2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2000

Volume 18, Number 3

[ Page 14511 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Barry O'Neill to the House, who is president for CUPE B.C.; and Bill Harper, who is an organizer for CUPE B.C. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to invite the House to welcome the newest member of the B.C. Liberal Party to the precincts today. She is, I think, five weeks old; Olivia Reid-Friesen is with us today, and I'd like the House to make her welcome.

The Speaker: Yes -- and congratulations.

Oral Questions

FAST FERRY PROGRAM COST OVERRUNS

My question to the Premier is this: will you keep your word to the people of British Columbia? Will you reflect the fact that the public's right to know is paramount? And will the Premier call a full, independent and open public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: During the leadership campaign I did say that the public's right to know is paramount, and I still maintain to date that the public's right to know is paramount. Having made that comment, I went back to the auditor general's report and took one thorough look at it. I believe that the auditor general's report is the most thorough, comprehensive and absolutely independent report that we can have on this matter. That report makes recommendations, and that report assigns blame. We have accepted the blame. I have said that human beings make mistakes. Governments are made up of human beings, and when governments make mistakes, they say sorry. It's now time to move on and put B.C. Ferries on a sound financial footing.

[1410]

G. Campbell: I can tell you this, hon. Speaker. If the first time the Premier actually took time to read the auditor general's report was after he made his comments, that's a pretty shocking statement in itself.

Let's be clear about this: the Premier has said he's sorry. Well, if he's sorry, he has a very strange way of showing that. Instead of holding those people accountable who are responsible for this debacle, this Premier has rewarded them. Instead of holding the former Finance minister accountable for the fact that she let half a billion dollars be spent without so much as a business plan, instead of holding his colleagues -- who sat with him at Treasury Board, and who approved almost a quarter billion dollars of expenses without a business plan -- to account, he's rewarded them and put them in his cabinet. Talk is cheap, Mr. Premier. The people of British Columbia expect, Mr. Premier. . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

G. Campbell: The people of British Columbia expect, hon. Speaker, that the Premier will live up to his word. He told them that he felt their right to know was paramount, and after he was elected leader of his party, he slammed the door shut. Will the Premier not do what's right today and call an open, independent public inquiry into this debacle?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have said this several times publicly; this is the second time I'm repeating this in the House. This has been a very, very serious issue. We have looked at the gravity of the matter. I have looked once again at the auditor general's report. I believe that this report is most thorough and comprehensive and absolutely independent, and assigns blame and responsibility for the debacle that the hon. member mentions.

I believe it's time now to move forward. People of British Columbia want us to move forward. People of British Columbia do not want us to unnecessarily politicize issues where we have the answers before us. The auditor general provided us with the answers. It's now time to make sure that the users of the ferries and the people who live in the ferry-dependent communities don't suffer, that we put B.C. Ferries on a financial footing, and that's what we intend to do.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

G. Campbell: B.C. Ferries was on a sound financial footing when this government took office almost a decade ago.

People in British Columbia don't want to move on, on this. They want this government to move out so we can solve these problems. Half a billion dollars was spent without a business plan. People deserve to know. How can a Premier -- how can someone sitting at a Treasury Board table -- approve that kind of expenditure without so much as a business plan? Who was taking care of the taxpayers' interests? Who was taking care of the interests of B.C. Ferries? How can this possibly have happened? We need an open public inquiry so that it never happens again and so that we make sure we protect the people of British Columbia from this kind of incompetence now and into the future.

Hon. Speaker, I want to take the Premier at his word. The Premier told me and all the rest of British Columbians that he felt the public's right to know was paramount. Why is he closing the door on the public's right to know? Will the Premier not call an independent, open public inquiry today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The public has full access to the auditor general's report. The auditor general served the people of British Columbia well with that report.

I want to say to the hon. member, if he's talking about elections, that when we go to an election in British Columbia -- which we will in due course -- I will place my record as the

[ Page 14512 ]

[1415]

Let's look at what the NDP did when they were in opposition. They stood here, and they called for a public inquiry into the Coquihalla Highway project -- $500 million cost overrun. Can the Premier stand up today and tell us why it was that the NDP thought it was good enough to have an inquiry into the Coquihalla project? When he was running for leader, he thought it was good enough to say that the public interest was paramount and that the public should see what was going on in fast ferries. But today they have suddenly lost interest in having a full, independent public inquiry into this project, so that we can make sure that this never, ever happens again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The difference in terms of the Coquihalla inquiry was that there was no auditor general's inquiry into that. The auditor general's inquiry has certainly done as much as or more than the Coquihalla inquiry ever did.

In reading the auditor general's inquiry into the ferries, it's very clear on the solutions that he's offered. The criticism is thorough and wide-ranging. It attaches blame not only to people who made decisions but to people who implemented the decisions, and solutions are put forward. The B.C. Ferry Corporation, along with the government, has embraced the auditor general's report completely and has accepted all of the recommendations, and, indeed, they have now been implemented.

The Speaker: I just want to remind members to put all their remarks and questions and answers through the Chair, please.

C. Clark: What a comfort to see the member who shut down the inquiry into fast ferries when it was before Public Accounts stand up and say, "Oh, all is well; the job's all done," when she made sure that the whole process got hijacked and shut down before they could finish their work. What a comfort!

With the Coquihalla Highway project, at least we got a highway. We also got a public inquiry. Even the former Premier from Vancouver-Kingsway was prepared to call a public inquiry into the bingo scandal. If even he was willing to subject government decisions to an independent, full public inquiry, will this Premier stand up and tell us today why he won't do the same -- why he won't even meet the standard that was set for his government by the man from Vancouver-Kingsway, who has been consigned to the back bench?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to review for the members of the Legislature exactly what has been inquired into in the B.C. Ferry Corporation in the last several months, not only was the auditor general's report thoroughly examined by the Public Accounts Committee. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .but there was also the Hugh Gordon report and the JJMA technical report. The board itself has been replaced -- there is now a new board in place -- and there is new management at the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It is time to move forward. I know that constantly revisiting the past lets the Liberal opposition off the hook of offering any positive solutions. We, on the other hand, are looking for positive solutions, hon. Speaker. We're moving forward now with the new board and new management. We'll be able to debate those issues fully as we move forward and put B.C. Ferries on strong financial footing. On this side, we look forward to doing that.

[1420]

For five years I've stood in this House and questioned the government on the fast ferry project. Every year I was told there was nothing to worry about. Ministers sitting over there told me that the ferries were on budget, that they would work and that they didn't use cost-plus contracts. None of it was true.

If the Premier really wants to have open government, will he commit today to holding a much overdue public inquiry into this huge and costly fiasco?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm actually somewhat disappointed and saddened that. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . .implicit in the questions coming from the opposition benches is the notion that somehow the auditor general was less than open and absolutely independent. I believe that the auditor general's report and all of the other reports that my hon. colleague the Deputy Premier referred to have more than adequately looked at this issue. All of that information is accessible to the public. The people's right to know has been completely and thoroughly satisfied. It's now time to move on, and people of British Columbia have said so.

D. Symons: I might mention that there are two things the auditor general's report did not address. One of them was why this government, since 1997, allowed this project to go ahead when we on this side of the House. . . . I'm sure the media knew. Everybody seemed to know that it was over budget, except that group of people over there. So that definitely wasn't answered -- why they allowed it to carry on.

The second thing that wasn't answered there was the accountability. There were innuendoes in which the govern-

[ Page 14513 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm actually further disappointed and saddened that the hon. members, in their zeal to politicize this issue, which has been more than thoroughly dealt with by the auditor general in an absolutely independent fashion. . . . I'm saddened that some of us have now resorted to American-style negative attack ads in British Columbia, when what we're trying to do is generate and create a new kind of political culture of civility. I am absolutely saddened, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, the Premier is upset by the facts. Yesterday he talked about the facts, the facts, and only the facts. And when he sees the facts in print, he runs from the facts in print. It's not an American-style ad; it's an NDP-style fiasco. And the public has the right to know how it happened.

The Deputy Premier shut down the Public Accounts Committee just as it was calling witnesses to get the facts, to get the information, to put it before the people of the province of British Columbia. This isn't the only project underway. We've got a multibillion-dollar SkyTrain project underway. Heaven forbid if a year from now we're sitting in this House, listening to all the explanations and the need to move on. Will the Premier do the right thing today and finally, after five years of bluster on the fast ferry fiasco, call the public inquiry and save people in British Columbia the cost of the next scandal that his government's going to be responsible for?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Because we have learned as a government, from the auditor general's report, the Minister of Finance has called for a full review of all capital projects that are currently underway. That information will be made public, and it will meet the test. The capital review, combined with the auditor general's report and recommendations, will be applied to each and every capital project underway. Each and every person who wished to have input into the results, the outcome, of the fast ferries was interviewed by the auditor general, hon. Speaker. Each and every person, each and every decision-maker. . . .

[1425]

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, the Chair has been listening. Questions have been listened to; answers should also be listened to with courtesy.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it is time to accept the auditor general's recommendations, apply them, move on and do everything possible to ensure that the fast ferries fiasco does not happen again.

The Speaker: That ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

Hon. Speaker, I want to move on to another theme in the throne speech, the theme of education. I agree that education defines who we will be and that B.C.'s economy depends on having a well-educated, well-trained workforce and that we must improve the quality of our education in British Columbia. Last year's budget speech told us that British Columbia now spends more money per student on education than any other province in Canada. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, in their student achievement indicator project, tell us that the performance of students in British Columbia -- again, looking at grade level and looking at subject matter -- is pretty much middle of the road. As education defines who we will be, as our world is becoming ever more competitive, as national boundaries -- for the purposes of trade and jobs -- are disappearing, then the definition of who we will be must be enhanced and upgraded, or the definition will not be that which the people of British Columbia want and expect.

[1430]

We know, as was stated in the throne speech, that "Every parent wants their child to have every opportunity to succeed, to get ahead, to do better." We know that those schools that welcome parents and those parents who are willing to participate in the students' school life and in the students' learning perform better than schools which don't have that type of parental involvement.

Yet today in this province many parents do not feel welcome in the schools that their children attend. Parents are being told that they can no longer ensure students' safety by planning a safe arrival program to confirm students' absences, that they cannot assist in library support work and that they cannot serve hot lunches to needy students.

The reality of today is that parents who truly support our schools, who support their children and support all of the people who work in our schools, are being denied the right to participate in and support their children's education. We must put the needs of children first when it comes to education, for

[ Page 14514 ]

The parents of Surrey-White Rock and indeed parents all over B.C. do not want to be prohibited from participating; they are a valuable, needed resource. They can and will help us to improve the quality of education given to each student in British Columbia. We must find ways to make them welcome. The performance of our students and eventually of our economy depends upon it.

This province is hurting intensely. The government seems to have found that the creation of wealth is necessary for the province to provide social programs. The more wealth and the more revenue to government, the more social programs. Let us have the social programs which we all want and need.

But let us ensure that we first have that strong investment climate, that we have reduced the debt so that we can afford education, health care and social programs which we indeed want and deserve. Anything less would doom the people of this province to the fate of Sisyphus: to roll a huge weight of debt up a mountain forever, never fully free to enjoy life, always giving so much just to stay even and so much more to move so little, never free to walk unencumbered on a level playing field.

[1435]

But modest actions will not lead us back to where we once were, to the number one economy in Canada based on GDP per capita. The legislation, the practices, the policies of this government require much more than modest action. They require a major overhaul; they require cuts to red tape and changes to labour legislation. While the government has much reason to be modest, even embarrassed, by what has been done, modesty is not the way to turn our economy around. We need to have it overhauled. We need to give more than a signal that we want to have action. We need more than a signal to the participants of our economy, of our province; we need much, much more.

I fear that the themes of this throne speech are shallow, and they lack substance. They fail to inspire, and they fail to provide the positive vision of the future which this province so dearly needs.

I fear -- I believe -- that the themes of this throne speech, when combined, fail to form a picture of British Columbia that is the desired future. Instead, they present some hastily manufactured band-aids that fail to respond to our hemorrhaging economy, health care system and educational system. This throne speech is a not too thinly veiled statement of damage control, not the vision of hope and prosperity that British Columbians in every corner of this province are craving.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to start today by congratulating you on your ascension to the chair. I think it was an important day yesterday; in fact, it was the first time that I can recall when we actually did have an election of the Speaker. I know you take that responsibility seriously. On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I'd like to congratulate you and wish you well in your endeavours.

Yesterday morning I was not able to be here during that historic event, because I was at the funeral for Chief Joe Mathias of the Squamish. I had known Chief Mathias for a number of years. I was certainly moved by the ceremony that took place, and I think we've all been moved by the Chief's contribution to public life in the province of British Columbia. There were many times when Chief Joe Mathias and I didn't agree on what we should do or how we might proceed to accomplish our public objectives, but he always spoke with an open heart. He always spoke, I believe, in a direct and straightforward manner, and he made a true contribution to the entire province of British Columbia as well as to his nation of the Squamish people. My heart and my condolences go to his family, to his nation and to all aboriginal people across the province for that great loss.

Yesterday the Lieutenant-Governor also mentioned the loss of another British Columbian, perhaps not as well known and certainly not as publicly known as Joe Mathias. His name was Jim Haberl. Jim was the guide who was going to lead my family and me and a team of people from Alzheimers B.C. up to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro last year, as we tried to raise awareness of Alzheimer's and the problems that it creates in families and communities across the province of British Columbia.

[1440]

I should tell you, hon. Speaker, that the trip up Kilimanjaro was a very important event for me. It happened after the House adjourned last time. It was very important because I got a chance to go up the mountain with my family. And my younger son, Nicholas, said to me at the time that it was one of the most important experiences that he had ever had.

As you arrive in Tanzania and you look at that mountain -- you're on the plain and you look up -- you can't quite believe you're going to get to the top of that mountain. But if you set that goal high enough and you're willing to work towards it and you're willing to commit yourself to it and you're willing to put energy into it and you're willing to go through the difficult times to achieve it, it's incredible what the view at the summit can be like.

As he said to me, it was one of the most exhilarating things that ever happened to him. And for me, it's a metaphor of what we have to do in the province of British Columbia. The people of this province have got to set their sights high again. We've got to return their gaze to the top of the mountain. We've got to remind them of what an incredible province we live in.

[ Page 14515 ]

I want to be clear that I don't think this is a political call for an election. If people will just think for a minute about what happens and how we can start to deal with the problems that have been allowed to mount over the last decade. . . . Whether they're problems in the health care system, in the education system, with regard to the economy or with resources communities across this province, most people understand that we can't have long-term, secure solutions if we have uncertainty. We've just spent a year in this province with the governing party focusing on itself -- with their personal agendas, their personal worries and their scandals. Frankly, the work for the people of British Columbia has been left undone.

Things are not better, hon. Speaker. People don't feel a sense of hope. When you live in a resource town, or even when you live in a great town like Prince George, and you watch as families have to leave in search of opportunity and jobs -- when you watch as young people leave this province in record numbers in search of hope -- surely all of us, regardless of our political strife, have got to understand that something isn't right. We have to reach out to all of those people in this province and recognize that within these closed walls we often lose touch.

There's one great way to get back in touch with the people. We hear about that from the government on a regular basis. I remember hearing one of the leadership candidates saying: "I've travelled around the province, and I now want to learn from the public." I think we should be learning from the public every single day we're in office. The best way to learn from the public is to give the public the opportunity to look at the solutions that both sides of the House offer and to make a choice.

I should say that while I think there were some lost opportunities yesterday, I do believe that there is a small glimmer of light. That small glimmer of light may have taken a long time for us to kindle from this side of the House. After nearly a decade of urging this government to reform this institution, to encourage every MLA to participate in finding the solutions to the problems that we face, to encourage every MLA to say what they believe is the best way to solve the problems of the families that live in their constituencies, I welcome the words that this Premier is now going to move forward and try and provide for some reforms. But as we've already discovered, the words are easy to say; it's the actions that have evidently become very difficult for this government.

[1445]

First, I would hope that the Premier and his ministers will forward to the opposition -- to my office -- the cost and terms of all public sector wage and benefit agreements that have been negotiated since the last election, including any analysis, evaluation or cost projections. Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that we have been requesting that information for some time, and it has been denied to the opposition, just as it has been denied to people of British Columbia. The taxpayers are going to pay; they deserve to know. I invite the government to send that information out to the public as soon as they can -- tomorrow.

Second, the opposition and the taxpayers of British Columbia, in the spirit of openness and cooperation and getting the facts, would like to know the cost of all legal bills for defending the former Premier and his staff in the Casinogate affair. The public has a right to know the costs for defending the illegal election gag law, which we pointed out was illegal when this government forced it on the people of British Columbia before the last election. We'd like to know the cost of that.

We'd like to know the full legal costs for this government's efforts to fight gaming lawsuits throughout the province, for denying charities their rightful access to the dollars that are generated, for imposing -- or trying to impose -- this government's policies in community after community. We'd like to know the costs for that. Also, we'd like to know the costs that this government incurred on behalf of taxpayers for unsuccessfully trying to muzzle David Black because he happened to have a different opinion than the government did on the Nisga'a treaty. What are the costs?

This government told the people of British Columbia yesterday that they were committed to openness, cooperation and balance. This government says it's learned its lesson, so we'd like to see all of the contracts and all of the correspondence and all of the agreements on the SkyTrain project, because already the rumours are out there that it's way over budget and it's going to cost the taxpayers a fortune.

Finally, we would like a response -- a positive response -- to our requests for all of the agreements and contractual arrangements that were made with regard to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. That cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $73 million -- $73 million without a business plan, $73 million that will not go to health care, that will not go to education, that will not go to help the people of British Columbia. We'd like to know what the agreements were in that regard, because once again this government has withheld that information from the people who are paying the bill. What are the costs?

It's easy to say that you're for openness, hon. Speaker. It's easy to say you're for the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. But already today in the House we saw the spin machine back at work. It was buzzing overtime. Somehow or other, when the Public Accounts Committee had agreed, on this side of the House and that side of the House, on the witnesses that they wanted to hear -- into the auditor general's report -- that was truncated. That's not providing the facts. That's not providing the information and the discussion

[ Page 14516 ]

[1450]

I am pleased to present to the House -- and I'd like to table it in the House today -- our proposals for reforming government. They include workable recall legislation. They include referenda legislation -- improvements to that legislation. It improves transparency. It includes assuring that freedom of information is actually free information to the people of British Columbia, not very expensive information to the people of British Columbia. It includes the opportunity to bring the people of British Columbia into the treaty-making process in a provincewide referendum on the principles that should inform every treaty in British Columbia.

It includes the restoration of the pride and the focus of the public service. We want a new era of public service in this province, where public servants are encouraged to use their professional expertise, because we know that no public servant -- nobody who had the public's best interests at heart -- would ever have approved half of the projects that have been rammed through by the politicians on that side of the House.

Two weeks ago, hon. Speaker, I forwarded to the Premier a nine-point plan for restoring -- at least to start restoring -- people's confidence in this House, in this public institution. I have not yet had a response. This open, cooperative government has failed to respond to this initiative that was taken by the opposition.

Let's take the government at its word. They want to have open, balanced institutions. What do we really have to do? What are we really focusing on? What is the Premier really trying to tap into when he talks about this? What he is really talking about is trying to restore public trust in this government. To have trust, to build a sense of confidence in the people of British Columbia in our public institutions, there's one critically important thing. The people have to believe the words of their leaders. It's not good enough to say one thing and to do another. It's very difficult to restore trust when the government seems so willing at times to say one thing one day and do the opposite the next.

Do you remember when the Premier promised in 1995 that there would be no slot machines in casinos? Then the government was elected, and they endeavoured to impose slot machines in casinos on communities that didn't want them. Do you remember when this Premier said that no community would have to have slot machines that didn't want them? And then this government spent thousands of dollars trying to do exactly that -- impose slot machines on communities that didn't want them. That does not establish trust.

Do you remember when this Premier, as Attorney General, told the people of the province of British Columbia that he was going to close down illegal gaming in social clubs? Then there was no enforcement -- none. That's why this government and the people of British Columbia and public life in British Columbia were embroiled in the Casinogate scandal for the last year.

[1455]

When we think about it, one of the most damning indictments of this government was last summer. There was a judgment made in the courts of British Columbia with regard to this government undermining one of the most fundamental concepts we have in a parliamentary democracy -- the rule of law. This government and this Premier basically tried to push that through without the people of British Columbia finding out. They took one company, and they tried to take away that company's rights. They did everything they could.

I know that many of these people, the members opposite, have been involved in public life for some time. Maybe like the Premier today, they haven't had a chance to read the Carrier Lumber decision. But it is a shocking and appalling indictment of this government, of the actions of its ministers, of its ministries, of its policies. And it's an appalling indictment of an Attorney General who doesn't understand that his primary responsibility is to protect the laws of British Columbia and to protect the people of British Columbia, not his political colleagues.

Listen to the words of the judge, hon. Speaker. This is about this government -- this NDP government, this caucus that said just a year ago that they were 100 percent behind all the policies that this government had initiated, everything they'd done. This is the judge:

"This is nothing more and nothing less than another part of the ministry's attempt to alter reality and protect their own positions. It is part of an overall scheme, which included the writing of self-serving and demonstrably untrue memos and correspondence, the holding of 'secret' meetings without the knowledge of key and material interested parties, and the suppression and withholding of key documents, which would fully reveal their conduct."

"It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words 'managing perception' may have a gloss which seems to carry with it some high purpose. The reality is, at least in this case, little more than a process of altering reality by concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated cover story."

[ Page 14517 ]

Hon. Speaker, the judge finally concludes in his judgment. . . . He goes on, and he says this: "When the power of the legislator or the bureaucrat is abused, it is in this country subject to the review of independent judiciary. The power of review must be carefully exercised and jealously guarded. . . ."

[1500]

The Minister of Energy and Mines on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll seek your advice, hon. Speaker. I realize that approval of court decisions under the system. . . . This case is under appeal, and I wonder about the prudence of drawing a conclusion based on the initial case, as opposed to waiting. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .for the appeal to be completed and then drawing some conclusion.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on the point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think the member opposite has been here long enough to know that this item is before appeal. The member is not speaking of the content of the court case itself, merely the ruling. If he needs further guidance, he should read Sir Erskine May's numerous rulings on this, and he'll be a little better informed. I do, however, understand his sensitivity about it, given his role in the past.

The Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition to continue.

G. Campbell: According to the judge, hon. Speaker:

"The power of review" -- and I agree with this, and most British Columbians and Canadians would, although evidently the minister doesn't -- "must be carefully exercised and jealously guarded, for it is the foundation of the protection of the citizen from the power of the state. . . . When public servants choose to embark on such conduct, utilizing the powers they hold to cause damage to others and to cover their own actions, they must understand clearly and unequivocally that they will be held accountable for such abuse."

For us to open up this government, for us to re-establish and restore trust in this institution, everyone on that side of the House is going to have to recognize and embrace the rule of law in British Columbia. Government cannot do anything it wants, and the people of British Columbia will let you know that.

The first step is to restore trust. You don't restore trust by saying one thing one day when it's politically convenient to do so and doing the opposite the next. This Premier said this during his leadership, when his deputy closed down and orchestrated the close-down of a Public Accounts Committee from hearing from witnesses that both sides of this House had agreed to in open, balanced agreement -- both sides of this House. You know, hon. Speaker, as he was going through his leadership, the Premier decides: "Oh, I'd better talk about how important the public's right to know is." His main leadership rival says: "It's wrong to close it down." It was wrong then; it is wrong now. It will be wrong from now until a B.C. Liberal government is elected, and we have a full, open public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco.

[1505]

This is the good part: "I want to make sure that we actually do the accountability and openness and transparency process on a much larger scale." Here's a larger scale: an open, independent public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco and this Premier's, this cabinet's and this government's role in spending $500 million of taxpayers' money without so much as a business plan.

But that was then, and this is now. Now this Premier has been elected to the leadership of his party and is the Premier of the province. Suddenly the doors close. Suddenly the public's right to know is closed down. Suddenly there's no such thing as political accountability.

Indeed, if you look carefully at what's really happened with regard to the fast ferry fiasco, anyone that was too acutely involved in it has been rewarded with a cabinet position in this government. The people who were responsible for the fast ferry fiasco have not paid a price. It's the people of British Columbia who are paying the price.

Did anyone ever stop to think of what that fast ferry project could have provided to the people of British Columbia? What can you buy for the $500 million that's been wasted? You could buy 9,400 teacher salaries for a year; that would have been a better place to put the dollars. You could have bought 14,900 constable salaries for a year; you could have bought 178 elementary schools or 14 hospitals the size of the one in Kitimat; you could have replaced the Queen of Sidney 14 times. That's what $500 million can do. And neither this government, this cabinet nor this Premier seem to understand the lost opportunities that are carried with that.

As we build an open, balanced, cooperative approach, it's important that we face the facts. In our system of parliamen-

[ Page 14518 ]

This is what the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- a New Democrat -- says about his colleagues: "It's not as if, over the last four years, Glen Clark put people under some kind of hypnotic trance and they voted for all sorts of policy determinations only to discover that it was wrong." You'd think that, from listening to the other side of the House. They didn't show up and they didn't do their job when they were on Treasury Board. They didn't show up and they didn't do their job when they were in cabinet. We have a Minister of Health who was responsible for the closing down of five hospitals in rural communities and who has now been -- isn't this great -- promoted to Education. We have a minister who was responsible for approving, in principle, a casino licence to a group involved with Internet sex and Internet gambling and all sorts of sordid activities. "Oh, he's not going to be in Employment and Investment." Good! "We're going to put him over there in Health." I don't want anyone gambling with the health of British Columbians.

[1510]

It doesn't work that way, folks. You're all responsible for your government's policies. You're all responsible for taking our economy from being the best economy in the country to the worst economy in the country. You're all responsible for the fact that rural health care in the province is now at the lowest level it's ever been at. You're all responsible for the fact that a Minister of Education stands up and says: "Sorry, we don't have enough money for textbooks for our kids in the classrooms." You are all responsible, and the people of British Columbia will hold you to a response. That's why they cannot wait to have an election in British Columbia.

There is a way that we can move forward in this province. There is a way that we can start moving again and start leading this country again. We in British Columbia shouldn't forget that we have a very important role to play in our country. When British Columbia is weak, when British Columbia is in decline, when British Columbia is not grasping the opportunities that are ahead of us, all of our country suffers and pays the price.

There are five pillars for prosperity that we in the province should be building our future upon. The government talked about health care yesterday. The government talked like they had just discovered the damage they'd done in people's lives.

I guess that's partly because they weren't having a leadership at the time that those five rural hospitals closed in the north. So no one from the government could take the time to go and visit the people in Vanderhoof to see what it was like to have your hospital closed down. No one could make it to Mackenzie to find out what it was like to have your hospital close down. No one could get to Burns Lake to talk to the physicians there, to talk to the nurses there, to talk to the physiotherapists there, to talk to the patients there and to talk to the community leaders there.

Over the last decade, this government has made many promises to British Columbians, and they haven't delivered. Health care has been weakened. The support we give to patients has been reduced. I can still recall sitting in the Legislature and listening as a former Minister of Health issued what was effectively a declaration of war on the physicians of this province. The physicians aren't the problem with the health care system. The nurses aren't the problem with the health care system. The physiotherapists aren't, the CEOs aren't, and the regional leaders aren't. There's one group that's responsible for the damage that's been done to the health care system in the province of British Columbia: the New Democrats in government for nine years.

Almost nine years ago that government promised the people of Quesnel that the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital would have an expansion. If you walk into the third floor of G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital -- I think it's the third; it might be the fourth floor -- I can tell you that it hasn't happened yet. Just four years ago the leader of the NDP announced they were going to have a strategy for rural health care. None of it's been delivered. This government now has finally recognized that there is a health care crisis for the people that live in this province -- for patients. Waiting lists grow. People worry. Families' anxieties increase.

[1515]

We know that today in the province we have a huge crisis in intermediate and long-term care. Any of us in this room who has an older parent should know the impacts that can have on your family, on your kids and on your grandkids. This government actually tells non-profit agencies that want to build intermediate or long term care facilities: "Sorry, there's not enough money." Well, I can tell you that with the B.C. Liberal government, there would be enough money for intermediate and long-term care.

We wouldn't be wasting money on plans for buildings that will never be built or on boats that will never work. Let's

[ Page 14519 ]

The government's finally discovered that we've got a nursing problem in British Columbia. Well, hon. Speaker, I'd like the government to understand this: we have a nursing problem, we have a physician problem, we have a university professor problem, we have a technical trainers problem, and we have a tradespeople problem in this province. We have a massive human resources problem in this province. Some of our best people are leaving, and there's no way to replace them right now.

Four years ago, when we ran for and sought the public's support, we said at that time that we needed 2,300 new nurses in British Columbia. We had a way to pay for them and balance the budget, because if your priorities are in health care, you put your dollars into health care. You don't put them into a pathetic fleet of fast ferries that will never work.

Just to give you a sense of the potentially lost opportunities here. . . . Sometimes we don't recognize how lucky we are to live in this province and how many talented people actually live here. The B.C. Cancer Agency right now has one of the most talented groups of scientists anywhere in the world -- not the country, the world. Nobel prize winners -- some of the best minds in terms of the Human Genome Project are right here in British Columbia.

You know what the Cancer Agency is doing right now? They're going out and looking for help from people. They want $100 million; that's their first step -- $100 million. I was at a public meeting the other night. A young scientist said to me: "It would be nice to have the $100 million, but I can tell you that it's not really enough to do what we need to do. It's not nearly enough to build the kind of complex that we need. It's not nearly enough to take advantage of the talent of the scientists that we have there."

This government decided to spend $73 million for plans for a building that was never built and that never had a business plan. That was the choice that government made. I can tell you that this side of the House would have made this decision: let's give the $73 million to the Cancer Agency, so that we can get some real benefit and real growth for the people of British Columbia.

[1520]

The second pillar is education. Again, just today -- imagine this -- a government is sending the message to parents who are volunteering in schools to provide hungry children with food, so they can learn: "Sorry, you shouldn't be there."

We want the parents in the school; we want them as active participants in the public education system. I can guarantee them that they are welcome. They are our allies as we improve the public education system across the province of British Columbia. We also want them to know that their children can depend on us to provide them with education. So we will make education an essential service in the province of British Columbia.

I think it's important that we've connected our children with the Internet. I think it's important that we have the resources to make sure they have the equipment they need, so they can take full advantage of that connection. Regardless of whether they live in Dawson Creek or Cranbrook or Clinton or Terrace or Kitimat or Port McNeill or Port Alice, I want our children to have the best education possible. I want our parents to say that the luckiest thing that ever happened to them was that their kids got to go to the public school system in the province of British Columbia.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

As we build pillars for prosperity, I think it's important to recognize what we shouldn't do. We shouldn't subsidize business. Let business compete; let business innovate; let business use their imaginations. But don't let them come to government for money when they make a mistake. We won't subsidize business on this side of the House. We wouldn't give a developer $25 million, even in a loan, to think about developing Burns Bog. If this government wants to show that it's committed to the environment, it should stop subsidizing business and it should save Burns Bog. Everyone will applaud that.

And if we're going to take full advantage of this great province and all of its assets, there's something else that we have to do. We have to make sure that every woman and every child and every senior -- every British Columbian -- feels safe and secure in their community. Again, this government has failed the people of British Columbia in that regard. We didn't hear very much about that yesterday in the throne speech either. We didn't hear much about a government that has decimated the ranks of our auxiliary police forces and cut them in half, so people don't have the sense of safety that they used to have.

We didn't hear much about the fact that in community after community in this province, the word is going out: they don't have the resources required to provide the police forces that are necessary. This government's choice is to put those folks in vans. Our choice is to put police on the streets in communities where they're needed.

We need to have a transportation and communications system that connects the people of this province. We live in a spectacular province. We have many common values and common objectives. We can connect them with a road system that works. But to do that, we're going to have to make sure that we maximize and optimize the value of every tax dollar that goes into the government. There's only one way to do that -- open tendering. Get rid of fixed wage, go back to open tendering and save yourself $310 million in transportation. . . .

[1525]

[ Page 14520 ]

A great public health care system, hon. Speaker -- people pay for that. They deserve it. It can be delivered. Our side of the House is not going to buy into the false choices that the government tries to put out that other governments have tried to put out. If we care about providing people with care where they live, we can do it. It may mean we have to do some other things differently, but we can do it. And no one should let anyone in the province think that we can't.

A great public education system -- where kids have the opportunities to learn, to develop themselves, not just in grades K-to-12 or K-to-13 or K-to. . . . I couldn't believe the new slogan, "K to J." In the alphabet that I used to do, that's going backwards. We want to go forward in British Columbia. But to do these things, we need one other component, one other pillar of prosperity. Communication, transportation, health care, public education, public safety -- and we have to have a strong economy so that we can support those critical public services.

The last decade has been anything but a strong economy for British Columbians. But let me give you an idea, hon. Speaker, of why this is so important. I know one of the things that happens in the public debate is that people send out the message that, gee, we're not going to have enough money for health care. Ever heard that? We can't possibly have enough money for health care. That's wrong. We can have enough money for health care, hon. Speaker, if we have an economy that's growing. In fact, we can enough money for health care over the next couple of decades if the economy just grows at about 1.9 to 2 percent a year. That's not that much, when you think about it.

You know British Columbia's economy grew at 6.4 percent a year in the decade of the sixties. Our economy grew at 4.8 percent a year in the decade of the seventies. Remember that recessionary decade of the 1980s? It grew at 3.7 percent. The problem was the NDP decade of decline, when our economy only grew at 1.6 percent. If you attack investment, if you don't tell the truth about what's going on with your budgets, if you don't keep your word, if you don't keep your contracts, you're not going to get very much private sector investment. There's only one way to build a strong economy to support public sector infrastructure in health and education and transportation, and that's a private sector economy. We have to restore it, hon. Speaker. Yesterday the government made some tepid steps. We're not going to get anywhere with tepid steps.

Let me talk about a couple of industries that have been severely damaged. It's not the industries; it's the people and the families that have lost their homes, their opportunity, their security. In the forest industry in this province, literally tens of thousands of people have lost their work. They've lost their work because even according to the former Forests minister of this province, the government took a billion dollars out of that industry for no public good. That is thousands of people who have lost their work.

It's easy for us to sit here. We get our paycheques month in and month out, and lots of times the public is just wondering what we're doing. But I can tell you, those forest families. . . . When they lose their paycheques, and they can't pay their mortgages, and they lose their homes, and we have record foreclosures taking place in this province, someone on that side of the House better understand that there's something wrong.

You know why we can't wait for an election? It's because people outside of this province are waiting to see what happens in an election. On this side of the House, we want a globally competitive forest industry that encourages private sector investment and that provides the workers in that industry with long-term, sustainable and secure jobs. That's what is going to give them paycheques. That's what is going to give them control over their future. That's what is going to restore their hope. That's what is going to restore their personal prosperity in resource community after resource community in this province. And that's what we're committed to do.

Out on that horizon, not very far away -- April 1, 2001 -- there is a great big problem looming. It's called the softwood lumber agreement, and it's a problem that we have today. We don't just have a problem with the United States; we have a problem with Canada. This government has fundamentally abrogated its responsibility. They're not saying: "What is our public policy? How are we going to create that forest sector? How are we going to bring people together and focus various components of the industry on the public good?"

[1530]

Here's an opportunity for the government to be open and cooperative and balanced. I believe that every single MLA in this House understands how important the forest industry is to the province of British Columbia, not just from the past but for the future too. I invite the Premier to provide us with all the information of the strategy of the government, the strategy for the people of British Columbia to create a softwood lumber agreement, to create the strategy for dealing with the rest of the country first. Don't think that Ontario and Quebec are sitting there and saying that whatever is good for British Columbia is good for them; they're not. We have a big challenge in dealing with our Canadian counterparts first. And when we've dealt with our Canadian counterparts, we have the huge challenge of dealing with the Americans.

You know, we're going to be way better if we do it together. It shouldn't be political. It should be something where we're reaching out to everyone on all sides of this House and saying: "Yes, here's all the information we have." Let's bring the best talent we can to the table. Let's make sure we come up and speak with one clear, defined, focused public voice so that we can lead Canada and we can deal with the United States, and our people will have jobs again in British Columbia.

We can't wait for an election, because an election will create stability. Without that stability, we are going to be in a situation where we're easy targets. Not us politically, hon. Speaker; the people of the province will be an easy target. So let's go out, and let's have the election. Let's engage in public debate; let's talk about the future of this province. Let's talk about our different visions for how we may get there, but let's recognize that it's in the interests of the public to have that election.

It's certainly in the interests of workers in the forest industry to know where they're going to have their jobs

[ Page 14521 ]

In the construction industry, it is overwhelmed with regulation, with duplication, with triplication, with extra costs. So our young people are worried about whether they can even afford a home -- with the lowest level of housing starts in 50 years. That's thousands of people without work. More importantly, it's thousands of young people that won't be able to afford a house, a place they call their own.

We don't think that's good enough; we believe we can do better than that. We can eliminate unnecessary regulation; we can eliminate that red tape. We can create an environment where people know what's expected of them, where we set the highest possible public standards and then let people's imagination and innovation drive us forward and lead us, as a public institution, as communities and as neighbourhoods, to even better places for everybody to live. We can do that in this province.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I want to talk briefly about the high-tech industry. This government's response to the high-tech industry is the new high-tech commission. Well, I spent a lot of time talking to people in the technology industry. It's funny -- not one of them suggested that if we could just have a little bit more government bureaucracy, they'd be a lot better off.

[1535]

What do people want? People want to know that if they work hard, they can get ahead. What does the high-tech industry tell you, tell us, tell anyone who would. . . ? "Please, please listen," they say. What do they say they need? They need their people to know that they're valued, they're honoured and they're respected in British Columbia. What's the way they show that?

We need to see a dramatic cut in personal income tax in British Columbia, so those people will stay here and work here and build their future here. Without that tax cut, what's going to happen is that over the next few years we're going to watch as more and more and more jobs leave the province. Do you want to have Electronic Arts grow in Burnaby, build job opportunities in Burnaby, take those kids from Simon Fraser and BCIT and UBC and UNBC and give them a sense of hope and opportunity here in our province? You have to give them the tax cuts, so they can keep the critical mass here, so they can drive to the future, so they can race to the future, so they can lead us to the future. That's what a tax cut will do. That's what you have to deliver in this government.

We can restore the public's confidence in this province. We can restore their sense of hope. We can restore British Columbia's role as a leader of our country not just economically but in health care, in the delivery of education, in people feeling safe and secure and excited about their future. We can move forward to a new era of opportunity and prosperity in this province. But to do that the government has to have the courage and the integrity to call an election, so we can build a future on the base of what the public needs.

Hon. Speaker, we are all honoured to sit in this House, and I think that honour is something we should hold very dearly. We should protect it. Sometimes it means we have to risk, in terms of building the trust of the people for our public institutions. We have to do something that a lot of politicians aren't very good at: trust the people first.

Let's go out to the people of this province. Let's lay out the different visions that we may have for the future. I have a vision of new prosperity for every family in British Columbia, regardless of where they live. I have a vision where young people say: "I can't believe how lucky I am to be here in the province of British Columbia, where I can build a future." I have a vision where people from 100 Mile House to Kamloops to Elkford say: "Boy, we've got a government that we can count on and that delivers services well, respects the hard work that we do and understands the dedication that I have to my family and my community."

Everyone wants to have a government that they can count on, a government that will tell them the truth. Most people don't think we should need legislation to do that. I think what we have to do is send a message to the people of British Columbia that we're lucky to be representing them. We're fortunate to have this opportunity, and I hope we can work to build a new era in this province -- a new era of hope, a new era of opportunity, a new era of public service where it's an honour to serve, where it's an honour to be able to make a contribution, where it's an honour to reach out and bring the people of this province together and build a future on the basis of the values that we've held and the agreements that we espouse, so that everyone in this province can take pride in the leadership role that we play in our country for our kids.

[1540]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just give those who are going to other meetings a chance to leave.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to begin by saying welcome to the new member for Delta South. I'm very pleased that you've come to join us here. Hon. Speaker, this member invited me some time ago to work at an event on her farm -- actually, in her barn -- and I'd like to say: "Welcome to ours, where we work." I think she is going to elevate the dialogue here,

[ Page 14522 ]

I've never done this before, but. . . . I always used to refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of the Opposition. That was the kindest thing that I used to say. But now that we've entered a new era, according to the Speech from the Throne, this is the beginning of an era of civility. So I would like to begin my response to his response by saying, "My hon. friend," which is my gesture to a new future, hon. Speaker.

Having sat here and listened to my hon. friend for an hour, I would like to suggest that perhaps we should hold one of those kinds of games that you see on TV. We should run a couple of advertisements, let all the listeners wait ten minutes and then ask if anybody in the listening audience can remember one thing that my hon. friend actually said in the course of the last hour. If our visitors were challenged ten minutes from now to remember a single point, I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who could. I think. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Hang on, you guys. You might recall. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Members, would I be right in saying that for one hour now not a single person has heckled the other side? Would I be right in suggesting that we listened with civility and dignity and in fact silence while my hon. friend spoke from the other. . . ? Is that true? And I have been speaking for -- what -- 90 seconds before the people on the other side start yapping back?

I want to be serious here. The Speech from the Throne is about the beginning of a new era in British Columbia politics. It suggests that that new era should begin right here with a new style of behaviour, a new understanding of governance and a new understanding of this building by the people who work here. The Speech from the Throne, which I didn't hear one word about in the last hour, not a single sentence that referred to the Speech from the Throne. . . . Since on your television sets at home, citizens, it says, "Speech from the Throne," the Leader of the Opposition was supposed to be referring to this year's Speech from the Throne; but I'm actually going to.

[1545]

I want to speak primarily about the second issue, the issue of civility and culture. You will notice that for the last hour. . . . The Speech from the Throne talked about the government and the opposition, and how they would work together, or how the government side would suggest that they work together. For the last hour, I didn't hear a single sentence responding to that initiative, which I find tremendously disappointing, but I understand. I understand that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition doesn't actually need or even want the culture in this room to change, because it is the right wing that stands to gain by demeaning, on television and before the people in the gallery, the process of governance

They don't actually need government; they don't need the Legislature to do their will. They have the power of the corporate class, money, lawyers and the boss to do their will. For 20 years the right wing around the world has been engaged in demeaning the process of the people governing themselves. There is nothing that threatens my hon. friends on that side so much as the notion that we could make the process of governing credible again for the people who come to watch us in this room.

Not a single word. For the first time ever in all the years I've worked here, the government walks in the room and says, "The Speech from the Throne will be about bringing civility to this room," and not a single sentence in response. It's understandable to me that it should be this government that brings in the notion of changing the culture of this place, because it is the left -- the people of the left, the social democrats of this province -- who stand to gain by bringing public faith back into the business of government by the people. It is the left who really need to say to the people outside this room: "This is honourable work. Run for office and come and join us in doing honourable work."

I want to tell you a story, hon. Speaker. I first sat up in the galleries there in 1982. I had fairly young children, and I came to this building with my daughter and my son. My kids knew that I was a municipal politician, and they knew that I thought politics was important work. We sat up there together and watched the poor, broken, ridiculous culture in this room, and after about 20 minutes, my daughter turned to me and said: "Cork, that's no place to go to work. Better you should log all your life than join those people down there." Remember 1982. Those were the days of the war in the woods. Those were the days when a logger's children were embarrassed to go to school, where people were saying that what I did then wasn't honourable work. And the children of a logger looked down into this room and said: "Don't do that, Dad. That is not any place to go to work."

I was elected in 1991, and I came into this room and, of course, it was the best thing that had ever happened to me -- the best job I'd ever had. I sat at that time at exactly the opposite end of this row. On the first day I watched people pounding their desks, people yelling at each other and people heckling like you guys are doing at this point, and I thought: "I'll never do that; I'll never behave like that. Those people behave in a way that demeans democracy, and I'm not going to become one of them." But slowly, slowly, as I sat in this place, I took on the cloak, the behaviour, the culture of this place.

[1550]

[ Page 14523 ]

My grandfather had a dream when he was a kid. He wanted to be a naval officer. To get into officer training university college, he had to study very hard and then be recommended. He did all that, and he arrived. And just like me the first day I came to work here, it was the most important thing that had ever happened not only to him but to anybody in his family in generations. In his freshman year, in a hazing ritual, the older kids tossed him down the stairs in their dormitory and broke his leg. They took him to the hospital. The next day he went to the administration, and he said: "Hey, they broke my leg. I'd like to object." And the administration said: "No, no, no. Don't object. Be quiet about it. It's a mistake, of course. They didn't mean to break your leg, but these things happen. It's the culture here." They said to my grandfather: "If you just be quiet, we'll make sure that you pass your class, that you don't have to go to PE, that you don't have to march. We'll make sure that you pass, and next year, you can do it to the next class."

My grandfather said: "No, no, no. That's not how we were raised. In my family we were raised that if somebody breaks your leg, you get to complain: 'That's not right.' " They said to my grandfather: "Either you shut up, and we'll look after you, kid, or you leave school, because we're not going to have this culture exposed to the light of day." Of course, my grandfather refused to shut up, and they indeed threw him out of school, and he became an accountant instead.

It seems to me that the throne speech of this year -- the throne speech that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition never referred to for one sentence in the hour that you folks listened to him -- is about ending that culture where every generation comes in here and throws the next guy down the back stairs and then says: "That's how we behave here. It's okay." The throne speech says it's over. We're not going to demean the process of government anymore.

I for one am thrilled, because once again it is going to be an honour to work in this place. This is going to be honourable work; we are going to be considered. . . . My hon. friends on that side and on this side are all honourable members again. Then maybe we can get the next generation of citizens at home to actually run for office. And we can get the next generation of social democrats out there -- 11, 15, 25 years old -- to think that no matter what class they were born into, the notion of the people governing themselves is an honourable notion and one that they should aspire to.

But not once, in an hour -- or an hour and 15 minutes -- of my hon. friend's response, did he respond. Why is that? I guess I would argue that his only shot at ever governing in this place is if he can make sure that the people at home and the people in the galleries have no faith in their capacity -- in the fact that this is their House, this is their home and this is their government.

I don't think we need him, actually, hon. Speaker. If we have to, we will do it all by ourselves. We will, by ourselves, bring a culture of civility into this place. We will, by ourselves, pass the legislation bringing truth in budgeting into this place, and we'll do it by outvoting the other side if we have to. But think what fun it would be if, as a group, we decided to make this good work. Think, hon. member.

[1555]

We could do it together, if one sentence of your leader's speech had anything to do with the dignity of this place; we could make an arrangement together. We could make this a place where we wanted to work. But is there any response? I heard absolutely no response to the offer. . . . I have never heard government in this place offer, to the opposition, to make it easier to run this institution and easier to oppose. And not one sentence of response. Hon. Speaker, if we have to. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: I want to say this really quietly, and maybe they won't heckle. I want everybody here. . . . If we have to, we will do it by ourselves. But that would be a monumental shame -- for all the people at home to think that reforming this place had to be done by partisanship. I would like to say to the hon. members opposite, in spite of the lack of conviction of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition: if you join us, we can do it together. No matter which side we work on in future, it can be dignified and civil work, and I would like to do it with you.

I would like to close by talking a little bit about the third main initiative in this document. I said that it is time that we made this a place where parents of children can work and still have a family. That's in keeping with the third part of the throne speech that made me so pleased, which is an emphasis on the notion that child care should be the next major social program emphasis of the government of British Columbia.

On the leadership trail -- in which I was engaged for four or five months -- I didn't hear another single issue raised by the people of our party and also of the province more often in more different towns and among more different classes of people than the notion that we get on with providing universal child care in this province. The throne speech says that's where we're going. Even if they don't agree with us about truth in budgeting legislation, even if they don't agree with us about bringing civility to the culture of this place, even if they don't agree with us about another single page in the book, I would like. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Stop heckling long enough for me to ask you: will you please work with us to make child care happen?

Deputy Speaker: Minister, through the Speaker, please.

Hon. C. Evans: You mean he can heckle me, but I can't shout back at him? Okay, hon. Speaker. Will you please ask the

[ Page 14524 ]

[1600]

Hon. D. Lovick: I note that the Deputy Speaker is in the chair, and therefore I will offer my congratulations to that individual and, indirectly through him, to the new Speaker. I'll do so by simply making an observation that I think I'm one of those relatively few who is qualified to offer -- namely, having been the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker -- that the Deputy Speaker has a more difficult job, contrary to all the mythology. I'm confident that the Deputy Speaker we have chosen will do the job well and adequately. I am sure, moreover, that our Speaker will do the same.

While I'm in the congratulatory mode, Mr. Speaker, may I also offer sincere congratulations to the newest member of the chamber, the member for Delta South. She clearly has some major shoes to fill. I think her predecessor, Fred Gingell, was somebody who all of us had some affection and regard for. Indeed, if we talk about growing a culture of somewhat more civil and responsible behaviour in this chamber, I think we ought to look at Fred as one of the possible models, because I think he always brought that to the chamber.

That doesn't mean, by the way -- I hasten to point out -- that we didn't have arguments. And it doesn't mean that one didn't laugh at the other side and point out what we perceived to be their weaknesses and their foolishness, etc. But it's the overall flavour, I think. It's the matter of saying that we have disagreements, and those are legitimate, those are reasonable -- indeed, they're necessary in a free and democratic society -- but they don't have to be ugly, they don't have to be personal attacks, they don't have to be what young people would refer to as slagging one another.

Again, I welcome the new member. I wish her an enjoyable and challenging time in her role in this chamber. She has come to the chamber on the eve, I think, of interesting times for us here, where we are at last grasping the nettle and saying that the time has finally come -- whatever our differences, whatever our battles, whatever our disagreements -- to try and do something to make this place somewhat more civil and, frankly, somewhat more functional. To be blunt about it, I think all of us who have looked at it in any careful way over any period of time would have to recognize that we have become dysfunctional to a huge degree.

One can look at estimates debates, for example, and see 20-odd hours spent -- not just by this opposition but by the opposition that preceded it -- debating ministry estimates, out of which, in all likelihood, one would find maybe five or six points of value raised that mattered. The rest of it was effectively taking up time for Lord knows what other purposes, pursuing a blatantly partisan political agenda as opposed to actually doing the people's business. As I say, all of us, I think, who've spent any time in this chamber have been guilty of doing that. But my hope is that the new culture alluded to -- the culture my friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries talked to -- will indeed make some significant changes.

[1605]

A throne speech normally and understandably offers some kind of vision of "Here's what the government plans to do; here's what we, the government, think can be achieved and why we think this is indeed the best thing we can do to advance the people's agenda, etc." I think it's worth noting that in this throne speech, there is some indication of that -- for example, references to a green economy, to a high-tech economy, to the importance of health care, to the importance of education. But a huge part of the throne speech is devoted, rather, to that larger issue of "changes in the way we conduct politics in this province."

I noted that when my colleague who spoke a few moments ago was standing addressing that issue, the predictable and indeed understandable reaction from the opposition was to say: "Well, what took you so long? Why haven't you done this before?" I think there are two answers to that. Number one is that, in fairness, I think we need to recognize that there were efforts made in the past by government to talk about legislative reform. Again, it depends very much on whose side of the story one is hearing. But from the perspective of this side of the House, the response they got from the opposition was essentially a list of demands, and they said: "If

[ Page 14525 ]

The second reason, I think, why we're doing it now is because of a new leader who has, in his own political career, brought to bear a kind of rejection, effectively, of that old-style politics -- of that beating the chest, thumping the table and saying what a bunch of horrible people the other guys are as opposed to what princes and princesses we are on this side. I for one am very happy about that. I want to, if I may, say why and tell a small story.

Some years ago I wrote a paper. I was invited to make a formal speech -- a lecture, in fact -- at a symposium being conducted by the university college in Nanaimo, Malaspina, where I used to work. I took the invitation seriously. I took time and actually wrote a formal speech. The formal speech was entitled "What if the System is Broke?" The system I was talking about is contemporary politics, as we do politics. I argued the case convincingly, I thought, that there were indeed many, many signs that the system was not working and that what was occurring, frankly, was a greater and greater separation between the people and governments and the institutions of government. In that sense, I argued that the system was in danger of falling apart.

Parliament, in its own small way, is one of those institutions that I think can restore that connection between people. As I say, it's a theme I've articulated for a number of years; it's an old theme. Therefore when I see it spelled out in this particular throne speech, it makes me very happy indeed.

The issue I want to touch on, though, about why the system is broke, isn't just a matter of whether we use legislative committees more effectively, whether we can humanize this place and perhaps have a parliamentary calendar and do away with the late-night sittings and all those kinds of things -- all of which are desirable.

[1610]

It's what I refer to, quite frankly, as a media-driven game. Conflict sells television, advertising and newspapers. We as politicians, alas, are too prone to buy into the game, to help them pursue their particular interest -- but to the detriment of the public interest, because the public gets sick and tired of seeing people they normally regard as adult behaving in manners and ways that are, quite frankly, juvenile at best.

I would suggest that one manifestation of that behaviour is the absolutely irresponsible approach to government suggested by those who want to tell us that everything is easy. All you need to do, for example, is give a tax break. Give a tax break to the middle class and those with surplus income already, and everything will be solved. You don't have to worry about health care; we can do it. We can get you absolute health care; we can put an end to waiting lists. We can solve all those problems. And you know what? We don't have to raise taxes. We don't have to worry about a deficit. And we can get rid of a debt while we're at it. Those propositions, of course, are ludicrous; we all know that.

What I want to congratulate the throne speech authors for articulating is the reality that we deal with. The reality that, sadly, we don't talk enough about in this chamber, it seems to me, is that government is a balancing act. It's ultimately the same thing as what economics is: the allocation of scarce resources. We can't do everything we want. The demand for services always exceeds the available supply.

What we need to do, then, is thoughtfully, carefully balance those interests. That is the point enunciated very clearly in the throne speech. Let me quote, Mr. Speaker, if I may. We "seek to balance the need to maintain vital public services with the need to cut taxes to fuel economic growth and the need to control the deficit."

I have been in this chamber, as I say, for about 14 years -- both in opposition and in government, obviously. I think I can fairly say that I have heard people on both sides of the House proceed to lament the deficit and say that the debt is out of control and the sky is falling, then, literally within less than two minutes, say: "Except in my riding, I'd like you" -- government, whoever that may be -- "to spend more money on these projects." We all fall into that trap. I think a more rational, realistic debate that should occur -- and I would dearly hope the new culture would encourage -- would be one in which we talk about balancing and grapple seriously and honestly with the fact that if you give money to X, it means that money won't go to Y. It's just that simple.

I'm really disturbed when I hear people continue to pretend that you can solve the problem of wait-lists in this province, for example, and solve all the problems with the health care system, and that you're going to reduce the deficit at the same time, and that we're also not going to cut services. Again, preposterous -- it's nonsense. Everybody who looks at the problem knows that, and it seems to me that we need to grapple with that.

An Hon. Member: Quebec has a balanced budget this week.

Hon. D. Lovick: "This week" is the appropriate phrase, I think.

One of the arguments when we talk about the matter of health care -- and I'm happy to see that health care is indeed given some significant attention here -- is that we in British Columbia, for the past eight years now, have increased the health care budget every year. We now spend about $8 billion per year on health care -- a huge proportion. And the question is, of course: what do we have to show for it? I happen to believe that the system is still ultimately one of the best in the world. I don't think there's any question of that, but obviously nobody could pretend that everything is working wonderfully. We do have problems with wait-lists and surgeries that are delayed -- sometimes, it seems, interminably.

[1615]

[ Page 14526 ]

Because it's absolutely typical of a throne speech and the opportunity provided by a throne speech, I want to say just a little bit about my own riding and how happy I am to note that we are making some significant progress. Things have been pretty bleak, as we know, for the last couple of years for lots of reasons, many of which are absolutely beyond our control in this province -- as I think most economists would acknowledge, even though politicians may be loath to admit that. But the reality is that things are indeed improving.

I couldn't resist -- because I've detected this for a while -- just pulling some clippings from my local media for the last week or so. If I may, I'll just share a couple of those headlines. I note, for example, that one headline is: "Chamber President Says Local Economy Turning Around." Now, that's almost the equivalent of a manifesto in Nanaimo, when the chamber president says that. The chamber is not accustomed to saying anything that might reflect favourably on the government, or at least the government of the day.

I'll just quote the opening paragraph or two of the story, if I might: "The future looks a little bit brighter for job-seekers in the Nanaimo area. The latest labour market bulletin released by Human Resources Development Canada shows the unemployment rate for the region has dropped to 6.5 percent, down 3 percent since the spring of 1999 and the lowest rate in years."

I also note that the Human Resources Development Canada analyst says that the number of people in the region employed full-time in November 1998 grew by 5.1 percent, or 12,600 people. That's a good sign. We've suffered -- there's no question that we've suffered -- but it's nice to know that we seem to be on the right track and that things are starting to move. I notice tourism initiatives. I notice a number of building activities now occurring in Nanaimo and the Nanaimo area, which lead me to believe that we are indeed on the verge of a much brighter future. Even construction, I see, was up slightly in '99 over the year before.

What I want to draw attention to most particularly, though, is the fact that this government, as I think we all recognize, has been called unfriendly to business. I've always argued that that's an unfair conclusion, but we've heard that. When I was Labour minister, of course, I had to listen to that a great deal. But I noticed a story in my local press that I think bears being put on the record. It is about something that government did when the private sector, left to its own devices, simply couldn't and wouldn't do. I'm referring to something called the community venture capital program. The story I'm referring to talks about the individual with his small company and an interesting and innovative new printing process that he had patented, developed and thought had wonderful potential. But the banks and other lending institutions of course had no time for him whatsoever, simply because, as so many business people tell us, they demand so much of you that if in fact you had what they require, you'd never have to go for a loan in the first place.

That's what this story is about. It's interesting, because the man talks about the traditional lending centres letting him down, being of no help whatsoever, and he was there for contemplating moving his fledgling new business to the United States, where presumably it is easier to get that kind of venture capital to make things happen. What he discovered, however, is that the program established by this government, I'm happy to report, was there for him. I quote him: "Fortunately, the program has given us the ability to stay where we want to live." That's the kind of activity going on out there in communities -- perhaps not as much as many of us would like to see happen, but it is going on. It's going on by a government that, as I say, has been unfairly accused of being anti-business.

[1620]

I'm also pleased to note that our commitment to education continues. The promise in the throne speech, and one that I'm encouraged by, is to look at a part of the population that perhaps has not received the kind of attention it ought to have in recent years. Under the heading of post-secondary education, what has happened is that people who are going to colleges and to universities do indeed get assistance and attention. But there's a piece, however, of our population that doesn't take that kind of education -- those who want to go into skilled trades. Those trades and those technologies are also expanding, and I'm happy to note that there is indeed a commitment here to address that particular part of the problem.

The child care initiative has been addressed by my friend the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and he's absolutely right: it is probably the most important social initiative of our time. Other generations produced medicare; our generation, I think, will produce a proper child care system, and that's absolutely desirable.

I think I would be remiss if I didn't say just a little bit about the ministry that I have the honour to hold, and that's Aboriginal Affairs. I want to do that just ever so briefly because of the difficulties that we are now facing. As I think most people who have paid attention to the matter of aboriginal affairs in this province will know, the province -- to put it not too kindly -- had its head in the sand for a very long time and was in what I referred to before as denial and simply said: "Well, we don't have to worry about that stuff. When we joined Confederation, it was all taken care of, and the federal government is responsible." End of story.

Happily that changed about ten years ago, and I congratulate the previous government for recognizing that we had to make changes. We've now been involved in a treaty negotiation exercise, the B.C. Treaty Commission process, for about six years. Many people are wondering what we have got to

[ Page 14527 ]

I'm referring, of course, to the Nisga'a treaty. However, we have about five different offers that we have made to first nations now, as the step immediately preceding an agreement-in-principle. We're confident, despite the fact that we're in some rough patches at the moment, that those will indeed result in agreements-in-principle. And British Columbia will then be well on the way to righting a wrong that has been with us in this province for far too long but also, just as importantly, doing something to provide a huge economic stimulus to this province. One of the principal reasons for negotiating treaties in this province is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the land base. Until we do that, we are going to continue to turn away significant investment in this province.

[1625]

I think we are indeed on the threshold of something exciting in this province. I'm pleased to be part of that movement, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you kindly for your attention.

V. Roddick: Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest of pride that I rise to address this House for the first time. In the history of this hallowed chamber, many hundreds of duly elected members have begun their legislative careers with the delivery of their maiden speech. I humbly and gratefully take my place in this special lineage.

I begin by offering my congratulations to the hon. Speaker on the elevation to the respected position that the seat on the podium commands. The special challenges that arise in the activity of this chamber require patience and even, at times, a sense of humour. I hope I give you no cause to strain the limits of either.

Although I am absolutely thrilled to be here today as the member for Delta South, I must acknowledge that the reason for our recent by-election is a sad one. I join my colleagues, my community and indeed a global network of family and friends in mourning the loss of my predecessor, Fred Gingell. I do not have to recount for anyone here the depth of Fred's wisdom or the generosity with which he shared that wisdom. Many of you have personal memories of Fred -- the way that he raised the level of discourse in this House. He was a visionary in the areas of governance and accountability and was fond of old-fashioned common sense in sorting the wheat from the chaff in his role as MLA.

You should also know that Fred was a local hero in Delta South -- a longtime resident who applied his energy and intelligence in many areas of the community. He didn't just watch a small town grow; he stepped in. He became involved. His latent abilities, combined with a basic enthusiasm for people, saw Fred in a wide array of activities. For example, he was one of two young fathers who coached the very first youth soccer teams in Tsawwassen. Many of the youngsters he coached are now husbands and fathers in the community, coaching their own children.

From his chairmanship on school boards and college boards and the Fraser River Harbour Commission to his presidency of the 1987 B.C. Summer Games and his roles here in this chamber as the Chair of his beloved Public Accounts Committee, Fred's influence is both broad and deep. We are the better for having known him and the richer for having the benefit of his brilliant mind, his generous heart and, most of all, his wonderful sense of humour.

[1630]

I was also very lucky indeed to have a dedicated army of supporters in the community, who came forward with strong ideas and strong limbs and helped in my campaign. No one could count all the steps taken from door to door, the phone numbers dialed, the signs delivered and the letters written. My presence here today is absolutely the result of their hard work. So to my fabulous campaign team and wonderful supporters, my deepest thanks.

I would also like to acknowledge the participation of all the other candidates who sought this seat. Fred told me -- and I have witnessed it in my involvement to date -- that submitting oneself to public scrutiny and criticisms from one's peers is not exactly easy. Everyone who is willing to enter the arena of public debate deserves our respect. So to all the candidates in the by-election, thank you for your involvement and for challenging me to be the best I can possibly be.

To the beleaguered voters of Delta South, my gratitude. These constituents had just finished voting in a civic election. In fact, the by-election was called, curiously, in the middle of the civic campaign. The morning after the municipal voting day, teams of trucks were out removing the signs of civic candidates side by side with those of the provincial candidates erecting ours. Poor Delta South had to put up with several more weeks of campaign literature and intense media coverage and the divisive competition that it always brings to friends and neighbours.

[ Page 14528 ]

I appreciate that all the members in this House hold their own riding in special regard, and I'm no different. I share the municipality of Delta with my colleague from Delta North. My riding includes the towns of Tsawwassen and Ladner, the industrial areas of Tilbury, Annacis and 22,000 acres of prime farmland. We're a rural riding in an urban setting. Or is it an urban riding with rural activity, or a suburban riding with urban and rural activities? Well, you get the picture.

[1635]

What are these pressures? Increased traffic, for one. Look at the map of the lower mainland, and you will see why Delta is sometimes called the place you have to pass through to get anywhere else. My riding is the home of the Vancouver Port Corporation container and coal terminals and the B.C. Ferries Tsawwassen terminal, through which all of you have passed many times -- and not just you, but huge volumes of personal and commercial traffic that is growing between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

In Delta, choosing which ferries to put on the routes is not just a logistical concern; it immediately and dramatically affects the volume of traffic on roads that were not adequately designed to begin with. These traffic challenges are horrible for all residents, with heavy industrial vehicles turning left and right along curving roads, poor visibility and trying to decide which of several circuitous routes they should take to get them through residential and commercial areas. But it's worse for farmers who must drive wide, slow vehicles on public roads in the performance of their duties -- roads which, I might add, were originally built by the farmers as dikes in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and they've only had a modicum of upgrading since. These concerns have not been adequately recognized, let alone addressed.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Another looming threat to farmers is pressure from competing land uses. The Delta agricultural community is acutely aware that it sits within a larger urban context, and it remains constantly vigilant to outside threats to its farming viability. Without protection and enhancement, these lands could very quickly be converted to so-called higher-value uses -- at least higher value in the short run. A subdivision or individual installation might generate more up-front revenue, but the ability to provide food for residents on a permanent basis has great intrinsic value.

A newer form of agriculture -- namely, greenhouse production -- is posing specific challenges. This is a monumental urban-rural problem, a problem that will require the best decision-making process of every single player involved.

Add to these pressures the uncertainty around aboriginal land claims on much of this active farmland, and you begin to understand the challenges facing our urban fringe farmers. I hope to make their issues the issues of all the members of this House. After all, we will all benefit by their long-term viability.

Many citizens no longer make the connection between the work of those who provide the food we eat and the products they buy in supermarkets. Why do you think that great countries and civilizations of the world have been able to produce such incredible works of art throughout history? Because the abundance of food gave them the freedom to pursue such endeavours. The ability to feed ourselves is of the utmost importance. Believe it or not, we still have to eat to live, and it's time we recognized those who provide that food. The alternative of destroying what little remains of our most productive farmland and depending on imports for our basic food is too awful to think about.

[1640]

Our location on the Pacific coast at the mouth of the Fraser River makes us a sensitive environmental area. We are an important landing stop on the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. And I am actually fortunate enough to live on Westham Island, home to the George Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary. But by protecting such habitat, we encourage more birds, which are now causing extensive economic and environmental damage to our croplands. Our collective mandate in this House is to keep farming viable. This increasing crop loss must be mitigated through the efforts of our government and groups such as the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, formed by farmers and naturalists in 1993.

A priority item is our beleaguered fishing industry. The provincial government needs to support every aspect of it that they can. The fishing industry and B.C.'s -- again -- third-, fourth- and fifth-generation fishermen must not be abandoned. Let's take the politics out of the fish problem and work at putting the fish back in the ocean and the fishermen back on their boats.

Delta South is also home to the Tsawwassen first nation, and I look forward to working with the members of the band and with Chief Kim Baird as we move forward in the treaty process. In fact, the Tsawwassen band may be the first in history to settle an urban treaty under the B.C. Treaty Commission.

A major issue, however, in this negotiation is 2,000 acres of expropriated Roberts Bank backup farmland that is on the treaty bargaining table as we speak. Agricultural land must not be compromised. Therefore the spotlight will be on all of us to find a full, fair and final settlement that will secure a

[ Page 14529 ]

But then there are the personal stories that I am already hearing, as an MLA, which I am sure you are all familiar with: the elderly man languishing in an acute-care hospital because there are no extended care beds available; the special needs youngster who could be kept at home and attending school, except the hours of home care available to her have been cut; the grade 12 student who is worried about the upcoming strike by support workers that will make it difficult for him to do well on his final exam; and the small businesswoman who is locating to a friendlier jurisdiction because she can't meet her payroll and make a living in a punitive tax regime; individuals and families, towns and entire regions, who now see their provincial government as an adversary, not an ally, in their struggle to live securely.

[1645]

I see no help coming from yesterday's throne speech, only more idle promises. Openness. The fudge-it budget and the fast ferries inquiries have been shut down. Half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money -- and the door is slammed shut? Where is this openness? Health care. The people of B.C. do not need another babbling forum on this issue. We need action on patient care; the patient must be first. Education. Think of how our youth have been short-changed by the fast ferry shipwreck. K to J, as the member of Quadra. . . . No. What is it?

An Hon. Member: The Leader of the Opposition.

V. Roddick: Leader of the Opposition. There we are. Thank you.

K to J, to me, is backwards. Is this indicative of where this government is going? The throne speech is not giving British Columbia the ability to achieve its competitive position in the global economy. B.C.'s enviable quality of life, our workforce and our entrepreneurs are being ground into the dust by this government. Mr. Speaker, as the newest member of this Legislature, from Delta South, I am disheartened and disappointed by the throne speech.

The duty and responsibility of this government is to give us back our province. This government has shown time and time again, no matter how many different leaders they manage to go through, that they are incapable of governing.

K. Krueger: Here we are in a new session. There's a different person in the Premier's chair, but not a new person -- an individual who sat beside the previous Premier for all the years that I've served in this Legislature and voted with him in everything he did.

The throne speech somewhat comically refers to the new government. There is no new government. It's the same people who have rearranged themselves in the chairs opposite. There are only two people in cabinet who haven't been there before with this government, and they were certainly in the caucus. So there's nothing new about this government.

It would be the right course to allow the people of B.C. to choose a new government -- to hold an election -- but this Premier has chosen to carry on. He says he wants to build his credibility and the credibility of his government, his party. How can he do that? If he seriously wants to, he should build his knowledge of the issues in British Columbia and the reality for British Columbians everywhere. He should demonstrate some new approaches to how British Columbia will be governed. It hasn't happened yet.

We've heard some hopeful signs in the throne speech of the NDP finally adopting a few of the planks that have been in the B.C. Liberal policy platform for years. Maybe they'll do it, but we haven't seen any tangible signs that the government sincerely intends to do that. The way that appointments were done yesterday on the opening of this session gives us little hope that anything has really changed in how the province is being governed.

[1650]

It's important that the government acquire some education. The throne speech says that education defines who we will be, and we certainly agree with that. If this government could educate itself on how badly British Columbians are hurting under the policies of the New Democratic Party, perhaps we could hope for change. So I propose to the new Premier a tour of my constituency of Kamloops-North Thompson. He's tied up here for the time being, so I offer him a virtual tour -- to ride along with me or take his own car and travel through Kamloops-North Thompson.

We could start at the top end of my constituency -- the north end -- at a little place called Albreda, and the people would tell the new Premier a lot of things that he doesn't seem to know. On his way up, whether he rode with me or rode in an NDP campaign bus -- if the wheels haven't completely fallen off of it -- he'd have to go through the Coquihalla toll booth. If people recognized him there, they'd say to him: "Why are we still paying tolls here, when we've been paying $38 million in tolls each year for 15 years and you just blew half a billion dollars on fast ferries and absorbed a further $600 million into taxpayer-supported debt? How is that fair to the people of the interior?"

Folks in Albreda might well say to the new Premier, "We don't think it's fair that you're the Premier, when a guy from the interior won the delegates, as we understand it, in over 50 of the constituencies around the province," and the new Premier beat him out on the basis of wholesale membership signups in urban areas. That doesn't seem very fair to people in the interior who for too long, have seen their resources hauled down to Vancouver and Victoria and who have to go, cap in hand, begging for any portion of those resources to come back and provide services in their constituencies.

The Premier said, upon being selected as leader of his party by those delegates, that his first job was to rebuild the NDP. My constituents would tell him that is wrong; it is not his first job. He must not devote himself to political activities, to trying to further the political position of the sorrowful New Democratic Party.

[ Page 14530 ]

The Premier is fond of saying: "I don't recall being involved in that decision" or "I wasn't in the room when that decision was taken." When I was a little boy, my mother used to read a poem to me that started out, "Yesterday upon a stair, I saw a man who wasn't there," and that's what that line reminds me of. The Premier constantly denies having been present when these decisions were made.

But he was in the caucus. He was in this caucus when this government decided to inflate taxes, to impose tremendously onerous and unnecessary regulations on the people of B.C., to tilt the labour laws in British Columbia so dramatically against businesses and investors that they've chosen to leave the province. Those who consider coming to British Columbia turn away with disgust, because the situation is so unfair to investors and to businesses. This Premier has been very much a part of the strangulation of British Columbia's economy -- of taking us, as the Leader of the Opposition said a few minutes ago, from the best-performing economy in Canada to the worst. This Premier voted for everything that the previous NDP Premiers did.

[1655]

Our stumpage rate system needs to be changed -- and that's something the Premier could focus on -- to make it more reflective of what's going on in the market and to keep it competitive. I'll read a quote from a constituent, who wrote me about his experiences with the stumpage system: "The government charged $52.95 per cubic metre, and the market price of the wood was $72 per cubic metre. Only $19.05 of that is for all the activity that had to go into bringing it to market." The tremendous process costs for approvals and so on, the development costs, road-building and building landings, the falling and bunching, bucking, limbing, skidding, processing, loading, trucking. . . . For all of those things that the people who do the real work had to do, they only got $19.05 per metre, while the government took $52.95. So 73 percent of that price was in stumpage and government taxes and only 27 percent for all the people doing the real work. It's rendered our forest industry uncompetitive, and the devastation from that is obvious throughout the interior. That sort of mistake by government, that sort of unwieldy structure, precludes people from indulging in economic activity and beggars our economy.

Mining exploration has gone downhill dramatically in British Columbia under this government, and it wouldn't be that hard to change that. Placer Dome closed its office in Kamloops. This is what they said when they closed this office and laid off four employees and ten contractors: "If you find something, you cannot be guaranteed to mine it, and this is the whole reason for exploration. Now we don't have one exploration project in B.C. It's really the uncertainty about investment." So there went not only those exploration jobs but the hope of mining jobs that might have flowed from those activities. Mining should still be a big employer in British Columbia, but it's shrinking by the day.

The dramatic decline in private sector investment in B.C., the exodus of our bright young people who will probably never come back in their working lives after they put down roots elsewhere and the tremendous pressures felt by the trucking industry as it struggles with these same issues of overtaxation, overregulation and too much interference in labour-management relations are all combining to add to this unfortunate effect in British Columbia of an economy that's on the skids.

I have a group of people in Vavenby -- in my constituency, south of Albreda -- who are salvage loggers. They know how to go into the bush and take trees that have blown down and would otherwise turn into, potentially, bug-infestation hosts or fire hazards, drag them out of the woods and make money with them -- very successfully -- complying with the regulations for protection of the forest and the natural resource. But they have to go through the government's allocation system as if that wood is part of the licensees or small business annual allowable cut. The Forestry people have to devote employees to push paper for each small site that is chosen. As a result, they run out of stumpage or run out of quota very quickly and are often caused to be idle. Many of them were on welfare before the previous Forests minister was able to find an employee to help me help them get this program up and running. This government has to cut back on its regulatory burden and do the sensible things -- the commonsense things -- that will help our economy begin to move again.

I learned, to my amazement, over the last couple of years that millions of seedlings are destroyed in British Columbia. The people who are growing them under contract to the government can't deliver them, because the contractors who were supposed to plant them don't have any budget money. The government has spent all the money somewhere else -- the amazing phenomenon by which the surplus in FRBC was converted to an empty bank account over recent years.

[1700]

A lady who owns the Old Caboose Restaurant in Clearwater phoned me recently. She'd laid off her whole day shift -- 20 people. She said: "Eighty percent of my day time customers were smokers, and my business has dropped to. . . ." I believe it was somewhere around 10 percent of her normal business. So she laid them all off. The hospitality industry has been pleading with this government, sending

[ Page 14531 ]

People wonder: why is this government so harsh? Why does it behave so abruptly? Why would it impose the smoking ban on January 1, in the dead of winter, when most of the province is in a deep-freeze, even if there were pansies growing in Victoria? Why would they do that? It has created tremendous hardship around the province, and the industry clearly feels the government isn't listening to its appeals for a ventilation solution -- that the government failed in its obligation to consult with the industry. People are being tremendously hurt as a result.

We on this side of the House are completely committed to the goal of protecting workers from injury and illness related to things that happen in the workplace. But we're not at all satisfied that it was necessary to take this draconian action. We're not at all satisfied that if you can put a man on the moon, you can't deal with a situation like this where you accommodate both the businesses and the employees and the customers. The WCB tells me that they have never paid a claim for a serious illness related to secondhand smoke. I believe what we're told -- that secondhand smoke is dangerous to people -- so I can't understand that. Obviously people will have been affected by that smoke for decades in the workplace, so why hasn't the WCB paid any claims?

The WCB is famous for denying claims if it can haul anything out of a person's past to indicate that something other than the workplace might have caused the illness. People don't believe WCB will ever pay claims from people affected by secondhand smoke if they were in fact smokers in the past or lived with a smoker or were in any other way exposed to secondhand smoke. The government doesn't seem to be able to answer that challenge. If the WCB isn't going to pay their claims in the future and hasn't paid their claims in the past, then what right did the WCB have to act in this precipitous fashion? People spent thousands of dollars building separate smoking rooms in their facilities because the liquor distribution branch had told them that would be a good idea, only to be told near the end of last year that they wouldn't be allowed to serve liquor in those rooms. They were useless to them -- one arm of the government not knowing what another arm of the government is doing.

A pub owner called me the other day to tell me that he had to sign over his house to the bank. It was threatening to call his demand loan because his business is down so drastically. A half dozen businesses have closed already, I'm told, around the province, relating to this action. The government and the WCB have some serious safety issues that they ought to be working with in this province -- the fact that Vancouver cabbies are being robbed, stabbed, shot and murdered in their workplaces, in their cabs. But the government and the WCB are devoting their energies to harassing the hospitality industry with inspectors coming in willy-nilly -- a tremendous emphasis on that.

I wrote the previous Labour minister about a problem with self-elevating work platforms, because the WCB changed one of its regulations, and it has made them unsafe. If they drop a wheel into a pothole, they tip over, and a worker had been killed. I haven't been able to get much attention to that regulatory problem, but the WCB is throwing resources into dealing with its smoking ban.

[1705]

We just discovered in Clearwater that the tiny Clearwater improvement district, which has been trusting this government for the last decade to administer the funds it borrowed to put in its water system, has been betrayed by this government. The bonds that were issued when the Clearwater improvement district took out that loan were at 15.75 percent -- $125,000 at 15.75 percent. Closing in on the day when the fund was supposed to be paid off, they've paid nearly half a million dollars in interest, and they find they're still going to owe $62,000. Nobody will tell us whether the government actually still has those bonds at 15.75 percent or whether they recalled them and issued them at market rates, which would be way lower -- in which case, the tiny Clearwater improvement district has been funding the provincial government for at least the last ten years.

If the government could recall those bonds and didn't, that was negligent -- really negligent. But it's very hard to get any appropriate attention paid to this sort of problem. The government pays professional debt managers to look after issues like that, and they certainly should have been dealing with it. They should have advised the Clearwater improvement district that the sinking fund factor of 12 percent that they had used was ridiculously high, and they would not be accumulating the principal they needed to pay off their bonds and their debts. It's one disappointment after another for the people in my constituency. It's as if loan-sharking has been going on, when you pay $500,000 in interest and only retire $62,000 in principal -- phenomenal.

There is a lot of bitterness and unhappiness that the Premier would hear about on his virtual tour of Clearwater with regard to the way this government amalgamated school districts and ended jobs in Clearwater, putting them in a position where they saw those jobs exported out of town. There was a roadblock in Wells Gray Park last year, because the government didn't have the money to open the Clearwater River Road to provide public access. But this government has continually reached out and created more parks. It doesn't have the money to service the ones that it has.

The Premier would hear from a number of constituents on our tour who are very unhappy with this province's family maintenance enforcement program, in that it enforces maintenance but doesn't enforce access to the children. Children are being used as weapons between parents. People are prevented from visiting their children and being part of them

[ Page 14532 ]

As the Premier and I would travel down the highway together, we'd come to a place called Darfield, where there are some very dangerous corners known as pig corners by the local populace. The reason they call them that is that a truckload of pigs flopped on those corners, and as I understand it, quite a few pigs ended up in freezers. That's a terribly dangerous corner, where trucks flop all the time. Last year one very nearly flopped on a tourist in a recreational vehicle. Recently Larry Bancroft, the president of the CUPE local up there, wrote a letter to the government protesting that one of his drivers and their precious cargo of school kids may well end up being hit by one of those trucks. The present Minister of Municipal Affairs responded to the community of Barrière that they ought to write letters and pressure the government.

I think that is crassly inappropriate. That is a safety issue. The government has known about it for a long time. The Minister of Highways and I have dealt with it in estimates. That problem should be fixed. It should have been fixed long ago, instead of the government squandering half a billion dollars on fast ferries or for that matter, blowing money in the Highways minister's own riding on projects which are not of nearly the significance that this one is.

[1710]

People just can't understand why the government carries on this way. The only answer I can give them is that it's governmental incompetence, managerial incompetence and a government that persistently follows its political agendas instead of doing the business of British Columbians.

People in my constituency ask why there isn't any money available to fund amateur sports the way there used to be. "What happened to the GO B.C. grants?" they'll say. Of course, the Social Credit government used gaming funds to support charities and sports activities and so on. This government has done nothing but meddle with gaming, go to court over gaming and lose Premiers over gaming and has yet to table comprehensive gaming legislation in this chamber. I was expecting at least that in the throne speech -- nothing there.

This government has been absolutely reckless in its whole pursuit of gaming policy. Again, this Premier is no stranger to that. I asked this Premier in his estimates as Attorney General, when this government made the reckless decision to expand gambling, what he had done to forestall criminal activities around gaming in B.C. and its rapid expansion. His answer essentially was: "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it." Well, Mr. Speaker, this government and the New Democratic Party that makes it up have suffered severely for their lack of due care and due diligence in their gaming expansion policy.

In the town of Barrière, the people aren't allowed by the government to have a representative on the regional health board. No explanation -- just not allowed to have one. This health board, appointed by this government, fired its competent administrators and replaced them with people who are having some terrible results. It's one of the thickest files in my office. People in continuing care in Kamloops have seen a dramatic decline in their quality of life. And there is a huge wait-list -- 363 people waiting -- to get into continuing-care facilities in Kamloops.

This government and that regional health board have not supplied a single new bed or built a new facility in the last ten years. What a dismal record. We knew the population was aging. We knew those facilities would be needed, but the government has not delivered.

There's a wing shelled in, in one of our extended-care facilities, and the government hasn't even finished that. In fact, the government has apparently issued new guidelines to health boards. And the health board tells me they're probably going to have to gut that wing of what is in it because the government wants private rooms now. Instead of 28 beds -- which it could have held, under the old way of doing things -- it may have only 14. Preposterous, in a time when you have 363 people on the wait-list -- absolutely unbelievable.

People ask me about this nursing shortage in British Columbia -- how could it be? It was in the B.C. Liberals' platform in 1996. We would have hired 2,300 new nurses by now.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: This government was barely able to deliver 50 new nurses in the past year. It can barely keep up with attrition.

I see the Government House Leader heckling there and laughing. He thinks it's funny.

The average nurse in British Columbia is 47 years old and totally stressed. Nurses have been worked as if they were cannon fodder. Health boards have resorted to using temporary-employee approaches -- what the nurses call the casualization of the workforce -- and they've burnt them out. It's an abuse of people who should be shown every day, in their workplace and in the way they're managed, that they are valued, that we know that they're tremendously important. They're working hard, often ruining their health by working so hard. We value them, and we appreciate it, and the public of B.C. needs them.

Instead, this government is not even providing more spaces for nurses' training in facilities like the University College of the Cariboo. It could provide 84 spaces per year, but it's not allowed to, because the funding isn't there. In fact, the graduating classes of last year, this year and next year weren't even full to the quota that the college had at the time, because the nurses were being told: "There won't be any jobs for you when you get out of this system. This casualization of the workforce is going on, and there's downsizing." Preposterously incompetent management -- almost unbelievable.

[1715]

[ Page 14533 ]

We toured UBC, and UBC told us that they, like everyone else, are facing this tremendous problem in human resources over the next five to ten years -- that some 50 percent of their professors in their entire workforce are going to retire. They think they'll have trouble attracting replacements, because British Columbia and UBC haven't been able to modernize their research facilities. I asked them how much it would cost, because they said: "We can't get people unless they have the capacity to do research and carry on in those activities in their career." They said: "You wouldn't even want to know. It's more money than you'll ever be able to come up with." And I pressed them: "How much?" They finally said: "Forty million dollars." Well, that's one-twelfth of what this government blew on the fast cat program alone.

So the people on our virtual tour would give the new Premier quite an earful. But the problem is that he won't be able to do anything about it, because the people of British Columbia and the people outside British Columbia do not believe, and will never believe, that the New Democratic Party is capable of delivering any different results than the terrible results that we've seen for the last decade. Until there's an election, until there is a chance for a new government to come in, with credibility and with a fresh mandate, having been chosen by the people of B.C. . . . Until that happens, nothing will turn around in our economy. This government will continue to run huge deficits which will be added to the debt, which will cause more interest to have to be paid. Already this government is paying more money on interest than on anything else, with the exception of health care and education. It's the third-largest expenditure of government, at a time when interest rates are at the lowest levels I have ever seen in my adult life -- in my whole life. If interest rates rise, British Columbia is really going to be in trouble, and it's in big enough trouble already.

So if this government really wants to be honest with the people, if this government really wants to be responsible, this government must accept the judgment of the people of British Columbia and must call an election. There are a host of problems throughout our province and certainly in my constituency. Many of these problems were created by this government. In order for the person who is newly Premier, who is by no means new to this government, to have any hope of turning any of those problems around. . .

The Speaker: Member, thank you. Your time has expired.

K. Krueger: . . .he must call an election.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, before I begin my response to the throne speech, allow me to take this opportunity, as well, to congratulate you on your election to the Speaker's chair. All of us, as legislators in this chamber, recognize the importance of this position, and certainly we do wish you well. We also look forward to the fairness that you must apply when making your decisions. We trust that you will listen to those concerns that are put forth in each and every situation and that you will impose the impartiality that is necessary. In the end, I do hope that you will find this challenging responsibility rewarding personally.

I now wish to address the throne speech. The throne speech represents the government's agenda and vision for the ensuing year, and it is an indication of the kind of leadership we can expect from the Premier and from his cabinet. Unfortunately, I am once again disappointed in what was presented yesterday, March 15, 2000. Since my election in 1996, I have heard four throne speeches. There should have been five, but as you know, there was no throne speech last year, in 1999. In fact, there was no leadership from either the Premier or his cabinet in 1999, which explains why so many British Columbians are fed up with this government.

[1720]

But alas, the truth prevailed. We soon found that there was never even one balanced budget. We see, from that time to now, that this government has pushed health care and education to a level of crises occurring daily. We also see that this government has plummeted our number one economy to the number ten economy in Canada. We see that this government has caused our credit rating to be downgraded, where we are constantly on watch with the bond-rating agencies. Finally, we see that this government's only commitment to debt has been to double it. Those are the facts.

While this new Premier may offer excuses that those were words spoken by a former Premier, I must remind this new Premier that he was a member of cabinet and a member on that side of the House who applauded and supported that throne speech from 1996 -- and every subsequent one thereafter, I might add. I believe that that kind of action speaks volumes about this Premier's ability to lead our province out of the financial mess his government has gotten all British Columbians into.

I see that our new Premier is attempting to paint a new picture, a new look for his government. But does he really expect British Columbians to be fooled? I hope not, because we do not have a brand-new cabinet. Nor do we have a brand-new vision. What we do have are the same faces -- except for two, and I acknowledge that -- around the cabinet table, who will now be making the same ill-fated decisions as in the past four years. What we do have are the same tired ideas that offer neither hope nor prosperity for the future of British Columbia.

British Columbians know one truth, and that is that NDP government policies do not protect health care, do not protect education, do not create jobs, do not encourage investment and do not restore our economy. Our quality of life has not been improved since this NDP government has been at the helm, from 1991. In fact, many of my constituents have called and stated that they believe their quality of life has deteriorated. It is time that members on that side of the House realize they have failed. They have failed miserably. They should apologize by calling an election now.

[ Page 14534 ]

[1725]

If the Premier believed his own words, his own apology and his own sorrow about this entire mess, then he should have immediately offered to call an election, so that the people of this province can tell him what they think of the pitiful performance of his government. But no, the Premier refuses to call an election, because he knows exactly what the people of this province will say to him and his government: "Goodbye and good riddance."

Now, hon. Speaker, I realize that members on the government side of the House are trying to distance themselves from a supposedly different and past administration, but they cannot. They cannot expect to move forward as if they had no part in and were not responsible for the fast ferries project. When I hear the new Attorney General, the member for Saanich South, state in an interview that it is time to "move ahead so these kinds of mistakes don't happen again," I am appalled and truly angry. I am appalled because he speaks of this fiasco like a minor mishap, a little error that staff had been involved in without cabinet knowing about it, and that is absolutely wrong.

Let us look at the facts, as the Premier would like to share with us. It was no secret that everyone knew there was a fast ferries project happening. Everyone knew, because this government went out every week and every month bragging and advertising about how marvellous and how wonderful it would be. The members on that side of the House kept announcing these fast ferries that would be built on time and on budget, "right down to the toilet paper," as I recall the then Premier stating.

So I ask those government members sitting over there on that side of the House how it is that they can look their constituents in the eyes and say to their faces that it was a mistake. It was no mistake; it was planned. It was deliberate, and it failed. Those are the facts.

The fast ferries project was a tragedy, and all British Columbians are victims of that tragedy. We are victims of yet more debt, because this government made its so-called mistake. I am angry at the attitudes displayed by those members on that side of the House. For them to believe that by allowing the Premier to apologize -- albeit under public pressure -- they can move ahead and that this will all go away is absolutely unbelievable. I cannot begin to understand or accept their level of denial. Why has there not been one member willing to speak out and support a full, open and independent public inquiry into this awful and dreadful fast ferries fiasco?

I would like to continue with my comments and response to the throne speech, and I look forward to continuing with my remarks. But noting the time, I would like to move adjournment of the debate on the throne speech.

[1730]

Hon. D. Lovick: By agreement, I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 27, 2000. I would like to wish all members a pleasant spring break -- enjoy time with their families and friends.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada