1996 Legislative Session: 1st 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, JULY 10, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 1, Number 14

[ Page 263 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have a two-part introduction today. One is on behalf of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, who can't be here. I will read it:

"Hon. Speaker, I am sorry that work within my constituency precluded my being in the House today to offer personal birthday greetings to Mr. Don Hauka, whose family are constituents of mine in Gibsons, on the beautiful Sunshine Coast. Mr. Hauka has a well-deserved reputation on the Sunshine Coast. Many believe that his work at the Vancouver Province newspaper was designed as penance for his many indiscretions. Notwithstanding, I wish him a happy birthday."

On behalf of everybody who is in the House today, I too would like to add my congratulations on Mr. Hauka's thirty-seventh birthday. I assume, what with a woman turning 30 last week and Mr. Hauka turning 37, that there will now be a switch, and the media will be calling for early-pension legislation, I'm sure. But it is important that Mr. Hauka stay amongst us, because we had a baseball game last night between the NDP caucus and the press gallery, and Mr. Hauka was exemplary in contributing to the rather pitiful performance of the press gallery. Hon.

Speaker, I want to say to you that the score actually was forecast as a 22-to-11 victory for us, but they challenged it and said that the actuals were only 18 to 12. I'll let the record stand as it is.

F. Gingell: In the House today are two citizens of Sidney: June McCurdy and Jock Muir. With them is June's son Grant McCurdy, my son-in-law; his wife, my daughter Jennifer; and my two grandchildren Sarah and James. I ask everyone to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: On a very sombre note I just want to acknowledge to the House the passing of Pete Ketcham, one of the founders of West Fraser Timber -- a company that's certainly a credit to all British Columbians. I hope to attend the funeral on behalf of the government on Monday.

G. Campbell: I would like the House to welcome Sonja Sanguinetti, the president of the British Columbia Liberal Party and the driving force behind making sure we got the largest popular vote in the last election.

Hon. P. Priddy: Visiting in the precinct today are 50 students, aged 8 to 17, from Khalsa School in Surrey. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ravi Sall. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: In the gallery today we have a group of young people and their keeper, so to speak, Prof. Paul Tennant. They are six of the seven legislative interns who will be with us in 1997. I'd like to introduce them: Bill Duvall from SFU, Clayton Jones from SFU, Lisa Pape from SFU, Jane Ramsbotham from UBC, Elizabeth Van der Kamp from UVic and Lori Ziebart from UBC. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome two very dear friends of mine from Montreal, one of whom is presently teaching at a university in France. Prof. Ram Jakhu and Bala Jakhu are here, and with them are their son Vikas Jakhu and three Vancouverites: Preet Grewal, Mina Grewal and Manav Boal. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Reitsma: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two people in the gallery who are responsible for my coming to Canada 26 years ago. They have lived here in Victoria since 1952. Would the House please welcome my uncle and aunt, Peter and Tina Reitsma.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to make an introduction this afternoon on your behalf, as the MLA for Nanaimo, as well as on my own as the MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith. With us today are two people in the gallery, Sue and John Little, who used to be my constituents. They now are yours, and they are very hard workers in the labour movement and in the NDP, for social justice of all kinds in our society. I'd ask the House to make them welcome today.

C. Clark: I'd ask the House to welcome today an individual who has had many previous incarnations in British Columbia. He is currently on the board of the Vancouver Airport, one of the largest economic generators in British Columbia, and he is also the director of communications for the BCMA: Mr. David McPhee.

B. Barisoff: I'd like to welcome Mayor Tom Shields from Osoyoos and his wife, Eva. Would the House welcome them.

[2:15]

G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two people from Port Alberni: Dave Haggard, president of Local 185 of the IWA in Port Alberni and a tremendous community leader, and Les Lewis, a member of the board of the Alberni-Clayoquot Continuing Care Society in Port Alberni and a former engineer with the British nuclear program.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming two members of my family: Catherine Reid and my niece Michelle Greig.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is my wife, Aileen Randall -- I don't know why she would want to come here at two in the afternoon for question period, but obviously she's here. Would the House please make her welcome.

P. Calendino: In the gallery today is a longtime friend and NDP activist, and a member of the Burnaby parks and recreation commission. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Timo Sokkanen.

Introduction of Bills

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT

ACT (No. 2), 1996

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996.

Hon. A. Petter: Bill 6, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, introduces the new B.C. family bonus, which will provide a monthly benefit to all low- and modest-income families to help them with the cost of raising their children.

[ Page 264 ]

The B.C. family bonus is part of B.C. Benefits: a comprehensive approach to renewing our social safety net that will make it easier and more attractive for people to move from welfare to work. Fighting poverty today means making sure that work is a better deal than welfare and that those in need are given a hand up rather than a handout or a slap in the face. Income assistance recipients with children will continue to receive the same monthly support as they do now, but the family bonus will replace the current child support portion of their cheque.

The B.C. family bonus will ensure a fair share for working families, and it will provide support and incentive to families on welfare as they move into the workforce and achieve greater self-reliance. I now move first reading of Bill 6.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to table the following documents: auditor general report No. 1, 1995-96, Report on the 1994-95 Public Accounts, Province of British Columbia ; auditor general report No. 2, 1995-96, Performance Audits: British Columbia Ferry Corporation ; auditor general report No. 3, 1995-96, Compliance-with-Authorities Audits ; and finally, the second joint report of the auditor general of British Columbia and the deputy ministers' council, April 1996, Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and an Implementation Plan .

Motions on Notice

RULES FOR SECTIONS A AND B

OF COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to move Motion 33 that's in the orders of the day.

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the passage of this Motion, the House Leader of the Official Opposition may advise the Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial Estimates which the Official Opposition requires to be considered in

Section B of the Committee of Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial Estimates shall be considered in

Section B of the Committee of Supply.

3. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and except those Estimates which shall be referred to

Section B under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Order and such other Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60A. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to this rule.

4. The Committee of Selection shall recommend to the Legislature 18 members for

Section A, being ten Members of the New Democratic Party, seven Members of the Liberal Party, and one other Member. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the first session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Calendino, Farnworth, Giesbrecht, Lali, and Robertson, Mmes. Gillespie, Kwan, McGregor, and Sawicki and Messrs. Barisoff, Dalton, Gingell, Krueger, Nettleton, Reitsma, and Thorpe and Mr. Weisgerber.

5. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Official Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

7. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

8. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

Section B is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in

Section B, and for all purposes

Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

10. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rules No. 3 and 9.]

If the members could turn to it. It's rather lengthy, so I would like to move it as it is printed, if I may. Do you want me to read it?

The Speaker: Should members wish, we can indeed read the motion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right. We will accept the motion, then, as given. Members, I will take your guidance. If you wish to defer discussion of this particular motion until after question period, we can do that; or we can simply treat it as routine business now and deal with the motion, if that's your preference.

On the motion.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wanted to make some representations on this motion; that was why I thought it was coming after question period. But I'm glad to deal with it now.

My only concern with the motion, in addition to the ones that have been raised each and every year this motion has come forward, is that while this has allowed us to do more work at the same time and hopefully accomplish more, and has added to the estimates process a new dimension of allowing the deputy ministers and various staff members in Committee A in the Douglas Fir Room to answer questions on the odd rare occasion, concerns have been raised in the House

[ Page 265 ]

about the ability of the public to monitor what's going on in the House. It's the whole argument that was supportive of televising this chamber some number of years ago -- five or six years ago -- when it was finally done. The benefit that we and the public receive, in transparency and in the ability to participate and monitor what goes on in the Legislature, has contributed to the process here in British Columbia.

The concern I have with the motion before us is the last paragraph, which states that bills in committee stage would also be placed in Committee A for debate. As the Speaker and most members of this House are aware, the debate on bills in committee structure is a little more difficult. Votes occur far more frequently. Indeed, on particular clauses of legislation, it's very much the reality that opposition members will vote either in favour or against and divide in different ways.

Given the way the system is structured now, those votes would take place in Committee A, whereby all members of the opposition -- or, for that matter, members of the government back bench -- wouldn't be availed of the opportunity to make their name known, to have their vote recorded in the record after a division, because only 17 members would actually be sitting in that chamber at any one time.

While I know that in other Houses the referral of bills to committee is done that way, and that members are just assumed to have voted along the party lines, it has been the case in this House in the past that different members, either from a larger party or as individual members of non-recognized parties, want to have their vote recorded on particular sections of bills. This process precludes that, in that it only provides -- as it only can -- for one chair from the....

We now have three independent members in this House, and they come from different political parties. Only one of them would be able to express a vote on a particular

section of a bill, and therefore the others are precluded from having their voice recorded in the Journals of this House in a meaningful way. That's a concern that I and the other members of the opposition have.

As the Leader of the Opposition has also reminded me, there are individual members in our party of 33 who may, for a particular reason of their constituency, choose to vote other than how the majority of the party votes on that particular issue. While there are opportunities for substitution for us -- it's a little easier for us -- it's certainly not easy for members of other parties in this House that aren't recognized as parties to have their vote registered. I want to raise that concern and bring that to the government's attention. Perhaps there are ways we can work around that, and I hope we can discuss that in the future.

J. Weisgerber: Speaking to the motion as well, I would like to support the concerns raised by the Opposition House Leader. I think that over the last few years we have demonstrated that we can effectively work with estimates in committee, and I have no argument with that. But it's quite a leap forward to move to dealing with committee stage of bills in the committee outside of this House.

Given the fact that according to all indications from the government there is going to be very little legislation during this upcoming session, and given the fact that there will be a dominance of estimates debates, I would like to encourage the Government House Leader to delete the reference under

section 10 to committee stage of bills. I would be happy to support the motion as it would be amended.

M. de Jong: Everything we hear about these days is the desire on the part of the public to have a greater degree of accountability from their elected officials and to have the people they elect be answerable to them for their actions in this House, particularly for the manner in which they vote in this House. If we proceed down the path set by the government with respect to the direction to allow legislative committees and this committee considering bills at the committee stage to take place in the little House, as it's usually called, that's what is going to happen. We are going to lose that degree of accountability.

We are elected here, and one of the things we carry with us is the right to vote at every stage of the game on every

section of the bill when it is considered

section by section. The member for Peace River South indicates that the legislative agenda this time might be light. It likely won't be in the future. I think we are setting a dangerous precedent if we proceed down this path. I'm speaking against it; I think it's a mistake. I think it's philosophically wrong to cut off from any member the right they would otherwise have to voice,

section by section, their opposition or support for a piece of legislation that comes before this House.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've noted the comments of the members opposite, and I look forward to continuing in my role as Government House Leader and working very cooperatively. I've taken full note of all of the points, and I appreciate them.

The Speaker: As is the tradition, the minister's comments close the debate.

Motion approved on division.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S ELECTION PROMISE

OF INCOME TAX CUTS

G. Campbell: On May 14, 1996, the Premier visited the Field Sawmills in Comox and had a meeting with a number of workers. He made the following undertaking: that they would see a 2 percent tax cut in July 1996 and a 2 percent tax cut in January 1997. Now, we know that this particular budget has a 2 percent tax cut in July '96 and July '97. The Premier was confronted by one of the workers, who asked the Premier about this undertaking.

The worker asked the Premier: "Guaranteed?" The Premier responded: "Guaranteed." The worker said: "If it doesn't happen then?" The Premier responded: "I'll resign." The worker said: "We'll hold you to that." The Premier looked at the worker, and he said: "I'm serious about this."

Hon. Speaker, clearly the Premier didn't have a chance to convey that message to the Minister of Finance. My question is to the Minister of Finance: is he going to amend his current budget so that we can have the commitment, the solemn undertaking, and the guarantee of the Premier to the workers at Field Sawmills and the people of British Columbia put into effect? Will the Minister of Finance amend his budget so that there will be a 2 percent tax cut in July 1996 and a 2 percent tax cut in January 1997?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I get the point that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make. I'm not sure where he gleaned his information from -- a newspaper or whatever -- but clearly...

[ Page 266 ]

An Hon. Member: His brother.

Hon. D. Miller: His brother.

...the Premier is not here. He was present on that occasion, and I'll certainly take the question to the Premier.

[2:30]

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Finance now. The Minister of Finance has clearly been benched on most of these issues, but the fact of the matter is that the Premier, I'm sure, has had communications with the Minister of Finance. The issue is that there is a clear video. It was in all the newscasts: the Premier looking at workers at the sawmill and undertaking -- solemnly, seriously -- a guarantee that there would be a 2 percent income tax reduction in July '96 and a 2 percent income tax reduction in January 1997. We assume that the Premier is the leader of this government.

Will the Minister of Finance amend his budget to guarantee those workers their 2 percent reductions in July '96 and January 1997?

Hon. A. Petter: What the people of British Columbia knew in the last election was this government's commitment, which was made in the budget and reiterated by the Premier and others, that there would be an income tax cut this year and an income tax cut next year if this government was re-elected. What they also knew was that if that party over there was elected, no such cut would take place, and that's why they re-elected this government.

G. Campbell: What they knew was that if this party was elected we would keep our word.

Let me simply ask the Minister of Finance this one question: did the Premier communicate to the Minister of Finance his solemn commitment, his personal guarantee, to the workers of British Columbia that there would be a 2 percent income tax cut in July 1996 and a 2 percent income tax cut in January 1997?

Hon. D. Miller: During the campaign, perhaps I missed that particular newscast. I was captivated by a folksinging Leader of the Opposition.

The Premier, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, made a commitment to tax reduction for ordinary working people in this province. The Premier and our party categorically rejected the Liberal platform of massive tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy. Now, the Leader of the Opposition may be unhappy about that; he may not like that state of affairs. But the people of British Columbia clearly chose the Premier's version: let's give a tax break to ordinary British Columbians and reject the Liberal proposal to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the people of British Columbia voted for, by 42 percent of the vote, was a 15 percent tax cut.

What they also believed.... When they turned on their televisions that night, they saw the Premier sitting down in the lunchroom talking to the workers and giving his solemn commitment -- his solemn commitment -- that there would be a 2 percent income tax cut in July 1996 and a further 2 percent cut in January 1997. His solemn commitment, his word to resign, his promise to resign.... It was the biggest, in fact the only, opportunity we had to get the Premier on tape making a promise during the election.

Is the Minister of Finance going to put the Premier of this province in the difficult position of having to pack his knapsack, hike back up the Island, go back to that lunchroom and explain to people why he misled them?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I must say that the Liberal opposition reminds me of the press gallery last night: we skunked them 20 to 12, but they said they won the popular vote.

I think it's clear that the Liberals are smarting from the forecast they made to themselves: they thought they were going to win; they were convinced they were going to win. That forecast was subject to change. The change was the voters of British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I wasn't at the game last night, and I don't know if you were the referee or not, but perhaps the press gallery played by the rules and the government didn't. One can win just about any game if you don't tell the truth.

My question is to the Minister of Finance: will he agree today to back up the Premier in his personal and solemn commitment to give those people, those workers in Comox, a 2 percent tax cut in July of this year and a further 2 percent in January of next year, or is he going to make the Premier break his word to those workers?

Hon. A. Petter: As the members opposite know well, this party and this government campaigned on a commitment to bring about tax relief for two years for low- and middle-income British Columbians. We've delivered on that in this year's budget. We'll deliver on it in next year's budget. They know full well that the promises of the Liberal Party contain no tax break this year for middle-income or ordinary British Columbians, and those are the facts.

HEALTH REGIONALIZATION REVIEW

S. Hawkins: The Premier promised a new atmosphere of cooperation following the election. He said that he would seek to involve members from all parties of the House, yet his Health minister's first action has been to create a partisan committee made up of NDP backbenchers to review health regionalization. This is clearly playing politics with the people of British Columbia. My question is to the Minister of Health: why was a partisan NDP committee created instead of using the existing all-party standing committee on health?

Hon. J. MacPhail: During the election, I'm sure, members opposite as well as members on this side heard some concerns, both founded and unfounded, about regionalization -- enough so that the members opposite actually changed their position on New Directions for health care as well. I look forward to the assessment that will be taking place during the summer. Not only will the members on this side of the House be going out and assessing how we implement the last steps of New Directions, they'll also be working with some well-respected experts in the industry. I very much welcome any input -- I hope it will be positive -- that the members opposite will make.

S. Hawkins: One of the key problems with a failed regionalization experiment is the NDP's top-down management approach. It's obvious that New Directions is again being driven and controlled by Victoria. How does the Minister of Health expect this new partisan committee to make a

[ Page 267 ]

full and substantial report by September, when she knows full well that they're going to be sitting here all summer in Victoria?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am hoping we can get this out of our systems early today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I welcome that first good news from opposite that they're willing to work all summer, so I look forward to that as well.

I also must say that the points raised by the member opposite have been taken into consideration. While the members appointed to the committee have family responsibilities, they are setting those aside and will be working literally seven days a week on this. But the other factor is that we have appointed a reference group of industry experts to assist in this process.

I also want to very briefly address the absolutely negative criticism from the other side, especially when the member opposite comes from a region where I met with the regional health board chair from her region, as I met with all of the regional health board chairs. While there are some concerns, there are also many, many positive aspects of New Directions, and we look forward to implementing those in a timely fashion.

S. Hawkins: It's true that the Minister of Health did meet with the transitional teams and the regional health chairs, but again the top-down management approach was used. Because there are concerns that not all the information was given at that meeting, I want to ask the minister why the terms of reference were not released at the meeting when she met with this group? When will the committee meet? How often will they meet? What will they discuss? None of this information was given.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I feel badly that the hon. member's source was so unreliable, because in fact it was an excellent meeting. It was a very positive meeting. The regional health board chairs were very positive in their input. In fact, that information was exchanged, and there's a plan of action in place to have their input.

More importantly, each and every member opposite will have access to talk about the issues around regionalization. I know that there were some changed positions on the other side around New Directions, and that they came to their senses and saw that it was the right way to go. So I look forward to receiving that input.

And you know what? We'll work Monday through Sunday, and I look forward to doing that with the members opposite as well.

VICTORIA GENERAL HOSPITAL EXPANSION

I. Chong: On April 16, 1996, just weeks before the election, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and the former Health minister stood in front of Victoria General Hospital and promised that the NDP was committed to consolidation of pediatric services. Two weeks ago, the NDP froze capital projects around this province, and it released the list of which projects would be affected. Many important projects like this one weren't on this list, yet are in fact frozen.

This pediatric ward serves the entire Vancouver Island region. The consolidation will allow the hospital to provide better care to sick children. My question is to the Minister of Health: why did the NDP government promise one thing before the election and now are breaking yet another promise?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's ironic what a difference an election makes. I do believe that this hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head actually took out quite vociferous, aggressive ads during the election, saying: "Cut debt. Cut debt. Cut debt." Now, what we have is a situation here where actually the....

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We actually have a situation where there have been members....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! I must hear. Order, please. Members, I must hear the answer, please. I ask both sides to please do that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, hon. Speaker, there are members here who take question period very seriously and do want to provide answers.

On this side of the Legislature we actually listened, and we learned. People said to us during the election -- maybe provoked by the ads of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head -- that they want us to examine every dollar spent. What this government has done is take a pause to review each and every one of those expenditures before we move forward in a way that actually does what the people of B.C. asked us to do, and that is manage debt.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

( continued )

G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to rise and address the budget in this House. Before I address my remarks, I would like to remind the viewers of Parksville-Qualicum that their hon. member will be addressing the budget immediately after me. I understand that his family is tuned in.

[2:45]

This budget is like the election: it's about choices. It is a good budget for British Columbia because it provides for more jobs, less debt and more growth in this prosperous province of ours. Unlike Ontario and Alberta, who took the slash-and-burn approach, and unlike Ralph Klein and Mike Harris, who the Liberals tried to emulate during the election campaign, this is about growth. This is about addressing concerns of ordinary citizens rather than those of corporations. This is about choices between the people that they on that side of the House represent and the people that we on this side of the House represent.

[ Page 268 ]

During the election campaign the Liberal Party tried to out-Reform the Reformers. I may disagree with the Reform Party's policies, but I have to say that at least they stuck to their policies. People respected them for that. In the last House I called the Liberals "the pancake party," because they flip-flop from issue to issue; they're all over the place in the frying pan. They were Socreds, they were Conservatives, they were Reformers -- it doesn't matter -- and now they're Liberals. And what's their policy? New Democrats gave people a choice. The people of British Columbia made that choice on May 28, and we see the results here in the House today.

Let's talk about those promises. Over the last five years this government has committed over $2 million to build and expand schools across this province, creating more than 55,000 new spaces. Funding has been provided for more than 300 new schools: one in my riding of Alberni and Bamfield; three in the riding of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, and I hope that when he makes his speech he will thank the Minister of Education for those schools in his riding.

We have granted degree-granting status to six colleges, opened the University of Northern British Columbia, and Royal Roads University in Victoria, and we are building a state-of-the-art forest sciences centre at UBC. This government guaranteed 7,000 new post-secondary spaces this year in British Columbia. We have a new North Island College in Port Alberni and a new eco-physiology lab at the Bamfield Marine Station so that we can stay in the forefront of marine studies, not only in Canada but throughout the world.

And with that, we froze tuition fees for two years -- unlike the Liberal leader who, during the election, forgot about post-secondary education. He left a couple of hundred million dollars out of his plan and said: "Gee, I forgot." And he has the nerve to criticize this budget. He has the nerve to say that forecasts were out. Who was out? Was that convenient or was it deliberate?

Since taking office in 1991 we have created 125 new parks, protected more than three million acres -- a big step towards the United Nations goal of the 12 percent that Canada and British Columbia put its name to. And what was the Liberal answer? "Let's mine the Tatshenshini. It's all right to dig big holes inside parks. Our corporate friends want us to do that." So they followed the corporate agenda.

Over the past five years we invested over a billion dollars in new health care centres and in improving B.C. hospitals. While other governments have slashed health care spending, reduced physicians' payments and closed dozens of hospitals, our government has added $1.3 billion to the base budget over the past four years to meet growing demands.

Again, the member for Parksville-Qualicum will be following me. I'm sure he'll congratulate the government for the new Eagle Park lodge in Qualicum, for the expansions at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital and for the extra money to reduce waiting lists there. In Alberni -- and my constituent Les Lewis is on the continuing care society -- we have two new continuing care homes: Tsawaayuus and Echo Centre. In fact, in Alberni we have more continuing care beds per population than anywhere else in British Columbia.

More than $100 million has been devoted specifically to reduce waiting lists -- $70 million for two new cancer clinics in Kelowna and the Fraser Valley. I'm sure the members from Kelowna and the Fraser Valley on that side of the House will be congratulating the Minister of Health for those expenditures to service their constituents. We've added three MRI units to the three that are already operating. We put in more than $20 million to reduce waiting lists for heart, cancer, organ transplant, joint replacement and cataract patients.

Ladies and gentlemen of this chamber, this government needs to be congratulated. But instead, we're criticized from the other side of the House.

We have had tremendous growth in this province. In 1995, 24,425 people migrated to B.C. from the rest of Canada -- a 34 percent growth rate over the years we were in office. Immigration will continue to rise in this province. We will continue to see the population rise. It rose by 2.6 percent in '95, and it's projected to grow at the same rate in '96 and continue to grow beyond that number in '97.

In January '96 there were 1,924 new businesses and corporations. This January, 40 percent of all new jobs in Canada in the previous 12 months were created right here in British Columbia. Housing starts are up 32.9 percent. Retail sales are up 4.5 percent, the highest in Canada. And 35 percent of new residents a year move to the lower mainland because of the tremendous growth, tremendous dynamics and tremendous vision shown by the government on this side of the House. That's what people voted for on May 28.

Bankruptcies were down. We have fewer bankruptcies than anywhere else in Canada. Employment jumped by 29,000 people, an increase of 1.7 percent. It will grow another 25,000 this year. In fact, the Small Business ministry published: "Led by B.C., the western provinces posted the strongest retail sales growth in the country." In B.C., sales were up 5 percent to more than $30.5 billion. British Columbians bought 11 percent more cars and recreational vehicles this year over last. In fact, in the previous year, automotive retails has seen a 21 percent jump in sales. B.C.'s exports to the United States rose 8.1 percent, and exports to Japan were up 19.3 percent.

We have seen tremendous growth, and that growth has been led by the vision of this province and this government. It's that vision that's being attacked by that side of the House, and that's why the results on May 28 were what they were. All exports of goods manufactured by high-tech industries in British Columbia were up 7.6 percent to $535 million. Today's paper says that housing starts are the highest since 1995 -- and are B.C.-led. Unlike the Liberal leader, who promised housing starts in Vancouver to be 2,000 a year for seven years and after seven years produced only 1,000 ... . And they talk about truth in forecasting.

An Hon. Member: And who's benefiting?

G. Janssen: Who's benefiting, the member asked. British Columbians are benefiting.

There were 177,000 jobs created in B.C. between '92 and '95, the highest in Canada. We're leading the way. In fact, 30 percent of all new jobs created in Canada were created right here in British Columbia. And they say that the budget is wrong. They say that the direction of this government is wrong. We knew what the choices were. British Columbians knew what the choices were. The choice over there was corporate control, and the choice over here was people control. We've seen 15,000 new jobs created in forestry alone in this province. In 1991 there were 26,000 jobs in forestry; in 1995 there were 36,000.

In wood products: in '91, there were 45,000; in '95, there were 47,000. In paper products: there were 20,000 in '91; and 23,000 today. That growth comes from the direction and the foresight that this government had. It will continue.

What is the Liberal answer? The courage to change was their answer. We have it here. We all saw it during the election. To change what? To change parties? To change direction? Or to change horses in midstream?

Let's just have a look at the little document that they put out where they tried to fool the people of British Columbia. It

[ Page 269 ]

said the B.C. Liberals would cut government programs and agencies -- programs like health and education and social services, taking a page out of the Ralph Klein-Mike Harris book -- and sell Crown corporations to their corporate friends and insiders. I'll get to that in a minute.

They said they would eliminate the fair-wage policy. When the opposition leader was mayor of Vancouver, the first thing on the agenda was to lower wages for working people in British Columbia.

I want the member for Parksville-Qualicum, when he stands up and addresses this chamber, to tell people from the Vancouver Island Highway project that he's going to lower their wages, that he thinks that employing 93 percent of the workers on the Island Highway from local residents -- not from Alberta, not from Ontario, not from the United States, but local residents -- at fair wages.... I want him to stand up and say: "I want to tell my constituents that we want them to work for less, and we want to bring them in from somewhere else."

In fact, they went further. They said the minimum wage was too high. When the Premier of this province said the minimum wage was going up, the opposition said: "It's too high. We want people to work for less. It'll hurt investments." What they really meant to say was: "It'll hurt our corporate friends." They said: "End the health labour accord; let's make people work for less." That's what their agenda was.

There's more. The B.C. Liberals will give homeowners and small business a break by phasing out the school tax on property. That would have meant, in Port Alberni alone, a $1.4 million tax break for MacMillan Bloedel. We know who their friends are. We know the choices they were making.

[3:00]

They said they'd make education an essential service, that they would take away the right of teachers to take job action. The United Nations ensures the right to organize unions. That's not what they believe in; they believe in the corporate agenda. They would measure the success of the education system by results. In other words: "If you get the grades, folks, you can go on, and if you don't, you can get out."

It goes on to say: "The B.C. Liberals believe the following principles should apply to land claims. When negotiations are complete, there must be one law for all." I want the opposition to reflect on why there are no native members in this Legislature. I want them to think back to a time when right here in this province we took away their children and sent them to residential schools to be abused over and over. We denied them their religion. We said to native people that they couldn't become doctors and lawyers. We even took away their right to vote. And they talk about one law for all. Where was the law then?

We even told them that if they were to hire a lawyer to pursue their claims, that would be illegal. Now they say: "We want one law for all."

The Reform Party said they wanted a vote; they wanted all British Columbians to vote on the land claims. When the free enterprise party gave all that land away to the railroads when they built it across this country, was there a vote? Was anybody asked? When the tree farm licences were handed out to the forestry companies, did anybody get to vote? Nobody. Now they say that they want to vote; they want to make things right.

They say the government must lead by example. If they were government, what example would they set for the rest of this province? Would they say that it's okay to take dollars from corporations and insiders, to sell the province off to their carpetbagger friends? Nothing has changed. The Liberals in the past gave land to the railroad companies and tree farm licences to the forestry giants, and now they want to give the rest of the province away.

They will require full disclosure of all election donations, including donated labour. Well, where is the disclosure from the Leader of the Opposition's leadership campaign? We haven't seen that yet. When is that going to be tabled?

We have some donations here. Falconbridge -- those are the people you were going to let mine the parks -- $10,000; Teck Corp., $12,500; the oil and gas industry -- Inland Pacific Energy, PanCanadian, Trans Mountain -- are in there for $5,000, $3,000 ... . In fact, they took $30,000. The forest industry. Here's a good one. MacMillan Bloedel, $9,000; Northwood Pulp and Timber, $13,600; Riverside Forest Products, $25,000; Weyerhaeuser, $10,000. That's almost $100,000 from the forest industry. Do we know who they represent? The people in British Columbia know who they represent, and it's not the people; it's the corporations of this province.

There's more. There's more, folks. We'll get into the developers and the realtors. Bosa Construction, $5,000; Concord Pacific -- remember them? When they were Socreds, former Premier Vander Zalm had a little deal going, didn't he? -- $3,450. Oh, here's one: Marathon Realty. I think there's a connection between that company and the Leader of the Opposition and former mayor, is there not? They coughed up $3,250; that's what they gave him. Sixty-four developers contributed thousands and thousands of dollars. We know the record from the mayor. He said 2,000 housing starts a year for seven years, and their delivery was 1,000 housing starts -- only 1,000. Boy, talk about a forecasting mistake!

All we can do is speculate and guess what the payoff would have been if these people had achieved power. British Columbians knew the agenda, and they made a decision; they passed a verdict.

We will continue to grow in British Columbia under this government. We will continue to set priorities for people, not corporations. We will continue to address the concerns of ordinary working people and families in this province, because we are going to be into the most dynamic growth this province has ever seen. Yesterday, in the Vancouver Sun -- there it is, folks; read it -- "Pacific Rim Role Driving Growth Boom." Vancouver and British Columbia are leading the way. They're leading the way because of the direction this government has shown over the last four and a half years, and they will continue to grow with the direction we will show over the next five years.

The Speaker: May I just remind members, before recognizing the next speaker, that the convention in this chamber is not to use props such as newspapers. I'll leave it to members to determine the reasoning behind that.

P. Reitsma: Hon. Speaker, it was 10:30 p.m., Sunday, April 19, 1970, when a 22-year-young immigrant first set foot on Victoria's soil, the final stop of his Amsterdam flight. I felt pretty good coming to Canada. After all, the Dutch have a deeply rooted affinity for Canada because the Canadians liberated Holland in 1945. Most of you will remember the incredible outpouring of gratitude during the emotional and joyous celebrations on May 5 of last year, celebrating with thousands

[ Page 270 ]

of former Canadian soldiers the 50 years of liberation and freedom. The Canadians and Americans gave their lives so that we may live in freedom, and this sacrifice can never be repaid.

My uncle -- I was able to introduce him earlier this afternoon -- took me around Victoria just to get a feel for it and a sense of direction. Later, we visited a magnificent building -- a place full of history, traditions, customs and dignity -- where important men and women were debating the state of affairs of their province and her people, and where serious decisions and discussions were made that would have long-lasting consequences for the lives of the citizens. The sheer size and awesomeness of this building impressed me greatly. Feeling humbled was comforting.

I then remarked what a privilege it would be to represent those citizens, to speak up for them and to help them realize their hopes and dreams. That magnificent building was, and still is, the building I am standing in today. It is with deep emotion and gratitude that I rise in this House today to deliver my inaugural speech.

Let me first congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the role of Speaker -- another position of dignity and tradition. I am even happier because our ridings abut each other -- although I do not expect that you will rule in my favour all the time. I value the personal encouragement that you have given to me. I would also like to congratulate all MLAs, whether newly elected or re-elected. I know you all treasure this, and I know that you'll do just fine.

The campaign we went through, I am happy to report, was a clean and fair one, and I congratulate my worthy opponents, particularly Reformer Teunis Westbroek, and Leonard Krog, who I took over from. It has been said that serving people will have been worthwhile if you made a difference and if, in a small way, you made life better for mankind. I pay tribute to Leonard Krog, for he has succeeded in making that difference. For that we are thankful. Leonard accepted the election results with dignity.

Our riding has also been well served in the past by people like Stan Hagen, who held various cabinet posts, and Karen Sanford, from Courtenay. Without the genuine commitment of literally hundreds of volunteers, I would not have succeeded. Their dedication and perseverance was exemplary. Time constraints limit mentioning everyone; aside from that, I am so scared and fearful that I might miss someone who deserves mentioning. But permit me, Mr. Speaker, to just name a few.

First of all, there is my campaign chair, Pat Bugera, who worked tirelessly with the great personnel skills so needed in a campaign where volunteers are king; and Dave Williamson, our riding president, who with his capable executive just got the job done.

I am grateful for the constant encouragement from our children: Alexis, Paul, Julia and Loren -- each in their own way. Above all, there is my lasting gratitude to my loving partner, Pam. Despite the many hours -- both late and early -- and despite the long days, the election tensions and leaving notes as a way of communicating, Pam never wavered; she was always encouraging me and standing next to me. I share the victory with Pam. I only wish that the person who has most influenced my life could have been present. My father's sojourn on this plane was fulfilled last February.

It is traditional for new members to extol the virtues of their ridings. My riding runs from north Nanaimo to Lantzville to Nanoose to Parksville to Coombs, Hilliers, Errington, French Creek, Qualicum Beach, Qualicum Bay and Bowser -- some 60,000 people. When I came to the village of Parksville in 1972, the population was 2,200; today it's 10,000. Qualicum Beach was 1,400; today it's 7,000. And as you know, hon. Speaker, North Nanaimo was just a couple of thousand, and today it is 20,000.

Parksville, by the way, was named after Nelson Parks, one of the very first pioneers -- the first postmaster -- who came in the late 1800s. Nanaimo's name came from the Salish Indian word snynymos, meaning "united tribe." Qualicum's name comes from the now extinct language of the Pentlach tribe: "quali" is chum salmon, and "cum" is run, thus meaning "where the chum salmon run."

Tourism and the hospitality industry are some of the mainstays, as is the construction industry, caused by the great influx of retirees and people living in our area but working in neighbouring communities. Agriculture and fishing are very important as well. We have an abundance of tolerant citizens striving to make our communities a better place to live. The best-known organization is SOS: the Society of Organized Services. They have some 700 registered volunteers.

Our riding has abundant natural beauty -- miles of sandy beaches. It's a haven for families to visit, as well as honeymooners, and we get lots of conventions. Fishing is very good at this time -- and mostly all the time. I ask you to come out and catch your salmon on Vancouver Island.

Since I have the floor, I would like to set the record straight: there is so much talk about which area has the bigger salmon. I know the previous speaker was from Alberni, which used to be the salmon capital of the world, but he omitted mentioning that the size of the salmon has been decreasing. We tell people: go to Alberni and Campbell River; catch a 20-pounder. Of course, you need those in my riding as bait. We have Liberal-sized salmon.

The Brant Festival in April has been an international success. Our world-famous sand castle competition will take place this weekend. You're all invited to come, spend your money and build your sand castles. And yes, we are projecting enough sand. Of course, the bathtub races will take place the week after, in Nanaimo.

[3:15]

Permit me to express some of the concerns in our area which I'd like to see solved with the assistance of this House. We would like an independent analysis of the necessity of and our requirements for an acute care facility such as a hospital. We desperately need in our area, including Nanaimo, the EMA 3 and advanced life support system. We'd like to see preserved the unique water tower in Parksville, built in 1910. It's one of a kind. We would also like to receive the funding for the French Creek sewer plant upgrading, which was promised two years in a row.

We want to see a lifting of the freeze and the honouring of the promises -- commitments made during the election -- for building many schools so badly needed in Nanaimo, Parksville, Qualicum and Errington. We must have a Guinness world record in terms of portables. As well, we want the freeze lifted on the additional funding for the Nanaimo Regional Hospital.

We want the government to get off its amusement park horse and fight for the funding from the feds for B.C. Ferries, because this is part of the Trans-Canada Highway. Don't soak the Islanders with increases in ferry rates; we are part of the highway system.

[ Page 271 ]

There are two personal goals and hopes. It is my hope and belief that if parents get more involved with their children, the youth crime rate can be cut dramatically. On a very serious note, I advocate an absolute zero tolerance on sexual abuse.

I was privileged to serve as an alderman and mayor of Port Alberni from 1980 to 1983, and as mayor of Parksville since 1987. I hope that in a small way it will be of help in my new responsibilities. As a fairly new Canadian from Dutch extraction, I'm extremely proud to stand here as a Canadian first. The mosaic of Canada is made up of Canadians of many different nationalities. Neither colour, nor language, nor creed, nor race matter. What matters is tolerance and understanding each other -- built on strength, not weaknesses. We are the envy of the world, for there is no better country than Canada, no better province than B.C.

Canada has provided me with opportunities to succeed. As a small businessman, at times operating six businesses, I have been able to contribute in terms of employment -- sometimes 20-plus jobs -- and taxes. My background has always been in the hospitality industry, owning and operating travel agencies and a motel and being a tour guide for many international companies -- hosting many tours, visiting in excess of 50 countries. Before coming to Canada I was a steward and assistant purser with the Holland America Line, having done a number of world cruises and having visited many countries.

I notice with great interest the lack of genuine commitment to tourism by this government. Just check the throne speech. Small business is the creator of jobs; it is the engine that generates tax revenues. I wish this government had left small business alone. Stop interfering and putting unnecessary hurdles in the path of success. Eliminate the job-killing corporate capital tax; eliminate the health labour accord, a fixed-wage policy. The fixed-wage policy has cost the taxpayer of B.C. tens of millions of dollars extra.

I'll just give the example of the Island Highway, where, in the private sector, those people who hold up the flag to stop or continue traffic get paid $10 and $11 per hour -- under this accord, $25 per hour. That is more than an ambulance driver.

We as small business entrepreneurs are well aware of the meaning of cash flow, bank loans and bottom lines; when we aren't, we go bankrupt. Our budgets are true budgets, including forecasts. If a CEO falters or fails, he or she is gone. That's why the current and the previous Finance ministers would never succeed in the business world. But, then, nobody ever said you must be able to count to be the B.C. Finance minister.

As a mayor, I have presented 11 balanced budgets, which included provisions for paying principal and interest on borrowing for projects. Nothing is hidden or shifted. It's easy to balance the budget: we have to because of a law passed by the provincial government. It is time that this law applied to this government. Then and only then will we have true balanced budgets.

This leads me to the current budget. I look for one thing and one thing only, and I don't find it. What I look for is truth in budgeting, as we do in our family budget, small business budget, and local government budget. My father once told me that if you tell the truth, you do not have to remember what you said. This government has been desperately trying to remember what it said all along about balanced budgets -- finding excuses and excuses, even blaming the weather. What's next? Carpenter ants?

We teach our children to respect law and order, to trust the words spoken by those in positions of authority. With those values, we give our children a head start in life. This government has assured, through its insane debt burden, that our children and grandchildren have a "debt start" in life. This government has clearly shown that their words cannot be trusted; they cannot honestly use the word "integrity."

The residue left from broken promises reflects on all of us. The Liberal Party totally disassociates itself from those broken promises. We say: honour your commitments and promises made. It is so evident that holding onto power is much more important to this government than holding onto the values of honesty and integrity. This government misled the House about the truth in the budget. No wonder people have such a low opinion of this government. The NDP will never be able to make people forget this. They will never recover from the lost trust and integrity.

How can government MLAs go home this weekend and defend their unbalanced budgets, the freeze and the broken promises? I would be ashamed to go back. I would be uncomfortable. I couldn't even look my constituents in the eyes.

Their budgeting reminds me of Adam and Eve. They were the first bookkeepers and, in fact, they founded the "looseleaf system." What this government has done is take one of those leaves just to cover up. The Liberal Party will be an effective voice in opposition, defending and living up to the values of truth and integrity. Those are the prerequisites to form the next Liberal government.

My aim is simply to defeat and end this socialist system of promises before the election and political amnesia and broken promises after the election. It is not the promises you make that count but the promises you keep.

Once again, I am a very grateful and thankful person to have been given the opportunity to serve my constituents of the Parksville-Qualicum riding, north of Nanaimo. It is the fulfilment of a dream, 26 years ago, come true. I pledge to do my very best.

G. Robertson: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to the budget.

In opening, I would like to offer my congratulations to you and to the Deputy Speaker. You will play a significant role in the business of this parliament, and I know you will do an outstanding job. I would also like to congratulate all the members in the House. Well done.

It is a great honour and a privilege being in this assembly and representing the people of North Island in this thirty-sixth session of the British Columbia parliament. I am very proud to be a member of this House, and I will be working to represent my constituents in the North Island with much energy and enthusiasm. I am proud and honoured that the people of North Island have chosen me to represent them in this House.

I wish to thank the voters of North Island who elected me, most particularly the many hundreds who worked on my election campaign. I would like to mention Tom Curnow, the fine president of my constituency association; and Lyle Pona, my campaign manager, who spent a month away from his Harley-Davidson to work on my campaign. Without his work and support, I would not be here today. I would like to thank Joe Skrlac for his encouragement; my wife, Karen; and my children, Nolan and Kimberly. Their support and encouragement allowed me to stand for election. Karen worked hard to help me on many occasions and in many ways. She is a very special woman.

As a representative for North Island, I follow Colin Gabelmann, who represented my riding for almost 18 years, a

[ Page 272 ]

superhuman feat in itself. Colin did a fine job, was a fine representative and has certainly inspired me in many ways. His service and dedication is appreciated, and it will certainly challenge me to follow in his footsteps.

I have not prepared a technical dissertation of the geographic boundaries that determine the North Island constituency. However, I would like to take all the members of this House on a tour of the constituency. North Island is 18,210 square kilometres, bigger than 67 countries of the world. North Island is twice the size of Cyprus and a bit smaller than Kuwait. North Island has a population of over 40,000 people. It is an area of medium-sized urban communities, small towns and villages, and it has spectacular scenic beauty.

Campbell River is an integrated resource community which will celebrate its fiftieth year of incorporation in 1997. The community and many of its leaders have worked hard to obtain the B.C. Winter Games for 1997. There is a dynamic secondary manufacturing sector, and a retail and commercial sector serves much of the North Island and the coast. Tourism is a 60-million-dollar-a-year business, and the opportunities will continue to grow with the completion of the inland Island Highway.

Starting at Campbell River, which is also represented in part by the member for Comox Valley, go southwest to Buttle Lake through the magnificent Strathcona Park and head west to Maquinna Point, the last point of land on Nootka Island before Japan. Heading northwest, keeping Nootka Island on your right, past Kyuquot and on up to Cape Scott, round Cape Scott and on your left side are Lanz Island and Cox Island; round Hope Island into the Queen Charlotte Strait down to Malcolm Island, Sointula and Alert Bay, home of His Worship Mayor Gilbert Popovich. Alert Bay celebrated its fiftieth anniversary of incorporation on June 29 of this year.

Heading east, keeping Hardwicke, West Thurlow, Sonora, and Quadra Islands on your right, go on to Whaletown and Mansons Landing on Cortez Island before returning west to Campbell River. Sailing from Maquinna Point around the tip of northern Vancouver Island is one of the most challenging sails in the world.

Once you're back in Campbell River, you have been around the riding, but you have not seen some of the places, like Port McNeill, my hometown where the major industry is forestry. Port McNeill affords magnificent vistas across the straits to the rugged snowcapped mountains of the mainland. The community boasts being the forestry capital of British Columbia this year, and it is the home of many fine west coast loggers and their families. It also has the best drinking water in the world.

Gold River, a planned community, was created in 1965 to house the workers at the Tahsis Co. pulp mill at the mouth of the Gold River. The village is a well-serviced west coast community.

[3:30]

Steeped in history and a short distance from Tahsis is Friendly Cove, where Captain Cook and George Vancouver made their first contact with the first nations. Tahsis owes its existence to the Pacific Forests Products mill.

Travelling around my constituency will occupy much of my time when the Legislature is out of session, because I'll have to fly in floatplanes and helicopters; drive 4-by-4s and all-terrain vehicles; go by ferries, water taxis and the MV Uchuck ; and sometimes hitch a ride with a friendly constituent. When your vehicle breaks down, it's float, swim or hitchhike.

The constituents within the North Island constituency are also diversified, much like the geography. There are loggers, miners, fishers, business people, environmentalists, first nations, doctors, lawyers and first nations chiefs. As you can well see, representing my constituents' interests in a fair and balanced manner will be equally as challenging as travelling around the constituency itself.

In the North Island riding, logging is the predominant industry, and it is synonymous with the IWA, with its proud heritage of safety, health, workers' rights and benefits. I can assure you that as an IWA member and a logger of 24 years, I am very proud of that and of my friends who work in this industry. The IWA was the first union to recognize equal pay for women in the Alberni plywood mill in the 1930s. The IWA was calling for responsible, sustainable forest practices 50 years ago and has made significant contributions to workers' lives throughout British Columbia.

There are three pulp mills within my constituency: Western Pulp, Port Alice; Fletcher Challenge Canada, Elk Falls mill, Campbell River; and Avenor in Gold River. The main sawmills are Pacific Forest Products in Tahsis, Campbell River Mills, and TimberWest in Campbell River. North Island is also the home of many major logging companies, including MacMillan Bloedel, Doman Forest Products, TimberWest and Canfor Corp., the company that I have worked 24 years for and a company that has treated me very well.

North Island is also the operational area for many small to medium-sized logging contractors and salvage operations. Westmin Mines and Quinsam Coal are located in my constituency, employ many people and make a significant contribution to the North Island economy.

Our government has brought in many progressive and long-needed changes in forestry management, some of which include the Forest Practices Code, the forest land reserve, Forest Renewal B.C. and sustainable, long-term harvesting levels. As a member of this government and as a forestry worker, I strongly support these initiatives and look forward to the many challenges and opportunities that will present themselves as a result. With a defined forest land base and sustainable cut-level determinations must come sustainable, long-term jobs. Value-added manufacturing is the future in British Columbia's forest industry.

I applaud my government's commitment to the jobs and timber accord and to adding value to our forest resources.

I am also very pleased to see that there will be a royal commission into workers' compensation, so that people who work in industry will be well looked after. Safe workplaces that are secure from injury and disease, and fair compensation for the workers who have had workplace-related injuries, are a priority.

Fishing in the North Island constituency has been an integral part of the economy for generations. The conservation and stewardship of this important resource must be a prime concern for all British Columbians. In the last few months, I have been particularly concerned with the failure of the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty and with the capricious and arbitrary plan that Mifflin has implemented. Premier Clark and our government have made it very clear that Mifflin's plan is unacceptable to British Columbians and the people of our coastal communities.

The stacking and area-based licensing would significantly alter and affect our coastal communities and our men, women and families who have lived there for generations. Making the rich richer, phasing out our small fishers and the communities they live in is not a solution but rather an injustice.

[ Page 273 ]

What is needed is a balanced plan, a partnership with the federal and provincial governments that addresses first and foremost the stewardship and conservation of the resources, deals with long-term enhancement and brings together all the user groups for a long-term balanced agreement on long-term utilization and stewardship. Fisheries renewal in B.C. addresses this specifically. It is this type of long-term vision that will bring our west coast fishery to the levels that we have historically come to understand and appreciate. I believe that we all understand that the fish stocks are the primary concern.

It follows that communities like Alert Bay and Sointula were built as a result of the west coast fishery and that the families who live there are dependent on this fishery. The time has come to move forward on this. We can no longer accept Ottawa's insensitive and dismal remedies; all British Columbians will suffer.

Ottawa must also be taken to task in regard to transfer payment reductions. It is unacceptable for Ottawa to negate their financial responsibilities by reductions in transfer payments that are used to fund health and education programs -- programs that our government is continuing to fund in this province, while other provinces are bringing in deep cuts of their own.

We have a large first nation population in North Island. There are three tribal councils: the Musgamagw, the Kwakiutl and the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal councils. There are over 20 bands in these three tribal councils. They are at various stages in the treaty negotiation process. British Columbians have told our government that they want land claims settled. They want to see the wrongs righted and they want to move ahead. They want a future that is fair and balanced, with dignity for all British Columbians. I look forward to concluding the Nisga'a agreements and finalizing other agreements in British Columbia, so that we can move ahead as a province with certainty and pride.

Tourism is a growing industry in my constituency; the future looks promising, to say the least. Whale-watching, hostels and interpretive tours have become very popular. North Island's majestic landscape, clean rivers and lakes, glaciers, forests and parks beg for tourists, and more and more are coming every year. The ocean surrounding the North Island also brings many people to the area. Fishing, kayaking, sailing, boating, scuba diving and sailboarding on Nimpkish Lake are all part of tourism on the North Island. More people are experiencing the North Island every year, and there are greater opportunities for local entrepreneurs.

The North Island is an outdoor recreation paradise for locals and tourists alike, and the completion of the inland Island Highway will bring more opportunities and challenges. The challenges will be to maintain the integrity of the significant and outstanding attributes and features that attract people to the North Island. The opportunities will be economic diversification and jobs, and the enrichment of the lives and experience of many global travellers. The environment of the North Island is generally outstanding. We have a great park system that is second to none: clean water, clean air and a low population.

Many environmental concerns have been addressed by the Forest Practices Code, including riparian management and fin-fish habitat. This is, and must be, a priority. The work and regulatory changes in forestry have made a significant and positive impact on the North Island, and it is positive for all British Columbians. Stream and fish habitat restoration is ongoing and will add significant habitat for salmon and steelhead. This year Forest Renewal B.C. will fund $94 million of watershed restoration. There are also many areas within my constituency on the coast that have to be rehabilitated and then have intensive salmonid enhancement programs implemented.

The opportunities are endless. The time is now. Never before has there been so much urgency and opportunity. We have heard some of the opposition members mention that the future in British Columbia is bleak. What an interesting and nonsensical analogy. According to the United Nations, Canada has become the world leader in providing its people with the things that really matter in life. The United Nations' unbiased counting of our good fortunes has shown that Canadians generally enjoy the best quality of life on the globe. We in British Columbia enjoy the best quality of life in Canada.

We are blessed with many renewable resources, great wealth, oceans, lakes, rivers, clean air, clean water and a huge land base that is diverse and outstanding -- a land base that we as British Columbians own. Our future is limitless and blessed, and we as members of this House have the great opportunity to shape and direct it. I look forward to this important task.

I applaud my government's commitment to relief for middle-class British Columbians. We have frozen ICBC rates and B.C. Hydro rates. There has been a three-year tax freeze, a two-year freeze on tuition fees and a two-year tax holiday for new small businesses. Taxes have been cut for working people. This is good news for British Columbians and for our great province.

During the last few months I have listened to my constituents, and we have talked about many issues and concerns. Their predominant concern is about jobs and job opportunities for themselves and for their children. Every British Columbian deserves a job, and the dignity and security that comes with employment. B.C. has led the way in new job creation for the last few years, and we will continue on this path. It is obvious that the time has come to put greater emphasis on adding value to our resources. Fish and timber are obvious areas where we can make progressive changes; the opportunities are great for our province and for the people.

When we talk of resources, we must recognize that the people of this province are our most important resource. People are not projects or resources to be cut or scrapped. Investing in our future means investing in our people good educational opportunities, skills and health access. Investing now will mean that we will secure great opportunities for the people of British Columbia in the future.

I applaud the B.C. family bonus program that my government has brought in. In my view, this is the most progressive social policy that has been brought in during the last half-century. The working poor will be subsidized so that they can have a decent life for their kids and themselves. People will want to come off welfare, and they will be better off working. This province will still provide child care, and children will have their medical, eye and teeth care looked after if the annual net income of the family is under $30,000.

In conclusion, I look forward to representing my constituents and to ensuring that their concerns and ideas have been addressed. I look forward to working with all members of this House to build British Columbia and to ensure that we move ahead as Canada's greatest province. Jobs, economy, health, education, our resources and our environment are all related. We have much opportunity in this great province. I am honoured to be part of this government and look forward to the next few years.

[ Page 274 ]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Campbell: I am pleased to be able to stand and discuss this budget. I'd like to say that I'm going to be very brief with my discussion today. We have watched, over the last couple of weeks, as a number of flaws in the budget have been exposed, so today what I'd like to talk about is not so much the numbers but some of the processes we've gone through.

All of us in this House ran for office, I believe, because we wanted to serve the public, wanted to try and provide public service to the people of this province. Today we are going to vote on a budget which clearly does not reflect the economic state of the province. It's a budget with inflated revenues, a budget that watches as debt continues to grow as a burden on the next generations of British Columbians, and a budget that really, at this point, has no credibility, not just in this House but in the public.

One of the great opportunities we all have -- and we had a brief discussion about it this afternoon.... All of us who run for office, regardless of party and regardless of political persuasion, have an opportunity to vote on measures of major importance to the people of British Columbia. Today we will all have an opportunity to vote on this budget.

I think and I hope that before we vote, every single member in this House will think of three important words and look at their conscience and ask themselves if they can support this budget in good conscience. I'd like to remind us of these three words. The first one is "integrity." The second one is "honesty." The third is one that I believe has been eroded time and time again in our political institutions over the last number of years -- certainly not just by this government but by many governments in the past as well as by this government -- and that is "trust," public trust.

[3:45]

As we look at those three words, I want to talk about integrity first. There is a fellow by the name of Stephen Carter who has written a very good book on integrity. I recommend it to all members of the House. What he points out in the book is that sometimes we talk about it, and we don't really think about what it means or how we can apply it to the public issues that we all have to deal with.

The election is now over. We all accept the results of the election, and both sides of this House and all members -- all 75 -- are looking forward to working on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We all ran because we wanted to provide public service. The best public service any of us can provide is to act with integrity and show the public of British Columbia that we put their interests ahead of political interests and that we understand that there is no such thing as government money; there is only taxpayers' money. There is only the hard....

All government does is take away from people. It takes dollars out of their pockets, out of their work. It says that you're going to spend at least.... In British Columbia today we talk about people spending over 50 percent of their working lives supporting government services. The question they have to ask themselves is: am I getting the kind of value I deserve? More importantly, for us in this House.... Everybody discerns and defines value in a different way, but for us in this House, we have to ask ourselves: are we giving the public all of the facts? Are we laying out our budgets in a way they can understand? Are we, in fact, being straight with them?

Mr. Carter points out in his book (Integrity) that there are three specific steps that we have to follow if we are really going to have actions that reflect the concept of integrity. The first one is that we have to be able to discern what is right and what is wrong. I believe that every single member in this House can discern what is right and what is wrong.

The second is that we have to act on what we've discerned, even at a personal cost. I'm looking across the aisle to the members on the other side and asking them to think about their personal conscience and their personal commitments to their constituents as they went through an election in May, outlining a course of action that they hoped to undertake should they form government.

The third thing we have to do is say openly that we are acting on our understanding of the difference between right and wrong, on our understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

Just so this doesn't become too partisan a speech, I think it's important for us to recognize that many things have been said by members on the other side of the House that we actually concur with. We actually can embrace some of those things. I think for us to be able to act with integrity, our actions should reflect the words that we have said.

The members of the government were, at one point, in opposition. At one point they were talking about how government should be run in British Columbia. One member of the opposition was particularly articulate on some of the concerns that British Columbians faced. This wasn't something that was just learned recently; it's something that particular member has known for a number of years now. Let me just read and quote from the Hansard of April 20, 1990: " ...for budgets to be effective, they must be honest.

The credibility of the government's budget is crucial not only for government planning but also for prudent decision-making in the private sector. That's why the deception in yesterday's effort is so serious.... "

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

G. Campbell: That was the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. That was the man who is today Premier of the province, understanding that people in British Columbia demanded that their budgets be honest.

Now, if in fact we understand that the budget is important -- and clearly the member for Vancouver-Kingsway did understand that budgets were important -- I think we have to remember that for those budgets to be reflective of the concerns that British Columbians have, people in British Columbia have got to be able to look at those budgets, look at those documents, and understand where they stand -- what their financial condition is and what the financial condition is that government is putting them in. Because, you know, in the end it's not public debt, it's personal debt. People have got to pay that debt back.

No one on that side of the House and no one on this side of the House will pay any more of the debt than the taxpayers of British Columbia. Again, let me quote from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway: "Budgets are crucial in our parliamentary democracy.... But for budgets to be effective," -- again, this word comes up -- "they must be honest."

We know that over the last five years that this government has been in office, it has often turned its back on what it felt were important principles to articulate when it was in opposition. We believe in opposition, and we would believe, in government, that they remain important. That's how you can reflect the integrity of the party and the principles that you bring to government.

[ Page 275 ]

Again, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway: "People ask what is going on with the deficit." For people watching and for people in this chamber, I'd like to answer the question of what a deficit is and how to define it. It's very simple: how much money is this government taking in this fiscal year, and how much money is it spending this fiscal year? The Premier of the province has been very clear on how you define a deficit, and by the Premier's own definition, this government has consistently run deficit after deficit after deficit, piled debt upon debt upon debt.

Hon. Speaker, one of the things that the public deserves from members of government and from members of the Legislative Assembly is that they can get the truth: they can understand the principles upon which a government is standing. The question we must ask ourselves is: does the government understand the difference between what has changed for the government... ? The Premier has been very explicit about what a deficit is. Instead of saying and advertising that they'd run surpluses and balanced budgets, they should have been clear with the people of British Columbia, as we have been consistently.

They should have kept the books in such a way that taxpayers in British Columbia would know the obligations that were being incurred on their behalf. Is that too much to ask of government? Is it too much to ask of government that they be straightforward? Is it too much to ask of government that they think of the next generation of British Columbians? Is it too much to ask of government that they do what their leader -- the Premier -- has said?

Again, let me deal explicitly with what the Premier has said we should be doing in British Columbia. This is what the Premier of the province told people in British Columbia they could count on his government doing. That's all we ask: be true to your word, show some integrity and show some honesty. Here's another excerpt from Hansard , again from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway:

"It's dishonest to try to portray the books differently, and it's fundamental" -- that's pathetic! -- "in our democracy that the taxpayers who elect us have a right to know what the bottom line is. They have a right to know what the true financial position of the government of the day is, so that people can be held accountable."

Imagine! The Premier of British Columbia in 1996 actually mentioned the word "accountable." Let's remember that that accountability is not to the opposition; it is to the taxpayers and the constituents who elect the MLAs. They have a right to know the true financial position of the government of the day so that people can be held accountable. That's not happening.

This is again the Premier of the province speaking: "It's unacceptable that in this age, when politicians are held in low esteem and mistrusted, when the public are fed up with political manipulations, that we would not have a government that would tell the truth about the finances of the province." Today, unfortunately, we do not have a government that will tell the truth about the finances of this province.

People don't ask much; they don't ask that the government always agree with what they say. We don't even ask the government to agree with what we say. It would be nice, but we don't ask them to do that. We do expect integrity and honesty. We do expect that when the leader of the government speaks to the people of British Columbia, they can hold him at his word and that in fact he means what he says and will deliver on what he says. This leader has consistently not done that, and that's why public trust across the province is eroding.

What do I, as Leader of the Opposition, ask? No more than the member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked. This government does something that no other government in Canada does, and it's unacceptable. Hospitals, schools and the transit authority all require large amounts of public money to build capital works -- hospitals, schools, the SkyTrain system and the like. Instead of recording the debt as direct debt to the government, they pretend that the debt is associated with other people: the hospital financing authority, the education financing authority and the B.C. Transportation Authority.

The reason that's unfair -- according to the Premier of British Columbia -- and doesn't tell the truth about the government's finances, as the auditor general points out, is that every year the government has to pay interest on that debt. Debt is the fastest-growing cost of government in British Columbia today. Unfortunately, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway used to know that. He has either forgotten that or purposely misled the people of British Columbia.

We concur on this side of the House with the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It's not that hospitals don't need to be built; they do. It's not that schools don't need to be built; of course they do. It's not that we don't need transportation vehicles or rapid transit vehicles, which are very expensive. We need all those things. But be honest. Your own Premier is telling you. He's telling the Finance minister and the government caucus: be honest. If you're honest about it, that debt has to be paid back by the taxpayers of British Columbia and is therefore a direct debt to the government.

We don't ask much, and the people of British Columbia don't ask much. The previous speaker from North Island pointed out that we live in a great province. We all know we live in a great province -- the best province in the best country in the world. Our communities where we live -- we take great pride in those communities.

We know they have an exceptional future if we're willing to work together to build those futures for the families, the people and the working people of the province, to make sure that we can have investment and jobs, and can give the next generation of British Columbians the kind of future they deserve -- the kind of future we were given by our parents and grandparents. But we were given that future because governments of the day were honest with the taxpayers, didn't pile up debt and did provide us with services. That's what this government should be doing.

People ask for integrity. They expect that when the leader of a government says something, he means it and will deliver on it, instead of constantly saying one thing one day and reneging on it the day after. It's what we expect from our children. Surely we can expect it from the Premier of British Columbia.

[4:00]

We expect honesty. We expect -- the people of British Columbia expect -- to be given the facts. They expect us to have disagreements and different public policies. But they expect to at least get the facts. What we've found from this government is a constant set of promises that are constantly broken. "We're going to save $300 million." They don't save it. "We're going to save $400 million." We don't save it. "We have a debt management plan." We don't meet it.

Half a billion dollars -- I mean, people don't have any concept of how much money half a billion dollars is. Half a billion dollars will provide for all of the needs we have in schools across the province. Half a billion dollars will provide for the needs of students and patients across British Columbia. But this government misses their debt management plan by half a billion dollars in just one year. I can recall when it was brought in. The member for Delta South pointed out that he

[ Page 276 ]

had a bit of trouble with the credibility of this government in meeting its debt management plan. It was a 20-year plan: that's another $10 billion we're going to lose for the next generation, as we forget to meet our goals and objectives.

This government has never cut back on costs. This government has always dug deeper and deeper into taxpayers' pockets. The financial condition of British Columbia worsens, and that's wrong for today. It's wrong for 1996.

Integrity, honesty and trust....

Interjections.

G. Campbell: Integrity, honesty and trust.... Actually, I would be.... The member opposite...

An Hon. Member: Yale-Lillooet.

G. Campbell: ...is pointing at the wrong side of the House. We have not been involved in the scandals, the bingo scandals. We have not been involved in breach of trust. We would not be, because we would live up to our obligations.

The third issue is trust. We mentioned today in the House the Premier going and talking with people. All of us do that; we have a chance to talk to people. We look them in the eye, and they expect that they are going to be able to count on our word. The Premier told those workers up in Comox that they were going to get a 2 percent income tax reduction in July 1996 and a 2 percent income tax reduction in January 1997. This budget does not reflect that.

The Premier said to those people.... He looked them right in the eye as I would tell my children to look someone in the eye: look them in the eye and tell them the truth. "If in fact I don't deliver that," he said, "I will resign. I will guarantee that. People deserve to be able to take the word of all the people who run for office. I will guarantee it, and if I don't, I'll resign." The Premier said to those workers: "I'm serious about this." And he came and tabled a budget that doesn't meet that.

I believe we still have an opportunity to change that. We would encourage the Premier to communicate with the Minister of Finance, who obviously is communication-impaired when it comes to preparing any kind of a budget.

The fact of the matter is that people in British Columbia today say: "When can we trust anyone?" I want to be very, very clear about this. That applies, unfortunately, not just to that side of the House, which has taken these initiatives and broken their word and gone back on their pledges; it applies to all people in public life.

As I said when I started, I believe that everyone who ran for office -- every single one of the 75 MLAs in this House -- believes that this is an honourable calling.

It is only an honourable calling if we are willing to have integrity, if we're willing to be honest with the people we serve, so that we can rebuild and restore public trust, not just in the governance of British Columbia but in all of our public institutions; not just in the finances of the province but in the institutions that are meant to serve British Columbians -- public trust in our health care system so that patients are put at the top of the list, public trust in our education system so that our young people get the tools they need to build a brighter future, and public trust in the people of British Columbia so that when we give them the facts, when we have a full, open and honest debate and we make a decision, they will hold us all accountable for those decisions, but they will treat us with generosity and respect.

With this government, with this budget, there has been nothing done to re-establish the trust that British Columbians should have in their public institutions. We on this side of the House believe that today, when we vote on this budget, there must be people left in the New Democratic Party, on the governing side of the House, who do have integrity and who do have honesty and who will act with the public trust in mind.

Hon. M. Sihota: I actually had a speech prepared about a number of issues that I want to talk about in terms of my constituency, because one of the....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I kind of miss this place. You don't get a chance to come in here and talk all that much once you become a minister.

We'll deal with the issues that the hon. member has raised for a few minutes, and then I want to turn to dealing with what I see as some of the challenges of this administration and some of the challenges of the issues facing the people in the constituency that I represent.

It was interesting to listen to some of those issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised during the course of his comments, some of those virtues and values which have been tossed around fairly regularly from one side to the other during the course of my experience in this House. It's interesting that the one thing the Leader of the Opposition didn't talk about was consistency.

During the course of the election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition went from one end of this province to another and talked about debt. He talked about the debt load that future generations may be inheriting in British Columbia, and he painted this big, black, dark picture with regard to the quantum of debt being built up here.

Hon. Speaker, it just occurs to me that if the hon. Leader of the Opposition wanted to pay homage to all those values he talked about and if he wanted to be consistent, the first thing he should have done when this House reconvened was stand up and congratulate this government for the capital freeze that we bought forward, because we responded and listened to British Columbians. And it seems to me....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order, hon. members. You can't even hear each other, never mind what the Speaker is saying.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I see that there's a bit of pain when the truth is uttered.

Given what they campaigned on, not one member of the opposition has the right, in my view, to stand up in this House and demand a new school, a new hospital or an extension to a highway in their constituency. They campaigned.... I saw all the ads as I travelled up and down the province campaigning against their negative vision of British Columbia, and I saw what it was that they spoke against. During the course of their comments in the election campaign, they did not quantify which school or which hospital in their constituency they didn't want built, and they have no right to stand up in this House now and ask this government to add to the debt burden.

In fact, as I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, it occurred to me that every time one of those Liberal members writes me a letter or questions me in estimates about new

[ Page 277 ]

schools or universities or colleges in their constituencies, as I'm sure they will, I may actually ask them to write me a letter expressly indicating their desire that the debt load in British Columbia be built up in order to fund that new facility they want in their constituency.

The fundamental flaw with the opposition in British Columbia is that they are always negative. They are never, ever positive, and never able to stand up in this Legislature....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. minister, would you like to take a little pause?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, that's fine.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I know the minister appreciates having such a terrific audience. This is one of the things he enjoys doing. I would, however, recommend that some of you are undoubtedly making some wonderful remarks, but none of the rest of you can hear them anyway. Could I suggest you keep it down just a little and also watch the language a bit? There are some pretty heavy words being used here, and they may get picked up. Some of them are not appropriate, so just be cautioned. Thank you. Hon. minister, the floor is yours.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. If they wanted to be consistent with what their leader talked about, then they ought to stand up in this House and congratulate this government for its remarkable successes, particularly in the area of economic performance.

I have to ask this chamber why it is that not one member of the opposition has had the courage to stand up in this House and congratulate this government for the fact that 40 percent of all the new jobs created in Canada over the last year have been created right here in British Columbia -- 40 percent. The economic genius of this government is such that 34,000 new jobs have been created right here in this province of ours since Christmas. That is first-class economic leadership, unmatched by any other province or any other government in Canada. Forty percent of all new jobs....

Not one member of the opposition has dared to stand up in this House and say that this government ought to be congratulated for the fact that British Columbia has bucked the national trend with regard to national unemployment -- or employment, as the case may be.

Whereas unemployment in the rest of this country has increased to a level of 10 percent, it has fallen in British Columbia to 8.7 percent, one of the lowest levels of unemployment, because of the remarkable economic strategies triggered by this administration.

Investment. Hon. Speaker, I'll tell you what our secret is. Every day, in the work I do as a minister of government, I talk to people who want to invest in North America. Quite frankly, they are looking at Los Angeles or California or Washington State or British Columbia. We sit down with them and explain that if they were to invest in British Columbia, their families would have access to the best health care system the world has to offer. We tell them that their children will have access to one of the highest-quality education systems available anywhere in the world.

We tell them that they will be able to invest here in British Columbia and, unlike Los Angeles, breathe clean air and drink clean water because of the environmental policies that this government has brought forward. Right away they make a determination to invest in British Columbia.

By investing in our people, by investing in our health care system, by investing in our education system, by investing in, yes, infrastructure -- schools, hospitals, and roads -- and by making those investments today, we are building a firm foundation for an economy that will allow future generations to prosper, economically and environmentally, right here in British Columbia.

[4:15]

The reason, I would submit, that those negative Nellies sitting on that side of the House suffered yet another defeat in the last election campaign is that they would do away with those kinds of prudent investments in terms of high schools, universities, colleges, roads and hospitals that are the very essential ingredients that bring investment to British Columbia, that give us the kind of prosperity that is evidenced by 40 percent of new jobs anywhere in the country being created here in British Columbia, an unemployment rate that has fallen to 8.7 percent, and a situation which has seen retail sales in the province go up by 4.5 percent and our leading the country in housing starts over the last year.

The fundamental difference between us on this side of the House and those on the opposite side of the House is that we have confidence in the skills of the people of British Columbia. We believe in this province, and we intend to take advantage of the resources and the attributes we have inherited as a people to ensure that there is future prosperity forever in British Columbia. That fact -- that sense of optimism, that recognition of the entrepreneurial spirit, that sense of government vision -- is found here and is lacking there. British Columbians saw it during the course of the last election campaign.

Now let me go back to what I was going to talk about. That's not to say that we as a society and a province don't have challenges. We clearly have challenges, and clearly, as the Premier said during the course of the election campaign and subsequent to that, we need to apply our intellectual resources. All of us here in this room need to apply our skills to deal with those challenges. There are a number of them, and I want to cover two or three which I think are critically important, from my observations.

The first is that we must, as a province, begin to deal with the crisis with regard to our fish resources. Fish is not only a cornerstone historically, an indicator of our economic health and a major generator in terms of economic activity, it's also an indicator of the state of our environment in this province. It becomes evident to us just how fragile our environment is and how threatened our economy is if indeed we allow our fish resources to go the way they have gone on the east coast of Canada.

Our government made a conscious decision several years ago that we wanted to be part of the solution and not part of the problem when it comes to dealing with the fish resources in British Columbia. We witnessed that over the years there had been much finger-pointing among all levels of government -- municipal, provincial and federal -- and we decided as a matter of conscious strategy to bring people together to try to resolve many of these issues, and we did that.

We had the success of the Annacis Island sewage plant. The Fraser River is the largest producer of salmon in the world, worth about $300 million a year to our economy, and

[ Page 278 ]

because of the damage caused by effluent being discharged in the Fraser River, we felt we had to get on with the job of dealing with that. We brought together federal, provincial and local governments to begin the second-largest engineering project in all of Canada. Yes, it was $600 million of debt -- debt which they would have opposed, debt which they would have allowed not to be incurred, a situation which they would have allowed in terms of allowing us to damage our fish resources.

But we brought levels of government together and, under the infrastructure program that we as a government initiated, we were able to begin to deal with the sewage problem on this side of the Fraser River to protect the integrity of the salmon resource here in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, we went further. We looked at the problems elsewhere in terms of the route the fish travel, and we made a conscious decision to bring in the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge standards in North America, because we wanted to make sure that the pollutants which were spewing into our waters were no longer allowed to spew, so we could clean up our water resources, particularly around Howe Sound and the Fraser River. We brought in the toughest standards, standards which the former critic for the Environment from the Liberal Party said were unnecessary.

Now, as a result of those standards coming in, herons' eggs which weren't hatching before are hatching, and prawn and shellfish harvesting which was not occurring previously is occurring.

To show you the link between the environment and our economy, we are now selling that technology, which the hon. members opposite said was unnecessary, to other jurisdictions so that they can replicate the success we have had. We've developed a new environmental technology which we export to other jurisdictions as a result of the toughest environmental legislation that this province, this nation and this continent have ever seen. It shows that there is a direct linkage between economic development and environmental protection.

We went further. We brought in riparian zones under the Forest Practices Code to ensure that when fish and forest activity intersected with each other, the bias was in favour of fish. We set up buffer zones adjacent to streams and put an end to the day that you could cut right to the edge of streams, so as to protect the integrity of our fish resources in this province.

We brought forward an urban salmon renewal program to increase and protect the integrity of streams and creeks in urban British Columbia, again to restore the integrity of those salmon-bearing streams that required protection.

Through Forest Renewal British Columbia, in the first year $20 million, in the next year $40 million and in the next year $88 million was set aside by our government to restore streams that had been impacted by negative logging activity.

I think that British Columbians saw during the course of the last election campaign a firm commitment on the part of our government to challenge Ottawa to show the same kind of commitment now to the fish resources of this province that we as a provincial government demonstrated. That now has to be demonstrated by the federal government.

It is unacceptable that the federal government continue its policy of ignoring the threat to our fish resources, whether it's evidenced through the....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the heckling from the opposite side. I want the opposite side to remember that all of those initiatives that I talked about.... They spoke against Forest Renewal British Columbia in this Legislature; they voted against the legislation. When it came to the Forest Practices Code, again, they voted against that legislation. They voted against those provisions -- and they know it, and that's why they're silent now -- that were designed to protect the integrity of our fish resources in British Columbia. We have a challenge there, and today I want to appeal to all members to work constructively with this administration in dealing with Ottawa to attend to that problem.

Second, and very quickly, I want to talk about another issue that all of us experienced in our constituency offices, which clearly this government will have to take some action on: namely, the kind of difficulties that workers experience when they're injured with regard to the Workers Compensation Board. We made a promise during the election campaign, in fact just prior to it....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: They just cannot accept the fact that this government made promises during the election campaign and kept those promises during the election campaign.

Witness the family bonus program that we just announced today: $103 for every working family in British Columbia so that we make work a better deal than welfare. They, during the course of the last election campaign, promised to get rid of it.

Witness, for example, the promise that we made to cut taxes for low-income and middle-income people in British Columbia. It is a tax cut that they said they would take away from British Columbians, a tax cut which we'll be voting on today, and a tax cut that they should support by supporting the motion that's coming before the House later on today.

You want to talk about promises made and promises kept? The family bonus, the low-income and middle-income tax cuts. We made a commitment to cut taxes for small business, because this government is on the side of small business. We kept that promise during the course of this budget. We made a commitment during the last election campaign to freeze ICBC rates and B.C. Hydro rates, and we kept that promise in this budget.

We made a commitment to create 7,000 new spaces so that every child -- every student -- who wanted to have an opportunity to get an education in this province got that education at post-secondary facilities, and we have kept that promise. We made a commitment to freeze tuition fees so that universities were accessible for the working poor in this province. They wanted to eliminate that freeze and increase the barriers to post-secondary education. We kept our promise.

Hon. Speaker, you walk through the commitments that we made as a provincial government, and the legacy, the theme, is very clear: promises made, promises kept. The evidence is there and they....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. However provocative, take it easy.

An Hon. Member: We want some truth.

Hon. M. Sihota: They don't want to hear the truth, hon. Speaker. Those negative Nellies who have no confidence in

[ Page 279 ]

British Columbia, who can never bring themselves to congratulate this government for its accomplishments, will always paint a dark picture. But British Columbians know better, and they proved it during the last election campaign. They will hear about the successes of this government for the next five years. I have no doubt...

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. M. Sihota: ...that British Columbians will return this political party to office come the next election. They may laugh and chortle with glee today, just like they chortled and laughed before the last election campaign. And they will become accustomed to what they're good at -- being opposition and being negative. But British Columbians will never give them the chance to hold the reins of power for this province, because they know that this government stood up for the interests of ordinary working people. We've delivered and will continue to deliver for them.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan East.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Have we the right speaking order at this point? I understood it was....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Oh, sorry. Instead of Okanagan East, I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege for me to give my first speech in this august chamber, a chamber that I am well aware is steeped in history and tradition, that has indeed heard many first speeches, that has felt much emotion -- laughter and tears, joy and sorrow, boredom and anger -- that has heard much debate -- profound and mundane, sacred and profane -- and that has seated some of the most colourful and outstanding citizens in British Columbia. Some of the most colourful and outstanding citizens, I daresay, have represented the riding I now have the honour to represent, Vancouver-Burrard.

Before I talk about these past representatives, I want to congratulate the Speaker on his election and also you on your election as Deputy Speaker. In the short time I've known you, I've come to appreciate the wisdom of this House in electing you as Deputy Speaker and in electing the Speaker. I know this House will be well served.

[4:30]

As you can see, the area of Vancouver-Burrard may be small in size, but it's an extremely diverse riding. Because it does contain so much, Vancouver-Burrard attracts thousands of people from all over the rest of the city, the province, the country and around the world. All of this, of course, makes Vancouver-Burrard one of the key ridings in the entire province.

I feel extremely fortunate both to live in Vancouver-Burrard and to have been elected by the people of Vancouver-Burrard to represent them in this chamber. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who helped get me elected. I was very fortunate to have a tremendous campaign team and campaign manager, who ran a practically flawless campaign. Hundreds of volunteers gave of their time, talents and money, for which I am grateful and indebted. I would like also to congratulate the other candidates who ran in this election. It was a hard but fair election.

Particularly, I'd like to congratulate Duncan Wilson, the Liberal candidate, who worked very hard for almost two years to both secure the nomination of his party and then run in this election.

History was made in this election, as four of the candidates, including myself and Mr. Wilson, were openly gay or lesbian. To my knowledge, this has never happened before in Canada or elsewhere. It was truly remarkable. It says a great deal about the level of political maturity in Vancouver-Burrard.

I also wish to publicly acknowledge and thank my life partner, Gary Paterson, who stood beside me, encouraged me and helped me in so many ways.

As I said earlier, over the years Vancouver-Burrard has sent to this chamber some of its most colourful and outstanding representatives. Of course, there is Emery Barnes, my immediate predecessor, and I'll come back to him in a moment. Running with Emery, when the riding was a dual riding, was Mike Harcourt and, before Mike, Gary Lauk. Both of these men are well-loved and respected New Democrats. Mike, of course, became Premier. Before them were two colourful Socreds: Evan Wolfe and Herb Capozzi, both elected in the sixties.

The most dominating figure in Vancouver-Burrard has been Emery Barnes. For a quarter of a century, Emery "Larger Than Life" Barnes has been just that in Vancouver-Burrard -- larger than life. That ex-B.C. Lion, ex-social worker went on to be the first black Speaker in the history of our country, a man who many of us know as the gentle giant -- a tireless advocate for the marginalized and the disadvantaged. Who will ever forget his living on welfare rates in the downtown east side to better understand the plight of those on welfare? Emery has left a legacy of caring.

His will be big shoes for me to fill -- harder than you think, actually; he takes size 15 and mine are merely size 12. So it is from this tradition that I come, and I feel truly honoured. I also have a great deal to live up to.

It is also a great honour to have been elected in Vancouver-Burrard as an openly gay man. In fact, along with my hon. colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi, we are the first openly gay men ever elected to this Legislature. The fact that the two of us were elected is of tremendous significance to the gay and lesbian community in the province and

[ Page 280 ]

across the country. It is also something of great pride for me, and I realize it also brings great responsibility, like the first black, the first woman, the first Jewish person or the first aboriginal. It is of great excitement within our community, and it is very symbolic.

But it's still just one more step in the long journey to full equality, and I trust that my presence here and my work during my term of office will continue to eradicate some of the negative stereotypes many hold about gay and lesbian people, and that a time will come when sexual orientation will be a non-issue, much the same as left-handedness has finally evolved from a moral issue more than a century ago to simply being seen as part of the complexity and diversity of creation as it is today.

I am very grateful to the voters of Vancouver-Burrard for the trust they have placed in me and for the privilege of serving them in this capacity. As I mentioned earlier, Vancouver-Burrard is truly a unique riding. The population is very diverse, but it reflects the diversity that exists within our province as a whole. Vancouver-Burrard is a microcosm of the macrocosm, which is our province.

Besides a very large gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, there is a large seniors community, as well as a large young adult population between the ages of 25 and 35. There are also a number of ethnic groups, including Japanese, Korean and Chinese people. Over the past few years there has also been a large number of eastern Europeans who have formed a community within the West End. It is a wonderful mixture of all sorts of people, young and old, making up a rich mosaic.

Vancouver-Burrard has become a riding which on the one hand is very diverse, yet on the other hand is a cohesive community; not a melting pot, but rather a community of communities -- groups of people who have come together as a community, celebrating diversity. If there is a common thread running through all the groups that make up this community of Vancouver-Burrard, it is tolerance. Each group has learned to accept, understand and respect one another.

I believe that Vancouver-Burrard is a model of hope for other communities. Here, very disparate groups have come together, accepting each other's backgrounds, religions, ethnicities, orientations and lifestyles. More importantly, each has learned from one another. Still, the people of Vancouver-Burrard are also similar to the people of the rest of this province. The issues that are important to the people of Vancouver-Burrard are basically the same as everywhere else in the province.

In the last election the people of Vancouver-Burrard were given the clearest choice between two competing ideologies in the history of this province. On the one hand, the people were offered the neoconservative or neoliberal agenda, with its all-too-familiar litany of lower corporate taxes, deregulation and privatization, dismantling of labour legislation, and reductions in government program spending -- particularly with cuts to social programs, health and education. We've already seen this mean-spirited corporate agenda in other parts of Canada -- most notably, of course, in Mike Harris's Ontario.

The people of Vancouver-Burrard decisively rejected this neoliberal agenda. In fact, there was a groundswell of support in Vancouver-Burrard from the popular sector to say no to this corporate neoliberal agenda.

Seniors groups, community groups, church groups, women's groups, poverty groups, gay and lesbian groups and labour coalesced around our campaign to ensure that Vancouver-Burrard rejected a Mike Harris government under a different banner here in British Columbia, and instead embraced a social democratic vision -- one that protects health care, education and social services and that believes the economy is not some kind of independent thing, to be idolized or slavishly served, but rather an evolved invention of human creativity, a tool to enhance the quality of life for all, not just the few.

The social democratic vision understands that the economy must serve human beings, rather than the other way around. That is why I am so pleased to support this budget: it speaks to the very real needs of the people of Vancouver-Burrard. The heart of the economy of Vancouver-Burrard is small business and tourism. The 10 percent tax cut for small business is extremely good news -- as they have been looking for tax relief -- as is the tax cut for middle-class and working families, both this year and next, combined with the tax freeze until the year 2000.

The people of Vancouver-Burrard, who by and large have much lower than average incomes, will have more disposable income for their basic needs. As I mentioned before, young people make up a large percentage of the population. Many of these young people attend universities, and the freezing of tuition fees has meant the difference, for many of them, between attending and not attending. Along with the freezing of the ICBC rates and B.C. Hydro rates, young people in Vancouver-Burrard will see their hard-earned dollars stretch that much further. Many of these young people, along with a large number of others in Vancouver-Burrar