[ Page 10619 ]

J. Dalton: To follow up on what my colleague just said, why couldn't we have had Bill 51? It could have been the Human Tissue Gift Act, or it could have been this mess and Bill 50 could have been the Human Tissue Gift Act.

I'm a fan of spaghetti westerns, hon. Speaker. In fact, maybe one of them is running right now on one of those American channels. Of course, the best spaghetti western of all is The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Well, here you are, hon. Speaker: the good, the bad and the ugly. The good, of course, my colleagues have commented on. If we could take the Human Tissue Gift Act, the first section of this bill, and park that in a different piece of this legislative agenda, we could deal with that separately as a very good piece of legislation. But when you go further into Bill 50, you get to the bad parts, such as the gutting of the Utilities Commission. There are all sorts of other things. As I'll be talking about, for the most part, in my remarks this morning, the really ugly parts are in sections 42 and 43: the gutting of one's right to take civil action against the government or anyone else of your choice, because this government got into the glue trying to raid the charity cookie jar. They got caught, and God bless Jacques Carpentier and others like him. When they got caught, they then had to reverse their field.

It's a shameful thing to think that a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, the Attorney General, would bring in this bill and stand up, as he did -- I guess it was yesterday, now -- and defend this. I'm hoping that perhaps some of the members opposite, who are in fact lawyers or have been lawyers, might be prepared to get to their feet and address the gutting of one's civil rights. I think the members opposite, at least the legal ones, should be heard -- for or against, whichever way they care to speak. We should certainly hear from those people, but I rather doubt that we're going to.

Let's examine the concerns that I have about the lottery provisions and the retroactivity. Before I get to that, I just want to review some other legislation that we've dealt with this session, which is also rather ugly -- maybe not quite as ugly as this, but getting close. Bill 39, which we dealt with just yesterday, is of course an ugly end to collective bargaining in this province. It's very convenient for the government to bring the BCTF executive into the Premier's back room and say: "Well, guys, we got a deal." Isn't that wonderful? That's the end of collective bargaining, and it's also the end of school boards. Those are two very bad things in Bill 39.

Bills 35 and 46 are the end of affordable housing, two bills that add $4,000 to $5,000 to the price of a new home. When unemployment is reaching all-time highs, when the youth of this province would like to stay here and get jobs and get into their first homes, what does this government do? It says: "Don't worry about the economic impact. We'll whack another $5,000 onto the price of a home -- good luck, if you can afford it." Well, of course, people can't.

I needn't remind the members opposite and the hon. Speaker of the lengthy hours or in fact the weeks in which we addressed Bill 26. That's the end of our economy in that bill.

Then there's Bill 40, although it was dumped. I'll give the government credit for that. But I think we can say that Bill 40 and Bill 14 are the end of red tape -- at least that was part of their intention. They were going to end red tape. Did those two bills accomplish that? Quite the opposite. Bill 40 would have been a horror story in the environmental assessment field. There would have been environmental agencies on every street corner -- more so than Starbucks. If Bill 14 didn't contribute big-time to red tape, I don't know what did. On the one hand, in the throne speech and in the budget, the government said they were going to reduce and eliminate red tape. Then they bring in these two bills -- one of which they did dump -- which further contributed to the red-tape problem in this province.

Hon. Speaker, you see the series of bills. Quite frankly, this government, when it retreats with its tail between its legs at the end of this session, is going to look back and ask: "How did we ever get tangled up in those bills?" To top it off, on a sunny summer Friday morning, on private members' day, the Attorney General casually saunters into the House at 10 o'clock and says:" Well, hon. members, I've got Bill 50. Don't worry about it; it's housekeeping. We'll soon be out of here -- no problem." So that's Bill 50, the final blow in a very insidious session.

As we talk about the retroactivity and the deprivation of one's legal rights to take action against the government in particular or anyone else who these two sections, 42 and 43, deal with, it's important that we listen to some of the people from the legal community, who have predictably raised the red flag of caution. In fact, it's far more than caution. I was going to say it's the red flag of retreat, but I guess that's the wrong colour for a retreat.

Trudi Brown, the treasurer of the Law Society -- if that isn't somebody we should listen to on Bill 50, I don't know who we would be listening to. She had a letter in the Province on July 27, which was only a couple of days ago. Ms. Brown, as the head of the Law Society, commented on the deprivation of access to our justice system that Bill 50 is dealing with. I won't read the entire letter. People can look it up; it's in the clips; just go and grab it when you can.

"The rule of law directs legislation to speak prospectively rather than after the fact. Retroactive legislation may be used legitimately where an act or a law unintentionally creates an unacceptable effect or loophole" -- unintentionally, hon. Speaker, that's the emphasis -- "but it is not meant to shield lawbreakers, no matter who they happen to be, cover up mistakes or wrongdoing, or deny citizens their fundamental right to seek recompense through the courts."

That's what this government has done in this rather sneaky attempt -- a very superficial sneaky attempt -- to bring in the last bill of the session: it's just housekeeping. I can remember previous Attorneys General -- not in this parliament, because we've only had one AG in this parliament -- in previous parliaments who've done similar things with miscellaneous bills: housekeeping measures. I consider it, quite frankly, a great deal more than housekeeping to deprive citizens of their lawful right to access to the courts. That is much more than mere housekeeping.

It is also ironic when I see people like Trudi Brown commenting about access to justice. What else have we seen about the justice moves of this government? We've seen them close courthouses. There's a good move towards access to justice. We've seen them increase court fees, which have doubled and tripled in some cases. They're denying access from a fiscal and a physical point of view by closing the doors and jacking up the fees, and now they're turning around and

[ Page 10620 ]

This bill, of course, is a bill of denial as well as a bill of denying access. The NDP knows well about denial, denying the bingo proceeds to charities -- and I will comment in more detail on Bingogate -- and denying any responsibility in the fallout of that deprivation of charitable assets. And the government must be reminded of this: failing to honour its promise to repay the money that was taken from the charities in Nanaimo. I'm wondering if the Premier is tuned in as we speak this morning, because he was on record making a commitment that his party would repay the money. Has that happened? I'm not aware that it has. We have denial, and we have the failure to honour commitments. What more do we need to say about this government? It's denial after denial.

Of course, there have been newspaper articles, editorials and letters flying back and forth about Bill 50, and God bless the people of British Columbia and the media. Even though we're here at the tail end of July, in probably record-breaking temperatures of almost all time for this summer, we see headlines such as the one in the Surrey Leader of June 28: "Legislation 'Loss of Democracy.' " That's how they describe Bill 50 -- actually, they're not describing Bill 50, because it hadn't come in yet, but it could have been applicable. They were actually talking about Bill 39.

I've already talked about Bill 39. That's the one that we just put through two days ago in this House. As I said -- just to remind the members, because sometimes they get these numbers mixed up -- that's the one that denied the Public School Employers Association the right to collectively bargain with its employees, the BCTF. They were cut out of the action in another deprivation of one's legal rights. It's also very ironic that this government, which claims to be the government of labour and the people, would actually deprive a legitimate organization of the right to bargain collectively with employees. That's very sad.

I've gone through Bill 50 in some detail from the point of view of. . . . Not only do we have a loss of accountability through these particular sections I've commented on -- sections 42 and 43 -- and also some loss of legislative authority, which in a way the entire bill creates. . . . When you look at some of the sections of Bill 50, you will see that there's a tremendous amount of regulatory authority created and permitted by Bill 50.

In fact, I will list them. There are quite a few sections in this bill that allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to create regulations coming out of what we will do if we pass this bill: sections 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 45. That's half the bill. In half of this bill, there's some regulatory authority created. In other words, if we pass this insidious piece of paper here, we're not only going to let this government loose to do as it pleases, as it does. . . . As we know, in the infamous words of the Minister of Forests -- and I don't need to remind this House of those. . . .

[2:45]

J. Dalton: Apparently he said something like: "Government can do anything it wants." That was the lead in the Vancouver Sun editorial about a week ago. The man has become famous in his own time. It may be chiseled on his tombstone. Who knows? But back to the issue.

The government has created an entire, massive legislative program here -- not legislative as such, but regulatory. It will never, of course, be able to debate those things, because those are done through order-in-council. I should add that there's also one section, section 3, that allows the delegation of authority, so they're not only dumping a lot of it into OICs but also creating delegation of authority in section 3 of this bill.

You have to wonder what we are here for when we sit in this chamber. I don't know what the government's here for. Maybe that's a question they'd like to answer, but I guess we might consider that this place is just the Premier's playpen and that he just sets it up for his own purpose as and when he pleases. We know, when we look back on this session -- and I guess it's appropriate, even though we do have some other bills to deal with before we adjourn for the summer or the fall, or whenever we get around to it -- that this government has brought in bill after bill this session, with grand titles attached.

Bill 50 doesn't have a grand title; it's just a miscellaneous statutes bill. We've seen the Homeowner Protection Act. There's a grand title. Did it protect any homeowners?

R. Thorpe: The homeowner taxation act.

J. Dalton: As my colleague from Penticton says, it was the homeowner taxation act -- and that's what it should have been called. But it had a grand title.

Remember Bill 14, hon. Speaker? It was an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act, but they had to call it the occupational health and safety act -- put that in brackets because that has a grand title. How could anyone argue or vote against occupational health and safety? Well, of course, it was a red-tape bill. That's what that one was.

The Environment Management Amendment Act, which was Bill 40, got dumped. They gave it a grand title and spun that around for a bit until the Minister of Environment -- in case nobody caught it -- made some rather uncomplimentary remarks about her staff after she'd dumped that bill. It was the subject of an editorial comment in the Vancouver Sun the other day, so people might want to reread that one. It's rather unfortunate that the Minister of Environment felt that a bill with her name on the title, which had been brought through the cabinet, was the fault of her staff.

What's happening here? Does this government not take any credit for its mismanagement? It has to blame its staff, and that's very shameful. Another bill with a grand title is the Business Paper Reduction Act. Boy, did we vote for that or against it, or is it still out there? It's a great title, and you've got to support the title. What do we see this government actually doing through these grand titles and miscellaneous statutes? Of course, what they're actually doing is legislating rights and opportunities that the citizens of British Columbia used to enjoy. . . .

The critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston, made a very good point, quite frankly, predicting that there will be lawsuits coming out of sections 42 and 43. I guarantee it. People like Jacques Carpentier are not going to stand back and allow this government to say: "Oh, by the way, your right to take civil action is gone, and it's retroactive for 12 years." It's nonsense. And then they disguise their responsibility with committees and commissions and misleading legislation. I've already commented on some of the bills, such as Bill 46 and Bill 26 -- the infamous Labour Code amendment -- and Bill 14, the occupational health and safety bill. So they messed everything up.

They started off this session by saying, "We're going to reduce red tape," and everything they've done since that day

[ Page 10621 ]

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Well, maybe these guys should take some oath too. I'm wondering, when the cabinet ministers get sworn in, what oath they take. Do they take an oath to preserve the rights of the citizens of this province? I hope they do. One day we in the opposition, of course, will get the opportunity to see what that oath of office is all about. It will be soon.

Hon. Speaker, I want to get into the Bingogate thing, because I've got files on my desk in the office. . . . I could probably speak for hours on that, given that it's a sordid thing that goes right back to 1992, when the class of '91 first entered these hallowed halls, and was one of the first things that the Liberal opposition dealt with. The Attorney General, in his second reading remarks -- those were last night. . . . I noted the time, but it doesn't matter. He made a comment about charities at risk. He was defending sections 42 and 43, and he did the same thing in question period the other day. He was defending those provisions by saying that it is possible that charities might be sued, so he had to do this to preserve the charities. Well, as other colleagues have mentioned, there isn't any lawsuit on record against a charity. There are all sorts of lawsuits with charities going after the government, but it ain't going the other way.

Charities at risk -- well, isn't that the truth, hon. Speaker. That brings me to Bingogate -- the government's favourite little sordid chapter in a rather sordid history: Bingogate, Nanaimogate, Stupichgate, whatever you want to call it. In 1992 this thing was first brought to this House. Again, we must give credit to Jacques Carpentier, because he's the champion of all these causes; he's the whistle-blower. He's a gentleman in Nanaimo, and he's still up there bugging this government -- and God bless him. He's the one who alerted the press and the opposition to the potential scandal which we now know as Bingogate.

British Columbia Report magazine had an interesting cover -- I've got it hanging on the wall in my office -- dealing with Bingogate. The article on June 15, 1992, was: "Holier Than Whom?" There's a picture of Dave Stupich; I think he's before the courts now. And there's a picture of the former Premier, Mike Harcourt, who, of course, resigned because of Bingogate. Oh, I could go on. There are other people pictured in this: I see in this article the former Attorney General, Colin Gabelmann; the then Finance minister -- guess what position he occupies now. . .

An Hon. Member: Tell us.

J. Dalton: He's the Premier.

. . .and his mentor, Bob Williams. They are all pictured and featured in this article.

I won't go into the detail of the article; that's for another time, perhaps. But let's go on and look at some other things about Bingogate as it proceeded through this House, through media scrutiny and, most importantly, through the courts. The courts, of course. . . . The theme of my discussion here this morning is the deprivation of access to the courts. That's the issue before us.

May 4, 1994: "Charges Announced Against Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and Three Related Societies." So they caught up to four societies, but unfortunately, at that time, they didn't catch up to any human beings -- who, of course, as we know, had to be behind the societies. This press release goes on. . . . This is from the criminal justice branch. It comments on the societies -- what they are and what they allegedly did. Special prosecutor Ace Henderson, who is now a justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, made some comments, and we proceeded. . . . As we know, eventually those things got into court, and of course the societies were fined. That's all you can do with a society; you can't pack it off to jail. You could lift its licence, I suppose, but basically all you can do, from a penalty point of view, is impose a fine and then hope you can collect it. That becomes another problem with some. That was 1994.

In 1995 all sorts of things were going on. I'll have time to comment on a few of them. On June 5, 1995, the then Finance minister, Elizabeth Cull, gave a ministerial statement in the House. She did so because the Parks report hit the public airways and caused a bit of a problem. That report actually drifted through cabinet before the public got to read it. That's why Ms. Cull gave her statement in the House on June 5. She got into some detail about the background as to why this report was produced in cabinet before it actually became the subject of public scrutiny. She gave a rather feeble excuse, but that's all right. She's not here to defend herself, so we won't go into that detail.

I gave a response, as the then critic for the Attorney General, and among other things on that day, I made the following comment: "This is a travesty -- a complete travesty. It's a denial of justice. This government should be ashamed." I am, of course, referring to the handling of the Parks report, but I could say the same comments -- and I'm reading them into the record right now -- about sections 42 and 43 of Bill 50, which we're dealing with. I went on, at the time, to say: "This is a cover-up, another cover-up of this sordid mess." The sordid mess I was referring to then was Bingogate and the entire way it was handled, or mishandled.

There were other things of interest in '95. On June 16 a special prosecutor was named to investigate, following the Parks report -- the report that I referred to already, on which Elizabeth Cull made her ministerial statement. They appointed a special prosecutor to look into the circumstances of the handling of the Parks report.

On November 16, 1995, the Liberal opposition, through our then critic, the member for Matsqui, posed 36 questions relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. There were 36 questions asked of the then Premier, Mike Harcourt. I don't know that we ever got any answers. Maybe the member for Matsqui would be able to edify us on that issue when he makes his remarks. I don't think that we ever got the answers to those 36 questions. For example, the member for Matsqui wanted to know what happened to the $60,000 that the board of directors of the NDP sent to a Victoria law firm. It went to a trust account, apparently. What happened to that money, I wonder? Why wasn't the RCMP notified about the NDP payment? That payment was made during an RCMP investigation. I wonder if that question ever got answered. What knowledge did previous leaders of the NDP have of the relationship between the NDP and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society? That's a very good question. Perhaps all those things are still hanging out there. That was 1995.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I must make sure I get into this package -- 1998; that's this year. On May 5: "Charges Announced in Nanaimo Com-

[ Page 10622 ]

[3:00]

It may also be of interest to anyone who happens to be listening to this -- and at this hour, it's not likely -- that very soon following section 207 is section 210: "Keeping common bawdy-house." Sometimes I kind of wonder whether this government is or is not in that game. But that's nothing to do with Commonwealth Holding, of course.

So there you are. I want to just make sure. . . . Before I take my place, I must give special recognition and thanks to Neil Sweeney of our research staff, because he's the gentleman who ran this entire bingo thing through the research -- did all the leg work in the court registries, etc. Neil will soon be leaving for Ottawa and other ventures in the political world. We wish him well, and we do thank him for all of his efforts.

As for Bill 50, I'm not going to thank anybody for that. I'm certainly not going to thank the Attorney General. I will take my place.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, good morning to you. Here we are -- who would believe it? -- at 3:03. That's not in the afternoon; that is in the morning.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I'm sorry to disturb the member from Merritt.

Hon. H. Lali: Yale-Lillooet.

R. Thorpe: Yale-Lillooet.

It's 3:03 in the morning. Is this what this government wants British Columbians to believe is the democratic process? This is a government led by a Premier who only a few short weeks ago -- weeks before July 17 -- said, when an another government made an announcement on a Friday: "They have no courage. What are they hiding? What don't they want the people of British Columbia to know?" What did we find out on a Friday morning? This government, under the leadership of the Premier, introduced a housekeeping bill. I remember, because I was here that Friday morning. I remember the Attorney general laughing about the introduction of this bill when my colleague from Richmond-Steveston said: "Beware of miscellaneous statutes on Fridays."

Let's be honest and frank. Most people in this House on that Friday. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: It's too bad that the member for Yale-Lillooet woke up, because he's much more eloquent when he's asleep. But you know, hon. Speaker. . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No, I just try to do my job, which would be something new for the member for Yale-Lillooet.

. . .the disgusting part about Bill 50 is the way that this government has packaged it. You know, as a member of the official opposition, we had great concerns when the member for Rossland-Trail was ill. I am very pleased to see that he has recovered, to see that he is healthy -- only two nights ago I sat and had a cup of tea with him -- and to see how positive he is about life. That's fantastic, and I'm pleased for him and his family.

But you know, this government puts the Human Tissue Gift Act at the front of this bill, just a housekeeping bill, to lull people to sleep. That, quite frankly, is the most disgusting part of this bill. We're going to get into the Lottery Act, and we're going to get into the changes to the Utilities Act and those kinds of things. But surely this government, when no one thought it could go to a new low, has gone to yet another low. I'm beginning to believe that those who have said that the moral compass must have been lost were telling the truth.

So what is in this bill? Is it really just about a few amendments, a few housekeeping items? Or is it more? Is it about big government and central control? I think so. It's about denying people their rights. Just the other night, I had the opportunity to see a new movie: Saving Private Ryan. I think it's important for all British Columbians and all members of this House to see such movies. A colleague of mine mentioned to me that he recently saw a movie on the landing at Dieppe. I believe that seeing those movies is really, really important. Yes, it is 40 or 50 years ago since people died to provide us with a democracy.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You know, it's really quite disturbing that the member for Yale-Lillooet has to mock people who died in the Second World War so that we could have our freedoms. That member should be ashamed of himself, and what he should do is leave this House. At least he could have some respect for those who gave their lives so that we could have democratic freedom -- the freedoms that you're trying to take away from all British Columbians. You should be ashamed of yourself; you're disgusting.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: See, hon. Speaker. Some of these people are not only disgusting; they have no respect for people's rights. They believe that their beliefs entitle them to deny others their rights. That's fundamentally wrong.

So the first amendments we'll talk about are to the Lottery Act. Of course, this government is now going to a new low in attempting to grant itself immunity from gaming lawsuits. This government is showing a complete contempt for the laws of British Columbia, for the laws of Canada and for the rights of individuals. I believe that is wrong. The government is trying to exempt itself from the law. Quite frankly, this NDP socialist government is acting no better than a petty

[ Page 10623 ]

An Hon. Member: Three more years.

R. Thorpe: Yeah, enjoy them, because they'll be your last three. You'll be the first one out the door.

But hon. Speaker, I can understand why the member for Yale-Lillooet thinks and talks the way he does, because he learned before he got in cabinet -- even though he thought he should have been in the cabinet many, many years ago, and it said that in the newspapers with those big full-page ads. . . . But he learned from the Minister of Forests, who said: "Don't forget that government can do whatever it wants." It can do anything -- and he believes it. He believes it, and that's the sadness of these events.

In January, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Owen-Flood ruled that the government was illegally diverting money from charities to itself -- stealing from charities, from single moms and orphans. These are the people that supposedly stand for individual rights. Give me a break. You know, the ruling put further in doubt the government's controversial expansion of profit-driven casinos -- legislation that they introduced themselves.

So why do they have to go back 12 years? Why can't they say that they messed up, they don't know what they're doing, they're incompetent, and they shouldn't be taking from charities? Why can't they just say that? Why does everything with this government have to be "spin"? And now this government wants immunity. This government does not deserve to have immunity. It deserves to be hauled through the courts and to pay for their wrongdoing.

One of the things about being in the opposition is that we have the courage. All we hear from the other side is the chirping, but we never see any of the members get up there and talk and defend. Now that most of them are capable of getting up and speaking. . . . Well, I shouldn't make that comment; perhaps some of them will speak, to defend this bill. But I doubt it.

How many taxpayers believe it's proper for government to protect the charities at the expense of other taxpayers? Not very many, but this government is going to protect them from being sued.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Well, those collectives failed in Russia; they failed in Cuba. And you know what? They're failing in British Columbia. That's the success of the socialist collective movement. It's not working.

[3:15]

Let me quote Mr. Carpentier. He called the proposed legislation autocratic and said it more closely resembles the measures that one would expect from a communist regime. Yet those members not only will sit over there and make fun of the members speaking but will really attack working people in British Columbia for standing up for their rights. That's wrong. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith goes on to say in this article from the Nanaimo Daily News of July 21 that without the proposed legislation, charities could also be sued for billions of dollars. When I read that, I say to myself: what does that minister know that she hasn't shared with us? I wonder if she's shared it with her cabinet and caucus colleagues. Is there more? Are there other Nanaimo Bingogates out there? Is that what she's talking about? All this government is trying to do is absolve itself from illegal activities that took place in May 1996. That's what they're trying to do.

It's wrong to steal from charities. The NDP got caught. So what do they do? They change the law. It's disgusting; it's fundamentally wrong. It clearly shows they don't care about British Columbians, and they don't care about the rights of British Columbians. They care only about themselves, and they're morally corrupt. Let's just leave that one for a second. When I ran for public office, I wanted to believe that most of the members on the other side had good intentions when they entered public life. It's about restoring trust, and it's about restoring credibility for all elected officials.

F. Randall: On a point of order, the member is continually accusing the government of stealing. I don't think that is correct or proper. I think he should retract his comments.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not technically a point of order. On the other hand, I think it's important for all members who speak to speak with some sense of moderation and civility.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I do take your advice. Let me just quote Mr. Carpentier from the July 21, 1998 Nanaimo Daily News: ". . .seeking to absolve itself from illegal activities perpetrated since May 1996." For what other reason would this government have been found in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada? Why would that be? I think you have to do something wrong.

An Hon. Member: We weren't government in 1986.

R. Thorpe: This is 1996, and perhaps you should stop reading the caucus talking notes and actually read the newspaper and some of the court cases.

I want to get back to my address, if I could. I want to talk about another section in this housekeeping bill, so to speak. It

[ Page 10624 ]

We heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs say earlier tonight, in debate on Bill 46, I believe it was -- the Homeowner Protection Act -- that regulations are not going to be passed through committees of this Legislature or through independent outside committees as had been promised by this government in the new way of doing business under Bills 43 and 46. That lasted about a week.

I'll ask some detailed questions during the committee stage. But what I'm concerned about with respect to these changes is: are we going to throw away some of the emerging businesses and industries in British Columbia -- namely, the craft brewers who have been developing over the last few years, our single provincial distillery or our developing grape and wine industry? I realize that the legislation in Bill 50 with respect to this subject matter is enabling -- for the government to make more regulations. But I would like to make sure that this government commits itself, and I would hope that the Attorney General, in his summing-up of second reading, would make that commitment to some of those British Columbia industries I've talked about -- that they will in fact be involved and that there will be meaningful involvement by all British Columbia stakeholders, especially all sectors producing beverage alcohol in the province.

I have copies of letters that have been recently sent to the Attorney General, one by the Granville Island Brewing Company and the other by Okanagan Spring brewing company. They understand the globally competitive situation of major sporting franchises and major events in cultural centres. But what they're doing is asking: "Does it have to be 100 percent that goes to big operators, or can it be some form of capping, say at 85 percent, leaving 15 percent available for emerging industries such as craft brewers of the British Columbia grape and wine industry?"

I hope that the Attorney General is listening tonight and is hearing this -- hearing the voices of British Columbians who have risked capital and built businesses here. I hope that happens. I am prepared to work with the Attorney General on that issue to ensure that we have fair and equal representation with respect to these changes to the liquor licensing act.

Now let's move to the Utilities Commission Act. What is this government up to now? What is it trying to do? You know, I remember hearing my friend and colleague from Richmond-Steveston talk earlier tonight about this government. It is a government -- the NDP -- that you would expect to be advocating for citizens' panels, for review panels, to make sure that consumers aren't disadvantaged. That used to be their roots; it used to be their tradition. But now they've changed. They've changed to giving all the power to the Premier. He snaps his fingers, and they say: "What's next? What do we change now to give his office more power?" These changes will absolutely cut away the independence of the Utilities Commission. It will eliminate the commission's ability and responsibility to preserve the public interest in B.C. energy matters.

Why would this government want to do that in this day and age? It's only a few months ago that they said they were doing everybody a favour by capping rates. But when they capped the rates, they capped them from going up, but they also capped them from going down, where market forces say they should have gone. So once again, it's indirect taxation by this government -- a government that promised "No more taxes." We've known, of course, that they can't keep their word on that. They announced tax cuts in the budget, and they talk and they talk about it, but nothing is happening this year. It's all projected into the future; it's like never-never land. It may never happen.

What is this government doing in removing the Utilities Commission? Why are they doing this? Some people say that the goal of the Premier in stripping the independence of the commission is just so he can play king, so that he has all of the power -- not only the electrical power but the power. He thirsts for that power. And with the commission out of the way, it will be the NDP government and, let's make no bones about it, the Premier's Office. Whenever there's a problem, it will be one of the staffers who did it. The Premier will check into it but never get back to us. The reason that they want it out of the way is so he can direct Hydro to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants.

Who's going to pay? The hard-working people of British Columbia -- those, of course, who have jobs. This is a government, under the stewardship of the Premier and that illustrious cabinet over there, that has taken us from number one to number ten, that has taken us to the highest taxation rates in North America, that has driven unemployment to double the western Canadian average. . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Oops, another one just woke up.

. . .that has youth unemployment of just under 20 percent and student unemployment of just under 23 percent. This is the government.

I'm glad that the member for Prince George-Mount Robson made a few comments, because I just want to flip back, while I remember, to the changes to liquor licensing. I'm wondering where that member stands in supporting her local brewer. Is she for the amendments to the liquor control and licensing board, or will she have the courage to stand up against her government on that? Or is the power of the Premier's Office more important to her than the jobs in her own riding? We'll get to see that sometime later today or sometime tomorrow.

[3:30]

Here we have Bill 50, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which is taking away people's rights to sue, taking

[ Page 10625 ]

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I say good morning to you at 3:32 a.m. on Wednesday. If people are checking the Hansard, I guess they'll be checking it on the Tuesday date. For those who might still be watching and flipping channels this early morning, I say welcome to them.

I would like to begin my comments on second reading of Bill 50, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, by stating how disconcerting it was to review this legislation. I say this because while there are various sections that are supportable and non-contentious, there are other sections within this bill that are significant and that attempt to substantially alter the laws affecting the public interest.

It is deplorable when this NDP government attempts to hide its real intentions in this omnibus legislation, rather than bring in separate pieces of legislation to deal with specific new issues. I presume that the reason for introducing this omnibus bill is because the NDP is afraid. It is afraid that there are some members in their caucus -- and I hope there are some -- who could not possibly support those particular changes if they stood out separately in their own piece of legislation.

I want to make it clear for the record that there are sections of this legislation that are supportable. I would note in particular that section 1 of Bill 50, which amends the Human Tissue Gift Act, is one such section. I was pleased to listen to the personal remarks made earlier this evening by the member for Rossland-Trail. I think he should be applauded for being able to rise and speak to an issue that I know was dear to him and very emotional for him. I also want to make it clear for the record that members on this side of the House do support section 1 of Bill 50.

I wonder just how many government members have reviewed this bill in totality. How many government members are comfortable with this blatant contempt for the law? The changes introduced to provide immunity from legal action provide the mechanism for this sorry excuse for a government to exempt itself from the law.

I cannot believe, when those members opposite were sitting on this side of the House as opposition, that they would not have been equally determined to voice their opposition if the ruling government of the day had tried to exempt itself from the law. When I first read section 42 in Bill 50, I could scarcely believe it. The difficulty that the members opposite must be having is whether or not the intention of section 42 is to rise above the law. I don't think the members opposite want to mislead or be misled. I don't believe that any members in this House advocate that there should be lawsuits -- that there are people out there who would like to sue or to be sued. But we have to recognize that litigation is presently a part of our justice system. Litigation is there to ensure a degree of fairness and balance to all citizens and, more importantly, to protect our individual rights when we feel we have been wronged. So any attempt to alter that opportunity is clearly wrong.

This NDP government broke the law, the Criminal Code of Canada, and that is a very serious charge indeed. Had any other person or any other organization deliberately broken the law, they would have had to be accountable, and there are laws to assure us of that. But what we see happening here is that the NDP would alter the law to protect itself. This is disgraceful, this is despicable, and this is dishonourable.

Interjections.

I. Chong: I hear the members opposite laughing, and I don't know why, hon. Speaker, because this is the truth: they are altering the law. I heard the Attorney General attempt to explain the necessity for this new section in this bill, by stating that it was to protect charities from potential lawsuits. But I haven't seen any rush of lawsuits being pursued against those charities. It's probably because most charities are established to serve the public. Who really would contemplate suing charities?

What Bill 50 does is attack democracy and diminish the already limited accountability to the public, the very people who elected us to serve them and who we are supposed to be accountable to. If you look at the other provincial jurisdictions, one must ask: "Who else is proposing changes to their charity gaming process in this fashion?" I don't believe there are any other provinces that are looking at changes, because there is no other province that has broken the law, no other province that has broken the Criminal Code of Canada. No other province has a government that is as corrupt as this one. No other province has a government that is as greedy as this one. Unfortunately, it goes back to the philosophy offered by this NDP government, as spoken by the Minister of Forests: "Don't forget that government can do anything."

Hon. Speaker, I admit that Bill 50 does contain some positive and supportable changes to the various acts, as I mentioned earlier. What I find disappointing and disgusting is that this NDP government would taint those valid and supportable sections with an extremely poisonous one. There is absolutely no rationale for this section to be supported, other than to protect the NDP. There is no way you can expect members on this side of the House to give that kind of protection. Section 42 in Bill 50 is not about protecting charities; it is about protecting this arrogant NDP government that broke the law. That's why they're so upset. The truth does hurt, I suppose.

The Minister of Employment and Investment has stated that this legislation is intended to protect the interests of the taxpayer. Well, Mr. Carpentier is a taxpayer, and he must wondering just how his interests are being protected. The Minister of Employment and Investment said he's protecting the interests of the taxpayer. There seems to be a contradiction there.

So why should members support section 42 of Bill 50? Why should members support something that is regressive when we brag about being a progressive province? I have to ask, as I am sure many British Columbians are asking: what does this government have against charities? Why would this NDP government go after charities and non-profit societies, whose main goal for existing is to provide a better quality of life for others? I wish I could provide an answer, but I really can't.

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear one of the members opposite asking why I would suggest that this government is going after charities.

[ Page 10626 ]

In the Comox Valley, Glacier View Lodge, a non-profit organization and essentially a charity, is preparing to go to the courts. I know the member representing that area doesn't want to believe it, but I have spoken to people in that area. They have contacted me. I don't know why, but they have. They have stated that they have been reading Hansard and watching some of the debates. They said: "You know, you're not getting the right answers from some of these ministers. They think that Glacier View is out of the picture, but that's not true. We're just waiting to have our case heard before the courts, which will be next spring." I hope the member for Comox Valley pays attention to that.

In Parksville, Arrowsmith Lodge, another charitable organization, another non-profit society, was also under attack, and it is also awaiting the outcome of Glacier View. Here in Victoria, in the capital region, the government also went after the assets belonging to Queen Alexandra. I must say that was particularly disturbing, because Queen Alexandra was established as a facility to be used solely for the benefit of disabled and special needs children, the most vulnerable in our society. So it really does make you wonder why on earth this government is so hell-bent on destroying charities.

Again, I wish to refer to the Attorney General's comments that suggested that section 42 is necessary to protect the charities. From whom do these charities need protection? As I understand it, there is in fact a class action lawsuit launched against government on behalf of all British Columbia charities. So the charities aren't being sued; it's the government. There is no one going after the charities at all.

Like my colleagues before me, I too would like to remind the viewers who may be paying attention or the readers of Hansard how Bill 50 was introduced to this Legislature. It was on July 17, a Friday morning, a day generally reserved for private members' statements, a day that is generally viewed as a quiet day insofar as legislation is concerned. Perhaps the Attorney General thought that since it was a quiet day, he would be able to enter this House and introduce a bill when no one would pay attention. But that was not to be the case, because contained in Bill 50 was what many have referred to as a neutron bomb. And when there's a neutron bomb in legislation like this, people do pay attention, no matter when you introduce it.

[3:45]

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear one of the members say: "They didn't want to." I can see why now. I can see why it was just pushed into a miscellaneous statutes bill. You didn't want to draw attention to it. I guess it's because the Attorney General and the Premier, the two of them, decided that they didn't want to draw any more attention to this neutron bomb than was absolutely necessary. From the comments I'm hearing opposite, that would seem to confirm my suspicions. This government thought that no one would pay attention to this bill and that it could be rammed through without the media ringing any alarm bells for all other British Columbians to hear and to take notice of. Fortunately -- but unfortunately for the government -- people did take notice. The outrage from average British Columbians is being heard loud and clear, and they are disgusted by this measure.

I wonder what the members opposite are doing with those letters that they're receiving from their constituents. They're probably putting them in their out-baskets versus putting them into their in-baskets, so that they don't have to admit that they've received some of these concerns. No one believes that the NDP government should be allowed to curtail the rights of ordinary citizens by giving itself retroactive immunity from charity gaming lawsuits. That is an abuse of power. It's bad enough when this government abuses members on this side of the House by refusing to develop a parliamentary calendar with set sitting hours, with set sitting days, dealing with set pieces of legislation. It's bad enough when this government continually abuses members on this side of the House. But to abuse other taxpayers by introducing section 42 in Bill 50 is incredible.

This government wants to go after the average B.C. taxpayer, and do you know what one average taxpayer had to say about the legislation? He said it is "autocratic" or downright "communist." Those words came from Mr. Jacques Carpentier, head of the Nanaimo Community Bingo Association, who singlehandedly challenged the province's gaming regulations. I would call him an ordinary taxpayer. The only reason why he has become as infamous as he has is because he did challenge the province's gaming regulations. For someone to come out and call this legislation autocratic and downright communist is really startling, hon. Speaker. I never thought I would hear that in this day and age.

It comes down to a very simple fact that members opposite seem to be forgetting. That is, if this NDP government had not redirected their charity gaming funds, if this NDP government were not so greedy, we might not be at this juncture at this particular point in time. It is their greed that has raised the concerns of some taxpayers, who then have taken the time and opportunity to challenge the government's gaming policy; otherwise this might not ever have happened.

I wish to leave section 42 for a time, because I think the points have already been made by a number of colleagues ahead of me, and I know it will still continue. I only have a very short time frame, and I do want to address a few other sections. Suffice it to say, it was unfortunate that section 42 had to be slid in with Bill 50. If in fact it were pulled out on its own, then perhaps it would have gained a different kind of attention. Maybe the members opposite would have had the opportunity to find out what their constituents had to say. If it were not introduced in the summer, perhaps we would have had a different reaction.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, another rather appalling section in Bill 50 is section 39, which concerns the Utilities Commission Act. Sev-

[ Page 10627 ]

I would like to reference a few other sections in Bill 50 that I do think are supportable, and therefore, hopefully, I can conclude on a somewhat positive note. I do believe that sometimes there is an effort made by government and government members to look at serving the public interest in a more broad sense. When that happens, there's no difficulty for members on this side of the House in supporting that. I have said before and I will always say that whenever bad legislation is brought forward, it is our obligation as opposition to oppose that and to state the reasons. Clearly we know that the members opposite will heckle us and disagree with us. That's fine; I accept that. But they must recognize that it is our obligation to oppose what we consider bad legislation for the constituents that we are hearing from.

But when good legislation is brought forward, hon. Speaker, you have seen where we have passed it fairly quickly without much debate and also commended the government. I know that I've done that on a number of occasions, and if the ministers and the members opposite have failed to hear that, then I'm sorry. They need only check the records, because I have commended various ministers. I once commended the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. I've also commended the Attorney General. If I haven't been able to offer the same applause to the Minister for Children and Families, then I'm sorry, but I will attempt to do so if in fact there is something on which I can offer her some commendation. At the end of estimates, every time I get the opportunity to speak to a minister, I do thank them for at least listening and trying. I think that is the courtesy we should at least extend to each other.

I have stated that there are a couple of other sections that I want to speak about, because I do want to conclude on a positive note -- that is, to comment very briefly on sections 15 to 28, section 44 and section 45, which deal with changes to the Pension (Public Service) Act. I want to state for the record that these sections are supportable, and members on this side of the House do consider these changes to be fair and reasonable and in keeping with the changing times. Members on this side of the House have reviewed that legislation, as we review all legislation, and we've found that those sections should indeed be offered and made at this particular time.

There are sections throughout this bill, as well, that are supportable. I don't want to go through them page by page, because that would probably require another half-hour, which I don't have. There are also other sections that I know we will not support, and I will wait for other members on this side of the House -- my other colleagues, when they rise to speak -- to elaborate more fully on those. The most significant sections have been mentioned by every member who has risen to speak on Bill 50 so far this evening: section 42, "Immunity from legal action," and section 39, changes to the Utilities Commission Act. Those are very dangerous and contentious pieces of legislation; they are not supportable. Because they are not supportable, they do not allow me to support Bill 50 in total. I wish that the supportable sections, such as sections 15 to 28, 44 and 45, and particularly section 1, on the Human Tissue Gift Act, were pulled out, so that we could offer unanimity on those sections -- so that, for the record, those who are watching and those who are going to be reading the Hansard afterward would see that this House was able to come together on some very basic issues that everyone should and could support.

I know the hour is late -- or the hour is early, however you want to describe it -- and I know that there are other members who wish to speak, so I will only offer that I hope members opposite have heard some of our concerns. There has been a change in members, as I know they have had to fulfil their duties. I hope that those who haven't been able to be in here for the eight hours that I have been in here would be able to at least reflect back on some of the comments that we've offered. If in fact there are any who feel that we have made some valid points, perhaps they will speak about it in their caucus meeting tomorrow or the next day and really look at this, and perhaps they will consider pulling this section or standing it down or not enabling it until such time as they know fully what the consequences will be.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will turn it over to my colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who I know is anxious and waiting to offer his comments.

D. Jarvis: Good morning, Victoria!

You know, Madam Speaker, it's 4 o'clock in the morning. I'm sorry I had to do that, but I went back to that old movie Good Morning, Vietnam. I sometimes feel that's where we are right now: in a Third World country. We're losing all our rights. This government is taking away the rights of the people in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I will remind you that your opening comments are unparliamentary.

D. Jarvis: Oh, that's fine. May I ask you in what way, Madam Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sure you know the rules, and I'm sure you know the rules for parliamentary conduct.

D. Jarvis: Well, Madam Speaker, I'm discussing Bill 50, in which we on this side sincerely believe that there are rights being taken away by the retroactivity of this government with regard to certain sections in the bill.

I was going to continue on by saying that I felt I was in a Third World country in the fact that there seem to be fleas on the floor. Everyone -- even out in the halls, and the Clerks and all the rest -- feels like they are being bitten on the ankles. We're having our rights taken away, and we're being bitten on the ankles by bugs.

[4:00]

[ Page 10628 ]

A lot of our members have gone over a lot of these points. I will go along with them as well and reiterate a few things. But I just want to say that there are situations in this bill that, as I said, are good -- no question about that. The member for Rossland-Trail, when he got up earlier, made a few statements in regard to the Human Tissue Gift Act. He gave a very heartwarming and sincere statement of the value of this section of the bill that was coming forward -- things that were a good start to solving this overdue problem.

That is a section of the bill that no one could say they wouldn't support, but when it's rammed in over top of some of the bad, bad legislation that is being presented to us, you cannot support this bill. That's the hard thing about it. Here's the member for Rossland-Trail, who comes up and supports a section of the bill that's going to change something for the good in this province -- it's going to be of benefit to people -- and this government has the audacity to try to slip it in under a bad bill that has so many dangers in it, with so many rights of people being taken away from them, that no one can support it.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I hear one of the members from right up north. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine is making what he considers to be sharp, cutting comments. The only trouble is that the gentleman has never got up in this House and made a statement on any other bill this year. He sits back and makes comments but never gets up to support the bills that his government is putting forward. He should be ashamed of himself for doing things like that. Someday we're going to hear from him, but in the meantime he does make his little comments.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: He thinks he's disrupting someone, and the Speaker does not make him stop talking or interrupting people. Nevertheless, we'll let him talk on, but we'll ignore him.

Madam Speaker, I digress. I have to get back to the bill. Bill 50 is not a good bill, as I said. It has some bad problems in it, in the sense that there are sections, for example, that pertain to gambling expansion as it affects charities. This is a blatant attempt by this NDP socialist government to cover their previous indiscretions through retroactive legislation. That's what the bill is about. It will give this government immunity from all the legal actions they have been found guilty of by the higher courts. That is a crime in itself -- that this government would do such a despicable thing in this province at a time such as this and try to hide it under a bill that was covered by, as I say, the good piece of legislation that the member for Rossland-Trail was promoting, the Human Tissue Gift Act.

It is a despicable act of cowardice by this socialist government. This is a government, as we all know and as has been seen so many times around here, in which the member from just north of Williams Lake -- Cariboo, I guess it is; the Minister of Forests -- said that he can do anything. This government can do anything it wants, even to the point that it's going to sublimate the law.

This section of Bill 50 is sort of the epitome of the NDP's dictatorial governance philosophy. It shows the people of B.C. just how desperate the NDP really are and how badly they have managed the economy of this province. It's a violation of the citizens' rights.

There are other sections of Bill 50 that are also a considerable problem. I worry about it. The section of the bill that probably bothers me the most is the section that pertains to the Utilities Commission Act. The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent regulatory agency, whose responsibility is to ensure that the rates for energy that are charged -- for example, by B.C. Hydro -- are fair, just and reasonable. Yet under the guise of a miscellaneous housekeeping bill, Bill 50, this government is now trying to say that B.C. Hydro can do anything it wants, after it has received its orders from the Premier. The Utilities Commission in British Columbia is there for one reason: to provide safe, adequate and secure service to all of its customers throughout the province.

I'd like to repeat that by saying that that's what the B.C. Utilities Commission is there for. It was put there to protect the citizens of this province, so that large companies such as B.C. Hydro, which is a Crown corporation, would not take advantage of the citizens of British Columbia. Anytime they want to put forward a proposal for any type of project or for rates, they would have to go before the commission and put up a business plan or whatever. No one really knows what the reason is for what they're doing. We have a good idea that the Premier has got things up his sleeve, and this is the method he's going to try to use so that he can go around to the back door of the Utilities Commission and get away with blue murder, if necessary.

This section of Bill 50, as I say, does allow B.C. Hydro to escape from the purview of the Utilities Commission as far as rate scheduling goes. Therefore B.C. Hydro will become an unaccountable Crown corporation. When we see this sort of thing happening in British Columbia, we know we're in trouble. This government is in trouble, and the citizens of the province are going to have to pay for it.

It's unbelievable that an NDP government such as this would ever consider that B.C. Hydro could be unaccountable to the people of British Columbia. It just blows my mind. It's hard to even consider that they would go to that extent for a political philosophy that they know is against all the principles of their party over the past years. It's against the principles of everyone in this province, for example, because. . . . They're ostensibly going around through the back door to take away the rights and protections of the people of British Columbia. B.C. Hydro is a supplier of energy and electricity to this province, and with this section of the bill, they will be able to do whatever they want to do without anyone giving them any control whatsoever. Just like its parent, the NDP government -- at this point, anyway -- it's going to be able to do whatever it wants to do. Who's going to benefit? Certainly not the taxpayers of British Columbia. They will not benefit. B.C. Hydro will not be required, if the socialists pass this bill -- which they obviously will do tonight or tomorrow morning, only because they have the numbers game, not because they're a popular government. . . . This bill will pass. We know it's going to pass, unless some of the toady backbenchers are prepared to stand up for a change and say: "No,

[ Page 10629 ]

B. Goodacre: Stand up for B.C. for a change.

D. Jarvis: It's really quite surprising when I hear the gentleman from Bulkley Valley-Stikine asking me why I don't stand up for British Columbia. This is a gentleman who has yet to stand up in this House when any type of resource legislation is being put through that is detrimental to the resource communities in his own riding. He has never stood up to protect them. His only facility since he's been elected is the fact that we know he can read, because every week he has a new book, and he sits in this House and reads a book. That's all he contributes: he reads a book. He sits there and talks and yammers away at the people who are trying to speak. Now, here's a man from Bulkley Valley-Stikine who has a responsibility to the citizens in his riding. What does he do? Not a thing.

We know that the citizens of British Columbia are certainly not going to benefit from this bill. As I said, if this passes through with the socialist government, and it is bound to do so, we're going to see -- possibly or more than likely, probably -- a new set of rates foisted on the citizens of British Columbia. That is the dangerous thing about it. Here we have an energy policy in this province that is supposed to give us the best service, the best rates that they can possibly give. This is a government that keeps saying to us that the rates in British Columbia are the lowest in Canada, the lowest in North America.

B. Goodacre: This is the guy who wants to dam the Stikine River.

D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I just heard the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine come out with another stupid, stupid statement. Unbelievable!

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: He has the greatest facility, Madam Speaker, for coming out with stupid statements. He's even suggesting that in order to keep the rates down. . . . He has just finished saying that in order keep the rates down in the province of B.C., it would probably be necessary to dam the Stikine River. What an ignorant, stupid statement that is -- just a plain stupid statement to make. He just has no comprehension of what's going on in this province.

[4:15]

We are a debt-ridden province. This government has been completely destructive to the economy of this province. We've now had seven consecutive years of deficits. The government lied in two situations in two years by saying that they had no deficit, that they had a balanced budget or a surplus. Then it was found out that they had lied. They had actually lied to the people of British Columbia in order to get elected. We even have a court case going on now over that point.

We now have a debt that is probably in excess of $32 billion, if we had to look at the books right to this moment. It was $31-some-odd billion after the last budget, and now it would be in excess of $32 billion and climbing fast. Up to a short while ago, to service the interest on our debt we were paying out $6.74 million a day. None of these members across the hall is concerned about that; it's not their money. They have the best jobs they have ever had in their lives.

An Hon. Member: That's not true.

D. Jarvis: It is true. I can remember the Minister of Agriculture, from the Kootenays, standing up in this House and saying: "This is the best-paid job I've ever had in my life." Now he. . . .

An Hon. Member: You're not telling the truth. That's not what he said.

D. Jarvis: Well, he did say that.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm glad you corrected her. That was exactly what he said: it was the best-paying job he ever had.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. If any member in the House would like to partake in the debate, I encourage them to do so. We do have a member on the floor, and I ask that member to continue.

D. Jarvis: I would encourage them to get up and speak on this bill, as well, and see if they can defend it.

I was saying that in this province we have a debt so large that the interest on it alone is $6.74 million a day; that's a lot of money. I was thinking, when I was waiting to stand and speak, that with the drop in the dollar, that means our dollar is being somewhat devalued. So it's no longer that we're paying $6.740 million a day; we are now probably up another 20 to 25 percent. That's pretty frightening, when you think of it. That's putting us up to around $8 million to $9 million a day that we're paying in interest on our debt.

I ask the members over there: are you not concerned? And I get blank stares. Of course, none of those members has ever gotten up and spoken about anything anyway. They don't understand what's going on. They're sitting there like toadies, while this group of incompetents on the other end run the government out of cabinet -- a one-man cabinet.

[ Page 10630 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

D. Jarvis: The member for Prince George-Mount Robson has already been fired by one Premier; she's certainly not going to go against this Premier, because she doesn't want to have a record of being struck out twice at bat. So we know the toadies. With no business acumen whatsoever, they are the ones who are running this government, and they're running this government into the ground. Here we are. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Some people are saying that some of my comments might be hurting someone. Well, there are a lot of thick skins over there, and I know that whatever I say doesn't bother them anyway. It bounces off them.

Our economy is so bad, and this government has been so destructive to our economy, that. . . .

An Hon. Member: How much are we paying in interest on the debt?

D. Jarvis: If you go to page 101 of the budget book and divide the interest by the number of days of the year, it's $6.74 million. But it's been downgraded so much that we're now probably up another 20 percent. So we're close to spending $8 million a day on interest alone.

An Hon. Member: How much is that in a year?

D. Jarvis: Well, now you're getting. . . . I'm not going to multiply, because it's now 4:22 in the morning, and I can't multiply in my head at the moment. I'm a little tired; I've been up many, many hours. I've been up since 6 o'clock this morning.

Anyway, when we're downgraded by Moody's, our debt will get worse and worse. This government has no comprehension as to how to cure it, other than to try to balance their debt by sucking more money out of the Crown corporations, their cash cows. Essentially, what they're doing is removing B.C. Hydro and making it a non-accountable Crown corporation that is not responsible to the people of British Columbia. It will go out and sign deals all over the world. It will raise the rates, and in actual fact what they are doing is cheating the people of British Columbia out of their rights. That's the sad thing about this government.

Over and above Hydro raising their rates, which I think they are going to do, the fact that they are no longer accountable to BCUC will eradicate the independence of BCUC. It will eliminate the commission's responsibility to preserve the public's interest. As I said before, that is why BCUC was created. It was there to protect the public's interest. So if you take the Crown corporation, the main supplier of energy in this province. . . . In fact, it is ostensibly the only one, because B.C. Hydro and this government won't allow any independent power projects into it so that we could have cheaper rates. It is taking them out of the supervision of BCUC to see that what they do is responsible and that what rates they charge are responsible -- i.e., do they deserve to have higher rates?

There were a few articles in the paper lately. I look at this one here -- it says January 23, 1992 -- to give you an example: "[BCUC] Blocks Bid to Limit Hydro Rate Hearing." "The B.C. Utilities Commission has dismissed a request that consideration of B.C. Hydro's controversial industrial rate proposal be limited. . . ." It went on to say in this article that Brian Wallace, lawyer for the industrial customers in British Columbia, was told by John McIntyre, who was the chairman of BCUC back in the early nineties, that it "must prove that the rate proposal is fair, just and reasonable and in the best interests of Hydro and its customers."

Now, that's a classic example of what I was trying to say. That's why BCUC is there: to protect the customer, protect the citizens of British Columbia from a gouging Crown corporation and a gouging government that will use that Crown corporation to bring money into their own coffers.

I've got another article here, saying the same thing in the Vancouver Province:

"BCUC Thwarts Big Power Users. The B.C. Utilities Commission yesterday dismissed a request from B.C. Hydro's industrial customers that consideration of the utility's controversial [rate increase] be limited to 'matters of principle' only in the current public hearing. . . . McIntyre" -- who was the chairman at that time, as well; this was '93 -- "also told Hydro that the onus rests with the Crown corporation to prove that the IRP is fair, just and reasonable. . . ."

Time is going on, and I'm really surprised that I'm at a green light already. I will sum up by saying that there will no longer be any consumer protection in this province. The rates will go up, and their taxes will go up accordingly. This is a government that believes it is above the people of B.C. They are elitists in search of their own -- not the people's -- political agenda. This government is prepared to say: "Damn the people and their rights." It's their way or no way. The government's backbench members. . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time is up.

D. Jarvis: . . .must know that the bill. . .

Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, member.

D. Jarvis: . . .has even gone past the line of their ideals.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, it's been just about five hours, I think, since the member for Rossland-Trail made his comments very early on in the debate. I want, at the outset, to recognize his contribution to this debate in dealing with the amendments that are proposed in Bill 50 to the Human Tissue Gift Act. We on this side of the House concur with his observations about the value of those particular amendments and, probably more importantly, celebrate with members of the government bench, I'm sure, the fact that he was here to make those comments. Let me say this, Madam Speaker: the presence of those provisions dealing with the Human Tissue Gift Act, alongside other legislative provisions that you and members of the government will know we find quite insidious, in no way diminishes the importance or the celebration that he and others associate with the provisions included early on in this bill, dealing with the Human Tissue Gift Act. I wanted to say that at the outset.

[4:30]

[ Page 10631 ]

I have a rule that I generally don't participate in legislative debates after about 4 a.m. That's kind of a rule that I try to abide by. So, Madam Speaker, you and members will know that it takes a very special piece of legislation to call me from the warmth and comfort of my bed to participate in legislative debates at this hour. I wish I could say that it was the extraordinarily positive features of Bill 50 that brought me to participate at this particular hour in the chamber, but of course that is not the case. For reasons that have been partially alluded to at this point, which I will try to expand upon now, that certainly isn't the case. The legislation we are dealing with is abhorrent and deserving of the strongest possible condemnation.

The people who will read this debate or read about it or who, heaven forbid, are watching this debate will by now be familiar with the tale of how we came to this point in our legislative history, the sordid tale of a government whose conduct was found to violate the provisions of the Criminal Code -- a government that time and time again assured British Columbians and charities and those interested parties who voluntarily do good works in their communities that the legislative framework they had established to govern and administer charitable gaming proceeds in this province was, as they said, by any measure one that would withstand all legal scrutiny. Time and time again, that was their response to those who said: "You are wrong. You are in violation of the law. You are not performing the one function that we expect above all else from government. That is to provide an example of abiding by the laws that parliaments in this country pass into effect." They said: "No, that's not the case. You who would criticize us have got it wrong."

It ultimately went before the courts, as we used to have the right to do in this province, and a particular justice of the Supreme Court of B.C. made a ruling. In that ruling he confirmed all that the critics had been saying. He said to the government: "No, you're wrong." There's an old song: "I Fought the Law, and the Law Won." This government fought the law, and they've been fighting it all the years they've been in power, most particularly in the last couple of years, with respect to gaming legislation. They fought the law, and they lost; the law won. They found themselves in the particularly embarrassing circumstance of having to acknowledge that fact.

One of the reasons I particularly appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate is because it gives one an opportunity to remind oneself of the argument that this government -- these government backbenchers, this cabinet -- took into the Supreme Court of B.C. to present in support of their gaming legislation. They don't like to talk about it. I haven't heard, all session, one member of the government -- one member of the government back bench -- acknowledge, admit to or speak of the argument that their lawyers took into court with respect to the challenge to their gaming legislation.

Remember what they argued; remember what their position was. It was this: "Look, trust us. This is a charitable function we are performing. Therefore all of the moneys that we receive are properly received; all of the moneys and how we administer them are properly administered, because, M'Lord," they said, " health care and education are functions of charity. They are charitable functions in B.C." The school at the end of the street that your child goes to. . . . To send your child to that school and expect that he or she will get a decent education is not a right that you have as a citizen of British Columbia who pays taxes. No, that's a function of charity, according to this government. If you're in an accident on one of our streets, and you have to be taken to a hospital to receive emergency treatment, that, Madam Speaker, is something that apparently I mistakenly took as a fundamental right. I took it for granted that that was a right I had as a British Columbian -- to expect emergency treatment to be available. But not according to the government, because they instructed their lawyers to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and tell the presiding judge that that's not a right that British Columbians have. That's charity; that's the government operating in its charitable function. Well, we on this side of the House reject that argument.

I see that the government Whip desperately wants to participate in this debate. Wouldn't it be novel. . . ? If he's not prepared, as I suspect he isn't, to participate in the debate, perhaps he would at least abide by the rules of this House, which presumably, after four months here this session, he is at least a little more familiar with than his conduct at the moment indicates.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, maybe the government Whip just needs it laid out on the line. If he's going to make comments, I'm going to ask you to ask him to take his seat.

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind members that we do have a speaker on the floor, and I will ask the members to come to order.

M. de Jong: I've watched and listened as the debate has been undertaken, and I was particularly interested to watch the reaction of the government members when the member for Richmond-Steveston made his opening remarks on behalf of the opposition. You know what I saw? I saw embarrassment; I saw shame on the part of government members. I saw an Attorney General who, in response to a bill that at the very least government members would have to acknowledge deals with a significant topic. . . . That is the removal of fundamental rights, amongst other things. The Attorney General began this debate by saying, "I'll make a few comments," and tried to whip through the bill in a matter of minutes, glancing over those provisions that purport to remove rights that British Columbians have properly taken for granted for a number of years -- the fundamental rights that heretofore I thought we enjoyed as a function of citizenship in this province.

I saw shame on the faces of government backbenchers, because they've had their marching orders. They've been told not to participate in this debate. They've been told that there is nothing they could say to defend a piece of legislation that's indefensible. And I thought to myself: what a shame it is when a party loses any sense of principle. When a party is prepared to sell its political soul on the altar of political expediency, the way the New Democratic Party obviously has. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I hear the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I don't know how many times he intends to comment from the safety of his seat, without deigning to rise to engage in debate as any real parliamentarian would -- if he has a position and if he believes the provisions of this bill are worthy of a defence. Maybe for once he would grant to his constituents the rare privilege of hearing him offer that defence on the record. Let it be known, hon. Speaker, that for the four months that this House has been in session, we have heard nothing from this member short of the odd introduction. I know he loves making those introductions, because he's

[ Page 10632 ]

Let me comment briefly about the bill itself in general and the fact that on a Friday, private members' day, the Attorney General stood up and casually tabled a bill and said that it's a modest housekeeping bill and nothing unusual. It's an odd comment from an Attorney General who is charged with the task of being B.C.'s chief law enforcement officer: that he would characterize the removal of the rights of the people of British Columbia to take issue with the actions of government -- not just this government, any government -- and that the removal of those rights could be dealt with so casually and dismissed as such an insignificant act on the part of the state. Yet that's precisely what he did.

We understand the government's intention to reverse 12 years of history, to reverse the embarrassment or try to act as if the embarrassment of the decision earlier this year by Mr. Justice Owen-Flood never happened, to get out the whitewash, as it were, and paper over or whitewash over the canvas that is their embarrassing political legacy. What's worse is that they're trying to do it retroactively. I haven't heard from a single member of this government -- cabinet or back bench -- defending the retroactivity that is part and parcel of the offending provisions of this miscellaneous bill.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine says: "Listen to the AG." Well, I listened to the Attorney General, and I didn't hear a defence short of: "Well, it's happened before." The retroactivity provisions of this bill, those principles that violate the presumption against retroactivity, have been invoked by governments before. That's the extent of his defence. He doesn't like to talk about the removal of the rights of British Columbians to challenge the government in court. It's not just the retroactive nature of the offending provisions; it's what they deal with. He doesn't like to deal with that because he doesn't have an answer. Presumably these members don't have an answer; and if they do have an answer, I'd like to hear it. If they do have a defence, I'd like to hear it.

[4:45]

That's not what this bill is about; this bill is about something far different. It's about a government that wants to rewrite history, to say to British Columbians that what's happened in the past didn't really happen: "We didn't break the law, and what's more, with respect to the scheme that we're setting up now, we don't ever intend to subject ourselves to the same scrutiny that has caused us such embarrassment in the past. If you have any question about the legitimacy or the legality of what we are doing now, too bad."

You know, the minister who is responsible for high-tech and intergovernmental relations and who has a scholarly background, richer than mine in these matters, and who presumably has an appreciation of the significance of what is taking place and what appears within the provisions of this bill. . . . I wonder if he'll stand up and make the defence that to him, by virtue of his comments here this morning, is so readily apparent, yet escapes all British Columbians and all members of the opposition. For him, apparently, there is a simple answer. For him, the defence of this bill is so obvious, so apparent, and yet for us it is so elusive.

"So help us," we say to that minister. But he won't, because he can't. He shares the shame of his government and his backbenchers, and yet, unlike his backbenchers, he was around the cabinet table that approved this piece of legislation and decided to bring it before the House. That is the one thing that the government backbenchers can hide behind: they weren't at the cabinet table that approved bringing this piece of legislation before this chamber.

Sometimes it's helpful, in terms of placing these kinds of bills or this type of legislation in context, to speculate a little bit about what the response of the NDP would be were they in opposition, dealing with another government -- perhaps a circumstance not unlike something that has happened in the past -- and how they would respond to a government invoking the same notion of retroactivity, and deal with a government that, just as they are doing now, was so intent upon removing the rights of British Columbians.

Let's think about a situation where a government minister or MLA had concocted a method by which to divert lottery funds to certain recipients, contrary to provincial statute. I'm not sure if something like that has ever happened in the past, though I have some recollection of an incident of that kind taking place a number of years ago.

What if the government of the day came before this House, with the NDP members occupying a role in opposition, and said: "Well, yes, I suppose that member, that cabinet minister, did technically violate some regulatory provisions dealing with the disbursement of lottery funds. But you know, that member was acting in good faith; surely we can appreciate that he was acting in good faith. So we're just going to change the law. We're just going to change those provisions retroactively, so that if he was in violation, he isn't anymore. And in addition to that, if anyone was harmed by the action of that individual, we're going to remove their right to chase the government or the minister responsible."

I suppose it's possible that the Attorney General and the other ministers would have gotten up and said precisely what they're saying today: "No big deal -- acting in good faith. It's nothing to get too excited about." But I kind of doubt it. I wonder if that's what their response would be. What about the response. . . ? What would the member for Skeena -- it's always great to have him in the chamber during debates like this -- say if we had a Premier who was found in contravention of conflict-of-interest regulations or legislation and who then moved to rectify that problem by changing the law retroactively? I suppose he might remain silent, as he is tonight. He might just sit there and excuse it all as a function of good-faith government.

H. Giesbrecht: You don't know what you're talking about.

[ Page 10633 ]

An Hon. Member: Draftspersonship.

M. de Jong: I'll not be lectured on this bill by any minister who isn't prepared to stand up and do it publicly, Madam Speaker -- even on matters of political correctness.

There are some other provisions in this bill, and, again, many of them have been touched on by other members of the opposition, because government members don't want to talk about them either -- except for the member for Rossland-Trail, thankfully. But what I am struck by is that less than 12 hours -- I think it's been 12 hours -- after dealing with Bill 39, which imposed a contract on school boards across this province, we have in this bill section 32, which the interpretative notes say is designed to provide that the "employers' association is the bargaining agent for school boards for teacher and support staff bargaining." Well, isn't that something? Isn't it coincidental that less than 24 hours after this government stood in this chamber and rammed through a piece of legislation that would impose a contract on school boards who have overwhelmingly voted against that, who have overwhelmingly said, "We can't afford it, and we've got no faith in this government's willingness to fund the provisions of a backroom deal that they've concocted with the BCTF," they introduced section 32, as part of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, which purports to confirm that very organization of school boards as the employers' bargaining agent. What hypocrisy!

An Hon. Member: Different context.

M. de Jong: "Different context," says the minister. These are fascinating comments, fascinating bits of argument that I hear. But again, they are disjointed and unconnected and therefore as incomprehensible as if they were being presented in their totality by members of the government who are actually prepared to stand and have the courage to present their arguments on the record.

When government is prepared, in the cavalier way that they are doing it this evening, to throw away and eliminate rights that have become -- they haven't always been there -- fundamental to the way our society operates, we are in a sense bordering on a state of lawlessness. When the citizens cannot be assured that government won't come along and alter the rules of the game in a very significant way. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: We're maintaining the rules of the game.

M. de Jong: Well, I'll repeat that comment, Madam Speaker, because a member of this chamber, a minister of the Crown with a scholastic background in a faculty of law, has just told me that the provisions of this bill maintain the rules of the game.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, for those charities, those folks who have seen this government operate contrary to the law and who have sought redress, to hear how this minister and these backbenchers have such little regard for them must be truly disturbing and truly disgusting.

An Hon. Member: Oh, you used that word.

M. de Jong: As I was obliged to do so at some point during this speech.

For the representatives of the party of Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles and Thomas Berger, maybe at some point after this bill has been rammed through and after they leave this place, I think some of them -- not all of them -- will look in the mirror and ask themselves whether their performance here tonight is something that they can be proud of. The shame I've seen on each and every one of their faces tells me that they will answer in the negative. . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time is up.

M. de Jong: . . .and I think that shame is apparent for all that are watching these proceedings.

B. Penner: The government is asking us at this early hour of 5 o'clock in the morning to support Bill 50. Bill 50 is the last, we hope, of the bills this government plans to put before the Legislature during this session. So far, we have two full volumes of bills tabled by this government during this session -- 50 bills in total, 50 pieces of new legislation. Does anybody in British Columbia really believe that what we need is more government regulation to improve our situation in our province? I highly doubt it.

[5:00]

I believe that whoever is asking for support of new laws and new regulations bears the onus of persuading the members of this chamber to support their proposal. That means

[ Page 10634 ]

In coming to the conclusion as to whether or not Bill 50 should be supported, I think it's important to examine not just the content but the context in which that bill was presented. It's been mentioned already that Bill 50 was tabled on a Friday morning, July 17. The significance of this is that Friday mornings are usually left for private members' business. That is the one day of the week when individual members are allowed to raise issues of concern to them and not be dictated to by their party Whips or House Leaders. It's a chance for individual members, hopefully, to make a difference. What happened on that day, on July 17? Well, in typically cynical NDP fashion, the government slipped through Bill 50, hoping to escape public scrutiny in the process. They mistitled the bill, in my view. They called it the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998. They built in a whole number of very contentious issues into what they pretended was a housekeeping amendment statute.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The other context in which we need to view this is that this was tabled at the end of the legislative session. To bring such contentious issues before the Legislature near the very end of a session shows contempt for the Legislature and for the parliamentary process. It's the middle of summer, and British Columbians have their minds fixed on other matters besides what kinds of scurrilous activities this NDP government can be dreaming up next. Here we are, at shortly after 5 o'clock in the morning, debating this kind of legislation that this government hopes to foist on British Columbians -- unsuspecting British Columbians, I might add.

We turn our minds now from the context, which certainly raises grave concerns: why is the government bringing this in, first of all, at the end of a legislative session, in the middle of summer, late at night, beginning debate around midnight -- an indecent hour? That raises serious questions, but let's look at the content. Section 1 is something we can all support. It's dealing with tissue transplants. In fact, just a couple of days ago I had a chance to join the member for Rossland-Trail in the cafeteria, and I had a friendly chat with him. I know that he's the recipient and beneficiary of two transplants in recent years, and we're all very glad to see his speedy recovery.

However, this government has shown its cynicism yet again by adding into the bill other issues that, frankly, have nothing to do with the issue of tissue transplants. They shouldn't be linked. That's deceitful on the part of this government. We have things like section 39 and the Utilities Commission being gutted by a government that pretends to be friendly to the environment. Here they are, gutting a public hearing process, so that British Columbians will no longer have the kind of input they were used to when B.C. Hydro comes along and says that it's time to dam another river or construct another polluting, gas-fired power plant.

Sections 42 and 43 are the retroactive legislation denying access to justice for those that seek redress from this government. I shouldn't have to go much further to conclude, based on my cursory analysis so far, that the legislation contained in Bill 50 is not worthy of our support. Indeed, I think that's why British Columbians around the province have indicated very clearly that they do not support this kind of underhanded attempt by the government to restrict the rights of individuals in British Columbia.

What are the motives of the government in bringing in legislation and starting debate after midnight, when most people are asleep and unable to pay attention to the business of government, in beginning debate during the summer when British Columbians have their minds on other matters and in trying to slip in a bill on what should have been a private members' day?

We can only conclude that their motives are what appears apparent from reading Bill 50. They wish to trample on the rights of individuals. It's clear that the NDP socialist philosophy dictates their every action -- and that is, when it comes to weighing the interests of the collective versus the interests of the individual, the individual loses every time under the NDP. That's the message that this government has sent over and over again. Why do they do that? They see themselves as the collective. Their collective self-interest in protecting their backside is more important than the rights of individuals in British Columbia, according to the NDP. The official opposition couldn't disagree more.

This kind of conduct shouldn't be surprising on the part of the NDP, if you examine their track record. Let's take a look at some of their ethics. We have the member for Comox Valley, who's engaged in deception and deceit in her constituency, misleading the newspapers about the activities of her constituency assistant and frankly telling a falsehood about why that person left his employment in her office -- when she knew that she should have told the truth. The Premier tells us, in fact, that his staff advised her to tell the truth. Nevertheless, the Premier won't enforce that directive and uphold certain ethical standards.

We have a government that campaigned on two balanced budgets. That's what they promised people in British Columbia. In fact, it wasn't a promise; they said it was an accomplished fact. It was in 1996 that they said they'd balance the budget, but according to the documents tabled this year, on page 94 of "Budget '98 Reports," it's revealed that during the period of time that the NDP claimed to have two balanced budgets, they increased the provincial debt from $27.049 billion to $29.24 billion -- an increase of $2.2 billion. That was at the same time that they told British Columbians that they had not just balanced the budget but run a surplus.

We cannot support Bill 50, given this government's track record of deceiving the public. Hon. Speaker, we can't trust them with Bill 50.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat please. The member for Surrey-Whalley rises on a matter.

J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, I'd ask that you remind the member that we're debating Bill 50. I believe the members of the opposition have been instructed to fill time, but the time of the House is valuable, and the bill before us is Bill 50.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind members that parliament's dignity is impaired by time wasted in idle debate. We need to remember the rules with regard to relevancy and repetition in debate.

B. Penner: This government is asking for a blank cheque in Bill 50. If they're asking us to trust them, we have to examine their track record. At every opportunity, this government has shown that they will break the public's trust. They've done it by lying about the budget being balanced. It's been proven in the government's own documents not to have been true -- by increasing the debt by $2.2 billion, when they

[ Page 10635 ]

One of the members opposite made a remark awhile ago: "What else should we have called the bill other than the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act?" I have a suggestion: it could have been called the hypocrisy act, and for short, I guess you could just abbreviate it to NDP. The reason for that is the sections that I've already mentioned. For example, section 39, on the Utilities Commission. . . . For the NDP, which that likes to pretend to be on the side of the little people and on the side of environmentalists, to support stripping the Utilities Commission of its authority to examine power project proposals is hypocritical at the very least. If that doesn't equate with hypocrisy, I don't know what does.

For those poor people who happen to be up at this hour and are joining us, the B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent regulatory agency whose primary responsibility is to ensure that rates charged by B.C. utilities are fair, just and reasonable, and that utility operations provide safe, adequate and secure service to their customers. That's what the B.C. Utilities Commission is presently empowered to do with respect to proposals from B.C. Hydro. This legislation, Bill 50, guts the authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

In order to gain control over B.C. Hydro electricity rates, the NDP has already introduced something called special directive No. 8. This amended the B.C. Utilities Commission guidelines and took away its power to review B.C. Hydro rate increases. This gave the NDP the ability to direct Hydro to invest in any project that they commanded it to. This is true even if the project makes no economic sense and even if consumers pay more as a result. Doesn't that summarize the NDP's seven years in power? It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

In March of this year, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro stated that special directive No. 8 was limited only to B.C. Hydro rate-setting and was not intended to override new contracts or project approvals. Well, the minister was right, but in typical NDP fashion, he didn't tell the whole story. The legislation contained in Bill 50 will allow the NDP government to override the new contract and project approvals now required by the B.C. Utilities Commission. So there you have it. They've completed their plot to gut the B.C. Utilities Commission and, in the process, to leave average British Columbians out of the loop and unable to express their point of view the next time B.C. Hydro comes along and says: "We're going to build a dam, flood a river, build another polluting, gas-fired power plant." That is hypocrisy. For a government that pretends to be on the side of the little person to then turn around and, at 5 o'clock in the morning, try to pass legislation to deprive them of their opportunity to express their opinion is hypocrisy.

The implications of this amendment to the Utilities Commission are far-reaching. The amendment introduced in Bill 50 will alter the commission in two fundamental ways. First, it will eradicate the independence of the commission; and secondly, it will eliminate the commission's ability and responsibility to preserve the public interest in B.C. energy matters. Effectively, the amendment in Bill 50 enables the minister, on his or her own, to exempt the proponent -- i.e., B.C. Hydro -- of a particular energy transaction or project from their obligation to file with the commission. In allowing an energy transaction or project proponent to evade the Utilities Commission, the NDP has opened the door for a whole host of power projects that it deems politically expedient, without the need to consult the public.

[5:15]

Well, excuse me. You get the impression after a while that if they could, the NDP would do away with the hassle of having to come to the Legislature at all. What is parliament, after all? It's having to consult with the people. What a hassle -- listening to the people's representatives. After all, the government knows best, or so the NDP thinks. According to the Minister of Forests, who has joined us, government can do whatever it wants. At least, that's what the NDP thinks. But you know what? They're not supported by British Columbians in that view. People want real representation; they want a chance to express their point of view. This government is doing everything it can to deprive people of the chance to express their view.

Do you want another example? How about the proposed SkyTrain extension? The government says: "Oh no, we're not even going to abide by our own law, our own legislation, our own requirement for environmental reviews before a project of this nature goes forward." The NDP writes a law requiring environmental reviews for everyone else, and then, when it comes time for their pet political project, says: "We're going to exempt ourselves; we didn't mean us." That's exactly what they've done with Bill 50. They did the same thing with the B.C. Utilities Commission: exempting them from having to go through the hassle of a public hearing process. "Oh dear. Everyone else has to do that, but please, not us," says the NDP. That is hypocrisy, a double standard.

Sections 42 and 43, of course, are the most contentious issues in Bill 50, and that is the retroactive legislation denying access to justice for British Columbians. This is from a government, of course, that has ripped off charities over the years and still hasn't paid back the bingo money taken from Nanaimo.

There are comparisons that can be drawn with how this government has consistently taken steps to limit individuals access to justice through the courts. In our system of government, we have the legislative branch, we have the executive branch, and we have the judicial branch. In a parliamentary system, however, the legislative and executive branches are blurred, because the cabinet is drawn from the legislative branch. Unfortunately, under the NDP, what remains of the legislative branch outside of cabinet takes its orders from cabinet. There is very little check on the executive. The only real check on the executive powers of government comes from the judiciary. What has this NDP government done? It has set about limiting the power and the independence of the judiciary. That's not unique in the world.

A few weeks ago, my last remaining grandmother died. She was born in what was the Soviet Union and is now

[ Page 10636 ]

When I was younger, I didn't understand her fear. I could feel it. I could feel the fear that she felt any time anything was said about the NDP and socialism. But she had experienced it. She knew that communists and socialists don't value the independence of an individual. They don't care about the individual; they only care about the collective interests of the power elite. They don't care about the individual, and they don't care about the people in British Columbia.

