[ Page 6861 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pride and great pleasure to introduce to the House two very loyal constituents of mine. In fact, they're my parents. Would the House please give my parents, Lydia and Wilhelm Ridke, a hearty welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a sad occasion today for me to rise in the House and recognize the passing of another comrade and friend of members of the House: Don Lockstead, the former member for Mackenzie. Don Lockstead served for many years in this chamber as a member of the NDP. In fact, shortly after I joined the NDP -- which was in 1976 -- to support Dave Barrett in a by-election that was held in my constituency of Vancouver East, I travelled to Victoria after that successful by-election. At that time, I actually had lunch with Don Lockstead. I had just been a member for a few weeks. Don was an extremely hard-working, decent individual. He went on to become mayor of Powell River and served in that capacity for several years. He passed away at the very young age of about 67, I believe. I talked to him two weeks ago while he was in the hospital. He was in great spirits, and he knew exactly what was ahead of him. He accepted it and wished the government well, of course, and he said that his only regret was not being here to see the NDP re-elected for a third time.

Hon. Speaker, I'd ask you, on behalf of all members of the House and the Legislature, to send our best wishes to his family. He was a member who was liked by all members of all parties in the House while he served here, and I know that his family would like to see him recognized in this way by this chamber.

The Speaker: Indeed I will. Thank you, Premier. I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I would also like to send sympathy to the Lockstead family. Don Lockstead was an outstanding mayor of Powell River for many, many years. He served as an MLA, as the Premier just said. In fact, I first ran against Mr. Lockstead in 1986 and then worked very closely with him as mayor. He was somebody who gave a tremendous amount of himself to all who knew him, and he worked tirelessly on behalf of those causes he believed in so passionately. It is a sad day with his passing, because there are few like Mr. Lockstead who come by and put community first. That's certainly what he did. I second the Premier's request and feel sure that all members of the Legislature would support us in that cause.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the House to welcome Marten Burns, who is a policy adviser with the Minister of Natural Resources Canada. He's out here visiting British Columbia.

Also here is Willy Berger, who is down from Williams Lake on business with the Real Estate Foundation.

G. Campbell: I'd like to welcome a group of exchange students who are here from La Seine sur Mer, France. They're touring the legislative buildings today. They are with students from Kitsilano Secondary School, their teachers and their parents. I ask the Legislature to join me in wishing them a very enjoyable trip to British Columbia and an informative visit to the Legislature.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend of mine. He's a real estate agent by profession, and a community and social activist by choice -- and, I think, by necessity. Joining us today is Chuck Beyer. He was also the NDP candidate for Saanich and the Islands in the last federal election. I'd ask the House to make him very, very welcome.

T. Stevenson: I'd like to welcome today to the gallery a large number of seniors from my riding who are part of the 411 Seniors Centre, which is a very large and important seniors centre in downtown Vancouver, in Vancouver-Burrard. I think there are about 25 seniors here today. They've had a tour of the Legislature and were out for lunch. They're now back here to watch question period. I'd ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I would like to introduce Clair Buckley, who's in the gallery today. He is the president of the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon division. Actually, in a previous life he was with the planning division in the Ministry of Health, so he has promised to tell us stories later. I would ask that the House make him very welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House two members of the Kamloops and District Real Estate Association: Pete Krawchuck and Patrick Lindsay. I think it's important not only to recognize the fact that they've taken the time to talk with us today on matters of concern to their association but also to recognize the significant achievements they have accomplished in our community through work with the Children and Families ministry, in helping to create a children's shelter in the Kamloops area. That was largely due to the local real estate board and the Real Estate Foundation, and I think they deserve thanks and congratulations.

Hon. A. Petter: Visiting in the gallery today is David Collins, who is deputy head of mission and senior trade commissioner for the Canadian embassy in Seoul, South Korea. I'd ask the House to make him very welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I have a few guests in the gallery today. Ben Beute and his wife Rita are here, and visiting them from Switzerland are his sister Barta Beute Luthi and their friend, Betty Vander Beek. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CROWN LAND PURCHASE OPTIONS

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid I can't give the member the exact figures he speaks about. But I would like to assure him that if he would make himself available to my office, we'd be happy to provide the details of that information to him.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on a supplementary.

[ Page 6862 ]

I'd like to ask the minister a new question, though. Last week the Premier was quoted as saying that the Delgamuukw decision does not give aboriginal groups a veto over the disposition of Crown lands. He said that in spite of Delgamuukw, it doesn't mean we can't proceed with applications. In fact, he said we are proceeding with applications. My question to the Minister of Lands is: is it the policy of this government -- her government -- that British Columbians with legal options to purchase Crown land will in fact be allowed to exercise those options?

[2:15]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on a second supplementary.

M. de Jong: British Columbians have paid money to secure options to purchase. The question is not a complicated one: will this minister guarantee that any British Columbian holding a legal option to purchase Crown lands will be permitted their right to exercise that option -- period?

Hon. C. McGregor: Again I will point out to the member that there are complexities in this matter. To the best of our ability we consult with all of the tenure holders, as I said earlier, as well as local governments. We certainly have the duty to consult with first nations, subject to legal agreements that this province must abide by.

G. Campbell: My question is also to the Minister of Environment. As the minister knows, Bill and Darlene Freding of Southern Plus Feedlots have been waiting for some time for the Crown to grant them land which is legally theirs, near Oliver. In 1990 they signed the agreement. They told the government they were going to exercise their option in September of 1997. The government told the Fredings what the price of that land would be in November of 1997, and in December of last year the Fredings agreed to the price. Since that time the Fredings have invested $1 million for the purchase of the land and for a contract with a local winery to plant grapes. Can the minister explain why she hasn't met the government's legal obligation to transfer that land and why the government would willingly put the Fredings' million-dollar investment at risk?

Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly recognize the importance of this particular tenure and also the speed at which this ministry must apply itself to have the matter effectively dealt with. As the member opposite knows, we have been working effectively with the local MLA to try and have this approval expedited, likely by this week.

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

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, under the agreements that are signed, the Crown has a legal obligation to have that land transferred within 120 days. How the minister can take any pride in forcing a private citizen to call a lawyer and their MLA and to travel to Victoria to get the government to live up to its legal obligations is beyond me. I think the question most British Columbians would ask is: how many other British Columbians are facing the same kinds of problems? How many other people's life savings are at risk because this government will not live up to its legal obligations? Can the minister assure all those who have a legal option to purchase that those options will be honoured and executed in a timely way, according to the legal obligations of this government?

Hon. C. McGregor: This government has every intention of living up to its legal obligations. I think we've had an opportunity in the previous week to talk about the interim strategy that has been developed to try and expedite the number of applications which, the members rightly note, are in backlog. We are actively working on it, and we have reviewed our options in terms of developing an overall longer-term strategy. I expect that a decision will be announced in the next few weeks.

I'd also like to assure the members that in the meantime we are taking the appropriate staff resources and putting them in place to expedite those applications, as I previously spoke to -- particularly those with economic and job benefits. But we're also ensuring the rights of other existing tenure holders and ensuring that there aren't any negative impacts on environmental matters.

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

G. Campbell: The government signed an agreement with the Fredings. It's a legal agreement, Madam Minister. That agreement calls for the government to act -- not to sit, not to wait, not to wonder. The Fredings have a legal agreement with this government. The government was supposed to meet that obligation within 120 days. They are way beyond that, and they are putting those people's investment and their livelihood at risk. How many other people is this minister willing to risk? How many other investments and jobs is this minister willing to put at risk? Will the minister tell this House today that this government will live up to its responsibilities and obligations under a legal agreement and that when people have an option to purchase, those options will be exercised and honoured in a timely manner by a government that has not to date lived up to its obligations?

Hon. C. McGregor: I again assure the member opposite that I have been working actively with the MLA on the case he brings for discussion in the House today. I have been informed by staff that a decision is imminent and that it's likely within the week.

[ Page 6863 ]

EXPERIMENTAL SEAL HARVEST

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll gather the information and get back to the member.

The Speaker: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on his first supplementary -- and a different angle.

G. Wilson: My question this time is to the Minister of Environment. I wonder if the minister can tell me whether her staff have undertaken studies of Vancouver Island creeks and rivers with respect to the proliferation of seals and whether the wildlife management branch has taken a position on a commercial seal hunt.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not immediately aware of any such studies, but I'll take it under advisement and inform the member as soon as possible.

The Speaker: Taken on notice. Thank you.

CROWN LAND PURCHASE OPTIONS

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, it is certainly my intention and our government's intention to live up to our legal obligations, including agreements we may reach with tenure holders around the province. But we also intend to proceed in keeping with our obligations to consult with first nations.

B. Barisoff: The Fredings, who I talked to the hon. minister about, have gone 120 days. They did their part for what they had to do. The government broke its commitment to the Fredings; they served a month's notice. What did the minister do to break the commitment and force the Fredings to travel all the way to Victoria just to exercise their legal rights? Will the minister assure the Fredings today that they can finally plant their grapes, which they diligently went out and bought? Will she give us a commitment today that they can go on with their million-dollar investment and provide jobs for the South Okanagan?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, the Supreme Court has made it clear that we have an obligation to consult with first nations. Beyond that, we intend to live up to our own legal commitments.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CHARITABLE GAMING

My question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs is: as this government sits there and tells municipalities that they have to choose between charity casinos and slot machines, will she stand up in cabinet and in this House for municipal governments' rights and say that municipal governments will not have to choose between having slot machines or charity casinos in their communities?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, I really find it amazing every time the opposition gets up to talk about gaming. It's clear that they don't remember what happened six months ago or a year ago -- whether it's what they said then or what the government said. The answer is the same as it was six months ago on new casinos in communities. Communities will decide on their own terms whether or not they want a new casino in their community. That's why communities like Penticton held a referendum in which they approved a new casino. Communities know full well that when they approve that, slot machines come with it. So they're making an informed decision, and the citizens of those communities are making informed decisions. That's why a community like North Vancouver has decided it doesn't want a casino. And do you know what, hon. Speaker? They're not going to get one. So the answer is the same as it was a number of months ago, and that is that communities will decide for themselves.

The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: The reason I asked the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs is because I want her to clarify where she stands on this issue. What I can do is put it in a multiple-choice format to make it simple. Is her position A, as she said in March 1995, that the province has a duty to ban commercial gaming and that allowing cities to fight it on their own would be passing the buck? Or is it B, as she said in December 1997: that the city of Vancouver should fight it, and that she agreed with them and was going to fight it with them? Or is her position C, which is the position that this minister takes: that the province should get into the gambling industry and the municipal governments should get out of the way? Or is there an option D here -- that this minister will do anything and say anything about gaming as long as she can make sure that she gets to take a cabinet minister's paycheque in her pocket when she goes home at night?

The Speaker: The Speaker doesn't think much of the last bit of that question.

I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted to rise to answer the question. But you know what, hon. Speaker? When I was on city council from 1993 to 1996, it was the member opposite -- in

[ Page 6864 ]

So I want to ask opposition members what exactly their position is. Do they actually support casinos or don't they? One day they'll get up and say, "Oh well, let municipalities decide," but on other days they say: "Oh no, we don't want it." And then on budget day they say: "Let's do what Alberta is doing and make sure that we get the kind of revenues they're getting." Come on! Give us a break.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Hon. members, we'll proceed when order has been restored.

Ministerial Statement

CANCER MONTH

I think it would be very hard to find anyone in this province who does not know someone whose life has been affected by cancer. In British Columbia the number of cancer diagnoses continues to rise by about 3.5 percent each year. But as a result of the treatment and support by oncologists, researchers, social workers, volunteers and thousands of others, we have the lowest cancer mortality rate in all of Canada. It's 11 percent lower than any other province in the country. If we stop and think about that just for a moment, think about how it affects all of our lives, it means that we may not lose someone we love. We may not lose them because this province, in particular, is doing extraordinary work in cancer treatment and research and support for families.

I think there are a number of reasons for our successes in treating cancer in this province. One of them is the B.C. Cancer Agency, which sets consistent standards in referrals and treatment throughout the province. Over the years, the work of the B.C. Cancer Agency. . . . I introduced earlier Mr. Clair Buckley, who is part of motivating those wonderful volunteers who work with the Cancer Society. But the Cancer Agency and the Cancer Society have helped thousands of British Columbians and their families deal with what are often and for many people the devastating effects of this disease -- for the patients and for their families and friends. Their work is leading to advances in cancer research and treatment -- treatment that may ultimately have an impact on people not only in British Columbia but all over this world. Through research we're beginning to understand how various cancers work, and we're developing techniques to treat them. We need to build on the successes of cancer research in the past in order to achieve new scientific breakthroughs.

This government has increased funding -- and I say that with some pride -- to the B.C. Cancer Agency by 25 percent over the last four years, and our investments in cancer services are leading to improved treatment and support for people with cancer and for their families. We now have dedicated cancer clinics in Vancouver and Surrey; a new Southern Interior Cancer Centre in Kelowna, which I opened two Fridays ago, along with two colleagues from the official opposition; and an expansion of the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre, planned for completion in the year 2000.

We're currently treating about 10,000 British Columbians each year for cancer. With the opening of the Kelowna cancer centre and the expansion of the Victoria cancer centre, we expect that, given population growth, that will rise to about 14,000 by the year 2001. Hon. Speaker, I always need to ask myself at least: who are those 10,000 people or, in a few years' time, those 14,000 people? Not who they are by number. We have to name the faces, and the faces of those people are the next-door neighbours we have summer barbecues with, our sister who leads the church choir or the granddads who read the bedtime stories.

The other factors that affect the numbers are our growing and aging population, who have increased needs for treatment and support. One of the disturbing factors is the fact that we may be able to actually prevent some of these diagnoses in the first place. For example, cigarette smoking is responsible for approximately 80 percent of lung cancer and 30 percent of the total cancer treatment. So there are some things we can actually work to prevent.

More people in British Columbia are getting the treatment they need sooner, and that means longer lives and better health. During the month of April, as you admire the daffodils that are springing up around you -- and you have so much time in your garden, I'm sure -- think about the Canadian Cancer Society's symbol that represents renewed life. It is in this spirit of hope that many B.C. residents are living with cancer, and that family members, health care providers and researchers are all doing their utmost to help them face this challenge.

S. Hawkins: In the past few weeks I too have attended and fully supported several events in recognition of April as Cancer Month. Patients with cancer have a special place in my heart. As a former oncology nurse I had the privilege to work in two major western Canadian cancer centres. I got to witness firsthand the very important work done by volunteers, social workers, nurses, radiation oncologists, chemotherapists and many others who serve patients with cancer.

I too know that many of us have been personally affected by someone close to us that has been struck with cancer. I know that the first emotion that patients feel when they're told that they have cancer is fear. I think it's very natural to feel fear, particularly when a person is encountering a life-and-death situation. It's very natural to have questions like: will I need surgery? Will I need chemotherapy? Will I need radiation treatment? And it's natural to wonder: will I survive this illness?

