[ Page 6849 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

W. Hartley: I have the pleasure of introducing three groups today. Two of them are from the United States. There are two groups of school students, their teachers and some adults. The first is from Ockley Green Middle School in Portland, Oregon. There are some 40 young people with several adults and their teacher, Ms. Morgan. Would members please welcome them.

Also visiting from the United States is a group of 25 grade 6 students, ten adults and their teacher, Ms. Richardson, from Canyon Creek Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. Please welcome them.

The third introduction I'd like to make is of four constituents of mine, one being the former Speaker of the House, Gordon Dowding, and his spouse Gwen Dowding, along with Dr. Ernie Rice and his spouse Mary. Please welcome them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today Victoria businessman David Lees, his brother visiting from England, Mr. Brian Lees, and Mr. John Hellemond, the executive director of VisionQuest Recovery Society. Please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I get to work here, in part, because of the efforts of a young woman who has come to visit us today, Holly Calver. She is a UVic political science student, aspires to work here someday, works in the Youth Parliament and actually got me elected. Welcome to the Legislature.

T. Nebbeling: I see in the gallery three friends: Wolfgang Richtert, Bob Miles and Janice Scott. These three individuals are very much involved in creating future opportunities for the community of Squamish. They are the proponents of the Garibaldi ski resort that is being wildly debated right now, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CHARITABLE GAMING

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the appalling record of this government and its treatment of charities knows no bounds. First of all, a fundraising arm of the NDP decides to steal money from charities. Then we have this government breaking the Criminal Code of Canada. Now we have the government deciding that it's going to take all proceeds from charity gaming revenues and make them come cap in hand to ask for money that is rightfully theirs. Why is this government continually on the attack against charities? My question is to the minister responsible for gambling: why should charities or people in British Columbia put up with this attack as the government tries to take more and more and more out of the volunteer sector of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition: at 11 o'clock, all will unfold, and he'll find out what the government's gaming policy is. I can tell you that it's a policy that's been made in consultation with the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming, with COSMO, with the industry and with people right across the province. We're going to achieve what has been asked for, which is to bring stability to the industry in this province. So I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition: just wait till 11 o'clock. You'll see what's going to unfold.

The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

G. Campbell: When this minister took over the mess that was created by the previous minister responsible for gambling, he promised that there were be no community-chest model; he promised that. This minister has decided that he is going to impose a community-chest model. It looks like, it acts like, it feels like a community-chest model. The only thing that has motivated this minister's gaming policy is the government's greed for more and more money out of the pockets of the volunteer sector. Why is this minister breaking his word to the people of British Columbia and the charities involved and imposing yet again a community-chest model on the volunteer sector that makes charities go cap in hand to a government which is greedy for more and more money from that sector?

Hon. M. Farnworth: At 11 o'clock, they will find all. I tell you, hon. Speaker, that he is wrong in what he is saying. What I'm really looking forward to at 11 o'clock, when we unveil our policy. . . . I bet that they will oppose it. I want to know: what is the Liberal policy when it comes to gaming? It changes on a month-by-month basis. In '94 the Leader of the Opposition said: "Gaming is here to stay in British Columbia. What's the big deal? What's the issue?" Well, I want to know, because we've seen more changes by this opposition on gaming policy. . . . They take campaign donations from the gaming industry, and then they say that we don't need gaming.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, they have more positions on gaming than Warren Betanko has written letters.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplementary.

G. Campbell: Well, I'm glad to share with the minister our policy on gaming. We are opposed to the theft of money from charities. We are opposed to a government that breaks the Criminal Code of Canada, and we are opposed to a government that says that all of the proceeds, which should rightfully belong to charities, really should go into the government's coffers. We are opposed to this government's grabbing of more revenues from the volunteer sector of this province.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: Did you mail back the money yet?

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Premier asked if I mailed back the money. The Premier owes $200,000 to charities in Nanaimo. That's just a start; there's millions.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'm just trying to let the Premier know. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 6850 ]

Your question, hon. member. You know the rules.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this government is continuing its assault on the volunteer sector.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Will the minister guarantee to the charities that all proceeds from gaming in this province will go to charities and that none will find their way to the government's coffers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This side of the House is opposed to an opposition that diverts taxpayers' money for phony mailouts. This side of the House is opposed to an opposition that has one policy one month and another policy next month, depending on who they're talking to.

At 11 o'clock they will find out what the new rules are going to be, and they are going to find out that there is support from charities right across this province. I expect them to criticize, because that's all they ever do, whether it's on gaming or on any other initiative of the government, because they are the most negative opposition we have seen in quite some time. When it comes to gaming, every time they open their mouths, all that comes up is snake eyes and craps.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, we know that when this government makes policy, they look for one thing: what's in it for the NDP? Talk about flip-flops! Let's talk about the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and what she said before about gaming. Let's talk about the member for Vancouver-Burrard and what he used to believe when it came to gaming policy in this province. Let's talk about the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville in terms of the things he used to say about gaming and charity gambling in this province.

The Speaker: Your question.

C. Hansen: We have a Minister of Energy who ran roughshod over the rights of unsecured creditors to save his own political hide. We have a Minister of Environment whose real concern is how to get re-elected.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

C. Hansen: Why should B.C. charities have any faith in a gaming policy that will leave them exposed to the threats and political intimidation that we have seen from the NDP so often in the past?

[10:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, wait until 11 o'clock. All will unfold.

