. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: They allege a variety of concerns about specifics in this program, and I said very clearly that I will look into those and get back to this House with the facts after I ascertain them, because quite frankly, the research on the opposite side of the House has been so shoddy I would not rely on a thing they're saying here.

But back to the general point. In partnership with industry and trainees, we have aggressively set out to provide training opportunities for young people in this province. There are different ways of doing this, I agree. It's one of the major differences between this side and that side. They believe in the trickle-down theory: cut a billion dollars to their large corporate friends and hope that jobs are created. We prefer to work with individual employers and individual people requiring training to make sure they get the skills and entry-level jobs that they need.

G. Plant: I am as interested as all members in hearing the connection, in principle, between a job subsidy for a toy company and a tourism employment program. The chief executive officer of Toys "R" Us said: "We are pleased that each of our divisions experienced. . .sales increases and improved operating earnings in 1996. . . . Canadian toy stores had high single-digit. . .sales gains for the year." This sounds like a company with plenty of resources to do its own training. Can the Minister of Education tell us why Toys "R" Us, a company with worldwide corporate profits of three-quarters of a billion dollars last year, needed an NDP tourism employment subsidy?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There are indeed different ways of doing training. One is simply to cut taxes to the big corporations -- what the Liberal opposition wants to do -- and hope that training will occur. We prefer to focus on the young people who are trying to get into the job market. They need a start. That is the whole purpose of workplace-based training. That's the whole purpose of this training subsidy. I've heard them stand up in this House and mourn the high unemployment rate among our young people. It's a real problem that I think deserves more respect and attention than this Liberal opposition is giving it. We intend to continue to work with employers and with those young people to give them the start they need.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

I want to give notice to members that I think what we saw today, quite frankly, will not be tolerated again. The level of noise makes it impossible to hear the answer. That is simply not acceptable. I did not interrupt, deliberately, because it is not my practice to interrupt during question period. But that kind of activity makes a mockery of question period, and I don't think it should be allowed -- on either side, I would hasten to point out. We must allow the other side to be heard. That's the nature of parliament. That's the nature of what we claim to stand for and to do here. Clearly, it can't be tolerated. What happened today can't be tolerated again.

[2:30]

E. Gillespie: I'd like to begin my address to the throne speech today with a few comments about an outstanding individual who has contributed to the life of the constituency I'm proud to represent, the Comox Valley. I'd like to take a moment to remember Margaret Clayton, a woman who was loved by all who knew her -- a passionate organizer on many fronts: mental health, multiculturalism and our natural environment, just to name a few. Margaret was instrumental in the development of the Trumpeter Swan Festival in the Comox Valley, which is now an annual event.

When Margaret became ill last fall, she just wanted to go home to be where she could hear the neighbourhood children and the lawnmowers -- the sounds of life. So she was cared for in her home by friends and by health care professionals, as she wished. She was a loyal supporter, a good neighbour and a great citizen.

I'd also like to mention an outstanding group. Over 3,000 community volunteers and 2,000 athletes recently participated in the B.C. Winter Games hosted by Campbell River. The planning, the anxieties and the hard work of the volunteers, together with the spirit, competitiveness and goodwill demonstrated by the athletes, culminated in a celebration of community achievement, community pride and great sportsmanship.

It is indeed a great pleasure to represent a constituency where we celebrate individual and community achievements, 

[ Page 2472 ]

where we have so much to celebrate. But as we celebrate, we are mindful of the challenges we face in the Comox Valley and in British Columbia.

Let's talk about the challenges we face in education. School district 71 has one of the fastest-growing enrolments in the province: 16.8 percent over the past six years. Over the same time, block funding to the school district has increased 19.2 percent. School district 72 has faced enrolment growth of 10.8 percent, with block funding increased by 13.2 percent. This government is clearly committed to maintaining quality education. Across British Columbia the picture is much the same: enrolment growth of over 14 percent; block funding increases over 20 percent. Other provincial jurisdictions don't come close to making comparable investments. British Columbia's New Democratic government is the only provincial government in Canada to increase education spending consistently over the last six years.

Increased enrolment means that schools need to be built. The capital freeze identified cost-saving measures which will ensure that we get the best value for our money, that we construct the schools we need for our children. Recent school construction announcements clearly recognize the demands presented by population growth and by aging facilities in the Comox Valley. School district 71 has made an excellent case for its projects, has incorporated cost-saving measures and is moving ahead with its planning for extended days at the secondary level. Beginning immediately, an elementary school based on a design developed for this district and lent out to two other districts is now set for construction a fourth time. A major addition to a secondary school, a new junior school in Comox and a much needed renovation addition to an aging junior school in Courtenay demonstrate our commitment to education, to our children, to our teachers and to our communities.

Post-secondary students in the Comox Valley welcome the continued freeze in tuition fees and increased opportunities for access. They look forward to the opening of the new Timberline secondary school and the North Island College campus in Campbell River this fall -- increased education spending, demonstrating our commitment to our children and our young people.

Now I'd like to talk for a moment about health care. At the beginning I mentioned Margaret Clayton, a friend and a constituent who went home to be where she was most comfortable in her last days. The British Columbia health care system made that possible for her. I was very pleased to be part of her time in her last few days.

The throne speech lays out our commitment to health care. This commitment is witnessed daily as we see the latest expansion to St. Joseph's hospital in Comox. The Comox Valley Nursing Centre, a pilot project demonstrating a community-based, preventive approach to health care, is now becoming a community institution.

This government made a commitment to fund a CT scanner for the North Island and, through the community health councils, funded a process to determine the siting. That decision has now been made. Last week the Minister of Health announced the decision for the location of the CT scanner on the upper Island. Within a couple of months the installation of this important diagnostic equipment will be completed, allowing greater access for physicians and their patients on the upper Island and in Powell River.

The regionalization assessment carried out last summer has resulted in better teamwork, better care and a more streamlined approach to health care delivery through community health councils and regional health boards. The community health councils in the Comox Valley and Campbell River are comprised of individuals who have demonstrated their commitment to their communities and to the principles of medicare -- and who have begun the task of developing their community health plan.

Perhaps our greatest challenge is to maximize employment opportunities in our province. We don't stand alone in this constituency -- the Comox Valley -- on Vancouver Island or as a province, but we do stand as part of a worldwide economic system. I admit there are effects outside our government's influence; there are areas where we can and will ensure that British Columbians derive the benefits of good, family-supporting jobs from our industries and our resources.

My constituents, many of whom are workers in the forestry industry, are looking to the successful completion of the framework agreement for the jobs and timber accord. My constituents will continue to work toward the development of a value-added village for wood products, and just this weekend we received confirmation of FRBC funding in order to do that. My constituents look forward to the results of a study funded by Forest Renewal B.C. to determine the viability of a community forest initiative on Denman Island, an initiative which will allow them to buy back nearly one-third of the island, currently held as private forest land by American interests.

Consequences of the Mifflin plan are being felt in our community by fishing families, by businesses which support the commercial industry and by the community at large, which is seeing a significant loss of income. Our government continues its negotiations with the federal government to mitigate these effects. Because of our government's tenacity, we have achieved an agreement for transition funding for displaced fishermen. That's not enough. We're developing Fisheries Renewal B.C. to reinvest profits, conserve the fish resource and protect jobs. For this government, creating jobs for all British Columbians is a central objective. For my constituents, our job strategy will mean the difference between underemployment and good, family-supporting jobs.

Over the past five years British Columbia's job performance has far surpassed that of the rest of Canada: over 220,000 new jobs. But we're determined to do even better: $1 billion in investments in schools, hospitals and transportation infrastructure will create more than 13,000 jobs across the province each year. I've mentioned the jobs and timber accord, Fisheries Renewal. We're continuing the 10 percent income tax cut for small businesses, encouraging job creation by small business. And the Premier's $23 million Guarantee for Youth program will create 12,000 new jobs. Our jobs strategy ensures we will continue to lead the way in creating new jobs for the people of this province.

The throne speech outlines major directions and goals for this government for the coming year. Our government's direction continues to support and protect health care; to protect education to ensure our young people have the best opportunity to learn and to succeed into their adulthood; to maximize employment opportunities, achieving the greatest value from our resources and our technology; to continue to extend our environmental protections, to be responsible stewards of our great province; to support children and their families with medical, dental and financial aid; to continue to implement the recommendations of the Gove commission, striving to make this a safer world for children; and to meet all of these commitments in a fiscally responsible manner, protecting the financial well-being of our province.

[ Page 2473 ]

Hon. Speaker, these are challenging goals. These are the goals British Columbians desire. These are the goals our government commits to.

J. Doyle: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to get up this afternoon and speak on the throne speech. The throne speech our government delivered a month ago is about the future of British Columbia. We stand up for British Columbia. I'd just like to read a couple of items which in my mind are the most important parts of this throne speech: "The opportunity to do work at decent-paying, family-supporting wages" -- unlike the opposition -- "education to ensure our children have the skills they need to compete in the global economy" -- at the same time that they wanted to cut budgets for education -- "a health care system that ensures that all citizens -- particularly our seniors and children -- have the care they need, when they need it, and a world-class standard of environmental protection." That's what this government and this throne speech are about.

Just this past weekend I attended the Columbia Basin Trust symposium in Revelstoke in my constituency. People were there from throughout the whole of the Columbia basin -- people that waited for 30, 40 years after their valleys were flooded and had to uproot their towns and leave loved ones in graveyards that were flooded. This is the government that delivered -- we said we would in the '91 election -- to the people of the Columbia basin. This weekend there were over 200 people gathered in Revelstoke to talk about the moneys we have delivered and the moneys we will deliver to the people in that basin area, who gave a lot so the rest of the people in this province could have cheap hydro. We gave our valleys. Many of our youth had to travel away for many, many years. The job potential wasn't there because of what happened. We brought back something to the Columbia basin area.

I was very, very pleased to be there this weekend and chat with people from throughout the Columbia basin area. Regardless of their political beliefs, they know that we as a government delivered and are proud of what we have done. They look forward now to investing in the best investments possible, with the moneys that will be going into projects in the Columbia basin area. I was pleased that the minister for the Columbia Basin Trust area, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, was there. He was one of the very important people, along with our former Premier, in pulling that Columbia Basin Trust area together and returning moneys -- rightfully so -- to that area.

I look forward too, hon. Speaker, to the jobs and timber accord being put together. The opposition. . . . We know where they got lots of their money during the last election: the people that believe in less jobs from our timber. That's where they got their money from. We as a government say that if you want access to our publicly owned woods, you must produce more jobs. We will deliver -- as we said we would, as our Premier said he would, as we said in the Speech from the Throne -- on those 21,000 jobs. At the same time, the opposition. . . . All they can do is criticize those initiatives of our government.

I think it's important to ask at this time: just what does the opposition stand for? Let's just have a little look at what the opposition stands for. When it comes to changing directions, the B.C. Liberals don't discuss and debate the matter; instead, the leader just dictates. Two major changes in B.C. Liberal policy were simply announced by their leader from the podium this year at the B.C. Liberal convention. There was no debate on the policies. One policy which remains unchanged is that B.C. Liberals call for a tax cut for large corporations and banks. But that's dictated from the front of the room.

In the 1996 B.C. election, the B.C. Liberals called for cuts of $3 billion to the provincial budget, representing about a 15 percent cut of total government spending. Even though this policy has remained on the books since the election, B.C. Liberals have advanced hundreds of half-baked spending proposals with no idea of cost and no idea of how they will be paid for. During the 1996 B.C. election the Liberals proposed a half-billion-dollar cut to transfers to municipal government; today they oppose the B.C. government's cut of only $113 million to municipal transfers. And, of course, we know that when their friends in Ottawa were downloading on the provincial government, their leader said that the cuts weren't big enough. That's what they stand for.

[2:45]

Gambling. Of course, we know they're all over the map on gambling. Some of the people that are advocating gambling in British Columbia said, "During the election the Liberals had a policy that was most compatible to us as an industry," so they got a fair bit of money during the election because of their stand on gambling.

It was very interesting last Thursday to see their critic from Kamloops-North Thompson stand up and ask a question of the Deputy Premier on the government's stand on gambling. I'm still waiting for a supplementary question. I don't know what happened to that; it just seemed to not. . . . Maybe the Deputy Premier answered the first question adequately; I'm just not sure. I'm still awaiting what their stand really is and why they got moneys during the last election. But they do change their stands -- if they have any -- very, very regularly.

We as government proposed cutting $750 million over 18 months from government budgets, on an orderly basis, to keep services available. The opposition: they say they will cut $3 billion. I mentioned that a minute ago.

We as government are building 20 new schools across the province at the present time. The opposition: what would they do? They would eliminate the school tax on property for businesses. That's what their stand is, hon. Speaker.

The B.C. Liberal Party: where did their money come from during the last election? It was interesting to hear them during question period today, because I think they've run out. . . . They're pretty desperate: "What do we do to get this government, so that we might look somewhat better?" They're not too happy that some of their friendliest people on the radio and their columnists are seeing that they've got no ideas. We've been in this House three or four weeks now, and they are just not up to the job they're supposed to be up to: that is, as opposition to this government. They don't have any ideas; that's why they've got no questions.

Of the moneys they raised during the last election, 63 percent came from big business and the banks. The NDP: 64 percent of our moneys came from individuals. That's $480,000 from the banks and financial institutions; $292,600 from the Vancouver Stock Exchange was donated to their leader.

This opposition has no ideas. That's why during question period in the first month or so we haven't seen much in this House in the way of what they would do, because they don't have any ideas. They change them on a regular basis. Of course, we know about the mailout that they sent. I'm still 

[ Page 2474 ]

waiting to hear one of them make reference to that $1 million of taxpayers' money they spent. Not one of them has mentioned that $1 million. A blatant, partisan reachout to people -- that's all that was.

During the lead-up to the election, they also talked about how they liked fixed election dates. Now I understand that they've changed their mind on that. B.C. Rail privatization: that was a big winner for them during the election -- a real big winner. They've changed their mind on that. Reducing the number of MLAs: when they went on their northern tour a few weeks ago, they already knew, because they'd heard from the people. . . . They know why they're in opposition and we're in government: we understand rural B.C. and they don't. They still have the downtown Vancouver mentality, despite there being some members from the interior on the opposite side of the House.

Their leader, the leader of that party over there. . . . They don't have to look very far when they're looking for a Social Crediter, for a federal Tory, for a. . . . There are very, very few Liberals over there. So they just look right beside them: the person beside them is likely one of those people. It's interesting that the future the member for Surrey-White Rock sees in that party is to get out of it. And he's one of the few federal Liberals over there, one of the few people over there who can really call himself a Liberal. What's he doing? Jumping ship. He sees that they're taking on water. He's already been successful in securing a federal Liberal nomination; he's heading for Ottawa if he's successful in the coming weeks.

They have no ideas; they criticize all the time. But they don't bring forth any positive ideas as to what they would do -- and that's my opinion of what the opposition should do in this House. The opposition don't have ideas. They stand up. . . . Of course, they voted a couple of years ago in opposition to Forest Renewal. They're all over the place on the Forest Practices Code: one day they ask a question in opposition to it, the next day they say it's not strong enough. They're a coalition of opportunists; they don't have any ideas.

Some weeks ago their leader got an award in a cartoon in one of the papers. They have this special award. It said that it's only January, and he's already got an award for a. . . . I just can't mention the name of that award in the Province of earlier this year. They don't have any ideas, this opposition, and that's why they will continue to be in opposition. That's why they will see members like the hon. member from White Rock leaving their benches -- because they don't see any hope over there, or any ideas. That's why the opposition's over there, and that's why we're the government: we have ideas; we represent British Columbians.

I would say to some of those people over there that what they should do is visit other jurisdictions. They would come back home and see that we do have funding for education and health care; we have items like the jobs and timber accord put together. They would realize very, very soon just how well-off people in British Columbia are. They should get their heads out of the sand and come up with some ideas, instead of just criticizing initiatives of this government.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased and honoured to speak in favour of this throne speech.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I now recognize the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who I believe is a designated speaker for the official opposition.

D. Jarvis: That's right, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. It was interesting to listen to some of the remarks by the members across, and I appreciate the opportunity to get up and speak in this throne speech debate. It's rather interesting when you think that Einstein, I think it was, said that the imagination is far more important than knowledge. When you review this throne speech, there's certainly a lot of imagination in it, although I don't see how it can possibly come about. We know what the NDP government's track record is as far as knowledge goes, in the sense that we look over to the government side. . . . There are possibly many more below the government on the far side of the House who have probably never had to meet a payroll, to understand a balance sheet, or to look at a profit- and-loss. Yet these are the people who are going to govern us for the next two or three years, unfortunately. As evidenced in this throne speech, they don't know what they're doing.

Members of the government over there, as I said before, have never had to meet a payroll. Therefore they've never had to pay the taxes, fees and licences required in business or industry, or to look after the children, pay the mortgage and feed the family before. . . . All the taxes come first, and now there's nothing left to look after your family. It's a sad state of affairs out there, and it is getting worse, I'm afraid.

We have been blessed in this province -- as you're probably aware, Mr. Speaker -- with an inestimable wealth of resources. Yet this government's ideology still focuses on B.C. becoming, perhaps, a province that can prosper and exist solely as an information society in the new global economy they keep talking about. This could very well be true, but we know that the real truth is that to do so would place this province at an economic disadvantage.

Our economy today is in a state of correction. We can see this happening. We see this as our forest industry shows a slowdown and our mining industry appears to be in a sunset position. The throne speech, at its best, does not show any economic plan or a target that would produce wealth in this province or act as a stimulus to our economic problems.

We are in debt. It's reported to be about $30.9 billion and climbing, and this year we shall borrow a further $1.4 billion. We have no debt management plan, as I said, and this year's budget now shows that we are paying $7.8 million per day just to service our debt. Just think of that interest we're paying and how many schoolrooms it could build and how many hospitals it could help build, service or give money to for surgery. The waiting lists that the Minister of Health, who is sitting across there, is laughing about now. . . . That we're paying that amount of money. . . . It's a sad state.

Still this government fails to change its ideology, as industry and businesses symbolically move with their feet to Alberta and to the state of Washington. We see it happening all over the place. It was not long ago that we in British Columbia were told that we would be the next Silicon Valley. I can remember that well, but it never happened.

What happened to it? Other jurisdictions were more advanced than British Columbia was, and it went elsewhere. Now we see the Bob Williamses and the Tom Guntons -- I haven't said that name for a long time -- the gurus of this party, sit in the back room and say that we don't need to extract our resources, that we can be an information society, as I said, in the new global economy, and that we can import resources. We can import our resources.

If this attitude should persist, we are in trouble. There is no question of that. Revenues are down now; now taxes will have to go up further. The dichotomy between the rural and urban areas of this province will grow even greater. All that 

[ Page 2475 ]

the businesses in our province want is a promising business climate. There was an article in the paper the other day -- and I'll read some of it out to you -- about our economic salvation: "The B.C. economy lies in a bad state, and it's much weaker structurally than most people understand. Strong economic growth from 1987 to 1994 was spurred on by a record growth from immigration only." It's the fact that we had immigration, not what this government did. . . . We have been living on the past up to this point, and the proof is that the number of private sector jobs fell in 1996. That's the first time this has happened since 1984.

All of the supposed strong job creation in B.C. last year was from self-employment and some public sector jobs. The public sector jobs continue to grow, regardless of the fact that this government says they are reducing them. B.C. is severely lagging behind Canada in expanding its export markets. I've mentioned this many, many times before. I think tomorrow is Mining Day, and there will be mining companies over here in Victoria to talk to the members of the government and the opposition. I just want to remind these members of the government that mining jobs have the highest annual income of any major industry sector. Total wages and benefits averaged $69,100 last year per employee. Mining pays more than four times the average income of the tourist industry, almost three times the income of the retail trade industry, and double that of all the private sector industry.

This government say in this throne speech that they are going to create 40,000 jobs -- doing all this in a very prudent and financial manner, they say. We look at 1996, last year, when this government said they were going to create 21,000 jobs in the forestry industry. They created zero; in fact, they lost 5,500. Now this year they say forestry is going to create a further 21,000 jobs over a span of time -- up to the year 2001. Well, it's a smoke-and-mirrors policy.

[3:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

As for 40,000 new jobs, I truly wish them well, but knowing their track record, I can't see that this is going to be happening. We know, and you know yourself, that this is a smoke-and-mirrors policy. There's no management plan out there; it's smoke and mirrors that they're planning to create. There is no common thought on our debt reduction. This is an exercise of the truly twisted NDP, a government that has probably taken too much Ritalin. It's a hyper and inattentive government.

Some of the things they say they're going to do -- and they tell us about them quite often -- are to create more employment and more benefits for the province of British Columbia. I look at the facts of B.C. Hydro. With B.C. Hydro we have a good example of what this government is not doing. All the rest of North America, and perhaps other jurisdictions outside North America, is deregulating hydro or energy. Power rates are dropping all over the country, except in B.C. This government says they're going to freeze hydro rates. It's a monopoly supplier, so they can do that. They've frozen hydro rates. Actually, what they've done is freeze hydro rates in the province of B.C.; they've frozen them up. If they'd open it up, create deregulation, you'd see lower rates throughout this province. Our industry in this province is paying higher rates than what this government is exporting our hydro for to the Americans, south of the border. We are paying more than what we're exporting it for.

We look at our health situation in this province, and we get pretty concerned. In my own riding of North Vancouver-Seymour, we've gone through this New Directions program. The Minister of Health has changed it again, and we're now into another form of health care or health system. What they're providing has created a state of confusion in my own riding. We've now gone through our second CEO, who has been fired. We've now spent over $500,000 on the dismissal fees. We do not know who is running the store. We have waiting lists for surgery. I was informed the other day that six hours is the time a new mother and child are allowed to spend in the hospital. We all know the first 24 hours is probably the most critical time, yet they're going to be kicked out in six hours. It's hard to imagine.

I see the Minister of Health standing there with her mouth open, looking at me. She can't believe it herself, but it's a fact.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it's you I can't believe.

D. Jarvis: Well, the Minister of Health says she can't believe me, but that's probably her problem. That's one of the problems: they don't believe us over here. They proceed with their own ideology, and it's getting us nowhere in this province. The books show it; the books are the absolute proof.

Our bureaucracy in the health area in North Vancouver seems to be growing, and the doctors fear that soon we won't even have a trauma ward left. We're down to the position where the delivery of health care in the communities, which is supposed to be better, is just not happening.

Now we get to the other aspect in my riding that's probably the most serious of all: the education system. This government promised to protect education, and that was one of the main planks of their campaign. We've got one copy here of a letter from the school board. They've written to the Minister of Education, saying: "We urge you to stop telling the public that the provincial budget will protect classroom services. This statement is simply not true." They go on to say -- this is the B.C. School Trustees Association -- that the bottom line is $43 less per student now to support education than was available last year.

We're having problems in the education system. On the North Shore, we are now looking at having to have a referendum -- which will be next Saturday, I believe, on the 19th -- asking the citizens of North Vancouver to come up with another $2 million in their taxes in order that we may put in a basic computer system. Several years ago a previous Minister of Education put a state-of-the-art fibre optics system into his own riding in Kamloops; he looked after his area. Yet we on the North Shore are in the state of having to ration paper and books and having $2 million referendums just to give our children the basis of it. They are not providing moneys, in the sense that we are having problems with children. Over 70 percent of our children do not go to university or secondary colleges or places like BCIT. At the same time, they're not being taught the skills and how to compete out in the world when they leave grades 9 to 12.

I also mentioned the other day that the figures are out showing that four out of ten children in this province are illiterate. I think this government and the previous government should be ashamed of that aspect. We know that government is innumerate, but it's a shame to see that these children aren't being taught the way they should for the amount of taxes the people in British Columbia are paying for their education.

We have several other situations involving our education system that are bad. I noticed the other day that the head of 

[ Page 2476 ]

the B.C. Teachers Federation admitted the fact that we are getting $427 per student less than we did last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, everything in this province, as you know, is not rosy. This is right from the ministry. Our operating grants are down. They've been reduced across the province by $26.8 million. That is a fact. The Minister of Education says that he is giving more money, but the grants have been reduced under the aspect of being efficiency-adjusted -- whatever that means.

Everything this government does appears to be, and is, pulling money away from the taxpayers in this province. Every time you look around, you're being taxed or licensed or having to pay for another service, with no thought on what and how to reduce it. But as I said, we still pay $7.8 million a day for fees, and this throne speech has done nothing to alleviate that situation. We know that if we pay $7.8 million a day, it comes out to about $54 million a week, $234 million a month, $2.8 billion a year that we pay for a debt in service fees alone when it hasn't been shown that they can reduce it in any way whatsoever.

We're not hiring any police, so we have a problem at that end of it. Our classrooms aren't being built the way they should be, we're lacking hospital beds, surgery wait-lists could be reduced -- that could happen -- and on and on. I ask you: are we any better off than we were six years ago? Not very much.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the throne speech, that:

"'We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present Session,' be amended by adding the following: '. . .but this assembly regrets that the government appears determined to deprive injured and disabled British Columbians of fair compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries by pursuing, without public consultation, initiatives which would deprive all British Columbians of their fundamental civil right to sue those who negligently injure them in motor vehicle accidents.'"

That is seconded by the member for Richmond-Steveston.

On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: Mr Speaker, on that aspect I have to say that one of the major proposed pieces of legislation that may be brought forward in this session will be what is called a product change by the Crown corporation of ICBC. This product change is a euphemism for no-fault insurance, or a variance of some form of no-fault insurance. As you may be aware, this government has now spent a minimum of $1.4 million for Peat Marwick Mitchell to study a no-fault system, and a further $333,000 for advertising, in preparation for this product change to no-fault. A total of $1,733,000 has been spent on a policy which we know they are coming forward with and have already made up their minds to do. There has been no public consultation on this matter whatsoever.

What we also see is that there is a groundswell in British Columbia against any type of no-fault system in this province. This groundswell is supported by well over 150 different organizations and support groups: large and small businesses, corporations, service clubs, professional groups and unions. Thousands and thousands of individuals are responding to say that they are against any type of no-fault system being brought into ICBC. So, without question, there is a vast majority of British Columbians that are against any type of no-fault insurance. Essentially, their reasoning for no-fault will take away the right to seek redress through the courts and the right to seek any type of compensation should they be injured. No-fault precludes the right to sue for compensation should you or any of your family be seriously injured. This NDP government's product change to no-fault for ICBC will effectively be a settlement based on a predesignated list of specific injuries for your loss.

[3:15]

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this no-fault legislation will be: where will the government members be when this vote is taken? Will they vote with their conscience as to what their constituents want? I doubt it very much. I hope they will consider that. Will they vote with the wishes of their constituents? Will their principles take precedence over that? Or will they vote as their Premier and Finance minister have already decided they should? They will have a choice, Mr. Speaker, because it will come to a vote; you can be sure of that. But will their choice be on the basis of principle?

The Attorney General, in fact, stated prior to the election campaign last May that he would not vote for no-fault. In a questionnaire submitted to the Attorney General, he said: "No, I won't." In fact, I have it here. Also, that same questionnaire was sent out to the NDP itself, and it said: "If elected, will you oppose efforts to introduce no-fault automobile insurance in British Columbia?" Bruce Ralston, the president of the NDP, said that yes, he would oppose it. In another questionnaire, he was asked, on behalf of the candidates he represented as the president: "If elected, will you work to protect and enhance the tort system as a means of deferring unsafe contact and holding wrongdoers accountable for the injuries they cause?" And Mr. Ralston, the president of the NDP, said that yes, he would not vote for it. Both of these individuals have signed statements to the effect that they would not do it.

So if an NDP member of this House votes against his conscience and against the president of the party and against what their own Attorney General has recommended, we're wondering where they will stand. Will the NDP members live up to their commitments? Will the Premier push the envelope to test the party and his elected colleagues' principles? I think that he will, but I would hope he wouldn't.

You know, I look at some of the things that have happened over these past months, when it was first heard that they were thinking they would go into a no-fault system. Their own Finance minister, who was the architect of no-fault, has an unusual idea about how things should go in this world. In a book that he wrote about the Charter of Rights, he adamantly opposes entrenching individual rights into our constitution. When you read through it, you see that with regards to the termination of existing legal rights under the Charter, he recommends that this function -- or your legal rights -- be taken away. This is an individual who is going to make a decision about the future of British Columbians in this province. That's not even socialist thinking; it's even farther left than that, I believe.

I guess you could call me sort of a feminist, because there is one aspect of no-fault that is the most detrimental piece of this proposed legislation, and that is to women. This government is going to put this before the House, and as I said, I think it's of some disadvantage to most women. Their proposals exclude 90 percent of women. It will exclude 90 percent of children and students in this province if this proposal is put forward. It will impose injustices and impediments on women, for sure.

I feel that I have a pretty good idea of -- or experience of the differences between -- what's happening out there with 

[ Page 2477 ]

women. They are not treated fairly. I was brought up by a single mother who was too ill to work. I had an aunt who was a school teacher in those days, and we all know that female school teachers certainly got paid less than a man in those days. You have to experience that sort of situation to realize that the world hasn't changed as far as equality for women.

I look at some of the women on the other side of the House who would have experienced some of these situations, and wonder how they feel towards a no-fault situation being brought forward: the members for Comox Valley and Surrey-Whalley, and certainly the members for Vancouver-Hastings, Burnaby-Willingdon, Cowichan-Ladysmith, Kamloops and Surrey-Newton. I think they should listen to some of the things I have to say. To seriously give consideration to voting for a no-fault proposal would certainly be adverse for them.

In British Columbia, our present tort system allows individuals who are innocent victims of an accident to get full recovery for their losses. The present system says that they are entitled to full recovery of their economic loss, compensation for pain and suffering, and full funding for care and for needs that arise as a result of an accident. That is what we have here in British Columbia today, and it's the fairest system in Canada.

Why does this government want it to change? It's certainly not for the consumers' benefit, because most of the consumers out there, or any group that they belong to, are against this. As I said, those groups number well into the 150 range. Thousands and thousands of people in British Columbia feel that by bringing in this change to a no-fault system, this Premier and the Minister of Finance are trying to take away their rights and the rights of their families should they be seriously injured.

The Minister of Finance and the Premier, as part of their overall plan, do appear to be eyeing also the moneys in the Crown corporations by bringing in this new system, to perhaps help them balance this budget -- like they're looking at all the other Crowns trying to help them balance the budget. So on that basis, we know that the Premier is not doing this to benefit the people, in the sense that it's going to be their rights. . . . He is taking away their rights in order to help balance the budget.

Experience with no-fault in every other jurisdiction has shown that there is no benefit to the system, because rates eventually do go up. There is a lag period there of maybe a year to two years. But the premiums always have gone up in every other jurisdiction that has had no-fault. No-fault is nowhere. . . . Believe me, it's is not a perfect system.

In fact, if you are injured, as I said, your future and your family's future will be decided by this government's bureaucracy. Should you lose any function, for example, you are subject to what the government decides your loss of function is worth -- not you, not the courts, but an adjudicative body appointed by the Premier or the Minister of Finance. That's pretty risky, to allow someone in this government who has never had an experience in business in his life, who has never worked outside of government in all his life, to make a decision that could impair the health of you and your family for the rest of your life.

This is not a question about basic lowering of rates; this is about the Premier taking away your rights. It's as simple as that.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: The Minister of Health laughs; she laughs at that. But she herself has no understanding what's going on, quite obviously.

Now, we can go on for hours about the wrongs of no-fault. But there are a few other gentlemen and women on this side of the House that would like to bring forward their own points of view. We will certainly allow them to do so.

I do, however, want to re-emphasize one aspect before I sit down and let other members of my party have their point of view put forward at this time. I want to re-emphasize how a no-fault system does not work, especially for women.

Earlier this month, a B.C. Supreme Court ruling came down with a very monumental decision, a precedent-setting case. The court awarded the female car accident victim damages based on the potential earnings of a male. I'll repeat that, because this is quite imaginative. It's monumental in the sense that a female in a car accident. . . . Her damages were based on what a male would get -- equal to a male. This is the first time in British Columbia that this has ever happened. What that does have to say is that. . . . Here is a woman tragically injured in an auto accident. She was not at fault, but she sustained brain injury and is unable to work again -- all this from an accident that she had seven years ago. She was awarded $1.7 million. Let's see, she'll probably live another 40 years, and the $1.7 million is about $42,000 a year. Is that too much, or is it too little?

Certainly we know that under a no-fault system -- and what the previous experiences have been with a no-fault system and what's happened in other jurisdictions -- this would never have occurred. So I just dread the thought, and I would hope that some of the women in this Legislature will realize this themselves: a no-fault system is detrimental to a woman, definitely. There is no information to the contrary.

This government, if they were truly a government that was interested in proposing a system or legislation that was going to be so great that it would affect every person -- 3.9 million people -- in British Columbia, would certainly at least have public consultation. The Premier said to me last year in this House that if he were to bring it in, there would be full public consultation. So far we haven't seen it. He spent $1.7 million on advertising and a study for himself, for something that he had already made up his mind on.

Females will not be treated equally to a male under a no-fault system. There is no evidence in any jurisdiction in this country that equality is an asset when you're dealing with no-fault.

I've got a couple of articles here about no-fault and how it harms a female.

StatsCan reports "almost one in five women, ages 25 to 44, leave the workforce to attend to [other responsibilities at one time or another in their life,] like raising families or furthering education. If any woman suffers a catastrophic injury during their time out [of the workforce,] regardless of any plans to return, no-fault considers them unemployed. The result? No-fault treats them as unemployed forever, with correspondingly low benefits."

They would be relegated, as this government would probably have it, down to around $400 a week for the rest of their lives, no matter what their potential was in the future.

"Similar injustices will hit women who try to upgrade their careers by going back to school" -- as I said.

While they're taking further education and are not working, and they get hit in a crosswalk and are seriously injured, they will be treated as an unemployed individual.

As we know, statistically, women earn less than men. It's partly because they're much more likely to, as they say, leave the workforce for a time -- whether that's true or not, it's hard to say -- so they can care for their children.

[ Page 2478 ]

"As a consequence, female accident victims, whose incomes may be marginal" -- at that time -- will "suffer greater hardships than men, because no-fault provides only partial recovery for their losses. No-fault traditionally imposes arbitrary limits on long-term rehabilitation benefits. This impedes a woman's rehabilitation from any accident, but also affects them when it's one of their own children who [may have been injured at that time, as well.]"

Mr. Speaker, there is example after example of how women are treated under no-fault systems in every jurisdiction in North America. I could go into them all today. But I see I've been using up quite a bit of time to this point. I can see my Whip looking at me because my Whip is very interested in getting into this debate himself.

[3:30]

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Minister of Health across there asking me. . . . She says I've been talking all this time but that I've never taken a position. That's a great example of showing you how this government is not listening. I've been standing here for, oh, three-quarters of an hour approximately, talking about how adverse no-fault will be to this province, to the 3.9 million in this province, how bad it will be -- telling all the bad things against it. And the Minister of Health turns up and yells across the floor: "What's your position on it?"

Hon. J. MacPhail: What is your position?

D. Jarvis: Does she ever listen? I wonder. That, as I said earlier, is the reason why we have problems in this province. It's an example of this minister, who doesn't listen to the people out there, who goes along on her own ideology. If she had listened to my whole talk right from the start, she would have known what our position was.

I really don't want to go on further, but I must say also that ICBC is a Crown corporation that has a union in it, the OPEIU. They sent me a letter a little while ago, and I think they sent it to all the MLAs in British Columbia. They said to all MLAs in British Columbia that "all car owners in British Columbia are about to be deinsured" through a no-fault or threshold no-fault system in this province. That is the union of ICBC. They feel they're going to be deinsured, as well.

Everywhere you look, everywhere you hear, the people of this province are against a no-fault system or a variation of it. What they want is for the present system to be handled a little bit smarter by this government. This government doesn't know how to run a business. As I said to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, no one on that government side has ever been in business before -- no one on that government side over there that's running this province. They've never had to meet a payroll. They don't know how to read a balance sheet or a profit and loss statement.

I'm repeating myself by saying this, but the minister over there is showing the greatest example of everything I say -- that she doesn't know what she's talking about. She has no idea what she's talking about, and she's running a $3 billion health system.

Some Hon. Members: Seven.

D. Jarvis: Seven billion.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, in the interest of order, could we just hear from one speaker at a time, please.

D. Jarvis: Well, I think I'll slow down a bit here and conclude by saying that this no-fault system that the Premier is bringing is not about saving you or me money. That was part of his election ploy, Mr. Speaker, in which he froze different rates of different industries or programs or Crown corporations in this province, like Hydro. He froze their rates. Then he froze ICBC. So it wasn't about saving us premium dollars.

It's about this Premier trying to take away the rights of people in this province. That's what it comes down to: trying to take the rights away from the people of this province. Then, with a little adjunct on the side, he's eyeing the reserve funds of ICBC to help him try to balance the budget. Now, the Minister of Health has not corrected me on those two things. So we know full well that that's what he's trying to do. He's trying to take away your rights, my rights and those of anyone in our families that has been seriously injured.

For the rest of their lives, they will have to live with what this Premier decides. That is a dangerous thought to think of. So on that note, I will say I'm not in favour of this throne speech, nor am I in favour of the proposal for any variation of a no-fault insurance.

Deputy Speaker: The member has moved the amendment which is on the notice paper -- No. 48 on the order paper. I'll now recognize the seconder of that motion, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to rise today and have the opportunity to make my contribution to the throne speech. In particular, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to second the motion which my colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has made.

I want to begin my remarks with reference to a document that my colleague referred to. It's a questionnaire that was sent to all political parties, prior to the last provincial election, by the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia. The question was this: "If elected, will you oppose efforts to introduce no-fault automobile insurance in British Columbia?" And the answer was yes. Whose answer was that? That was the NDP answer; that was the answer of the party of the members opposite. Mr. Speaker, that was their election promise to the people of British Columbia.

Yet since the election, this government -- which has become famous for saying one thing and doing another -- has set up the betrayal of this promise by commissioning studies and spending millions of dollars, stirring up public anxiety over the future of our public motor vehicle insurance and accident recovery system. Interestingly there has been an eerie silence from the government on this issue since the current legislative session began. There is nothing about no-fault in the throne speech, in the budget speech -- no public statement, since the session began, of the government's intentions. For those of us who are opposed to the introduction of no-fault, it's like shadowboxing. But it's time for the members opposite to come out of the shadows and tell British Columbians whether they will honour the promise they made or break it.

When we speak of no-fault, we are talking about changes to the motor vehicle insurance system which promise -- that's the promise -- to control costs by taking away benefits and entitlements. There are two premises of no-fault. 

[ Page 2479 ]

The first is the contention that we cannot afford our existing insurance system. The second is a deep-seated ideological conviction that private rights are dangerous, that government knows best and that bureaucrats know better than judges.

To fix these problems, the people who advocate for no-fault argue that the government has to take away some or all of the rights of innocent accident victims. They argue that we -- the government, that is -- must take away their right to recover damages from those who commit a wrong against them. They argue that government must make justice less accessible.

I dispute both premises. I agree that our present system has become expensive, but we have the tools to control costs. I believe that private rights are part of what makes us a free and democratic society.

Unfortunately, some British Columbians may have become confused about these issues by a deceptive advertising campaign conducted by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. But we can be honest with each other in this chamber. No-fault is not about better care for accident victims; we can do all that without no-fault. No-fault is not about improved traffic safety; we can do all that without no-fault. And no-fault is not about reducing expensive litigation in British Columbia; we can do all that without no-fault.

M. de Jong: What's it all about?

G. Plant: What no-fault is all about is really simple. The member for Matsqui is burning with curiosity, and I will tell him. What no-fault is about is taking away people's rights in order to pay for the consequences of the political and fiscal mismanagement of our motor vehicle insurance system.

This exchange, this dialogue, in which government says to the injured victims of motor vehicle accidents -- women, men, children -- "We are taking away your rights, to pay for our mismanagement of our motor vehicle insurance system," is wrong in principle. It is an astonishing example of a new approach to government, the NDP approach, in which government puts forward policy initiatives which are expressly intended to make people worse off, not better off.

So what is it that has given rise to this astonishing idea? Well, the government has made much of its ICBC rate freeze. We've heard a lot about it here from the members opposite, who tell all those who will listen that this is an example of how this government is saving British Columbians money. In fact, the budget reports claim that the ICBC rate freeze will save the typical B.C. family $70 this year. Well, I was told last week that the projected ICBC deficit for the year just ended is $135 million.

So let's do a little bit of arithmetic. If you take the population of British Columbia and the average family size, and if you work out that ICBC deficit figure and average it out for each family in British Columbia, we find that each family in British Columbia last year became responsible for $110 of ICBC deficit. There's a promise that we're $70 better off. The reality is that we're $110 worse off.

So now we have a problem. We do in fact have a problem because of the way the members opposite operate the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. So there is a call for reform. I think all British Columbians understand that there is a call for the reform of our insurance and motor vehicle system.

Here again the government has had an opportunity. The government could have constructed a proper process for the consideration of reform -- a public process, a process in which there is full disclosure of all the information needed to consider the options, a process in which the outcome was not predetermined, a public debate which focused on legitimate issues instead of illegitimate red herrings. But this government has failed on all counts in designing that process. There has been no public consultation.

There has already been reference to the interesting pamphlet from the Office and Professional Employees Union, ICBC's union. Here's another quotation from their interesting mailer: "One of the most important decisions this government will make in this session of the Legislature is whether to make changes to ICBC. We support the notion that there should be a public debate on the issue." I agree, and I support that notion. Interestingly, this is on a letterhead which reads: "Say No to No-Fault." Well, I say no to no-fault.

In February the Canadian Bar Association announced that it would stage town hall meetings all around British Columbia so that ordinary British Columbians would have a chance to speak out on no-fault. Here is what the president of the Canadian Bar Association said: "The government has failed to listen to British Columbians on this issue. . . . The backroom process is simply not good enough when we are talking about an issue which will seriously affect every British Columbia family that has a car." I agree.

[3:45]

What's the second problem with the way this campaign has been conducted? The second problem is that ICBC won't open up its books. There has been no realistic process for sharing financial information. ICBC says that the need for product reform is driven by financial circumstances. Yet even now, even today, ICBC -- a corporation owned by all British Columbians, and which enjoys a monopoly over much of its business -- will not disclose all of its financial information. I can only conclude that ICBC is hiding something: the truth.

The third problem with this phony process of policy development is that the result has been a foregone conclusion. As long ago as August, internal ICBC minutes make it clear that the corporation expected a no-fault outcome from the process that was getting underway. Then two months ago we read in the Vancouver Sun that ICBC has already put together a transition team to implement no-fault. But there has been no debate about no-fault on the floor of this House. We haven't had any proper raising of this issue; in fact, we haven't heard anything about it from the government at all. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, ICBC is preparing us for the inevitable.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The fourth problem with this process is that instead of having a public Crown corporation standing on the sidelines watching while British Columbians engage in a careful and considerate public debate about its future, ICBC has been on the field, playing as an aggressive advocate for its own views on no-fault, spending premium dollars with an expensive ad campaign. Why is a Crown corporation allowed to conduct advocacy advertising? I don't think there's an answer to that question.

But it's worse, because as part of its own promotional campaign for no-fault, there has been one particularly nasty theme advanced by those who should know better. The theme is: let's beat up on the court system. On the "Bill Good Show," on January 30, 1997, Mr. Ken Hardie, a public relations official for ICBC, defended his company's no-fault ad campaign by 

[ Page 2480 ]

saying of the judges who decide motor vehicle accident claims: "This is the same justice system that makes deals with criminals." That is a disgraceful statement from a public servant who should know better. A week earlier, on January 23, on the same radio program, Mr. Healey, the government's million-dollar no-fault consultant, said:

". . .when judges are making their decisions in determining the sizes of their awards, they know reasonably closely what that amount" -- that is, lawyers' fees -- "is going to be, and intuitively, they have decided that $80,000 is the amount that would satisfy your claim, because they know that $20,000 is going to the plaintiff lawyer, and that is a cost of the system."

This is an astonishing attack on the integrity of our judiciary. The law does not permit judges to gross-up awards for legal fees. Mr. Healey, supposedly a non-partisan consultant, is apparently of the view that the judges of British Columbia regularly flout the law. What a disgrace!

I turn, then, to the question of substance. Why is no-fault wrong? First of all, we have the promise of lower premiums. That is what those who advocate no-fault tell us, but this is a false promise. Elsewhere in Canada, premiums have risen by far more than they have risen here in British Columbia. Even when he presented his report, Mr. Doug Allen, the government's own reporter, said: "Both products provide ICBC with temporary financial relief. Neither can control the long-term underlying increasing cost trend." So the truth, even as stated by the government's own advocate, is that no-fault will not solve the problem of rising premiums.

Then there is the issue which my friend and colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour spoke about at some length, which is the question of victims' rights. I say that there is a tremendous importance of fault-based compensation in our society, because for generations North American society has been predicated on the notion that individuals will be held accountable for their errors and that victims of negligence will be entitled to recover their losses to the extent that they are not individually responsible for them. The premise of this notion is the conception of individual responsibility -- the idea that the place where we ought to be judged for our actions is the impartial arena of the courts, where judges and citizen jurors adjudicate the standard of our behaviour and the value of our losses. Experience tells me that when we abandon this arena in favour of the decisions of bureaucrats, we diminish our accountability, we diminish our sense of personal responsibility, and we diminish and we lose our autonomy as members of a civil society.

There is an important need for change in the way we operate our motor vehicle insurance system, but better drivers, not no-fault, is the answer to rising costs and the key to reform. The tools for change exist. Change exists in the need for effective traffic safety initiatives. Change is required, and it could be made possible by controlling fraudulent claims. We know they exist and that the tools exist, and what we need is the resolve, the will and the determination to address those problems. There is an urgent need to reduce vehicle theft. We identify that need. We know that need exists. If we address that need, the ICBC folks could save themselves a hundred or more million dollars a year that would deal with the issue of rising costs all by itself, in a significant way.

There is an urgent and pressing need to make alternative dispute resolution systems work. We need to adjust the adjusters. We need to ensure that ICBC tells those who work on its behalf that it's an important part of their responsibility to ensure that claims are settled fairly. That is a part of the key to taking the adversarial approach out of the motor vehicle accident insurance business. There is an urgent need for this, and this government needs to listen to that need. There is a need to depoliticize the setting of premiums. No longer should the setting of ICBC premiums be a matter of the whim of cabinet to decide, to try to pull a fast one on British Columbians by a sort of phony rate freeze that ends up costing us more. There is an urgent need for better accountability by the Insurance Corporation itself.

If we implement these ideas, if we in fact implement a cost-effective traffic safety initiative, if we in fact were to control fraudulent claims, if we were in fact to control vehicle theft, if we were in fact to make alternate dispute resolution systems work, and if we were in fact to depoliticize the setting of premiums, there wouldn't be a need for a no-fault debate. We'd have an insurance system in British Columbia that worked, that was fair, that was accountable and that was efficient -- that actually gave the people who operate motor vehicles in British Columbia something like value for money.

I want to move to my conclusion by quoting a passage from a magazine called Recovery, which is a publication of ICBC. On the cover of the spring 1997 issue, there is an interesting statement: "The road injury problem is like a puzzle. Without the pieces you can't see the whole vision, but without the vision, where do you fit the pieces?" Inside the magazine, from the editorial page, is this passage:

"Driving" -- an automobile -- "permeates our entire way of life, its tendrils stretching throughout our physical, economic and psychological landscape. The resulting dysfunctions loom so large we often don't even perceive them. That's why, for example, our society tolerates a level of roadway casualties far out of proportion to, say, air crashes, where the reaction to tragedy reaches levels of hysteria. Perhaps, since we feel we lose all control over our destiny when entering an airplane, we demand -- and accept -- exceptional regulation, whereas with our cars we think we're in control; we think the roads belong to each of us. It's time to see that it's the problems that belong to each of us and that cry out for solutions. Every moment of driving is filled with responsibility."

The work to achieve this kind of recognition is hard work. It's not work that you do behind the scenes. It's not work that you do when you devise government policy by press release. It's not work that you do when you hire consultants to come up with preordained conclusions to suit the decisions made at board tables. This is difficult and hard work, and it requires the conscientious application of will by everyone here in this room and everyone across British Columbia.

The answer to the current problems of the motor vehicle accident insurance system is not no-fault. So I call on the members opposite to honour your promise to British Columbians. Oppose no-fault. Don't foist it on us by stealth. I call on the members opposite to prefer the rights of innocent victims over the mismanagement of ICBC. I call on the members opposite to abandon the false promise of the quick fix in favour of the far more difficult task of improving driver behaviour. I call on the members opposite to vote in favour of the amendment.

M. Sihota: I'll turn to the debate on no-fault and offer my observations on this issue in a few minutes.

Before I do that, let me say that for the past few weeks and days I've been sitting here, travelling throughout the province of British Columbia and making my way through the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, thinking about the opposition in this province and observing them in this chamber. And I have to say that I kind of like what I see. You look at them over there, and they're all giddy. You know, they're all happy and they're all elated. They think that three years from now, if they just put in their time and go through the motions in this chamber, an electoral victory is just going to fall in their lap, they're just going to stumble their way into office, and it's 

[ Page 2481 ]

sort of a preordained inevitability. Today I want the opposition to mark my words. The NDP will win the next provincial election campaign. I know that doesn't compute with their sense of where the world is at, it doesn't compute with their own sense of inevitability, it doesn't compute with their own personal ambition, and it doesn't compute with their own sense of their destiny. Let me tell you why it is, in my view, that this is as large as the Liberal opposition will ever get.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: You won't be in government; I'll tell you that much.

Every day I sit here and I watch the opposition, and I ask myself: what's the glue that binds the opposition? I know that on this side of the House we have an ideological framework. We believe it is essential that we defend the interests of ordinary working people -- families trying to make it from paycheque to paycheque -- and maintain the integrity of our health care programs and the integrity of our education programs in this province.

[4:00]

The glue on the other side is opportunism. That is it. That is the only attribute that binds those 33 on the other side of the House. There's no vision; there are no values. There's just a sense of opportunism. There's no philosophical outlook on society, just a simple sense of opportunism. They just crave the day that they may find themselves on this side of the House. And they won't, in part because British Columbians look for a government, look for a political party and look for leadership that speaks to their aspirations, their values and their sense of vision. They don't have it, but on this side of the House we have it.

The second reason why it isn't going to happen, why that destiny will never realize itself -- and I'll say this quite frankly on the record; mark my words today -- is because of their leadership. The Leader of the Opposition is hollow. Again, he does not embody any sense of vision or any sense of values or public policy framework from which to articulate a well-defined view. Let me put that in some kind of context. The hon. members have spent too much time sitting around here talking to one another and convincing themselves of their destiny. They should, and would be well advised to, spend a little time out on the streets, even here in Victoria, and talk to people and ask them for their impressions of the Leader of the Opposition. I saw it this weekend in Vancouver, as we went through the. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, they'd be well advised to listen. Of course, there are a few of them that understand what I mean by hollow leadership on that side, because a few of them possess the desire to find themselves replacing the Leader of the Opposition -- right? I have been around here long enough. I see the posturing when it's happening, and I can see who has got their eyes on that seat. I know full well that they agree that they lack leadership on that side of the House.

Now compare that to the Premier of the province. This week the Premier of British Columbia was in Washington. Why? He wasn't here in Victoria listening to this little rump group, because he has the pulse of what's happening in this province. He went to Washington, D.C., to stand up for rural communities and working communities in this province and demand that Washington take note of the fact that this province is going to proceed and fulfil its commitment to create 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector over the next five years, and is putting the Americans on notice that the kinds of games they tried to play with those right-wing governments that imitate this group of individuals -- that those kinds of retaliatory actions won't be accepted. The Premier is standing up for British Columbians not only in Washington, D.C., but in Ottawa. He went straight up to the Prime Minister, again, telling him that those resource-dependent communities in British Columbia -- from one end of this province to the other -- deserve to have a viable fishery that will last forever and serve future generations, much as it served our generations and the generations that came before us.

Where was the Leader of the Opposition? Not once in this House has he stood up and said: "It's important that we convey those messages to the people in Washington or to the people in Ottawa." Of course, it's hard to figure out exactly what he's going to do when the next federal election comes along, in terms of who he is going to be supporting in that campaign. It's hollow leadership, and mark my words, it will become one of the more fundamental fatal flaws of the Liberals.

The third reason -- certainly in my observations, and I've seen a few -- is because we have one of the most unconstructive, negative oppositions in the history of this province. Never do they lay out their alternatives. Never do they state what they stand for. Never do they put out their positions.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: They don't have any; that's the whole point here. They have none. It's the flavour of the day. It's the policy of the day: "Let's pick up the Vancouver Sun this morning and ask ourselves what we should be asking in question period." There is no consistency.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I'll tell you why it happened today. It happened because for two days, hon. member, you and your caucus took a little bit of a kicking from the press for being as incompetent as you are, and you've got to turn to something. In any event, facts will prove that you were wrong in what you did today.

They're unconstructive and negative. One day it's "The debt's too high"; the next day it's "We want more schools." It's that type of inconsistency that the public of British Columbia sees. And they see an opposition that simply has no value base, no vision and that is only stuck together by a sense of opportunism. The hypocrisy of the gaming critic for the opposition standing up in this chamber, his table full of 50,000 names on a petition, and then standing up in this house. . . .

An Hon. Member: Let's talk mortgages.

M. Sihota: Well, hon. member, if you want to talk about that kind of stuff, we will. Hon. Speaker, I'll remind him of a few things if he keeps that up. The hon. member got into trouble for heckling once before, and I wouldn't want him to get into trouble a second time for heckling.

So on gaming, the point's made. The hon. member has been quietly lobbying for gaming contracts in his constituency, while standing up in this House and taking exactly the opposite position in terms of gaming.

[ Page 2482 ]

K. Krueger: Point of order. I'm offended by the word "hypocrite," which doesn't apply. The issue I spoke to was existing economic conditions, not expansion.

Deputy Speaker: I hear what you're saying, hon. member. Your personal feelings are less a concern at this time. So I accept what you've said. I think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will take some account of that, no doubt.

M. Sihota: So we see them moving from one issue to another, with no level of consistency, no philosophical backbone and no sort of framework from which British Columbians can discern that indeed there is an opposition that represents something that is based on some kind of value system.

Today we've shifted into a debate about no-fault, which I'm going to talk about in a minute. But I have to be honest with you. In the work that I do in my constituency, certainly in my travels around this province. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: As I whiz around this province, it is true that from time to time people will stop me and want to talk about no-fault. Normally, the rule of thumb appears to be that they are people I have met in my days at law school or they know me from the bar here in Victoria. Parenthetically, I should say that I would. . . . The member for Richmond-Steveston has gone. He should take a look at the Advocate article this month which proposes a $20,000 deductible as a way of dealing with some of the issues that he raised in this House. But what I find disturbing about the debate on no-fault is that in my constituency and in my travels, there are people who talk to me about issues which, in my view. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I want the hon. members to hear this. I'm waiting for them to chill out for a second.

In my work as an MLA, the kinds of issues raised in my office are not issues like no-fault. There are issues like the minimum wage. There are issues that relate to poverty. There are issues that relate to the difficulty people are having in making it from paycheque to paycheque, and to the challenges of raising a family. Those are the kinds of issues that are consistently and regularly raised in the work that I do. What I take umbrage with, in terms of the ICBC no-fault issue, is that in some way it disturbs me that there are those in society who can marshal financial resources, who can access the system, who can generate issues. . .

An Hon. Member: Like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?

M. Sihota: No. If the hon. members would just settle down, I'll make my point.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Well, I am getting to it, hon. member.

. . .which are important. But, in my view, they are not the dominant kinds of issues that ought to be before this chamber.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I didn't say you shouldn't talk about them, hon. member. I said you should talk about them, but I'm also going to make it very clear to the hon. member that I think that on that side of the House they are, first of all, derelict in their responsibility to this chamber in their failure to raise some issues that are far more fundamental in our society than no-fault insurance. Let me list. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: They don't like it, and that doesn't surprise me, because it exposes one of the more fundamental flaws in that opposition. Let me lay out some issues that I think are far more important and that ought to be a greater subject of debate in this House in terms of public policy matters.

In this throne speech, we talk about northern economic development. It is true that the remarkable economic growth that has occurred in this province during the course of this administration's time in office has been primarily on southern Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland. There is a pressing need for government to begin to dedicate its resources and skills and marshal them to begin to deal with the challenges of economic development in northern British Columbia.

I don't hear the members opposite talk about the duality in broad terms in British Columbia, in terms of the two economies that exist between the southern end of this province and -- if I could put it this way -- the northern part of this province. It is for that reason that our government and our Premier have made a very conscious decision to place in this throne speech a commitment to deal with northern economic development challenges. They're enormous, and over the next few months hon. members opposite who have not raised that issue will quickly come to realize some of the initiatives that this administration is embarking upon in order to generate greater economic opportunities in northern development. It seems to me that this is a legitimate economic issue that hasn't been raised and that ought to be raised by the members opposite, and they should reflect on that fact.

Second, far more important than the no-fault debate, in my mind, are the challenges that society faces today in terms of health care, and all members would be well advised to listen. Think about this. I think it's evident to more and more of us involved in public office that with the aging of the baby-boomers -- and in just looking around at who is here, I think most of us in this House tend to reflect that grouping in society -- there are going to be increased demands. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I know I've got a lot less grey hair than you do, hon. member, and there's a reason for that.

It is one of the more fundamental public policy changes of our time to begin to deal with the pressures that this element in society is going to be placing on our health care system. They have come to expect a certain standard of health care, and we as a society have encouraged that expectation. But the demands on society in terms of additional capital to provide additional health care facilities and to continue to provide funding on a year-to-year basis to meet those health care demands is, in my view, the most fundamental public policy challenge facing society today.

[4:15]

Rather than hearing all the rhetoric that I hear from the members opposite, based on the sort of political hit of the day -- put somebody up in the gallery; and they may be having 

[ Page 2483 ]

a problem with a waiting list, so let's get a headline out of that -- the opposition would be well advised to engage in a fundamental debate in this House about where our health care system is going. My fear right now is that if the opposition has its way -- if one is to cut through their rhetoric and analyze it -- it is inevitable that the health care system, as we know it today, will never survive. I would argue that by the time we get to the next election -- by the time we get to the next millennium -- the central debate in the next election campaign will be about the future of our health care system. Those people that are now beginning to get on the edge of the baby boom will become far more focused on what we, as a government and as a society, can do about health care than on any other issue that the opposition wants to make an issue of today. It seems to me that this issue is far more important than no-fault.

Let me give you a third issue, which we hear very little about from the opposition, that I would again forecast is going to be a fundamental issue of the next few years as we, as a society, come to wrestle with it. I have to say that our administration has started the work and has done some remarkable work in this regard, and that is in the sustainability of our forest and fish resources in this province. Now, again, if you cut through the rhetoric of what the Forests critic will say, as he shills his way for industry, quite frankly, in terms of putting forward those kinds of arguments, and if you take into account. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Speaker, I thought I heard the hon. member wondering if there is any French that is somehow related to any taxi licences which I've got. I'm not too sure if I get that.

The sustainability of our fish and forest resources is, again, a fundamental economic challenge that we're faced with in this province, because those resources are not only the foundation of our economic fabric, and not only the source of our wealth, but also the source of other elements of our economy, be it our tourism revenue or the quality of life which we have to offer that attracts so much investment to British Columbia, in terms of our need to protect the environment.

There are some fundamental issues that we have to deal with. We have to deal with the challenge of greenhouse gases -- a fundamental challenge. I've never heard the opposition raise that issue at all, yet if you ask me what is the most troubling environmental issue facing society today, it's greenhouse gases. You never hear them. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: You know, inasmuch as they oppose Forest Renewal B.C., you never hear them stand up in this House and give credit to this government for the initiatives it has taken to try to protect the integrity of our forest resource in British Columbia. You never hear them talk about that. And you never hear them join this government in its opposition to the Mifflin plan. Not once in this House have I heard a member opposite stand up in this House and state their objection to the Mifflin plan.

Now they want to talk about no-fault. It is true that we have some challenges as a province with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Some of the points that the hon. member opposite made are valid. I think the point that he made about the need for us to revisit how it is that rates are set and to perhaps look at a Utilities Commission kind of model is a valid consideration. I think it's a legitimate public policy issue that we should debate in this chamber. Similarly, I don't think anybody is going to disagree with the issues around traffic safety or reducing fraud.

But I want the hon. members to also understand that if we don't deal with some of the challenges that flow from the legal community, if we don't deal with some of the pressures that are on our courts, if we don't deal with some of the laws that increase the amount of payments that the corporation. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Look, I'll give you an example so that the hon. members can understand it. You know, we have to take a look at issues like double recovery, where the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia pays out the wages that someone is entitled to if they're injured and they also recover it from a second insurer -- so they get paid their lost wages twice. I think it's legitimate for society and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to look at those kinds of issues.

We need to look at the issue of deductibilities -- no two ways about it. This is one of the few insurance schemes that exists today where we don't have a form of deductibility. Yet that's sort of a common practice in terms of insurance law. In that regard, as I said earlier on, I think that the hon. members should take note of what is written in the Advocate this week and the comments that they make about the need for a $20,000 deductibility in this. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Well, look, hon. member, the numbers are disclosed. They are disclosed.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: In this day and age with FOI, in this day and age of annual reports of ICBC, in this day of incredible transparency brought forward by this government, only the Liberals will stand up in this House and say that they don't have all of the information from which to make an informed decision. The fact of the matter is that they would far more prefer to utter rhetoric in this House than to contribute positively, to begin to deal with the challenges faced by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

So let me end by saying that in my view there are a lot of issues that we as a society have to deal with, and all of us on both sides of this House -- and society in general -- would benefit immensely if indeed the opposition shifted from its pattern of mindless rhetoric and engaged in a thoughtful and inspiring debate in this House with regard to challenges like no-fault.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to rise here today on behalf of the residents of Kamloops and speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. It's been eight months since I was first elected as an MLA for British Columbia, and I'm very proud to be here today and to have served the residents of Kamloops as their MLA.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging some of the good advice that I've received from my constituents on a variety of issues, but in particular on the matter of decorum. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I too, like my colleague 

[ Page 2484 ]

who just finished his remarks to the throne, have been distressed by the antics of those on the other side of the House who feel that they have nothing positive to offer in the way of debate around policy issues.

What my constituents have said to me -- throughout the campaign and since then -- is to take the high ground: to not engage in partisan name-calling, but to stay focused on issues. I think that's pretty good advice, and it's advice that I've been pleased to take, and that certainly I am pleased to see my colleagues on the government side of the House take, very seriously in their debate on this Speech from the Throne.

That positive and constructive view of how to make progress on behalf of all British Columbia residents is represented, as well, in the Speech from the Throne. For me, particularly, it develops a very meaningful theme, one that I recall from when I was employed as a teacher prior to my election as an MLA and now as a member of this government. That key theme and priority is to invest in our future, building a strong province so that we can leave something that our children can be proud to inherit.

That investment, obviously, has to be delivered through a variety of priorities, and certainly all British Columbians support the priorities that have been included in the Speech from the Throne. In particular, the ones that Kamloops residents talked to me about are job creation, health care, education and environmental protection.

But I'd like to start by talking about the number one priority of Kamloops residents: job creation and jobs. The throne speech makes reference to continuation of a tax cut for small businesses as well as a tax holiday for new businesses. That is certainly welcomed by small businesses in Kamloops. Across B.C. as well as in Kamloops, small business is one of the largest employers, and it is one that is growing in significance and importance.

I recently had the opportunity to attend two events in Kamloops that focused on small business. One was on the home-based business market. I had the chance to see the full range and wide diversity of businesses that exist in our own community. The enthusiasm and the entrepreneurial spirit that they portrayed in those settings was very humbling to see. These tax cuts help these businesses build economic viability and provide more jobs for our community. Those very members of those small businesses supported the initiative of the tax cut for small business and its continuation in the upcoming budget year.

But our community depends on more than just small business. Big employers in our area are in logging and the value-added sector. Just this past weekend, I had the opportunity to attend the IWA convention in Kamloops. They were very pleased with my report to them on our initiatives as a government, and in particular our initiatives around job creation and the protection of health care and education.

The value-added sector is a very important employer in our area. I've had, during my first few months, the opportunity to meet with several of these businesses in our area, in particular Compwood Industries, which is a local value-added manufacturing plant that builds a variety of laminated wood frames and posts for the Japanese housing market. What they said to me was that they were concerned with being able to get the degree of access to wood they needed to be able to add more jobs to their plant. I'm very pleased to say that as a result of the processes that have been set in place by this government, they were able to access additional wood so that they can create more jobs in that sector in our community.

These are the kind of initiatives that the Premier and our government are pursuing through the jobs and timber accord, and certainly they are ones that I'm very proud to support. But as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said, as a government and as a province our emphasis has been, perhaps, put on the lower mainland and the southern Vancouver Island areas in terms of job creation. I know I was very pleased during the provincial election to support the regional job strategy that our government outlined as part of our platform. That regional job strategy is one that we're talking about in our community -- looking for ways to continue to work towards and build on some widening and diversification beyond the resource sector.

Now, the regional plan does of course identify mining and forestry-related jobs, as well as value-added in agriculture -- ranching in particular, which our area is well known for -- and, as I highlighted earlier in my remarks, small business. But it also highlights industry and manufacturing.

There's an organization in Kamloops that I want to spend a few minutes talking about that's done a really great job in trying to diversify our job creation strategies in Kamloops: the Kamloops economic development corporation. They've recently outlined their five-year strategy for increasing employment in our region. I want to read a short part of an article written in the Kamloops Daily News of Thursday, April 3. It starts by saying: "On a macro level, B.C.'s economy as a whole has been steadily moving, over the past several decades, from being predominantly goods-producing to services-producing. According to KEDCO's five-year strategic plan, Kamloops is following this trend." But it goes on to say -- we need to spend more on developing the basic sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing and the involving of local resources.

[4:30]

It then goes on to highlight one of my favourite new companies in the Kamloops area, the Bear Brewing Co., which produces wonderful products that we consume in many pubs and bars around the area. They are, in the 1997-98 fiscal year, anticipating revenues and sales projections of $1.4 million, and are projecting $2.3 million for 1998-99. They even hope to export their product to the U.S. in the next five years. That's a great potential not only for that business and our community but for job creation as well.

I also had the chance to meet with Robert Fine, who's the new manager of KEDCO. He's a recent immigrant to Kamloops, coming from the Whistler area previously, but I noted with interest his strong entrepreneurial spirit and his keen enthusiasm for the potential of our Kamloops area. So I'm pleased to welcome both him and his family to our residential area and to wish him the best of luck -- and my best assistance, as well, in helping him to work together to create new jobs in the Kamloops area.

One of the initiatives that KEDCO has begun -- very innovative, in my view -- is producing a City Disk, which is a computer-interactive method through which we can market the Kamloops area. KEDCO is also involved in some other community-based discussions, and they're saying to the people in Kamloops: "Where do you think we should put our efforts in job creation? Where do you fit, and where should we be headed to over the next five years?" They're hosting some community-based discussions sponsored by the chamber of commerce, the city of Kamloops and the Kamloops Indian band.

Their town hall meetings. . . . And I'm reading from a clipping from the Kamloops Daily News of April 4, where

[ Page 2485 ]

 they're talking to the public about the opportunity for expansion of gaming opportunities in Kamloops, and whether we should go for a casino. KEDCO manager Robert Fine says that the meeting will serve two purposes, and participants will be presented with information about the pros and cons of gambling and how to field public input. And whether or not we believe that the fact. . . . He says we can't shy away from the fact that there will be revenues and jobs generated.

Well, Robert Fine is very correct. In fact, in Kamloops we do know about the benefits of gaming, because indeed we have two companies. We have Pollard Banknote, which prints lottery products and employs about 160 people in the Kamloops area. We also have the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which provides many good-paying, computer-skill-related jobs in our community. I'm certainly proud of the work that all of the employees in those firms do for Kamloops residents. I'm certainly pleased to see our community engaging in a discussion on how we can better take advantage of the gaming expansions that are coming.

I also want to talk a little about tourism, because it's a job-creating sector that continues to grow very successfully in Kamloops, and that's due in part to our very unique geographical and historical roots. One of the most recent entries in this effort is our recently held Cowboy Festival, in which we celebrated the diversity of our region and city. We honoured the heritage that we have enjoyed as an agricultural and ranching community for many years. We're also going to host a family-based festivity this summer called a family fiesta, and its purpose is to benefit community policing. We're hoping to attract families from all over the region to that event.

Hon. Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the very big success we've had with the Rocky Mountaineer, which is the Via Rail train car that comes through our community and brings thousands of visitors to Kamloops. Those visitors stay and enjoy our fine hospitality. In particular, I'd like to make mention of a new entrepreneurial venture called Two Rivers Junction. As the train comes through the train station, we invite our visitors to enjoy some historical theatre, with singing and dancing and celebration of our local history in the area, so that our international visitors have some sense of the history and talent that we have in our region. Again, I would say that the fine hospitality they receive as a result of their visit makes them wish to come back to our region.

I'm also pleased to make mention of the job creation initiatives being sponsored by the Kamloops Indian band. They recently announced a new development called Sun Rivers, which will build on the history of the Shuswap people and create a frontier village, a golf course, housing, and a landing right on the river. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention our world-famous cattle drive, where we have people coming from all over Europe and North America to enjoy the opportunity to go back in time and experience a real cattle drive. We in Kamloops are lucky, as well, to have really world-class fishing in our many lakes and rivers, and this draws tourists to our area.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't make mention of Kamloops' reputation as the tournament capital of British Columbia. We continue to attract athletic events from around the world and bring many visitors who enjoy not only the athletic events and the fine facilities we have in place in the Kamloops area, but also our fine restaurants, hotels and hospitality.

I want to make mention of the recent twenty-ninth annual Kamloops International Hockey Tournament. For 29 years, Kamloops has been hosting hockey tournaments for the international community. We had European teams as well as teams from the U.S. and across Canada. I'm certainly proud to report that the Kamloops Jardine Blazers were finalists again, as they have been for four out of the last five years. I was really proud to see their efforts and achievement as a part of that tournament.

I would like to also make mention of two particular young men, Clint Harper and Billy Dick, who are goalkeepers for the Kamloops Jardine Blazers and who were awarded the Lorne Lussier Memorial Trophy for fewest goals against. The people of Kamloops are proud to support their world-class reputation within hockey circles, having trained and graduated many successful hockey players and coaches who are now in the NHL. We've certainly earned our reputation as the tournament capital of British Columbia, due to our spirit of volunteerism as well as to the many fine sporting facilities that have been built over the last few years. Our reputation for hospitality, for making folks from around the world feel welcome, has been at the core of our success as a community.

We are indeed a city and a region with a great heart, and just like our government, we also have a great concern for those in need in our community. I want to touch on a couple of initiatives that the caring folks in Kamloops are working on to try to support folks in need in our community.

The first is an effort to create a safe house for women. We do have some very fine facilities in the Kamloops area that support individuals in need. But it is difficult sometimes for transient women, in particular, who are in our community for shorter periods of time and who are trying to relocate, to escape abusive relationships, and so on. Sometimes our shelter doesn't have enough room for them, so we're looking at ways we can work together as a community to find ways to support these women and to see if we can't build some sort of a facility to accommodate their needs.

As well, I'm very pleased to offer my support for a new project, which is a major fundraising drive we've engaged upon for the New Life Mission. This facility will offer personal counselling and 12-step substance abuse programs. It will have a residential component as well as access to education and training readiness. It's a $1.2 million project. It has a great deal of community support, and the co-chairs of that fundraising committee are Senator Len Marchand and the CEO of our regional health board, Garry Olsen. Together, that volunteer board is working hard to raise funds in our community to help build a better facility so we can assist those who have less than we do.

Provincially, of course, our government is proud and pleased to put in place initiatives that support families, too. I think I would be remiss if I didn't make direct mention of the B.C. family bonus program in particular. Many constituents have called me personally, and they have been absolutely thrilled with this additional financial assistance that has been provided to them so they can help raise their children. In particular, they make mention of the access to dental and eye care, which can make all the difference to a family that's struggling.

I also had the opportunity, not more than a month ago, to attend the opening of a new day care centre right next to the Royal Inland Hospital. Our government provided the funding to rebuild that facility. It is a multi-aged facility and close to the downtown core. One of its strengths is not just that it can be accessed by staff at the hospital, but also that people who work in the general downtown area can put their children in a place close to their workplace. As well, they'll have the opportunity to visit their children on their lunch-hours and so on, 

[ Page 2486 ]

making it a much better care facility. They'll be much happier as families to have that connection with one another throughout the day. I'd like to commend the volunteer board of directors that have worked so hard to put this in place.

I'd like to also make mention of the youth initiatives that are included in the Speech from the Throne. I'm certainly proud of our government's Guarantee for Youth. We're the only government in Canada that's making a strong financial and organizational commitment to job creation for youth. We're projecting 12,000 new jobs in the next year.

I did have some constituents raise some concerns about how this program had worked, because it did indeed begin last year. But I am certainly pleased to report that many of the concerns they raised with me have resulted in changes to the youth work system and have addressed that concern, and that's the sign of good, responsive government.

In addition to that strategy, our government is committed to assisting youth in a variety of ways to access the job market. Building skills through additional training and post-secondary access is absolutely critical to that goal, so I'm pleased that the throne speech extends the tuition freeze, as well as a commitment to additional spaces at the post-secondary level.

As an MLA, I've had the opportunity to visit not only Cariboo College but also our local high schools. In those visits, all of the individuals I've talked to, at the college as well as the high schools, have spoken very highly of our government's emphasis on access for youth, on job creation and, in particular, on the tuition freeze.

As a government, we're also investing in new technology and infrastructure which is critical to our success. Our University College of the Cariboo's new applied industrial technology building, which is slated for final opening this summer, is an example of that. That's been a $15 million commitment to provide Kamloops and students from around the province with a world-class skills and training facility, as well as an innovative, advanced technology centre. The staff at UCC are already working with the industrial sector, as well as with the business sector, in meeting the training needs of their industries. In particular, they've already begun with the mining sector.

I'd also like to make mention of the Premier's Youth Forum, because it puts an emphasis on another part of the Speech from the Throne. Not only are we interested in providing services for youth, we're also interested in providing a voice for youth. We've discussed ways in which we in government can and should create an ongoing, two-way dialogue between youth and government. The on-line system that the Premier has announced is an innovative way in which that voice of youth can access government.

[4:45]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

As the local MLA, I've been asking the students in my constituency to tell me the best way we can work together to increase that dialogue, because I'm interested as well in engaging in that kind of an ongoing, two-way discussion with them about how government can continue to respond to their needs and priorities.

I'd be remiss if I didn't turn my remarks to education at this point -- the public education K-to-12 sector -- because clearly one of the strongest commitments in our throne speech is our continued emphasis on both education and health care. Kamloops residents really support those goals, and they do believe that those should be our priorities. But I'd like to emphasize that those resources need to be focused on the classroom. Taxpayers agree that we should be reducing spending on administration and providing direct services to children in classrooms. As a former teacher, I know full well that that is a priority not just for teachers but for families in communities. We must put our resources in the place where they provide direct services for children.

I'd also like to remind this House of the major initiatives we've taken as a government over the last few years to support families and schools through the breakfast and lunch programs, as well as community schools. I had the pleasure of visiting Bert Edwards Elementary not long ago, and that's an example of a school that has additional inner-city school funding to help provide support for families with limited resources and to help with provision of supervision for before- and after-school care.

In particular, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the investment in facilities that we as a province are making for education. I'm very pleased that Lloyd George Elementary, in my constituency, is one of the first announcements that was made for facility upgrade. Lloyd George Elementary was originally built in 1917 -- that makes it 80 years old -- and its original wing was in great and sad disrepair. Crumbling brick and mortar created an enormous safety challenge, and that's why it was one of the first schools to be announced in the lifting of the capital freeze.

In particular, I don't want to take personal credit for having that facility built, because in fact it was the parents in that community and the downtown residents who pushed very hard to have the facility moved to the top of the list. Those parents who worked especially hard include Debbie Seguin and Michelle Reith, who worked on behalf of their own students, and also Sandra and Dan Brisson, who represent the downtown residents association, which also supported the project.

There are many aspects in the Speech from the Throne that make mention of investment in our future. I think another area that deserves mention is that continuing emphasis on improving access to and quality of health care in British Columbia. I think it's telling that our province, our government, is increasing the budget for health care again, despite continued cuts in transfer payments from Ottawa. But I think we can also agree that we need to find some efficiencies within the system, so we can continue to maintain good access. And I think that the commitment made in the throne speech regarding access to physicians is a very important part of our commitment and certainly one that residents in the smaller areas of my constituency strongly support.

I believe that our continued movement towards regionalization is and should be a priority for our government. I'm certainly pleased with the efforts that constituents and volunteers are making in the Kamloops area, who are continuing to make progress towards health care that is focused on prevention and Closer to Home. There are 92 health boards in our community, all of which are anxious to provide services to people in our region. Coordination of these services through the regional health board will avoid duplication and ensure the best use of health care dollars. In Kamloops, the number of senior citizens who are choosing to stay in or move to our fine city is increasing, and so improving services for this group of constituents must be a priority.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to give the remainder of my speech over to my particular deep and abiding interest at this point in 

[ Page 2487 ]

time, and that's the environment. As the minister responsible, I'm very pleased with the prominent appearance of environmental issues in the Speech from the Throne. Certainly it demonstrates our government's continuing commitment and leadership in promoting environmental protection.

I'd like to start by talking a little bit about our 12 percent protected-areas strategy. We are continuing to make our commitment to adding to that. We're at about 9 percent now, and we're continuing to engage in the land use planning process around the province, although about 75 percent of the province has already completed that planning process and set aside protected areas, as well as areas for development and multiple uses.

As the minister responsible, I was very pleased to recently attend with the Minister of Forests recently the Vanderhoof LRMP, where we announced six new protected areas. One of them I'd like to describe to you is the Nechako Canyon, which is l,300 hectares and an extremely rich archeological area with large geological value. The Entiako is 55,000 hectares, and this area is critical caribou habitat and will also provide for wilderness tourism areas. There is also Fran�ois Lake, which is 7,000 hectares of pristine viewscapes, as well as recreational wilderness areas.

I think the important part of this announcement was the presence of two children who were there with their parents to celebrate the resolve and, in fact, the consensus that had been reached by all the members of their community around this planning process. I think their presence is really symbolic of the reasons for our work in land use planning and why this work is critical in balancing the economic and environmental values we all share.

Hon. Speaker, that little light has gone off. Does that mean I'm soon going to run out of time?

Interjection.

Hon. C. McGregor: Okay, then I'm going to have to quickly move to one other topic that's very important to me, and that's probably because it was so many years in the making. That's our recent announcement around the expansion of the deposit system and the beverage container strategy. I really want to share with the members of the House this letter I received from a group of students at Gordon Head Elementary. It's written to the Minister of Environment, and it says:

"Dear Ms. McGregor:

"At our school we recycle aluminum cans, but many people don't. We have noticed many cans are thrown away, and we think it's because the deposit is too low. We know it creates a lot of pollution to make aluminum but very little pollution to recycle it. Could you please raise the deposit on cans so that people won't throw them away?

"We hope you can help us take care of the planet."

It's from division 12, and all of the students have signed their names at the bottom of the letter.

Well, I'm afraid I wasn't able to increase the deposit for them. But I think the decision we made about expanding the deposit system to cover another 290 million deposit containers that normally would end up in the landfill is a very significant achievement, and one that I hope the students at Gordon Head Elementary will be proud of.

Hon. Speaker, I know I've run out of time, so I'll leave the rest of my remarks for another occasion.

J. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and address the throne speech. I have read all 25 pages of it more than once; then I began to analyze it. Initially, I was looking for some new ideas or concepts which would be of benefit to the province, for something that British Columbians could look forward to. I was disappointed. It was basically a rerun of last year's throne speech, with the odd change which will be for the worse. Since time does not permit me to do a line-by-line analysis, I will touch on some of the highlights.

In order to analyze it, one must first develop a basic understanding of the language of this government and their predictability. People who make a living from predicting the outcome of government policies have told me that this NDP government is the most predictable on record. You simply figure out the worst possible scenario that could result, and you'll be right on every time. When they say, "We are going to create," they mean "to eliminate." When they say, "We are going to protect," they mean "to erode."

As I said, I had hoped for some new ideas or concepts, for some originality. It is not there. This Premier has not had an original idea since his first tax increase. What we have is 25 pages of political rhetoric, or, at first glance, it would appear to be that.

Let's analyze it a bit more. Take jobs, for instance. "Decent-paying, family-supporting wages" -- that's how they're described. To you and I, that would mean an income that would allow us to care for our children, to send them to university and to provide for our retirement.

Let's look a little deeper. This government contends that people are working too long, so they must shorten the work week. That sounds good, especially in a province that exceeds all others in direct and marginal tax rates. The aim here is to cut the number of jobs in half and double them in number, so that no one can find enough work to pay the bills. But not to worry. They have a child benefit program called the family bonus, which this government is so proud of.

So what does this government mean by decent-paying, family-supporting wages? Simply this: everyone should have a job which allows you to live from hand to mouth, day by day, with no hope in sight, with no opportunity to get out of debt, with no opportunity to provide for your children's education or your retirement, and everyone who attempts to raise a family will be able to participate in their family bonus program.

Another point on jobs. All through this throne speech these words keep jumping out at me: "We will create jobs; we will create employment." What kinds of jobs are we talking about? Non-productive, non-sustainable jobs which only the government is capable of creating. Or are we talking about productive, sustainable jobs which only industry, business and the free enterprise system are capable of creating -- and only when government stands back and allows this to happen? You do not harness the entrepreneurial spirit. You leave it alone, and it will do quite well.

Another interesting word appears, and it's "infrastructure." They never cease to amaze me. We have in this province an infrastructure which has been neglected to the extreme since the NDP came to power in 1991. They really do have some problems in this area.

But wait. It's: "Not so fast; it's very simple. We'll prepare an illegal budget; we'll dump a massive load onto the municipalities, and that will take care of our problem." But wait, Mr. Speaker: "We'll also need some money to create a few union construction jobs. So let's take them out of the municipal grants system. It's illegal, of course, and 29 of us will have to go back on our word. But all we need is a majority

[ Page 2488 ]

 in the House the day we change the legislation, then everything will be legal, including our budget." Ingenious, but totally wrong and despicable -- nevertheless, ingenious.

On medicare, one word pops out, and that is "protection." Ten years ago -- even seven years ago -- we had a good health care system in this province. We actually had wards for different problems in the hospital. Most provinces still have those today. Today we have what can be best described as a mess or, better yet, chaos in many of our hospitals. For example, in my riding of Cariboo North, we do not have the luxury of wards any longer, and we no longer are allowed to provide a bed for those that require one.

Mr. Speaker, the arrival of a child is one of the greatest joys that most of us will ever experience in life. You need to have a place where the mother and child can have some privacy and the family can come and share in this time of joy. It's called a maternity ward. What do we have today in our hospital? We have the result of NDP protection of the health care system: we have stretchers with expectant mothers on them in the hallways, and stretchers with accident victims and with terminally ill patients.

[5:00]

If you are lucky enough to get a bed, what do you find? You find the same thing. To force a mother to give birth among acute care patients and terminally ill patients, who are in agony alongside her, is unforgivable on the part of this government. Forget two-tiered health care. We have slipped to the level of Third World countries under the direction of this government.

Education, Mr. Speaker. The same words appear again: we will protect it. They will destroy it, just as surely as you and I sit in this House today. In school district 28, which is in my constituency, the government has slashed education funding by $619,000 this year alone -- just another cut in a long series of cuts. Need I say more? The facts speak for themselves. As with health care, the government will destroy our public education system. This is the protection that the New Democratic Party offers British Columbians for the future of health care and education.

Forestry and fishing are the keystones of our economic foundation. I am glad to know that we still have two crumbling cornerstones in our foundation that can be identified. And crumbling they are. I will defy this government to identify one investor that is knocking at the door and wanting to invest in either of these industries in this province. What about the other two cornerstones that used to be in our foundation? They're not even mentioned. Mining crumbled some time ago, and the agriculture industry, with the unobtainable help of the present minister, can now be viewed as a sunset industry in this province.

It is not all lost. Even as we speak, our industrious Premier is hewing out two more cornerstones. One will be B.C.'s version of Hollywood, and the other will be created through legalized gambling. Hard work deserves a break; it must be almost Miller time.

I will try to touch on a few more points before I close. On youth, our hope for the future -- last year it was 3,500 new jobs. The reality was 8,000 fewer job opportunities. This year it's 12,000 new jobs. That will most likely mean 20,000 fewer job opportunities. I do, however, see a couple of red flags here. Is it possible that reality is finally setting in and that this government is now in a panic and attempting to do damage control? I should hope so, but it's not likely.

They mentioned partisanship. Who would ever believe that? Could you handle a $1,000-a-day job? Not likely -- it would only go to your head.

Unacceptable levels of unemployment. That was mentioned twice. It's serious, don't you think? Both the adult and the student workforce are now in competition. "We will create 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector by the year 2002." I'm not quite sure what the key is here -- "create" or "new." We have lost 5,500 jobs in the last year, and it is escalating every month. We could be looking at a loss of 30,000 jobs by the year 2002. Or the key word could be "new." It should read "additional jobs," not "new." The industry could very well end up with only 21,000 jobs by the year 2002, and they will all carry a new job description.

We must have hope. An old acquaintance of mine -- actually, one of my constituents -- has just stepped in to save the forest industry from the impacts of the Forest Practices Code. The application of the code is the problem. It almost sounds as if the Minister of Forests may take the good advice from this side of the House and try to turn it into a results-oriented code.

There is another player in this scenario that has felt the impact from the Forest Practices Code as much, if not more so, and that's the sunset industry I referred to earlier. This minister has seen fit to address the concerns of the forest industry; however, he has refused time after time to include range-users in this province in these talks. I really expect much more from this minister, as do many of his constituents and all the other users of range in this province. Shame!

It would appear to most people who know this minister that he is not acting on his best judgment, but following the advice of his superiors. It is also evident in his attitude toward the implementation of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, something that is critical to the economic survival and well-being of the region. Integrated resource management is a key component of the plan. When certain ministry staff can effectively block the only logical access to the successful development of a ranching endeavour on the 1700 Road, north of Alexis Creek, for ten months -- resulting in the loss of an entire crop and thousands of dollars -- when this minister promised last July that access would be forthcoming in two weeks. . . . It may be an insignificant issue to him, but it is vitally important to the family trying to start a new life there. It is indecision, and not the commitment we expect from someone who claimed credit for the best land use plan in the province.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member, I believe I have a point. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, this member is suggesting that I broke a promise to a constituent, and. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, Minister, but there isn't really a point of order on a dispute as to the veracity of what one says. Rather, it is only on unparliamentary language, so I can't accept the point of order. Instead, I'm going to go back to the member for Cariboo North.

J. Wilson: Okay, I'll address that and rephrase it. It is my understanding that this is what took place. It may not be the actual facts of the case.

