[ Page 6739 ]

Prayers.

E. Gillespie: In the precincts today is a group of grades 4, 5 and 6 students from the Comox Valley, who are visiting Victoria as part of their Challenge program. I'd invite you all to help me welcome them.

Personal Statement

I am ashamed and humiliated for not telling the truth about the letters that I have been involved in. These have been some of the worst days of my life. I failed in my duty to uphold standards and integrity; I failed my constituents, my family and those who believed in me. It will be difficult to regain people's trust and respect. I do not know if I can succeed in regaining their trust and respect, but I will work hard to do that.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

A GLOBAL NEED TO PROTECT CHILDREN

In order to make the convention meaningful, there must be some way of monitoring the implementation of the treaty. After ratification, countries must make their first report to the convention within two years after signing. After that, reports which detail the situation of children's rights must be presented every five years. The convention promotes the role of UNICEF and other UN agencies to advance implementation. They can provide an alternate viewpoint to the national report and sometimes influence committee findings.

Every year UNICEF presents an annual scorecard on the social health of nations entitled "The Progress of Nations." "The Progress of Nations, 1997" gives us some good news about the mortality rates among children under the age of five. They have declined impressively over the past 15 years. The bad news is that AIDS is undermining that success in about 30 countries. Especially mentioned in the 1997 report is the lack of adequate sanitation that affects half of the world's population. Effects of this are the recent outbreaks of cholera, bubonic and pneumonic plague. Quality education, infant nutrition, violence among women and girls, and deaths due to acute respiratory infections were also noted in this report.

"The Progress of Nations" also recognized a special need to offer our children due process of law. It was reported in some countries that authorities are able to detain and punish children because they are dirty, are sleeping on the streets, have lost their identity papers, or simply because of irregular conduct. Sometimes these children were abused and tortured by the very people who should be protecting them.

The Beijing "Rules for Justice" recommended that the age of criminal responsibility be based on emotional, mental and intellectual maturity. There is a lack of international consensus on age standards for juvenile offenders. However, UNICEF holds that the minimum age at which children must be subjected to penal law be 18.

"The State of the World's Children, 1998" focus on children concentrates on human suffering due to malnutrition. In this report, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan states: "This human suffering and waste happens because of illness, much of it is preventable -- because breast-feeding is stopped too early; because children's nutritional needs are not sufficiently understood; because long-entrenched prejudices imprison women and children in poverty."

In this country the Canadian Coalition on the Rights of the Child promotes and monitors the convention. The coalition has domestic and international influence in effecting progress in children's rights. The work of the coalition has earned significant interest and has been distributed to many countries throughout the world. The coalition has developed a proposal for a permanent monitoring mechanism in Canada in the framework grid. When implemented, the framework will be applied to all convention articles across the country, identifying legislation, case law, policy, practice, statistics and research, public opinion and reports, and opinions of non-governmental organizations, academics and political parties where these relate to children.

In applying evaluation criteria, advocates must determine whether a situation either fulfils obligations or fails to comply with the articles of the convention. In some situations, compliance is not determined due to lack of reliable data.

In order to carry out this work, the coalition received funds from the government departments responsible for the convention. These departments include Health, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Human Resources Development and Canadian Heritage. Each day, thousands of children die from lack of food, shelter or health care. There are millions of children who work under hazardous conditions and who live on the streets in the world's largest cities. Some are tortured in the name of religion, sexually exploited or fall victim to the explosion of land mines and other instruments of war, or are recruited into armed services or slavery. In some societies there are examples of children who have been beaten or shot while peacefully trying to make their views known. In some societies, infanticide -- the deliberate killing of a child shortly after birth -- is practised. These are some of the horrors of the modern world.

One-third of the earth's population are children. It has been said that in the world, children are the most oppressed of all minorities. So far, 191 countries have ratified the conven-

[ Page 6740 ]

tion, making it the most rapidly and widely adopted human rights treaty in history. At the present time, Somalia, which has no government due to civil war, has not signed the convention. The United States has signed but not ratified the convention. Among the concerns raised by citizens and some Senators in the United States are that the convention usurps national and state sovereignty, undermines parental authority, would allow or encourage children to sue parents or to join gangs, to have abortions, etc., and that the United Nations would dictate how Americans raise and teach their children. In fact, most of the opposition to the convention in the United States has been caused by erroneous information.

As a nation, we are not without our share of guilt. Every day, children are born addicted to alcohol, cocaine or heroin. They fall victim to discrimination and physical, sexual and mental abuse. Children die every year due to malnutrition, abuse and lack of proper medical care. In our own communities we see examples of this and more. In a society such as ours there should be no excuses. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings have the right to "life, liberty and security of person." In a perfect world, all children would be entitled to the same.

E. Gillespie: I'd like to begin by thanking the member for Surrey-Cloverdale for bringing this issue to this House. It is particularly timely to talk about the global need to protect children today, when only yesterday Cynthia Morton, B.C.'s children's commissioner, reported out on 18 fatality investigations. This time, as in every other one of her reports, she calls on the broad community to acknowledge responsibility for the care of our children. In her report she says: "Demonstrating that adults do care and take responsibility for children and youth in their communities requires all of us -- as parents, service providers, the media or elected decision-makers -- to consider our role and our responsibility." We cannot emphasize this too often. We must all acknowledge the role we have to play in the care of children in our communities.

[10:15]

They talk about exploitive child labour that involves full-time work at too early an age; too many hours spent working; work that exerts undue physical, social or psychological stress; work and life on the streets in bad conditions; inadequate pay; too much responsibility; work that hampers access to education; work that undermines children's dignity and self-esteem, such as slavery or bonded labour and sexual exploitation; work that is detrimental to full social and psychological development. This UNICEF report exposes in detail numerous child labour realities.

There are four myths around child labour. The first two are suggestions that the problem is limited to poor countries and that the solution is dependent on the prior elimination of poverty. UNICEF points out that serious cases of child labour exploitation can be found even in more affluent industrialized countries.

The next two myths are that child labour occurs mostly in export-oriented sectors and that international sanctions or consumer boycotts are therefore the key tools to combatting it. The export-oriented sectors probably account for less than 5 percent of child workers. We find many more child workers in domestic service, such as young girls in domestic service. These are people who are outside the reach of official statistics or labour inspections.

In our community of the Comox Valley and across Canada there are groups, like Women to Women Global Strategies, educating young people about their rights and responsibilities under employment standards in British Columbia and educating people about child labour and export products. This year the Canadian leg of the Global March Against Child Labour will be taking shape from May 1 to May 28. This will be a cross-Canada march, a cross-Canada program, to bring attention to the issues around children and labour.

The House of Commons Subcommittee on Sustainable Human Development made a number of recommendations respecting children and labour. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to recommendation No. 7, which is that our Canadian government "take progressive steps to increase the proportion of Canadian development assistance devoted to meeting basic sustainable human development needs. . .giving particular attention to addressing obligations under the convention on the rights of the child and the root causes and circumstances of child labour exploitation."

I'd also like to draw your attention to recommendation No. 17.

"The subcommittee recommends that the Canadian government give a mandate. . .to establish a youth task force to provide for input from young Canadians to policy-makers on the issue of child labour. A specific aim should be to generate ideas for Canadian action on children's human rights in the context of achieving global sustainable human development and, in particular, on such priority objectives as ending child labour exploitation."

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is now up.

E. Gillespie: I'll just quickly wrap up.

The Speaker: Three words.

E. Gillespie: Very quickly, I'd just like to celebrate this: Canadian soldiers assigned to combat duty must, as of today, be at least 18 years old. As the member says, there should be no excuses; there are no excuses.

B. McKinnon: I would like to thank the hon. member for Comox Valley for her remarks. As a state party, Canada must report to the UN convention on the rights of the child every five years to explain measures adopted and progress made towards the fulfilment of the rights outlined in the convention. In solving any particular problem, we must first recognize that there is a need. In our country's first report, concerns were noted with regard to the treatment of aboriginal children in the education and criminal justice systems.

There is still much work to be done to protect our children. As legislators, we can help by first listening to the needs of our own various communities. We can enact legislation that will define proper guidelines to our caregivers, and we can devote the funds needed to ensure adequate care and profes-

[ Page 6741 ]

sional assistance to aid children in need. We can ensure proper legal representation and care within our court system. We can ensure that our educational institutions are free from prejudice and foster understanding, peace and equality among our students. Indeed, we can ensure that all children, regardless of their social situation, have access to free education.

Upon signing, some governments have reserved the right to express reservations on all provisions of the convention that are incompatible with traditional values or religious laws. By its very nature, religious law can impose cruelty upon its children.

Globally, we can promote the exchange of information in the fields of preventive health care and medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, with the aim of enabling other states party to improve their capabilities and skills.

There are no penalties as such to help enforce this convention. We must rely on public scrutiny to bring governments to account. Eventually we must encourage all countries of this world to become state parties to the UN convention on the rights of the child. While we wait for the President of the United States to submit the convention to the Senate, we can help by writing American Senators in support of the convention. A sample letter can be found under the UNICEF home page on the Internet.

Our generation is different from past generations. We are the first generation to have access to a mass-based education system. We have the means for instant communication to all corners of the world at our fingertips. Let us use our skills and make a difference. I have written to the President of the United States, asking him to bring this forward.

W. Hartley: I would like, first of all, to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: In the gallery today we have a distinguished British Columbian. His name is Thal Poonian. He is a Kelowna orchardist and is the chairman of the New Democratic Party standing committee on agriculture. Please welcome him.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FARMING
TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

The agriculture and food industry contributed $2.2 billion to the British Columbia economy in 1996, making it the province's third-largest resource industry. In 1996, B.C.'s agrifood industry provided 62,000 direct jobs, making it the province's second-largest employer in primary and related manufacturing. People involved in the food industry include truckers, equipment dealers, machinery manufacturers, scientists, carton package suppliers, restaurant workers, food store workers and many others. The food industry altogether generates about 249,000 jobs for British Columbians, directly and indirectly, which represents nearly 14 percent of the employment labour force of the province.

Agrifood is one of B.C.'s largest growth industries. Between 1991 and 1996, farm receipts increased 65 percent, while the food and beverage sector grew by 30 percent. In 1996, annual investment in B.C.'s food-producing industries was $316 million. From 1993 to 1997, B.C.'s primary and food-processing industries saw a net increase of 3,600 jobs. Moreover, B.C. is the only province with a growing number of family farms. B.C. has over 20,000 farms, and they cover some 2.5 million hectares, plus another 18 million hectares in ranching and grazing land.

British Columbians believe that we should aim to produce our food within the province and that local production is the best way to keep our food prices affordable. We believe that the agriculture and food industries are an important way of life, and British Columbians agree that urban development must be carefully managed if we are to protect farmers and their lands. Hon. Speaker, we must support our farmers and buy local products. Ask your grocer, when you go to the store, demand loyalty to B.C. agrifood products.

I was very pleased to see our provincial budget impacts on agriculture. The 1998-99 budget provides for a 23 percent increase in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's yearly budget, the largest percentage increase of any ministry. This year $21 million will go directly to farmers through agricultural safety net programs such as crop insurance, the whole-farm insurance pilot program and the farm distress operating loan guarantee program. There will also be a $3 million increase in farmers' net income by virtue of their exemption from the motor fuel tax. Farmers will benefit from a million-dollar increase to the sterile insect release program, as well as the grazing enhancement fund. Changes to the small business corporate income tax and the corporate capital tax will assist both agricultural producers and processors. Other general tax cuts include exemptions from sales taxes on items including greenhouse and nursery boilers, and automated product-handling and packaging systems -- very good news for the residents of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and all of British Columbia. The renewed support will be especially beneficial for farmers recovering from severe weather-related crop failures in the Peace River, lower mainland and Vancouver Island regions.

With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to the response from the hon. member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: I'm very grateful for the opportunity today to respond to the member from Maple Ridge. I used to live in his constituency. In fact, from 1952 to 1963 I lived in his constituency, so I know about agriculture in that region.

I certainly concur with some of the statistics that the member cited, setting out the scale of agriculture in British Columbia. I think it is very often underrated in terms of the impact on the economy, particularly in local communities throughout British Columbia. There are three sectors that are critical to the industry: the primary production sector; the agriservicing sector -- feed mills, equipment companies, etc.; we certainly have a lot of those centred in the Fraser Valley and the Abbotsford area -- and the food-processing sector. All of them are very, very important.

One of the statistics that I think is critical is that the total agrifood industry is $15 billion; $15 billion out of the $100 billion in this economy is a very significant number. I think if we look through the various regions, starting with the Peace 

[ Page 6742 ]

River. . . . Sometimes we forget that that grain industry is $40 million to $50 million a year, which is very significant for that region. Look at the cattle industry throughout the interior, the Pacific northern regions, and the tree fruit industry. The B.C. wine industry, I think, has gone from an industry that was on its last legs to a very well respected industry internationally. Moving to the Fraser Valley, of course, we've got the dairy and poultry commodities, still the largest sector of the agriculture economy. We have a lot of horticulture, greenhouse floriculture, etc. -- again, it's a significant scale of industry there. Throughout all of these industries very professional, well-trained, competitive, competent people. . . . Again, because British Columbia is a high-cost, competitive market, we tend to have the best of the best in terms of the people running these industries. I should also mention the mushroom industry, which is $50 million at the farm gate and $100 million at retail or at the processor level. It's an industry that I'm learning a little bit more about these days. It's a very significant producer for our economy.

[10:30]

Issues of urban runoff are becoming more and more critical in a lot of our floodplain areas. I think that because of that problem, that issue, and the weather-related problems that we've had, we need to think harder about a right to farm drainage. We've seen competitive issues between the agricultural industry and the fishing sector that are critical issues of balance, critical issues for trying and working out good, effective compromises for both sides. But it really is fundamental to our agricultural industry, including the right to farm drainage in the riding of the member opposite. Similarly, the right to water for irrigation. . . . Saanich Peninsula is very concerned about that, as are Comox, Courtenay and the interior. A lot of our drier areas are concerned about the right to irrigation water. In many of these cases, agriculture was there first.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll note the time has elapsed.

J. van Dongen: My apologies. Thank you for the opportunity.

W. Hartley: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford. I'm pleased to agree with everything he had to say.

The people of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows have expressed their strong support for agriculture and have made their voices heard in regard to urban intrusion into the farming community. It is the people's support of our farmland that will ensure its preservation, and the people's ongoing support of the agriculture land reserve is its greatest strength.

Much of my time in my constituency is devoted to listening to concerns of farmers and farmworkers. A few years ago, I heard the farmers express great anxiety about a possible freeway which would cross through the prime agriculture area. I agreed with the farming community that a bridge crossing and connecting freeways would destroy much of that prime farmland. I argued for alternative transportation in support of those farmers.

More recently, I have been working closely with the Minister of Agriculture, meeting farmers and farmworkers and hearing their needs and their ideas. I'm pleased to see the cooperation, the cooperative stewardship, that is being developed between the farmers of Pitt Meadows, the municipality of Pitt Meadows, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment on everything -- much as what the member mentioned -- from drainage infrastructure to crop damage and urban runoff.

We need to continue to consult and work together for the future of agriculture. Next year farmers will see a new round of World Trade Organization negotiations on the international trade of agricultural products. Some small producers are fearful that increasing trade liberalization will force them out of business. Consumers are also concerned that they will lose access to high-quality, locally produced food. As British Columbians, each and every one of us can help preserve our farmers and farmland. Start by buying B.C. products.

J. Smallwood: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Smallwood: I have the opportunity to welcome to the House some constituents of mine. They are 47 grade 5 students, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Fallis, and a number of adults who are along chaperoning the group. I'd like to welcome them to my workplace. I hope that they learn about government and history and that they have a good stay here in Victoria. Would the House make them welcome.

VALUES AND PARTICIPATION:
THE FOUNDATION OF OUR SOCIETY

This is a very relevant question for all that would be a public figure. Whoever offers herself or himself to be of service to, for and with others, what are the values by which one lives or serves? Too often we get caught up in the process of doing for the sake of doing, without being clear on the why and the how of what that doing means, without being clear how our values are being expressed. When this happens, we are dysfunctional, both individually and collectively.

So in our current context as politicians, I feel that it is important for each of us, individually and collectively, to examine and question the values by which we live here in this Legislature and in how we represent our constituents across 

[ Page 6743 ]

the province. Indeed, we are challenged by the remarks of a grade 11 student who visited this Legislature just this past week, who, after attending the legislative session, met with me for questions and answers and asked: "Are they always this rude?" He was not positively impressed by our values as he perceived them. Is this what we want? Values are like manners: whether good or bad, they show when we least expect them. Of course, I can only speak for my own values and respect others who express theirs, even if we differ. Yet in order to build a common community, there need to be at least some core values that we hold in common.

What are some of these core values? In terms of a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, the core value is a recognition that one is an alcoholic and that one depends on the guidance of a higher power. In terms of a Christian, it is that I am one who sins and who depends on the Holy Spirit for forgiveness and guidance. Others of other faiths express it differently but with the same conviction. As one who makes mistakes, one must rely on a power beyond one's self for acceptance and direction. Then, with this basis, I am able to relate to others and share with them the activities of each day.

In our political case as I see it, the purpose or mission for which we have been elected is to work together to ensure that all of our citizens may have the best possible lifestyle here in this province. This is our collective as well as our individual responsibility.

It is here that I believe we have a problem. How do our individual and our collective responsibilities, as 75 members of the Legislature, interact? How do we participate as a single, unified body with 75 parts? Are we not, each of us, elected to be a meaningful part of this one picture or process? Are we not, collectively, the legislative members who take our responsibilities from that fact? Even as we have taken our common oath of allegiance, how do our respective party affiliations and labels strengthen or hinder our common allegiance?

As we enter into this new session, I think it is important to examine our common values for our province -- a province that is not only in an economic depression but in a perceived depression of values as well. Politicians collectively are being distrusted and individually questioned as to our true commitment. While we argue who is right and wrong, the social and economic life for which we are trustees decays, and we are collectively at fault. Our collective arguments, using the terms "them" and "us," continue to show clearly how far we have travelled along the road to growing decay. Some even take our growing divisions as a value.

It has been said that a house itself divided cannot stand. This is true of a family, certainly, and also of a community and likewise of a provincial legislature. In question period, often our public face is mere play-acting. Who are we, then, but pawns of the media? Are we not puppets on a string, directed by the unseen persons behind the scenes? What are the real values of this process, and is this currently a corruption of historical legislative values?

It is true that while we play-act, people cry and people die because of what we produce or fail to produce. Do we really recognize the real value and power and necessity of this Legislature? The use or misuse of this power quite literally leads to prosperity or failure, life or death, hope or despair for many of our citizens.

J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member -- my friend and colleague in many ways -- for providing me with a copy of his statement. I think it is very timely and appropriate that we engage in dialogue within this House around the issue of values.

I just want to say at the outset that apart from perceptions, I want to state the unpopular claim that in my view, after 12 years in public life, the vast majority of politicians of whatever political stripe that I have met are honourable, honest people for whom I have admiration and who I believe deserve public admiration.

I want to make sure that I understood the member's points. I understood him to say that when there's a gap between values and action, democracy suffers; that each of us individually and collectively should examine and question values as manifested in the Legislature; that respect for values of others, even if we differ, should always be present; that all of us should work for the best possible lifestyle that we can accomplish for the citizens of British Columbia; and that we are a single, unified body of 75 parts that have a collective responsibility. While I agree that we do have a collective responsibility, I don't for one minute believe that we are a single, unified body of 75 parts, and I think on that point I have to differ with my hon. colleague. As a matter of fact, I think that by the very definition of who we are -- we are a House in which there is a government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition -- we need to reflect on the values that have resulted in our civilization and our democracy coming to exist in the way in which it does, where we sit two sword lengths apart from each other -- a reflection of the fact that democracy is born out of conflict.

[10:45]

Therefore I would like to think that what we need in our parliament is people who hold their values strongly, who bring those values into the House and bring them forward, in the sense of policy and policy alternatives, and who defend them vigorously and passionately. Yes, it is true that sometimes the vigour and the passion that takes place within the context of the House will result in an observer -- especially children -- coming in and seeing the House and forming a reflection about the values of those who are engaging in that activity. I would say that at that point it behooves us to volunteer to go and meet with that class and talk about the kind of historic progression that took place to get us to the point where we defend the democracy that is the best democracy in the world. The alternatives are absolutely unthinkable.

So I agree with the hon. member that we need to have absolute respect for each other, but I think that while we are here, we're not a commune; we're not some kind of an organization that is united at 75. We celebrate the fact of our differences, and we seek through that to bring about the best possible of value-reflecting policy that we can deliver for the people of the province.

I just want to conclude by saying that the time comes for all of us when we, shall I say, go out to pasture. At that point we have an opportunity to join the ex-MLAs' organization, where you see manifested the profound respect of people who 

[ Page 6744 ]

were at one time at verbal battle within the House and who are now sitting down together and working on very worthwhile projects together. There they are a club; there they are a unified body of whatever number. Here we aren't, and we need to celebrate that.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the dialogue that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville enters into. It's not the first dialogue we've had, and I'm sure it won't be the last one, inside or outside the legislative session. But I think that's one of the values that we have here, where we take the time to listen to each other, to try to understand what each other is saying. I appreciate the summary the member gave of the points that I had made and that he then went on to express his own. I think that's the very important kind of dialogue that we need to have. I think there is a slight difference of opinion here, whether or not we are here challenging each other, which is our responsibility to do both within and outside our respective caucuses, even as we are challenged collectively by the community at large. But I still believe, and I will agree with him, that over history we have developed what is one of the best systems. That does not mean that the system cannot be improved upon. We either go in one direction or the other; we continue to improve our ability to work on behalf of the people or we lose it altogether.

So I think we have to re-examine our values periodically, and one of them is that we need to ask how we participate with each other both within the legislative precincts and out in the community. I'm quite convinced that the people at large see us as having a collective responsibility and individually to be a part of it. One of the discussions that has come forth again and again from the community is: how do we act in our legislative committees? When do our committees meet? How often do they meet? Do we go there so that we have more opportunity for individual and collective dialogue on particular issues and then bring back to this House for further discussion the results of that heated debate, if you like -- that very pointed debate? The end result is that we participate in a way that we bring the values to bear so that the best result comes to the people of the province. It is not helpful for them always to see us standing against each other; it is helpful for them when they see us standing together as one body protecting their issues, working on their behalf, so that they can be very clear as to both our individual and collective values and can judge us both individually and collectively on those values. We expect the people of our province to participate in the legislative and elective process. How can they do that fairly and honestly unless our values are clear both individually and collectively?

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this concern forward that we might consider it, one with the other.

PROTECTING THE INTERESTS
OF BRITISH COLUMBIANS

During my tenure in this House, increasingly the topics with respect to our resources and the richness that our province enjoys have been dominated by topics such as freer trade -- GATT rulings, free trade, NAFTA, the WTO or, more currently, the MAI. The impact of that climate and that culture which we're increasingly entrenched in sees Asia sneeze and B.C. get the flu. We heard just this morning in a radio broadcast how the bond and stock exchanges are on the upswing because of news of the States, where unemployment figures have increased rather than decreased. The contradictions of what we perceive to be important in our society are constantly before us. Stockholders are profiting; CEOs are being congratulated for downsizing, for outsourcing, and for creating hollow corporations. That's the reality of governance and the reality of our economy here in British Columbia and everywhere in North America.

I think that given that reality it's more important than ever that we have governments that are prepared to engage in those contradictions, that are prepared to stand up for their citizens and for their constituents. I'm proud to be part of a government that is doing just that.

I touched on the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment. I want to talk a little bit about that, because that agreement on investment, while it is being put forward as a way to deal with the interests of huge multi-country corporations, is fundamentally an attack on democracy. A year ago the agreement on investment was leaked. The issue of the MAI was not put forward to us by the Liberal government in Ottawa. We as citizens were not engaged in the discussions with respect to the agreement on investment but instead had to rely on a copy of the MAI being leaked on the World Wide Web and citizens picking up that copy, making sure that they were informed, getting their information and sharing it with the groups that they were affiliated with.

I think it's important for us to realize what the MAI will do. Should that agreement be signed, it will undermine the very essence of who we are as Canadians. It will deconstruct Canada. What it will do is attack the ability not only of the Canadian government but of the provinces and of municipalities to control their own destiny, to have the ability to act on behalf of their citizens to bring in laws and regulations and conduct their business in the interests of their local representatives. It will attack local control over the use of property, provincial authority over education and guardianship. Our vast forests, lakes, river systems and coastlines will be threatened. As the status of first nations people is topical in this province, I believe it will also undermine the ability of this province and the federal government to come to some understanding and agreement on the needs of aboriginal people.

Madam Speaker, I believe I am running close to the end of my time. I'll look forward to the opportunity to respond to the member for the Liberal caucus.

L. Reid: I stand today to indicate to this House that we will continue to be ever vigilant on the nature of this draft document, the multilateral agreement on investment. This is a serious matter that will affect all British Columbians. It will have a dramatic impact on our future. We have a responsibility, as British Columbians and as Canadians, to protect what we believe to be important both for this province and for this nation. I fundamentally believe that.

Today the multilateral agreement on investment is a draft, provisional document. Each of us has a responsibility to input to that document the values we hold near and dear to our hearts. I believe that is fundamental to the responsibilities we hold as parliamentarians in this chamber. Certainly, in that it is a draft document and in that it has been, basically, on the 

[ Page 6745 ]

table for not quite a year -- I believe it was May of 1997 -- we have some time. I don't believe this will be resolved quickly. I think the deliberations will certainly carry on into 1999. I believe that we, as elected members, have responsibilities perhaps greater than any other members of society and that we indeed need to come to grips with the issues before us.

I certainly have read the words of Sergio Marchi, the federal Minister of International Trade, and I quote him:

"I have said repeatedly that I will not accept a deal that fails to meet Canada's basic objectives and safeguard our vital interests. . . . At both the national and provincial level, there must be ironclad reservations, with no rollback or standstill, that completely preserve our freedom to act in key areas, including health care, social programs, education, culture, programs for aboriginal peoples and programs for minority groups. None of these areas is negotiable."

We intend to continue to seek input. What's missing from the discussion today is that British Columbians have not been invited by the federal government to participate. I welcome the opportunities that the Premier of this province has put forward in terms of inviting British Columbians to participate in the process. What's fundamentally missing from the debate is what indeed each Canadian, each British Columbian, understands about the proposal and the impact. That's what's missing today. Will that unfold? Will that continue to develop as more individuals continue to talk about this issue? I believe that this is the case.

[11:00]

Certainly Canada has my. . . . I have the understanding that they have the opportunity to put forward some reservations. I trust they will do that in concert with each of the provinces and that those reservations -- i.e., around culture, health care, education -- will indeed be discussed. Again I would stress that I don't believe Canadians have been adequately consulted or adequately informed, and certainly that is an issue that we intend to bring to the table repeatedly.

I can state that along with France, the Canadian government has said that it will not sign an agreement that does not exempt cultural industries from MAI coverage. So there are some issues that are still on the table; there are some discussions that are still ongoing. But I will stress that I believe that each of us has a responsibility to be ever vigilant around any proposal, any draft agreement that will affect British Columbians.

I will conclude. There are many other countries whose desire to obtain protection for their social services replicates ours. Besides the United States, no other OECD country intends to release the provision of health care services to the private sector. Consequently, the federal government has stated that it will only sign the MAI if there are ironclad reservations protecting health care, education, social programs and programs for first nations groups and minorities. That's a very good thing. That's a statement that I believe we can all stand up and speak to in this House, and I trust we'll have that opportunity.

Provinces, however, must have the opportunity to consider and give consent to the reservations put forward on their behalf by the federal government. Within these reservations there must be respect for the areas which fall under provincial jurisdiction, as denoted by section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1982: public and social services, environment, labour, natural resources and the foreign ownership of land. Those are the issues that concern the Liberal opposition today; those are the issues that impact on every member of this Legislature. I look forward to the member's remarks.

J. Smallwood: I thank the member for her comments.

I'm very concerned by the quote with respect to the minister responsible. When Sergio Marchi made that public statement with respect to his commitment to Canadians, it wasn't matched by documents that represented those views in the OECD negotiations. I think it's important not only that we make those statements but that they're reflected in the demand for reservations on those issues. The draft following his recommendations did not in any way reflect that comment.

I think it's more than that, though. It's more than simply insisting on reservations. The very structure of the agreement would see the ability of corporations to take democratically elected governments to an international arbitration court that is private, that is secretive and that does not allow its citizens access to the hearings or the ability to review the decisions afterwards. The ability of those international courts, then, to insist on the changing of the conduct of those democratically elected governments and then also the ability to levy fines and compensation for those corporations will have a tremendous chilling effect on the ability of governments to act on behalf of their citizens and protect their interests.

When people say that the MAI is a fundamental attack on democracy, it is not only for the fact that this agreement is being negotiated in secret and that our government has not made the recent drafts available for public discussion, but also for the structure itself. The negotiations continue. The member is correct that there has been a delay in the final agreement on the MAI, but what we have seen is the scheduling of a ministerial council meeting on April 27. We will be watching very closely what comes out of that. Further meetings are scheduled for the summer and the fall, with the possibility of a ministerial meeting next year for a final decision.

It's imperative that people understand that the negotiations are ongoing and that British Columbia's concerns have in no way been addressed. The definition of investment needs to be dealt with. The coverage of natural resource licensing, the broad meaning of expropriation and the inadequacy of reservations to protect key areas of policy flexibility are imperative before B.C. will come onside.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

[ Page 6746 ]

What is the history? Well, it is a history of promises that have not been kept; it's a history of promises of consultation with government members who do not listen. There are none so deaf as those that don't wish to hear. It's a government with a history of making press releases every day, day after day, but with no discipline and no dedication to carry through the programs and initiatives that they promise. It's a government with a history of photo opportunities but not job opportunities. It is a government with a history of disappointment -- great disappointment, particularly to our young people.