I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that while I expect nothing but criticism from this opposition, there will be support from the gaming community in this province. It will not just be from here in the lower mainland, but it will be from up in the Peace River country and it will be from the Island and it will be from Kamloops and it will be from the Kootenays. It will be from bingo charities and casino charities. We will put this industry on the footing that's required, unlike the opposition, which, as I said a few moments ago, has one policy one month and another policy next month. They'll take money from the casino operators one month, and then they'll come in here and attack it the next. So stay tuned.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on the first supplementary.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, I have no doubt that the gaming community may applaud the actions of this minister. But will the charities? The charities in this province are the ones that are under attack by this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, it is the charities that are under attack in this province. I have a suggestion for this minister. At 11 o'clock this morning, on behalf of the charities in this province, let's have a minute's silence to protest this government's actions.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

C. Hansen: It is a fact that charity volunteers are being booted out of casinos in this province, where they have the right to earn revenues for their own charitable causes.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

C. Hansen: Instead, they're being replaced by the Premier's officials and henchmen, who are going to come in and run those casinos.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

C. Hansen: Can the minister tell us why on earth B.C.'s hard-working charity volunteers are being forced to play games with this government in order to receive the funding that they so rightfully deserve?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think we should have a minute's silence right now for the lack of an effective opposition.

COMPENSATION FOR PRE-1986 HEPATITIS C VICTIMS

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the complete contempt that the minister responsible for gaming has shown for the House by not bringing that material into this assembly, my question is to the Minister of Health.

This minister has the opportunity today to salvage the reputation of this government as a protector of universal health care if she will commit to taking $100 million of the windfall profits that this government's going to make by ripping off the charities and committing it to a compensation package for the 400 British Columbians infected with hepatitis C prior to 1986. Will the Minister of Health commit to taking those needed revenues and committing them to those victims of hepatitis C infected prior to 1986?

Hon. P. Priddy: I didn't hear the entire question; there seems to be a noise level in the House.

Hepatitis C. For one thing, we are spending and will spend well over $100 million supporting victims of hepatitis 

[ Page 6851 ]

C. There has been an agreement across the country on a settlement. It still has to be approved by the courts. In this province alone the costs of health care and the costs of supporting people with hepatitis C will be well over $100 million. That money will be committed.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for the first supplemental.

G. Wilson: My supplementary is to the Premier. The Premier has said that he's uncomfortable with this compensation package. The truth is that there is no compensation for the 400 British Columbians who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986.

Will the Premier commit today that we will not spend one dollar on a lawyer fighting those 400 people who are now forced into a class action suit while they are dying of this disease, but rather will commit $100 million of the windfall revenue that this minister is going to announce today to make sure that those people who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986 are adequately and properly compensated?

Hon. G. Clark: We will be spending over $100 million in British Columbia on hepatitis C treatment, using health care dollars, and on compensation for victims of hepatitis C. I remind the House, because I think they sometimes forget -- at least on that side of the House -- that by law, 50 percent of lottery funds in this province go into health care.

The hepatitis C tragedy, which came about as a result of government negligence across the country, nationally, is a tragedy which all members of the House and all parliamentarians across the country are concerned about. It requires a national solution, with provinces working with the federal government to resolve this question. We have made a major step forward with the agreements between the provinces and the federal government. We have more work to do with hepatitis C victims, and we intend to do our part here in British Columbia.

LANDS MINISTRY APPLICATION BACKLOG

C. Clark: For a year and a half the Pemberton Stock Car Association has been trying to get an application through the Ministry of Environment for some Crown land. They spent nine months just trying to reach someone in this ministry. When they finally spoke to someone in the ministry, they told them that they should prepare an economic plan, but in the words of the president, they couldn't even tell them what to do with the plan once it had been prepared. They are not asking much from this minister; they are only asking that she do her job. That is all they are asking of this minister. This is a company that will produce 20 jobs in a community that sorely needs them, and this minister sits there and defends her ministry and her ministry's actions. I would like to know how she can defend her incompetence in this ministry when 20 people are going without work in Pemberton because she can't do her job.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, this minister is doing her job. We approved 2,600 tenure applications last year. That created a $400 million investment in this province and 7,000 new jobs. So this government and this ministry are taking the steps necessary to do that.

I'd like to speak to some of those applications. How about the Golden Peaks ski resort, which is going to involve $20 million in investment as well as 200 direct jobs and 400 construction jobs? How about a ski hill project in the Kootenays, a cat-ski operation -- 24 employees and $2 million in investment?

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: How about the more than 1,000 oil and gas applications that were approved with zero backlog, to respond to a priority of this government?

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

I. Chong: I am pleased this morning to rise and respond to the throne speech, which is this government's agenda for the ensuing year. However, before I begin, hon. Speaker, I would like to offer you my personal congratulations on your election to the Speaker's chair and wish you well. I know it will be challenging role, and I hope you will find that at times it can be rewarding.

I would like to begin by taking the members opposite back in time, to June 25, 1996, when the Premier opened the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament with his inaugural throne speech. Contained within that throne speech were promises to protect health care and education, as well as a commitment to continue the work of reducing government debt. The Premier also boasted about our province leading Canada with the country's best job creation record, the strongest economy and the highest credit rating.

In that throne speech, the Premier also made reference to that year's forthcoming budget, that it was about to become B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. Well, that was then, 1996, and this is now 1998. In 1996 the members opposite praised their Premier, and they refused to listen to members on this side of the House who said that B.C. was in economic distress. We were not headed towards economic prosperity. When the opposition cautioned this government that our finances needed immediate attention and that we needed to work together on rebuilding our economy so that health care and education would be protected, the members opposite just scoffed. They called us naysayers and accused us of being too negative. They couldn't acknowledge, and they refused to acknowledge, the reality of the day. So in two short years, we no longer have the strongest economy. Instead, we are the number ten economy in Canada. We no longer have the highest credit rating but rather have just gone through another downgrade. Rather than leading the country with the best job creation record, as the Premier boasted, B.C. now holds the record for being the only province in Canada to incur a net job loss last year. That says a great deal about this government's job creation program. What was it about the

[ Page 6852 ]

As for protecting health care and education. . . . Well, I can challenge the members opposite to ask their constituents this question: is health care in the province better now than it was two years ago, and is education being better provided now than it was two years ago? I think we all know the answers to those two questions. The fact is that health care is in crisis with our wait-lists growing, surgery being delayed and emergency wards overflowing because patients cannot be moved into the beds. Those beds are being occupied by those who are waiting to be placed in extended care.