I think we as a society can take pride that we've chosen to have compassion for people who fall ill in our society. Our society has charged governments with the responsibility to meet the medical care and treatment needs of these patients in a caring and compassionate manner, and I've always believed

[ Page 6865 ]

As the minister points out, cancer needs are growing. As legislators we need to do better; we must do better. I'm always amazed and inspired by the courage and strength of the patients and families struck with cancer. I'm proud of all the volunteers and all the people who make a positive difference in the lives of people with cancer. In the words of a physician back home, it's my hope too that in the very near future we won't need to recognize a cancer month. Until that time, I too want to wish the Canadian Cancer Society a successful campaign, and I encourage everyone to support their efforts.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

I just want to make a couple of comments first about what's happening in Burnaby. There's a lot of activity; it's a very fast-moving city. I have a few comments from a recent article in the newspaper about a project that's being built in Metrotown by Stanley Kwok, who is the architect and developer of the Crystal complex. The article says that a lot of high-tech companies are looking at locating in Burnaby because of its location and amenities. For example, Ottawa-based Newbridge Networks, one of Canada's largest computer hardware companies, is looking at establishing its western headquarters in Burnaby. It also goes on to say that Metrotown is the largest shopping mall west of Edmonton and that Burnaby recorded a 48 percent increase in building permit values in 1997 over the previous year, from $219 million to $324 million, and 1998 certainly promises a lot more of the same. They go on to talk about all of the advantages of locating in Burnaby. Also, this facility --that one development -- will create a thousand construction jobs and 800 full- and part-time jobs. There's a 274-unit hotel that is also part of the project.

One of the major reasons they say they're locating in Burnaby is that it's an excellent location. Kwok said: "Other Burnaby advantages include lower land prices, while city hall is more developer-friendly since it has community plans already in place."

Other facilities that are established in Burnaby are B.C. Tel's head office, B.C. Hydro's head office, B.C. Tel Mobility, the Loewen Group -- if you recall, Ray Loewen was a member of this Legislature for one term back a number of years -- Rogers Cantel, Creo Products and Teleglobe Canada. They are a number of large companies located in Burnaby.

In the North Burnaby-Grandview area, there are an awful lot of high-tech facilities being built. This area now houses more than half of about one million square feet of studio space in the lower mainland. The Big Bend-Marine Way area in south Burnaby is the most active emerging industrial area north of the Fraser River. Of course, all that area from New Westminster to Vancouver -- in the Big Bend area -- is in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, and I've had opportunities to attend a number of the sod-turnings or openings in that area.

Some major ones have located recently in Burnaby, or are in the process of locating, including Ballard Power Systems, which we're all aware of. I was able to be there when that facility had its sod-turning. The Future Shop has a new facility there, with about 500 jobs. I might say that Ballard has 200 people working there. A few weeks ago I was at Inex Pharmaceuticals; there are 100 people working there. It was an official opening. I might just say, because of the discussion on cancer, that this facility has 100 people working just on trying to find a cure for cancer. That whole facility is devoted to that single purpose.

[2:45]

There's been an increase of about 5,000 jobs. Also, the dollar value of building permits increased by 48 percent from 1996 to 1997. In planning for Burnaby's future, the city has projected that with the new growth in the city, an additional 26,000 jobs will come by the year 2006. The city also anticipates that the construction of the LRT line along the Lougheed will contribute to a significant amount of new residential, commercial and industrial development in Burnaby.

I have just a couple of comments about comments made in the throne speech that flow over into the budget. In the budget, there were also tax cuts for 40,000 small businesses. That amounted to about 11 percent over two years. Also, the corporation capital tax will be eliminated for 10,000 small businesses. I might just say that the government has been working very hard on the corporation capital tax. I, for one, believe that it is not a good tax, and I know that it's hard to eliminate that tax in one fell swoop, because there's $400 million-odd in revenue from the corporation capital tax. The threshold has been increased consistently. It'll be up to $5 million by January 2001. I think about 90 percent of businesses will be exempt from the corporation capital tax at that time.

In the matter of mining, there's a lot of work being done by the Minister of Energy and Mines to try and assist the mining industry in every way he can. I know that a lot of work has taken place on developing a mining code, which should be concluded very shortly. Assurances of land tenure has been an issue for some time with regards to development. The environmental process has been improved, so there's only

[ Page 6866 ]

Also on mining, I should mention -- because I'm involved in it, to a degree -- just a few facts about mining in British Columbia. It's an industry that is going to really contribute substantially to the economy of this province. Total mining-related employment is approximately 57,400, and direct employment is approximately 16,400. There are 21 major operating mines, two smelters and three refineries in British Columbia. The Trail operation is the world's largest lead-zinc smelter. There are 13 metal mines and eight coal mines. In addition, there are 30 industrial-minerals mines and 1,100 construction aggregate operations. There are 500 placer operations. There are over 300 exploration projects currently underway, and there are three projects in the environmental-assessment process. The value of minerals produced in 1997 was $3.18 billion. Mineral exports accounted for an estimated 13 percent of all B.C. exports in 1997. Clean-coal production values in 1997 increased by 10 percent.

The government and industry are very proud of four major mine development projects: Mount Polley, Huckleberry, Golden Bear and Kemess. Mount Polley is a gold-copper mine. It has created 170 permanent full-time operating jobs. Huckleberry is, again, a copper-gold mine. There are 170 full-time jobs there. Golden Bear has created 80 full-time jobs. Kemess gold-copper mine has 350 permanent full-time operating jobs.

Vancouver hosts one of the largest concentrations of mineral exploration and mining companies in the world, along with consulting, engineering and service groups. Metal exploration expenditures in B.C. are suffering because of decreases in metal prices, especially copper and gold. Exploration is the lifeline of the mineral industry. Certainly there has to be ongoing exploration to find new mines for the sustainability of a healthy industry. Many of these mines are discovered ten years before they ever get into production, so if there isn't an ongoing exploration program, you just don't have mines in the future.

There's a new mill at Eskai Creek, which is a very rich mine. It's now the fifth-largest silver producer in the world. I toured Eskai Creek with the minister. It's certainly a very interesting operation. They also have the other mine, Snip, which is fairly close by. As I mentioned, Prosperity is currently in the environmental assessment process.

Current major players -- spenders on exploration in B.C. -- are Kennecott Canada; Phelps Dodge; Boliden; Teck Corp., of course; Imperial Metals are involved; Cyprus Canada; Rio Algom; Homestake Canada, who, as I mentioned, have Eskai Creek and Snip; Cominco; the Hunter Dickinson group, which Prosperity is part of; Hudson Bay Exploration; Booker Gold; Noranda; Placer Dome; Abitibi Mining; Miner River Resources Ltd.; American Bullion; and Getty Copper Corp. These are just some of the things that are happening, and there's going to be a lot more happening with regard to mining. Again, as I mentioned, the minister is certainly making a major effort to see that that happens.

Just going back to things that were changed, there was the elimination of tax on coloured fuel used on farms, which is certainly going to help a lot of people in the province. The jet fuel tax, as mentioned, is going to be reduced from 4 down to 2 cents by April next year. Certainly there were tax cuts for individuals and families. I can tell you that I can't afford to pay any more taxes, so I'm pleased to see that personal income taxes will be reduced by 2 percent, effective January 1, 1999.

Also, there are changes with regard to those paying premiums to the Medical Services Plan: the cost cut will exempt 80,000 more B.C. individuals from paying MSP.

Also, to provide for an essential infrastructure, we're increasing capital spending by $275 million over the amount spent last year, to $1.25 billion for new schools, hospitals, roads and transportation projects. I'm certainly a strong supporter of spending money on infrastructure. We just have such an increase in population here, people coming in, and an increase in the demand for schools. I know that I get upset every time I hear people saying: "You have to balance the budget." At the same time they're saying: "We need a school. There's a demand for schools. We've got to get out of these portables." I certainly support spending money to provide the facilities now. These things cost more money as times goes on, and I think you have to address those problems now. Certainly it creates jobs and puts dollars into working people's pockets to spend and help create a lot better economy.

Also on health care, it's been mentioned that there is $228 million more to protect and improve health care. This is the seventh straight year that the health care budget has been increased. We have increased health care spending by almost $2 billion since 1991, and no other government comes close to matching that record. B.C. continues to allocate more money per person for health care than any other province.

As I mentioned, there's going to be a substantial school-building program, which I strongly support. I guess one thing that affects a lot of families is that the freeze on college and university tuition fees is being extended for 1998-1999. So there are just a lot of things that were certainly mentioned in the throne speech that are covered in the budget.

Also, hon. Speaker, Power for Jobs. As you're aware, there's power from the downstream benefits that will be coming back, and certainly there's interest by people in locating in British Columbia, particularly with regard to aluminum smelters. I had an opportunity to participate in a couple of meetings with Alcoa and Alumax, and certainly I know that they were very keen on locating in British Columbia because of the power. I understand that there's a merger taking place currently between those two companies. I don't know just what the status is currently, but I know they're looking at locations in British Columbia. Certainly there are discussions taking place regarding a possible copper smelter, which will also use a fair amount of power.

Other things are happening around the province that I sort of feel pretty good about: the work situation in the next couple of years. I know that right in downtown Vancouver there's about $750 million being spent on a new convention facility. There's also the theme park that's going to replace the PNE. This will be a year-round operation and will probably cost between $250 million and $500 million, depending on the size they're going to build. But the PNE will be part of that theme park. We know there are a couple of cogeneration plants planned in the province.

Certainly we're going to see -- I guess, one day soon -- a new Lions Gate Bridge. I hope that matter is resolved soon, because in looking at the video of the underpart of that bridge, I think I would be reluctant sometimes to cross it. But anyway, I think that it certainly has to be dealt with fairly soon.

There's also the $1 billion light rapid transit, which will go from the university out the Lougheed Highway. I know that Lougheed was the route that was supported by the Bur-

[ Page 6867 ]

So workwise, I think things in the next couple of years are going to be pretty good. There are a lot of other things going on that are possibilities, and there's just a lot of interest at this time.

[3:00]

The other thing I want to mention that also was covered in the throne speech is the matter of leaky condominiums, probably one of the most serious important consumer issues that anyone could imagine. In talking to people in my constituency and adjoining constituencies, I've had experience with regard to the problems in the quality of construction, and certainly this problem relates to the design and quality of construction and the qualifications of the people who are working on the projects.

I had occasion recently. . . . When we had a dinner meeting last week here with the Construction Labour Relations Association, there was a contractor there who is in the glazing business, which is windows. He said that 30 percent of his business is currently fixing poor-quality work on windows in condominiums. He said they don't even caulk the windows all the way around, which a qualified person would just not imagine not doing. You can imagine: 30 percent of his work is fixing poor workmanship in caulking windows on condominium projects.

I strongly support the government's position on dealing with this issue. I understand that they're going to have some independent body take a look at it. I don't know; it's been looked at an awful lot so far. I guess it's an opportunity to give the people who have the problem the chance to have their say, because up until now, if you owned a condominium, you didn't dare speak out if you had a problem, because you couldn't market it. I know people who actually fled immediately and got rid of their unit as soon as there was any indication of problems. I think people are now getting to the point where they're speaking out.

I just want to run through a couple of things on this issue, because I feel it's so very, very important to thousands and thousands of consumers in British Columbia. I had this call from a woman just in the last month, I guess it was -- three or four weeks ago. She had moved into a place called Gateway Place, built by Fraserview Construction. The heating was condemned as soon as she moved into a brand-new building. She had to spend $1,500 to fix that and also $585 for a lawyer. Now she has been assessed, on top of that, $15,000. She can pay that in two payments.

There is another one that I really felt very, very badly about. There is a woman who was living in the Quays in New Westminster, and I knew her from previous work I had done. She was not working, because she had cancer. She had an assessment of $30,000. She had managed to save $15,000 in RRSPs for her retirement, and she cashed those. I don't know what she got -- maybe $9,000 after she cashed them out. She applied the $9,000 to the assessment. Now they're in the process of foreclosing on her, so she's lost her RRSPs. The value of all these units is such that you can't get anywhere near. . . . The mortgages are all more than the value.

I was so upset over this that I took the time to phone Andre Molnar, who was the promoter, I guess -- I wouldn't say he built it -- and raised this matter with him. He said to me: "I've tried to help these people, but they don't want my help." I just couldn't believe it. These companies, like Andre Molnar, Polygon and others, run full-page ads in the newspaper saying, "Another Polygon development or project," like it's a big deal. Well, first of all, these companies don't build the project. They contract it out to the lowest bid they can possibly get, and they build it. It's marketed; it's sold under a numbered company. So if anything happens, that company's dissolved after the units are sold, so there's nobody for people to go after legally. It's just the most criminal situation I've ever seen, and we've heard so many stories of people. . . . It's going to affect their retirements, their life savings and so many things. How they can get away with this is beyond me. I just hope that all of the legislators here certainly support having to offer protection to these people.

There have just been so many stories about how to buy a leak-free condo and how it shouldn't be a matter of luck. I'm sure you've all read that stuff. There's one here. There's a development where the assessment is now about $17,000. They have written to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking that the federal government consider disaster-relief funding and establishing a special tax deduction for those with expensive repairs. In effect, they're arguing that the ice storm in other provinces is a major catastrophe, that we've got the same kind of catastrophe here in British Columbia and that there should be some federal assistance to these people who are going to lose their homes. I think the value of the repairs on this one is $2.6 million.

There's also an editorial in the Saturday, February 7, 1998, Vancouver Sun, which I was surprised to find. "No Relief in Sight for Leaky-Condo Victims." I won't read the whole thing -- just a couple of things. It says: "Many victims of leaky condos have also lost their homes, their health and their life savings. . . ." Leaks plague at least 40 percent of wood-frame and stucco condominiums built since the mid-1980s. "Owners have kept silent for fear that negative news stories would make it impossible for them to sell. Builders have continued to apply the same building techniques and substandard workmanship, even though it has long been clear that their buildings were not working." It goes on to say that builders will have to require some form of accreditation to weed out unqualified builders.

Another comment that I found interesting. . . . I had the opportunity to meet with the Urban Development Institute. They were lobbying the government to introduce mandatory home warranties. Then I find out that they want the government to bring in legislation to provide warranty protection, and they're going to go into the warranty business. It's interesting that this editorial in the newspaper said: "It is questionable practice to have an industry help shape law to police its own bad behaviour." I agree with that comment wholeheartedly. It says: "Developers have remained relatively unscathed

[ Page 6868 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, could I draw your attention to the red light. Your time is now completed.

F. Randall: Hon. speaker, I didn't realize I had been so long. I'll just wind up, then, and say that I certainly support the throne speech. I just want to add that I think this government is doing a hell of a good job.

The Speaker: I'm not sure about that slightly unparliamentary word in there. But we'll choose that. . . .

F. Randall: I apologize. I just said something I shouldn't have.

The Speaker: I appreciate your feelings about it.

I recognize now the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside.

S. Orcherton: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and let me join with other members of this House in congratulating you on your successful new position as Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. Let me also say, as the MLA for the constituency of Victoria-Hillside, which borders on your constituency, what a pleasure it is to have received all the many calls to my office from constituents who reside in Victoria-Hillside congratulating you on your appointment. The community at large is extremely thrilled over your new success and your new-found responsibilities. If I can, on their behalf I pass along congratulations to you in your new capacity.

The Speech from the Throne is a speech that sets the tone for the next year in terms of this Legislative Assembly and some of the issues that we placed on the agenda in the forefront in the Legislature and also with the people of British Columbia. I'm really very excited about this throne speech. I think it signals a busy and exciting year ahead for all members of this assembly and an exciting year full of optimism and opportunity for the people of British Columbia. This throne speech really does in fact, I think, create opportunity for all British Columbians, with a focus on renewing B.C.'s economy, encouraging investment, creating new jobs and ensuring opportunities for British Columbians. That shall be the main support coming out of the throne speech, in particular the support for education and training young people so that they can achieve the skills they need to prosper in our changing economy. Through the throne speech the government will build on B.C.'s strengths, particularly universal medicare, quality public services and high environmental standards.

Let me say that when I look through the throne speech, I'm struck by the challenges that lie ahead. As I said earlier, I think British Columbians will rally behind the opportunities as we move forward in the coming year: the initiatives that are being taken to strengthen B.C.'s investment climate are good initiatives in terms of British Columbia; and the reductions in taxes for industry and small business -- particularly from my constituency perspective, a reduction in individual income taxes for British Columbians in order to stimulate investment and job creation. Those are very positive initiatives, I think, coming out of the throne speech. They're ones the people in Victoria-Hillside see as positive and, again, holding some opportunity for them as we move forward in the coming year.

We are going to continue to try and promote economic growth in British Columbia. We're increasing investments through Forest Renewal B.C. for more wood for value-added manufacturing; the new community forest tenures pilot program under the jobs and timber accord; major investment incentives through the Power for Jobs initiative; further action to ensure a future for Pacific salmon and to renew B.C.'s fisheries; and tax incentives for the B.C. film and television industry.

[3:15]

We are going to continue to support and in fact increase our support for the mining industry, including the finalization of a mineral exploration code. It's good news for the people involved in the mining industry.

The regional economic summits will continue to build on the successes of the 1997 northern summit. I know that our caucus has been working for some time on getting government out to different regions. I think we've been quite successful in that regard with the different summits we're holding around the province and the different focuses of attention on the particular issues and the particular needs of people in the varying regions of our province.

We're strengthening B.C.'s communities as well through our support for the high-tech industry. Just last week a major initiative -- a major deal -- was put together with IBM. In our community here it is going to provide a lot of jobs for folks. I'm pleased that this initiative is going ahead. I'm very pleased as well that arrangements have been made for the ITSD people who work directly for government. Those folks are going to be able to continue on in the IBM structure, retaining their rights and so on as government employees. So there's really a win-win for everybody here, I think, in terms of this announcement. There's much more work to be done in this area, and there are huge opportunities for people in greater Victoria with this deal. IBM is a very large company, one that is international in scope. I'm very pleased that it has chosen to locate itself on the southern part of Vancouver Island, offering job opportunities and increased revenues for our local area, our local governments and our local communities. It's very, very good news in terms of that kind of opportunity and that kind of optimism, which we need here on the south part of Vancouver Island.

In addition, we're taking a lot of steps. Over a billion dollars in terms of infrastructure is going to be spent to build schools, hospitals and highways, including major funding for rehabilitation of roads in northern British Columbia. I know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is in the northern part of British Columbia today making some of those announcements, which many MLAs from the north have been calling for for some time. That's very good news for the folks in the north end of our province.

We're going to continue on with the Vancouver Island Highway. It's a very, very positive initiative, providing jobs -- local hire -- through the HCL agreement on Vancouver Island. I've travelled up and down the Island, and on that issue I have yet to hear one municipal government, one working person in the construction industry or one construction company anywhere -- from the south to the north ends of this Island -- complaining about the HCL agreement or about the

[ Page 6869 ]

We're continuing to support, through the throne speech, education and support for our youth. We've got 400 new teachers and 300 new teaching aides that will be coming into place in the not-too-distant future. We have new capital investments to build more classrooms. The back-to-basics curriculum approach stresses early literacy. I am so pleased that we're talking about education these days. We're not talking about holding the line on class sizes; rather, we're talking about initiatives to reduce class sizes in grades 1 to 3, so our young people in British Columbia can get a head start in terms of their learning. That's a tremendous initiative. It's very positive for young people, and it's being taken up with equal optimism and in a positive sense by families in my constituency. They're very excited about that initiative.

At the same time, we're reducing portables in the province of British Columbia. We're spending new money on capital expenditures, most notably -- and hopefully in the not-too-distant future -- an announcement that will be made regarding a school that a lot of people in my constituency have been working on for some time to get it to move forward. That's the Oaklands elementary school in the east end of my constituency. It's a very old school -- a 1912 building. I've been working with a number of the people -- the parent advisory committee, the school district, architects and others -- to see if we can in fact keep the 1912 component of that building in a cost-effective way and build a new addition, tying it into an existing auditorium facility. I'm pleased that through the value-analysis process that all the parties embarked upon, that decision has been taken, and the best value for the taxpayers is to keep that heritage building. I'm looking forward to some very positive announcements in that regard in the not-too-distant future. It's very exciting news in my constituency around that school. People have been trying to get that moving forward for the last five or more years. Things are in a very, very positive vein right now, with lots of folks very excited about the new opportunities that are going to be unveiled around that school and in terms of the education facilities in our constituency.

In addition, the Oaklands Community Association -- relatively new, about two or three years young -- has been lobbying very hard, along with support from the city of Victoria and me, to secure a community centre on the same property as the Oaklands school. I'm very, very pleased to say that the minister responsible on the provincial side, through the federal-provincial infrastructure grant program, has signed this off as a priority. I'm advised by Minister Anderson's office -- he's the federal MP for Victoria -- that's it's a priority for him as well. So without any further problems cropping up on the horizon, I anticipate -- in the coming days, I would think -- an announcement around the Oaklands community centre project moving forward in tandem with the new school in our constituency. It's very exciting news for people in that area -- working-class folks with modest incomes. It's a quality facility attached to a brand-new school that maintains its heritage value. I think a lot of congratulations have to go to all of the people who came before me and who have actually worked so hard to make this initiative move forward. As I said, there are some very, very exciting initiatives in the constituency.

The Burnside Gorge Community Association has been following along with the optimism of this throne speech, saying that we can do better in our community. We can work together, and we can bring people together. They've done tremendous work around the Cecilia ravine, the Selkirk Water and some of the initiatives that they've put in place there. I was just down at the Selkirk Water the other day, and what I said was the smallest housing project in my constituency that I've ever announced was put in place there. They were nesting boxes for an endangered bird, the purple martin. That went over very, very well in the constituency. Lots of people came together -- the city of Victoria, businesses donating wood and lumber and materials, the Burnside Gorge Community Association, the Gorge Rowing Club and others -- around a small issue to achieve a major solution to the big problem of a bird that was vanishing from our community.

The Burnside Gorge Community Association continues to do that kind of work around the environment, around bringing people together, and it also continues to do tremendous work in terms of outreach and advocacy for people who live in that constituency. They are taking issue with some of what could be characterized as an urban watershed. We've got drainage points that flow through Cecilia creek into the Selkirk Water. They are taking some very positive steps there to encourage people to dispose of paints and varnishes and solvents in an appropriate fashion, as opposed to pouring them down the drain. In addition, I'll be working with the Burnside Gorge Community Association around this issue in the coming weeks and months to encourage businesses located in that urban watershed area to dispose of oils and to keep their parking lots cleaner and those sorts of things -- to ensure that the Selkirk Water is good for people to swim in. Maybe people can start doing that, as I did when I was a young fellow growing up in Victoria and swimming in the Gorge waterway. We're very close to that now, and I look forward to the opportunity of seeing that occur in the not too distant future.

We've taken some very, very positive steps in this throne speech. There's a plan in place. It's a three-year plan to stimulate economic growth, encourage investment, increase competitiveness and create jobs. We didn't do this in isolation; we consulted widely on these issues. We're planning on cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, cutting red tape and giving small businesses a break. To help revitalize B.C.'s traditional industries, we want to support the new economy. I talked a few moments ago about the IBM initiatives, and we want the government to move forward in a very positive sense.

There's been some discussion and debate from a number of members in this assembly, particularly the ones opposite, around where we're going in terms of our budget, in terms of balanced budgets, in terms of deficits and in terms of debt. I just want to say that we're doing some really good things in this constituency on the southern end of Vancouver Island. I spoke about the school at Oaklands and the replacement of the Royal Jubilee Hospital diagnostic and treatment centre in Victoria. If we hadn't built that, I suppose we could have gotten close to dealing with the deficit this year in British Columbia. But no, we chose to build it because the people in this community on the southern end of Vancouver Island -- in fact, in all of Vancouver Island -- require that kind of medical support. So I think those are positive decisions.

We've taken a decision, as well, to construct, at the Juan de Fuca Priory Hospital, a 75-bed multilevel-care facility in

[ Page 6870 ]

We make decisions based on the needs of the public. I often wonder -- the throne speech speaks to the optimism -- where that optimism is when it comes to the debate and discussion around the throne speech. Later on I hope to have an opportunity to debate the budget as well. Certainly the throne speech is a very vibrant, dynamic document that talks about the optimism of the government, relying on the optimism of the people of British Columbia. I am really excited about these initiatives. We can be negative; we can say that these things cost money and that we shouldn't do them. I think we have to do them. Kids need schools; they need proper facilities. We need to have hospitals to care for our sick and infirm. We need facilities for our aged who require long term care facilities. All those things cost dollars. We often talk about the debt; not very often do we talk about the assets British Columbia actually has which we hold on behalf of all the citizens of British Columbia. I wonder if at some point it may be an advantageous initiative to take all the schools, all the highways, all the hospitals, all the facilities we have in British Columbia and tally up their worth and weigh that off against the debt. I think we'd find that we have far more in terms of assets than debt. We have to continue to build those assets; people need them. It's appropriate for us to be moving in that direction.

The community I live in has its difficulties. It's not all a bed of roses out there, but I'm really happy to represent a community that comes together on community issues and deals with solutions straight up and in a commonsense fashion. If I can, by way of example I'll talk a little about a program that I was involved in last week. The national Little League park, on the corner of Cook and Hillside in my constituency, has been plagued with vandalism and graffiti over the last year or more. The folks from national Little League came to talk to me about what they could do about the problem, and I was able to put them together with workers for the city of Victoria, CUPE Local 50, who look after the parks and keep the streets clean. I was able to put together those two groups, the national Little League and the working people who look after the city, with a number of students from Lansdowne Junior Secondary. Last Wednesday there was a work party out at the park, with young people from the junior high school, city workers volunteering their time, and executive members and parents from the national Little League. They were all cleaning up the graffiti and repairing that park. I was really proud to see that that was all done without any taxpayer dollars. It was done by people coming together and recognizing that there is a problem and trying to work towards a positive solution. Next weekend the final work will be done to tidy up the park.

[3:30]

In addition, CUPE Local 50 -- city of Victoria outside workers -- have embarked upon a program called City Watch. They will be going around on their day-to-day duties. . . . They work 24 hours a day in the city. They're in vehicles driving all around the community, and they're going to make a point of keeping an eye on the various parks and problem spots in the community -- again at no cost to the taxpayers. They're really exhibiting that sense of optimism that the people in my community have around our community and around dealing with the problems and challenges that we face as a society. They're not easy issues to deal with: graffiti, vandalism and young people not doing appropriate things in our community. But when people come together -- young people, ordinary working people and community activists -- to deal with those kinds of situations, I think it really speaks well about my constituency and what we as a society want to see happening in the community.

Hon. Speaker, there's going to be some debate and discussion -- it was mentioned briefly in the throne speech -- around the Labour Code and achieving some balance in terms of labour relations in the province. I certainly look forward to those amendments coming forward. I think the people of British Columbia look forward to them, and I look forward to the opportunity to debate those as they come by way of legislation. There's no question that there's an unfair balance and a disadvantage to people in the construction industry, and I'm hoping to see a new construction labour relations code either put in place separately or embedded in the Labour Code itself. There are a lot of issues at hand. We continue to try and build fairness and a sense of balance into our government policy, to ensure that the sense of optimism and the sense of future are at hand.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, speaking before me a little while ago, raised the issue around condos. I share his view fully. There is no question that we need some remedy to this very, very serious situation, which is not only occurring in the lower mainland but also in this constituency as well. The member is right when he says that folks who have a problem with their condo. . . . It has not been constructed properly and there are leaks, and it's a defective unit that they've purchased. Very few people want to stand up and say: "You know what? I've got a real lemon here. Will somebody come along and buy it?" That is a very serious problem for a lot of folks.

Lots of people in this constituency rely on condominiums for their homes. That's the big investments in their lives. They purchase it and they purchase it in good faith. They believe that the construction company that built it built it properly. Then they find out to their chagrin that that's not the case, that it requires several thousands of dollars' worth of renovations to bring it up to standard. It will never be quite the condominium, quite the home, that they thought it was. If they raise it to anyone's attention, they run the risk of never being able to get rid of it. They've purchased a lemon. We have to do something about that. I look forward to the opportunity in this session to deal with that issue.

Other issues that I think are very, very important, particularly in this constituency of Victoria-Hillside and around greater Victoria, are the issues around secondary suites. There's lots and lots of secondary suites. I don't know of anybody on my street, on Cedar Hill Road, that doesn't have a basement suite or that doesn't own or operate a duplex or a triplex. Everybody does, yet most of them are illegal. I am not so concerned about the legality or illegality of the suites. I am far more concerned about whether or not those suites and those places where people are living are safe. I know, growing

[ Page 6871 ]

Hon. Speaker, I think there's a great deal to be optimistic about in terms of where we're going as a government, as a province and as people living in British Columbia. But, you know, I really, really wish. . . .This is the third time around for me and the third spring sitting in this Legislative Assembly, and it's very disappointing to hear the members opposite with this overall sense of negativity. They keep banging at every initiative that comes up. We've put in place a tuition freeze in British Columbia. They don't seem to like the tuition freeze; they oppose that. We raised the minimum wage in British Columbia -- $7.15 per hour, the highest minimum wage anywhere in North America. They oppose that as well. It's this constant negativity. We decide we can use our power advantage to attract new investment to British Columbia, and they oppose that as well. We said we're trying to work deals with Alcan to support that industry up in the Kitimat area, and they're not supportive of that. They opposed the jobs and timber accord. They're not supportive of that either.

It really is difficult in terms of trying to move forward on an agenda that I think, overall, people in British Columbia support -- at least the people in my constituency who I talk to on a regular basis. When I ask them, "How do you think we're doing?" they say: "You're doing pretty good overall. There are some areas you need to do some more on, but overall you're doing pretty good." You'd never know that, sitting in this House. You'd never know that, hearing the comments from the members opposite. You'd never know that we have taken the steps that we've taken over the last while.

Interjection.

S. Orcherton: The member has offered me some information. The member for Peace River South is now whining and complaining about something or other. I think there's a big announcement going on up in the northern part of British Columbia today about roads and things, which that member has been arguing about and asking for ever since I've been here. It's happening today. You'd think the member opposite would feel positive about that today. It's good news for the people in his area. Yet what do we get from the other side? Negative, negative, negative, negative! You know what's really a shame? That negativism being portrayed by the members opposite translates out there into the media and goes across this country and affects the business climate and the economy of this province. Why can't the members opposite get off the stick, get on the ball, get with the program and say: "You know what? In the north of British Columbia today we announced new roads for the people of British Columbia, and that's good news for investment and for the people of British Columbia"?

In the south of British Columbia, we've announced a new diagnostic centre in greater Victoria. The member for Saanich North and the Islands should be saying that this is good news for the people in this area, not negative, negative, negative, negative. When we talk about employment in British Columbia, StatsCan recently said that employment in British Columbia went up 0.8 percent in March.

An Hon. Member: The highest.

S. Orcherton: That's the highest of anywhere in Canada.

Interjection.

S. Orcherton: There were 14,000 jobs in March. I'm just waiting, because I know that either they are going to say nothing over there or they're just going to say something negative.

An Hon. Member: How many in Alberta?

S. Orcherton: How many in Alberta? Alberta went down by 9,000 jobs.

Interjection.

S. Orcherton: See, here we go. We've got all this good news coming out, and that member opposite immediately says that there is nothing good about the government anyway. Members in this chamber should know that we are the government -- this side of the House and that side of the House are the government. So when you say that there's nothing good, I don't know what you're talking about, hon. member. We've got good news happening all over the place.

I really want to say -- I want to try and hammer this home as best I can, and I want to be very sure that everybody understands -- that with the negativity that's being portrayed by the members opposite around this throne speech, government policy and the initiatives of the government, they are portraying themselves very poorly across this country. I say that the members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They should have more of a sense of optimism about the people of British Columbia and less of a sense of negativism about themselves. What they're really saying is that they are negative about themselves. They have no solutions to the challenges we face. They have nothing but this negative Nellyism that goes on and on and on.

It's time to get with the program and time to understand that the people of British Columbia expect much more out of the government, particularly out of the members of the opposition. Members of the opposition should be putting forward solutions to the challenges we are facing, not this negative whining that goes on, where on the one hand they whine and complain about spending and then they get up in this Legislative Assembly and argue that courthouses should be maintained and that schools and hospitals should be built in their constituencies. They can't have it both ways, hon. Speaker.

I want to close by saying that I really think that this is an exciting throne speech. It's one that has optimism in it and recognizes that there are many challenges ahead. This is a positive and optimistic throne speech. It's one that I would encourage everyone in this House to support and vote in favour of. I know the members opposite can't do that because doing anything positive seems to be repugnant to them. But I urge them to really look at this, read it through, gather the sense of optimism and feel good about the future, and grab what the people of British Columbia have -- that real, true

[ Page 6872 ]

K. Krueger: As I listened to the delivery of this throne speech, as with throne speeches past I found myself comparing the statements of the throne speech to the realities discussed with me by my constituents every day. Perhaps it's fitting that I follow the member opposite from Victoria-Hillside, because frankly, my constituents give me little reason to share the optimism that he reports. It's all very well to take this head-in-the-clouds, Pollyanna approach: they're looking over a four-leaf clover that they've overlooked before. We have been overlooking that four-leaf clover for the last seven years, and in response to the member opposite, there is nothing to sing about.

People are in dire straits in my constituency and, I believe, in his. There are people in desperate need of health care. They're in health care lineups, on wait-lists. They're fearful for their lives. There is nothing for us to be Pollyannas about. There are special needs children everywhere in this province who are not receiving the attention they need. Those special needs children are growing older day by day, like all the rest of us. The opportunities are passing; the windows are closing.

I've had a particular interest in the problems of fetal-alcohol-syndrome and fetal-alcohol-effect children, because there are people in my constituency who struggle every day with that problem, people who have adopted children who turn out to have those terrible disorders. It's common knowledge now that if those issues in children's lives aren't dealt with while they're young, they become harder and harder to deal with. Many of those children end up in the criminal justice system because they didn't receive adequate treatment in their youth. That's a tremendous problem. Frankly, we can't be the kind of cheerleaders that the member opposite just asked us to be. We can't be happy about a throne speech like this, because it's such a disappointment. We're concerned for the present, and we're concerned for the future of this province.

In my constituency unemployment is a serious problem -- very high unemployment. People feel as though the government is working against them, stifling opportunity and preventing them from creating jobs and from solving that unemployment issue.

[3:45]

Robert Fine spoke to the Rotary Club of Kamloops recently, and I was there. He very frankly stated that KEDCO, his organization, has given up trying to attract investment to Kamloops from outside British Columbia, because it can't be done in the current economic climate. That's a tremendously serious concern to us and another reason why we can't join the parade on the other side of the House. In fact, we have a hard time accepting that those members really mean what they say, because that's the economic reality facing British Columbians.

Mr. Fine's organization is concentrating its efforts on trying to win businesses from other parts of the province, and for British Columbia that is not a net gain, of course. That's a very unfortunate situation. Without growth, British Columbia cannot afford to provide for the needs of British Columbians when they really have those needs, especially things like health care, education, public safety, and children and families -- those things that both sides of the House hold to be the highest-priority responsibilities of our government.

Fundamental errors have occurred in the way this province has been run for the last eight years. Surely the members opposite don't disagree with that. The Premier has, in various steps, begun to face up to that situation in recent months. Even many of the people that are employed in British Columbia are underemployed, and again the blame for that rests at the doorstep of this government.

The Premier, when he had the opportunity to encourage a call centre to come to Kamloops with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, wouldn't even deal with them. He said he wasn't interested in doing business with banks. He turned away 600 jobs, which ended up in New Brunswick instead. Those aren't minimum-wage jobs; those tend to be between $10 and $15 per hour. In his budget in this session the Premier has finally addressed the issue that kept those jobs out of Kamloops and out of British Columbia. But that horse left the barn a long time ago; we're way behind. We've missed all kinds of opportunities like that because of the high-taxation, high-regulation policies of this government.

My constituents are battered and bruised by this government. I spoke in my response to the budget about my constituents Al and June Bush, salt-of-the-earth people in Barrière, who've been economically crushed by this government. It chose to make war on them because they affronted the good old boys of the Fraser Canyon forestry organization by underbidding them by 66 percent. They were willing to do a job for one-third of what the nearest competitor from that network was willing to do it for, and they were punished as a result. I'm looking to the Forests minister and to this government to right that wrong.

When things like that happen, they frighten other investors away. That's what has happened in British Columbia. People are literally afraid to come and do business here. There's a pent-up desire, I believe, to bring investment here. There are people who want to come to British Columbia and do business. It's still a beautiful place to live; that hasn't been messed up yet. It's still an attractive place to be. Many people want to come to British Columbia.

Interjections.

K. Krueger: The members opposite are raising the IBM announcement. I was going to deal with that, so I think I will right now. I've heard reports over the years about the antics of this government with regard to B.C. Systems Corporation and the shell games that have gone on, the changes in employment and disbanding things and reorganizing things and bringing people who used to be employees back on as contractors. All that time IBM seems to have been a beneficiary of many of the things that were happening with this government's entire data services industry. ICBC, for example, has dropped a bucket of money to IBM through a computer program plan that didn't come to fruition, that amounted to nothing in the end. I think the members opposite ought to try and keep their powder dry and not crow too much yet about the IBM announcement. We have to wait and see how that pans out for British Columbia and whether it's a net gain or not.

[ Page 6873 ]

Interjections.

K. Krueger: I'll pause for a moment if you'd like to restore order on the opposite side, Madam Speaker.

Other forest companies in British Columbia are forced to be in competition with a failed pulp mill that is propped up with their tax dollars by this government, and that is wrong. While that third of a billion dollars was squandered, people continued to wait and languish on health care waiting lists because the government spent its money in the wrong areas.

The member opposite also raised the old drum about asking for expenditures on health care and education. Well, I think that Mr. Justice Owen-Flood made it perfectly clear, in his reasons for judgment with regard to this government's failed gambling policy, that those are primary responsibilities of the government. They aren't charity, as the government tried to present them in its feeble defence in that lawsuit. They are obligations; they are high priorities. We shouldn't have to ask for those things. They should be delivered in a businesslike way as part of the ongoing obligations of this government, and they have not been.

The hospital in Clearwater has not been built. The sod has not been turned, despite the many promises of this government. Eight months before the last election a commitment was made that this project would be completed, that people from Clearwater wouldn't have to go to the Fraser Canyon and elsewhere when they are no longer able to care for themselves and need extended care. That hasn't been done. It's disgraceful. People are farmed out all over the province from Clearwater. Marriages are broken up, families are separated -- and it's wrong -- because this government has failed to provide for the predictable and obvious needs of the people of Clearwater.

The new Minister of Employment and Investment has once again disappointed the people of British Columbia. He made a commitment that there would not be a so-called community chest model for charity gaming in B.C., and now only a few short weeks later that's exactly what he has announced.

This government time and time again gets so-called consultative processes rolling, invites people to have input and then refuses to listen to what they say. It is worse to have a sham consultation process than to have no process at all, because it makes people cynical, it makes them angry and it disillusions them about democracy in general and this democracy in particular.

This government created an organization called the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming. Lo and behold, it became a viable organization, and it has been lobbying the government heavily to not do exactly what this government has just decided to do with its community chest model. And that is wrong.

People fear government decisions by this NDP government because they know that ill-conceived moves by government are much worse than no moves at all. Many of the moves that this government makes make the economy worse, and this throne speech is one of them. People think the government is flying by the seat of its pants, responding with knee-jerk reactions, working out of motivations of political expediency and sometimes outright greed, as in the gaming policy, rather than doing what's best for the province of British Columbia and British Columbians. The public wants this government to clean up its own act before it begins to involve itself in their businesses and their households any further.

We can do that. There are ways that we can look to our own housekeeping in this House, things that we can do: balanced-budget legislation, truth-in-budgeting legislation. We've tabled those acts; they should be debated. They should be passed. The auditor general has been pleading for a new Auditor General Act. We have the oldest unamended Auditor General Act in Canada. Why would that be? Is it because this government enjoys being in the rut that it's in? Is it because this government is actually proud of the results that it has been delivering to British Columbians? Surely our dismal results as a province speak for themselves.

The need for change is obvious. The world is in the countdown to the new millennium. When British Columbia entered the homestretch in the last decade of the present millennium, we were in a position to really be a success as a province -- to lead the way. In fact we were leading the way; we were ready for a sprint. But what happened? The people opposite, the New Democratic Party, took power just at that key time, and things have ground to a standstill. By all measures, we've stumbled. I think the government, frankly, is trying to face up to the fact that it has stumbled badly in the consultative process that it tried to launch prior to this throne speech and budget being presented. There is no time to waste. We need to regain our balance; we need to shake off the errors; we need to abandon those flawed approaches that are not working and begin to do the right things, to really listen to what this government has been told in the various consultative processes that it has launched.

The throne speech lacks vision and substance, and we can't applaud it. We would not be doing our jobs, we'd be breaching our duty as the official opposition, if we said otherwise. It's time to show the world that we are serious about entering the next millennium in British Columbia, that we're serious about wanting to have a vibrant economy. The comical statement at the beginning of the throne speech with regard to British Columbians being as vibrant as their economy. . . . I mean, that's like asking all British Columbians to lie down and play dead. The economy is in an absolute mess, and that was a ridiculous statement to make.

We can recover from this, but we need to do the right things. The throne speech confirms the need for confidence and certainty. Those are key words: confidence and certainty. Clearly the government has accepted that those don't exist in British Columbia right now. How can we gain them? How can British Columbians be assisted to become confident and certain? Not by denying that the situation is as bad as it is. The only way we can turn the corner is for the government to recognize that we have severe problems and to get serious about dealing with them.

It's really disturbing when members opposite speak with pride of what they see as the accomplishments of this government, because it has not accomplished positive things. British Columbia's results call for alarm and for emergency responses. We have seen tremendous slippage in social programs; we've seen ballooning debt and huge increases in the interest that we have to pay to service that debt, even with interest rates at historic lows. What trouble we'll be in if those

[ Page 6874 ]

We have a sputtering economy. Its fuel lines are plugged by overregulation, overtaxation and interference in labour-management relations. We don't need more of the same; we need a change. We need a 180. We need a correction in the way this government has been going. Everything is connected to everything else. If we're in a deficit, our debt is growing; our servicing costs are growing; our social programs are under attack via that responsibility to pay that additional interest.

Let's face the truth and begin to fix these things. Let's start by making amends, by apologizing to British Columbians for the ways that they have been wronged. They shouldn't be on wait-lists for their essential health care. They shouldn't be driven to bankruptcy, like Al and June Bush in Barrière. Let's see an end to causing people pain and fear by making them wait on those wait-lists. People see an utter lack of a sense of urgency about their health care issues in British Columbia. That's how it feels to them when they have loved ones who are being eaten away by cancer and can't get the treatment they need, or when they need urgent heart care and are on long wait-lists.

There's a gentleman named Roy Salter, whose case is in the Kamloops papers this week. For the last six months he's been in such desperate condition, needing six bypasses, that he can do little but sit in his house. His wife sees his life slipping away before her eyes, and that's wrong. And do you know what they've been told, Madam Speaker? They've been told that they can accelerate his surgery -- his treatment -- by going to the United States and having it done there at a cost of between $25,000 and $50,000. For shame that anyone would be told that in British Columbia! They paid taxes all their lives. They expected that the government would provide the necessary services when they needed them one day, and now it's not happening. We have people going to Quebec, people going to Alberta and people going to the U.S.A. to get these services done, when we have the medical personnel, we have the infrastructure -- the hospitals, the equipment -- and we have the ability to do it here. It isn't happening, and that's wrong.

Recently I read that one individual in British Columbia went to the Czech Republic to have his surgery done. It was done well and it was done quickly. You wonder if we're going to have to declare ourselves a Third World country or whether we're going to have to declare a state of emergency -- of crisis -- in British Columbia. Are we going to have to call on our neighbours for an airlift so we can take our health-care wait-list people out as emergencies to another country and have the work done? That's what individuals have to do for themselves, and it's wrong.

[4:00]

An Hon. Member: Nobody's dying.

K. Krueger: This government needs to face up to the fact that until it restores the economy by getting out of the way of private enterprise and investment, it's never going to have the money to pay for those health care programs.

The member opposite just said, "Nobody's dying," in a scornful tone. I could name people for him that have died as a result of not being able to get the health care they needed in British Columbia in the last 12 months.

Instead of reviving the economy, we see more and more examples of a government out of control, a government gone wrong, a government that does its printing in Alberta, and a government that farms its vehicle management out to the United States of America, of all things. People in British Columbia are losing their jobs because this government has decided to give over those responsibilities to Americans. Why in the world, in this economy or in any economy, would a government do such a stupid thing? I think one of the reasons is that it's a shell game. The government wanted to be able to show a realization of profit, which is illusory, which is phony, because the government is using black-book prices that it knows are not valid for the vehicles it's turned over in the RFP, which was done in that strange manipulation by the government. The ministries that gave up those vehicles are going to have to pay back the American company when the fact comes out that the vehicles can't be disposed of for the value which the government declared by using black-book prices. All of these financial shenanigans are just ugly chickens coming home to roost for the province of British Columbia.

There's going to be another day of reckoning with the next assessment of British Columbia's credit rating. There is going to be another admission next year at this time -- if, heaven forbid, this government should linger in power -- that they've run another huge deficit and that debt is up once again by many times the deficit that was admitted to when this budget was delivered.

This government exports whole logs to its competitors so that the jobs can be performed by people in other provinces and other countries. Where is the sense in that? Madam Speaker, I have an organization in my constituency called Paul Creek Slicing. They slice up white pine cants into very thin slices, and they're used for veneer on furniture. Paul Creek Slicing can't get a reliable supply of the raw material it needs, because those cants are exported, whole, to Idaho, and competitors in Idaho do the same job that people in Kamloops would like to be doing in slicing up that white pine. Of course, the Americans have cleverly made sure that the softwood lumber agreement doesn't interfere with that, because we're stupid enough to ship that raw material down and send our jobs away to Idaho from British Columbia. There have been repeated efforts to get the Forests ministry onside to deal with that and correct it, and it doesn't happen.

The reason that this government can't pay its bills, that it runs deficits, that it's in the hole and that it can't get people off wait-lists for health care, is that the economy is in such terrible shape. We had hoped that the government had perceived that, but this throne speech is alarming. Far from being a document that we can cheer as the member for Victoria-Hillside asked us to, it's a document that alarms us. This government is hearing over and over again, from the people who create jobs, that the poisonous climate in British Columbia against investment and the tremendous interference in labour relations are problems. What does the government do? It announces that it intends to bring in further Labour Code changes, as dictated by the buddies of the Premier -- the people who want the balance to be shifted even further -- and that's destructive. That's another huge nail in the coffin of the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 6875 ]

It is time for the government to make amends to the people of B.C. and to change direction and get out of the way of investment. It is time for this government to stop talking phony consultation and get on with the business of settling aboriginal people's treaties. The aboriginal people are just as leery as the rest of us about this government's record on consultation. When they hear their Premier mumbling things about what he's going to do about the Delgamuukw decision -- how he's going to have consultations -- they draw no comfort, no security, and no confidence from that. There's a cloud building over the whole land claims settlement that's a tremendous worry to British Columbians.

The owner of Sun Peaks Resort, Mr. Ohkubo from Japan, has poured more money into the British Columbia economy than probably any other single investor in the last several years. He recently announced that he wouldn't be doing it any longer, not until British Columbia got serious about dealing with its overtaxation and overregulation issues. He resents writing a cheque for corporate capital tax on his assets every year, and that's a problem, because he would go on building. He had only promised to spend $40 million at Sun Peaks. He has gone over $150 million in British Columbia in the past several years, but he has said "No more," and that's a problem.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

It's time that this government made moves to restore the faith of the mining industry -- that they are indeed welcome to create jobs in British Columbia. It was amazing to hear the member for Burnaby-Edmonds speaking recently with pride about the state of the mining industry in British Columbia, because it's virtually shut down. The mines that are still employing British Columbians tend to be ones that were established long ago. There have been a few small openings recently, but we're so far behind in exploration and in development of mines that we're going to be decades getting over the problems that have been created.

It's time to stop stupid waste of taxpayers' money in British Columbia -- waste such as that which has occurred through the amalgamation of the school districts in my constituency. Because of the awkward method of consolidating and amalgamating CUPE agreements, people are now driving three hours round-trip to do tasks in Clearwater that could be done by people who live in Clearwater -- and that used to be the case until the amalgamation. But people are wasting time and using up equipment driving back and forth to do those jobs, because once again this government made a move that perhaps has big unions' interests more in mind than the interests of the taxpayer and of British Columbians. It's time to correct those things.

It's time to stop ignoring the recommendations of independent people like the auditor general. When the auditor general releases a report saying that there are fundamental problems with the way the regionalization of health care is proceeding in British Columbia, he ought to be listened to. He ought not to be airily dismissed, as the Health minister did, saying that's just a snapshot of the way things were a year ago. That's not true at all. It's still true that in many instances people are appointed to those health boards on the basis of things other than merit and qualifications. It's because of the particular population group they represent or the particular party card they hold, the political affiliation they've had with the NDP in the past. That is stupid; it's the opposite of good management.

It's time for this government to end the war on charities, to stop attacking them. It's time for the government to not just talk about a new economy and for the Finance minister to not just dip her big toe in the bathtub of tax cuts or just talk about them for the future. It's time for her to actually perform surgery on taxation in British Columbia and cut it back.

It's time for this government to stop attacking rural communities. Rural communities in British Columbia are dying; they've been attacked for so long. I was amazed listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talk about the job creation in his constituency in the big city, because the experience in small communities is the opposite. We know that jobs have been disappearing in total over recent years. But if what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was saying is correct, then it's even worse in rural communities than we've been led to believe, because those jobs that he is apparently picking up in his constituency are coming from somewhere, and British Columbia has a net loss in total after that. We've seen an awful attack on the economies of small communities in British Columbia.

We see a disappearance of the role models from those communities as government has continually pulled back services, taken people out of the communities and centralized its operations. That is wrong; it's stupid. It doesn't even make sense, because there's already an overpopulation issue in the lower mainland. Government should be thinking about regionalizing rather than centralizing. Local governance is the best method of governance, because it responds directly to the realities and needs of people in local communities. So this government should stop thieving from local autonomy; that's the opposite of good management.

The folks on the government side need to recognize that the more they take control of British Columbians' economies, their lives, their families and their businesses, the worse the problems get. There are some nice folks on the other side of the House, and nobody would say otherwise. But they're not good at managing taxpayers' money, and they should stop trying to do it. They should stop trying to take more and more money out of the taxpayer in fees, licences and taxes, and allow people to make their own decisions, live their own lives and use the abilities they have to generate wealth in British Columbia, the way things used to be.

The people opposite are not managers, and I don't think many of them would claim to be. My associate from the Kamloops constituency said to local media that she is not responsible for the decisions in her ministry; she is merely the spokesperson. That is very much the way she has conducted herself. And we see the results when her own ministry has to report that her actions and her government's actions, in cut-

[ Page 6876 ]

An example of that is the Cayoosh resort in the Fraser Canyon, which Al and Nancy Raine have been trying for years to develop. They are endlessly roadblocked by that same ministry. It's doubtful that the resort will ever happen as long as this government is in power. The government must respond to these issues.

It must respond to the Delgamuukw decision and make its pathway clear to British Columbians. It must negotiate treaties with aboriginal people that include for the rights and benefits received, ceding, releasing and surrendering any further claim to aboriginal title. Those treaties must obtain certainty, finality and equality for aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians. The government must stop its backroom dealings and its phony consultations and begin to be an honest government, a government that genuinely wants to make things work again in British Columbia. Thank you.

G. Abbott: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: I would like to introduce two realtors from the Okanagan, whom I just very recently had the pleasure of meeting. They are Steve Nicoll, who is a realtor from Kelowna, and Sharon Desnoyer, who is a realtor from Vernon. They had some very informative thoughts for me on some issues which I am sure this House will be seized with in the weeks and months ahead. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

M. Coell: I am pleased to stand in the House today and offer some comments on the throne speech. I wish to look at the throne speech and then offer some positive suggestions as to what a throne speech would look like if the opposition had any input into it.

A throne speech is a mission statement for the government for the year -- its economic direction for businesses and individuals. It sets the tone for the government's behaviour in the coming year. But one thing it does and has done for many generations is confer the moral right to govern on the government. The moral right to govern is that right which is sometimes taken for granted but that the electorate change at their will.

[4:15]

As I said, you have to watch what people do, not what they say. I picked up the first throne speech that this government made, and one thing jumped out at me. It said they were committed to doing no more than British Columbians could afford, and they would manage the province's finances openly and responsibly. I have a vivid memory of then Premier Harcourt holding a penny up, saying they wouldn't spend a penny that they didn't have. I've been through this particular 1992 throne speech, and nowhere did the government say that they intended to borrow $12 billion or that they intended to raise taxes by an overall 57 percent. Nor is there anywhere in that particular throne speech in 1992 where they said they would raise the taxpayer-supported debt from 12 percent of GDP to 20.5 percent -- which is an increase of 71 percent in tax-supported debt in seven years. But they do have a record: that is the biggest tax increase in B.C. history.

The other thing that jumped out in the 1992 throne speech was that it said that for the first time in British Columbia, public access to previously restricted government documents would be clearly defined in the new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. And what are they doing? They are cutting back the people's ability to access those documents, through cuts in the freedom-of-information commission. That's very sad.

The other one that jumped out at me was a statement that says: "As a further step towards honest accounting, this government commissioned a comprehensive and independent financial review so that all taxpayers would have a clear and factual picture of their government's bank account." I don't know about you, but seven years later I'm still waiting for a government that balances its books, a government that accepts proper accounting principles.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Don't hold your breath.

The third and last comment I have is that there was a further statement: "We will also take positive steps to more effectively include members of the Legislature in decision-making. We will seek to expand the roles of committees of this House. . . ." We asked this year if the Health Committee could meet and discuss children and families issues. We offered to sit as partners with the independents and the government; our leader made that offer. Nothing there.

So I looked at 1992. There wasn't much hope there. As I said, watch what they do, not what they say. There were a lot of things said there that just haven't happened.

Here's a bold statement in 1993: "First and foremost, this government is making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending growth and cap the deficit." Well, where are we today? Another deficit and no management plan for the debt. I mean, it's simple to put these things in black and white. It's simple to say them in here, but this government is having real difficulty following through on its commitments. This isn't just a piece of paper about which government can say: "Oh, that doesn't matter." That was a commitment made in this Legislature to the people of British Columbia: "First and foremost, this government is making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending. . .and cap the deficit." That was six and a half years ago.

If I can go to 1994, "Our Fiscal House in Order" is the heading. "By putting our province's fiscal house in order, this government has made an important contribution to sustained economic growth." Well, in '92, '93 and '94, it was the same commitment -- a strong, bold commitment by this government not kept. It's sad. No. 1 of the government's four priorities in 1994 was sound financial management and fair taxation. Again, I read through this, and nowhere did I see: "We're going to borrow $10 billion; we're going to raise taxes."

I guess the problem is that the government was talking about financial management all those years. The government was talking about financial management and not delivering. We go to 1995, and a great line jumps out: ". . .and Canada's number one economy, with the strongest, most consistent growth, the most new jobs, the best credit rating and the lowest per capita debt." Well. . . .

[ Page 6877 ]

M. Coell: History on all accounts. That's only three years ago. We had the number one economy; we're now number ten. We had the strongest economy. . . .

Interjection.

M. Coell: Well, you know. . . . "Most consistent growth. . . ." They're all out the window.

Another statement in '95 that jumps out is: ". . .finding the balance between what we need to keep our economy the best in Canada and what we can afford. . . ." I took these as serious commitments from a government that was being upfront and honest with the people of British Columbia. Why hasn't the government kept these commitments?

Interjection.

M. Coell: The member says that it is juvenile to keep promises. But on this side of the House we think a promise is a promise; it's to be kept.

You know, when you read through the throne speeches of this particular NDP government. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, there is one speaker on the floor.

M. Coell: Thank you, hon. Speaker, but I quite enjoy the comments from the other side.

Now, 1996 was a banner year. The government was re-elected. It jumps right out at you: it will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row; jobs will be up; the debt will be down. Doesn't it start to break your heart when you hear this? These are commitments the government made: the second balanced budget in a row; the debt down. But we don't have a debt management plan. We don't have any sort of financial commitment to reduce the debt over time.

An Hon. Member: That's their own document.

M. Coell: Yes, these are the government's own documents. I'm only reading their words back into the debate.

The 1997 one says that "my government is committed to the priorities of prudent financial management and will be pursuing this agenda as it allows." So, through a series of seven years, the government has told the people of British Columbia one thing. They've said: "We're managing your economy; we're controlling your debt." But you know, Madam Speaker, they have done just the opposite. They told the people of the province that they were doing one thing, and they've done the exact opposite. I think that's pretty sad. As I said, you have to watch what they do, not what they say.

Now we've got the 1998 throne speech. When you read through it, they're not making much commitment to reducing the debt. As a matter of fact, if you read the fine print, they're actually going to increase the debt by $1.25 billion. I don't know why you couldn't just come out and say that. Why hide it? Is there something you're hiding? They must be hiding something, because in fact the auditor general tells us $1.25 billion. I wish they had said it. There's another deficit. That's seven years in a row, seven years of talking about doing something about the deficit. Finally, they give up talking about it. They've just decided not to do it.

I said at the beginning that government, through a throne speech, has one very simple thing to do, and that is to state for the people of the province why they have the moral right to govern. The moral right to govern comes with telling the truth. It comes with keeping your commitments. When you say something in a throne speech, that's your commitment to completing it, to doing it or to admitting that you can't or to admitting that you had to take a different direction. But don't keep telling us one thing and doing another. The people deserve better than that. Quite honestly, they know better. The government are only fooling themselves with ads. They are only fooling themselves with throne speeches that don't tell the facts of life.

I think this government underestimates the anger that is out there, the anger for a government that has not kept its word in seven years. It's simple. It's not a situation that is hard to understand; it's a situation that the government has ignored and continues to ignore.

I want to talk about some positive things that could be in a throne speech. As I said, a throne speech should provide tone, it should provide direction, and it should give the moral right to govern. In this province, we need a reform of how government works. That's what I was hoping to see in this throne speech. We need to have a government that is accountable by law through balanced-budget legislation, that is accountable by law for truth in budgeting, so that when you open up the budget, everyone in British Columbia can understand it.

There are a lot of great things in this province, but one of them is not the way this government runs. We needed to see cuts in personal income tax and to small business right away. It's fine for the government to, I think, give lip service to tax reform. We've seen a government that has increased taxes by over 50 percent in seven years, and they wonder why businesses are going to Alberta, Washington and Saskatchewan -- as far away as they can get. We need to eliminate red tape and costly government regulation.

Goodness, we've seen that in the Ministry of Environment this week. I suspect there are studies like that in most of the ministries over there that show how many jobs are being lost, how many people could be at work. But I guess we're not going to see them, because unless someone FOIs them, you don't get them. The government continues to hide the true facts of government.

[4:30]

We've got to enact fair and balanced labour legislation. Labour legislation is important for creating jobs. What we've got now is a government with an economy that's sinking and which is about to introduce new labour legislation. Labour legislation, if it's going to be effective, needs to be brought in

[ Page 6878 ]

We need to fight for B.C.'s share of federal tax dollars. We've got a government that fights with Ottawa but never brings anything back. We've got to bring our fair share of federal dollars back to this province, but you don't do it the way that this government is doing it. This government is a laughingstock all across Canada.

