Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 2 -- Wednesday, February 13, 2002

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		1051
	Hon. T. Nebbeling

Introductions by Members		1051

Tributes		1051
	V. Roddick
	Hon. J. Murray

Introductions by Members		1051

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		1051
	Legislature reforms	1051
	K. Krueger
	Forest industry in B.C.	1052
	P. Bell
	2002 B.C. Winter Games	1052
	W. Cobb

Oral Questions		1052
	Health Planning minister's public relations costs	1052
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Hawkins
	J. Kwan
	Cost of ministers' preparations for open cabinet meetings	1053
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Sale of Skeena Cellulose	1054
	B. Belsey
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Burton water supply	1054
	B. Suffredine
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Safety of water supply in B.C.	1054
	B. Suffredine
	Hon. J. Murray
	Impact of public service reductions	1054
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Government action on U.S. duty on softwood lumber exports	1055
	R. Visser
	Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents		1055
	Report of the Crown Proceeding Act

Motions without Notice
	Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process. Hon. G. Collins	1055
	Select Standing Committee on Education. Hon. G. Collins	1056
	Amendment to sessional order. Hon. G. Collins	1056
	Adoption of sessional order. Hon. G. Collins	1056

Throne Speech Debate
	B. Lekstrom	1057
	J. Nuraney	1059
	R. Hawes	1060
	J. MacPhail	1063
	D. MacKay	1074
	D. Jarvis	1075
	S. Orr	1078
	V. Anderson	1079

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I would like to recognize some real good news coming from Salt Lake City. We have three athletes that have brought some medals to the Canadian team.

The first one is Cindy Klassen, who brought home a bronze medal for speed skating. The other two young athletes are David Pelletier and Jamie Salé. They won the Olympic Silver last Monday night. I think these two athletes in particular showed the quality of character, on the ice and off the ice, that young Canadian athletes represent in Salt Lake City.

I hope the House can share our pride in these young athletes and, with that, pride in all the young Canadian athletes in Salt Lake City.

J. Weisbeck: I would like to recognize four constituents from the beautiful Okanagan Valley: Tom and Kay Bleakley, and Chester and Sylvia Zarco. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Roddick: It is with honour and sadness that I rise today on behalf of the life of British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Jay G. Gould — a longtime member of the Liberal Party. He was born in North Vancouver on April 20, 1912, and elected in the twenty-second provincial general election on June 15, 1949, as MLA for Vancouver-Burrard. He contributed significantly to the success of two major issues in the 1952 election: a new voting system and liquor reform. He was elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1965 and retired in 1987 at the age of 75.

Our friendship goes back many, many years. My father and His Lordship, who were naval officers in the Second World War, taught me to drink scotch. When I made my first speech in this chamber, he critiqued the video, and — my apologies, Mr. Speaker — he told me I was far too polite. In his day one addressed the Speaker only once and then, with whimsical cynicism, went straight for the jugular.

I ask the members of this House to join me in one last greeting for His Lordship. [Applause.]

Hon. J. Murray: I'd like the House to join me in recognizing an exceptional Canadian and a truly outstanding resident of my riding, New Westminster. Earlier this year Dr. Irwin Fraser Stewart was appointed to the Order of Canada for his significant contribution to the well-being of others, both within the province of British Columbia and throughout the world.

For over 30 years Dr. Stewart has dedicated himself to helping deaf children by setting up travelling clinics and surgical training in many developing countries. He's been an inspiration to a number of people in British Columbia. He's been honoured for his clinical research on childhood deafness and was named professor emeritus at UBC. A longtime volunteer with the Rotary organization, Dr. Stewart continues to guide numerous health care projects worldwide. I'd like the House to join me in acknowledging his achievements.

S. Orr: This is the first time I've ever had anyone to introduce in the House, so what can I say? This is very exciting, and I'm going to make it worth my while in quantity. I am very, very pleased to introduce today the UVic B.C. Young Liberals executive. I want to first introduce Lisa Karoway. She's the president, and she is the driving force of the UVic B.C. Young Liberals. Then Kara Hamilton, who is the vice-president, who I have worked very closely with over the last few years. Dallas Henault, who actually is a constituent of the member for Okanagan-Westside. Trisha Girard. Spencer Sproule, who I actually have known since before he was born. Bill Hepburn, who is actually presently my assistant LA.

These students were remarkable on the day that there was a student protest down on the lawns. They stayed up at UVic, they set up a table, they sat down, and they explained myth from fact. They told me and have told many people that they had a lot of silent support. Would you please give this group of very bright students a very warm welcome.

B. Penner: I have the honour of introducing Constable Tracey Atwell to the Legislature. I first got to know her during last spring's provincial election campaign. She's based in the lower mainland, and she's working to increase all of our personal security here in the Legislature. Would you please make her welcome.

P. Bell: I, too, would like to recognize the performance of an athlete at this year's Winter Games. Prince George's very own Scott Bellavance finished in sixth place in the freestyle competition a few days ago and was the top Canadian. Will the House please congratulate him.

D. MacKay: For the second time I stand up in the House to welcome somebody from the beautiful Bulkley Valley. I would ask the House, for the second time, to make my beautiful wife welcome to the House.

K. Krueger: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House the new venue of private members' two-minute

statements. In the past private members were prevented from genuine participation in the decisions and processes of government. Constituents often felt that unless their MLA was appointed to cabinet, their voices would be muted and their issues overlooked.

My colleagues and I are proud to serve with a Premier who committed in opposition what he is delivering every day in government — that every MLA will be a working MLA. These speaking opportunities will give private members the chance to highlight concerns, issues and events in their constituencies. They represent one more solid, tangible demonstration of good faith to the people of B.C. from a Premier and a government who have delivered on many promises in eight short months in office.

In the areas of parliamentary and electoral reform we have seen the dates of future elections fixed to prevent the political gamesmanship and self-serving decision-making which were the norm in the past. Legislative sessions have been calendared in advance to enable orderly planning of the work and allow members to more effectively service their constituencies. Government caucus committees and select standing committees have demonstrably shaped government decisions by funnelling in public input. This Premier has made good on his promise of free votes on legislation, first as Leader of the Official Opposition and now as Premier.

In all of these ways this government has moved B.C. away from the political shenanigans and wasteful practices of the past and has established effective, efficient, practical, inclusive, businesslike practices.

The old ways of doing things in government were tough on families, and far too many members' marriages foundered as a result. They were, in effect, hostile to women, who have often found themselves precluded from serving as MLAs due to family commitments that could not be met with erratic scheduling and helter-skelter approaches to government. Those days are gone.

Today we herald another solid demonstration of the integrity of this Premier and this government, proof of the courage to change things for the better, evidence of respect for the elected members of this assembly and trust in the wisdom of the constituents who chose us to represent them here. Private members appreciate and applaud this innovation and look forward to the positive contributions these changes will allow.

P. Bell: I'd like to talk for a few minutes today about the importance of building a wood culture in British Columbia. I'm sure that's no surprise to most folks. B.C. was built on the strength of our forest industry, but we have not kept pace. It's time for us to move into the twenty-first century.

We face huge challenges in our forest industry today. We're in what seems like never-ending talks with our neighbours to the south while the mountain pine beetle chews away at our northern interior forests. Product substitution from concrete and steel is shrinking the North American residential house market. Product substitution in the last three years has eaten up 2½ percent of that market, and that will continue to grow.

Mr. Speaker, there is good news. There is a huge untapped market in our own back yard. I'm speaking of commercial and institutional construction. Wood currently controls just 19 percent of that market, and the potential is for us to grow that market to 50 percent or better. We really need to pay attention to this. We don't think of wood as our material of choice in commercial and institutional buildings, and we spend little time training our architects and engineers on the processes of building with wood.

A few years ago the Heather Park Middle School was built in my riding of Prince George North. Although the school was originally designed in concrete and steel, school district 57 had enough foresight to rethink the project. Coming from a riding that has six sawmills and five pulp mills, the logical product to substitute was wood. The results were remarkable. Heather Park was built with an additional $700,000 worth of wood products, and that actually saved $200,000 in the process.

The results can be even more impressive when wood is part of the original design. Qualicum Secondary is being designed and renovated currently with wood at a saving of $507,000 on a $3.9 million project. That represents a savings of 13 percent. Talk about a win-win situation! I encourage us to do everything we can to build with wood in B.C.

W. Cobb: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to invite you and all members of the Legislature to the most northerly community of my riding, Cariboo South, and my hometown, Williams Lake. With the support of two neighbouring communities, Quesnel to the north and 100 Mile to the south, we are hosting the 2002 B.C. Winter Games. The competition features over 25 different sporting events and approximately 2,500 athletes competing for the gold.

Williams Lake is ready and able to welcome the athletes and their fans. Local community groups have been working tirelessly to make this the best B.C. Winter Games ever. From what I've seen so far, I have no doubt that they will succeed. It never ceases to amaze me — the amount of enthusiasm and spirit these events produce. In times of change, the strength of the province is in our communities when they pull together to make these things happen.

I personally thank all of those involved. You are the people who make me proud. I only hope I can represent you as well as you represent your community. The games will begin on Thursday, February 21, and continue until Sunday the 24th. If you're in for a good time and you couldn't make it to the Salt Lake City games, come on up to Williams Lake. Let the games begin!

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Planning made a presentation to an open cabinet meeting a couple of

months ago where she talked about the strategic shifts in health planning. To the Minister of Health Planning: isn't the strategy she presented really just a PR exercise designed to cover the fact that her ministry is just a waste of money that could be better spent on patient care?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That member, when she was Minister of Health, didn't plan a darn thing for any patients in this province for ten years. For ten years patients withered. They languished on waiting lists. There was absolutely not a stitch of planning done for patients.

This government has made a commitment. They've put in a planning ministry. They're working off more than a corner of a desk. They're making long-term plans and commitments to patients that will benefit patients in this province.

J. MacPhail: I guess people in British Columbia should be relieved to know that the money they spend to keep the Minister of Health Planning at the cabinet table is not wasted. However, the New Democrat opposition has learned that in the case of at least this minister, it's costing taxpayers more than it should. In fact, the minister is charging taxpayers thousands of dollars to enhance her performance in cabinet. The opposition has obtained an invoice from a private communications firm in Kelowna charging the Ministry of Health Planning $6,000 for a PowerPoint presentation that she gave to open cabinet on December 12, 2001. Nice maps.

To the Minister of Health Planning: given the pain that your government is forcing on patients, can the minister tell this House if she believes that spending $6,000 is a reasonable expenditure of tax dollars just so that the minister can look better at an open cabinet meeting? Can she also tell the House how much more she spent getting other outside PR help?

J. MacPhail: The invoice is here. It's on record. There are other factors that the Minister of Health Planning has actually spent PR dollars on. There's more to come.

The Minister of Health Planning spent another $4,500 — health care dollars — for a speech that she gave three weeks ago in Victoria. In that speech, we understand, she talked about putting patients first.

Again, to the Minister of Health Planning: that minister has said in the past that her constituents are concerned about public relations spending. How does the minister think her constituents would feel about her taking thousands of dollars away from patient care and using those dollars just to bolster her performance? Why does this minister think that PR counts for more than patient care?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think it takes a lot of gall, hon. Speaker, when they spent millions and millions…. The auditor general estimated that they spent over $25 million a year on PR campaigns.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I said that I would take it on notice. I'll get the information for you.

J. Kwan: We know that the minister has spent almost $11,000 on just two speeches. We also know that the communications firm the minister hired is Greenaway and Associates Communications Ltd., which has been a generous contributor to the Liberal Party over the years.

This is a minister who shares a communications branch with her counterpart, the Minister of Health Services, that employs over 20 people. I am sure that all of the staff between the two ministries would be eager and competent to provide assistance to the minister for her preparation of speeches for open cabinet meetings.

Again, to the Minister of Health Planning: can she please tell the House how much more money she needs diverted from patient care for her PR campaign?

We have a copy of the bill, the invoice, right here, and we'd certainly be happy to share it with the minister so she can find out how much she did indeed pay for her personal PR improvement.

J. Kwan: Some have described the open cabinet meetings as staged events with rehearsed questions and rehearsed answers. To the Premier: is it the case that his ministers and their staff are incapable of preparing for their own open cabinet presentations? And will he commit to do an audit today to find out the extra costs that taxpayers are paying to his ministers in racking up just to preen for the cameras at open cabinet meetings?

Hon. G. Campbell: One of the things this government decided to do for British Columbians was lay out for them the strategy of government, where we were going and what we were doing and — believe it or not — open cabinet meetings. We intend to continue to do that. The strategic plan that has been put together for our health authorities means millions and millions of dollars are going to focus on patient care instead of unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for North Coast has the floor.

B. Belsey: My question today is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. The continued uncertainty around the future of Skeena Cellulose has been very hard for the many families and people living in my community who rely on the pulp mill for their livelihood. In spite of the government's recent announcement that it is looking at two new proposals, many of my constituents are beginning to wonder if there is any hope, since the previous discussions with both Mercer and NWBC have failed. Will the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell my constituents the current status of the talks to save Skeena Cellulose?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Since June 7 we've been working very hard on behalf of the families and the communities of the northwest. On January 23 of this year our discussions ended with Mercer Financial. On January 24 of this year we signed an agreement with NWBC. Unfortunately, on February 6 NWBC did not comply with a key financing arrangement with respect to that agreement. We are continuing today to have discussions with Northwest B.C. and FORCAP. I have told all of the parties that we are prepared, on behalf of the families and the communities of the northwest, to work around the clock in an effort to get a deal.

B. Belsey: Supplementary to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. The courts have ordered the government to have an agreement signed with a potential buyer for Skeena Cellulose by Friday. However, should there be no agreement in place by Friday, will the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell my constituents whether he will ask the courts for an extension?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Since September 5 Skeena Cellulose has been under the protection of the courts. This has led to uncertainty for the families and the communities of the northwest. Since September 5 we have appeared in the courts twice and have been granted extensions on those deadlines. Mr. Speaker, the members for North Coast, Skeena and Bulkley Valley–Stikine have been working hard on behalf of their constituents, and they've been working hard with my office to facilitate a sale. But let me be very, very clear. Time is running out. Time is critical, and without a signed agreement by Friday of this week, I believe we are all aware of the alternative.

B. Suffredine: Having pure, clean water is critical to all of us, especially those of us who live in rural areas where community water systems are our sources. There are reports this morning that the drinking water in the town of Burton was contaminated last August. What is of particular concern to my constituents is that the public was not told about this for four weeks after the contamination occurred. Can the Minister of Health Services tell us how this incident occurred and provide my constituents with an update on the current status of their drinking water?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, if you go back to where some of the problems around water originate, they were flagged by the auditor general about three or four years ago. The previous government was all too slow in trying to react to some of the water concerns that are throughout the province. In this particular case there were water samples that were taken. The tests were done, and when they were sent back to the environmental health officer, that particular officer had left his position to go to another posting. The facts sat in an in-basket for 11 days.

That is obviously unacceptable. The provincial health officer has reviewed that case. They have looked at the communication breakdown that took place. They are making sure that that kind of situation cannot happen again. We are taking action in terms of strengthening water quality monitoring in British Columbia. We're taking action in terms of infrastructure needs around the province, with the announcements that were made by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

This government is taking its responsibility for water quality very seriously, and we will ensure that there are clear accountabilities and that the public can ensure that they have safe water in this province.

B. Suffredine: Access to safe, clean water is a top concern for most British Columbians, particularly in light of the recently released report into the Walkerton water tragedy. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell my constituents what her ministry is doing to ensure the protection of their drinking water sources?

Hon. J. Murray: We heard people's concern about safe drinking water. It's a very high priority for our government. In the restructuring, we protected all the field staff positions that deal with drinking water quality. We are adding a million and a half dollars to drinking water monitoring equipment.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Premier said that we would have to ask people individually if they were worse off because of his cuts to vital public services. Fortunately for the Premier he won't have to do that, because there is one

person who has done that math for him. His caucus chair, the member for Cariboo North, told the Cariboo Observer: "The rich will feel it less than those at the bottom end." To the Premier: does he agree with his caucus chair?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think one of the things that everyone in the province knows is that over the last decade every British Columbian, particularly the most vulnerable British Columbians, suffered at the hands of the New Democratic government of the 1990s. Hon. Speaker, this government gave every B.C. worker across the board a 25 percent tax cut so they could take home more money to take care of their families. This government restored workers' rights so they could take better care of their families. This government is restoring the forest industry so those workers can take care of their families and the mining industry so those workers can take care of their families.

Every worker in this province should know this: this government is committed to those workers, those families and those communities across British Columbia.

R. Visser: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long, tough winter for many of my constituents. To date, hundreds of forestry workers in my riding and thousands across the province have been laid off as a result of the softwood lumber dispute, and many are wondering if they're going to be called back to work soon, if at all. Can the Minister of Forests provide any hope to the many families in forest-dependent communities like mine as to when they can expect to see an end to this crippling dispute?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's certainly true, and I think all of us know it, that there are literally thousands of families who have been devastated — workers and their families who have been devastated — by the punitive imposition of this indefensible trade sanction. Can I give those families a firm, fixed date by which we will have an agreement? No, I can't do that. In fact, can I give them a guarantee that we will get an agreement? I can't give them that, either, because we will not cave in to unreasonable American demands.

What I can guarantee them is that this Premier, myself and every member of this government — and I suspect every member of this House — are going to pursue every option, are going to explore every avenue and are going to take every possible effort to secure a settlement. But it will take something that we have not seen thus far, and that is a degree of reasonableness and good faith on the American side of the negotiating table. Let's hope we begin to see some of that when these talks resume next week.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000, in accordance with section 15(2) of that act.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I have four motions which I would like to move now. We have agreement, with leave, to do that.

Hon. G. Collins: I suppose you can ask, but I've asked the member from the opposition. I'll ask leave to table a motion.

Hon. G. Collins: I was trying to speed things up. But if the member wants us to follow the rules, I'll read all the motions into the order paper, and this will take perhaps a little longer.

Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps, if it's fine with the members opposite, I can dispense with reading the motion. It's a motion to recharge the Education Committee so they can complete the work that they're currently embarked upon.

Hon. G. Collins: I would like to move a motion which is an amendment to the sessional orders which we introduced in the last day of the last sitting of the previous session, which had to do with our parliamentary calendar. With the leave of the House, I'll dispense with reading the motion and just put it forward.

Hon. G. Collins: I move: be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly adopt the following sessional order:Practice recommendation No. 11 (Standing order 47, 47A)

1. Written questions may be submitted by persons elected to head provincial or local public bodies designated under this order and in accordance with the guidelines established by Mr. Speaker. Questions submitted in writing to the office of the Speaker by 4 p.m. Wednesday are eligible to be drawn on Thursday. Five

questions drawn by the Speaker which conform to the guidelines shall be placed on the orders of the day on Monday of each week. A question shall be printed on two consecutive weeks unless answered.

2. A private member may ask a qualified question of a minister during question period. The member from whose constituency the question comes will have first refusal to put such a question to the appropriate minister. The minister may answer the question orally or in writing by filing with the Clerk of the House. Written answers shall be published in the Votes and Proceedings.

3. Questions should relate to current provincial issues and public affairs, be timely, brief and stated without argument or opinion. The submission must not include unparliamentary language and shall be directed to the minister who has responsibility for the area of interest.

B. Lekstrom: I move, seconded by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, that: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

With that, hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne was very straightforward and direct. It outlined the challenges and the direction that we have set for our government and for the people of British Columbia in the coming year.

I want to speak on the financial reality of what has taken place in British Columbia and the position we find ourselves in today. The fact remains that we have spent far too much for far too many years. You don't have to go to university and become an economics major to realize one basic premise when it comes to financial decisions. That premise is that you cannot spend more money than you make, and that's what we've done for many, many years in British Columbia.

Being in government is something each and every one of us takes very seriously. All 79 members that are elected to this House bring new ideas and bring their ability to make decisions and evaluate the information that's put before them and cast their votes based on that information.

All of us, each and every one of us, would much prefer to be able to stand here and speak to our constituents and tell them we're here to deliver more programs and offer more money for the programs that are in place. That would be irresponsible — very irresponsible. It's very nice to look good on behalf of your constituents and deliver programs, but it isn't very good if you can't afford those. We put our children at risk in having to pay for those programs.

The issue of our financial ability to pay is very serious right now in British Columbia, whether it's labour negotiations, whether it's the social programs we deliver — all of which are very important to each and every one of us. The fact remains: we can't afford to deliver the government the people have had over the last number of years.

We are going to get our financial house in order. We're going to do it responsibly, and we're going to do it quickly. We cannot go another decade spending more money than we take in.

The issue we face as far as health care reform is very serious. Each and every one of us, members of our communities, work hard to make our communities and our province a better place. Not only that, but by making our province a better place to live and raise your family and work, we make our country a better country in which to live. Many, many people around the world look to Canada — and look to British Columbia in particular — as the place where they would like to live, the place they would like to work, raise their family and provide and help the economy grow. As tough a situation as we find ourselves in here today, I can tell you that we still live in by far the best province in this country and by far the best country in the world, and I'm proud of it.

The challenges we face with health care are serious as well. Virtually everything reflects back to my first statements as far as the financial responsibility that we as a government are here to install into the province of British Columbia. We will do our best to make sure we provide a sustainable health care system, one that will provide for all of the needs of British Columbians, one that is realistic and, above all and most important, one that is sustainable, so that we can enjoy the services that are delivered in a way that can be provided for the years to come and in a way that doesn't, again, put our children at risk. I'm a father of two wonderful daughters, and I can tell you I'm prepared to make the tough challenges in this House here today and throughout my term as the elected representative for Peace River South, of which I'm very proud, so that the children of tomorrow don't have to face the challenges we face today and they can face a brighter future. We are going to get there, hon. Speaker.

Our social programs, which we've all come to enjoy ? each and every one of us, whether we've had to utilize those social programs or not ? are ones that make our province a great place to live. Sometimes I have to look back, and I have to believe that possibly things went astray over the last decade. I'm going to be gracious. I'm going to state that I believe the people before us had a lot bigger hearts than they had bank accounts, and that's the problem we face. I would love to be able to give things away. I would love to be able to do that. We will get to the point where we can deliver new

programs and put in new infrastructure, but until we get our financial house in order, we aren't going to be doing that. That's as straightforward as we can be with British Columbians. Our first priority is to make sure our financial situation is put back on track and is in a sound financial manner.

The energy sector, which was referred to in the throne speech, is one that's very close to my constituency, Peace River South, as well as that of my colleague the Hon. Richard Neufeld from Peace River North. The energy sector is driving the economy of this province right now, and we're very fortunate to have a diversified economy in British Columbia.

We've done very well over the years with our energy sector, and we can do very much better. With the issues — whether they be oil and gas, mining or new ideas in power generation — we're well positioned in British Columbia to gain from each and every one of those sectors. By new regulation and by eliminating the hurdles that many of these had to go through, we're going to make it more efficient, we're going to make it more effective, and first and foremost we're going to make it the best place in Canada and the best place in North America to do business for this sector.

Our forest policy was touched on earlier. It has to be reviewed, it has to be looked at, and it has to be revamped. I believe this is something that everybody in British Columbia realized at one point was going to have to take place. I won't go into depth on our forest policy other than to say we're going to make some decisions, ones that are going to be challenging and workable, ones that are going to help put our industry back on top and put our people back to work.

As has been referred to and reflected by many people in this province, we have a neighbour to the south that we have some concern with. In particular, I can tell you that I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with them to fight for our security and make sure we have a safe environment in which to raise our children all across North America. But as far as a trading partner, I have grave concerns right now with what's taking place. That's not the type of family that I think people should be proud of. I think they're going to have to reflect on what they're doing. I think they're going to have to step back and realize that what we do in British Columbia, as our forest policy, is very sound and very effective. We're very proud as British Columbians to be able to say: "We are the best wood producers in this country."

Agriculture is another aspect that's very close to me in Peace River South. We're very proud of the diversification that's taken place in Peace River South. Agriculture has been there for as long as time itself. I said in my opening speech to this House — and I was very proud to say it — that we can do many things because we're a very self-sufficient province and a very self-sufficient country. We could live if the power were taken away tomorrow. We could live and survive if our natural gas were removed. We would find a way to survive. But the reality is: if you remove the food from our tables, life will cease to exist.

I think that for far too long our agricultural sector has been overlooked and has not been given the respect that it deserves. I'm proud to be part of a government that recognizes what agriculture means not just to British Columbia but to all of Canada and to all of humankind. I'm very proud to say that I'll stand and fight in this House to make sure that that recognition is there. I know that my colleagues, each and every one of them, understand the importance of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, we're going through some very difficult times in British Columbia right now, when we look at what's taking place right across the sector. One thing that is very clear to me — and I have a background; I've worked with labour before, I've worked in local government, I've worked in regional government, and now I'm honoured to hold a post in the provincial government — is that there has to be a realization from all involved that we have to find a way. Labour has to find a way to work with government, and government has to find a way to work with labour. All British Columbians have to find a way to work together.

Far too often we seem to be at loggerheads over issues. Government is a very good thing. The diversification that comes within that government and the people that bring their ideas into government are why democracy is so great. But we do have to realize that not everybody will agree on every issue. What we do have to do, though, when a vote is taken and the majority carries that vote, is to leave that room and support the majority's wishes. We leave, and we make that work for the betterment of all British Columbians instead of carrying on the fight for months and years on end, which is to no British Columbian's benefit, I can assure you.

We will find an ability within our government, and I would hope and encourage labour to find that ability within themselves, to work together and realize the financial situation that we face as British Columbians — not as government, not as labour, but as British Columbians. We are going to have to get through that.

I want to touch briefly on government in general and what it means, as one of 79 elected officials who have been placed here by the people who voted for each and every one of us. They've charged us with a great duty, one that I'm honoured to hold, and I know each and every member in this House feels the same in their heart. It's a privilege. It's an honour to be able to come and represent the views of your constituency, to represent the views of all British Columbians and try and move British Columbia into a better field, one that's positioned so that when the economy in North America turns around, we'll be the leading edge where people will want to bring their private sector dollars.

Government cannot create wealth. The private sector investment that is brought to our province creates the jobs that allow families to make the money to further their children's education or to help them through

It's interesting, when you look at the issue — and I want to just briefly touch on the issue of forest policy again — of the softwood lumber agreement. We talk about free trade in our country. One thing that's very evident is that we have some neighbours to the south that want to be part-time free traders. You can't be a part-time free trader. If you want our natural gas, if you want our hydro, then you know what? You should be big enough to take our lumber, because we produce it very well, and we're very proud of that.

In closing, I want to touch briefly on the job of an MLA and what it means to me to be able to represent the people that I represent in Peace River South. It's an honour; it's a privilege. Most of all it's a challenge. I went into this because I believed I could make a difference, just as each and every other member in this House did. Each of us is going to make a difference. We're going to bring our ideas to the table and debate them, speak on them and work hard to study. I can tell you that in the 12 years that I attended grades 1 to 12, I never did anywhere near the reading I've done in the last eight months. It's quite incredible. There's not a day, not a minute, that goes by that you can't learn something new when it comes to governing British Columbia. It's a privilege, and it will take years to understand every aspect and every corner of government.

The one thing I've learned…. I can tell you this: whether people agree or disagree with their MLA, with our Premier or with our hon. cabinet ministers, each and every one of them works harder than I could ever have imagined. They put more hours in, they put more heart and soul into their job than I've seen before, and I've worked with many, many people.

What's going on — the people out there protesting and expressing their views — is a healthy thing, but I would hope that they understand the amount of work and effort that's going in by not just 77 but all 79 MLAs elected to this House. It takes hours, days, months and years to get to the point that many of my colleagues who sit in the cabinet are at. Our Premier, whom I have a great deal of respect for, has worked many, many years to get to the point of being in government, being the Premier of this province, so that he can bring forward his ideas, with his colleagues and his cabinet, to make British Columbia a better place.

It's been a privilege to move the throne speech today. It's a privilege to stand here and be the first response to the throne speech. I commit to you, hon. Speaker, and to all British Columbians and all my colleagues that I will do my best to bring a balanced approach to this House, to all discussions, just as I know each and every one of them will. We will get to a brighter future.

In closing, I want to say that things are going to get a little tough. They aren't going to get better before we suffer a little pain together. It isn't going to be pain suffered by labour by itself or by the health sector or by the public education sector. We're working to shift the way we govern in this province to one that's sustainable. Each and every one of us, if we work together, will get through this. The key is having British Columbians pull together — something we're all very proud of — to get us through the tough times so that we can get back to the times that we know we can and will enjoy.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Address in Reply continues with the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Nuraney: It is my privilege and honour today to second the motion made by the member for Peace River South. I rise today to respond to the throne speech.

Yesterday we heard the Lieutenant-Governor very eloquently talk about the task of rebuilding that lies ahead of us. She talked about the need for change. She said that change is never easy. Yet, more than ever, fundamental change is required to the size and scope of government and to the role it serves in the lives of its people and in our economy. In my opinion, this defines the course this government has taken in the few months it has been in office and shapes its plan for the months to come.

We found structural deficiencies not only in our fiscal situation but also in the systems like health care, education and social services. It would have been easy to draw a sponge across the slate and erase the ills of the past, but this is not to be. We have no choice but to embark on a course of reconstruction. We can no longer afford the status quo. Changes are inevitable.

This government has to ride out the storm, outlive the cynicism and stay steadfast on the course it has chosen. That is the resolve of this government, and that is the will of its members.

Everything we had said we would do in the first 90 days after assuming office, we have done. We have since continued to effect changes to ensure good management to our education and health care. I have seen long waits in emergency in the Burnaby Hospital. I've also seen looks of disappointment on the faces of students who could not get into the classes of their choice, both at BCIT and at SFU.

This state of affairs has put lives on hold, and many dreams have been shattered because of this. This cannot be allowed to continue. We must give these institutions the tools to better manage their affairs. There is also an immediate need to get our financial house in order. My grandfather used to say to me that one can only cut the suit according to the cloth one has.

Fiscal responsibility is the very essence of any administration. While we control our spending, we have to find ways of revitalizing the economy. The devastating effects of the events on September 11 and the ongoing dispute in the softwood lumber industry have taken their toll. The United States must come to terms with the concept of free trade. You are either for free trade, or you are not. I must compliment our Minister of Forests for his hard work in this matter.

The government has also opened the doors for investment in sectors like aquaculture, mining, oil and gas. Small business will benefit from deregulation and improvement in the Employment Standards Act, the Workers Compensation Act and the Labour Code. The investment climate is one of enabling environment. We are putting in place the right recipe for the investment that will bring prosperity to our province.

As mentioned in the throne speech, the course is clear, and its direction is firmly set. We find ourselves just starting out on the long journey that will require a concerted effort of all British Columbians. We must stay on course for the future generation and for their well-being. Some have faulted us for our focus upon finances. They say that we care only about a balanced budget and not about the people.

I would like to quote the relevant passage from the throne speech yesterday to explain this focus. In the throne speech it was said that when the economy suffers, the people pay the price. This is why our government is so concerned about the state of the province's economy. We realize that a strong economy is the foundation upon which a sustainable social framework can be built.

We need to be prudent with our finances at this time. We need to reduce spending in some areas and look for ways to save money in others. We have said that we will renew economic growth. It will not be an easy task, but it is the one that we have promised to follow through on. It is a responsible course of action, one that will serve us well in the future. We have a vision of where British Columbians want to go. We have an excellent leadership and a team of people who are working on a plan to get us moving in the right direction.

Over the past ten months we have been working steadily to implement the framework for a course that will lead us to a brighter future. We must be patient and wait to reap the rewards of this new direction. Our government believes in investing for the long-term good of our province, as evidenced by the cuts we gave in the personal income taxes of people and the reduction in needless regulations.

We have taken steps to encourage new investment, but the results of these measures are not immediate. They are long-term measures that will take many years. In the last decade or so we have got ourselves entrenched in a culture of immediate gratification, and this has not served us well.

I believe our plan is working. I have been hearing from my constituents who are supportive of our measures. They are happy and relieved to find that change is finally coming to British Columbia. They are glad to see our government moving past the economic stagnation that has plagued our province for many years. Their messages have an air of excitement and hope about the course we have set for health care, education and the economy. I am encouraged by these messages of support, and I know that my colleagues are encouraged as well. It is a long and arduous road that we have ahead, but the journey will be that much easier if we keep our eyes focused on the goal we have set for ourselves to meet the needs of the people of our province.

I have had the opportunity to serve on the government caucus committee on health and the opportunity to chair the police complaints review process. In the course of my committee work I have heard many innovative ideas for change and new models of delivering service. This government is one that is ready to listen to the needs of British Columbians. We have also shown ourselves to have the capacity to change. With this combination of listening and flexibility for change, we will set in motion ideas that will shape the course of our government. We have to find ways of shifting from a culture of entitlement to one of self-sufficiency and self-reliance.

I have in my riding a community school, Maywood School, which epitomizes for me the notion of self-help and altruism. The dedication of the parents and teachers is exemplary. It is a group of people who have helped many others by showing the way. I feel very proud when I speak of their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, we have chosen a path which is difficult and painful but courageous. We must, however, be cautious that we do not lose sight of the fact that the conceptions of what is right and decent must not be lost. We must have a marked regard for fair play — especially to the weak and the needy — a stern sentiment of impartial justice and, above all, the love for personal freedom.

Finally, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill: "Let us rise to the full level of our duty and of our opportunity."

R. Hawes: I wish I could say that it was a real pleasure to stand here and address yesterday's throne speech, but I have to tell you that I am disappointed that the throne speech had to contain tough measures for tough times. I'm sure all of us wish it wasn't so, but it is so. The times are difficult, and we have taken over a province that has a great deal of difficulty and has some difficult times ahead.

Before I really address the throne speech, I'd like to speak to some of the e-mails that I've been getting. I'm sure that all of my colleagues are getting similar e-mails from people in our ridings. Many of them express fear. Many of them wonder what's happening. I would like to address those people by saying first and foremost that there is a campaign, I believe, of misinformation and fearmongering being waged in the province. I would like those people to know that we are working hard on their behalf. We are going to build a better place for them. I want to speak a little bit more about the information campaign that's being waged in the province a little bit later.

What I would like to tell them as they ask is what happened to the euphoria of the election time and the platform that we stood on, etc. They want to know what brings us now to this time of great difficulty.

We were all told by the auditor general that there was a balanced budget last year. We were suspicious but a little bit more optimistic, maybe, than we should have been as to what had really happened. If I could give you an analogy, we live in a province that had been living way beyond its means — like a household, perhaps, that lived way beyond its means for a long period of time. Just when the banker was appearing at the door, we won the lotto. We had a big wad of money come in, and we were able to cover our current bills. Everything looked really good, but we didn't change our lifestyle.

The lotto win was a one-time pension fund transfer. We had a big win in the stock exchange. We had a huge influx of capital — one shot. That money was spent. Now we're still left over budget. We never trimmed back our spending. At this point, we are left with a huge deficit. There really was a balanced budget for one year — balanced on the backs of things like high energy prices.

Now, what's happened since the summer, when we sat here in this chamber and were fairly optimistic about where things were going? If you think back to the summer, things were beginning to go very well. The province felt good. There had been a tax decrease across the board for all British Columbians, the real estate market was beginning to move, people were investing in construction, people were looking at building new businesses — and then September 11, followed shortly thereafter by the softwood lumber tariff. That has been devastating for us.

Yet we still must, like any household would, balance our budget. That's an absolute necessity. As we move through this process, we have to ask ourselves how we will then address the changes that we have to make. One of my colleagues, in a speech that he made to a chamber of commerce in his riding, called it the iron triangle. That's our problem. We had overtaxation. We had overregulation. We have a strangling labour policy in this province, and that's killed investment. If you take a look at the Statistics Canada financial results for all of the provinces over the last decade, we are tenth out of ten in most of the leading economic categories, including investment and job creation — and the two are linked.

When you take a look at what's happened to investment in this province, why we have finished tenth and why investors aren't putting money here, you have to take a look then at that iron triangle. Who would invest in a province where you can't keep the money that you earn, or much of it, because it's being taxed away by a government that is overspending, is out of control and has no regard for the risk that you as an investor have taken? That was the situation in this province for the last decade.

We have over 400,000 regulations governing the businesses in this province and in many cases strangling them to death. We've taken a look at that too. We understand where job creation comes from. We understand what it means to take your life savings and invest it in the hope that you're going to earn a profit and along the way, in doing that, you will employ people. We understand that the government does not create wealth; the government uses wealth. We know where wealth comes from and where it's created. It's created from the private sector through investment. That's been happening in our neighbours' jurisdictions, in Alberta and in Washington State, and much of it is being done with British Columbians' money.

We are moving to change labour policy. In the throne speech we have talked about what is coming. We are going to deal with several issues that are going to make this a fairer place and are going to allow job creation and investment to restart here and put us back on the road to recovery.

I'd like to talk for a moment about health care. I was privileged to travel on the legislative committee on health through the province and speak to communities throughout British Columbia about what's happening in their own areas and where they live.

Just resoundingly we heard: "The health system is broken; it's badly broken." And so rather than apply a bandage, what we need is a complete rethink. When we did that rethink, Mr. Speaker, we asked British Columbians to think outside of the box and give us creative solutions. How will we address change in health care? Dozens and dozens of people came forward and gave us wonderful solutions.

As they came forward, we brought their recommendations back to this House. I can tell you that one of the most wonderful things that's happening with this government is that we do have a Ministry of Health Planning that is taking those kinds of recommendations that came from British Columbians — a made-in-British-Columbia solution to our problems — and we are going to implement them into a revised health care system in this province that will work for all of us. We will deliver on the new-era commitments that were made in health care in spite of the terrible financial situation that we have inherited.

When I speak to what we've inherited financially, all of the fearmongering out there, all of the talk about our tax cuts being the ones that have created the budget deficit, Mr. Speaker…. That's hogwash. The facts are that you cannot rebuild an economy until you make yourself competitive. We were bloated in our spending habits, and we must change them. We, as a government, recognize it and are changing them.

There are those out there, the naysayers, that would say: "Let's carry on. Let's just keep spending the money that the wealthy will give us." But the wealthy have left. They're going in droves to places where they are welcome.

We have created in this province a class warfare. We want to point fingers at those who have money. Those who would make investments and provide jobs

and create wealth are the enemy now — not for our government but the previous government. It's time for that to stop. I say to those who send e-mails saying, "Tax the wealthy," that they need to stop and think about where that money's going to come from when the wealthy leave. As we go about redefining who's wealthy, because those who truly are wealthy are leaving, we will soon be talking about them as being the wealthy ones, and we are going to have to try to tax those who can't afford to be taxed at the very high levels. We can't sustain what we were doing. It was wrong. We're moving now to a correct, proper and fair way of taxing those who would take risks, those who would create jobs, and understanding that the higher-income people in this province pay proportionately more for income tax and are as entitled as anyone is to a tax break.

I am very proud that we were able to do that. I am very proud that we are no longer going to tax businesses because they have capital assets, regardless of whether they make a profit. I think that's the right thing to do, and it's the right signal to send.

As we move ahead in my own riding, we're looking at a new hospital in Abbotsford. The fearmongering that's going on around that hospital — a new MSA hospital — as we consider whether or not we will build on a PPP…. Are we going to allow private money? Mr. Speaker, there is a private consulting firm that's taking a look at whether or not it makes sense financially for British Columbians, especially for the MSA hospital, at this time to proceed with private financing.

There is a big campaign waging now to say: "That's wrong. It's going to destroy health care." The campaign is being waged mostly by the health employees union, who fear that there will be jobs lost. These people want us all to see a bogeyman under every bed. "Private investment in health care is bad," they tell us. Really, what they're saying is: "Protect my job."

We are saying: "We are going to provide a hospital at the best possible cost with the most efficiency to provide health care to those people in the Abbotsford region and the Fraser Valley region who need health care and a new hospital. They, frankly, do not care who finances it, who owns it. What they care about is that health care is there when they need it. It will be, and it will be done in the most efficient way.

The other thing I would tell you is that the union at this time is telling people that it will be the death of health care if the laundry, somehow, is done by someone other than an HEU employee or if the food is prepared by someone else.

I have to tell you that I was asked by one of the HEU executive that visited my constituency office if I would consider standing up for them in my riding, in our hospital, as I will fight to protect health care services in the Mission area. I had to reply that I'm going to stand up and fight for every health care service, every health delivery system that we have in Mission, but I will not fight for the HEU jobs in the laundry or the food service. As I said to them, frankly, there's isn't one parent bringing their child into our hospital to look for a meal or to have their laundry done. They come for medical services, and that's where we need to concentrate our dollars and where we need to concentrate our attention.

That's what health care planning is doing, and I'm very proud that we do have a minister that is looking at health care planning. It's finally about time someone thinks about the direction in which health care is going.

I was one of those that were fired as a volunteer in the 1997 purge of hospital boards when the regions were set up. At that time what happened was that the regions throughout this province — 52 different health authorities — floundered around trying to set plans, because there was absolutely no provincial plan. There was absolutely no thought about where health care should go. These regions were asked to prepare their own plans, and they were all over the map.

As we travelled the province with the legislative standing committee, we visited some of the smaller regions, some of the areas…. I'll give you an example. As we visited the Terrace area, a man came up to me after one of the meetings there and told me about a broken leg he had suffered a year or so earlier. The orthopod to fix his leg was in Kitimat, a few miles away. There's an anaesthetist there, but the anaesthetist was away on vacation. No one from any other hospital in that area can go into that hospital. They didn't have cross-regional or cross–health authority practice agreements, so the orthopod couldn't fix his leg in Kitimat.

A similar situation existed for him in Prince Rupert. So he had to fly from Terrace to Vancouver to get his leg set. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense at all, when those hospitals are just a few miles away. But because of absolutely no planning, no integration, no thought to health care delivery, this man flew out…. And his situation is not unique. Throughout this province, people were getting lousy health care because of absolutely inconsistent delivery.

We've promised that people are going to have consistent delivery. They are going to get that. They're going to get that because we're planning it. That's a word that I think the last government didn't understand — planning — and we're moving there. I'm very proud to be part of a government that considers planning to be an integral part of running the government. It's the right way to go.

I just want to close by asking…. I'm hearing repeatedly that we're a bunch of heartless cretins, that we're out there with a business agenda and not caring for the poor or anyone else. But as I look across our caucus, I'm proud of the cross-section of people that have been involved in their communities for years and years, are integral parts of their communities and ran for office for one reason: they want to make things better where they live.

There's absolute commitment not just to the communities where each and every one of us live and serve

but to all people in this province, whether they be wealthy or whether they be poor. Every single one of us feels for those that will be affected by the choices that we now are forced to make because of the incompetence that preceded us. But as we make those choices, we know we have to make them. We don't have a choice. We have to make very difficult decisions, decisions that are keeping many of us up at night, making many of us feel terrible. But at the same time we know that to build a better British Columbia, those decisions have to be made today. We are prepared to make them. We are not going to back down from doing what's right.

I would like to say, and I have no problem saying, as I know most of my colleagues feel that we would prefer to lose…. In the next election I would prefer to lose my seat and do what I believe is the right thing to do rather than to give in to some of the pressure groups and the naysayers, to try to hold onto a seat by doing what I know is wrong. I know all of us feel that way. We are doing the right thing. We are on the right course.

In closing, too, I want to say we got rid of the glossy advertising campaign. I was absolutely appalled today to hear what the opposition had to say about some preparation that was done, when in the last government…. I'm thinking back on people like Karl Struble, the media guru from the United States, and Now Communications and the things that used to appear on my doorstep — the glossy brochures. I know, Mr. Speaker, you also were receiving them and were probably as appalled as the rest of us as you opened your newspaper and saw those self-aggrandizing advertisements or the television advertising that was purchased.

I'm proud of the fact that we've done away with that. You won't find those things on your doorstep. You won't see the glossy advertising and the newspaper advertising saying what great fellows we are. What you will see are solid policies that are being delivered thoughtfully and in a way that is going to make this a better province. I believe that the vast majority of people in this province know we are on the right course. I receive the calls — many, many calls — saying: "Don't listen; don't give in; don't listen to the naysayers." The naysayers are self-interest groups who want to continue with the status quo. The status quo is not an option.

I'm not happy to have to speak to a throne speech that contains some hard news, but I know that it's necessary. I also know, though, that the next throne speech that I may have the privilege of addressing will contain better news, because better days are ahead. I would expect that by the end of our term, this province will be moving smoothly, properly — much, much better employment, a balanced budget — and the opposition members will again be relegated to talking about such trivial items as they raised today in question period that really are shameful at a time when we're facing such important decisions.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is interesting to follow such a seasoned politician as the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, who clearly puts his words on record knowing that the public will examine them closely and that he will be held accountable for those words, and he makes such missteps in his comments. However, that member will have to live with his analysis of how he views British Columbians and how he labels British Columbians, what he considers important and what he considers trivial. It does cause me serious reflection, as I stand up here to address the throne speech of yesterday. I expect I could have followed any number of Liberal MLAs and had such qualms as well. But unfortunately, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has given me great cause for consternation, and my speech will reflect that.

Yesterday the government delivered a nice, neat package, several pages long, of the highlights of the throne speech. It was an interesting digest virgin — digest version….

J. MacPhail: No, it's true. The government has had lots of experience in messing around with people already, so we can't accuse them of being virgins. That's true.

J. MacPhail: It was a digest version of the throne speech, and they called it the highlights. Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give my version of the throne speech, and it's entitled "the lowlights of the throne speech." It almost seems as if the first few speakers didn't actually read the throne speech. I'm actually going to take the members through the throne speech and read between the lines.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it will be a time where British Columbians can actually have the time to consider what is meant, what the real version of it is, and I'm very proud to be able to stand up and allow British Columbians to see the other side of this government's agenda.

Here's the opening statement: "My government's priorities will not waver, and its mission will not be altered."

"My government's course is clear, and its direction is firmly set." [Applause.] I actually know that the Liberals will be clapping and clapping and clapping. However, they'll probably have to choose their claps very carefully as we proceed through this analysis. That's their prerogative.

I must say that British Columbians have already learned that the Premier is a stubborn, inflexible leader who will not change course. He will not adjust to changed circumstances, even in the face of a broad chorus of advice that urges him to do just that.

Let me read to the members a letter from 40 British Columbia economists — 40. I'll just start, because I'm sure the members have taken the time to read this. In case they haven't, let me tell you the institutions of education that are represented in this advice: the University of British Columbia, the University College of the Cariboo, Kwantlen University College, the Contract Training and Marketing Society, Simon Fraser University — many of these have four and five signatories from that institution — the Trade Union Research Bureau, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the University of Northern British Columbia, Malaspina University College, Malaspina University College again — I want to make sure I don't leave anyone out — the University of Victoria, the school of social work and family studies at UBC, the former president of the Canadian Economics Association, a retired economist and professor from Simon Fraser University and the University of Lethbridge, professor emeritus from the University of Alberta, the Telecommunications Workers Union, the school of social work and professional associates at the Institute for Resources and Environment of UBC, and the University of Victoria again — 40 economists. Let's just hear what they have to say about Mr. Campbell's stubbornness and inflexibility:

And then it was signed by the 40 economists of the institutions that I read out at the beginning.

There's a thoughtful analysis that says to the government: "Things have changed. Just rethink your position." Instead, what do we get? We get a Premier who says that he will not waver, that he will not alter his mission, that his government's course is clear and the direction is firmly set, even though these professional economists are urging him to do exactly the opposite. And we're letting the Premier have a second think without any blame being assigned to him. He rejected that.

The throne speech goes on: "When our economy suffers, people pay the price." You bet they pay the price, and some people suffer far more than others. Those are the very people that this Premier and this government have targeted in a mean-spirited agenda of cuts and reduced public service.

We heard from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission that he ain't gonna listen to the people, because "they're just trying to protect their job," says he. My gosh, I predict those words will come back to haunt him.

Is it the seniors who are trying to protect their position? Is it students who are trying to get an education? Is it single moms who are having their welfare cut while they're getting retraining? Is it the young people whose employment programs have been cut? Is it the forestry workers who were trying to eradicate pine beetle?

It was very interesting that my colleague from Prince George arose this afternoon in this new innovation to talk about members' concerns in the ridings, and he talked about the pine beetle infestation in his

own riding. Well, his government is the one that cut the workers trying to control the pine beetle. His government cut those workers, and he's concerned. Why didn't he stand up and ask the Minister of Forests why the minister cut the forestry workers trying to eradicate pine beetle? Why didn't he do that?

Why did the caucus chair of the governing party stand up and say that the rich will feel it less and those at the low end will feel it more? The government caucus chair was in Cariboo North, a region that's really being affected by these actions.

What about the role of government to make sure that people don't suffer during times of economic downturn? Why has this government completely abdicated its role of looking after people who are harmed through no fault of their own?

The throne speech goes on to say: "No economy is immune from the volatility of global markets, and British Columbia has been particularly exposed from its heavy dependence on natural resources."

Well, I say: "Hallelujah!" Finally the government acknowledges that we are an economy of price-takers, not price-makers, in the world market. For a full decade, this now government — then opposition — said over and over again: "It's not the world economy or the commodity market affecting this economy. The solutions are found right here in British Columbia." That's what they said in all the years of the 1990s. Every single day when forest towns were being hurt, when the mining industry was affected by low copper prices and low lumber prices, they stood up and said: "Oh, that isn't a problem. Fix the economy here in British Columbia."

Today I say: "Hallelujah!" I will take small victories where I can find them — sorry, not a victory. It's not a victory. I will take comfort where I can find it. Finally this government, after a decade of blinders on, has said that we are heavily dependent on natural resources and, ergo, heavily dependent on commodity prices. Good. Good — but why didn't it then go on to seize the opportunity to say: "The economy and the world markets have changed, and it's now time for a rethink"?

No. Instead, the Premier stands up and says: "I'm proceeding, come hell or high water." That's what he said yesterday.

Another quote from the throne speech: "My government has a solid plan to turn our provincial economy around. The steps it has taken, and will be taking this legislative session and beyond, will make our economy more competitive, diversified and attractive to investors."

To investors — sure. Yeah, you bet it's going to be attractive to investors, but what about the people who live here? What about the people who wake up every morning and send their kids off to school and want a job to go to, who have aging parents who need health care, who want a park on the weekend they can take their kids to? What about those people?

What about our seniors? Damn to those people as they slash public services, as they put in the most regressive form of taxation through skyrocketing MSP premiums, through user fees that we've only had an inkling of to date.

The sky's the limit in tuition. We saw that yesterday. We saw the Minister of Advanced Education stand up and say: "Yippee! You parents can pay as much as you can possibly afford in tuition. By the way, you're going to pay all the costs in advanced education, because we're not going to give the institutions any money. We're going to give them zero. We've frozen their budgets. So, you parents, the good news is that you're going to pay as much tuition as we can possibly squeeze out of you."

That's what this government has done. The investors may be happy, but what about the parents sending their kids to university and college? A lowlight for me has to lead to this question: at what point does this government stop in its efforts to make B.C. attractive to investors and think more about the citizens, the people of this province who are living here?

An economy, a government, that focuses solely on being attractive to investors resides in South America. That's what Argentina and Chile did. You know what? That was to the detriment of the quality of life of every single person who lived and lives in those countries, and it has led to the collapse of their economies as well.

Another quote from the throne speech: "Specific subsidies that have been identified for elimination were outlined at last month's open cabinet meeting in Fort St. John" — I wonder if there was any preparation for that announcement — "and will be repealed by legislation as necessary this session." Oh, goody. Reading between the lines — this is our symbol for reading between the lines — that's "stay tuned for more regulations to be ripped up and thrown out so that investors feel better in this province, and everybody else who lives here is worse off."

Oh, goody. All that is going to be repealed just in time for this summer. The Premier is going to eliminate the Summer Works program. He's going to eliminate Job Start for welfare recipients. He's going to eliminate training programs. He's going to eliminate the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, but he's not just getting rid of subsidies. He's redefining what subsidy means so that subsidy means any assistance given to working people to help them in taking advantage of the economy. That's what he's doing.

To quote: "Within the next few weeks, the independent B.C. Progress Board my government appointed will issue its first report. It has established a series of benchmarks and performance measures to hold my government accountable on a quarterly basis for progress in our economy." Good, good. There are hundreds of thousands of British Columbians trying to hold this government accountable, and we'll have the Progress Board.

But who is the Progress Board? Well, it happens to be a group of business people. That's right — a group of business people. A diverse group of business people? No. A group of business people. Are there any people

from any other walks of the community? No. It's a business group. Anyway, we'll see. It's very interesting that the throne speech talked ad nauseam about putting patients and students first. Oops, watch out! When you're first in line with this government, watch out.

This government didn't actually think it was necessary to say: "We'd like to hear your opinions, ordinary citizens." They didn't actually say that they want to have anybody on the Progress Board determining how well the economy is doing — just business people.

I hope everybody goes out and asks the seniors, the students, patients, welfare recipients, if they feel like they've been put first. The government eliminated the Seniors Advisory Council. Oh, really. Was it too expensive? Was it too expensive to have that Seniors Advisory Council giving the government their advice?

The regional health authorities. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission said that, oh, he's so happy with what this government did around health authorities. Oh, really. Instead of having hundreds of local community people from all walks of life — and all political parties, I might add — sitting on the regional health boards and the community health councils, this government did away, in one fell swoop, with all of them and replaced the community-based health authorities with five business people. Five business people are now who's in charge of the community needs.

Every MLA gets to now go home, and when they have to answer, "Who in our community actually is on the health authority?" these Liberal MLAs get to stand up and say: "Actually, no one. But we do have a business person in charge of our health system." Clearly, we now see why. It's the bottom line. When this government says, "Patients first," they really mean: "The bottom line is first."

They've ignored the concerns of students. They've refused meetings with health groups. This government has refused meetings with health groups. They removed a smoking ban, instituted a regulation overriding the WCB — the first time ever that any government has overruled the WCB — to put in the right of people to smoke in bars, to exacerbate health costs and to say that they…. They refuse to meet with any health people to talk about that — overrode the WCB, etc. They also targeted their most mean-spirited cuts at the most vulnerable in British Columbia.

The next part of the speech: "With major sectors of our economy in distress, B.C. still has a long way to go to once again lead the nation in overall economic growth. But a winning framework is rapidly being put in place for economic renewal." How does the government define their winning framework? What's the next paragraph? Is it about job creation? Is it about communities in distress? It's about a plan to gut the Employment Standards Act. That's the winning strategy.

Here it is — next sentence: "Gut the Employment Standards Act, the Workers Compensation Act and the Labour Code." That's the winning strategy. "We don't want to recall the Legislature every time we have to override worker rights. We don't want to do that. We don't want to have to recall the Legislature every time people freely negotiate something and have to use our 76 to break a contract, so we're just going to change the law. It's a lot easier. That's our winning strategy."

Well, that'll give a lot of comfort to British Columbians. Oh yeah — the most open and accountable government. That's what their winning strategy is: to gut the protections of working people. After what the Liberal government has done to the WCB smoking ban and to labour contracts so far, it's frightening to know what could be next. What more can you do?

Here's what the B.C. Chamber of Commerce president, John Winter, had to say. He said this at a time when there was plenty of time for the government to listen — the now government. He said it before they were elected. I assume Mr. Winter wasn't being partisan. I happen to know that he is a very thoughtful person. He said that it was time that business and labour got together and began to pull in the same direction and knock down the walls of suspicion.

How can that possibly occur in this climate where the business person rules supreme and working people and the people who represent them face draconian measures day after day from this government? In eight short months in office this Liberal government has done more to create polarization and distrust than anyone thought imaginable.

How can any working person take seriously the words "fairness" and "balance in the workplace" when this government's agenda has been to undermine their health and safety, to rip up their contracts and to say one thing to their faces before and during an election, then immediately after say: "Oh, sorry. We didn't mean what we said. We're going to rip up your contracts"?

Another quote from the lowlights: "Considerable effort will be focused on pioneering so-called 'P3s,' which have proven very effective in attracting private capital to support public policy objectives in B.C. and in other jurisdictions." Then today we see what that may mean in certain areas. It may mean that there will be tolls on highways where British Columbians will have no choice but to pay those tolls — no choice. The Premier is speculating that there will be a toll on the Sea to Sky Highway. How do you think the people along that highway — Squamish, Whistler, Lions Bay — feel about knowing that their government intends to toll their road?

Another quote: "My government is aggressively supporting the bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Combined with an expanded convention centre in Vancouver, the games would generate up to $10 billion in economic activity for our province, 228,000 jobs and $2.5 billion in total revenues for all levels of government."

You know what? I hope so. I really do. I love the Olympics. I love the Olympics and everything that arises from the Olympics.

But British Columbians want some answers from the Premier and his cabinet members, who sit in isolation. They want to know how that jibes with legal aid funding cuts, cuts to child care subsidies, the elimination of seniors bus passes and the elimination of funding for women's centres, just to name a few. They wonder how it jibes with jacking up tuition and jacking up MSP premiums. They wonder exactly what the Premier means when he says that we can't afford not to provide millions of dollars in assistance to the Olympic bid.

The athletes themselves wonder what it means. How much of a commitment is this government making to the actual concept of promoting sport? This government cut the athlete assistance program. Today I woke up to hear that athletes in this province will have $1,500 less per athlete — today — as a result of cuts that this government made to their support.

There was a very articulate young woman who said that to some, $1,500 may not sound like a lot of money. Probably to a lot of Liberal MLAs sitting in this room — yeah…. She went on to say that it means the ability to carry on or not carry on. It's the difference between being able to carry on as an athlete…. How does that jibe with the Premier's comments that we can't afford not to?

The Premier also had a memorable comment that the games will pay for themselves. Everybody better be clipping that out. Let's get that out and save it in our chest of drawers of gems. Everyone should see whether the target of 228,000 jobs is another quote to remember. The accountability is coming in the coming days on this one.

I also thought it was interesting how many times there was a tie-in between the convention centre and the Olympic bid. That's interesting. We'd better all watch out for that one too. I know that the CEO of the Olympic bid, Jack Poole, has been one of the largest proponents of the convention centre. Jack Poole, a very worthy business person, is heading up the Olympic bid. He's a Liberal, but he also happens to be an excellent community person and a good business person as well.

But it was interesting. What does the convention centre have to do with the Olympic bid? Maybe British Columbians should be asking that question about why it is that there won't be subsidies for business — I would think a convention centre would be labelled as a subsidy — under this government's rules, and yet all of a sudden we see the convention centre back on the agenda. I was just curious. It may be something that we'll be wanting to look more closely at. Is it maybe a backdoor way of the Liberals breaking another promise about their business subsidies and rewarding a good friend and proponent of a convention centre under the guise of something else?

Well, let's see the interim report. How was it received by the people? Well, the task force's interim report received a pretty scathing review from environmentalists, from working people. But interestingly enough, it also received a scathing report from the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee. Okay, let me just say that again: industry steering committee.

Here's what they wrote in a letter to the Energy minister. This industry committee said:

Oops. But instead of the Premier taking advice from the people whom he embraces, what does he say? Have at it. Carry on. We're marching down that road despite the potential for dangerous consequences.

And it goes on to talk then about appointing, last October, a scientific panel to assist on whether offshore oil and gas exploration could be conducted in a manner that is scientifically sound and environmentally responsible. Well, given what the Liberal government has already done in the area of environmental protection…can only assume that these legislative changes are reasons for any British Columbian concerned about a sustainable economy to be even more worried now.

Let's look at what David Boyd had to say on the Liberals' use of streamlining. David Boyd, as you may know, is a senior associate with the University of Victoria's eco-research chair in environmental law and policy and an adjunct professor in the school of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University — yes, an independent professor at one of our universities. First of all, he says that the environmental assessment process is the cornerstone of responsible environmental planning, and yes, it is reviled by industry because it takes months and sometimes years to gather the environmental data needed to make informed decisions. Streamlining of that process is a clever euphemism for sabotaging the integrity of the process. These measures, also, will probably water

down important land use legislation to please the business community at any cost.

You know, the business community last session said: "Oh, it's Christmas in July." That's what the business community said. I guess this year they'll be able to say: "My goodness, it's Christmas already here in February. It's Christmas in March. It's Christmas in April, and it's Christmas in May." That's what the business community will say this year.

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection doesn't see her role as protecting the environment. She stated quite clearly: "No, that's not my job. My job is to work collaboratively and cooperatively with those who create investment in this province." Who is? Who in this government will stand up to protect the environment in the face of these draconian changes? Who is it that's going to come forward and stand up? It's not the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Who is going to help stop the erosion of these environmental protections?

Today we heard the Minister of Forests talk about the softwood lumber dispute. The Speech from the Throne said: "The softwood lumber dispute has dragged on, despite my government's best efforts to work with the federal government and other provinces to negotiate a resolution with the United States." Then the government announces that whether or not it will help negotiations, they plan to move toward a market-based stumpage and to tackle the incredibly complex challenge of forest policy reform.

"Obviously, a change on this scale cannot be undertaken without some sacrifice," the throne speech states. Well, the government's strategy so far hasn't worked. It's failed at every turn. It's left forest workers and forest communities across the province high and dry. The plans for reform this government is proceeding with anyway will hurt workers and will hurt communities. This government is moving to end the appurtenancy clause and sever the link between timber harvested at mills and the jobs of local forest workers. That's who will have to sacrifice.

It's moving forward to eliminate the cut control so that we're completely subject to the vagaries of the world market. The one protection communities had against the world market was cut controls, and now that's gone. Communities are left vulnerable again.

Next month the U.S. is expected to slap permanent countervailing and anti-dumping duties on us. If the rates of almost 32 percent that they are currently charging us hold, that will cost the B.C. industry about $1.5 billion. The impact of those permanent duties will lead to forest unemployment jumping to 20,000. The unemployment is now about 14,500 — staggering numbers, yes.

Of course, as we pointed out at the beginning, finally an acknowledgment from this government that we're a resource-dependent economy. B.C. Stats confirms that, to show that one out of every five jobs in British Columbia is strongly dependent on forestry.

Yet, what is the plan? What is the plan of this British Columbia government? In years past, facing these same circumstances, they said answers should be had here in British Columbia. What is the positive plan? Their positive plan is severing the link between our publicly owned resource and the communities and workers that depend on it.

You know, at the end of the throne speech there were storm analogies — that there will be times of storm ahead and huge change. Well, it was interesting. Someone — I don't know whether he had an early copy of the throne speech; I doubt it — a very good reporter, often very tough on matters that I was personally responsible for in the past, a very tough reporter but an informed one, this Sunday was writing about the fallout from the softwood lumber dispute. This is Province columnist Brian Lewis. He was prescient in some of his metaphors. This past Sunday as he was looking at the fallout, he said of the softwood dispute, in the context of this government's plan to balance the budget: "Amid this gathering storm, let's hope our cost-cutting Premier will have the flexibility to bend if the winds become too strong."

Well, the Premier says: "Suffer the storms. I'm not providing you any shelter, and I'm proceeding ahead come heck or high water." But Mr. Lewis said just this Sunday: "Please, Mr. Premier, have some flexibility."

You know, it reminds me a little bit of a woman politician to whom I have never been compared, I might put on the record. That was Margaret Thatcher. She said that this lady's not for the turning. Well, clearly, this Premier is taking a page out of Margaret Thatcher's book.

Does the government think that just by saying that, people will believe them? My gosh. British Columbians are waking up every day to have to scour the Internet, scour the papers, scour documents to find out what's really going on.

Here's what someone said about the Liberals' agenda in environmental protection. David Boyd again:

That's what is the real situation. That's what you have to really read between the lines to understand what this government has done.

Another quote from the throne speech: "A referendum will be conducted later this spring by mail-in ballot that will put forward questions that have been approved by this assembly. Those questions will build on the work done by the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs."

Well, okay, I have a confession to make. This is a new-era promise I wish this government had broken — abandoned. It's not just New Democrats — my colleague and I — telling the Premier this. It's pretty much everybody in the province saying: "Please abandon this new-era promise." He's heard it from community leaders, social justice groups and of course the first nations themselves. He's even heard it from one group that he's supposed to listen to, he says. That's the business community. But still he doesn't listen.

This disastrous plan was again the subject of derision in the national press. When? Oh, today. Today in the Globe and Mail, February 13, 2002, a columnist, Jeffrey Simpson, writes:

That's pretty prescient as well, I would say, because first nations leaders and communities are boycotting this fatally flawed process. A great number of British Columbians who disagree with it are boycotting it as well.

What are we spending on this fatally flawed process? It's $9 million for the mail-in ballot. And Mr. Campbell is setting up an independent education office that's going to be up to British Columbians to access. After they've spent…looking after their children, looking after their parents with far less resources, after they're having to do with less and pay more, they're going to have to call the independent referendum office and say: "All right, now what about those 16 questions that cover 125 years of negotiating history with our aboriginals? Could you help me out on how I should be thinking about these questions?"

I don't think the working families in my constituency are going to have time to do that. And you know what? I think the independent office is going to cost way more, outside of the $9 million it's costing for this mail-in ballot.

Oh, here's one that's particularly interesting, again: "My government is also committed to giving local governments more autonomy and better planning and revenue tools to reduce property tax pressures and to enhance community stability." Well, school districts have already learned what the government's glowing words, like "autonomy" and "flexibility," really mean. What that means…. Here's what the Liberal definition of flexibility and autonomy means: nowhere near as much money as we promised, and you're on your own. That's the Liberal definition of flexibility and autonomy.

Now local governments are going to get those same rights. Understandably, they're nervous. Let me just tell you why they're nervous — not words from my mouth, words from the minister responsible for Community Charter. He gave municipalities recently the good news that they're going to be allowed to levy a whole bunch of new taxes. And guess what. It's an election year, and he got a frosty reception. Municipal councillors are going to have to go to the electorate this year, and what is their provincial government saying? "Don't worry. Here, we're going to take money away from you and download a whole bunch of stuff, but here's the right to tax. We're going to let you tax the bejesus out of your constituents. Isn't that good news?"

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I remind you, please. That language is non-parliamentary.

I'm so looking forward to some senior cabinet members getting up, for once, and speaking on behalf of their constituents. It'll be very interesting to hear the comments of senior cabinet members and what they have to say. To date, the silence has been deafening.

Here's why they gave a frosty reception to their right to tax. Here's what the minister said when he was asked about what this actually means. He was commenting on what citizens should know, and he was asked to give examples about what powers the province was giving to municipalities. Here's the example that the minister responsible for the community charter gave: "Cities can decide to shut down a park and sell the land to someone wanting to develop a mall or shut down a road and sell the land to a residential developer."

Oh, no wonder civic leaders said: "Oh my gosh." Now, was that quote long ago and maybe the minister straightened up after he's consulted widely? No, that quote was given two weeks ago. Oh, here's good news: shut down a park and build a mall; shut down a road and give it to a developer. My goodness, it is unbelievable — the arrogance of this government in their plans to completely abdicate responsibility for their decisions.

They're offloading onto school boards. My colleague will have lots more to say about this. They are saying to school boards: "You've got autonomy, and oh, by the way, you're on your own, and we're cutting, and there's no more money." They're saying to health authorities…. We don't have health authorities. We've

got five businessmen running the health system, and oh, by the way, those health authorities will have to answer all the tough questions. Now they're saying to municipalities: "You've got autonomy, and oh, by the way, we're cutting all of our support for you, but you've got the right to tax."

Now, I was wondering this. This is another thing that I found a little bit curious. The government has broken a lot of promises, and I'll be going through the list in a few moments. This was one that they really broke. They said: "We'll have the community charter in place a.s.a.p." It was a 90-day promise, actually — a first 90 days promise. Then we found out that no, no, no, we were just going to consult. Now the government says: "Within a year we'll have a community charter." Is that because the blow-back has been so strong from your farm teams at the local level that they don't want to have to fight an election based on your downloading? I bet you it is. I bet you they're saying: "Don't give us the community charter 'cause we'll lose elections on that basis." Hmm, I'm going to watch for that one. I'm going to watch and see whether that's….

So, I actually want to go to the issue of broken promises. The throne speech says: "My government will not break its trust with the people." That's a bold statement. It's an aggressive statement, given the context, because within eight short months this government has already broken its trust so many times it is breathtaking. I think they now all believe that the front of their election platform read in huge letters, "New era of sacrifice, slashed services and mean-spirited policies," because yesterday there wasn't any talk of good times. It was sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. Maybe there's some strange but possible case of collective disillusion and delusion that has occurred.

Let me just go through some of the top ten promises that the government made and has now broken. Top ten — there's more, but there's been kind of a nice nuance to top-ten lists. So, this is the top-ten list of broken promises.

No. 1 — and these are quotes from the New Era document: tax cuts will pay for themselves. Well, British Columbians know what a whopper that was. I guess we'll see the harm and the sacrifice and the hardship caused by that whopper next week, when the budget is brought down with the largest-ever planned deficit in the history of British Columbia.

No. 2, to quote the New Era document: "You should keep more of every dollar you earn, and the government should take less."

Gee, I wonder how British Columbians feel about that. They had some change put in this pocket and dollars scooped out of this pocket. The government is engaging in the most regressive form of taxation and increasing health care premiums by 50 percent. They've increased Pharmacare costs; they're threatening user fees. Camping fees are going to go up. Firewood is going to cost. On and on it goes.

Promise No. 3 — broken. To quote the campaigning then opposition leader, now the Premier: "First of all, I don't believe in ripping up agreements. I'm not tearing up any agreements."

Well, you know, my colleague and I said during the debate two short weeks ago that the most draconian changes ever were made to collective agreements and the most draconian changes ever were made to labour laws. The media didn't report on any of the substance of those bills, but the community knows that they were the most draconian changes. Somehow this government thinks it's okay because: "Oh, they're only union contracts."

We had the member for Maple Ridge–Mission say: "Ah, those HEU members." He says it with a scowl on his face, as if those tens of thousands of hard-working people delivering health care services are a category to be looked upon with disgust. Well, he did. They rewarded them with disgust a few short weeks ago.

He said to them: "I am not tearing up any agreements. I don't believe in ripping up agreements." Now he has betrayed that trust.

Here's one from Mr. Mark Milke, Canadian Taxpayers Federation: "I'm not sure Canadian Taxpayers Federation members will be thrilled that a contract has been broken before an attempt by the government was even made to negotiate" — January 28, 2002.

Here is an interesting one. "The optics of this dispute" — Bill 29, tearing up of the contracts — "are worse off the farther you get from British Columbia," said Mark Wexler, a professor of management and organizational study at Simon Fraser University. "Businesses need two things in order to relocate: low taxes and stability. The message they are getting from this is that they might get the low taxes, but the stability is a different thing."

I could go on and on, because there are dozens more examples of people saying to this government: "Shame on you for that broken promise."

Broken promise No. 4: no expansion in gambling. Isn't this an interesting one? You really had to read between the lines of the throne speech yesterday. At the January 16 cabinet meeting, the Premier and his cabinet voted to expand gambling. He broke his new-era promise to "stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."

Guess what. Here's what the Premier said about why he had to expand gambling — and so did his solicitor general. They both gave the excuse for fudging

Oh, isn't that interesting? Isn't that interesting? This cash-strapped, failed government will honour contracts when it comes to expanding gambling, but not when it comes to honouring the contracts of people who deliver services to our most vulnerable.

Broken promise No. 5: resources for children and families. Year after year, when they were in opposition, the B.C. Liberals said that children were their number one commitment and promised that they would vote to support any level of budget increase to the ministry responsible for children and families — any level of budget increase. They also went to great lengths to praise the work of the child, youth and family advocate. I think we don't have a child, youth and family advocate anymore. Oh! But in those days the good work of Joyce Preston castigated the government for not spending enough. And every time that the government of the day didn't implement every single one of her recommendations, the then Liberal opposition were up on their feet.

What's the new-era reality? Not only is the Liberal government committed to cutting the Ministry of Children and Family Development by 30 percent — 20 times as deep as any other cut ever contemplated in this ministry — but they also eliminated the persons who could possibly challenge them on that: the child, youth and family advocate and the children's commissioner. They've created a whole new office that has zero independence — zero independence.

Broken promise No. 6. Well, we just had an example of this today. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission says: "These are silly issues to be brought up." Let's just see whether the public thinks it's silly that the government has broken a new-era promise that says they'll reduce the cost of government by increasing efficiencies and eliminating wasteful spending. Well, isn't that interesting? The new-era reality is that the Premier appointed the largest cabinet in B.C. history, gave enormous pay raises to deputy ministers and ministerial assistants, lined the pockets of cabinet ministers with an extra tax-free perk, gave backbenchers $6,000 salary increases for Liberal caucus committee members, and today we see them give contracts to Liberal donors. If you donate $2,000 to the Liberal Party, you get 500 percent return. You get a contract for $10,000 back. Oh, that's eliminating wasteful spending.

Broken promise No. 7: no plan to slash public service. February 14, 2001 — a year ago: "Our goal is not to go in and slash the public service." Gordon Campbell said that. Sorry, Mr. Speaker — the Premier said that.

"We're not planning massive layoffs in the civil service," said the Minister of Education in March 2001. "What you'll see is probably the same number of employees just doing a heck of a lot more productive things," said the Minister of Education on May 13, 2001.

"There are not going to be massive job cuts. We need to manage the civil service better. It's not the issue of size." That would be the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill. Oh, this is a good one: "It's the NDP who go around creating that fear, but civil servants generally understand that in fact it's not about job cuts. I've been very clear. The Premier has been very clear. It's not about cutting jobs; it's about managing the civil service," said the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

The MLA for Victoria-Hillside also "made it perfectly clear" last April: "We have no intention of going out and firing the public service. It's been really poor that the NDP have put out that fearmongering."

My gosh. I guess we'll have to get a new definition of Liberalspeak on fearmongering, won't we? But we'd need a pretty big page to list all of the examples of the definition of fearmongering under the Liberals.

Broken promise No. 8: the merit commissioner. The Liberals were so committed to this one that they put the merit commissioner promise right in their campaign platform. Ninety-day promise: "Pass merit employment legislation to restore a professional, non-partisan public service appointed strictly on merit and not on patronage." What's the new-era promise? Another promise: "Restore a professional, non-partisan public service based on merit, not on patronage."

They flip-flopped on that commitment to appoint an independent merit commissioner. They appointed part of their Liberal transition team to be the merit commissioner — no independence whatsoever. He's a deputy minister that sits at the deputy ministers' table.

Then, of course, we know that the Premier, on his first day in office, appointed the president of the Liberal Party as the non-partisan Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Gosh. I wonder how that deputy minister is making out in relations with Ottawa on the softwood lumber dispute? He had no prior experience, and his photo was still on the Liberal website when his hiring was announced. The party president is the current Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Andrew Wilkinson.

Broken promise No. 9: minimum wage. The Liberals have flip-flopped on this issue so many times it would make your head spin. Before the 1990 election, which they lost, they used to be honest about their views, and they consistently spoke about increasing the minimum wage. They spoke against it.

In 1996 he spoke against increasing the minimum wage, but when the Premier decided that he wanted to win the election in 2001, he changed his tune. Campaigning in the Kootenays in the fall of 1999, Campbell tells the audience that he supports the current minimum wage. Then, when pressed — it just happens to be by the Times Colonist's Les Leyne — on this flip-flop, he says: "Let me, on the record, say to you I acknowledge the need for a minimum wage. We have no plan

to lower the minimum wage, and we never have. The minimum wage is the minimum wage. We have no intention of reducing the minimum wage." My gosh. How many times can you say that you don't have any intention of reducing the minimum wage?

What's the new-era reality? Once safely into office, the Campbell Liberals come through on what was clearly a backroom deal with the campaign donors, the B.C. Restaurant and Food Services Association, and they introduced a trainee wage for new workers. It's a whopping two dollars below the regular minimum wage. It requires 500 hours of experience to complete. It discriminates against young people and immigrants, and it's prone to abuse — not to mention the amount of red tape you're piling on people.

Those people who are earning that $6-an-hour minimum wage in bars and restaurants are also going to have to say to their bosses: "You know what? I don't want to work in that smoking section. I may be injured by it. Please, I'm exercising my right to refuse to work in unsafe working conditions." Oh, I see. The person who is going to have to accumulate 500 hours of work in order to get the proper minimum wage is going to say to her employer: "Please, sir, I don't want to work in these unsafe working conditions." Really.

Broken promise No. 10: the auditor general. The new-era promise around the auditor general was to increase funding to the auditor general's office so that the auditor general could help identify and prevent waste and increase value for money. Well, the new-era reality is that the Campbell government's Finance Committee recommendation will result in a 9 percent cut to the auditor general's office over three years. The Liberal-dominated Public Accounts Committee is trying to weaken the scrutiny and water down the performance standards that the auditor general is putting in place.

Of course, when the now government was in opposition, they led the charge for performance measures. Year after year after year, they led the charge for performance measures. The auditor general did his job. He came in and put in place performance measures. Despite the best efforts of my colleague the Chair of Public Accounts and I, who tried valiantly to support the auditor general in getting his recommendations approved for performance measures that this now government has advocated for years, the Liberal-dominated Public Accounts Committee voted for the very first time ever against a complete set of auditor general's recommendations and replaced them with their own watered-down version.

Here's what the reaction to that is. I'm going to read the whole editorial, Mr. Speaker, because they take a swipe at the fast ferries, and I know these backbenchers love to laugh about the fast ferries. It's in here, but guess what. The actions of this government and the draconian measures they take, only in the first eight months, pale in comparison to the mistake of the fast ferries. Here's what the Province newspaper says about this Liberal government: "Governments have always thrown money at a problem, hoping it would disappear. If they were lucky, it worked. More often than not, it didn't. (Stand up, fast ferries!) "

Top ten broken promises. There's more. My colleague will have her own list of broken promises.

I have to say that the lowlights of this throne speech are frightening. The comments about health care are really, really concerning to my colleague and me. The throne speech said: "In the past eight months my government has done much to refocus health care funding on patients' needs. Further changes will be required to make the public health care system sustainable. Many of these were outlined very effectively in the select standing committee's report, Patients First: Renewal and Reform of British Columbia's Health Care System."

Once again, reading between the lines…. I guess British Columbians, in between worrying about the 16 questions and how they're going to vote on the referendum, will have time to download the Select Standing Committee on Health to figure out what this government's real agenda is.

Here's what the report promotes: user fees — including user fees for walk-in clinics; privatization of a multitude of services; increases in premiums — that's

already a reality; making health care a provincial taxable benefit. That would be a first in Canada.

It suggests that people who live unhealthy lifestyles be financially penalized. On the one hand, they're encouraging smoking, and on the other hand, they're saying: "Penalize." I wonder whether that worker in a bar who's too much worried about her job to refuse to work in a smoky environment…. Is she living an unhealthy lifestyle? Will she be penalized?

It questions funding for end-of-life care. It's a blueprint for huge cuts in health services and widespread privatization. British Columbians are already starting to see that.

You know what? It was clear from the very start of the committee hearing that this government intended to create an even greater sense of a crisis than exists. The Premier of this province has already been called a Chicken Little. The national press is saying he's a Chicken Little in his approach to health care. It was clear what this standing Health Committee of the Legislature Liberals wanted to do. They wanted to fulfil what is clearly an ideological agenda.

Here's what the Chairwoman of the committee, the MLA for Delta South, said on the opening day of the hearings, on October 10. "Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Valerie Roddick." Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

They hadn't heard a single word from the public yet, and here's what the Chair is saying. Here's the quote: "The age of entitlement ended on September 11. We can no longer demand services as our due. We have to accept responsibility along with our rights. Even patients and their families have responsibility in using health care services prudently."

Here's a government, knowing they have an ideological agenda, that couches it in the terms of September 11. Yes, a great tragedy, and many aspects of the world did change on September 11. The Chairwoman of the Health Committee uses it as a reason to outline — before one single person had addressed the committee — her ideological agenda. But does the Premier? Even when the Premier is given an out by 40 economists in this province by saying, "The world has changed as a result of September 11, and you should change. Think about your fiscal policy," he says: "No, I'm marching on." My gosh, what an abuse of a tragedy — this government.

There are many, many more parts of the lowlights of the throne speech. My colleague will be addressing these in so many areas. I want to make a couple of final comments.

The government keeps talking about sacrifice. It talks about it a lot, as a matter of fact. My question actually is: who exactly is doing the sacrificing in this brave new era? It's not the Premier's financial backers. It's not his friends on Howe Street. There is a mean-spirited quality to this radical agenda that is attacking both ordinary working families and the most vulnerable. As a result, the Premier may well be sacrificing all those voters who believed the Liberal promises, who believed those ten promises that I outlined that have been broken; believed that tax cuts would pay for themselves; that they'd have more money in their pockets, not less; that the government would maintain the minimum wage and the tuition freeze; that they wouldn't tear up contracts or gut environmental regulations.

Today British Columbians, regardless of how they cast their ballots in the last election, are asking every day: "Why didn't you come clean, Liberal government, during the last election? Was it us you didn't trust as the voters? Why didn't you just come clean?" But they're also asking another question that I find as disconcerting, more troubling. They're saying: "Does this government know what it's doing?" Do British Columbians have reason to be anxious about the extreme and radical agenda that this government is imposing on them that they didn't vote for? Does the Premier have any idea what his plan is for British Columbians? Is he in charge? Those are the questions that are being asked now. They're troubling, they're disconcerting, and there are no answers.

Here's what a political commentator, Norman Spector, had to say. He said that Mr. Campbell's government seems like a bunch of rank amateurs.

A quote in the Globe and Mail: "Yet there is not a hint of a government rethink on the huge tax cuts that are costing the Treasury close to $2 billion this year. Indeed, Finance minister Gary Collins has said quite clearly that even when the economy improves and government revenues escalate the downsizing will remain in place." And we heard that again today.

A Times Colonist editorial: "Fighting those deficits by nickel-and-diming the poor, while giving tax cuts to the well-off, is poor politics — and poor policy."

The throne speech confirmed our worst fears as British Columbians that the Premier is going on a radical, extreme agenda regardless of who's hurt by it, regardless of the negative consequences to our economy, regardless of our quality of life, regardless of our sustainability as a province. The most vulnerable are at risk. Those who can least afford it are paying to give to those who are the richest and the biggest corporations.

I know that those who surround me heckle and deride anyone who suggests that there should be a rethink. They stand up here brazenly in their brave new era and put their words on record about how little they care about the consequences of this extreme and radical agenda.

You know, Tech B.C. is gone — saved probably through the hard work of only one MLA in this whole government. This university has been saved. One MLA spoke out publicly about saving Tech B.C., and one can only assume that his isolation is as a result of his speaking out.

It's time, as more and more people in every community are hurt by this radical and extreme agenda, that more people like the MLA for Surrey-Newton speak up in favour of protecting a valuable institution that will grow our economy. It's time that every single government MLA not waste their time in these private members' statements that we now have access to each and every day to make ridiculous, pieces-of-fluff statements, getting up and talking about the Forests ministry and the softwood lumber dispute and the pine beetle infestation without asking their government: "Why is it that you're cutting the very people who can stop the infestation?"

Surely every government MLA in this chamber should be rising up in their reply to the Speech from the Throne to defend the interests of their community. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will do our best to hold this government accountable, and every day more and more British Columbians join us in attempting to hold this government accountable. But every Liberal government MLA has an obligation, a responsibility to stand up and do the same on behalf of their community.

D. MacKay: Following the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I have to say I'm a little bit dismayed — not dismayed at the throne speech. I'm excited about the throne speech. I'm dismayed about the lack of understanding from the member for Vancouver-Hastings as to what she and the NDP government did to this province. The fact that they are down to two seats in opposition from the government previously would suggest that the people of the province have spoken very loudly and said: "We want a change of direction." That's where this new government is going, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this province have lived through a decade of financial chaos — chaos brought on by a credit card–mentality government, a government able to squander money yet somehow remain oblivious to the shameful debt they had created, a government whose bumbling mismanagement drove a once-prosperous British Columbia into what we have today and what we are today: a have-not province. We saw a government promoting programs far beyond its ability to ever pay for them, a government that coddled its bed partner, the public sector unions…

D. MacKay: …a government that has held taxpayers like hostages to support these same unions' endless demands.

The previous government failed to realize that we, the taxpayers of British Columbia, are the ones that ultimately pay for a ponderous civil service and the many bureaucratically burdened programs created by that government's misguided ideology. They somehow forgot that whenever you spend money that you don't have, someone must pay for that neglect — and that someone will be our young people. Future generations have been saddled with an overwhelming tax burden.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has the floor.

D. MacKay: That kind of fiscal failure is, to my mind, neglectful pilfering of future generations' take-home pay. We saw jobs disappear in this province because of punitive regulations enforced by an anti-progress bureaucracy and because of unrealistic tax imposed on industry and those willing to invest in this province. We saw private sector union membership dwindle in numbers as public sector unions increased in numbers. This huge growth in government payroll created an imbalance so that today taxpayers work a disproportionate part of each year to support the overstaffed public unions.

And no, I am not questioning the need for a capable, qualified, non-partisan civil service to bring programs and services to the people of this province. I watched from the sidelines as the previous governments spent part of my children's future on programs they simply could not afford. I watched in disbelief as the provincial debt climbed to the crisis we face today — $38 billion in debt. This debt is larger by half than our total provincial budget.

That is why I am here today — because of my concerns for a future generation of British Columbians. Now, in my first term I am astounded not only by the debilitating provincial debt but also by the cost of ser

vicing this staggering liability. This debt must be addressed. The people of British Columbia must not be made to suffer because of previous governments' fiscal mismanagement.

Thirty years ago, in 1972, the total budget for this province was only $1.3 billion. Today the provincial budget is nearing $24 billion. Has our economy grown proportionately? Is our population 24 times what it was 30 years ago? I think not. What has grown, however, is the demand for more and more services and a reliance on government to be all things to all people. Although a wonderful utopian concept, it was foolish, because we cannot pay without spending beyond our means.

Good-intentioned previous governments, in a futile attempt to be all things to all people, failed to manage for the future, and our debt compounded. The warning signs were plainly evident but sadly ignored by the previous government. I am sure the House will remember the ICBC and B.C. Hydro rebates given away prior to the last election — and all because a floundering political party tried to sway a disenchanted public. Our Premier requested an independent audit shortly after the election. I remind everyone that the audit warned of monumental fiscal problems that would face our province if we failed to get our house in order.

As we start the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament, the reality of that independent audit, the past government's unchecked spending, is upon us. The throne speech spelled out the financial impact of spending beyond our means. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind. Today we start paying the piper. The throne speech emphasized the government's commitment to putting our financial house in order. This is the very commitment we made to the people that elected us. It will not be an easy task, but the people of this province now appreciate that our government can make those tough decisions. And know this, Mr. Speaker: the members of Premier Campbell's government will not shirk their responsibility.

I would just like to take a moment to express how personally difficult these decisions have been for me. As a police officer for 28 years and a coroner for nine years, I have had to deal with more than my share of difficult, often emotional issues and assignments. Yet nothing prepared me for the tough decisions that we have had to make.

Public service job losses are more than just numbers to me. They are friends and neighbours, faces of people I see every day. I hope the anger of those that lost government jobs in my riding will ease when jobs are replaced by new opportunities as our province rebounds from its economic slump. I hope the feeling of betrayal will be replaced with a feeling of understanding as those people come to realize why we did what we did and they see us work to make British Columbia once again a have province and a better place for everyone.

I want to emphasize that I speak not only for this generation but also for the next generation, the young people of this province — and, most importantly, for those young people who cannot yet speak, those yet to learn of what almost happened to their future. I speak, of course, of grandchildren, of all grandchildren. I am determined that we do not squander their future on programs and services that are either mismanaged or that we can no longer afford. We owe them that much.

On my return trips to Smithers I have hours to contemplate some of the decisions that we've had to make. I have to be honest. There are times when I get a great swamp of e-mails berating me for what we've done. I sometimes second-guess myself. I have to ask myself on my trips home: are we moving too fast? Are we doing the right thing? Is there a better way? I do find myself second-guessing some of these decisions.

Those questions stay with me until I am met at home by my bubbly grandchildren and I get a warm hug, a wonderful hug, from my nine-year-old granddaughter. Before long I'm outside playing street hockey with my two grandsons and their friends. It's then that the questions and second thoughts are answered. Yes, we are doing the right thing for all the right reasons. I owe it to them.

Mr. Speaker: The Address and Reply continues with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak to the throne speech. I was first elected in 1991, so that makes it about 12 throne speeches I've spoken to. I can't believe I've been here this long. I guess there's a lot of people out there who believe the same thing. They couldn't believe that I could be here this long. Nevertheless, I'm here. I shall continue.

I represent North Vancouver–Seymour, and I still feel it's a privilege after all this time to represent the people of North Vancouver. Also, as I mentioned, I think, last year, since this House was first built approximately 102 years ago, there's been roughly 840, plus or minus, MLAs. That's all there have been. When you consider the millions of people who've gone through this province, it's an honour to be one of that small number in this great province. My ancestors, as I have told you before, came out here in the 1830s. So we've been around here for a long, long time.

Our provincial government has now made some significant changes as to how we're going to bring British Columbia back into the competitive edge that we once had in this country. Today we rate number ten out of all the provinces in gross national product. In fact, based on most economic measures that you can have as far as the economy goes, we are either last or bordering on last place. That is a shame that has occurred to us as a result of what I call a crime of structural mismanagement by the previous governments, which has taken place over this last decade. It has caused untold hardships to the citizens of this province, especially in our resource communities throughout B.C. that have been almost decimated.

Actually, you can travel up into the north or the northwest and central parts of B.C. and the Kootenays, and you will find things a lot different from what they are down here in the lower mainland or in the southern end of the Island. People in those areas are suffering, and their children are going elsewhere for work. That is probably one of the big crimes that has occurred over this last decade: we are sending our young elsewhere to find jobs.

B.C. has had its troubles over this past decade, but now we have to bring confidence back, faith that we can prosper in this province with better jobs, better health care and better education and with a little bit of fiscal sanity being brought back in so that we can create a vibrant economy for the future prosperity.

I just want to mention one thing about the riding that I represent, North Vancouver–Seymour. This was brought up with the sudden situations that occurred this last couple of weeks with the strikes and everything with respect to the teachers. I wanted to be able to say that we have some very able and capable teachers in my riding, and they are valued. They are all back teaching, and they are all back volunteering their extracurricular things, and the schools are going to benefit from it.

This throne speech of 2002 is the start of an overall picture or puzzle, if you want, to bring B.C. back into number one position again. I'll start by saying that in this restructuring, we want to get this province back on an affordable fiscal track. At the same time, we know that other problems will occur and that there will be a lot of hardships as a result.

There will be job losses, but nothing like what the resource industries — forestry, fishing, mining — have suffered over this past decade. Literally thousands and thousands of people have lost their jobs in those industries right across British Columbia. In fact, it's probably up in the six-digit figures. Those were lost, as I said, over the last ten years.

I'd like to emphasize that there is really no good day to lose your job. It's a traumatic situation. No matter what is said, we all have the deepest concern for those who do lose their jobs. Employment will get better down the line as commodity prices get better, when the economy and the development in British Columbia improve and/or return to this province.

I won't go into specifics on what the increase in the size of our debt is and what it has done to British Columbia, other than to say the previous government thought they could spend the taxpayers' money more wisely than the taxpayers could. The result was expectations for lifelong employment with little production, and all the while the private sector slid down that sort of greasy path to the last place in Canada's economy.

In the throne speech there are many things mentioned to bring back our economy and to make changes, but a couple of things do strike me that are of interest. One aspect is the one the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine brought up about his grandchildren. I look at the aspect of aquaculture in this province, because I have a grandson who is just over seven years of age who has yet to catch a wild salmon in this province, mainly because there are no salmon to catch.

D. Jarvis: Yes, he does. As the minister says, he does go fishing with me, but I've caught a few fish in my life.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, aquaculture is going to be part of our recovery in this province, and I believe that it's good. We have now become used to having salmon on our tables anytime we want, any day at home or in a restaurant, and we enjoy the opportunity of having fresh salmon. Years ago when we felt the urge for a fresh salmon, it was either out of season most of the time, or it was a frozen fish.

The technology today has allowed us to eat fresh salmon at all times, and that advent is because of aquaculture. We've gone through tenuous times in this province over the question as to whether aquaculture is good environmentally or not. Like any new industry, there are ups and downs, and aquaculture is no different. While B.C. obfuscated over the right and wrong of the issue with moratoriums, etc., most of the industry itself headed out to other jurisdictions with all our British Columbia knowledge.

Around the world, the prosperity was theirs and not British Columbia's, because we exported our ingenuity and technology. Now 60 percent of the world's farmed salmon is elsewhere, and B.C. has only 5 percent of that market. Here in British Columbia, rules and regulations stalled an industry that could have brought more productivity and jobs to this province.

Our research and development was limited. The moratorium on aquaculture, now being lifted, held back research on our own indigenous fish. As I say, we have a lot of indigenous fish — for example, the black cod, which is now called sablefish — that have never been reproduced before but were reproduced by the technology in British Columbia. It wasn't so long ago — some time last year — that we had about five million of the smolts that had to be destroyed because of the moratorium, and we weren't allowed to reproduce them.

Nearly every jurisdiction in the world that has salmon aquaculture and fish farming would give their eye teeth for this knowledge that we had. Fortunately, it hasn't been exported yet. Hopefully it'll stay here. Black cod, as you know — sablefish — is probably the most expensive fish in the world next to Chilean sea bass.

Most of our country's aquaculture in this last little while has been predominantly Atlantic salmon. They're big, docile fish that are well behaved and easy to farm, not like our wild coho and sockeye, who are very frisky at the best of times. That industry of coho and sockeye in the wild has been decimated. Although there's a sense that they may be coming back, pressures from

outside our boundaries by other countries have literally destroyed our wild stock of salmon. It's a matter of opinion, but some of the scientists believe that the fact that most of our indigenous fish are being decimated is ostensibly because we got into the export of herring for the roe only — destroyed the rest of the fish — and shipped it out to Japan and China as a luxury. We have ostensibly destroyed the food chain from which our salmon eat.

We keep hearing about the problems around fish farming, but the risks, I am told, are minimal and continue to come down. Disease is minimal, and the medications, when necessary, are always scientifically prescribed by veterinarians. All these concerns that people have are really not valid. All aquaculture food — the food that they eat — is prescribed through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and there's no evidence of colonization or interbreeding occurring. Escapes are low-risk. There's zero evidence that these things are occurring out there. This information is all based on science and not on the notions of what is not going on out there.

The impact on the sea bottom from farming is very low and will be temporary. It's going to be addressed by this government to make sure there is no contingent damage to the seabed. With this government the lifting of the moratorium will result in a world-class set of regulations in aquaculture. It'll be managed in a responsible way with progressive legislation that will be results-based.

Over the next decade we are looking at thousands of jobs as a result of fish farming. That is good. In British Columbia there are more than 25,000 kilometres of coastline. We have 1,600-odd rivers and streams that are producing about five species of salmon. We're on the edge of the continental shelf, where most of the marine species live. We have a very active fishing fleet out there that's not doing too well because of the problems with the wild fish. There are about 190 processing plants between Prince Rupert and the lower mainland here which ensure that B.C. exports more seafood than the rest of Canada, even in the worst of the times, but this only occurs if we have fish. I think community finishing generates almost $200 million a year. Sports fishing, which brought me onto the subject, generates about $243 million a year.

I want to see our wild fish market as well as our farmed fish market expand. I want to see fish on my table anytime I want it. I want my grandson to be able to go out and catch fish the way we were so lucky to be able to do when we were young.

Another aspect of the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is how we're going to look after our resource industry. B.C. is energy-rich with coal, gas and hydroelectric power. We are also in the enviable position of having choices of alternative-technology power.

Over this past decade, expansion of energy-producing industries has been quelled by political philosophies. The past government used the existing energy as a cash cow for their questionable balanced budgets rather than for the benefit of B.C. industry. Previous governments discouraged IPPs, the independent power producers, and as a result, we lost added value in the coal, gas, mining and forestry industries. There is no growth to the resource industry in B.C., and the cost of electric power rose substantially in this province. Regardless of what they say — that we have the lowest in North America — it did rise.

As a result, there was no diversification of supply for economic opportunities, and the competitiveness for energy prices was virtually nonexistent. Subsequently, we lost the opportunity to ensure reliable, safe energy sources that could encourage industries to come into this province.

At the same time, while our resource consumers saw prices increase, the previous government actually sold power across the border to American firms for cheaper than they supplied power to British Columbia. That was a crime in itself. The Intelco aluminum smelter across the border here was buying power from B.C. Hydro for less money than firms in B.C. were paying for it. That was part of the last government's rush to grab money. They'd rather export it.

Of course, we had a situation in California last year where the previous government also jumped in and rushed to grab revenues. They virtually drained this province and its reservoirs and put this province's energy supply at a potential risk. We have now failed to keep up with the restructuring and expansion that was needed. In actual fact, we are importing power into British Columbia, and that leaves some question in my mind as to the necessity for it.

Today there is a rush to get British Columbia into a fully competitive market. We need to be careful that we don't rush headlong and cause irreparable harm to our energy use and the cost of energy to everyone in this province. There are signals that the great expanding electricity market across North America needs B.C. power. I believe B.C. Hydro needs to be rebundled, but after fundamental changes are made to bring more competition into British Columbia in the energy-producing area.

I'm glad to see that this government has called for the expressions of interest to form joint ventures with the private sector and B.C. Hydro. There is a lot of excitement and interest in that from more and more companies. One company, I know for sure, has already committed itself to close to a half billion dollars in expansion into British Columbia.

For many years the private or independent power producers have been trying to get permission, and they were frustrated. Now this government is going to change that situation.

We all need this fully competitive energy market to attract and create more energy supply to British Columbia. That is going to help us sell British Columbia as the place to go for secure energy power. They should be coming into this province with that asset to be offered to them. This should basically start lowering

energy costs and increase jobs throughout this province and give us, as I say, the energy security that we need.

There's a growing need to diversify the mixture of our energy sources from hydro with electricity, gas and coal to alternative energy sources such as sun, wind and water. The technology is such that nowadays we can produce safe energy from all these sources. It would be beneficial and economically sound for British Columbia to pay heed to those aspects.

Political posturing dominates our progress in British Columbia, whether it be from us politicians, opposition politicians, the unions or the professional people out there that feel we should not have the vibrant economy that we require. They go along with the fact that there may be changes to that effect as long as it doesn't affect them. This is an attitude that has to be changed. We are looking at $37 billion in debt in this province, rising rapidly if we don't change the economy around. We spend $8 million a day, every day, on interest to look after our outstanding debt, and our spending exceeds our revenues.

This throne speech will indicate a lot of things that will help encourage us to turn our spending around. A lot of them feel that it might be somewhat curtailing in that one aspect, but on the other end of it, we have to look at it as part of an overall puzzle that will evolve British Columbia into the number one province where it should be.

The only aspect is: if we don't do this, if we don't support this throne speech and continue on where we're going, what is the alternative? Well, the alternative will be that we'll continue in our downward spiral to a have-not status. We have to restore our competitiveness. This is the point that this government has to get over to the people of this province. We have to have the discipline to do so and continue on with the program that our new-era policy put forward.

On that basis, I am going to sit down and say again that I want to support this throne speech. It's the twelfth one in a row that I've supported. Pardon me. This is the first one out of 12 that I have been able to support in my terms in this Legislature. That was a Freudian slip, I think. Nevertheless, thank you for your time, and I'll pass it on to the next speaker.

S. Orr: I first want to say that I listened with interest to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. They were actually quite remarkable — slightly devoid of memory and obviously not recognizing that she was a part of this government, or the past government, for the last ten years. We were obviously living in different provinces.

However, it is a great pleasure and honour to have the privilege, along with my other colleagues, to respond to the Speech from the Throne delivered by British Columbia's first-ever female Lieutenant-Governor, the Hon. Iona Campagnolo. This was a historical event.

The throne speech delivered yesterday is also going to be a historical document, because it sets out a new course that will change direction for this province ? a change that is long overdue. The new direction is absolutely necessary for this province, and I say that because the old path was leading us nowhere except on a path of ruin.

This government has taken on a huge responsibility with its commitment to turn this province around. To do this, many difficult decisions have had to be made, and these decisions have not been taken lightly. Decisions on change have had to be made to restore the economy and restore confidence in our fiscal management. We have had to stop the reckless spending and take back control of the public purse. Of course, if this had been done before, we would not be having to make these difficult decisions.

Many people find change very hard, and I am mindful of that. Many of the constituents of Victoria-Hillside will benefit from so many of the changes. Victoria-Hillside has the largest portion of small businesses in this region. I have said this before but will say it again: small business is the backbone of our economy.

The one thing I have heard over and over again from small business is: "Get out of our way, and let us do our job." This government has listened and is working on doing just that. We are making changes to the Company Act that will cut red tape and improve efficiencies. We are making changes to the Employment Standards Act, the Workers Compensation Act and the Labour Relations Code. This will initiate great flexibility, fairness and efficiency for both employers and employees while still protecting the health and safety of B.C.'s most vulnerable workers.

To assist small business, the Premier will lead a very practical series of round tables on small business that will invite small-business owners, operators and entrepreneurs to offer their input and advice. Give small business the tools they need, and they will grow. With that growth will come the jobs we so badly need in my riding and in the province. We are bringing back the entrepreneurial spirit that has been lost and buried under a maze of rules, regulations and red tape.

I have spoken before at length about the bountiful virtues of Victoria-Hillside. In my opinion it is by far the most diverse and interesting riding in the province. Victoria-Hillside has the highest numbers of the most vulnerable. It is my firm belief that this government has made every effort to make sure that the most vulnerable are protected. The government has had to scale back spending in other areas to protect vital services like transition houses, community schools and lunch programs. Given the state of the finances, every effort has been made to mitigate the impact on the most vulnerable.

MSP premiums had to be raised to help with the escalating costs of health care, but people in the most vulnerable category — my constituents with lower incomes — will pay less in premiums. In fact, some people will pay nothing, something they haven't seen

in the last ten years. Again, this government recognizes the need of these very important people. I am very committed to working with these people and their issues. They are very near and dear to my heart.

I have shown that commitment through my community office and the work that my wonderful staff, Vikki Simmons and Trish Fonger, and all the many volunteers do in helping people. We have a very compassionate and caring team, dedicated to community work. We do everything, from helping to try and find a couch for a living room for one of our most vulnerable constituents to going around the community getting prizes for silent auctions so our local community centres can raise the extra moneys that they need. We even make sure that every Friday we save the TV guide for a very dear client who pops in to visit us and pick it up. This is a time when Vicky and Trish can take the opportunity to chat quietly with her and make sure she is okay. This is a very vulnerable person.

We have a very special young client whose grandmother, who is on a very limited income, finally got custody after many years of terrible abuse of her dear grandchild. This child now has a home, but when she arrived, she had only the clothes on her back. She was abandoned by the previous government. She was left in an abusive home for a long time. The father had sold everything. My office got to work helping the grandmother. We got her a hardship grant to enable her to buy some necessities for her granddaughter. We encouraged the grandmother to contact the Parent Support Circles program, and then I myself, staff and volunteers made sure she had a Christmas stocking and gifts. We are taking care of her.

Just recently we arranged with a local business, Copeland Music, to donate a wonderful multiple skills–level digital guitar to help students learn a musical instrument. We had this donated to Doncaster School, and the teachers involved were thrilled.

We pride ourselves on being a kind and gentle office where people feel comfortable coming and talking to us. We give lots of advice on employment, housing and just about anything we feel we can help our constituents with.

We all worked very hard with the residents of Blanshard Court. I talked about this in my last speech, about how the hard-working people in this housing complex were fed up of wearing the bad name Blanshard Court gained from a past history. We all had a wonderful celebration at Christmas, and it was renamed Evergreen Terraces.

Our community office is our pride and joy, and it is an extremely busy place, with case files being opened daily. We listen to our clients' pain, their frustration, their family problems, their life problems and their problems in dealing with government. We listen to the frustrations that they have had over the past ten years. We hear a lot, from the people who are opposed to where we are taking this province, that we are doing and have done everything wrong in the past eight months, but I find it very interesting that my community office is finally serving people who have been very underserved for the last ten years. These are the most vulnerable in our province.

I can say that we have had many successes with our clients since we opened the community office. We all celebrate in these successes. This is definitely the very best part of my job.

When I was elected, one thing I promised I would do and knew I had complete control over was to open a centrally located, easily visible and friendly community office that serves the needs of the constituents of Victoria-Hillside. I only wish I had the same control over the hand we have been dealt from the previous administration.

In closing, I would not be here if I did not firmly believe that what we are doing is absolutely right. I hear from people who are concerned with change. When I speak to them one to one, they have a much better understanding. Some people will never support the changes we are making, but we also receive an enormous amount of support from people whom I call the silent majority. These people do not like confrontation, and we have heard of a lot of situations and cases where there is confrontation.

All we want to do is the right thing. All we want to do is to move this province along. All we want to do is to create revenues, and those revenues will help the most vulnerable in our province.

The job I am doing right now is not easy, and every day I face another challenge, but I am firm in my resolve that the economy must be a top priority. When the economy starts to grow — and it will — the most vulnerable in our society will be far better protected, because we will have the money to make sure we can put a proper, sustainable plan in place. This is something that has not been in place for the last ten years.

I listen to things that the opposition says, and I shake my head, because I work in this field. All they've done over the last ten years is throw money at programs. They try this. They try that. That doesn't work. There's never been a sustainable plan to help the most vulnerable people. We will always have a certain segment of our society that will always need our help. These are very important people.

Yesterday the throne speech laid out a start to rebuilding British Columbia. This is long overdue. It was and is indeed an historic document, the blueprint to a new, successful British Columbia, and I am proud to be part of it.

V. Anderson: Like my seatmate from North Vancouver, I have also been here since 1991. Prior to that, I came to Vancouver, in 1966. From that time to this, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, I was very quickly involved in the needs of those whom I will call "the economic poor," and in every throne speech from 1991 to the present I focused on that particular group of people.

They're some 10 to 15 percent of our population. My first experience in this particular community about that was working with university students in the inner-city project, students who in the summer went to work in the downtown east side of Vancouver. As I mentioned before, they had a motto: "If it's ever been done before, we won't do it. Otherwise, we'll do anything." What they did do was to go down and listen to the people of the downtown east side of Vancouver. They were thrilled by the people whom they met and the caring and concern that they had for each other. These were the economic poor of our community — poor for a variety of reasons, but nevertheless, the ones who were struggling just to survive day by day, ones whom other people in the community did not understand and did not appreciate, nor did they know exactly what to do with them.

One of the mentors I had in this period of years was Gus Long, a worker with the anti-poverty group Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia. She and others, like a student I had in the Vancouver School of Theology, who himself had come off the street and was working to go back and work with his people again, helped me to understand and appreciate the validity of their lives and the richness of these people but the economic struggle that they had each and every day.

One of the things I learned through these years was that each successive government came along and said they were interested and concerned. In truth, each one of the governments brought in new initiatives to try and change the circumstances of these people's lives, to improve them, to help them, because they were concerned. The reality was that when governments changed, the people in this particular economic poverty cycle were really no better off. People came and went, and one of the realities of that circumstance that I began to discover was that the people who came, came to do something for them rather than to do something with them. That was one of the things the students discovered. They went in to work with and be with the people and be one of them, and they soon came to understand them.

One of the activities in which Gus Long got me involved — and I've been involved every year since that time — is the Federated Anti-Poverty Group, which came out of an interchurch activity, among other things, called PLURA. One of the realities there was that the best stewards in our community, the best handlers of money that I know of, are the people who live in economic poverty, because when you have so little, every penny counts.

I remember being impressed when, through PLURA, we shared with these people a grant for them to undertake a project which would help them in their circumstances, a shared project to help the families and the children. One of the grants, I remember, was $500. At the end of the year they came back and gave us an accounting of what they had done with that money, which was fantastic. They also returned the $10.35 which they had not used in the project.

Now, any other group that I knew about would have rounded out the figures and would have spent the full $500, but they accounted for every penny and were proud that they could return at least some of it. That's the kind of people that we have here that get overlooked in our activities, but it's the kind of people, as the previous speaker and others today have mentioned, that we want to include in our programs. It's not that we can say initially that we will do this and that, but we can say we will be with them to find answers that have not been found before.

I had a call from Gus Long one day in the 1980s. She phoned me and she said: "Val, we're in a recession, and we're going to have a new group of poor people. We need to do something to help them." The old poor, who have learned to survive, will survive in the new recession. The new poor will not, because they haven't the skills, the knowledge and the experience. It's like a person who has grown up in the woods saying: "Put me out in the woods and I'll survive." But take somebody who has never been in the woods and put them there, and they'll probably not survive a week, or maybe even a day.

One of the programs that came out of that was the Vancouver Food Bank, because Sylvia Russell, who was then working for the United Nations food day, also phoned and said: "We're raising money for food around the world. How come we aren't feeding the starving people in our own community?" An elderly lady heard about this discussion, when we had brought people together from the variety of agencies to see what we could do. I don't know who she was, but she came into our office at Canadian Ecumenical Action with a bag of three cans of food, and that was the first contribution to the Vancouver Food Bank.

The schools got involved. The first Wednesday before Christmas in 1982 was the first distribution. By February of that year, in '83, two months later, there were 900 people lined up at 7 o'clock in the morning in pouring raining, standing there for two or sometimes three hours to be able to get one bag of food. I asked a lady about how significant this was. She said: "Well, I'm gaining weight on it." I said: "How is that possible?" She said: "When you're not eating before, that makes a difference." Wonderful people came there.

Today you go down to the Vancouver Food Bank and across British Columbia, and there are thousands of people lining up every week in order that they will not starve. A third of these people are children. I went through some of the disruptions of the 1980s. I was on the Solidarity coalition platform at the stadium when they were concerned that the authority to make decisions was being taken away from their communities, and they were struggling to get that authority back.

In 1985, I had the privilege of chairing a meeting in the basement of our church put on by a poverty community group, which involved the Members of Parliament from Vancouver. It involved the MLAs from Vancouver, and it involved the city council from Vancouver.

They had come together and been invited to come together — some of them had been forced by community newspaper editors and reporters to come together, because they didn't dare stay away; it wouldn't look very good — to talk about poverty and the need for food in our communities.

It was an interesting discussion. I'm not sure that much came of it, except to say to all of these elected people that we expected them to work together to help meet the needs of our community. One of the attendants at that, a person who was very helpful in the process, was our present Premier, then a member of the Vancouver city council.

Perhaps I have this kind of orientation in my background, partly from a faith stance but also from the stance of having grown up in the CCF movement in my early years in Saskatchewan. As I looked at some of these experiences, I decided in 1981 that I had to become involved in the political process, because I believed that it was probably the political process, in the final analysis, which would have to be involved to get at the need of the economic poor, who are a critical part of our society.

In recent years almost every study of families, children, parents, seniors or whatever says that the greates determinant of health, well-being and educational advancement is the economic condition in which you live. Poverty is one of the greatest ills that affects the people of our communities.

Hon. Speaker, I got involved, and ever since, I've had the opportunity to work in this particular area. As was mentioned previously, and as all of our MLAs are aware, many of the people who come into their offices are from this particular aspect of our community.

I support what we're doing in this particular government, even though a lot of my friends think I've sold them out, even though a lot of them are quite sure that we have no concern. As I listen to the speeches, it's been proven again that we have a concern, and I'm proud to be a part of this group of 76 other people.

Part of the difficulty is that many of us don't have the language, and we don't have the experience, because some of us have not been there ourselves. It's like an alcoholic. You may want to counsel an alcoholic, but you can't do it as well as an alcoholic will do to another alcoholic. That's part of the difficulty when we communicate with each other and with the community at large: we do not have the language and the sympathy that has come out of our own breadth of experience. Some of us here will have had that. Others will not.

I remember we were working in downtown Vancouver — a group of students. We wanted to work within the Chinese community. The Chinese minister who was kind of leading and guiding us and introducing us to the community simply said to us: "If you want to go down there, you come with me, you watch what I do, you keep your mouth shut and you listen. If you're

not willing to do that, don't come, because you're an outsider, and only through me will they begin to accept you, at least in the initial stages."

A similar experience was with one of the pastors of the aboriginal community. I asked him how we could work with the aboriginal people and be part of their interests and concerns. He said in a very simple way: "If you want to work with the aboriginal people of this community, come and visit them in their homes. If you're not prepared to visit them in their homes and you be the guest and they be the host, then don't try to work with them at all."

One of the most touching experiences I had down in that community was with a family that had come from Eritrea. They had walked through the nights because it was not safe to walk in the day. There were two adults — the brother had almost carried his sister because of her illness — and they had some children. They came to our congregation on the east side, and I went to visit them. The three children were at home. The oldest was nine, and the other two were younger. They didn't have English language, but they had been in the church, and they knew who I was. They didn't have anything, except that somebody had provided them with a place.

When I walked in the door, she indicated to me that her mother was not home, but she also indicated to me to sit down and she would provide me with tea. I wasn't sure that they even had tea — or anything — but I did get the tea. I had to be willing to accept it, because it was offered.

I think we've got a tremendous task. Over the last 50 years government after government has come and made promises and not delivered. They've always tried to do it the old way. We have said that we're going to try and do it differently. We have said that we must have an economy in our province that will sustain the services all our people need. We have said that we will be here for all our people in the community. I would simply like to say, as I've said before, that I agree with this. The most difficult people that we will have to try and serve…. The greatest test of what we do at the end of our four or eight years — whatever it may be — will be that the economic poor will not be as poor. They will have more respect. They will appreciate that others have heard them, listened to them, responded to them and loved them.