As for public education, there's good news there as well. Art and music programs have disappeared along with school librarians, school counsellors and teachers' aides. Sadly, in some cases, there aren't even enough textbooks in the classrooms. So I say now, as I said earlier this week, that the members opposite are in a state of denial. They don't understand the gravity of the state of our economy, and they refuse to understand what is truly happening in health care and in our public education system. If they continue in this state of denial, we will be in a no better situation two years from now.

The members opposite talk about money and more spending, but it's not about that. It's about being fiscally responsible and about being able to better manage the resources that we currently have. It means finding savings rather than wasting dollars on unnecessary contracts to former Health ministers, former Finance ministers. It means spending the funds on patients and students rather than spending it on advertising to promote a budget that taxpayers are not pleased with.

[10:30]

I have been hearing ads on the radio this past week assuring British Columbians that this NDP government is protecting health care, because more money has been included in the Health ministry budget. But that's not what this is about; it's about better patient care. It's not about wasting those precious taxpayers' dollars on radio ads; it's about putting those dollars where they belong. When the members opposite speak about more spending, and they think that we're asking them to spend more, I wish they would just open up their ears and listen. We are asking that they spend the money in the right places and not waste it on ads to convince people that they are doing a good job. If you are doing a good job, you wouldn't need to assure people that you are.

There are solutions; there are ways to turn things around if government would listen to those who are best able to identify the problems and offer suggestions. That doesn't mean government has to hire another consultant, conduct another study or commission yet another board. No, the solution is much simpler, and our opposition leader has already said so. Our leader has suggested before, and has offered again for consideration this year, that the select standing committees on health, education and children and families be empowered to meet and to hear evidence from so many willing stakeholders and concerned parties. But what was the Premier's reaction to this? What was the Government House Leader's reaction to this? It was absolutely pathetic. She gave this House a poor excuse not to meet, because she believes that members already have full schedules and commitments to other duties. Well, what commitment is more important than the protection of health care and education? What is truly a priority of this government? Actions do speak louder than mere rhetoric, and that's all we've heard from this Premier. If it is a foregone conclusion that there is no intention for these committees to meet, why does the Premier even bother announcing these on throne speech day?

Those who attended the throne speech and those who watched were being misled. They were led to believe that select standing committees play a role in this Legislature and in this session, and that those committees on health and on education would be meeting. But as you well know, hon. Speaker, these very important committees have never met. They should be meeting, but they never have. I say shame on the Premier for having so little regard for health care and education while pretending to care -- as well as the members opposite.

Let's look again at the Premier's 1996 commitment. He said: ". . .continuing the work of reducing government debt." That truly was a bold statement. Too bad there was no truth in it. We know there has been no continuing work on debt reduction. In fact, it's been the opposite: the work has been in the continuation of debt addition. In my response to the budget and in response to our budget amendment, I spoke about our debt. I spoke about the fact that it was rising and escalating to the point that it could not be sustained. Suffice it to say, I won't elaborate again: our debt load does continue and will continue to threaten our social safety net.

The Premier boasted of two consecutive balanced budgets in 1996. Well, that boasting didn't last very long. What we have seen are seven consecutive deficit budgets. Unbelievable! Shame on the Premier!

The Premier also said in his inaugural 1996 throne speech: "Nothing can provide the kind of dignity to individuals, security to families and hope for communities that decent jobs do." Well, I have to agree with the Premier on that. Those are very important words, but that's all they are. If the Premier believed in what he said in 1996, he would not have sat back these last two years and watched while businesses closed and relocated in Alberta, taking with them our precious jobs. But once again members opposite are in denial. We know that they're in denial, because they refuse to acknowledge that in January of this year -- three months ago -- Alberta gained 21,000 jobs while B.C. lost 19,000 jobs. Those statistics are well known. Have the Premier and the members opposite acknowledged that? I don't think so.

Now we have a Minister of Environment who is unaware that NDP Crown land mismanagement is costing the province 20,000 jobs. If this government is as successful in creating jobs as it was in balancing the budget, then B.C. is headed for even worse times. Every time we question this government on what they're going to do to deal with these very serious problems, the members opposite shout: "Stay tuned, stay tuned." We did stay tuned when they said they would present a balanced budget, and we know what happened then. We did stay tuned when they said they would reduce our debt, and we know what happened there. Now they expect us to stay tuned while their job creation program kicks in. Well, I say no, because this government is not about job creation; it is about job destruction.

British Columbians can't afford to stay tuned any longer. While this government is out there making announcements, communities are suffering. I had the opportunity to tour this province this past year. I have spoken with many individuals, many business and community leaders, and their message is

[ Page 6853 ]

There is now a new Ministry for Northern Development. However, my sincere hope is that the minister will listen to all concerns and that he will not just listen to those of his big labour friends. These communities are comprised of many kinds of people. They have suffered long enough, and they need to be helped. They need hope, because this government hasn't given them any. They have solutions, and all they ask is that they be heard and that they have a minister who realizes that one-size-fits-all solutions made in the urban areas don't work in the rural areas. If all of us here are to work together for the common good of this province, I reiterate the need for more select standing committees to resolve those issues.

The throne speech is intended to outline the government's direction for the province. What does that mean for my community, for the constituents of Oak Bay-Gordon Head? I was elected towards ensuring that our government would be accountable in the spending of taxpayers' dollars and towards getting our financial house in order so that we might tackle our ever-increasing debt, which is a drain on our social safety net. It will come as no surprise that this throne speech fails in that area, and I cannot support it. Clearly it is not sending out those messages.

As I stated earlier, the provincial debt is the greatest threat to our social safety net. Those debt-servicing costs and interest payments are taking that much more away from other services that governments must provide. Some of the services that government must provide are in the area of health care for seniors. In my community there is an aging population, and health care for seniors is very important. People in my community want a government that recognizes the need for more long-term, intermediate and extended-care beds. They don't want to see those beds being used in hospitals, because those hospital beds are needed for another purpose. That doesn't mean that we expect this government to go out and spend more; it doesn't mean that we expect them to buy the land and build all those necessary facilities. I am not suggesting more government spending in that area. I know that's what the members opposite think. That's the only way they think when we suggest that more has to be done.

Instead, this government should find ways of encouraging the private sector to come forward and partner with the communities and take up the challenge we now have. Why is it not happening? Why are people not stepping forward? It is because over the past year this government has shown its other intentions. It has shown contempt and disrespect for all those non-profit societies that have provided health-related services to the people of our province, by attempting to seize their assets. That is despicable. For those non-profit societies to work so diligently to provide a service for all communities and have their assets seized by this government, and for those volunteers to work that hard to raise funds to build those facilities and to have this government demand that those assets be turned over is appalling. We on this side of the House are outraged, and we will not be silent as you make this massive attack on our non-profit societies.

Whose side are you on, anyway, members opposite? Why is this happening? Why would the government be so vicious to these non-profit societies? There is one primary reason, and that is to bring more assets onto the government balance sheet without any corresponding debt. It's because this government knew there might be a credit-rating downgrade. In order to compensate for that, they went out to cover up their fiscal ineptitude by attempting to grab assets that didn't belong to them. But they were surprised, because these non-profit agencies fought back and defended their right to exist and their right to ownership of these assets. It is absolutely shameful how these government members are treating the non-profit and volunteer sectors of our communities.

There are also many young people and young families in my community, and they too want the opportunity to work in decent, well-paying jobs. More importantly, they want the opportunity to work and to stay in their own communities. But what is happening to those opportunities? When economic leaders and international investors refuse to consider B.C. as a place to invest, we lose those well-paying jobs. We have seen many businesses and head offices pack their bags and leave for more prosperous ground elsewhere. So if the throne speech is meant to deliver hope and to encourage prosperity, for the third consecutive year it has only delivered one thing, and that is rhetoric.

I would like to speak about another institution in my riding, and that is the University of Victoria. I am proud of that university. It continues to produce some very excellent graduates in all fields. But unfortunately, those graduates have no opportunities. When the government speaks of more spaces and of tuition freezes, it fails to link those to job opportunities. I have heard from many proud graduates who have done exceedingly well. They have had to leave our province; they have had to find work elsewhere. The well-paying jobs are in other provinces and in parts of the United States. I truly wish that the Premier and the members opposite would recognize that it is not just about numbers; it is about people.

[10:45]

Again I have to agree with what the Premier stated in his throne speech: "Only a strong investment climate will ensure new employment opportunities. . . ." But along with that statement the Premier must recognize that we need a competitive tax and business structure that will support major new investments. The Premier must continue to consult with business, labour and community leaders, and not just cater to big labour interests. That does not serve our province well.

The government says that it is working with the mining industry to support new and existing operations in this province. But that same promise was made last year by the former Minister of Employment and Investment. It's a year later and nothing has happened. So why would we believe him now? It's more rhetoric, more empty promises.

The throne speech also mentioned the tourism industry. Here in greater Victoria tourism is vital to the survival of our communities. Victoria is a destination that many overseas travellers are attracted to. Aggressive marketing in the United States and other key areas must continue. I do agree with that, and we have been saying that over the past two years. But also remember that it is our small businesses that will provide those tourist facilities, and they need to be competitive in the global marketplace. A large component of their costs is in labour. I implore the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- who is here today, and I hope he's listening -- to be the advocate and the voice of the tourism industry when the Minister of Labour, his colleague, considers job-destroying changes to the Labour Code that could potentially harm the tourism industry. I do hope that interministerial discussions will continue this year and will prove to be more effective than they were last year, because they were not effective last year.

The throne speech made a brief reference to B.C. Ferries: that the first B.C.-built fast ferry would be launched this year.

[ Page 6854 ]

What the throne speech failed to do was discuss other commitments pertaining to B.C. Ferries. As a Vancouver Island resident yourself, hon. Speaker, you know that we view the ferries as a vital transportation link to the rest of the province. The Premier failed to offer any ferry fare freezes while he was handing out ICBC freezes, tuition freezes and Hydro freezes. Why did he not consider B.C. Ferries freezes? I honestly believe that this government has shifted more costs and more debt to B.C. Ferries and that its losses, which belong on the books of this government, are being hidden there, and that is why it cannot offer a ferry fare freeze.

Many Island residents and businesses -- no matter what island they live on, whether it's Vancouver Island, one of the Gulf Islands or further up the coast -- are asking that the Premier or the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries conduct an independent forensic audit of the books of B.C. Ferries. Until that happens, there will always be doubt in the minds of British Columbians, especially those here on the islands, as to whether these frequent fare hikes are valid.

Last year Island residents protested the unreasonable fare hikes in hopes of getting this government to deal with some long-term solutions. Stakeholder groups that had participated in discussions and in some consultations with government were looking at long-term solutions. But for the most part their comments were ignored, as in cases with many other consultations that various ministers have had with various stakeholder groups. This government had better listen and not merely pay lip service to all these groups. They are starting to voice their opinions louder and louder each and every day, because they are very much part of the solutions for this province.

I would like to remind the Premier and the members opposite about another promise and another commitment they once made, and that is in relation to the use of Forest Renewal funds. It was said back then that those funds were meant to be reinvested in the communities and to enhance existing silviculture projects. It was not to fund existing silviculture work, but to enhance it. I have heard some unsettling news over the past few months from several communities, and I am astonished at what is being contemplated. It appears that many silviculture workers, who are experienced but for the most part non-unionized and therefore unorganized, will lose their existing contracts unless they become IWA members. Where is the fairness and equity here? Fairness and equity is what this government continually prides itself on, but they have failed in this area. If only enhanced silviculture work projects are to be funded by Forest Renewal funds, then the regular silviculture work required by the Ministry of Forests should still be available for all these independent contractors. But sadly, that may not be the case. If that does occur and people lose their jobs, will this government accurately account for those job losses, and will it offset them to the supposedly new jobs that are being created? I know that there will be another shifting of numbers once again.

The Premier promised British Columbians he was on their side. Instead, we now know that he is on our backs and he's in our pockets, because what they're attempting to do is attack our very important non-profit groups involved in gaming. Why would the government have to introduce new pieces of legislation to change legislation so as to preclude them from being in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada? That is atrocious! You cannot be above the law. You cannot change legislation to avoid a ruling that has come down from Mr. Justice Dermod Owen-Flood, but this government thinks it can. I hope there will be others in the community that speak up. We know it is not about better regulations in the gaming industry. We know it is about a grab for more dollars, because this government has no other place to find funds to balance its abysmal track record for balancing the budget.

British Columbians deserve better. They do not deserve this so-called vision in the throne speech, which apparently doesn't even exist when you really think about it. This throne speech is simply not supportable. It lacks direction, it lacks vision and it lacks courage.

I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper:

[Be it resolved that the motion "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following: "but this Assembly regrets that after 23 months since the election of this government, the Throne Speech does not address the very real and serious issues facing this province and provides for no initiatives to restore investor confidence, credible economic development policies, certainty or stability for the future prosperity of this province."]

R. Masi: I'm very pleased to rise and enter into debate on the throne speech. I fully support the amendment brought forward by my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

Before I go further, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on her election to the position. I have the utmost confidence that our new Speaker will conduct the business of the House according to the long-established parliamentary traditions of neutrality, impartiality and effectiveness, and I note that we're well down that road already.

It is my understanding that the throne speech represents the current government's future plans or goals and objectives for the people of British Columbia. Once again we have the usual statements: pious declarations of support for health and education, when we know our health system is in desperate circumstances and fighting for survival, and our public education system is being slowly ground down to the point where British Columbia parents are now looking at other directions for their children's education.

We hear glowing reports from this government on the effectiveness of regionalization in the Ministry for Children and Families. However, the truth is that the users and the service providers of the system are confused, concerned and downright suspicious of the intentions of this ministry.

We hear in the speech a commitment to the environment, yet we now see very unusual circumstances taking place with the ALR in the Kamloops region and not a word about saving the great natural beauty of Burns Bog, an environmental jewel located in the heart of the lower mainland.

We hear this government talk about meeting the transportation and highways needs of this province, yet we still see the mud roads of the Peace River country and other more remote areas of the province, and the always horrendous traffic tie-ups of the lower mainland. What solutions are put forth? Well, one solution is just to off-load the problem onto the residents of the GVRD. While I'm referencing the transportation problems of the GVRD, I would refer specifically to the Nordel completion. Nordel is a road, as one Delta councillor puts it, that begins as a freeway and ends as a driveway.

[ Page 6855 ]

On another matter of importance to my constituency, I refer again to the environmental program put forward by this government. I understand completely that the protection of the environment forces a complex and delicate balancing act between the interests of economic growth and the development and protection of our natural habitat. However, it seems unbelievable that when the Ministry of Environment is completely aware that 10,000 acres of pristine land is located in the centre of a vast metropolitan area like the lower mainland, no action is taken or even contemplated by the ministry to protect this wonder of nature. I am referring specifically to Burns Bog, an internationally renowned environmental treasure situated in Delta.

Burns Bog is one of the few remaining bogs in the world. It is a wilderness treasure -- a natural oasis that is vital to Vancouver and the lower mainland for improving and protecting our air quality. The thick carpets of peat covering the bog serve as a huge sink for carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse effect. There is more carbon stored in a bog than in a forest. I re-emphasize that Burns Bog is not just a little swampy area located in Delta and little known to the world; it is at the top of the list in most environmental publications. As well, world-renowned biologists like Dr. David Bellamy consider Burns Bog an international treasure.

I must ask the questions: where is the Ministry of Environment, and where is the minister? I have delivered a petition signed by over 5,000 B.C. residents seeking action by the ministry to deal with this situation. Will the Minister of Environment direct her officials, in cooperation with the Delta council, to reopen the proposals to protect Burns Bog and save this international treasure?

I looked with interest at this throne speech to ascertain the government's positions and direction for education. While there is no question that the $105 million added to the education budget is useful, we must look at this figure in relative terms. The education budget, for the school districts of Surrey and Delta alone are roughly $306 million and $98 million respectively. The total education budget for the province was $3.5 billion. Unfortunately, $105 million is not going to make up for the reductions and cutbacks that education has received in the past.

[11:00]

The number of schools in the school districts of Delta, Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver, Burnaby and Coquitlam total 429. So if all the additional teachers were assigned to just those six districts, it would mean an increase of only 0.93 of a teacher in each school. In British Columbia there are 1,500 schools, which results in an increase of just 0.25 of a teacher for each school. These are not stupendous increases. Salary increases previously negotiated, teacher increments, benefit cost increases and increased enrolments will in fact use up any increases in the proposed school district budgets. This is not a recovery of the devastating cuts to education over the past three years; this is a desperate attempt to hold the line in education funding.

We will still see far too many kids in portables. We will still see far too much reduction in the numbers of school-based administrators, who have little enough time to cope with the daily flow of bureaucratic expectations as well as be on the front line and deal with the rapid increase of violence in our schools. I think the Minister of Education should spend more time looking at the rise in violence in our schools and less time catering to special interest groups in the education system.

We must still replace many librarians and counsellors in our schools if we hope to give our students the tools and opportunities to explore and examine ways of seeking knowledge and expanding their horizons while entering the world of work. We must still provide our children with the opportunities to directly access technological advances through education and to learn the techniques of applying these skills which the modern world of business and industry requires if a student is to be employable and a successful and productive citizen.

Governments and ministries cannot stand pat when facing the challenge of public education today. Government must break new ground. The public demands choice, flexibility and input into today's education system. The public will not be bound by any special interest groups -- including the BCTF -- when dealing with the interests of their children. We must examine new methods of delivery systems in education. We must encourage school-based management systems which directly involve parents, give schools the ability to promote private-public partnerships, and encourage community pride in our schools, which can only come from community and parental involvement in our schools.

We need to remember that 65 percent of the students that graduate each year do not go on to post-secondary education. What do we do to serve these students? Well, we do little enough, and that is why we have the highest youth unemployment rate in Canada of 18.6 percent. I might add that it's gone up 1 percent in the last month, and it's gone up 5 percent since our Premier has taken personal control of youth unemployment in this province.

When I talk about choice, I must ask: where are the freestanding technical schools for secondary students? There would be lineups and waiting lists to get into them. Examine the concept of public-private partnerships in operating these schools, and work out a system of accrediting students in these schools for both academic and technical standing. It can be done. We still have a need for skilled workers, and we still have the highest youth unemployment rate in Canada. I urge the government and the Ministry of Education to move forward in these areas.

I looked with concern at the recent initiatives of the Ministry for Children and Families. The concept of one ministry to look after the interests of young people, as suggested by the Gove report, is a sound concept in itself. However, nowhere did Gove suggest that the concept of top-heavy bureaucracies be the methodology for implementing his report. We have seen, all in the name of Gove, an assault upon a fundamental value in our society -- namely, the right of one citizen to voluntarily help and support another citizen.

Under the guise of regionalization, which in itself is not inherently bad, we have seen the awarding of contracts only to the large, multilayered non-profit societies, to the exclusion

[ Page 6856 ]

However, the real tragedy is the erosion of volunteers. How many volunteers from boards of directors will be lost -- talented people, who give freely of their time and expertise? How many volunteer drivers for Meals on Wheels will be lost? How many volunteers who give hours and hours to hospice care will be terminated? How many parental volunteers who give their time working with preschool special needs kids will be dropped?

The NDP say they should be union jobs; I say volunteerism is a fundamental and valuable component of our society and our way of life which should be cherished and nurtured. Volunteerism is the thread that ties together good, caring people and gives us a sense of community, even with the most urbanized of settings. A U.S. President once referred to volunteers as a thousand points of light in each community. Well, I am sad to say, these lights are going out all over British Columbia.

I listened with interest to the Premier's comments on the state of aboriginal affairs in this province. I commend the Premier on his somewhat tardy realization that perhaps there is a link between investment climate in this province and the uncertain state of aboriginal affairs. The Premier's comments that treaty negotiations should proceed rapidly may be encouraging to some; however, I must warn the government that there exists in British Columbia today a state of fear and uncertainty. The fear is rampant, and the cause of this fear is fear of the unknown. People want to know what's going on. They want to understand the principles on which treaties are being negotiated. They want transparency in negotiations. They say no to secret interim agreements. The people of British Columbia expect fairness to both parties, and the people want to settle these treaties once and for all. The people want extinguishment. This government has a duty to pursue the negotiations according to the expectations of the vast majority in this province. If the government is in any doubt about the expectations of the citizens, it should have courage enough to ask by means of a referendum. Don't be afraid to ask the people.

I look with sadness upon the state of the economy of our province. Despite the statements put forth in the Speech from the Throne, I still see our province rated number ten in economic growth. I see a major bank in Canada and the B.C. Central Credit Union saying that British Columbia is on the brink of a recession -- if not already in one. I look at the record, the history of the past two years of this NDP government, and what do I see? I see the highest unemployment rate in western Canada. I see layoffs of 15,000 forest workers in the industry. I see a lack of investment. I see our natural resources revenues falling. I see youth unemployment -- the highest in Canada at 18.6 percent. I see an extremely nervous and unhealthy investment climate. I see a crisis in health. But worst of all, I see no long-term strategy based upon any economic or political philosophy. This NDP government is totally bankrupt of economic principles and social morality and, even worse, is bankrupt of a political philosophy. Take away the union mentality, and there is nothing left. And that's no pun, hon. Speaker.

What do we hear when this NDP government is challenged on its policies or lack of policies? We hear nothing but blame, blame, blame. Blame the Asian economy, blame the federal government, blame the Americans. As one federal minister in our country says: "Maybe it's time this government took a look in the mirror."

It is sad to see that this once proud NDP party, which was established on the basis of social justice, economic reform and environmental conservation, now governs from crisis to crisis, with little vision and a lack of economic reality, while tied to a huge special interest group -- big labour.

Public policy in this province should not be dictated by any special interest groups, be they labour unions, the environmental interest groups, large corporations, aboriginals or any other special interest groups. Public policy should be governed by what is fundamentally right for all the public. It must fit the common good. Legislation and other work of a responsible parliamentary government requires, in the long run, common assent and common respect and a minimal coherence in society.

There seems to be much democratic activity going on out there. There's lobbying, meeting, marching, speechifying. But this is deceptive, because it is the politics of pressure tactics employed by discrete groups defined in exclusive terms, each group seeking recognition, affirmation and targeted policies, usually involving the expenditure of government money. Each group perceives its needs as rights. Private wants and desires are elevated and authentic societal rights are trivialized.

However, if democratic parliamentary governments as we know them are to survive, legislation must be based on basic truths and the common good. At the very least, political parties, especially those who have the responsibility of government, must be true to themselves and their principles and their philosophy.

Hon. Speaker, I ask in all sincerity: is this present government true to its principles?

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us today in the gallery is Ms. Lynwood, a grade 5 teacher from Blanshard Elementary School. Joining her is her entire grade 5 class, accompanied by an old friend of the Legislative Assembly, for some, Mr. Bruce Lowther, who used to sit on the press gallery benches for a period of time. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce them. I'm equally pleased to have that opportunity while they are still in the chamber. It's very nice to be able to do that. I want the members gathered here today to make them very, very welcome. They are from a tremendous school in my constituency.

