[ Page 6913 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

I. Chong: Today I would like the House to recognize that we have in the precinct a class of 29 grade 5 students from Monterey Elementary School. They are accompanied by five adults and their teacher, Mrs. Woodley. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

I recognize the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

Hon. I. Waddell: On a point of order, before my hon. colleague starts his speech. Yesterday, hon. Speaker, you were good enough to wish me and also the Law Clerk happy birthday. Well, it wasn't my birthday. We do have the same name -- Ian -- and perhaps that was. . . . However, I want to wish a happy birthday to the Law Clerk.

I also want to point out that it's Hugh Pickett's eighty-fifth birthday today. Maybe you were mistaking me for Hugh Pickett, that great impresario. They're celebrating it tonight, so perhaps the House could wish Hugh Pickett happy birthday instead of me. Happy Birthday, Hugh.

P. Nettleton: Hon. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity, I would like to congratulate you on your promotion, I guess it is, to Speaker. It's delightful to see you there. I'm sure we'll have a good session.

The throne speech spoke in glowing terms of a shared vision, of a building, growing and creating province with an economy as vibrant as its people, etc. I would like to respond to that first of all, if I may. I appreciate the need for painting rhetorical pictures; I believe in the power of words. I think it is important that people have confidence in their government and that the government of the day should therefore make every effort to inspire the people. I do not object to inspiration. Of course, if words are to inspire, they must be believed -- and that is the rub.

Are we too critical? We the opposition have often been accused of negativity. It has been suggested by some of the hon. members in government that we can only criticize and that we offer little in the way of positive and constructive comment. I can only assume that these suggestions were not intended as criticism. Of course we criticize. The government packages the facts to present its version of the truth. Sometimes we find that the government has chosen a much smaller box than was required and has had to discard some of the more inconvenient facts. Sometimes it turns out that the packaging suggests a very large truth, yet there is next to nothing inside. However, whatever we find, we are always very impressed with the lovely packaging.

Nevertheless, for good or ill, it is the government that has been given the mantle of governing -- not the easiest of jobs even with the best of intentions. We in the opposition accept that. However, our job is to ensure, as far as we are able and with what forensic skill we have, that the government is held accountable to the public. Our NDP government has kept us extremely busy with this task alone. However, I cannot agree that we have offered no positive alternatives. In fact, I would suggest that the pressure applied by my colleagues in opposition has something to do with the small measure of business sense that the hon. Finance minister has tolerated within her budget. I for one am grateful for even those small concessions. I can appreciate the trauma suffered by the present government in acknowledging that their policies have fallen short of creating the socialist ideal to which they purport to be dedicated. But I have not understood anyone in the business community to be saying that this is a good budget. I have heard "step in the right direction" and "new positive tone for business." But these comments are all predicated on the government's commitment to continue in the right direction.

If the government looks wistfully over its shoulder to its old friends, to its traditional territory and heads home -- or even if it stands frozen in indecision -- then nothing has been accomplished. I would say that "step in the right direction" is probably too generous an assessment. This budget is really no more than a promise to take that step in the right direction but not just yet. So from a business perspective, the budget doesn't really do anything to help the economy in any concrete sense.

I must admit that I am greatly heartened to see any tax cut, however small, for big business and even lip service paid to bureaucracy reductions, if for no other reason than it is an implicit admission, at least, of some of this government's blunders and that it has been humbled by the mess it has made of the economy. Of course, the actual savings from these tax cuts will have to be fleshed out. I note that the Premier claimed in the throne speech to have already saved small businesses $29 million last year by continuing tax cuts and that income tax cuts and rate freezes, which did nothing more than maintain the status quo in a few areas, saved families $700 each last year. I have to be curious about how these savings were determined, given that rate freezes were thrown in the pot. The $700 cannot have been determined with reference to the previous year. I guess what they're saying is that the average family will pay $700 less than they otherwise would have paid, had there been a $700 increase.

I must compliment the NDP on their rhetorical restraint, since they could just as easily have said that they saved the average family $1 million over prospective increases of $1 million that they might have imposed but didn't. In any event, just from my own experience, it seems to me that if I have benefited from some tax cuts somewhere, I've paid for them somewhere else in some other rate increase. I can't say that I put a whole lot of stock in these figures even where they appear to make sense. One thing irks me. If there has been a change of heart with respect to encouraging investment, removing impediments to business -- that sort of thing -- why have we heard no words of contrition or acceptance of responsibility from this government? The government is simply blaming Asia.

I agree that economic problems in Asia have impacted on us. Those problems are a factor in our poor economic perfor-

[ Page 6914 ]

This government continues to deny that onerous taxes and suffocating regulation in forestry are the root cause of our economic woes. It's not just the forest industry that is in decline, and it's not just the exporters to Asian markets. These kinds of policies, stacked one on top of another for the last seven years, have driven business and investment in all sectors of this province out of this province. I would have a lot more confidence in the government and that the government was committed to real change if the Premier would step forward to the microphone, clear his throat and admit: "I'm an interfere-aholic."

Now, I've said that the budget doesn't do much for the economy in any concrete sense. That doesn't mean the budget is without merit. If the present measures and the commitment to undertake further measures are perceived as credible by the business and investment communities, then this may yet be a significant budget. Personally, I believe it offers precious little relief.

But if the confidence can be restored that B.C. is open for business -- or at least opening soon -- maybe business and investment will roll the dice again. After all, B.C. has been blessed in so many other ways -- the climate, the scenery, the recreational opportunities -- that perhaps all we have to do is offer business hope: the hope that the government is in the process of reversing itself on almost every fundamental NDP tenet; hope that the government is abandoning its policy of excessive regulation; hope that the government has rejected its distorted self-image as the principal engine of the economy; hope that the government will accordingly stem the embarrassing flow of tax dollars to unproductive job-creation efforts, to bailouts of doomed enterprises and to fund the shell game of organizing and reorganizing ministries, departments and administrative bodies. It has not resulted in the projected efficiencies.

I do not have much hope, I am sorry to say, so I must plead guilty to the charge of not being positive enough. However, I would like to be positive; I would like to believe the government. So would the business community. Maybe some of you on the other side of the House are thinking that if Paul Nettleton believes all that is required is confidence, then why is Paul Nettleton undermining that very confidence by his comments today?

[10:15]

Second, I am not going to exhaust my own credibility supporting an NDP house of cards. I cannot, in good conscience, project the confidence I do not have. I do not believe that zebras can change their stripes or that this one has. I do not want to have to look any of my constituents in the eye and say: "I'm sorry I encouraged you to lose everything. I really hoped that if we all just believed, the economy would get better." I will help to build confidence in B.C. when this government's actions and commitments have credibility or when I as a member of the governing party am in a position to build that confidence directly. And I think I know which of the two will be first.

What vision? I will not pretend that everything is okay now, and that's really what the opposition has been asked to do: pretend, share the vision. The Premier talked about a shared vision. But the vision is not pretending; it's not wishing. We have to have definable goals and the means to reach them. Vision is knowing where you are going and knowing how you're going to get there. Vision works with facts, and it presupposes a respect for the truth. I have not seen any evidence that this government has vision. And as far as the people of British Columbia that are supposedly sharing the vision, I'm sure many are flattered that the government recognizes how vibrant they are. But we see that many are nonetheless taking that vibrancy elsewhere, because the lack of vision on the part of our leaders has resulted in a dark and bleak landscape here for individuals and businesses alike. We all share with the government the wish of this building, growing, creating province, but we do not share the vision.

Just as a vision is more than wishing, confidence is more than gullibility. In fact, I find it strange that a government that is asking British Columbians to measure its successes and how far it has gone towards abandoning its most economically destructive policies can speak of vision. Backing off on stumpage rates, streamlining the administration of the Forest Practices Code, reducing corporate and business taxes -- the substance of these all represents major reversals of the demonstrated policy of this government. If these reversals are representative of some new vision, then it's a strangely right-wing vision. But I don't believe it.

The government has criticized the opposition for its demands for increased spending on the one hand and reduced taxes on the other. This is extremely revealing. It demonstrates that the government does not really believe or intend that cutting taxes will have any effect as an economic stimulus. They're just playing with tax cuts to placate business and investment. They believe that if taxes go down, then government revenues must follow. And they're beside themselves that we can't see this obvious truism. They must believe this, because there is no other explanation for their bewilderment with the opposition's insistence that services can be maintained, even improved, in conjunction with tax cuts.

These little tax cuts they are wrapping their budget in are sheep's clothing, hon. Speaker. Apparently the bond-rating agencies have observed just how scantily clad the sheep really is. Such criticism overlooks one critical point: waste. Are we so credulous as to believe that the government has given us full value for our tax dollars? Is there no room for improvement there? You see, it's not so much that anyone over here in opposition is interested in spending more; we would like to see more for the money that is spent.

You know, hon. Speaker, it's interesting. Aside from asking us to measure them on their supposed repudiation of

[ Page 6915 ]

I don't think anyone in opposition disputes the Premier and his government's spending record. But I should think value would be a better indicator of his success. Have services improved? Of course, in some things there may be no choice but to spend more in order to attain a level of service acceptable to the public. But this should be for the public to decide. I don't recall any hue and cry demanding the construction, for instance, of three hydrofoil ferries at $100 million a pop. That's reckless spending and a good example of an area in which a great deal less could have been spent. Is all this just nitpicking, this talk of waste? I don't think so. I'm not talking about Joe Government Employee taking an extra five minutes for his coffee break; that's not the kind of waste I'm concerned with. I'm not talking about the front lines of service at all.

I'm talking about systemic, policy-driven waste like the $40 million for New Directions -- none of them the right one, apparently; the $188 million sunk into the health labour accord; administrative costs for FRBC in the order of 40 percent, which would amount to about $160 million in '96-97 just to administer the program, and if the same level of administrative waste carries forward to '97-98, another $240 million there.

What about the costs associated with the NDP's other ideologically driven legislation? The fixed-wage policy wasted another $237 million, $75 million on the Vancouver Island Highway alone. There's no telling what the direct cost to government in the province as a whole will be if Bill 44 makes its way back onto the stage, as we expect.

Hon. Speaker, over $300 million in taxpayer dollars are mired in Skeena Cellulose. I do not want to minimize the social cost of all those jobs at Skeena if it had closed its doors. I believe that this was an extremely unfortunate situation. But there is a limited timber supply and, more importantly right now, a limited demand for pulp. Other mills, like Gold River, may have to close. More efficient mills, deserving of the chance to ride out the current downturn, will have to be closed because the government has put its finger in this particular pie. It seems to me to be fairly simple economics. If one player stays in the game as a result of government subsidization, another player without that subsidization may have to drop out. I mean no disrespect to the workers at Skeena who are doing their best to keep the mill going. But Skeena was and remains notoriously inefficient. I don't know how many hundreds of millions more we'll sink into this mill before we finally -- as inevitably we must -- cut our losses. Those doors will close again. And that money -- maybe $400 million, maybe $500 million, maybe over $500 million, who knows? -- will be gone. It will have done nothing to spur economic development in that region.

We are paying big bucks for government waffling, false starts, ideological experimentation and government intervention in the marketplace, otherwise known as throwing good money after bad. I suggest that if all this fat were boiled down, it could be directed to top up funding on a lot of programs where it is sorely needed for adequate health care, roads and infrastructure. I would further suggest that any remaining funding shortfall could be made up out of the increased revenues which are generated by increased confidence and investment -- provided, of course, that the government of the day could make B.C. an attractive place to bring, spend, keep, invest and build money.

I don't think it is so ridiculous of us to demand increased service and tax cuts at the same time. So what is the NDP vision? It doesn't seem to encompass economic growth and prosperity. Here are some of the other things it is not. The vision does not foresee job growth. Forest Renewal B.C. was supposed to create 5,000 jobs per year. It created 947 in 1996. Overall, 5,500 jobs in the forest sector were lost in 1996. Then the government got really serious, announcing in its 1997 budget a commitment to the creation of 21,000 jobs in the forest sector by the year 2001. In June 1997 the Premier reaffirmed this commitment, promising 22,400 direct jobs through the jobs and timber accord. But 1997 actually saw huge numbers of forest industry layoffs and mill closures. A total of 40,000 jobs were promised in 1997. B.C. actually lost jobs in 1997 -- the only province to do so.

The Premier claimed that the NDP has created 25,000 new jobs for youth, but youth unemployment has increased by 40 percent. I'm not sure how many people had to lose their jobs for each of those 25,000 newly created jobs, but I'm not sure that anyone really cares. However many jobs the government is taking credit for, the net result is that there are fewer jobs, not more. So when they say that job creation is part of their vision -- whether they are jobs in general, jobs in forestry or youth jobs. . . . I don't know what their forward-looking acuity is, but hindsight is 20-20. None of their job projections have ever been anything more than fantasy.

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: I see that I'm getting a response. That's encouraging. I had hoped for some kind of response. My constituents hope for a response.

The vision, hon. Speaker, if I may continue, does not look with compassion on the down and out. In fact, the NDP has had to be censured by the courts for their illegal attempts to systematically fleece charities to satisfy an insatiable appetite for revenue. We already know from the Nanaimo Commonwealth fiasco that the NDP believes that the best use for those proceeds is to fund its own re-election campaign. I think that for the most part, charity proceeds should be directed to needy people, not to government self-promotion.

In addition, the NDP continues to push for expanded gambling. It is absolutely indifferent to the proven social cost of gambling on individuals and their families. This is hypocritical, particularly given their paternalistic attitude to smokers and their aggressive stance with the tobacco companies. I guess that not all social costs are equal.

The NDP has double vision when it comes to the protection of universal health care. I have already mentioned the health care dollars this government has wasted. We would have preferred that they be spent on patient care, obviously, rather than on this regionalization process. What has been the result of regionalization? The Health ministry admits that expected efficiencies have not materialized. In the north we still have a rapidly deteriorating standard of care, with much longer surgery wait-lists than elsewhere in the province, a chronic doctor shortage and few specialists. The north generates a disproportionately large share of the province's revenues but must settle for substandard health care. Where is the payback?

The northern doctors' dispute, which impacts directly on my constituency, is a case in point. What is at issue here is the

[ Page 6916 ]

Despite the Health minister's new advertisements drawing attention to doctors' incomes and to how willing the government is to resolve all this -- if only the doctors were willing -- the public in the north remains almost unanimously behind the doctors. You would expect, human nature being what it is, that there would be a number of people who would resent these uppity, high-paid professional people demanding more money, especially since the withdrawal of services. This withdrawal has meant that people's health and lives are in jeopardy.

I understand that there have been some close calls. Prince George Regional Hospital is overflowing with patients shipped in from the outlying areas. The level of anxiety among the pregnant women and people with chronic health problems in the rural areas is palpable. A recent flu outbreak recently swept through Omineca Lodge, a long term care facility in Vanderhoof. As of March 20 almost half of the residents were acutely ill, some with pneumonia. I know the Minister of Health is aware of this. These are elderly patients for whom the risk of transfer to the already overcrowded Prince George Regional Hospital, away from supportive friends and relatives, is probably greater than that of remaining at Omineca Lodge.

[10:30]

No one in my constituency seems to fault the doctors. Again, it is a matter of credibility. Throughout this dispute -- with the many offers and retractions of offers, misunderstandings, misinformation -- the fact is that the government has done nothing, even in the interim, to resolve the immediate threat to the health and lives of northern residents. As the Health minister is aware, this is an issue which requires attention in many isolated areas, not just my constituency and not just the north. It needs attention in every rural and isolated community. When and where will it get attention?

In the minister's constituency, doctors at Surrey Memorial Hospital already receive $590 per night for an on-call shift. This is, in my view, a blatant double standard. In the north the doctors actually feel personally responsible for their patients -- in the office, at the hospital and at home. Each doctor knows that he or she personally must be available, because there is no one else. They cannot pass the buck. This is the only difference between these doctors and the Surrey doctors, and it is so like the NDP to turn the dedication and compassion of these doctors against them.

The NDP vision is not focused on protecting children or supporting families. There may indeed be a crisis situation out there in terms of children receiving inadequate care or being abused. Certainly we're hearing this message from many concerned and dedicated social workers. But what is the government's response? We have only to look at Quesnel.

The real NDP vision is control. I believe that the real vision of the NDP government is more and more control. If you analyze their actions over the last seven years, looking for one unifying theme, it would be centralization of power in the hands of the NDP government and those directly beholden to them.

I have touched on charities and gambling revenue already. Since the B.C. Supreme Court ruling, the government has come forward with a new scheme whereby the government takes over the management of charity gaming -- lock, stock and barrel. The charities come forward to government hat in hand, and if they're able to justify to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities -- according to whatever criteria the government sees fit to impose -- the government will then give them a share. Charity will raise more than it was able to raise before -- so it is said -- and so will the government, needless to say, and thus everyone will be happy. At the same time, the government gains control over how quickly and where gaming is expanded to and how much revenue it can be milked for. The government takes from the charities their ability to sustain themselves and assumes control over which charity gets how much, if anything. Whether explicitly set out or not, I have no doubt that the charity funding criteria will inevitably exhibit some ideological bias.

I mentioned the regionalization of health care. Although the Health ministry has admitted that the expected efficiencies have not materialized, regionalization has achieved what it set out to -- that is, usurp local control and deny localities an organized and effective advocate for local issues. It has preemptively fired hospital societies that voted against amalgamation with NDP boards and has replaced them with their own appointees.

More outrageously, the NDP has expropriated property belonging to some of these charitable health care organizations in the process. Maybe it's impossible to eliminate all charity, so that everyone who needs some kind of social assistance can be dependent on the state. But this government has found a way around that little obstacle by making charities themselves dependent on the state.

Control over who can work and who is denied work. . . . FRBC is not effectively returning money to the forest sector or the communities in which was generated. However, creating jobs through FRBC allows government policy to be the final arbitrator of who gets a fair number of jobs in the forest sector, something that was once controlled by market forces alone.

It's all about control, hon. Speaker -- and with this I conclude -- over what school boards allow to be taught and what they must teach; control over who can work, who is denied work; control over who gets first-class health care and who is relegated to third-class health care; control over what happens in our homes; control over everything. This is the vision of this government, and I don't know anyone who shares it.

A. Sanders: I rise to address the Speech from the Throne, hon. Speaker. It has been four weeks of stomaching a phony budget and that opus, the throne speech; four weeks of intensive, taxpayer-funded propaganda bombarding every airwave -- $800,000 a week, $3 million a month, month after month, spent to deliver the message that this Premier and this cabinet and this government have a plan. It has been four

[ Page 6917 ]

Four weeks ago in the budget and throne speeches, government had the chance to turn the province around, to come clean, to do the right thing and to tell the truth, but they didn't have the courage. Instead, a perfidious budget speech and a capricious throne speech -- more pap, all delivered by a cabinet with questionable ability to choose between right and wrong.

Four weeks in this House, in this company. . . . I spend Monday to Friday living my life in a gangster's paradise with a government that has a rap sheet as long as my arm; a government that breaks the Criminal Code of Canada; a government that expropriates properties from societies and claims them as its own; a government that ignores its own tendering process for public construction; a government that strong-arms non-profit organizations into silence while it lifts their assets; a government that alters gaming laws to steal money from charities; a government that phones judges to help manipulate court decisions; a government that is the author of Hydrogate, spawned by the NDP -- a party that brought us Bingogate, a party that steals from nuns.

How can we teach our children right from wrong with this government in the House in power? Some rap sheet! Shame on each and every member of this government for the part you've played in crippling the province.

Still, it's easier to blame government for all our ills. Government's a faceless entity replete with ideology and devoid of personality. Credit must go where credit is due, and no government alone could have asphyxiated the B.C. economy without the sterling contributions of individual NDP MLAs and, of course, the A team -- the cabinet -- those razor-sharp members especially culled, chosen from a talent pool where, simultaneously, one hits rock bottom and skims the surface. Not one of them alone could have created the toxic policies, punitive taxation, persecutory red tape, caustic accords and the overall ethical vacuum that they have been able to create by working together. This cabinet and these MLAs are a concerted force -- the machine that's brought the province to its knees. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This cabinet is the paradigm of that parable.

Look at the new Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant MLA. Prior to the election, she was a vocal advocate of halting expanded gambling. For two years she sat in this House -- ungerminated, muzzled, silent, voiceless. Was promotion really worth the sacrifice? What else would you give away? It's a slippery slope. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take you seat for a moment, please. I have to draw to your attention the tradition of this House not to discuss individual members. You can discuss the government, but individual members are not what we discuss in this House. I just bring that to your attention.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm unaware of that ruling and will have to ask for information or advice on that particular point.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the hon. member is now aware of the traditions here, and I'm sure will abide by those.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Let's look at this government, where one of the members of the government wrote position papers on gaming, and one of those government members eloquently opposed gambling. He now sits in the Legislature, asleep at the wheel, toeing the line and watching while the Premier takes over gambling right under his nose.

Our former Speaker is now a minister in the government. It is my understanding that he is here this session to deliver the final, fatal blow to B.C.'s foundering economy with the legislation the government will bring in on sectoral bargaining. I'd like the government to take a bow as we watch sectoral bargaining put another stake in the heart of the economy of B.C.

We have a government whose views on health do not recognize the waste and total chaos in regionalization and who are unaware that the NDP has created a two-, three- or four-tier health care system, depending on whether you live in the north, the interior, the rural areas, the Fraser Valley, the lower mainland or the Kootenays. It's a government that's immune to the closures of hospitals, diagnostic facilities and home care services, from Vancouver all the way to Fort Nelson, and that's impervious to the fear and anxiety of young families and the elderly in Fort St. James, Mackenzie, Burns Lake, Fort St. John, Quesnel, Elk Valley and Vanderhoof, as month after month people cope with emergency hospital services that they no longer have.

Shame on the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who heckled the member for Prince George-Omineca for trying to support getting some health care services back into the north. Shame on you for sitting in this House!

The Speaker: Hon. member, through the Chair. We don't use personal pronouns here.

A. Sanders: We have a Ministry of Education that brags about $105 million being injected into education -- so much back-slapping by a government that has forgotten that it was the NDP that cut funding to education by $400 per student between 1991 and 1998. How do you take credit for something you originally took away? How dare you spin the education fibs that education would be better off, when any school trustee, administrator, teacher or school district knows that they will be in a deficit, be cut or, at best, maintain the status quo in education this year. And there's the nonsense about reducing the number of portables. The government had a press release yesterday and called all the press together for a photo opportunity about reducing the number of portables by 50 percent in the next five years. Unfortunately, the government already made that announcement, and they made it in 1991. The number of portables has increased by 95 percent in B.C. schools since that announcement was made by this same party to the same British Columbians. Give me a break!

We can look at the Ministry of Environment of this government, and we can look at the minister who sat in the House and admitted in question period that mismanagement of Crown land by the ministry had cost the province 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in GDP. Shucks -- a small amount of money. How can this government cope at the end of the day when they must know that any decent person would concede that these tragic job losses affect small, rural and northern British Columbia most of all? Does the ministry register the tragic losses and the role that it plays in these communities in the present and in the future? Few jobs, sky-high taxation, less disposable income, limited health and marginal education funding: welcome to northern and rural British Columbia.

[ Page 6918 ]

[10:45]

The Ministry of Forests boasted that red tape would be cut for the forest industry. Time to give them a leg up; help them to be competitive in the world markets -- lots of high-fiving by the ministry staff and the Premier. Who knee-capped the forest industry in the first place? Who wrote the unworkable Forest Practices Code and crafted that punitive legislation? It was this Forests minister and this government. Take a bow for cutting red tape that you had already created.

Then there's the Ministry of Employment and Investment: a government and minister who firmly support the working class -- in Alberta. How many jobs have been created for the working man in Alberta through the policies of this government? He hands employment and investment to that province, while our jobless rate goes up. The minister should receive a stipend from Mr. Klein. He does more work for Mr. Klein than he's ever done for this House.

The list goes on: a cabinet of sanitized ideologues spouting the party line, more pap; a school of pilot fish who don't know where they're going -- no message beyond the Premier's catch of the day. Faceless extensions of the Premier's will are no longer connected, no longer feeling, no longer thinking and questioning: where is this Premier taking us? I challenge any one of the MLAs in government to reflect on the pap in the throne and budget speeches and to recognize that nothing short of the truth is the truth and that nothing short of the truth is good enough for this House -- and to say to the Premier it's time to tell it like it is. Let's start all over again today in this House. It's never too late.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, first of all, my congratulations to you for being elected by all members of the House to serve as our Speaker. I look forward to working with you very closely. And to all members who have been elected, congratulations -- and welcome back to the session. It's starting out much like the last session, and I suppose it will end up much like the last session.

This building has seen some 100 years, so it's always an honour to get up and speak in this room. As some members know, I have an interest in parliamentary democracy, and I've been following closely some of the 1,000 years of debate that is recorded in Erskine May and other texts. It's been very interesting to compare what has happened over 1,000 years to 100 years of British Columbia's history and now to what is happening today in British Columbia. In that 1,000 years of debate I see many instances where there were two sides to every question. Always the opposition's point of view is against the government's, but in many of those cases, I find that there's a progression in the debate. There are two sides, but we move towards a conclusion, and it's better than where we started.

I ask if it would somehow be possible to introduce that type of debate to this Legislature. Rather than simply opposing, we could see some constructive views coming from across the floor. Perhaps it's my municipal background. I recognize that there are members on the other side of the House with such a background, where we worked with all political stripes to better the community. I think we should all be doing that for the province as well.

I always want to take an opportunity to speak about my riding. I know that this is the response to the throne speech, and I'll get around to that. My constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows is certainly affected by the throne speech, and I want to talk about why that is so. As I think most of you know, the Pitt River is the eastern boundary of my constituency. It reaches up into the Pitt Lake, far up into the upper Pitt River and to the entrance to Pinecone-Burke Provincial Park, as well as to the sides of the Garibaldi range and the Golden Ears mountains, which also have a provincial park. The Fraser River is on the south. It takes in Douglas Island, which is also a new park. On the east is Kanaka Creek. Kanaka Creek goes up into the Blue Mountain recreation area. I mentioned that Garibaldi and Golden Ears provincial parks are the northern boundary, and that includes Alouette Lake. You can see that my constituency is a very natural, beautiful area with a lot of potential for recreation and tourism.

It's the home of the Katzie first nation, with some 9,000 years of history. More recently, it became populated in the Pitt Polder area by Dutch settlements, which made an extensive diking system that has become a popular attraction for lower mainland hikers. Also more recently, the equestrian community of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has worked with municipal councils and has established protected horse trails throughout the area. The new TransCanada Trail, which of course is a millennium project, will also traverse this vast ecological paradise. It's a real treasure, a paradise, for nature lovers. It's the greatest place in the world for bird watching. The Pitt Polder is home to numerous rare birds, such as the greater sandhill crane and the great blue heron, as well as a number of other rare birds.

Pitt Polder is a jewel. It is emerald green surrounded by mountains and water, and I welcome anyone who hasn't seen it to come out and have a look at it. As I mentioned, it's a destination for hikers, climbers, canoeists and fishers. It's a tremendous opportunity for outdoor recreation. The conservation of that natural environment guarantees that Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows is a great tourist attraction for British Columbia.

Another great resource for my community is agriculture. I gave a private member's speech last Friday on that, so I won't go into detail, but I will just reiterate that it is one of the more important areas in British Columbia for agriculture. We are working to ensure that agriculture goes forward. The largest percentage increase in this year's budget was for agriculture, and that's very important to the residents of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

Commercial and industrial growth continues. I've been saying this for years, and it's been evident for years: more businesses are opening their doors in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows every year, and that continues. Industry continues to expand; the industrial parks are filling. That's good news as well.

The throne speech was very important. It focuses on renewing B.C.'s economy, encouraging investment, creating new jobs and ensuring opportunities for all British Columbians. I was pleased to see more support for education and training to equip young people with the skills to prosper in a changing economy. Continuing to build on our provincial strengths -- universal medicare, quality public services and high environmental standards. . . . Also very important, certainly to the residents of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, are across-the-board cuts in personal income tax of 2 percent, which builds on the 2 percent from the two years prior to this.

Tax breaks for small business: the elimination of the corporation capital tax for 10,000 small businesses over the next

[ Page 6919 ]

Job creation is very important to everyone. I am pleased to have been involved in a number of projects in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, and I will continue to be involved in new projects. One is the environmental youth team project which has been working up at Golden Ears Provincial Park. Those 16-to-24-year-old youths are building trails and getting trained in park organization, which will serve them well in the future. We have many parks that are ready and just waiting to be organized. Their supervisors are displaced forest workers funded through Forest Renewal B.C.

These environmental youth teams are, of course, part of the Premier's Youth Options B.C. initiative. As the Minister Responsible for Youth, the Premier recently announced Youth Options B.C., a comprehensive program providing young British Columbians with education, skills training and work experience opportunities. The program includes a three-year tuition freeze, expansion of spaces in post-secondary institutions and a range of employment and training programs, including summer jobs, jobs in science and technology, work with Crown corporations and help for young people starting their own business or looking for their first job. These environmental youth team workers will be involved in the government's new Campsite B.C. program to build 1,500 new campsites by the end of 1999.

Another job creation initiative to which I've devoted a lot of time. . . . Provincial Crown corporations have been working with a Maple Ridge company, GPS Gas Protection Systems Inc., to provide a gas safety system to critical infrastructure in British Columbia. It's a strategic partnering agreement between the government and this company, and I'm very pleased to see that moving ahead. The company is doing a lot of work in providing gas safety systems not only for government infrastructure but also for schools and hospitals and important workplaces. Through this initiative we will eventually see the establishment of a manufacturing plant in Maple Ridge employing up to 100 people. It's a very important initiative, which I'm glad to see progressing.

Sawmills employ many of the residents of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. Through the jobs and timber accord, we continue to see the allocation of new wood to small companies. That access to wood is, of course, crucial to them to be able to upgrade their facilities and provide jobs locally. That is happening in Maple Ridge, as I'm sure it's happening across British Columbia. The timber sale licences for those Maple Ridge companies are creating jobs and allowing for increased wood supply to small business.

We have the B.C. Summer Games in July of 1998, which will add about $3.5 million to the local economy and stimulate the spirits of some 4,000 volunteers. That initiative is being worked on by everyone in the community at this time, and I want to congratulate Bonnie Telep, who is heading up the initiative. Bonnie is the chair of the Summer Games, and she is also citizen of the year. She has so far put together about a thousand volunteers. That number will increase on the weekend, because there is a big rally for these volunteers to be signed up on Sunday. They want 4,000 in total. Each volunteer only has to commit some four hours of their time during the games. I would encourage everyone out there in Maple Ridge who may be listening to make sure they are involved in that. It's an opportunity to show off our community and to be host to some 4,000 athletes, coaches and their families attending those games in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

There will be legacies coming out of the games, including improved sports facilities, but the greatest legacy will be the community spirit that is generated through those volunteers in our community once the games are concluded.

[11:00]

There is a lot of potential here. It's in the beginning stages, but I am certainly doing what I can to make sure that this is going to be to the benefit of Maple Ridge and to the benefit of British Columbia. It has that kind of potential. The city of Beijing North American trade office is going to be located in Maple Ridge and will be opening in the middle of May. I believe it will be May 15. This will give Canadian businesses an opportunity to come to that office and access Chinese markets. As part of that initiative, there is also the potential for a major commercial development in the downtown core of Maple Ridge.

The education funding announcements that were made recently -- the $105 million lift in core funding for 1998-99 -- will allow for hiring 400 new teachers and nearly 300 teacher aides and other staff, such as counsellors, librarians, etc. This $105 million brings the total per-student funding to $5,849, an increase of $93 per pupil over last year, and brings the total B.C. education budget for K-to-12 to $3.58 billion. The increase will enable school districts to meet enrolment pressures, as well as to provide sufficient funding for special ed, English as a second language and aboriginal needs. Reducing class size, improving reading and writing skills and providing more resources for education are the top priorities for our government.

The Premier also promised an aggressive strategy to build more classrooms and reduce the number of portables throughout B.C. That is happening at a very fast pace, with the capital announcements of this week. It is good news for my constituency. One high school -- Westview Secondary School -- will see a reduction of 18 portables, which to me is really amazing and something that we haven't seen in the past. Great news for students, parents and teachers.

I was actually really pleased to hear the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, Kit Krieger, talking about the announcement. He said it's the best news that B.C. public school teachers have had this decade, and a sign of good judgment and great dedication to children. It puts the maximum dollars directly to the classroom.

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows is an area of many young families, and I want to emphasize the actions our government is taking to build on our commitment to young people: freezing tuition for the third year, increasing our commitment to student financial assistance, increasing funding to post-

[ Page 6920 ]

One of the key components of Youth Options B.C. is a major expansion of job opportunities for students through such programs as Student Summer Works. Our job target for Student Summer Works this year will be increased to creating 5,000 jobs, and we're investing $9.3 million to reach that goal. This is an increase of almost 50 percent over last year. Youth Options B.C. is a logical bridge with which to link our efforts to increase access and affordability to education and the world of work. Student Summer Works does just that. With Student Summer Works we've recognized the barriers that young people face in finding employment in their field, and we have delivered. We have assisted them to gain job experience that is worthwhile. We're working hard to buck the national trend of declining summer job opportunities for youth.

I was pleased to see the StatsCan report the other day -- job statistics for March -- where youth employment in B.C. increased from 232,000 in February to 244,000 in March, an increase of 12,000 jobs for young people in British Columbia.

I was also very pleased to see our government moving even further on the tobacco reduction initiative, supporting young people who are tempted to take up smoking, by increasing fines from $200 to $500 for selling tobacco to people under 19 and imposing mandatory signage for vendors, warning that tobacco products are heavily addictive and that it is illegal to sell tobacco to anyone under 19 years of age. These signs are to be displayed on the cash register and wherever tobacco products are displayed.

We're also supporting pilot programs in schools in Maple Ridge. There's one going on about the dangers of tobacco, and these programs will become established in the regular curriculum for grades 6 and 7 by this September.

Also in Maple Ridge -- the Attorney General talked about it in his speech yesterday -- are the community accountability programs. He mentioned Maple Ridge as part of his justice reform program. Part of the million-dollar startup fund is going to this committee. There are a number of volunteers that have been working hard and have been provincial coordinators in many capacities throughout the province. One of them is Lola Chapman from the Ridge Meadows Youth and Justice Advocacy Association. I've been working with Lola for a couple of years, and she has a program there that has been so successful that it has become a model for the province -- working with young people and giving them alternatives to going to jail. The real success of that program, again, is the volunteers that work with those young people, enabling them to do other work and to meet with the victims of the minor crimes that they have committed. They're now working hard to become part of the solution to that problem.

I've talked a little bit about what's happening in Maple Ridge and about some things across the province. I'm looking forward to what's happening in the lower mainland in the next little while. It's certainly going to impact on all the communities in the lower mainland: the new rapid transit line, the new convention centre in downtown Vancouver, the renewed Pacific National Exhibition. These are all going to be of tremendous importance to our regional economy and will provide a lot of jobs. It takes some 3,000 jobs just to get the PNE up and running -- 3,000 jobs for young people, mostly, who will be working at that facility.

For the province as a whole, there's the oil and gas industry in the north, the booming film and tourism industries, opportunities to develop an aluminum smelter, and working with forest companies to reduce their overall operating costs during this period of slowdown. These are all contributing to economic stabilization. All in all, there are a number of great efforts that are working towards a future economy that we can all enjoy, as we have in the past few years, where we've managed to avoid the recession that occurred in other parts of the country. We'll certainly see a resurgence in this economy in the near future because of the steps that our government is taking.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments today, as I speak in response to the Speech from the Throne, by congratulating you on your appointment. I'm delighted to see you in the chair, and I know you're going to do a wonderful job and are doing a wonderful job. I also want to congratulate our Deputy Speaker, who just spoke, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. I'm delighted to see his appointment, as well as the appointment of the member for Kootenay, who is now the Chair of Committees. It's a good trio to try to keep this rather rowdy House -- at times -- in order. Good luck to all of you.

I'd like to say one other thing before I commence my comments. I want to wish a happy birthday to my deputy, who is turning 29 and some months today. She may never forgive me for saying this, but I'm delighted I found out that it's her birthday. I certainly want -- along with everybody in this House, I know -- to wish her many happy returns.

Unlike the members opposite, I'm pleased to stand up and support the throne speech -- as I do the budget -- because this throne speech, quite frankly, is about creating opportunities. It's about a three-year plan to stimulate economic growth, to encourage investment, to increase competitiveness, to create jobs and to move our province forward in the way that we all want to see. We're building on the strong foundation that we have in this province. Yes, we have some economic problems. The members opposite would like the world to think that we, the New Democrats, created the Asian crisis. They would like us to think that we created the problems in the world markets for pulp and for solid wood. They would like everybody to believe that we created the problems associated with softwood lumber which mean that we can't export as long in the year, etc. But I think people understand that that's simply not true. As they listen to the members opposite call names and rant and not provide any alternatives, I think there are some messages coming through and there's some understanding that while we do have some challenges, we are working very hard in this province to move ahead.

What we've seen in the throne speech this year is that this session of the Legislature is clearly going to focus on renewing our economy, to make sure that we encourage investment and jobs and ensure that opportunities are available for all British Columbians, not just a few. Something we never hear from the other side is that as well as the economic agenda, there is $415 million in tax cuts for people and for businesses to move the economy ahead and create jobs, as the members opposite have so often urged us to do. As well as that, however, what we've done in this budget and in this throne speech is protect health care and education. For the seventh year in a row in British Columbia, we've seen an increase in the health and the education budgets. That is unparalleled anywhere else in this country.

In my riding, we are just finding out that we're going to get four or five new schools. We have rebuilt numerous schools over the last few years. The members opposite would have us build none. They come into this House and say, "Not

[ Page 6921 ]

I am proud that our government is continuing to fund health and education, to build schools, to renew centres. Finally we built the Chemainus Health Care Centre after many years of the Socreds -- the Liberals in their last incarnation -- dragging their feet. We finally built that centre, which is excellent, and we have updated both of the other hospitals in my riding significantly. That supports the people in our community.

But this throne speech is about a new way of doing business. It's about investing in our economy, strengthening our traditional industries, and moving towards the new economy and helping that part of the economy grow -- things like film, tourism and high-tech that have been doing exceptionally well in British Columbia. We're moving to strengthen them even more.

We've seen reductions in taxes for industry, small business and individuals in B.C., and that's good news. I wish the members opposite could carry through with their theme, which has been that we should cut taxes. We've done that and we did it before -- there was a 10 percent reduction earlier for small business. Again we have reduced taxes, and I wish the members opposite could say, "Good, this is what we wanted," instead of forever moving the goalposts and simply calling names.

Beyond the tax cuts, there are strategic initiatives in the throne speech and the budget and our agenda for this year to promote economic growth. We are going to, for instance, increase investments through Forest Renewal B.C., something the members opposite have voted against and done everything possible to undermine in the last few years. But workers in my riding, who have built trails along the Cowichan River, taken retraining or learned other skills in the industry, know very well the value of Forest Renewal B.C.

[11:15]

As well, we're going to see more wood for value-added. . . . That's certainly good for a riding like mine, where we depend so much on forestry. We've seen a significant growth in value-added and certainly want to see more. I am personally very, very pleased about the pilot community forest tenures that are going to be happening in British Columbia. We've done that in my riding with the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Co-op. While, like every organization, it goes through growing pains, it is nevertheless headed down a very positive road of stabilizing some jobs and creating community input and control in a way they never had before.

As well as those kinds of changes, we're also seeing some major investment through the Power for Jobs initiative. We've heard the Premier mention a number of things that are on-line and moving forward, and we're also moving forward with. . . . Beside me is the new Minister of Fisheries, the first in B.C., who is providing a focus for fish. Where the federal government has not acted, B.C. has stepped in and moved the agenda forward, and I'm glad to see a more cooperative approach emerging for this very significant resource.

We have a sector-by-sector strategy. Similarly, we have a strategy to stimulate the oil and gas sector and make it more competitive. So there are a number of very specific initiatives to cut taxes, to cut red tape, to stimulate the economy, to work with industry in both the traditional and the new economy on a sector-by-sector basis, to make sure that we move ahead towards the twenty-first century with the best that this province has to offer.

Those are the agenda items that we hear from the other side of this House, and that's usually all we hear from the other side of the House. What we don't hear about is the importance of things like health care and education and the fact that we have funded them so well in this province despite the federal cuts. I'd like to just point out that when the members opposite do talk about health and education, after they finish crying about spending too much, they stand up and say we're spending too little. But these are the same people who have committed in their own written documents to cutting 14 and 16 percent out of health and education. They also applauded the federal government's cuts to medicare of up to 40 percent, and it seems to me that that position is absolutely inconsistent with their claims that we should spend more. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Well, they do it every day; you're absolutely right. They do it every single day. They come down here and say, "Cut spending," and they go back to their ridings and say: "But we need this school, this hospital. You haven't spent enough." It depends where they're standing at the moment.

We are moving ahead. We're building on our strong foundation in this province. We're supporting health and education, which builds strong, healthy communities. We're also investing in the kind of training programs and post-secondary education that we need to have for a skilled workforce in a competitive economy and also -- just as important; I think many would argue more important -- to provide the tools for individuals to maximize their abilities and to get on with their lives. That's significant; that's important. In British Columbia we have dramatically increased training programs. We've made arrangements. We've made deals with the tourism industry for training programs. We've made deals with the Chamber of Commerce for workplace-based training. And we have a significant and ever-increasing package of youth training and employment programs that's helping our young people get the kind of training and education they need.

I'm particularly pleased, in this year's throne speech and again in the budget, to notice and to remark on and underscore our commitment to education. It hasn't been easy, because of the federal cuts which have cost billions in the B.C. budget. We have not been able to provide as much funding as we would always like for education. We have managed, however, not to engage in the kind of cost-cutting that other

[ Page 6922 ]

We see significant capital investment again. We're going to reduce portables significantly for the first time. We've been trying to catch up with growth and have been doing a reasonable job of that with our limited capital dollars. But at this point we're also trying to move backwards as well as forwards and clean up some of the portables that are a legacy of the 1980s, when the right-wing coalition of the day spent virtually nothing on infrastructure in this province for an entire decade. To see the kind of investment that's happening in education certainly makes me happy. I know that my constituents are eager and anxious and pleased to see that kind of investment in education.

As well, we're making education more affordable again for young people. A 14 percent increase in available student loans is very significant -- and it's the third year in a row for a tuition freeze. I hope the public noticed that the members opposite stood up and said: "Make tuition go up." They said: "Let tuition fees rise." That's what they argued on the other side of this House. At the same time as they're saying, "Let tuition fees rise," they're saying: "And let's drive down the minimum wage." I hope every young person in British Columbia is clear that the B.C. Liberals want to drive up tuition fees and drive the down minimum wage, which would make it more and more difficult for them to go to school.

The Liberals also have been very clear that we should not spend money on capital programs. We shouldn't have expanded the 3,000 or so spaces that have made post-secondary education so much more accessible in this province. They're voting against it this year. They argue against it every day under all sorts of strange guises and name-calling. But the fact is that they want to see the budgets cut for health and education. They want to see tuition go up. They want to see the minimum wage go down. And they want to see capital spending in this province -- on education facilities, schools, universities, hospitals, highways -- stopped. That's the position of the people opposite. They won't stand up and say that.

An Hon. Member: Shame on them.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Shame on them.

Hon. Speaker, we have listened carefully to the business community, as they asked. We have put in place a three-year plan to stimulate the economy, to create jobs, and we have protected important services in British Columbia. I think that is worth supporting. I say shame on the members opposite who won't stand up and support those initiatives.

But while all of those things are very significant and very important, I want to speak just a little bit about the flip side, I guess -- why we want to create business, why we want to create jobs. We also want to make sure that they are decent jobs. We want to make sure not only that we stimulate the economy but that all British Columbians have a share in it.

We have strong social programs in British Columbia, the strongest in the country. That's important. It's an important part of the economy; it's an important part of a decent, fair society. We are investing in our infrastructure, investing in our youth, investing in the people of British Columbia.

But there's more. I was very interested to listen to the member for Vancouver-Langara; I think he was speaking to the budget recently. He was castigating and chastising this government and all the members over here, saying that we're doing absolutely nothing to help alleviate poverty in this province. I recognize that there's still lots to do -- absolutely. It is a huge problem that we all need to put our minds to. For the members opposite to suggest we've done nothing is an outrage. It is simply not true.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, would you take your seat, please? I see that a member has risen. I recognize the hon. member for Chilliwack -- rising on what point of order?

B. Penner: I do rise on a point of order. A few moments ago you chastised a member from our side for referring to specific members of the government. I'd ask you to be consistent in your ruling and apply that standard to this member.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

I draw the minister's attention, then, to the point about any reference to individual members. It should be done with parliamentary language and tone, as is expected in the rules of debate in this House. I recognize the Minister of Human Resources.

Hon. J. Pullinger: If I have offended, then I certainly apologize; that was not my intent.

But I will continue, and I will quote what the member said, because I believe that is fair and correct and something that we should do. If the members opposite are ashamed of what their members are saying, then that's unfortunate. But the member for Vancouver-Langara stood up in this House and made all sorts of allegations, suggesting that our government has done nothing to alleviate poverty. He said that we have increased hardship. He said that we have done nothing to support people with disabilities. And he accuses us, laughably, of not following the CCF-NDP tradition of assisting people most in need.

Well, hon. Speaker, I think there are a couple of points. First of all, clearly that's a voice in the wilderness on the other side; nobody else seems to care one way or the other about those kinds of issues. I applaud that member for raising those issues. But I have to confess that I have just a little bit of difficulty with his argument, because at the same time that the member from the opposition benches is arguing that point, these are people who got elected on a platform that said they would cut 14 percent out of education, that said $6 billion was enough for medicare, that said they would slash 27 percent out of social assistance, that said they would eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality, that said they would drive down the minimum wage, that said they would erode labour laws to make them biased against workers -- which is one of the best ways for people to get a decent wage -- that said they would eliminate fair wages of all kinds, that said they would eliminate our equity programs, etc.

That's the program the people opposite got elected on. They can't therefore stand up at the same time and say: "Well, we're going to gut this society. We applaud the federal government for gutting health and education and social services; they should have cut more. We'll cut 27 percent more; we'll cut 14 percent more. We'll stop building schools and hospitals and roads. And we'll get rid of decent, fair wages, trade unions and everything else that helps support working people in earning a decent family income." You can't argue that on the one hand and then, on the other hand, stand up and castigate this government for not doing enough. You can't

[ Page 6923 ]

In the time I have left, I want to talk a bit about what this government is doing to alleviate poverty in this province. British Columbia stands out above other provinces in its determination to work towards eliminating poverty. One of the ways, of course, is those wonderful programs like health care and education, which we are funding better than any other jurisdiction in this country and which the members opposite would cut. That is significant and important to people, especially people on modest incomes. We have the highest per capita health funding and the highest per capita education funding, bar none. Every year for seven years we have increased that funding.

We also have genuine, authentic progressive reform of social services in this province. The Caledon Institute from Ottawa, which is a highly-respected private sector research organization, have called it the quiet revolution. There's a quiet revolution going on in British Columbia in social welfare policy, and they speak of it in glowing terms. To the member opposite from somewhere up north -- Prince George-Omineca -- I will happily send a copy of the study. But the Ottawa-based Caledon Institute of Social Policy has commented that a "quiet revolution" in social policy is happening here in British Columbia, and has been for two years.

[11:30]

So by moving the barriers and helping people move from welfare to work, despite the federal cuts in training programs, social assistance, health and all the other cuts that the members opposite applauded, we've had some outstanding success. Let me tell you that in the last two years in British Columbia, we have seen the greatest caseload decline in 20 years: 77,000 people have either been moved out into training or moved into a job. And we have lots of success stories applauding the helping hand that people have had. There are 77,000 fewer people on income assistance; there are some 40,000 fewer children and some 17,000 fewer families. We believe the best social safety net is a job in British Columbia, and we're helping people move into training and a job.

There was a recent report quoted in the media that said: "Across Canada, about 10 percent of the population depend on social assistance." That was true in B.C. a couple of years ago, but today we're down to about 7.5 percent. We're going to continue to drive that down by doing things like Destinations, an agreement with the tourism industry to do workplace-based training, and by making sure that people have access to advanced education and making sure that people have the support they need to move into work.

One of the things I want to mention. . . . I think that the quiet revolution going on in B.C. and the outstanding success that that's having in helping people move on and get on with their lives are very significant. But I want to specifically mention child poverty, because I think that's an issue that just about everybody would agree is a very high priority and something we should be working on. The member for Vancouver-Langara -- and I haven't heard all the other speakers; perhaps there were others. . . . But the member for Vancouver-Langara. . .

An Hon. Member: A very rich area of Vancouver.

Hon. J. Pullinger: . . .which is a very rich area of Vancouver, accused us of abandoning our historic CCF roots. He said that Tommy Douglas -- I forget his exact words -- would be ashamed. I would say to members opposite and to everybody in this House that what -- albeit it's not enough; we're not there yet -- we have done in British Columbia to address child poverty is leading the nation. It is outstanding compared to every other jurisdiction. What we've done by bringing in the B.C. family bonus is essentially take children off welfare and make their benefits a right. It's a benefit, not welfare. By extending those benefits to some 225,000 low-income families, over 400,000 children take advantage of that program. Again, according to the Caledon Institute, we have alleviated poverty in families, and we've narrowed the gap by 19 percent in the last two years. That is significant, and that's something that this House is proud of. When it comes to single parents -- single mothers, mostly -- that gap has been narrowed by 25 percent. That is significant. I hope the member for Vancouver-Langara is listening, and I will forward him some stuff. I know he stands alone in that caucus.

There are other things as well. Housing is one of the biggest drivers of poverty. If they can't get decent, affordable housing, that is one of the biggest problems that create poverty. British Columbia is the only province in Canada that continues to build social housing -- the only one. Single parents get priority in it because they have the greatest need. So we're doing that. Where were the members opposite when the federal government walked away from the housing programs? Where were they? How can they stand up in this House and complain about this government when they applauded the cuts to employment insurance and applauded the elimination of housing programs from the federal government?

What about child care -- for single moms particularly? Access to affordable, licensed child care is a very significant barrier. In British Columbia we now have a child care infrastructure. We have created large numbers of spaces; we have funded the system. We have provided support money for people in a number of ways, so that they can pay for child care. What did the members opposite say about that? Did they applaud that in the budget? Have they stood up and asked where the federal child care program is, which the Liberals promised how many elections ago? Have they complained about that? Not at all. But we're doing it in British Columbia. It is my understanding that we're the only province in Canada that has a child care infrastructure, and that's helping to alleviate poverty. Similarly, we have dramatically expanded training programs. With child care and decent housing, etc., people are able to access them.

We also have the Healthy Kids program, which provides dental and optical services to the same 400,000 kids that receive the B.C. family bonus. We've expanded the premium assistance program to discount medical premiums for low-

[ Page 6924 ]

This throne speech continues to support the things that we hold dear in this country and this province -- things like health care and education. It also provides a blueprint for the future and a new way of doing business that will stimulate our economy and create jobs. We are also continuing to fight against child poverty.

One final comment. The member for Vancouver-Langara said that Tommy Douglas would not be happy with what we're doing. I want to just conclude my comments. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, you will have to take your seat.

I recognize the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: I rise on a point of order. I have sat quietly as this member, three times now, has specifically referred to the member for Vancouver-Langara. Hon. Speaker, you admonished our side when we specifically mentioned members on the opposite side. We're asking for equal conduct. I refer to Erskine May, which presents misrepresenting another's language as one of the problems under rule 40. I challenge that member to specifically prove that her allegations are true, because she is misrepresenting what this member said. We have never applauded cuts in employment insurance benefits.

The Speaker: Hon. member, on a point of order. . . .

B. Penner: The member for Vancouver-Langara would never have done so.

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . .

B. Penner: I'm asking for equal treatment.

The Speaker: Hon. member, when making your point, you need to have the point made, but not debatable points on it.

I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's not a point of order. The issue at hand is the language that's being used, hon. Speaker, and I think your ruling was quite clear. It isn't a question of referring to what other members have said, but rather it is the tone and the unparliamentary language that was being used earlier on that your ruling was about. That is what I think you ought to rule on.

The Speaker: I thank you both for your interventions. I will say to the hon. member that in terms of the rules of debate, as I understand them, the hon. minister has not overstepped the mark.

Hon. minister, would you conclude -- your time is just about finished.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will, happily.

My concluding point was going to be that while the member for Vancouver-Langara said that Tommy Douglas would be unhappy to see what this government is doing, I would argue that he would be extremely proud to see what this government is doing. The single point I would make of all the points I have made is that as medicare started in Saskatchewan with an NDP government and then became a national program, the national child benefit started two years ago in British Columbia. It is the first new social program in this country in 30 years and the only new social program in 30 years. It was started by a New Democrat government in British Columbia. I'm very proud of that, as all of us on this side are.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to rise and join in the throne speech debate today. I want to address the bulk of my comments to the forest industry and in particular to what the throne speech has to say -- or doesn't have to say -- about the forest industry in British Columbia. I also want to make a few brief comments on the evolution of throne speeches since I became a member of this House in 1996 -- the evolution of this government's rhetoric and this government's programs over the past couple of years.

The hundreds of thousands of people who regularly watch the parliamentary channel, particularly this Legislature, are probably somewhat confused at the evolution of this government's rhetoric and the frequent forgetting of this government's promises and programs from the past. So I do want to be helpful today and provide some insight, hopefully, into the evolution of government rhetoric and government policy.

I think a useful tool -- or framework, perhaps -- for doing this is what we used to refer to back in political science 402 at UBC as "Sovietology." I'm sure you remember this very well from fascinating lectures by Walter Young and others on Sovietology, hon. Speaker. The notion was that one could get a hint from photographs of what was happening within the very closed world of the presidium in the Soviet Union. For example, from year to year one might see an individual in the leadership disappear from the photograph, and one would assume, of course, that either they had been sharply demoted or they otherwise disappeared. I think this would be a very useful tool for this government, actually, because in throne speeches from year to year we see rhetoric disappearing, we see programs disappearing, and most obviously we see promises broken almost continuously by this government, which clearly specializes in broken promises.

As one might conclude from the previous speaker and from some earlier speakers on the government side, this is a government that is very Orwellian in character. They have, I think, perfected. . .

An Hon. Member: Orwellian?

G. Abbott: Orwellian -- a new term for you, hon. member.

. . .what George Orwell lovingly referred to as doublespeak. For this government, illusion is reality. A promise is just something that is said as a matter of convenience; a promise is not something that is intended to be kept. For the NDP, a promise is merely something of convenience which is forgotten as quickly as possible.

[ Page 6925 ]

[11:45]

Another thing the 1996 and 1997 throne speeches do is make, I think in retrospect, some very interesting references. I want to quote briefly from pages 4 and 5 of the 1996 throne speech, and I'm sure the members opposite will enjoy reliving these very precious moments in our B.C. political history: "In this session, my government will pursue a vision of a government on the side of working families and the middle class. It will be a highly focused session -- focused on the priorities of the people of British Columbia. And nowhere will that be clearer than in the budget you will receive this week. It will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. Jobs will be up. The debt will be down."

Well, hon. Speaker, I guess we missed the mark on a few of those things back in 1996. It actually didn't take very long, as I'm sure all members of the House will recall. It took about two weeks before we learned the sad truth about the economic situation in British Columbia. But that didn't prevent the government from telling us something completely opposite in the 1996 throne speech. It goes on. On page 5 of the 1996 speech it says: "Working together, B.C. has made impressive fiscal progress. The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years and includes a reduction in overall debt." Absolute nonsense! We very quickly learned, within a week or two, that that was not the case at all. The two purported balanced budgets were not even close to being balanced; they were in fact massive deficit budgets. They were No. 5 and No. 6, I believe, in what is currently a series of seven consecutive deficit budgets in British Columbia. All the doublespeak and all the doublethink in the world cannot relieve us of the fact that this government has taken us down a road where, in good times or bad, the one thing that we can depend on every spring is another deficit budget from this very, very poor excuse for a government across the way.

In terms of debt, as I noted, they said that what we'd be seeing in the '96 budget was "a reduction in overall debt." Of course, we now know that that's nonsensical as well as misleading. With this government's last budget, what we have seen since this NDP government took office is a virtual doubling of British Columbia's debt, to well in excess, after this current fiscal year, of $31 billion. It's absolutely shameful in a province as rich as British Columbia that we have a government that produces seven consecutive deficit budgets and doubles our debt.

We find some other interesting features in the '96 and '97 budgets as well. We find, for example, this reference in the "Forests" sections of the '96 throne speech: ". . .my government is working with forest companies and workers to develop a jobs and timber accord, tying access to public timber directly to the creation of new jobs." It goes on to say: "By increasing the jobs-to-timber ratio to levels comparable to our competitors in Washington and Oregon, my government believes the forest sector can create 21,000 new jobs over the next five years." In 1997 the government was still pretty confident about what they could do in this realm. I'll just quote from page 12 of the '97 throne speech: "My government is committed to creating 21,000 new jobs in our forest sector by the year 2001."

Interestingly, in the 1998 throne speech we don't see much bragging. Indeed, we don't see any bragging or any reference to these 21,000 new jobs. That appears to have fallen into the great vat of doublespeak and doublethink of this government. There's no reference to those 21,000 new jobs. It's not surprising that there isn't, because there is a mountain -- indeed, a forest -- of evidence that this government's policies have brought the forest industry to its knees and have led, in a very direct way, to many thousands of forest workers in British Columbia being on the unemployment line.

Let's just quote a couple of sources. I hope the members opposite don't dispute these sources, because I think they are well founded. The first source is the forest worker transition program, an agency created by this government. The forest worker transition program tells us: "Since October 1, 1996, the forest worker transition program has registered 5,824 displaced forest workers." This is on the coast alone; this doesn't include the interior. That's 5,824 registered in the displaced forest worker program. Further, they expect 5,601 more displaced forest workers in 1998.

As well, I have a second source here. Again, I think it's one that no member of this House would call into question. It's the Price Waterhouse survey of laid-off forest workers. It says: "11,203 sawmill and logging workers were laid off at one time or another between the fourth quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 1998." That is the Price Waterhouse interim survey. It's shocking evidence of the incompetence of this government, particularly in relation to its forest policies in British Columbia. Should we expect that things are going to look a lot brighter in 1998? Well, Price Waterhouse certainly doesn't think so. Their projections in terms of log harvest certainly underline the problem, the very dark and troubling months that we're going to be experiencing. In 1996 we had a

[ Page 6926 ]

In the 1997 throne speech we also find an interesting reference that -- not remarkably, perhaps, but interestingly -- has disappeared from the 1998 thinking and rhetoric of this NDP socialist government. Back in '97, hon. Speaker, you'll recall that the Premier and indeed many members. . .

An Hon. Member: Four minutes.

G. Abbott: . . .of this government, I guess, were quite seized. . . . My time is flying by. You're absolutely right; it's getting near that hour. But while your stomach may be grumbling, if you could just let me finish this thought, perhaps I'll do what you wish and move adjournment until after lunch.

If I could just finish this one particular point. . . . I don't want you to go away to lunch, hon. members, without reliving this sterling moment in the life of this government -- the 1997 throne speech. It goes into the hours of work. Again, the members will recall the enthusiasm of the Premier and this government for Jeremy Rifkin and that book, so appropriately titled The End of Work. The Premier was seized by this, and it found its way into the '97 throne speech under the category "Hours of Work." It says: "My government believes we must begin a dialogue about these issues, with the goal of securing a shorter workweek in British Columbia." Well, for many British Columbians, for the tens of thousands of British Columbians who find themselves on unemployment, certainly the Premier did succeed in this regard. He shortened their workweek from generally 40 hours to zero. I guess that might be seen as an accomplishment of this government, but it's a rather pathetic example of the mismanagement and incompetence of this government.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: While the members opposite are shouting "more, more" and are wildly enthusiastic about me continuing over the lunch-hour, noting the hour, I move that this debate be adjourned.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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