We've got to protect private property rights. We've got to negotiate fair, equitable and affordable treaty settlements. That's what I was hoping to see; I was hoping to see some positive things in the throne speech.

Nowhere in any of the throne speeches did I see a promise to expand gambling. Nowhere in any of the throne speeches did I see a government that was looking at the structural problems with government and the economy. Nowhere did I see any credible financial management plan. Nowhere did I see a desire to create jobs. There was lots of talk about jobs in all of the throne speeches, but at the end of the day we've seen job losses. We've seen people laid off; we've seen business opportunities missed.

As I said, I've reviewed the throne speeches of this government over two elections. There is a lot of "watch what we do, not what we say."

I've offered some solutions that the B.C. Liberal Party and the opposition feel would have been helpful in the throne speech. But I guess how I have to sum it all up is that to me the throne speech and the direction in which past throne speeches have gone have caused this government to lose the moral right to govern. It will be very difficult for you to get that back. It will be very difficult for you to ever get that back. But you can start right now by telling the facts the way they are, not hiding the truth, not being a government of sneaks, but a government that is upfront with the people. The people expect it, and they demand it.

I cannot support this throne speech, and I look forward to the debate that will ensue in the following weeks over the budget and the estimates. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to the throne speech.

S. Hawkins: I am very glad for the opportunity to rise in response to the Speech from the Throne. When I think that this Speech from the Throne is the blueprint that this government has worked on for a year for this session of the Legislature, I am filled with an overwhelming sense of disappointment. I am disappointed that this government has set forward a plan which falls so short of the expectations of the people of this province. I am really, really disappointed that this government remains undeterred in its destructive economic course that it has mapped out for this province. I am really disappointed that for another year, patients on waiting lists in the province will be forced to wait intolerable periods of time to receive the care they need, and I am disappointed that for another year, the residents of the north and the interior are relegated to the status of second-class citizens for their health care.

All of these things come to me as a great disappointment, but the greatest disappointment of all is to see member after member stand on that side of the House and speak in favour of this throne speech. It's truly pathetic to watch them trying to convince themselves that this government's flawed record and faulty blueprint are a good recipe for British Columbia. Those members are truly distinguished by being the only people present in these precincts who actually believe a word they say. Member after member on that side of the House has risen to proclaim this Speech from the Throne as good news, as though by sheer repetition something good will happen in this province.

But you know what? This Speech from the Throne is not good news for my constituency or for other constituencies around the province, including constituencies that those members represent. This Speech from the Throne has given the boots to people in my riding. People in Okanagan West tell me that they are frightened by the increased waiting times for medical procedures. The intensive care unit construction project, which has been a community priority since 1994, still has not received capital approval from this government. The Okanagan-Similkameen region is dreadfully short of long term care beds. In fact, I understand it's the highest waiting list in the province. My community is clamouring for an alcohol detox centre. The closest one is in Kamloops -- and guess what: they have a long waiting list.

We've been asking them to prioritize for the needs of British Columbians. You know what? They can't do that. They have got access to an almost $21 billion budget. It's $21.5 billion, give or take half a billion. The way they waste money in that budget for their pet projects and things that they need to do to save their own butts in their ridings, I guess, rather than patients and people around the province, is truly disappointing.

The jobless rate in my constituency has hit a record high of 10.7 percent in the last month. Orchardists in the Okanagan are concerned about the lack of support forthcoming from last summer's hail damage to crops. The education budget for school district 23 remains insufficient to provide the services and programs that the school board had hoped to provide after trimming to bare-bones levels. That's what the school board said. And uncertainties remain about the future -- relocation, renovation, reconstruction or whatever -- of Kelowna Secondary School.

But I don't think that Okanagan West is particularly unique in all these unhappy situations -- which I believe are directly the fault of the government and its faulty plans. I don't think the voters in Prince George would agree that this Speech from the Throne is a signal of good times for their community. Their community is facing a four-year planning delay in the construction of a new hospital, the very same hospital which serves as a safety valve for northerners who are victimized by the northern health care dispute that's going on right now in this province.

We've heard the renovation project for Prince George hospital announced at least three or four times, and I think the most recent $40 million announcement for Prince George was announced during the recall campaign for one of the members from Prince George. But we still haven't seen it. We haven't seen a shovel in the ground; we haven't seen anything. So I don't think this throne speech is good news for those residents.

District 57's school board, which is right up there in the area the Minister of Education represents, has identified its 1998-99 budget as inadequate. The minister's response is simply: "Tough luck." Unemployment in the central interior is at its highest level in six years at 14.1 percent. Employment in B.C. is at an 11-year low, at the same time that Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level in eight years. No, there's no good news in the Speech from the Throne for the central and northern interior either.

Perhaps the members from the Kootenays shouldn't trumpet the hollow praises of this government's plans. The

[ Page 6879 ]

Perhaps Vancouver Island shows greater hopes for support for the throne speech. But don't search for that support in Alberni. However long it's been since they've been promised a new hospital in Port Alberni, the West Coast General Hospital, it still remains intangible. That's largely because of the interregional questions about taxation authority and the promises this government made and never kept about replacing the hospital. And do you know what? I believe that hospital replacement project is the clearest example of the Ministry of Health dawdling, despite the fact that the present hospital has been all but condemned by the fire marshal there. About four or five months ago he gave them six months to do something to bring it up to standard. He calls it a firetrap. Again, I'm looking for good news around the province, but I'm not finding it in Alberni either.

Maybe in Kamloops. But do you know what? In Kamloops, as in the rest of the province, we see patients facing a $200 increase in Pharmacare deductibles. I'm sure the members have all read about that. Those fee hikes clearly hurt the poorest patients the most. I'm sure the Minister of Environment read about the plight of a patient in her community affected with lupus, who falls through the cracks for coverage of her chronic illness. This government's plan is clearly not good news for people like her. I'm still looking for that good news. Where else can we go to look for the good news?

In Victoria an 81-year-old woman sat dying in a wheelchair in an emergency ward, waiting to be given emergency treatment. The family believes she may have been dead for as long as half an hour before she was taken to a cubicle for treatment. In Burnaby an elderly man falls, breaks his hip and then has to endure an ambulance diversion to Lions Gate Hospital and then another diversion to Vancouver General Hospital before finally receiving medication. The front-line health care workers are saying that they are down to bare bones, that they are doing more and more with less and less. These kinds of incidents, sad but true, are a reality in the health care system that the members opposite failed to plan for and failed to buffer up for patients in this province.

People all over the province are correct in saying that the commitments of this government are hollow words and that the echoes of good news are insultingly arrogant and condescending. Those members should be ashamed to stand up and say that they have confidence in their government when the rest of the province says they don't. This government has been very brash in saying that it has worked hard to listen to the people of the province and to give them timely answers to their concerns and questions. In response to the people's questions and concerns, this government has committed to move forward on the priorities of new jobs and an investment in a strong economy, greater support for education and training for young people, and a future of opportunity for all British Columbians. It's simply rhetoric. This government has been very brash to claim that their priorities and commitments are clear. Correct me if I'm mistaken, hon. Speaker, but hasn't this government made claims to clear priorities and commitments before? I think so.

On March 26, 1992, one of the members of this government rose in this chamber and made very clear commitments for the future of the NDP government. In his first speech as Minister of Finance, he clearly laid out goals that he claimed would guide our economic policies over the coming years. He said: "First, we are committed to openness and honesty." It would seem that time has laid that commitment to rest. He said: "Second, we are committed to fairness." He committed to safeguarding the basic services that protect individuals and families, and I suppose he didn't anticipate the obvious unfairness of denying adequate access to health care to northern and rural British Columbians when he made those commitments. He said: "Third, this government is committed to sound and prudent management of the province's finances. " Well, need I say more about that? He really did say that in 1992. I imagine that the seventh consecutive deficit budget speaks for itself about that commitment, not to mention the unusual accounting practices which camouflage a deficit of $945 million and try to pass it off, as these members do, as a deficit of $95 million. Unreal.

He said: "Fourth, we are committed to policies which foster economic stability and confidence." He went on to correctly explain why that was important. "Both consumers and businesses need stability," he said, "in order to plan their economic future. For working British Columbians, stability means less anxiety about job security and greater consumer confidence. For business, a stable environment means less risk and greater ability to compete." You know, he said all those things, but they were empty words, empty promises. Those commitments were made in 1992 by the then Minister of Finance in his first budget speech. He's now the Premier of the province, and not a single one of those important commitments has been kept -- not a single one.

[4:45]

But anyways, in May of 1996 the Premier and the NDP repeatedly stated: "Our economic priority is jobs, not tax breaks for corporations." I remember that; I remember the advertising and all of that. I'm sure that all of the members remember that too. Those were the Premier's commitments at the time, and they were the same ones that included the comments about the elimination, one year ahead of schedule, of the $2.4 billion budget deficit left by the previous government.

At any rate, what happened to the Premier's most recent commitment on jobs? The latest statistics from Statistics Canada show that there are 40,000 more people unemployed in British Columbia today than when that Premier stated that as a priority. Employment is 10,000 jobs fewer than in May of last year. They say that their commitment is to jobs, yet we're losing them. They are disappearing somewhere. The only jobs they're creating are the ones that are in their minds.

So when the government states in this year's Speech from the Throne that it has made its priorities and commitments clear, I remember the Premier's stated priority from May 1996

[ Page 6880 ]

This is a government that can't or won't do what it promises to do. It can't or won't do that. I'm sure that they've tried, in their own ineffectual way, to do something good for British Columbia, but they have failed miserably. They are, sadly, incompetent -- every bit as worthy of pity as of contempt.

Look at the Minister of Environment, who, by her own admission, acknowledges that her ministry's red tape has been responsible for the loss of 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in investment. She admits that. She's proud. She says: "Hey, at least I found out." Well, goodness, what a sad commentary on the government that such a minister occupies a place of trust, and such a Premier leaves her there. It's unbelievable!

The Minister of Finance delivers the seventh consecutive deficit budget of this government's mandate, which is immediately followed by a downgrade to B.C.'s credit rating from the Canadian Bond Rating Service. The minister's response is typically uncaring. She doesn't care that the rating services downgraded our credit rating. What more could we expect, I guess, from a former Minister of Social Services who procrastinated over recommendations from Judge Gove to protect children, or from a former Minister of Health who allowed cardiac surgery wait-lists to lengthen, ambulance delays to worsen and an HIV epidemic to grow out of control in her own riding while she fiddled with regional health board jurisdictional disputes? I guess we can't really expect much more. Past performance shows what future performance is going to be. If that was her past performance, I am really, really nervous about future performance of this minister and this government.

Over 200,000 unemployed British Columbians take the fiscal mismanagement of this government very personally. But you know what? The minister sure bought a great pair of boots -- I have to tell you that. The ineptitude, though, doesn't stop there.

The Deputy Premier has failed to do the honourable thing and resign his position after instructing a government lawyer to communicate with a judge prior to a judicial decision.

The Attorney General acted hastily by withdrawing sidearms from auxiliary constables across the province without consulting municipalities in my riding. That's 53 auxiliary constables, and they provide a very, very vital service to an area that is underpoliced. Again, I look at the policing around my riding and I really have to wonder at the judgment of doing that. Anyway, today we see 100 constables dedicated to the fierce policing activity of photo radar, and at the same time we don't have our auxiliary police. I guess we have to wonder where crime and protection is in the priorities of this government.

The minister responsible for gaming has introduced changes to gaming policies that are a direct attack on volunteerism.

The Minister of Forests has dismantled much of the Forest Practices Code, which, by some estimates, was responsible for $1 billion in revenue loss due to duplication of regulations and red tape. And the auditor general has identified Forest Renewal's worker training program to be short on value but long on price tag. So mismanagement just seems to be a theme here.

The Minister of Youth, who's also the Premier, proudly announces tuition freezes year after year. I suppose I've been a student more recently than he has, but what students really want are jobs after they finish their education. What the Premier fails to realize is that his tuition freezes are actually freezing students' options for wider choices in classes. Institutions are forced to offer more restrictive curricula, and students are being disadvantaged. I do talk to college students in my riding, and that's what they tell me. They tell me that as you freeze tuitions, classes shrink, and there's not enough options. So they're going longer to try and pick up the classes they need because classes are not being offered every term or every year. It is just unreal that they think freezing tuitions is going to solve the problem. I mean, it's so simplistic. They just don't get it!

Listen to students and ask them if they're getting the classes they need. They're not. So think about what you're doing over there, because I think part of the problem is that they don't think. Ask a student if she'd be prepared to pay increased tuition in exchange for wider curriculum choices and better prospects of a job after graduation. The Premier's tuition freeze sounds great on a 15-second sound bite. But the postgraduate students in my community tell me loud and clear that the Premier's freeze is frosting them; that's what they tell me.

We have a government that's out of touch -- sadly out of touch. It's out of touch with patients on wait-lists. It's out of touch with northerners, who see their health care being rationed and their roads falling apart. It's out of touch with small businesses, who want to see a cut to regulation and red tape to stimulate the economy. It's out of touch with young people, who want to graduate with educations that will help them find careers. It's out of touch with the people who pay the bills, and that's the taxpayers, in case they don't know that. The taxpayers tell me they are fed up with debt rising and the credit rate falling. That is not going to help our communities, and it's not going to help our province.

Do you know what? The government claims that its record of increasing funding for health care speaks loudly to its commitment to protect medicare: "We spend more than any other province." The truth is that this government continually fails to report its failure to improve the major determinants of health in society. I looked at a recent study by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, and it indicates that provincial health care spending does not link with health care determinants. I think that's true. I mean, just look around. Poverty levels, unemployment levels and the performance of the economy are all worsening in B.C. It doesn't matter how much money you spent on health care. That is all. . . . You know, patients are going through. . . . Indicators of health care, such as waiting lists and ambulance delays and emergency rooms, are also worsening.

Think about what you're doing and plan for it. Don't be just saying that you'll throw money at the problem. That doesn't help, because -- you know what? -- in the last five years this government has spent $2 billion more. They've increased the health budget. But do you know what patients across the province are telling me? We can point to different members' ridings, and I'll tell you I've spoken to patients in most of them. Patients are telling me that they are not getting

[ Page 6881 ]

These members are out of touch with the employed, who are the victims of its outdated, socialistic economic policies. It's out of touch with entrepreneurs, with farmers, with orchardists, with the self-employed, with the disabled, with students, parents, patients, caregivers -- with everyone in this province except themselves. I believe that this government is out of touch with everyone -- except those 38, the only ones that they're trying to convince when they stand up and speak in favour of the throne speech. I can't support this throne speech, and I'll be voting against it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I recognize the member for Rossland-Trail.

Interjection.

E. Conroy: I'd like to begin. . . .

Sorry, was there somebody standing?

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Leave to table a document, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Does the member give way to do so?

E. Conroy: Yes.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

E. Conroy: I'll give it another kick, hon. Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to begin by congratulating you, the member for Kootenay, on being the Chair of Committees. I'd like to congratulate the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, our new Speaker. I'd also like to congratulate the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows on his position of Deputy Speaker. It's going to be a really good team, and I think the job you're doing here today bodes well for the future of this House in this session. So I want to begin by saying congratulations.

Hon. Speaker, I guess I've had a dose of negativism here that drifted across the floor from the member for Okanagan West. I sometimes wonder, in talking to my colleagues, why it is -- and I think it was reflected in the last election -- that the Liberals have no credibility. If you listen to the speech that the hon. member for Okanagan West just made and the negativism that was involved in that speech, the things that were said about the health care system here in British Columbia, a health care system in which. . . . We are the only province in Canada that's put money into the health care system in the last seven years.

The member has just had a new cancer clinic open up in her constituency, I believe. I'd like to say that the cancer clinic is a wonderful thing for the constituency that I represent. It gives people in the interior access to this service, which we had to go to Vancouver for prior to this. I'd like to say also that there was a time when that very cancer clinic was supposed to go to Kamloops. But a decision was made based not on politics, because we have members that were. . . . We had two members at that time from Kamloops and none from Kelowna. But we made a decision based on what's in the best interests of the people of the province. It was decided, under a great amount of duress on our own members, to place that cancer clinic in Kelowna. I'm proud that we've done that. I think it's a wonderful thing for the entire interior that it's happened. But there's not one word from the member for Okanagan West about that. All we got from that side was negative, negative, negative.

An Hon. Member: No credibility.

[5:00]

I had the opportunity awhile ago to listen to the radio, hon. Speaker. There was a person of substantial means on the radio at that time that was complaining because their children's private school was going to have to close because of the economic meltdown in Asia. The reason the economic meltdown in Asia affected this person's children's private school was that there were a considerable number of Asian students in that school and those students were withdrawing because of the economic realities that people in Asian countries are facing right now. Well, that's well and good. But a couple of days later I listened again to the radio to another person of substantial means talking about the economy of British Columbia, saying that the reason the economy of British Columbia was in trouble was strictly the fault of the government -- no mention whatsoever of the meltdown in the Asian economies. Well, I'd like to suggest that these two people of substantial means should kind of get their acts together.

They're something like the Liberals. They do this economic flip-flop. They want to cut, cut, spend, spend: "Cut, cut over here, but spend, spend on my constituency." Of course, when we do spend on their constituency, like a brand-new cancer clinic in Kelowna, the hon. member gets up to talk about things that happen in the province. . . . But not a mention of that, hon. Speaker. All we get is negativity from that side all the time.

The situation that British Columbia is in with regard to the loss of about 30 percent of our trading partners, in the sense that that's how much business we do with the Asian economies. . . . I think this is a situation that all British Columbians should be getting together to try and help solve, to try and come to some conclusions on.

Maybe the members opposite have some very good ideas as to how we could tackle this as a Legislature. They're the ones that are always saying: "Why don't we operate as a Legislature? Why is there no communication, no cooperation?" Here's a prime opportunity to recognize the problem -- one that they won't recognize, because if they recognized that, then they couldn't blame it on the government, so they can't recognize the problem. So we don't have an opportunity to

[ Page 6882 ]

I'd just like to ask where the opposition and the press were from 1991 to 1996, when British Columbia created over half the jobs in the entire country. While we were busy doing that, we never heard a peep from the other side. I don't recall seeing anything in the newspapers or on television about what a wonderful job the province of British Columbia was doing in creating over half the jobs in the entire country year after year after year. There was nothing. Now, in many cases because of circumstances beyond our control, we're having difficulty with our economy -- about which I'd like to say again that we can't get any support from the opposition. We just can't seem to solve this problem because we just can't seem to get cooperation from the opposition.

I heard the member for Saanich North and the Islands comment about labour legislation, saying what poor timing it was to bring in labour legislation in the province. I think that for the opposition there is no such thing as good timing for bringing in labour legislation unless it's legislation that takes away any kind of rights that the trade unions or labour movement have here in B.C. They have no idea at all about the value of fair wages to the people of the province. They want to join the race to the bottom. They're not going to be happy until we're all working for seven bucks an hour -- or $7.15, the minimum wage, I'm sorry; they hate that too -- with no benefits. That's where they want the people in this province to be. That's the story over there. They just can't stand it when working people seem to be doing okay. They think the only way we're going to solve economic dilemmas anywhere in this world is to lower the wages of ordinary working people. I'm here to tell you that that's not the way it works. But I'm scared to death of the thinking on the other side of the House, because working people won't have a chance in this province if they ever become the government. They're going to be their first targets, and I hope that all the working people in this province understand that.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to travel to the constituency of the member for the Comox Valley to announce a new phase in the Island Highway project. That was a very, very interesting experience for me, coming from the interior, because I haven't had the opportunity to get up there and see what's going on with that project. The investment that the people of British Columbia are making in the infrastructure on Vancouver Island is really a sight to see, let me tell you.

The Island Highway project is a project that employs local labour at a fair wage. I see the benefits to the communities all up and down the Island Highway as a result of the local labour impetus involved in the Island Highway agreement. Each town has benefited tremendously from the money that's stayed within the framework of their communities and that's circulated throughout their communities. This government had the foresight to not only say to the workers, "You're going to get a fair wage when you work on this job," but to say also to the companies that were successful in getting contracts on this Island Highway project that they had to hire locally. The ramifications have been wonderful for those towns along the Island that are in conjunction with the Island Highway. And not only that, it's brought some tremendous economic benefits to the province. We all know that investment in infrastructure. . . . Yes, it costs money, but these are investments, and the investments in the highway project on Vancouver Island are going to pay us back time and time again.

I have a project somewhat similar to the Island Highway project that will be starting up in my constituency this year. That's the Keenleyside project. It's also done under a model contract or agreement like the Island Highway agreement, which is going to offer local people lots of jobs in my constituency at fair wages. If it does the same thing in my constituency that the Island Highway project has done for the communities up and down the Island Highway, I'm looking forward to it with excitement.

The throne speech offers a vision for British Columbians. The throne speech foreshadowed, in a sense, the budget. Within the budget there were some main points. Tax Lead Taskcuts were introduced to stimulate the economy. Cuts to red tape -- and we've seen that already with regard to amendments made to the Forest Practices Code in order to make the Forest Practices Code operate that much more efficiently and effectively without jeopardizing any aspects of our environment. We've given a break to small business. We've helped to revitalize British Columbia's traditional industries. We've put up supports for the new economy. The government's moved to a balanced budget and has limited taxpayer-supported debt. I'll talk about many of these issues as I go on, but I just want to lay that out so the people have some kind of an idea as to where our government wants to go and where it intends to lead the province.

Let me talk for a minute about the impact of the throne speech on my constituency. I come from a constituency that is natural-resources-based. Forestry and mining are prime examples. Our government's efforts to cut red tape have been substantial. From calls that I've had from people in industry, it's already had a tremendous impact on the forest industry in my constituency. The Forest Practices Code, which has been relooked at now, has streamlined the forest companies' abilities to get in there and do the job they do best, and that's harvesting timber. Again I want to stress that it's harvesting timber in a way that also protects the environment.

I spoke earlier a little bit about the similarities between the agreement on the Keenleyside project and the Island Highway project. The environmental review process has been completed on that particular project, and it's before the ministers for approval. If approval is achieved, it's going to be a real boon to my constituency. It will produce about four years' worth of work for about 300 people at good union wages, which I'm very proud to say is part of the Allied Hydro agreement. There will be a local-hire clause. For every four tradespeople there'll be one apprentice. It's a wonderful agreement that's going to really go a long way towards improving the living standards of people who work in the construction industry in my constituency.

In conjunction with the Ministry of Environment, I'm also proud to say that we've been successful in achieving funding for the Trail Community Lead Task Force. The Lead Task Force is doing good work in the community of Trail, assessing the results of situations around the smelter in Trail and the impact, from a health standard, it has had on its citizens. They have another year or so to go before their study is complete, and I'm very pleased to say that the Ministry of Environment has agreed to continue to fund that study in conjunction with the other parties involved: Cominco and the city of Trail. I'm very pleased to see that that's going to go forward to its end.

Hopefully, this year we'll be starting a new interchange of Highways 3 and 22 in Castlegar. For traffic movement, it will

[ Page 6883 ]

Also in conjunction with our government's look at how we want to do forestry here in British Columbia. . . . When we looked at that, we recognized that we just can't spit boards out of the end of sawmills anymore. There's a limit to our resources, and I think we've hit that limit. I don't think we've hit that limit; I know we've hit that limit. The amount of the resource is going to be shrinking from now on, rather than expanding. We know that if we're going to create jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia, we're going to do it through remanufacturing. Remanufacturing in my constituency is just beginning. We've had a new plant just open, Labyrinth Lumber, which remans the products from our local sawmills and exports them to the U.S. They're doing very well. There are some problems around things like supply of product and what not, which are typical in the reman industry. But our government knows that our future in the forest industry is in remanning. That's where our jobs are going to be created: finishing our wood products instead of shipping our wood offshore or to the south for remanufacturing into all the goods that are required by modern societies. We simply have to begin doing that here in British Columbia, and I'm very pleased to say that a very good, energetic and enthusiastic company has just started up in my constituency. I'm hopeful that it's the first of many.

Within the foreseeable future, I want to brag a little about the hospital and health care situation in my constituency. Though I'm not getting a new hospital, I am getting an addition to Trail Regional Hospital, which will be an ambulatory care unit. That will allow the Trail hospital to be much more efficient in the way it deals with day surgery patients. That will be quite an addition to my constituency in terms of the number of people that the hospital can handle and the services they can provide to the people of my constituency. So the money that our government has put into health care -- again I want to stress that it's more money than all the other provinces in the country in the last seven years. . . . I'm very pleased that we've done that, and I think we're on the right track. Yes, we have some problems, but we're working very hard. I'm hopeful that we're going to solve those.

I'm happy to say that the Premier's summit will be coming to Castlegar in November. Like the Premier's summit in Prince George and the one that will be happening later this year in Kamloops, it's a tremendous opportunity for a region to bring in the Premier and people in government to look at what a region has to offer and to assess what may happen within the framework. In my case, it's the Kootenays. I know that my colleagues from throughout the Kootenays are very happy that the Premier will be coming, with a number of cabinet ministers, to meet with local people of all different types and varieties. I'm very pleased that that's going to happen. It's going to open up a huge opportunity for the people of the Kootenays to tell government firsthand what government can do to help them make the Kootenays, though it is the best place in the province to live, an even better place.

[5:15]

I might add that the new lead smelter has done marvellous things, and I know that the city of Trail and the company have done a lot to clean up the environmental situations that plagued that particular establishment for a number of years. It's pretty heartening, I guess is the right word, to say that we're on the right track and moving towards getting a cleaned-up Trail.

Of course, there's a lot of talk about new industry. As the MLA for Rossland-Trail I'm always on the hunt for new types of industry, like every other MLA in this building is. So I look forward to the challenge of trying to do that.

The throne speech spoke about support for the new economy. The new economy means knowledge-based industries and film and TV production. The plan includes expanded training and education, through extension of the tuition fee freeze, which the hon. members on the other side of the House say we shouldn't be doing. I guess there are some people of substantial means who can afford to pay more tuition, but I know that many of the people I represent simply aren't in that position. The people that I know are very, very happy about the tuition freeze. I would suggest that maybe the hon. member have a look at some ordinary people, some ordinary British Columbians, and see what they have to say about the tuition fee freeze.

The new economy involves incentives in the film production industry here in British Columbia. I just had the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and see the excitement on his face about the prospects. It is already a booming industry here, but to hear him talk about the prospects and hopes he has for the expanded film industry and the things that our throne speech talks about and that our budget has addressed. . . . It's going to be a great thing for the people, especially in the lower mainland where a lot of the film industry in British Columbia exists.

The new economy is to help retain highly skilled people. You know, we have to help retain highly skilled people here in B.C. To do that, we've cut the top marginal income tax rate from 54.2 percent down to 49.9 percent over three years. We've increased money into tourist marketing in British Columbia, and we've cut the international jet fuel tax by 50 percent. Insofar as tourism is concerned, I think that the jury is really out on how much that's going to help our industry, but I would suggest the amount of help that's going to come to the tourism industry as a result of that is going to be substantial.

I'd like to talk for a minute about our financial management plan. As outlined in the throne speech and as presented in the budget, we have now halved the deficit to $95 million

[ Page 6884 ]

No one talked at all about cuts to health care and education. No one talked about them, and we increased the amount of money involved in health care and education. I'm very pleased that we've done that. A strong health care and education system gives us a competitive advantage. We all know as we move towards the year 2000 that a strong education system is what's going to lead the way in terms of our youth getting out there and being able to compete in this global market of high technology. As I mentioned a little bit earlier, we recognize the fact that once we train these people, we have to have some incentive to keep them here in British Columbia. We've tried to address that with reductions in our income taxes. But we also recognize that unless we have the facilities and the wherewithal to train these people here, we're not going to be able to compete on the international market when it comes to high technology. That's where the future is, and this government recognizes it.

Again, that's why there's the tuition freeze and extra money into education. That's why we're going forward with our capital plans for new schools. We're doing everything we possibly can so that in the future, the citizen of this province is going to be a well-educated, well-positioned person who can get out into the world and find themselves some kind of meaningful work. That is not only going to be meaningful to them but it will meaningful to the people of this province.

I'd like to wind up by just concluding that the throne speech talked about encouraging investment and jobs through tax cuts for business and families and individuals. The budget has done that; we've delivered on those. It sends a clear signal to business that we want B.C. to be competitive, and we've done that by cutting taxes, cutting costs and cutting red tape. It talks about quality services for British Columbians in education and health, and services for children. We've done that. I think the throne speech and the budget have positioned the province of British Columbia -- even though we're facing some difficult economic times, which we could use a lot of help from the opposition in trying to sort out. . . . I'm very optimistic that we're looking forward to a bright future here in this province.

Before I end, I do have one note of optimism. It is in conjunction with both sides of this House getting together. It occurred last year when I was ill. I'd like to thank both sides of this House for the tremendous amount of encouragement they gave me when I was very, very ill last year. I want to thank all the members of the opposition and the members of my own party, hon. Speaker, for their good wishes. It's just unfortunate that in order to get this House together, I had to just about die. But anyway, that's okay. That just shows you that maybe there is a little hope.

I'd like to thank two more people before I stop. I'd like to acknowledge the tremendous help I got from my wife Katrine when I was ill and also from my constituency assistant Elaine Whitehead. Without the two of them, my wife on the one hand and my constituency assistant Elaine on the other, my job would have been so difficult that it would have become impossible. With the help of two of them, the two ends of everything I had going were held up, and I can't say thank you enough.

On that note, hon. Speaker, I will say that it has been a pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

R. Thorpe: First of all, let me say what a pleasure it is to see the member for Rossland-Trail here in the House today and looking so healthy. On behalf of the opposition, we wish you continued good health, and you know that our good thoughts are with you all of the time.

It's a pleasure for me to address this House today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Okanagan-Penticton. Since we left this House last July, I have been working for and with my constituents throughout the riding. As well, I've had the opportunity, as the official opposition critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, to travel extensively around the province. Within my riding and throughout the province, workers, taxpayers, the disabled, the sick, the needy, investors, small business operators, fishing resorts, tourism operators and students are all very, very concerned about what the NDP government is doing to our province. In fact, everyone, except a few members over there, seems to have very serious concerns about the economic state of our great province. In the past, many thought quietly about the destructive policies and inaction of this government, but now people are saying it aloud in coffee shops and at their workplaces and in town hall meetings. They're asking: "What is this NDP government doing to British Columbia?" And they're answering: "It is destroying the very fabric of our great province."

Hon. Speaker, British Columbians from every walk of life, from every area of our province -- whether it be Summerland or Quesnel, Burns Lake, Peachland, Cranbrook, Lillooet, Naramata, Vancouver, Cache Creek, Penticton, Merritt, Golden, Nanaimo, Dawson Creek, Smithers, Invermere, Port Alberni, Kimberley or Tumbler Ridge. . . Everyone is asking me and my colleagues the same question: "What has happened to British Columbia?" Why have we fallen from number one to number ten in economic growth? Why cannot this NDP government tell British Columbians the truth and nothing but the truth? Why does this government think that red tape is the cure when we all know that it's the poison of our economy?

British Columbians are not happy with this government. Quite frankly, British Columbians are getting angrier and angrier every day. They have every right to be very, very angry with the deceptions, the untruths and broken promise after broken promise. To top it off, this NDP government continues to show British Columbians that they are incompetent and not accountable. All the while, they are trying to deceive hard-working British Columbians and trying to hide their incompetency behind TV ads which are paid for by the taxpayer, I might add, to the tune of about $3 million a month. But pushing out untrue propaganda that there is a job behind every tree. . . . British Columbians now know the truth. It is time for the NDP government to come clean with British Columbians and to finally tell us the truth.

[5:30]

[ Page 6885 ]

We have an NDP government that steals from charities and breaks the Criminal Code of Canada, and we have the legacy of our Premier -- the silent killer known as debt, a debt soon to be in excess of $31 billion. NDP equals fiscal irresponsibility, equals debt, equals higher and higher taxes for our children and our grandchildren; that's what it means. We have an NDP debt management plan that has failed not once but twice, and now we have the promise that it'll probably fail three times. This government has failed to achieve its own plans, its own objectives -- not the opposition's objectives, not the auditor general's objectives. You, the NDP, failed at your own plan, and then you tried to deceive British Columbians.

We have a health care system which is in total disarray. Waiting lists are growing every day, but this government will not tell patients the truth. Whether it pertains to cardiac surgery, orthopedics or other forms of needed care, wait, wait and wait some more. That's NDP health care.

This government believes that socialism is the answer. Well, listen, Premier: it's not working; it will never work. It did not work in Russia, it did not work in Cuba, and it's not going to work in British Columbia, so stop the social experiments and start caring about the province and its future -- more importantly, the future of our citizens, and especially our children and our grandchildren.

I was told many, many years ago that history has a way of repeating itself. With that in mind, before I comment on this year's throne speech, I thought I'd take the time to look back at the '96 and '97 throne speeches. As the hon. member for Rossland-Trail said, he doesn't want negativity; he wants the facts. Just sit and listen to the facts.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps you should read it.

It's very, very important to forget the NDP's spin and political rhetoric and to look at the facts, nothing but the facts. As the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture said the other day, only the facts. Let's see. We promised that we were going to create and protect jobs. What happened in January? We lost 19,000 jobs, while in Alberta they created 22,000 jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec -- 9.9 percent. We have a youth unemployment rate of 18.3 percent at the end of March. What happened to the Guarantee for Youth? Broken promises, incompetent government -- those are the facts.

Reducing government debt. The facts are that in 1991 the debt was $17 billion. In 1995 it was $27 billion. Now what is it going to be? It's $31 billion -- just more broken promises.

I've already mention the two promised balanced budgets. As a matter of fact, we were also promised that this fiscal year was going to have a balanced budget. But now we have to wait until next year, and that will never come through. But who was the Finance minister -- that's the question -- who started us down this slippery road of disaster? Yes, you guessed it. The Premier. Darth Vader.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Member, in your chair.

As you know -- and it's been mentioned in this House, but it's worth repeating, because people around British Columbia are saying this now every day -- a recession is when your neighbour loses their job, a depression is when you lose your job, and a recovery is when the Premier loses his job.

Then, of course, we had the promise of the highest credit rating in Canada. You remember that.

An Hon. Member: We still do.

R. Thorpe: We still do? There is a member that's out of touch. It is absolutely not true. Everyone is getting better, and what's happening to British Columbia? We're getting worse. The Canadian Bond Rating Service has just downgraded us.

An Hon. Member: Tell us about Alberta.

R. Thorpe: No, we don't have to talk about Alberta; we are in British Columbia. That's why you should be concerned about British Columbia and the citizens of British Columbia.

Another promise. The Premier said: "My government will focus on developing jobs." But the facts are that the government does not create jobs, and this government is certainly living proof of that. The private sector creates jobs. Everyone knows that but the Premier. The job of a responsible government is to implement policies and regulations that create an environment where the private sector will come in and invest. That is what creates jobs. That's not that hard to understand for most members of this House.

Our traditional resource industries, the economic backbone of our province, have been killed by the policies and regulations of the NDP. The result is incompetence and broken promise after broken promise. The jobs and timber accord speaks for itself. Quite frankly, it was nothing more than an exercise in propaganda, spending millions and millions of taxpayers' hard-earned money for selfish political interests and the ego of our Premier.

Because of the policies of this government, there is not a job behind every tree. Unfortunately, British Columbia families know that now. The only disaster is the hardship that those families are faced with every day. So with respect to the jobs and timber accord, obviously -- and factually -- it's another broken promise and a cruel hoax. Many families and communities throughout British Columbia now feel that pain.

Another promise was: "My government has been able to make important progress in cutting wait-lists." This is, unfortunately, one of the most serious and worst hoaxes played on British Columbians. It is untrue. The aged and the sick are paying the price for the incompetence of this government and the mismanagement of the health care system, as recently outlined by the auditor general. The constituents of Okanagan-Penticton do know the truth; they know that it is taking up to a year for critical cardiac surgery. In addition, many of my constituents know that the wait for joint replacements is not 18 weeks, as written to me by the Minister of Health; it's 40-plus weeks. Those are the facts; that is the truth. Yet we have more broken promises by this incompetent NDP government -- broken promises made to those who are sick and aged and who cannot fight.

Then, of course, there was the promise of a new role for all MLAs, as my colleague from Rossland-Trail said. "Let's work together. It's a great concept." It was promised by the Premier that we would all work together to make British

[ Page 6886 ]

We also had the promise of enhancing community policing by allowing for 100 new police officers to patrol our neighbourhoods. I know the Attorney General is listening to this. But what actually happened? Those 100 police officers were not placed in our communities to look after them. Where were they placed? They're all in photo radar vans, eating doughnuts and taking photos of hard-working British Columbians. Yes, once again there are broken promises.

The record is clear: broken promises -- deceive and spin -- with the hope that no one checks. But we are checking on behalf of British Columbians, because that's why we were elected and that's what my constituents want me to do: hold this government to account. The bottom line is broken promise after broken promise and an incompetent government. That is the record; those are the facts, and you cannot argue with them.

Last year's throne speech talked about protecting health care; that has not happened. It said it would look after seniors; that has not happened. You made a commitment to prudent financial management; that has not happened. Of course, the Premier said he could increase jobs in British Columbia. Again, exactly the opposite has happened. Those are the facts.

Forestry. We were told that past mismanagement and global market conditions had combined to pose a serious threat. Yet we were told in the fall that it just came out of the blue; the Asian flu just came out of the blue. Yet the Minister of Forests has known about it for two years. Well, it's interesting that the flu happened only after the Premier visited. You draw your own conclusions. What has really happened? Maybe we should keep the Premier at home. Don't go to Latin America; don't go to South America -- there will be another virus.

The fact is that the waiting lists are growing. British Columbia rural health care is falling apart. Government's own appointed senior health officials are now being fired by the government. Who hired them? Now we're paying them severance -- severance we'd never pay. . . . That's up to $6 million. And $40 million in regionalization failed. We could have looked after all of the waiting lists in British Columbia and had no problem. This government wouldn't be sending people to private facilities in Calgary, or they wouldn't be going to hospitals. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No, no. You are sending people to private hospitals in Alberta, paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia. Start telling people the truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I appreciate that it's the end of the day, but we have a speaker who has the floor, and he is entitled to it.

Hon. member, perhaps before you start, we might wait until there is a little order.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I do appreciate that assistance, especially with that unruly group.

We have an unemployment rate today in British Columbia of 9.9 percent. And look, they sit there and laugh. And youth unemployment is 18.3 percent. Those are not laughing matters. I heard that member over there speak about that today, and now he sits there and laughs. I am just ashamed of that. It's double that of Alberta, double that of Saskatchewan, double that of Manitoba. Could it be that the socialist policies are not working? I believe the answer is yes.

[5:45]

An Hon. Member: For Alberta.

R. Thorpe: For Alberta.

Forestry. It's nice to see the Minister of Forests here. The NDP policies have killed that industry -- unless you're the Deputy Premier. Then you get $350 million thrown into your riding, about which I heard a displaced IWA worker say today on the radio: "They should have just mothballed it. They should have just sent them home. It can't compete. We're just shooting the money down the tubes." It was a displaced IWA worker with his family, not a B.C. Liberal. Maybe we should really and truly start listening to these hard-working British Columbians.

Now this government stands up and talks about its great accomplishments in cutting red tape. Well, who created the red tape? It was that government right over there. Those are the facts.

Prudent financial management. I've already talked about that. That is, without question, the biggest joke in this House.

If I could, hon. Speaker, I should just make a quick comment on this year's throne speech. I think something is going to happen here, and I'm going to watch it very carefully, because I think this road map is somehow going to end up in a whole bunch of broken promises also. You know, we talk about this government focusing on building the economy, yet they are going to continue to have red tape, and they are going to continue to have high taxes that aren't competitive. That's what this government doesn't understand: you have to be competitive. We are in a global community, and we have to compete. It's not about a race to the bottom; it's about being fit, and it's about being competitive. That's what it's about.

The throne speech says the government is committed to strengthening our province's position in the global economy. Isn't it interesting that we will not sign the free trade agreement within Canada, but now all of a sudden we can't compete in Canada but are going to compete outside Canada? It's a very interesting observation. That'll be something to see.

They talk about helping small businesses and new businesses, yet this budget had absolutely no bold initiatives, no bold action that was called for by every group that this government consulted with. They did not do it.

I've talked about restoring the province's competitiveness within the forest industry. Well, we wait anxiously, but not

[ Page 6887 ]

Only a few minutes ago I heard the members here talk about the government's renewed commitment to tourism. The fact of the matter is that this government signed a long-term tourist agreement before the last election. Only months after that election they broke it. Your government is not funding tourism to the level that you committed to prior to the last election. So take no great pride in doing that, because you shortchanged them, just as you've done to so many other British Columbians.

You know, I did listen a little bit to the member for Rossland-Trail. But what do we need? We need some bold actions. In spite of the disastrous policies of this government, British Columbians should have hope. They should have hope for the future because there will be a new government. This province has an abundance of resources. We have a great strategic location. We have skilled citizens who just want the opportunity to go to work and provide for their families.

For this to happen we need a very focused plan that people can believe in. You know, I happen to be very proud to be a member of the official opposition, the B.C. Liberals, that has an action plan to restore confidence in British Columbia, to get people back to work and to have British Columbians working. That's a nine-point plan. I won't go through all the details, but I'll just. . . .

An Hon. Member: Oh, come on. Give us all nine.

R. Thorpe: Well, if you want, okay. I'd like you to take notes, because you haven't been listening before. It's important; maybe you could implement some of this action plan. You know, we need a personal-tax regime and a small business tax code that is competitive. That's step No. 1 -- competitive.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You should be able to read your own numbers.

We need to have a real commitment to eliminating red tape and costly government regulations. Yes, we have a plan to do that -- to do that in a very effective and timely way, not just talk about it -- and to deliver the truth in budgeting. Now, here is an opportunity for members on that side of the House to have courage. You should not require that much courage to stand up for the truth. I know that there are many honourable members over there, and some of them are even here today.

Our leader has put forward legislation for truth in budgeting. Let us debate it. Bring it forward; vote for it. Show your constituents that you believe in the truth in budgeting. We need a balanced budget with a meaningful plan to reduce the debt. When debt becomes the third-highest cost to British Columbia, we know that it has to cripple and significantly hurt health care and education.

You know what? So do the people that work in the hospitals. I was in the hospital yesterday for four hours visiting with workers. They told me that this propaganda. . . . This government's spending on health care is absolutely propaganda. That's not exactly what they said, but you know what I mean. We have to use parliamentary language. These are people that are working. These are nurses, these are HEU workers who are working in the hospital every day. They know what's happening. The hospitals are coming apart at the seams in British Columbia. Waiting lists are growing. And this government continues to spin stuff out and call a 1-800 number.

We need to enact fair and balanced labour laws. That does not mean a race to the bottom, as the member for Rossland-Trail. . . . I said fair and balanced. I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to secret ballots. But maybe as bills come before the House, the Minister of Labour will expand upon that.

What we need to do in point No. 6 of the B.C. Liberal action plan for economic recovery is ensure that B.C. gets its fair and just percentage of money from Ottawa, and we will fight for that. We must fight, and we will protect private property rights.

No. 8 is negotiating workable, affordable treaty settlements. And we must provide better education and job training, which results in real jobs for our young people, which gives them a chance for hope. I know that British Columbia has a great future. I know that will happen when a B.C. Liberal government is formed. I ask this government to work with us to bring forward parts of this nine-point action plan so that British Columbians don't have to wait, because I don't think they'll call an election soon enough for British Columbians.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton, I must vote no to this throne speech, because this throne speech does not deliver. It does not deliver to the hard-working families of British Columbia; it does not deliver to the youth of British Columbia. It was called a Guarantee for Youth before; now it's called Youth Options. We know what the options are, because the figures are out: it's 18.3 percent unemployment. Who thinks it will go down next month? I'll bet it doesn't. I'll bet you that it goes up; I'll bet you it will be close to 18.5 percent. But that is the future that young British Columbians face today, as more and more of our children have to leave our communities and our province to go to Saskatchewan or Manitoba, to go to the dreaded A word of the NDP -- Alberta -- or to go to Washington or California. I don't know why you're so against success, but it's out there.

On behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton, I thank you for the opportunity to address this House today. I must vote no on behalf of my constituents, and I will do that with pride.

Noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to advise that the House will sit tomorrow.

I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

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