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and welcome, students. It's lovely to have you joining us today. Actually, in a few hours these people get to get off work and go outside and get a life like the rest of you. Holidays are coming up.

It pleases me to rise and speak on the throne speech today. The throne speech is traditionally the place where the

[ Page 6857 ]

[11:15]

The first time I rose in my place at that end of the room, at the beginning of this decade, the situation in British Columbia and in southeastern British Columbia didn't quite look the same as it does today. I remember that I got into an airplane to fly down here to my very first sitting of the Legislature. I had a couple of young teenage friends who had recently graduated from high school and were travelling in Europe. They had written me a letter congratulating me on my election, and I was riding in the airplane, looking out the window and writing back to them.

I was looking at the amount of denuded forest land between Castlegar, where I get on the airplane, and Victoria, where I was newly about to go to work. I was looking out the window at the clearcuts covered with snow. I wrote in the letter that to be elected in 1991, after decades and decades of the absence of management on the land, and to see the wealth that had been removed from the land and the lack of investment put back into the land, was a bit like being made the government in the ancient days of kings and queens after someone had plundered the national treasury and you became government to a bankrupt society.

In those days there was total war in the woods in southeastern B.C., as in so much of the rest of the province. There hadn't been an inventory in 20 years in B.C. No one had actually decided to count the trees, because everybody knew that if you ever counted the trees, you'd figure out the extent of the plunder. So we hadn't even counted the logging in two decades.

The politics of the land were as dishonest as probably any people have ever experienced. We had a sort of permanent political log-around policy, where politicians in this building told companies out on the land to go log where the people couldn't see. "Get it away from a political interface. Don't make trouble, and you can do anything you want on the land." In terms of anything you wanted on the land, there was no law about how you had to treat the land. There was no Forest Practices Code; there was no inventory. There had been no CORE; there was no land use plan. They didn't know how many trees there were, and they had no rules about how you managed them. There were 30 years of bitterness and rancour over the history of the Columbia River Treaty. Kids where I live. . . . They took an entire river basin, the second-greatest salmon river in the history of the world, and gave it to the United States. They put hundreds of dams and diversions on it and thousands and thousands of acres of land in the West Kootenays and East Kootenays under water in order to provide power for another country. The people were sick of it, and the people were broke.

The economic engine of at least the West Kootenays has always been Cominco. Lead smelters and, originally, mining built that society. Cominco was on the verge of bankruptcy. The hon. member for Rossland-Trail was elected one day, and the next day the entire community was in his town saying: "How can we save our lead smelter? Now that the ore actually comes from the Northwest Territories, how can we justify a lead smelter in Trail?" The coal companies in the East Kootenays were equally going through the throes of change. We had northeast coal undercutting their markets; we had tech change. We had dropping world prices; we had bankruptcy and near bankruptcy in all the coalfields.

The politics where we live, as the four of us who were elected in those days took office, were the politics of parochialism. You got elected in Nelson by beating up on Castlegar; you got elected in Castlegar by beating up on Cranbrook. The people of Cranbrook thought the people of Golden were Albertans. We treated one another with disdain because divide and conquer had always been the politics of the day, and we thought that anything the town across the lake and over the mountains got was taken from us. There was no solidarity within the basin, and politics had always been that way. The job of an MLA was basically to get cheques from the government and to go out and do a grip-and-grin photograph while handing it out. That's how you got yourself elected.

There was no substance to the thing; there was no meaning to the thing. There was no land use plan. It was tough to get those cheques in those days for those grip-and-grin photographs, because there hadn't been a provincial budget in two years. Folks with the ideological mindset of the people across the room had governed of late, and they hadn't even been able to come into this room and pass a budget, never mind debate it.

The first thing we had to do as this decade began was sew our region together, to get people who had traditionally felt that we were in competition to work together. The two hon. gentlemen at the far end of the room, the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke and the member for Rossland-Trail, and the member for Kootenay and I began to talk about what we might have in common and how we might change not the decoration, not the cheques, not the superficial stuff of society but the substance of life in southeastern British Columbia. We started with meetings on the subject of the rivers system. There were meetings bringing people of the basin together for the first time in 30 years -- native and non-native, people of all regional districts, people of different interests -- to talk about taking back a river.

The second step was that we decided that instead of Selkirk College fighting the East Kootenay Community College and Nelson wanting a university in the middle, we would talk about education as if education in the basin was the point -- the first time. We hired Dr. Fulton, and she travelled the basin and said: "What can the high schools do with the colleges? What can the colleges do with one another? How are native people involved? What about the arts?"

We had to do the same thing with land use. Instead of valley by valley and basin by basin, we had to get the people of the drainage together. That's what CORE provided us an opportunity to do -- east and west in one room trying for the first time to figure out how to use the land, together rather than against one another.

Down here, at the same time as those discussions were happening in the basin, the people in this room began to attempt for the first time in almost ten years to actually pass budgets and balance the books. There was some pain, contrary to the nonsense you hear in this room about spend, spend. . . . There was some pain, and rural people experienced that pain. When the people on this side took back governance and began to actually debate budgets, it was tough. Nelson, for example, lost a parks office to Kamloops. We lost the mines office to Cranbrook; we lost land registry to Kamloops. In seven years, we haven't paved one single new kilometre of road in my constituency, because politics began to be something different from what those folks understand it as -- not the grip-and-grin cheque, but the solidarity of a group

[ Page 6858 ]

We came into this room, and we passed the Forest Practices Code. We made some rules -- something the folks on the other side not only would never have the guts to do, but they don't even understand the language. We took the CORE process to its logical conclusion and became the first society in western civilization that I know of to protect 12 percent of the land from industrial use forever.

We weren't just making plans; we were trying to change the way wealth is distributed. We created the Columbia Basin Trust, and we gave that trust $250 million worth of opportunity for the people to control the land base. Between Columbia Power Corporation and Columbia Basin Trust, we bought the Brilliant Dam. We're going to build generators at Keenleyside and turn a liberal-social-democratic drone sold to another country into social democracy assets owned by the people in the basin for their own wealth. When Margaret Fulton finished her education review, we decided that the solution to education in the hinterland -- instead of sending everybody down to Vancouver to get educated -- was to wire the high schools and the colleges together and begin to work together.

CORE was going to require a falling annual allowable cut, and I didn't mind saying that on TV. It was an honest thing to do. The folks opposite are always jumping up and down and going: "The harvest has to go up." The best and most gutsy thing a government can do is tell the truth: it can't always go up, you urban effete idiots! It has to actually be honest. So when we finished CORE, we had to begin to set an allowable cut. That was the truth. That doesn't mean, as those folks from Kitsilano think, that you necessarily have to lose jobs. It means you have to do different things with wood. It means you have to make it into something. You've got to make something beautiful. So we built the Kootenay School of the Arts to take what used to go into pulp and began to make furniture in order to make jobs -- but, folks, as a basin. And we saved Cominco. We traded Cominco's rebirth for the Brilliant Dam, for the people. We saved the coalfields, and we aren't done.

I've got a couple of minutes left. I think I should talk about where we're going, because we're only halfway there. It isn't enough to take the resource industries -- which those folks don't understand, have never seen and never worked in -- and make them stable. We've got to build the new economy. We've got to build the economy that depends on brains and arts and culture and information. That's where we're headed. The Premier is going to the constituency of the member for Rossland-Trail, and we're inviting the people of the basin back together to do it again. We're going to talk about the economy of the future, how to diversify our economy away from being haulers of wood and -- what do you call it? -- of water, how to move our economy into the economy that our children will work in. Of course, those folks won't be there, but I'm inviting you people, the people on my side, the people that care. . . .

We're going to drive from Castlegar, where we're talking about the economy, to Nelson for the fourth annual Kootenay Wood Forum so we can see the beautiful things that craftspeople can make out of wood when you force the right wing to get their hands off the controls, and you give them to the people, so they can use their resources to employ themselves and make things of beauty.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: You're right. This is the dawn of social democracy, and it's working.

We won't be done there. We're going to build the dam in Castlegar and wire the Kootenays together, using the mistakes of the old right-wing Liberal-Social Credit coalition to build the future, to provide jobs with power in the Kootenays. We're going to build a ski hill in Golden, the first new ski hill in British Columbia. . . . The folks in Golden know they can't just log forever. We've got to be able to make those jobs where the tourists come and the town can blossom. We're going to employ as many people in the ski-hill industry in Golden as logging ever did. Then because Cranbrook too needs a different future, and because first nations too deserve a way into the economy of the future, we and the Ktunaxa people and Coast Hotels and the Columbia Basin Trust and even the federal government, believe it or not, are investing in turning the biggest tragedy in the Kootenays -- the largest residential school in western Canada, the place where people's cultures were stolen at St. Eugene Mission -- into a resort. The world will come to the Kootenays. It's all moving jobs, not throwing away coal, not throwing away the smelter, not stopping mining or ending logging, but doing something you folks could never understand -- that is, building community. It's not for the sake of the banks and the rich, so you can come in here and tell your story, but so people can have a life in a changing world.

[11:30]

There's more. We think that we should try to make agriculture blossom yet again in the Kootenays. I know we're not going to compete with Abbotsford or Kelowna in the short run, but we think that people should be empowered to feed themselves. It not only is worth money and builds an economy; it makes us strong. It ends the leakage when you leave the smelter, get your paycheque, go straight to Safeway and send all the money to California. It gives us a chance to spend at home what we earn at home. We need to bring back the agricultural economy, which once brought remittance men from Europe because the land was so fertile. We're trying to build balance and end the bad old days. We're trying to build equity, not handouts, not people dependent on bourgeois politicians coming around with cheques to get their newspaper. We're trying to build fairness, not the way those guys do stuff. We're trying to build a system where people can make their own future, not plunder it at the wishes of the rich.

Lastly, we're trying to build sustainability. We're trying to take that word, which has almost been destroyed through misuse, and make it real -- not only real in terms of the environment but real in terms of. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: It doesn't matter if they're jabbering. I can just go right on talking. They're nothing to me.

We're trying to make sustainability work. The key -- and I'm going to end on this -- is the same key that people on this side have always understood, whether it's the women's movement, the labour movement or the co-op movement. I don't care how far back you go in history. The key to making it work is solidarity. Let's keep the communities in the Kootenays working together, break down that parochialism that used to divide and conquer, keep the people working

[ Page 6859 ]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers and that there is an amendment on the floor, I call for the vote on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 33
Sanders Gingell C. Clark Campbell Farrell-Collins de Jong Plant Abbott Reid Neufeld Coell	Chong Jarvis Anderson Nettleton Penner G. Wilson Weisgerber Weisbeck Nebbeling Hogg Hawkins	Coleman Stephens Hansen Thorpe Symons van Dongen Barisoff Dalton Masi Krueger McKinnon
NAYS -- 38
Evans Zirnhelt McGregor Kwan Hammell Boone Streifel Pullinger Lali Orcherton Stevenson Calendino Goodacre	Walsh Randall Gillespie Robertson Cashore Conroy Priddy Petter Miller G. Clark Dosanjh MacPhail Lovick	Ramsey Farnworth Waddell Hartley Sihota Smallwood Sawicki Bowbrick Kasper Doyle Giesbrecht Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the beginning of a long weekend, an important weekend for all of us, and I hope everybody has a very safe trip home.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you just have to adjourn debate first -- but we appreciate the comments.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll hold those nice words. I'll rethink them, hon. Speaker.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: We are looking forward to this weekend, I can tell. The motion is to adjourn the debate on the throne speech.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Some might accuse me of already being on holiday. My apologies. Have a safe holiday, relax and come back to fight the good fight another day. With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:42 a.m.

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