Who has prospered under this government? I'd like to suggest that consultants have prospered. This government is great at going out and finding consultants. If they want to do something with some accounting practice, they go to the comptroller general; if he doesn't give them the answer they want, they try the auditor general. If they don't get it there, they go outside. So consultants have prospered. The corporations of Kodak and Fuji have certainly prospered. They've sold a lot of film. And that's all it is; it's just an image on a piece of celluloid.

Public- and government-relations companies have prospered. They're all around here trying to talk to government, representing the interests of their clients, trying to get special deals. The people who are in the business of renting halls and catering lunches have been doing very well too. There are always conferences going on. We discuss everything to death; nothing ever, ever gets done. Of course, as was mentioned earlier by the opposition Finance critic, the moving companies have done very well too.

Here is a government that came in with all kinds of commitments. After the two administrations that had preceded it, people were looking for change. They were looking for a government they could trust; they were looking for merit in hiring. But what has been the history here? This government has been as strong in supporting and helping the friends and insiders of the New Democratic Party as any Social Crediters ever were with their friends and insiders. It's a shameful litany of pork-barrel politics, from Eliesen to Connie Munro to Derek Corrigan to John Laxton. I could go on for hours, and I'd use up all my time with a long, long list of names of inappropriate government appointments.

It's so inappropriate that the auditor general has referred to the issue twice: once in a report on Crown corporations, which basically said that there wasn't any discipline brought to the process of making appointments and to training, advising and briefing directors of Crown corporations, which are large and important organizations in this province. We recently had tabled, within the last few days, a new auditor general report that talks about the appointments that have been made to the regional health boards -- most inappropriate. People are not suited, are not trained and don't understand the issues, and many have conflicts of interest.

If they have prospered, Madam Speaker, who is it that hasn't prospered? Well, I'd like to suggest to you that it's the families in the resource-dependent communities -- the cruel joke of the jobs and timber accord, which has not brought through the promises of jobs that were announced.

Who else hasn't prospered? Well, it's patients. Wait-lists have gotten longer. We've brought in reference-based pricing, which creates uncertainty and concern in the hearts and minds of patients dependent upon drugs. And quietly slipped in this week, without any fanfare, is an increase in the Pharmacare deductible -- defended by comparison to the other provinces. Fair enough, but this is a government that doesn't mention it, that does it quietly, that sends an e-mail to the pharmacists and hopes that no one will notice.

Who else hasn't prospered? The disadvantaged; the Colleen Martels of this world -- the young lady with four teenage children, who is a thalidomide victim. We went through seven months of torture for her and her family before the independent tribunal did what the minister could have done last June, when the subject was brought up. Four thalidomide victims in British Columbia -- only one on welfare -- were treated the same way, expected to live the same way, in the same economic circumstances as someone with arms and hands. Someone who can't catch a bus, who has problems cooking, who requires the additional funds and resources necessary to feed her family with more prepared foods. . . . Their family went through hell -- seven months --because of this government, who call themselves a social democratic government and don't understand the issues of the disadvantaged and the disabled.

Who else hasn't prospered? Under this government's administration, the adoptive parents of special needs children. . . . Arrangements were made at the time that special needs or challenged children were adopted that would ensure that there were small amounts of ongoing financial resources available every month to help pay the additional costs that a family incurs because they have special needs children. Instead of saying, "No more in the future; we are going to make a different set of arrangements for adoptions that take place from this point on," this government. . . . Oh no, no grandfathering. They changed the circumstances. They changed the arrangements with families who had made real-life commitments to these children. It's a disgrace.

[11:15]

What needs to be done? Well, first of all we have to restore confidence. That requires us to have openness in budgeting. Don't fudge and spludge and mudge; be forthright. Tell it the way it is, because the people that you have to deal with in the bond-rating agencies are no fools. They're highly trained, qualified, knowledgable, experienced and professional experts. You lose your credibility, and you make this province look like a laughingstock when you're found out. In 1993 this government brought in a report from the deputy ministers' council on improving accountability in the British Columbia public sector. It was an initiative that gave this government a tool to more properly focus the resources to accomplish the clearly stated outcomes and goals of their programs. That program has virtually died as they have switched cabinet ministers, as they've switched deputy ministers, as they've changed ministries. They've pulled bits in and taken bits out, and they've missed a real opportunity. They could have made a difference.

The public and the potential investors, seeing the government entering into an accountability initiative of that kind, would clearly have treated that as a signal that this government could be disciplined, could be focused and could get on 

[ Page 6747 ]

with the important job that needs to be done. But oh no, for over six years this government has had the opportunity to bring in balanced-budget legislation and to bring in the discipline that it has failed to show year after year.

What else needs to be done to restore some confidence? Well, we need some clear statements that private property rights in this province will be respected, and we need to ensure that we move quickly, sensibly and thoughtfully towards workable, affordable treaty arrangements with our first nations.

Then, after creating the confidence, we have to create the climate. We have to let investors, job creators and small business entrepreneurs see that we mean what we say. We have to bring in tax reductions now, not in 1999 -- not just for the big banks now, but for small businesses now. If the corporate capital tax is so bad, then why don't you just move the exemptions to bring up the number of exempt people? If it's a bad tax -- and I think everybody agrees that it is; it's not based on the ability to pay; it is a punitive measure for investment -- then you should get rid of it. That's the kind of climate that we need to get the economic and employment growth happening that we need in British Columbia.

This government, as have governments before it, has spoken many times about reducing red tape and regulation. Well, let's stop talking about; let's get on with it. Let's think about some fair and balanced labour legislation. Let's think about the importance of ensuring that there is a well-trained and competent labour pool. Let's get the discipline in and have balanced budgets. Virtually all the other provinces have managed it. British Columbia talks about it, and then we get into arguments about the way everyone keeps their books. The minister hasn't taken the time and the trouble to ensure that her answers are truly accurate.

Well, time slips by, and I wish to deal with some local issues. First of all, I would like to deal with the issue of the Roberts Bank backup lands. In the summer of 1993, then Premier Harcourt went to the municipality of Delta, stood on the municipal steps and promised that they would take immediate action to ensure that long-term leases and much better arrangements to protect and enhance that very important farmland would be put into place. Nothing has happened.

In April 1996, Premier Glen Clark wrote another letter to the mayor of Delta, calling for a further study to be done and advice from the Ministry of Attorney General relative to how these arrangements could be made. Nothing has been done.

In the 1997-98 budget the government included $105 million -- proceeds from the sale of Crown lands through WLC -- and offered to talk to them relative to issues that may apply to the Roberts Bank backup lands. Nothing has happened. A few weeks ago we were blessed with yet another news release, from the Agriculture minister this time, about the resolution of the Roberts Bank backup lands, which we duly filed with our many previous news releases on this subject that is so important of the farmers of Delta. In fact, the truth of the matter is that our crop of news releases that we get on the Roberts Bank backup lands is now greater than the crops that are harvested from those fields.

The next issue I'd like to touch on briefly is traffic. B.C. Ferries are going to go into their catamaran fast ferry exercise -- if they can manage to get it out of the shed and into the water without it falling apart. That will remove the remainder of the truck traffic from Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo to Tsawwassen-Duke Point, and greater pressures will be created on Highway 17. Well, we've had Deltaport development, and we've had substantial increases in the traffic on B.C. Ferries. There's never been really good communication between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the engineering division of the Delta municipality to understand the solutions that may be there, and they may be quite simple. The problem is in going north. We've got five lanes at one point, as we get to the intersection coming south. Let's dedicate the easterly lane going north to Highway 99 for big trucks going along Highway 10, except for local traffic, and arrange for the HOV bus lane on the western side -- the left-hand lane -- to allow Tilbury Island-River Road traffic, which isn't going through the tunnel, to take that route. There's lots of space there. All you need is a little discipline, a little bit of blacktop and some paint, and I'm sure that can be arranged.

Next issue. One of the things about being in the southwest corner of the mainland is that you really are out at the end of the pipe. There are virtually no government offices left in the constituency of Delta South. There is only the mental health office.

I will cede the floor to the member. . . .

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: First of all, thank you very much to the member for Delta South for allowing me to make this introduction.

The people I want to introduce are three municipal councillors from Pitt Meadows: Janis Elkerton, Don MacLean and Sieb Swierstra. They are here with the administrator from Pitt Meadows, Ken Wisener, meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They are working for the good governance of the municipality that they represent. Please welcome them.

F. Gingell: The NDP misadventures in regionalization have left the delivery of social services in Delta in disarray. In the name of reduced administrative costs and increased efficiencies, the Ministry for Children and Families made choices for agencies to deliver these services. They may have made sense on paper to bureaucrats in government offices, but they are absolutely bizarre when applied to individuals needing those services within our community.

The overwhelmingly and completely understandable reaction of Deltans against these arbitrary changes then led the ministry to call for a review of the recent changes, the results of which were promised to be completed by spring. Well, Madam Speaker, the daffodils are out. In my garden, in fact, they've almost gone, and I will probably spend some time this weekend taking the deadheads off the daffodils. But we're still waiting for the review.

Similar experiments with health care organizations are causing increasing alarm in Delta. It is our geographic misfortune to fall into the South Fraser health region, which includes the relatively small communities of White Rock and Langley as well as the boundless behemoth of Surrey, with its large and quickly growing population. Surrey, indeed, does pose enormous challenges in the delivery of services. We recognize their needs and hope that they will be addressed. But if Surrey is the body of the dog, then we in Delta are treated as the tail -- a very small, relatively stable, unfortunately aging tail that still requires substantial government services.

What does health regionalization do for Delta? It minimizes our needs not only for acute care but for community 

[ Page 6748 ]

delivery of mental health, palliative care, speech pathology and many other health services. A committee on healthy communities has not been able to come together to do its job, identifying needs in Delta. The regional health board members have been told that they must only focus on regional needs and that they do not need to represent the communities from which they have been drawn.

Our regional health bureaucrats are inaccessible. I wrote to the health region's chief executive officer, Pat Zanon, two or three months ago asking for a meeting, and it was scheduled for today. Three days ago we got notification that it's cancelled again -- inaccessible. There's no opportunity for us to make our needs known. In fact, when you're interested in accessing government services, South Delta is probably not the place to live.

The one bright spot is my constituency office, which is open every day for normal, regular hours, and it's not on voice mail very often. It's actually got a live person operating there. But if you need AirCare or a driver's licence or a government agent or Human Resources help, don't look for an office in South Delta.

[11:30]

On February 1 the family court services and the probation office in South Delta were closed. Where do you go? You go to Surrey. Actually, you go to Scott Road. That one does happen to be on the Delta side.

But how do you get there? If you live in Boundary Bay, it's three buses. Even in Delta it occasionally rains. If it's raining and you're a single parent with small children and you want to access government services. . . . There is no income support office in Delta South. There isn't an intake office in North Delta, which takes three buses. I think you can do it in four buses -- three buses, depending on where you come from. There is not one single caseworker located within the municipality of Delta; they're all on the other side of the street. So what happens? Demand goes up because of this government's incompetence and lack of care for the disadvantaged, and the opportunity to access government services becomes thinner and thinner and thinner.

What is the final message that I have for this government? First of all, please try and do something about your competence. Stop making announcements about things that haven't happened -- where the i's aren't dotted and the t's are not crossed -- like your deals at Skeena, like your deals on the Columbia downstream benefits. Quietly go about your work. Get the deal done; make the announcements later. Try and create some trust. Stop making announcements relative to jobs in the forest industry and the mining industry and for youth. Nothing happens. Actions speak louder than words.

I would like to finish with two quick items. One is the Nanaimo issue. It is now two years and a few days since the Premier of this province promised that action would take place and that the funds stolen by an unnamed organization would be returned to the charities. Nothing has happened, and two years have gone by.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Two years ago the same Premier promised us that this House would operate in a more effective and efficient manner and that committees would work. The problem that Cynthia Morton has is that there isn't any route for her to have her reports studied. They're brought into the House and tabled with the Speaker, and that's it. All these reports by all these independent officers of the Legislature should be referred to the appropriate committee. That's what we're all here for; that's why we were elected -- to have the opportunity to work on these issues and make things happen. If government members would take the time to talk to the independent officers of this Legislature, they would find that their greatest complaint is that they don't have a committee to report to. They don't have a committee to sit down quietly with and talk through the issues that underlie the report.

If we jointly, the 75 members, are going to get this province out of the mess that this government has brought it to in six and a half years of administration, we need to cooperate. We need to get the committees together. When the committees are not in this room and they're over there in the Douglas Fir Room, it's strange how partisan politics so often tend to be forgotten. We start dealing with the issues; we start looking for solutions. It's solutions and hard work and discipline that this province needs. I leave it as a message for this government.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to stand and respond to the throne speech on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Boundary. I've been impressed by the comments that have already been made by my colleagues on this side of the House. I believe they are speaking truthfully for all British Columbians. Certainly our role as opposition is in fact to ask for accountability on the part of this government. We can't do any less than that if we are going to be responsible to those who elected us. It is what those members opposite would be busy doing if they were on this side of the House, which is where they should be -- on this side of the House.

I feel that it is a very sad day for British Columbia. There is a sense of frustration and a loss of hope as people contemplate continuing to live with the effects of such an incompetent government -- even for one more day, never mind another two years. It's a government which has proven its track record of being fiscally irresponsible, and it demonstrates a lack of vision and understanding of how a healthy economy really works. How sad that we should have to reach this point in time.

Instead of returning to this Legislature with a sense of celebration and optimism, we feel like we're attending a wake caused by the death of a once-envied economy in this country. Really, there is no pleasure taken by this opposition in pointing out the devastation that has been caused by this government to the families and communities of British Columbia. We are deeply concerned about the future of this province. We have lost faith and hope in the promises which have been made by this government -- promises which have failed so many times. Unfortunately, the throne speech did little to alleviate the deep concerns of British Columbians. I believe that it would be impossible to deliver such a message with enthusiasm. I cannot stand and support the Speech from the Throne, because it's just simply more of the same old story. It's simply too little too late. It lacks vision; it lacks substance; it demonstrates a real lack of understanding of what's going on in this province.

The economy is in crisis. This isn't fearmongering; this is fact. What steps are we going to take to deal with it? Where is the take-charge attitude that people were hoping that this government would take? Who would have imagined even 

[ Page 6749 ]

five years ago that British Columbia would be last in the country for economic performance -- B.C. is worse off than the maritime provinces; we've moved from number one in 1992 to number ten in 1997 -- that the average family of four would pay $2,300 more in taxes today than they did in 1992; that we would have the highest marginal income tax rate in North America; that we would have seven consecutive deficit budgets with no end in sight; that our public debt would rise to the point where every British Columbian assumes nearly an $8,000 debt; that the interest alone on the debt would increase by $800 million; that B.C. would have a 17 percent jobless rate for youth -- the highest in the country west of Quebec -- that our economic growth rate of 0.5 percent would be equal to only one-seventh of our neighbour Alberta; that B.C. would experience a net loss of 19,000 jobs in '97, contrary to promises made by the government; and that private sector investment would drop to last place amongst the six largest provinces? What a depressing picture.

Do you see, hon. Speaker, why the people of British Columbia do not believe their words anymore? Can you see why they are feeling angry and frustrated? Can you understand why they're discouraged and saddened by what is happening in our great province? What is even more sad is the fact that the problems that we are facing in British Columbia right now are in large part due to the policies of this government. They were made right here in B.C., not in Asia, as the government would like you to believe. Yes, the economic downturn in Asia is unfortunate, but we can ride out the cycles if the basic economy and investment climate in B.C. are healthy.

It's a real tragedy that this government does not appear to understand or appreciate how a really healthy economy works, or that jobs are not created by government but by the private sector or that the real growth in investment comes as a result of consumer confidence and a business climate that is encouraging. It is very clear to me and to many of my constituents that this government says one thing and actually does another. The proof is in the pudding, or to put it in agricultural terms, the fruit on the tree is rotten.

The people cannot stand any more empty promises, clever rhetoric or manipulation of figures designed to make us feel good but lacking in substance. It is becoming ever clearer to the public in this province that they have been deceived and that the deception continues. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the throne speech or in the budget to change our minds or raise our hopes. Lip service to real problems will not do the job. There have to be bold measures taken if we're going to turn things around, if we're going to paint a brighter picture or breathe some life into the dying economy.

I agree with the hon. members who suggest that we should do more than just criticize. We in this province are in a serious crisis. It seems that everyone knows it but the members opposite. The government is actually in chaos. The government is incompetent, as its performance has demonstrated many times. The reporting of the auditor general most recently demonstrated that the health regionalization experiment. . . . We are not only saddened, but we are alarmed, because they don't seem to know it. They don't seem to be in touch with what is actually happening in the lives of British Columbians. It's very sad.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank knows it. They declared in March that B.C.'s economy was essentially in a recession. It's very sad, because my constituents are writing me, and they know it.

I got one letter a few weeks ago from a small business, suggesting that this government stood for "no damn plan" and that it simply wasn't paying for him to open the doors to his business. Another quote:

"We can't afford to take holidays. In fact, most of us married people with wives that work have to take on extra jobs, some of us two or three jobs, just to keep the bill collectors from shutting off our power, gas or water or repossessing our vehicle. I would like, at least once in my lifetime, to be able to walk into a store and not have to take a calculator in with me to make sure that when I get to the till, I don't have to ask for a total and then try to figure out what I have to put back on the shelf -- items I picked up in the first place because we needed them."

[11:45]

May I offer some examples? The throne speech says we have increased health care funding by $1.8 billion, the highest spending in the country. You know, that sounds great, but when we examine the results, we keep shaking our heads. Why are we spending the most money and still having patients crying for help? The surgical lists are long, and the long term care beds are extremely deficient to meet the demand, particularly in the south Okanagan, where I come from. Families are in crisis. Because of that, my office gets letter after letter from constituents who are truly unhappy with the health care system.

What is this telling us? Could it possibly be that the government doesn't know how to manage its resources? No matter how much money they had, would it get to where it needed to go? What I am concerned about is that the patient is not seeing the results of the expenditures; the student or the special needs child has not been getting the benefit. So where is it going? Is it going to wages or to the growing bureaucracy that is required to implement all the red tape and regulation? That's where it's going.

The throne speech talks about tax reductions to stimulate the economy. In reality, when the tax cuts are implemented, we will still be at unacceptable levels compared to other provinces, including our American neighbours. In forestry we were promised reduced stumpage problems and more talks between primary and value-added sectors.

Why does this government wait until we are absolutely in a crisis mode before it responds? We have seen this time after time after time. I wonder if the Premier knows anything about the saying: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I'm quite serious; he should take heed of that statement. I know my colleagues are saying that this government has done nothing but react after the fact, once the damage has already been done. Our resource sector has been severely damaged, especially mining and forestry, by the growing reg-

[ Page 6750 ]

ulation and a government that is not listening to the investment community -- at least, not until it's too late.

The throne speech talks about the Premier's summits -- the northern summit, the summit for the southern interior. This is supposed to be about consulting with people. Well, it's great lip service, but where are we seeing it in action? The proof is in the pudding. Over a year after input on the part of the people, this government has yet to implement the recommendations of the select standing committee, or the minority report, for aboriginal affairs. A whole year has gone by. Talk is cheap. It's something I used to tell my basketball kids in high school: "You can't talk the talk, if you can't walk the walk." It's so important to act upon the findings in a meaningful way, especially when taxpayers' dollars are being spent to obtain it.

Hon. Speaker, in closing my remarks today, I would like to offer some commonsense solutions. Members on that side of the House always say we don't offer any commonsense solutions. Unfortunately, this government is a big part of the problems that are happening in B.C. They are a desperate government trying to fix something that they themselves have broken. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures. Not only have they finally decided to approach the business community, which they have been busy alienating with their anti-business policies, but they have gone to the clergy -- desperation looking for answers. One would think that in the wake of problems that they have caused, they might finally be listening. Or is it just another exercise in lip service?

I would suggest to the hon. members across the floor that if they were truly honest about changing the course and direction of this province, if they were truly sensitive to the seriousness of the crisis we are all facing in B.C., they would not stop at business, community and clergy. They would forget party lines long enough to consult with the other half of the House. They would listen to those members who are duly elected to serve the people of British Columbia. The hon. opposition has mentioned many times. . . . The Leader of the Opposition has lent a helping hand to that side of the House, particularly with children and families, an area that he holds dearly to his heart. But that side of the House has rejected his offers. The time has come to look at those kinds of things, to do them. We do have ideas and solutions that we feel would be good for the province. If we are going to have a chance at an economic recovery, we need to cast aside differences and work on achieving a plan for recovery.

A band-aid will not save the patient, and warm and fuzzy statements will do nothing to revive the economy. We need to go much farther than what has been delivered by this government in this House. We need to cut personal income tax and small business tax even further. We need to eliminate much of the red tape and regulations that are strangling business and the potential for recovery. But most important, this government needs to be truthful in its budgeting practices. We need to introduce balanced-budget legislation and reduce our debt. We need to listen and to be flexible with employment standards and labour laws. We need to lobby for a better federal equalization program. We need to protect private property rights and the interests of charities and resource companies. We need to be honest with the people of B.C. and negotiate affordable treaty settlements that contain equality, finality and certainty under the law. We need to make sure that B.C. has some of the highest educational standards in the world, so that we can compete fairly in a global economy. We need to ensure that the patient, the client, the student, the worker and the family are the ones that receive the benefits of a system that is properly working and not one that is overburdened with red tape and regulations.

We have a great potential and a great resource. More important, we have great people and families everywhere, who are puzzled and saddened by what is happening. The constituents of Okanagan-Boundary feel just as strongly about these issues as the constituents of Peace River, Vancouver Island and the Kootenays. We don't have to attend a wake or stand by and watch the dying gasps of this province -- especially one that is so rich in resources. We are asking this government to wake up; we are asking this government to work together with 75 duly elected representatives to help restore British Columbia to its rightful place as the greatest province in this country.

R. Coleman: Good morning, everybody. It's a pleasure to be here today. I thought there was going to be another member from the other side of the House to say a few words today, but I guess he'll be here shortly.

I'd like to speak to the throne speech today. The people in this province have a lot of difficulties today. There are people in this province that are hurting, frankly, and they're hurting because they don't have jobs. The economy is having difficulty, stores are shutting down, and people, particularly in the rural areas, in the resource-based communities, are having a great deal of difficulty surviving.

This government speaks in its throne speech about health care and education and budgets and finance. Unfortunately, it's one of those speeches that left me somewhat cold and also left me somewhat frustrated with a system that allows us to operate in this type of atmosphere.

In looking at responses to throne speeches over the years by members of government when they were in opposition, there are things they said then that they don't today. I find that extremely frustrating. They include a comment by the Premier. When he was referring to the budget in 1990, he said: "In order for budgets to be effective, they must be honest." That was a tenet and belief of the Premier at that time. Yet I've sat in this House for two years now and have seen three budgets. Two of them were supposed to be balanced, and they weren't. Then a budget was given to us after the throne speech that told us that we had a $95 million deficit when in reality we have a $946 million deficit.

When you put the two together and you think about a Lieutenant-Governor walking into a Legislative Assembly to make a statement on behalf of the government, I think the tenet of honesty as expressed by the Premier in his own statement relative to budgets is absolutely key to our being able to understand what is going on in this province.

I want to speak for a minute relative to education. You know, the government makes the statement that for seven years running they've increased the funding for education. But at the same time that they make that statement, they do not balance it off with the fact that student enrolment has outstripped funding. In reality, the balance is that we have less money in the education system today per student than we had seven years ago.

Now, what does that do to people in the community? When I see a parent advisory council raising money so they can put paper in the classroom, I know that something is wrong with the system. When I see an education system that is falling apart because the government thinks that the only solution to education is to claim that they're putting money into it but does not effectively manage the money and the resources that go into the classroom, I am as frustrated as the parents are. I have one child still in school. He will graduate from school next year. I must tell you that I think the most 

[ Page 6751 ]

incredible people in the education system are the people in the teaching profession. They are on the front line and are dealing with these children and giving them an education in spite of the lack of resources and support.

Teachers today are asked to perform in an environment that is less than satisfactory. We have schools with portables upon portables upon portables. The studies tell us that long-term occupancy in a portable is not good for people's health. They are not healthy. Due to the state of their construction and the glues that are put in them, portables in the long term are not healthy for students. Yet what we do is refuse to acknowledge the fact that by handling our budgets and finances better, we could deliver the classrooms and everything else that's necessary for schools.

In health care, I've had some personal experiences and know some experiences of constituents of mine. One constituent's story is one I want to relate to this House today, because to me it shows that somebody's missing the boat. When we talk about a health care system where a 98-year-old woman goes into hospital because she's not feeling well, and she sits in an emergency area for five hours before she's looked at by a doctor, with family around asking for her to be looked at, and is sent home and then is back in hospital two days later, put in a diaper, when she's always taken care of herself and still could. . . .

But it was easier to just do that and take away this individual's dignity than it was to give her the service that the health care system should have given her. What happened is that an individual who contributed to society for 98 years was not given dignity in her last days by our health system. That, to me, was patently wrong. What happened there. . . . Even when I spoke to the hospital people, the people within the system, I was told: "We only have so many resources, so this sort of thing happens." Well, it shouldn't happen. Whether you're one year old or 98 years old, you deserve decent, quality health care when you enter a facility in this province.

[12:00]

I have also had the opportunity to travel the province. Having been a member of a non-profit society, I've said this for two years running in this Legislature, and I will say it again: volunteers in this society are our lifeblood, whether it be with the St. John Ambulance, the Kinsmen, the Rotary or the Lions, or whether it be with a health care society or any other organization in the community.

What this government and their party did in Nanaimo still sticks in the craw of the people of this province, year after year. I get asked these questions, for instance: "What's going on with that case? Is somebody hiding something? Is our judiciary not responding? Is somebody controlling the investigation so it never comes forward?" What we're doing is actually putting in the minds of the people of this province that the Attorney General's office and the people within it are in contempt of the people of this province, because they don't believe that they're taking care of that matter properly and carefully and to the benefit of everybody in the province. It should be dealt with, and it should be dealt with now. There is money that is owed to charities. There was a promise to pay those charities back. That money has not gone back to those charities. That was a promise made by that side of the House, and they should follow through on it, pay it back today and pay it back in full.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

When you deal with a province such as ours. . . . It is a great province. I have been in forest community after forest community -- as a matter of fact, I've been in 42 different forest operations in the last 90 days. They tell me the same thing: this industry needs to have some cutting of red tape, some cutting of process, so that it can function better. I urge this government, as you go through and deal with the forest industry, to mark my words: do not pay this problem lip service as you do in your speeches and in your comments, but actually get down and take care of the nitty-gritty. Get down and fix the problem for the forest industry so they can function, know the security of their tenure, know when they can get their fibre and know when they can adapt to markets worldwide. That's very key to this industry. Even as recently as two days ago, when I sat down with one of the lumber manufacturers' associations, that was the message. The message is: "Listen, guys. We're in trouble because you guys have got way too much process, and you don't understand our business."

When we dealt with Skeena Cellulose -- which I want to just briefly talk about, because to me it's 35 schools and we've spent money on a pulp mill that doesn't make money. But in addition to it not making money, it's also one of our major polluters. How does the Minister of Environment in cabinet justify in discussions with her colleagues that we own one of the major polluters? We've guaranteed loans to one of the major polluters of the environment in the province of British Columbia with the money of the taxpayers of British Columbia and at the loss of money to the health care system, to the school system and to the social safety net that we all want to hear them talk about time and time again.

We bought a pulp mill to save one person's job. If you talk to the industry, they'll tell you that there are corrections in business that will take place, that the fibre is in the forest. If that pulp mill and that operation was allowed to collapse, there would have been businesses to pick up where the fibre was, because the resource is there, and the markets will be there. And the jobs would be there if it's managed properly. My biggest fear is that. . . . I've never seen a government ever run a business successfully. So when I, as a taxpayer of British Columbia, think of my investment money going to support a business that is now funded by the government of British Columbia, I know (a) it's a bad investment, and (b) they can't successfully operate it.

The other thing is that when you come to this House, you think you see something of credibility, something that's legitimate. Then as you sit and watch a throne speech like this one come to the floor of the House, which again panders information to the public, it is very disappointing. This government is good at only one thing: the big announcement. They're good at the big announcement that they're going to create jobs. They're good at the big announcement that they're going to have a jobs and timber accord. They're good at spending $2.5 million a month of our money to tell us what a great job they're doing, when they're not doing anything they say. That is not acceptable to myself. It's certainly not acceptable to this Legislative Assembly.

When I think about an operation of government that continuously, for seven years, puts us a billion dollars in debt, 

[ Page 6752 ]

when I think about the fact that we have a $31.4 billion debt in this province and $2.4 billion in interest going out the door. . . . When I was speaking to a group on Monday, it was very difficult for people to conceive what $2.4 billion in interest means, because the numbers are just so exponentially large. But when you explain it to somebody as, "If I gave you a house tomorrow worth $100,000, how many years do you think you'd be able to borrow $20,000 or $30,000 against that house, year after year, until the banks wouldn't give you any more money?" Anybody that figures this out can tell you that you cannot keep accumulating debt to the point where the day will come that you can't pay your debt. You can't borrow to pay debt. If you continue to do that, eventually everybody stops giving you money. What happens is that the worse you get, the higher a credit risk you become and the more expensive it is for you to borrow money.

That's what's happening in this province. Our credit rating keeps going down simply because we're getting further in debt. We don't know how to manage; this government doesn't know how to manage the books of the province. So when you think about it, you have to wake up at some point in time and smell the roses. When you smell those roses, you're going to figure out that you'd better get your debt under control. You'd better get your deficit under control, because this year's deficit is only next year's debt. And you'd better do it soon, because if you don't. . . . The tenet of this wonderful statement that's made by the NDP on a regular basis is that they protect health care and education. Well, let me tell you, if you continue to pay the level of interest that you are and to accumulate debt the way you are, you won't be able to protect anything in this province, because you'll be too far in debt. You won't have any money to pay for anything.

Hon. Speaker, the other day I was talking to my son. I thought how fortunate it is that he's a good son. He's 17-1/2 years old, and he hasn't really ever caused me any grief. I was talking to him about how kids look at families today. It's interesting, you know, with the age of consent and what we've done to the family. What we've done is take away the right of the parent. When we did that, we changed the way our society looks at family and how we are allowed to raise our children.

One of the biggest complaints I get from people in my constituency is: "Would you please tell the government to get out of my life. I legitimately have the right to raise my children. I legitimately have the right to love my children and do what I think is best for them." By having an age of consent that is so young, we've taken away the ability of a parent to legitimately interact with and raise their children on an even playing field. They want that playing field back; they want the right to raise their children. They want you to stay out of their lives. I think this government has to wake up to the age of consent and recognize that some of the problems with children in today's society are created by the very people that claim they're trying to help. That's the government. The government has to recognize its responsibility to society. Unfortunately, this government hasn't done that.

The other problem that we see as we go through the throne speech. . . . We didn't hear anything about the fact that the actions of government can often bring reactions that are detrimental to the public. I'd like to see this government wake up on an environmental issue. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did so yesterday with regard to ditch cleaning in the Fraser Valley. But this government's own Ministry of Environment does not communicate with the federal Fisheries people and the other environmental agencies, or even with the other agencies of government, as far as the right to land is concerned. They are softly expropriating property as a result of decisions that are going to affect people's lives and the value of land in the long term.

I look forward to the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Agriculture. I can tell you that there are hundreds of questions that need to be answered. There are hundreds of issues relative to environmental issues that have to be dealt with. We have to recognize that if we don't do something about it, we are actually affecting our economy. When you start to expropriate land without compensation, because somebody makes the determination that they want 30 metres on both sides of an irrigation ditch -- that can't be farmed, can't be used and can't be built on -- that's taking away somebody's private property rights. In the riding that I live in and in the riding next to me in Langley, there are actual serious situations that have occurred because of these types of decisions that have been imposed on property owners.

When you set your high-water mark so high that you can look down the valley when you stand on the property and see six or seven houses below that mark, you know that this arbitrary decision on one piece of property made seven homes non-conforming. If those homes ever had to be rebuilt after a fire, they couldn't be rebuilt in the same location, because of an arbitrary decision by the Ministry of Environment. They don't look at the long-term impact of their decisions, and they have to.

In this session of the Legislature, you can bet they will be talked to about this. You can bet they will be questioned about it, and you can bet they will be made to focus on the fact that private property rights and the right to manage your land have to be in cooperation with the owner of the land, not by arbitrary and abusive approaches by a ministry of this province.

The thing I must admit is that today, as I think about the throne speech and this House, I have to tell members that there's an integrity here that belongs with this House, and at times the behaviour of the House should be questioned. I must tell you that as we go through the operation of this Legislature, it is our responsibility to the people of this province to restore the integrity of MLAs and of this House in the minds of the people of the province. We will do that, because it is the future that we're talking about. We will do that, because if we don't do that, we will never be successful in turning our economy around or legitimizing where we are. We as people have a responsibility to those who elected us.

It is with frustration that for a third time I look at a throne speech that is nothing but a pandering of repetitive rhetoric. It's a shame that we have to listen to this and know that we don't have a government that is prepared to meet the needs of the people of this province, that we don't have a government that actually cares about the economy, cares about health care or cares about education. The only things this group of people have in their minds are the only things they care about: their spin, their advertising and their big announcements -- which never, ever come to fruition.

As we go through this session, we will have to look at how we deal with crime, how we deal with the economy, how we deal with the environment and how we deal with health care and education. We are at a crossroads. The people of this province expect us to deal with what's going on out there, and we in opposition will do that. Unfortunately, the starting point is the throne speech, and our starting point was missed. This government missed the mark again. They gave us a throne speech that is nothing but a pandering, and once again we as 

[ Page 6753 ]

MLAs have to sit and listen to drivel when people in this province need something more.

They say that when your neighbour is unemployed, it's a recession; when you're unemployed, it's a depression. When this government resigns, it's a recovery.

[12:15]

The Speaker is frequently placed in a no-win situation. If she is to carry out her duties as fairly and as impartially as she can, alas, she will be attacked, even though the tradition and the convention of being Speaker is that the Speaker is supposed to be off-limits from those attacks. I say that, hon. Speaker, to give you some ammunition in the event that you are subjected to that. You can't defend yourself, but certainly others can, and I will be one of those who defends the office of Speaker assiduously and passionately.

On the subject of the Speaker, I also want to help, if I might just for a moment if I can -- and I'm sorry; this sounds horribly gratuitous, I'm sure -- give the Speaker some ammunition in her own riding. There will be those in her own riding who will say -- and I have had the experience: "We have lost our voice; we have lost our person in Victoria." There is a grand and huge mythology surrounding that. Might I, for the benefit of your constituents, Madam Speaker, just remind them of the real story.

The real story is that the Speaker, in a parliamentary tradition, loses her or his public voice. They are no longer allowed to participate in partisan debate. However, in terms of defending and supporting and furthering the interests of the constituents, the Speaker is just like any other MLA and is just as capable of doing good things for the electors as anybody else.

Indeed, you know, one can argue quite legitimately that the Speaker perhaps has more power. The convention that the Speaker can't advocate publicly is of course understood, and therefore the understanding is that all cabinet ministers ought to pay close attention to the Speaker's needs and ought then to address and do whatever they can to respond to those legitimate needs.

Your constituents, hon. Speaker, will be well served by you, and this House will be well served by you. I have had the pleasure of watching you as the Deputy Speaker for a couple of years, a job that I frankly think is perhaps more difficult than Speaker, and I think you did it fairly. I think you did it very effectively, and I know you will do the same as Speaker. I am so proud to see you there, to see British Columbia's third female Speaker. I think it's a wonderful accomplishment, and I congratulate you and wish you the very best in your activities. I'm not asking you now to ease up on me if I stretch the boundaries of order, of course, having buttered you up, as it were.

I want to pick up on a theme suggested by my comments on the Speakership that I'm going to return to in the course of my remarks on the throne speech this morning, and that is that I fear our political system is in considerable danger of falling into disarray. It's already, perhaps, in disrepute. But it is going to fall into disarray, in part, at least, because I think we are using the wrong criteria to measure success. The shame of parliamentary democracy in the recent past, it seems to me, has been that we have devoted all our attention to the surface, and we haven't looked much beneath the surface to the substance.

I'm referring to the fact that the criteria for judging whether an MLA is effective as an MLA is how much noise you make, how much attention you get, how much media coverage you can generate, and so forth. Indeed, if one wants to have a little fun with this construct, I can tell you the story of actually hearing, in my days in opposition, conversations between MLAs about who got the most column inches. And that phenomenon, for those of you who are Freudian, of course, is what's called press envy. I just offer that in passing.

But it is a problem, and the reason it's a problem is not only because we tend to leap and jump and perform to satisfy somebody else's criteria -- i.e., in this case, media's -- but we also play in another arena which is not good for the public interest. I'm talking about adversariality taken to extreme, where as a matter of course you misrepresent and overstate what the other guys are saying because that's how you get media, that's how you get attention, that's how you're perceived to be a tough person -- forthright, hard-working, etc. The reality is that a much more effective representative is usually somebody who does work probably quietly, is not drawing attention to himself or herself all the time and making outrageous claims and statements.

What I want to do this morning is to recapture my voice for my constituents -- my public voice. I think my constituents have certainly had that voice. They've certainly had my advocacy, and I think we've had some success. But they haven't heard from me in this House.

The first speech I gave in this chamber, introducing my constituency and myself to the chamber, talked about my constituency of Nanaimo. At that time it was Nanaimo and Ladysmith, by the way, and a little bit north as well. It was a two-member constituency, and I'm reminded of that as I look in the gallery and I see an old friend from Ladysmith who used to be a constituent of mine, Andy McKinley. I see Andy is with a couple of friends. When I spoke those words about 12 years ago, one of my themes at the time was that we were an economy in transition. I guess what goes around does indeed come around, or it is a case of déj� vu all over again. But the same theme is alive and well and, I think it is almost mandatory that one draws attention to it again.

The difference, though, is that the economy in Nanaimo is in transition, but so is the entire provincial economy -- indeed, I think you could say the entire national economy. Nobody in this country has found an answer to endemic and systemic levels of high unemployment, especially among young people. We can solve the problem for the short term if you get a windfall boom like Alberta had with a huge increase in oil and gas revenue -- a spike in the economy. Obviously, with that kind of money pouring in you can reduce the level of unemployment significantly. But it's not sustainable, and we, as a modern economy throughout North America, let alone other parts of the world, are all grappling with that. That's the honest, realistic assessment that we all ought to be committed to. That ought to be the common ground for debate in this chamber. But is it? I don't think so. Instead, the assumptions we make when we talk about matters economic or political or social seem to be that everything is really pretty easy. It's just a matter of making a simple decision, and everything else will fall into place.

[ Page 6754 ]

The reality, of course, is something quite different. The reality is that government is complex, it's complicated, it's a matter of making choices, and sometimes those choices are very, very difficult. The notion of the onward and upward expanding economy is one we should probably put to bed. It was probably a mistake in the beginning, because frankly, we paid a huge price for it environmentally, if no other way. What we need to do is to talk about not only a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy that is compatible with and complementary to a sustainable environment. I'm suggesting that it all ultimately cashes out to be about reasoned debate. Alas, as I say, our system tends not to produce reasoned debate; it tends to produce something quite different. I'm simply staking out some ground at this point. I'm going to zero in on some more specific things shortly.

I want to say just a little bit more about Nanaimo, my constituency. I've had the pleasure and the privilege and the honour of representing that constituency for about 12 years now, albeit it has changed its configuration. But the centre of the community, which is what I now represent -- most of Nanaimo -- has been very loyal. They have been kind to me. They have been understanding of me over those years. I am honoured. I appreciate that support. My part, I think, I have fulfilled. I have always endeavoured to represent my constituents to the best of my ability, honestly, aggressively, and I think I can claim some successes. We've done well in Nanaimo.

That doesn't mean that everything is paradisiacal. It doesn't mean that everything is under control -- far from it. We've become a big city, quite frankly, with all the problems of big cities. We have crime problems. We have drug problems that 20 years ago didn't exist -- or at least we didn't acknowledge they existed. Today we all know about those problems. We know we can't hide from them. I'm happy, therefore, to note that the Attorney General was visiting my constituency not too many weeks ago and was prepared to meet with all of the interested parties to do what we could.

In Nanaimo we did some good old-fashioned economic development. We did things like the Vancouver Island Highway project, like the Nanaimo bypass, like the Duke Point ferry terminal, like a major expansion to the hospital, like building new schools. All of those things have been wonderful. They've been good for the economy. But again, I make the same point: they aren't necessarily part of a sustainable, ongoing, high-employment circumstance. Those are wonderful and important projects for which we're all thankful. We should not confuse them with the kind of thing that one can do every day of the week.

It's rather reminiscent of the old story that people say to their representatives. As a matter of fact, when I was in Nanaimo for the opening of the highway and back a week later for the opening of the Duke Point ferry terminal, at the second meeting I couldn't resist making a comment about how nice it was to be back in town again, making another announcement, saying: "You know, last week we announced a project" -- God knows how much it was, but it was a huge amount of money -- "and this week we're announcing another project for a huge amount of money. But I predict that one week from now, somebody's going to come up and say: 'Yeah, but what have you done for us lately?' " That is, I think, just a fact of political life. It ought not to be, but it is.

I'm happy to report that in Nanaimo, things are still happening. Not the megaprojects -- we've done those things. They're put to bed and I'm pleased. But we're still doing some good things at the more micro-level in terms of health care. For example, we just did a small project worth $1.5 million in a place called Nanaimo Travellers Lodge. It was for what I think is an exciting concept. I see across the way the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who has a medical background. I suspect she'd agree with me that this is a good concept. That is, when you're dealing with patients suffering dementia, what you want is something like one-stop shopping. You want a circumstance, a care facility where people don't have to go and be shipped to different facilities as the severity of their dementia increases. Rather, you do it in the same place, and that gives them a certain stability and the ability to develop relationships with staff and friends and others. It's a good concept. One and a half million bucks isn't a huge amount of money in the larger scheme of things, but let me tell you that in that community and in my constituency, that meant a great deal. I'm delighted that government is still committed to doing those kinds of things.

All right, let's talk about the larger issue of the throne speech. In the last couple of years as Speaker I've had an opportunity that wasn't allowed to cabinet ministers, if I can put it that way -- namely, I had the opportunity to read and reflect a little bit, more like I used to do as an opposition MLA. I welcomed it, and again I emphasize that the tragedy of being a MLA or a politician in general is that we're all into crisis management. We're all dealing with instant, immediate, pressing things. The Speaker is in this wonderful position out of the political fray and therefore has an opportunity to reflect and perhaps read more than most of us, and I welcomed it.

[12:30]

The point I'm making is that the dominant theme that comes across in all of these works, essentially, is that as Canadians we have become a nation of people who tend to be much more self-centred than any of us ever thought we would be. There was once a vision that sustained and defined this country: that we were indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. We had obligations; we did things for each other, and we didn't complain much about that. Today, alas, that dream seems to have faded. We have become much more into -- what can I call it? -- an acquisitive mode, where our individual self-interest is paramount, and you almost have to apologize for having an interest beyond self. It's a powerful, powerful force. At least four or five books that I'm familiar with, written in the last decade, make the point that we have lost something in that transition; we've lost something significant.

Put that in context with trying to be a government today, and what do you get? You have this outrageous circumstance where people are predisposed to say: "Look, we're not getting it all, and we're not getting it right now; therefore we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore." On the other hand, you have a political system in which the opposition -- those with the alternative point of view -- is going to be rewarded for making larger-than-life and perhaps unfair statements. They have no choice, because they need to get the coverage. I know; I was there; I was an opposition member. But what happens to the public good in the process? It seems to me that it's threatened.

[ Page 6755 ]

I'll give you an example. The Vancouver Province is not something I am often inclined to quote; I acknowledge that. But I saw an editorial, in this case written by columnist Alan Twigg, and the headline says -- I can't use the Premier's first name, so I won't: "[The Premier] Just Can't Win -- With All This Whining." Just to make the point, I'd like to read into the record the first three or four short paragraphs. Here's what the columnist says:

"If you follow the news these days, [the Premier] and the NDP can't do anything right. They are anti-business morons, profligate spenders. If they snatch children from people's homes in Quesnel, they're overzealous. If some poor child from a foster family gets killed, they're negligent. If the economies of Asian tiger suddenly get sick from overspeculation and poor lending practices, resulting in reduced B.C. exports, the NDP are poor managers. If they create a new provincial park the size of Switzerland, a photoless story is buried on page 12. If there's an anti-government protest march by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, there's a big photo on page 6. If they cut taxes, they don't cut them enough."

When I was asked to serve in cabinet, given my past experience for the last two or three years, I thought seriously about how I wanted to play my role. My old role, elected starting in 1986 was to be pretty hard-nosed and to lean across the way and be as insulting as anybody else. Frankly, I was pretty damn good at it. You know, I think I still could be, and I think I will be if I have to be. But I don't think you should have to be.

I want, as gently as I can, to chide a couple of folks opposite. The member who just spoke talked about a debt warning and how we were mortgaging the future of the country and how it was a disaster and the sky was falling and all of that. Okay, that's fair comment, I guess. But let's at least have the decency to acknowledge the other piece of the story: namely, that the measure of debt by every respectable financial institution in the world is the debt-to-GDP ratio and that we in B.C. are right in the middle of the pack -- indeed, at the lower end of the pack. We do not have a problem according to any of the experts. Now, you tell me: is it responsible, is it honest, is it in fact moral to stand up on the other side, when you know that or somebody else knows that as well as I do, and make those claims? I'll reserve judgment, but I'm not sure.

When somebody says that this throne speech is about pandering and drivel, what the devil kind of language is that? Pandering, for God's sake! I'm not sure the member knows what pandering means. Certainly the way he used it wasn't borne out by anything I saw in the throne speech.

The throne speech says that the primary commitment is to jobs and investment, and here are the specific illustrations of what we're going to try to do to address those problems. The throne speech also says that we're going to continue our conscious and deliberate strategy of maintaining health care and education spending at the levels we have maintained for the last five or six years. In response to the member's reference to it being all about spin and advertising and not having the courage to say anything else, it also says something about land claims.

Let me just remind everybody of what the Premier of this province did. He went on provincewide TV and said very clearly, in answer to a question, that this government was committed to resolving that historical, ugly problem of injustice to first nations people. You know what that was in answer to? It was a question that went like this: "Mr. Premier, you're known to be pretty pragmatic; you're known to be a hardball player. But is there anything that you would willingly go to the people with and perhaps be defeated for because you believed in it?" He said: "Yes, there is. It is to solve the problem of aboriginal land claims in this province."

That, friends, you may disagree with; you may say that's wrongheaded. You may say all kinds of things in criticism. But for God's sake, you cannot say that's about spin, that's about advertising, that's about lack of courage. That's a principled, powerful, gutsy stand, and everybody in this chamber ought to acknowledge that. To do otherwise, I'm suggesting, is playing a little fast and loose with the truth and doesn't help any of us in politics.

Another reference, if I might, briefly. . . . I heard the Opposition House Leader respond to the budget speech, and one reference, among other things in his speech, was: "Isn't it sad?" The tone of the comment was in fact: "Isn't it outrageous?" The member said that what this government is doing is bringing back the relief camps of the 1930s. He did that in response to the youth environment program to give something to young people to do some good and necessary environmental work in this province. I know a little bit about relief camps in the 1930s, and the member sitting next to the opposition member who was speaking is a B.C. historian and knows something about that. Relief camps of the 1930s bear no resemblance whatsoever to anything this government is doing. To suggest that, I think, goes beyond the pale. It is absolutely, completely disingenuous. It is malicious, it is vindictive, and it has no place in this chamber. I sincerely hope that we don't need to get into attacking one another across the way, but I for one will not stand silently and listen to those kinds of statements being made. Indeed, I think we have a moral obligation to respond when we hear that kind of utter, arrant and complete nonsense.

I am advised that my job is to make sure that we adjourn the House early, so I'll just end with this point. I want to give one small example, if I might, of the reality of governing today as opposed to this posturing and this kind of overstated, supercharged rhetoric that too often occurs around here. Minimum wage. Today I had an interview with a reporter and talked about B.C.'s decision, effective April 1, to raise the minimum wage from $7 an hour to $7.15 an hour, making it the highest minimum wage in the country. Everybody should know that $7.15 an hour will cash out to an income of about $14,800 per year -- somewhere in there. I hope nobody has any illusions that that's a decent living wage. It's not; it's an embarrassment. It is, though, an effort, based on a commitment made by this government three years ago that what we would do is index the minimum wage to make sure that the lowest-paid, least-advantaged workers in our society fell no further behind. That's the least we can do.

The point I want to make is that if I am a minimum-wage earner, a low-income earner, I am quite legitimately going to say: "That ain't enough. That's just not enough. We should do better." And I, as somebody with some responsibility for that decision, will say: "You're right." We can't do much else about it, however, given our current economic constraints; but we have appropriately committed to the fact that we will not let those people fall below. Also, what we committed to over the last five years is to do something about significantly increasing the minimum-wage rate. My commitment -- and, I'm sure, government's commitment -- would be that when and as circumstances improve, we will address as much as we can 

[ Page 6756 ]

by either creating more jobs or having fewer minimum-wage jobs or doing something about increasing those rates.

But here's the point. I suspect that nobody in this room would argue that the minimum wage is too high. But there are a whole lot of other people out there who are going to say: "Oh, if you do that, it will be a disaster for business. At $7.15, that extra 15 cents is going to make a business no longer viable." The challenge I want to leave to all members is: let's be honest about the debate. Let's recognize that there are two competing views of the world, and both have some validity. Obviously I know which side I'm on in that one. But both have some validity. Let's not pretend for a moment that it's easy, that you can just do one or the other and all the problems are solved. There's one example of the kind of tough decision government has to make. If it is a time of tough decisions and a time of dealing with these difficult problems, it seems to me that it's also a time for all of us as politicians to be a little more responsible and recognize the complexity and the difficulty of the tasks that government is called upon to perform.

Seeing the lateness of the hour, Madam Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:44 p.m.

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada