[ Page 2505 ]

House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the privilege and pleasure of introducing to the House several Chinese-language journalists that are covering the Legislature today and are in the gallery: Susanna Ng, senior reporter with Ming Pao; David Jang, reporter with Ming Pao; Gabriel Yiu, current-affairs commentator with Ming Pao; Bob Ip, reporter with Sing Tao; Benny Wong, city editor for Sing Tao; Francis Chan, reporter for Fairchild Television; Clavier Ng, reporter and researcher for Fairchild Television; Kitty Yeung, producer with Fairchild Television; Benny Cheung, cameraman and editor with Fairchild Television; Endora Fan, reporter, talent division; Ronald Leung, senior editor, current affairs, with Fairchild Radio; K.S. Lai, assignment editor with Fairchild Radio; and Stella Ho, assignment editor with Mainstream Broadcasting. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: One might be tempted to introduce some other journalists, but I think custom dictates that we don't acknowledge them.

As the minister responsible for mining in British Columbia and in acknowledgment of Mining Day, I would particularly like to introduce Gary Livingstone and Myrna Kitchen from the Mining Association, as well as a number of mayors and councillors, and representatives of mining companies and suppliers, many of whom are in the gallery today. I welcome them to Victoria and would ask all members to make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would ask the House to welcome in the gallery today a good friend and supporter, Andrew Wilkinson.

Hon. S. Hammell: My mother, Midge Hammell, is visiting our Legislature for the first time ever. Of course, she's very special to me, so I'd ask the House to please join me in welcoming her here today.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the precincts today is the mayor of Ashcroft, Mr. Andy Kormendy. He's here to meet with me on the issue of the Ashcroft courthouse, so would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: With us in the gallery today we have Mr. Jim Mann, the executive director and CEO of the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C., which represents all sectors of the tourism industry in the province and has been a leader in working with this ministry in providing industry-related training and jobs through Youth Works and Welfare to Work.

Also in the gallery today we have Malcolm Ashford, the executive director of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism and former chair of the Vancouver parks board -- I think he's well known to many members in the chamber.

These gentlemen are with us today because they are concerned with what they've heard about some of the debate which has been going on this House around the very successful workplace-based training program, Destinations. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us today is an old friend of mine and vice-president of the Fishermen's Union, Jim Sinclair. Jim is here today because an hour ago DFO -- the federal government -- and the province announced a historic agreement on the groundfish fishery that we can all be proud of. Jim, welcome on this great day.

G. Wilson: That's a new way to make an announcement of an agreement, but nevertheless. . . .

In the gallery today we have two people I'd like to have the House welcome. The first is a very good friend, a hard worker and tireless campaigner for us: Sharon Hartwell, the mayor of Telkwa, who is here with the Mining Association. Secondly, Chuck Weatherill is a friend from Gibsons who is concerned about the Gibsons watershed and has done a tremendous amount of work for our community. Would the House please make both of them welcome.

H. Lali: I was looking up in the gallery, and I noticed more mayors from my riding here. Mayor McLean of Princeton is sitting up in the gallery as well as Mayor Al Kemp of Logan Lake. They're here with the Mining Association, so would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: We have received a confidential government document dated February 5, 1997, on B.C.'s job strategy. The opening paragraph of that document points out that "personal incomes are dropping, especially for young workers, as a result of more temporary work and fewer real career positions." Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell the House why, after five years of NDP government, temporary work is up, career positions are down and B.C.'s workers are getting less?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, the quote that the member read is, in fact, something that is generally germane to North America, I would think. There has been. . . .

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. D. Miller: The member asked a very wide-ranging question; I'm quite prepared to answer it, if the members opposite want to listen. Notwithstanding that, when one looks at the statistics in British Columbia relative to those other jurisdictions. . . . Not that you can ever take complete satisfaction in the job that you're doing, but we are satisfied -- and I have cited these statistics before -- that the unemployment rate in British Columbia is lower than in other Canadian jurisdictions. Our record in terms of job creation over the last five years far exceeds. . . . With 13 percent of the population, I believe we've created over 17 percent of the jobs. It's clear that even the events of today -- the offer from the mining industry, for example, to work with government to create 20,000 additional jobs; the strategy of this government to create over 20,000 new jobs in forestry. . . . All this will ensure that the outstanding job creation record in British Columbia relative to the rest of Canada. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .will be maintained and even enhanced.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, the statistics that the minister keeps trotting out don't have anything to do with 

[ Page 2506 ]

answering the question that we're dealing with. What this document makes clear is that as of February 5 of this year. . . . After this government has been in office for five years, they still do not have a job strategy for British Columbia.

[2:15]

The document also is very clear. It recommends against setting large job creation targets, and says that "the government may not be able to do this credibly, given its lack of success in announcing targets that subsequently have failed to be met [like the] budget [and the] debt management plan...." Now that the truth is out, will the minister admit today that the government's pledge of 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry, or 20,000 new jobs in the mining industry, isn't worth the paper it's written on?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, hon. Speaker, picking on each of those questions separately, it's interesting to note that the proposal for 20,000 jobs in the mining industry was written by the mining industry. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to characterize that as not being worth the paper it's written on, then I suggest he go deal with the mining industry.

Now, we witnessed yesterday the horrible example of the opposition opposing programs that this government had brought in to move. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, there you have the clue: "We'll never keep quiet, but you might as well answer."

To witness the spectacle of the opposition attacking job-training programs that have proven to move young people from welfare to work. . . . Finally, I would not stand in this House as the Leader of the Opposition and say that as the owners of the timber resources of this province, we should not establish job target goals for the resource that the people of this province own. . . .

The Speaker: I thank the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: Shame, shame, shame on the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: If there's any shame, it's the shame of this minister standing up when he knows that his government has written off 5,500 jobs in the forest industry in 1996. He has written off thousands of jobs in the mining industry. If he would pay attention to people in those resource communities, we would have thousands of jobs being created by the private sector instead of being destroyed by the government.

We have a document that makes it very clear that this government does not have a job strategy in British Columbia. After five years, there is no job strategy except to destroy jobs in this province. Will the minister admit that there is no job strategy in this province? And will he start to listen to the people who can create jobs in the private sector, so we can get on with building a stronger future?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I am amused, Mr. Speaker, I must say. . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .at the Leader of the Opposition's reference to the private sector, because not long ago, up in Terrace, British Columbia, with the market failure of a major forest company in British Columbia, the Leader of the Opposition's proposed solution was to take Forest Renewal money and give it to the bankers. Here is the Leader of the Opposition, who is prepared to rely on the private sector, and he wants to take the money belonging to the people of this province and give it to the bankers when there is a private sector failure. What a joke!

C. Hansen: It's clear the minister is not aware of what's in his so-called "Jobs Strategy" criticism document. He's not aware of what the Leader of the Opposition has been saying in Terrace, either.

Hon. Speaker, the NDP have been making promise after promise about thousands of family-supporting jobs they say they are going to create: 21,000 new jobs in the woods; 25,000 new jobs in forestry. Unfortunately, the truth is now out about the kinds of jobs being created. In this document that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, it says: ". . .most of them are either high- or low-end service jobs, with only a few. . .middle-income industrial jobs." Will the Minister of Employment and Investment finally admit to the people of British Columbia that his promises of good, family-supporting jobs are just another NDP broken promise?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am looking forward to estimates debate. I am somewhat disturbed by the rather negative attitude of the opposition party in this province. Rather than support the government's efforts at new job creation, it seems that they are capable of nothing except criticism. If one goes through the various sectors in this province. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: The mining industry today. . . . Here we have three new mines opening this year in British Columbia -- three new mines. There's $650 million in private sector investment; 700 direct new jobs averaging about $70,000 a year, in this province this year; and 1,500 indirect jobs. We have a knowledge-based technology sector that is growing in its aggregate at 12 percent annually, creating new, good, family-supporting jobs.

The Speaker: Would the minister please wrap it up.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, examples abound, and I am somewhat disturbed. . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you. I think we've had an answer.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .by the negative, naysaying attitude of this Liberal bunch opposite.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, what is obvious is that we are not talking about new jobs. We're not talking about new jobs in tourism. According to documents that we have obtained, Elizabeth Cull is acting as a consultant on the Destinations tourism program. According to these documents, Ms. Cull has been making representation to ministry officials about the program, including: ". . .to ask for your continued executive support."

[ Page 2507 ]

My question is to the Minister of Education. Can he confirm that his officials have met with the former NDP cabinet minister to discuss the Destinations program?

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Given the quality of questions on this issue yesterday and today, perhaps the Liberal opposition might wish to apply for a training incentive so they could get some of their researchers properly trained to formulate questions in this House. It might do them some good.

This ministry's partnership with the Council of Tourism Associations has been extremely successful in training young people for entry-level jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. P. Ramsey: The initial contract, which was much talked about yesterday, was for 300 positions. In fact, 336 income assistance recipients found work through this program. That's a success. . .

The Speaker: Please wrap it up.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .and we continue to work with COTA to make sure that we carry on with this very successful program.

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gambling. British Columbians from Vancouver to Fort St. John are disgusted by this government's plan to put 8,000 slot machines and big-time gambling casinos in the province. They're outraged that the NDP campaigned on not expanding gambling and are now breaking that trust. If the minister feels that this is not the case, will he at least have the courage to put his plan to a provincewide -- provincewide -- referendum before ramming it down people's throats?

Hon. D. Miller: No, we have indicated that it really will rest with the communities. I should say that there has been, since we announced our gaming policy, some expression of interest. I believe some of the northern municipalities -- Dawson Creek, for example -- have expressed some interest in pursuing those, and I do have letters from a variety of municipalities around the province which have expressed their desire to proceed with some gaming initiatives.

We'll let that rest at the community level, and I would assume that as communities look at these issues, they might be consulting with their MLAs. I would think that if communities are desirous of moving forward, I am sure the MLAs will be. . .

The Speaker: Minister, will you wrap it up.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .supporting those initiatives.

R. Neufeld: It's pretty obvious to us on this side of the House. When the NDP talked about photo radar, it was going to be up to each community. That has changed dramatically now. Under the AG's ministry, it's going to be provincewide. We know that. So when you talk about referendums in communities, that's malarkey. On top of that, Dawson Creek is talking about going to referendum before they do it.

If you don't have the jam, Mr. Minister, to put the gambling plan to a vote. . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

R. Neufeld: He knows darned well that most British Columbians will turn it down. But if you believe in gambling -- if you're into crap shoots -- will you commit right now that you'll put your gambling plan to a free vote in this Legislature -- to a free vote, not a Whip-oriented vote, Mr. Minister?

Hon. D. Miller: No, we won't do that.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. D. Miller: I am somewhat surprised. Most of the members for rural areas understand that they don't really want their decisions made by the large metropolitan areas of the lower mainland. I'm quite surprised at that member there from the North Peace, who would suggest. . . . And I see the member from South Peace nodding his head. I'm somewhat dismayed, as a fellow northerner, that he'd suggest that we could let people in other jurisdictions determine what is good for us or not good for us. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: So maybe that member might want to reflect on that approach before he pursues this.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's interesting to note how the NDP plan their job strategy -- once they've decided that they need one. We go to the paragraph that says "Next Steps." "Next Steps" constitutes developing a communications plan: ". . .retention of a firm experienced in developing creative communications products."

Why is it that whenever this government decides it's time to do something, the first thing they do is go hire the spin doctors to do it for them?

Hon. D. Miller: I must say there are no spin doctors in this chamber; we're all equal. We do indeed have a job strategy. We think it's important. But I can tell you, hon. member, that our job strategy is not the one enunciated by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. Let me read that one, from Gary Bannerman, August 19: "We've got to get out of subsidies for business, and we've got to allow the strong companies to survive, and we've got to allow the weak companies to disappear." Hon. Speaker, if we had followed their advice, we would have never done a restructuring deal with Evans Forest Products and saved those jobs in Golden. Shame, shame!

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yesterday during question period, I took a question on notice about the Destinations workplace-based training program. I rise to advise the House of a response to that.

[ Page 2508 ]

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. I have a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe, if the Speaker checks the record, the minister said he was taking it on notice and then subsequently answered it.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members. I take the Opposition House Leader's point. I'm going to listen carefully to ensure that only the question taken on notice is addressed, and not those myriad other questions that were indeed answered at some length.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll begin with a. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I do want to hear.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll begin with a question which I did indeed say I would investigate and report back to the House on. That was the allegation that a firm named Toys "R" Us had received training credits from the Destinations program -- workplace-based training. In fact, no such training subsidy was received by Toys "R" Us -- none. Further. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. I'm going to ask you to bear with me for a moment. I want to check the record. My recollection is that that particular question was later in question period, rather than the first question taken on notice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

As I say, if I am correct in that supposition, minister, then it is not in order for you at the moment to give the statement you seem to be in the process of making. But give me a moment, if you will, minister, and I'll check.

[2:30]

Minister, I'm sorry. I cannot find the specific reference. But, as I say, I must trust my own judgment, and it seems to me that we did indeed get an answer to that question yesterday. Therefore I'm not going to allow the minister to proceed. He can certainly provide that information to all and sundry via another medium, however.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on the throne speech. I want to address a number of topics this afternoon from the perspective of being the science, technology and research critic for the Liberal caucus.

I want to address the issues around technological freedom and what that means, because it is about crafting a climate for decent investment in British Columbia. Certainly the question I think we need to pose today is: what is the relationship between technological achievement and economic freedom? I would state for the record that the relationship is significant and that it's misunderstood by this government. It is a necessity for the future economic prosperity of this province, and this government opposite doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of how critically those elements are linked.

For anyone who understands the ways in which markets perform, the answer is unqualified. As economic freedom increases, growth in all sectors of the economy, including technological advancement, also increases. But it would seem that not everyone is convinced. That is the tenor of my remarks today. The Liberal Party is absolutely convinced that science, technology and research is the way of the future and the building block for the next millennium.

We are well beyond discussion today. We should be looking at implementation. We should be looking at ensuring that there are some measurement plans in place so that we can deliver the very best product to British Columbians, to the taxpayer. In terms of the Liberal Party commitment to science, technology and research, I wish to enter this directly into the record:

"Whereas the purpose of science, technology and research is to assist in economic development; and whereas our strength lies in our ability to educate; and whereas education will convert information to knowledge and knowledge to commercial products; be it resolved that the B.C. Liberal Party is committed to the pursuit of science, technology and research as an economic driver. This commitment will involve market development, export readiness, mentoring programs and the creation of entrepreneurship chairs at our major universities."

This resolution was passed into policy at the B.C. Liberal convention in Penticton on February 22, 1997. As the Liberal Party in British Columbia, it is a commitment we feel very strongly about, because we understand what it is to be free enterprise and what it is to deliver on a commitment to the people who create wealth. Before this government can actually distribute wealth, they have to have some understanding of how it's created. That understanding is absent.

I've had the very great pleasure of touring this province in the last number of months and meeting with the regional science councils around the province. They've done some very superb work, and they all come at it from perspectives that are unique to their regions, whether it's oil and natural gas extraction or new forestry applications, or whether it's Dawson Creek or Kamloops. Those individuals are committed to ensuring that science, technology and research is not just a lower mainland question, but that it actually makes sense for all regions of this province. That is the commitment the Liberal Party stands for when they say that science makes sense for the entire province.

I very much wish to talk about where I believe science, technology and research needs to go in the next number of months, because I believe we need a great deal of preparation in place as we head into the turn of this century in a little under three years' time. We've definitely talked many times about the key element being our educational programming. The way we get top-notch, first-rate science, technology and research is to graduate some of the finest students in British Columbia, then ensure that there are companies receptive to those graduates and that they will receive employment opportunities here at home.

To anyone who thinks seriously about these issues, it makes very little sense that the taxpayer would invest 80 to 82 

[ Page 2509 ]

percent in a young person's tuition and then pass that gift to the neighbouring province or to the state of Washington. That is where the majority of our science grads seek employment: outside this province. It makes no sense. It needs to be an issue that we address very clearly but honestly, and we need to address it very soon. If we lose the critical mass of graduates in this province, we will not get them back. That is a sincere fear on my part.

I want to spend a moment talking about an institute that is attempting to address some of the issues around science, technology and research. One of the building blocks for that is the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences. It's a very interesting proposal. I met with the individuals at the University of Victoria who put it forward, and their goal is to ensure that young people -- male and female -- have a real desire to participate fully in the mathematical sciences.

Mathematics is the language of science. There's no question about that, so to put that in place and have it make sense to people is a very good thing. We all understand that what is required today is 16-plus years of education, which means that everyone will need some type of post-secondary education, and many will move on to a bachelor's program, a master's program, and many will have to have PhD expertise in science and technology.

A number of research articles have been written that touch on the mentality of Canadians -- that we still see ourselves as being buyers, not sellers. Many still believe that the world will come to us, which is absolutely not true. We need to get out there and aggressively market what we believe in. There is tremendous portability with a science and technology innovation. It's an idea. It's not a physical plant, and it's not an address. For the most part, it's an idea -- one that someone has taken from the workbench, crafted into something incredibly fine, and then they have an opportunity to sell that expertise worldwide. We have somehow missed that opportunity here in British Columbia because we haven't looked at expanding our networks, and we need to. It's still a very difficult question in terms of interprovincial trade barriers, and we are still not doing all the things that need to be done to ensure that we can move ahead.

I will make the point that we do have an advantage today in the form of social capital, and I believe that that speaks to whether or not we have an educated workforce. Each day there is a greater commitment that British Columbians should have access to greater educational opportunities. I would support that. When we talk about technologies, we have to be very clear that there is a whole range of technologies that can benefit British Columbians. We talk about information technologies, and that takes in graphic artists, computer people, television and communications. That will be the future: how best to communicate effectively with our neighbours, our friends and our business associates around the world. Communication will pose tremendous challenges to all of us, and we have to ensure that we have the scientists at the ready to meet those challenges. Certainly lots of information is still required around coupling technology with databases and on how best to manage information and lists of people across the country.

I also want to spend a few minutes talking about biotechnologies, medical applications and medical instrumentation, and how important that is to finding solutions around Alzheimer's, breast cancer and the very debilitating diseases that impact entire families. Those issues have solutions. We need to ensure that we have the commitment -- the political will -- to put in place the building blocks to reach those solutions. I would like to see those things happen in my lifetime, just as I know my colleagues would like to see those advances happen in their lifetimes.

We've spent a great deal of time as a caucus looking at value-added operations in this province. Again, under the heading of biotechnologies, the forestry applications are significant: utilizing waste wood, secondary manufacturing, the B.C. Wood Specialties Value-Added Skills Centre in Abbotsford. All those things make good sense for the industry. It is about building, from the ground up, new ways to incorporate and enhance science. And can we do it in resource extraction? Most definitely.

The mining community was with us today, and we'll be joining them later this evening as well. Mining today is a very significant science-based industry. They would not survive without significant biotechnologies in place to ensure that they extract the product most efficiently, most effectively and with the least environmental impact. Those are concerns that the industry shares. Those are concerns that are basic to science, technology and research.

Oil and natural gas extraction. There are reservoirs of oil and natural gas across this province that have been extracted to only a magnitude of 30 percent. We know those reservoirs are indeed there. We know that the capacity is there, but today we don't have the research or the technology to utilize all of that product. We need to get the answer to that question, and we certainly need to be addressing more resources to best answer those questions.

We as a Liberal caucus often talk of a living-river strategy. We need to do some work on river and stream enhancement in British Columbia, and on water protection and aquaculture. Many research questions are raised daily around those areas, and we certainly don't have all the answers.

I mentioned earlier the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences. I should mention, as well, that there are only two other such institutes in Canada. One is in Montreal and one is in Ontario, so for British Columbia to become home to the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences is a very good thing. It's a very progressive and innovative decision on behalf of the University of Victoria to provide a home for that level of networking, but also to believe in it to the extent that they are willing to put their name on the line and come forward and put that program in place for young people across this province. We very much want to support that initiative, because it is about supporting research, particularly interdisciplinary research. This will be about problem-solving, so all the disciplines in science must come together, with mathematics being the major player. We certainly want to encourage joint research projects among those players, whether it be Ontario, Montreal or British Columbia.

[2:45]

One of the issues, speaking as a teacher. . . . I was a teacher in this province for almost a decade prior to being elected. One of the most interesting ways to put that information directly into classrooms is to provide some first-rate in-service for teachers. The Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences will also address that question. They will address the notion that if you are going to teach people to be better math teachers, you start with kindergarten teachers and work through the system, because they have an opportunity to impact on four- and five-year-old children who have the desire and the curiosity, and who will, hopefully, have the long-term commitment to become mathematicians. We very 

[ Page 2510 ]

much want to support anything that assists young people in building their future more effectively, and mathematics will be a key player in that.

In the area of science, technology and research, we often talk about what's needed to make the industry more effective. We talk about financing -- buoyant financing. I can tell you that I had the opportunity to visit some science and technology operations in the province of Newfoundland. The Royal Bank in Newfoundland has put in place a person whose job is the pursuit of lending opportunities in the high-tech sector, and the Royal Bank now has 90 percent of the lending business in Newfoundland. They made a definite commitment and put forward their initiatives, and they are there to support people who come not with a tangible asset or with something that the bank can secure if something goes wrong, but with an idea.

They come to the bankers in Newfoundland with ideas, and the bank has now seen fit to educate their workforce to the extent that they can see the value in that idea and can see the necessity to support that person in their marketing plans to take that product to market. It's a very fine initiative, and it's one the banking community in this province should be supporting much more sincerely than they are today. A lot of it has been that they haven't had a firm understanding of the needs of start-up companies and of people brand-new to the exercise in terms of taking an idea to the marketplace. Like any other new business, debt is death. There's no question about that, so for a bank to get in at the early stages and make sure that the business plan is effective and that they understand enough about the idea to pass a decision to make a determination is only to the good.

Another issue that we need to address in British Columbia when we talk about training programs and university programs is whether there is sufficient skilled management to assist these companies as they move forward. The biotech industry in British Columbia isn't ten years old. We don't have a large number of homegrown management staff, which is why you will see individuals importing that expertise into this province. We have some very fine individuals at the University of British Columbia. Haig Ferris is only one example of someone who combines a science degree, a commerce degree and a marketing degree, providing his students with that level of expertise in a combined integrated program.

It makes good sense, because anyone who is leading a small business will be required to demonstrate all of those skills that will be very much a necessity for the company to survive. So giving young people -- 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds -- that expertise at the university level is something that would receive tremendous support on the part of this Liberal caucus.

People often talk about the government's role in science, technology and research, and I will tell you that it is about leadership. All the puzzle pieces are here. We need to ensure that someone has the vision to put that puzzle together, to say: "Yes, British Columbia is a good place to do business and to invest, and these are the reasons." That puzzle is not together today; the pieces are fragmented. There is no continuity when it comes to patent processing, patent application and financing. The process takes far too long.

When we talk about a science-tech business that happens to be interested in a mining operation, the province of Manitoba can actually process an entire application in under six months, from the early exploration stage to some certainty around how that decision will be taken. Under six months is unheard of in British Columbia, where the process meanders and unravels over years at a time. It is not demonstrating leadership. It is not suggesting to the individuals who wish to do business here that the government is even remotely interested in inviting that level of participation and that level of investment into the province.

There are excellent examples within Canada. I've spoken of Newfoundland. There are some excellent examples in Manitoba and in provinces that have always been considered the have-not provinces. I can tell you today that they're doing far better than British Columbia, in terms of meeting people halfway, about understanding the true nature of a public-private partnership. That is not well understood here in British Columbia, and we are losing opportunities as a result of that.

As a Liberal caucus we're hoping that there is a critical mass of individuals who wish to do science, technology and research here in British Columbia. There needs to be an incubation process. We need some larger companies that will spawn some smaller companies, some associated industry and some spin-off companies, where all communities can benefit from that.

The mining representatives were saying this morning that Vancouver is probably one of the largest mining communities in the province, because that is where the associated industry functions. These are the individuals, in Vancouver and in Victoria, who support mining operations around this province. We should ensure that we do our very best to support new research and development, whether it's in mining, biotechnology, medical instrumentation. All those things are about creating wealth, and wealth is what this province needs to function effectively. It's not appropriate to continue to expend the dollars if you have no sense of how those dollars are created, how that wealth is created.

We talk a little about capital formation. Banks, science, technology and research companies, and small businesses generally, need to have some understanding of how they form partnerships around that. We talk about market development and export readiness to build linkages and facilitate partnerships. All those things make good sense. It doesn't make good sense for someone interested in a small business initiative to spend months trying to get an appointment with someone in government or not having their phone calls returned by someone in government. I mean, the leadership has to be there to invite these people into the province to do business effectively.

So issues that must be addressed include a shorter path to commercialization. It's vitally important that if someone has the brand-new innovation they know will sell regardless of the marketplace, whether it is Canada, the United States or Europe, they have to be absolutely certain that they can get that product to market in the shortest space of time. If the Canadian system continues to put them at a disadvantage, they are not going to attempt to launch the product here in Canada or here in British Columbia. They are going to choose a more likely marketplace, and we can't afford that. Some of the best inventions that originated here in this province are undergoing commercialization in other parts of the world. Those are lost opportunities for British Columbians, and they are lost jobs for people here at home.

I want to touch on the fact that there needs to be some harmonizing of patent processing and patent protection issues. We have much diversity when it comes to dealing with the other provinces and with the federal government. If you are the lone inventor, you don't have time in your life to play 

[ Page 2511 ]

all the bureaucratic games that need to be played for you to end up with the piece of paper that says you have a patent. It is not an appropriate way to treat people who are attempting to create wealth and give something back to this country.

I personally would like to see government take an active role in showcasing the talent and the product development we have here, perhaps sponsoring a trade show or doing something that indicates that they are prepared to reach out and touch the industry in a positive way. They haven't demonstrated that over the last number of months or over the last six years that I have been elected. Earlier I touched on incubator programs -- growing smaller companies from a large, certain company. That is a good thing, and that is again something we have not done very well in this province.

From a Liberal perspective -- from a free enterprise perspective -- our goal is to work directly with local industry, because we know that that is the way jobs are created in this province. Government does not create employment. Government has the responsibility for crafting the environment for economic development and for job creation, but they do not have a very decent track record when it comes to putting job creation programs in place. What I am saying is that the private sector has that responsibility and, frankly, has that expertise. They are the only ones who do, so let's benefit as legislators, as British Columbians and as taxpayers from the knowledge that people out there have that expertise and are currently underutilized.

I spoke earlier of my resolution that I would indeed fund entrepreneurship chairs at local universities. I believe that to be vitally important. I believe it is a public-private partnership that would work extremely well and that would be supported by the major institutions in this province. What it says to leading innovators and leading entrepreneurs from around the world is that this is a good place to do business. And when one comes, many will follow, and they will bring with them much associated industry and many spin-off companies that will employ British Columbians.

I would very much like to see a chair in Alzheimer's research. We all know what a devastating impact that has on families. It's the same for breast cancer research, and it's time we found some answers to that. When we talk about politics being a people business, politics has the will to make a difference in the lives of many, many British Columbians around both those very devastating diseases. It's time that this government acted.

Technology is an economic end in itself. It is time to see technology as an enabler, with new opportunities in traditional sectors such as forestry and mining. It's time to acknowledge that good science doesn't occur just on the mainland and on southern Vancouver Island. I feel very strongly about these issues.

I had the opportunity to read Shakedown, the latest Angus Reid book. Here is one of his closing comments in the book: "We are in the midst of a difficult transition. Social capital, money and recognition are all necessary for survival, but the most important of all is our ability to think independently. Without that, entrepreneurship is not possible." It's a very telling quote, because it says that if we don't generate young people who are flexible, innovative and entrepreneurial, we will not survive as a society; that there will be many, many more complex questions that we are yet to see -- and we can't solve most of the problems facing us today. We haven't been taxed in terms of the challenge of finding a solution, and we will be. He makes the point very eloquently that time is indeed running out and that as a society, we need to commit to science, technology and research applications.

I would point out for the record that the federal government seems to be coming onside with that commitment, and I think they are putting in place some very fine examples that this government would do well to follow. I will quote from the Vancouver Sun of October 18, 1996: "B.C. High-Tech Sector Gets Federal Backing." I support that. It's a good thing for the federal government to recognize that British Columbia is doing some wonderful things, because it is about recognition. It's not about subsidy; it's about recognition and leadership, which says that this is an important avenue for us to pursue on how best we should proceed. I don't expect all the answers to come from British Columbia. I don't think we necessarily need to reinvent the wheel on all these questions. I do believe that we can truly commit to some private-public partnerships that make sense for this province.

I will have the opportunity to continue to gather information regarding Innovation Place in Saskatoon, which is probably the largest research park in Canada. It's aligned with the university and heavily aligned with the business community. It makes good sense for the province of Saskatchewan, because they too have agricultural questions and oil and natural gas questions that need resolution -- that need a solution. They are putting their commitment behind Innovation Place in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I would like to see this province rise to the challenge and match that level of commitment. They certainly have not done so to date.

One of the other issues I want to raise is from the riding of Richmond East, and it's a hospice question. This is a throne speech response, and in the throne speech I didn't hear any response on behalf of this government to palliative care or how important it is for British Columbians to know they have some choices when it comes to whether they would choose to die at home or in hospital, or whether, if given the choice, they would choose hospice. For those who are not clear, hospice is a homelike setting that provides an extraordinary level of care for individuals who, for all kinds of reasons, wouldn't choose to die at home. I think we need to find some respect for those decisions and put in place some mechanisms that allow for hospices to be built across British Columbia.

[3:00]

The Garden City Community Hospice Society in Richmond will build a hospice. They are absolutely committed to that notion, and I trust that they will have the community onside and will actually move to the building plan within the next year or two. I would like to see that hospice open its doors and provide some service, but I want this government to recognize how vitally important that level of care is to many British Columbians. I talked earlier about Alzheimer's and breast cancer and about the impact those diseases have on families.

Palliative care issues need the same level of response. They need people to be there, to provide respite care, to put in place mechanisms that make sense for British Columbians. That's not the case today. There's a Rotary Hospice House in Prince George; there is the May Gutteridge Community Home in Vancouver, and there is the possibility of a second home in Vancouver. I know it's going into renovation at the moment, and I believe that will happen. I believe that May Gutteridge will make that happen, because she's absolutely committed to the process. I want that level of commitment to be evident across this province.

I know that all of us believe there should be some choices around palliative care. This government has an opportunity to demonstrate some political will makes sense to people, and 

[ Page 2512 ]

again, I would welcome that. We are working closely with the Rotary Club in Richmond to make that happen. We're also working very closely with the Richmond Chinatown Lions Club, of which I am intensely proud. I was one of their founding members. It makes good sense to me to put the community to work so that the community can give something back. Indeed, the Richmond Chinatown Lions Club has risen to the challenge and will do some very fine work on behalf of the hospital, on behalf of hospice and on behalf of children in the community. If this government is truly committed to public-private partnership, they will begin to recognize the incredible contributions that people make across this province, and certainly within Richmond East.

There are some issues that I very much want to touch on this afternoon that, again, impact directly on my riding. One of the issues looks at drug and alcohol treatment programs. This government, under its regionalization plan, has done some very interesting things in terms of removing certainty from that level of programming -- taking the individuals who deliver a superb service, a service of extremely high calibre, and making it a disjointed exercise by parcelling it out to different delivery systems. That's not the purpose of an integrated system.

Frankly, when things are working extremely well -- and the Richmond alcohol and drug program works extremely well -- this government needs to recognize that and put in place not just the recognition but also the commitment which will see that the obstacles now restricting this organization from doing its work are removed so these organizations can go forward and deliver the highest calibre of service.

These are all programs that are in place because communities have need of such programs. Those things make sense for those communities, and I know for a fact that it's not just Richmond whose program is currently in jeopardy, and that there are probably many programs across this province. . . . I would urge the Minister of Health to take a very careful look at the many, many programs that are not easily integrated into the current system and make allowances for that, and make sure that the individuals who have made it their life's work to deliver a quality of programming continue to have some support to do that.

I believe that how we treat individuals in society is absolutely critical. I know that the royal commission on the Workers Compensation system has got off to a troubling start. Individuals who believed that their voices would be heard, because the Premier promised them, even in his leadership address in the election, that all voices in British Columbia would be heard. . . . That promise is in jeopardy, because people are indeed being turned away from the royal commission. It's in its first week and a half, and people have been turned away. I would invite this Premier to revisit the Workers Compensation royal commission process and ensure that all British Columbians are heard.

B. Penner: It is indeed my privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of Chilliwack to offer my response to the Speech from the Throne, which this government used to open the legislative session about four weeks ago.

It's been described by some as a road map; that is, the Speech from the Throne is supposed to provide some indication of the government's plans for the upcoming legislative session. My colleague the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has quite aptly described the process as a road map, which in this case leads nowhere or, even worse, potentially leads us down the road to disaster. I'm going to go through a few things which this map has in fact not mentioned, which this map has omitted, and which pose several hazards, I think, to the people who would travel down this road and rely upon this map for accurate information.

The Speech from the Throne does not mention a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, I recall -- as I'm sure you and other members of this House recall -- that last year's Speech from the Throne made much about a balanced budget and in fact mentioned modest payments in terms of paying down the debt. This year there's no mention of that, and I wonder why that is. Could it be that after telling British Columbians in the last election that they had balanced the budget, they've now had an awakening of conscience and realized that they can no longer mislead people? Is that the reason?

In fact, what's happened since last year, when they told British Columbians, told this House -- and told you, Mr. Speaker -- that they had balanced the budget, is that they have had to admit that they did not, and that what they told people wasn't true. In fact, what happened was that this province ran a deficit which the Finance minister now says was $395 million. But even that is misleading, because when you take a look at all of the programs they have tried to hide in different government agencies, or often in Crown corporations or financing authorities, in fact the real figure is over $600 million. And I think the bills are still coming in.

Looking ahead to the next year, I don't think that the minister has been any more forthright with this House, because he's predicting a deficit of $185 million. But again, when you look at the off-loading and the attempt to hide costs under these different shells entitled "financing authorities," or "Crown corporations" or "school board authorities," in fact the figure approaches -- and exceeds -- $800 million. That is the true state of the province's finances, and I suppose we can see why they don't want to talk about that in the throne speech. They're simply ashamed.

There is no mention in the throne speech about expanded gambling. My memory serves me quite well, and I recall this government telling the people during the last election that if they re-elected them, they would not expand gambling in British Columbia and that they had no plans for casinos in the province. What happened to that promise? The Premier has not kept his word.

During the last election, the Premier indicated that there would not be casino gambling in British Columbia. Now this government is moving ahead to give British Columbians something they told us they wouldn't do or give us. And today during question period, when the minister responsible for gambling was asked if he would consult with the public and really let it just all hang out there and put it out to referendum, to let the voters have a say through a provincewide referendum on expanded gambling, he said: "No."

Even more shocking is that he said he would not allow a free vote in the Legislature on expanded gambling, and that tells me he does not trust the members of his own government -- that is, the members opposite -- to support this government's broken promise on expanded gambling. What other conclusion can a person come to but that the minister speaking on behalf of gambling doesn't trust the other members of the NDP government to support him in his expanded gambling plans for British Columbia?

An Hon. Member: Nor should they.

B. Penner: Nor should they.

Looking further through the throne speech, there are a few other things that have been omitted. There is no talk 

[ Page 2513 ]

about taking away victims' rights through no-fault. I suppose there is another reason they haven't mentioned this, and that is because during the last election campaign they again didn't tell British Columbians that they were planning to remove a fundamental right to have recourse through the courts for injuries suffered innocently in motor vehicle accidents.

Interjections.

B. Penner: There are some members opposite complaining that the Premier isn't keeping them informed about the government's policy plans, but I'm sure they will take that up in cabinet and/or in caucus with the Premier. Certainly the Premier has been less than forthright with the taxpayers of the province, so I can sympathize with the members opposite in their complaint about their Premier, their leader.

There has been no discussion in the throne speech, and they haven't come clean yet about what their plans are for taking away victims' rights. We only know that the government is seriously looking at doing this, and in fact they have now narrowed it down to one of two possible proposals. Any way you look at it, it is restricting victims' rights. And this government has no mandate from the people of British Columbia to pursue that type of a policy when they did not -- and I repeat, did not -- offer that to the voters for their thoughtful consideration during the last election.

Further on in the throne speech, I noticed that again there is no mention of British Columbia having the highest credit rating in Canada, although that was mentioned in previous throne speeches with much fanfare. I suppose, again, there is a reason that's evident to us in this House, and that's because the Finance minister himself has stated -- quite candidly, I think, for once -- that he expects a credit downgrade because of British Columbia's problems with not balancing the budget.

Well, who is responsible for that? Who is the person responsible for the budget? It's the Minister of Finance, so it's because of him and his inaction -- and this government's inaction -- in controlling the debt that British Columbia faces a credit downgrading.

There also wasn't any mention in the throne speech about closing courthouses in British Columbia, yet that is something this government is doing. Again, the average person taking a look at the Speech from the Throne -- something that's supposed to be a road map to the future -- would be led astray, thinking they could drive down one highway into another community and find courthouses open, because this government is closing courthouses but isn't telling people through the throne speech that they are doing that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the courthouses that was scheduled for closure -- which this government announced they were intending to close without any consultation with the people affected -- is the courthouse in my constituency of Chilliwack. Members opposite will know that it represents the only Supreme Court facility between New Westminster and Kamloops. I think it's shameful that this government shows so little regard for people in rural communities that they would consider closing Supreme Court facilities which are otherwise available to people in urban centres such as Vancouver and New Westminster.

I point out that they did all of this without consulting people. They made the announcement first and then left communities to scramble, to organize, to panic; they left victims' groups and battered women's groups to form their own loose associations and to ask: "What are we going to do to get our message through to this government, which obviously doesn't care about the poor and the disadvantaged in British Columbia?"

Certainly the effect in my community was to galvanize the whole community, an incredible array of people from different walks of life. We had Chief Steven Point, chief of the St�:lo nation. We had representatives from victim assistance groups. We had people from the women's shelter. We had people from anti-poverty groups. We had social workers and people from the social workers' office. They all came to me and said: "Barry, this NDP government is trying to hurt the most vulnerable people in our community. What are we going to do about it?" Mr. Speaker, they already had the answer before they asked me what they were going to do about it. They weren't going to take it lying down, because they knew that this government was wrong and didn't have the moral authority to do that. So we worked together, and we formed a powerful allegiance. It was a voice that this government could not ignore.

There is some history, of course, to the Chilliwack courthouse situation. It was a promise by this NDP government, prior to the last election, to build a new courthouse. In fact, internal documents from the Attorney General's own ministry show that the existing facility is a public safety hazard. It was based on those documents that the NDP government, prior to the election, promised Chilliwack a new courthouse.

[3:15]

It was the NDP's own Attorney General ministry which called for the closure of the courthouse, not because they said that it was justified to remove services from Chilliwack but in order to build a new facility in Chilliwack. It was the recommendation from successive policy advisers within the Ministry of Attorney General that the court services, including Supreme Court facilities, be retained in Chilliwack and that a new facility be built there. I suppose that is why the NDP promised before the last election to comply with those recommendations and to give the people of the upper Fraser Valley a new court facility in Chilliwack.

And then what happened, Mr. Speaker? Just as we saw with the promises about a balanced budget, about more jobs and less debt, the government broke their promise. The NDP's word is not worth the paper it's written on. They broke their promise to the people of the upper Fraser Valley; not just to people in my riding of Chilliwack but also to the people in the riding of Mission-Kent and to the people in the riding of Yale-Lillooet.

I know that the member opposite, the member for Yale-Lillooet, was also concerned about how it would affect the constituents who live in the communities of Hope, Yale and Boston Bar. It's people in those communities who travel to Chilliwack and rely on that facility to have access to Supreme Court services. It's something that people in Victoria, Vancouver and New Westminster take for granted, I suppose.

So there is no mention of any of those things in the throne speech, and in that respect I think it's a pretty misleading throne speech. There is, however, much talk in the throne speech about creating jobs -- jobs, jobs, jobs. It seems to me that we once had a former Prime Minister who campaigned on that in 1984: "Jobs, jobs, jobs." And where is he now, Mr. Speaker? Where is he now? He's pretty low in the public opinion polls, I think.

[ Page 2514 ]

It was interesting today, looking in the Vancouver Sun. There's somebody who you think would be quite familiar to members opposite, to members of the NDP. There's a gentleman by the name of Richard Boyce, president of Local 76 of the United Steelworkers. He's written a column that appeared in the business section of the Vancouver Sun. He's referring to the Speech from the Throne, and he says that there is no reference made to mining: "Not one word. How can anyone believe the government is serious about meaningful job creation when its 'vision statement' doesn't mention British Columbia's number two resource industry?" A little bit later on he says: "Government claims it wants to create lots of these jobs. Good for it. But just saying so isn't enough. Government must back its rhetoric with action."

Well, what kind of action are we finding? What is going on? What else is happening in British Columbia? There's an article that appeared on the front page of the Merritt Herald, dated March 19, 1997. Its headline is: "Forest Troubles Has Merritt Company Looking Elsewhere." Its first sentence is: "Uncertainty in B.C.'s forest industry has Sanders and Company looking at investments in other directions." The company president is quoted as saying, "This province is no place to be investing money," and, later on: "The forest industry is in big trouble here." Later on in the article, they talk about a more positive investment climate in Alberta. If it's true that this government is responsible for making an investment climate in British Columbia that is inhospitable toward investment, that is hardly doing much to create jobs.

There's another article which appeared sometime after the Merritt Herald article, but I think it explains why there are problems in the forest industry. It's an article from the Vancouver Sun, dated March 26, 1997. Its headline is: "$100 Million Siphoned from Forest Renewal Fund." This article goes on to explain that this transfer of money "was condemned by silviculture contractors who say it is a raid on FRBC funds by another name." What the government is doing is using money in the Forest Renewal program to pay for programs that are traditionally funded by the Ministry of Forests.

I've heard it said that a member opposite, the member for Yale-Lillooet, told this Legislature at one time that Forest Renewal funds would never be touched by any greedy ministers. Yet this money in the FRBC fund has just been transferred to the Ministry of Forests, because the responsibilities for the Ministry of Forests have been transferred and placed upon FRBC. So it does look like a greedy Minister of Forests got his fingers in the pot, to use the words of the member for Yale-Lillooet.

An Hon. Member: Sticky fingers.

B. Penner: His sticky fingers are in the pot.

The Minister of Forests has described this as simply a sideways shift in funding, but I think the silviculture contractors have it right: it's really another raid on FRBC by a different name. That explains why some forest jobs are leaving British Columbia and looking elsewhere. I certainly don't take delight in that fact. This government talks about trying to create 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry, while ignoring the 5,500 jobs that have been lost in the past year. All this talk is a little bit like playing your fiddle while Rome burns.

There are other concerns. In the budget speech, which followed the Speech from the Throne, the Minister of Finance mentioned that one of the challenges in terms of revenue outlays is that British Columbia has to support new immigrants, and that with all these people coming to British Columbia this is somehow an incredible burden -- or so he would have us believe. Yet if he consulted his own "Budget '97 Reports" -- which was a part of the budget and provides the technical background to the budget -- he would find that his own staff in the Ministry of Finance consider it a threat to the revenue projections that immigration to British Columbia may be dropping. They say that declining immigration poses a threat to their economic outlook and to their forecasts for revenue in British Columbia.

So what about this threat? What is happening with this threat? Well, I saw an article in the Financial Post, dated April 1, 1997. Its headline is: "Vancouver Seeing Exodus of Hong Kong Chinese." The article goes on to say: "Chinese Canadian leaders estimate that 10,000 people will return to Hong Kong this year, mainly from Vancouver, and fear the outflow could damage British Columbia's already stagnating economy." Further on in the article, there's the explanation for why this departure is happening: "Chinese community leaders say wealthy Chinese are disappointed that the provincial government has failed to fulfil its promise to repeal its. . .corporate capital tax." The article goes on to say that they are also concerned about other regulatory issues in British Columbia.

So this is also not a positive indication. It also goes against the government's claim in the throne speech that they are taking steps to try to increase jobs in British Columbia. Certainly that article from the Financial Post gives credence to the officials working in the Ministry of Finance who fear that there could be an exodus of immigrants from British Columbia, hurting our economic prospects in the future and resulting in a further revenue crunch for this government.

All that is bad news for the taxpayers because it means we will be on the hook for more debt. More debt is simply deferred taxation for future generations. All of that debt comes with plenty of interest. I've done a little bit of calculating, and this is what I have come up with: servicing our debt in British Columbia now costs taxpayers $1.763 billion. That was for 1996-97. That's just the interest; that does not reduce the outstanding debt at all. That is $1.7 billion that is gone forever every year from our province. Where does that money go? It goes to money markets -- mostly in New York, some offshore. . .

Interjection.

B. Penner: . . .and to the banks. The members opposite like repeating a false claim that we stand for lowering taxes on banks. I can tell the Legislature this: that's not true. I would never vote for any budget that would reduce taxes through the corporation capital tax rate on banks. You can take that to the bank -- unlike the member for Yale-Lillooet's statement. At one time he told this House that Forest Renewal funds would never find their way into the fingers of greedy ministers of any government. Yet we've seen a "sideways shift" -- to quote the Minister of Forests -- as that government and that minister find innovative ways to access the Forest Renewal funds, which the member for Yale-Lillooet promised would never happen.

So what has happened? Interest costs have gone up by about 61 percent since this government took office and took control of the budget, effectively, in 1992. That's an increase, on an annual basis, of $667 million in extra interest costs every year. I think British Columbians could come up with a lot of ideas about what could be done every year with $667 million. That is a lot of money. How many schools? How many hospital wards? How many retirement homes? How many bridges? How many 

[ Page 2515 ]

social workers to protect our children? How many social workers to perform adequate checks to make sure that our children are being looked after? That's $667 million in extra interest costs at a time when interest rates are at a record low. We all know that just as what goes up must come down, what goes down often comes up. That applies in the case of interest rates. We can see it already. The trend is taking shape in the United States and in Europe. Interest rates are creeping upwards. What will happen is that British Columbians will be held hostage to international interest rates because of our huge debt.

The amount of debt the taxpayers have to support directly is now about $21 billion. A 1 percent increase on $21 billion is over $200 million annually in extra interest costs that we'll all have to pick up. Unfortunately, as we know from managing our household finances, the first bill that has to get paid. . . . Before you can go grocery shopping, before you can go and look after your children and buy clothing for them, you have to pay the bank. Because if you don't pay the bank, you get kicked out of your house; they'll foreclose on the mortgage.

So what this government has done is put us in a precarious position where every 1 percent increase in interest rates will cost us over $200 million. And if they're not going to increase taxes, then that money will have to come out of existing programs. Will they lay off social workers so that there are fewer people to look after our children? Will they start closing more hospitals? Or will they simply turn around and say: "We're going to close all the courthouses because, after all, we hate having this challenge to our authority that courts and the legal system provide"? Is that what this government will do? I don't know. But that's the position they're putting us all in by their careless increase to the provincial debt. It's a debt that has increased by 100 percent, according to some accounts, if you look at total government direct debt. But if you look at taxpayer-supported debt, then the increase is something in the order of 70 percent to 74 percent since 1992.

So when the members opposite ask, "Is it true that you only care about money?" the answer is no. But without adequate financing, there are many things that we cannot do to look after the people in British Columbia who most need our help: the poor, the disadvantaged, the women who are victims of spousal abuse. These are all people who need our help. We're being hamstrung because of the interest costs and the compounding interest costs on our debt.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Keep in mind, Madam Speaker, that interest rates are starting to move up. I hate to think what our interest costs will be like next year and the year after as those rates start to take effect.

[3:30]

There was one thing that was mentioned specifically in the Speech from the Throne -- other than the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs -- and that was some talk about an innovative way of trying to help our cash flow situation by selling off government vehicles and then leasing them back. Ask yourself if this makes any sense to you in your personal life. It might. People who advise consumers on how to best arrange their affairs offer advice to the effect that if you plan to keep the vehicle for less than two years, you're probably better off to lease the vehicle, because you'll have lower monthly rates and you'll be exchanging that vehicle within two years for another one. All factors considered, including depreciation, most consumer advocates agree that leasing probably makes sense if it's for two years. However, if you plan to keep that vehicle and use it for more than two years, again most people agree that you're better off to continue to own your vehicle outright; that is, to purchase it outright.

I'm concerned that this government's attempt to deal with its financial situation by looking at a short-term fix to get some increase in revenue will actually expose British Columbians to higher costs in the years to come. Just by way of a personal anecdote, at one time I worked as a Ministry of Parks park ranger, where of course there was a fleet of pickup trucks owned by the ministry. Many of those vehicles were used in less than ideal conditions for many years. The vehicle that was assigned to me had been in use for some seven or eight years at the time that it had the distinction of being put to work by me, and that vehicle was adequate. Certainly six or seven years is considerably longer than two years. I realize I'm basing my anecdote on a very small sample, but if that anecdote applies around the province, then I'm afraid that the taxpayers will not be well served by the government's move to look at leasing vehicles rather than buying them outright and, again, saving the taxpayers the cost of financing those vehicles over a long period of time.

Hon. Speaker, I know there are other members of this Legislature who are anxiously awaiting their opportunity to address you and the Legislature and give their thoughts about the Speech from the Throne, so at this point I will turn over the floor to the member opposite.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I recognize first of all the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour -- on what matter?

D. Jarvis: Permission to make an introduction, Madam Speaker.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: We have in the Legislature today 26 grade 5 and grade 6 students from Dorothy Lynas Elementary School in the Seymour area of my riding, and I wish the Legislature would please make them welcome.

H. Lali: I rise in support of the throne speech. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: I can hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson grunting over there a little bit. Don't worry; I'll get to you about halfway through my speech. I'm sure you know that.

I want to commend the government on this throne speech. The government has a vision for British Columbia and the people who have put us in this office to serve them. First of all, I want to point out the record of the New Democratic government since first being elected in 1991. We have the lowest debt per capita of any province in Canada, as well as the highest job creation record. Although British Columbia has had 11 percent of the population -- averaging for the five years that we've been elected -- we've created over 25 percent of the jobs right here in British Columbia. . .

An Hon. Member: Good government.

H. Lali: . . .and that says a lot to good government, as my hon. colleague sitting to my right just stated.

[ Page 2516 ]

One of the emphases of the throne speech has been the issue of job creation. I've already mentioned the past record, and we're going to continue on that path, as over 40,000 jobs are expected to be created in this fiscal year in this province. The Premier recently announced the youth initiative, creating 12,000 jobs for students as they come out of high school and university over the next few months, as well as the jobs and timber accord. The negotiations, as you know, are underway, and that will create 21,000 jobs by the year 2001.

The infrastructure program that this government embarked upon when first elected in 1991, through the B.C. 21 initiative. . . . We'll continue on that path, as we will be building hospitals, roads and bridges, as well as schools. There's $300 million set aside for school construction, and I know that a lot of those schools are going into the ridings of the members opposite. I think they should be pleased, and they should support the throne speech and the budget because of the kind of money that is being put into it.

Another emphasis of the throne speech. . . .

Interjections.

H. Lali: If you folks will hang on a little bit, I'll get to you in a minute. You know it's coming.

I'd also like to point out the emphasis in the throne speech on continuing to protect and enhance our health care and our education facilities and programs that the provincial government offers. We know the record of the opposition, which is quite clear. They wanted to cut $3 billion as part of their plan during the last election. They wanted to cut $3 billion from the budget so they could give their big corporate friends a break.

I'm hoping that the member for Chilliwack will stay, because I've got some comments for him later. I see him leaving the House right now.

But $3 billion dollars, hon. Speaker. The health budget alone, and education -- 75 percent of spending goes into those ministries. They can't cut $3 billion out of the budget without cutting health and education. That wouldn't have seen any hospitals and schools being built -- in their ridings as well.

I just want to point out that in my own riding in particular, we've had some schools constructed -- namely, the Merritt Secondary school, which was an $8 million venture and was recently completed. I went to the opening in September. There are also two schools announced in this year's budget: the Collettville Elementary School in Merritt and also the Silver Creek Elementary School in Hope. I know that my constituents in Hope and Merritt are quite happy to see that there is funding being forwarded for those projects by this government -- unlike the opposition, which wanted to make these huge cuts.

Also, in forestry, I talked about the jobs and timber accord. We had the hon. member who spoke just before me. He was specifically talking about the Merritt timber supply area and the community of Merritt, and he quoted a letter that he received from Sanders and Co. I always say that if you're going to listen to some comments, consider the source first. Well, who are Sanders and Co.? Well, Sanders and Co. . . . And I don't want to get the name wrong, because you know, there are four or five brothers -- the Sanders brothers. One of them was the president of the Social Credit constituency association and supported Jim Rabbitt when he ran against me in 1991. Of course, Jim Rabbitt didn't make it. That's the democratic process. I don't hold anything against the gentleman. Then, when the Liberal Party came to the forefront, my hon. opponent from 1991 decided he was going to switch his hat and run for the Liberal Party, and the Sanders brothers of course were there, full-fledgedly helping my opponent in his bid to try to become an MLA again.

These people are obviously sore about the fact that their candidate lost twice in a row and that I'm here representing -- in a very good way, of course -- the people of Merritt in the constituency of Yale-Lillooet. So I say: consider the source of the comment.

I must say that the comments from the member for Chilliwack were totally misleading when he stood up here in this House. His comments were totally misleading. From 1991, in regard to forestry, we have had 200 more people working in the forest industry in the Merritt area than we did in 1991. That's 200 more people, and he was talking about job losses.

Also, the annual allowable cut in the Merritt timber supply area has gone up 25 percent. There are 250,000 cubic metres more harvested per year now than there were in 1995. I was there making the announcement over the summer when 212,000 cubic metres were announced, and six companies throughout the riding were able to access that timber. They would create 116 new jobs, additional jobs. So the member for Chilliwack is totally out to lunch when he's talking about forestry jobs in the constituency of Yale-Lillooet and in my town specifically. I would say to the hon. member: do your research before you come into this House.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, the member opposite is just droning out there. I wish he would be quiet and listen up for a minute.

I talked about the vision. I want to talk about the vision. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: If you would keep your mouth shut for awhile, you might be able to hear.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I think you know that you said something that is not parliamentary.

H. Lali: Okay, I take that back. I wish the member would be quiet. That's a little more parliamentary.

Let's talk about our vision as opposed to the negative Nellie vision from across the way. I will compare the two. This is right out of the so-called master plan that they had during the last election, from subsequent speeches they have made in the House here and prior to the election, as well as from statements that hon. members across the way have made to the various news media throughout their constituencies and the province. I want to compare the two visions.

I also want to point out that the guts of the two visions, as they were proposed in the last election, were put forward to the people of British Columbia, and they chose us over those people over there. They rejected their vision.

Here are the two visions. We decided, starting about nine months back, that we were going to cut $780 million over an 18-month period, and that we were going to make these cuts 

[ Page 2517 ]

in a humane fashion. So we were going to actually eliminate some positions, and the cuts would be in such a manner that we would not be eliminating programs and services.

Meanwhile, the Liberal plan called for cuts of $3 billion to government spending. I've already spoken about where those cuts would have hit. We also committed to eliminating 3,500 public sector positions. I believe we're at about 2,700 now; there are still some more to go. But the opposition said that wasn't enough. They were calling for 4,400 public sector jobs to be eliminated. That's what they were calling for.

We have targeted spending and government resources on medicare and also on education. As a matter of fact, we are the only province in Canada that has continued over the last six years, year after year, to increase funding for education and health. Every other province has cut on a year-to-year basis. The opposition -- when they said they were going to cut $3 billion -- was going to turn around and give $1 billion in tax breaks to big banks, their developer friends and to all those big corporations that they had support from during the election. We've also cut small business taxes by 10 percent. The opposition wanted to eliminate the corporation capital tax on big business. We know which side of the fence they're on.

There will be 22 new schools built across the province this year. But the opposition wasn't interested in building schools. They were interested in actually eliminating the school property tax on business, again helping out their friends. And one would wonder where the money was going to come from for the schools that these hon. members were asking for in their own particular ridings.

Some other aspects of our budget and, indeed, the throne speech were that we've increased the health budget by over $200 million, and we're creating 11,000 new spaces for elementary and secondary school education, and 7,000 new species. . . . Species! The hon. members across the way keep making me laugh, and I'm getting my words mixed up. It's 7,000 new spaces for post-secondary schools.

Meanwhile, their option, had they, the B.C. Liberals, been elected. . . . I'm glad the member for Matsqui is here, joining this great debate. They were offering, as part of their master plan, to eliminate the homeowner's grant. They were going to eliminate the homeowner's grant, wiping out any gains from the elimination of the school tax on property, thereby increasing taxes on homeowners across the province by $188 million in each of the first three years.

They were also going to auction off B.C. Rail to the private sector. That's probably why -- and I'd like to mention this -- they didn't win a single seat along the B.C. Rail line, except maybe in North Vancouver. They lost them all. So we know which side of the fence these folks are on. Certainly they're not on the side of average working families; they're not on the side of youth; they're not on the side of women; they're not on the side of minorities. They're on the side of big banks; they're on the side of multinational corporations; they're on the side of the rich folks that handsomely contributed to their election.

[3:45]

I'd like to talk a little bit about what the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson said right here in the House during question period and in the speeches he's made. He's gotten up several times. He's said he is opposed to gambling in this province. Meanwhile, their party took -- what was it? -- $25,000 from the gambling organizations in this province. If you truly don't believe in gambling, then send that cheque back.

He also stood up here in this House and lobbied the minister for a lottery ticket printing facility to be located in his riding. It's a $10-12 million operation. It's quite hypocritical for the hon. member to speak out of one side of his mouth and say "no gambling" and, out of the other, to say that he wants that facility and that he won't send back that $25,000 cheque his party received. That's hypocritical.

I also would like to point out that the. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: And don't put it out to tender. Exactly. Direct award, just like the Liberals direct-awarded their mailer contract to their friend and insider. There was no bidding process followed.

And now, my hon. friend from Chilliwack. Again, he stood up here in this House. He's criticized the government, and you know, he tries to make it look like he got elected because he had the best interests of the taxpayers at heart and he was going to be committed to that. Well, I just want to quote something here. I just want to talk about what he said in relation to drivers' insurance premiums and changes that were anticipated. In anticipation of that, the member for Chilliwack wrote to the Chilliwack and District Bar Association last fall, warning them to quickly file their outstanding claims against ICBC. Ignoring the burden of the current system to the taxpayers and ignoring the cost to accident victims, the member across the way attempted to score some points with his fellow lawyers.

E. Walsh: Oh, friends and insiders.

H. Lali: Friends and insiders.

Then, to legitimize his fearmongering, the hon. member for Chilliwack also falsely alleged that the government was planning an emergency session to deal with the issue. How's that for helping the taxpayers? "Get in there. Get your claims in there before it runs out." This is supposed to be somebody who's looking after the taxpayers' dollars, the hon. member there.

The hon. member for Chilliwack has also made a lot of misleading statements in the regional media and in the media in my riding. He falsely attacked the member for Mission-Kent, the hon. Minister of Human Resources, and myself. He went after. . . . Well, I'm not allowed to use the L-word, but, you know, it has something to do with not telling the truth. He was falsely accusing us by using that kind of language, using the L-word.

He wrote a letter. He actually even had a press release in the Hope Standard. I ignored him. I thought, okay, it's a young rookie here. He doesn't know; he's trying to get his feet wet; he's trying to impress his boss. So I let it go. But then he did the same thing again, falsely accusing me, using that same kind of language. I do admit that the hon. member was trying hard. I know he lacks a bit of smarts, mind you. Looks can only take him so far. He is a good-looking individual, I must say that, but looks only go so far in this business.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Take it easy, everyone. I recognize. . . .

H. Lali: I ignored him; I ignored his comments in the media. But then he did it again a third time. Until that 

[ Page 2518 ]

time. . . . I was not going to leave it alone, so I used his language. I accused him 14 times, in a letter to the editor, of the things that he was accusing the government and myself of. But I backed it up with facts. You know what, hon. Speaker? You know how he responded to that? He put his tail between his legs, and he clamped up and he ran, because he knew I was right. That's what happened.

Now, he spent all this time attacking all these NDP members that were in neighbouring ridings around him. But when it was announced that the Chilliwack courthouse was slated to be terminated, the hon. member went into an uproar. He called public meetings, he called the news media and then he wrote letters to the editor. To his credit, the hon. member. . . .

Interjection.

H. Lali: Just hang on a minute. He also wrote a letter to myself and the member for Mission-Kent. He says: "My courthouse has gone down the tube. I need your help. I want to meet with you folks. I need your help because. . . ." I had accused him in my letter to the editor, saying that he was a political lightweight -- no power whatsoever.

And you know what, hon. Speaker? He said: "I'm coming to you; I'm pleading with you. I want to meet with you because of this courthouse. I want to put this partisan issue aside. We need to really meet on this particular issue." So I said: "Okay, we'll meet." We met in Chilliwack. He said to me: "I'm glad you met with me. I want to tell you that I want to put this partisanship aside." He came crawling to me on his knees. He said: "I need your help. I cannot get that courthouse back without your help. And I need you to talk to the member for Mission-Kent. I need his help as well, because I can't do it." He was admitting defeat. He was putting his tail between his legs, and he was running. He was proving to me exactly the same thing that I was accusing him of, and that was that he was a political lightweight and didn't have any effect in Victoria. He proved it when he came with his tail between his legs, on his knees, begging me to help him.

I want to commend the member for Mission-Kent, and I also want to commend the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, who fought hard and fast and lobbied a minister along with myself to make sure that some of those courthouses did return. But the hon. member, he proved himself that he was a political lightweight. I also want to point out that so many of the members opposite. . . .

Actually, before I go into that, this member for Chilliwack has asked for more things than anybody else. On the one side he said: "Cut this, cut the deficit, control the debt. We want you to cut the spending, but not in my backyard." This is what he said. This is from his speech in the House when he first got elected. He said: "The local council and the mayor have proposed an additional crossing: not a connection to the freeway but just a flyover above the freeway at Evans Road."

He said also, right here in the House, that he wanted. . . . He said: "I think it would be worthwhile for the provincial government to take a look at what can be done with what remains of CFB Chilliwack" -- Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. He also continued to say: "I know that this government has spoken about opening a new technical university in Cloverdale; that is to be commended." He said, "I want it on the Chilliwack forces base. I want it in my riding. Take it out of the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale" -- rob one of his own friends. "Put it in mine," he says.

Then he said he also wanted the Chilliwack courthouse facility: ". . .although it has served us well, [it] is simply time-expired and overutilized. It's just overcrowded, and it has outlived its usefulness."

He wants an overpass, he wants an expansion to the UCFV college, he wants his courthouse, he wants that university technical. . . . You know, he has asked. . . . Oh, he put on a price figure. He says: "Well, I did a rough estimate. It's only going to cost $100 million to put in that university. That's all I want." I mean, he wants expansion to the college, which is tens of millions of dollars. He wants a new overpass, which is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. He wants the courthouse, which is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. He wants all of this money.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please. Thank you.

Hon. members, I think we need to cool ourselves down just a wee bit in this chamber. None of us are totally listening. There is a speaker on the floor, and we will all pay attention to what is being said, I'm sure. The hon. member for Yale-Lillooet can continue.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. In any case, let's see what some of the other members have said they wanted. Like the hypocrites those Liberals are, they've spoken about cutting the debt, cutting the deficit, cutting this program, cutting that, eliminating waste and all this. But they've all wanted something. So let's see what some of these folks wanted.

The member, again for Chilliwack, said the Chilliwack RCMP need more funding from the province to help patrol Cultus Lake during the busy summer months.

The member for Matsqui -- wait for it, he's sitting there attentively -- said that I come here. . . . He actually wanted -- what was it? -- an Abbotsford courthouse and also correctional facilities. Just a few million bucks, that's all he wanted. He's quoted in Hansard of July 18, 1996.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena, on capital spending, said: "We promised that there would $100 million a year -- over the term of government -- for new jails." He wanted just a small figure of $100 million a year. That's what he said.

Then also the member for Surrey-Cloverdale said, on schools: "They have backed away from building the Clayton secondary school. Lord Tweedsmuir school in Cloverdale is overextended in portables. . . . We need this school, as we need the Fraser Heights elementary school" -- not just one school but three new schools and tens of millions of dollars.

The member for Parksville-Qualicum said: "We want to see a lifting of the freeze and the honouring of the promises. . .for building many schools so badly needed in Nanaimo, Parksville, Qualicum and Errington." More schools, more millions -- just small amounts these folks want.

Then the member for Okanagan-Vernon said: "I would never be involved with a party that was going to slash health care and education. We need to pay for those who can't provide for themselves." More spending in education and in health, she says.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat. I see the hon. member for Matsqui is on his feet.

M. de Jong: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I think the member for Yale-Lillooet may have inadvertently left an incor-

[ Page 2519 ]

rect impression in this House when he suggested that there was a request from the member for Matsqui for, I think he said, hundreds of millions of dollars for a particular facility. As I recall, on that occasion. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, that's not directly a point of order.

M. de Jong: I'm suggesting that the member has inadvertently misled the House with respect to making that representation and would ask him to withdraw the remark.

H. Lali: There is no attempt to mislead anybody. If the member misunderstood, I said millions. I didn't say hundreds of millions.

In any case, let's go on to the next member of the opposition. On the one side: "Cut, cut, cut." On the other side: "Not in my backyard." That is the member for Okanagan West, on hospitals. She says: "There is another minor" -- minor! -- "capital project that is of concern in my constituency, and that's the construction of the new integrated intensive care unit at Kelowna General Hospital" -- more millions.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson says he wants a psychiatric unit, which Kamloops had been told was going to be located in or near Royal Inland Hospital. "I just wanted to confirm that the decision has been made in this government's mind that Kamloops will be the location of the psychiatric unit" -- more money, more money. On the one side, he says cut; on the other, he says he wants more money in his backyard -- cut elsewhere, but not in his backyard.

Again, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale said: "I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Cloverdale technical university is going to be proceeding on schedule." Well, you'd better talk to the member for Chilliwack, because he wants it in his riding. But we on this side of the House always know that the Liberals are quite confused and have no vision. They're fighting amongst themselves as to who wants the university.

The member for Richmond-Steveston says Richmond's overcrowded roads should be rescued by bringing rapid transit to the city -- more millions, more tens of millions.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, on Highway 99, says he wants government to widen and improve some dangerous sections of road north of Squamish -- more millions.

The member for Matsqui, he's up again. He says, "I will continue to lobby as effectively as I can for the major renovations required to make Mount Lehman and Clearbrook interchanges safer for the travelling public" -- more millions.

Then there is the hon. member for Shuswap. He said: "I'm not content with just mere millions; I want tens of millions." He says he wants major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway at Three Valley gap and between Sicamous and Salmon Arm.

The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale says: "The status of the Lions Gate Bridge is of paramount concern to nearly every citizen in North Vancouver. . .and I urge the government to get on with this project" -- hundreds of millions, hundreds of millions.

The member for Cariboo North says: "I just want a bypass to Quesnel, which is $25 million or $30 million."

The Liberal caucus chair -- don't feel left out, hon. member, I've got you on my list; you're in my targets. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove says: "I'm wondering what plans there might be for the 200th Street corridor, which services the Langley city area, the Walnut Grove area and the industrial area of Port Kells, where there are a large number of mills" -- again, more bundles of money they want spent.

On the one side, they want cuts. On the other side, they want. . . . I hope somebody was keeping track. I think I lost count at about $2 billion worth of projects that these people have stood up in this House and hypocritically demanded, while they've been demanding cuts on the other side.

Hon. Speaker, I see that the time is here for the next speaker.

[4:00]

Some Hon. Members: More! More!

H. Lali: More -- well, I'm glad you should ask, hon. members, because I do have more.

On capital spending, the member for Okanagan-Penticton said he wants a multilevel-care facility proposed for the community of Keremeos -- more millions. Then there's a list that's endless; it's billions and billions. I think I got the riding wrong, hon. Speaker. It's Okanagan-Boundary, so I change that.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member for Yale-Lillooet, would you take your seat? Another member has risen.

R. Thorpe: I wish, in these emotional times, as hard as it is for the hon. member to get the facts straight, that he would get the facts straight. I ask him to withdraw that comment when he in error made reference to the great riding of Okanagan-Penticton.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member for Yale-Lillooet? I'm sure we'll get the name right.

H. Lali: I think I've already corrected myself. It was the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary and not the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton. But I can see where he's coming from. He is jilted because his name was not mentioned in this list. But you can come over to my office anytime, hon. member, and I will gladly give you this list. You're on there somewhere; there's just so much.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, through the Chair. We do not use personal pronouns, particularly "you."

H. Lali: I will gladly forward the millions that this member has also asked for on other issues. It's in here in this book, and I just want to say. . . .

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton -- on what matter?

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I do not believe it is parliamentary of the member for Yale-Lillooet, who is not a new member here, to make these accusations, which are totally unfounded. I ask the Speaker to ask the hon. member to withdraw those erroneous comments.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will take these words under advisement, I am sure.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. That was not a point of order, as you are quite well aware. The point I was trying to

[ Page 2520 ]

make is that I don't want members of the opposition whose names got left out to feel jilted because their names were left out.

Interjection.

H. Lali: The member for Delta South is getting a little upset, but there'll be other opportunities.

The point I was trying to make is that, on the one side, they're saying they're going to cut $3 billion out of the budget; and on the other side, they're saying they want billions more spent. Well, they can't have it both ways. They have got to quit speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They have to come clean and be honest with the public and put out their vision. I don't see a vision. There is a vision in this throne speech, but there's no vision across the way. For once, I wish they would come into the House and be honest about what they are supposed to be representing.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the government has a great vision. I support the throne speech 100 percent, and I wish the hon. members across the way would see it.

E. Walsh: After listening to all the debate and all the responses to the throne speech and the budget speech, I've come to the conclusion that either the opposition has not been in the House while the throne speech was read and debated, or they just don't like good news. I would like to speak about some of the good-news aspects of the throne speech, just as a refresher for anybody over there who may have forgotten exactly what is in the throne speech.

The throne speech is about decent-paying wages; educating people with skills training, so that it's workable for workers out in the workplace; a health care system that's affordable and available to all British Columbians; and an environmental protocol -- environmental protection -- that we can be proud of to sustain a healthy ecosystem in the province. In a nutshell, the job strategy for British Columbia, the protection of health care and education, the support -- with a tax cut -- for B.C. families, the rate freezes, and the protection of the environment are all good news for British Columbians.

Let's talk about jobs, specifically the jobs and timber accord. In my constituency it's important to our residents that we are able to derive as much work as we can from the fibre that we produce and harvest. My constituents have said in the past that it's about time that we have. . . . Right now we enjoy a Premier in the province who has taken the initiative to work towards a jobs and timber accord. It's never been done before. I applaud the Premier for taking this on, and I know that those in my constituency also applaud the Premier for taking on this vision.

Our government is committed to increasing economic returns and job numbers with every tree that's harvested in our region and within our province, whether it be through the value-added production or whether it be through other initiatives. I also believe that it's important that the job creation initiatives from the forest companies. . . . They will also require commitments from the forest industries in order to access the public timber.

The resource and forest companies. I find this extremely interesting. In order for there to be representation for all the people of British Columbia, and especially for the working people. . . . I find it very hard to understand how the working person can be represented by the party that voted against land use planning, when the opposition has received over $1.3 million. . . . They voted against the fines for violators of the Forest Practices Code, they voted against Forest Renewal B.C., and they voted against the creation of over 200 parks and protected areas for this province. The Liberal MLAs have even supported mining in parks, and I think that is reprehensible. On the other hand, our government is re-establishing sustainability in B.C. forests today.

Our government is continuing to build cornerstones in education by including business, labour and government. We're expanding apprenticeships and training in British Columbia, and this will meet the needs of the workers and industry.

We can also be proud of the fact that our province has led the way in creating child benefits for working parents of low or modest incomes -- a model that I hope encourages the rest of Canada to follow nationally.

I have also heard complaints from the opposition regarding the ambulance service and the fee structure. Well, I don't know if they realize the history of the ambulance service, but it was the New Democrat government in the early 1970s that created this world-renowned, first-class service for British Columbia and for the people that are able to enjoy that service today. It was almost 25 years ago that this was created. I would suggest very strongly that the members of the opposition take a good look at what other provinces and other jurisdictions in the States have to pay in order to have this service which we enjoy today. Many times I have heard people say: "We could have gone to Europe and back on what we have had to pay out for those services." Well, we're lucky we don't have to do that, because we have a world-renowned, first-class service. The New Democrat government took what was a scoop-and-run service and operation, and we turned it into a first-class service for the people of British Columbia -- not just for those who could afford to take an ambulance at whatever expense but for everybody in British Columbia.

I find it appalling that the member for Delta South suggests that we deal with labour laws to the extent that. . . . He feels it's not right that we can't have a secret ballot on the issue of unionization; he finds it strange. He then goes on to suggest that we need to make the labour laws flexible. But for whom? Who do we need to make the labour laws flexible for -- the industry? Who do we make it for?

Interjection.

E. Walsh: I'm glad to hear him say "both sides." However, I believe that the labour laws are there for the workers. I believe that they're there also to ensure that workers have a good working policy, that they do have good working legislation and that they are treated fairly and equitably.

When I say, "Flexible labour laws for whom?" I have to ask again: what about the $7.2 million that they received in contributions? If I might add, 63 percent was also raised by corporations. So overall, who are these going to be flexible for? It's easy to say that it's going to be for both, but who is it?

I also find it reprehensible that the Liberals haven't proposed one single alternative to this government and not one alternative to the people of British Columbia. They are so busy watching movies and reading stories, sitting across the way talking about so many different areas that have absolutely nothing to do with governing the province -- all for the sake of name-calling, all for the sake of looking for different ways that they can turn around and twist things. I just wonder 

[ Page 2521 ]

when the Liberals will stop refighting the election battle from last year and start working for the people of British Columbia. I believe that the people of British Columbia deserve more than that. They deserve to have a working opposition, not a name-calling, negative opposition.

We've heard a lot from the Liberals on the budget, the deficit and the debt. But when a long line of Liberals demands to have increased spending on behalf of their constituents or on pet programs and capital projects right now that they may have going -- and I can think of a few that the member for Shuswap. . . . They called for a riverbank protection assistance program, substantial improvement in the ferry service at Adams Lake, increased ambulance services, increased funding for Eurasian milfoil water control, and highway improvements in the Shuswap.

Then we go on. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour called on the provincial government to bail out debt-ridden school boards. Then we go to the member for Parksville-Qualicum, who called for an increase in the Tourism special operating agency's budget, funding for sewage upgrading, an EMA 3 -- an advanced life-support system -- in his riding, and capital spending on schools and the Nanaimo regional hospital. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson promised his constituents he would advocate for a multilevel-care facility in Clearwater. The member for Cariboo North made no specific proposals but said that funding has got to be increased to keep services up.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'm finding it absolutely impossible to hear the words of what I know is a very fine speech because of the braying coming from the opposite side of the House. I would ask that all members, even those who are in their declining years with regard to hearing, have an opportunity to hear what is being said.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. I think words of wisdom will be heard by all.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member for Kootenay may continue, may she? I think so.

E. Walsh: I would like to ask: where is all this going to come from? We have constantly heard from the opposition that we have to be careful of our debt: "Watch the deficit. Look at the spending. Cut here." Yet they turn around and say: "Spend, spend some more, and spend some more." Well, I've heard so much from the opposition about Alberta and about how good. . . . It's such a good investment climate for those people who are going to Alberta, and they're always talking about businesses leaving and going to Alberta.

The Times Colonist stated very clearly that last week Premier Klein and his new Provincial Treasurer finally wrote off a debt to the tune of $244 million. Then the journalist went on to say that in this particular province, where the opposition has opposed and literally. . . . Everything on the budget has been just torn apart here -- whether it has been balanced. . . . They say: "Oh, golly gee, you know. . . ." They continue to pursue the matter. Yet with Alberta, have they even mentioned the fact that they do write off all their debts? No, they endorse the fact that the Alberta government is a very good government and that they have the greatest investment climate that anybody should want to go to.

[4:15]

What they have also forgotten to state is: "Is this what British Columbians want for British Columbia?" The Alberta government has written off a fiasco of $614 million, which is a loss to their taxpayers. They have written off from NovAtel cellular. . . . They have written off $500 million for the Swan Hills waste incinerator. They have written off $424 million for the Lloydminster heavy-oil upgrader. They have written off $225 million that was paid to extricate Alberta from Peter Pocklington and the hog-packing businesses. Well, this money comes from the taxpayer, and it doesn't matter which way you look at it. Whether it's the province of Alberta or the province of British Columbia, any debt that's written off comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.

I would like to close right now and say that I find it appalling that we have an opposition in place that hasn't contributed to the governance of British Columbia. I find it appalling that they would in fact sit on the other side and get so busy name-calling. That is not what British Columbia is about. British Columbia wants to see the work of their working people done. They want to see an effective opposition, and they want to see an effective government. In order for it to be effective, they have to be effective.

The throne speech does speak of vision; the throne speech does speak of commitment. And it speaks of protection of our environment and the people of British Columbia. I stand in total support of the throne speech.

J. Weisbeck: I rise in the House today to respond to the throne speech on behalf of my riding of Okanagan East. Although it was some time ago that the Lieutenant-Governor read this address, it's still very vivid in my mind, not so much for what it said but for what was so conspicuously absent.

It is said that this document should be respected. It's a time when all British Columbians listen to the government's plans for the upcoming year. Generally, it is a document that should give a realistic portrayal of our past, present and future expectations. Hopefully, its forecasts allow British Columbians the ability to make sound, solid and sensible decisions to meet their personal or business needs. This is not what I see evidenced. The speech was, at the least, a superficial and rhetorical diatribe. At best it was a glossy whitewashing of a government that has perpetually failed to deliver on pre-election and postelection promises. I, my hon. colleagues and the people of British Columbia listened to a litany of half-truths and statements about the performance of government, without a shred of evidence to support them.

I asked one of the visiting members in the gallery who was privileged to sit in on the speech what her general feelings and summation of the address were. The guest responded by saying that after the first ten minutes of listening to rhetoric, she began to count the number of reliefs of unclad statues that hang above the legislative chamber -- apparently there are 36. She went on to tell me how many columns and lights there are and the number of vacuum lines there were present on the carpet at our feet. This was not a spiritual experience for her, that she would raise her eyes upward. She said that the host of other features she described was not only a truthful accounting of what can be found at the seat of government but was equally as interesting as the content of the Speech from the Throne.

[ Page 2522 ]

Madam Speaker, prior to the last election I decided to do a poll in my riding of Okanagan East. Besides determining whether I would win or not, I wanted to determine what the concerns of the people of Okanagan East were, and I wanted to get a feeling for what their expectations of the government might be. Jobs were the most-often-expressed priority and concern, so I was encouraged by the emphasis on job creation by this government. But it's not the first time that we have heard the job creation plans of the NDP. When I think of this government's past record on job creation, one must view this renewed promise with a great deal of skepticism.

The record that this government has on business and job creation is reflected by the Fraser Institute in a letter to Premier Clark:

"Policies during the past five years have swelled public spending obligations while cutting away the ability of indigenous industry -- forestry, mining, secondary manufacturing and services -- to respond to the challenges posed by the revenue requirements of the government."

The forestry industry is one of the major players in meeting the revenue requirements of this province. These are real live companies out there. The 1996 annual report for MacMillan Bloedel says:

"All of our collective efforts to enhance operating efficiencies and reduce costs were overshadowed by a dramatic drop in product prices. . . . On the cost side of the ledger, timber harvesting costs in B.C. continued to escalate. Meeting the requirements of the Forest Practices Code, since its inception, has added close to $80 million to our 1996 logging costs."

These are real numbers, not numbers created by government. So we and the forest industry agree that there is a legitimate and ethical need to maintain healthy forest communities throughout British Columbia, and that a good Forest Practices Code is a necessary adjunct to that end. But this code is not only overzealous in meeting its goal; in actuality it is crippling an industry that is vital to the province.

MacMillan Bloedel goes on to say:

"The Forest Practices Code coupled with increased stumpage and royalty costs have caused the coastal B.C. forest products industry to become non-competitive. We are currently involved in industry discussions with the provincial government to obtain relief from a burgeoning bureaucratic regulatory process and a level of stumpage costs that is 160 percent more than in Quebec and 60 percent more than in Ontario."

The NDP promised that they were committed to the generation of jobs and the revitalization of the forest industry. They were so confident about the health of the industry that they projected income to the province far in excess of what the industry could deliver. Their commitment to jobs fell so short of their promises that when pre- and postelection promises were put into practice last year, we saw the loss of 5,500 jobs in this industry. And an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 more jobs are to be lost in the current fiscal year due to an unworkable and burdened Forest Practices Code -- a code which dramatically escalates the costs of production. Costs have risen 75 percent under the NDP. Members of the industry have predicted a decrease in the number of hours of operation and, ultimately, the closure of more mills.

The argument has always been that governments don't create jobs; private enterprise, corporations and small business create new jobs. The role of government has been to create an environment which attracts these corporations and individuals to either expand their current business or create new ones. An environment free of encumbrances will, at the end of the day, allow business to prosper and make a profit.

What the throne speech didn't say is what our track record really is in B.C. It is often said that Alberta's biggest advantage in attracting business is B.C.'s politics and policies. Alberta has a very positive and supportive role towards business. They have cut red tape, lowered corporate and personal taxes, and offered the kinds of incentives to business that causes business, the economy and the people of Alberta to flourish.

B.C.'s corporation capital tax and marginal tax rate of 54 percent have kept business out of this province. In fact, it has caused business to flee this province. The result of this kind of suffocation by the B.C. government is that of all new businesses that entered this country last year, British Columbia attracted only 6.6 percent, while Alberta attracted 27 percent.

Having said all this, let us assume that the successful model that has evolved from the Netherlands is a practical guide for the role of government in job creation. Not too long ago, Holland faced exactly the same gloomy economic outlook that we in British Columbia face today: an increasing debt, comprehensive social services, unemployment figures that fluctuated between 12 and 17 percent, increasing labour unrest and disputes, and a sluggish and struggling economy. They were burdened with heavy public spending, and again, not unlike B.C., spending far exceeded revenue. Today the Dutch can boast the strongest economic growth in Europe and among the lowest unemployment rates -- between 4 and 6 percent. And, since 1994, it has planned for and has been delivering on 100,000 new jobs every year.

Thomas Mayer, a German economist, noted that the Dutch economic trend runs counter to the prevailing notion that smaller European countries are not masters of their own fate. The Netherlands have proved there is a life independent of the heavyweights when you do things right. A Dutch cabinet minister said that the key to their success lay in a number of strategies that were directed by consistency and consensus, and that all emphasis must be placed on work. Last year the Netherlands could boast of not a single strike or lockout, low unemployment and a high standard of living. What has this done to the leader of the country's biggest union? His approval ratings are among the highest of any European leader. I would suggest that this government could learn a lesson from the Dutch model.

I have heard, inside and outside this House, the contempt the NDP has for business. I have heard corporation-bashing from members opposite. Governments cannot demand that jobs be created in the private sector; it must facilitate them. Just as it cannot demand a better economy, it must create one. It is time that B.C. started winning the war against unemployment. It is time that business, labour and government sat down and had some serious discussions. We must work together so we can show business that we want them and their workforce to succeed and prosper, and show all British Columbians that we are committed to providing them with a high quality of life.

We expect that governments and educators will be accountable and that education will be affordable. It is not sufficient to desire the best in education if one's intentions are not backed up by a comprehensive plan. Due to the fiscal stresses that are being felt by Canadian provinces and hence universities, we are at a crossroads. We must not only meet the historical challenges of providing current levels of education but also the challenges of the continuing declines in funding, while providing alternatives that will enhance an increasing accessibility to post-secondary education for all British Columbians -- and also an increase in quality and diversity within the educational spectrum.

The strategic plan for the future of British Columbia's colleges and institutes is set down by the Ministry of Educa-

[ Page 2523 ]

tion, Skills and Training in a document called "Charting a New Course." It's a comprehensive document that utilizes factual educational data that has been collated from 1992 until the present. Not unlike the throne speech, the rhetorical content of the document is overwhelming. The general flavour is a resounding pat on the back for the accomplishments and the sensitivity of the NDP's advancements towards providing an eclectic educational road map toward our future. The document lacks both substance and commitment.

The important thing to note is that while the document "Charting a New Course" alludes to the maintenance of quality standards for curriculum development, affordability and diversity, it will do so only if the fiscal environment of British Columbia is such that additional funding in no way infringes upon agendas in other political areas. Within the section on altered fiscal framework, it suggests that the fiscal environment is becoming more constrained, with implications for both access and affordability within the college, institute and agency systems. The ministry goes on to say that while they want the best for B.C., post-secondary funding is unlikely to increase in its relative importance in the provincial budget. This is the NDP commitment. I suggest that this statement by the NDP nullifies all previous commitments to post-secondary education.

An Hon. Member: What were you going to do in your economic plan?

J. Weisbeck: We were going to support post-secondary education with an increase in funding.

An issue that has sparked a tremendous amount of attention lately is no-fault insurance. Certainly it's one of the issues in my riding that I've had more input on than anything else. We all understand that the underlying characteristic of no-fault automobile insurance is that the same benefits are paid, according to a fixed schedule, both to those who cause the motor vehicle accident and those who are innocent victims of an accident.

Our current system ensures that innocent victims of an accident are entitled to full monetary compensation for their pain and suffering, economic losses and funding for any medical care they may require. I believe that most British Columbians would agree that the same cannot be said for no-fault, because you lose the right to sue for any additional claims beyond the fixed schedule. No-fault does not mean lower premiums. Generally, most jurisdictions that have introduced no-fault systems have witnessed increased premiums.

[4:30]

I and the people of British Columbia would like to know the real reason the NDP is considering the no-fault scheme. Is it because ICBC has $5 billion it its reserve funds -- funds that are currently designated to pay off claims and legal fees? ICBC's latest annual report suggests that with a no-fault system in place, this government would be able to tap into the $4.6 billion reserve fund. Under such a system. . .

An Hon. Member: We'd never do that.

J. Weisbeck: Yeah, like you did with FRBC.

. . .claims are paid on a take-it-or-leave-it basis from a government-mandated rate schedule. With this kind of system in place, the NDP could order ICBC to pay a dividend to the provincial treasury, exactly as the NDP did with the Forest Renewal fund. I caution the hon. members before me here today: don't think that British Columbians will buy into your no-fault insurance product, no matter what name you choose to call it.

Based on what Mr. Petter calls prudent economic assumptions, the NDP continues to have a huge impact on the municipalities of British Columbia. The provincial government cannot continue to make themselves look good by downloading their responsibilities. In my own riding, we have already seen a $2.2 million cutback in grants. Will this government give the electorate of British Columbia something back so they can pay for the additional municipal taxes that will be the result of downloading? With the announcement of further reductions of $1 million, the municipal government in my riding, like every other riding in B.C., will have to ask the people of Kelowna to dig even deeper into their pockets to pay for the debts of this government. These types of bullying tactics not only destroy the lines of communications between the varying levels of government, they also destroy the faith of the people who elected them and who they must be committed to serve.

In closing, I would like to say that we -- and I include the members opposite -- have a challenge to go into our ridings and tell our constituents that we will oppose any use of the FRBC funds that is contrary to its original purpose, that we will oppose the expansion of gambling, that we will oppose no-fault insurance and having people's rights taken away, that we will pursue a debt management plan so that our children are not saddled with more debt, and that we will give answers that are direct and truthful, no matter how painful.

D. Symons: I appreciate this opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. You will note that this is really the seventh throne speech from the NDP, or maybe it's one speech that I've heard seven times over the past six years. I say seven because we actually had two throne speeches last year. These throne speeches are all somewhat similar, you must admit. There are rosy predictions for the coming year. There's a commitment to protect health care, education is a priority, and there's promise of more jobs. There's a reduction in the size and cost of government and, above all, they will deliver -- or so they say -- prudent financial management. These are like catchphrases put into a computer and then mixed around and regurgitated annually for their throne speeches.

There's nothing wrong with having a throne speech bring about optimism for what the government is going to do in the coming year. But I think that that optimism must be based in some fact and some commitment to carry through those promises they make in the throne speech, and that's the concern I have with this particular throne speech. You may remember that a year ago -- June 25, 1996 -- the government brought in a throne speech for its new mandate. On page 17 of that throne speech it says: "A new role for MLAs. The priorities I have outlined involve many challenges, and British Columbians have sent a clear message that they expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions." It goes on to say: "There will also be a new Crown Corporations Committee of the Legislature, modelled on the Public Accounts Committee and chaired by a member of the opposition." The reason for that was that they were going to give members of this chamber an opportunity to work together and to have a strong, effective voice on behalf of their constituents. That was in the throne speech one year ago.

What about that Crown Corporations Committee? It met once. At that one time they chose the Chair. Nothing in the remaining year has ever been referred to it. With Crown 

[ Page 2524 ]

corporations. . . . We had some problems with B.C. Hydro a year ago, you may remember. We've had problems with B.C. Ferries, with B.C. Transit and other Crown corporations, but nothing has been referred to the Crown Corporations Committee that this House set up year ago. So that promise of the Premier a year ago that there would be a new Crown Corporations Committee to increase involvement of every member of this Legislature and ensure that they have a strong and effective voice on behalf of their constituents was not fulfilled. It was an easy commitment for them to fulfil, but they didn't do it. So I think that's the problem with throne speeches. There's a lot of nice-sounding things in them, but they have to materialize into something positive afterwards, and this government has a habit of not doing that.

So how can we evaluate the throne speech? Primarily, I think, by the past performance of those who were giving this speech. You may remember that the present Premier of the province was Finance critic and Finance minister in days gone by. In 1992, that Premier -- then Finance minister -- promised cuts in staff reductions. We note now that between 1991 and 1992, the civil service staff stood at 28,000. In 1996-97 it's 41,075. So we find that instead of reducing staff, as he talked about back in 1992, we have indeed increased it by a substantial amount. They had two rounds of cuts and reductions, yet spending and hiring went up.

More recent history: one year ago the NDP boasted about two balanced budgets. In his budget address the Finance minister said it would be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row: jobs will be up, debt will be down, health care and education will be protected, and there will be tax relief for small businesses and middle classes. Do those words have a familiar ring to them? Except for the business of a second balanced budget, they're repeated in this year's address. In fact, in one form or another, the same statements have been made year after year.

We found that the balanced-budget claims were false. Both were deficit budgets. The 1995-96 budget predicted a surplus of $114 million. Later on it was revised to a $16 million surplus, but in reality there was a $396 million deficit. The 1996-97 fiscal year just ended. They predicted an $87 million surplus, and that became a $395 million deficit. That's a miscalculation of almost half a billion dollars. This year the government is predicting a deficit of $185 million, and in this year's budget they're also suggesting that they have reduced spending by $100 million. Well, we've seen what happened to their previous predictions on debts and deficits and surpluses, so we'll have to wait until the end of the year to see what happens to the $185 million deficit they predicted this year.

But what we can look at is that other figure they've claimed. They claim to have reduced spending by $100 million. So going by past performances, we have to look very, very carefully at such claims. And what do we find when we do that? We find some more sleight of hand on the part of this government. We find that they've accomplished this fiscal miracle -- for the NDP, at least, it's a miracle -- by a sideways shift by a shifty government. They've shifted $70 million out of the Highways ministry into the TFA, for rehabilitation. They've shifted $20 million from Tourism into a new Crown corporation. They've shifted $100 million for silviculture which normally came under Forestry, over to FRBC. All of these moneys now add up to more than the $100 million they've claimed they've reduced spending by. They have taken all of these out of ministries that were counted last year as part of the budget and shifted them into other responsibilities, so that they can claim they've had a spending reduction. It's really just shifting into other areas moneys they normally spend in the budget.

That adds up to almost $200 million shifted off the books to other agencies. It's not reducing spending; it's increasing spending, and it's hidden by cooking the books. And that's not counting the $113 million reduction in municipal grants -- a direct downloading onto property owners and renters in this province. If the books were kept the same way this year as they were last year, the spending would be $250 million more, not $100 million less, as this government, in its fancy bookkeeping, claims.

It's a shifty government; it's shifting the numbers around. If the books were kept the same way this year as they were five years ago, the deficit would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800 million, not the $185 million claimed. Most of the NDP's claims are based on fudging the numbers rather than changing their taxing-and-spending habits. It is a shame for this government and this province to go out to the fiscal communities around the world looking for financing when we have that sort of mismanagement of our figures before us. It's no longer the NDP; it's the MDP -- the Mounting Debt Party. In spite of tax and fee increases of over $1 billion in the first two years of the NDP's reign of fiscal mismanagement, the provincial debt continues to rise, and it's up another $1.4 billion this year.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Social Credit Party had something they called the taxpayer protection plan that they brought in in 1991. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, then Finance critic and now Premier, said at that time:

"This Social Credit government, during its four-year term in office, has raised taxes on middle-income and working British Columbians and introduced an unprecedented degree of unfairness in our tax system. Now they claim with a straight face that they're going to freeze taxes if they get re-elected. The Socreds have run up huge spending increases in their last two budgets in a fruitless attempt to buy their own re-election."

That sounds precisely like what we saw in the last year in British Columbia.

The member went on to say: "But if the government feels it needs legislative constraints to make them behave more responsibly, then we" -- the NDP -- "on this side have no difficulty supporting those restraints." So they supported the Taxpayer Protection Act. But what did this government do as soon as they were elected in 1991? In the first session of parliament after that, they repealed it and they made it retroactive to December 31, 1991. Those hollow words promised they would support it. When they had a chance to be at the helm of the financial control of the books of this province, they repealed the taxpayer protection plan, and we have seen the debt and the deficit of this province bloom ever since.

The Finance critic became the Finance minister in 1991, and in his first budget on March 26, 1992, he increased the sales tax and the personal income tax rate, he placed a new levy on legal bills, and he introduced a number of commodity revenue measures, including an increase in the jet fuel tax -- which they recently lowered -- and higher liquor taxes and ferry fare increases, which they've done again: new taxes and fees worth $800 million to general revenue, out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia in those first two years of the fiscal mismanagement of this NDP government.

[4:45]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

While taxing more, they were also spending more, and the provincial debt continued to grow. In 1992 the provincial 

[ Page 2525 ]

debt stood at $20 billion, and it's now estimated to be $31 billion, an increase of $11 billion in just six years. This government has not shown any ability to manage the fiscal interests of this province: an increase of $1.4 billion in provincial debt in this budget this year alone. The budget talks, by the way, of real progress in placing the province's finances on a sound, substantial path. That's in this year's budget speech. If they believe a $1.4 billion increase in debt is real progress, then we're in serious trouble.

This government has set a financial mismanagement record: six years of consecutive deficits. This, from a Premier who when in opposition said that balancing a budget was easy, that nothing could be simpler: "It's a piece of cake" -- or words to that effect. Well, by his own admission, then, he was a miserable failure as a Finance minister, and two Finance ministers who have followed have done no better.

Don't misinterpret what I have said as implying that I'm against spending on schools and health care. That's not the case. What I am against is the deception, the misinformation, the fudging and the distortion to hide the facts. We want the truth. The public should be able to trust their politicians, not mistrust them. They want straight talk, not Orwellian doublespeak. They need truth-in-budget legislation and balanced-budget legislation, both being proposed by the Liberal opposition.

People need to know that government can be trusted. Government talks in the throne speech of governing in the context of prudent fiscal management. Well, from what I've just said, we realize that this has not materialized in the past, and I doubt very much whether this government can make it happen in the future. They have discarded the debt management plan of a few years ago in favour of what they now call a financial management plan. There's very little change in the words and, I rather suspect, very little change in the results.

The throne speech on March 22, 1995, said: "Nothing symbolizes our progress more than how our government and people have moved to bring peace to our woods, and found solutions with typical British Columbia spirit and vigour." Well, that peace in the woods may have come about because of the way this government has handled the forest industry in this province. They're shutting it down, and the peace may indeed be from quiet in the woods where nothing's taking place.

Instead of the 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector, indicated by the Premier, we're looking at the possibility of a loss of 10,000 jobs. Government member after government member on that side of the House has got up over the last few weeks and talked about the Liberals and said we were against forest renewal. I would suggest that each member over there who said that should go back and look at Hansard when forest renewal was being discussed in this Legislature. Read our comments during the debate on that particular bill and you will find that we supported the concept, but we doubted whether the NDP were capable of putting it into practice.

We were concerned that the NDP would use it as a slush fund. We were concerned that Forest Renewal programs would become another NDP-bloated bureaucracy. When we look at the 75 percent or more that's spent on administration rather than going out to the communities that need help, we see that that's true. We were concerned that funds would be diverted from FRBC to fund ministry programs, and that has happened.

In short, we didn't have much faith that what was being said would be what would happen. We were given a guarantee that these programs would be incremental and that no politician would dare put their grubby hands into that fund. We found that all of those concerns we had were well founded. Our vote against the legislation has been justified on the basis of the concerns we expressed at that time.

The quote I read from the 1995 throne speech went on to talk about this government's open and consultative ways. It said: ". . .open dialogue requires a government confident in the wisdom of the people it serves, that believes the frictions of debate are healthy and natural and not to be hidden. Only through that kind of debate can common ground be found, balance attained." Well, one might ask where that consultative process was in the recent municipal grant cuts. In 1994 we had a Local Government Grants Act passed by this government. That act promised that consultation would take place with communities. Where was it in dealing with the capital projects freeze and the thaw charade that followed it? Where was it when we were dealing with the cuts to local government? It wasn't there. That confidence in dialogue now seems to be diminished somewhat.

Where's the consultation and confidence in dialogue over no-fault auto insurance? Where's that consultation and dialogue over expansion of gambling? We've heard nothing but doublespeak from the government on those issues. The throne speech is strangely silent on those two issues. The Premier could clear up the confusion, the uncertainty and the concern with a solid statement that they will not go for no-fault insurance and that they will not expand gambling. That has not been said. In no-fault, they referred to modifications to the present system. They're weasel words. In reality, they are a threshold no-fault system.

It's interesting that this government appears to be against tobacco addiction, yet it's anxious to promote gambling with its potential for addiction, also. To me, that seems like a real contradiction.

Now, maybe I missed it somewhere in the throne or budget address, but I didn't see any mention of the reduction to municipal grants -- a $113 million or 28 percent reduction. Maybe that was included in the words that said funding for other activities would be eliminated. This, after the government introduced the Local Government Grants Act in 1994, an act that was supposedly bringing certainty, stability, predictability. Those words were used by members when they were introducing the act for those grants. With this government, certainty apparently means less than three years. Who can believe anything they say?

Only last year the NDP signed an understanding with the UBCM that promised consultation on matters affecting municipal governments. That agreement was broken only six months later. How can anyone have any faith in anything this government says or does? It's difficult to believe anything this government says, signs or does. What was said yesterday is no longer valid today.

For Richmond, that grant reduction was severe. Last year the grant was $5.6 million. This year it has been reduced to $1.9 million, and that is a 66 percent reduction. That's a direct download onto the taxpayers, the homeowners and the renters in Richmond. Make no mistake: since Richmond has been managed very well fiscally -- unlike this government -- that downloading will translate into either tax increases or reduction of services, or possibly both.

I have similar concerns over this government's treatment of education. They talk of commitment to education and of a priority of increased funding. How does that translate on the 

[ Page 2526 ]

ground? Well, to our students in Richmond it means $40 less per pupil in funding this year. The government's increase in funding doesn't keep up with growth. Therefore there's less funding on a per-pupil basis. Over 92 percent of the Richmond school board's budget goes for salaries, teachers, administration, custodial and support staff. There's not much flexibility in those numbers; there's no fat there. Less than 8 percent goes for heat, light, books and other necessities. There is no fat. There are no patronage appointments. There are no $1,000-a-day consultants for Richmond. There are no $70,000 travel expenses for teachers and the school board in Richmond. There is no $7 million policy and communications secretariat. There's none of those, just hard-working people trying to educate our students, our children.

I would like to quote from a couple of letters that have been sent to the government. The first one is from the B.C. School Trustees Association that was sent on March 25 to the Minister of Education, Skills and Training. It says: "The bottom line is there is less money for each student [provincewide] -- $43 less per student than was available last year to support education." And it goes on to say, further down:

"As school boards meet to face the devastating cuts in our communities, we will not allow comments such as 'efficiencies can be found without affecting students' to go unchallenged. Our students will be affected, and school boards are struggling to do everything possible to lessen the impact on them, but there will be an impact for students and employees."

That's from the School Trustees Association. There's also a quote here from the Richmond school board which says much the same. They've sent a letter to the Minister of Education, as well.

Hon. Speaker, you may remember that a short while ago we had a capital freeze, and it affected Richmond schools considerably. There were a number of projects put in that freeze. Four of Richmond's schools were on the ministry's top ten schools as far as priority goes. When the first rounds of cuts were taken out of the freeze, none of those schools were announced as going ahead. Later on they were. At that time, I sent a letter to the Minister of Education, asking some questions, which I think are important to read into the record here. In that letter of February 6, 1997, I said:

"In order to understand the rationale for the ministry's decision, I am requesting the following information: the criteria used in determining which school projects would proceed; any study/report/documentation done on the 11 approved projects, particularly indicating how these projects met the ministry's criteria" -- I think these are fair questions to ask when they're taking schools out of the freeze -- "any study/report/documentation done on the following Richmond schools: Hugh McRoberts, J.N. Burnett, Palmer, McNair, Alberta Road Secondary, particularly indicating in which way these projects met the criteria and in which way they failed to meet the criteria to be approved.

"Richmond school board has been in discussions with the ministry over extended hours and other cost-saving measures, as well as being one of the few districts to adopt Bill 43. In what way has Richmond, in comparison with other districts, fallen short in working with the ministry to address the capital needs of Richmond schools?"

Now, if this capital freeze was done for the reason stated, for evaluating them -- it was put in place while they did an evaluation of the projects -- you would think the answers to those questions would be forthcoming. I'm still waiting; I have not yet received an answer. So you would have thought that in doing their evaluations of projects and looking for cost-savings, all of the questions I asked would have been something they would have addressed. They would have looked at Richmond schools and all the other projects they had, and they would have a ready answer to that letter which I sent to the minister. As I say, I'm still waiting.

Now, how about cutting back on the hundreds of patronage appointments and cutting back on the growth of government, the HCL agreement and other restrictive bidding practices before reducing per-pupil allotments, or until hospital wait-lists are significantly reduced? That would show this government's commitment to education and health care in this province. They have not done it.

Richmond has also suffered because of the threatened courthouse closures. I think that's a coercion to further download costs onto the city, and that's something that should be considered as well.

Something else we have to look at is the idea that was introduced by this government when it was in opposition, but was strangely silent on after it was elected: the idea of what we'll call whistle-blower legislation. Indeed, one of the backbenchers from the NDP introduced it a few years ago, but it has never come before the House and it has never been passed. There's a lack of movement by the government on this particular issue.

Now, what would whistle-blower legislation do? Well, hon. Speaker, if we had such legislation, it would protect the person who disclosed where government departments were being dishonest or breaking the law -- on the part of the employer. It would protect them from retribution from their employer. This may be the sort of thing we need in this province today so that when the government is doing things wrong, employees of the provincial government have a way of passing on that information so that those wrongs can be corrected.

In California, they have something called the Reporting of Improper Government Activities Act. It protects public sector whistle-blowers, and it also provides for both civil and criminal action against anyone who tries to prevent legitimate whistle-blowing. I would strongly suggest that the government bring in similar legislation for B.C.

I also have concerns over possible restrictions or changes to the Freedom of Information Act this government brought in a few years ago. That act is a step in the right direction, but there are quite a few exemptions that seem to keep a lot of things that maybe shouldn't be exempted away from the public eye. We find that the deaths of children in care of the government, or the secret dealings of the former chair of B.C. Hydro, are really still hidden from the public through the current Freedom of Information Act. Indeed, Robyn Allan's driving record was also hidden. When that came out, what did ICBC do? They went looking for the person who let the information out. Rather than look at the fact that they had a problem there, they went looking for the whistle-blower.

[5:00]

We find that good government speaks for itself. It does not require expensive and deceptive newspaper ads, paid for by the taxpayer. As well as newspaper ads, we have videos and radio ads. An ad of this sort says: "More jobs, less spending, health care and education protected. A budget that meets your priorities." Forty thousand new jobs in B.C. this year? If we add up the jobs that this government has created over its lifetime, we'd probably get more than the population of British Columbia. They talk about the fact that they're now reducing spending and so forth, which as I pointed out earlier is a misrepresentation at best.

Good government speaks for itself. If it's good, the newspapers report it. If it's not, the newspapers report otherwise. Maybe we could take a look, if we want to know how the 

[ Page 2527 ]

government has been doing, at what some of these newspaper headings say. I'll simply read a heading. Mr. Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun, March 27, said: "A Sneaky Three-Step Keeps the NDP Dancing Around its Red Ink." Or, in the Province editorial of Wednesday, March 26, under the heading of "Truth or Dare," it says: ". . .this budget shows no evidence that the NDP is ready to take the bold steps necessary to attract new investment." Yet they talk about job creation. Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun reporter, said on March 26: "Sleight-of-Pen Means Debt Looks Lighter" -- and I referred to that sleight of pen earlier. And they talk about debt control. This is the Vancouver Sun, also on March 26: "Debt Control Missed Targets by $2 Billion."

As I look at this government's record -- its broken promises, its fiscal mismanagement, its downright incompetence -- I'm reminded of a note that a parent sent to school. Supposedly this is an actual note that had been sent to a school somewhere, which I read in a magazine. It said: "Dear School, Please excuse John being absent on June 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33." I would rather think that the person who wrote that note must be someone that's now working as an adviser for the NDP.

We've heard some real misrepresentations from the NDP on the other side of the House. We've heard them talking about our forest renewal. I heard the member for Yale-Lillooet earlier referring to some statements I'd made in the House. But I do not believe he will find anywhere in Hansard where I've said, "Build the rapid transit to Richmond," as he implied. What I've said is that the GVRD had a set of priorities when they brought in the Transportation 2021 plan, which was financed partially by the government, and this government simply ignored it and put in things on a political basis rather than on a need basis. I have concerns about that.

Also, we heard that same member talk about a mailer that the Liberals did. I will freely admit that the Liberals did a mailer. But you know, hon. Speaker, we're not the only party in this House that does mailers. We have the NDP MLAs at work doing not a mailer but mailer after mailer after mailer -- roughly on a three-week basis, over and over again, at public expense.

So I thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I had a very few more comments to make, but I will simply say that one heading that was in a newspaper recently said: "Reagan Wins on Budget, But More Lies Ahead." I think no further comment is needed.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to rise in my place and speak in favour of this government's throne speech. This throne speech is about meeting the needs of British Columbians. In fact, as we head into a new century and deal with the changing economy, our priorities are those we've laid out very clearly before the public again and again. I ran on them in the last election, and I'm pleased that we continue to follow the priorities we put before the people.

We said our top priority would be job creation, and we've followed through on that. This throne speech again focuses on job creation. We said we would do everything possible -- especially in light of the federal Liberals cutting 40 percent out of medicare -- to retain a good, solid medicare system in British Columbia, and we've done that. We said we would fund education in this province to the best we were able despite the federal Liberals' cuts and the opposition Liberals' support of those cuts, and we've done that. We are again focusing on a healthy environment through reinvesting in our land base, through land use management, through things like the expanded recycling program that this throne speech contains. This is a throne speech that meets the needs and meets the priorities of British Columbians, and I'm proud to support it. The focus of the government and of this throne speech is on job creation. We want to make sure that our children have the opportunities they need to get an education and to work at decent, well-paying jobs. Let me just give some examples. Between 1986 and 1991 in the forest industry, which the opposition has so much to say about, there was a 43 percent loss of the workforce in my area -- 43 percent. This historic mismanagement. . . . We had almost daily wars in the woods, we had a cut that was going up, we had a job base that was going down, and we had threats to our international markets because the government of the day -- which is essentially the same business-funded coalition, the same corporate voice -- refused to deal with the issues of the day.

I'm proud that our government has brought in a Forest Practices Code that's taken us from the back of the pack to the front. We have stopped the international boycotts. We've put B.C. as a leader in forest management. Of course there are things to be worked out. Of course it's an evolving document. You can't make that kind of change that far overdue -- after 20 years of this kind of coalition in government -- without having to use it as an evolving document, without having to fine-tune it, without having to continue to work with industry and with workers and with communities.

The fact is that where we had conflict that was escalating in my riding and around the province, we now have relative peace. The fact is that there are more jobs for every tree cut today. The fact is that we're moving to sustainability at long last. The fact is that we have a government that's reinvesting in our forests, repairing watersheds, repairing fish habitat and, at the same time, doing something that the members opposite would never consider -- that is, working to try to protect jobs, to manage change and to create more jobs in the forests.

On every front, on every single positive, creative initiative that this government has brought in to deal with the historic problems in our forests, the members opposite have argued against them and have voted against them -- to a person. The opposition has nothing to offer but mudslinging, complaints, phony allegations, false positions. They have nothing to contribute to the debate, and I am sorry they don't.

When we introduced Forest Renewal B.C., which is an innovation that is working. . . . There are people in my riding putting roads to bed, and there are forest workers in my riding learning new skills as we clean up the Cowichan River and ensure that it will be healthy and create recreational opportunities. When we brought that in, their official responder argued -- and if they read the record, they'll find out what the member from Delta argued -- that we should leave the money with the forest companies; we should not create a vehicle where the money could go back into the forests and create forest jobs and fund forest research and do all the creative and innovative things that are happening in British Columbia. They said: "Leave it in the hands of the corporations." But I guess, when you have over 60 percent of your funding coming from the corporations, one ought to expect that.

We have another resource issue in British Columbia that this government is dealing with. The federal Liberal government, and Conservative governments before them -- the people across and their pals in Ottawa -- mismanaged our fish resource until we had a crisis. We had a crisis in the tourism industry, because people didn't come when they heard that 

[ Page 2528 ]

we had no fish. We had a crisis, and we're still working with the problems in the fishing industry, because there hadn't been any historic management.

We're dealing with that problem. We have put intense effort into that. We're looking to creating a Fisheries Renewal B.C., where we can find a way to reinvest. We're working with fisheries communities, with fish workers, to try to find a way. . . . Instead of doing what the members opposite and their counterparts in Ottawa are doing, which is to concentrate the resource in the hands of a few huge corporate owners that may not even be British Columbians, we want to support the small businesses, the B.C. businesses, the local communities and B.C. workers so we get more jobs for the catch we have in British Columbia. We want to do that, but do we hear any support from the members opposite? Listen to them: not a word. They just whine and complain. They don't have an alternative to put forward. They have nothing positive to say.

Part of the problem with the fisheries, of course, is the fact that. . . . We didn't have any management of the forest industry, and that has caused problems downstream. It's damaged our rivers and streams. We have put in place a number of measures. We have a watershed restoration program. Forest Renewal B.C. is investing in cleaning up streams and replanting and ensuring better management. We have an urban salmon habitat restoration program, which has done wonders in my riding. We have seen marvellous steps forward. In fact, the Cowichan River used to be the second highest on the endangered rivers list. It's not even on it anymore. Through initiatives of this government and working with others, we have a volunteer management committee that's working to manage that river. It's now a heritage river under the B.C. heritage river strategy. FRBC money and urban salmon habitat money have provided the resources necessary to clean up the streams that feed the river and to do a tremendous amount of work along the river.

You know what, hon. Speaker? All of those good programs that are funding those kinds of activities are the programs that these people across from us argued against and voted against. They would rather give a billion-dollar tax gift to the corporations than invest in programs that support people and communities. That's what they'd like to do.

We hear frequently from the members opposite. . . . In fact, I've just listened to a number of them talking about the fact that what you should do for job creation is cut taxes on business and cut red tape. Well, do you know what, hon. Speaker? We cut taxes on small business, just like we said we would in the campaign. We cut taxes on small businesses by 10 percent, just as we said we would in the election campaign. We provided a two-year tax holiday to help new small businesses get going, and we extended that to a third year this year. We did that, we cut taxes. Do we hear any applause from the members opposite? No, they just continue to pretend that it's not happening.

Of course, the tax cuts they're talking about on the other side are not tax cuts to small business; that's irrelevant to the people across. What they want is a massive, massive tax gift of a billion dollars to the big corporations that fund their campaign, and I think that's shameful.

[5:15]

The other issue that I just mentioned is cutting red tape. They said, "You should cut red tape for business," and we're working -- I'm working -- with the business community, small business and cooperatives to do that. You know what? We partnered with the federal government in a very positive way to create the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre. That centre provides voice response. You can phone and get an instant response. You can get a 24-hour fax-back. You can find them on the Internet. They've won prizes for their home pages -- excellent, excellent work.

We have also brought in one-stop business registration centres around the province. A number of the members opposite have them in their ridings. When a business was incorporated, they used to have to run around to four or five different offices, federal and provincial. They used to have to go and find the forms, fill them out, get them back, gather them all together, and the whole process took about two months. What we've done so far -- and stay tuned; there's more coming -- is taken that whole process. . . . We have put the forms on-line. You can walk into the one-stop business registration centre, download the forms you need, fill them out, fax them back, and within two weeks your business is registered. That is a significant cut to red tape. And do we have one word of positive response from the members opposite, who are so high on cutting red tape for business? Not a word, hon. Speaker. Not one word, because they don't really care about those things. They don't care about small business. They don't care about entrepreneurs. They don't care about cooperatives. What they want to do -- and what they used to make clear, but they're running from it like crazy -- is give a billion-dollar tax gift of our tax dollars to the big corporations.

The initiatives that our government has taken to create jobs, to foster the small business community and to make the economy grow have been very helpful in stimulating the economy. For much of the last five years we've led the way in the country in job creation. We have created an enormous amount of jobs in B.C., whereas they have been losing them in other provinces.

Let me talk just a little bit about the tourism industry. Do you know that the tourism industry in 1991 was a $4 billion-a-year industry? Last year it was a $7 billion-a-year industry, at least. We have created 23,000 new jobs -- 23,000 -- by working with small business and the tourism industry.

We introduced two things into this House. We brought in land use planning legislation that provides, for the first time ever, that the Tourism ministry and the tourism industry have a voice at the table on land use decisions. I heard about a decade ago that that was something they were looking for. Did a right-wing coalition ever give it to them? Not a chance. The NDP government provided that a few years ago, and the tourism industry has benefited from that. They are very pleased about it.

Just recently, working with the tourism industry, I brought in legislation that's still before this House -- yet to be debated -- that will create an independent agency to market British Columbia to tourism. Do you know what the critic said? He said that was sleazy. He said that bringing in world-class, leading legislation that the tourism industry is ecstatic about. . . . All they had to say was that it was sleazy. That's what the Liberals had to say about it -- not "Good job," not "Well done," not "Good for you, to respond to the small business community."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind members that they are not to speak when they are not in their seats. We should be listening to the debate that is going on, and we should have less noise in the chamber.

[ Page 2529 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: In any case, I think that the Liberals had nothing positive whatsoever to say about any of the initiatives. They don't even recognize the fact that B.C. has done very well, and that we've had 23,000 new jobs in tourism and 5,000 new businesses -- 5,000 new businesses -- over the last five years. That is significant. But not one positive word from the Liberal opposition -- not one.

I want to turn, for a moment, to the social side of the agenda. While obviously business and the economy are significant -- it's important and something the government should and does pay a tremendous amount of attention to -- you can't do that at the expense of people, as the opposition would. You can't do what they would suggest we do, which is. . . . They wanted to cut $3 billion out of government spending. They said that $6 billion was enough for medicare. That's a $1 billion reduction, the kind of thing we're seeing in Alberta and Ontario -- the governments that they would emulate, the governments that they admire, the programs that they are. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The same as they have across there.

Rather than doing that -- rather than cutting $3 billion out of the government's budget in order to deliver $1 billion to their corporate buddies -- we have instead gone in quite a different direction -- despite the federal Liberals' cut of 40 percent to medicare, which the members opposite said to cut faster and cut more. Did they work with our government to say: "Don't cut medicare. It's crucial. It's something that all Canadians, all British Columbians, depend on"? No. They said: "Cut more. Cut faster."

Despite those cuts, British Columbia has maintained funding. In fact, British Columbia funds medicare better than any other province. And there's a big gap -- something like 15 percent -- between B.C. and the next province. We're working hard to follow the recommendations of the two-year Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs: to work with experts in the field, to try to change our health care system as we move into the twenty-first century, to make sure that it meets the needs of communities, and to make sure that it meets the changing health care system and the changing medical ways of doing medicine. I mean, people used to spend two weeks in hospital for something they can do in day surgery now. We need a system that reflects all of those changes and is one we can afford to sustain and retain in this province, because it's essential for the people who live here to have a decent medicare system.

But do we get any support from the members opposite? Do we get any support whatsoever? Have they got any positive alternatives? Now they want to cut $1 billion out of medicare -- they said that $6 billion is enough -- so that they can give $1 billion to the big corporations. That's what they want to do across there, and I find that to be just a little bizarre. They have nothing positive to say -- nothing positive to say.

Similarly, we're funding education. Yes, there's never enough. But we're funding education. We've increased education while the provinces that the Liberals would follow have cut education. We've increased spending; the other provinces, by and large, have cut spending -- some of them significantly. Do we get any support from the Liberals on that? Any effort to help manage? No. They told the federal Liberals: "Cut more, cut faster, out of education too, and then we'll criticize the province for trying to deal with what's left and for increasing spending." That's what we get from this opposition.

Hon. Speaker, we have done well in job creation in British Columbia by working with the small business community, by creating opportunities, by managing our resources, by working with the businesses that are extracting our resources and by working with the communities. We have done very well. But nobody's pretending there aren't some problems and some difficulties. But instead of getting alternatives -- positive, constructive suggestions -- from the members opposite, all we hear is mudslinging, negativity and phony allegations such as the ones we heard yet again today.

One of the things our government has done that I'm really proud of is our Guarantee for Youth. The Premier has created and taken for himself a portfolio for youth, which is a first. He's had two Youth Forums. We've listened to youth, we're working to provide a more permanent voice for youth and we've put in place a Guarantee for Youth. You know, as a parent of a child -- he's not a child; he's an adult; he's gone through the education system -- I'm very, very aware that in 1991 when we became government, 20,000 young people were being turned away from our colleges and universities. That's 20,000. We've worked over the last few years. We have made the colleges university colleges, we have expanded apprenticeships, and we've worked in a variety of ways. And now there are no wait-lists. We've created new spaces, we've built the infrastructure, we've funded the system, and we've found ways so that people can now go to college and university without having to wait for 20,000 people to go first. They can go. That's significant.

We've had a tuition freeze for a year already, we've extended the tuition freeze another year, and we're working to try to keep the tuition as low as possible. And you know what the members opposite just recently stood up and said? "You shouldn't freeze tuition fees; let them rise." That's what they said: "Let them rise." They want to raise tuition fees. Of course, they also say: "You shouldn't spend another nickel that will increase the debt." The last speaker from that side complained about $1 billion of debt being added to the province's debt this year. And do you know what that is? That's schools, that's hospitals, that's roads, that's infrastructure. Those are the kinds of things we need if we're going to have a healthy society and a healthy economy into the future. Yet on the one hand they're crying for more spending every day, and on the other hand they're saying: "You shouldn't add anything to the debt." I wish they'd make up their mind.

So we've done well. There's lots to do, no question, and we would certainly welcome some positive, constructive suggestions from the other side. But we have frozen tuition fees, we have created new spaces, we've eliminated the wait-list and we've increased opportunities: training, apprenticeships -- all sorts of different ways people can get the skills they need. So we've done well there.

Of course they won't tell you this now, but while the Liberals stood up in the election and said they would increase post-secondary funding, we kind of found out that actually, if you looked at their documents, they were going to cut it. And that's the kind of thing we've seen happen in Ontario and Alberta -- the governments that they admire. I expect that would be the same thing we would see if the Liberals had their way.

You know, the Liberals are fond of standing up and making all sorts of allegations. They don't quite tell it the way it is, however. They just kind of don't get at the real facts here. We hear this opposition over here complain about tendering processes, which is pretty normal stuff. It goes through regu- 

[ Page 2530 ]

lar channels. Yet at the same time we have a member over there who is demanding a direct award of a huge contract because it's in his constituency -- a huge award.

We see them standing up in great moral dudgeon about gaming. We've undergone great processes to try to find a way to deal with that difficult issue. They stand up there and cry and complain, at the same time their campaign received a big cheque from the Great Canadian Casino Co. -- who's a high-profile Liberal, I understand, and who says that the Liberals have got the most pro-gaming policy of all the parties. Gee whiz. Well, isn't that strange!

We had the spectacle of the members opposite standing up with leaked memos about scarce resources on a sensitive Social Services child protection issue. They didn't bother to check or find out -- or maybe they did -- that it was talking about foster parents. It had nothing to do with the issue they were trying to pretend it did -- absolutely nothing.

And in the last couple of days we've had the spectacle of them making all sorts of allegations about the government providing funding to Starbucks and to Toys "R" Us. In fact, what we have is a press release from Starbucks that says that Liberal allegations are incorrect and irresponsible. I agree: they were incorrect and irresponsible. Unfortunately, they were also typical.

If you also listen to the heckling, you'll find that the Liberals would paint themselves as the great defenders of workers and communities. But do you know what? These are the people who would tear up the negotiated agreement with health care workers that protects jobs while we make health care changes. They'd tear it up. The opposition Liberal leader stood in Nanaimo and said: "We'd tear up the health accord." That's what he said. These are the people who are trying to paint themselves as pro-worker?

We hear almost daily that they want to take $70 million, by their own reckoning, out of the pockets of small contractors and people working on the Island Highway. They want to take $70 million away from those working people, because they want to go to a system where bidders on the Island Highway use family incomes as a bargaining chip. That's what they stand for. How dare they say they're pro-worker. How dare they say they represent working people, when they want to take $70 million out of the pockets of those Vancouver Island people who are building the Island Highway with local contractors, local business and local workers. How dare they say they're pro-business.

[5:30]

Of course, Bill 19, which the Socreds brought in and which the International Labour Organization -- an arm of the United Nations -- branded as totally biased and oppressive. . . . That's what they want to bring back. They want to go back to the kind of labour legislation that the former right-wing coalition -- the former right-wing coalition that looked a lot like this one -- brought into British Columbia and that in fact was an embarrassment in the world, because the ILO said it was unfair and oppressive to working people. That's what these people want to return to. And they stand up and say they represent working people? I don't think so. That's a little tough to take.

And what about minimum wage? We raise the minimum wage. Every time we raise the minimum wage, they squeak, they whine, they complain. They say it's going to do all sorts of terrible things, and they say the best thing you can do for young people is drive the minimum wage down so they can't possibly live on it. Let's go down to a low-wage, low-value economy. Let's drive it down to the bottom, and somehow youth will be better off.

I ran into a heavy-duty Liberal in one of my tours, and he was saying: "Why don't you bring back that discriminatory, unconstitutional wage rate, where you discriminate against young people by paying them less than the minimum wage? In fact, you should drive minimum wages down. Young people would welcome it." Of course I said: "Hogwash -- absolute hogwash! One of the best things we've done is get the minimum wage up to where people can at least make an attempt to live on it, and we're going to increase it. We've made a commitment to do that." So I walked out of that room -- it happened to be at a university -- and I stopped the first young person I met, and I said: "You know, there's a person in here who just said that we should lower the minimum wage and bring in a discriminatory wage for youth. What do you think?" And he said: "I couldn't live on it. Why would they do that? I couldn't live on it; I'm struggling now. I couldn't go to school." I said: "Thank you."

The people across here, the Liberals, want to drive down the minimum wage. They want to get rid of the employment standards that protect workers; they want to gut the Labour Code and bring it back to the old, discredited Bill 19; they want to get rid of negotiated agreements that keep Island people working on the Island Highway and Island businesses working on the Island Highway. They'll tear up anything that looks like fair wages or increased apprenticeship opportunities, yet they stand there and say that they represent workers. I find it a little hard to stomach.

Of course, that's another little game that Liberals play. You know, a thousand people were working on the Island Highway. It comes and goes, but they would tell the public -- in fact, they have told the public -- that those are all union members, and they've said that every company that works there is a union company. They say that somehow, by negotiating a deal between the construction trades -- the unions and the businesses -- the construction companies that provide B.C. jobs for B.C. tax dollars, that provide for a decent wage, decent working conditions, no strikes, no lockouts. . . . They call that, and have called it for years, a sop to union workers.

While I stand behind trade unions and trade union workers, the fact is that that kind of agreement is necessary precisely because they are not union workers and precisely because they don't have the protection of a union. If you don't have some sort of protection, what we've seen in the past -- and I'm sure we would see again -- is that with the blessing of the B.C. Liberals, some companies would use family wages as a bargaining chip in the bidding game, and that's absolutely unacceptable.

I am proud of this throne speech, and I'm proud of the budget that puts flesh on the bones of the throne speech. It carries through on our commitment to jobs, to medicare, to education and to a clean environment. Those are the commitments we've made, and I'm proud that we're keeping them. They're the priorities of the people of British Columbia as we move forward into the twenty-first century.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to take my place in the debate on the throne speech today. I was listening with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. There were some remarks that I took quite an exception to, and I'd just like to tell you about a few of them.

She said the Liberal opposition would give tax dollars to big corporations. Well, it seems to me that her ministry was 

[ Page 2531 ]

giving tax dollars to big American corporations with the phony job training programs. Small Business -- her ministry -- has cut funding to chambers, cut the businesswomen's advocate and cut all the business programs in her ministry. This is a minister that is perhaps committed to small business, but it doesn't look like it. This minister said that they have created jobs -- short-term, low-paying McJobs. Fifty-eight hundred jobs were lost in the forest industry sector alone last year.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

What about money? What about money management? What has this government done? The deficit is up, the debt is up, debt payments are up, and there are six consecutive deficit budgets. Now, is that something to be proud of? I don't think so. This government has the forest industry on its knees, and the mining industry is our biggest export to Mexico and Chile. Those are jobs that are gone.

Why would the opposition support these bad decisions -- this incompetent management of the public trust? There's no way. So the minister's talk about how wonderfully this government is doing about creating jobs and encouraging small business and managing the financial affairs of this province is simply not true. Everyone knows that. They certainly know it by now.

The throne speech that this government has delivered talks about vision and a way of life, and the priorities of the government for the coming year. But they've made these promises before, and we'll likely hear more of them as the bills are debated and as members rise to speak to the throne speech. The questions we should ask are: Are people better off than they were last year? Have government services remained or increased? Have taxes gone down? Have jobs increased? I don't think so. I think most people would say: "No, we're not better off today than we were last year."

Let's look at the government priority of providing the opportunity for work at decent-paying, family-supporting wages, and I absolutely support that. We all do. We all want to see people working at decent-paying, family-supporting wages. But is that happening? No, it isn't. We look at some of the initiatives. The government wants to create 40,000 jobs, and when the Premier talks about creating jobs, he means bigger government -- more government jobs for friends and insiders.

The B.C. increase in unemployment is the fastest-rising in the country. There were 12,800 jobs lost in February and 21,000 in the first three months of '97 alone. Our exports have fallen in Asia and western Europe, and Alberta attracts 27 percent investment, compared to British Columbia's 6.6 percent. So there's something wrong here; these numbers don't add up. Alberta is doing far better than British Columbia, and British Columbia has far more assets and certainly far more opportunities for jobs and for wealth creation in this province.

However, government policies and legislation are killing jobs and economic development in this province, and there has been example after example. Every time you pick up the paper, you see more jobs leaving the province and more industry leaving the province. The forests are traditionally our biggest employer and our largest contributor to the economic wealth of this province. As I said, they are on their knees, and the KPMG study has confirmed this.

According to this study, the B.C. forest industry lost about $250 million last year, and they are forecast to post another $450 million in losses this year. They have blamed the higher stumpage charges and costs of complying with B.C.'s new Forest Practices Code. I'm going to talk about that a bit later. The forest companies are paying an average of $86.74 a cubic metre for the B.C. timber they turn into lumber, pulp, paper and other products -- a jump from an average of $49.57 that they paid in 1992. These kinds of increased costs aren't sustainable.

With the government talking about a jobs and timber accord. . . . No one's arguing that we need to have a more efficient forestry industry, that we need to provide jobs and that we need to have private-public partnerships to provide those jobs and economic development in this province. You can't threaten -- you shouldn't threaten, as this government has done -- cutting rights in exchange for jobs, and that is apparently what the Premier has been saying.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Blackmail, hon. member, is what it's called. It's called blackmail.

An Hon. Member: Whose trees are they?

L. Stephens: Hon. member, they're not your trees. They are the trees of the people of British Columbia, and they are not the exclusive preserve of any particular government or government ideology, which appears to be the case with this NDP government.

A number of the members of this caucus travelled on a northern tour, and we visited some of the areas around the province. We were in Chetwynd, Burns Lake, Fort St. John, Smithers, Terrace, Dawson Creek and Prince George, and we stopped at Grande Prairie in Alberta to listen to what they had to say, being a B.C.-Alberta border town. A number of the government members should have made a similar tour, particularly the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. I think she would have found some answers to her question about what we would suggest on what should be done or what kinds of government policies should come forward.

It's obvious that the government hasn't been listening, because the people in the north certainly told us what they were wanting and needing. What they said to us was: "We're going to tell you all this, and we want you to go back to Victoria and tell the government, because they are not listening to us." By the kinds of policies that the government has brought forward, it's evident that they are not listening to the north.

[5:45]

Transportation is the number one issue in the economic development of the north. People told us to carry the message to the government that they need railroad upgrades. They need more cars and better service. They need better cooperation for interchange rates when B.C. Rail charges CN to use its tracks. They need road upgrades; 88 percent of the roads are gravel and worn out. It's interesting to hear that the government has finally agreed to an infrastructure program with the federal government. Hopefully, some of these issues will be addressed and some of these problems they see in the north will be addressed by this government.

They tell us there should be a container port in Prince Rupert, instead of having to truck or rail their goods all the way to Vancouver. It didn't matter where we were, from Kitimat all the way to Dawson Creek, time after time they all 

[ Page 2532 ]

said the same thing: they need to have some commitment from the provincial government to advocate on their behalf. And that's the other message that the people in the north wanted us to bring forward.

In Grande Prairie, they talked about interprovincial trade barriers. Business people on both sides of the border find it difficult to do business in British Columbia, and they cited some examples. Car rental firms. The oil and gas workers are unwelcome in British Columbia. For truck haulers, the permits and the rules are different. Why is that? Keeping people out of British Columbia? The unions, the railways and the provincial government need to come to the table to resolve the free trade and movement of goods and services across the British Columbia -- Alberta border. This would mean more business opportunities for all and more opportunities for British Columbia workers. It was astounding. Do you know that there are still telephone party lines in the north? That means no fax machines or Internet service.

The overregulation and red tape. . . . Time after time after time, those two issues -- overregulation and red tape. . . . They need increased timeliness of licences, the Forest Practices Code, and fees and permits. We need to have more attention paid to processing these permits and these requests expeditiously. The paperwork has doubled in three years. There is inconsistent administration of government regulations by government employees, and this one is really important. I want all the government members to listen to this one: there is inconsistent administration of government regulations by government employees. That one needs to be addressed quickly.

The overtime variance from the Employment Standards Act for oil and gas workers is no longer available. Why is that? There has always been a variance. This time there's no variance. It won't be granted.

So the impact of legislation and of the policy and practices of the government must be well thought out. The unintended consequences for a number of these towns, cities and industries need to be more thoroughly examined by the government.

I want to talk a little bit about no-fault insurance. This is an issue that will probably come before the House, and I know there are a number of government members who perhaps don't support this. A large number of their union supporters do not support no-fault, so it will be interesting to see what kind of a plan the government table in their legislation, to see how well they're able to accommodate their members.

According to the Coalition Against No-Fault in B.C., under a no-fault system, innocent business owners would be paid benefits representing 80 to 90 percent of their net after-tax earnings, and there would be no compensation to cover fixed monthly expenses related to the operation of their enterprise, such as rent, equipment, inventory, loans and overhead. I wonder how the Minister of Small Business likes that one.

There will be no compensation to cover the cost of hiring help or a replacement for the injured business owner. No-fault eliminates an independent judge and jury to protect people from unfair insurance adjusters offering unrealistic compensation. That's wrong. Bad drivers get the same compensation as good drivers, and that's wrong. The cardinal precondition of any no-fault scheme is abolition of compensation for pain and suffering. It eliminates the innocent victim's right to full compensation for financial loss, and that is wrong. This clearly discriminates against seniors, children, students, homemakers and business owners, because they are not paid employees at the time, but they may be in the future. Under no-fault, the innocent victim is deprived of the full compensation to which they were previously entitled under the existing ICBC system.

Perhaps most disturbing is that a no-fault system would operate like the Workers Compensation Board, and the Workers Compensation Board is so dysfunctional that a royal commission has been formed to come up with ideas on how to fix it. Around the province, the most frequent calls to MLA offices -- and I know I'm not alone; I know government members have the same statistics -- are complaints about Workers Compensation. That is the highest complaint by far.

But will a no-fault system reduce premium costs? Not according to data from jurisdictions that have implemented it. Manitoba introduced no-fault in March of 1990, and in 1996 insurance premiums increased 6.1 percent. Ontario introduced no-fault in 1990 and has now returned to the tort-based system. The experience in Ontario with no-fault resulted in premium increases of 11.8 percent in 1994 and 9.5 percent in 1995.

Documents that we obtained under the Freedom of Information Act clearly show that the Premier knew before the provincial election that his promise to freeze ICBC rates was nothing more than a short-term election gimmick.

What we should be talking about is how we reduce accidents. If we reduce accidents, we reduce the cost of premiums to the medical system, to the justice system and to victims. The discussion should be about protecting everyone. Some of those suggestions are: mandatory treatment programs for drunk drivers -- if the government is serious about reducing costs and keeping our premiums down, it should get tough with drunk drivers -- mandatory driving training for new drivers or at least some incentive for new drivers to take training, and graduated driver licences for new drivers.

Another suggestion would be putting photo radar -- if they ever get it working; if it ever starts to work properly, even with the $32 million overrun -- at controlled intersections. The police will tell you where the highest levels of accidents are. It's not rocket science. These are the things we should talk about before we go to a system that doesn't reduce premiums and doesn't reduce accidents anywhere in the world.

I want to talk a little bit about health care. The government is talking about protecting health care and education, and what we have in reality is closed acute care beds. We have doctors phoning around the region looking for beds for their patients, particularly their senior patients who have no one to look after them at home other than a family member who is just as frail. We have longer wait-lists for surgery, increased distances for rural people to travel and shorter hospital stays, and this can be dangerous. I know that in my riding we've had a number of people call to tell about incidents that have happened to them and to their families, where their family members have been further victimized by the health care system. We have drive-through babies. I'm told that new mothers stay in hospital for six hours. That's appalling, because a lot of these are new moms who have no support at home. Those Closer to Home services aren't there.

The government is supposed to be protecting public education. A recent report on accreditation of public schools found that the government has no idea how effective its public education system is. The B.C. Teachers Federation and the school trustees have said that the government is not pro- 

[ Page 2533 ]

tecting education, and they've produced facts and figures that back up their claim. Education is not being protected. Everyone knows that: parents, teachers, students, trustees.

I see my time has expired, and I move adjournment of the debate.

L. Stephens moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

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