Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 11373 ]

Prayers.

P. Nettleton: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature Neil Razzell, the bright, young, talented editor of the newspaper in Fort St. James -- my hometown. He's here with his delightful partner Faith Armitage. She is, I understand, a legislative intern for 1999. Please join me in welcoming these two delightful folks.

Hon. G. Wilson: In the gallery today are people who were formerly either on the executive of or active in the Progressive Democratic Alliance and who are here in support of a new movement toward good government for British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Would the House please make welcome David Wilson and his daughter Emily Wilson, Aaron Jasper, Arminder Randhawa, Cherie Dealy, David Kurvers, Doreen Bakstad, Lars Bakstad, Ann Buchanan, Garth Sims, Marilyn Sims, Mathew Wilson, Carol-Ann Miller, Gordon Gramlich; our former candidate in the Parksville-Qualicum by-election, Bruce Hampson; and my good wife Judi Tyabji Wilson. Accompanying them are staff members Tony Cox, Dave Biro, Trevor Williams, Maureen Grant and Angie March, who all look for good government in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

G. Campbell: I am pleased to welcome and introduce to the House Ed Kisling and Lynne Upton, two people who believe in principles and still support the B.C. Liberal Party.

I. Chong: Last week I had the opportunity to introduce Aaron Gairdner, past president of the UVic B.C. Young Liberals. He's back again today, and he's brought along a friend, Duane Woytowich, who's a past member of the PDA. So he's here as well to enjoy question period.

I would also like to introduce two very good friends who are hard-working individuals in my community and in greater Victoria: Lynne Henderson, who's involved with the United Way, and Sheila Orr, a Saanich councillor. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a former member of this House, Anita Hagen, the member for New Westminster for a decade, and her husband John. Of course, Anita's hard work for ten years is what helped pave the way for me to become the member for New Westminster. I'd like all members of this House to join me in making them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I just happened to notice in the gallery today George Garrett, and I would like to welcome him here on his retirement from CKNW.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to introduce a new member to this side of the House, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I don't think he should feel too badly about sitting over here, because apparently he could get into cabinet quicker from this side of the House than from the government back benches.

E. Gillespie: I see in the gallery an old friend and colleague, Trevor Jones, and I'd ask the House to join me in making him welcome.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF PDA DEBT

The Speaker: Hon. member, that kind of question is out of order. It's not within the purview of the Premier or any other executive council member's administrative duties. Member for Richmond-Steveston, another question?

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, the question was for the Premier in his capacity as the person who makes cabinet appointments. But I would have thought that a question on that. . . .

The Speaker: The first part is probably all right; the second part is not.

G. Plant: Well, fine. The question is this, hon. Speaker. The Nanaimo bingo charities are owed more than $2 million plus interest by the NDP, but they haven't seen a dime. This is a Premier who has made a cabinet appointment. In connection with the discharge of his duties under that heading, I ask him to confirm this: while he has not bothered to pay off the charities, has he in fact agreed to arrange to pay off the debts of his new cabinet minister's former political party?

The Speaker: Again, that's not. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Next question.

G. Plant: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I have a question, then, for the Attorney General, because he's the minister responsible for the Election Act. As he knows and we all know, indirect political contributions are against the law; they're prohibited by section 186 of the Election Act. Just to make sure that we get this whole arrangement off on a proper footing, indirect in this context means that it would be against the law to make a political contribution to the NDP so that the NDP could then make a political contribution to the PDA. So my question for the Attorney General is this: can he tell us whether this plan to pay off the PDA's debts would in fact be against the law under section 186 of the Election Act?

[ Page 11374 ]

Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is aware of any information that might lead him to believe that a criminal offence may have been committed, he knows where the police detachments are. He should speak to the RCMP. If they require legal advice, there will be a special prosecutor appointed to deal with the issue.

[2:15]

NEW MINISTER AND FAST FERRY PROGRAM

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't tell you how delighted I am that the members of the official opposition have recognized what a sharp critic I was of this government when in the role of opposition. I hope that they will acknowledge, hon. Speaker, what a good minister I am, now that I have an opportunity to do that.

With respect to the member's question, the member will know that my position with respect to fast ferries is unchanged. The difference between the official opposition and my position is that I'm here now to make the fast ferries work for all British Columbians -- rather than the members opposite, who simply sit and criticize.

The Speaker: First supplementary for the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: It's always interesting to drag a $10 bill across a parking lot, hon. Speaker, and find out who comes running.

The Speaker: Member, be careful.

M. de Jong: On Friday we found out who will come crawling when the government puts a pile of $40,000 in the middle of this chamber -- and it's disgusting.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not appropriate. Your question, hon. member?

M. de Jong: I remember when the NDP member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was using words like "opportunist" and "irresponsible" to describe his now cabinet colleagues. Back then, he described the NDP back bench. . . . He said they reminded him of the Star Trek Borg, in their mindless defence of the government line. Well, now that he's been assimilated into the NDP collective, is he simply telling us that resistance is futile? Or did his decision to sell out his principles have more to do with the promise that the Premier made -- that as a member of the NDP, he most certainly would live long and prosper?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure where the question was in that long speech. Let the members opposite know that I am committed to making British Columbia the finest province in Canada. I'm going to do so with this new opportunity I've been given. I would offer an invitation to each one of those members: rather than sit on the sidelines and throw stones, work with us to build this province -- work with us today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Government members, come to order.

D. Symons: In the past, the then PDA -- now NDP -- member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has demanded a full public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco. The then PDA member was particularly troubled by the technical aspects of this project. Now that member is the NDP minister responsible for fast ferries. Will he commit that the full public inquiry he asked for into the fiasco that was created by his new leader will be done?

Hon. G. Wilson: I was heartened this morning. . . . It is my understanding that the member for Richmond Centre said on CKNW today that his side is not in favour of scrapping this project -- which is, I think, a sensible position to take. I will extend a very serious offer to the member for Richmond Centre to come forward with me. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's very hard to hear anything, with all the noise.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm happy to give them an answer to the question if they will simply give me the time to do so.

I extend to the member for Richmond Centre an opportunity to come with me and to fully examine the technical report as well as the financial report -- both of which will be made completely public to the people of British Columbia, so they can restore confidence in B.C. Ferries.

The Speaker: For a first supplementary, the member for Richmond Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Symons: The first thing is that I will agree to go on that. But that was not a full public inquiry. That was done in-house. That is not what that member was asking for when he sat on this side of the House. This minister was calling for a full public inquiry into the fast ferries over four years ago. Since that time, the following has happened: the fast ferries independent board members were removed; key executives have resigned; hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers'

[ Page 11375 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, and then I'll recognize the minister. Come to order, please, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, there are three points I'd like to make on what is a very serious question. The three points I'd like to make are as follows. First of all, all information with respect to both the technical and the financial information will be made available to the public and be fully reviewed by the public, so that nothing, no stone, is left unturned. The second point is that my investigations to date have demonstrated that the words which came from the former minister -- that he was not fully informed -- are completely correct. The third point is that there is much work to be done in putting British Columbia Ferries back. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . .on a sound fiscal footing, and I invite that member to work with me to do it, rather than sit on the sidelines and throw stones.

CHANGE OF PARTY AND CREDIBILITY OF NEW MINISTER

The Speaker: Member. . . .

C. Clark: That's what he's been doing. Why is it, hon. Speaker, that anybody in British Columbia should believe a word. . .

The Speaker: Member, what is your question?

C. Clark: . . .that this newly minted. . . ?

The Speaker: Member, what is your question?

C. Clark: Why is it that anybody in British Columbia should believe a single word that this new NDP minister has to say when it takes him about 24 hours to abandon every principle. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . .that he claims he used to stand for when he was on this side of the House?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I guess it's a matter of choice. Where there may have been 101 reasons not to vote for this government, there are over 1,000 not to. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, when it comes to the matter of integrity, I don't think I need to take a lesson from any member on that side of the House -- not one. That member will know that I have given 12 years of public service to this province, and that member will know that given the fact that that party has now gone to the extreme right wing, it's no wonder I could no longer fit in over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I'm happy to recognize another questioner, but I need some silence.

For her first supplementary, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: You know, the thing about switching sides is that sometimes you get asked to live up to what you said you were going to do in the first place.

Let's remember. . . . Let's look back at what the new minister said about joining the NDP. It wasn't long ago he said that he wouldn't join the NDP, because he didn't have the latitude to suddenly package up the principles that he ran on, put them in a box and jump to another party. It wasn't long ago that he said that. And now that he has abandoned all of his principles, abandoned everything that he said he used to stand for. . . .

The Speaker: And your question, member?

C. Clark: Now that he has done just that, why should anyone in British Columbia believe that he has done anything other than take his principles, fit them into what must be a very, very tiny box and decide, instead of fighting this government that he used to criticize, that he's chosen instead to collaborate with the government. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . .that he used to say was the most incompetent in British Columbia's history?

Hon. G. Wilson: I find it particularly galling that that member, who was a Young Liberal, who was a federal Liberal, who believed in Liberal principles, now accuses me of abandoning principles as she stands up opposed to treaty negotiation, opposed to minimum wage, opposed to sensible labour

[ Page 11376 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please come to order. The motion needs to be heard by every one of us.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, you want to listen to the motion.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date; and that, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

[2:30]

On Friday, at the end of three weeks of relentless assaults on the former minister for B.C. Ferries, the Premier pulled out his secret weapon. He shipped the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast over on the fast ferry from Gibsons to Vancouver to Victoria and inserted him as the new shield to defend this government.

What is the first thing that this government does with its spanking-new cabinet minister -- the ink barely dry on his membership form, the $80,000 cheque not yet in the mail to his former political party? The first thing the government does is fold its campstool, pack up its tent, load it into the canoe and head downstream without a paddle. Where's the brave new coalition? Where is it, hon. Speaker?

The Premier talked on Friday about a brave new world for British Columbians -- how wonderful it was that his party had moved to the centre. They brought one more minister into their cabinet, and somehow they had shifted to the centre and it was a brave new world -- a new day for politics in British Columbia. And what's the first thing they do with their renewed mandate? What's the first thing they do in their effort to shift their party to the centre? Pack up and run home -- that's the first thing they do. Where's the bravery, hon. Speaker?

I thought the Premier told us about the skills and the in-depth understanding of the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- his ability to grapple with this issue and bring new viewpoints to it. The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was probably weeping in his tea over the weekend, wondering how anybody could possibly be as brilliant, thoughtful and well-spoken as he is.

It turns out that he was right, because the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs doesn't want to continue with the debate. He wants to leave and run home. If he has such a talent base -- which was required to lever this government out of the depths of the political sewer and put it back on the front page, the front burner of British Columbians -- where is it? Where is the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and why does he refuse to stand up in the House today and defend the treaty he's been defending from that end of the House for the last two weeks?

Hon. Speaker, you can almost imagine a cartoon done by the political cartoonists. You've got the former minister of ferries, the Premier and the minister who brokered the deal -- the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- standing there holding the new minister, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in front of them as a human shield, as the public and the taxpayers take them to task for the fast ferries fiasco.

It is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, that after calling back this House so urgently, throwing the deals to the wind and urgently needing to pass the Nisga'a debate. . . . I remember the Premier saying. . . . I remember the Government House Leader saying: "The time for talk is over; it's time to pass this deal." And a little over two weeks into the debate, they turn tail and run. It's not just till Wednesday, to give the new minister time to get up to speed; it's till some other time.

Where is the urgency that gripped the Government House Leader two and a half short weeks ago? Where is the urgency and the passion of the Premier, who said: "We have to get into the Legislature. We need to pass this deal now; the time is now." All of a sudden, two and a half weeks later -- and $200 million in cost overruns at B.C. Ferries and $80,000 to the new minister's former political party -- they turn tail and run. Where's the passion? Where's the urgency? Where is it?

Are British Columbians supposed to believe anything that the Premier of this province ever tells them anymore? When the Premier talks about his passion and talks about a historic deal, a new day in British Columbia, a new way of doing business. . . . He's required to call back the House immediately after the Christmas break because of the urgency of that and the need to get on with the job. Two and a half weeks later, he wants to collapse the House and run home with his tail between his legs.

[ Page 11377 ]

If the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and B.C. Ferries has this suitcase full of these wonderful ideas, I would expect that that suitcase isn't full of new ideas but is full of the emperor's clothes. It's as empty as it would be if it was full of the emperor's clothes, because the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Responsible for British Columbia Ferries has found, in a short 72 hours, that there is nothing that he is going to be able to do to change the ideological mentality of the members on that side of the House, who continue to drive the economy of British Columbia into the ground day after day and make British Columbia taxpayers pay the price day after day.

If it was such a great idea to bring the new minister onto the government side of the House to create a new wealth of ideas on the government side and shift it to the centre, where are those ideas? Where is one of those ideas? We just went through a question period where the member for Richmond Centre asked the brand-spanking-new NDP minister -- the former member for the PDA -- about a commitment he's held for four years to a public inquiry into the fast ferries proposal. In a short weekend -- not even a long weekend -- that new minister has abandoned that very principle and has turned tail and run from the accountability to the taxpayers of British Columbia which should be happening in this chamber today, tomorrow, the next day, the end of this week -- until this issue is dealt with.

If the new minister for the NDP -- the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and B.C. Ferries -- has these great ideas and solutions to the crisis with B.C. Ferries, and if he's not prepared to debate the Nisga'a treaty, then let's debate a motion on his solutions for the fast ferries. He said he had a plan; he said he had ideas. He certainly had a lot of ideas when he sat down on this side of House; we had to listen to them day after day. If he's got good ideas, why doesn't he take advantage of them? The House is called; the members are here; the taxpayers are paying to heat the building; the lights are on. Why don't they take advantage of that?

I'm sure that members on our side of the House would be willing to give unanimous leave and consent for the member -- the new Minister Responsible for British Columbia Ferries -- to stand up and move a motion and engage in a debate about his solutions for the fast ferries problem and ferries in general.

I know there are members on this side of the House who have ferries in their constituency. Certainly the member for Richmond Centre, who knows a great deal about B.C. Ferries, and members who have constituents who are served by B.C. Ferries would love to have a discussion about solutions to the problems facing B.C. Ferries. Instead of doing that, the government is running. They're going to collapse this House. Members have just flown in from all over British Columbia at I don't know how many tens of thousands of dollars of expense, to come to this Legislature to deal with the Nisga'a debate, and the government is pulling the pin and running.

Let's have the debate on B.C. Ferries. If the minister is not prepared to deal with Nisga'a -- if he suddenly got less informed as he crossed the House and moved from this side over to that side, and he can't debate the Nisga'a treaty. . . . If he's not ready to debate the Nisga'a treaty, then let's debate B.C. Ferries. Let's open that suitcase of new ideas and solutions for B.C. Ferries and have a discussion about them.

Why the fear of government members to come into this House and be held accountable? The reason this government is running is because they can't take the heat. They've taken the B.C. Ferry Corporation from a $15 million debt when they took office to almost $1 billion in debt, to the point that we owe more money than the ferries are worth. They're afraid to stand up here day after day in question period and in debate to defend their utter incompetence, the corruptness of this government and their inability to tell the truth when they were asked about B.C. Ferries over the last four years. They're afraid to have that debate, afraid to have that discussion.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the member for Skeena, who. . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know; we never actually hear him. He never actually stands up in his place and engages in debate. I don't remember that member raising the alarm bells on the $400 million at B.C. Ferries. He sits over there in the corner, ensconced in his propaganda-reading, and shouts from the distance but has no courage whatsoever to ever stand up, engage in the debates and hold his own ministers accountable to the taxpayers in his riding, who are paying the bill for this group, which we've never seen before -- the most incompetent government in the history of British Columbia.

I would think that the member for Skeena would want to get up and tell us why he thinks it's necessary to turn tail and run back to Skeena, why he thinks it's necessary to adjourn the House now to some nebulous date in the future. Is he afraid to stand up and defend the former minister for ferries or the current Minister for Ferries? Why does he think it's appropriate for this government to collapse like a cheap campstool, pack it up in the back of the station wagon and truck off back home to the ridings in British Columbia, without having finished the business that it said was so urgent that it required the urgency of this House. . .required us to be here in the early part of this year?

One has to ask oneself: what's happened to this government? We hear the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. The minister has been kicked out of cabinet twice before and is working on the third time. We heard him say that he was going to guide the New Democratic caucus and the New Democratic Party to the centre. Well, if they're using his moral compass, I have no idea where they're going to end up.

It was exactly the guidance of that minister, who brokered this unholy deal, that put us in the situation that we're in today, with a minister who's afraid to defend the Nisga'a bill -- although he has been defending it just fine from that end of the House. Now that he's a minister, he's afraid to come in here and defend the bill. He's also afraid to defend his former positions or his current positions on the fast ferry project.

[ Page 11378 ]

[2:45]

I've sat in this House for seven years. It's been since 1993-94 that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has sat at the far end of this chamber and advocated for the principles that he believed in and espoused. When he was a member of this political party, when he was a leader, I remember him giving speeches in my constituency and other constituencies. Some of my caucus members will remember this -- certainly the member for Langley, who I know was there at one particularly moving moment. There were about 250 people in the room; it was a political fundraiser in Langley. We were pretty happy. That was one of the biggest events we'd had in that constituency -- probably ever, actually. I remember the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, a gentleman I had a great deal of respect for at the time, giving a speech. He had people in tears one minute, and he had them laughing hysterically the next minute. You know what got the best laugh? It was when he imitated the NDP cabinet ministers, and he'd say: "I've got these principles. Aren't these nice principles? But if you don't like these principles, I've got these principles. And if you don't like those principles, I've got these principles." He was characterizing the ability of the NDP to shift back and forth, based on those principles.

I wish I had a videotape of that speech and was able to play it back to the government members now, because one of two things has happened. Either the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was giving a precursor of what he did today in question period, or every single member on that side of the House has now adopted, in its whole, the policies of the Progressive Democratic Alliance. They have now changed all their tactics and are in favour of balanced budgets -- something we haven't seen -- are in favour of free votes -- something we've never seen from that side of the House -- are in favour of reforming the parliamentary calendar. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thank my colleague here for giving me all the items that she can remember: a three-year budget cycle, a chancellor of the exchequer. . . . I wish I had the document.

I assume that something's happened over the last 72 hours or so, for the NDP to completely abandon everything they ever stood for as a political party since the 1930s and now adopt the policies of the Progressive Democratic Alliance. And they're going to be putting those policies forward.

Hon. Speaker, correct me if I'm wrong, but I somehow expect that it was the first scenario that I brought forward. Nothing is going to change on that side of the House. It's only going to get worse, not better. The policies will become even more dogmatic than they have been in the past. Our economy will continue to suffer under a huge burden of red tape, incompetent management, unbalanced budgets, record debt, businesses leaving the province, people leaving the province, higher and higher unemployment and a collapse of this economy. There was nothing in the comments of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast this afternoon in question period that led me to believe that he has done anything in the last 72 hours but abandon everything that every member of this House has heard him say from the back corner for the last four years.

If I actually thought. . . . If British Columbians actually thought that putting one lonely member over in that sea, that morass, of socialist ideology was going to change anything, all they had to do was think back to what happened when Mike Harcourt joined the New Democratic Party. Here was a gentleman who used to be a Liberal, a federal Liberal -- a Trudeau Liberal, for that matter -- and he became mayor of the city of Vancouver and ran a fairly decent administration. The NDP, looking, grasping for that electoral brass ring and after trying time and time again with their ideological policies, recruited Mike Harcourt to become -- virtually uncontested -- the leader of the New Democratic Party.

It was "Moderate Mike" that they used to call him. I remember the campaigns. Remember them? The government that's as honest and hard-working as the people who pay for it, and "Moderate Mike" with the piggy bank and the penny, saying: "If we don't have the money, we won't spend it." What happened when "Moderate Mike" was immersed with the socialists over on that side? He became as dogmatic as the rest of them. We have had five deficit budgets, record tax increases for the province, a decline in our economy, more political ideology than we've ever seen. When that wasn't working anymore, they turfed him. They turfed him and they got a new Premier.

The chance that somehow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in his own way, is going to come into the NDP and somehow infect them with the accountability virus, infect them with the balanced-budget virus and infect them with responsible management of the ferries is ridiculous. Moderates have joined that party before, only to be thrown out on their ear. One good example was Anita Hagen, who was introduced here earlier. She was one of the more moderate members of that cabinet, and she was turfed out of cabinet within the first 18 months and spent the rest of her term on the back bench.

The social democrats that used to be in that party are long gone. They're going to the Green Party or they're staying at home, but they're not supporting the Premier's party, this New Democratic Party that is really just Old Labour.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Skeena asked me how I would know that. It's because time after time after time they come to my office, and they fax and phone members of this side of the House to tell us how upset and disgusted they are with the policies of that government. All you have to do is talk to the charities and the non-profit organizations in this province.

The woman I ran against, Margaret Birrell, ran for the leadership of the New Democratic Party in 1983. I know she's good friends with some members opposite. She ran for the leadership of the party. She has worked for the Coalition of People with Disabilities for decades. She ran against the Pre-

[ Page 11379 ]

Those people aren't voting NDP next time. Nobody takes a government to court and then turns around and votes for them the next day. Talk about the volunteers in this province, the backbone of our communities, the people who, day after day after day, for decades, have given hundreds of hours of their time to their community, trying to make it a better place for them -- only to find that this government comes in, expropriates their assets, tells them goodbye, kicks them off the board and tells them that they don't want to have anything more to do with them. "We're going to take it over, as a government." Are those people going to continue to support the NDP? I don't think so. They've left in droves, because they too have been forced to take this government through the court system to try and stop them from expropriating their assets.

Somehow the Premier will have us believe that on the spur of the moment, in a secret meeting held in the Premier's Office, he has somehow changed his spots. Hon. Speaker, he hasn't changed his spots at all. The person who has changed his spots is the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Now he is standing up and endorsing a party that stole $2 million from the charities in Nanaimo. The Premier promised, during the election campaign in 1996, that every penny would be repaid, and to date not one cent -- not one cent -- has gone back to those charities in Nanaimo that suffered from the theft that this party put upon them.

But the Premier has no problem sitting in his office, behind closed doors, and cutting a deal with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that includes $80,000 to pay off the debt of another political party that that member ran into debt. What are the people in Nanaimo supposed to say about that? I mean, what do they think? Those charities have been waiting for years, if not decades, to get back the money that legally belonged to them -- and was stolen. They've been waiting for years. The government and the Premier have declined and refused and avoided and tried every trick in the book to stop them from getting that money back, despite a promise to pay it back. But he can go into his office and cut a deal with a member of this Legislature that includes $80,000 to pay off the debt of his political party.

If I was a member of the Progressive Democratic Alliance -- I'm not, but if I was -- I would refuse to accept that money. If they were to give it to me, I'd take that cheque, I'd get in the car and drive up to Nanaimo, and I'd give it to the charities that it belonged to. If this party's going to have a fundraiser, it should fundraise for the charities in Nanaimo that had their money stolen by that party.

I'm at a loss to understand the rationale for why the government is folding its tent and going home now. They brought us back. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says: "Pay back the $1 million for a mailer." Well, I would suggest that that member look at his expenditures for mailing. If he looks at the public accounts, he'll find that $4.5 million trumps $1 million any day.

I wonder why it is that the urgency that was before this Legislature two and a half or three weeks ago, which required members to come to this Legislature from across the province and deal with the Nisga'a debate immediately. . . . It was time to pass this thing. To quote the Premier: "We've talked enough; it's time to pass it." Where did the urgency go that brought us here two and a half weeks ago?

I think it's been somewhat dissipated by the fact that the public has caught on to these guys once again. One more scandal, one more cost overrun, one more example of incompetence. This one is sticking, because the public gets it. They know that this Premier has got his "toys for boys" out there -- these fast ferries -- to quote the new minister from the NDP. They're $200 million over budget, and the former minister refused to stand in this House and answer any questions, the new minister refuses to stand in this House and answer any questions, and the Premier refuses to even show up in this House to answer any questions.

This is a government that is running from the taxpayers and running from the representatives of the taxpayers on this side of the House, because they refuse to answer the tough questions. If this is a brave new world for British Columbia, let's see it here today. Let's start it with accountability. Let's start by getting the Premier in here to answer the tough questions on B.C. Ferries, his pet project: what he knew, when he knew it, how he pushed this project through, how the cost overruns got off track. Let's get the former minister responsible for B.C. Ferries in here. Let's ask him the tough questions about the B.C. Ferries cost overruns -- the $200 million cost overruns -- and the ferries that don't work so far. Why won't he come in and answer those tough questions?

If it's a brave new world about accountability and a new shift for the government, let's get the brand-new minister in here to answer tough questions on B.C. Ferries. Everybody knows that he knows something about it. Heaven knows, he led us to believe that -- from this side of the House. If it's a brave new world and a brave new future for the NDP, let's have that minister in here to talk to us about accountability for B.C. Ferries, instead of hiding, now that he's on that side of the House.

The first thing that British Columbians would have expected from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on taking that seat over there would have been for him to be upfront and tell them the truth about what's gone on at B.C. Ferries. And the first thing he does is hightail it out of the House, along with the other members from the government side of the House, and refuse to debate. . . .

[3:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you for the guidance, hon. Speaker.

The first thing that this government has done in its move to the centre, in its embarking on a brave new government for British Columbia, is to leave -- to turn and run. Well, if this government wants to change its spots. . . . If this government wants to show British Columbians that it's turned over a new leaf, get into this House. Be accountable: answer the questions, debate the Nisga'a deal, debate the cost overruns at B.C.

[ Page 11380 ]

M. de Jong: There's a lot about what is happening today and what has happened over the past couple of days that I find offensive and that a lot of British Columbians are going to find offensive when they arrive home tonight and discover what has taken place today. In no particular order of priority, let me try to summarize what I find offensive about the government's conduct and its utter disregard for the rights of members of this House and the rights of British Columbians, by virtue of what it purports to do today.

I will preface my remarks with this comment and observation. I don't know what troubles me more: the manner in which the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast finds himself occupying a chair on the government side or the fact that earlier today I saw him seeking advice from the Minister of Women's Equality. Both, however, trouble me greatly.

Nonetheless, let me back up, because I think it's important for us to recognize what has taken place here today and over the last couple of weeks. We were in the middle of what I think all members recognize as being the single most important debate around the issue of aboriginal affairs that this province has ever had. I hope the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has occasion to hear what I have to say about this, because I think it is incumbent -- minimally -- upon him to explain what really represents an unprecedented act by a government to suspend debate, dump a minister. . . . That's what has happened here, by virtue of what we've just seen.

An Hon. Member: Two ministers.

M. de Jong: Two ministers. Well, I'll get to the second one. Let's first deal with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In the middle of the single most important debate around the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia, the Premier of the day has sacked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and replaced him with an individual who until a few days ago wasn't even a member of the governing party. That's troubling.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I am going to respond to this. The member for Skeena. . . . I'm going to challenge him. The member for Skeena is referring to a filibuster. Madam Speaker, there's enough for me to find offensive about what happened today. But for the member for Skeena to suggest that there has been a filibuster. . . . Maybe it's time that he put up or shut up. If he thinks there was something in this debate that represented filibustering, apparently he doesn't want British Columbians to know the answers to the questions that have been asked in this House. If that's the case, hon. Speaker, let him stand up and say so. I think it is reprehensible that he would be in this House suggesting that there has been anything in the way of delay tactics around this debate. It has been a debate about getting answers to questions that British Columbians need to know about.

I don't for a moment pretend to not understand the frustration of the member for Skeena. Remember, another cabinet post has been filled, and the Premier doesn't have one ounce of confidence in any member of the back bench. He's gone across the floor. What does that say about the strength of the NDP? It says that they don't have any bench strength. The Premier has no confidence in the member for Skeena; he's overlooked him again. I understand that frustration.

Let me return to why I am offended by the motion we are debating here today, around the government's desire to have this House adjourn. Let's talk about the issue that has been front and centre in the minds of the public, in the minds of the government and certainly in the minds of the opposition: the ferries issue. It's a fast cat ferries issue that, over the course of the past couple of weeks, British Columbians have learned represents the squandering of hundreds of millions of their tax dollars. I don't know about members on the government side, and I don't know about members on my own side. But I've never seen a million dollars, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars. I can't even conceive of how much money that is, but I know it's a lot of money. We have learned, over the course of the last couple of weeks, that this government, this Premier and the Deputy Premier have overseen the squandering of not $1 million, not $10 million and not $100 million, but hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. And all we hear from members of the government or from members of the C team -- like the member for Skeena -- is an attempt to minimize and dismiss as somehow insignificant the fact that this government has no ability to manage the public purse.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I think it's important for the record to reflect what the member for Skeena is trying to say off the record. He challenges me. He says to me that I can't verify my falsehoods. Well, my invitation to the member for Skeena is that if he is going to challenge me in this Legislature. . . If he's going to challenge me in that way -- as somehow trying to mislead the House -- then at least have the courage to stand up and do so openly.

I think that's what his constituents want to know: that the member apparently has no trouble with the fact that the Premier's pet project is over $200 million in the hole. That apparently is a non-issue for him. I suggest that it is very much an issue for his constituents. But if he wants to minimize the importance of that, if he wants to say to his constituents: "Forget about it. It's only $200 million. What were we going to do with $200 million in Skeena anyway? We don't have any hospitals; we don't have any health care needs; we don't have any school needs. . . ." If that's his message, then let him say it. Let him stand up and say it. But no, he prattles on from the far reaches of the government back bench -- that bastion of talent that the Premier looks at for all of one second before going to another party and another side of the House.

I understand that frustration. I understand that the member for New Westminster woke up on Saturday and said: "My God, what's happened? I've been overlooked again." But he then got his speaking notes from the Premier's Office, who said: "Now remember, when you go out this morning and people ask you about the fact that we've drafted someone from another party -- from the opposition side of the House -- ahead of all those government backbenchers, remember to put a smile on and say: 'That's good news for us. I'm happy that I got overlooked by the Premier one more time.' "

The member for New Westminster has followed his lines to a T. I've heard him on the radio; I've seen him on television. He's out there smiling and saying: "Hey, we don't have any

[ Page 11381 ]

But that does nothing to address the fact that at a time when this government should be held to account for fiscal bungling of an absolutely incredible proportion, they're running and hiding. They're heading out the door; they're packing up the place; they're turning out the lights; they're putting the plywood over the windows, and they're heading for home. I want to ask the member for Skeena. . . . The Education minister is here. I've got a question for them. I want to know how much it cost them to come here today. I want to know how much their expense claims are going to be, associated with their trips from Skeena and Prince George. I want to know how much the members of the government are going to bill taxpayers for coming here for 15 minutes of business today.

I wonder if even one member of the NDP -- the A team, the B team, the C team, the D team -- will have the courage to stand here and reveal what the taxpayers are going to pay for them to come here for 15 minutes to play games with this House. Ultimately, that's what it represents, and that's what it reveals: a degree of contempt for the rights of all MLAs and the rights of British Columbians. Before his duties take him elsewhere -- and I know that the member for Skeena has an expense form that he needs to fill out -- I want to challenge him and any member of the government to reveal to British Columbians how much this travesty is costing.

Can you imagine? Understand what's happened here today. We adjourned on Thursday. We had a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and we had a minister responsible for ferries. They were sacked; they had those responsibilities removed from them. I think I understand why the member for North Coast was thrown a lifeboat.

K. Krueger: An anchor.

M. de Jong: An anchor, as my colleague from Kamloops says.

I think I understand that. It was a means for getting him out of the kitchen, because the heat was obviously getting too much for him. So let's move him away; let's save him by throwing him an anchor or a life jacket or a lifeboat.

I'm curious in the extreme to understand why the member for Nanaimo, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, on Thursday led me to believe that we would come back here on Monday and continue with the debate that's been going on for three weeks. I have no idea of the basis on which he has been relieved of his duties, but I don't think it's much of a leap for people to assume that it represents a vote of no confidence in that minister -- an absolute vote of no confidence in how that minister has handled his portfolio. How else would you account for a minister being relieved of those duties in the middle of the most important debate taking place on his portfolio? I can think of nothing. That is the question that someone on the government side should have the courage to stand up and answer. Is this an indication of a change in government direction on the issue? Is this an indication of the Premier's lack of confidence in the now minister's predecessor? What is it? What have we just seen take place here?

We know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spent the last three weeks engaged in something of a charade -- which, quite frankly, I find equally detestable, equally reprehensible. To be sitting on this side of the House and purporting to exercise duties as an opposition MLA, when at the very same time negotiations were taking place which the member knew would lead to his changing sides and occupying a place in cabinet, seems to me unseemly at best. It's unseemly that that charade should be acted out not just by the government but by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who -- remember -- presents himself as a man of principle and who for seven years tried to distinguish himself as the man who would take his ideas to the people and let them decide. Well, in the battle between maintaining those ideas and succumbing to the temptation of a ministerial parking pass and an increase in salary, we found out on Friday which one he opted for.

[3:15]

As I think about what's going to happen and about the fact that the government will undoubtedly, at some point, press ahead with its desire to clear out of the chamber and adjourn this House indefinitely. . . . We don't even know when they're going to come back. They won't provide that information. I think to myself: what else is at work here? What else is troubling the government?

I'm mindful that when we came here, of course, this was going to be the session in which the government pulled up its socks, presented a new face and reclaimed all the popularity that it had lost over the last two or three years. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's been an unmitigated disaster from the outset. If the government believes that it has derived any political benefit from its shenanigans over the last few days, I think it will very quickly learn otherwise.

But what else is in play here? Why does the government want out of here? Why is it that the government has abandoned the strategy that it maintained it had just before Christmas -- the need, as my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain said, to come here and do the people's business, as it related to the Nisga'a treaty? What else is in play here? Is it possible that the government has another agenda? I think that's entirely possible. Let me speculate openly about some of the things that might occur sometime after this debate is finished and the government rams through its desire to adjourn this House until an unspecified date. Let me think about those areas of public policy that the government perhaps feels vulnerable on.

Could it be gaming? Is it possible that following the termination of this debate, that following the government ramming through its adjournment motion, we might see an announcement from the minister responsible for gaming that his long-awaited White Paper is available to the public? Surely not, when we could have had that paper tabled here in this

[ Page 11382 ]

An Hon. Member: No, they have principles.

M. de Jong: They have new principles, at least.

Hon. Speaker, let me speculate about what might take place in the days that follow the government ramming through this adjournment motion. I think it's entirely possible that the long-awaited White Paper may see the light of day, at a time when the opposition has no opportunity to pose questions about where the government intends to take gaming policy -- an area of public policy that has been a shameful albatross for this government, that they have made a mess of from the beginning and that they have used as an assault on the charities of British Columbia.

Maybe there's another agenda at work. One of my colleagues says to me that there's an auditor general report that we're expecting. Now, I get all of these investigations confused, so sometimes I have to appeal to my colleagues for help. Is this the one about bilking the charities in Nanaimo? Or is this the one. . . ?

Interjections.

M. de Jong: That's not the one? No, it's not the one about bilking the charities in Nanaimo. As I and my colleague here recall, we don't think the government's paid any of that money back yet -- although they have promised to -- and now we learn that they're going to pay the new Aboriginal Affairs minister's bills, to the tune of $80,000. But I don't think that's the one. I don't think that's the scandal we're talking about here.

Is it the scandal associated with the recall campaign in Prince George? I think that's the one involving the Minister of Education and some questionable accounting practices. I think there's an investigation -- a forensic audit -- taking place around it. Is that the one?

Interjections.

M. de Jong: That's not the one; that's not the auditor general report. Okay, maybe, Madam Speaker. . . . Wait a minute; I recall one. This goes back a little way in the hit parade of scandal. What about that one where the government said we were going to have two or three balanced budgets? Is that it? And then the auditor general decided: "Hey, I'd better have a look at that. If people can't trust the government when they presume to tell them about the state of the provincial books, that's not a very healthy state of affairs."

Does anyone really think. . . ? This would just be the height of all hypocrisy and deviousness. Does anyone really think that the NDP would be adjourning the House because there might be more bad news coming, in the guise of the auditor general report? Oh, my goodness! Would the NDP do such a thing? I can only ask the question and challenge the Minister of Education to stand up and tell us why we have to leave this place now, and ask the Minister of Women's Equality, who sits there proffering advice to the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. . . . Oh, my God! If anything worries me, it's seeing her offer advice to the new minister; but so be it.

We need information. Something unprecedented is taking place here today. The government is collapsing. The government is tucking its tail between its legs and it's running. It's running at a time when there is no end of important issues for British Columbians to have debated and dealt with in this chamber.

K. Krueger: Highland Valley Copper.

M. de Jong: My colleague from Kamloops pre-empts me -- as he's inclined to do. As I was making notes earlier today, I looked down at my pen. It says: Highland Valley Copper. I went to Highland Valley Copper just a couple of months ago. There are a thousand families out of work.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: "One thousand and fifty-six," says the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, with whom I would never quarrel over such a thing. So 1,056 families have been thrown out of work. They're in bad shape, and they're worried about their future.

In Gold River, hundreds of families are wondering what is going to happen to them, their children and their future. In just about every single part of this province, every single sector of the economy, there is bad news. There are credit rating downgrades. There are people flocking to Alberta and flocking south of the border, because they know that if they want to get ahead, they've got to leave British Columbia under this NDP administration.

Do you think, even for a minute, that the government might contemplate the need to take some action or to engage this House in a debate designed to reverse trends, to reverse an economy that is heading down the toilet because of its policies? Do you think, even for a minute, that the government, which said it was going to take steps to reduce the regulatory burden, might wake up this morning and say: "All right, we're going to temporarily suspend the debate around Nisga'a, but there are a lot of other things and a lot of other business for this House to attend to." Do you think that might occur to them, hon. Speaker?

Well, it would if they were genuinely concerned with the fate of the people of British Columbia, if they were genuinely concerned with those people whose lives are in trouble because our economy is going down the toilet. What this action today demonstrates is that they don't care about any of that. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke doesn't care about any of that; the member for New Westminster doesn't care about any of that; the member for Burnaby. . . . They don't care about any of that. Not only are they bailing out of this place. . . .

I can't help but notice that the Environment minister is here, tending to her business, at a time when 1,056 families in and around her constituency have been thrown out of work. She is sitting silent while the government bails out of this House, bails out of this assembly, for no other reason than that it's gotten too hot in the kitchen. The Deputy Premier is in trouble, and the Premier is in trouble, and they're going to head for the hills. And this Minister of Environment, this member for Kamloops, whose duty it is to represent the interests of her constituents, is going to sit silent and acquiesce in an act of political shame that is unprecedented in the history of this province.

[ Page 11383 ]

We can talk about the cost of bringing MLAs to this chamber, to Victoria. We can talk about the money that would have been saved. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the member for Matsqui has the floor.

Member for Matsqui, continue.

M. de Jong: Thanks, Madam Speaker.

We can talk about the money that would have been saved if, if nothing else, the government had had the courtesy -- let's talk about that -- to announce on Thursday something they clearly intended to do. . .

An Hon. Member: Thousands of dollars.

M. de Jong: Thousands and thousands of dollars.

. . .if the government had had the courtesy to tell members that at 2:15 p.m. on Monday, February 1, the House would adjourn. They're not interested in that. They're not interested in saving money; we know that from the ferry scandal, from no end of budget fiascos. All they're interested in doing is manipulating the legislative process, manipulating the public, manipulating their responses to issues for patently political reasons. And in the meantime, the public can go to -- whatever.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I don't know what it is with the member for Skeena. He seems somehow drawn to the chamber, somehow drawn to the edge of debate.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: No, the member is partly right; he just can't stand. But it's not that hard. Maybe if he's having trouble, I can send the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and he can operate one of those revival hour things he's so famous for. We can get the member to stand up in this House and deliver what I'm sure would be a very enlightened address. But he won't, and they won't. We've learned yet again today the degree of contempt that the government and the Premier have for this assembly, the traditions of this assembly, the members of this assembly and, most importantly, the people of British Columbia.

[3:30]

J. Weisgerber: It's with a bit of surprise that I find myself rising to debate the adjournment of the House in the midst of committee stage of the Nisga'a treaty, something that, we've been led to believe by the government members, is critically important -- important for the Nisga'a, for the treaty process and for the people of northwestern British Columbia, including the member for Skeena. It's important for his constituents. It's important enough that the House has been called back a second time to debate this critically important issue, an issue that I too believe is important. It's important enough to start, important enough to follow through with some continuity, important enough to conclude. Whether or not we agree with the tack taken by the government, by the long list of Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs that we've seen since the member for Saanich South first took that portfolio. . . . There was the member for Saanich South, the good member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member for Nanaimo and now the recently converted member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Those kinds of changes have to be incredibly disruptive to aboriginal people and to people who are serious about moving ahead with this process.

Instead, we find ourselves on a Monday, immediately after question period, calling for the adjournment of the House. Madam Speaker, you will know that this is not the first time that members have come back to this Legislature on a Monday only to have the government adjourn the House. The government members and the Premier would have us believe that this is a fiscally responsible government, something that I'm sure evokes chuckles not only on this side of the House but across British Columbia as we look at the record of the government. Nevertheless, the government members want to continue to portray themselves in that light.

We have 75 members in this House. Most members travel anywhere from a few miles to 1,000 miles in order to get here. Airline transportation in this province is not cheap. Most members fly back to Victoria on Monday morning or Sunday night in order to prepare for a week's work in the Legislature. Twice in the last two months we've seen this House suddenly adjourn on a Monday -- once as we were concluding second reading on the Nisga'a treaty. And what happened? The government, facing defeat in Parksville-Qualicum, a defeat that they knew was going to be humiliating for them, cut and ran.

They abandoned the House, adjourned the House on a Monday, with absolutely no regard for delegates who were planning to come to Victoria to make presentations to the government -- people who perhaps wanted to come and visit either the New Democratic caucus or the Liberal caucus, or to

[ Page 11384 ]

I look back at the record of this Legislature -- which is determined by the Government House Leader -- around this whole Nisga'a treaty debate. Members were advised on November 23 that the House would be back on November 30, with absolutely no indication of how long the debate would last. As I mentioned earlier, on December 14, facing a serious licking in the polls up in Parksville-Qualicum, they cut and ran. Members came back to this House on December 14, only to turn around and fly back, at significant public cost, because the House had indeed shut down.

Then we were advised on January 6, while some members were away. . . . We had been led to believe that the House would be coming back near the end of January. But no, it was critical that the House be back on January 13 to do the people's business.

For me, it was no problem. I was happy to be back here talking about the Nisga'a issue, as I think most members were -- although courtesy would have seen a little more notice for that. Here we are today at question period, 15 minutes of the people's business, after members have been called back from all around the province to do their duty in this House. . . . After 15 minutes of business, the Government House Leader rises to adjourn -- because, I guess, we have a new cabinet minister.

I've been around this House for a while. I've seen new cabinet ministers come and go. Cabinet ministers get appointed in the middle of a session or between sessions. If it happens, as this does, that there are a couple of hot issues that the minister has to deal with, then the Premier has to decide: "Should I make that appointment now so that the member can in fact pick up the ball and carry it, or should I look around the cabinet and see if there is someone else?"

Maybe the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast could have sat over on the back bench for a few days until the Nisga'a treaty was concluded. He's not in a position to change one word in the treaty. That's not my thought; that's not my idea -- that's the statement of the Premier. The Premier said that regardless of the best or the worst minds over there, as the minister, not one word in the Nisga'a treaty is going to be changed. So why, then, is it so important to bring in a minister but then adjourn the House so that the minister can in fact get up to speed? It simply doesn't make any sense.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Skeena, who I suppose has been given strict instructions to only natter from his own seat but never to take his place so that he might be recorded in Hansard, has once again started making those comments that are so typical. But let's let him, at least by the back door, get into the debate. He can say something; I'll repeat it. I can rebut it, and then the member will actually be in Hansard twice. By acknowledging the member who said, "What's the hurry?" his words can now be heard two times.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member says -- and I stand corrected: "What's the hurry? You voted against it." So his commentary broadens, and pretty soon it's going to be difficult for me to repeat two or three sentences that the member manages to cobble together. But as long as he sticks to one, I can probably read them into the record for him.

The reality is that the member for Skeena -- the Terrace area, according to this government, being the primary beneficiary of the Nisga'a treaty -- said: "What's the hurry?" He doesn't care; he thinks it's funny. He thinks it's a big joke that he flew in yesterday from Skeena at about a thousand dollars' worth of taxpayers' money. He thinks it's funny because he's going to hop on the plane not tonight but tomorrow morning -- for reasons that needn't be expanded on further. Tomorrow morning he's going to fly back to Terrace, and he's going to say to those folks: "What's the hurry? What's the hurry?" Maybe that member will take a trip up to the Nass. Maybe he'll see Chief Gosnell and say: "What's the hurry, Chief? What's the rush, people?"

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, hon. members, again the member for Skeena launches into complex sentences. Were he writing them out, they would require a comma. And again we see that member's abilities tested sorely in this debate. But, hon. Speaker, I know that Hansard finds this exercise of the member speaking, me repeating it and then having to put it into the record twice somewhat redundant. So I'm going to continue with my line of thought. And I'm going to encourage the member to seriously try and put his into something cogent enough that it would allow him to take his place in the House and carry on a debate for perhaps five, six, seven minutes -- you know, something almost as big as a private member's statement but without quite the time to prepare for it.

The issue around the abuses of this House. . . . There's no other way to describe what's gone on since November 30 but as an abuse of this Legislature, an abuse of the people and the purse of the people of British Columbia. It underlines, better than I could ever dream up scenarios, and spells out the reason that legislatures require calendars, why legislatures require an order of business -- not just for the members, but for the people who like to come to Victoria and find the caucuses together, so that they can make presentations, and for delegations who want to come and see a minister in the minister's office. I wonder how many British Columbians have appointments with ministers over the next two weeks that are furiously being cancelled today, because the ministers are heading home, going back to their constituents. Meetings that were scheduled for Victoria for the next couple of weeks are put on hold.

Legislatures like the legislature in Ottawa, which has many warts on it. . . . But at least that House has an order of business. You know that come February -- about now; today I guess it is -- the MPs are going to go back to Ottawa, and they're going to be there until the third week in June, at which time they will rise. The members will go home to their constit-

[ Page 11385 ]

[3:45]

I guess it underlines the danger for all of us in political life of reading selected media quotes and wanting to believe the good ones, while ignoring those that are more critical of us. It's kind of tragic when we grab onto something and start to really believe it -- and believe it so strongly that we actually write it into our speeches.

If one thinks that given a good, solid grounding. . . . And I'll give the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast credit: I think he understands Aboriginal Affairs; I think he understands the issues. He certainly understands them at least as well as the last minister did. I suppose that that's being damned with faint praise, but nevertheless, I certainly think it's fair to say that he understands the issue as well as the last minister did. I think it would be hard to make an argument to say: "Our new guy is only up to speed as much as the last minister was, so we want to be out of here for a couple of weeks to try and bring him into a more complete understanding of the issues."

Then one must believe that it's because he has taken on this hot potato, the fast ferries. "Faced with questions daily in the House, we've got to get the new minister in and make sure that he's up to speed on the ferry issues." I have to reflect on the answers we have heard over the last two weeks from the former minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. With all due respect to that good member from Prince Rupert, the member for North Coast, those answers don't require a lot of depth. You don't have to have a very deep understanding of the issue to say: "Well, I didn't know anything; nobody told me anything about overruns. I depended, not on the member for Comox Valley -- who sat on the board -- to bring me information; not on the many, many critics and sometimes supporters of the project, who for two years had been talking about it being over budget and obviously way, way behind schedule. . . ." But the good minister, the member for North Coast, wasn't particularly forthcoming with his answers. What is it that the new minister has to know that the old minister didn't know? What is it that we can expect from this new minister? Will there be an insightful review of B.C. Ferries that will allow that new minister to be so much better informed than the Deputy Premier, the minister who has had this portfolio for three years now, who sat in on board meetings, who had a caucus member attending the ferry board meetings?

"Why is it that we're adjourning?" you have to ask yourself. We're about a third of the way through a careful scrutiny, I think, of the Nisga'a treaty -- a scrutiny that has been thoughtful, a scrutiny that has been respectful of aboriginal people and aboriginal aspirations -- and a process that allowed us to examine the government's rationale, some of it very sound. Some of the things we learned in this process, I think, caused members on this side of the House -- myself, at least -- to reconsider criticisms that we've had of various elements of the treaty -- answers that I think were useful to us and to people who are interested in the process. Why would we stop this on a Monday, 15 minutes into the week's work?

Imagine, Madam Speaker, if you were a foreman on a job -- an important construction project -- and you called everybody back to work Monday morning. Work shut down on Friday, and you gave them absolutely no indication that there was going to be a new straw boss among the elite the next Monday morning. You called everybody back to work, introduced the new straw boss and said: "That's it; we're all going home. We'll let you know when we need you again, folks." What kind of management on a project would that be? What kind of a private sector corporation would bring in a new staff member, one of 20 -- I guess it's up to 20 now -- new managers? I think the managers actually outnumber the backbenchers. What kind of an organization, promoting someone from outside into the corporate structure, would have everybody come back to work Monday morning, clock on for 15 minutes and then adjourn, not to a specified day and not even giving those people and the people who were interested in the completion of the project any sense of when work on the project was going to resume -- in this case, the Nisga'a treaty?

I heard nothing from the Government House Leader that said: "We would like to adjourn the House for two weeks and come back here on a given date." I don't care whether it's one week, two weeks -- whatever it is. But I think that if the New Democrats are as sincere about this Nisga'a treaty as the Premier would have us believe, they would at least have had the courtesy to the Nisga'a to have established a date on which they're going to resume debate, with the notion of concluding this issue. That's not the case.

I think it's an abuse of the privileges of this House; I think it's an abuse of the people of British Columbia. I think it's arrogance that is offensive; it's abrasive. To use the House as cynically as this House has been used since November 20 doesn't serve the people well. It sure as heck doesn't reflect very well on the government. I am, quite honestly, shocked that members of this assembly would be brought back to Victoria twice within two months, only to see the government cut and run the same day -- in this case, after only 15 minutes of debate.

I know that my friends in the Liberal caucus take some pride in their ability to put the government under the gun. With all due respect to them, I don't think the pressure today was that great. I mean, sure, there were some tough questions. But to all roll over. . . . It makes one wonder how, in the good

[ Page 11386 ]

Some Hon. Members: They will.

J. Weisgerber: Well, members down the way say: "They will." I think that's incredibly kind. I think you're being far too generous with most of those members; many folks are on their last trip. For some, it's their first and last, I guess.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Easy come; easy go.

But I want to finish up on a note that is serious. I do believe, and I've campaigned. . . . Well, I won't say for how many years, because it sounds as if one is equating years of service with some great sacrifice that has been made. I wouldn't want to do that, because I've been privileged to serve in this House every year that I've been here. I don't consider it any sacrifice at all; I consider it a privilege to serve in this House.

But I have long felt that this Legislature has matured to the point where it needs a calendar. It needs some stability; there needs to be some certainty and some predictability as to the sittings of this Legislature. These last two months have certainly gone a long way towards reinforcing in my mind the notion that the sittings of this Legislature should not be at the whim of the Premier or the Government House Leader.

I suppose one of the great benefits of an abuse of that kind of privilege is that it often takes a series of events like those we've just witnessed for people to understand a concept. I believe that British Columbians will surely start to understand the importance of a calendar for the efficient operation of their government. And let's make no mistake about it: this isn't our government; it's not our House. It's not, as one member was quoted as saying. . . . These aren't "toys for the boys" -- or girls. These are serious matters of state, and this Legislature should run in a way that respects that obligation to the people of British Columbia. What we've seen in the last two months is evidence of a disregard for that responsibility.

[4:00]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Campbell: It is with some regret that, unfortunately, I have to stand today to speak to this government's motion to adjourn.

As the member for Peace River South mentioned earlier, when we run for office, when we seek to be elected and seek public support, we normally undertake that we will carry out our public responsibilities. As I've said many times before, the first time you come into this legislative chamber, you think this is a true honour. It is a true honour to be able to speak and work and act on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Most of us who get involved in public life understand that public life in a democracy -- public life where the citizen is the driver of public policy, where we are servants -- involves debate, involves discussion, involves a government being forced to answer difficult questions, the questions of the public. What we have seen today is simply the capping of a session of a government that has lost not just the authority to govern but public support. It is clearly a government without integrity, a government that is unwilling to stand accountable for its disastrous record in British Columbia.

Instead of the feisty little east-side fighter standing up and saying, "I'll stand on my record," he runs away, hon. Speaker. This Premier will not carry out his obligations. It is the Premier who has an obligation here. He has an obligation to fire the minister responsible for the B.C. ferry fiasco, and he doesn't. He says: "Gee, that might be a little tough, to hold someone accountable for a $200 million overrun, accountable for the destruction of one of the proudest Crown corporations in British Columbia." Instead of holding him accountable, what does he do? He says: "Oh, sit over here. You'll get your same paycheque. You didn't really have to know what was happening in your corporation. Run and hide, Dan; run and hide. I'll back you up. I'll stand in front of you." But does he stand? No. The Premier runs and hides too.

Two weeks of questions -- two weeks -- and a number of opportunities. . . . Last week the Premier had an opportunity to answer question after question, and the Premier sat there mute. The Premier, like his former minister responsible, stood up and said: "I didn't know. Oh sure, I was there cracking the champagne on the bow of the ferry. I just didn't realize that the champagne cost $100 million for one bottle."

They're running away from their duty. You travel across the province, and you find that MLAs from the government side run away from their constituents. We have a Premier who runs away from question period. Now we have a government that runs away from the public. This is unquestionably the most cowardly government in the history of the province.

Let's just look at what we're dealing with; let's think about what we are supposed to be doing in this House. This was the Government House Leader -- when was it? -- just three weeks ago. . . . "Everybody else is back at work. It's time to get on with it. It's a very important issue. We need to conclude it," she said with regard to the Nisga'a treaty. Yet what does this government do? It runs. It runs from the opportunity to explain its position.

I guess it's pretty hard to explain spending $7.5 million of the public's money to mislead them. I guess it's pretty hard to explain when the Premier comes in and can't even tell us how they valued the land component of this. It's pretty hard to explain why the government claims this is a municipal style of government, when it's not. It's pretty hard to explain why a government said it was absolutely critical that we come back in January and bring people from their constituencies, yet now they're going to run from the very questions that this House is demanding that we ask.

This government's got to understand that this is a duty that they face -- a duty. The reason they get a paycheque is to

[ Page 11387 ]

What do we have, hon. Speaker? Here's a government that says that there is no need for us to be in the House. Here is a back bench that sits mute, just doing whatever they're told. They're patted on their heads and told to be quiet -- even the member for Skeena is told to be quiet -- and they silently let it go. What about the member for Kamloops and the member for Yale-Lillooet, who are sitting there silently as over a thousand people are losing their jobs at Highland Valley?

When are those people going to stand up for their constituents and demand that the government stop subsidizing American workers and put B.C. workers back to work in British Columbia? When are they going to stand and speak for their constituents? When is the member for Cariboo South, the Minister of Forests, going to stand and speak for his constituents at Gibraltar? Within 40 days, 280 families are going to lose their work, and this government adjourns the House.

This government, which has targeted B.C. industry and B.C.'s industrial workers, said: "We will tax you more and more. We will subsidize the Americans, and we'll tax B.C. workers." Guess what happens: British Columbians lose their paycheques. Just think of what that means.

The other day I was sitting in a restaurant, and a woman came up to me and reached across and said: "Mr. Campbell, I want to thank you for the B.C. Liberals raising the issue of Highland Valley in the House." She referred to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. She said to me: "You know, I have a job. This isn't about my job; it's about my husband's job. He works at Highland Valley." She couldn't finish her sentence, because she was crying. She was crying because there is a human cost to this government's incompetence.

I wonder how many of the members opposite have decided to go up to Gold River and talk to the people in Gold River about what's happened to them and their families as they lose their hope, as they despair for the value of their homes, and as they wonder whether they're going to have a job next year or not. What's happened to that entire community?

This government says: "It's time to adjourn the House." Those members opposite are going to sit there and say we should adjourn the House while we have thousands of British Columbians who are worried about whether they're going to own a house because of this government's economic policies. It is absolutely unheard of.

This is about the people of British Columbia. This is a place where we are supposed to do the people's business, and this government says: "We'll adjourn; we will run away." This government has single-handedly taken the B.C. Ferry Corporation and destroyed it. They have basically and effectively put that Crown corporation into bankruptcy. In spite of this Premier's promise that the public would know everything that's going on with B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro -- with Crown corporations -- not once since he made that promise has the Crown Corporations Committee of this House sat. And this government says it's time to adjourn.

We have a health crisis in British Columbia. The other day we met with the B.C. Cancer Agency. Do you know what they're looking for? They're looking for $100 million to support research; they're looking for $100 million to find a cure for cancer. In British Columbia we have an opportunity; we have the talented people that can do that. I'm only mentioning that because there were a number of government members at that reception, and they all said how important this was. But this government has wasted $200 million. While they'll make the Cancer Agency look for $100 million, they've wasted $200 million on a boondoggle like B.C. Ferries.

Not one member of this government can claim to support health care when that's the kind of thing that's taking place in this province. We have communities in this province that have no ambulance service. We have communities in this province that have difficulty getting health care. Many members opposite represent them, and they say that it's time to adjourn. It's just health care, it's just patients that are going to suffer, but we'll adjourn. There's the Health Committee that could meet. We could have the Health Committee meeting in this House right now, but this government has not called that committee into session once.

What has happened? Waiting lists have grown. Doctors spend their time trying to figure out how to move patients from one community to the next and from one bed to the next, looking for a bed where they can provide care for the people of British Columbia. And this government says it's time to adjourn. Is the government so lacking in imagination? Are the backbenchers so lacking in imagination that they don't think it is important for us to look for solutions to the health care crisis that's taking place? This government can keep to themselves all those crocodile tears they have shed, because no one believes them anymore.

We have a health care crisis in the province, and we have an education crisis in the province. Talk to the teachers of British Columbia; talk to the people who are working in the classrooms. Talk to the parents who are worried about the programs that are being taken away from their children. Talk to the school trustees about what's taking place in their communities. We have a serious problem in this province when a government turns tail and runs from the problems of B.C., instead of facing them and coming up with solutions that will work for every single British Columbian.

Just think of this. In the last month alone, what is this government's record? The NDP have taken this province, which used to have the number one economy in the country, from first place to last place. They've taken a province that used to have a very good credit rating. . . . We have watched as Standard and Poor's -- this month alone -- took our economy and downgraded our credit rating from stable to negative. They smugly sit on the other side and say that it doesn't matter. Tell the 16,000 people in the forest industry who have lost their paycheques that it doesn't matter. The government should tell people in the mining industry who have lost their jobs that it doesn't matter. They should tell the people on waiting lists in hospitals -- whether it's for cardiac surgery, hip replacements, knee improvements or special surgery for children -- that it doesn't matter. That's exactly the message that this government sends when it says it's time for this House to adjourn.

[4:15]

[ Page 11388 ]

This government seems to think it's no longer important to debate these issues openly and honestly and publicly, so they can be held accountable. No, this government thinks it's important to run from their obligations, run from their responsibilities and run from their duty. Hon. Speaker, I want to tell you that this government may be able to run today and it may be able to run next week, but it will not be able to run from an election. When an election is called, they will be defeated once and for all.

This is evidently the new NDP. This weekend we were told that there's a new NDP. Of course, we were told by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who believes in his principles so much that he was prohibited from practising law for a while. He said that we've got a new NDP. Well, what is the new NDP? It's the "no damn principles party" -- that's what the new NDP is.

Why are they running from a discussion and a debate about a piece of legislation that's so critical to the future of the province? We all want treaties, in this House. We all want treaties that work for all people -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Why are they running? The Premier used to be able to stand in the House and support the treaty. Why is he running? I'm sure that the former minister, the fired Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, will be glad to stay and help the new minister. Why are they running? There's simply no excuse for them to run.

Why is it that the Deputy Premier, who sits in his place and says: "I didn't know that we were $200 million over budget. I didn't know that B.C. Ferries, for which I am fully responsible, was going bankrupt. I didn't know I was supposed to ask questions when the bills kept coming in and we didn't get the quality of product that we were expecting. I don't know the answer to that. . . ." Why does the Deputy Premier run today? He runs from the questions of the media; he runs from the questions of the House; he runs from the public. Why does he run? I thought he was supposed to be one of those brave, tough guys from the NDP. He's supposed to be some guy that could stand up. He hasn't been able to answer one question in this House in a straightforward manner in the last three weeks.

I wonder if they're running because it's almost time for the auditor general's report. You remember, hon. Speaker, that this was the government that told British Columbians it had two successive balanced budgets. In fact, in 1996 they said to all of us in this House and to 3.8 million British Columbians: "We have a surplus, a $16 million surplus. Aren't we good managers?" What was the truth, hon. Speaker? The truth was that they had a $684 million deficit. It just happened, within two days of this Premier being elected by his party, that out of the blue $800 million materialized onto the balance sheets -- $800 million. Page after page after page of information is available for all the people of B.C. to see that this government had a deliberate program of misrepresentation of that. This government and every single member opposite, by inference, deliberately misled the people of British Columbia.

Now, after months and months of review, could it be that the government members are afraid of what the auditor general's report will say? Could it be that they are running from that obligation, as well -- the obligation to tell the truth about what's happening with people's tax dollars, to tell the truth about the state of our finances in British Columbia? You wonder why some of the members opposite even decided to run for office, if they weren't willing to stand on some principles. Remember the principle about no expansion of gambling in the province of British Columbia?

What we've really found out is that this government is run by one principle, and the principle of every member opposite under this government is that government can do whatever it wants, regardless of what the law is. We have watched as time and time again this government has had to be dragged into court by the citizens of British Columbia, so citizens could protect themselves and their communities from this government's arrogant and abusive policies.

I know that there is growing dissension in the ranks of the government, and there should be. I would love to see one member from the government side stand up and speak to the principles that she or he ran on in 1996 -- just one. Many times I'm asked, "Isn't it possible to get someone from the government side to cross the floor, to move across the floor to this side of the House?" and I say to them: "You have to understand that it seems -- at least to me -- that these members didn't know why they ran." They evidently didn't understand that when they ran, they were going to watch, as we watched, our health care system be divided into a two-tier health care system between rural and urban communities. They sat mute as that happened. We've watched as hospitals have effectively been closed to patients in the north and rural communities. This government sat mute. We've watched as one debacle after another has been foisted on the taxpayers of British Columbia, and this government has sat mute. We've watched as school trustees have been relegated not just to the back bench -- like some of the MLAs opposite -- but totally out of the discussion about how to improve the quality of education for our young people. Members opposite have sat mute. As their communities have suffered the loss of thousands of jobs, members opposite have sat mute.

So the question, I guess, is: what does the government think the Legislature is here for? The Legislature is here to carry out its obligations to the public -- not to some pathetic Premier who's lost confidence. He's lost the confidence not only of his caucus and not only of the public but of everyone in British Columbia, and he is an international joke.

The Deputy Premier has lost the confidence of the people of British Columbia, of the workers of British Columbia. I can still recall when we were told that the Deputy Premier was one of those great advocates for the forest workers of B.C. He's such a great advocate for the forest workers of B.C. that we watched as over 20,000 workers lost their jobs in the last two years. Again, I want to remind those opposite that those jobs are paycheques; they're families; they're kids. The social irresponsibility of this government has been phenomenal; it has been brutal. They have brutalized the families of British Columbia. They have taken our future and stolen it from British Columbians. And they are saying it is time for us to adjourn?

Do they think we've solved the problems in B.C.? Well, ask the people at Highland Valley; ask the people in Gold River; ask the people at B.C. Ferries. Ask the workers at B.C. Ferries, who are embarrassed by what this government has put them through. Workers at B.C. Ferries used to be able to

[ Page 11389 ]

Well, in a non-partisan way, let me suggest to the government that it is not time for us to adjourn; it is time for us to get to work. It's time for every single member of this House, regardless of their party, regardless of their constituency, to stand up and fight for their constituents so that we can have a province with a future that we can be proud of again. It's time for this government to stop running from its responsibilities. It is time for this government to hold itself to account, to give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to have a say, to restore the quality of public life in the province of B.C. It is time not for an adjournment but for an election in British Columbia. It is not time for this government to run from its responsibilities; it is time for this government to face up to its responsibilities. I would suggest that it is time for every member opposite to remember that the honour of serving the public is to act on behalf of the people of this province -- not to rule them but to serve them. It's time, in fact, for the members opposite to stand up for their constituents. It is time to remember that this Legislature is a public place. It is a place to do the public's business, not to play political games for the personal satisfaction of one man, the Premier.

In closing, let me say that it is time to change; it is time to change this House. I want to watch as the members opposite stand and speak for their constituents and vote with a free conscience. I want to watch as we lay out for the people of British Columbia what our plan will be -- our legislative plan. When will we meet? Do we need a fixed calendar? Of course we do. We need it for our constituents; we need it for our families; we need it for people across this province. We need them to know when we're doing the public's business. We need them to know that public debate is healthy and honest and open and accountable in British Columbia. I can tell you that today the people of this province understand, particularly as a result of the events at the end of last week. . . .

Principle has been thrown out the door by this government, and the principle of public service has evidently been thrown out the door today. We should not be voting to adjourn today. We should be voting to do the public's business, the public's work. We should be voting to expose the incredible incompetence and negligence of a number of members of this cabinet. I think there's an opportunity for the backbenchers of the NDP. Surely the backbenchers could do a better job than this sorry group of cabinet officers that we have today. Surely the member for Skeena would be able to replace the member for Cariboo South and do a better job for the forest workers of his constituency.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: I've changed my mind. I think that the member for Skeena is appropriate in that position -- maybe out of the House altogether would be best.

But seriously, we have a government that has destroyed our economy, that is ruining our health care system and that has sent chaos through our education system -- a government that has lost all sense of value. British Columbians want values reflected in our public debate; they want values reflected in the legislation. The least they can ask of the people who were elected to serve is that they serve. If you're going to serve, you should be in this House. We should be debating these issues, and we should be coming up with solutions that will work for every British Columbian, regardless of the political party that an MLA was elected for.

I would ask the members opposite to show integrity, to stand on principle, to stand for service and to vote with us against this adjournment motion, so we can come up with solutions to the negligence and incompetence of an executive committee that clearly should not be there.

[4:30]

This House is here to be the voice of our constituents, so that we can make people's concerns be heard on their behalf. That's why this House comes together. Instead, the government, when times get tough -- when things get difficult -- says: "Well, there's no reason to sit anymore. Let's all go home."

Well, if by moving this motion to adjourn today they are asking for a reason not to adjourn, I'll give them a reason. I'll give them a lot of reasons. How about 16,000 reasons: the 16,000 people who have lost their jobs in the forest industry -- in one industry alone? Surely that's enough reason to have this House sit. Sixteen thousand British Columbians have lost their jobs in the forest industry since the NDP took power. That used to be the pride of our province, the strongest industry in British Columbia, the lifeblood of our economy -- not just a few jobs here and there around the province, but the foundation of our entire economy.

Sixteen thousand people have lost the dignity of work, the dignity that goes along with being able to go to your job every day. They've had to learn what it's like to stand in an unemployment line for the first time and what it's like to have to explain to their kids why they don't get anything at Christmas this year or explain to their families why they can't go and visit them in another province. For the first time in their lives, they have nowhere to go when they get up in the morning. Why are those 16,000 people facing that indignity today? Why have they lost the dignity and the pride that go along with working with your hands in what used to be the lifeblood of British Columbia? Why have they lost that?

They have lost that because this government's policies have driven the forest industry into the ground. That's where those jobs have gone. It's overtaxation and overregulation. It's been a government that hasn't paid attention, which has shown itself to be so totally incompetent that it can't manage a ferry project much less British Columbia's forest industry. It's a government that is so incompetent that it has taken what

[ Page 11390 ]

If this government wants a reason to be here to debate, there are 16,000 reasons in the forest industry. Even one of those would be enough. A hundred of them would be enough; a thousand of them would be enough. In the forest industry alone there are 16,000 reasons. Then we could look at Highland Valley Copper, a mine in Logan Lake near Kamloops, on which a whole region was dependent. A thousand people are losing their jobs at Highland Valley Copper. Not only does this government refuse the Leader of the Opposition's request for an emergency debate, not only do they scoff at him when he stands up and suggests that we should talk about how important those jobs are and maybe make it a matter for urgent discussion in this House. . . .

Surely this is where we should be having that debate. Surely that's what this Legislature is for -- so that we can stand up, discuss and try to find solutions to the urgent problems facing this province. Instead, the government scoffs at the Leader of the Opposition when he stands up and says that that issue is important enough for us to debate. Guess what, hon. Speaker: we still haven't had an opportunity to debate that. We've had a few opportunities in the 15 minutes we get in question period every day, but we still haven't had an opportunity to get up in this House and talk about how important those 1,000 jobs are to Logan Lake, to Kamloops and to Vancouver, a city that's dependent on the resource towns in this province to keep going. It's a city like any other in British Columbia that needs those jobs in places like Logan Lake, Merritt, Kamloops and Prince George.

We're all dependent on those jobs, but the government doesn't think it's important enough that we get up and discuss it. They say: "Well, it's not urgent. Don't worry. The mine's not closing down for three months. Trust us. We'll have done something about it by then. We've got three months to come up with a plan and fix it."

Well, that's what they said about the forest industry, and look what happened there. That's what they said about the rest of the mining industry, and look what happened there. That's what they said about small business, and look what happened there. Investment has fled our province; people have left our province. Jobs have evaporated in British Columbia, and this government doesn't think it's urgent enough to stand up and debate it. Now they say they don't want to have a debate; they don't want to have a discussion on Highland Valley Copper even in the future. They want the House to rise.

You've got 16,000 jobs in the forest industry alone; you've got 1,000 jobs at Highland Valley Copper; you've got hundreds of jobs at Gibraltar. Goodness knows how many more job losses we are going to have in British Columbia before this government feels it's important enough to have a discussion about it on the floor of the Legislature. If we are going to have this debate at all, surely it should happen here, where every member of this House can get up, represent his or her constituents and talk about it publicly -- stand up for their constituents and talk about how important those jobs are to their communities and talk about what these government policies mean for real people's lives.

You know, when a small business shuts down, when somebody loses a small business in British Columbia, it isn't just jobs. It's also their life's dream; that's what a small business is. Anyone who decides to start a small business probably doesn't just invest their life savings in it. They invest their life dreams in that; they invest their dreams for their children, for their families, and their hopes for the future. They invest themselves in that business, not just their money.

You know, this government sits back while we see small businesses in British Columbia shutting down in every community. We see small business people struggling under the burden of red tape that gets added on every year until finally they give up -- until they finally give up, and they're forced to liquidate not just their assets but their dreams. This government doesn't think that it's reason enough to be here; it doesn't think that those thousands of small business people and those thousands of small business jobs that are dependent on them are reason enough to be here.

Well, I disagree, hon. Speaker; I think that is enough reason to be here. I think that if there is anywhere that we should be talking about that, it is here. That's what the people expect us to be doing. People expect their Legislature to meet and discuss the issues of the day, talk about what's urgent and stand up for them in what's going on. You know, when I go back to my constituency, I have to admit that I do have a sense of how privileged I am to be here, not just because there are only 75 people that get to do this for a living in British Columbia, that get the opportunity to play a role in public policy-making at this level -- not just because of that.

But when I speak to my constituents, I realize that I'm struck every day by the frustration that they feel about this government, the frustration that they feel as people and members of the general public who don't feel like they have a voice, who don't feel like they can do something -- people for whom it might be enough just to be able to stand in front of the Premier, point their finger and say: "You're wrong. What you've done to our province is wrong; what you've done to my family is wrong; what you're doing to our economy is wrong. I will not let you sit there and destroy my life's dreams."

That's what my constituents want to do. They want to stand in front of the Premier and be able to tell him face to face what he's done to their lives and help him understand what it means for their families not to have the dignity of work anymore, what it means to wonder if they're going to be able to afford to send their children to university, what it means to wonder if they're even going to have their grandchildren living in the same province as they are, because their parents can't find work here anymore. They want to be able to tell them that face to face, and I have the privilege of being able to at least do that -- to stand up in this House and tell the Premier right to his face that I think what he's doing is wrong. What he's doing is totally devoid of any kind of ethical or moral framework. The road he's leading British Columbians down is a dead end, and we can't afford it anymore. I have the privilege of being able to do that on my constituents' behalf.

It's not good enough, I suppose, for many of them -- not being able to do it themselves -- but maybe it's the best they can get. Maybe the best they can get is to have me stand up here on their behalf and remind the Premier about those 16,000 reasons in the forest industry or those 1,000 reasons in Highland Valley or those hundreds, probably thousands, of reasons in Port Moody in the small businesses. Maybe that's enough.

But you know what? I can only do that when this House is sitting. It was the House Leader who said: "Let's get on with

[ Page 11391 ]

Maybe the government needs to figure out that if it's getting beaten up, it should start providing some answers. If things are getting a little tough for them, maybe it's not time to run and hide; maybe it's time to face up to what's really going on. Maybe it's time to stand in this House and be accountable for what you've done. Stand up and admit that what you did was wrong and that you've got to find a new way. Start searching for solutions and asking for help. The first step is admitting that you're wrong, and that's something this government is clearly not prepared to do. They want to get up after 15 minutes of debate this week and run with their tails between their legs and say: "Well, we don't feel like answering any questions. The heat's too high. We don't like getting beaten up the way we have been."

I want an opportunity to hold this government to account. I want to hold the Premier to account for the 231,000 jobs he's promised to create since 1996. I am being very generous. The Premier didn't put an exact number on the jobs that would be created by the semiconductor plant in Golden. I'm also being a little generous. . . . When he said there were going to be thousands of jobs in the new Nike plant he was bringing to British Columbia, I only put that down as 1,000. So we've got him down for 231,000 jobs in British Columbia. That's how many jobs he said he was going to create. British Columbia lost 11,000 jobs in the private sector last year. We are the only province in Canada that is predicted to lose jobs in 1999 -- from a Premier who said we were going to have hundreds of thousands of jobs. I want to hold the Premier accountable for that. He held out hope for those thousands of British Columbians who are now looking at an unemployment cheque every day.

[4:45]

C. Clark: I hear a member of the back bench proudly trumpeting from his talking points that he gets from the Premier's communications office: "Well, you know, we created jobs last year." Let's think about that; let's look at the kinds of jobs the government created last year. Let's see: 40 percent of them were in the public sector, so the government itself created those jobs. Well, you know what? I've got news for the government back bench. A job created in the public sector doesn't have nearly the impact of a job created in the private sector. In fact, what it means is more government spending, more government debt, more government deficit and more opportunities for this government to mislead the public about where their budget is going. That's what that means.

We actually lost jobs in the private sector in the last year. If you look at the kinds of jobs that have been created in British Columbia, what you'll find is that we are now a province that is more dependent on minimum wage than any other province in Canada. There are more people flipping burgers here than anywhere else. So while we see 16,000 jobs lost in the forest sector, we see more and more people dependent on minimum wage. Those are the job opportunities that this government has offered. We've seen people who have gone from felling trees, from logging, from working at high-wage jobs in the mining industry -- in fact, the highest-wage jobs in British Columbia, on average -- to what? To minimum wage? That's this government's plan for our economy. What a bunch of incompetents! They sit there and say that they've created jobs in the B.C. economy, when what they've done is forced the forest industry to hemorrhage jobs. They have essentially shut down the mining industry, the highest-paid jobs in our economy. And there's been a boom in the minimum-wage jobs. Well, thanks a lot, Mr. Premier. If that's what he meant by 230,000 new jobs, I think that a lot of British Columbia are going to feel pretty misled.

Not only is this the most incompetent government in Canada, they also have no plan to fix our economy, as we've seen. The new minister for everything, the head of the government's A team, said that he's putting together a big plan to fix our economy. So what have we seen? Well, let's see. We've seen $610,000 worth of advertising. There was $610,000 of taxpayers' money spent to tell taxpayers what a great job this government is doing -- this government that's so proud of having turned loggers into fry cooks, having turned tree-fallers into burger-flippers. Good job, Mr. Premier. I mean, they're proud of that. That's their plan for fixing our economy.

An ad campaign is no replacement for an economic strategy, and that's what British Columbia sorely needs. If we're going to put British Columbians back to work, we don't need another ad campaign. Let's go through the list of the government's ad campaigns. In 1992 we had the deficit reduction strategy. In '93 we had B.C. 21 -- Building Our Future. In '94 the next ad campaign was another debt management plan. In '95 they proudly trumpeted debt management plan Mark II. In '96 they changed that to a financial management plan -- oh, with a balanced budget. In '97 we had another balanced budget. In '98 they had the modified financial management plan. And now we've got a three-year economic strategy -- another three-year economic strategy.

Well, you know what? It's not surprising that the members of the public, after all this concerted effort on the government's part to mislead the public, are saying: "Hey, hey. That's enough. We don't need your help. Don't give us another plan; don't give us another strategy. Don't give us another of your ad campaigns that are designed to mislead us." What British Columbians want is a government that recognizes that there is a problem in our economy and a government that understands that it's got the power to do something to fix it -- not just a government that points fingers across the ocean and says that it's somebody else's fault. That isn't good enough. That's not going to do a single thing to get British Columbians back to work.

To have the new minister, the minister responsible for the A team, stand up and say that he's going to spend British Columbians' money to tell them what a good job he's doing is pretty cold comfort to people who are on the unemployment line. I want to hold the Premier accountable for that; I want to hold him accountable for all of the promises that he's made. I want to hold the Minister Responsible for the Public Service accountable for statements like. . . . He says, for example: "We've created a climate" -- and this is a business climate -- "that is second to none in Canada." Now, unless the minister is trying to take credit for the weather, I can't imagine how that could be true.

[ Page 11392 ]

Is it the job climate he's created that he's saying is so good and is second to none in Canada? Well, if we're going to be the only province that loses jobs next year, we can't be. If we've moved from number one in economic growth in Canada to number ten in economic performance in Canada, he can't be talking about the job climate

If he's not talking about the job climate or the economic climate, is he talking about the investment climate that they've created? Hundreds of businesses have fled the province to go to Alberta. This is a government that broke its promise to get rid of the tax on investment and has added $2 billion in new taxes, fees and levies -- $2 billion. This is a government and a Premier who have raised fees at 1.5 times the rate that people's incomes have risen in British Columbia, and a government that has watched as people's take-home income has dropped by 6 percent. They've sat by as people's disposable income has shrunk, so that they can now no longer afford what they used to be able to afford in 1991, before this government took power. That's what this government has done.

When this minister says that he's created a climate that is second to none in Canada, the only climate that he could be taking credit for is the weather. If that minister is taking credit for the weather, he certainly lives up to his reputation for having a pretty big ego. There's only one person I'm aware of that gets any credit in most people's minds for being responsible for the weather, and it sure ain't the member from Esquimalt.

I want to be able to stand here and hold this Premier accountable on behalf of my constituents, because that's what they demand. They demand to know why this Premier has allowed this economy and this province to sink into a recession. They want to know why this Premier has allowed a province that used to be at the forefront of Canadian economies to shrink to number ten. They want to know why this province, which used to be synonymous with hope and opportunity -- a place where people believed they could come and make something of themselves; a place that seemed wide open, where people really believed that if they worked hard, they could get ahead. . . . If you worked hard, you'd get what you deserve; you'd get some payoff at the end of the line. People used to believe that about British Columbia. This used to be the best province in Canada. It used to be a place that we could be proud of, where we could invest our hopes for the future and have some certainty that at the end of the day our hard work would pay off. Instead, this government has made this a place where other Canadians don't want to come anymore. That's what this Premier has done to our province, and I want to be able to stand here and hold him to account for that.

If this Premier is determined to hide from this House and hide from question period. . . . If this Premier is determined to make sure that the new minister in cabinet is never allowed to stand up and account for himself. . . . If this Premier is afraid to allow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to stand up and be accountable for that place where he seems to have put his principles. . . . If he's worried that day after day, the official opposition is going to stand up and ask that member where he's put his principles, what happened to him in the time between when he was over here and when he moved over there, and what happened to his principles that he said he stood for when he sat here, while all the time he was in the back room putting the ink to a final deal with the Premier in a secret backroom deal to move himself from the back bench to the government front bench. . . . All the time that he said he opposed them, what he was really doing was getting into the back room with the NDP and figuring out how he was going to collaborate with them.

We on this side of the House, and the people of British Columbia, want to know why he did it, and the place to find out is in this House. This is where we will hold him accountable for that. This is where we will have an opportunity to remind him every day of the promises that he made when he stood over there, where we'll have the opportunity to remind him about all the things that he used to say about this Premier and about the NDP -- all the things he used to say he stood for, all those principles he was so proud of. Where have they gone? We're not the only people that want to know that; his constituents want to know that.

We want to have the opportunity to stand up every day in this House and ask him that in question period, but the Premier's afraid to let him. The Premier's not only afraid to answer questions himself -- we saw him hide from question period for two weeks -- he's afraid to let the new minister stand up and account for himself. He's afraid to let him stand up. He's afraid to let this minister stand up and debate the Nisga'a treaty. You know, he just fired a minister. The minister seemed to think he was doing a good job, but he just canned the old Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and hired a new one. I think that British Columbians want to know why. Didn't the Premier have any confidence in the old minister? Wasn't he doing a proper job in this debate? Why did that former Speaker and that former Minister of Municipal Affairs get fired, probably without notice?

The minister for ferries got fired. The minister for ferries got dumped on a Friday, suddenly, and he has been replaced. What's the reason for that? We want an opportunity to be able to ask those questions in this House, but the Premier's afraid to let him answer. The Premier is not only afraid to come to this House himself; he's afraid to let his own members stand up and answer questions. So he wants to have the House rise. Well, you know what, hon. Speaker? Part of being in government is taking the heat, and that's what we're here to do. We in the opposition are here to ask the tough questions on behalf of our constituents. That's what they expect us to do.

If this Premier doesn't have the moxie, doesn't have the guts, to stand up and answer questions, if he doesn't have the confidence in his ministers to let them stand up and answer questions, then here's what he should do: he should call an election. If he won't let us ask the questions, let the Premier go to the public, let them ask him the questions when he's out on the campaign trail, and let them issue a verdict on this government. Let them tell him that if he is not willing to let me or my colleagues stand here in question period and ask him questions and put them to him directly. . . . Let him go to the public, let them ask him the questions, and let's let him find out exactly what verdict the public will render. Let him call an election, let him go to the public, and we will never see the likes of him in this House again.

[ Page 11393 ]

[5:00]

Hon. Speaker, we've got an emergency in my constituency. We've got an emergency in the constituency of the member for Kamloops. I implore her to get to her feet and speak for her constituents and deal with this crisis in Kamloops, in Logan Lake, in Merritt, in Cache Creek, in Ashcroft -- all up and down the Fraser Canyon and, indeed, all through the province. Highland Valley Copper matters; 1,046 direct jobs matter -- and thousands of spinoff jobs. We have people in communities all around our region. . . . In the constituency of the member for Yale-Lillooet, who I also beg to get on his feet and defend the interests of his constituency. . . . Jobs in all of those communities -- jobs throughout the whole region. . . . Twenty-five percent of the economy of our region depends on Highland Valley Copper.

I talked to a man in a U-brew and U-vin store on the weekend. He's terrified of what this province is coming to, what this government is doing to the economy of British Columbia. Business people everywhere feel that way. For years, now, they've been frightened at the direction that the B.C. economy is taking under this incompetent government, frightened for themselves and for their children and for our future, aghast to see our economy going from the best in Canada to the worst in Canada under seven years of NDP rule. Who broke the mirror? Who caused all this bad luck? How in the world did we end up with back-to-back NDP governments? It's a fluke; it's a disaster.

At Highland Valley Copper, all our worst fears are coming true. This is an emergency. I was appalled to hear the government stand up and say that an emergency debate wasn't necessary with regard to Highland Valley Copper's closure, because it didn't meet the test of urgency. Well, they should have the jam to go out on the election trail, as the colleagues before me have said, and face the people and tell them it's not urgent, that it's not an emergency.

The NDP don't care if you're losing your jobs. The NDP don't care if they've made your industry uncompetitive in the world because they've made the costs of the inputs too high, because they've overtaxed you and overregulated you and interfered in the relationships between labour and management, at the behest of Mr. Georgetti and the B.C. Federation of Labour, to the point that investors have cleared out of British Columbia. People who were established here, had created jobs here and were doing good things and making things happen are gone. Businesses have disappeared or at least downsized, and nobody new is coming in. Why? Because of the approaches of this government.

For the last several weeks, and indeed in December, we've gone through this spectacle. It reminds me of a Johnny Horton song they used to play on the radio all the time, about the British army. "And there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum," it says. It reminds me of the way this session started. This government came in thinking it had an election horse to ride: gonna bring in a hundred people beatin' on the drum, gonna put 'em up in hotels in Victoria and have an event a day -- a news conference and a big media event every day -- and gonna have a special debate of the Legislature on the Nisga'a treaty.

How come that's not important any more? What an insult to the Nisga'a people and all the aboriginal people in British Columbia. Suddenly they're not important, because one more of the Premier's big ugly chickens has come home to roost with the fat cat program -- how ridiculous. How could it no longer be important?

We've got an emergency in my constituency -- and in Kamloops and in Merritt -- and that emergency is Highland Valley Copper's closure. But that same emergency is being played out all across the province; everybody knows that. Highland Valley Copper is only one of the most recent casualties. We look at our forest industry, a flagship industry, the economic backbone of this province. They've been warning us for years that between the overtaxation that this NDP government has imposed and the overregulation, they were going to go the same way as the mining industry. Highland Valley Copper is by no means the first.

It wouldn't be that hard to turn many things around in this province. There are a lot of things that could be done quickly to change the picture. It'll take years to win back our competitive position in forestry and mining. That will take years, because competitors all over the globe have cut in on our turf, taken over our market. When we see Sweden, a little tiny country that used to have 1 percent of the Japanese lumber market, now holding 17 percent, we know where that came from. That came right out of the pockets of British Columbians -- right out of the pockets of my constituents and the constituents of the member for Kamloops and the member for Yale-Lillooet, who now don't even have the jam to get up on their feet and defend the 1,046 direct jobs that are threatened. They, our constituents, don't understand why this Premier and this government and those members for Kamloops and Yale-Lillooet are exporting jobs to the United States of America. Why have they attacked the workers of British Columbia? They present themselves as the champions of the working people.

But it's those people's jobs that are disappearing. Those are union jobs, big jobs, family-supporting jobs. Highland Valley Copper has the highest-paid mining employees in the world. They pay $80,000 apiece, on average, to the people who work in their mine. That money gets spent in the local economy, and it goes round and round. It employs people who work in restaurants and in the theatre, people who participate in cultural industries all through Kamloops. It employs thousands of other people. It's wonderful money. And it's going to disappear.

When that giant mine gets mothballed, there's no guarantee it'll ever open up again. It isn't that high a grade of ore. But they're experts; they are the leading-edge technology in the world to deal with that kind of ore and to make money at it -- as long as they aren't handicapped by an incompetent government that has bled and bled and bled the taxpayers, whether it's individuals or corporations, throughout this province, to the point where they can't bleed anymore. You can't get blood out of a stone, and it's putting them out of business.

Why? Why would our government attack the workers of Highland Valley Copper and the workers of other mines around this province -- and of the forest industry and the construction industry? Why would they do that? Why would

[ Page 11394 ]

We know full well that during the last election, shop stewards were sent out by the NDP to the organized workplaces of British Columbia to put bulletins on bulletin boards saying: "If you don't vote NDP, you're voting yourself out of a job." What claptrap, what garbage! And now they're confronted with the falsehood of that. They're confronted with the disastrous consequences as they see a stupid government closing down our industries and sending our jobs south of the border, to the U.S.A.

Well, you know that song of Johnny Horton's goes on, hon. Speaker. "We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.' " But after they fired enough -- and the people of British Columbia are firing -- what was the result? "They ran through the briars and they ran through. . .the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em, on down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico."

That's what is happening, isn't it? Our Premier is running. He has cut and run. For the last two weeks, we've seen the sorry spectacle of a man afraid to come into question period -- once waltzing himself into question period after the Leader of the Opposition was done asking questions, in the hopes that his turn was over. Some poor flack had taken the fire in his place. And when he found out that he still had to face the music, he didn't come back. He ran away again; he found excuses to be away. He went off in the back room to cook up a deal with the minister responsible for chameleons, the man who has belonged to more political parties in British Columbia, possibly, than Mr. Bouchard has belonged to. He was running.

Why do they want to run away? Why does the Premier, why does this government, want to run away? Are they unhappy with their pathetic performance on the Nisga'a treaty? Has it astounded them as much as it seems to have astounded them, day after day, to have to listen to learned questions from people on this side of the House who know far more about aboriginal treaty-making and the key issues than they can ever dream of knowing? Did that frighten them off -- because they were doing so badly? It seems to have, because the Premier abruptly fired the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. And who does he put in his place? The chameleon man.

There are a lot of issues we need to work on. Highland Valley Copper is one of the most pressing in my mind, obviously, but the whole economy throughout British Columbia. . . . To their credit, Highland Valley Copper hasn't been putting its hand up, saying: "Help us; help us alone." They've been saying: "The issues that are bringing us down are the same issues that are killing jobs and drying up industry all around British Columbia." We've got to have relief in British Columbia from this government that sticks its hand in this pocket for taxation, this pocket for regulation, this pocket for fees and this pocket for licences. It continually takes the money out of the pockets of British Columbians and makes us totally unable to attract investment or to even compete on the basis of the investments that we've already made.

Just today another economic report was published, another report saying that the employment picture in British Columbia is the worst that it has been since 1984. As one of my colleagues previously mentioned, this silly government tries to brag about the jobs it says have been created, while admitting that 25,000 of them are government jobs -- 25,000 more people drawing an income from the beleaguered taxpayer who already knows that this government is vastly overspending its income, that every year it's going deeper in the hole, that the debt of this province has doubled under this sorry government's reign. The interest payments on that debt, even given that we're enjoying some of the lowest interest rates in my working lifetime, are now the third-largest expenditure of this government. This government, which keeps claiming that it's the protector of health care and education, now actually has interest payments breathing down the neck of those two ministries. That's the third-largest expenditure of government -- $2.5 billion a year, more than many other ministries combined. Why? Because of accumulating deficits that flow directly from government incompetence on the NDP side.

We have health care wait-lists that every member opposite should be absolutely ashamed of -- desperate people who need heart care, who need cancer care. They can't even get diagnosed properly with regard to their suspected cancer, let alone get into treatment. They've been told all their lives that if you have cancer, it's urgent. You've got to get it treated. It is going to kill you if you don't. They know that. They live in fear, and they can't even get in for a biopsy. I constantly see letters to the editor not just in our constituencies -- the member for Kamloops's, the member for Yale-Lillooet's and mine -- but all over the province. People are in that desperate state. They're frightened, and it's wrong. They've paid into a health care system all their lives; they've paid their taxes. They've more than paid their dues, and they ought to be taken care of when they have needs.

We have elderly and infirm people all over this province who are waiting to get into intermediate care and extended-care facilities, and they can't. The wait-lists are too long. One poor elderly lady from Clearwater, which is in my constituency, was shipped all the way down to Lillooet, four hours away, because that's the only place where there was an extended-care bed for her. When she went there, she was cut off from her friends and her family. People couldn't travel four hours each way to visit, and her health went down dramatically. She died as a result of the yo-yo treatment that this government gave her by yanking her back and forth: "Oh, you're feeling so well now that you're in Clearwater. We think you're no longer an acute-care patient, so we'll send you down to Lillooet. Down in Lillooet, when you're so depressed, discouraged and afraid that your health declines, maybe we'll let you come back to Clearwater for a couple of days." What a crazy way to treat the public of British Columbia, the constituents who voted for some of these people.

A hospital in Clearwater has been promised to those people for years. It was promised to Clearwater long before I was elected. It wasn't just one of the Premier's phony run-around-the-province-vote-buying promises. It was actually a promise that was supposed to have been made on the basis of a business decision, and there is a valid business case for it. There hasn't been a spade in the ground. Promise after promise, every year we hear: "Oh yeah, we're going to do that. You're going to get your hospital." But people don't see any tangible results and are beginning to doubt that they ever will.

[5:15]

[ Page 11395 ]

Okay, down we come. We'll work on that and, hopefully, get a chance to work on the other issues. They bring us in after a weekend -- 75 MLAs for 15 minutes of work. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine once spent $4,000 bringing himself down to Victoria on a charter flight. Did that happen today? I hope not, because he came for 15 minutes of work. This government obviously knew it all along. This Premier knew that he was going to adjourn the House, that he was going to cut and run. He'd taken too much of a beating, and he couldn't stand any more. So he brought us all in to showcase his new turncoat, his new minister, let him get up and answer a couple of questions very poorly -- and then off we're supposed to go.

This government -- which has been dismantling the economy of British Columbia, eliminating private sector jobs here, there and everywhere while spending itself into oblivion on other fronts -- doesn't want to stay and face the music. We can understand why they'd want to cut and run; anybody could understand it. They've made such a mess of things, and they're so ashamed of themselves. Well they should be -- to have taken this once proud province, this once thriving and mighty economy, from the best in Canada to the worst in Canada.

Chameleon Man won't save the day, hon. Speaker. He is not going to be able to help them. You can't put new spots on this leopard; you can't take away the spots it has. That man, just like the Premier, has the opposite of the Midas touch; everything he touches turns to garbage. Everything that was once good and that he has something to do with disintegrates into something very grim. He talks today in the House about his movement, and he talks in the media about his merger. All he's done is gone over to the dark side, to the very people that he's criticized for years. If you can't lick them, join them. He can't lick anyone.

He's joined this miserable government, this government that five times in the last couple of years has lost trials in the courts of British Columbia over its practices with regard to gambling in B.C. It's shameful. This government has been told by a Supreme Court judge of British Columbia that it's been acting in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada for years.

What does it do? Does it express some regret? Does it apologize? Does it change its ways? Well, no. It brings in legislation which says that it conclusively deems itself to have had the authority to do all those things it did; it just rams those through. And it goes right on ripping off charities, taking the money out of the hands of poor people, of nuns and of charities all over British Columbia who depend on charitable gaming for their income, for their revenues. It just goes right on doing it.

We know that any day now the minister responsible for gambling intends to introduce a White Paper -- intends to show the province how the NDP intends to consolidate all of that rot, all of those practices that it has decided to undertake -- and make a total sweep of gaming in British Columbia, so that it can have all of that revenue for itself. The money that's going into slot machines and being siphoned straight off down here to the black hole, where it's squandered in the same way as the NDP have always squandered it, used to be like the Highland Valley Copper wages -- going round and round in local economies, employing people, giving them things to do, creating opportunities.

Just this week in the papers in Kamloops we read that the Royal Canadian Legion is facing shutting down. Why? They say it's because they can't take the competition from the government casino and the slot machines. People just don't go to the Legion anymore; they go and play the one-armed bandits and squander their money.

We talked in this House about those prospects -- the social costs of gaming expansion -- for months as the government moved to do it. In fact, when members opposite were in opposition, they were very clear about the social consequences of expanding gambling in a jurisdiction and how it would cause addiction problems and suck money out of local economies and dry those communities up. They were very clear about all that. But when they're desperate for money because of their overspending, their extravagant ways and their special deals with friends and insiders, all their scruples disappear -- just like scruples and principles seem to disappear when they wave enough money under the nose of a guy who used to be an opponent of this government. So they carry on with their gaming policy, with their expansions of gaming, in spite of all the damage that it's doing in British Columbia, and they conclusively deem themselves to have the authority to do it.

Even the pubs in Kamloops are in trouble. I'm sure they are all around the province. Small business is experiencing the consequences of having a government that competes head-to-head for consumers' disposable income at a time when this government has substantially dried up any disposable income that those consumers might otherwise have had. People don't know where the next paycheque is coming from. They don't know how they're going to make the mortgage payments.

Our leader spoke a few moments ago about the heartache he felt when he was introduced to a woman who said, "My husband works at Highland Valley Copper," and began to cry. Those conversations are happening all across the province -- parents having to sit down with their children and tell them: "It looks like we're moving. No, we don't know where we're going to go. Dad's going to go ahead to Alberta and try and find a place to work" -- or Mom is. "No, you aren't going to be able to have a bicycle this spring. I can't afford to give you the money to participate in sports at school. Well, yes -- you probably won't be going to that school anymore." People are having to face the consequences of this government's actions. Their jobs have disappeared and are disappearing as a direct consequence of NDP mismanagement, incompetence and misplaced priorities.

Imagine slot machines having caused the Royal Canadian Legion to close. Every Remembrance Day the member for

[ Page 11396 ]

It doesn't really matter which segment of our formerly robust economy you look at. They took down mining first; they took down forestry next; they launched a brutal attack on construction in the last full session of the Legislature. Every sector of our economy is in trouble, and everywhere it's because of the misplaced priorities of this government and its wrongheaded actions.

The forest industry throughout North America is making money elsewhere. They're maybe not huge profits; everybody has the problem of the cyclical marketplace, particularly the reduction in Asian economies recently. But everybody else is managing to make a little profit and keep their employees working. There are copper mines all over the world. They all get the same price for copper; it's not that Highland Valley Copper gets a lower price. They can all stay in business. Why is that? It's because British Columbia's industries are not competitive and can't become competitive while they have a provincial government that is working against them.

That's a long-term problem, particularly in mining. Investment in exploration by the mining industry has dwindled to a tiny fraction of what it used to be. In B.C., that industry used to spend 25 percent more than it spent in Ontario or Quebec, finding new mines -- or looking for them, at least. It was $247 million a year. Under this government, that has dwindled down to 25 percent -- one-quarter -- of what is spent in Ontario and Quebec, because it just doesn't make sense for them to explore in an area where the government is going to shut them down, where the government interferes with them in every possible way. Even when they do manage to bring a mine into existence, it's going to overregulate and overtax it to the point that it cannot be competitive in the world marketplace.

While British Columbians see their economy being driven into the ground, on the one hand, they see their government spending wildly, on the other hand -- crazy things like fast cat ferries, which nobody even believes will work and which have already cost double what they were supposed to cost. The Premier and his ministers now seem to be saying that they never really had a plan, never really had a budget, so it isn't quite fair to them to say that they went over budget, because there really wasn't a budget. W.A.C. Bennett used to say that the NDP couldn't manage a peanut stand, and we've had to live through the proof of that as they annihilate one sector of our economy after another and spend like drunken sailors.

Look at the Skeena Cellulose debacle: $350 million down the tubes for a defunct old pulp mill that's not going to stay in business anyway. What does that do? It squanders the tax money from Weyerhaeuser in my constituency and the progressive, modern, viable pulp mills all around British Columbia. It takes their tax money and uses it to prop up an NDP cabinet minister in his constituency by buying jobs that are impractical and cannot last. And what's the first casualty? Gold River. What do those poor people think? I read a letter to the editor from one of them today. He said that he'd voted NDP all his life, and he'll never do it again. He's got no priority; he is apparently nothing in the big scheme of this government. They were willing to sink that money into Prince Rupert, for the member for North Coast to preserve his job chances up there, and annihilate their economy.

Yes, that's the minister who finally got fired on Friday from his position as minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. But does he get fired from cabinet altogether? Oh no. These folks, the NDP, will always look after their own. It doesn't matter how incompetent they are; it doesn't matter how bad a job they've done. They'll always prop them up, dust them off, give them something else to do and pay them a cabinet minister's salary. Now there are more cabinet ministers than there are backbenchers over there.

We were quite scandalized last spring when the Premier referred to Ken Georgetti as the nineteenth cabinet minister. Mr. Georgetti's supporters in the audience at the Order of B.C. ceremony kind of chuckled; they thought that was cute. We didn't think it was cute at all. The man's not elected. If he wants to be an MLA, he should run for the position. It's wrong for the Premier to accept him as the nineteenth cabinet minister. We all knew, of course, that he's actually the first of the nineteen -- the most powerful, the one who pulls the Premier's puppet strings and causes the Premier to do whatever he's told.

Since then, we've had two more cabinet ministers appointed: the one who has been fired from cabinet twice, no less, the one who's not allowed to practise law in B.C. but is allowed to make law in B.C.; and the one who couldn't do the job as Leader of the Opposition, couldn't get off the ground with his PDA party. Suddenly he's a cabinet minister too -- purely because he and the Premier are two political opportunists, two peas from the same pod.

Then we've got the growing debacle over the SkyTrain extension. Looks like another $200 million over budget already. The Premier has admitted that it will cost $1.3 billion. We anticipate that it will cost over $3 billion. Once again, it's the HCL model, another gift to the big unions. Got to hire through a union hiring hall. Got to make sure this project costs twice as much as it should, like so many highways -- like the mid-Island highway here on Vancouver Island; it cost $1.2 billion. The whole Coquihalla was built for $800 million -- a much longer highway, much more severe conditions, much more rugged country. It was $800 million for that one and $1.2 billion for the mid-Island highway, which has stoplights all along it, for Pete's sake -- a four-lane highway with stoplights. People laugh when they see that, at the incompetence of a government that built something like that.

[5:30]

[ Page 11397 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Once again, before my time is up, I plead with the member for Kamloops and the member for Yale-Lillooet to get on their feet, to stop being yes-people, to stop just giving the nod to this Premier whenever he launches a new direction. I appeal to the government backbenchers -- to the member for Comox Valley: stop letting your government beat up on charities. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is now up, as you'll see by the light. Thank you very much for your comments.

K. Krueger: . . .and stand up for the people you were elected to represent.

G. Abbott: When I rose from my bed some 12-1/2 hours ago to come to Victoria to join in this debate, I certainly didn't expect to be discussing what we're discussing here. When I came to Victoria today, I came in the full anticipation that we would be spending the day debating the Nisga'a treaty. Indeed, it was certainly my hope that we would be talking about the forest resources section of the Nisga'a treaty. But it appears that once more, without any kind of notice, without any kind of consultation, we're off on an entirely new direction, courtesy of a government that doesn't even extend to people the courtesy of letting them know what they plan to do for the day.

So we're up here, and I'm sure people who are watching this on the legislative channel are very curious about what debate is going on here and why it's happening. I think they need a brief explanation, because this is, in many ways, a very sad and disappointing day in the political history of British Columbia. Now you may say: "Well, we've had lots of sad and disappointing days in the political history of British Columbia since this government across the way was elected." Certainly you'd be right in saying that. What distinguishes this sorry and disappointing day from the many others that we have seen during the tenure of this government?

I guess what distinguishes it is that 15 minutes into our working week here in the Legislature, at approximately 2:15 this afternoon, immediately after question period, the Government House Leader moved adjournment of this House -- no notice, no consultation, no discussion. "We're going to shut the House down. We're not even going to extend the opposition the courtesy of advising them that we're going to do that. We're just going to do it" -- another surprise attack from the NDP government.

An Hon. Member: "Because we can do anything we want."

G. Abbott: This is obviously a government that thinks it can do anything it wants; the Minister of Forests has told us that on more than one occasion. This government can do anything it wants.

This government is going to set aside the debate in this House to some undetermined point in the future. We don't know when. We don't even know if we're coming back. Again, this is just entirely typical of this government. As usual, we're going to go away from this place, and we're going to have no idea whether we can book meetings with our constituents. We don't know whether we can make commitments with our family. We don't know when we're coming back. It's entirely typical of this government to do this. Never since I was elected in May of 1996 have I or any of my colleagues had any idea of when we are coming and going in this House; we never do. Today is just another pathetic example of the lack of honesty, of consultation and of even the commonest of courtesy that could be extended by the government towards all members of this House.

After 15 minutes of question period in this House today, the Premier and this sorry excuse for a government have decided that they're going to cut and run. They're going to bring an end to what they have on numerous occasions referred to as a very historic and important debate that we are involved in. They're going to adjourn the House until, at some unknown point in the future, they deem it appropriate for us to return here. This is, I think, a sad and disappointing day.

The only piece of good news I can think of for this day is that it brings us one day closer to the inevitable and certainly richly deserved defeat of this pathetic government. It brings us one day closer to that day, hopefully in the very near future, when the people of British Columbia are going to toss this sorry excuse for a government out on its ear. Thank goodness for that -- one day closer.

This day has also provided, I think, another new reason and another new example of why parliamentary reform is so desperately needed in this province. Every day it seems to provide one. Certainly we've had a good example here today.

People get up to come to Victoria to do a job for the people they were elected by. Lord knows there are lots of reasons why we need to be here, and many of my colleagues have pointed them out. There is no end to the problems that face this province, many of them induced by the sorry lot across the way. There are many reasons why we need to be here discussing the important issues that face the people of British Columbia. But no -- after 15 minutes it's over; we're going to go home.

The government doesn't have the courage to face the House anymore, even though this government just over two weeks ago breached an agreement that they had with the opposition about when we were going to return to this House. They breached that agreement because they had to get back. "We have to get back. We have to get on with the Nisga'a treaty. It's critical that we pass this agreement." So they breached the agreement that they had with the opposition to do it. People's plans were disrupted, but we had to get back here.

Just two weeks later, suddenly we have to go again. Suddenly we have to get out of here. Suddenly we've got a new minister. He isn't prepared to meet this House, even though we all know he's surrounded by staff who can provide him with information. Oh no, we have to go away.

And the reason why is because they've been taking a beating in this House for two weeks. For two weeks this government has been rightly pummelled, not only by the opposition but by the media in this province, for their gross mismanagement of the fast ferries project. And the government clearly can't take it anymore. Clearly the government wants to get out of here. They're not happy being here anymore. This is a tough place. They're answering questions that they don't want to answer. Or they're avoiding answering questions that they don't want to answer; that's more accurate.

[ Page 11398 ]

Hon. Speaker, I don't have any fast ferries in my riding. The only ferry I have is one that goes across Adams Lake. But I do know that when this government takes a $210 million project and turns it into a $400-million-plus project, my constituents are going to be paying for it, along with the constituents of all my colleagues as well. We may not have fast ferries in our ridings, but regardless, we're going to be paying for the incompetence, the mismanagement, of this NDP government. This government ought to have the courage to be here to face the questions about this sorely mismanaged project.

This government hasn't just mismanaged the fast ferry project. This government took over the B.C. Ferry Corporation in 1991 -- with a debt, I believe, of some $15 million. They have taken that $15 million debt and, in the course of just over seven years, have multiplied that debt by an astonishing 50 times. The debt today of B.C. Ferries is 50 times what it was when this government came to power. If it weren't so utterly pathetic and ridiculous, it might be an amusing thing. But this is something which I think is threatening the entire system: the incredible mismanagement of the B.C. Ferry Corporation by this NDP government -- taking a $15 million debt and turning it into something approaching a billion-dollar debt. Undoubtedly it's going to go higher -- no question about that -- with the leadership of this sorry crew, which ought to be dropped off as soon as possible on Gilligan's Island or someplace like that. With the leadership of this crew, the debt is inevitably going to continue to spiral and spiral again.

In addition to facing the music on the fat cats and the B.C. Ferry Corporation generally, this government has to be held to account for a whole bunch of other problems in this province. The one that I want to hold them accountable for -- and which they've been sadly lacking in any sort of answers or definitive response to -- is our forest resource.

When this sorry excuse for a government came into power back in 1991, the B.C. forest industry was the strongest industry in the world. Back in 1991, B.C. was one of the low-cost, highly efficient producers of forest products in the world. Over the course of the past seven years, this government has taken a low-cost producer and turned it into one of the highest-cost producers of forest products in the world. Through their reckless policy adventures, this government has in large measure rendered our forest industry uncompetitive in world markets.

What are the consequences of this? I guess we see them everywhere, but we particularly see them in forest-dependent communities throughout the province. I believe there are something in the neighbourhood of 120 forest-dependent communities in the province. We see -- and I think a conservative figure here would be that something like 16,000 British Columbian forest workers have lost their jobs in recent months and years -- that 16,000 people who depend on the forest resource have lost their jobs. The folks across the way will say: "Well, that's the Asian flu, for heaven's sake. We've got no control over that."

But we've got other problems too. Mad Clark disease, I think, is one of the expressions used to explain it. I think mad NDP disease is a big problem here. The NDP have taken a very strong, very competitive forest industry and have brought that industry to its knees.

There's a lot to be accountable for. This government has to be accountable for 16,000 people formerly employed in the forest industry, who deserve to get their jobs back. Despite its rhetoric and ideological nonsense like the jobs and timber accord, this government has done nothing to bring those 16,000 people back to employment. They've done lots to add to the unemployment line; there's no question about that. But they've done nothing to get those 16,000 people back to work.

[5:45]

This is a government that has literally poisoned the investment climate in British Columbia. This is a government. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The 65-cent dollar is probably one of the things that's saving our forest industry, hon. member. The member clearly doesn't understand. Given that he doesn't understand, I'm surprised that he hasn't been elevated to the position of Minister of Forests. That's, I think, the appropriate path here in this NDP government.

What we have seen in British Columbia over the past three years is not only 16,000 people losing their jobs; we have seen a forest industry that over the past three years -- 1996, '97 and '98 -- has lost $770 million. What's that going to do to our investment climate in British Columbia? Would the loss of $770 million be something which would induce investors from outside British Columbia to come in and invest in our B.C. forest industry -- or, indeed, invest in any of our resource sectors? Well, obviously not. It's this government's reckless policy adventures that have led in a very direct way to the poisoning of the investment climate in British Columbia.

In British Columbia over the past seven years, we have seen a staggering growth both in red tape and in taxation. Despite the government's claim to the contrary, they've done nothing to reverse that. This is a government that loves to talk about reducing red tape, and I recollect that at some point they were going to have a red-tape commission or something like that. That, I guess, would be the pinnacle of NDP red-tape reduction.

This NDP government has absolutely no talent when it comes to getting rid of red tape. They certainly have talent when it comes to adding red tape, but they've got absolutely no talent for getting rid of that red tape. I often compare the NDP task in getting rid of red tape to training a dog to walk backwards. It's not something that comes naturally to them. Adding red tape is no problem, but getting rid of it is like training a dog to walk backwards. It's really, really tough to do.

Taxes have been a big part of the problems facing the forest industry in British Columbia as well. The former Pre-

[ Page 11399 ]

My colleagues have spoken about Highland Valley Copper and about how that's probably going to affect upwards of 1,000 jobs in the Kamloops area. It's a critical issue. Is the government going to be held accountable for that? No, we're adjourning; we're going home. The government doesn't want to talk about that. As usual, rather than talk about a difficult issue, this government shows its contempt for this House. Again, without any sort of notice or consultation, it is shutting down this House and sending us home until some undetermined point in the future.

We may be a little surprised, but based on past performance we couldn't be entirely. . . . But this would certainly come as no surprise to the municipalities of British Columbia. The municipalities have lots of experience with this government making arbitrary and unilateral cuts to provincial transfers without any kind of notice, consultation or discussion. The municipalities of British Columbia have lots of experience with that, and they certainly wouldn't be surprised at this. I'm sure you remember that back in 1994, this NDP government brought in something called the Local Government Grants Act. Oh yeah, the Local Government Grants Act, if I can recall the phrase, was going to bring stability, predictability and certainty to provincial transfers to municipalities. That was the goal of the Local Government Grants Act in 1994.

What happened? In November of 1996 the municipalities got a really nasty surprise. In November of 1996, without any notice, without any consultation, without any discussion, this NDP government announced unilateral and arbitrary cuts to provincial transfers, totalling, I believe, some $113 million -- astonishing. I remember that the government was a little bit apologetic about that, but of course, they can rationalize anything they do. Supposedly, we were going on to some better age, in terms of relationships between municipalities and this provincial government.

But no, that wasn't to be the case. On the last Friday, I think it was, before Christmas, when this House had been adjourned, when everybody was getting ready for Christmas, when municipalities had, for the most part, got their provisional budgets in place, what happened? Bam! Again, without any notice, without any consultation, without any discussion, the new Minister of Municipal Affairs announces another $42 million, I believe, in cuts to provincial transfers to municipalities. Did the government give some notice to the municipalities that this might happen? No, they didn't; they gave them absolutely no notice. They threw this at them after the municipalities had got their provisional budgets in place, and they threw it at them on the last Friday before Christmas, when they didn't think they'd attract any heat for making such a gutless and arbitrary cut to transfers to municipalities.

This is typical behaviour for this government. They never want to do the open, honest, courageous thing, which is to stand up and say: "We've got a big problem. Here's what we're going to do." No. Instead, they sneak these things in on the last Friday before Christmas and hope that the public's rage as a consequence is minimized. Well, the public is fed up; they are completely fed up with this government. Today is just one more example of the contempt that this government has for the people of British Columbia and for the Legislature. It's just not acceptable.

So we're not going to have an opportunity to hold the government to account for municipal cuts. We're not going to have an opportunity to hold the government to account for the fast ferries and the mismanagement of the Ferry Corporation. There's not going to be any more debate -- at least until the government agrees that it's time to come back -- on that Nisga'a treaty that was so critical that we move along on. For whatever reason, the haste to get that through is not there anymore. After fifteen minutes, we're told to go home; the debate's over.

This is, I think, another example of the dire need for parliamentary reform in B.C. About a year ago, I guess it was, there was a group called the Study of Parliament Group, which held a seminar or convention -- whatever -- in these buildings to talk about parliamentary reform. I sat on one of the panels; indeed, the now-NDP member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast sat on the same panel, talking about parliamentary reform. The question was: how could the political culture of British Columbia be changed, or more specifically, how could the political culture in the B.C. Legislature be changed? Was electoral reform the key to achieving some change in the disposition of this legislative chamber? The now-NDP member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast took the view, as the leader of the PDA at the time, that in fact he was very much a proponent of electoral reform -- and perhaps not surprisingly, given the returns that his party received in the 1996 provincial election, he was very much a proponent of proportional representation. Now, I suspect. . . . I don't know this, and perhaps the NDP member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast can tell us at some point whether his profound belief in proportional representation is another one of those principles which he has taken, put in a box and, I guess sold for $80,000, I think it was. Is it another one of those principles which he has taken, put in a box and buried somewhere? Well, I don't know. I'll let that member speak for himself when the time comes.

I took a rather different view. I don't think this chamber will be reformed by electoral reform or proportional representation. I think that the reform of this chamber will not come without the reform of some of the processes and practices which guide this institution.

Again -- and the events of the past few hours, I think, reinforce this -- the most critical element that needs to be reformed in our system is the parliamentary calendar. We need to know when we're going to start. We need to know what hours we're going to be sitting while we're working and when we're going to adjourn. It is not in the interests of the people of British Columbia to have the kind of situation that we have, where 15 minutes into our legislative week, the government gets up and announces that we're going to adjourn. It's a ridiculous waste of people's time; it's a ridiculous waste of the taxpayers' money. While this government may not have the slightest interest in protecting the taxpayer of British Columbia, clearly this House has to have that interest. It's about time we had a parliamentary calendar in place, so we can get beyond ridiculous exercises like this one.

[ Page 11400 ]

[6:00]

J. Dalton: I certainly agree with my colleague from the Shuswap: it is overtime for an election.

We were called back early to continue the Nisga'a debate and, of course, go into the committee stage. We've spent two and a half weeks dealing with that committee stage. Now we suddenly get a new, transformed minister. And we have no Nisga'a. So we've gone from a full Nisga'a to no Nisga'a. I'm confused, and I know I'm not the only British Columbian who's confused today and this evening.

What's the reason, supposedly, for this indefinite adjournment? Well, we believe that it's to bring the new minister up to speed. I would suggest that the new minister would be better employed to bring the fast cat up to speed or perhaps even to get it into service, given the debacle of the fast cat exercise.

What is the cost of this exercise, and I'm referring to calling us back for 15 minutes on a Monday? I've heard estimates of $60,000-plus to call us back here today. Before Christmas, I crossed swords with the Premier over the same issue, when we came back on a Monday, and second reading of this Nisga'a. . . . The Premier got upset with me, suggesting that I shouldn't speak on behalf of the taxpayer. At least that day the Premier spoke to the Nisga'a treaty, and others did as well, but we did adjourn after a half-day -- again, a very expensive exercise.

Today, unfortunately, no one from that side is speaking -- no one from the NDP or the PDA or the merged, amalgamated or recycled whatever they are over there. What did the member from Powell River-Sunshine Coast say last Friday? He said he didn't capitulate but he merged; it was a merger. Well, I would suggest that all that was, was a merger of the PDA debt, which the member left, into an NDP fundraiser. That's a funny kind of merger -- for someone to compromise his stated principles and cross over to sit in the government front benches.

Let us remind ourselves and the people of British Columbia of the sorry state that this government has brought us to. Nanaimo Commonwealth is something that goes back to 1992 and beyond and is still unresolved -- the debt still unpaid and commitments unfulfilled. B.C. Ferry Corp, which, of course, we've been dealing with for the last two weeks. . . . We had to recycle a minister, because he got into such deep trouble over the issue that the Premier felt it necessary to get rid of him and bring in this new minister, who is now in charge of both the Nisga'a debate and the fast ferry issue.

We also have to remind ourselves of the two so-called balanced budgets of 1996, leading into the general election, and the outcome of that. Two things, actually. Number one is the David Stockell lawsuit, which is going to trial probably later this spring, we're hoping. There's also the much-anticipated auditor general's report on those so-called balanced budgets. Hon. Speaker, a cynic might think that because that report is rumoured to be coming down this week, the House, naturally, should not be sitting when such a thing happens. I'm sure the news from George Morfitt will not be pleasant for the government. I would almost guarantee it. So it's obviously far handier for them to think up excuses for why we should not be here, when we should be here dealing with all the issues of the day plus debating the auditor general's report, which will probably have some very interesting information in it.

We must remind ourselves of SkyTrain, another fast-track project -- one, of course, that is going to cause nothing but headaches for the people of New Westminster, Coquitlam and the Burnaby corridor and certainly for the taxpayers of this province. Environmental concerns are abandoned, and everything is fast-tracked to suit the purpose of this government.

Isn't it strange that we adjourn to give this time to a new minister? Last week, I must remind the members of the House on both sides, when we were dealing with committee stage of Nisga'a, we spent the entire afternoon last Thursday on the fisheries chapter, and we did not have one answer from the Fisheries minister. We had answers from the Aboriginal Affairs minister of the day, who is now just the Labour minister, because he also had to be recycled. We had answers from the Attorney General and, on occasion, from the Premier, but the minister responsible for fisheries in this province was not permitted to get to his feet and respond to our critic's questions on fisheries.

So I'm wondering: why is it that just because we brought in a new Aboriginal Affairs minister, we couldn't have other ministers -- as they have already proven -- answer the questions? In fact, I see that the former Aboriginal Affairs minister has entered the House and no doubt would like to participate in this debate. That minister, I am sure, would be more than capable of responding to our questions in committee if we continued -- or any other minister. I am reminded, as well, that the Environment minister answered questions when we were dealing with land issues. And when we come to the wildlife chapter, I'm sure the Minister of Environment will be back to respond to those. Today we were looking forward, actually, to hearing from the Forests minister on the forests chapter.

It has all been abandoned. Any game plan that this government ever had has been chucked out the window under the ruse that because we have a new minister from a different political movement -- or lack thereof -- we have to bring him up to speed and adjourn the House accordingly.

It's not acceptable, hon. Speaker. It's certainly not acceptable to the taxpayers of this province. It is obviously not acceptable to this opposition, which would like this House to debate the issues of the day. However, here we are. We're stuck with a very unfortunate exercise. As well, we're reminded of one also fairly new minister who is seldom in this House. I know I'm not allowed to talk about that specifically, hon. Speaker, but I'm referring to the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. He has had, of course, other roles in his life. The minister is the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who seems to spend more time on the chamber and board-of-trade circuit than he does dealing with the real interests of government. This government is able to bring ministers in and out

[ Page 11401 ]

I, as the one of the MLAs from the North Shore, would be remiss if, in the few minutes that I'm going to spend on this adjournment debate issue, did not to take note of something else that's coming down the pipeline in the way of so-called government projects, and that's the Lions Gate Bridge project. I mention that because one week from tomorrow -- February 9 -- the bids are supposed to come in on the Lions Gate project. This bid deadline has been kicked around six ways to sideways, because the government is looking for "good bids." The problem with this project, like any other that the NDP has touched over the last seven-plus years is that they've announced something that is inadequately thought out, poorly planned and underfunded.

Of course, they could dip into the Skeena bank account or somewhere and produce the real money to do Lions Gate, which I'm told is $100 million to properly do even the job they have in mind. The sum that is left to do that $100 million project is about $55 million. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out that it isn't going to work. So when the bids come in a week tomorrow, I stand and predict that the bids will be way over, probably in the neighbourhood of $85 million-plus, and the government will say: "Gee, we're sorry; we tried." Back to the drawing board -- and more disappointment.

The problem is that we are not going to be in this House when these issues should be dealt with. Why? Because of the convenience of the government. The House Leader decided that we would have a 15-minute question period and that then we would adjourn. I'm kind of wondering why we even adjourned after question period; maybe we should have allowed just the introductions to have occurred. At least that way the new minister, as he did, could have got on record all his family members who allegedly crossed from the PDA to the NDP -- I'm sure that's a horrid thought for some -- and all the other people he claimed to have converted.

Hon. Speaker, I phoned people in Powell River this afternoon after the introductions, and they told me quite a different story of their feelings about what their MLA did -- and certainly the one that he perhaps is spinning. As well, I talked to some of the people of Sechelt over the weekend. I've been a part-time member of the Sechelt peninsula forever, so I know that community well. I'm sure the people of the Sunshine Coast are not supportive of the things that the minister was alleging in his introductions and his other comments. I wonder why we didn't in fact just come into the House and have the House Leader say: "Well, folks, we're out of here -- but we got 15 minutes in."

All of this demonstrates clearly that it's time for a fixed parliamentary calendar. This nonsense is unlike, for example, what they're doing in Parliament today, where they've reconvened after Christmas. They will go for three weeks on, I believe, and one week off, three on, one off, until the middle or end of June. We know the date they start, the date they stop, the dates they adjourn. Guess what: MPs can order their lives. Their constituents know when they'll be back in the ridings and when they can meet with them. We have no idea whether we're here, there, punched or bored, because the government has no idea.

We must sit down, if we could get some cooperation from the government side before we throw them out of office, and actually establish a fixed calendar. The debate that we're having this afternoon and evening could never take place, because we would have a fixed agenda. If the government of the day, whether it be NDP, PDA, Green, Liberal, Tory, Reform or the Rhinoceros Party -- it matters not -- would have to order its business accordingly.

This is a $21 billion business that we're conducting in this province. This is not the popcorn stand that many people say this government couldn't run down in English Bay -- even though that's true. A $21 billion operation is handled in this cavalier manner, only because of the very questionable excuse that we've got a new face in cabinet who came from wherever he came from. . . . He was converted -- a Friday-afternoon conversion. The "debt discharged" party, I guess, will come later. There we are.

The answer is not to let the Nisga'a treaty hang out there. It's not fair to either aboriginal people or the rest of British Columbia. The uncertainty of Nisga'a has to be debated, and it has to be debated in this House -- not on the uncertain street corners, not in editorials in the newspapers. We have to debate it across the floor here.

I'm wondering if perhaps this government is waiting until Parliament deals with the Nisga'a treaty. They, of course, will be dealing with it on their spring agenda. Maybe they want to see what Parliament says before we come back and perhaps finish the job.

It's past time, obviously, for this government to get on with the real agenda of this province, the real concerns: the wait-lists, the forest industry. . . . My colleagues have commented that it's in disarray. The very unfortunate example of Highland Valley Copper, which the member for Kamloops-North Thompson had the courage to stand on his feet this afternoon and comment on. . . . We've heard nothing from either the member for Yale-Lillooet or the member for Kamloops, and they don't even think that's an emergency. When 1,000-plus people are out of work, I would like to think that the member for Yale-Lillooet, the Highways minister, would treat that as an emergency.

[6:15]

What I will invite this government to consider is not their sorry record, which stands and speaks for itself, but this: don't bother reconvening. Don't worry about this motion to adjourn, because I think you could have a better plan. I know that the majority of British Columbians would applaud it. It's a simple plan: call an election, and let the people have at it as to whether what this government has done, up to and including today, is the right or the wrong thing.

S. Hawkins: I think that everyone in this chamber can agree with me that what we've witnessed in the House today is a disgrace and an embarrassment for every member in this House. Adjourning the House today, a Monday, after 15 min-

[ Page 11402 ]

The NDP might think that 15 minutes of work today is putting in a hard day's work. But you know what? We on this side don't agree with that. We came prepared, on a Monday, to continue the debate on the Nisga'a treaty, to continue to hold this government accountable for the fast ferries fiasco, for the Highland Valley Copper disaster that was created by the reckless policies of this government, for the forest industry that's been hammered by the reckless policies of this government -- to speak up for the workers of this province as they're losing their jobs because of this government. There are so many issues that are priorities for British Columbians today. It is unfathomable that this government -- those members opposite -- have the gall to bring us all back today, on a Monday, for 15 minutes at a cost to the taxpayers -- some of the highest-burdened taxpayers in the country, I might add -- and charge them for 15 minutes of work that this government wanted to do. That's all they wanted to do, so they could get out of the House so that they didn't have to answer hard questions.

We're in the middle of a historic, modern-day treaty debate. We're in the middle of that debate because that government called us back. They said it was really urgent to call us back. In fact, they called us back earlier than the arrangement we had with the Government Leader. They broke a deal to bring the opposition back for the debate.

We came back, and what do they do after two weeks under the microscope, having to answer hard questions, questions that rightly need to be asked? Everyone knows that we are dealing with a government that lacks accountability, that lacks integrity, that lacks honesty, that lacks competency -- need I go on? -- that lacks professionalism. The people of B.C. want to know. . . . They want answers to the questions that we're asking. And instead of staying here, instead of having the courage to stay and answer those questions, they've decided to fold up the tent and go home. I say shame.

And my constituents are outraged. I'm taking calls in my office. People are phoning me and saying: "Well, you just got down there. What does it cost?" People are asking me: "What does it cost to bring 75 members into the House for 15 minutes of work? That's outrageous." I absolutely agree with my constituents.

It can't be easy for the members opposite. It can't be easy, because many of them are left in the dark as well. When the Premier goes behind their backs to crack a secret deal with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and overlooks a lot of the talent in the back bench for a member's vote on that side of the House, it can't be easy for them. It can't be easy that they didn't know any of that was going on. It can't be easy to have to sit day after day and get hammered by questions and be embarrassed and totally, totally decimated by the news -- the bad news -- that they've been receiving. I guess it can't be easy. But you know what? That's part of being accountable; that's part of sitting in this House and doing the people's business; that's part of being professional and having the trust of the public.

Obviously, the members opposite and the Premier want to get out of here. They know that there are other things on the horizon; there are other things coming forward. There are other embarrassing reports that they do not want to face. I hate to be cynical, but I think that might be the reason that they might be looking to get out of here really quickly. They came in here all guns blazing, because they thought they were going to have a great session. They were just going to ram the treaty through, they were going to ram whatever else they wanted to do through, and then we'd get out of here. Well, it's not that easy. There are a lot of hard questions, questions that haven't been answered in the last two weeks, questions that they either don't want to or can't answer. Rather than stand up, have the courage to do so and find the answers to those questions, they've chosen to get out of here -- and get out of here quickly, because their plan, if you can call it that, was to spend 15 minutes in the House and then adjourn it.

Again, it's not a proud day for this government; it's not a good day for British Columbians. When we've got families hurting out there, and speaker after speaker rolls in on this side of the House speaking up for workers and families who have lost their jobs, who have had to move out of the province, families that are split up, people working out of province to support families in-province -- when we have those kinds of situations. . . .

Gold River is a fine example of what this government has done to a whole town. We see a town that's absolutely crying for help -- absolutely no help from the members opposite. When we have urgent issues like that to face in this Legislature on behalf of British Columbians, we find the government is going to turn their backs on those people, turn their backs on workers in this province and run out of here with their tails between their legs.

There are all kinds of issues. In Kelowna, for example, my constituents now deal with the fact that there are 3,800 patients on surgical waiting lists. That's up 1,000 patients from last summer. Waiting lists keep growing; patients keep getting moved down the list. I just find it galling that members opposite tell me that physicians -- oh, those bad physicians -- are the ones that should provide timely care, not recognizing that it is the government that provides resources, so that patients have the resources to receive timely care. If the resources aren't there, if the policies aren't in place, the patients fall through the cracks. Under this government, more and more children, cancer patients and surgical patients are falling through the cracks. We have asked for debate on those issues; this government refuses to deal with that.

This government has taken the economy of B.C. from number one to number ten -- last place. Now, that is nothing to be proud of; it's a shameful fact. Again, there are hard questions to face. B.C.'s credit-rating outlook has been downgraded by Standard and Poor's this month, from stable to negative. The members opposite have the nerve to say that B.C. is bouncing: "We've got great employment. You know, jobs are up. Their families aren't hurting."

Well, you know what? I travelled this morning with a worker from Salmon Arm. He has five kids. He travels all over western Canada. Today he had a job in Victoria, which

[ Page 11403 ]

So what we've got here. . . . Yes, we have a fellow with a job in B.C. But unfortunately, he doesn't have a job in his hometown. His wife is effectively a single parent. He's home maybe two days out of ten, maybe four or five days a month, trying to support five kids and a wife. Now, isn't that a proud fact for this government? Yes, there are jobs for British Columbians if they live in Alberta or if they're willing to travel all over the province for those jobs. This government is responsible for tearing up families and making parents into single parents. I think that is shameful.

Hon. L. Boone: Sit down, sit down.

S. Hawkins: The Minister for Children and Families, who should be standing up for those families because she's responsible for families, decides that she would rather heckle across the floor than stand up and speak to this motion, so that we stay in the House and deal with those difficult issues.

I'm not calling this guy a liar. He said. . . . He was on the plane with me. He told me what hours he works, where he works. And he said it's hard on the family. He's got children, as I said, from two months to 15 years old. This is the kind of situation he's dealing with.

When I talk. . . . I had a worker in my own office -- I was telling you about this in another debate -- with two children. One had some brain injury problems. Her husband had to move from Kelowna to Calgary for a year and a half for a job. He continued to look in Kelowna, but he couldn't find one. So he actually had to move his family to Alberta.

So people are voting with their feet. They have absolutely no confidence in this government. Instead of staying here and taking on the burden that the deficit budgets, high taxation and high debt created by this government have on families, they decided they'd vote with their feet and get out of here.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: I hear the Minister of Transportation and Highways heckling from across the floor. I say: have the courage to stand up for your constituents, because. . . ? You know what? The Highland Valley Copper mine certainly impacts on his riding: 1,046 direct jobs and an $80 million payroll are being affected; 25 percent of the regional economy in that region is from the Highland Valley Copper mine. He doesn't even have the courage to stand up in this House for those workers. There are workers from Kamloops, Logan Lake, Merritt, Ashcroft, Cache Creek. . . . Thousands of spinoff jobs in that area are going to be lost, thanks to your friendly NDP government.

There have been very hard questions to answer in this chamber -- the fast ferries, forestry, the Highland Valley Copper mine, the Nisga'a treaty. Why won't the government stay here and answer them? Why won't they? The government has been hammered for weeks and weeks. I've believe that they're injured. They're bleeding, they're limping. They want out of here. It can't be easy for them. No one said it was going to be easy, you know.

It's interesting when we do bring up the issues, because the members opposite point in every other direction. Either they say it's not true, or they point in every other direction and say it's the federal government's fault, it's business's fault, it's so-and-so's fault, or it's Alberta's fault that B.C. isn't doing very well. Look in the mirror, members. It's your fault. The first step to recovery is making that admission.

There are words that I will use that do not describe this government, words like honesty, fiscal responsibility, accountability, integrity, competency, having the public trust. None of these describe the NDP government, and every member sitting opposite knows that. They hear that from their constituents every day. The NDP government has just proven all of that today. I think it's a shame, a disgrace and an embarrassment for this House that the House Leader had the nerve to stand up after 15 minutes of House business today and move a motion to adjourn. I will not support that motion.

[6:30]

Hon. H. Lali: It's pretty sad, all right.

R. Thorpe: If the government was not so cowardly, and if the minister from Yale-Lillooet had any jam, he'd be on his feet. But no, all he's capable of doing is taking cheap shots.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

R. Thorpe: But, of course, we know that this government has no accountability. We know that this member in particular will not stand up for the rights of his constituents. He will stand up behind the leader and do as he is told, when he is told to do it.

But this is. . . . I'm surprised that the Premier has not said that today is a historic day in British Columbia. Let me just start with a couple of quotes. This one is from December 3, 1996, and you have to listen: "If this government can get away with breaking the law over municipal grants and health councils, we can expect that as they develop an appetite for a dictatorial approach, there will be much more to follow." Now, who do you think said that? None other than the Premier's new toy, the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. But what else did he say? On March 9, 1998, he said: "While the Premier is good at looking tough in the media and is always full of promises of things to come, he is not so good at closing a deal and delivering" -- unless, of course, he knows your price. In this particular case, he happened to know the price of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. He knew that it was a $40,000 pay increase; he knew that it was a new car; and he knew that it was $80,000 from the NDP to pay off PDA election expenses. He also said today: "That's a tricky issue, and we're going to have to find a way to get around that tricky issue." At the same time that they found $40,000 and $80,000 and a new car, this government has not been able to find the $2 million they owe the charities in Nanaimo that they ripped off. But, of course, they're a party of principles. Unfortunately, they have no principles -- not one.

But what is particularly hurtful to British Columbians, because all British Columbians, without question, want

[ Page 11404 ]

All this time, in my riding of Okanagan-Penticton we don't have enough money for health care. Seniors can't get facilities; wait-lists are growing. Long-term care facilities in my riding have an over-300-bed shortage. And, of course, rural health care has gone down the tubes under the great incompetence of the NDP.

And, of course, municipal affairs. Not a day goes by that we don't hear about the downloading and the off-loading of provincial costs to municipalities. In fact, I had a call today about the new liquor review, which we're looking to receive any day, that is going to cost the province a couple of hundred thousand dollars. And you know what? Municipal officials were not consulted in the process; yet they have to live and work within those communities. But that's this great government.

The economy. As I was out yesterday with a group of people watching the Super Bowl, one of my constituents said: "Rick, when you're in the House, could you ask the government why they have a 1-800 number for tax decreases which we haven't got? How come they don't have a 1-800 number for tax increases, so all British Columbians can call in?" Of course, these great incompetent managers of the economy. . . . We can look at 17,000 homes that are going to be built in British Columbia this coming year -- the lowest since 1948. This government says that they're in charge and building a strong economy.

Other members have talked about Highland Copper. Highland Copper is not just about Kamloops. I'm hopeful, but doubtful, that the member for Yale-Lillooet will get up and talk about Highland Copper and about the families and about the 1,046 employees that are going to be out. . . . But it's not just that area. It comes down into Penticton, and it comes through the Okanagan, where families and suppliers are going to be hurt because this government has chosen to subsidize workers in the United States of America while they throw British Columbians out of work. And they say that they care. Give me a break!

As we move forward now, and we look at our economy. . . . Standard and Poor's have now downgraded us from stable -- which was questionable -- to negative.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You know, we have incompetent ministers sitting over there saying: "Unbelievable." No, it's believable, because you're incompetent.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that last phrase was not appropriate. It was directed directly at a member, and as you know, that's not acceptable in this House. So I'd ask you to withdraw those comments.

R. Thorpe: I withdraw those comments.

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

R. Thorpe: I did not mean to address those to one individual. I meant to address them to the entire government, and I apologize for that. . . . But I do appreciate your guidance on that point, hon. Speaker. Thank you.

Why are we adjourning this House? Why does this government want to adjourn the House? After they've incurred a minimum of $100,000 in costs to get everybody here today for 15 minutes, why do they want to do that? Guess what: there's more bad news coming. We've got the auditor general's report coming out -- got to run and hide. There is more information on health care coming out -- run and hide. The fast ferries report comes out tomorrow, I think -- run and hide.

Then, of course, we've got the Nisga'a treaty itself. I don't know what happened. I thought that the team of members and ministers over there, with their vast resources, were struggling through it, but they were getting through it. Now we have to have a new minister. I didn't think the old minister had done that bad of a job, considering the team he had to work with. But I don't want to defend him and work for him.

What my constituents are asking me is: how can this government waste $200 million on mismanagement of the ferries? How can they do that? How can they waste $40 million on health care regionalization? How can they waste $7 million on severance pay? How can they explain to British Columbians the cost of bringing people here for 15 minutes? I know that for some members that's a lot of work; but my constituents work a lot harder than that. What they're really troubled about is. . . .

I have constituents like Barbara Rodrigues, who has a four-year-old son suffering from autism. This government doesn't have the money to give them $1,000 a month to look after the child, and yet it can waste $100,000 here today. That is fundamentally wrong, and this government should step down.

Of course, we had lots of rhetoric over the weekend as the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs got used to looking into the TV cameras and smiling. I was looking forward to the plan that he told the media he had. I was hoping he'd come and share it with us today. It was only a month ago, in Public Accounts, that he said: "Would it not be a better corporate policy to move to a standardized-design vessel, maybe one or two classes, and stick to those. . .they're fully interchangeable -- one set of parts, one set of manuals -- kind of like WestJet does with their aircraft?" I thought that the minister had a plan and was going to come into this House and share it with us. But apparently not. Maybe his plan doesn't mesh with his boss's plan, and now he has to go through the indoctrination process: "Here are the talking notes. Here's what you like. Here's what we have to do. Here's who we owe money to. So get in line, and thank you very much -- or you won't get to keep your new car."

Hon. Speaker, I want to wrap up and just say that the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton, whom I feel honoured to represent here in this House, expect me as their member to come to work every day, to work a full day and to spend their money in an efficient and respectful manner. When I see that wait-lists are growing and that seniors are waiting nine months for joint replacements, and when I hear the difficulties that various municipalities go through with the downloading. . . . The most troubling one to me. . . . I want to just mention it once again, because I believe that this demonstrates the incompetence and the uncaring, selfish approach of this government. For this government to waste a minimum of

[ Page 11405 ]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will now acknowledge the motion that is on the floor and put the question.

[6:45]

YEAS -- 39
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	G. Wilson	Hammell
Boone	Streifel	Pullinger
Lali	Orcherton	Stevenson
Calendino	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Hartley	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht	Janssen	Goodacre

 

NAYS -- 32
Whittred	C. Clark	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	L. Reid	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Hawkins	Coleman
Stephens	Krueger	Thorpe
Symons	van Dongen	Barisoff
Dalton	J. Reid	Masi
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada