2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 14

[ Page 14791 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are ten members of the Canadian Federation of Students: Ben Williams, Mark Veerkamp, Summer McFayden, Rob Fleming, Jaimie McEvoy, Meadow Allen, Jason Loxton, Scott Payne, Allan Lloyd and Sasha Kvakic. Please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

WOUTERS REPORT ON

B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY

R. Neufeld: My question today is to the Minister of Forests. The NDP's forest policies are driven by a disastrous devotion to process, reviews and endless regulations. Today the NDP received the Wouters report, which recommends (1) a review of the Forest Practices Code; (2) a review of the timber supply process; (3) a mill closure review; (4) a review of all regulations, statutes, ministries and agencies responsible for forest activities; and finally, the appointment of an implementation commissioner to oversee the implementation of this report. Will the Forests minister tell us today why the NDP's answer to every problem is the creation of more process and more bureaucratic review?

Hon. J. Doyle: The Wouters report was asked for by the industry last year. The report was received by myself this morning, as Minister of Forests. I intend to now wait and hear back from British Columbians as to how they feel about the report.

As far as the Forest Practices Code and other safeguards we have brought in as far as being stewards of the land, that crew over there has spoken loudly against the Forest Practices Code and other items that we've done to be better stewards of the land. We have done a very good job in this government as far as being good stewards of our land in the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member for Peace River North with a supplemental.

R. Neufeld: I have no idea why this minister would go out and ask British Columbians. You've never listened to them up until now -- for nine years. Why would you start today?

One of the recommendations in today's report is to review the Forest Practices Code to find new approaches to reduce overall administration costs. In 1998 . . .

An Hon. Member: Right on.

R. Neufeld: Right on.

. . . the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests committed to doing that to reduce regulation. Will the Minister of Forests agree with Mr. Wouters that his government has failed miserably to eliminate needless red tape that continues to threaten the forest industries and jobs that are actually in that minister's constituency?

Hon. J. Doyle: The former minister, over the last year, brought in savings of up to $1 billion in savings as far as the Forest Practices Code in the province of British Columbia. It's a very important part of our stewardship of the land. We are proud to have brought in the Forest Practices Code. I know that group over there doesn't believe in being good stewards of the land.

OPERATION OF GLACIER VIEW LODGE

C. Hansen: Today the B.C. Court of Appeal spoke on the issue of Glacier View Lodge and the NDP's attempt to expropriate that facility. The court described the expropriation legislation in these terms: " . . . this snake may have been scotched, but it has not been killed."

We have a minister responsible for volunteers and protecting volunteers in this province. I would like to ask her, in view of this court decision, whether or not she will agree to repeal the legislation that is threatening the efforts of volunteers and not-for-profit organizations around this province.

[1415]

Hon. J. Kwan: In fact, next week is National Volunteer Week, and our government is actually very proud of our record with respect to volunteers and ensuring that we appreciate them not only in the health sector but in every sector of our communities.

With respect to Glacier View Lodge, I understand that the issue has been discussed by the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health for some time, and they've worked towards resolution with respect to that issue. We need to continue to ensure that the volunteers in all of our communities are welcomed and appreciated in every sector.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a supplemental.

C. Hansen: I suggest that she read the court ruling, because it's a rather different

interpretation of the work that this government has done towards volunteers. The court reviewed comments that were made by the now Deputy Premier during the debate on this legislation in 1997. The Deputy Premier went to great lengths to say that this was not about expropriation. And the court says that the then-minister's attempt "puts a meaning on the word 'expropriation' different from the common meaning." The Deputy Premier was clearly playing games.

Will the minister responsible for volunteers agree that the Deputy Premier was wrong in her definition of expropriation and that they were wrong not to repeal this legislation when they had the chance to do so?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand that the member is picking out certain comments in a 31-page decision, but what he missed -- and what I think is important -- is that the appeal that was lodged against the decision around Glacier View Lodge was dismissed by the court. The court actually found in favour of the province. I think that's a very important thing to know.

Second, the important thing is the fact that Glacier View Lodge is not being expropriated. In fact, a contract is in place for the lodge to operate in an agreement with the health

[ Page 14792 ]

authority. That's what we've been working towards; that's what we want to see happen. So there will be no expropriation of Glacier View Lodge.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a further supplemental.

C. Hansen: The most important point in this judgment, which the minister obviously misses, is that while we need long term care facilities in this province -- we have a critical shortage -- the existence of this legislation on the books is preventing not-for-profit organizations from going ahead. And I find it interesting to see that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is heckling on this issue, because the court judgment actually points out that he is on record as opposing this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, the member opposes this legislation; we oppose this legislation; and, more importantly, the volunteers in British Columbia oppose this legislation. Why does this government ignore the outcries of volunteers and only does what's right when it's ordered to do so by the courts in this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is demonstrating the problem of trying to read a 31-page judgment in two minutes before question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Continue, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The key finding of the judgment was in fact in favour of the province. The case was dismissed; the appeal was dismissed. As I said before, Glacier View Lodge will operate under an agreement in affiliation with the authority. There is no expropriation taking place. That's a key point that the opposition doesn't seem to want to recognize, and that's crucial to understanding the issue.

[1420]

PROTECTION OF BURNS BOG

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, today the ecosystem review of Burns Bog was publicly released. The report shows that the NDP government made a disastrous mistake by trying to put a theme park in the middle of a globally unique ecosystem. Will the government finally do the right thing, stand up in the House today and commit to protecting the entire bog now?

Hon. J. Sawicki: I'm assuming that the question was directed at me. I want to say that I really welcome the two reports that we've been able to release today. Greg McDade, in his recommendations, has given us a pathway to encourage all jurisdictions and all agencies interested in acquiring and preserving that bog to actually get together and try to achieve that.

The Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands with a supplemental.

M. Coell: Last year we were trying to put Disneyland North on the bog. There's no excuse for delays. Will the minister stand up and announce today that she and her government will protect the bog in its entirety right now?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I hope that I may take that question as an indication that the official opposition will sit down with us, as well, and work with the federal Liberal government, Delta, the GVRD and the other interested non-profit agencies to try and achieve just that.

REPORT ON COST OF

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES

C. Clark: Well, another day, another review -- right, hon. Speaker? It was three weeks ago that the Premier said that he was going to release the details of these juicy labour deals that his government had signed without his knowledge. Then he said that he would release them around budget time. Then he said: "No, no, no, it'll be a week later." Then he said it would be today. Within minutes he was contradicted by his own Finance minister, who said that, no, the Premier was wrong. It wouldn't be today; it would be tomorrow instead.

So my question is to the Premier. Who's in charge over there? And why has it taken so long to release these details to the public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, obviously these numbers and these figures have to come from across government, from all of the ministries. They have to be collated, and they have to be presented fairly and honestly in the context of the circumstances that those decisions were made in. I was under the impression -- and I have learned that I was under the wrong impression -- that we were ready to release them today.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to answer the question once they're ready to hear the response.

The Minister of Finance advised me that Treasury Board still has more work to do in that regard and that those numbers will be available tomorrow. But let me tell you, I have seen the preliminary numbers, and they tell a story that the opposition might not want to hear. The story is that we have provided low-wage redress and pay equity to the women in British Columbia who work in the public sector.

C. Clark: Gee, hon. Speaker, I checked their web site yesterday, and the HEU can cook up their numbers faster than the government can. I'll tell you why the government's taking so long to get these numbers out. It's because, instead of just releasing them to the public, the Premier has appointed the government's chief spin doctor, John Heaney, to monitor their release. That's the same John Heaney who was in charge of stonewalling the Parks report release to the public, the same John Heaney who was in charge of the Nisga'a propaganda campaign.

Can the Premier tell us, if indeed his government is so committed to openness and transparency, why he has appointed a spin doctor to filter the facts rather than just releasing them to the public?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the Premier has said, these figures will be ready for release tomorrow. The work is ongoing by

[ Page 14793 ]

Treasury Board staff. They are the ones who are doing the work of making sure that we have a full and complete packet to release -- of all increases to compensation, of all pay equity increases, of service improvements in the broad public sector for the period of '98, '99 and 2000. That material will be ready tomorrow. It's being done by professionals, and I think the thoroughness will be quite apparent when it's released tomorrow.

[1425]

FAST FERRY ENGINE PROBLEM

M. de Jong: Here's the rumour. The rumour is that the sole surviving, operating fast cat has blown another engine, and the doctors are being flown in from Germany to see if they can patch it together one more time. But I know that rumour's not true, because I know a government that was truly transparent and accountable wouldn't have waited from Monday to Tuesday to Wednesday to tell British Columbians that their multimillion-dollar investment in this monument to NDP incompetence has gone off the rails one more time.

So will the minister responsible for this ferry boondoggle stand up, eliminate the doubt and tell us it hasn't happened again -- that the ferries haven't broken down one more time and that it's not going to cost British Columbians more money to fix an NDP problem?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The fast ferry is operating. No passenger service has been affected. However, yes, there is a problem with one of the engines on one of the fast ferries. Yes, the warranty on that engine did expire last week. The problem occurred yesterday. However, there are parts . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members will come to order, please.

J. MacPhail: The manufacturer is coming over to work with the corporation to repair the engine. There are parts of the engine that are under specific manufacturer guarantee, in addition to the basic warranty. So the manufacturer will work with the corporation on, first of all, fixing the problem and working to determine what parts of the manufacturer guarantee are still in effect.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Introduction of Bills

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: This act extends the current tuition fee freeze for approximately 190,000 students at B.C.'s 28 public colleges, university colleges, institutes and universities for a fifth consecutive year, to March 31, 2001. The introduction of this bill today underscores this government's continued commitment to access to post-secondary education for all British Columbians and is another example of this commitment in action.

Under the act, the freeze applies to fees charged for graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational and developmental programs, as well as to mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition. The tuition fee freeze does not apply to student organization fees or to fees charged to an international student or for a contract service or a continuing education program. The act provides that tuition fees for new programs must not exceed fees charged by an institution for similar existing programs. The act also allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to apply to the act in particular circumstances and to define terms used in the act.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1430]

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: While the minister is making that motion, seeing as the opposition has voted in favour of this bill every time, I'd be pleased to move it through all stages today and support it, if you'd like.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the matter of changing our rules and doing that -- the approach that the member alludes to -- is always at the Speaker's discretion. However, I don't imagine that we would have difficulty on this side.

The Speaker: It will just be one moment, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I ask your guidance. We are certainly receptive to the suggestion made by the Opposition House Leader. I would suggest that we would be wise, however, to take a few moments to debate a little bit on the throne speech. Then we'll bring the bill back for second reading, if that's agreeable.

The Speaker: From the nods of heads, I would assume that we have agreement on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have sorted out the logistical and procedural difficulties already. Just to clarify for members and those who may be watching these proceedings, later this afternoon I shall seek leave to proceed to second reading of this particular bill. If that is agreeable, I will simply now call . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Have we not voted on the motion? I'm sorry. Let's do it.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could make that motion.

[ Page 14794 ]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'll then amend my earlier motion to move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading later today.

The Speaker: Members, is leave granted first?

Leave granted.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading later today.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I hope we're all mindful of the precedential possibilities here. I would dearly hope that the members opposite would consider responding the same way to a number of other legislative initiatives that we're going to bring forward.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now call continued debate on the throne speech.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks rises on a matter.

Hon. J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1435]

Hon. J. Sawicki: I apologize that I was remiss in not making this introduction earlier. Certainly one of my constituents will benefit from what we are about to discuss later on this afternoon. His name is Ben Williams. He's the chairperson of the King Edward Students Association, local 76, of the Canadian Federation of Students. I might add that he's also an accomplished opera singer. Would the House please make my constituent welcome.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, when I last rose in this chamber to respond to the throne speech, it was about two and a half weeks ago on March 16. So that there is some continuity with what I said at the time, I will just briefly refer to where I was. I had mentioned at that time and referred to previous throne speeches . . . . Those previous throne speeches had offered promises to this province -- promises of protecting health care, promises of protecting education and promises of a commitment to continue to work on reducing government debt. As I indicated back then, those promises had been offered in those throne speeches, but those promises have never been kept.

We have come a long way in nine years -- a long way down, from the first to the worst economy in Canada. I shall continue with my perspective of this year's throne speech. When I was speaking of this year's throne speech on March 16, I left off speaking about the fast ferries project. I wondered why it was that not one member on that side of the House had offered to speak publicly and openly about the need for an independent inquiry as to what happened with the fast ferries project. It was a half-billion of wasted taxpayers' dollars. That is no joke, and that is no laughing matter.

I hope that the Finance minister and the Labour minister can offer their own personal apologies at some future point and stand up here and say to the people of this province and the people that they represent that, in fact, it was no joke and it was no laughing matter.

Even the member for North Coast, who is the Minister for Energy, Mines and Northern Development, as well the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who is the Minister for Employment and Investment, had a role in the fast ferries debacle. They too should stand up and apologize.

I do understand, though, that there has been one member who spoke out on this issue some time ago. But since we have come back to this chamber, he has been silent. That is the member for Nelson-Creston, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. At one time he believed that the only way to move ahead was to fully investigate what went so terribly wrong. He believed that -- or at least that's what we heard -- when he was running for the NDP leadership. If he had been put in the Premier's chair, I wonder where we would be today. We wonder if, in fact, those words would have rung as hollow as they now appear.

So why was it that there was only one person who was willing to speak out and support a full, open, independent public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco -- at that time, but not now? I am truly disappointed, although I'm not at all surprised. What this indicates is that this new Premier is really no different at all from his predecessor and that his promises of openness, cooperation and transparency are already tainted by not initiating this public inquiry, a public inquiry that many British Columbians are still demanding -- not just members on this side of the House.

The constituents that we represent are asking us to speak up, and speak up loudly. While I do not want to diminish the importance of cooperation, I would like to state for the record that cooperation is what members on this side of the House and the Leader of the Official Opposition have stated and called for, for many years -- for as long as I've been here, anyway.

I speak about the fast ferries because I receive so many calls in my constituency office about this. It is because I represent a Vancouver Island constituency. We are all dependent on that vital link to the rest of the province. The constituents who call me and write to me ask questions. They are astounded when I have to tell them the real facts -- the facts and the real facts, as the Premier would like us to offer. The fact is that the B.C. Ferry Corp debt was about $60 million when the NDP took office in 1991. Now it is well over $1 billion in debt. In nine short years it has climbed astronomically.

The fact is that the fast ferries project cost close to half a billion dollars, while we were originally told that it would only cost $210 million -- more than double the original estimate.

[1440]

The fact is that the government failed to review any business plan or financial data, because this government was either unwilling or incapable of doing so. The people of this province deserve to know the truth and get to the bottom of that, so it will never happen again. Saying that they intend not to ever have another megaproject does not exclude the possibility of another failure of another project.

As legislators, we are duty-bound to guide and protect the use of taxpayers' dollars. It is not the government's

[ Page 14795 ]

money; it is the taxpayers' money. We need to hold every member on that side of the House, particularly the cabinet members, to account. After a public inquiry is completed, only then will we begin to restore the trust that government so dearly needs from its electorate, the trust that has been eroded these past many years.

What does this throne speech offer to the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, the riding that I have had the honour of representing these past four years? One of the most pressing concerns that I constantly hear is: how will we restore our economy so that our young people have hope and opportunity as they strive to compete in the global marketplace? While I appreciate and acknowledge that education and training is fundamental to prospective employers and entrepreneurs, to businesses and industries, those businesses and those industries are still not flourishing. Consequently, there are even fewer opportunities that now exist for our young people.

In fact, what is happening is that our young graduates are leaving our province in record numbers. So our unemployment rate is falling not because they're getting jobs, but because they're leaving the province. When our young people leave our province, we lose not only their taxes but also our future tax base -- a tax base that is absolutely necessary for protecting health care and education for the future.

Hon. Speaker, again, what does this throne speech offer to the constituents that I represent in the way of protecting health care and education? Again I say: very little, except more rhetoric. Over the next ten to 20 years British Columbia's population of seniors, many of whom live in Oak Bay-Gordon Head, will increase more dramatically than any other population age group. That is an extremely significant statistic that we cannot afford to ignore.

The demands on our health care system will be even greater than the demands that we are now experiencing. Yet this throne speech did not offer any solutions or any vision as to what we can expect from this government in dealing with the very new demand that will be upon us soon.

What I did hear in this throne speech was that there would be a B.C. health innovation forum that would take place this spring. I haven't seen that started yet, but I'll wait with bated breath, as you can imagine, to see when that does start. In any event, this new innovation forum is supposed to be a place where health care providers, administrators and other experts will be brought together to exchange and offer ideas.

[1445]

While I guess I should applaud this initiative, I still question the Premier as to why it has taken so long for this kind of forum or initiative to occur. If the Premier had instead, while he was at the cabinet table, insisted on convening the Select Standing Committee on Health at least four years ago, perhaps then we would be looking at implementing solutions rather than just beginning to investigate those now.

As well, I wonder what the outcome of this forum will be or what the intention of this forum is. If a report is to be tabled, will it end up on a shelf someday just collecting dust, as so many other reports have? Hon. Speaker, I think you can understand and appreciate why I look at this initiative with some cynicism.

In the past month we saw nurses here in Victoria, on wards 7A and B at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, plead for more assistance. Our front-line workers, the nurses, had to come forward and warn the public that they could no longer continue to provide safe services should patients be admitted to their wards. The health regionalization project that this government imposed without a proper plan continues to fail the people of greater Victoria. Thousands of dollars were wasted, which should have gone to hiring more nurses and updating equipment.

I can think of one particularly wasteful expenditure in the amount of $70,000 shortly after I was elected, when I defeated the member who used to hold this position. And that $70,000 did nothing more to help health care in this region.

When you think of all the other dollars of overspending that has occurred, especially in the fast ferries project, it really angers you more. And it angers the constituents I represent that much more. If the Premier had offered, in his throne speech, a promise to stop politicizing our health care system and stop politicizing our public education system, maybe we would have seen a new vision and a new direction that would happen for the people of this province.

The throne speech didn't mention that health care is still deteriorating here in greater Victoria. Today we have another emergent issue unfolding as we speak. Many of the services that are offered at the Victoria General Hospital and the Royal Jubilee Hospital are not just offered to the residents of greater Victoria. They are offered to all people here on Vancouver Island. Yet we have the real threat of closure of the pediatric intensive care unit at the Victoria General Hospital. Our youngest people -- the pediatric care unit -- are being affected.

We also have the real threat of closure of the burn unit at the Royal Jubilee Hospital. So when someone says, "Is health care improving?" I can point to those areas I've already mentioned which clearly indicate that health care is not improving.

Speaking of closures, this past year we saw the potential closure of four schools in the greater Victoria area. In particular, two of those schools were targeted in the riding that I represent. At that time the greater Victoria school board budget had a shortfall; it was about $1.5 million. The Minister of Education insisted that there was money available to properly fund education. That Minister of Education is now our Minister of Finance, so it'll be interesting to see what he has in store for other parts of this province. What other school districts can look forward to dealing with school closures? I hope they don't have the experience that I had last year, hon. Speaker.

What does a $1.5 million shortfall mean in the area of Oak Bay-Gordon Head? If I can put that into context, that represents about one week's amount of interest expense -- debt-servicing expense -- on the B.C. Ferry Corporation debt. One week's interest would have dealt with the shortfall. So it is clear that it is about choices.

And it is clear that the choices to protect health care and education have to be more than just the vagueness that this throne speech has offered us. I see that the throne speech offers nothing new to our young people either, the young people who are hoping for a new era of prosperity. It also offers nothing to our seniors wanting a sense of reliability in our health care system. The people that I represent in Oak Bay-Gordon Head see this very well.

[1450]

We need a vibrant and diverse economy if we expect to protect health care and education for the people of our

[ Page 14796 ]

province. It is not about what is happening now; it is what we need to look to the future for. A vibrant and diverse economy will provide opportunities; it will provide choices.

It is clear that this Premier is offering nothing new in this throne speech, because it is devoid of detail, and it is lacking in vision. What it does reveal is that we can expect more of the same. If that is to be the case, how are we to move ahead? The most clear way we can tell the people of this province that we want to move ahead is for this Premier to stand up and for those members to support the Premier in calling an election now.

I know that members on that side of the House would rather that I not bring up the subject; they'd rather wait it out and go for another year. But another year is not what people in this province can stand to bear.

Let's think about what has happened since we adjourned last summer. We have had three Premiers in one short year. Two of those Premiers, including our current Premier, were not even given a mandate from the people of this province to govern. Is this how democracy works? Is this how this Premier and his government members earn back the respect and confidence of British Columbians? How can this Premier truly respond to the needs of British Columbians when he hasn't even put forward a real vision for them?

Listening to the throne speech, I believe we can sum up the government's agenda and vision for the year, and that is to spend, spend, spend and spend some more without so much as providing any accountability or any business plan. What it is about is continuing on with their fiscal irresponsibility that has permeated our lives for the past four years, by wasting taxpayers' dollars on megaprojects like the fast ferries project.

I saw nothing in this throne speech that deals with job losses when mills are closing and mines are shutting down. When I heard the throne speech taking credit for the high-tech industry . . . . The high-tech industry has thrived not because of but in spite of this government's destructive economic policies. Nowhere did I hear in the throne speech any solution to the crises that continue to escalate in health care and education. So it was a great disappointment and an indication that what we will expect is more of the same.

Whether it is the member for Vancouver-Kingsway when he was Premier or it's now the Premier representing Vancouver-Kensington, we do know one thing: nothing has changed, and all British Columbians know it. Since 1991 this government has not listened to the people of this province, and now in the year 2000 it is still not listening.

Hon. Speaker, I heard in the throne speech that this government wants to be open and to cooperate. If they do want that, their first order of business -- I again reiterate -- is to call a full, independent public inquiry into the fast ferries debacle, because we all know that that would be a clear sign of a new vision and a new direction.

Without that and without many other things in the throne speech, I can say that the members opposite will understand when I find their comments a little less than sincere. This is not a brand-new beginning; this is more of the same.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me start by expressing my appreciation to the member for Prince George-Omineca for showing me the courtesy of allowing me to precede him in the speaking order -- evidence of the new cooperative environment that we're all trying to aspire to here in the Legislature. I appreciate his accommodating me in that way.

[1455]

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the throne speech and to the direction that it sends, because I think we have a throne speech here that really does very much respond to the aspirations of middle-income British Columbians -- the families who want to see a government that understands and listens and responds to their concerns about the future. I think that the themes in the throne speech have now been followed up, of course, by action, through the introduction of the budget, and I want to talk about how the two work together in my comments.

Really, what this throne speech is about is a major change in the way that we approach these issues in this House and in this province. It's about putting an end to a form of confrontational politics that has perhaps served us in the past but no longer serves us in this province as we try to move forward. I think British Columbians have said that they are tired of the politics of confrontation. They want to see a different style. They want to see politicians who are not fighting with each other but who are fighting to better the lives of those middle-income families and their children, ensuring that the energy that they put is put productively to setting a course on behalf of this province.

I see in this throne speech and in the budget that followed it strong evidence of the commitment of the Premier, of this cabinet and certainly of this government to move in that direction -- to put aside the old-style confrontational politics and put in its place an agenda that makes government work for ordinary British Columbians.

A balanced approach . . . . Again, along with the confrontational style of the past, we have too often seen an approach which seems, regardless of who's in government, to favour one side or the other and not speak to the need of all British Columbians.

What we see in this throne speech and again in the budget, I think, is a balanced approach, a moderate approach, one that shows a government that is trying to move forward in a way that includes and responds to the needs of all British Columbians, with a particular emphasis on those middle-income families, those middle-income earners who are out there and who have been struggling and hoping that they and their families will have a government that responds to their needs.

I see that in the commitment in the throne speech to make tax cuts. That commitment, of course, has now been followed up in the budget. We see modest but, I would say, substantial tax cuts: some $225 million of cuts in taxes this year. That amount will rise next year to $275 million, a half-billion dollars in tax cuts targeted directly at those middle-income families, reflecting the view that those families are the ones who have been squeezed the most as we have seen downloading from the federal government in respect of health care and education.

Those families are the ones that have struggled the most in recent years with federal cuts in services, and those families are the ones who will, when given the money -- through tax cuts -- back into their pockets, spend that money here in B.C. and start the process of stimulating the economy and enhancing the recovery that is already underway.

Over the two years, that tax cut amounts -- for middle-income families on the provincial side alone -- to a 9 percent cut for middle-income earners. I think that is welcome news.

[ Page 14797 ]

A moderate but substantial tax cut, targeted at middle-income families, is something that makes sense in terms of their needs and priorities. It's something that makes economic sense, because they are the people who will spend that money here in B.C. and, through that expenditure, create jobs, help small business and assist in accelerating the economic recovery that's already underway.

Then I look at the business side of the tax cut agenda that was referred to in the throne speech and again followed up in the budget, and I see again a very specific targeting of tax cuts to small business. That's no accident. We know that small business is the sector of our business community that creates the most jobs, the sector that is most important in terms of stimulating those opportunities for young people and the like.

By cutting the tax rate to 4.75 percent -- the second-lowest in the country and within a hair's-breadth of being the lowest in the country -- this government is sending a very strong signal that we have faith in that small business community and that we put that small business community at the top of our list in terms of its importance to the economy and to the future. We're prepared to support that sector of the economy in its very dramatic growth in recent years, notwithstanding some economic difficulties in other sectors.

I also see a commitment to encourage investment not only by small business but by large business, through a credit on sales tax on machinery and equipment.

So what the government has done here is taken a reasonable amount of the budgetary moneys that are available to it and targeted them in a very specific way which shows that the priorities of this government correspond to the priorities of those middle-income families -- targeting it at middle-income earners in the case of personal income tax cuts, targeting it at small business and targeting it at a tax cut that will encourage investment and economic recovery.

[1500]

As a result, if they look at the tax tables that came with the budget, members opposite will note that this province in fact has the second-lowest taxes in the country, when you look at the full range of taxes for a middle income family -- the second-lowest taxes in the country for middle-income families and getting lower as a result of this year's budget. That will help those families; it will also help the economy.

What is shown here in the throne speech, and through the throne speech into the budget, is an understanding that the economy and the well-being of middle-income families is not just a matter of cutting taxes. It's not just taking a one-dimensional approach, as members of the opposition are wont to do, saying: "Tax cuts are all we need to do. Let's just walk away and leave people to their own devices." No. There's an understanding here that we also need to invest in the key instruments of our social fabric that will help those families and their children to have a brighter future.

We see that particularly clearly, I would suggest, on the education side -- the commitments to education in the throne speech, again followed up in the actions shown in the budget. A tuition freeze for the fifth straight year -- the legislation was introduced today -- which ensures that B.C. students will have affordable post-secondary education, is pretty clear evidence of this government's commitment to access to education, to providing affordable education.

We're very proud on this side of the House that we've moved from the second-highest tuition fees in the country to the second-lowest and that our participation rate among students has risen from the second-lowest to the second-highest. In respect of that participation rate, I see in the throne speech and then again in the budget a very substantial commitment to opening the doors of education wider still. As our economy becomes more knowledge-based and more competitive, it is ever more essential that more and more young people have access to post-secondary education so they can be competitive and be contributors to the economy of the future.

So we see 5,025 new students' faces -- over 2,000 more than are required to keep up with population -- to specifically increase participation rates even beyond what they have become today and to ensure that those doors to post-secondary education become wider and that the price of going through those doors becomes ever more affordable for young people and those who wish to return to post-secondary education.

Recognizing that we are in a changing economy, I am very pleased to see that 800 of those 5,025 new spaces are being targeted to high-tech training, which is a very important commitment that relates to the commitment this government has to diversify the economy. It's part of the reason that we have seen extraordinary growth rates in high-tech. Talk to anyone in the high-tech sector, and they'll tell you that the most important input to the growth of that sector is a strong educational system -- well-qualified, well-trained students who are ready to take on the jobs and opportunities in that sector.

This government has delivered by creating thousands of new spaces in the post-secondary sector in recent years and targeting many of those for high-tech trainees.

But we went beyond that this year in this throne speech and in this budget. We went beyond that, because colleges and universities said that if we are to open the doors still wider, then we have to make sure that the quality of education keeps up with the demand. So it's an extraordinary commitment -- $85 million of increased funding commitment for core funding to post-secondary institutions -- that is unprecedented in terms of the commitment being made here to those institutions to ensure that access does not come at the price of quality of education, but that both coexist.

I was very pleased, following the throne speech and again following the budget, to hear university presidents, representatives from students and representatives from the college sector speaking out and talking about the commitment that they see in the throne speech and in the budget to post-secondary education -- a commitment that stands apart from what we've seen in other provinces and what we've certainly seen across the way from the Liberal opposition. That commitment will pay dividends; it means that young people . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I know that the members opposite don't want to hear this. But they really should understand it, because it is very important that they understand that the young people's future is tied to the fact that those young people have access to training and opportunities. It isn't enough to simply throw those young people into the job market unequipped to fill the opportunities. Here we have that commitment.

[1505]

We also have a commitment to train some 400 nurses this year in the post-secondary system. When people ask me, "Is

[ Page 14798 ]

this training going to translate into job creation?" I think the answer is very clearly yes, because there are positions waiting in the high-tech sector. There are positions waiting for nurses; there are positions waiting for those who are trained through ITAC and through technical training and vocational training courses. Thanks to this government's commitment in the throne speech, followed up very substantively in the budget, those resources will be there.

That means we will have a stronger economy, it means we will have a more diversified economy, and it means that young people will be able to share in those benefits and to ensure that they participate fully in helping to create and in benefiting from that new economy. While we talk about that new economy, let me say how pleased I am, as well, that specific measures are being taken -- in addition to the tax cuts, in addition to the investment in education -- to encourage an innovation economy, to encourage diversification of our economy.

You know, the downturn we saw in our economy as a result of declines in commodity prices in recent years, coupled with the decline in Asia in recent years, was disturbing to us all. But that downturn did not have nearly the impact of the downturn that took place in the early 1980s, because our economy was more diversified. Through this government's efforts, we are becoming more diversified still.

So what we see here is a commitment not only to education, not only to cuts in taxes, but to invest in a high-tech commission, building on the R and D tax credit that was announced last year and is growing to $28 million this year -- a commission to further accelerate the growth of a sector of our economy which is growing in extraordinary terms, leaps and bounds, and has helped to stabilize our overall economic performance and is very much the wave of the future.

I also see a commitment to deferring income benefits on stock options, some $33 million in cost -- but money well spent, in my view, because it will provide a strong message of support to the high-tech sector, in which stock options are used, that we as a government understand the need to provide some relief in terms of the timing through which those stock options become taxable and to encourage growth in that sector.

We all know that the film sector has grown in an incredible way in this province, in large measure because this government, through its tax credit policy, has supported that growth. It hasn't just stood back, hasn't just said, "You're on your own" -- as members of the opposition are wont to say -- but has said: "We want to be there to encourage and support that growth." The film tax credit has been a very successful initiative.

That film tax credit is now going to be extended in its benefit through the presence of regional film commissions. The film commission that was established and has been very successful promoting film development in the lower mainland and in southern Vancouver Island . . . . To some extent, those benefits will now permeate throughout the province as regional communities have the benefit of funding support to develop their own regional film commissions.

In Victoria, where I come from, or up-Island, where we had an economic summit recently, or in the interior, this is very good news, because they know that the success of promoting film in this province is a success that need not be limited geographically just to the lower mainland. It's a success that can be spread and can serve to benefit communities right across this province.

This government's commitment to doing that, to ensuring that this innovation and diversification is not a regional phenomenon but helps to strengthen communities from one side of British Columbia to the other -- from north to south, from east to west -- is, I think, evidence of a government that does understand how to balance our commitments regionally as well as in other ways.

Finally, I'm pleased to see commitments on the green economy -- $5 million to support research and demonstration projects, support for tourism and ecotourism. Again, these are ways in which we can take advantage of our natural strengths as a province, our natural beauty. The commitment and strength that we have towards green technologies . . . . I know the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about that in his budget address yesterday. We can encourage and broaden that development through these kinds of initiatives.

There's one other very obvious area where this government has shown a commitment that responds to the needs of middle-income families, and that's in our commitment to health care.

An increase of over half a billion dollars in funding for health care -- coupled with the agreement that was reached with doctors recently, coupled with the commitment to hiring more nurses, coupled with the commitment to training spaces for more nurses, coupled with a $42 million commitment to increasing continuing care beds in community services, coupled with a commitment to reach out and work with stakeholders in order to ensure that we find the answers to very difficult challenges facing our health care system -- is evidence of a cooperative, inclusive approach.

It understands that money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to deal with the challenges of our health care system.

I understand that one of my colleagues wishes to make an introduction in the House. To accommodate him, I will briefly take a recess from my remarks.

[1510]

Hon. G. Wilson: Thank you to my colleague the Attorney General for allowing me this opportunity. I am delighted to have . . . .

The Speaker: If you could ask for leave, member.

Hon. G. Wilson: I ask for leave, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Wilson: I shouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume that I would get leave. My history in this House is not always to get leave, actually, when I ask for it.

I am delighted to have with us 28 students, who are in grades 4 and 5 at Gibsons Elementary School, who are visiting with their teacher, Mr. Desharnais. They are here not only to partake in government, to see how government works, but also to learn about our first nations. They will be spending some time at first nations displays around Victoria. I'm delighted that they're here today. I'm most delighted that they're here to hear our Attorney General, who is one of our more articulate speakers and who, I am sure, is going to impart words of wisdom that each of them will benefit from. Please, will the House welcome these elementary school students and the future leaders of our province.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm delighted that some students are able to join us today for this debate, because really, this debate is

[ Page 14799 ]

about their future. This debate is about whether or not we're going to pursue a course in which we put aside some of the old-style politics of the past and move towards a new approach that puts middle-income British Columbians at the centre and ensures that young people have a bright future in terms of a government that is committed to them and to that future.

What I was suggesting is that the throne speech and the budget in conjunction demonstrate exactly that commitment -- a balanced approach through moderate but substantial tax cuts for middle-income earners, a commitment to education, a commitment to diversifying and innovating our economy and support for the health care system that is so critical to the well-being of all people in our society, young and old. It's all here in a balanced way.

I contrast that with the agenda, such as it is, that has been offered by members opposite -- by members of the Liberal opposition. I regret to say that what I see in that agenda is not a balanced approach, not a commitment to put middle-income British Columbians at the top, not an understanding that we as a government need to do an array of things to support the future for young people. Rather, it is a very narrow and extreme vision, a vision very much based upon the old politics and the old view that it's okay to simply take a confrontational approach to these issues and pursue a very narrow agenda that favours only a privileged few.

When you talk about tax cuts, hon. Speaker . . . . I know that there was a costing of the opposition's tax cut agenda done last spring, and I suspect the numbers have gone up since then.

At that point the best number that we could come up with was that the cost of the tax cuts the opposition were promising was about $2.25 billion -- not targeted at middle-income earners, thrown out to anyone and everyone and tied to a moving target of whatever other provinces did, without regard for the consequences for social programs or the impact in terms of fairness and distribution for those who receive it or the impact on the economy. In fact, the tax cut promises were so extreme that even one neoconservative columnist referred to them recently as irresponsible.

So even those who philosophically share the view that large tax cuts are desirable believe that the party opposite has taken a very extreme and indeed irresponsible view. I suggest that's unfortunate. Perhaps they can re-evaluate that position, because I don't think that members of the public want that kind of extreme agenda. They don't want to see tax cuts dominate to the point that health and education will suffer. Indeed, when we look at what the party opposite has said in the past on education, we don't see a positive vision at all.

In the last election the party opposite said that they forgot about post-secondary education, when it turned out that that education was going to be cut by 15 percent. They said: "Oh. We forgot to exclude it. We forgot to exclude it from that 15 percent cut." That's not evidence of a party or an opposition that has any commitment to education.

[1515]

When the federal government cut funding to the province for post-secondary education, they said the funding cut wasn't deep enough. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said the federal government should have cut more from funding for post-secondary education. They've continually criticized the tuition freeze; they've criticized class size reductions for younger students; they've criticized us for hiring more teachers to help young students, particularly in the primary grades.

So what is their agenda on education? By inference, I assume it must be to increase class size, to increase tuition, to cut teachers and to cut post-secondary funding. Those are indeed the only policy options they have offered in recent years on that side.

On health care, again, there's a complete vacuum, other than the negativity that they show; they have no positive vision. I assume, because of the trips to Alberta and Ontario and the praise they heap on those governments, that they favour the approach that is being taken in Alberta towards a two-tier health care system -- a public system that is undermined by private health care. That is not going to be acceptable to British Columbians.

I hope that the opposition will join in the spirit that this throne speech and this budget have shown -- and that this government and the new Premier are showing -- towards a more balanced and cooperative approach -- and not just in yielding a space in the speaking order but in policy as well. British Columbians are tired of the extremes of the past. They want a government that will commit to a balanced approach -- one that balances tax cuts with investments in social programs.

They don't want to see a government come to power, which would be the case were the members opposite to, unfortunately, assume that position -- which has only a one-trick agenda aimed at cutting taxes at the expense of the very programs that middle-income British Columbians rely upon.

I must say that I think we're also tired in British Columbia of the negativity of politics generally. At a time when we have the lowest unemployment rate in the last 18 years, the second-highest student participation rates, the second-lowest tax rates, the second-lowest tuition fees, and at a time where we're seeing participation rates in our post-secondary institutions rise, there's something to celebrate here. Maybe the members opposite could find it in their hearts to start celebrating as well, because that will be part of setting the tone for the future of this province.

It's time to be positive about our future. This throne speech is positive; this budget is positive. The Premier is positive. It is only the Opposition that is negative. It's time they rethought their ways, connected with middle-income British Columbians, took a balanced approach and set aside their extreme agenda. Let's move forward together.

L. Reid: I am indeed intrigued by the members opposite -- their comments about taking a positive approach for the young people of this province. The young people of this province would like to be debt-free.

I have a child that is eight weeks old, and according to the documents this government would provide to us, this child already owes $9,000. That's the legacy left to her by this government. I find that shameful. I would not be a member opposite, getting to my feet and being proud of yet another empty throne speech which delivers nothing more than debt and deficit to the generations that will come after us.

I for one believe that we have an enormous obligation to safeguard the next generation -- to not saddle them with enormous debt. A throne speech should be a list of promises that the government intends to accomplish. You can't do that as a government when you're dead, flat broke. That's the bottom line. This government has given more debt and deficit to this province than we have known in the entire history of the province. When the government members get to their feet

[ Page 14800 ]

and somehow suggest that they've left a legacy that will be helpful to children, I do not accept that notion. I do not accept for a moment that they're concerned about the folks that will come after us. If they were, they would have balanced the budget. They would have been honest about budgetary matters that came before us.

The throne speech should be backed up with some kind of reasonable possibility of implementation. When they talk about the promises -- and they talk at great length -- you have to have some dollars in the budget to back that up. My hon. colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena referenced the mental health plan the other day -- a wonderful plan on paper. Every single group out there was consulted; the committees met in an endless array of meetings. The actual plan was never funded; not once was it funded by this government. We see press release after press release, announcement after announcement.

When it comes to the rubber hitting the road, the actual implementation of the idea or the program, it simply isn't funded. There are no dollars in place to do that. That to me is nothing more than a litany of empty promises -- spin doctor after spin doctor, press conference after press conference, announcement after announcement. Very little happens in the paper other than the press conference and the announcement.

[1520]

I'll give you an example of a group of young people in this province who are incredibly disillusioned with this government. They entitled their conference -- which I attended March 9; it was a sexual exploitation conference -- It's Time to Claim Our Dreams. There was a young woman there who wrote the most incredible poem, and I want to put it into the record today. I promised her that I would certainly put her thoughts into this place, and hopefully they will have some impact. She too was concerned about the fact that government promises much and delivers very little. Her name is Jenn Hine, and she's 16 years old.

God, get me out of this street life, please,

'Cause the gold chains of these pimps is such a tease.

I'll be caught like a leaf blowing in the breeze,

Spirits submissed, I'm crawling on my knees.

I've dug myself in as deep as can be,

Too late to get out, too late to be free.

Surrounded by darkness, it's hard to believe

That from this prison I could ever leave.

To all the winds I throw my self-worth,

There is a reason I'm put here on this earth.

Maybe I'll be a doctor or a rocket engineer,

This life is too painful, drowned by my own fear.

Held back by situation and undeniable temptation,

Drugs plus prostitution is my life's simple equation.

My descent into hopelessness has already begun,

I cannot hide, must fight, won't help to run.

'Cause drugs and money are my main objective,

My innocence and respect are the price I must give.

This street life is no way for me to live,

My existence darkened, my life's a sieve.

Lost in the trees, I cannot escape,

Seven years of life marks my future fate.

The hunger, the inner wounds scarring my soul

Broken down, beaten up, on the dole.

Blast all the unforgivable tears I have cried,

My inner wills long ago fatally died.

For added effect, my friends involved on this ride

Rebel, escape, get straight -- I've tried.

Not enough help, there is no one I can trust,

Stay here and rot forever I must.

I need someone to listen, someone to understand,

A group with the ropes is what I demand.

The truth is clearly real, I know I must quit,

My friend, that is painfully hard to admit.

Kindling the fire, I store my power to grow strong,

The time is nearing, soon it won't be long

Until I pull this arrow from my heart to suddenly feel,

Sever my security blanket to make my life shockingly real,

Uncontrollably, I'll discover the truth, like a banana I peel.

Inside, mangled, barely rememberable I see

The remainder of a once-beautiful me.

Like CPR I must breathe life back into my veins,

Striking my weakness, fragile, I stand with these pains.

Telling myself to hold on a little while longer because

Whatever doesn't kill ya can only make you stronger!

That was written by a 16-year-old young woman who, when faced with announcement after announcement on behalf of government, has very little confidence that the government will actually make her life different. She is an intelligent, articulate young woman who indeed feels dismissed, if you will, by this government. She truly had believed that somehow things would be different. There's not much that is different today for young people.

I also had the opportunity to participate in something called Dusk to Dawn, a street-youth resource centre. Many members of this Legislature will know that they offer a program for legislators, community members and community leaders to come together, learn and gather some different vantage points, if you will, from spending a night on the street. They title their evening "A Hard Night Out." Interestingly enough, they have lots of individuals out there who simply don't understand -- don't appreciate the definition of what it is to be a street-involved youth or a street kid.

Again, I've committed to putting their definition on the record as part of this throne speech response:

"A 'street-involved' youth is a person between the ages of 12 and 25 who lives below the poverty level and spends some time on the street. Some of the reasons for leaving home are because of family disputes or sexual, physical and mental abuse, and sometimes there are too many mouths to feed, so they are left to fend for themselves. The living conditions for these youth are either poor or nonexistent. Some live on the street, some live in cheap welfare hotels, a few still live at home, and others live in squats. A squat is an abandoned building with no power, water or heat and the people who live there do not have the legal right to do so.

"Health is a big problem in the life of these individuals. A simple cold can escalate into a life-threatening illness. Small cuts can get infected, and bleeding can lead to death due to blood loss. Major diseases like AIDS can go on unchecked, because of either the lack of funds for medical purposes or the distrust . . . [in the system.] Those with drug problems may not have the money needed for new and clean needles. There is little employment for these youth, and most find money by other means. The most popular of these is panning, which is asking for money on the street. Then there is busking, which is playing a musical instrument -- and a donation is given."

[1525]

It goes on, and it indicates that there is a tremendous experience today for young people that very few of us know very much about. These are not lifestyle opportunities we would wish on our own offspring. Frankly, we wouldn't be comfortable if we knew someone who was existing -- barely surviving -- today on the streets of our province, having to basically participate in activities for the opportunity for a cup of coffee, for the opportunity to have a morsel of food in their mouths. These are children -- and they are children -- who live day-to-day, hand-to-mouth existences that we as a society have not adequately recognized.

It's interesting: when we have discussions in this chamber regarding sexually exploited youth, somehow the youth ends up being the criminal in the minds of a number of

[ Page 14801 ]

individuals. A sexually exploited youth is a child, hon. Speaker.

There are issues today that we must resolve as a Legislature. Frankly, we must resolve them as a society, when we have, I think, done very little in terms of honouring the fact that those childhoods have evaporated. We've allowed those childhoods to be stolen from the young people of this province and in fact have often penalized them for being the victims in some very terrible, unsavoury scenarios across this province.

I have tremendous admiration for the Dusk to Dawn Youth Resource Centre, for the individuals who work there, for the individuals who bring a supportive environment to street-involved youth in the province of British Columbia. It was my privilege to participate in that evening and certainly to learn some things that I would not have had the opportunity to do otherwise.

If I might just add to the record the mission statement for Dusk to Dawn:

"Dusk to Dawn is a flexible, supportive, non-judgmental and consistent service run with and for street youth. We offer street-involved youth, 21 and under, access to a positive social support network, referral to other services or direct access to service providers, diversionary activities and positive opportunities.

"Dusk to Dawn is a voluntary program that aims to help keep youth alive by providing basic needs and a safe environment. The goal of the centre is to provide support and information for youth to assist them in making healthier choices when they are ready.

"Dusk to Dawn strives to reduce the barriers to service. Youth can access the centre as they are -- under the influence; however young they are -- and can bring their pets. We are dedicated to bridging gaps and reducing barriers by working collaboratively with other services."

Again, a wonderful group of young people who work very, very hard, work tirelessly, to offer support to street-involved youth in the province of British Columbia.

I might also take a moment to mention Bruce Topp, who is an elementary school teacher in the district of Richmond. His students from James Thompson Elementary School donated 50 jackets to this program, Dusk to Dawn, and delivered the jackets to the program last November. You will know that it was mightily cold in November on Vancouver streets, and it was a great opportunity for those young people, who reside in the city of Richmond and who were representing the school district in Richmond, to actually give something back to their communities. I think they learned some very healthy lessons from that, and I certainly applaud their efforts for having done so.

In terms of the report that we saw tabled yesterday in this Legislature, "Not Good Enough: Special Report on Government Services for Children and Youth, 1999 Annual Report," the members opposite have stood up and talked about what a legacy this throne speech is to the people of this province, particularly the children, and that's not factual. That's not the information we find today in this report. This report is dated April 4 in the year 2000, so it's not old information. It's not any information that can somehow be tainted by the government somehow spinning it any other way.

It's straightforward; it's honest; it's complete. In my view, it points out a very sad look at how this government has handled some of the more pressing issues. The report is written by Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate in British Columbia. I will quote from her letter:

"I have made 17 recommendations that, if implemented, will significantly improve services to children and youth. Only three of these recommendations have been fully implemented. Two partially implemented, and 12 have not been implemented. In my view, as British Columbia's advocate for children and youth, that is not good enough. I respectfully request each member of this House to carefully review this report and, in the best interests of children and youth who need government care, please implement the recommendations now. These children merit your attention; they deserve to be treated as a priority."

[1530]

Again, the report is written by Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate in British Columbia. I am going to put a number of these recommendations on the record, because it alarmed me when I heard the members opposite suggest that they had somehow taken care of these issues. Well, as late as yesterday afternoon there was no remedy in place; there was no solution in place. So before that overconfidence across the way chokes them, they need to address very carefully the contents of Joyce Preston's report, because frankly, their efforts to date -- and her title is apt -- have not been good enough.

My caucus has spent a considerable length of time on early intervention discussions, about what happens to children zero to six years of age and how vitally important it is to ensure that we put in place reasonable support systems that make sense. This is the very same government that took speech and language service, occupational therapy and physiotherapy and moved them from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry for Children and Families and then promptly cut the service -- reduced the budget, so the services were no longer available.

If you were the parent of a little person two, three or four years of age who had significant speech and language problems and were told that the wait-list was two or three years long -- that your child would be in grade 2 or 3 before they received service -- anyone who understands anything about child development knows you've missed the opportunity. Frankly, you've slammed the door in that little person's face in terms of them having a decent opportunity to address their own needs around speech and language development and to hopefully go forward in this life with some kind of self-esteem and self-confidence.

There's nothing more stigmatizing than being isolated and separated out from your peers by virtue of how you speak. Little children are very offended by that, very hurt by that and very stigmatized by that. There are services available today in this province that could mitigate that for them, and there are services today that are being denied them.

So the zero-to-six piece -- certainly there's tremendous research on that. Fraser Mustard's work on the real brain drain, which is all about not supporting children in their very early years, means that they do not have the capacity -- that we're not developing the capacity for them to exercise informed decision-making, for them to be the best they can possibly be. We are somehow denying them the opportunity for the best development of their intellectual capacity. That is not a legacy this government should be proud of -- not at all. Certainly every single piece of research one picks up today talks about the zero-to-six piece being vitally important.

So if there was an ability for this government to rank priority, to come back to the table and decide what was the most important, it is the zero-to-six piece. Today it's not

[ Page 14802 ]

before-school and after-school care. That's an interesting idea, and it certainly would be helpful. But it's not vitally important to early brain development. Once children are school-age, you have missed those opportunities. Once missed, those opportunities are never again available to you. That is the bottom line.

For the government to somehow dance around the issue and talk about perhaps a pilot project, perhaps a look at what happens to children zero-to-six . . . . Joyce Preston, Fraser Mustard, Clyde Hertzman and the thinkers on the zero-to-six research say no government can afford to miss this opportunity. This government has chosen to miss it for nine years, and frankly, it has no plan for year ten other than, for children in school, to expand their school day. That is not going to be of enormous assistance to children between zero and six years of age.

Do I agree with the findings of Joyce Preston? I do certainly agree. I've agreed for the last number of years that these reports have come forward. The Legislature and the public at large need to be aware that this was an officer of the Legislature appointed by this government, someone who would report out to members of this Legislature. Indeed, the decision was taken to appoint this individual. It seems to me that if you're going to go to that effort and expend those dollars, one would take the best advice of the day.

This government has chosen not to listen -- not in 1995, '96, '97, '98 and certainly not today. It alarms me that we have individuals who offer the very best advice to government and that advice is ignored -- not to have implemented 12 of her recommendations but simply to have ignored them. It's not an onerous number. It's 17 recommendations in five years, so it's doable. It would have been a manageable task for this government to truly, truly focus on the little folk in society who could indeed have their needs met.

[1535]

Justice Gove, when he talked about his inquiry . . . . He brought down the Gove inquiry, which was, I understood, a remedy for what was then a very fragmented delivery system. It was supposed to bring the services together and deliver them in a much more straightforward manner. It was indeed an opportunity for parents to have one-stop shopping, so that they weren't asked to go to 19 different places to receive service for their child.

The situation is not better today, hon. Speaker. The remedy has not been successful. The Ministry for Children and Families, I would submit, is more fragmented today than it has ever been. It's not a decent system when it comes to reporting out, to having performance measures, to having benchmarks, to having a decent organizational structure, a decent reporting structuring. It is mired down in internal tinkering that has not allowed for the best services on the front line to be provided to young people.

That is more than just a shame; it's a crime. It's a crime that we've allowed this to go on. We will all pay the price as members of society when children do not receive interventions when they're the most effective -- i.e., when children are the youngest. The interventions become less effective as children get older, and they become far more expensive. So we certainly have not accomplished anything by allowing this government to continue to ignore the recommendations of Joyce Preston.

Certainly the ministry has gone off and has become very reactive in terms of its child protection model. They make the case that they can't do the early development piece, because, well, what about the child protection piece? I would again submit to the members opposite that in all likelihood, it's the same family. It's the same child. If you ignore the needs of that child when he or she is zero to six years of age, it's almost guaranteed that you will see that child when they're seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 years of age and again when they're 13, 14 and 15 -- and probably repeatedly throughout their life.

When you ignore the work that needs to be done, you simply delay the work that needs to be done. This government today is paying the price for that and will continue to pay the price. But unfortunately, every member of society will pay the price.

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

My concerns are valid. The fact that these recommendations have not been followed alarms me. I want to put on the record a number of comments that Joyce Preston made in her report, because they're contrary to the sentiments expressed by the members opposite when they talk about in fact doing all the right things. Joyce Preston's report, "Not Good Enough," calls for a halt to the erosion of services to children, youth and their families. It's a request, a demand, that the erosion of these services come to an end.

It's not that they're doing a decent job and that it is a few little things, and that they're still funding the services and there's just a few little tinkerings that need to go on around the periphery. The services today are being eroded. Joyce Preston believes that, and members of the public believe that. People who work on the front lines absolutely believe that.

Her analysis raises five key concerns. The ministry is totally focused on reducing costs, the crisis in the ministry, the recruitment of new social workers . . . . The fact that individuals don't choose to be retained in the jobs they take on is only a symptom of the dysfunction of the ministry. There is no way the ministry can retain a workforce. That workforce will never become a stable and mature workforce, and it is stability that children in the care of government need. It is stability; it is a steady hand.

It is not a new person, a new social worker, a new adviser or a new financial aid worker every time they need assistance. There has to be some ability to have some continuity built into the system. Frankly, it is not there today.

"British Columbians need to know that essential services to children, youth and families are not being given sufficient priority." It's interesting that Joyce Preston would use the words "essential services." We on this side of the House support that -- that these services are essential to the growth and development of healthy citizens in this province. She believes it; the population believes it; front-line workers believe it. It would appear that the only people who do not believe it today are members of this New Democratic government.

She goes on: "In fact, existing services such as supportive services, special needs and voluntary care agreements have been significantly reduced." So when the government opposite suggests maintaining the status quo . . . . There is no comment in this document about maintaining the status quo. It talks about eroding services, reducing services, diminishing opportunities. The population is growing. You cannot reduce opportunities, diminish opportunities, and still expect to deliver a reasonable product.

She talks about the progress to date as being random and insufficient. Again, it speaks to my point of there being very

[ Page 14803 ]

little continuity built into this system. In her words: "In our experience, these are often the same individuals and families who did not receive early development services and did not receive appropriate treatment services when problems first arose." That is the point I attempted to make when I began my remarks for this throne speech debate this afternoon: when you ignore a problem early on in the development of a young child, you will pay the price. Unfortunately, you will pay a great deal more, and you will have less likelihood of success.

[1540]

That is the situation we have today. Those are the children on the streets of this province today, who simply cannot make headway with this government in terms of providing services that are useful, that make sense to them, that are easily accessed. The issue surrounding delivery of service today is confounded, if you will, by a problem. The government does not have a reasonable organization chart for the Ministry for Children and Families, does not have a reasonable reporting structure. Those comments are found throughout Ms. Preston's report.

Certainly even their own priorities that they listed . . . . I attended and participated in the estimates debate of last year. They talked a lot about prevention and early support as one of the 15 priorities for action. It did not happen. Again, it was another opportunity for this government to put out a press release, to have yet another announcement, another photo op. I'll put this on the record: "Regional early intervention plans created in 1997 and 1998 did not materialize as actual services in 1999" -- did not materialize as actual services. All we got was the paper, the press release, the announcement, the photo op.

We did not get the actual service, they say, due to changes in regional boundaries and a lack of dedicated funding to support and expand these programs. For example, programs to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome were part of several regional plans. Programs that were already operating struggled to keep their funding support. New fetal alcohol syndrome prevention programs were not implemented in any region in 1999. This is the same government that says no, no, no, they have not closed a single child care facility. When you reduce or remove the budget for a facility, you are in effect closing that facility. You are in effect preventing children in this province from accessing that service.

Yes, there is some accountability that's missing from this discussion. There is some cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done, and there need to be some cause-and-effect discussions held by members opposite. When they remove the funding, the effect is that those little children do not have a place in terms of any kind of early intervention strategy.

In the last year's report, the advocate also talked about an early intervention fund to be created as a public-private partnership, separate from the budgets, to provide current services to children and youth. That was in her 1998 annual report. When we were in debate on a private member's statement last week, the member for Kootenay seemed intrigued by the notion that parents in this province would be frustrated to the point that they would approach Elections B.C. and ask that their initiative be put on the record. She seemed intrigued by that notion.

They were only asking for that because they were completely frustrated with the fact that they've spent many years of their children's lives on wait-lists. That's what propelled them to the point of seeking what is nothing more than enormous work for themselves. They need to get 10 percent of the registered voters in the province to agree that children in British Columbia should not be on wait-lists for medical services. I trust that they will be successful in that, because this government has, frankly, let them down. They have not received the service.

My hon. colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head and I attended Queen Alexandra Hospital. We met with the parents at the Pearkes Centre, who are nothing more than frustrated. They're a hugely dedicated group of parents in this province, who have had to come to the table and say, "These are the services our children require to have reasonable lives," and have been repeatedly turned down. When they met with the previous Minister for Children and Families, she said to them: "I don't know why you're here." We're here as parents, because our children require these services. It's as simple as that.

So the fact that they have now been pushed into an Elections B.C. situation, where they have to seek approval for a petition to go forward to suggest that the children in the province of British Columbia should not spend their entire childhood on a wait-list, is shameful on behalf of this government. That is the legacy they have left for children of this province.

I'm not sure or even aware of how any member opposite can be proud of this throne speech, when it is riddled with empty promises. There are promises there -- no question. But there were promises there in '98, '97 and '96 -- all the way back to 1991 -- and the promises have not been delivered upon. That is why this government has difficulties around its budget. They can't continue to make promises, because they cannot deliver on the ones they've made for the previous nine years.

When you are flat broke, there is no point in printing up another list of promises, another list of accomplishments you might wish to offer the citizens of this province. We know for a fact that this government does not have the track record to deliver. So there's work to be done; there's much work to be done.

[1545]

When I hear the Attorney General suggest that his high-tech commission will somehow bring some thoughtful marketing ability into the fray, it alarms me. The riding of Richmond East is home to some of the finest high-tech companies in the country. Are those companies looking to any member opposite, to any member of this particular NDP government, for assistance in how to market their ideas worldwide? Not a chance. These are companies that are . . . .

An Hon. Member: Successful.

L. Reid: Yes, successful -- in my hon. colleague's words. These are companies that understand how to deliver on a bottom line. They know they have commitments. They have responsibilities, they have staff, and they have abilities to take their ideas forward. They look at this government, and they look at billions of dollars' worth of debt -- not a balanced budget in sight. Not even for dust will they find a balanced budget. Do they look to these people for guidance on how best to market their companies and their ideas? Not a chance.

Why would they? The fact that the Attorney General was darned proud of his high-tech commission . . . . People in my riding are a bit scared of his high-tech commission, when it comes to stirring the pot, costing them more money . . . . There will be a tax incentive, I'm sure, that they'll end up being charged. For what? So that someone can market them badly,

[ Page 14804 ]

who won't understand what their ideas are all about to start with? There hasn't been great uptake on the benches opposite to understand the needs of the high-tech sector in this province.

Again, many, many reports have gone forward. Recommendations have not been listened to year after year. There isn't a report out there that asks for a high-tech commission. They don't want more bureaucracy. They don't want another layer of decision-making. They, frankly, are not the people who put up their hands in any audience and say: "Yes, give us more government." This is not a group of individuals who does that.

So I am cautioning the Attorney General and the members opposite that there are priorities that they could address. They're to do with children, the most vulnerable in our society -- not the high-tech sector. The high-tech sector is not the most vulnerable in society. They can speak for themselves. Perhaps this government could cast their energy to the most vulnerable, because I do believe we have an obligation to safeguard the next generation.

I would very much like to see this government take the ball and provide that level of leadership -- that level of vision -- for what we want the next generation to have at their disposal. It's not what we have today. We have today a group of individuals who somehow believe that it's all right to have a generation of disconnected children who don't believe they belong anywhere -- who are not provided service, not provided a home, not provided a comfort zone. Somehow that gets scant attention from the government opposite, and they would turn their energies to crafting a commission for the high-tech sector.

Turn your priorities around, hon. Speaker. My words to this government: turn their priorities around. Focus on those who need assistance from government and then step back from those who truly don't wish government to continue to massage their lives, because that is not something the high-tech sector is asking for.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: Hon. Chair, if you'll permit me an observation. It's the first time this session that I've seen the Chair nodding and smiling in response to criticisms from the opposition. I could get used to this, hon. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to say that I appreciate the conundrum in which the ruling NDP party finds itself. One would expect that there would be difficult choices to be made when you're running a $2.7 billion deficit and when the future prosperity of the province is threatened by the ever-expanding spectre of the debt -- conservatively estimated at $34.7 billion and increasing by another 10 percent by the end of the year -- especially given that the government has only one year to somehow placate a rather restive electorate or join the federal Conservatives in ignominious irrelevance.

What can they do? If they make any real serious effort to rein in the deficit, they're likely going to have to do something about the cost of their programs. There are two basic ways to cut the cost of programs: either you deliver less product or a poorer-quality product, or you realize efficiencies.

Looking at health care as the product, for example, I think we are all aware that people are not very satisfied with the existing product, so cuts in the quantity or quality of product would be very unpopular. Assuming they want to maintain that standard of health care or improve it, they will instead have to realize those efficiencies. But this generally means more with less -- more work, more stress, fewer staff, lower salaries. I don't think they want to take this message to the people delivering the services or their union representatives. It's a very tough choice.

[1550]

Of course, there are other ways to cut costs, like cutting the costs of administration and bureaucracy, which have multiplied spectacularly under this government. But given that this government has shown neither the talent nor the inclination to do any such thing, any supposed cost-cutting exercises will probably just cost taxpayers more -- like their discredited New Directions initiative.

While it is difficult as a member of the opposition to get a handle on how much savings could be had from hewing away the excesses of government, I suspect that even the most diligent efforts in this regard would not return savings in the order of what is needed here. It is quite likely that in order to tackle the debt or even the deficit, cuts in other areas will be necessary.

Now, government with a full term ahead of it may be able to afford the short-term political costs of dealing with cuts. Assuming that the protection of health care and education services is a priority, cuts to programs or cuts of programs in other areas will be necessary. These cuts will create a new hardship for some but, hopefully, only in the short term. A new government would have a little time to prove itself. Those difficult decisions which may be necessary though painful in the short term may still begin to bear fruit within a new government's mandate.

But this government has only one year. The NDP needs tangible results right now. The NDP has been in power for a long time . . . .

An Hon. Member: Too long.

P. Nettleton: More than long enough to . . . .

An Hon. Member: Feels like forever.

P. Nettleton: Yes, for too long. It's more than long enough to set this province on its feet, if that had ever been its goal. Had the NDP taken the bull by the horns when it took office, this province might now be in a position to actually build up vital services like other provinces are now doing because they can afford to. Instead, our capacity to deliver needed programs is consumed in ever-greater chunks by this grossly bloated debt. No one will accept from the NDP their pledge of a payoff down the road. They have no credibility. They have to deliver right now.

If nothing else, the NDP is politically astute. I don't expect that my analysis of their conundrum is new to anyone on the other side of the House. They know they can't expect significant, demonstrable success on getting the government's fiscal house in order, even if they were to try -- not right now. There appears to be nothing but a down side to taking any real action.

But -- and here's the other horn of their dilemma -- doing nothing is really not an alternative for them. It's pretty clear that the majority of British Columbians see this province

[ Page 14805 ]

as one which should be sharing in the prosperity blooming in the rest of the country. Instead, the economy here is in shambles. We have seen our level of disposable income fall far below the national average and the growth of our disposable income fall behind every one of the other provinces. Why, even the Newfoundlanders are going home to find work.

What road is left, then, for our NDP leaders? They can't do much about the state of the province's finances, and they can't do nothing either. I think the throne speech gives us a very good indication of the NDP road. I would sum up the speech in this way: "We like good things; we don't like stuff that's bad." There was no commitment to the utter destruction of health care, education, the economy, industry, the environment or the world as we know it. Instead they plan to make all those things better. And I must admit that I have no problem with any of this, nor, I suspect, do any of my Liberal colleagues.

I would suggest that the speech is deliberately void of specific goals except universal day care -- a dream if you have the money, a nightmare if you do not. I further suggest that the NDP government is planning on paving its road through the next year with good intentions only. All I can say is: I hope this province is no longer travelling with this government long enough to reach the end of that particular road.

I admit that I must also question the sincerity of the Premier's commitment to work with us. All of us in this House would be happy to work in an environment of civility, openness, respect and cooperation. But as the throne speech also noted, there must be honest, forceful debate. That means the real issues must be debated. I think that the throne speech's commitment to transparency in budgeting is a welcome development. However, this budgeting transparency is an NDP-designed therapy for the treatment of budgeting fraud, and I think the NDP should be the first subjects in the clinical trials.

After all, you cannot know your therapy works unless you first know that your subject has the disease for which it was developed.

[1555]

Other than that, the throne speech was one extended platitude. It is notable only for what it did not say, which is how the NDP proposes to accomplish all or any of these very worthy objectives. I think this is really where the heart of the debate lies. I also think that the election is not going to be fought on who has good goals but on who has the most credible plan for achieving those goals. On this we do not agree, and it is not a minor matter.

The lack of real substance in the throne speech, taken together with this appeal for cooperation, almost suggests to me that there would be little of controversy offered in this session. I expect that the new leader of the government wishes to be seen to be presiding over a much more harmonious government. I therefore predict that the government will undertake little of substance this year -- that the business of this House will consist mainly of relatively content-free pap.

I expect the NDP to steer clear of controversy, and I expect there will be very little on the NDP agenda which we as an opposition will have good cause to challenge. I think there may be some symbolic initiatives aimed at appeasing various special interests in the short term, but without compromising the good will gestures aimed towards competing interests. When controversial issues do arise or we in the opposition must force an issue we believe must be dealt with, I expect the NDP to frame the debate in such a way that they can be perceived to be taking the high road.

In short, I think the actual governing of the province will be neglected over the next year and that the NDP will instead pursue a strategy dedicated to their re-election. Over the last nine years we have seen this government pursue its distinctive agenda extremely aggressively, in an extraordinarily arrogant and high-handed manner. They have disregarded the views of the majority of the people of this province in the implementation of their agenda, and they have failed to react to the demonstrably disastrous effects of their intermeddling.

As a result, the performance of the province as a whole, the living standards of the inhabitants of this province and the province's relationship with the rest of the country and internationally have all suffered.

I don't see that many new faces over there in cabinet, and I have a hard time believing there has been such a fundamental change of heart. While I will not spurn an olive leaf offered in good faith, and I will never in any event personally attack any member of the government or opposition -- as the case will eventually be -- neither will I abandon the issues important to my constituents for the sake of any new-found spirit of camaraderie with the NDP. To me this just looks like a deliberate strategy of living to fight another day. The government is low in the polls, and they are aware that any real step they take in any direction is treacherous.

I expect that for this session, the NDP will mostly lie low so that they can remake their images under their new leader as a reasonable and cooperative, conciliatory governing party. However, I think a year is a long time for the NDP to hold such a posture. We should never forget the lesson of the former Premier, who in his own inimitable style remade the party just prior to the last election. A leopard that can change its spots is still a leopard.

I think it has already become clear from my comments that I believe that British Columbia's in grave jeopardy, and I believe it is time to make the hard decisions. In a democracy, government is supposed to act as a proxy for its electorate. The people should be involved in those decisions, the decisions that are going to affect their lives. If there are hard decisions to be made, I believe they should not be made behind closed doors. This government has again and again taken decisions that have profound effects on the residents of this province.

In my opinion, the greatest of these -- the decision with the most profound effect -- has been the decision not to take any serious measures to address the deficit at any time in their mandate.

Their inability and unwillingness to make hard decisions on which services are essential and which are superfluous, on what level of service is essential and on where government involvement serves the public interest and where it serves the interest of its own power -- possibly unpopular decisions politically, but decisions which would have restored us to fiscal health by now and restored the full funding of all those things approved by the majority of British Columbians . . . .

That indecision is costing us now in the reduced level and quality of services we receive, just as our children will pay even more for even less if we continue on this course.

[1600]

I suggest that when the people must bear such a heavy cost, they should first be consulted. The decision should be theirs, and that decision should be an informed one. To my knowledge, the people of this province have never been asked what costs they should pay or how. People can accept sacrifice. There's even nobility in sacrifice. There is no nobility,

[ Page 14806 ]

though, when you have no choice and no knowledge of what it is you are giving up. That's called being victimized.

The NDP has traditionally governed through pandering to the demands of special interest groups, many of whom, it seems, are never satisfied and never filled. In my opinion, the NDP's dialogue with British Columbians has been distorted through the supposed representatives. Perhaps the NDP has come to believe that the unwillingness of these groups to accept sacrifice is representative of the attitudes of the individual residents of the province. We don't believe that to be true.

People will accept sacrifice, but they must first be satisfied with the answers to three fundamental questions: First, is my sacrifice necessary? Second, is this for a cause I believe in? Third, will this sacrifice make a difference? If the answer to those questions is yes, most people are prepared to make sacrifices. The NDP has never asked anyone to make sacrifices.

As I said, it may be that the prevailing view of the party, based on their experience with certain special interest lobbies, is that people are primarily concerned with their own immediate interests and that they will never vote except in their own immediate interest. Or perhaps it is simpler than that: they don't want to face these three questions.

It's obvious to everyone, from lenders to economists to corporate investors to businessmen to labourers, that the huge continuing deficits, the level of debt and growing debt-servicing costs are unsustainable. It is further obvious that someone will have to pay -- if not us, then our children. But the NDP are not that honest. They want us to sacrifice, but without knowing it and certainly without thinking about it.

I think it is abundantly clear why the NDP cannot formulate policy, produce legislation or table a budget for which the people of B.C. will willingly sacrifice. I want to stress my firm belief that people can accept sacrifice, but they can't accept meaningless sacrifice. They don't like being conned. This is not to say, not by a very long shot, that we are not making sacrifices under the NDP's leadership. It's just that we're not asked. We may never feel the phantom fingers picking our pockets, but we do notice that there's not an awful lot left in there. In my opinion, this is fundamentally dishonest.

The former Finance minister said once, when she was increasing the funding to health care and education, that it would have been easier to simply maintain funding levels, implying that somehow she or the government was making a sacrifice in increasing funding. This, of course, is nonsense. She wasn't spending her own money. She didn't even take a pay cut to support the increased funding. She was spending the birthright of our children. She was in fact sacrificing future health care and education, funded by future taxpayers who may not even exist yet and certainly have not been consulted, for the present expediency of political gain.

Here's something interesting. At the NDP's recent convention at which the Premier was appointed by the party faithful, there was much reminiscing about the late Tommy Douglas, one of the founding fathers of the NDP's predecessor, the CCF, and of the NDP itself. Tommy Douglas is credited, of course, with pioneering universal health care. His biography on the Saskatchewan NDP web site puts it this way: " . . . when the province's finances seemed to him to be strong enough, Douglas announced the coming of the medicare plan." Did anyone on the other side of the House hear this?

Let me repeat it: " . . . when the province's finances seemed to him to be strong enough, Douglas announced the coming of the medicare plan."

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I can't imagine anyone in the NDP chairs over there who cares to argue that Douglas did not care about the poor or the sick. Yet he waited until he had the money before taking action. He did not believe in stealing from his children. I wonder if the province's finances can support universal day care.

Also according to the Tommy Douglas biography, Tommy established new departments in his government to reflect his social welfare priorities. The text continues: "To pay for the new departments, all the CCF cabinet ministers took a 28 percent pay cut." This government has not, to my knowledge, put anything on the line in support of its socialist priorities. In fact, if the news of not so long ago has not completely faded from my mind, it seems that a number of deputy ministers just got a big, fat pay raise -- this in spite of the dire circumstances of the province's finances.

Of course none of the cabinet have taken pay cuts to offset any of the costs of the funding announced for health care or the potentially enormous cost of universal day care.

[1605]

Incidentally, the NDP do not seem to appreciate the full irony of their homage to Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas was once a Baptist minister, and he did not abandon either his faith or his morality in adopting a political identity. Tommy's pursuit of social justice, for which he is now remembered, was derived from his belief system. I suspect that the accolades accorded him at the NDP convention by the self-serving, scandal-ridden party in government would not have sat well with him at all. I can't imagine this NDP hero coming down in support of increased gambling in areas where the public has firmly rejected it.

Nor can I imagine him stealing from charities to support his party or expropriating their property or taking control of the distribution of charity proceeds. As far as his fiscal policy is concerned, within two years of Tommy's election he had removed the sales tax from food and meals and managed to reduce the debt by $20 million. That's $20 million in 1946 dollars. Imagine -- the father of the NDP reduced taxes and concurrently reduced the debt, something which this present government disdains as neither possible nor desirable. It's all too funny.

But seriously, folks, our tax dollars are appropriated. We're not asked nor do we have a say as to how those dollars are spent. A government that has just squandered half a billion dollars on some useless tubs and another hundred million or so, rounded off, on speculative development plans for a convention centre that will never materialize just does not have the moral authority to ask me for more of my money, because health care is in jeopardy and there are not enough schools. Those two projects alone amount to about $200 per man, woman and child in the province. They cost me personally, in my family, $1,000.

In my view, we've given them the money they needed for health care and schools, and they blew it.

Poor planning and wishful thinking are not the only and not the most dangerous failings of this government. It's no secret that the NDP is a party driven by ideology, not reality. Just look at the cost of the fixed-wage policy, estimated at $237 million, and their course has not reversed. According to resolutions passed at their convention, the NDP party wants the government to further extend successorship rights and make decertification more difficult at who knows what additional

[ Page 14807 ]

cost. Just look at their inability to resist dropping somewhere between $300 million and $500 million into Skeena Cellulose to subsidize inefficiency, to reward poor business. It is unconscionable when at the same time they are extracting taxes from those mills that can turn a profit.

Look at the cost of the Carrier Lumber decision, the cost of acting in bad faith. Look at the Nisga'a agreement. The settlement costs of the Nisga'a treaty won't be tabulated for many years to come, but the last official government estimate was $490 million, up from their original 1995 estimate of $125 million. And it still doesn't take into account mineral, water and fishery resources or the $160.5 million in guaranteed transfers in the first five years of implementation and indefinite transfers thereafter. One independent estimate by Robin Richardson estimates the tab for this one treaty at $1.3 billion. What will future settlements cost?

It could be argued that in some cases, such as in the formation of FRBC, interests such as business, industry, environmental groups and even the public were asked. At least they were given some control over how the tax dollars were to be spent. FRBC, so the story goes, would dedicate and return a portion of the Forests revenues to the communities from which they were taken. Unfortunately, the government promptly violated that trust and raided the fund to support other government functions. So much for being asked.

So much is made, by this government, of consultation -- and now of cooperation. This is disingenuous. If there is consultation with the public, the public input is ignored. They spent the last nine years or so pursuing their own agenda, utterly indifferent to the views of the people of this province.

[1610]

I shouldn't think that a government that was interested in the views of its constituents -- when I say interested, I mean interested in recognizing and addressing the concerns expressed in those views rather than interested as one might be interested in a neighbour's account of alien abduction -- would have shut down or replaced locally elected hospital and school boards. Or look at the WCB smoking ban. The hospitality industry was duped and then their objections sidetracked.

Now the Supreme Court of British Columbia has agreed, and of course we're facing all sorts of costs for the attempt at implementation of another one of the NDP's heavy-handed social engineering policies. Even the opposition has been dismissed as nothing more than an inconvenience.

The debate on the Nisga'a treaty is a case in point. Where was their interest in consultation then? Were the majority of British Columbians behind this treaty? I think not. But if they were consulted, they were consulted and dismissed. We in opposition in the Legislative Assembly -- the very heart of our provincial democracy -- were unceremoniously cut off. Where was the NDP's interest in cooperation? They acted decisively to silence opposition and debate -- and on a vote for which they clearly did not have a mandate. This was an abuse of process.

It was clear to us and to the people we represent that the government was acting contrary to the interest of British Columbians. We attempted to insist on a full and complete debate on each clause of this treaty. We believed that there were real, legitimate and numerous concerns which needed to be addressed. Former Supreme of Court of Canada Justice Estey is now convinced the treaty is unconstitutional, and other first nations with competing claims have come forward. We anticipated these challenges. We were also deeply aware that this was no ordinary bill.

This was not just the big smile and handshake opportunity that the then Premier seemed to think it was. It was to be constitutionally entrenched.

The calling of closure on debate of the treaty struck at the foundations of parliamentary democracy. All we have in opposition is the ability to debate. Our votes have symbolic significance at best. For the government to use its majority in the House as a club to shut down debate was reprehensible. The NDP has a majority in the House, but it has no popular majority and never has. I submit that it has abrogated its authority to act.

In conclusion, it has breached its trust with the people of British Columbia and exhausted any mandate it may have ever been given. This is the kind of consultation and cooperation we have had from this NDP government. I don't expect anything to change now. The new Premier did not come out of nowhere. He's been a powerful member of the ruling junta for a long time, and I think we can be forgiven for some skepticism as to the turning over of new leaves. They can turn their leaves over till the cows come home, but they're still the same leaves.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the throne speech today. This is typically a time that members dwell a bit on their constituencies and some of the great things about the constituencies that we each get to represent in the province of British Columbia. I'm always very proud that the people in the constituency of Peace River North have elected me on two different occasions to represent them in this House, and I'm highly honoured by that.

The constituency of Peace River North, as many will know, is the second-largest constituency in the province and comprises a wide array of industry, from oil and gas, which at the present time is -- and has been for a while -- priced very high in the world markets and is doing quite well . . . . The agricultural industry, although not doing quite as well, is very important to the constituency of Peace River North and represents a large part of our economy and the people that live there. Also, the forest industry is a huge part of the constituency of Peace River North and contributes an awful lot to the province's economy through fees and royalties.

[1615]

Tourism is an area that is widely represented in my constituency and gives a lot of dollars to the province. There are absolutely hundreds of thousands of people who want to go from the lower 48 up to Alaska to see the scenery up there and visit their furthest north state. Most of those people, unless they take the Marine Highway, go through the constituency of Peace River North via the Alaska Highway, which is a federal highway maintained, built and looked after by the federal government -- thank goodness! It's the one piece of highway in the constituency of Peace River North that is actually built for the future and maintained for the future and is a decent piece of road.

We have some problems. Although I've talked a bit about the great things about Peace River North, we do have some problems as they relate to different areas of the economy. I will touch on them basically as I go through the Speech from the Throne. I'll attempt to be as quick as possible, because I know there are many others waiting to stand up and talk about the constituencies that they represent.

[ Page 14808 ]

On opening day, in the Speech from the Throne, we saw a message delivered by the government where they attempted -- and I mean attempted, because I don't think they fool the people -- to portray to the people of British Columbia that they are new, that it's a new government, it's a new approach, and it's new ideas and all the nice things that go along with that. Well, I think too many of us in this House -- in fact, all the people on this side of the House -- understand that it's the same old group, it's the same old crowd, and it's the same old ideas.

It's the same old antiquated idea of tax and spend that we see on the other side of the House. There are a couple of new faces in cabinet, but other than that, all they did was switch chairs from one to the other. To try to get up and tell the people in the province that this is new, that "we're going to take a new approach to government" and all those kinds of things, is just a little bit hard to take after having to suffer under NDP rule for the last nine years.

People do not forget, let me tell you, about some of the things that this government has done -- done with the blessing of our now Premier, who tries to demonstrate to British Columbians that he is a new face. Well, he's a new face as the Premier, but he's not a new face in cabinet. He's not a new face in driving some of the draconian proposals that were put through by this government. He's not a new face when it comes to approval of tremendous overspending on ferry projects that were tried and untrue and would never work.

He's that same person that was there -- the same person that was elected -- in October 1991, when I was elected. The only difference is that he's moved from where the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin now sits, in the back bench, in the back row, up into the cabinet rows. But he's the same person. The people of British Columbia did not get an opportunity to elect this person as their Premier and in fact will flatly turn down this member when he does finally have the nerve to stand up in British Columbia and call an election.

I want to go back a bit to 1992 and read some passages from the Speech from the Throne and make some comparisons. Dare I make some comparisons with Mr. Mike Harcourt, who was the first NDP Premier out of three, elected in 1991? I go to the throne speech debate, and on page 6 it says: "New budget transparency law." I'm reading verbatim from the throne speech, and it says: "It is critical that British Columbians have the highest confidence in the budget numbers." I guess that's an admittance that we haven't had the right numbers; we haven't had the honest numbers; we haven't been given, as people in British Columbia, the true figures about the province.

This Premier now says that he's going to change that; he's going to give all the right budgetary numbers. Well, after eight years of listening to that same thing, throne speech after throne speech, it's no wonder, as I said earlier, that people in British Columbia do not believe this type of innuendo at all. And that's all it is; it's just words.

[1620]

I want to read a little bit out of Mike Harcourt's Speech from the Throne, March 17, 1992. He says: " . . . restoring the confidence of the people of British Columbia in their government. Steps have already been taken to earn that trust. There will be new initiatives during this session to ensure that government is open and honest." He's talking about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. "This legislation will ensure new openness and greater accountability by government to the people of British Columbia while protecting individual privacy.

We will devote significant government resources to making it work, starting with the better management of government records." That was Mr. Harcourt when he started in 1991.

The present Premier in the year 2000 still hasn't learned. The whole government through all that nine years did not learn a single thing, because they're saying the same things in different words. It's amazing. It's absolutely amazing to me that a government that has been as closed and has been so less than honest -- maybe that's the proper term that's acceptable in this House; I can't say dishonest -- with the people of British Columbia is still trying to talk about it today and still trying to convince British Columbians that they are open and honest.

It's absolutely amazing that they would pass this off as a great throne speech, as the previous minister from government just talked about, who was one of those discredited Finance ministers who did not come through with the truth. It's amazing, hon. Speaker. To do this, the government of the day and the new Premier -- the person that has been there through all the dirty little tricks, through all the withholding of information, through all the giving of information that wasn't correct -- says he's going to bring in a budget transparency and accountability act.

Well, isn't that something? This government ran in 1991 on "open and honest," so for nine years they've been less than honest, they've been less than open. In the year 2000 we see them coming forward with a new act called budget transparency and accountability act. Well, I think there should be some accountability on that side. It's high time. There's been no accountability from any one of those members, especially the ones in cabinet who have sat idly by on their hands and let some of the things go by that happened in this great province.

It's absolutely disgusting to read in the throne speech today, in the year 2000, that all of a sudden someone saw the light. Someone opened the door and turned on a dim little lightbulb and said: "We're going to have to put in a budget transparency and accountability act, because we've been so crooked up until now, we've been so less than honest, so less than open with the people of British Columbia that now we have to legislate it to ourselves."

It says: "The aim of thi