[ Page 6927 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

G. Janssen: Joining us today in the chamber is Luc Carbonez, the Ambassador of Belgium, and accompanying him is Monique Poncelet-Gheleyns, the consul of Belgium, visiting us today in British Columbia for the first time, I believe. They drove through British Columbia from Alberta and enjoyed a wonderful drive with excellent weather. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my great privilege today to introduce an esteemed former member of this chamber, who sat on this side of the House from 1975 to 1981. He has become, since leaving the chamber, an expert on many issues, hon. Speaker. Of course, one of the challenges for all of us in his current occupation is that, having been here, he knows too much about how this place operates. But it is a great pleasure for me to introduce to the chamber Rafe Mair. His wife is also here, Wendy Conway Mair. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.

F. Gingell: I had hoped to be a first-time caller and beat the Premier to it, because I've known Rafe Mair from long before he was a politician. When he was in Richmond, he was president of Quilchena Golf Club. And I was the auditor -- I'm still wondering about what happened to the petty cash. [Laughter.] In fact, I've known Rafe for so long that I knew him when he was a Liberal. Madam Speaker, seeing that I don't believe in second-time introductions, I won't introduce him.

But while I'm on my feet and I have the floor, I would like to bring to the attention of all members of the House the award that the esteemed Vaughn Palmer has just won: the Hyman Solomon Award. Now, I know the fourth estate cannot be seen here; they're all invisible. But this is an extremely prestigious and important award. I just hope that he doesn't follow in the footsteps of some of his predecessors, like Marjorie Nichols and Allan Fotheringham and Jim Taylor, and leave us and go back east. I hope that he stays here. I would ask all members of the House to join me in offering our congratulations to this every esteemed writer.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to beg the indulgence of all members to make a fairly lengthy introduction of quite a few folks. Hon. Speaker, last year we launched a wonderful thing in B.C. called the B.C. Sharing program, in which natural competitors like the folks who own retail outlets, trade unions, farmers -- people from all walks of the food industry -- got together to distribute over $400,000 worth of B.C. food to the B.C. poor.

Joining us today, to come here in discussions about whether or not to continue the program, are: Mark Stortz of Canada Safeway; Rick Laidlaw of Cooper Market Ltd.; Bonnie Campbell of Thrifty Foods, who's about to open a store in Nanaimo; Chris Gale from Save-On-Foods; Ann Szczoczara of Overwaitea; Brooke Sundin from the UFCW; Arnie Mykle of the Council of Marketing Boards; Svend Pedersen of the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission; Brent Palmer of the B.C. Food Bank Association; Pat Burns of the Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society; and Lorraine Bulatovich of the Kelowna Food Bank. Would all members please make these folks welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd like to introduce, in the gallery this afternoon, the mayor of Fort St. John, Steve Thorlakson. We've had several interesting discussions on the major initiative we're working on in the northeast. I appreciate the mayor's cooperation and participation in that endeavour.

B. Penner: I suppose you could say this is a reintroduction, because I've introduced him before -- but not today. It's my pleasure today to introduce His Worship, the mayor of Chilliwack, John Les. I can report to all the members here that we had a productive lunch. We talked about saving the Chilliwack courthouse, dealing with decisions affecting auxiliary police and inaction in the Chilliwack River valley. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Neufeld: You know, I don't very often get to introduce anyone in the House. It's amazing that I come here today and the mayor of Fort St. John is here. The interest that is shown by the government today is absolutely tremendous; they jump to their feet to introduce my mayor from Fort St. John. But I'd like to welcome Mr. Thorlakson, the mayor of Fort St. John -- a city that's going broke in a boom.

R. Kasper: In the gallery there are two guests of mine. One is a very tireless volunteer of 80 years, Dawn Cropp. She has actively volunteered in my office for a number of years. The second is Tom Harkins, president of the Malahat-Juan de Fuca riding association. Will the House please make them both welcome.

W. Hartley: I have the pleasure to introduce a friend of mine that I went to high school with, who's the son of a former Social Credit MLA. He's the son of MLA Bert Price, who served for many years in Burnaby. His son, Ron Price, who's here today, has been the president of Airshow Canada, I believe, for many years and is now the director of Pacific Agricultural Show. Please welcome him.

K. Krueger: It's my privilege today to recognize Mr. Rick Laidlaw, who's the vice-president of retail foods for Cooper Market Ltd. Cooper's is a Kamloops company that's spread throughout the province. We're very proud of their foundational role in the B.C. Sharing program. Also, they moved a mountain in Kamloops, and I think that's significant. They needed to move a huge rocky knoll to build a new facility, and it was full of marmots. They actually paid a trapper to come and sneak the little guys out of there in winter while they were asleep and relocate them -- that's environmental awareness. I'd like the House to recognize him.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Clayton Brenton. Clayton Brenton is the project manager at Future Sea Farms Inc., a grown-in-B.C. company that specializes in closed-technology aquaculture -- open for viewing, I suppose, in the Nanaimo harbour. You could see the future for aquaculture if you attend there. I would like the House to welcome Clayton.

While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to pay tribute to my former boss, Brooke Sundin, president of UFCW Local 1518. He's been introduced, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to recognize his appearance in the precincts, as well.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the great pleasure and delight of introducing not just mayors and councillors but also representatives of the UBCM executive, with whom we had a first joint council meeting today. Some of them are here in the gallery, and some of them have actually gone on their way. But I would like to recognize and welcome them. Of course, Mayor

[ Page 6928 ]

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome 68 grade 11 students from my alma mater, West Vancouver Secondary, accompanied by three parents and three teachers, Mrs. Waatainen, Mr. Thrift and Mr. Brown. Please welcome them all.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT INACTION ON LEAKY CONDOS

Hon. J. Kwan: Indeed, the leaky-condo issue is a very important issue for many residents in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland. In the last while we have seen the devastation. In fact, I've seen the devastation, dating back to 1993 when I was a member of city council in Vancouver, when members of the public brought pieces of their home to a council meeting. This is a very important issue, and hon. member opposite, I know you're concerned about it. I look forward to your participation with the commissioner -- when the announcement is made later on this week -- to ensure that we find the solutions for the community not only for the future but also for people who are faced with the problem today. It is critically important that we find those solutions and that we ensure we have a level of protection for the consumers in the future as well.

[2:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm a little confused. The report highlights and, in fact, names very particularly 21 specific problems -- and I am sure there are more -- ranging from construction techniques to design and legislative deficiencies. I'll ask the question again of the minister, because she didn't answer the question: in the over two years since this report was completed and given to the ministry that she now heads up, how many and which of the seven specific recommendations that were made has this government implemented?

Hon. J. Kwan: Indeed, the leaky-condo issue is a very complex issue. It has many issues, ranging from design issues to materials to deskilling of the labour force. It is one of those items where we need to put much of our work together. The ministry had been in consultation, and the member references the report in his question. The ministry did work with and has been working with the industry for a long time on this issue. The industry identified some suggestions in terms of recommendations. But even within the industry they have not been able to come to an agreement on what should be done on something as simple as the mandatory home warranty. Industry says three years. Others say five years. On something like licensing or regulating the industry itself, industries want self-regulation. Others say that they want something else.

What is vitally important is that we make sure that what is being done is going to meet the best needs of the public and provides the protection for the consumer that is necessary, and that's what we intend to do.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on his second supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know how much more simply I can put the question to the minister, hon. Speaker. It's funny, but maybe I can just let the minister know that when they stamp "Do Not Circulate" on resource documents in the library, it doesn't mean the minister can't go and read them. They're actually available to her, and she can look at them.

In the last two years over 50,000 new people have fallen into the problems that exist with leaky condos. In the last two years over 50,000 new people have been affected by this. So when 21 specific problems were identified and seven specific recommendations were made for her government to implement, can the minister tell me why none, apparently, of those things were implemented, and if they have been implemented, why she isn't aware of it? How can the ministry, when they knew of these problems -- they had specific recommendations over two years ago -- allow 50,000 new people to be affected by this crisis?

Hon. J. Kwan: You know, I'm a little disappointed in the member opposite, because in the beginning, when he started out his questions, it almost sounded like he actually understood the complexity of the problems. But you know what? This is a very important issue, and it's nothing that we. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is something that we should not be making light of. Indeed, there is a lot of speculation out there around how extensive the problem is. Some people say that it's a $1 billion problem. Others say that out of the 56,000 to 58,000 condo units, about 80 percent of them have leaky-condo issues -- although with some of them, the problems have not yet surfaced. This really raises the point of what we need to do, which is why we're doing the commission. The commission will give the opportunity for the people who have not been heard. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .to come to the table and bring their stories and experiences to us.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister would stop whining about her disappointment, her frustration, and think about the 50,000 new victims that have been added as a result of her government's inaction. Two and a half years ago it was the

[ Page 6929 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: I don't know who actually whines, because since the time that I have been in this House the naysaying seems to me to be from the opposite side of the House. On the issue around the leaky condos, we are the ones who are taking action. None of the members opposite, until this date, have actually raised the issue -- not once -- in this House before.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. J. Kwan: Not once has the issue ever before been raised by members opposite. We are taking action. Most important of all. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. J. Kwan: I suppose that the members will simply just wish that the problem will go away, or perhaps they simply just want to blame somebody. But the problem is a lot more complex than that. The most important component of this issue is to make sure that the people who have in fact been hurt by this issue, who are financially and emotionally drained by this issue, come forward and give us their story and have the opportunity to put their input into future legislation for protection for consumers.

M. de Jong: This is the part the minister either doesn't want to understand or is incapable of understanding, and that is that there is a cost associated with this government's incompetence. The minister of delay from Kamloops has already cost us 20,000 jobs. By this government's inaction, there are 50,000 potential new victims. So let's try again, this time with recommendation No. 3, which urged this government -- this NDP government -- to enhance the disclosure requirements applicable to the purchase and sale of condominiums. Maybe the minister could take a moment and speak to those 50,000 potential new victims and tell them what her position is on improved disclosure requirements for condo sales, and what her government has done in two and half years to act on this recommendation.

Hon. J. Kwan: In fact, since I was appointed as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have been in contact with many homeowners who have been faced with this problem in a very serious manner. There was in fact an individual I met with who is actually on WCB, who came to see me and said that we've got to find a solution to address the current problem now. We have been. . . . To the credit of my colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment, he has done tremendous work on this front. But the most important component that needs to be done for this work is that we've got to go out to the public. We've got to make sure that the protection for consumers is done right; we've got to bring in legislation that will give them that protection. Equally important is finding the options that are available to the people who are faced with the problem today.

NORTHERN DOCTOR SERVICES

Hon. P. Priddy: I have actually not heard about that, and I will follow up on that to see if there's something we can do. Not to have an ambulance service and to be expected to pay is clearly an issue. It is an issue that arises because physicians in the north have chosen to withdraw their services from their patients over the issue of being paid for on-call. We continue to work with northern doctors on that, but it should not be patients that pay the price.

The Speaker: On a supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Well, as I've done in the past, I'd encourage the minister to have a look at the in-basket. I've written to her about specific issues a considerable time ago.

In Mackenzie, mothers are also advised to drive sick children to see a doctor in Prince George -- a one-and-a-half-hour drive at the very best of times. Some families, particularly single parents, simply can't afford an ambulance or babysitters to look after other children in the family. For a mother with a number of small children and a very sick child, all in one small car, this could truly be a trip from hell. Not only is it chaotic, but it's dangerous for everybody in the car. What advice can the minister give to mothers in Mackenzie and other communities across the north who are faced with this dilemma resulting from the withdrawal of services by doctors?

Hon. P. Priddy: Maybe one of the first things that people could do is talk to their family physicians about going back to work, so that families are not faced with this kind of anxiety.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . . The Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: We have offered $650,000 to the northern physicians in order to provide relief, which would cause those families to have less anxiety. We are prepared to provide relief for those physicians, and it has been rejected by the physicians, who are then rejecting, quite honestly, the needs of their patients.

And I do hear -- I want to respond to that one -- the question of whether they could have the same solution that Surrey has. Surrey has a 350-bed hospital, which, out of its own budget, pays a physician to be there to respond to hospital patients. And Surrey doctors do their own on-call.

[ Page 6930 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: What I can tell the patients in northern B.C. is that there is a commitment, and has been since the beginning, from this government to ensure that there are physicians there. We were prepared to put $650,000 on the table to have more physicians go into northern B.C., and the doctors who were up there and the BCMA said that those would be scab workers. So I would say to people in northern British Columbia that we do want physicians up there.

We have an expanding rural residency program at the University of British Columbia, we're contributing to additional distance education for the physicians up there who want to keep their skills up, and we pay $1,100 to those doctors up there -- an additional bonus called the northern isolation allowance, which is a fee above what they bill MSP for because they are in northern areas. We are doing everything we can to provide that kind of incentive. This is a problem across the country -- to get doctors into northern and rural communities. We will continue to work on that. Quite frankly, in spite of the fact that there have been some doctors leave, there have been others who have come, and we still have the best doctor-patient ratio in rural communities in the country.

[2:30]

Ministerial Statement

EQUALITY DAY

This section of the Charter declares that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination -- and in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. But we can see in the survey published today by the Vancouver Province that equality is not a reality for women, especially working women.

According to this survey, working women believe they are underpaid and underrepresented. Women are saying that laws aren't doing enough to protect women from workplace discrimination and that male bias and male chokeholds on senior jobs stop them from advancing. This is not new information to me or to my cabinet colleagues. This is exactly why our government has established the Ministry of Women's Equality. We are, I remind the House, the only province in Canada with a freestanding ministry devoted to women's equality. As a government we have a responsibility to lead the way in eliminating the biases against women in the workplace, and government is making good progress.

Women now hold one-third of the deputy minister positions in this government and over one-quarter of the assistant deputy minister positions, which is a significant accomplishment of this administration. The wage gap in government is narrower than in the private sector. On average, women in government earn 84 cents for every dollar that men earn, compared to 74 cents in the private sector. That gap narrows further for women in the B.C. Government Employees Union. What's more, as recent statistics show, B.C. has more women in post-secondary education than any other province in the country.

The simple fact is that our government is making a difference. We are dedicated to changing the attitudes that lead to discrimination.

Today I am releasing "Women Count," a statistical profile of women in British Columbia. I wish to remind the members that statistics are merely facts; they are not the stories of the lives of the girls and women of this province. But they are a way of determining how social issues are affecting the lives of women in British Columbia. By looking at the statistics in this booklet, which will be distributed throughout the province, we can learn what has changed and what needs to be done to improve the quality of life for girls and women in every community in B.C. There's information on the extent of violence in women's lives, on women's health, family responsibilities, education and employment status. I ask that, on April 17, all of us renew our commitment to end discrimination and to ensure that British Columbians are treated equally -- not only under the law but in our hearts, in our minds and in our actions.

In closing, hon. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work of our many community partners who work tirelessly to eliminate barriers to women's full participation in our society. Achieving women's equality is not something that government can do alone. We must work in partnership so that our daughters and our granddaughters can feel there is equality in the workplace and in every part of their lives.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to respond to the Minister of Women's Equality on behalf of the official opposition. It is important for all Canadians to recognize the importance of the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also important to note that the Charter was conceived and implemented by a Liberal government and a Liberal Prime Minister dedicated to social and economic justice.

But in spite of the equality rights that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees, social attitudes and behaviour continue to reflect the fact that many women and other groups in British Columbia receive unequal treatment. Today women want to be free from poverty, violence, discrimination and harassment. I encourage the minister and her government to demonstrate their commitment to equality by reducing the barriers that limit women's opportunities and choices, including the promises made by the Premier on wage parity for women. Women's progress towards economic equality depends on how legislation, policies and programs deal with women's social and economic realities. Although some progress has been made, there's still a long way to go. Most women continue to earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men, and women continue to live in fear of violence and harassment.

In celebration of Equality Day and on behalf of the official opposition, I would like to recognize and voice our appreciation of the many individuals and organizations that work so hard to build a better society for us all.

[ Page 6931 ]

Tabling Documents

I also have the honour to present the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997.

Motion without Notice

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

It's not difficult to understand the Premier's enthusiasm for a shorter workweek. From the NDP perspective it's a very simple thing to say: "Well, if the 40-hour workweek were cut to a 20-hour workweek, we could double employment in the province." From the NDP perspective, that would be a perfect solution to this problem -- to double employment by cutting in half the length of the workweek. Regrettably, it doesn't work quite that way. I suspect that in reality, the Premier was probably looking for something like a 36-hour workweek. But this certainly begs the question of whether in fact this would produce more jobs. If the notion of a shorter workweek is to produce more leisure but the same size of paycheques, then clearly we're going to have a problem in terms of rising production costs and competitiveness. I suppose that this notion would certainly be consistent with everything that the NDP have done in relation to forest policy in this province.

Among the major elements that I think have contributed to the very difficult and precarious situation the forest industry is in today in British Columbia, we have to talk about things like our very bureaucratic and process-oriented Forest Practices Code. I'm sure all British Columbians were quite astounded to hear from the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, a week and a half or two weeks ago, that in fact there has been about $350 million a year in unnecessary red tape surrounding the Forest Practices Code. In their view, this has still left something like $400 million in necessary code costs. But what they were saying was that in the three years the code had been in place, something like $1 billion in unnecessary red tape costs have been borne by the industry. Given that fact, it's not surprising that the forest industry is in a difficult situation today.

The other issue that we have to be very concerned about is the spiralling stumpage rates. Again, given the time constraints, I can't go into this fully. The KPMG report for the Ministry of Forests back in April '97 identified percentage increases in B.C. delivered-wood costs from 1992 to '96. The log cost increase before stumpage was 50 percent across the province between '92 and '96. And this is the real shocker: stumpage increased over that same period by 197 percent, for a total log cost increase between '92 and '96 of 75 percent. Given that, it's not difficult to understand the very difficult competitive situation that is faced by our forest industry in world markets today.

Just one more. This is information that comes via an economist with the IWA -- a comparison of stumpage rates for softwood timber. The British Columbia average, as of January 1998, is $30.01 for softwood timber stumpage. In comparison, Alberta is $7.50; Ontario is $8.99; Quebec is $14.45. In every case B.C. is double, triple or quadruple the stumpage rates paid in other parts of Canada. And again, is it at all difficult to understand the difficulties that are being faced by the forest industry in B.C. today?

As well, we have to mention, at least briefly, an inefficient and at many points wasteful Forest Renewal B.C. Clearly that's an operation that cries out for reform. I think we have to point out, as well, the destruction of the competitive silviculture industry, which is threatened by the current government. We are on the edge of some forest unionization in that sector, and that will inevitably make our industry even less competitive than it has been in the past.

Everything that the NDP has done has undermined competitiveness, at a time when world markets are increasingly competitive. The world is literally awash in wood in 1998. Not only do we have the traditional players in world markets, but we have a host of new players, such as the Baltics in eastern Europe, Russia, Brazil and New Zealand. All of these have become very important players in world wood-product markets, and it's going to make it very difficult for our companies to become as competitive as they were even a couple of years ago.

[2:45]

[ Page 6932 ]

One thing we don't see in the 1998 throne speech is any bold claims about creating 21,000 new forest jobs. That, I suspect, is a promise that this government would just as soon forget -- that we forget and everyone forget. In recent weeks and months, it has been something that the government has attempted to downgrade from a promise to just a target. A good example of that attempt to move away from what was a very clear promise about creating 21,000 jobs is a quote from the Minister of Forests, speaking on CBC Radio on November 27, 1997: "It's going to be awful hard to meet. A target is just that -- a target. We didn't say we were going to create those jobs."

In fact, they did say they were going to create those jobs, and they said it very clearly. They didn't say: "We'd like to create 21,000 new jobs." They didn't say: "Under certain circumstances, we really think we could maybe create 21,000 new jobs." They said: "We're going to create 21,000 new jobs."

Not only do we find that in the rhetoric of the Premier, but we find it on numerous occasions in the jobs and timber accord itself. I'll just quote from the jobs and timber accord to illustrate the point: "A provincial target of 37,800 new jobs will be the goal for the term of this accord, made up of 20,400 direct and 17,400 indirect jobs." Under "Job Maintenance and Creation," they said: "Increasing major licensee harvest volumes towards AAC by three million cubic metres by 1999-2000. This will create 3,900 direct jobs and 3,900 indirect jobs." Under "Initiatives by Tenure Holders" they said: "Specifically, industry will commit to projects that will create 2,000 direct commercially feasible jobs." Under "Initiatives by Forest Renewal B.C." they said: "Job creation objectives will be further enhanced through the improved delivery of funds and programs from Forest Renewal B.C. so that at least 5,000 direct and 5,000 indirect jobs will be created." And finally, as an example, under the section "Remanufacturing Sector," it says: "Government and industry will work together to achieve the goal of 5,000 direct and 5,000 indirect jobs, which will be created through increasing availability of sawn lumber to independent remanufacturers."

So we don't find in the jobs and timber accord any hesitation to brag about the number of new jobs that were going to be created. Much as this government may like to move away from that commitment, surely they should be held to account for it. It's something which they have been reluctant to do in the area of forestry, but it's something they've been reluctant to do in virtually every area of government, as numerous speakers on this side have pointed out over the course of this debate.

I'd also like to quote briefly from Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun. As we noted earlier, Vaughn is a recent winner of the Hyman Solomon Award for Excellence in Public Policy Journalism. The quote from Mr. Palmer reads: "The credibility of Clark's jobs and timber accord is about the same as an NDP budget." I think that probably pretty much hits the nail on the head. The credibility of this document, the jobs and timber accord, is roughly the same as the credibility of any NDP budget. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, the NDP have yet to meet any of their deficit and debt targets, and it's unlikely that they ever will. This is a government that, as they used to say, couldn't operate a peanut stand. If things keep going the way they are, in a year or two we'll see numerous cabinet ministers out hitchhiking across the prairies looking for new peanut stands to bankrupt in those provinces as well.

What we've seen under the NDP is the stark and undeniable mismanagement of our most important natural resource, forests. They have jeopardized what should be and what can be a critical resource for this province for decades and, hopefully, for centuries into the future. But clearly this government needs to get real. This government needs to appreciate that this forest industry is not a goose that will indefinitely go out and lay golden eggs regardless of the kind of abuse that's thrown at it. Clearly we need to address the problems I've noted, which have deeply hurt our competitiveness in world markets.

I'll close now, hon. Speaker. It's time, I think, for all of us in this chamber to start working diligently to make our forest industry number one in Canada and in the world once again. There is every reason to think that this forest industry can be the economic backbone of our province long into the future, but it's time for us to work hard and make this industry number one again. Regrettably, there is nothing in this throne speech which will contribute to that goal, and therefore I cannot support it.

Hon. D. Miller: I was going to start off by suggesting that if Mr. Palmer had attempted to do an analysis of the public policy that the Liberals have laid out, I'm afraid it would have filled up this page here, and the page would still have been empty. I guess it means that you can always criticize people who do things, but it's very difficult to criticize people who do nothing or who refuse to take positions on important issues or, even worse, who change their minds, depending on where they are at any given time and what they think might curry favour with whomever they happen to be talking to.

I want to talk a little bit about some of those questions, because I think they are fundamental issues with respect to what was outlined in the throne speech; that is, a commitment -- in fact, an outstanding commitment -- to retain and increase our commitment to health care and education. It has certainly been gratifying in recent days to see, in a large daily newspaper in Vancouver, that indeed the high-tech sector of our economy is growing at a very significant rate, that there are significant opportunities and that we've finally reached what they call "critical mass." That industry is truly an export industry. About 80 to 90 percent of what is produced by that sector are exportable commodities. That's the kind of thing we like, because it brings those revenues back into our province. Over time, that industry, plus the application of knowledge to existing industrial sectors, will ensure an even stronger economic base for British Columbia. So just looking at the issue of jobs and job retention. . . . I think job retention is as critical a part of supporting your economy as new jobs are.

I want to start off by acknowledging, as some of my colleagues and perhaps even some of the members of the opposition have, the contribution that Doug Kerley, the former job protection commissioner, now deceased, made to this province. Literally tens of thousands of men and women around British Columbia are working today thanks to the very hard work of Doug Kerley and his staff at the Job Protection Commission. That Job Protection Commission was not an original idea of this administration; it was brought in quite a number of years ago by a Social Credit administration. We have made it a permanent feature rather than have it as a function that could be sunsetted. It's at the times when your economy is facing difficulty or when individual companies are facing difficulty that the Job Protection Commission really shows its worth.

And certainly, had we had that kind of agency in the period of 1981 to '83, when we faced a very critical downturn

[ Page 6933 ]

I will talk in a moment about some of the elements in the throne speech -- northern development, mining, oil and gas, etc. I touched on these in the budget response. But I do think, going back to the JPC, that it's important to have this agency and to have it in place, so that when businesses are faced with these critical economic issues, when, for whatever reason, they appear to be going down, when jobs are at risk -- particularly jobs in smaller communities -- we've got an agency that can work with the private sector, with employees and with communities, and that has access through the legislation to a variety of mechanisms to reduce costs as part of an economic restructuring package. Indeed, I'm very proud of the fact, as well, that the government is prepared to take an equity position to provide backstop loans and all of those kinds of things to protect those kinds of very critical jobs.

I speak, as a member who comes from a community of about 18,000 people, of the real need to work in those communities. But I understand that life isn't perfect. There are always issues that the opposition should properly address, bring to the government's attention and advocate on behalf of their constituents -- and in fact they do. I should maybe preface my remarks. Again, going back to a reference I made at the outset, I think it is incumbent upon all politicians to try to the best of their ability to be consistent. We had a rather fractious question period here last week in which I think I was able to point out that the opposition had indeed taken different positions. I am dismayed when opposition members from rural British Columbia don't support the work of the job protection commissioner in trying to save jobs. I know my personal involvement and the involvement of the MLA from Golden two years ago, when we worked with Evans Forest Products -- the employees, the owner, the new owner that came in and the community -- were critical to our success at that time in saving that industry. An industry that employed some 700 people in the small community of Golden was the major employer. As a result of the very hard work we did, we were able to put that firm on the right footing. It's a private sector firm. Yes, there is government assistance -- backstop loans, etc. But it's a private sector firm; it's out there now competing in the marketplace and doing well, thanks to the intervention of government.

I was shocked when I picked up a copy of a Revelstoke paper of November 6, 1997, and read an article pertaining to a visit by the member for Peace River North, who is a northern MLA. Sometimes, even though we're not all in the same party, there is a commonality with respect to MLAs from the north -- or there ought to be -- in that sometimes we're a little outspoken. But we're pretty fierce in standing up for our constituents, and we're prepared to fight for people and for jobs, particularly in those rural areas.

[3:00]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: They said it in Revelstoke, actually.

I'm sure it is rather dismaying -- in fact I would say shocking -- news to the people who live in Golden that that is now the position. We now know what the position of the Liberal Party is: they would not move in and intervene to try to assist companies and communities and working people to save jobs in small communities around British Columbia. I know that I was shocked. I can see the looks on the members' faces opposite -- they're shocked as well. Perhaps there's not been a discussion in the Liberal caucus about this policy. Do they have policy discussions in the Liberal caucus? That's an interesting question, isn't it?

Speaking of contradictions, when I was the Minister of Employment and Investment, of course I tackled these subjects with zeal. When companies came to the Job Protection Commission, when they came to my office and they said, "We're in trouble, we may need some government assistance," my message to the job protection commissioner and to my staff was: "You go work with those companies. You see if you can put together a sound economic plan that would pass a private sector test, and if you can do that, I will take that issue to my colleagues in cabinet and we will try our best." We've done a few of them. I can recite a couple of them, Madam Speaker.

I was delighted that we were able to work with a very good value-added wood manufacturing company in the community of Oliver, B.C. -- Sonax Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. They ran into some difficulties. It wasn't that complicated. There had been some changes with respect to the people they supplied; they'd changed the rules. Instead of warehousing, the company had to keep that stock at the plant, and their marketing fell off a little bit. But we took a good, hard-nosed look at that, and we consulted with the MLA for the region, and in fact that member advised us that he thought it was prudent for the government to support this manufacturing plant. I always like to consult with the members in the ridings and constituencies where these issues arise, and I'll speak about one in a moment out in Saanich or Sidney -- out there. I see the member for Saanich blushing a little bit, Madam Speaker.

Notwithstanding the member for Peace River North, who has given the official position of the Liberal Party with respect to government assistance to try to save jobs in small towns around B.C., let me remind members that that position is: "Large taxpayer bailouts for companies such as Evans would be a thing of the past."

The member for Okanagan-Boundary talked to me. He said he thought this company was worthy of support, and at the end of the day I was very pleased -- one of the last things I did as the Minister of Employment and Investment. On February 6, 1998, we issued a news release advising the public that, as a result of the work of the JPC, the ministry, cabinet and Treasury Board, we would be making a $500,000 investment in Sonax Furniture Manufacturing. We thought it was a good company. It's a major ready-to-assemble furniture manufacturing company that has been in business since 1984. It exports $6 million in value-added products to Europe and the United States. It has some potential for growth.

[ Page 6934 ]

Out in Sidney, of course, we had a very good company, Viking Air. It's a small company. It had been impacted by the devastating storms a couple of years ago here in Victoria. We all recall those huge snowstorms. It was quite an exciting time for you, Madam Speaker, as the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill -- lots of chats. . . . I think even books have been written. We took a hard-headed look at the company, its prospects and our ability to work with that company. Indeed, we decided that it made sense. We did a deal with Viking Air that will create 30 new jobs over the next two years in Sidney. I haven't heard from the member. Has the member perhaps stood in the House and acknowledged that this is the kind of thing that government ought to do?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Very good. We'll wait for that. I'll check Hansard and see if we find that reference.

Again, if that nod of the head means agreement, we find one more member of the Liberal caucus who is quietly breaking rank with the official position. No wonder there's such a muddle when it comes to us -- or, for that matter, the B.C. public -- trying to understand just what the policy of the Liberal caucus is across all of the major public policy issues.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: One member across the way shouts out: "It's called free enterprise." Well, I have no quarrel with free enterprise whatsoever. If free enterprise means that businesses, community members, community leaders and workers can sit down with government, put together a restructuring package that meets the private sector test and saves jobs -- in the case of Viking, creates 30 new jobs -- then I agree with the member.

That's why I am really puzzled by the announcement made by the member for Peace River North, a northern MLA. I've got to say I'm disappointed, as I am disappointed in the member for Prince George-Omineca, as well, who in a vicious newspaper column attacked my appointment as Minister Responsible for Northern Development. Do you know what the basis for that attack was? It was that I had worked hard to save jobs at Skeena Cellulose in Smithers, in Hazelton, in Terrace, in Prince Rupert. My crime, according to that member from northern B.C., was that I'd worked hard to save jobs in northern B.C.

I mean, what's become of the opposition? We used to have MLAs up there who were mavericks. They'd speak their minds. Cyril Shelford was a Socred, but, my goodness, he'd stand up and speak out for his constituents. He wasn't afraid; he didn't toe the party line. I'm really, really disappointed that we have two Liberal MLAs in northern B.C. who are taking their orders from the Liberal caucus instead of listening to the residents of northern B.C. and acting in their interests. I actually have a sheaf of the announcements that we've made with respect to our involvement, where jobs have been saved or new jobs have been created.

I just want to say, in short, that I'm proud of that record. It's one that I think clearly demonstrates a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. It's those kinds of defining differences that I think are important to the electorate. Where do you stand on these important questions? Where does the government stand on these important questions? Now that we know where the opposition stands, it gives the electorate a much clearer choice in terms of arriving at their own decision about who they think might best represent their interests, particularly when it comes to these critical issues. One thing is absolutely certain and clear, and inasmuch as the members opposite are still suffering somewhat -- I think the hangover's dissipating somewhat -- from the last election, I can assure them that they will have another chance. There will be another election in British Columbia, as there always is. I'm looking forward to it, as I always do. People will be able to make their choices, as they did last time, on the real issues.

Quite frankly, the voters, in my view. . . . It's limited, but my experience has been that people generally respond to people who they think are prepared to try to represent their interests and are prepared to fight for their interests. It's not always the key to success, but that's not a bad approach to political life, I've found. I guess that's something that we will test in the next campaign.

We talked about mining in the throne speech. Obviously it's a major initiative. In fact, I look forward to next Tuesday, because it's Mining Day. Here in the Legislature, we're going to have lots of people from the industry. We're going to have some things to talk about with respect to this initiative that was outlined in the throne speech. I was very pleased by the response of the mining sector to the throne speech. Just to briefly quote from a March 26 release: "B.C.'s mining industry is encouraged by the government's promise to take action to make British Columbia more competitive and more attractive to investment." Indeed, with that kind of goodwill, I note. . . .

I want to speak very briefly; I don't know if I'm eating into people's time here.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, perhaps I'll allow a member to make an introduction, Madam Speaker.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to welcome 28 grades 4 and 5 students from Cindrich Elementary School in Surrey -- in fact, from my constituency of Surrey-Green Timbers. This is a school that is right behind my office and is one of the schools that will get an addition as a result of the capital announcement yesterday. Hopefully, the portables will be gone. I'd like to welcome them. They are accompanied by Ms. Dodd, as well as by some parents. Would the House please give them a big welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Just very briefly, to conclude on mining, next week will obviously be a very exciting one, and I know all members look forward to participating.

[ Page 6935 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The member opposite says that it took too long. He stands in stark contrast to the Governor of Alaska, who said that it didn't take long enough, and he stands in stark contrast to that eminent newspaper person, Mr. Palmer -- who has just received a significant public policy award -- who said that it didn't take long enough. They can praise Mr. Palmer for some things and criticize him for others, I suppose.

But Mr. Greig did say, with respect to this government's view of mining and the project in particular: "The project received a friendly reception from the provincial government once it had answered environmental issues" -- once it had answered environmental issues. He then went on to say -- and I was very pleased: "Things are changing very dramatically. The province is doing all that's necessary to encourage the mining industry." I was pleased by the remarks of Mr. Greig.

[3:15]

One of the members opposite referred to the Gibraltar mine closure -- or shut-in, more appropriately -- and attacked this government for the mine shutting in, without knowing their facts. The fact is -- and I got this directly from the president of Boliden -- that the capital required to move into a new seam or new production area of the mine has a cost of production of about 98 cents a pound. With world copper prices at 84 cents this morning and with a grade of about 0.3 percent, it's pretty hard -- I know it's a stretch for the opposition, but they try -- to blame this government for a mine shutting in -- when it's at that low a grade and world prices are at the cents per pound that they are. When prices firm up even more -- and we're seeing some of that -- there will be some easing of the pressure on mining companies, particularly copper and gold, in British Columbia. We're working with some of those companies now, with the job protection commissioner, to see if we can't continue to see them operate rather than shut in and wait for the market to pick up.

With forestry I think it's far more complex than the debates sometimes credit. I want to say just a couple of things. I did go to Prince George on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Forests a week or so ago to announce, to the Northern Forest Products Association, the streamlining of the Forest Practices Code and the consequent saving of about $300 million annually to the forest sector. I said at the time that it was a move that was necessary and perhaps overdue, but I also reminded those delegates to look at the activity of the environmental movement in the European market today -- those people who do not want to work with government, who simply want to take a dogmatic approach that everything that happens in forestry is wrong.

There are very good and compelling reasons why this government moved to bring in the Forest Practices Code: (a) quite frankly, we want to have the best forest practices in the world, and I think we're getting to that point in British Columbia; and (b) if we don't have those kinds of forest practices, our manufacturers will never survive in the marketplace. That is the reality of the global marketplace today. There are very good and compelling reasons to bring that code in. Now, after some period of practice, we've seen where it can be streamlined, and we've moved decisively to do that and to reduce those costs. That benefit will flow to the industry. But what's critically important is that there was no diminishment of standards.

I did read some of the criticisms contained in a letter from Mr. Moore. Keith Moore and I go back a long way. I want to say this with respect to that criticism: that is the very reason we set up the Forest Practices Board. It is going to be one more example where the public, if they think standards have diminished or that forest companies aren't following the rules, has the Forest Practices Board to take those complaints to, and they've got a mandate to investigate. So there are checks and balances in the system.

In my view, the code was fundamental in terms of trying to get some stability in the international marketplace. I think that's an ongoing challenge. Despite our best efforts, there are still people over in Europe who are telling bald-faced lies about what's happening here in British Columbia, and we have to continue to be vigilant with the industry.

With respect to stumpage costs, again I want to remind this House -- and it's very, very important that people understand this -- that the stumpage charges which are in place now are as a result of the forest industry and this government, hand in hand, reaching an agreement, the softwood lumber agreement, with the United States. We don't like that. Adam Zimmerman made a speech in Prince George, and he decried the loss of sovereignty. I agreed with Adam Zimmerman.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: You and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast understand well what I'm speaking about. He made many fine speeches inside and outside this House about the MAI. He well understands that global competitiveness. . . . Yes, that's fine. You've got to play in the arena, and we can do that. But there is an implied and a real loss of sovereignty in some of these deals. It is an inescapable fact; it is true. It disgusts me that we have to go down to Washington, D.C., when we want to reduce our charges, that we have to go to the capital of a foreign nation to get their permission. But that is a reality of global trade. It was a reality when we lost the right to restrict the export of unprocessed salmon and herring in front of GATT. There's no sense crying about it. Those are the rules. I say play tough. We're taking action to try to reduce those costs in our forest sector even further. We're prepared to fight hard on those questions, and we're prepared to work in concert with the industry.

[ Page 6936 ]

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I note the time. The red light is on, so your remarks should come to a conclusion.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, Madam Speaker, I came ill prepared, but hopefully I've added to the discussion on the throne speech, which I think was brilliant in terms of outlining a bold new vision for this province.

G. Robertson: It's indeed a pleasure to be here this afternoon and have an opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne. I believe that the initiatives in this speech are important, and the direction we're going is suitable for this time in British Columbia's history.

Some of the initiatives that were spoken about in the Speech from the Throne were to strengthen B.C.'s investment climate. I think we're all in agreement in this House that we have to do whatever we can to help the investment climate and industry and the people who live within our province.

I was very pleased to see a 6 percent reduction over three years in personal income taxes for British Columbians. I think it's very important and significant. Also, the restructuring of the corporate capital tax is obviously a very, very positive thing. The threshold has been changed for when you start paying the corporate capital tax, and the threshold for the upper limit has also been expanded. This means that in the next three years, 90 percent of the businesses in this province will not pay corporate capital tax.

I can well remember having a conversation three years ago with a friend of mine in Port McNeill who owns a machine shop. This is exactly the type of initiative that he spoke of. He had a business with $3 million to $4 million worth of tooling and equipment in his shop, and he thought that it should be extended up. That's exactly what we did. People such as my friend are very pleased with this initiative.

When we look at promoting economic growth within this province, there is no doubt that the forest industry is an integral part of this province and a mainstay of the provincial economy. I'd like to talk a little bit about the Forest Practices Code. As many of you know, I was a logger in my past work. I worked in the industry for 23 years on the coast, so I have a bit of understanding. Over the course of the last quarter century I've met a lot of really great people who have worked in this industry, and a lot of them are my friends.

I can remember back in the early seventies, when some of the forest practices that we were doing in the woods were not very well thought of by the general public or by the people who actually worked in the industry. By the time we got into the late eighties, technology had changed significantly not only in British Columbia but globally. A lot of emphasis was put on British Columbia forest practices. I can well remember some of the ministers in the previous Socred government -- such as Claude Richmond -- and the intense pressure and lobbying that he was under from the global community to change forest practices in this province and to really make a difference. The IWA, back in the 1940s, was calling for forest practices and changes in sustainability.

Finally, our government delivered with the Forest Practices Code. It's something that I'm very proud of. There's no doubt that over the course of the last two or three years, we have come to recognize that the paper flow and the regulatory and administrative regimes were onerous. We've done our part to streamline it and bring in significant savings. People like Mr. Sitter, from International Forest Products, have suggested that the savings will probably be in the realm of $300 million to $400 million annually, which I think is very good for industry. It's going to give our people in the Ministry of Forests an opportunity to go out in the woods instead of being stuck behind desks and pushing mounds of paper, and it will make sure that we have proper and sustainable forest practices in this province.

I was very pleased with the recent announcement in regard to stumpage relief for the companies. My understanding is that we're waiting for a response from our American neighbours. This is something that the Hon. Dan Miller spoke to before. It is a difficult time in British Columbia history when we have to go across the border and get permission from the Americans for what we charge in tariffs and stumpage in this province. It's reminiscent of the global economies and of agreements such as GATT and NAFTA and the effect they have on our producers, our economy, our industry and workers in British Columbia. It is of concern, but I also think, at the same time, it's indicative of the time that we're going into, which we're not that familiar with. I can remember looking back in time five years ago, and the province is certainly not the same as it was then, nor will it be the same five years from now. We are going through an amazing transition.

Forest Renewal B.C. has been very positive for my constituency of North Island. Over the course of the last three years there has been about $75 million worth of investment from Forest Renewal B.C. into our workforce, our community, our forests and our streams -- absolutely outstanding work. It has given lots of people employment opportunities. It certainly helped a lot of salmon habitat and added a lot of value to our new generation of trees that are coming into being. It's also given an opportunity to train a lot of people who didn't have that opportunity before. As a North Islander, I can well remember watching for the last 20 years as people came in from Alberta and southern British Columbia, from the urban centres, to do intensive silviculture on the North Island where our people sat around unemployed. FRBC has given people of the North Island an opportunity to get education and training in silviculture and intensive forest practices, to be gainfully employed and to employ the people of the North Island. I think that's really good. We've also had a lot of people retrained in new forest technologies for value-added manufacturing, and that is coming on line.

[3:30]

The Speaker: Hon. member, you might want to rephrase that.

[ Page 6937 ]

The new pilot community forest tenures, under the jobs and timber accord, is great news for communities. I understand that over 100 different communities in British Columbia put in applications for community forests. If you went back in B.C. history, ten years ago that wouldn't have happened. I think that communities are beginning to understand the significance of having an interest and an opportunity in resource management. The forests are vital to our economy, particularly in the North Island, and communities are moving towards playing a significant role in that.

The other thing that has happened is that over the course of the last two years, under the jobs and timber accord and FRBC, we have doubled the number of woodlots in this province. Small communities and small woodlot owners are coming on line. They're practising sustainable, responsible resource management and providing wood for value-added manufacturing and other initiatives under these programs. So these are all great programs. The major investment incentive through the Power for Jobs initiative is great for British Columbia. We expect a couple of new aluminum smelters to be on line within the next few years, creating jobs and more economic opportunities for British Columbia, much like the two cogeneration plants that are on line in Campbell River and Port Alberni, utilizing B.C. gas and producing power, jobs and opportunities in our communities. These are all great initiatives that are integral and important for the North Island and British Columbia.

Obviously, hon. Speaker, we have to do more to get a Pacific Salmon Treaty. We have to do more, as well, to look after our salmon habitat, to enhance our streams, to go back and do the work that should have been done 20 or 30 years ago, both in the urban areas and in areas where we've had resource development. We have to really work hard at revitalizing our wild salmon stocks, and to that end I have to tell you that I'm very proud of our government. I'm proud that we now have a Minister of Fisheries.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We also have different initiatives, such as Fisheries Renewal B.C. Russ Hellberg, the mayor of Port Hardy, is on that board. I'm very proud of the work that Russ and other people from coastal communities are doing on that board, and of the work that the Coastal Community Network is doing. These people are working together, making a difference for British Columbia and making a difference for our coastal communities and our fish stocks. Places like Sointula and Alert Bay have depended on fishing for years. Hard-working people who were quite content to go out and earn $20,000 or $30,000 a year -- a way of life for generations -- are having that taken away from them. We're working hard as a government and as a province to give back the opportunities that those people deserve and have had for years.

The tax incentives for the B.C. film industry -- I can't say enough about that. Coming from the North Island. . . . We've had two movies there in the last three years. One was The Scarlet Letter, done in Strathcona Park -- a world heritage park. I can remember people saying years ago, "We'll go in there and cut it all down," and today it's a world heritage place. It's great. We have Strathcona Park Lodge, which has been there for years. It's an outdoor recreation facility, one of the best in North America. People like Tim Rippel have been there, who has climbed Mount Everest, and Gareth Wood, who went to the South Pole. . . . These are people who work at Strathcona Lodge. Myrna Boulding does, as well, who was given the Heaslip award from the United Nations for environmental stewardship. These are all people that North Islanders are very, very proud of.

Getting back to the movies, The Scarlet Letter was done in Strathcona Park a couple of years ago, as well as a big Disney movie this past year. You couldn't get a hotel room or an apartment anywhere around Campbell River; they were all rented. The economy was absolutely booming. So I'm really proud of those initiatives.

In regard to strengthening B.C.'s communities, I have to tell you that I've seen absolutely phenomenal work being done by this government in my constituency over the course of the last five years -- absolutely unbelievable stuff. I just stand back sometimes and say: "I can't believe what I'm seeing."

I'll give you some examples, hon. Speaker. I think we're going to do about $1.25 billion worth of capital work this year, and that's schools, hospitals, highways and major infrastructure programs throughout this province. For instance, we have a $50 million bypass around Campbell River -- an absolutely beautiful piece of highway. The inland Island highway is going to be a marvel; it's something that has been talked about since the early fifties. I can remember when the hon. Minister of Transportation and I opened the bypass this past summer. People came up to me and said: "Glenn, I can remember governments, back in 1950 or 1960, coming up and promising this highway. You people are delivering. We're really proud of it; we really need it. This is really great for northern Vancouver Island."

Some of the initiatives in health that are going on in North Island. . . . The Yuculta Lodge is now on line and being built, which is a $13 million facility for continuing care. Port Hardy has another continuing-care facility being built, which is going to be great for the older folks there. They will be able to stay up there and be close to their families. There's a new hospital being designed right now on Cormorant Island, at Alert Bay. That will be a $4.5 million facility. Also, there's the recent installation of a CT scanner at the Campbell River hospital, which will perform 2,500 to 3,000 scans a year. The Depew wing for Campbell River hospital is now under construction, and funds have been advanced for that. There are a lot of great things in health happening in North Island.

I've talked about the Island inland highway. There have also been phenomenal amounts of money for upgrading and recapping highways throughout North Island, and that work is ongoing. There is design work on the Misty Lake section, between Port Hardy and Port McNeill, which is a really bad stretch of highway. I am really pleased that our government is moving ahead with this initiative and doing the design work, so that when the capital becomes available, it's a priority. And it is a priority, hon. Speaker.

I want to talk a little about capital funding for schools. This is something that's near and dear to my heart. Campbell River school district. Yesterday I met with Harper Baikie, the chairman of school district 72, and also Brendan Croskery, the

[ Page 6938 ]

Kyuquot -- there's an interesting place -- is a part of school district 84, and the superintendent, Andris Freimanis, was here yesterday as well as the chairperson, Susan Plensky. Susan is a good friend, and I'd like to wish Susan good luck with her delivery, which is coming very soon. She's an outstanding woman and a west coaster. She does a great job in her community and also with the different school issues. We're doing work in that school district as well.

In school district 85, in my own hometown, I'm really pleased that the ministry will be investing $1.4 million in a centre of forestry excellence. This is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Education, FRBC, Human Resources Development and some other partners. I'd like to recognize Gary Doi, the superintendent of schools, who did an excellent job of putting this together, and also Lyn Skrlac. I can remember them coming to me many months ago with this idea. Today it is being brought to fruition and completion, and I'm really pleased about that.

When we talk about supporting education and youth, I can't think of a more important initiative for any government to invest in. The youth of our province are the future of our province, and when I look around, whenever I go to a school within my district, I have to tell you that I'm proud. I know that the future of this province is in good hands with these young people coming up, and I know that investments we make in these children now are investments in our future and the future of this outstanding province we live in.

Some of the initiatives announced in the budget were 400 new teachers and nearly 300 teaching aides. I'm proud of our government's commitment over the last six years to education. It's totally unparalleled anywhere. While we are doing, I think, 18 percent more spending than we did five years ago, other provinces are decreasing. The differential between our investment in education in British Columbia and that of some of the other provinces is absolutely outstanding.

There are going to be new capital investments to build more classrooms, and I have spoken a little bit about that before. The back-to-basics curriculum approach and stressing early literacy. . . . This is something that I really get excited about because of my daughter Kimberley. She'll be 18 years old this June, and she's graduating. It seems like only yesterday I was standing in front of a nursery looking at this little child, and today she's almost as tall as I am and graduating. I can remember very well when she was in grade 1, and by Christmas time she was reading. And a lot of her classmates were too. I think this should be a goal that we drive right through this province. I believe that an investment in our young people is like building a house; if you build a good solid foundation, they've got something they can stand on for the rest of their lives. Our government is doing that. Moving initiatives such as this ahead is very important.

We're going to be linking students at all levels to the Internet by the year 2000. That's called the provincial learning network, and it's something we really need on northern Vancouver Island. We have tremendously bright children up there, and the PLN, by linking them up to other schools and other institutions on the Internet, is going to give our children a great opportunity to continue to advance and make great inroads into industry in all sorts of different areas throughout this province. I'm very pleased about that.

Initiatives to make schools safe and violence-free. Given what we see in the news today, I think this is a really, really important initiative. I don't know what it is -- I don't know if kids are watching too much television or if they're in a fantasy world or what, but I think initiatives such as that are extremely important. When I look at the violence and some of the attitudes that some of the young people have, very, very concerning to me. It's an area that all of us as politicians in this province have to take a look at and really work at. Some of the stuff we see is just absolutely heartbreaking.

[3:45]

There's going to be a lot of funding to open another 2,900 college and university spaces, and I'm looking forward to that. North Island College in Campbell River got a very significant boost. I was very pleased about that, because North Island College is the place where many of our kids go to get an education, they then move on to universities and have transfer programs and other programs and initiatives.

I want to quickly go over the expanded training and work experience programs through Youth Options B.C. This is going to give opportunities to more than 17,000 young British Columbians this year. It's a really comprehensive program. I was involved in the Youth Mentorship program and met with the mentors and some of the youth involved in that. They found it was an outstanding program.

The E-teams. Last year I went out in the field on a number of days and spoke to these young people; some of them weren't in school and had various difficulties. I spent time with them, and they told me about how they learned to work as a team in the E-team programs. They learned responsibility. They learned how to help people, and they learned to take responsibility and finish some programs. They'd never really had an opportunity to do that. Some of the people working with these E-teams and sponsoring them are doing an outstanding job of mentoring them, as well, and showing leadership qualities.

Some of the programs are Bladerunners; the Crown youth employment initiative; E-teams; jobs in science and technology; Job Start; Student Summer Works, which was very successful in the North Island last year -- there'll be tuition credit to come; Visions for the Future; You BET; Youth Mentorship; Youth B.C.; and Youth Works. I am really happy

[ Page 6939 ]

The major youth employment initiative to build 1,500 provincial park campsites by the end of 1999 is good news for our communities. We're going to get some youth working; they're going to learn how to work, and it is hard work in some of these areas, building trails into them. They're going to learn some leadership skills; they're going to learn how to work together in a cooperative manner. They're going to create campsites where we haven't got them now and bring people into those areas. That will add opportunities to the North Island economy and also bring people to the North Island, where they can enjoy many, many opportunities.

We've introduced substantial measures to ensure that health care is there when people need it. And yeah, there are always wait-lists. There were wait-lists five or ten years ago; there were wait-lists before that. We're doing operations now that were never thought of five years ago. Health has become very expensive for the province, and we're dedicated to providing good health opportunities for all British Columbians. As a province, our record of contributing to the health and betterment of the members of our society is unsurpassed in this country, and I'm very proud of that initiative.

We're going to bring in new standards, training and resources to support child protection programs, which I am very pleased with. I think it's important, as a province and as the Crown, to protect the people who are least able to protect themselves and to give some of those "little people" the opportunities they really deserve. Any initiatives that we do in that regard are very much appreciated.

We're going to expand residential services for women and children fleeing violence, and I want to say a little bit about that. April 19 to 25 is British Columbia's fourth annual Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. This special week was proclaimed by the B.C. government in 1995, at the request of the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses, to recognize the individuals and organizations that work to prevent violence against women in our communities. And it is a problem: violence against women directly affects 59 percent of women in our province. That's six out of ten women, so this is an important initiative. The Ministry of Women's Equality does outstanding work, and I know that all the members of this House are very supportive of continuing this important work for women, to safeguard their health and opportunities.

To sum up, I believe we're creating some great opportunities for all British Columbians. We're taking steps to build a strong and competitive economy. I think we have work to do with red tape and streamlining processes in working with industry. We've taken those steps, and we'll continue to do that, whether it's in forestry, mining or other areas. We're strengthening B.C.'s investment climate. We've worked extensively with business, and that will continue. I work with business on a regular basis, and I very much enjoy it.

We're cutting taxes for industry, small business and individuals to stimulate investment and jobs. We're promoting economic growth, and I'm confident that we will have more economic growth in the near future. We're strengthening B.C.'s communities through the work we're doing in building schools, hospitals and infrastructure -- roads.

We're supporting education and youth, who I think are very important, with funding for schools -- more funding for post-secondary schools and more spaces. Tuition has been frozen for three years in a row -- the lowest tuition in the country -- giving opportunities to our young people. Youth Options B.C. -- the many programs they provide. . . .

We're protecting health and medicare and public services -- $228 million more to ensure that health is there when people need it.

In closing, hon. Speaker, I want to say that I'm proud of North Island. British Columbia is, without a doubt, the best place in the world to live, and northern Vancouver Island is the place in B.C. to live. It's a closely kept secret, but anybody who goes there is very enthusiastic and wants to come back. I'm very proud of our initiatives through the Speech from the Throne, and I'm supportive of the throne speech.

R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the throne speech. The throne speech outlines the government's and this party's support for health care, education, families and investment in our communities throughout British Columbia. The way in which we will eliminate the red tape and bureaucracy that has stymied government and investment in this province cuts taxes and creates a positive climate for the business community.

I just want to talk about health care. I know that in the community I represent, Malahat-Juan de Fuca, under construction is a new 75-bed, multicare facility serving our seniors -- something long overdue, promised by many, many previous governments. I'm proud to say that it's being constructed right now, and the testimonials coming into our office from workers and people who are very supportive of this project would just astound you. An $8.6 million project will stand to serve the residents, our seniors, with a very creative, innovative way of providing services in their future years. I'm sure that before too long some of us will end up there, as we get on in years.

The budget provided for health care expenditures to increase by some $228 million. The throne speech made a commitment that our priorities will be steered to health care, and I think that's a far cry from what's happened elsewhere in the country. Since 1991 the other provinces in this country have seen a reduction of 2 percent in their health care expenditures, whereas we in British Columbia have seen a 15 percent increase per person on health care expenditures. I'm proud of that record, and I'm proud that the throne speech has continued to recognize what is needed in this province.

Education. The throne speech outlined our commitment to enhancing education opportunities for our youth, to ensure that our youth, from kindergarten to grade 3, are able to read and write by the time they leave grade 3. In order to accommodate that, money had to be spent -- an increase in the budget by some $100 million, which would allow the hiring of additional teachers and teaching aide staff in order to get that job done.

In my district alone, the Sooke school district, a $900,000 increase is earmarked for the 1998-99 school year, and that increase comes with no increase in enrolment. It's a school district that has static enrolment right now, and this money is long overdue. The district is not without problems, and that's why the Minister of Education and I have committed to working hard with the district. There is a team currently working with the district staff on some of their budget problems that have been historical in nature -- not created by the current board but by boards prior to the 1996 local elections for school board trustees.

[ Page 6940 ]

Just yesterday some new announcements were made in regard to capital expenditures. I know that in Sooke, Ruth King Elementary School is going to be getting some additional funding for a minor renovation. Spencer Junior Secondary will also be getting a renovation done to accommodate its establishment as a middle school, and we're also going to be providing funding for some new buses. Roughly $3 million in additional capital will be provided for the Sooke school district.

In the Cowichan district, which is the north end of the riding I represent, we will see some new schools. We will see Bench Elementary School, with 125 new spaces. It's an addition. There is also some money earmarked for land acquisition and for doing the planning and design work to see a new south end middle school. Ultimately, when that school is built and completed, when all the planning, land acquisition and, in the years to come, capital expenditure have been authorized, some 18 portables will be removed. I think that says a lot. The commitment that has been made and outlined in the throne speech is a commitment to reduce the number of portables and to make sure that the priorities are delivered. It takes money to do that.

With those two projects alone, we would see the elimination of 24 portables, which I think is a move in the right direction. We've heard many members over the years talk about the problems associated with our students getting an education in portables. It's not conducive to a good, healthy education.

[4:00]

Also, the commitment to making sure that there are additional front-line staff in the Ministry for Children and Families to deal with the problems outlined in the Gove report. . . . As a member of the committee of the Legislature on the implementation of the Gove report, I know that it was widely recognized by all members, by the commissioner, that additional staff and resources had to be allocated in the budget in order to deal with the problems that that ministry has encountered. The throne speech outlined that commitment. The budget, in fact, will deliver that commitment. I hope that announcements will be made soon as to the number of staff that will be allocated for that ministry.

Speaking of families in need, with the wide range of programs that the government has implemented over the past two years, we've seen an 8 percent reduction in those who are receiving social assistance benefits. That translates into 27,000 fewer person-caseloads for welfare or social assistance. But it doesn't stop there. The throne speech continues to instil the importance of investment in communities. In the area I represent, there is another construction project on the go right now. It's a bus exchange for the Western Communities, the southern part of the riding I represent. It's something that's long overdue -- to provide valuable transportation options for the people who live in Victoria's western region. That project has a value of close to $7 million. Again, it's an investment for the future, an investment which creates local jobs, enhances the local economy and also provides alternative transportation modes for the people who live in that region.

Speaking of transportation, in the Sooke area we're seeing the construction of a new park-and-ride facility, a $185,000 project. That will help individuals in the community with options for transportation. The new facility plans to accommodate those who want to bike in the local area. They can ride their bike to the exchange and get it locked up, and then they will be able to take the bus if they happen to work in the western region or in downtown Victoria.

Speaking of transportation, the commitment is there. Work is progressing on the Millstream extension. Property is being purchased as we speak -- property that is needed to construct the Millstream extension. That particular project will see the linkage made between Highway 14 and the Trans-Canada Highway -- something that has been on the books for some 20-plus years.

The investment on that particular section will actually work hand in hand with the multitude of investments that are being incurred by the private sector. I know that in the CanWest Shopping Centre area, construction activities are currently taking place. These are private sector investments which, in my view, wouldn't be there if enhancements were not made to the Trans-Canada Highway or without the government's commitment to construct the Millstream extension. That will serve the new centres and the new capital projects and retail stores that are being built by the private sector.

All that is occurring in the Langford municipality. I know from my work and deliberations with the municipality over the years that they've been very progressive. They've lobbied very hard for the constituents that they represent. I know, by seeing sewers constructed in the Langford area and by seeing enhancements and the reconstruction of the Trans-Canada Highway, that Langford is open for business. The mayor has actively pursued that position. The council members are all there, working hard, and I'm there with them to make sure that that part of the riding I represent is open for business. The philosophy, which again translates into what this throne speech is all about, is to work together with the business community so that businesses can invest and feel confident about their investments. That will translate into jobs for the constituents that I represent, and it will also translate into jobs for the people who live in that region. I know everybody agrees with this: jobs are a very valuable commodity in this day and age.

Talking about cutting red tape, which I mentioned earlier, I have to say that I think it's got to the point, over the years. . . . And I don't feel that this is a reflection on one particular government or another. What we've had over the years -- and I'm talking about decades -- is a culture within government in general that has created the paper trail. It's almost like a creature of habit. It has nothing to do with the good people who work in government and who have dedi-

[ Page 6941 ]

The throne speech talked about cutting red tape. I think we've got to make sure that legislation -- and it has to be done in legislation -- lays out what the ground rules are; make sure that we streamline filing and registration requirements; make sure that we eliminate -- not reduce, but eliminate -- the duplication of paper that people have to push to all the different ministries and Crowns; make sure that we allow electronic and other alternative filing methods. We're in the age of the Internet, and computer access is phenomenal. Government is plugged into the computer world; business is plugged in. We've got to make sure that those two are talking together and that both are making use of the technology that can provide them with an opportunity to reduce that red tape, to reduce the paper push, etc.

I know that the Minister of Environment has spoken of this. She has said, loud and clear, that from her ministry's perspective, it is dedicated to reducing the red tape and the bureaucracy that has continued. As I mentioned earlier -- and I'll say this for the minister's benefit -- it's the culture of government. It's the nature of the beast that has been allowed to build up over the years. It's no fault of one particular government, but at least this government has made the commitment to bring in legislation to reduce red tape and to eliminate a lot of the bureaucratic stuff that has occurred.

Also, we want to make sure that we have a way to increase one-stop and one-window approaches. We've got to make sure that people have that way, one-stop shopping, where you go to one agency and get all your business done. You should be able to go to one ministry, which is kind of a catch-all, to make sure that business is done in a way where, if you're in the development business, for example, there's a clearinghouse to make sure that you can get on with your particular development -- whatever it may be. We also have to change outdated and cumbersome approval processes. Believe me, it's a bit of a nightmare.

I'll just give this as food for thought for the Minister of Environment -- and I don't mean to pick on that particular ministry. In my view, unless the Crown has absolutely stated that they have a registered interest in a given area -- in a stream, a creek, a watercourse or a piece of land -- and, for whatever reason, that interest has to be registered. . . . Any individual who wants to get on with doing land development, or someone in the agricultural community who wants to get on with producing food products -- which all of us consume in some way, shape or form -- can go and find out: is there an interest? If there is no registered interest, then we shouldn't even go there. But over the years -- for example, with subdivisions -- the Ministry of Environment has always been caught up in the loop. Again, it's a creature of habit. Someone doing a simple subdivision, whether it's two or three lots or 400 lots, gets bogged down in the system, when there is no registered interest by the Crown. That has to stop.

I think we've heard the commitment from the minister over the past few weeks that she'll be bringing forward a number of suggestions, working with the Minister of Small Business to eliminate red tape. I've even volunteered to get involved in passing on my suggestions as to what we can do and how we can do it better. If we get those types of initiatives in the legislation so that everybody understands the ground rules, knows where they have to go, knows what fees they have to pay and that they're not going to be broadsided by a whole host of things that are based on what-ifs -- like what if this happens and what if that happens. . . . I don't think people care about that. They want to know what the rules are now. Let's deal with the facts, not a lot of what-ifs.

The throne speech also talks about cutting taxes. The commitment is there, and the budget substantiates that in reducing personal income tax and reducing the threshold level. Again, over a three-year period we will see a reduction, which I think is important for people in this province. People will have the ability to actually spend more money in the little stores and businesses that are located throughout this province and throughout the community that I represent. I know that taking those steps will be important, because it will send out a signal that yes, we want to make sure. . . . Because as this deficit gets reduced, the rationale for having those huge taxes won't be there anymore. We have to keep in mind that if you had some financial problems -- and we go back a number of years -- then taxes were increased to offset deficits. As this deficit winds down, we now see a reduction in taxes, which I think is a good commitment.

[4:15]

But as far as small businesses and tax cuts. . . . We have to go back to 1986. The 1986 taxes that the small businesses paid for their corporate income tax. . . . The 1986 level is what it will be over the next year, which I think is good news. We're actually going backwards on tax levels. If you factor in inflation and all those things, that should be good news for small business -- 40,000 small businesses will see a reduction in their taxes. The other thing that I think is important is the extension of the existing two-year corporation tax break for new businesses. New businesses, right now, will still get that break, and that will be extended again.

We have to make sure that we do our best for the business community, because if we don't do our best and work with the business community, then I think we're in trouble -- and not just this side of the House, but that side of the House; everybody. We have to work hard. We have to bang our skulls together to try to find solutions to improve opportunities for the business community, which include cutting red tape, cutting taxes and making sure that you have a good, healthy climate for investment in this province.

It's important, though, that when we also look at issues relating to businesses and working with them. . . . I was at an event some eight days ago, where the Premier, myself and other ministers of the Crown met with representatives from the business community -- actually, from across the country. We went for a little boat cruise. We listened to the concerns of the business community. You know, it was upbeat. There was not one bit of negativism for the three hours that we were out there talking, listening, sharing ideas and making sure that

[ Page 6942 ]

Anyway, I think it was important that there was an opportunity there to sit down and talk about issues, to share ideas and to make sure that we're on the same wavelength. People who are involved in making decisions, especially at this level, have to make sure that they're doing a lot of listening to the people who are paying the freight. And these people pay the freight; I just thought I'd mention that. I want to share it with members and my constituents to make sure that we're working together with businesses -- small, medium and large -- from forestry and from the agricultural community, and with people who process our agricultural products, with people in the high-tech industry and with small businesses that are trying to do a good job for British Columbia.

I'd like to close by saying that I look forward to working with the members opposite during this session. I think we've established a pretty good relationship. Sometimes they think that I'm a little odd on this side -- right? But my job -- as I've made statements in the House -- is to keep hammering away at my colleagues who are in cabinet. I know that we've got to work together. We've got to keep up the heat too, because sometimes I'm a little overeager in certain areas. But you know, we've got to be patient and make things happen.

Could I mention one thing before I sit down? When I talk about red tape, I also feel. . . . This is important to me, because it's been a real burn for me. There are people who are less fortunate, people who have suffered circumstances beyond their control -- and that's injured workers in this province. We have to eliminate the red tape for those people too. Those individuals are caught up in so much bureaucracy, red tape, time delays, appeals, hearings: "You can't find the file here; it's in Vancouver." And on and on it goes. It's a nightmare. I know I've shared those comments with the Minister of Labour, and I know he feels the same way.

Our job is to make sure that when we're cutting the red tape for the business community and everybody else, we also cut the red tape for injured workers -- because they have no other options. They're injured. If they can't get retrained or if they're not getting benefits, they're down the line. They end up on social assistance, and that's wrong. They don't have options. If they don't like the climate here, they can't just pack up and move. So we've got to work hard and diligently to make sure that the Workers Compensation Board and the commission that's been working on preparing a report over the past two years. . . . Whatever they recommend, we have to get it implemented and make sure that red tape is reduced for these people. We must make sure they have the right -- not an option -- to be retrained so that they can earn an income and pay their taxes like everybody else.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to hearing more in the future.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: In the gallery today, we've got 87 students from Little Flower Academy in my riding. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Matt Coady and Mr. Nick Dais. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

J. Weisbeck: On behalf of my riding of Okanagan East, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present my analysis of the throne speech to my constituents. At the same time, I'd like to attempt to express the concerns of the people of my riding to this government -- if they'll actually listen.

My constituents' concerns have been growing over the past number of years as they see their pocketbooks shrink, their debts grow and their lifestyle being eroded. It's an interesting process to have the budget speech follow so quickly after the throne speech, even though the throne speech was given three weeks ago. It's interesting because any mood of optimism created by the throne speech was quickly negated by the real numbers and the real direction this government is going in. Having those real numbers further emphasizes that this throne speech is a lot of fluff. Needless to say, the MacFailure of the budget speech is transposed to the throne speech. There was a great deal of anticipation on the day of the throne speech. I think people were wondering what kind of spin this government could put on a very bad situation. It is equally dismaying to have arrived at our 100th anniversary and to head into the new millennium with a government that is primarily responsible for the erosion and decay of a province that had previously been known for its hope and endless possibilities.

I thought His Honour looked a little uncomfortable as he read the speech, and I must congratulate him for maintaining his high degree of decorum and composure. I was fitfully being lulled into the usual rhetorical boredom that can accompany such a speech when His Honour happened upon this grandiose embellishment about the state of our economy. Suddenly I was awake. Not only did it awaken me; it awakened most of the province and every member of the press.

I'd like to quote a portion of that speech: "Our people share a vision of a province that is building, growing and creating opportunities for all British Columbians, a province that in the twenty-first century enjoys an economy as vibrant as its people. . . ." I had to ask myself: why in the world would this government be defining our economy as vibrant, considering the current state of business in this province? So I went to the World Book Dictionary to attempt to determine why you would choose to use such an adjective to describe British Columbia's failing economy.

The World Book Dictionary defines vibrant as "moving or quivering rapidly." So that made a lot of sense to me, because I know that chickens quiver rapidly after their heads are cut off. They squawk and flounder around in a frenzy, without direction. On the other hand, this would only imply that our current style of government was vibrant, because while the people of British Columbia know what they want and which direction they'd go in, it's only this government that doesn't have a clue. Another definition implies that vibrant means obsolete. Once again, it would only serve as an explanation for this government's management style, which has been obsolete not only in this budget but since the day they took office.

How vibrant is our economy? You should look at the facts. Economic growth has been predicted at 0.5 percent and is moving towards a made-in-B.C. recession. Starts in housing have been reduced. Forestry has been pushed to the brink of disaster by government regulations and high fees. Mining has seen a drop of 73 percent in exploration since the government has been in power. And there's another downgrade to our credit rating, because the NDP has delivered seven deficit budgets in a row. Vibrant? I think not.

British Columbia has reached an interesting crossroads. Our province's economy has been based on its many natural

[ Page 6943 ]

There is an estimate that forest revenue would drop by $1 billion this year. Last year, in nine months alone, MacMillan Bloedel reported a net loss of $7 million. Similar losses were reported by numerous forest industry companies, including Canfor, Ainsworth Lumber, Crestbrook Forest Industries, Doman Industries, Primex Forest Products -- and the list goes on. In fact, B.C.'s forest industry has only had three profitable years since 1989, as reported by Price Waterhouse in the Financial Post last year. What we currently have to deal with is a situation where costs are extremely high, profits -- if any -- are extremely low, regulations are overburdening, and there is no relief in sight.

In 1996 our province imposed a target of creating 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector. This directive, along with all of the other prohibiting obstacles that now exist in the forest industry, has only allowed for one single target to be met, and that is to make a target out of the average working man and woman in British Columbia's forest industry.

Charles Widman, forestry consultant for the Financial Post, predicted the loss of 30,000 sawmill workers by the end of 1997. All the indicators are that the industry is clearly in a state of collapse. If the rest of British Columbia and I are correct in that assumption, the next question is: what, if anything, can we do to save it? Because our hon. Premier, his caucus and political party have been unable to understand or solve the problems in the forest sector, I thought it would be time for me, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to share our revitalization plan. The great thing about it is that while its directives make good, legitimate business sense and will benefit all British Columbians, you will have the benefit of initiating the plan and adopting it as your own, as you have done so many times in the past.

[4:30]

We have heard all the excuses for why we're not globally competitive. They are excuses designed to cover up your inadequacies. We as British Columbians simply don't buy the rhetoric anymore, because we know that we have all the components for a healthy industry: the people, the know-how, the passion and the resources. In the past, the excuse for forestry revenue shortfalls was the weather. Currently the Asian flu seems to be the excuse of choice. The downturn of the Asian economy seems to be making everyone sick, and no one would disagree that it is has exacerbated the situation. The truth of the matter is that there were large deficits in British Columbia long before Asia got a stomach ache.

We have experienced tough times even when times were good. Not having enjoyed banking a few reserves for the already foreseeable bad times, now we can't withstand the dynamics of these considerable market changes. The fact is that our current economic crisis is made in British Columbia as a result of the Premier's economic policies and poor management. There can be no other explanation as we witness the healthy growth in the rest of Canada while we fall even further behind.

At the end of the day, one glaring fact remains. We need a new vision, a new direction. We must change our economic modus operandi and our way of thinking about people, business and our future so we can be current with global product demand. What better way to join our global partners toward the millennium than to promote the enterprises of information and technology?

I recognize that this government mouths the words and spouts all the appropriate platitudes, but it appears to have tremendous difficulty grasping the actual concept. Perhaps it's because they recognize that in order to grasp this healthy change for all British Columbians, they'd have to embrace their dragon -- one that the rest of us so fondly refer to as free enterprise.

The Technology Industries Association's 1997 report card states what government's role should be in the development of high-tech. Government should do the following:

". . .publicly commit at the most senior levels to its long-term interest in the development of the high-technology industry in British Columbia; increase recognition at cabinet level; deal with issues that only it can, as taxation and labour matters; address the recommendations arising from the original 1995 report where progress is seen to be slow or non-existent; gather data and improve measurement so that the progress of the industry can be tracked."

I thought that by getting business together with labour and the government of this province, we could bring about the type of dialogue, understanding and circumstances that have continued to occur in the Netherlands -- the kind of understanding and community vision that instigates positive change and growth while recognizing all of our social responsibilities. As witnessed in the Netherlands, this type of dialogue has produced one of the world's most stable economies. Not so long ago, Holland faced exactly the same gloomy outlook that we in British Columbia face today: an increasing debt, comprehensive social services, high unemployment figures, and a sluggish and struggling economy. They were burdened with heavy public spending, and -- not unlike B.C. -- spending far exceeded revenue. But today the Dutch can boast the strongest economic growth in Europe and among the lowest unemployment rates. Since 1994 it has planned for and has been delivering 100,000 new jobs per year. The key to their success lay in a number of strategies that were directed by consistency and consensus and that said that emphasis must be placed on work.

It is time that B.C. started winning the war against unemployment. I would suggest that this government could learn a lesson from the Dutch model. They should sit down with business and labour and have some serious discussions. What is our Premier doing right now? Well, he's promised to revise

[ Page 6944 ]

Ideologies run deep, and sometimes this is very unfortunate, as is witnessed here in British Columbia, where the true colours of socialism shine through. The NDP simply don't get the concept of free enterprise. I always thought that freedom was a good thing. Isn't that what humanitarians and social groups fight for? Isn't that why the Wall came down? Don't we elect governments to uphold those rights? If, in our struggles to improve our lifestyles and our communities' lifestyles, we embark on economic enterprises, isn't it the responsibility of our government to facilitate those sorts of healthy ideals? Like I said, this government just doesn't get it.

It's the government's responsibility to get out of the face of business, so they can experience economic freedom and thereby stimulate and, hopefully, heal the malignant environment that is now growing. It isn't good enough to give the economic community a band-aid business-tax cut or to drop the marginal tax rate. It's not sufficient to look at the decreasing amount of regulations. Every possibility is stifled by some condition. We have witnessed this method of negotiation with the forest industry, where conditions included the creation of more jobs when there really weren't more jobs to be had -- just the reassignment of old ones and the ultimate loss of other ones. They really aren't helping business at all, and that's the bottom line.

The one thing that this government doesn't understand is that business isn't chained to B.C. If there isn't a cure for their ailments here, then they can always go elsewhere, and that is exactly what they're doing. An Angus Reid poll shows that 24 percent of Vancouver businesses are looking at moving some or all of their operations out of B.C. in the next two years. B.C. companies are shifting their corporate charters to Alberta and Ontario at a faster rate than corporations are moving to British Columbia. B.C. experienced a net outflow of 49 corporate charters in 1996. This is probably the first time in the history of storytelling when you might have Steinbeck writing: "Go east, young man." Alberta has reaped the benefits of 19,000 jobs that left B.C. because business just couldn't take it anymore.

I would like to take this time to briefly explain the future role of science and technology, as it's part of my role as critic. I'll reserve most of my comments for the estimates, but I want to talk about things that are directly affected by the climate in British Columbia today. As new technology companies develop their products, the most important next step is product promotion. Not only must a product have intrinsic utility, but for it to successfully compete at the next level there is generally a requirement for highly skilled and experienced upper-management individuals. This often means going out of province to find the human resource requirements. There are a number of factors that these individuals look for before they can be lured here. While British Columbia has no problem with its climate, amenities and attractions -- in fact, we have been voted as the most desirable place to live in Canada -- the deterrents to relocating here are high taxes, overburdening government policies and economic uncertainty. These concerns have been expressed by the Technology Industries Association. I would again like to quote from their 1997 report card.

"The TIA's view of the role of government at any level is that it should create the climate and framework within which our industry can flourish with due regard to wider social issues. This means displaying interest and leadership, communicating with the public, encouraging inward investment and ensuring that publicly funded institutions, particularly in the field of education and training, are responding to industry needs. It means working with other governments to encourage the free flow of trade and ideas. Of equal importance, it should avoid doing things that inhibit the industry -- classic examples in B.C. being the inappropriate aspects of the labour standards act and maintaining a high tax regime.

"The TIA further believes that governments should avoid short-term interventionist activities, including artificial job programs or special taxpayer-supported initiatives that tend to distort the marketplace -- in short, standing back and letting the industry create the wealth that will fund both general economic well-being and job creation in this province."

The residents of Okanagan East are not taking a lot of comfort in this throne speech, and they are no different from the rest of the province. They want secure, well-paying jobs; they want a priority placed on health care and education; they want to be safe on their streets and in their homes. These are assurances of promises offered by this current government, and they are promises that have not been met. They are only broken. Now my constituents are forced to struggle with the ramifications of inaction and misdirected efforts. The results have produced nothing more than lack of funding, lack of support, job loss and, of course, a poor climate for economic development. The foremost question I am asked by my constituents is: when will this government call an election?

J. Wilson: It gives me pleasure to stand today and address the throne speech of 1998-99. The throne speech as we know it is our guide for our supposed progress as a province for the next year. Let's take this document and dissect it a little bit. We will then be able to determine exactly what it says and where it intends to take us.

Generally speaking, it's nothing more than a bunch of political rhetoric and really has no purpose or focus. There is, however, a noticeable lack of movement from the policy and direction that's been there for the last two years. That policy and direction has taken us to last place in Canada in job creation and investment. There are a few band-aids here, but nothing that will make a difference to the course of the looming recession and depression which we are entering as a province.

[4:45]

What is not mentioned is the phony accounting system that this government uses. The dishonest, crooked way in which they try and mislead the people of this province is unacceptable. Downloading millions of dollars which are the government's responsibility to Crown corporations and municipalities is not acceptable. Falsifying government revenues through inflated dividends from Crown corporations and then forcing them to borrow money on their assets is all disguised as creative and innovative accounting.

They talk about moving forward as a province. It's actually backwards. This government is so far behind the rest of

[ Page 6945 ]

Unfortunately, none of these things are shared in common with the NDP government of British Columbia. What this government describes as having in common with other provinces is the Asian flu. They do admit that high-tech industry's growth. . . . They admit to a crumbling social safety net. Hon. Speaker, they describe listening to British Columbians as "a challenge." Can you imagine? We do realize, however, that the government is challenged. There are times when it would be more satisfying to try and pound sand into a rat hole than to try and drive information into the heads of this government. Even after meeting with industry, this government still doesn't get the picture.

I would like to quote from page 10 of the throne speech: "Above all" -- mark this -- "to generate new economic activity we must actively market our province's strengths: our rich resource base, modern infrastructure, skilled workforce, strategic location, environmental heritage and high quality of life." That sounds great. This goes to show how out of touch these people really are with the world and with what it takes to create economic activity and investment. They've been told time and time again, and they still don't get it. They must remove the corporate capital tax on all businesses, not just for big banks. We realize they do need big banks, because they have big borrowing habits. They must make income taxes competitive with the province of Alberta. They must promote labour laws that have some flexibility. The regulatory burden, which is strangling this province, must be dealt with immediately. The stonewalling by ministries must be dealt with. Attitudes must change, and ministries must work to make things happen for people who would like to come here and make investments.

Actions that the Minister of Environment is guilty of -- chasing business away from our doors -- must not happen again. Think of the audacity of promoting the high quality of life in British Columbia when we are number ten in Canada and our health care system is in disarray. Try telling that to the families of those who have died while on hospital waiting lists.

Let's take a look at the forest industry, the backbone of the British Columbia economy. What has this government done for it? They've buried it through regulatory burden and gridlock in bureaucracy. To add a deathblow, stumpage has been elevated beyond all reason. The government claims to have taken major steps to retain a competitive advantage. Then in the same breath they say: "We must do more." By their own admission, they've failed.

The Minister of Forests bragged about cutting red tape. Imagine a pile of regulations 70 feet tall just to go out and cut down a tree. That's almost twice as high as this room. What brought about all these regulations? None other than this government. Now the minister has admitted that this government is incompetent and that it is unable to do anything right. He had to cut half of these regulations. That pile of regulations is now only 35 feet tall. The minister and his staff still cannot see the forest for the paper. Perhaps they should take some lessons from Sweden, which has the leading edge in forestry in the world.

How will this government get this industry through the crisis that they have created for themselves? They'll do it with FRBC money, of course. They'll drain every last cent from that Crown, and spend it on supporting the thousands and thousands of laid-off workers. How much of that will they return to the land base for our future forests? Only a pittance, I'm sorry to say, and the future gains in productivity will be lost forever.

Let's look at the oil and gas industry. This government has finally paid lip service to it and admitted that it needs some breaks. Don't hold your breath, hon. Speaker. This government won't live long enough to see any increased revenue from that industry. Seismic activity is practically nonexistent in the province at this time, and it takes two years after your seismic work is completed to start any new wells. Incidentally, this throne speech must have been written sometime ago or else it's a rerun of last year's speech, because they describe the industry to be in a state of strong growth. Anyone can tell you that the gas and oil industry took a major downturn five months ago.

Let's look at mining. Can you tell me how this government will support new and existing operations in the province when they have basically all ceased to exist? In my riding, Cariboo North, mining has been almost totally wiped out by this government. They buried the placer industry a few years back and now our two copper mines are in the process of shutting down -- Mount Polley and Gibraltar -- and the Kinross goldmine has closed down. This will put over 900 people out of work. It's sad.

And wouldn't you know it? Now tourism has become the cornerstone of our economy. One out of every eight British Columbians is now employed in tourism; employed in a job that could be best described as minimum-wage seasonal work -- far from family-supporting jobs.

We have another saving grace in this province that they call the movie industry, which is what the government would have us believe. A few months ago I watched a movie on TV; the title was The Rancher Takes a Wife. It just happened to catch my interest because I'm familiar with the theme. It was a story about Rich Hobson and Pan Phillips and Frontier Cattle Co. in the west Chilcotin of the thirties. Part of the holdings of Frontier Cattle Co. is a place that we own today. I personally know Pan and his family and have known them for many years. It was interesting that the setting for the home ranch was fairly close to the actual setting. However, some things were missing. I didn't see any jack pine; I didn't see any spruce; I didn't see any aspen. What I did see was some maple and some oak. It turns out that Ontario was privileged as the production site of this movie, when this is a part of British Columbia's heritage. It makes one wonder how much one can believe the Premier when he starts to talk about how well the movie industry is doing in this province.

We have a new Ministry of Fisheries, which I don't hold out a lot of hope for. It's a great political football, and it will probably allow the DFO to continue on a course of mismanagement, along with a few provincial people.

They address our infrastructure, which desperately needs to be overhauled. More school funding -- $72 per pupil. When the actual facts are known, only about $7 per pupil will actually get into the classroom. Imagine. The rest goes to salaries and benefits. Some school districts are actually going to experience cuts in funding, so the facts as presented were actually pretty distorted for some of the school districts.

[ Page 6946 ]

[5:00]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Work programs for students as established by this Premier are nothing more than a farce. And this year is simply a repeat of the past two years. In order for a program to be effective, it must be in place a year in advance, in order that students can apply and get a job when they get out in the spring. What will happen here is simply this: we'll be debating this in the House while the students should be working. By the time anything happens, the fall semester will have started -- terrible planning and, once again, no jobs for the students that need them.

There is one area where our exports have really picked up, and that's the area of trained graduates from universities. If you're in the job market and you graduate, you can usually count on leaving the province of British Columbia to find employment. It's really sad. Shame on this government for its recession-creating policies!

Let's look at health care. This government makes misleading statements about health care, and then they brag about ensuring a good health care system. Well, excuse me, hon. Speaker, for being cynical, but try telling that to the families of people who are dying while on waiting lists in this province under a two-tiered NDP health care system.

Everywhere you look, it's the same dismal picture. We in this province have now hit number one in crime in Canada, all because of this government and their blatant disregard for the laws of this province. It should come as no surprise. In my riding, the village of Horsefly is in desperate need of an RCMP detachment. This province is ignoring the problem, as they do with most other problems that arise.

We'll move on to the environment. What can you say about that? Well, it's cost us 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in revenue.

There are a few carrots in this throne speech for the people of British Columbia. There are tax reductions next year -- not now, when needed. When next year comes, you can bet your last dime that new taxes or at least increases will more than offset the revenue loss of those rate freezes. And what of that? "If we don't allow huge rate increases," the government says, "we're actually saving you hundreds of dollars." How gullible does this government think the taxpayers really are?

The past record of this government is one of dismal failure. And here they are, holding it up as a measure of success and carrying on down the same path. We're accused of preaching nothing but doom and gloom, and rightly so. But if they would only listen, I would like to offer them a bit of advice. This is very good advice.

This government must attack this deficit and remove it, and they can accomplish this by passing our truth-in-budgeting legislation and our balanced-budget legislation. This government must attack the policies that are driving investment from our province by removing the corporate capital tax on all businesses -- not just on the big banks -- and it must put the tax on business and the personal income tax on a competitive level with our neighbouring province. This government must attack its policies on labour legislation and make them more flexible. This government must attack, in all seriousness, the regulatory burden placed on business and on the resource industries in this province. This government must attack itself and deal with its ministries to become user-friendly, to work for the people -- not chase business away from the door as we are now witnessing with the Ministry of Environment. These are some of the things that this government must focus on and attack immediately.

What is this government focused on, and where do they continually aim their attacks? On the opposition, of course. And why is this the case, hon. Speaker? Because they know that what they are doing to this province is wrong. They are continually doing damage control, and they do everything they can to avoid scrutiny for their indefensible actions.

This Premier knows that the opposition is much more knowledgable and better able to govern than they are. That is why this government expends all its time, energy and money on attacking the opposition, in an effort to take the focus off their own total incompetence and inability to do anything right. We can thank this government for their admission, by their inaction and their constant attack, that we are indeed the government-in-waiting.

V. Anderson: It's the sixth day of the throne speech debate. It's been a difficult six days, hon. Speaker, but I rise today to continue the discussion and to speak to you and to the members of this Legislature, and particularly to the people of British Columbia.

I reviewed the throne speech of 1998, but I also went back and reviewed the throne speech of 1997. That was the first mandate of the new, young, so-called innovative Premier. I thought that if we reviewed the throne speech of 1997, which we can see the results of, we would have some indication of what would be happening in 1998.

In 1997 -- that's over a year ago -- four clear commitments were set out. In my opinion, none of them was fulfilled. The first of these -- and I quote, to remind people of that commitment -- was "the opportunity to work at decent-paying, family-supporting wages." If you put the emphasis on wages, you will discover that most of the people in this province have had a decrease in wages over this past year. And at the same time, if you talk about the opportunity to work, that has once again drastically decreased throughout the province over this year. There are not the jobs in the woods; there are not the jobs in fishing; there are not the jobs in shops or businesses throughout the province. There are lots of statistics available to us every day to confirm these facts. Unemployment is up. Despair is up. Uncertainty is up. And income for almost everyone is down.

The second commitment was "education to ensure our children have the skills they need to compete in the global economy." We all know the pressures on our education system. Our education system has not kept up with the growing number of students in this province who are seeking education at all levels. We are very aware of the disturbing restructuring that has taken place, which has not produced the desired results either in savings or in educational improvements. Teachers, principals, parents and students all tell us

[ Page 6947 ]

There is a concern in the construction field about people being deskilled -- that is, getting a very narrow skill that is not transferable to other jobs and has no lasting benefit for the future.

A third commitment in 1997 was "a health care system that ensures all of our citizens -- particularly our seniors and children -- have the care they need when they need it." The truth is that we all know that in every part of this province health care is more uncertain than it has ever been. The waiting lists are long; even to go to a doctor and get a diagnosis there's a long waiting list. Once you've been to the doctor for that diagnosis, then there is another long waiting list for going to the specialist. And once you've been to the specialist, there's a long waiting list for many of the services or the operations that you might need. Nurses are overworked; hospitals attendants are under great pressure; emergency wards are crowded even when they are open. There is a growing fear and uncertainty that when I have need of it or anyone else in this province has need of it, the services that we have counted on will not be available.

There's a question: why? Why has this good system, which we have known and been proud of in B.C. for so long, been downgraded? We know the answer: the actions of this government, the restructuring attempts of this government, the regulations of this government and their philosophy of unionization.

The fourth commitment was "a world-class standard of environmental protection." Yes, we moved in the direction of environmental protection, and there's no doubt that protection was needed in many ways. There's agreement in all sectors of the community about that. But this government has tackled the problem at the cost of the well-being of businesses that were involved in environmental protection of communities and families. While pretending to save the environment, the process has destroyed communities and the people who live in them. A middle ground has yet to be found, and it must ever be sought out. But there is no confidence that this government will be able to find that middle ground or that it would even be philosophically agreeable, if they could find it.

There was also a fifth commitment by that young Premier in 1997: "My government is committed to these priorities in the context of prudent financial management. . . ." What a hoax! We all know that we have not had prudent financial management. We all know that our deficits are up, our debt is up, and the services provided by the available funds are down.

[5:15]

It may have been the intention of this government to fulfil these five promises, but it has not been the reality. So when we look at the 1998 throne speech, we look at it in the context and the experience of the last year and the years since 1991. I'm afraid that we are not optimistic. Let's read the statement of the vision in the 1998 throne speech: "Our people share a vision of a province that is building, growing and creating opportunities for all British Columbians; a province that in the twenty-first century enjoys an economy as vibrant as its people; where everyone has the chance to succeed, where no one is left behind, and where our young people can look to a future second to none." It's great vision -- but again, a hoax.

Let's look at that vision. Yes, the people of B.C. have a vision, and even at this point they're still hopeful that something can be salvaged from the vision they have been promised. They know full well that this is not a province that is currently creating new opportunities with the speed that is needed. Rather, we are losing the opportunities that we already had, as businesses, families and professionals are moving out of the province rather than moving in.

We hope that in the coming century we will have a vibrant economy. But how is it that when the rest of Canada, and indeed the rest of North America, is moving ahead -- out of difficult times into prosperous times -- British Columbia is going in the opposite direction, moving out of prosperous times into more difficult times? It is not promising unless we have major changes, and past experience does not give us any hope that this government will change in the manner that is needed. Unfortunately, there is not a feeling in British Columbia at the moment that everyone will have the chance to succeed unless they leave the province.

To say that no one is left behind in this province is simply misleading, for thousands of people are being left behind. Unemployment is going up. Opportunities are disappearing, and this is not only for those who have good health, able bodies and efficient skills. It's even more so for those with disabilities and those with educational and health disadvantages.

Whole communities have lost their major industries, some of them never to be replenished again. Where do they go, and what do they do? Last weekend I visited the workers sitting in the yard of the closed Eburne mill, about six blocks from my Vancouver-Langara office in the city of Vancouver. That mill closed at the end of March. They do not know where they will go or what they will do -- some 200 workers displaced, along with their families. It was not a cheerful sight, to meet and talk with them.

What about our young people? Seventeen percent of our young people -- or an average, perhaps, of 20 and 30 percent in some of our communities -- are without the opportunity to work, even when they have the education and skills to do so. The ones who are still striving to get an education are doing so at a financial cost, with loans they will be carrying for years. When they are not in school, there are no jobs for them to earn the money they need to carry them forth into the years of education. The promise of a future second to none does not seem, to them, to be a feasible opportunity at this time.

In the current symbolic language of our communities, the throne speech sounds like the public relations for the unsinkable Titanic. But we know all too well that though it was unsinkable and though it had good PR and lots of public relations, it sank just the same when the iceberg got in its way. The vision of this government is up against the same reality in our province. As a result, the province is going down and down, and all of us are going with it. Did we notice that on the Titanic most of the people on the top decks -- that is, the more well-to-do -- and the middle class that this government has been meeting with. . . ? The high-paying passengers were more likely to get off safely. Even though they had hardships,

[ Page 6948 ]

This symbolic comparison is what is happening to the people of our province, and it's obvious. Opportunities are still available in our province for some people, but certainly not for all -- and for fewer and fewer daily. The economy is vibrant for those who are in control, but not for those who must depend upon others for their livelihood. There are a few who have a chance to succeed. Others, if fortunate, will be able to survive, but many will have lifelong disabilities and disadvantages as a result. Many will be left behind altogether, especially the young and those with disabilities.

Yes, the realities of this budget and of this throne speech present a bleak future unless we, the citizens of the province, wake up, take control of the ship and steer it on a different course.

When I am in the community I am asked almost daily when we, the opposition, are going to overthrow this government. That's a good question, but it is in some ways the wrong question. The real question which I put to the citizens of British Columbia is: when are the citizens of B.C. going to overthrow this government? The citizens of B.C. elected this government, and in the final analysis, it is only the citizens who can un-elect them. Let us hear, from across this province, vocal calls from the public for an urgent election.

Yes, there is an important task for the opposition. It is to help the citizens of B.C. understand that the promises made in 1991 and 1996 by these government members are not going to be fulfilled. Further, I say thank goodness that they're not going to be fulfilled, for we're discovering now that the promises that looked good during the election are a continuing disaster beyond our understanding when put into practice by these members.

We have discovered that what they say and our understanding of that. . .

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .are two different things.

V. Anderson: . . .are two different things. That's exactly it, for what they say and what they do are two different things. We are in a situation such that when promises are made by this government, they mean something completely different from what we normally understand in the modern English language. We're in a situation where if we continue to use our meanings and believe what they say, we're continually going to be disappointed and will find out our mistake too late. This throne speech, like the one before it, contains a series of misleading promises. If the promises are fulfilled, we will find that we have been led where we, as citizens of this province, did not expect to go and where we did not want to go.

Let me clarify our mistake in confronting this government. The promises that they have made, they intend to keep. That's the rub. The promises they make are taken in a direction that is the opposite of where we would understand them to go, and that is our problem. When they say that the debt and deficit are good, they mean it. To them, the ends justify the means. For them to spend our money on their ideology is a good thing, and this is exactly what they are doing. Why are we surprised? That's what they said they would do, as long as we go along with it.

In the last session of this Legislature, they brought forth much of the legislation that they had promised. Along with others, we fought against those aspects of it which were most disastrous to this province. But it was when the citizens of the province banded together and pressured the government -- on the streets of the province and even on the street of the Legislature -- that it pulled back, responded to the demands of the people and pulled its legislation off the books.

Let us remember what happened in 1991. It is not surprising that one of the first acts of this government was to do what they said they would do and change the Labour Code. They changed the philosophical bent of the Labour Code from supporting unions -- a good thing in itself -- to promoting unions over and above everything else. This is what they promised, and this is what they are doing. They have been doing it ever since: helping the big unions and threatening the small unions.

To take it to the logical extreme from their point of view, this means forming bigger and stronger unions, taking over the small and weak unions and replacing the volunteers in our society with union members. This is not what we meant, and this is not what the people of the province wanted. This is not even what many of the union members expected or wanted. Even now the smaller unions are fighting back against the pressure put upon them, and the volunteer societies are fighting back, but without the awareness of the public as to what is happening. Our situation is becoming more tragic each day. The end result is that self-perpetuating unions support the government, and the government supports self-perpetuating unions. The rest, the majority, are left outside of this growing power base -- that is, until we wake up and do something about it. The situation is urgent and time is short.

[5:30]

Take, for instance, the Ministry for Children and Families. It has been, as opposition members are aware, our concern ever since we were elected in 1991. Children and families, under Social Services and Human Resources, were not well treated or cared for, and we fought long and hard for changes. Like others in the province, we were pleased to see the Ministry for Children and Families formed. Contained within the legislation were some very excellent principles. Even though we had misgivings about some of the elements of the legislation, on the whole it seemed to be going in the right direction.

But look at what has happened. It has become a disaster. The disaster was created in part by the Premier himself. According to him, the mandate was that the process must be put in place within one year's time -- an impossible undertaking. From the point of view of this government, it appeared possible, because all that was required was to reorganize the union mandates. This is what they did in Health -- at least, this is what they attempted in Health. They organized the union agreements and gave protection to union members, but they failed to give protection to the patients, the children and the families, and all others in the province. In all three cases -- in Health, in Education, and in Children and Families -- they have put out non-union workers, efficient and effective as they might be. They have commandeered the volunteers and said: "Our way or no way."

Our problem at the moment is that if we give these government members any support at all, they will misuse it

[ Page 6949 ]

We have seen it happen here. Up till now we have simply called it patronage, but in B.C. it has become far more than that. It is an ill-conceived program for control. It is having one's own spies, if you like, in every level of government, in every community, in every organization and in every activity at every level of society. The effect is then that others are dominated and intimidated and afraid to speak out. Across our province we have found this again and again. And more every day, people are intimidated and afraid to speak out. This is what has happened in B.C., and this is the real message of the throne speech, both last year and in the current year.

The youth will be recruited and paid for by the government to do the government's bidding. And if they don't, they will be out of a job. Every business that doesn't fulfill the government's mandate will not get government support or government contracts or perhaps a forest license. Every non-profit that does not knuckle under will not get a contract; and besides, regulations will prevent them from operating, and the people they serve will suffer. Oh yes, that's what's happening here in our province.

One of the cabinet ministers has been very upfront about it in saying that the government can do anything it likes -- and he meant it. The trouble is that we didn't catch on to the full implications. The throne speeches of 1998 and 1997 are both a hoax. It's important that we the citizens of B.C. stand up and put forth our own vision, because we want a vision where there's freedom, where there's opportunity and where there's participation. That's the kind of freedom that we as a community must build together, with a wide-open view where everyone can participate, rather than being dictated to by the ideology of a group that has a very closed and limited view.

G. Bowbrick: Before I get to the main body of my remarks on the Speech from the Throne, I'd like to take issue with something the hon. member just spoke about with regard to the Eburne mill. The member says that he went and sat down with some of the workers. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Would you take your seat for a moment. All members know that conversations and any comments made are to be from their seats.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. members, no further comments are required. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

G. Bowbrick: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The member who just spoke said he went down to the Eburne mill and talked with some of the employees. Gee, I want to congratulate the member on that, because I don't know what else his caucus did to help those workers. I can tell this House that this government intervened to help those workers. I can tell this House that a week and a half ago I was sitting in the living room of one of those workers who lives right on my street. And I can tell this House that that worker reported to me how happy the workers down at that mill are that this government had the courage to intervene. The Premier intervened. Other members on this side of the House -- the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. . . . There's a myriad of us who have workers from that mill in our ridings. We intervened. I am confident that it will come to a successful conclusion, and I can say. . . . The member opposite said workers didn't know where they were going to go. Well, I can tell him that that neighbour of mine is confident that he will be employed at another Canfor mill in short order, thanks to the actions of this government.

One of the things about politics that's often hard to take is that in this House and in Victoria what we sit in is a whirlwind of cynicism. It can make politics very difficult at times. We all know that negative emotions can sap an awful lot of energy, and it strikes me that cynicism does just that. I've sat in this House for the last hour and a half. I've listened to opposition members speaking, and it's negative, negative, negative -- "The sky is falling" -- and simplistic: "Government is bad; opposition is good." You know, hon. Speaker, I don't know anyone who's that simple-minded. And I won't insult the people of this province by engaging in that kind of a debate. That kind of debate does nothing to further the goals of British Columbians, nothing whatsoever. The people I've talked to every single week on the doorsteps in my community since the budget -- you name the week -- don't appreciate that. They're realistic. They know better than that.

Now I'd like to take just a few minutes to talk about some of the. . . . During the debate around the budget speech, I spoke in general terms about what it takes -- the compromises that go into making a budget. I won't rehash that. I'd like to address a few things in the throne speech which are a little more specific to my community of New Westminster. There are, of course, general advantages arising out of the throne speech -- and the budget, for that matter -- when it comes to tax cuts. They will be phased in over time, but they will benefit small business people. They will benefit individuals. The people I talk to on the streets, on the doorsteps in my community and on the phone understand. They're a realistic lot. They understand that not everything can be done now; that would be completely unrealistic.

You know, I've had discussions with a small business person in my community who said: "Look, there is too much red tape." I agree with him. That's why I applaud the Minister of Small Business, who will be undertaking a review of red tape. I mean, who on earth realistically. . . .? The opposition will stand up and suggest that this government's in favour of red tape. Well, who on earth really stands up and says red tape is a good thing? That's just patent nonsense. Red tape is the result of bureaucracies -- accumulation of bureaucracy over years and years. The small business person I talked to

[ Page 6950 ]

We'll be bringing in tax incentives for the film industry. That's an important thing. Every week when I go for runs in my community and go down through the Queen's Park area, almost every time I see filming going on. It's important that we keep that business here in British Columbia.

One of the other things mentioned in the throne speech is a theme park and the possible movement of the PNE either to the New Westminster-Coquitlam area or to Surrey. Now, this is major private sector investment which I would suggest is the result of an activist government and a Premier that actually seek out private investment. We have Landmark Entertainment coming up from California and saying that they want to make an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in the lower mainland that will create thousands and thousands of jobs in construction as well as thousands of jobs in the operation of the theme park. That's a good thing; it's the type of thing that will benefit my community directly. Even if it doesn't end up being located right in New Westminster, it's quite possible that it will be right across the river in Surrey, where the auto wreckers are right now. That will mean a boom in tourism in New Westminster; it'll mean new hotels in New Westminster; it'll mean jobs for people in New Westminster. I know that the people of New Westminster are very supportive of that. The opposition, of course, has been silent on it. It hasn't had anything to say about it. You know, there is a role for activist government to seek out investment.

The LRT line, a $1.1 billion investment, will run from Vancouver to Coquitlam and New Westminster. It's important for economic development. It focuses development in a way that will be environmentally sustainable -- higher density along the corridor of the LRT. It will improve transportation, which is a huge issue in my constituency. It will improve transit, and that's vitally important to the people I represent.

[5:45]

When it comes to women in New Westminster, two days ago we announced a new transition house. That was in the throne speech. That's an indication of the fundamental commitment that we in this government make to women. It was only with this government that we actually saw a stand-alone ministry for women's equality and a minister specifically for that purpose. I congratulate my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality for advocating for that. Now the women of New Westminster will have a new transition house, so women and children who are trying to flee abusive circumstances will have a place to go. That's a progressive thing; that's a good thing for my community. I'm proud to say that it's the type of thing -- contrary to the naysaying on the other side. . . . Even my local media are very, very positive about these things. I'm certainly fortunate to live in a community that is that positive.

Finally, I'd like to touch upon the issue of leaky condos, which is an issue I have raised in this House before. To my dismay, it was never raised by any members of the opposition before today. Why is that? I can't figure that out. I've known. I represent the people of New Westminster; it's a huge problem in New Westminster. I spoke on this problem a year ago. I've been working with my colleagues on this side of the House, the ministers responsible for this issue, and we have significant announcements to come on this. I just don't understand where the opposition has been. They don't come forward until they see it as a hot issue politically. That is the height of cynicism.

I began my remarks by talking about the whirlwind of cynicism that we have in this House. I have to conclude that the reason the opposition didn't care about this issue until now is because they're an opposition that accepted $1 million in donations from developers who helped to build some of those condos. It's outrageous. I don't think there's a real sense of vision, a real sincere commitment on the part of this opposition to help those people. I've been working on their behalf for a year now. Where was the opposition? Nowhere to be seen until today.

We're going to be moving ahead, and the people in my community don't say the government should just pay for everything. They're not that unrealistic. They say that every level of government has something to contribute. The provincial government can bring in a mandatory warranty program. Maybe the federal government has something to contribute. Maybe cities should do better inspections. But first and foremost, why should taxpayers be bailing out the developers who have ripped off the people in my community and other communities around this province? Why should taxpayers do that? We're going to find a way to help those people, and I'm proud of that. It shows a sincere commitment on this side of the House.

Hon. Speaker, in just a few minutes I have touched very briefly on some of the great things that will come out of this throne speech: a new transition house, a new middle school. . . . We're going to help people with a leaky-condo problem. We're going to help young people who are facing problems seeking employment this summer. We're going to do all those things for people in my community. I'm proud of that. I'm proud to support what came out of this throne speech.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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