Last year I went to Cambodia and spent a few weeks there. I learned a little bit about what had happened to that country. Under the Khmer Rouge and the communists in Cambodia, the very first thing they did when they seized power was close all the courts and kill all the judges. They didn't want any check on their power. They didn't want the judiciary stopping them from what they wanted to do. What did they want to do in Cambodia? They set out on a deliberate plan to achieve what they called "year zero." What has the NDP done in British Columbia in Bill 50? They're trying to set their clock back 12 years and rewrite that history. While Pol Pot was a bit more ambitious in trying to go to year zero, the NDP has started today, in Bill 50, by just going back 12 years. It's a step in the wrong direction, and it's a step along a slippery slope.

In British Columbia the NDP has closed courthouses. In British Columbia the NDP has enacted legislation to deprive individuals of the rights to seek redress through the courts. Why? Because they can't stand somebody standing up to the power of the executive, the power of the cabinet, and saying: "You can't do anything you want, government. You can't. There's a check on your power." This government is consistently trying to undermine anyone who tries to stand in their way and slow them down. That is what Bill 50 is all about: taking away the opportunity that individuals have to sue the government. It's right there in the bill. I don't know if the members opposite have bothered to read it. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has read just about everything else, it seems -- every other book ever printed -- but I don't know if he's read his government's own legislation.

I'm going to refer to section 42, because I suspect that members opposite have never taken the time to actually take a look at it themselves. Section 42 is headlined "Immunity from legal action." It provides immunity from legal action, as described in that section. That's the summary. No other British Columbian, as an individual human being, gets special legislative treatment that says: "You're protected, no matter what your wrongdoing in the last 12 years. Even if someone can prove it and satisfy a court or a jury of your peers, you're entitled to not be sued. You're protected from being sued." Individuals don't get that protection, but the NDP uses its access to power to protect themselves. That's what they're doing in this instance.

They would like to tell us that they're also doing this not just to protect their own backsides but to protect the charities. The question that screams out is: protect them from whom? The only answer I can think of is: to protect them from the NDP, because the NDP have been the ones consistently attacking charities over the last seven years. Whether it's ripping off charities in Nanaimo for political purposes in the bingo scandal or attacking the volunteer sector and making it difficult for volunteer agencies to recruit help, the NDP has consistently been attacking charities and charitable causes. In my view, the only people that charities have to fear are the NDP. They suspected it before, and now charities know it, because they've seen Bill 50. They know whose side the NDP is on. The NDP is on their own side, and to hell with everybody else. They don't care; they just don't care about anyone but themselves and their access to the public purse. That's what they're here for.

We have to consider some other steps that this government has made in tinkering with our justice system. There's photo radar. What did they do to implement photo radar? They changed the rules of evidence, depriving people of the opportunity to confront their accusers in a court of law and ask them questions under oath. At every turn, the NDP is undermining the principle of access to justice. Again, I suspect it's because they don't like having anyone stand up to them and limit their power and their discretion. It's clear that if there's one principle the NDP does believe in, it's the principle that the end justifies the means. That appears to be the NDP's guiding philosophy. How else to describe their conduct? They are going against everything they ever stood for by imposing a collective agreement on teachers and school boards and interfering in the free collective bargaining process.

Going through a shameful legislative session and getting this remarkably shameful bill at the end of that session forces us to look back and see what's taken place over the last four months. Let's recap. The provincial debt has gone up by almost a billion dollars. There are 64 criminal charges in the Bingogate scandal and still no payback of the money from the NDP to the charities. There are blatant payoffs to union bosses at the expense of the B.C. economy -- that's Bill 26. They are imposing a teacher deal on school boards that don't think it will work; 87 percent of those school boards rejected the deal. But again this government thinks it knows best and imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on the province.

There is leaky-condo legislation, which we debated yesterday, that doesn't do anything to help people who are presently living in leaky condos. There is nothing in that bill to help those people in leaky condos, despite all the hype. Youth unemployment hit 18.3 percent last month, up from 14.1 percent two years ago and 16 percent last year. Last week I had a chance to debate the Premier in his stated role as Minister Responsible for Youth. He admitted to me that this government is spending $1.3 million a year just in advertising their programs for youth, trumpeting their so-called success while the unemployment rate for young people has risen by 4 percent in two years.

Today, as we speak, there are 6,600 fewer young people between the ages of 15 and 24 employed in British Columbia than there were last year at this time. That is hardly something to brag about, with $1.3 million in taxpayers' money. That's been the record of this government this session and over the last couple of years. We were shocked a couple of weeks ago to learn from Statistics Canada that for the first time since 1984, more British Columbians were leaving B.C. for Alberta than were coming to B.C. from Alberta. Who would've thunk it, hon. Speaker? Two weeks ago, a leading economic forecast revealed that B.C. will have the worst economy in Canada for the next three years.

Finally, in my brief summary of what's happened in this session, we've seen a blatant disrespect for the institution of

[ Page 10637 ]

I've now fleshed out the context we need to refer to when we analyze Bill 50. We need to refer to that context in assessing the government's request that we support Bill 50, another addition to the many statutes on the books of British Columbia. I think that Bill 50 will go down in history as one of the more disreputable statutes among those volumes and volumes of laws that have been passed in this province over the last 100 years. Miscellaneous statutes amendment act, my foot. It's the hypocrisy act: gutting the Utilities Commission -- surely a decision that's going to come back to haunt all British Columbians -- trampling on the rights of minorities and individuals who want to seek redress through the courts against this government, and then mixing it together with other clauses that surely should have been removed from this bill and left to stand alone on their own merits. I'm referring particularly to section 1.

This government has many opportunities to do the right thing, but when given the choice between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, they do the wrong thing. From my own example in Chilliwack, I know that this government has done very little about the closure of CFB Chilliwack, and that is something we all regret.

[5:30]

I think it particularly regrettable that some of those opposite who are legally trained are purporting to trade on that legal training to offer advice to the Legislature about this bill and its impact. I think it's important for us to remember what this bill does and some of the facts that underlie it before we allow members opposite to continue to try to engage in this filibuster and sophistry and doubletalk that pass for debate.

Let's just look at the basic facts underlying the most contentious provision in this bill -- contentious, at least, in the eyes of the opposition. The fact is that in 1986 -- not under this government or any previous NDP government, but under a Social Credit government -- a regime was put in place, which everyone at that time and since then depended upon and relied upon in order to conduct their affairs with respect to charitable gaming in this province. Everyone thought that legal regime was a legitimate, workable regime. The charities thought so. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: You know, hon. Speaker, the members opposite seem to have been in some state of disappointment that no members on the government side were rising to participate in the debate. Now that I'm doing so, they don't seem to want to listen. That's regrettable, but maybe it speaks volumes about what their real priorities are here.

The fact is that the charities, those who participated in gaming at those charities, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, the taxpayers, the government -- everyone from 1986 onwards -- assumed that the set of relations, put in place by a previous government, was in fact a legally enforceable and viable scheme. They all worked together within that and relied upon it and took part in the regulation that it established in good faith, based upon that reliance. Those are the facts. Everyone relied upon it, everyone thought that it would withstand legal challenge and everyone depended upon that -- be it the charities in terms of their efforts, be it those who actually operated the gaming establishments, be it the government, be it the taxpayers. Everyone assumed that this regime was in fact a legitimate and legally enforceable regime.

Subsequently, it has come to light that for technical reasons, there was a legal deficiency in that regime. The government, seeing that legal deficiency and recognizing the reliance that everyone has placed upon that regime enacted by a previous government, comes forward and says: "We will now take steps to correct the legal deficiency to protect the reliance of the public on that regime." I've heard a lot of nonsense about the rule of law and quotes from Dicey by members opposite. But the fact is that the responsibility of government is to protect the legitimate expectation and reliance of the public. When the public relies upon a legal set of affairs that turns out to be deficient for technical reasons, the responsibility of government to protect the rule of law is to make sure that that reliance is supported. That's exactly what this government is doing and what this Legislature is being asked to do through this legislation.

The examples used by the members opposite of retroactive legislation prejudicing interests refer to situations where rules that were not thought to exist are imposed after the fact -- the very opposite of the situation here. The situation here is not the one referred to by Dicey, which the member for Richmond-Steveston referred to, where members of the public are subjected to legislation imposed retroactively, which comes as a surprise and imposes obligations they didn't expect. It is precisely the opposite. This is a case of government acting retroactively to maintain the state of affairs upon which people rely, so that the steps they took in good faith are protected and not undermined by government's failure to act. This legislation furthers and protects the rule of law in exactly the same way the courts do when they exercise doctrines like the doctrine of necessity to protect laws that might otherwise be struck down.

That indeed happened in Manitoba, when it looked like some laws were not properly promulgated because of language requirements. The courts came in and said that they would protect those laws while government retroactively corrected the error. That's exactly what's happening here. It's regrettable that the members opposite would prefer to ignore those facts, that they would try to take some political advantage of the situation and ignore the fact that this legislation was not introduced by this government but by a prior government. This government is doing the one responsible thing that the public would expect of it -- namely, it's ensuring that a system that was set in place, which everyone agreed to and relied upon, is in fact maintained and that people's reliance, including that of charities, is not undermined. So neither the taxpayers nor the charities will be called upon to pay for the deficiency of that prior government, because government is

[ Page 10638 ]

The whole reason we're debating this in this legislative forum is because we are committed to the rule of law, we are committed to democracy and we are committed to ensuring that the public is not undermined in their expectations because of a prior government's mistake in terms of the law that was enacted. We are determined to correct that mistake, to protect the public and to ensure that public order and expectation are maintained. It would be useful if the members opposite would recognize that, get off the political bandwagon and bring themselves into a more realistic frame.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine says: "Let's see you outdo that." Well, I'm not about to try to outdo the Minister for Advanced Education, who's a very learned man. He spoke rather eloquently but said things that, frankly, just don't make sense. You cannot argue that black is white; you cannot argue that up is down. You cannot argue that you're protecting the status quo, as we've known it in British Columbia until today, by taking away the rights of the people, the rights of charities, the rights of societies -- the rights of any person in British Columbia -- to sue the government if it has cheated them with its gaming policy, which the Supreme Court of British Columbia had to tell this government, to its shame, was in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.

That is a pretty shocking thing to happen to a government in British Columbia. I remember when some of the NDP members opposite were in the official opposition and the Socreds were in power. Those NDP MLAs would scream for resignations if the Socred cabinet ministers were caught in any sort of perceived breach of protocol, let alone a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada. I recall a Socred cabinet minister resigning, for example, over having put an expensive bottle of wine on his expense account. But here we have a government and a cabinet that have been conducting gaming in such a way that Mr. Justice Dermod Owen-Flood had to tell them, in January, that they were violating the Criminal Code of Canada. Generally, criminals go to jail or at least get fined. They certainly don't stay in cabinet; they certainly don't stay in government. But nobody resigned; nobody seemed to face any consequence at all. That's been a matter of shock to a lot of British Columbians -- that a government could just sashay on as if nothing had happened.

Then the electorate of British Columbia gets slapped in the face by Bill 50. It wasn't done in an upfront way.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: No, Bill 50 came down, as the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine is reminding us, on July 17, on a Friday morning -- a hot day in July. It starts off, of course, with a page that we can all support: the Human Tissue Gift Act. Every time I see the member from Trail, I feel good because he's alive. It was so close for him. As he said in his remarks tonight, he came within one week of dying. I was praying for him, as I believe members throughout this House were. I was really concerned about his health and his family. It was wonderful that his life was saved because of the gift of a donor organ. Certainly we are all going to be supporting the amendment to the Human Tissue Gift Act, which is at the beginning of this miscellaneous statutes amendment act.

But what a deception -- to put a magnificent piece of legislation like that on the front page of a bill like this. It is a really sleazy bill. In spite of what our learned colleague the Minister of Advanced Education had to say just now, it does change the status quo. It attempts to change the status quo forever in British Columbia in a very negative way.

Hon. Speaker, this government should resign over its gaming policy, over its violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and over this blatant attempt at NDP revisionism -- rewriting history to try and make their wrongs right. It can't be done.

One of the really disappointing things to me about this whole scenario is the identity of the person who presented the bill. Our Attorney General is one of the few people in this cabinet who I've had some admiration for. When the Attorney General handled the Gustafson Lake emergency the way he did, I thought: there's a man I can respect. But when this Attorney General stands up in this House and tables this bill and doesn't even mention the fact that this huge change is incorporated in this bill, this attempt to take away people's rights to seek redress through civil litigation in British Columbia. . . . He doesn't even mention it, and he introduces it with a smile on his face. He doesn't let on, and there it is, buried on page 14 of a 16-page act. There it is, the so-called "immunity from legal action" provision. What a shocker! What a disappointment.

I asked myself -- and I know that people all over the province are asking themselves: how could the NDP sink to this? That party always held itself up to us as having the moral high ground in all areas, as representing the common people of British Columbia and as being opposed to gambling. The members opposite spoke very vehemently against gambling when they were in opposition. How could they have sunk to this?

I've been the reluctant witness to some of the steps by which they've sunk to this. The Premier delegated the whole gambling expansion question to the Deputy Premier. The very day he got the assignment, he allowed as to how he thought that Monaco-style casinos might be okay for British Columbia, signalling to the entire province right there that he was in favour of gambling expansion. He proceeded, hell bent for leather and with very little apparent concern for the social costs of gambling expansion in B.C., to set about plans to bring in that expansion.

[5:45]

[ Page 10639 ]

Then, when the Attorney General stands up in this Legislature and tables this bill -- and right away, of course, people see what's on page 14 and begin to react to it -- he decides to say: "Well, we're doing it for the charities." The NDP is not doing this for the charities; they're doing it to the charities and for the NDP.

There's a price to be paid for all of this. This huge loss of credibility is part of the price. That's already happened. The public scorn and outrage is another price. That's ongoing, and will be for a long time. The loss of the next election is surely clinched by these moves. This NDP government has blown the credibility of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, and I don't think it will ever be retrieved.

It's absolutely shameful to suggest that this was done for the charities when it's taking their rights away. To try and suggest that the charities run any risk of being sued is absolutely preposterous. Even if it was true, legislation could have been introduced to protect the charities from that perceived risk if there was any such risk. The government didn't need to protect itself in this ham-handed way. The government didn't need to strip the people of British Columbia of their rights. They didn't need to treat people this way. It's been a sneaky, shameful process. Why is that? Why is the NDP constrained to practise this effort at revisionism? How could they stand up and bald-facedly say that they're doing this in good faith? It's the opposite of good faith; it's confiscating people's rights -- taking away that which they've always had in British Columbia. It's because this NDP has built its house on shifting sand. There's nothing solid -- there's no foundation -- under the things that this government is doing.

We look back at the history of our estimates debates in the last two sessions. I laboriously talked, as gaming critic, to one cabinet minister after another, asking them what they had done to fulfil their responsibilities, as ministers responsible for various major ministries of this government, to protect British Columbians from the easily anticipated social costs of gambling expansion.

I talked to the Minister of Women's Equality, for example. I asked if she had done any studies projecting how women in British Columbia were going to be affected by gambling expansion. There are many predictable ways. With my limited resources, I had read enough to be very alarmed about the consequences of gambling expansion that we had to expect for women. It turned out that she hadn't done any studies, any forecasting or anything to anticipate or deal with those potential consequences.

I asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs whether he had done any studies, any preparation, to safeguard aboriginal people from the downsides of gambling expansion. The downsides are tremendous, and they seem to affect aboriginal populations in different and more dramatic ways than the general population, according to the experience of other North American jurisdictions. The answer was no, he didn't do that at all. He even offered me a flippant comment to the effect that maybe this was going to be the aboriginal revenge on the general population -- a shocking thing to say.

I asked this same Attorney General what he'd done -- nothing. None of them had done anything to anticipate the tremendous social costs that all my research suggested were sure to follow. That was negligent, in my view; that was not in good faith -- not at all.

Already we're seeing many of those downsides of gambling expansion in British Columbia. Since this NDP government launched its massive expansion in gambling in March of 1997, small businesses in my community of Kamloops are reporting a tremendous drop in business. It's directly related, they believe, to the opening of the casino in Kamloops and the installation of close to 300 slot machines -- electronic gambling, of all things, which the NDP had always been opposed to. This government was heedless, careless, reckless, stupid and negligent in the way it implemented its gambling expansion, and British Columbians are paying the price.

The cabinet ministers that I spoke to, one after another, had to admit that they hadn't done anything to try and protect British Columbians from the cost and the downside of gambling expansion. One after another hadn't done a thing. They hadn't bargained on, hadn't researched, hadn't anticipated and didn't seem to care about the social costs of gambling expansion. Once again, these members opposite were being called upon by the Premier and the small clique that makes decisions with him, including the nineteenth cabinet minister, as he referred to Mr. Georgetti in the Order of British Columbia presentations. That small clique makes the decisions. All these people opposite seem to be expected to act as yes-people, mindless drones, and to come in and vote in favour no matter how shocking, no matter how bad.

In considering this legislation, it has occurred to me that surely this is too far for some of those members opposite. I see the member for Surrey-Whalley sitting opposite. I know her to be a serious-minded person who cares about her New Democratic Party values and who is opposed to gambling expansion. Surely this is too much to ask of her. The member for Rossland-Trail is an ethical man, a man who's had to come to grips with lots of things in his life recently. Surely he won't compromise his profound sense of right versus wrong in supporting this government in stripping British Columbians of their right to resort to the courts.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: I don't believe the member for Skeena, who is always yapping, has any conscience about this at all. He'll stand up and bark like he always does, like a trained seal. He is barking at me right now. But that's just what we expect of him. He's a write-off. He came very close to being recalled and will be unelected next time. He has a very limited understanding of what we're talking about, hon. Speaker. I'll just explain, through you to him, that what we're talking about here is something that happened to this government because of its stupid move into gambling expansion -- ill-conceived, ill-considered, ill-advised, ill-prepared and with no legislation. It's flying by the seat of its pants.

And what happens? The New Democratic Party government of British Columbia finds itself butting its head against the Criminal Code of Canada -- utterly embarrassing. Then, when the charities say, "Yes, we knew that all along; we don't accept it, and we want our money back," what does this government do? Does it negotiate in good faith and deal with that fallout, those consequences? Maybe it makes a bit of an effort, but not a good enough effort. I see the Minister of Advanced Education nodding his head. I know that they made a bit of an effort. But if at first you don't succeed. . . . This government should negotiate some more. It shouldn't slap the people of British Columbia with this bill and try to take away their rights.

[ Page 10640 ]

Find out what the electorate think about this so-called attempt to protect charities from lawsuits -- this actual attempt to expropriate people's rights, to take away their right to seek legal redress when they have been wronged. I think I know what the public is going to say about that; I think those members know too. But there are some, like the member for Surrey-Whalley and others -- the member for Rossland-Trail and perhaps yourself, hon. Speaker -- a few who would rather stand on principle and see what the electorate think than vote for a perversion like these sections of Bill 50.

You look at section 9 of Bill 50, and over and over again it says that the government and its various agencies are going to be conclusively deemed to be, and to have been for the last 12 years, in a position to do the things that they've been doing, when the Supreme Court of British Columbia has already told them they weren't. That's a perversion for a government to deliberately make a move like that. It is totalitarian and dictatorial. It is flat wrong and a direct attack on democracy. It's not acceptable. We can't live with it.

They shouldn't live with it, and they shouldn't be asked to. They shouldn't be put in that rotten, compromised position once again by this government. They don't have to be apologists for the Premier, for the nineteenth cabinet minister, Mr. Georgetti, or for the Deputy Premier, who just walked in, the man who got all this rolling in British Columbia with his foolish expansion of gambling without having done the right things. They don't have to be yes-people or trained seals.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I've been frequently reminded throughout this session, as bill after bill has attacked the rights that British Columbians have always relied upon having, of the gentleman who said after the Second World War that his experience in Germany leading up to the war and during it was: "When they came for this group I didn't say anything, because I wasn't one of those. When they came for the next group I didn't say anything, because I wasn't one of those, either." He goes on and finally says: "And when they came for me nobody said anything, because nobody else was left."

That's how we've seen people's rights attacked by this government throughout this session of the Legislature. It hasn't been a pretty thing to see; it's been a sad thing to see, for me. I take no pleasure in it. I'm daily shocked, chagrined and shamed by the things that go on in this Legislature and by the behaviour of members like the member for Skeena, who carries on the mindless heckling, always does what he's told and never seems to pay any attention to the moral issues or the consequences. How can a government conclusively deem itself to have had the right to do what it did, when the Supreme Court of British Columbia has told them it didn't and that in fact it was violating the Criminal Code of Canada? How can that be?

[6:00]

One thing that concerns me with this legislation is one of the groups whose rights will be taken away, and that is the gambling addicts of British Columbia. It's no secret that it's a major concern of mine. Way back in '96 when I was made gaming critic for the official opposition, it seemed to me that not too much was happening. As I did my research, I wasn't sure that there was too much to ask the government about, really, because there was no expansion underway at the time. But I was shocked to find out about gambling addiction, how many addicts there already were in British Columbia, how fast gambling addiction increases in a jurisdiction when the number of venues available for gambling increases, and what terrible, dramatic social costs there are with addiction that naturally flow with gambling expansion. I was shocked.

Then, when the Deputy Premier went ahead with his massive gambling expansion -- a 2,000 percent increase in gambling in British Columbia -- I kept asking: "What about the addicts? What about their families? What about the social costs?" The government introduced a small program to deal with gambling addicts, but the research says that most of these poor people who develop addiction really aren't treatable; it can never be turned around. Most of them go right to the bottom with it. They exhaust all of their resources; they spend all their money and all their credit and blow all their assets. They very often resort to stealing and other crimes to try and raise money. They take their families to the bottom. More of them attempt suicide and commit suicide than any other type of addict. The spouses of male pathological gamblers attempt suicide at triple the rates of the general female population, and they have eight times the frequency of a whole range of very serious health ailments. All of these things flow from gambling and gambling expansion.

I've repeatedly asked this government, as it brings on its legislation, its legal actions, that attack the tobacco industry: "What are you going to do when the gambling addicts and their families, their dependents -- their estates, for those who commit suicide -- sue the government of British Columbia using the same essential approach and virtually copying the statement of claim that the government is using against the tobacco industry?" Well, apparently, this is the dishonourable answer, because as I understand it, this legislation will take away the rights of those gambling addicts to sue the government in the same way that this government is suing the tobacco industry. That's wrong. It's wicked to have created the problem, to have deliberately sent British Columbia families

[ Page 10641 ]

There's a word for the philosophy of a party that believes that the rights of the party itself or the state outweigh the rights of the individuals who live in the state, the citizens, as this government appears to do. There's a word for a government that runs itself on an autocratic basis, a government that accepts a leader who's dictatorial and says "Thus and so," and all government members are expected to sit up and bark when he says it, behaving like trained seals, a government that believes in extreme regimentation of social issues, social programs, economic programs. The word is fascism, hon. Speaker. We're seeing columns in the newspapers, and people are asking if you can hear the sound of jackboots in British Columbia. I can hear them. They're thumping on the coffin of the economy in British Columbia.

This is a very bad situation, so I'm going to move an amendment to the motion. It reads as follows:

[To delete all of the words after "that" and substitute therefore the following: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 50) for the reason that the Bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians and would damage public confidence in government."]

K. Krueger: I'll just speak briefly to that amendment. It's a second chance. It's a chance for this government to pull back from this abyss, a chance for those members opposite to be allowed off the horns of this dilemma -- because the good ones can't personally support this part of Bill 50; they can't do it, hon. Speaker.

H. Giesbrecht: Well, sit down, and we'll have a free vote.

K. Krueger: We know that they've been told, as they're always told by the Premier and by the Whip, that they have to support it. The member for Skeena, barking as always, says: "Well, sit down, and we'll have a free vote." We've seen how free the votes are on that side of the House. It's not like free votes over here, where we're quite free to vote differently from one another, and we have done. We see that there's always solidarity over there. It doesn't matter how objectionable the bill is, how wrong the government is about the issue, how badly it flies in the face of the things that the members have committed themselves to and said in the past; we've seen that there is no such thing as a free vote over there.

Here's a chance, with this amendment, for the members opposite to get out from under this tremendous problem, to get away from this box that the Premier has put them in. Maybe the Attorney General didn't know about those parts of this bill. It is, after all, a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. Maybe that's why he didn't talk about this horrible assault on the rights of British Columbians when he introduced the bill on that fateful Friday just over a week ago. How could the kind of a man that I'd rather believe he is have done it in clear conscience? How could he have done that? How could he have failed to talk about the fact that this NDP government is trying to conclusively deem itself to have been within its rights to do something that the Supreme Court of B.C. has told them is illegal -- for the past seven years that they have been in office?

Interjections.

K. Krueger: I hear them calling out that the government before them was doing the same thing. Well, it wasn't the government before them that expanded gambling in British Columbia by 2,000 percent, vastly increased the revenue projections from gambling, vastly increased the betting limits, doubled the hours of the so-called charitable casinos and then took them over altogether. It wasn't the previous government that did that.

It was this government's actions that expanded gambling and took all those terrible risks with the people of British Columbia. It was this government's actions that led to the situation that Mr. Justice Dermod Owen-Flood was dealing with and that Mr. Jacques Carpentier had to bring to the fore with his legal action. It's this government, the governing New Democratic Party, that has failed to live up to the Premier's commitment that the funds stolen from charities in Nanaimo, through the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, would be paid back.

Indeed, rather than doing the right thing about what happened in Nanaimo, this government has taken that experience and extrapolated it provincewide. That's what Mr. Justice Owen-Flood told the government. "You're lawbreakers," he said. "You're violating the Criminal Code of Canada." Instead of paying the money back to charities, as this government is morally and legally bound to do -- which is why it's trying to get out from under it with this legislation. . . . The Premier has said that he would pay back the charities in Nanaimo. Why won't he pay back the charities provincewide that this government has been stealing from?

H. Giesbrecht: Who would pay the bill?

K. Krueger: The member for Skeena is barking: "Who will pay the bill? Who will pay the bill? Who will pay the bill?" Well, the people who stole the money have to pay the bill.

This reminds of the arguments that are put forward by Nazi war criminals, who continually say: "We're old now. You've caught us now, but we're old. We got away with it all these years. It's too late. Leave us alone." That's what they say, and it sounds to me just like what the member for Skeena is saying. Who will pay the bill indeed?

The fact that it's a big bill doesn't mean that the victims shouldn't be paid. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have their redress. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to resort to the courts that they depend on, that they obviously want and that they had underway. Who will pay the bill indeed, hon. Speaker?

I suggest that it's the member for Skeena and others like him who are going to pay the piper at the time of the next election -- and may it not be too far away -- for the kind of behaviour he is exhibiting in this House this morning and has exhibited time and again: complete, flat, total, utter disregard for responsibilities, for the consequences, for trying to make things right when they are caught, dead to rights, having done things wrong. There is a price to pay for all of that, and this government's going to pay it.

But we can start to end the wrongdoing by this government, hon. Speaker, by accepting this amendment to the motion, by declining to give second reading to Bill 50 -- because it does attack the democratic rights of British Columbians. It attacks democracy in British Columbia, and it will damage public confidence in government. It already has, and it will, day by day. This bill is an absolute travesty! It's wrong; it's nasty. It's a reprehensible thing to be doing. This government can't expunge history. It can't just take its little old Bill 50, this miscellaneous statutes amendment act, throw in these

[ Page 10642 ]

There are other objectionable portions of this bill, of course. I have chosen to focus mainly on the aspects dealing with gaming in British Columbia, because I am so familiar with the social costs and consequences of gaming. I am so amazed and hurt at the way this government has treated British Columbians.

Interjections.

K. Krueger: There's the Premier, laughing out loud, smirking and mocking and carrying on as he always does, hon. Speaker -- a person of no apparent conscience, a person who doesn't seem to care. He doesn't care about British Columbians. He doesn't care about the small businesses that are losing out because of gambling expansion, about the women I was referring to whose families are devastated, about the children whose fathers have stopped coming home, who blow the family budget and often blow the family home through their gambling activities, their addictions that flow with the kind of expansion that this government has implemented.

It's so wrong to take their rights away and to say: "You're never going to be able to hold us accountable, and we're never going to pay you a dime, because we're the government." That's what the NDP says. We've heard it time and again: "We're the government, and government can do anything it wants."

Interjection.

[6:15]

An Hon. Member: Order, order.

K. Krueger: . . .and always introduce it in the middle of the night.

The Speaker: The hon. member will take his seat. I recognize the Minister of Human Resources.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I understand that the opposition is sexist and can't handle a woman and her husband doing the same job, but I would offer that that really isn't part of this bill.

The Speaker: The hon. member is aware that personal comments and references to personal situations are not really part of proper debate in parliament.

K. Krueger: One of the difficulties we have in opposition, of course, is that the members opposite won't get up and speak to the bill at all. Instead, they sit on their duffs, as the Minister of Human Resources was doing minutes ago, and they heckle and say inappropriate things. Hon. Speaker, when we try to deal with that, which is the only way that they have participated in this debate all night long, then they want to take offence and say that we're off topic. They'd be wise to just put their hand over their mouth and keep it there and say nothing.

The Speaker: Hon. member, on Bill 50, please.

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I am speaking to Bill 50, and I'm expressing profound concern for the tremendously wrong direction that the government is attempting to take with this bill. It's also wrong that this same dictatorial, autocratic, fascist government wants to do away with the B.C. Utilities Commission. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you have to withdraw at least one of those words. It's not appropriate, not parliamentary language.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, would you. . . ?

The Speaker: I'm not going to repeat the word. The member knows the word.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker. . .

The Speaker: Right, hon. member?

K. Krueger: . . .in order to continue talking, I'll withdraw your pick, whichever it is.

The Speaker: No, hon. member.

K. Krueger: I recognize that you're not going to say it.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you withdraw the word that is inappropriate in this House. The member knows which word it is.

K. Krueger: Well, hon. Speaker, we talked about the definition. . .

The Speaker: We're not to argue.

K. Krueger: . . .of fascism.

The Speaker: Hon. member, argument is not appropriate.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I will withdraw personally from the House, and I'll allow one of my colleagues to take up where I left off.

The Speaker: As you wish, hon. member. It doesn't remove the point that the Chair was making to the hon. member.

I recognize the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development.

Hon. D. Miller: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Obviously, when the House sits all night, people occasionally

[ Page 10643 ]

I want to just speak very briefly on some elements of the bill. As my colleague from Victoria who spoke earlier said. . . . After having listened to much of the debate throughout the night, what I am struck with -- and by the way, I am speaking against the amendment -- is the interpretation that members opposite have somehow been able to delude themselves into putting onto many of the provisions of Bill 50. It's one thing, I think, to take a political position and say that we oppose something for this reason or that reason. It's one thing to try to define those reasons in rational ways, to try to make a cogent argument and say: "We're opposed to it because of this or that." I have absolutely no objection. That's the job of the opposition, and it is indeed the job of everyone to try to raise those kinds of points. It's very important that that kind of debate take place.

Unfortunately, what we've witnessed throughout the evening is an opposition party that seems to have convinced themselves of their almost "moral superiority" with respect to some of these questions. They also seem to have deluded themselves by reading into various sections of this bill some nefarious plot that somehow they and they alone have to champion and try to prevent from happening. It's a bit dangerous, actually. It really goes back, if I can put it in simple terms, to the risk that sometimes does arise when people "drink too much of their own bathwater." I think we've seen a classic example of that overnight with regard to this bill.

I want to point out a couple of things that I think are important. My colleague spoke to the issue around gaming. Of course, there is a very rational and real argument for why this has to proceed. But let's talk about the issue that's contained within section 39. The issue, quite frankly, is a very simple one, and it's this: who is properly constituted to determine public policy with respect to energy issues in British Columbia, what is the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission with respect to these matters, and what is the proper role of government in determining public policy?

The B.C. Utilities Commission is a regulatory body. Its job, to a large degree, is to protect the consumer. When you have a state monopoly such as B.C. Hydro, it's a well-established theory in terms of regulating those monopolies that there has to be a body that is independent from government, one that acts in the public interest. That's the way it should be. But as we see in this evolving and highly technical world of ours, new issues do arise -- issues concerning the environment, issues concerning employment, issues concerning, if you like, social factors. The Utilities Commission is not constituted to deal with those kinds of questions. Rather, it is there, as I said, as a necessary element whenever there's a state monopoly -- in this case, B.C. Hydro, which has served the interests of British Columbia very well.

So as we saw the emergence of some of these, particularly the environmental questions around energy production, there clearly is a role for the government to play, for the governing party to play, in determining some of these questions. For example, we have seen around the province many, many requests come into government for cogeneration projects. One that constantly -- and I've dealt with a number of these applications -- comes in is on the burning of wood waste to produce electricity. In fact, many of these proposals have been brought forward and championed by members opposite. They have said: "We would like to see a co-gen project in our constituency. It makes sense in my constituency. Let's burn this wood waste." But when you look at these projects, quite often what you find is that their cost of producing electricity or energy, is much higher -- sometimes dramatically higher -- than B.C. Hydro's cost of producing electricity.

A regulating body like the B.C. Utilities Commission can only look at those questions in the narrow range of consumer protection. In other words, why should they allow a project to come on stream that has a higher cost of energy production when B.C. Hydro can supply that energy at a lower cost? From a consumer-protection point of view, they would say: "You shouldn't build that co-gen project." I'm surprised that the members opposite haven't taken the time to do this basic kind of research.

We have two projects here on Vancouver Island, in Elk Falls and Port Alberni. Those are very large co-gen projects proposed by forest companies, MacMillan Bloedel and Fletcher Challenge. Those projects will -- they are proceeding -- produce, I believe, around 250 to 300 megawatts each. Those projects will go a long way to secure and stabilize the employment in Port Alberni and Campbell River. Those projects will allow Vancouver Island to be more self-sufficient in energy production -- some 600 megawatts in total or thereabouts. Those projects will allow B.C. Hydro to avoid. . . .

There was an extensive report done on this, a very highly technical, well-done, extensive report. The panel was chaired by John Allan, the current Deputy Minister of Forests and formerly the Deputy Minister of Energy -- a person who's got all the credentials you need. On that panel were people from industry, Hydro, etc. It's a very complex and technical report, and it led government to the conclusion that these projects on Vancouver Island were desirable. They were job creators, they strengthened the economy, and they assisted Vancouver Island in becoming more energy-self-sufficient. You would think that any member in this chamber would stand up and support all of these things.

Instead, we have the spectre of the opposition, in a completely self-deluded approach. . . . This is what they have done tonight. They have fundamentally staked out their ground that they are opposed to the Elk Falls co-gen project, and they are opposed to the Port Alberni co-gen project. These are projects that will create jobs on Vancouver Island and will help to stabilize the economies of those communities. They have been fully supported by the MLAs in those constituencies, by the workers in those constituencies, by the companies -- MacMillan Bloedel and Fletcher Challenge -- by all people who have taken a rational look at this issue. They have all stood up and supported it. The only people that I'm aware of who are opposed to this are the Suzuki Foundation, in a rather bizarre press release that they put out yesterday -- perhaps that's where the members are getting their advice -- and the members of the Liberal Party of British Columbia. I'm advised, as I discussed this question with the two MLAs representing those Vancouver Island constituencies, that they intend to inform their constituents this morning that those two significant industrial projects that will create jobs, create more self-sufficiency in energy on Vancouver Island. . . . The Liberals have spent all night opposing those two projects. I'm sure that in those constituencies. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The member for Vancouver-whatever says: "I'm sure that will be really true." Did he listen to all the words in the debate? Did he listen to some of the things that members opposite said on this question? I think it's going to be very interesting.

[ Page 10644 ]

Maybe it's sort of a collective self-delusion that takes place somewhere in their caucus room, but they certainly have some disease and, I guess, are incapable of trying to analyze these questions in an objective way, adding their partisan beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, you ought to do that. But to go to the bizarre extent they've done overnight on some of these provisions and, quite frankly, to use the kind of invective that I have heard from some speakers opposite really demeans this House, and it demeans the Liberal opposition. If they think it's one-sided, if they think somehow that "right" is on their side, if they think that the piety that I have heard is something that's exclusive to the Liberal caucus and somehow their moral superiority is such that they've worked themselves up into some state, it really does carry things a bit too far.

Madam Speaker, I've tried to make a very simple point: this bill deals with jobs. It deals with doing something environmentally right; it deals with those communities. To not take the time to simply look at these questions, and to paint this in the way that the opposition has, doesn't do the bill justice and, quite frankly, doesn't do the opposition much justice either.

[6:30]

Hon. Speaker, we just heard from one of the more sanctimonious NDP members -- one from cabinet -- talking about how he intended to twist and turn what was said tonight about Bill 50, all in relation to two co-gen projects for Vancouver Island. He was the only member I know of in this House -- mind you, I didn't listen to all the debate, so I should be careful -- that took umbrage with that issue and decided that in the morning -- it's morning. . . . He says: "We're going to let all of Vancouver Island know that the Liberals spent all night railing against two co-gen projects on Vancouver Island." That's the total problem with this government: they don't tell the truth. They don't know how to. All they're doing is trying to twist something around. The Deputy Premier got up. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat. I recognize the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. D. Miller: Just a small point, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I can seek your guidance. The members opposite may not like my politics, and that's fair enough; I may not like theirs. But I don't know that I've ever accused them of not telling the truth, and Madam Speaker, for the record, I would like it. . . . I do tell the truth, and I am highly offended by any suggestion that I don't. If the member wants to. . . . I don't care if he retracts or not. But I don't use that kind of language, and I don't know why the members of the opposition can stand up and say things like we don't tell the truth. I tell the truth as an individual, in front of my constituents, and I resent anybody who stands up in this House and suggests that any other condition applies.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I would just caution hon. members that we are all honourable members in this House and that members should take that into account when making reference to each other's remarks.

R. Neufeld: I accept your words of wisdom, and I will remove the words that the minister found offensive. Maybe what I should do is remind that minister, the Deputy Premier, that it was his government that didn't tell the truth about two budgets. I don't know if that includes him or not. Maybe in his own sanctimonious way he's saying: "I wasn't part of that process; I wasn't part of the government that said it." But actually, I think he was. He was the Deputy Premier, and he was in government.

I know the Deputy Premier is a little touchy about a number of things. He stands here and talks about all the goodwill that he can put forward, and that he really doesn't mislead people. I'm not trying to put on the record that he does. But I do recall even the Minister of Finance saying, "You don't have to believe me," when they talked about lies about the budget and all kinds of things like that. I'm not trying to pick a fight with the Deputy Premier -- in no way. All I'm doing is relating some of the things that I've read, heard and witnessed from this government -- that's all.

Getting back to the bill, the Deputy Premier got up in all his glory and talked only about the public utilities section of the bill and forgot. . . . I guess it's typical for some of those members opposite to get up and start talking about how they're going to twist some of the things that are said. I fully agree that when you go through the night dealing with some issues, as we've done a number of times since I've been here in 1991, some things are said that are. . . . Emotions get in the way, and those kinds of things. But the Deputy Premier, the second in command in cabinet over there, didn't even talk about what I think is one of the best parts of the bill -- one of the parts that member should be very proud of, put forth by the member for Rossland-Trail. We all sat here in silence and listened to the member for Rossland-Trail talk about the Human Tissue Gift Act and his experience with these issues. I can tell you that I have to commend that member for standing up and saying those things. He knows better, I think, than any one of us in the House how important that is. I commend him for his ability to actually convince the government that they should be putting this forward in legislation. The Attorney General, in his wisdom, listened to the member for Rossland-Trail about the issue of the Human Tissue Gift Act. I would have thought that the Deputy Premier would have given just a few words to that portion of the bill, rather than just try to deal with one portion that he thought he would put on the record and try to say that the Liberals are actually doing something that they're not.

Hon. Speaker, there are some sections of this bill that I do have some problems with; there are others that I don't. I won't

[ Page 10645 ]

You know, the minister talked about the two co-gen projects on Vancouver Island, but he failed to mention that this government couldn't even move forward on selling plots of land in this province that had been surveyed since the late seventies, plots of land that were taking two years to sell -- two lousy years to sell surveyed pieces of Crown land, in five-acre sizes, that had been for sale since 1979. And, heaven forbid, when somebody actually came to the plate and wanted to buy one of those plots of land almost two years ago, the ministry still couldn't get through selling that horrendously expensive $4,000, five-acre parcel of land.

So what we have is a government that brings in a bill and an Attorney General who wants to transfer responsibility for doing that to some other agency, so that -- what we typically see from this government -- they can stand up and say from now on: "It's not my fault. We transferred it over there. They're looking after it. Don't talk to me." Well, hon. Speaker, I've seen that time after time. I've seen a number of speakers stand up and speak to this bill and to other bills, and all they can do is blame someone else. Talking about the Ministry of Environment, I read a news report where the Minister of Environment blamed her staff for not doing a good enough job. That's why Bill 40 had to be pulled off the docket. She blamed the staff for a lousy job. Who's responsible, in that government, for that lousy job?

We can go to case after case in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and find -- I just gave you one -- where lack of leadership. . . . The only desire of the government of the day is to get more money, and they admit that. They say: "We're not going to deal with the smaller ones. The smaller people don't count when it comes to land sales." In fact, this was told to me: "We are only going to deal with the big ones." They were somehow shelved if you were just a small person and you weren't all that important, and it was just some little issue way out there. That was put on the bottom of the pile. But if it happened to be a million-dollar property: "We were going to go ahead with that." And they did. It was all about getting money into the coffers; it was all about cash. That's what it was all about.

In Bill 50, we see the government shuffling that responsibility over to some other agency -- God knows where -- so they can stand here and say: "Don't blame me; it's not my fault." In fact, we even witnessed it tonight. Actually, I had a little sleep for a while, so it's not tonight -- it was yesterday. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, in a bill that she brought forward -- a badly drafted, terrible piece of legislation that she couldn't explain. . . . When she thought there was an error in the bill, she blamed the staff right here in the House. It's on the record. She blamed the staff, so I guess they didn't draft it very well.

I hope I'm speaking to Bill 50 when I'm dealing with the sections that transfer Crown lands to a new entity so as to sell them. At the end of the day, I guess the transfer is going to work. But I know what will happen next year when we come here, when the House comes in session. We'll all still have those 100 or so small applications on our desks in our constituency offices -- whether you're a B.C. Liberal MLA or you're with the PDA or you're an independent or an NDPer. What we'll have is someone standing up in the House and saying: "Well, we looked after that. We transferred that responsibility over. Don't blame me. We're trying to move things along."

It's all about not taking responsibility; that's what it is all about. It's all about a government saying that they were going to reduce staff, and they turned around and, in one of the busiest parts of the province when it comes to land administration, they laid off most of the staff. Then they wondered why things went awry. That's good old socialist thinking; it's trying to twist things around so that you can make people think one thing when you're doing something else.

There are some other issues in this bill that we have some problems with. Some have spoken on them. The gaming issue, which is probably the heart and soul of the bill. . . . The member for Richmond-Steveston, for whom I have a great amount of respect, did an excellent job explaining to the Legislature, to the House and to British Columbians why British Columbians should be outraged by this section of the bill. Again, this is a government that stands and says. . . . We heard the Minister of Advanced Education saying: "Don't blame us. It was someone else. Don't blame me. I never did anything wrong. It was that other administration." It gets a bit tiresome, from my point of view, to continue to hear members from the government not wanting to take responsibility for anything. They don't want to take responsibility in the House for their legislation. They don't want to take responsibility in the newspaper for their legislation; they don't want to take responsibility for their own legislation that precipitated what happened with the court case.

You know, they sneak these kinds of things in on a Friday, on private members' day. I mean, it's no secret. Everybody in the province knows, and has known ever since shortly after this government was elected, to make sure that they watch what the news releases are on Fridays, because that's the stuff that they don't want anyone to know, and they're hoping to sneak it out there. You know, if it was such a huge issue, why didn't they have the good sense to table it on a Monday or a Tuesday? Why do they have to do it on a Friday? Why do they have to sneak it out on a Friday? It's so they don't get any bad press. That's why.

[6:45]

When was the House called? It was called at the end of March. April, May, June, July. . . . When was it -- just about the end of July, when it was finally brought forward in the

[ Page 10646 ]

The difficulty is that they're talking about trying to protect charities. Of all people in the province, the NDP are talking about trying to protect charities. Ask Jacques Carpentier whether he thinks that this group really wants to protect charities. Ask the people in Nanaimo whether the NDP is the gatekeeper to keep everyone back -- all those hordes of people that want to sue the charities -- and if they really believe that this NDP government means that.

I just find it the most unusual thing that we have a government that has strong ties to people that have -- I don't know -- hundreds and hundreds of charges against them. They had strong ties to charity organizations that had charges against them. They are a party that stole from charities, from nuns, from the people in Nanaimo. They took money from charities to actually get their own cause out there better, to promote it. These same people stand in this House and try to tell us that the reason they had to bring forward this section of the bill was because they were protecting charities. It's absolutely unbelievable.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The Minister of Human Resources can take her place and speak to this bill as well as anyone else can -- just like we listened to the Deputy Premier stand and speak to the bill.

For this government to stand here and tell us that the reason they had to bring in this bill and go back to 1986 was because they wanted to protect charities. . . .

The other section is, as I said, a bit hard for me to take. The other part that the Deputy Premier talked about in Bill 50 was the amendment to the Utilities Commission Act and that the official opposition was opposed to the cogeneration plants on Vancouver Island. It's interesting that that member, the Deputy Premier, all of a sudden becomes a total proponent of co-gen projects, when we look back to 1991. I recall that there were a number of them on the drawing boards just after the NDP government was elected, and independent power producers were actually told: "Tough. We don't care how much money you've spent. We don't care how far you've gone in your co-gen. We don't care about your plans. They're all cancelled, the whole works of them." They just cancelled them. So, seven years later, all of a sudden they're the ones who are promoting co-gen. Well, I find that hard to take.

When we look at what's happening with the Utilities Commission, how it's having all its powers taken away so that government can have total say in what happens, specifically with B.C. Hydro -- and that's what it's all about: B.C. Hydro -- one has to wonder what's really the driving force here. Is it actually to promote two co-gen plants on Vancouver Island? Is that what it's really all about? Or is it really all about money? Is it really all about getting cash into the bank to pay for the groceries and not having to tell the people what you're doing, not having to go through the Utilities Commission for large projects, to be able to put them on stream? Is that what it's all about? Is it all about Site C and cabinet making a decision behind closed doors saying: "Hey, we don't care what the people in the north say about Site C. We don't care what cost it would be to build Site C. We just think, in our own grand wisdom, because we're the NDP, that we should build Site C"?

When it comes to setting hydro rates, I guess that's what it all really goes back to. When the Utilities Commission told the province that they had overcharged British Columbians for their hydro by, I think, 7 percent and that they should rebate that, the government went about advertising -- or B.C. Hydro did, under the direction of the government -- that they returned that money to the people. They actually didn't. It's just like the minister's talk earlier. They twisted it and turned it around to make people think that they were getting their money back, when in fact they really weren't. So they brought in a bill that said that cabinet shall have the total power of setting the power rates and that they're going to be frozen. That means that people aren't going to get anything back and that they're still going to get overcharged for their hydro. And the B.C. Utilities Commission does not have any more authority in setting rates or hearing about rates for that huge monopoly.

I guess it could go back to Powerex, where B.C. Hydro actually sells power into the U.S. market, power that's not even made available to Canadians. That's good socialist policy -- very good socialist policy. It's all done under the guise of: "This is peak power; all we're selling to the U.S. market is peak power." That's how it's explained to us. It's been explained to people across the province that no one else would buy this power because it's all short term; it's just the peak power that we're selling. But slowly the truth is coming out, and we find that more and more companies in the U.S. are buying very cheap hydro, cheaper than anyone in British Columbia pays, for five-year firm contracts. Is that peak power? I don't think that's peak power. But why wouldn't you. . . ? If you were really concerned about jobs in British Columbia, if this government really wanted to promote jobs -- and the Minister Responsible for Northern Development talked about the co-gen projects on Vancouver Island -- why would you take huge amounts of hydro out of the grid system and sell it across the border to U.S. customers for less than what anyone in British Columbia can buy it? I guess they really love the U.S. customers here. In fact, they won't even give a B.C. company the opportunity to match the price. They just plain go out and sell it. Well, I don't think that's got anything to do with jobs in British Columbia. For me to sit here and have to listen to the Deputy Premier stand up and talk about how we in the official opposition are against jobs on Vancouver Island, knowing full well what they're doing and the reasons for the changes to the Utilities Commission Act, is a bit hard to take.

Maybe that whole caucus over there doesn't really think much about jobs. We've lost over 15,000 of them in the forest industry since the Premier's grand announcement in Prince George a year ago. There are 15,500 jobs gone by the wayside after an announcement that the government was going to create 40,000 jobs. I say: my goodness, don't ever let these folks go out and make any more announcements, because we see what happens when they make them.

But that's what it's all about on the public utilities commission. It's all about money; it's all about that urge to have more money. It's all about the urge to be able to do things in secrecy; it's all about the urge to be able to do it behind closed doors and not have to tell anyone what you're doing or why you're doing it. It's all those things in this bill. It's about not taking responsibility, not standing up and saying, "Yes, we were wrong about gaming," and taking responsibility for it. You were elected; you should be able to take responsibility instead of blaming someone else.

To say that you're the protector of charities in British Columbia is pretty hard for anyone to take when we know

[ Page 10647 ]

They're taking away the right of British Columbians who feel that they've been wronged at some point along the way -- the right that they've always had prior to this bill, to sue the government if they thought they'd been wronged. That's totalitarianism at its worst, and that's what we're witnessing in the better part of Bill 50 -- other than the first section, which I totally agree with.

[7:00]

Bill 50, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 3), is a very wide-ranging bill. It's generally known as an omnibus bill or a housekeeping bill. But it's an interesting bill in the sense that when you look at the range of issues addressed in the bill and the serious implications of those issues, it can hardly be considered a housekeeping bill.

I was in the Legislature on the day that the bill was tabled by the Attorney General, and it struck me as very unusual that any bill was tabled on a Friday morning; that's generally not expected. In particular, when you look at this bill in retrospect and look at the serious content of the bill, it's all the more surprising. Looking at the content of the bill in retrospect, I have no choice but to believe that the decision to table on a Friday was intentional, deliberate and calculated to give the minimum amount of exposure to the content of the bill. I think that's a bad start for a bill with the wide-ranging implications that this bill has.

I'm going to comment on certain sections of the bill. I think the general, overall position that I take on these sections and the bill itself is obviously one of opposition to these sections. I'm very concerned about the overall implications for the citizens of British Columbia, particularly from a point of view of the principles of openness and accountability of government and the principle that people should have the right to challenge their government in court. Those are some of the principles on which I am opposing the bill and supporting the amendment.

Before I speak to some of the issues that concern me, though, I want to speak to section 1, which is a section that I support on the basis that I do have some personal experience with a constituent waiting for a kidney transplant. Section 1 proposes an amendment to the Human Tissue Gift Act and would provide powers to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish standards, practices, protocols and procedures dealing generally with the ability of people to give consent. It provides provisions whereby people would be encouraged to give consent to being an organ donor. I'm pleased with the fact that the bill respects the need for appropriate consent from a donor. I think the bill is positive, in that it attempts to encourage more organ donation by eligible people.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The case in my constituency involves a man approximately 45 years old. He has a business and employs 14 people. He has been waiting for four and a half years for a kidney. Despite the fact that he has a fairly common blood type, he has been waiting for that period of time because a good match, when all of the factors are considered, has not come forward. In discussing this issue with people like Dr. Landsberg at St. Paul's Hospital, the computerized system that Dr. Landsberg has developed to provide a fair, unbiased and, I think, effective selection process to match incoming kidneys with potential recipients like Gerald Brown is commendable and worthy of mention.

Part of the difficulty that we face generally today is that there is less availability of donated organs. In the case of kidneys, the peak year for availability in British Columbia was actually 1989. Since that time, the availability of kidneys for transplant has declined.

This is a fairly common problem with a whole range of potential organs to be transplanted. There was a recent Globe and Mail article that spoke to this issue, and certainly there's a high level of interest from anyone who has an involvement in this area. The B.C. Transplant Society is certainly working to create awareness. I think a lot of people simply aren't aware, until they're personally affected by it, of the implications of someone being prepared to donate an organ. I'm pleased to support this proposed amendment in section 1. It was also very moving to hear the story of the member for Rossland-Trail with respect to organ donation.

I want to move now to section 2 and make some comments with respect to the proposed amendments to the Land Act. These amendments involve sections 2, 3 and 41 of Bill 50. I noted that the Attorney General, in introducing the bill last night, talked about this proposed amendment as an administrative housekeeping matter, and I want to address that in my comments. The government proposes, in Bill 50, to move the management of Crown lands to a Crown corporation -- to move those operations out of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and into a Crown corporation.

I'm deeply concerned that the government is making this move without having properly analyzed the problems of the long backlogs in the system and without having fully analyzed the root causes of those problems. I fail to see how moving the responsibility to a Crown corporation will, in and of itself, make any appreciable difference in the management of Crown resources. Has the government clearly defined the problem? First of all, what is the problem that the government claims to be solving?

It seems to me that the most critical aspect of the problem is the long backlog of applications for decisions on tenure and various types of leases and transactions involving Crown lands and foreshore or water resources. The second aspect of the problem is an inefficient and ineffective process for adjudicating Crown land decisions. The next logical question to be asked is: what are the root causes of these problems? It's been of concern to me for some time. We canvassed this a little bit in the Ministry of Environment estimates. Has the government really analyzed these root causes? I think the relevant question is: will this proposed move address these root causes? How will it address them?

I submit that the root causes of the backlog in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are the following. First is the indecision and hesitation by the government on critical policy issues, and I'm going to speak in more detail about that. The second issue that I see is the referral process with first nations -- a referral process that does not work because it has

[ Page 10648 ]

We need to bear in mind that by the ministry's own documents, the backlogs in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are costing the province 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in annual revenues. I want to comment in a bit more detail and give some examples of what I call indecision and hesitation on policy issues as being a factor in these backlogs. One of the examples I want to use is the number of aquaculture tenures that have expired and are currently expiring. These are generally ten-year leases. As I said, a number have expired, and more are to come shortly.

What is the holdup in renewing these leases? Certainly the pattern is that they are not being renewed and that in fact there are no decisions being made. There are situations temporarily on hold, and it's almost becoming a permanent condition. One of the holdups is that the government seems to be paralyzed by first nations concerns. Rather than make a difficult political decision, the political side of government avoids making a decision and leaves it to civil servants to struggle with the problem. There are other land use conflicts that may involve non-natives but that are also difficult politically. Rather than face the problems squarely, the political side of government procrastinates and makes no clear decision. In the end, no one really wins, and everyone is frustrated. I think that applies to a lot of our land use situations, where there is conflict and there are different points of view.

[7:15]

Moving Crown lands operations to a Crown corporation, as proposed in Bill 50, does not address these issues. It does not address the difficult policy issues, policy decisions, that I see as impediments to moving forward on the backlog in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

I believe that what is required are some difficult but forward-thinking decisions by the government on these potential growth industries. The transfer of management responsibilities to a Crown corporation will do nothing for aquaculturists. It will give an impression that something is happening when, essentially, it is not. Unless the other root causes of the backlog are addressed, moving the operations to a Crown corporation is simply window-dressing.

I want to comment on the referral process with first nations, which I believe is not working because of no time limits and no attempt at closure. This is not a problem or an issue that started last December with the Delgamuukw decision. The Lands branch in the Ministry of Environment has been walking on eggshells for years with respect to this issue.

Prior to being elected as an MLA three years ago, I was told by a land use consultant on contract to the ministry that the politicians clearly were unwilling to deal with the aboriginal issues and that the staff in the Lands branch were getting very frustrated with the resulting inertia. In the words of this individual: "If something is not done, this whole ministry will grind to a halt." This forecast was made over three years ago. We saw the evidence this spring, in the ministry's own submission to Treasury Board, that backlogs in the system resulted in 20,000 lost jobs and $1.3 billion in lost economic activity.

The process of referral to first nations needs review. Two aspects should be reviewed and reconsidered. Firstly, there needs to be an appropriate time limit on any consultation. Secondly, there needs to be closure in the referral and decision-making process. Closure means that there needs to be a deliberate, proactive and informed decision made by the government. Closure means that if a response is not forthcoming within a fair and appropriate time frame, a decision will have to be made regardless.

Right now we have too many tenure decisions being put on hold just because someone complains, regardless of the merit or otherwise of their complaint. Again, there needs to be a reasonable balance between giving due diligence and making a decision versus avoiding difficult decisions altogether. Again, I think the responsibility lies at the political level, the political side of government. We cannot expect civil servants to make decisions on conflicts which by their very nature are political decisions. The political side of government has to take responsibility for dealing with those issues.

I want to make some comments about staffing levels. While I cannot quote the precise numbers, there certainly have been many indications that the Lands branch in particular in the Ministry of Environment took severe staff reductions a year and a half ago. This was on top of the fact that the ministry itself took a serious reduction in that budget announcement of November 1, 1996. The Ministry of Environment has a general problem with respect to employee issues and a specific problem in Lands. There are many stresses and strains on staff, in my view, due to a variety of causes; this applies particularly to Ministry of Environment staff.

The government appears to have a real penchant for moving things out of existing ministries and into Crown corporations. Once outside a ministry, things somehow seem more important, as indicated by increased funding, more autonomy and yet more political attention at the same time. The government set up a separate Ministry of Fisheries, which took with it a part of the existing Ministry of Environment. The government is still planning to do a study and make a decision on how much of the Ministry of Environment will go to Fisheries. If some stakeholders have their way, a significant additional portion of Environment will be transferred to the new Fisheries ministry. The government set up Fisheries Renewal B.C. and Forest Renewal B.C., both high-profile agencies with political attention and dollars to do things. Now the government plans to move the management of Crown lands to a Crown corporation.

All of this combined is very demoralizing to ministry staff. It adds uncertainty. And it reduces productivity; people are not doing productive work when they are constantly changing offices and job descriptions. Again, the transfer of

[ Page 10649 ]

I also want to mention the concern about insufficient funding of necessary resources for staff to do their jobs. Last week I had the experience of a Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation officer expressing great concern on behalf of his colleagues in the Ministry of Environment. He stated that the Ministry of Environment staff, in the second half of the fiscal year, literally do not have money to put gas in their vehicles and to fund other purely operational necessities. In fact, the DFO conservation officer indicated Ministry of Environment counterparts were bumming rides to get to locations for habitat enhancement, etc.

The constant turnover of senior management in ministries such as Environment is also critical to the productivity of staff. The constant shuffle of personnel and parts of ministries is more relevant than moving authority from the ministry to the Crown corporation as contemplated in Bill 50.

In summary, sections 2, 3 and 41 of Bill 50 do not address the problems that currently exist in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. If anything, they provide another smokescreen that in fact masks the real problems with respect to the backlog of tenure and lease applications. The other difficulty I have is the well-established trend within this government to continually move more and more government operations out of the ministries and into Crown corporations, presumably as a way of solving problems.

I was on a trip in the Peace River area about a year ago and heard firsthand the concerns of the oil and gas industry in terms of processing applications through the Ministry of Environment. They spoke very specifically about the limitations of staff, their inability to process applications and the very direct cash cost to government of that backlog. Applications that used to take three or four days now take 40 days. What was the government's response? The government set up the Oil and Gas Commission and, again, moved responsibility out of the ministry. There was no reason that that problem could not have been solved within the ministry -- probably more economically and with a better effect on employee morale than what happened.

This partly explains the huge gap between what the government says the deficit is and what the auditor general says the deficit is. The constant movement of operations out of the ministries and out of the consolidated revenue fund statements tends to distort the financial figures. The government says that the deficit projected for the fiscal year 1998-99 is $95 million. On the other hand, the auditor general says it will be a $949 million deficit. The auditor general has also said, in a note to the financial statements, that the consolidated revenue fund statements are not an accurate reflection of the financial state of the province.

I'm concerned that this move may well be simply part of that equation -- to move some more government operations out of the ministry and out of the consolidated revenue fund. It's been a continual process, and it continues to distort the financial statements. I guess that if I felt there was no other way to solve the backlog problem, I would consider supporting it, but I don't think it addresses the real problem.

I want to just comment on the press release that was issued on July 17, announcing this change proposed in Bill 50: "The purpose of the change is to bring more resources to deal with Crown land applications and address the backlog issues." I hope that the minister in committee stage will explain that statement and address that issue. If the intent is to bring more resources to the job, then why hasn't that been done within the ministry? Why does it take the movement of this operation into a Crown corporation to bring more resources to the job?

The press release says, "Land use policy will remain with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks," and it also states: "Provincial government policy on consultation with first nations is also unaffected." Again, on both those statements I submit that that's where a great deal of the difficulty lies. That's where a great deal of the problem with the current backlog resides: the unwillingness and apparent inability of the government to deal with pressing policy decisions and the difficulties, I think, with the first nation referral process. On that basis, hon. Speaker, I have to speak against the proposal in the legislation to provide the Minister of Environment with the authority to transfer responsibility to a Crown corporation.

I want to now turn to the sections of the bill that deal with amendments to the Lottery Act. I'm talking about sections 7 to 11, 42 and 43. There has been a lot of discussion and comment about this proposed amendment, despite the tabling of the bill on a Friday, by the public and in this Legislature. I must say that I appreciated the initiative by the member for Saanich South to at least get up and make some response from the government side as to their views as to why they're doing this and the implications of it.

[7:30]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time is up.

J. Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to stand up in the House today and speak to Bill 50, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). Hon. Speaker, this is quite a mixture of pieces of legislation we have in this bill. The first part, which deals with organ transplants, is good. What should have happened here -- and this government should realize this -- is they should have put that into a bill by itself, separately. When you get into the rest of this bill, you find quite a few things that are a bit disturbing, but buried in all of this is a very, very poison pill. We have gone around here and through this a few times this evening, last night and this morning. And an amendment to this bill has been moved by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, and that is: "To delete all the words after 'that' and substitute therefore the following: This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 50) for the reason that the bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians and would damage public confidence in government."

We have debated this piece of legislation through most of the night under a cloak of darkness here -- a piece of despica-

[ Page 10650 ]

Unfortunately, man has the ability to regress within a few years, and when we look at a government, the life of a government is four years. Hon. Speaker, this government has reached its half-life, and already they have set the democratic process in this country back by 200 years. That's terrible; that is disgusting. They are a group of self-serving, callous, greedy individuals, and they continue to heap inhumanity on the people of British Columbia. Some of these qualities started to become apparent during the Harcourt regime, the last government, but now this government has lost and destroyed any form of ethical conduct within government. We know that during the last election they could not be trusted. A promise a day is what it was. But only two promises were kept, and they were both backroom deals to union leaders. They handed over the Forest Renewal funds to the IWA, and they hijacked the construction industry and put in sectoral bargaining. Neither of these promises was an upfront election promise to the public. It's sad. And during the last election voters were desperate. They were like a drowning person clutching at a straw. They were looking for any hope that they could get.

Hon. Speaker, this slide downhill continues. This government continues to destroy all ethics and integrity with respect to government and democracy in this province. We have seen promises broken by the dozen -- not one or two. They spoke of balanced budgets. Then the doubletalk began. They talked of health care: "We are going to protect the health care system in the province of British Columbia." What happened? Our waiting lists get longer and longer and longer; hospital beds are closed routinely; every few months we lose more beds; we lose more services; we see our health care system steadily, slowly disintegrate in this province.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member rises on a point of order.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am hearing this amazing rhetoric from the member opposite. Unfortunately, it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. I would certainly be interested to hear his comments on something that's in the bill.

Deputy Speaker: I remind the member that we are on the amendment to Bill 50, and to ensure that his remarks pertain to the amendment to Bill 50.

J. Wilson: I'm sure if the member opposite will bear with me, I'll get to it in a roundabout way, and I will show how it all ties together.

Hon. Speaker, we have seen a series of issues where this government has said one thing and done another. They have said, "We are protecting a health care system," which, when they took over, was in reasonably good shape. Today that's not the case.

Let's look at education, another one. They're going to protect education. It is a promise that's been stated in every budget since this government has taken office. They are going to protect the education system in this province. But what is really happening? Each year it's cut. It's cut a little more, a little more and a little more. Seven years in a row. . . . Is that protecting it? This year they have put some money in, through a legislated deal for the teachers, not considering our school boards are elected bodies whose job it is to manage the funding and see that it's spent in the best way in the school districts in the province. Doubletalk -- that's what we get. Every single thing that this government says is couched in doubletalk.

They were going to promote economic development by the reduction of red tape. Can you imagine? Wouldn't it be great if that could actually happen in this province? So what do we get? We get Bill 14, we get Bill 26, we get Bill 35, we get Bill 46 -- and what has happened? More doubletalk. We see regulations increase tenfold in this province under this government. That's how they cut red tape. Honestly -- give us a break.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a fascinating little diatribe from the other side, but it has nothing to do with the amendment. They moved the amendment; I'm sure that they'd be more than happy to speak to it. But I have yet to hear any discussion of the amendment, so I would certainly want to encourage the member opposite to speak to the amendment that they moved.

Deputy Speaker: I will remind the member once again that he is speaking to the amendment to Bill 50 and to keep his dialogue to the amendment.

J. Wilson: The amendment reads like this: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 50) for the reason that the Bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians. . . ."

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, to the amendment.

J. Wilson: It is to the amendment. The democratic rights, hon. Speaker, are the rights of citizens of British Columbia to be told something by the government they elect and to know that that government has got the ethics and the morals and the guts to do what they said they would do in the first place.

We will have talked to this amendment. . . . They promised they were going to hold taxes. How do they do it? They say: "Taxes will not be increased because we're putting a freeze on things. We could have increased it by 900 percent. Do you realize how lucky you are that we didn't increase it by 900 percent? We froze it, and see how much money we've saved you." Really.

Another example of deceit: the Premier froze Hydro rates. Why? To help out the consumer in this province, all those individual users of Hydro. What he didn't say was: "We know Hydro rates are going to go down." More doubletalk. Had he left it alone, the Hydro users in this province today would be paying less than they have been for the last two years.

What we have here in the province of British Columbia today is a low-life, bottom-feeding government. They thrive on payoffs to friends, insiders and patronage appointments. And each time, they sink lower and lower. You'd think they'd hit bottom. Wrong!

[7:45]

J. Wilson: To the amendment, hon. Speaker. This government will sink to any depth to protect themselves and their friends in their quest to destroy the democratic process in this province.

[ Page 10651 ]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I will once again remind you that we are on Bill 50 and the member is speaking to the amendment to the motion. If the hon. member would like me to read the amendment motion out to the hon. member, I would be more than happy to do so.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I would appreciate it. Would you read the motion to me? Maybe I didn't understand the motion.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Cariboo North, the amendment to the motion reads: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No.50) for the reason that the bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians and would damage public confidence in government." Hon. member, I would request that you ensure your debate is relevant to the amendment at hand.

J. Wilson: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for that interpretation and help.

Recently, this government was found guilty of breaking the criminal laws of this land. How else do you explain it if that isn't an erosion of the democratic process? I have trouble defining it any other way. They were ordered to repay. The Deputy Premier shrugged it off and pleaded ignorance of the law. But then, what else could you expect from a government that blatantly interferes with our judicial system? They don't mind influencing judges' decisions. What would you expect from a government that breaks a law by exerting pressure on independent bodies like the Agricultural Land Commission? What could you possibly expect from a government that rewards party members for writing phony letters with FRBC contracts? What would you expect from a government that promised to pay back money that was stolen from charities?

Well, we would expect this, hon. Speaker. We would expect Bill 50. That's what we would expect from this government: retroactive legislation protecting this low-life, dishonest government from legal actions by individuals who want to try to recover some of the moneys that the NDP stole from the young, the old, the handicapped and the vulnerable in our society. The Minister of Forests said it inadvertently, but they all believe it: "Government can do anything."

Get this: with this legislation, we're protecting charities from being sued. Give us a break! What a far-fetched excuse! What builds and enhances performance, ethical behaviour, accountability and responsibility? After all, why should charities or government be exempt from, or above, the law? It's all in a day's work for this government in their quest to destroy democracy in this province. They've even destroyed the collective bargaining rights of their own union friends. Their quest continues as they drive this province with the reins of socialism.

Have you ever wondered why we have gone from number one to number ten in economic growth in the province? Socialism -- or communism -- does not work in this country. Our main trading partner in this province is the United States of America. The people of the United States really have a great deal of disdain for socialism -- or communism, whichever. They really don't distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, they look upon this province as if they are one and the same. Unfortunately, most of the other provinces in Canada really don't make a lot of distinction between these two. Have you ever asked yourself: why is B.C. having such a hard time surviving? Think about it. There's an unwritten law in North America towards socialism, communism or whatever you want to call it. Now I am beginning to understand what the average Cuban has had to endure for the last 40 years.

Hon. Speaker, any government that sets itself above the law will not survive. Any government that would even remotely hope that we could support something as hideous as this bill. . . . It's impossible.

K. Whittred: I'm pleased to rise in the House this morning at five minutes to eight to speak in support of the amendment to Bill 50. The amendment states: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 50) for the reason that the Bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians and would damage public confidence in government." I believe that I will address my remarks to the second part of that amendment, the part about damaging public confidence in government. I would like to address that second part first.

I don't know if anyone there in TV land is watching us at this time of the morning, but there may be people just getting up, tuning in to the legislative channel and wondering why they're getting people talking, instead of the scroll going round and round with our names on it. Well, for anyone who wonders why that is happening, it's because we have been here all night. We have not been to bed, most of us. We have been debating this bill, Bill 50, since last evening. People might ask: "Why are you doing that? Why are these people that we elect to public office in Victoria doing something as silly as that?"

The reason is really quite simple. It's because in our system of government we have one side of this House that is in government, and we have the other side that is in opposition. It is the responsibility of the side that is in opposition to make the public aware, in every way possible, of the legislation that is before this House. That, in a nutshell, describes the reason why we're here. In this instance, the government brought forth this piece of legislation that, in the opinion of the opposition, is not good legislation. We feel that this is in fact detrimental legislation for the people of British Columbia.

This legislation was brought forth in a somewhat -- perhaps not unusual, but I think I will use the word -- unusual way. Just for the benefit of those people in the public who are wondering about this, the way that bills are normally introduced is that on a normal working day, such as a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, they're usually introduced at the beginning of the sitting each day. There's a kind of routine that we become accustomed to.

[ Page 10652 ]

Now, in the case of this bill, hon. Speaker, this is what is called a miscellaneous statutes bill. Again, for those in the general public who may not know what that is, a miscellaneous statutes bill is a collection of all sorts of little odds and ends. Just to give people an idea, for example, in Bill 50, this miscellaneous bill, there are some sections that deal with the Vancouver Charter; there are some sections that deal with the social services tax; there are some sections that deal with public education labour relations, public service labour relations and pension statutes -- all sorts of things that we would call housekeeping legislation. In the business of this House, these amendments deal with what is usually called housekeeping. They're odds and ends that have to be looked after and sometimes fixed. Sometimes they're out of date, sometimes they're archaic, sometimes it may just be a spelling error. That is the usual purpose of miscellaneous statutes bills.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In this instance, this government put into this miscellaneous statutes bill a section that this side of the House, the opposition, finds particularly objectionable, and that in itself makes this somewhat unusual. Now, we would grant -- I say this in terms of getting to discussing this topic of confidence in government -- that the government is perfectly legitimate and entitled. . . . In fact, it's their job to bring legislation forward. It's also our job to bring it to the attention of the public. That explains why we are here this morning into -- I have no idea now -- perhaps the twelfth hour of debate on this particular bill. It is our job to debate this as vigorously as we can in hopes that our message will get out to the public. It's our hope that the government will respond with their message. That is the way that democracy works. When this system does not function quite right, then we have a breakdown and a loss of confidence in that particular process.

[8:00]

We have heard, from time to time, members on the government side say: "Well, why are you doing this? This is so silly -- all this talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. What's it going to get you in the end?" In the end, their side is going to win the vote. They win every time, because they have more members. That isn't rocket science. That's the way our system works.

If you follow the idea that we should not debate these bills to their most effective resolution, then I think we would be in a situation where we would say: "Okay, everybody in this House can go home, and we'll simply have the Premier run the province." If we want to argue that he in fact runs his side and that we are insignificant, let's just close the place down and not bother. Some of the public, unfortunately, think that maybe that's pretty much the way it is and, again, that contributes to. . .does damage to the image that people have of this institution.

Those are the reasons why we are here, and that addresses to some extent at least the question about damaging public confidence. We on this side of the House feel that it is our job to do a thorough, thorough debate, particularly on legislation that we find not to be in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. We feel it's also our obligation -- and sometimes we don't have time -- to do justice to some of the legislation that we in fact concur with the government on. Those are some of the weaknesses that need to be looked at in this particular place of work. If we all looked at some of those ways of making this House work better, I think we would improve the public's confidence in what we do.

One further point I might make about damaging public confidence is this. I'm sure that there are people watching at home and seeing that we look kind of tired and what not, and they're saying: "Why are these crazy people up all night? Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk." Once again, it kind of reflects back on us, doesn't it? Again, it erodes public confidence. Part of the problem with that is that we on this side of the House, the official opposition, don't have very many ways in which to bring to the public's attention legislation that we feel is not in the best interests of British Columbians. We have a few things that we can do, one of them being to debate. You know, hon. Speaker, when we debate for an hour or two hours, nobody takes any notice, but if we debate for a very long time, perhaps somebody takes notice and perhaps the message gets out a little bit more clearly. That, again, is part of our job. It's part of the democratic process. If that part of it works, then we have done our job. We have in fact contributed a little bit at least to restoring public confidence in our government.

Now let's move to the first part of the amendment, which talks about the attack on democratic rights of British Columbians. The amendment says that this bill in principle attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians. All right, that is the reason that this side of the House feels that this is legislation that does not contribute to the interests of British Columbians. I would like to read for you a quotation by the then Attorney General, Alex Macdonald, and this is from a second reading debate on March 18, 1974. He was speaking on a bill called the Crown Proceeding Act. I think members opposite, members of the government, would recall that Mr. Macdonald was an NDP Attorney General. He said:

"We seek to abolish in British Columbia a relic of the medieval age when the King could do no wrong. The doctrine of that fiat system where the subject had to go on bended knee to seek from ministers of the Crown the right to sue the Crown is a relic of the time of the divine right of kings and should have no part in our modern jurisprudence. We are in this bill correcting an agelong inequity. We are providing that there shall be no special privilege in the eyes of the law accorded to big government that is not accorded to the littlest citizen or the biggest corporation."

To me, hon. Speaker, this is perhaps significant in another way. I think it's significant in this discussion because this bill is part of a trilogy of legislation that has been introduced by this

[ Page 10653 ]

The second bill, of course, is Bill 39, where out of the sky dropped this agreement to settle between the teachers and the government -- not their employer but the government. In effect, the government said to the school trustees who are elected people: "Take a hike. We don't need you." It changed forever who teachers work for. Teachers have always worked for a local school board. Now they work for the government, and that is a significant change.

Now we come to Bill 50 which removes the right to sue the government. These three bills, of course, have great differences. But they do have that similarity: they show a certain arrogance; they show a pattern; they show a government that has lost its touch with its roots, I believe. I might point out that arrogance is usually the last gasp of a failing government.

It would appear that the government has found itself in a very inconvenient position. It has found itself in a position where it could in fact have lost a lawsuit which would cost it a great deal of money. All of this relates back to a situation that occurred a number of years ago. So what are they to do? They're in this horribly inconvenient and embarrassing and perhaps very expensive situation. So what do they do? They say: "Well, it's easy. We're government. We can do anything we want. Let's change the law." I mean, what could be simpler? You find yourself in a compromising situation -- let's change the law. Wouldn't it be nice if when we get caught with a speeding ticket, we can say: let's change the law and let's make it retroactive. Let's make it back to when you actually got the speeding ticket. In effect, that's what the government has done in this case.

This is the situation that has caused outrage in the community. In my two-and-some years in this House, I have not seen an issue that I've got so much response to. Let's just take a little look at what some of the -- I guess we could call them -- opinion leaders in the province are saying. Allan Williams, a former Attorney General, called the government move "an unprincipled attack on the right of a citizen or a charity to seek redress after sustaining a loss because of government action." "It is draconian use of power by a legislature." Draconian is a powerful word, particularly from a former Attorney General, because Attorneys General are not prone to using hyperbole. They tend, if anything, to understate. I find it very significant that a former Attorney General would define this as draconian.

[8:15]

When you add these things up, what you have here is an attitude -- what I've always described as arrogance, and the arrogance can't be summed up in one bill. You have to kind of look at the collection. This is sort of just the icing on the cake. It's the cherry on the sundae, if you like. But it's an attitude of government: if you don't like the way things are, change it; if you don't like the law, then change it.

With those remarks, I believe I have offered at least a few points in defence of the amendment. I have spoken about how this bill has damaged public confidence. I have spoken about the attacks on democracy in British Columbia. I will conclude with that and call on one of my colleagues.

G. Wilson: It's interesting, on a Wednesday morning when we are normally not sitting, to be here at 8:15 in the morning to speak to a bill which, by its title, you would think is pretty innocuous -- it's just miscellaneous statutes. That's usually considered to be simply housekeeping.

In my comments in speaking in favour of this amendment and against this bill, I want to really press three points. The first is not to necessarily restate what many members of the official opposition have been saying all night, but to bring my voice and the voice of those people who support the party I represent against what I think is not just draconian legislation but dangerous legislation.

It's dangerous because what it says is that the government is above the law because the government can amend and change and modify the law to suit its practice. Where governments -- not only municipal governments and provincial governments but possibly in the interrelationship between those two. . . . When they have broken the law, when citizens wish to challenge what they have done, when citizens wish to take those governments to court and be able to bring those governments to heel by virtue of the courts. . . . We are able now to come into this assembly, bring a bill in at a few minutes past midnight and then have it debated in the darkness of night and have the government given the power simply to fix it retroactively.

This isn't new. Let's be clear that this miscellaneous statutes amendment and the ability of government to go back and fix the little problems that have been created by people who have essentially broken the law in levels of government, wittingly or unwittingly, is not new and is not unique to this particular government. These miscellaneous statutes have been around for a long time, and if one goes back through the history of this institution and if we look at law that has been passed over the numbers of years, we will see that there are a number of different administrations that have used precisely this measure, precisely this tactic, to go back and retroactively change the law.

There are some rather celebrated cases, in fact, where citizens, in seeing this having been done, sought to petition the Lieutenant-Governor so the Lieutenant-Governor would not give royal assent to particular portions of the bill. The Lieutenant-Governor, it was felt, was the final word and would be able to provide some sanity to the debate, in the sense that he would say: "Look, this is ultra vires. You cannot go ahead and do this. You have to go back, and you have to give citizens their right of protection."

Let's be clear that in the parliamentary system we are administered by in British Columbia, the Lieutenant-Governor doesn't have that power. The Lieutenant-Governor, as formalized through the Constitution Act of the province, must do what the executive council of this Legislative Assembly recommends he do by the legislation that is passed in this chamber. That makes it even more problematic. When you see the use of this kind of amendment, this kind of bill, that simply allows government to retroactively fix that which is

[ Page 10654 ]

Let's for a moment look at just three areas of this bill. One could look at close to seven of them, but let's look at just three. The first is the matter with respect to the retroactivity to 1986, which has been spoken on at length by members of the Liberal opposition, and I'm not going to go back and go through the detail of it. But what that does is say that the court that has ruled violation of law is now going to have to recognize that it was wrong, retroactive to the date of its ruling. We now can go back and wipe that slate clean.

Think about this for a minute. I hope that British Columbians, any who may be up and listening to this debate, might want to think about this for a minute. Do we or do we not prize democracy? Do we or do we not wish to enshrine fundamental rights for individuals so that we in a free society can hold government accountable? Is that or is that not a principle that we must ascribe to all those members we elect to public office? I think the answer to every one of those questions is yes -- and yes absolutely.

The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale just read out commentary from a former Attorney General -- interesting comments. Those comments of a former New Democratic Attorney General ring so true today that they're worth repeating.

It's interesting, hon. Speaker, when we look at this business with the gaming legislation, that the government essentially found itself in a box. I saw an Attorney General stand up and try to defend what the government is doing and state in their defence that what the government is trying to do is to further protect the charities. Please, please, please -- just how dumb does the Attorney General think we all are? I mean, please. Stand up and say: "We're going to protect the government's liability and the loss of millions of dollars, because we believe it to be in the public interest to do so -- and yes, it's not good legislation, but fiscally we have to do that." Be honest. Come forward and put the facts in front of us. But please don't use as your defence that we are going to take away the fundamental right of an individual to sue because it's in the interests of the charities of British Columbia that we do so. Talk about adding insult to injury! Charities, which have been denied their rightful share when they have volunteers who go out and make money through the work they do to raise dollars through gaming, now are told: "You know what? Your ability to go back and recover in the courts is going to be denied you because we're worried somebody might actually go after you." Please, please, please let us not be that banal in our debate.

The public knows what's going on; the public sees what's going on. This is not the first time, and this is not the first administration to have done this kind of thing. We hoped -- I hoped; I can't speak for any other member of this chamber -- that we as an institution, as a democracy, as a people, had matured enough to say that we are no longer going to have the dictatorial authority of government ride over the rights of individuals and, that as was brought into this chamber by statute, we will provide the right of individuals to sue. And if the individuals find in their pursuit in the courts that the government is wrong and the judges have ruled that the government is in violation of its own law, those individuals will prevail. That is what a free, democratic society demands -- nothing less.

Yet here we have a government that is invoking what is affectionately called sort of a Henry VIII clause. Maybe this bill ought really to be entitled the "Off-With-Their-Heads Act." Anybody who dares challenge the government, anybody who dares come forward and try to take into court an issue that says the government has violated its statutes, has risen above the law that denies individuals their right. . . . Well, off with their heads, because we're going to change the law. King Henry VIII, who sits over there and is the Premier of the province, will now deem and dictate that this is the way it's going to be.

Let's look at a second one, hon. Speaker. Gaming is one. There's a gentleman who lives in Sooke who is currently trying to take the government to court on what he believes to be a violation of rights in the matter of smoking in public places. Now, let me say that in looking at the legal challenge, I don't know if he will or won't be successful. But he certainly has built up a body of evidence. He certainly hopes to go before the courts; he hopes to have his day in court. He hopes to have a judge hear his evidence, and he hopes to have at least an honest and even opportunity to present his case before a non-partial, non-biased, non-political arbitrator -- that's a judge -- and have a judge rule on what he believes is a sound position in law. Presumably his lawyers do as well, or they wouldn't be wasting his time and money.

Well, what this act says is:

"40 (1) Despite section 523 (1) (a) of the Municipal Act, as that section read before its amendment by the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998" -- that's this little gem; listen, hon. Speaker, to these words -- "and despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after this section came into force, a local government bylaw that (a) prohibits or purports to prohibit the smoking or other use or consumption of tobacco products in classes of premises specified in the bylaw, and (b) was approved by the Minister of Health before the section came into force, is conclusively deemed to be valid for all purposes" -- on a matter that's before the court.

[8:30]

[ Page 10655 ]

Let me go to another one. It's about fluoridation of the water in Prince George. It's an interesting one. Around 1952, '53 or '54 -- in that area; 1953, I think it was -- Prince George, then a very small community, had a small water supply. What it did was fluoridate the small water supply, because it wanted to get fluoridation. It was all the rage at the time; a lot of people thought it was going to do good things for their teeth. So they wanted to fluoridate it, and they went ahead and did it.

A wise old gentleman, somebody who is well-known to British Columbians who read their political history, decided that because fluoridation had enough concern, there ought to be a law that said: "In order to fluoridate the water, you must go to referendum." That wise old gentleman was a gentleman by the name of W.A.C. Bennett. In 1954, W.A.C. Bennett brought in a law that said that no municipality should have the right to fluoridate water without a referendum. That's what he said, and the law was passed.

Subsequently, Prince George has grown into a pretty impressive little city. There it is in the north; it's the gem of the north, where people have now got a good water supply. That water supply is no longer a small, little, tiny water system; it's now a very large water system, supplying many thousands of people. And it's all fluoridated. It has been fluoridated from 1954 onward. That fluoridation has gone ahead into all these new works that have been put up, and there has not been one referendum on the question. The people have never been asked about a referendum.

Some people who now bring forward medical evidence to suggest that fluoridation of water in fact has medical effects, that it is not a good thing, that it causes problems -- certainly problems in some people who are prone to it -- want to have a referendum on the question. They're now saying: "You know, the city of Prince George in fact is in violation not only of the law -- the statute of the province of British Columbia -- but of its own letters patent." They cite it; they read it out. They say: "Look, here it is." The council says: "That's a problem for us, because we could have serious litigation here. We could have a serious problem. If a court rules that these people are right and we are wrong -- that we should not have gone ahead with fluoridation -- we could have a serious problem."

Now, whether you're in favour or not in favour of fluoridation of the water is not the issue -- although that's a big debate, a debate that possibly people may want to have at another time. What's at issue is that the law requires a referendum. What's at issue is that the law requires that the public be asked before you put fluoride in their water system whether or not they wish to have a fluoridated system of water supply; that's the issue. But what does this bill do? This bill says that despite the Municipal Act -- a law that's been well-established and is being amended in this session -- and the letters patent of the city of Prince George, it is conclusively deemed to have had the authority to fluoridate any part, or all, of the water supply of the municipality, as of the adoption of a resolution by its council on October 4, 1954. Let's go back to 1954 and say that by this statute, any works that had been put forward then and any future works that would come forward today can put fluoride in the water, and they don't have to obey the law at all. They never even have to ask the people of Prince George.

In doing my own homework and research on this bill, I phoned around, you know, and the council is saying: "Look, please don't cause us grief on this, because we want this. Elected members want it because they see themselves in a serious liability situation. There are many people in Prince George who don't care that the water's fluoridated. Some people really want fluoridation in the water. Others are vehemently, staunchly opposed to it." That is not the debate here. The debate is whether or not it is sound public policy for government to retroactively, back to 1954, basically wipe the slate clean and say that notwithstanding what the laws were, notwithstanding what the breaches of that law may have been, we're going to say that it's all legal.

I want to restate that this is not new. This isn't the first time this has been done, and in the government's own defence, I'm sure -- if anybody's prepared to stand up and defend these bills. . . . It's interesting -- the government doesn't do much in defence of its own bills. Perhaps it doesn't feel it has to because it has a majority and they can simply do whatever they want -- they'll argue that this isn't new, that this has been the practice of this chamber for a long time, and the reason it's the practice of this chamber is to basically clean up little legal glitches. Well, little legal glitches are one thing. But to deny a person's right to challenge and sue government is another thing entirely, and that, unfortunately, is where we're getting to today.

Having pointed out these three points, I wanted to state in my closing how disappointed I am as an elected member of this chamber to find that we in this province have progressed to this low level of legislative process. It is so disappointing, hon. Speaker, because in the pursuit of public office, one thinks, whether you're in opposition or on the government side, that you're getting elected to a government that is going to do the will of the people and to advance the democratic process. I was elected, and I had all kinds of bright ideas. I was elected originally as the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I would stand in the chamber or in a different venue. . .as the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, both roles that I have had the honour to play. . . .

I had a great vision for this province, because I thought we really had to get in and change the system. What took me into politics, hon. Speaker, was the fact that I sat as an observer and saw a polarized system of political process -- left and right -- bashing away at each other, hurling insults at each other, causing all kinds of grief, sitting through midnight sessions, doing all kinds of ridiculous and banal and foolish things in the chamber, and I thought, surely to goodness it's time British Columbia came out of the frontier and got into the modern world. Surely it's time that we brought this legislative chamber to the standard and level of dignity that it deserves. Surely it's time that we made changes, so that the people of British Columbia could have a renewed faith and trust in their legislative process and in the people who legislate their laws. I got in there, and I found it tough going. The history is there; everybody knows the trials and tribulations -- some possibly of my own doing, others of others' doing. Nevertheless, that's politics. That's what happens, and I stuck with it. I didn't quit; I didn't walk away. I didn't leave, notwithstanding a lot of the personal pain that one feels, because I believed that this institution could be reformed in order to bring us to a modern world, to bring us to a modern time, hon. Speaker, where we really could put first and foremost the interests of the people of British Columbia.

I believed we could amend this institution, the practice and processes in this institution, to give us a civil and sensible level of debate. And I believed that we could elevate that

[ Page 10656 ]

It's really, really sad. Anybody who is observing this debate, anybody who has had to stick around here all night. . . . I've got to confess: I went home to get some sleep. To me, this is just ludicrous. But anybody who had to stick around and put up with this debate, who has seen it before -- and is likely, quite frankly, if we don't make some changes, to see it again -- has got to have a certain heavy weight in their heart today, because it's sad. It's sad that this jurisdiction, of all jurisdictions in Canada, is the only one that doesn't seem to be able to get its act together with a legislative calendar. It's the only one that doesn't seem to be able to have an orderly process of debate on bills; that doesn't seem to be able to set its agenda so that we can, through an orderly process, have honest, intelligent, intellectual debate on bills, where we can have our honest differences of opinion and our disagreements with respect to content, but where we can find procedures whereby, where there is an honest difference, we have a government that has sensitivity enough to recognize that maybe they're over the line, maybe they've crossed the line, maybe they've given themselves too much power, maybe this is not a good thing.

You know, hon. Speaker, there's good news and bad news for this government in what it's doing. The good news for this government is that it can do whatever the hell it wants. It has demonstrated that absolute contempt for the people of British Columbia. It's going to go, hell or high water, and do what it wants. It doesn't care what the people of British Columbia want. The reason they can do this today with a certain level of comfort is that we're in the middle of July. They bring it in right after midnight. They're confident that everybody's on holiday, that nobody's paying attention, that nobody will be reporting on this -- because the members of the press gallery want to get out and have some time with their families during the summer months when the children are out of school. So why not? Why not bring it in at the worst time for reporting and accountability? Let's bring it in at a time when nobody can see what's going on.

That's the good news for this government: it can do whatever it wants, and it can do it with impunity. It can say: "You know what? The people don't matter." And that's what they've repeatedly said in this session: "The people don't matter. We don't care. We know best. We're not going to listen. We're not going to consult. We're not going to use our parliamentary committee system. We are not going to get into an orderly process of legislated delivery of government. We don't care. We've got power, and power is everything. We're going to ram through our ideological philosophy, regardless of what people say."

You know what the bad news is? The bad news is that the next government that comes in, with a different ideology, a different philosophy and a different set of priorities, can do precisely the same thing. Parliament builds itself on the basis of precedent. Hon. Speaker, when you rule in this chamber on what is and is not acceptable parliamentary practice, you do so on the basis of precedent. We establish precedent by what we do on a day-to-day basis, what we do in each session. As that precedent builds, and as the book of that precedent builds to allow this kind of ridiculous process, the next government comes in and says: "Well, you know, it's our turn. You could do whatever you want. Now we're in government; we can do whatever we want."

When I first decided to run for office provincially, it was because I saw two polarized parties, one champing at the bit to get the reins of power to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the will of the people, and the other saying: "I'm going to dethrone you because I want those reins, to do whatever we want, regardless of the will of the people." And it hasn't changed; it hasn't changed a whit.

If the people of British Columbia are listening to my voice today, let me say that it had better change soon, because the level of cynicism and the level of disgust generally held by British Columbians for what goes on in this chamber is getting greater and greater by the day. We don't deserve it. The staff that work in these buildings, who do such a good job of trying to keep the process in order -- they don't deserve it. They are hard-working people who are dedicated to the principles of democracy. People who get elected to office, who genuinely believe that we can change a system so that we can build something for British Columbians that they can be proud of -- they don't deserve it. The public, who expect that we are giving them service and protecting their individual rights and freedoms, not eroding them -- they don't deserve it. So we'd better change our ways.

What we've witnessed today -- and it is today, because this bill was introduced at five minutes past midnight -- is absolutely disgraceful. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace for this institution to have had to go through it; it is a disgrace for this government to have brought this bill in; it is absolutely disgraceful that this government would feel that it has absolutely no problem with denying the right of British Columbians to hold the government accountable in a court of law.

I really hope that this government listens up, because it's got two more years, I believe -- maybe two and a half -- in its mandate. I tell you, if it doesn't change, I'm certain the electorate will change it. I only hope that when they do, they will look to those politicians who really want to build a system that doesn't have this kind of contemptuous process as part of the so-called democracy in British Columbia, which is nothing less than a petty dictatorship that can come in and decide for the people whatever it wants, whenever it wants -- and if they don't like it, too bad; they'll stick it down their throats anyway. It's disgraceful.

[8:45]

I think there are probably three things that a government can do when it's ashamed of the actions that it's taking, when

[ Page 10657 ]

This particular bill that is before us was brought in on July 17, on a Friday morning, at a time when they were hoping that the public wouldn't be paying attention. My first reaction when I read this bill was one of surprise and shock. I couldn't believe that a government would bring in these kinds of measures to roll the clock back ten years to indemnify themselves from legal action by citizens in British Columbia. I couldn't believe that that was in there. Then I realized: this is a Friday in the middle of July, and they're bringing it in at this time because they are ashamed of it, and they're trying to slip it through when no one will be paying attention.

I must confess that I was also surprised that weekend at the public outcry that came so quickly. They might have hoped that the public was asleep in the middle of July, that they were spending their time on the beach instead of reading the newspapers and following the news of what's happening in this Legislature. But it was clear from the feedback that I got very quickly and swiftly from residents in the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena that people were not sleeping. They were shocked, as I was, that a government would bring in legislation to do what this piece of legislation does.

There's a second thing that government can do when they're ashamed of legislation and ashamed of the actions that they're taking, and that's to try to debate them in the wee hours of the night. Hon. Speaker, we have normal sitting times in this House that were mutually agreed to by all parties in the mid-1980s. We've got sitting times that basically are Tuesday and Thursday mornings, 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock on Monday to Thursday, and we've got Friday for private members' days. Those are the normal sitting hours of this House, the hours of the House that the media and press gallery are focused on covering, so that the public can understand what's happening in this chamber and have an opportunity to follow these debates in a reasonable way.

One of the tools that the government has at its disposal is to force this House to sit at totally unreasonable hours when they think that the public isn't paying attention. So determined are they to get out of this chamber, to shut down this legislative session before the end of this month, that we start looking at sitting around the clock. At 12:30 at night, when the government decides to call Bill 50 for debate, we as opposition are not going to say: "I'm sorry, but this is the middle of the night. Maybe we'll just pass this and go home." We've got a job to do in this chamber. We're going to stand up and fight against this kind of legislation. If it takes all night to do it, we'll do it. That's why are here now at 8:50 on a Wednesday morning, with this House having sat all night long. We are now eight and a half hours into this debate. This debate didn't start at a reasonable hour of the day. It started in the dark of night, because this government is ashamed of this piece of legislation.

The third thing that governments can do when they're ashamed of a measure they're going to take is bring in measures hidden in the pages of a bill called miscellaneous statutes. Miscellaneous statutes have been used in the British parliamentary system, I'm sure, for years. I have no idea when they were first used, but I'm sure it goes back many decades. Miscellaneous statutes are the measures that allow government to put housekeeping measures into one omnibus bill, a tidy package -- all of the housekeeping things that typically are brought forward by public servants who need small measures or small changes in order to ensure the effective operations of government.

Yet what we see time and time again from this government are miscellaneous statutes that are not miscellaneous at all. They're miscellaneous statutes that are in fact a cover for the actions they want to take when they're afraid that the public reaction to those actions is going to be negative. Why didn't they have the courage to bring in these changes in a bill that would stand alone? Why didn't they call it the "Let's Bail Out the Government Act"? Why didn't they call it the "We Broke the Law So We're Going to Change the Law Act"? No, what they do is bring in miscellaneous statutes, and they disguise it as housekeeping. How could they have the nerve to do that, to bring in those kinds of measure under something called miscellaneous statutes?

Certainly when you start looking at some of the other measures that are in there, the changes to the Human Tissue Gift Act, for example, which is a measure that many people in this province can support. . . . Certainly the member for Rossland-Trail spoke very passionately about that when this debate first commenced in the wee hours of this morning. Yet they put measures like that in with some of these insidious clauses to indemnify government from the actions that have taken place over the last 12 years.

Hon. Speaker, I want to look at some of the principles of this bill, principles that I have great difficulty with. The first is the principle of putting a contentious move in a miscellaneous statutes bill; I think that's totally inappropriate.

Secondly, what we have in this bill, which I think you have to look at as one of the fundamental principles of Bill 50, are retroactive changes to bail the government out of their past failures and mistakes. It's not just with regard to gambling in British Columbia, to the Lottery Act. We see other measures in this legislation which are retroactive, which are government's measures to cover up for their own mistakes. I would not stand in this chamber and say that retroactive legislation should never be introduced. I'm sure there are areas where it does become essential. But retroactive legislation is something that a government should use so sparingly and with such deliberation that we should rarely see it in this chamber. Certainly when we see the retroactive clauses that are in Bill 50, I would say they are totally unacceptable.

The third principle that's in this bill is the principle of immunity from legal action. You know, I can remember the NDP in this chamber arguing about how important it was that citizens in British Columbia should have the right to sue their government. Prior to the early 1970s, a citizen in this province could only sue the government if they got the government's permission. But what we are doing in this bill is not just reversing the clock back to those days. We're in fact making it even worse than before, because even then, at least, you could argue that a citizen could sue a government provided that they got the concurrence of government -- which, I agree, was a very unlikely scenario. But at least there was that provision to sue government.

Now what we're doing in this bill is taking away the fundamental right of a citizen to sue the government when the government has acted illegally. We're talking about violations of the Criminal Code. Now we've got a government that's

[ Page 10658 ]

You know, it's not the official opposition that are saying: "Wait a second. The 33 of us don't like this measure." This is an insult to four million British Columbians. Actually, we don't have four million British Columbians yet; we're close to it. If we had population growth in this province over this year like we've had in previous years, we would break four million. But we know what this government's done to the economy to drive people out of this province, so it may be a little way off. But certainly there are 3,900,000 British Columbians who are insulted by this legislation. What we in the opposition have been doing over the course of these last eight and a half hours -- nine hours almost, from midnight onward -- in this chamber is giving voice to the concerns that we have heard from citizens in British Columbia, who are insulted by what's in this legislation.

Let's look at the motivation behind the government's bringing in this legislation. What we have seen in the last few years -- the last year, really, and a little bit more -- is a massive revenue grab by the provincial government. Since they first came into office in 1991, they have demonstrated to British Columbians that they are incapable of building a healthy economy. That healthy economy is something that we need in British Columbia in order to generate revenues for government. You know, somehow this government has never made that connection. They've always looked at their sacred programs that they have in government and sort of said: "Okay, we can fund these programs. We've just got to tax. We've got to tax people that can afford to be taxed." So they went out and taxed here and taxed there. We know the measures that the current Premier brought in when he was the Finance minister -- a huge tax grab.

Then they found over a couple of years that what happened with that tax grab was that it didn't increase government revenues. Government revenues from various sources started to decline, because they taxed British Columbians beyond what they were capable of paying. What we saw was that government was still trying to build programs, still trying to spend, spend, spend. Yet they had absolutely no comprehension of where those revenues were going to come from. What we found, by the time they got to 1996 and early 1997, was that they didn't have the revenue sources anymore. They didn't have revenue coming in from the corporation tax; they didn't have revenue coming in from personal income tax.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Even though we have, in this province, the highest marginal tax rate of any jurisdiction in North America. . . . In fact, we have the highest marginal tax rate of any jurisdiction in the world, almost. It's the highest marginal tax rate, I think, of any country in the industrialized world, with the exception of Japan, perhaps. Even then, the way they implement their marginal tax rates is such that B.C.'s tax rate is far more draconian. You'd think that if we've got the highest tax rate, we should have the highest revenues to government, shouldn't we? We should have the highest revenues, which we can use to pay for health care and education programs. But no, what we have found is that when you start ratcheting up tax rates, you see the revenues that flow to government decline.

[9:00]

They saw what was flowing to charities at the time in British Columbia. A lot of charities had become dependent on the $100-some-odd million of revenue that they got from gaming in this province. I recognize that charities are dependent on those revenues; they have become dependent on those revenues over the years. But what we saw was government coming in to say: "We're going to have a piece of the action at this poker table." They came in with what they called a modest increase in gambling in British Columbia -- a modest increase that resulted in an 1,800 percent increase in the revenues that this government was projecting to receive from gambling. That is why we have this legislation before us today. The government, because of their incompetence when it comes to building a strong economy, incompetence when it comes to generating revenues for government through a healthy economy and incompetence when it comes to effectively controlling government spending in a way that allows the maximum delivery of services to the public with the minimum expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. . . . They do not have the competence to achieve that goal, so instead they had to resort to gambling as a way to generate revenues for their programs.

But that, too, is counterproductive. To a government, gambling revenue is a short-term fix. It has been shown in studies that gambling will in fact increase costs to government over the long term, because we've got social costs. We've got the cost of family breakups; we've got the cost of marriages that go down the tubes; we've got the cost of crime; we've got the cost of embezzlement; we've got the cost of all of those things that are a product of increased gambling in society.

I want to just look at some of the facts we have going into this debate, some of the things that government should have considered before it expanded gambling in the first place. If it weren't for that dependency on gambling revenues to fund their programs today, we wouldn't have before us this legislation to give them immunization from prosecution. The reason they need immunization from prosecution is because they want to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars that they expect to pull out of the pockets of British Columbians at the poker tables and slot machines in this province.

What studies have shown is that children of compulsive gamblers experience almost twice the incidence of broken homes due to separation, divorce or death of a parent before they reach the age of 15. When you talk about the money that flows from gambling. . . . Where does this government think that these hundreds of millions of dollars come from? Do they sort of fall off the trees? Do they somehow think that it's the high rollers -- perhaps tourists who come to British Columbia -- that are going to lose these hundreds of millions of dollars? No, you're talking about families; you're talking about fellow British Columbians, who this government is picking the pockets of. It's not just the individual man or woman who walks into a gambling casino in this province who is losing the money; it is the families who are paying the price for that.

[ Page 10659 ]

There's a study that was done in recent years for the city of Vancouver that points out that there may already be 18,000 pathological gamblers in the lower mainland alone. The projection is that problem gambling, pathological gambling, could already be costing our society as much as $700 million a year. That's the cost of people losing their homes; that's the cost of family breakup; that's the cost of crime. Yet government is saying: "We're going to pull in another couple of hundred million dollars out of this." The studies show throughout North America that the cost to our society is far greater that the benefit that this government thinks it's going to derive.

Look at the experience that our neighbours in Alberta have had. It used to be that Albertans spent, on average, about $380 a year on lotteries and gambling. By 1993-94 that figure had grown to $1,170. If you look at the next year, '94-95 -- which are the most recent numbers I have at my disposal -- it was expected that Albertans would be spending an average of $1,427. That is not how much is being wagered; that's how much the average Alberta is losing at casinos and on electronic gaming machines such as video lottery terminals or slot machines. I want to come back to that later, because there's really no difference between the two.

During this last year, the government of Alberta was expected to take in a profit of $660 million. That's what Bill 50 is all about. It's about the B.C. government saying: "We see what other jurisdictions are picking out of the pockets of their citizens through gambling. We want to do the same thing to British Columbians. But we want to do it in a way that even if we break the law we're going to be indemnified. Even if we break the law, we're going to pass retroactive legislation to say that's okay: no one can sue government for this massive increase in gambling that we are inflicting on British Columbians."

If we start looking at some of the experiences that we've had in other jurisdictions. . . . There are two recent studies that were done in Wisconsin. These are in a report that was written by Prof. Richard Lipsey, who is one of the most renowned economists in British Columbia. He started looking at the cost to society. He said that two recent studies in Wisconsin found that each problem gambler imposed costs of about $10,000 (U.S.) annually, amounting to a bill of $307 million annually for state and local governments. Studies also found that countries with casinos had more crime of all sorts than countries without casinos -- 6.7 percent more major crime; 13 percent more burglaries; 12.25 percent higher arrest rates for such crimes as assault, forgery, fraud, embezzlement, weapons offences and prostitution.

Do you know what the response was from this government last year when they came out with something called a gaming review? They said: "These studies are inconclusive." When we start talking about the threat that these actions will impose on British Columbians -- the threat that is there to the integrity of our society, the threat that is there to family life in this province. . . . If there's anything that's inconclusive, then this government should go back to the drawing board; they should get something that's not inconclusive. If they did the studies to show to show the true social costs, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that they would recognize that this is a foolish move for them to be engaging in.

The other thing that we find is that the incidence of pathological gambling is rising. I mentioned some of the numbers earlier. But particularly, as some studies show, it has been rising among college students and teenagers. When they look at the incidence of problem gambling among youth around North America, the current speculation is that problem gambling is going to increase considerably in the years to come as those youth get older and try to deal and cope with this addition.

We saw an incidence of that last fall in Kamloops. The very day that the expanded casino opened in a hotel in Kamloops, there was a student. . . . This article is from the Kamloops Daily News. It starts out by saying that a student has become the first public victim of Kamloops's new casino. A University College of the Cariboo student spent all his tuition money Wednesday at this hotel in Kamloops. That was within 24 hours of the opening of this casino. Here you have a student who lost his entire tuition at the start of the school year. Here's a student who had hopes and dreams, a student who was prepared to go forward to that particular college and get an education that would allow him to grow. Instead, what we see is that that was squandered, wasted. I know it's easy for a lot of people to say: "Well, he was obviously old enough to make decisions for himself." But that's not what pathological gambling is all about. Pathological gambling is not about making decisions for oneself. It is an addiction, and I think it is reprehensible that we have a government that preys on people's addictions for its revenues. It would be like saying that the government in British Columbia is short of funds, so we're going to tax heroin for those that are dependent on it, for those that are addicted to it. It's that insidious. I've got lots of examples of how we are paying the price for this, but I realize that my time is running short, so I won't dwell on those.

Let me just conclude by quoting what the Premier said in an interview in March of this year on CBC Radio's "Almanac." He said: "There are things the government is doing, frankly, which I don't always support." Excuse me. Here we've got the Premier of the province saying, in an interview, that there are things that his government does that he doesn't support. The host of this show went on to say: "Well, wait a minute. . . ." He couldn't believe what he was hearing, so he asked the Premier to explain this more. The example that the Premier gave as to something that his government does that he doesn't agree with was this: "I guess my view, much like most British Columbians, would not be much in favour of gambling." I think that speaks to the hypocrisy of this government, and it speaks to how they have sacrificed principles. It speaks to the fact that they are sacrificing everything that they believed in, in order to grab money for the provincial treasury because they don't know how to run an economy that will produce the kind of government revenues that we need in order to fund the programs that this government should be generating for the citizens of British Columbia.

[9:15]

[ Page 10660 ]

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that you're alert and looking awake -- as members of the government don't seem to be this morning.

I'm speaking to the amendment. If I could just read the amendment, so that we're clear on what I will be speaking to: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 50) for the reason that the Bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians and would damage public confidence in government." I think Bill 50 does do that.

I would draw the Speaker's attention to the first bill that we read when we sat in this Legislature, Bill 1, which we read every year. An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament is an important part of our democratic process. The purpose of the introduction of this bill, prior to the consideration of the throne speech, is to perpetuate the established right of parliament, through its elected representatives -- all of us -- to sit and act without leave of the Crown. This bill simply asserts the right of the Legislative Assembly to give precedence to matters other than those expressed by the sovereign. Introducing it at this point in the opening proceedings of the Legislature is a tradition that dates back to the realm of Elizabeth I, when, on March 22, 1603, Parliament first recorded this assertion of independence from the Crown, for the purposes of legislation. That says that all the people in this chamber are here to debate on the public good and for the public interest.

Bill 50 is not in the public interest. Bill 50 is an anomaly. Miscellaneous statutes are usually statutes that are housekeeping. This bill is house-wrecking. It wrecks the tradition of this House. Many of the items in Bill 50 are bills on their own. They warrant discussion as individual bills. What has happened here is that government, late in the day, has decided to bring in a housekeeping bill filled with important, contentious legislation. I think that's sad. I know members of the opposition have said it over and over again -- how sad and sick that is.

I want to look at three areas of Bill 50, as to why it will damage public confidence in this Legislature -- and public confidence, really, in the government. First, the Attorney General stands, embarrassed to deliver this bill. I might ask the Speaker if she has seen the movie Time Bandits. A group of sort of ne'er-do-wells travel back in time and steal things and then bring them into the future. That's exactly what the Attorney General has done.

Here is a bill that steals from the past. Only the NDP could steal from the past -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- and then retroactively make it all right. I can't believe it. I think the Attorney General knew what he was doing. He looked very embarrassed to tabling this legislation, and I think he'll go down as a time bandit -- someone who can erase time.

The other one is that, with the stroke of a pen, they have erased 80 years of history of the Crown lands branch -- decades of public service gone. Why is it gone? It's gone because the minister is incapable of managing the Crown lands branch, and she wieners out and blames her staff. Can you believe that? She blames her staff for her own misfortunes. It's just not good enough for a minister to blame her staff.

Hydro power scam. We have had more hydro power scams with this government than . . .since they built the Bennett Dam. Now they've told us that they've frozen the rates, but we all know that the rates should have gone down. They should have gone way down, because there are more people here, Hydro's more efficient, and it's an older system. They're going to skim the money off the top and try and convince aluminum smelters, maybe, to come to the province. That wouldn't be a bad thing, but, of course, the environmental movement fears there would be a 1,000 percent increase in greenhouse gases. No studies -- they're skimming off the top.

Lotteries. Again, retroactive to 1986: "We could do no wrong." They've done the wrong, so they're now going to change the rules. I heard one member of the government actually blame Social Credit. Well, I think that they've really got to look at the last seven years and how many hundreds of millions of dollars they have taken out of lotteries, to see who the real culprit is.

Madam Speaker, miscellaneous statutes have a long history, but Bill 50 is a precedent. It's a precedent that gives power to the government to do anything they want, and an all-night sitting is just the beginning. I mentioned Bill 1 and the supremacy of parliament because I respect parliament and I respect the duties that we have as legislators. Bill 50 strips that away. Bill 50 is a gutless, cowardly bill that hides from the people of British Columbia the real intent of government.

The real intent of this government is to find money in different areas: in gambling, in Crown lands and Hydro scams -- cash cows. It's a bill that looks for any amount of money to help balance their books, because they have so badly mismanaged this economy that we're on the verge of a recession. In a last-ditch effort -- in the hottest days of the year, in the middle of summer -- we get Bill 50, a cowardly, despicable, sad bill, which is only looking for a last-ditch amount of money to balance their budget.

We all know that that won't happen, because the NDP are incapable of balancing budgets and will never balance a budget -- whether they're in for seven years or ten years. There won't be a balanced budget from this government. But we'll see more Bill 50s, because they've now set a precedent. Government can do anything. Government has become a tyrant and a dictator in this House. What Bill 1 tried to set aside in 1603. . . . This government has become that dictator -- a petty dictator. Bill 50 ensconces that dictatorship for the NDP to be remembered by.

Crown lands, lotteries, Hydro, and environmental misfortunes and failures are what Bill 50 is all about. The people of British Columbia are watching. The people of British Columbia deserve better, and the people of British Columbia will get better when this government has enough guts to put Bill 50 aside and call an election on whatever issue they want. The people are fed up; this bill is the last straw for the people of British Columbia. You can hide no more. We've seen exactly what you're capable of and willing to do. Your true colours, Madam Speaker -- the government's true colours, not yours -- are visible for the people of British Columbia to see. I add my voice to the disappointment and sadness that Bill 50 brings to the people of British Columbia.

G. Campbell: I am sorry that I have to rise and support the amendment to Bill 50: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill (No. 50) for the reason that the Bill, in principle, attacks the democratic rights of British Columbians and would damage public confidence in government." It is a shameful and sad day. It's a sorry day in British Columbia, in these legislative chambers, when we have to stand and see if we can convince this government, those members opposite, to actually stand up for some of the things that you would have thought were fundamental to the people of this province and to people who are given the privilege to serve in public office.

One of the things that causes me the most concern about this bill, which is inappropriately entitled Miscellaneous Stat-

[ Page 10661 ]

Late last night -- as a matter of fact, it was early this morning, at around 12:10 a.m. -- this government decided to bring this bill before this House. It was at 12:10 a.m., in the darkest part of the evening, when this Attorney General decided to introduce this bill, which would strip British Columbians of their rights. It was in the darkest part of the night, and indeed this is one of the darkest pieces of legislation that has been introduced by a government which is racked with scandal, racked with corruption and does not know the difference between right and wrong.

Fortunately, into that darkness the member for Richmond-Steveston shed some light. He was a beacon of reason and hope. He was a beacon of integrity in this chamber. The member for Richmond-Steveston reminded us and, hopefully, reminded this Attorney General of how this Attorney General has turned his back on his personal and professional responsibilities. The member for Richmond-Steveston reminded us of a quote from A.V. Dicey's lectures, "Law of the Constitution," written in 1885. Let me read that quote, because it is important. It shows how far this government has sunk in missing the fundamentals that support a democracy, that support a community that believes in the rule of law and in the rights of citizens. Let me quote:

"We mean, in the second place, when we speak of the 'rule of law' as a characteristic of our country, not only that with us no man is above the law, but -- what is a different thing -- that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals."

"It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts; the 'rule of law' in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. . . ."

[9:30]

The Attorney General's position in British Columbia is not simply the position of an ordinary MLA. I believe that when you're elected as a member of this Legislative Assembly, that in itself is a significant and important position as we seek to restore people's confidence in our public institutions. But the Attorney General has a different role -- a critical role, in fact -- in protecting our democratic institutions. In the Attorney General Act, it is quite clear: the Attorney General must see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law.

Let's look briefly at the record of the sponsor of this so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, our Attorney General. Has he, in fact, ensured that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law? I don't think so. He has failed miserably; he has consistently failed. Because he has not been held to account for his failure, he now feels he can bring forward an act which specifically strips people of their access to the courts, which specifically says that those people in this province who suffered under a government that actually took money illegally from them and that actually took money in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada. . . . Instead of saying that those people who were subject to that theft have recompense, can go to the courts, can hold this government to account for its illegal acts, this Attorney General stands and says: "No. We will wipe the slate clean. We will bring in legislation that says that we didn't do anything illegal." This Attorney General says: "We will deny the rights of those citizens." Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the Attorney General has fallen so far short of his responsibilities.

The government decides that it's going to expropriate from charities. The Attorney General doesn't say to the government that that's illegal or that they shouldn't do that. He doesn't stand up for those charities, for those citizens, for those volunteers. No, he forces the charities to take the government to court to protect themselves, and the charities win. Does the Attorney General stand and say that it's wrong for the Deputy Premier of the province to direct a lawyer to try and interfere with the judge in the court case in the middle of the proceedings, against all ethical and professional standards that anyone who is trained in the law would accept? Does he say that's wrong? No. It's acceptable to the Attorney General. He'll shuffle that off to the Law Society and hope that some day someone will pick that up. You don't hear a word from the Attorney General.

Does this Attorney General think that it's important enough that we live according to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act in the province? No, the government can break the law. The Liberal opposition has to threaten to take the government to court so that the government will uphold the law. What does the government do? They say: "Never mind. We'll just change it." They break the Criminal Code of Canada, and what does the Attorney General attempt to do? He says: "Never mind. We'll just change it." To make it a little better, I'm sure he says to his colleagues: "Let's do it this way. Let's introduce the bill on a Friday afternoon of a nice summer weekend when, hopefully, no one's paying attention. Then, equally importantly, let's debate the bill at, say, between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning, so no one will really pay attention." It's absolutely disgraceful behaviour from someone whose job it is to protect the courts and the citizens.

This government has shown in the past that it does not care. All these people on the other side of the House have forgotten why they were elected. I see some faces on the other side of the House that I remember from before they were elected. I remember the fine, proud things they said about what public institutions could do. I remember the principles they used to espouse about citizens and citizenship, about the importance of community, about the importance of government and of electing a government that was as honest and hard-working as the people who live here. This government doesn't even come close to matching that test.

This government is not honest and hard-working; this government breaks the law. They attack charities relentlessly. For years now they've attacked the volunteers of the province, and this is simply another howitzer aimed at the heart of our

[ Page 10662 ]

Does anyone on that side of the House even stand in their own caucus room, even in the privacy of their own showers and say that it's wrong? Most of the members on that side of the House are so used to sitting there mute and pretending that it doesn't really matter. They're pretending that somehow or other, it's all right to remove the rights of citizens to our courts. The Attorney General, last night and previously, was trying to suggest that this is really to protect the non-profits. What world is this man living in? No one was attacking the non-profits, the charities. The only institution in the province of British Columbia that even thinks of attacking charities is the NDP government.

As they close down the access of citizens to our courts, they have also carried forward with closing down the rights of many other citizens. Just think of this session alone -- and this bill is the hallmark of this session. It's a bill which shows the government's total disregard for the fundamentals of democracy. This is the government that tries to say that there's a freedom-of-information bill, but then starts to close it down because -- imagine this -- people are seeking information about themselves. They want to know what information the government is gathering. The government says: "Well, we don't want to let them know that; we'll close that. Let's close up that part of government."

Or they'll take workers. . . . First, they strip away the workers' right to a secret ballot on whether or not they want to belong to a labour union. Then they say: "Well, that's not enough. We haven't taken enough rights. What we'll do is remove workers' rights to decide on their contract in part of industry." So they take away the right to vote, and then they take away the right to actually negotiate a contract.

They're constantly on the attack. They've been constantly on the attack against fundamentals like freedom of speech. This is the government that says: "Rather than have an open, honest, straightforward public debate, where we encourage diversity of opinion, where we encourage people to participate, what we'll do is put a gag law in the Election Act. Let's do that; let's cut that right back." More and more rights get removed from citizens.

Now we have a government that says to itself: "Let's change the law here to prohibit citizens from having the right to take the government to court. Let's be bold. Let's not just do it for this year; let's not just do it for this term -- not just '98. Let's go back to 1986. We all remember 1986; that was the year British Columbia celebrated Expo, so let's use that as the date. We'll go back to 1986 and cut people's rights all the way back to '86. Let's do that. Let's not give people the opportunity to hold government to account. Let's not give people the opportunity to use the law in their own defence. You know, one of the great advantages of being a New Democrat in British Columbia in 1998 is that we always know what's best. Government always knows what's best. Because this group is so bright, we will allow government to do anything it wants" -- day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, as we watch the quality of life in British Columbia deteriorate. Every single day people feel their loss. They feel the loss not just in economic terms, not just in material terms. They feel a loss of hope. Imagine someone in British Columbia today, who believes that we live in a democracy, just happening to flip open Bill 50. "What are they doing in the House today?" they might wonder. "Oh, I see. They're removing our rights." It doesn't make any sense at all to him or her.

I believe that it's critical that this government re-evaluate; that this government stand back; that this government take Bill 50 and put it through the shredder and pass this motion today to remove it from the order paper. When the government deprives any one citizen of his or her rights, the government deprives all citizens of those rights. When government deprives one charity of its right to take the government to court, it deprive all charities of taking the government to court. For such a long time, we used to talk about a government that was opening up, that was giving individual citizens a sense of more autonomy and more freedom. We've watched, as we've gone through the decade of the 1990s, a narrowing of citizens' autonomy and freedom.

I guess, when you think about it, what's happened is that this government -- the NDP -- are desperate and will do anything to protect themselves from the people. Unfortunately, today in British Columbia people understand that they have to protect themselves from the NDP government. This is a predator government. This is a government that preys on the weak. This is a government that takes from those who would like to give to community. This is a government that attacks those who create all that's good in the province of British Columbia. What protection does a citizen have, does a charitable institution have, when you have a government that is willing to introduce and, apparently, pass a law that takes away their rights and their access to the courts?

That's just one part of this bill. We know and the government knows the damage that's done in people's lives from this massive, overwhelming expansion of gambling. There are members opposite that know that. I can remember the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville being very clear that the worst thing that any government could ever do is expand gambling. I haven't heard a peep from them. A massive expansion of gambling, which. . . . Again, forget the politics for a minute. This is the court speaking. "This government has encouraged and facilitated a massive and unparalleled expansion of charitable gaming in the province of British Columbia." The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. . . . I remember her standing in Vancouver city council chambers railing against the inequities of gambling, pointing out that it was wrong, saying that it must never happen. "You can guarantee that if I'm ever elected as an MLA," she would say, "there will be no expansion of gambling." We now have a massive, unparalleled expansion of gambling.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Sorry -- the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Very good point. I'm glad that point was made. It was the "she" that gave it away. Just by describing what took place, everyone knew it was the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, because the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has always been opposed to the massive expansion of gambling and would never break his word to the people of British Columbia.

[9:45]

[ Page 10663 ]

This government doesn't just deal with that. Think of what this bill is doing to consumers. I'll be brief here, but when the government goes to gut the B.C. Utilities Commission. . . . Let's not fall for the inestimable nonsense that we heard from the Deputy Premier this morning. The Deputy Premier stands up and says: "Well, if you're for the co-gen plant at Elk Falls, then you've got to support this." That is absolute nonsense. What we support is an open, honest public review of all of these projects, and when they're successful, we will know they're right for the province of British Columbia. What we support is a government that actually starts to tell the truth to consumers.

Let's not make any bones about this: this government has ripped consumers off, with their B.C. Hydro bills, in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, to hide their tax grab from Hydro. That's exactly what happened. Talk to the government's own former adviser on energy matters, Dick Gathercole. He says that this is an inexcusable action by the government, as once again they strip away the citizens' right to know, they strip away the rights of consumers, they strip away the authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission to act and to hold this government and B.C. Hydro to account. It's not like B.C. Hydro's got this incredibly clean record. This is the same Crown corporation that we have trouble getting information about on a whole range of things. It's the same Crown corporation whose executive officers are now under review by the Law Society of B.C. It's the same Crown corporation that has cost the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the province at least $10 million, with their fiasco in Pakistan. This is the same B.C. Hydro that would do well to have more public scrutiny, not less public scrutiny.

But this is a predator government. This is a government that says: "We will go after citizens. We will go after their rights. We will go after their right to know." That's exactly what Bill 50 does in so many ways, in so many clauses. That's exactly why those people on the other side of the House who maintain any semblance of integrity, who somewhere in their conscience -- I know it's hidden, but somewhere deep in their conscience -- remember what it is to be a public servant, remember what it is to be elected and remember what it is to live up to their word to their constituents. For one minute, set aside the words of the boss; set aside the words of the clique in cabinet; set aside all of the politics and think about what is right.

I believe there is no question in the minds of some members opposite that Bill 50 is wrong for the people of British Columbia. It is wrong for some of their constituents, and they know it. So I ask the members opposite to look to their conscience and, when they have an opportunity, to stand and support the amendment -- that we in fact withdraw Bill 50; that we decline second reading of Bill 50; that we say no to this Attorney General's attack on the rights of citizens in the province; that we say no to this Attorney General's attack on the rights of consumers and hydro users in the province; that we say no to this government's constantly narrowing range of vision; that we say yes to open, honest government that's accountable to the laws of the land and recognizes the importance of the rule of law; that we say yes to democracy and to strengthening and protecting our citizens by protecting their rights.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will put the question on the amendment to Bill 50.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 26
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Reid	Coell
Whittred	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	G. Wilson	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Thorpe
Symons	Dalton	Masi
McKinnon		J. Wilson

 

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

The Speaker: With the amendment dealt with, we move now to the main motion, which is second reading of Bill 50. Seeing no further speakers, to close debate on second reading, I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

[10:00]

We've heard from the opposition that somehow we're stripping away the rights of citizens. That's not true, hon. Speaker. We have an opposition who is leading a charge, and nobody is following. They refuse to acknowledge that this piece of legislation in no way supersedes anything in the Criminal Code of Canada. They refuse to acknowledge that what this piece of legislation does is deal with a technical flaw in the way that a piece of an order-of-council was drafted back in 1986.

We have watched as they have attempted to paint this as a deliberate attempt by government to deal with something

[ Page 10664 ]

As I said a moment ago, they're leading a charge, and nobody is following. Name the groups that are following you. They can't, hon. Speaker. The issue comes down to the creation of a stable gaming regime in this province. That's what the charities want. That's why we're working to put in place the measures that are required to ensure that that happens. The public is asking for that. That's why we're working to put in place the measures that are required.

This bill comes out of a decision that was made in the Owen-Flood court case in January. Changes were made earlier this year around the way gaming is conducted and managed, and one of the issues identified was the issue around the Gaming Commission and the fact that it was making decisions from 1986 to the present day, and continues to make decisions. There have to be changes put in place to the way the Gaming Commission makes those decisions. That's what's happening; that is all that is happening. It is not depriving citizens of rights. It is not depriving an individual from taking anyone to court. It's not depriving the government of facing penalties if it has done a criminal wrongdoing. They refuse to acknowledge that. This piece of legislation, this particular section, will help to put gaming on a sound legal footing in this province, and that's why it needs to be passed.

Hon. Speaker, with that, I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 50 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Gillespie
Robertson	Cashore	Conroy
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Lovick	Ramsey	Farnworth
Waddell	Hartley	Sihota
Smallwood	Sawicki	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

NAYS -- 26
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Reid	Coell
Whittred	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	G. Wilson	Weisbeck
Nebbeling	Hogg	Coleman
Stephens	Hansen	Thorpe
Symons	Dalton	Masi
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Bill 50, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, for the information of the House, I'll be moving a motion that we stand adjourned until 11 a.m. For the information of the members, I would advise that we'll be doing estimates summaries.

I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 11 a.m. today.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:10 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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