[ Page 2493 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have two very special guests in the Legislature today. Norman Haw is the Canadian Paraplegic Association's executive director and an activist on these issues. Also, there's a man that everyone knows, a man who is still in motion: Rick Hansen, who is here today for a very important event which will become obvious to all of us very soon. On the tenth anniversary of his Man in Motion World Tour, he's establishing a fund which British Columbia will be assisting with.

I. Chong: Visiting us today in the House are a number of grade 11 students from a school in my riding, Lambrick Park Secondary School. They are visiting here with their teacher, Mr. Zatmary. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased that Mr. Hansen is in the Legislature today, and I'm pleased to introduced Bill 8, the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act. The purpose of the legislation is to provide Rick Hansen's Man in Motion foundation with a regular disbursement of victim surcharge funds from the relevant offences, for the purposes of a B.C. neurotrauma fund. This fund will support ongoing research, rehabilitation and prevention of neurotraumatic injuries.

Mr. Hansen wishes to establish the fund by May 1997, in honour of the tenth anniversary of the Man in Motion World Tour. British Columbia will be the first province in Canada to have such a fund. I'm sure I need not remind this House of Mr. Hansen's incredible achievement in May of '87, which began and ended in British Columbia, nor of the considerable work his foundation has since accomplished for victims of neurotraumatic injury.

The contribution of the British Columbia neurotrauma fund is made in recognition of brain and spinal cord injuries which are caused by specific offences such as speeding, impaired driving, driving without due care and attention, failure to wear a seatbelt, and riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet. The British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act will be the first of its kind in Canada, and we encourage other provinces to follow British Columbia's example. So I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Offence Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce Bill 7, the Offence Amendment Act. The proposed amendments are needed in order to effectively implement the victim surcharge levy which is provided for in the Victims of Crime Act. The surcharge will affect all provincial offences, the largest volume of which will be those which proceed by way of violation tickets. Enforcement officers who complete and sign violation tickets do so under the authority of section 14 of the Offence Act. When the surcharge was included in the Victims of Crime Act, it was envisioned that the enforcement officers would write it on the violation ticket along with the fine. However, the Offence Act speaks only of fines, not surcharges.

This bill will amend the Offence Act and authorize enforcement officers to write the surcharge on tickets. This bill will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the surcharge, and ensure that funding will be provided for improved services to victims of crime and the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take this moment to advise the House that we'll be sitting tomorrow. I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

F. Randall: On behalf of the constituents of Burnaby-Edmonds, I'm pleased to respond to the Speech from the Throne today. I just want to say that certainly I'm proud of the job that this government is doing and the priority that the government has made of creating jobs in British Columbia. We all know that there's a big demand on the infrastructure in the province -- things such as schools, roads and hospitals. All of these kinds of projects will certainly create jobs.

I recently had a letter from the ICBA asking the government in effect to support more construction of schools, roads and hospitals in the province. I responded to them and urged them to talk to the Liberal Party, which wants this government to stop spending, period. The issue of schools is an example where the public are certainly encouraging the government to do more and more school construction. We know that schools are badly needed in many areas. This government has probably spent a few billion dollars in the last few years on opening new schools on a continual basis.

[10:15]

I just want to say that I've not heard of one Liberal who supported borrowing money to build a school in their constituency. I certainly would lobby and work hard for any Liberal who was prepared to stand up and say: "This school is badly needed in my constituency, and I urge the government to borrow money to build that school." But, obviously, they are not taking that position. Also, I think we all are aware that schools are an asset. There's land and buildings there to borrow money on.

The Speech from the Throne mentioned decent-paying jobs. It talked about education, health care and environmental protection. Of course, we're all aware that there are about 240 

[ Page 2494 ]

new parks in the province. Jobs, as I mentioned earlier, were in the throne speech, and forestry, fishing, infrastructure, the growth of the film industry in the province -- B.C. is now in first place in that field -- tourism, apprenticeship training, families and children, and certainly sound fiscal management.

The Liberals have spent somewhere between $800,000 and $1 million of taxpayers' money to call our Premier a liar. And then in the taxpayer-paid letter, they asked for money to help the Liberals attack the government. What an abuse, and what a theft! I don't blame the member for Surrey--White Rock for leaving to go into federal politics.

I've got a copy of the mailing that the Liberals did, and I just want to make mention of a couple of comments in it. It starts out saying the Premier "is asking you to pay for his lies. . . ." Then it goes on: "Government should be improving health care, building schools and keeping our streets safe." But they certainly don't want to spend any money on those issues.

The Speaker: Member, could I ask you just to take your seat for a moment. There's an important point here that I think needs to be addressed. All of our rules governing unparliamentary language make it very clear that one can't quote from another source to say things that one could not otherwise say in the chamber. Whatever the motive behind reading it into the record, whatever the motive behind using that language might be, the plain fact remains that our rules prohibit using terminology such as the kind you were quoting into the record.

I ask the member, then, to please be guided by that ruling and to resume his speech. Sorry for the interruption, member, but I think it's important that all of us recognize that rule. If the member would continue, please.

F. Randall: Well, hon. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate what kind of mailing, which continually and throughout called the Premier of this province a liar, was paid for by the taxpayers -- again, paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

The Speaker: Member, I'm sorry. I just told you what the rules are. As I say, I have no wish to impede debate on either side, but our rules are very clear that one cannot use that language in this House, whether one is reading it or whether one is saying it. In fairness, I must tell you: please do not do that. I hope I won't have to give you that caution again, member. Please continue.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I won't mention any further the letter that the Liberals mailed out, other than to say I was terribly disappointed in what they did. I think it was certainly not worthy of a political party in this province to get involved in that. I'm not going to quote from that letter any further.

Also, I just want to mention the matter of the mining industry. I believe it was quoted by one of the members opposite, and I'd just like to. . . . Am I allowed to read a letter? It seems others have read all kinds of documents here, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: If the member is asking for clarification, I'm certainly prepared to give that. Yes, indeed, you can read. But my point is that members. . . . Please, member, if you wouldn't mind sitting down, I'll give you the ruling.

The rules are very clear regarding what is parliamentary language, what is acceptable and what isn't. I refer you to standing order 40. The rule also stipulates that one can't quote somebody else to use language that would not otherwise be permitted in the Legislature. Having said that, however, one can certainly quote any letter, any correspondence, in this House, as long as the correspondence doesn't violate the rules of the chamber. That's the rule, member. So you have relatively free rein to proceed; please do.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, I'll just read, and you can correct or stop me.

This is a press release from the mining industry, where they indicated support for the Speech from the Throne and their objective of working with the government to create more and better-paying jobs in British Columbia. The letter, again, is certainly very supportive. I'm not going to bother reading it. But we know that jobs in the mining industry run around $70,000 a year. The press release is certainly very supportive of the mining industry.

Also, there was an article in the Vancouver Sun with regards to mining. It talked about the importance of the mining industry. It was by an economist by the name of George Pedersson. He talked about this:

"Mining jobs have the highest annual income of any major industry. . . . Total wages and benefits averaged $69,100 per employee in 1995. 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 the services sector, where virtually all the job growth has been in the past decade.

"The mining industry is also a large income-generator for government. The per-employee contribution to provincial and municipal government averages about $24,000, primarily through income taxes, profit taxes, property taxes and social service taxes. . . .

"If the primary objective of the provincial government is to provide stable, high-paying jobs and to get the biggest bang for its policy dollar, there are few better alternatives than to encourage the mining industry. . . .

"There are already signs that population growth is slowing dramatically, undermining growth and employment. Prudence would suggest the province seriously rethink its position of mining's role in the B.C. economy.

"A vibrant, well-run mining industry would offset increasingly negative momentum from slower population growth, fiscal austerity and corporate restructuring."

I certainly agree with those comments and feel that the mining industry deserves the support of this Legislature with regard to creating jobs in British Columbia. I know that the government is working very hard to resolve some of the problems or concerns that the mining industry has. I've looked at a few of them. I think they've got some legitimate concerns that we should seriously look at trying to find a solution to.

Also, with the Bre-X fiasco in Indonesia, people I've talked to are certainly saying British Columbia is a much more stable climate in which to explore and to develop mines. I think that is certainly going to do very well for British Columbia. We all know that mining can contribute substantially to the economy here.

Also, I want to mention an announcement by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture a week or ten days ago -- whenever it was -- on the new agency designed to create jobs for tourism. There will be about:

". . .$100 million in the next six years to help create more than 25,000 jobs in the tourism industry. . . . More than 223,000 British Columbians are employed in tourism-related jobs, up from 200,000 in 1991. Approximately 45 percent of all tourism-related jobs are held by young people under 25 years of age. 

[ Page 2495 ]

Since 1991, the number of tourism-related businesses has grown from 10,000 to more than 15,000. Over the past six years, tourism revenues have grown from $4 billion to more than an estimated $7 billion last year."

The announcement by the minister and the Premier was to establish an agency that was controlled by the industry. Speakers at that announcement said that the concept is certainly the first of its kind in the world. Those involved in tourism are very supportive of it. The agency will be receiving 20.64 percent of the existing hotel room tax, so they will have continual income. And with the building of probably another 14 new hotels in the lower mainland, that will certainly increase that kind of room tax revenue. I know that they were very excited about that. Again, that is going to create a lot more people coming into British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments with regards to the budget, related to the throne speech. I just want to say that I think the budget is probably the best one that I can recall since I've been here. The budget is very realistic. I think it's certainly very conservative. The estimates of growth are substantially less than what other organizations across the country are suggesting for British Columbia. Also, the number that was used is substantially less than what even the staff here in the ministry are suggesting the growth would be in the province.

I think the commitment's here, of course, with regards to health care and education. Certainly we're a leader in that field, with increased budgets every year. We have places like Ontario that have cut funding for health care by $400 million. Alberta has made cuts in all kinds of educational things and in health care workers. So I think if you look at British Columbia sort of standing alone and at what other provinces have been doing, B.C. has fared very well with the substantial cut in transfer payments from the federal Liberal government. I know that a lot of the ministries here have been cut in half as far as their budgets go to try and meet the off-loading by Ottawa. But I'm very optimistic on the budget. I think it's certainly very cautious, prudent and conservative, and I certainly support taking that kind of approach.

On the increases, there is about $300 million more for health care this year and $63 million more for schools from K to 12. There's $235 million more for the kids. Also, over the next two years, the aviation fuel tax is being reduced from 4 cents to 3 cents, and then down to 2 cents the following year. Certainly there has been over $1 billion cut from federal spending. We have about $100 million less being spent -- it's about 40 years since that has happened in the province.

I want to touch briefly on gaming. I support a modest expansion in gaming. We don't have a print shop in our constituency to lobby for, to get the things printed. But I might just say that the expansion of gaming is very conservative. In my own constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, I have been lobbied for the last couple of years to have a bingo parlour in Middlegate Mall. I guess the major reason it's taken so long is that one of the partners in Bingo Country was under indictment in Florida, and they would not approve anything.

Interjection.

F. Randall: But I can tell you that the seniors in that area are strongly supporting a bingo parlour, and I strongly support it also. I can tell you that I've had petitions signed by hundreds of people who are seniors who live in buildings around that area, and they want that. I mean, people can shout and scream here all they want about this. But you have to deal with what the wishes of the people are in your own constituency, and I can tell you they support it.

[10:30]

Interjections.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, there's a lot of comments from the other side about gambling. You know, the Liberals' record on this and their statements and their involvement. . . . I've got lots of stuff here about their involvement in gaming and who the people were that were supporting them and that made donations to them. Great Canadian Casino contributed $5,750, and they certainly indicated that the Liberal Party was the party of their choice. They had looked at all the different political parties, and the Liberals fit into gaming, as far as the Great Canadian Casino went. There are all kinds of comments about that, and I'm sure all of you are aware of that.

The other thing I've never been able to figure out is that people talk about a for-profit casino, and I have no idea what a for-profit casino is. Every casino and every bingo parlour has to make a profit or it would not be in business. So I get awfully confused when I hear people say: "I'm in favour of casinos, but not those that are for-profit." There's no casino that can operate or exist without making a profit, so I just don't understand what they mean by for-profit and not-for-profit. But I certainly support a modest expansion of gaming along charity lines, which has been suggested in British Columbia. I'm trying to be honest about this. There are people that sit on the other side of the House who speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

I just want to mention that the member for Richmond East made comments about democracy, saying it's the Liberal Party's position that when you're organizing a particular operation, everybody should be allowed to have a vote. Most provinces don't do this. It was never done in British Columbia until the Social Credit government decided that this was a good way to give the employers a chance to intimidate the employees and then to have a vote. The problem is that we've got people who have never been through the process and who do not understand what happens in an organizing campaign.

When a group of employees is organized, the employer always reacts negatively. No employer stands and claps his hands because he's now being organized, because the workers probably are not happy with what's happening. The employer loves the opportunity to have a vote, even after a large majority sign -- it could be 90 percent or 100 percent of the employees who sign a union application to be represented by the union. If they listen to what they want to have, the employer can in effect go up to the employees and say: "Look, I've got nothing against unions at all, but I just want to let you know that if we have to live with a union agreement, we're probably going to move to Alberta, or else we'll have to close the operation down." All of these kinds of comments are made to employees. Then, lo and behold, it's time for a vote.

So the employees are under the impression, after being intimidated. . . . Usually a firing or two takes place, where the employer fires one or two people that they feel have been instrumental in the organizing process. The amount of intimidation that takes place has a substantial impact on the results of that vote. You could have 100 percent of the employees signed up, and after the employer was through with his intimidation program, those very employees that signed a card to join the union could lose a vote.

Interjections.

[ Page 2496 ]

F. Randall: I'm really disappointed to hear those kind of comments. The more I hear them from the other side of the House, the more and more convinced I am that this is not a true Liberal Party. It's really a Social Credit Party.

Interjections.

F. Randall: Well, it was the Social Credit Party that implemented all the things that these people are now supporting.

Interjections.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, there's a lot of comments from the Social Credit--Liberals on the other side of the House. I'm afraid I've hit a sore spot with them! But they just do not understand what is happening.

I'm not going to take any more time on this. I just want to say that I support the Speech from the Throne, and I will quietly say a prayer tonight to try and help the Liberals.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a pleasure to rise this morning and follow my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds in my support for the Speech from the Throne.

Actually, before I start, before I get into the highlights and the high points of our throne speech, I'd like to pay compliments to the member for -- golly socks! -- Abbotsford. When I addressed the budget, I spoke about an initiative: the possibility of extending West Coast Express service into the Abbotsford corridor. The member for Abbotsford approached me in a cooperative manner and asked how we could work together on this to benefit our region -- not only our constituents one at a time but our region. It's that kind of cooperation that has set the tone for the way we have done things since 1991 in a very open and cooperative manner in the constituency of Mission-Kent.

That's what we do locally. I think it would do us all a world of good if we approached things in the same cooperative manner, which I find works in my community and obviously the member for Abbotsford finds works in his community, in order to benefit all British Columbians. Sadly, it doesn't always happen that way within this chamber with the way we address initiatives of this government and the way we're opposed on every valuable initiative that has been brought forward in the province since 1991.

Much of it has come together in recent times with the budget and throne speech, with our focus on job creation. We know historically that statistics tell us that British Columbia has had the best job creation record in Canada over the past number of years, and. . . . I hesitated for a minute there because I was expecting a heckle that didn't come, so we'll try something else a little bit later.

Our job creation record is admirable. When I meet with my colleagues from the provinces and territories across Canada and indeed with my federal counterparts, we look at some of the successes British Columbia has had, particularly the successes that are focused out of the ministry I happen to be honoured to be the minister of, the Ministry of Human Resources. We look at what we can do to help create jobs and help move folks from welfare into the workforce.

This government has come up with a commitment to produce 21,000 forestry jobs by the year 2001, and we get hoots and catcalls from the Liberals. Rather than the Liberal opposition focusing on why we would do this and how we would do it most effectively and what a benefit it would be -- not to the political parties involved but to the recipients of one of those jobs -- they tend to focus on negative criticisms: "It won't be done." I just don't understand their focus. I thought they were elected, each and every one of them, to represent their constituents, not to represent some leftover Social Credit, barbaric, hackie political stance. They just do not seem to get with the program.

Some of the other initiatives we've undertaken -- leading the way in Canada on fisheries initiatives, using our vast hydroelectric resources on job creation. . . . We have one of those resources not more than about three or four kilometres from my home: the Stave Falls Dam. Built before 1920, it's in an upgrade position right now in order to produce more electricity from the existing facility. We'll be able to use that hydroelectric energy to market for job creation strategies. I think that's a wise way to go.

In our Guarantee for Youth and our efforts and work with the growing film industry in British Columbia. . . . I think every one of us has had some kind of film activity within our constituency. I know it's very, very brisk in the constituency of Mission-Kent, in location after location. It's a growing industry. We've supported this industry in British Columbia, and the results are that there are thousands more individuals working in the film industry in British Columbia than there were a few years ago.

We talk about a Guarantee for Youth, with the creation of 12,000 jobs and the movement towards employment for youth, and we get catcalls, hoots and whistles from the opposition on the type and style of jobs. Well, the folks who are here this morning. . . . I'd ask them to look back in their past and in their history and tell us what their first job was. Did they start someplace? Did they begin someplace? Or did they begin as a rocket scientist or perhaps a political expert? Were they employers in their own right at some time in their past, and did they give somebody a start? Did they employ somebody in an entry-level job?

I started in entry-level positions. I'm not ashamed of it; I'm proud of it. I would suggest that if every one of the opposition members examined themselves and looked at our obligation to the youth of this province. . . . It's not an affront to have somebody start at a beginning-level job. When I met with some of the students who visited me a couple of weeks ago, I was asking them questions like: "Where do you work, and what do you do?" And I compared. . . . I gave them an old guy's story. When I was young, I went and got a job. If I didn't like that one, I went and got another job.

Along with our commitment to youth. . . . Of course, a couple of years ago we raised the minimum wage. So I asked this young woman where she works. She said: "I work at one of the hamburger places in town." I asked her how much she earns, and she said: "Seven-fifty an hour." And I said: "Not much, is it?" She said: "No." I said: "You know what it would have been two years ago because you're under 18-1/2? It would have been $4.50 an hour."

That's the magnitude of the change. That young woman has a beginning job, an entry-level job, and has a bright hope for the future because of the attention we've paid to education in this province: the creation of post-secondary spaces, the highest funding level for the K-to-12 system. So we have one of my constituents, a young woman who's bright and motivated, who will be educated, who will take her place in this world, and she has a beginning job at a wage level that actually pays some of her bills and helps her along the way.

When we raised the minimum wage and we debated it in this chamber, the opposition members looked at us and said: 

[ Page 2497 ]

"Hmm, that's too much. We shouldn't have a minimum wage; a minimum wage is a deterrent. We should just allow people to pay a market rate and let free enterprise roll over the backs of the poor." As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition -- in response to our raising of the minimum wage, which benefited more than 80,000 wage earners in British Columbia -- simply said: "It's created a big problem." Well, what is the problem when somebody can go from $4.50 an hour to $7.50 an hour and actually pay some bills and be a consumer as she continues her education and prepares to take her place in our community and our province in a different manner than now? She may one day wind up in this chamber, producing policies that benefit the generation that follows her. I think that's a wonderful thing to have done, and it's a legacy that I'm proud to have been a part of.

[10:45]

We've worked with our post-secondary education facilities. In 1991, when I was first elected, I began working with the folks at University College of the Fraser Valley to bring about a commitment left over from the previous government to apply degree-granting status within that education structure so our young folks could get their education at home. They don't need to travel to the three universities. . . . At that time it was three universities we had in the province, and now it's four. That's a tremendous cost saving to these young folk.

That's all part of the creation of the thousands of new post-secondary spaces in this province and our commitment to freeze tuition fees and to provide for young folk an affordable pathway to education, so they can maybe one day take their place in our communities, as all of us in this chamber have. I think that's a wonderful commitment; it's a commitment I'm proud to support.

Our environmental record is really second to none in the country -- as are many of our initiatives -- with the park creations, the protection for the fishery, the Forest Practices Code and a number of other initiatives we've undertaken.

R. Coleman: Where's the groundwater legislation? Where's the protection for the aquifers?

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I don't very often respond to heckles, but we have one over there regarding groundwater legislation. I'm just thinking back to the discussion around this a couple of years ago when that same group across the way started talking about the taxing of water wells. I am on a well myself, a very good water system. I think it's very necessary that we protect our groundwater and our aquifer. It's quite a concern to us in the Fraser Valley in particular, as the member for Abbotsford will know from his involvement in the agricultural community. It's a very serious concern, and it's a commitment that this government has -- to steward our environment.

Part of the discussion in the throne speech, of course, was the lowering of taxes for families and small businesses. The community of Mission-Kent has quite a number of small businesses, a number of home-based businesses. We participated in a tax-reduction structure for the second time around with this budget and throne speech, to give new small businesses a break, to give the existing small businesses a break and to give middle-income families a break on taxation. I think that's a good initiative. It's one that I'm proud to have participated in.

I will address again in my last few minutes here one of the other initiatives of this government that has been supported through our budget process and throne speech process and that is now at the national table, and that's our work on moving individuals from welfare to work and our support for the national child benefit, based on the B.C. family bonus model.

I think it's appropriate that the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara follows my presentation today, because he may be asked to respond and to explain at one time the position that was taken by the Liberal Party in the last election, the position around our whole social welfare structure. They offered up to the province, to the residents of British Columbia, a choice to vote for across-the-board cuts for all employables -- a reduction in the social welfare expenditures in this province of hundreds of millions of dollars; close to $500 million.

The comments by the Leader of the Opposition on our national child benefit model, the B.C. family bonus, were: "It's just smoke and mirrors, it's bureaucratic, and it won't in fact produce the results that they say it will produce." I found it quite sad that the Liberal opposition would take our initiative on the fight against child poverty and reduce it to a political battle between the opposition and the government.

Hon. Speaker, every step of the way, when this government has taken initiatives to move folks into the workforce from welfare, it has been opposed by the opposition party in this House. When we looked at the raising of the minimum wage, they opposed it. They stand in this House and talk about the need to create jobs; they voted against the fair-wage act. They talk about creating jobs at a family-supporting wage level. I'm not sure where the basis for that comes from other than through the high level of unionization and collective agreements in this province. But the Liberal opposition voted against changes to the Employment Standards Act that would protect workers.

The Liberal opposition voted against the provisions in the Labour Code that would protect workers and ensure that there is stability in the workplace in British Columbia, and in fact British Columbia produces a higher level of high-paid jobs than any other province in the country. Indeed, the average wage in British Columbia is $609, some $8 or $10 above the Canadian average, which I think is quite remarkable.

When we take the national stage, whether I'm with -- as the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara was on Saturday -- a group put together by the B.C. Teachers Federation. . . . We discussed national child poverty, and we discussed the moves, the initiatives, that British Columbia has led with in this country. I hear silence from the Liberal opposition, and I find that rather sad. They haven't spoken out on the issue, they haven't spoken out on the expenditures, and they haven't spoken out on the massive support that goes to lower-income British Columbians, the working families in this province who benefit by that transfer of $103 per month per child and the support for dental care and eyeglasses. I'm hoping the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara will in fact address some of these in his response to the throne speech.

In fact, when we look at the effect we've had in closing the poverty gap with that one initiative alone. . . . We've reduced the poverty gap by some 19 percent for low-income British Columbians; for single-parent families that gap was reduced by 25 percent through that initiative; and for the poorest of families that poverty gap was reduced by 28 percent. I think that's good news for the children of British Columbia, and it's good news for a province that has worked

[ Page 2498 ]

 hard to deliver on the commitment to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000 -- a federal commitment, as I understand it, which the federal government seems to have been silent on in the past number of months.

So that, along with some of our other transitions-to-work initiatives that are underway and are working in this province. . . . One of them that I'll speak briefly about affects my constituency and my constituents, as well as the members for Abbotsford and Matsqui. I've met with employers in those communities, I've met with workplace-based-training clients in those communities, and I've met with the contractors in those communities.

I'll just tell you one little story before I close, hon. Speaker. I met with one of my constituents. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, I won't respond, because that member has already been discredited by his own mouth in this House. So it's not up to me to respond.

I met with one of my constituents: a woman who had been on income assistance for 16 years. This woman had raised her four children. She came forward looking for help to get "off the system," as she put it. And her words to me were that she didn't have dignity, that she wasn't a good example to her children and that she wanted a better way. So she enrolled in a workplace-based training initiative with a small employer in the community of Abbotsford. That woman today is an apprentice upholsterer: she has a future, she has a life and, in her words, she's a better example to her children.

That's just one example of the thousands of clients and individuals who have come forward to participate in workplace-based training and the business works initiatives and the Destinations initiatives, which are producing results. The system we're building in British Columbia will make work a better deal than welfare, will provide a pathway out for those who have been trapped in the old status quo system and will benefit British Columbians.

V. Anderson: I rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I've looked at it and read it a number of times, trying to understand exactly what the essence of the message is. There are very fancy words and very high promises, yet I just couldn't be satisfied that I could understand the essence of that message until I came across one very significant word within the Speech from the Throne which began to put everything into context and gave it a setting. Hon. Speaker, I will quote: "My government intends to move aggressively to harness the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector as we build our province."

For one thing, the present government has not been known for working very effectively or cooperatively with the private sector. But the word that stands out is that they will "harness" the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector. Now, from my agricultural background, the vision that was brought immediately to my mind was of the team going down the road all harnessed up, with the driver sitting in the front of the buckboard leading the horses. They are harnessed in such a fashion that they go only where the driver wants them to go, except if they should rebel and run away and overturn the cart. That image clearly displayed for me the image of this government. They want and are moving in every way possible to be that person sitting holding the reins, driving the people of this province exactly where they want them to go.

We use the term "NDP," and sometimes people, newcomers to the country, ask: "What do they stand for?" And I have to say that they stand for non-democratic government, because non-democratic government is what we're seeing more and more of in this province. We're seeing a government that has behind it some schemers in the back room, developing a scheme that will drive the people in a way they do not wish to go. Yet in soft words, in soft language, they will pretend that they're leading.

I'm glad that the Minister of Human Resources spoke and invited me to speak in response, because that's exactly what I'd like to do. I'd like to share with the minister -- since he apparently hasn't heard or read them -- the comments that are coming from across this province in response to the actions of the government leading from the throne speech. I'm sorry that the hon. Human Resources minister may not be able to hear or understand, but the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities has on the front cover of their fall magazine: "Income Assistance Changes: They Giveth and They Taketh Away." I'll go into more detail on that in a moment.

[11:00]

The spring edition of Community Living, put out the concerns of the British Columbia Association for Community Living. . . . I will quote from the front page of their article. The heading is: "Regionalization Threatens Disability Services." It recounts that more than 200 families came together:

". . .to express their mounting concerns regarding government plans to restructure services for children with disabilities and adults with developmental disabilities.

"The meeting was called by Family Net, a new coalition of family members and family groups, which wants to make sure the new Ministry for Children and Families understands and acts on disability issues.

"'When families are told that services will be delivered through regional authorities, or that families will be forced to access disability services through the child protection system, they are alarmed,' says Family Net spokesperson Dawn Proudlove. 'We must protect our provincial service system. And we must ensure families seeking disability-related services are not forced to go through a child protection gateway,' she said. 'It's neither effective nor appropriate to confuse disability services with child protection [services].'

"Family Net wants a commitment from the Minister for Children and Families, Penny Priddy, that she will act on family concerns. 'Without that commitment, we fear that many of the services will be eroded in the future,' said Proudlove. 'We also have very real concerns that families will be inappropriately subjected to a child protection philosophy whenever they seek services for their disabled children.' "

These are not my words, and these are not the words of the official opposition, although we would certainly agree with them. These are the words of the persons from the B.C. Association for Community Living, in the lead article of that particular magazine: "The Ministry for Children and Families is about to be up and operating, yet important promised consultation with families and self-advocates across this province has not yet occurred in any meaningful way. The result is that anxiety is rampant." It's those things that the minister fails to talk about. She needs to be accountable; the throne speech needs to be accountable. Why is the feeling growing that they giveth and they taketh away?

Again, the people in the Coalition of People with Disabilities have a "Front Line Alert" in response to what they are hearing and finding from this government:

"Since the fall of 1995, advocates with the advocacy access program of B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities have noticed some disturbing trends in people with disabilities' ability to access benefits and income supports. What the provincial government has given with the right hand -- the new Disability Benefits Program Act -- itseems determined to take away with the left, with strict eligibility limitations and very narrow interpretations of regulations.

[ Page 2499 ]

"For many of the people with disabilities we see in our office, their lives are a bit harder than they were a year ago. The culture at MSS the last year has been to use the narrowest possible reading of regulations and to consider only the most dire cases as legitimate. On the front lines, we are seeing that this approach is denying handicapped status to people who are clearly entitled and other benefits to people on handicapped benefits who need help to manage the costs and health needs of their disability."

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

This was written prior to bringing out the regulations that took effect the first part of April. As you go through page after page, there are accounts of the difficulties people are facing because of the actions of this government.

One of the groups that tries to monitor very closely and has generally been very supportive in the past of what this government was trying to do is End Legislated Poverty. It's important to hear what they have been saying. The headline in the March 1997 issue of the End Legislated Poverty newsletter, B.C. Poverty News, is: "NDP Resolutions Condemn B.C. Benefits." I quote again:

"Members of the B.C. NDP don't like B.C. Benefits. Of nine resolutions submitted to the NDP provincial convention to be held at the end of February, seven condemn B.C. Benefits. The resolutions call on the government to restore income assistance rates, combat poor-bashing, increase welfare rates, increase asset levels, set up a simpler and fairer appeal process, reinstate the flat rate earnings exemptions, increase the child age limit from seven to 12 years when defining 'employable adult,' stop deducting pension income from persons with HIV and end the residency requirement, among other things."

They did do one of those things. They did finally end the residency requirement, which was, of course, illegal in the first place.

In the April issue, a month later -- this current month -- again from the End Legislated Poverty newsletter, the headline is: "NDP Delegates: No to B.C. Benefits." The government is not listening. Perhaps it's important that I should read the next article, since the minister has invited me to do so. It talks about Striefel -- pardon me, the Minister of Human Resources -- being proud of B.C. Benefits.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to. . . . This is about the third time now that the hon. member has used the name of a member of this House without using their constituency. We have constantly been reminding him of that, so I would ask that the rule be observed.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate your point, and I draw that to the attention of the hon. member. I'm sure the rule as stated is correct, that even in quotes from other articles we do not name the members. Naming a member is used in a specific way in this chamber, and I'm sure the member knows that.

V. Anderson: In April of this year, the headline in "The Long Haul" from End Legislated Poverty highlights what has happened as a result of the throne speech and this government. It says: "Government Steals $96 from 'Unemployables.'" I go on to read part of the article:

"On March 11, End Legislated Poverty and other groups met with [the Minister of Human Resources]. 'We talked to him about the barriers to employment and barriers to bare survival on welfare,' explained ELP's Linda Moreau.

"Before the end of the week," [the minister's] "government had erected even more barriers to survival. Worst is the government's plan to abolish the category of 'unemployable' and the $96 a month that goes with it. About 27,000 people will be affected. . . . This regulation will steal millions from 'unemployable' people with physical or mental problems, who are the least able to work. Other regulations will deny assistance to several groups of people who are truly in need but judged 'undeserving' by the government, and end hardship assistance for many people without children.

"The new regulations 'are another round of poor-bashing that separates the so-called deserving poor from the undeserving poor,' says Moreau. 'To the Ministry, children are deserving, but people who quit an exploitive job aren't.'

"In addition to ending the 'unemployable' category and other regulations, the government did finally abolish the three-month residency requirement, effective March 15th."

A little late, but better late than never. Inside, in that same newspaper, the headline is that new regulations target the poor.

At the moment, one of the things that these people are doing in response is to put a call out for volunteers to be trained and prepared to be advocates for the 27,000-some appeals that are going to fall into place automatically because of this legislation and the regulations that go with it. This government has once again harnessed a segment of society and made them come to the line and direction that the government wishes. But when you go into the regulations. . . .

A few moments ago the hon. minister talked about the youth project of back-to-work programs. But he failed to mention that if a young person goes into one of those programs -- goes to the office and wishes a kind of employment that would be useful for him or her in their training experience -- and they say, "Well, here's the program for you," and the young person says, "Oh, I'm sorry, that wouldn't be helpful to me; I need a program that would be more helpful," and the ministry says, "No, this is the program you must take," that young person has no opportunity to appeal in the regular appeals system. They can appeal to the ministry itself -- to the administration system -- but that's all. They can't go into the normal tribunal system, because they've been cut out of that process.

Little by little, the reins are being put on by the government in a way that they in the community are not able to respond. It's this attempt to harness the community, to take each section one by one, to set up their own process -- the government's process -- to give them the reins, and a government person will be controlling it.

If people would question if the government would really do this. . . . Just ask what has happened with the hospital boards across the country. When they didn't take the reins and didn't move in the direction of these schemers in the government at the present time, they were fired. They were done away with, not on one or two occasions but on occasions right across the province. We're seeing that in its background undertaking, this government says fine words. But if you ask what the government has not said -- if you read between the lines -- you discover that we're in a devastating position.

[11:15]

I cannot accept the throne speech, because the government does not live up to its promises. The government says one thing and does another. They will pass legislation, which on the merit of it, B.C. Benefits. . . . We totally supported it on this side of the House and voted with it. But they will take that good program, and they will build regulations which destroy it and bring havoc to the people who have to live under that system. This is unfortunate, it is despicable, it is treacherous, 

[ Page 2500 ]

and it is something that our people have to stand up and speak out against before everyone in this province finds that they're demeaned by it.

I. Chong: I'm grateful for the opportunity today to respond to the throne speech and what it means to my community. The throne speech is meant to set the year's direction for our province. It is meant to deliver hope and encourage prosperity. It is meant to offer solutions and commitments that are real. But I see none of this in the throne speech delivered on March 24.

So let's deal firstly with the commitment to prudent financial management. If prudent financial management truly existed with this NDP government, why is it that British Columbians will soon be facing an increase of another $1.4 billion in our provincial debt, bringing our total debt to a record $30.3 billion? Why is it that international investors and bond-rating agencies have put British Columbia on notice of a review that could cost us a potential downgrade in our credit rating -- a credit rating that was, in fact, inherited by this government and that this government has been so boastful of? Why would we risk that if we want to have prudent financial management? I don't understand this government's idea of what that word "prudent" is. Does the government provides solutions for the future by creating instability on the economic front?

In the throne speech the Premier stated that government spending would be reduced. So in the budget speech, we heard that in fact government spending was down $100 million this year. But do the Premier and the Finance minister truly think that we cannot see through the smoke-and-mirrors rhetoric? When municipal funding grants have been slashed by over $113 million, when $20 million of Tourism spending has been moved over to a newly formed Crown corporation, when $150 million of costs previously paid for by the Forests ministry will now be paid for by Forest Renewal B.C., it's easy to see how government spending has suddenly decreased. It's called off-loading.

In the context of prudent financial management, I have to ask this government: whatever happened to your debt management plan -- a plan that this government brandished to the financial and business worlds under the auspices of being sound financial managers? That debt management plan was intended to support this government's commitment of reducing the debt and not increasing it, a commitment that this government has obviously failed miserably on.

In last year's throne speech, the Premier referred to that year's ensuing budget as B.C.'s second balanced budget, where jobs would be up and the debt would be down -- three statements, all of which we know are not true. In fact, there were not two balanced budgets; there was not even one balanced budget. What we've learned is that this government has delivered six consecutive deficit budgets. In the area of jobs, jobs have not gone up. In fact, we've lost 5,500 jobs in the forestry sector alone. As for the debt, we all know that the debt is up.

So last year's throne speech was an abysmal disappointment, and I don't hold out much hope for this year's promises either. When 75 percent of British Columbians do not believe what this NDP government says, where is their hope for future prosperity? In the throne speeches of last year and this year, the Premier promised to help middle-class working families make ends meet. To that end he promised tax cuts which would apparently ease the burden on middle- and lower-income families. I say "apparently," because that is exactly what it is.

I feel it's my responsibility to share with the members opposite what an NDP tax cut really means in real dollars, so that when a constituent calls and asks they can respond with the following: for those earning just under $30,000 a year, they will see a tax reduction of $40; for those earning around $60,000 a year, their tax savings may amount to about $116. But you can't stop there. Members owe it to their constituents to tell the full story. They must advise that due to municipal downloading, an extra $75 to $150 will likely be around the corner, and that if a constituent intends to use the B.C. ferries, they should add on an extra $8 to $32 a year. If they enjoy freshwater sport fishing, they better be prepared to pay another $30 or more this year. For those who indulge in a little libations and spirits, let's not forget about last fall's additional liquor tax, a so-called markup. That will cost perhaps another $5 to $10, depending on your consumption level. So if we add all those costs up, that means there's an extra $118 to $222 in additional costs that your tax savings of $40 to $116 are intended to cover. If you do the math, you'll find that that is correct. So, hon. members, I wish that you would have a look at your NDP tax cut and tell your constituents what it really means.

The throne speech also speaks of a commitment to protecting medicare and education, and confirms it by increased spending in both these areas. Ordinarily, that would deserve applause, and I would applaud that as well. However, just because more money is spent, it does not necessarily mean that more has been spent on patients or students. More spending generally means more services, but with this government the reverse is true.

The people in my community, and indeed in this province, deserve to know the truth about health care and education, and the truth is that this NDP government is putting patients and students on the back burner while they continue to line the pockets of their friends and insiders, such as handing out an unwarranted $1,000-a-day contract to a former Finance minister.

So how does that put patients first? When the cardiac wait-list mushroomed from 365 in March of 1996 to 500 by December of 1996 -- in nine months -- how does that put patients first? When substantial severance packages are still being paid out to ex-CEOs of hospitals, how does that put patients first? By raising ambulance fees to those in rural communities, how does that put patients first? When the wait-list for cancer radiology treatment in this area grows from 45 in April 1996 to 180 in January 1997, how does that put patients first? When B.C. seniors in need of extended-care beds, several of whom are in my community, are being shuffled between hospital wards while waiting for those long term care beds which have been promised, how does that put patients first? When millions were spent on the health labour accord, how did that put patients first? When the mother of all health care programs was introduced -- the health regionalization plan, on which millions of precious taxpayer dollars have been wasted -- how on earth did that put patients first?

Throughout this province, people are realizing each and every day that the NDP commitment to protect health care is as hollow as a toilet-paper roll. In my riding there is a health facility unit designed to deal with our aging population and one of the fastest-growing illnesses they encounter: dementia. Although this facility is situated in my riding, it actually serves the entire capital region. But it has been neglected by this government. On June 14, 1995, almost two years ago, Oak Bay Lodge was approved for $750,000 of much-needed renovations. The renovations are not cosmetic but are specifically for health and safety issues: health issues such as the ongoing 

[ Page 2501 ]

concerns of urine aroma coming from the flooring; safety issues such as Building Code requirements, as well as doorways too narrow to push beds through, and some severe design deficiencies.

In 1993, two years prior to the approval, the capital regional district community care facilities division wrote to Oak Bay Lodge and stated that the present conditions cannot be allowed to remain as they are. That letter concluded with the following statement: "Should you be unable to address this matter so as to comply with the adult care regulations, then it may be necessary to take action with regard to the status. . .currently held by Oak Bay Lodge." That was in 1993, almost four years ago. I believe that that statement of the capital regional district is quite clear. It establishes the need for the renovations to proceed sooner rather than later.

Oak Bay Lodge was classified as a minor project, not a major capital project. On August 13, 1996, the Minister of Health stated that the freeze isn't on minor capital projects. So I have to ask: why is it, then, that this project was frozen by this NDP government last fall? I hope it wasn't because it was no longer an NDP riding. I cannot believe that this government would dare politicize health care so blatantly. So I guess the only answer one can conclude is that government is committed to only one thing. Their one commitment is that they will break as many promises as they can. Again I ask: how does that put patients first? Not in my community.

I would like to comment on the throne speech promise of protection of education, which we've heard a lot about in the last few days. If more money is being spent on education, then why are our young students having to use their precious time to prepare, and protest on the steps of the Legislature? Why is it that school districts are writing letters to the Education minister urging him "to stop telling the public that the provincial budget will protect classroom services -- this statement is simply not true." That's the end of the quote from school district 38, I believe, in Richmond.

Why is there so much concern amongst students, parents and school trustees? We know why that is. It's because this NDP government has refused, and continues to refuse, to listen. It refuses to put students first in the classrooms.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The throne speech also spoke of jobs and its job creation record thus far. But I worry when the government is not tracking all the job losses which are occurring. It is wrong to take credit for supposed new jobs while not taking the blame for all actual job losses.

In the northern interior part of our province, businesses are crying out for help. Small businesses are prepared to create jobs, to invest and to expand, and of course they are interested in paying their share of taxes. For years these resource-dependent communities have raised millions of dollars in fees, licences and taxes, and they have diligently sent them down to Victoria. However, very little has been returned to their regions. Now they need a little help to restore economic growth and stability.

The throne speech stated that the establishment of Forest Renewal B.C. was to ensure that a substantial share of the profits are invested in the communities and in workers that rely on them. Well, I sincerely hope the Premier and the members opposite uphold this mandate by leaving FRBC funds alone. Don't raid the fund, and don't continue your off-loading of costs to FRBC. It's just not right.

[11:30]

When I reviewed the throne speech, I looked at its content, including the objectives for the year. However, what was significant was not so much what was there but what was not there. Noticeably absent from the throne speech was any mention of this government's intention regarding expanded gaming and no-fault insurance issues. Would it be presumptuous of us to believe that this NDP government has no intention of introducing either? One could only hope. But I do believe that that is going to be the case: this government will introduce pieces of legislation to expand gambling and to introduce no-fault insurance.

It is extremely disconcerting that groups and coalitions which represent people from all walks of life are having to form in an attempt to stop this kind of possible legislation. I sincerely hope the Premier and all members opposite are listening to these groups, but I rather doubt it, given that thus far they have not supported any amendments introduced by my colleagues.

Before I conclude, I do wish to state that I am eager to work with this government to provide sound, supportable, good legislation for the people of this province. We were able to come together recently in supporting a Food Donor Encouragement Act, because it was the right thing to do. I would like this government to seriously consider other pieces of legislation which are good, and which are the right thing to do -- a merit employment act, because our civil service is very important to us, and I believe we must restore its faith in the system and offer security. I would also encourage this government to look at balanced-budget legislation, which many taxpayers believe is long overdue. I remind the members opposite that when they were in opposition they supported a Taxpayer Protection Act, which essentially was balanced-budget legislation. Whatever happened to your support in that area now that you are in government?

As much as I would have liked to have supported this throne speech and would have liked to work with this government, I cannot do so when it lacks the integrity it was meant to provide.

J. Weisgerber: I rise to engage in the throne speech debate and talk about a throne speech that was long on rhetoric but short on substance; a throne speech that was graciously presented by His Honour, but one that should have been -- one that members and British Columbians had the right to expect would be -- a blueprint for the upcoming year and, in the broadest sense, an indication of the government's plans for this legislative session and for this calendar year.

Incredibly, as noted by the member for Oak Bay--Gordon Head, the throne speech contained not one word about expanded gambling, even though it had probably been the most talked about issue in the months leading up to calling back the Legislature. There was not a word about expanded gambling. Government's policy on this issue has been incredibly confusing. The minister responsible, the Deputy Premier, makes comments; the Minister of Finance makes projections on revenues; and the Premier regularly contradicts both of those ministers, depending on where he's speaking and what audience he happens to be speaking to at the time.

The Minister of Employment and Investment, the minister responsible for gaming, talks about Monaco-style gambling rather than Las Vegas. And I have to ask: does that mean we'd rather have Eurotrash coming over here to gamble in our places than have people that usually go to Las Vegas? Is this what we want to do? Is that the goal? Is it to say: "No, we're not going to have those folks that ride on the bus down to 

[ Page 2502 ]

Reno. We don't want those kind of folk. We want the kind of folks that we admire and that we see in casinos in Monaco"? I say no thanks, Mr. Speaker. If that's the direction the government wants to go, count me out.

At the very least, British Columbians deserve a right to decide whether or not they want Monaco-style or Las Vegas--style, slot machines or VLT machines, or whether they really don't want any of the above. I say again: let's go to British Columbians; let's have the courage to ask British Columbians by way of referendum what their opinions are on this issue.

Let's make it absolutely clear that gaming and gambling around this province are going to be regulated on the same basis, with the same rules, everywhere in British Columbia -- on-reserve or off-reserve. It was reported just recently that the vast majority of British Columbians support gambling on-reserve. They do so because the question was put: would you support gambling on native reserves on the same basis with the same rules and the same regulations as everywhere else in the province? And indeed they did, as you would expect they would. That's got to be the fundamental approach to this issue of aboriginal gaming.

There was no word -- not a thing -- on no-fault insurance, even though the Minister of Finance had instructed Doug Allen to go out and get opinions, and even though Doug Allen had presented a report. There's not a word in the throne speech. We know that almost everybody that spoke to Doug Allen opposed no-fault insurance. They knew that the targets under no-fault were people who were injured and who perhaps weren't at the peak of their earning capacity. They knew that women would be adversely affected by no-fault insurance decisions -- it's inherent in the system. But we didn't hear whether the government is going to go forward, whether they've chickened out or whether they're going to bring in some third option. The throne speech was incredibly silent on that, and we're talking about the blueprint the government presents for its legislative year. There's not a word on no-fault, so maybe we should expect that this will in fact pass off into history.

Also, there's not a word on photo radar. Can you imagine the debacle that we've seen with the $34 million overrun? And not a word. Everywhere we look in the newspapers. . . . "Photo Radar Plan Too Costly, Transport Expert Said," and it noted that for every dollar you spend, you lose seven. This is an independent expert speaking. Another one says: "Photo Radar Set-up Costs Triple Forecast." And today, newspapers report that Alaska has trashed its photo radar; they've thrown it out. They say: "Three traffic-court judges questioned the objectivity of American Traffic Systems officials. . . ." They go on to note that ATS is the supplier of photo radar in British Columbia. And the article once again notes that photo radar has come in $34 million over budget, which is something like one-seventh of the revenue that was projected. From every point of view, from every measurement, photo radar has been an incredible failure, and still the government has neither the courage to defend it nor the courage to indicate that it wants to change.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: As the air clears, we will move on to some of the other issues, because those three major initiatives by this government -- the centrepiece of the debate that's gone on in government since this House last sat -- are around gaming, photo radar and no-fault insurance. The government still doesn't have a word on any of those issues in their throne speech. I have to wonder: is it because of the opposition to gambling of members like the member for Vancouver-Burrard? And I applaud him for his position. Is it that kind of dissension, that kind of debate within the caucus, that causes the government to shy away from talking about, even mentioning, these issues in the throne speech?

The throne speech also fails to deal in any adequate way with the government's capitulation on the residency requirement. I applauded this government last year for bringing in a three-month residency requirement for social assistance in British Columbia. I don't believe people should move to British Columbia and immediately be eligible for benefits. Whether you come from Alberta or Ontario or Newfoundland or Costa Rica, or wherever you come from, you should come to this province with a reasonable expectation that you are at least going to be able to support yourself and that you have made enough arrangements to see yourself through your first three months in British Columbia. Last year I thought the government agreed with me, and I, in turn, applauded them for having the courage to take the step. That's gone. One motion raised at the NDP convention, and to quote an old member of the press gallery: "They folded like a cheap campstool on the issue."

The government brags about no new taxes. It's difficult to persuade my constituents who are seeing propane costs go up, because now there's a new tax, PST on propane, that's never been there before. This government of no new taxes finds a way to somehow rationalize the introduction of PST on propane -- an environmentally friendly fuel, one that's in good supply normally in British Columbia and one that governments have traditionally tried to persuade motorists to switch to rather than use gasoline. But in the face of no new taxes, in the face of an environmental thrust that this government likes to pretend it has, it introduces a tax on propane. It's not as high as many had feared, and I suppose we take some comfort in that.

In the vein of no new taxes, we look at the angling licence issue and, again, one only has to refer to today's Times Colonist. A well-known reporter from the gallery says:

"The way the huge increases have been applied to freshwater angling licences is simply nonsensical. If the NDP consciously embarked on a campaign to destroy the tourism market on B.C.'s wild northern rivers, they couldn't do a better job."

He adds on the bottom in the "Just So You Know" category of his column:

"One of the consequences of the fee hikes and the change in the river classification system is that all anglers will have to buy $40 steelhead licences, along with various other permits. The only problem is that on several of the key destination rivers, there is a steelhead closure."

He goes on to speculate on the difficulty that guides will have in explaining to foreign tourists why they're obliged to buy a steelhead licence to fish in rivers that either don't have a steelhead run on at that time or perhaps, in addition, there's a closure on steelhead. I won't attempt to mimic the accent that he puts on as a German tourist asking: "Was ist das?" You know: "Why are you doing this, my friend?"

An Hon. Member: Was ist los?

J. Weisgerber: Was ist los, perhaps.

Again, we see a throne speech badly flawed. There is a reference. . . . The government did have the courage to acknowledge the issue of aboriginal land claims, although certainly there was no great depth in those comments. One has to wonder at the process that we see unfolding.

[11:45]

[ Page 2503 ]

As you may know, I have the privilege of sitting on a committee that's looking at the impact of the Nisga'a agreement and at how it might possibly affect future treaty settlements. We've looked at that, and a number of things have become apparent. The Nisga'a agreement has raised incredible expectations in many of the aboriginal communities. The Nisga'a agreement has almost entirely ignored the very thorny issue of overlaps. As I went through that process, I was reminded that it was the task force and the Treaty Commission itself that recommended that overlaps be resolved before claims are finalized.

We see the Nisga'a agreement moving very quickly toward a conclusion, and we know that with their neighbours -- the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow -- there are substantial overlaps that are not only unresolved but there have been no real attempts to resolve. I think that's unfortunate.

One of the privileges that we had on our committee tour was to visit the community of Mackenzie and to hear from people there on the issue of McLeod Lake. The McLeod Lake band has decided not to pursue a comprehensive land claim but rather to attempt to adhere to Treaty 8, one of the old, historic numbered treaties. I think many members of the committee found a surprising amount of support existing in that area for the McLeod Lake agreement, an agreement which provides the McLeod Lake band with almost twice as much land per capita as the Nisga'a agreement does.

The difference with the McLeod Lake treaty is that it has very clear language in terms of certainty, and it has the historic extinguishment clause that was very much a part of the old numbered treaties and the treaty process in British Columbia. It also had no reference to self-government. So when I looked to see why that treaty -- which has substantially more land and involves about the same amount of cash -- is embraced so much more universally than the Nisga'a agreement, I came to the conclusion that British Columbians are uncomfortable, particularly with the areas of certainty in the language and this whole issue of a third order of self-government that was so roundly defeated during the Charlottetown accord.

With respect to land claims, you have to question this government's sincerity on that issue, and I say that for two reasons. The Nisga'a agreement was besmirched by the premature advertisement by the Ministry of Lands of the land for transfer. Even though we've been told that this deal is not a done deal, we had the ministry advertising to transfer the land prior to the agreement being sold. The government's response has been: "Well, it's just a formality; it's part of their consultation process." But I can tell you, I talked to the people in Terrace and to the newspaper where this ad ran. The editor there told me that he saw not one iota of difference between this ad and every other ad they run for the Ministry of Lands that covers the normal transfer of land as part of the ongoing business of the ministry. I find it very difficult to accept that argument.

The other issue is the whole McLeod Lake band thing. If the government were sincere on this issue, why in the world did they pull out at the very last minute on McLeod Lake and go back to the courts? I know that members of our committee, regardless of their political affiliation, have been troubled by that. I'm troubled by it, because it reeks of a lack of sincerity in the whole process, and that is unfortunate.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about another issue that wasn't covered in the throne speech, and that's the whole issue of electoral reform. I believe if there is one issue that we could address in this Legislature in a non-partisan way, it is the need to update the way this House is managed. Mr. Speaker, I've talked with you about this issue. I've talked with members on both sides of the House. I believe that we should move forward with a broad sweep of electoral reforms. No member in this House knows where they will sit after the next election. These folks, the Liberal members, may be back here on this side. The NDP may be back on the government side of the House, but I can tell you that most betting people would suggest the opposite.

An Hon. Member: They like betting.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, those gamblers do -- perhaps that could be the new scratch-and-win or some new lottery.

My point is that it's when people have to recognize that they may be on either side of an issue that they can and should approach it from a non-partisan view, with a view to bringing in some changes.

I would like to see us move very quickly to the election of a senator from British Columbia, the first step toward a triple-E Senate. I know that members on the government side and the Liberal members favour the triple-A Senate: abolish, abolish, abolish. But I don't believe that's the right way. I don't believe that's the answer for western Canada or for the Maritimes. If we want to be dominated in perpetuity by central Canada, let's get rid of the Senate. Let's simply allow the 34 or 36 members from British Columbia to go down and be overwhelmed in that House of 300 members. Let's continue to say that once we've got the results in from Ontario on election day, we know the results of the federal election. The better way is that you need the balance with a Senate to represent the smaller jurisdictions -- the Americans understood that when they first developed their form of government.

Mr. Speaker, we're not going to turn that around in this House. But we could take a lead from Alberta and set in place a process that would allow for the election of a Senate nominee in the municipal election, the provincial election or the federal election, whichever occurs first after a Senate vacancy. We know that Len Marchand is due to retire; he's only staying on to avoid a controversy during the federal election. I think that's one step forward.

The next thing we should do is look at the issue of special warrants. If ever there was an abuse of the Legislature and this Legislative Assembly, it's the continued use of special warrants by governments of all stripes. And I introduced a private member's bill to deal with that. We should look at fixed election dates. We should take away from the government the advantage of calling an election, and do what municipal governments and governments in most jurisdictions do, and that is set the date.

Once you've set that date, then you can move to a legislative calendar, so that you know that the House is going to come back on a specific day, that it's going to adjourn at another date and be recalled at a predictable time. That levels the playing field. It takes some advantage away from the government, but I go back to saying that there is no member of this House that can be very confident about where they're going to be after the next election, so what may disadvantage you on one side of the House may well advantage you on the other side of the House.

I'd like to encourage the government to refer to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills the rewriting of 

[ Page 2504 ]

the standing orders of our House. No member of this Legislature was here when the standing orders were last rewritten. There are 75 members of this House, but there isn't an elected member in this assembly that was here when the standing orders were last reviewed. That suggests to me that a review is long overdue.

I know my time is short. The final issue that we have to deal with is the Election Act. The Election Act is a disaster. It's a disaster for those people who want to express their opinion during an election. It's a disaster for the candidates who found themselves facing an unbelievably bureaucratic system when they went to file their election spending reports. It's a disaster for the very small parties that have already seen themselves deregistered as parties in this province.

The government shouldn't write election legislation. All members of the House should have a hand in developing an election act. I call in the strongest way on the government to have the courage to refer the Election Act to that same select standing committee to look in a non-partisan way -- a non-biased way -- at the serious shortcomings of the current act and bring back to this House recommended amendments that can make this act a workable act.

On the gag law, the $5,000 limit is absolutely unacceptable. The legislation is going to drive many activists away from the political process. The official agent I had in the last election has served me in all three elections. He's an incredibly competent lawyer who works in Dawson Creek. He's finally got my forms all finalized, and he's told me that he will never again work on a provincial campaign. He's bowing out. The thousands of hours of volunteer work. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Human Resources, of all people, heckles. He thinks it's funny that his government has driven away from the political process in this province somebody who is far more competent than that member could ever hope to be.

The government has also failed to deal with the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The government had a legislative time limit that it failed to meet, and I wonder: are we into the bad old days again of Gracie's Finger and the kinds of manipulation that governments have traditionally engaged in in this province? We got rid of that in 1987 with good electoral boundary legislation, and the government has failed to meet their timetable at the first deadline.

We need to deal with this in an objective and a non-partisan way. We need to deal with the question of northern ridings. I put forward a private member's bill last year to deal with the problem of these huge northern ridings, including Bulkley Valley--Stikine, represented by a New Democrat member; North Coast, represented by the Minister of Employment and Investment; and Peace River North and Peace River South, represented by myself and my colleague. That issue, too, should be non-partisan, and we should have the courage to refer those questions of electoral reform to members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the time and move adjournment of this debate.

J. Weisgerber moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

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