On a larger scale, we have a definite betrayal by the Minister of Agriculture of the land use plans around the province. The grazing enhancement fund was the main reason 

[ Page 2489 ]

that the ranching industry bought into these plans, all the way from the Peace River to the Kootenays. Premier Harcourt promised $4.25 million for five years provincewide. Of the three that were completed by the last government, $3.4 million was committed, and of that, $2.5 million was to go to the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The grazing enhancement fund was to soften the impacts of the code on the industry. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have $1.5 million to be distributed provincewide for ten years. So when I refer to the agriculture industry as a sunset industry, that is what it looks like to many in the ranching sector. They have a non-functional grazing enhancement fund that is a pittance, and the door has been shut in the industry's face by the Minister of Forests, who will not allow that sector to come to the table and help with the redesigning of the code.

I would like to close with this thought. What this province needs is good leadership: a government that has the ability to provide good decisions that work for the needs of British Columbians rather than against them. We need leadership that is committed to our health care, to education and to the creation of jobs in this province, and a government which places value on actions, not on political rhetoric, which is what is happening today.

Government should be the servant of the people, not the master, as we are witnessing today. This government is good at one thing -- we must give credit where it's due. They are good at shirking responsibilities. A good example is the Ministry of Forests and their commitment to the basic silviculture program which was in place for work done before 1988. This work was the responsibility of the Minister of Forests. In October of 1995 government froze all spending. This, in effect, cancelled any further silviculture work that was in the budget for that year. In August of 1996 we had a repeat performance. Only part of their commitment was realized. In my riding of Cariboo North, this amounted to a loss of over 200 silviculture jobs for a two-month period. They had no intention of completing the silviculture work they had budgeted for.

This year we see the transfer of $100 million from FRBC to do the basic silviculture work that is the responsibility of the Minister of Forests. Where does this leave us? FRBC had promised, for example, $18 million to the Cariboo-Chilcotin region for enhanced silviculture work for the coming year. At a recent FRBC workshop in Quesnel, the chair of FRBC was expounding on job creation. At the same time, staff were telling the silviculture contractors and the forestry consultants that the $18 million would be reduced to $6 million. Proposals had gone in and staff had been hired. Now they have to be laid off. No one should be surprised, as this is another example of government shirking their responsibilities.

Therefore I move a subamendment to the amendment. It's standing in my name on the order paper, in response to the throne speech debate. For the benefit of the members present, I will now read it:

"That the amendment moved by [the member for North Vancouver-Seymour] and seconded by [the member for Richmond-Steveston] be amended by deleting all words after 'but this assembly regrets' and adding the following:

"'. . .that the government of British Columbia persists in its raid on Forest Renewal B.C. by transferring $100 million from FRBC for funding programs traditionally funded by the Minister of Forests.'"

I urge members opposite who have any sense of responsibility to support this subamendment.

On the subamendment.

T. Nebbeling: I rise to second the subamendment to the amendment, and I'd like to speak in favour of the motion. It's really regrettable that after the one-year experience with Forest Renewal B.C., once again I have to rise and defend what could potentially be another raid on Forest Renewal B.C. I should say that it is a raid disguised as a proper transfer by the Minister of Forests, who gave a beautiful title to this transfer of the $100 million. He said: "This is not a raiding; it is a sideways shift in funding." It doesn't matter what the minister calls it. It's not a legal act, I believe, and it is certainly not in the spirit of Forest Renewal B.C.

I say that because when it was created, Forest Renewal B.C. was supposed to do a couple of things. One thing it was supposed to do was create jobs. I will come back to job creation and the effectiveness of the board and staff of Forest Renewal B.C. and to how many jobs they have created. It was also supposed to create a sustainable forest, and in the process of coming to the sustainability of the forest, again, it would create jobs for people that were displaced in other areas in the province, who were working in the forest already.

[5:15]

Unfortunately, because of the attitude that the minister has shown to dominate his actions in the past. . . . I'm talking about the attitude where he believed that whatever government does is okay and that we should always remember that the minister represents government, and for that reason he can do whatever he wants. The one thing he cannot do, I believe, is transfer money that will be channelled toward a course that eliminates one very fundamental principle of Forest Renewal B.C.: incrementality. If I can give you some notes on the policy of incrementality, what it means is that Forest Renewal B.C. investments must be incremental to those arising from obligations in industry or government. Then it goes into some further talk. It really says that nothing can be done without an incremental value added to a project.

It is just beyond me how the minister can say today. . . . The Ministry of Forests, which has always been responsible for the basic silviculture projects, suddenly sees Forest Renewal B.C. as a fund to fund that basic silviculture project. Up to now, I believe, every silviculture project that has been undertaken by this government through Forest Renewal B.C. has had that incremental value through intensive forest or silviculture activities -- pruning, spacing, all these kinds of activities -- that are add-ons to make the forests grow faster, to make the forest healthier and more sustainable in the long run. So how the minister can call this just a sideways shift in funding is beyond me. I do not believe that this $100 million can be tapped into or be changed over as a responsibility from the Forests ministry until such time that there has been a debate in the House dealing with the amendments that the BC Forest Renewal Act of 1994 has to see implemented. So I ask the minister to take note that we expect, before a dollar of this $100 million is spent, that we will indeed have an opportunity, as the opposition, to debate this bill. The minister has so far not indicated that he believes there is a need for it, but the positions that I have received from our legal advisers clearly indicate that without amendments to the act, this transfer of $100 million can just not happen.

What worries me more -- or just as much, I should say -- is the fact that Forest Renewal B.C. as a Crown corporation has really not shown much of a track record to give us much faith 

[ Page 2490 ]

in how this money will be used. There is, of course, talk that it will go over to the job agency, which will be controlled by the IWA -- and clearly the mandate has it that jobs paid out of Forest Renewal B.C. have to have a union ticket associated with them. That is something that I think again contradicts the intention of the BC Forest Renewal Act. The Forest Renewal Act very clearly states that every forest worker in British Columbia who is displaced because of activities under the Forest Practices Code or the protected-areas strategy, or because of the annual allowable cut reductions implemented by the chief forester, must have an opportunity to tap into Forest Renewal B.C. funding and create new opportunities through Forest Renewal B.C. funding, so that the worker can also look forward to a future and thereby have the future of his family secured -- and often the security of a community as well.

So, again, I cannot see how on the one hand a union membership is going to be required to tap into this fund, when on the other hand every forest worker has been guaranteed to benefit from Forest Renewal B.C. There are many non-union forest workers, and before this money will again be transferred and targeted, I believe we need an explanation of how the non-union worker can be protected as well and can indeed tap into this money. That's the second point.

I've already indicated that I'm not at all happy with the track record of Forest Renewal B.C. and its actions over the last three years, especially after two years of initiating the program, so to speak, in which last year -- the third year -- we were supposed to see a tremendous growth in the job opportunities in British Columbia for displaced workers. Well, from time to time we have been given very optimistic numbers by Forest Renewal B.C.: 5,300 direct jobs created last year, plus another 3,200 secondary jobs and another 2,000 jobs that somehow became a direct benefit from the investment made by FRBC into the communities throughout British Columbia. That adds up to roughly the amount that the Minister of Forests is constantly hollering at us whenever we talk about the job losses in the forest. The only defence we get from the minister is: "You're wrong, there are 10,000, 11,000, 12,000" -- it depends on the day of the week, what he feels like -- "jobs we have created."

Well, I think he goes by the statistics from Forest Renewal B.C. to come to these jobs. However, when we met with some of the board members of Forest Renewal B.C., including the chairman and some of the staff members. . . . It took about an hour to an hour and a half of very persistently asking questions, but in the end we came down to analyzing how many jobs have been created by Forest Renewal B.C. The conclusion was, after adding up all the different jobs that the board knew about -- and I suggest that these are real jobs, not just study programs, learning how to operate a computer to write a job summary or sitting in front of a computer trying to upgrade yourself from grade 8 to 9. . . . No, real jobs. The board, after an hour and a half of persistence by us, had to admit that 947 jobs in total had been created. That means, Mr. Minister -- 947, remember that. . . . This was at the same time that FRBC had spent $531 million. So each real job that today is because of Forest Renewal B.C. -- not temporary jobs, not consultancy jobs -- is worth well over $500,000 in costs to the taxpayers of this province. So much for the success rate of this board. This board is now going to be responsible for delegating another $100 million into a new arena that silviculture will then be funded out of. I have no faith that this program can also work.

I know we're getting close to the time, and I still want to mention a couple of points. One of the points is that I believe that Forest Renewal B.C. would be much more effective if they started to realize the reality of today. That is that no decisions about expenditure, about the future of FRBC and how they are indeed going to manage their organization -- without, of course, the 40 percent, as is the case today. . . . That is a scary thing: $531 million has been spent over the last three years, and 40 percent of that amount was an administrative cost. That is well over $200 million spent on administration. It just boggles the mind if you think of it. But these are the numbers that we have been able to get out of Forest Renewal B.C., and they are just not to be argued over. The point is: Forest Renewal B.C. and any of their plans to distribute money can never effectively work unless there's a fundamental change in how the dollars are going to be dealt with.

I believe that what the B.C. Liberals said in 1994 in debate in this House, when they -- let it be on record -- supported the intent of Forest Renewal B.C. to create jobs for displaced workers, create a sustainable forest and create a healthy environment. . . . These were the principles. The dollars were going to be spent on the basis of incrementality. That was the fourth principle. I do not think anybody in this House or outside this House -- and that's much more important, those who live in the communities -- can believe that this board has met its mandate.

I wish that the minister would start looking at what we recommended at the time -- yes, the mandate -- and have the administration of the funds in the region they have been extracted from, so that the people who live in these regions and these areas are involved in creating the programs that can indeed reach the mandate that FRBC was supposed to be taking care of. It's unfortunate. So far, in spite of the many promises that the board has made about consulting the regions, the communities. . . . It's only recently that the board has created a framework for the stakeholders, the communities and the people living in the communities to have a say in how FRBC is going to spend its money. This is a really scary thing, because the chair of FRBC, right after the incorporation of FRBC as a Crown corporation, in an interview with the B.C. Truck Loggers Association magazine editor, stated clearly that FRBC would fail if they as an operation did not work together with the communities and people living in these communities, and reflect their decisions based on what these communities gave as direction. Three years later, we are only now seeing that the framework of the stakeholders' participation is in place. That is a frightening thought, considering 40 percent has been spent on administration, and the voice of the community has still not been heard.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to wrap up. The time is running out. Obviously, I support the amendment wholeheartedly. I think that before any money will be transferred, we have to make sure that a framework is in place so that every forest worker, be they union or non-union, can have the benefit from this particular fund. That was its intent; that's what it was supposed to do. I do not see anything in what I've read so far that says every worker is protected and can tap into it. Until such time that that framework is in place, I hope nothing will be done by the government opposite to see these dollars go towards projects that cannot reflect that value of every forest worker in British Columbia.

[5:30]

[ Page 2491 ]

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

              YEAS -- 35
Dalton   Gingell    Reid   Farrell-Collins   Plant     Sanders   Hurd     Stephens de Jong  Coell  Anderson Nebbeling

Whittred van Dongen Thorpe Penner Weisgerber G. Wilson J. Wilson Reitsma  Hansen   C. Clark Symons Hawkins

Abbott   Jarvis     Weisbeck      Chong    Coleman Nettleton Masi McKinnon Krueger Barisoff Neufeld

NAYS -- 37

Evans Zirnhelt McGregor Boone Hammell Streifel Pullinger Farnworth Kwan Waddell Calendino Stevenson Bowbrick 

Goodacre Giesbrecht Walsh Kasper Orcherton Hartley Petter Miller G. Clark Dosanjh MacPhail Cashore Ramsey 

Brewin Sihota Randall Sawicki Lali Doyle Gillespie Robertson Smallwood Conroy Janssen

The Speaker: Members, I must advise that pursuant to standing order 48, we are also required to vote on the other amendment. Normally, of course, we would give members notice of that. Are you willing to waive the notice for the next three minutes or whatever?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: If that's the case, then the question is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

              YEAS -- 35
Dalton Gingell Reid Farrell-Collins Plant Sanders Hurd Stephens de Jong Coell Anderson Nebbeling Whittred 

van Dongen Thorpe Penner Weisgerber G. Wilson J. Wilson Reitsma Hansen C. Clark Symons Hawkins Abbott 

Jarvis Weisbeck Chong Coleman Nettleton Masi McKinnon Krueger Barisoff Neufeld

NAYS -- 37

Evans Zirnhelt McGregor Boone Hammell Streifel Pullinger Farnworth Kwan Waddell Calendino 

Stevenson Bowbrick Goodacre Giesbrecht Walsh Kasper Orcherton Hartley Petter Miller G. Clark 

Dosanjh MacPhail Cashore Ramsey Brewin Sihota Randall Sawicki Lali Doyle Gillespie Robertson 

Smallwood Conroy Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Copyright © 2002: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada