2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

Chinese New Year

I. Chong

Delta Hospital

V. Roddick

Seniors bus pass program

P. Wong

Oral Questions

Medical Services Plan premiums

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Health care facility closings

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins

Courthouse closings

D. Chutter

Hon. G. Plant

Mental health services

K. Krueger

Hon. G. Cheema

Reports from Committees

Petitions

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

I. Chong

J. Kwan

T. Christensen

W. Cobb

Hon. M. de Jong

D. Chutter

R. Harris

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Hayer

M. Hunter

[ Page 1097 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Roddick: A dedicated number of volunteers from Delta are in the gallery

today. This group includes a former B.C. Minister of Agriculture,

representatives from the Delta Chamber of Commerce and the Delta Farmers

Institute, as well as members of the Delta Hospital and their auxiliary.

They are as

follows: John Savage, Muriel Cullen, Lisa Burt-Paxton, Jane Marynowski, Gail

Kitchner, Terry Kitchner, Harvey Friesen, Nancy Friesen, Jock McGrandle from

North Delta, Donna Schelpe, Elizabeth Davis, Albert Weaver, Sean Copeland,

Patricia Trafford, Georgina Reynolds, Marilyn High, Joan Goodacre, Doug Massey,

Eleanor Sampert, Verna Cavers, Peter Guichon, Kelly Webb and Jessica Holmes.

On behalf

of myself and my colleague from Delta North, I ask that the House make them all

very welcome.

[1405]

Krueger: It's my privilege today to introduce to the House someone who's no

stranger to this place. Mr. Ken Jones was the member for Surrey-Cloverdale from

1991 to 1996 and was renowned for his expertise during the estimates debate. I'd

like the House to make him really welcome.

Trumper: It's my pleasure today to introduce some people from as far west as

you can go in Canada — from Ucluelet. I would like to introduce to you the

mayor of Ucluelet, Dianne St. Jacques; her son, Paul; his girlfriend, April

Gustafsen; her mother, Diane Frances; and also Councillor Eric Larsen. I would

like the House to make them welcome.

Belsey: I have the pleasure today to introduce the first three visitors that

I've had from the North Coast. Sitting with us today are Staff Sergeant Jim

Mills; his wife, Dawn; and my lovely wife, Lonie. I'd like the House to join me

in making them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

CHINESE NEW YEAR

Chong: This week has been a significant one. We began the third session of

the thirty-seventh parliament on the very same day as the first day of the

Chinese lunar new year, the year 4699.

live in a country, and indeed a province, rich in multiculturalism means that

all of its citizens may learn and be knowledgable of other people's cultures

without the necessity of travel. Chinese New Year is distinguished by the

representation of one of 12 different animals or creatures of the Chinese

zodiac. Depending on the particular animal or creature, one expects the year to

reflect those characteristics. This is the Year of the Horse, and it is regarded

as a symbol of strength, intelligence and nobility.

What can we

expect in the Year of the Horse? I believe we will see a year of efficiencies

and getting things done. It will be an exciting year that is positive, yet

realistic, as evidenced by the throne speech delivered this week. The Year of

the Horse will be challenging and changeable, with much energy focused on the

economy.

Every

culture has its own unique traditions and values, and it is important that they

be continued with each subsequent generation. Traditions are passed down, and

while they are not immediately understood, they have purpose and are steeped in

history. I would like to offer some insight into these traditions as they have

been passed down to me from my mother.

Chinese New

Year is a festive time, and you can expect to see celebrations lasting for

several weeks. Beginning with New Year's Day and onwards, there will be

offerings of lucky money in little red packets called lay sees , given by

the older generation to younger, unmarried generations. Throughout the province,

here in Victoria and especially in the lower mainland, lion dances will be

performed to welcome in the new year. People's homes will have been thoroughly

cleaned by now, and no one wishes to sweep away any good luck or fortune from

their household during this time of celebration.

Food always

plays an important role during Chinese New Year. Certain foods are selected to

give effect to what they symbolize or represent. For example, chicken, complete

with its head intact, is prepared to represent prosperity. Fish, with its head

and tail, is chosen to represent profitability.

I just wish

to take this opportunity to wish all my colleges and all those throughout this

province: gung hay fat choy and sun leen fai lock .

DELTA HOSPITAL

Roddick: How fitting that on Valentine's Day I have the privilege of

presenting to this Legislature what I believe is the heart of Delta. It is a

saver of lives — of hearts under attack, of bones that need setting, of lungs

that need help breathing, of injuries that need healing, of hands that need

holding and of cries that need heeding. It is Delta Hospital. It has saved lives

in my community for many years, and now, after all those years, our community

finds itself called to save the life of our hospital.

[1410]

This

remarkable hospital shares the history of our community as a whole. From its

earliest days as a farming and fishing area, with people helping people, Delta

has grown into a vibrant, diversified community — with people still helping.

Much of that helping occurs at Delta Hospital, where appropriate, accessible

care is available to our residents as well as to many other people who use our

highways, our ferries, our international border, our coal port, our airports and

our industrial parks. As I've explained to this House before,

[ Page 1098 ]

you've all been in Delta. It's a place you have to go through to get anywhere

else.

The

citizens of Delta are now, as the Premier counselled last evening in his

televised address, finding the courage to fix the system before it collapses.

They are leaping to the challenge to find flexible, workable, affordable new

ways to deliver health care. This is good news. Delta's example can encourage

communities across B.C. if we can just find the courage, the heart, to take that

leap.

SENIORS BUS PASS PROGRAM

P. Wong:

I was very pleased last night to hear the Premier say on TV that he was going to

reinstate the seniors bus pass for the next year. Right after the announcement,

I received many phone calls, mostly from seniors and community leaders,

commending the Premier's prompt action and compassionate consideration towards

the seniors.

Many of

them told me that through the TV program, they now know more about the financial

hardship the government has faced and the inheritance of a $4 billion structural

deficit from the previous government. They now know that the Premier and his

government have the courage and conviction to carry out a long-term plan to put

the economy back on track and to ensure that the government is accountable for

the hard-earned tax dollars from British Columbians.

The

reinstatement of the seniors bus pass program has shown that the Premier and his

cabinet are determined to put not just students first and patients first but

also seniors first.

This

announcement is timely, on the second day of the Chinese New Year, the Year of

the Horse. The horse, in the old days, was the fastest transportation vehicle.

This symbolizes the fast action and pace that the Premier and his government

have taken in putting B.C. back on the road to prosperity.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House and

in the gallery a prosperous New Year of the Horse and success in the many years

to come in this beautiful, beautiful province. Gung hay fat choy .

Oral Questions

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services insisted that he had no knowledge

of the pending increase in Medical Services premiums when he accused the

opposition of fearmongering. To the Premier: will the Premier please table today

all documents from his office, from the Ministry of Finance and from the Health

ministry related to the decision to increase MSP premiums, to prove that his

Minister of Health Services was telling the truth?

Hon. G.

Collins: The Minister of Health Services always tells the truth. As the

member knows as a former Finance minister, all of those options are always

available to government. The decision to raise MSP premiums was one that I

recommended recently, certainly well after the Minister of Health Services made

his statements that he was not aware of any government plan to do so.

[1415]

MacPhail: Well, the Minister of Health Services had to suffer a public

humiliation at the hands of the Minister of Finance as the MSP hike was

announced. I was wanting to give the Minister of Health Services an opportunity

to redeem himself. But due to his lack of availability and the urgent matters

that are appearing today across the province, I will go then to where the

decisions are made around health in this province, and that is to the Minister

of Finance.

The

Minister of Health said a couple of weeks ago that yes, hospitals would close.

He refused to give any specifics of where those hospital closures would be. The

entire province is in a state of high anxiety. Perhaps the Minister of Finance,

rather than publicly humiliating the Minister of Health Services, could himself

stand today and announce which hospitals will close.

Hon. G.

Collins: I will take that question on notice for the Minister of Health

Services.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

The Leader

of the Opposition with a supplemental question.

MacPhail: It's interesting that on the one hand, the Minister of Finance

says, "I make the decisions about health in this province; I make the

decisions about money that goes into health care," and, on the other hand,

refuses to announce for the public, for people who are in a high state of

anxiety, what the future of health care is. This government's policy about the

future of health care is a bottom-line policy. We know that the Minister of

Finance is making these decisions.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, could I ask you to now put the question, please.

MacPhail: The people in New Westminster are deeply concerned about the

future of their hospital. The people in the district of Hope, as of yesterday,

are deeply concerned about the future of their hospital. Are these people just

fearmongering? Is this the Liberal definition of fearmongering?

Would the

Minister of Finance stand today and tell us now which hospitals his government

is going to close?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health

Services as well.

[ Page 1099 ]

HEALTH CARE FACILITY CLOSINGS

J. Kwan:

This government has four ministers of health, but they can't seem to come up

with one straight answer about which one hospital is going to be closed.

We found

out yesterday that the Minister of Health Planning is spending more time on her

image than on her job.

I ask the

other ministers, whoever will stand up and answer the question: can the Minister

of State for Long Term Care tell us how many extended care facilities are going

to close?

Maybe the

Minister of State for Mental Health can rise up in this House and tell us what

mental health facilities are on the chopping block.

British

Columbians are looking for answers from this government. Should we just be

looking for a lame-duck PowerPoint presentation in an open cabinet meeting?

Hon. G.

Collins: I noticed the comment from the member about the PowerPoint

presentation and her concern about the cost of contracts for speeches, etc. I

was a little concerned about that myself, because I anticipated that I might be

asked by the media or somebody today, so I went back and looked at the Ministry

of Finance to see what I had done as Minister of Finance and to see how it

compared with previous Ministers of Finance.

This year,

for this speech that is being prepared for this budget, a contractor is being

paid about $4,000 to work on that. In the economic and fiscal update last summer

it was about $4,000 as well.

If I look

at how that compares to what was done under previous governments, I have in the

2001-02 budget speech $6,290. In the 2000-01 speech — a speech I'm sure the

member for Vancouver-Hastings will be very familiar with — $6,800. In the

1999-2000 budget speech, $11,830.

What's more

interesting is I understand that Rob Cottingham, the individual who wrote the

speeches, was not only a very good supporter of the member opposite, he was also

a member of the New Democratic Party, and the province had to pay for him to

stay at the Empress Hotel while he was constructing those fine speeches.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

I guess the Minister of Health Planning was preparing for her major, major

speech to her open cabinet colleagues for her self-image performance. Well, it's

obvious, hon. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance, not the Minister of Health,

actually sets health policies. The Minister of Finance just admitted that

himself.

So let me

just go directly to the Minister of Finance. Which hospital is the Minister of

Finance planning to shut down in the province of British Columbia? Why doesn't

he just tell the Minister of Health — all the ministers of health — now

which hospital he is intending to shut down? Or better yet, maybe he should lean

over and talk to the Premier and say: "Hey, you know what? Let's just shut

down and fire the three ministers of health and save that money and put it into

direct patient care."

Hon. G.

Collins: I know that the member opposite is very concerned about making sure

all the dollars that government spends get down to the patients. Perhaps she

might want to lean over to the leader of her party and ask her if she had the

same concern when she was Minister of Finance, when she paid $48,000 for a

contractor to travel around the province with her and set up meetings.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I can go on, because that was for the 1999 year. In

the year of '99-2000, the then Minister of Finance actually paid the same

individual $45,000 for the same accompaniment. As well, I understand that Lauri

Nerman was also a very strong supporter of the member opposite and a member of

the New Democratic Party.

COURTHOUSE CLOSINGS

Chutter: My question is to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Chutter: As part of the government's effort to restructure the services that

it provides, it was recently announced that a number of provincial courthouses

will soon be closing. Many of my constituents are particularly concerned by the

announcement that courthouses will be closing in Hope, Lytton, Lillooet,

Princeton and Merritt. Can the Attorney General tell my constituents why the

decision was made to close these courthouses?

Hon. G.

Plant: We were forced to make some difficult decisions. At all times I tried

to keep the principle of access to justice first and foremost in my mind. But I

think it was also important and timely for us to make sure that the physical

infrastructure of the buildings that we use and operate every day in British

Columbia are used most effectively. We looked at how we could ensure that there

would be a minimal impact on people in travelling from one court location to

another. We did the best we could. We were forced to close some courthouses, and

I think there are undoubtedly going to be some people who will feel that impact.

But I am

committed to working with the justice system partners, with communities, to find

strategies

[ Page 1100 ]

for changing how we deliver justice services — for allowing documents to be

filed by fax, witnesses to give evidence by video conference. There are a range

of ideas that I think are appropriate to be looked at now in order to do the

thing which is most important of all, and that is to give the citizens who live

in the communities, which the member mentions, some reasonable level of access

to justice.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet has a supplementary question.

Chutter: My constituents are concerned that these closures will mean that

many of the cases before the courts will be dismissed because of the length of

time it might take to bring them to trial. What assurances can the Attorney

General give my constituents that these closures will not adversely impact the

administration of justice?

Hon. G.

Plant: When we went through the exercise of deciding which facilities had to

be closed, we looked closely at whether or not there would be another facility,

in most cases, within an hour's drive or so — not always — and at facilities

that with the addition of some new staff would have capacity to absorb

additional caseloads so that the net result over the system is that cases may be

moved but that we won't cause an increase in the backlog of cases in the system.

[1425]

I've also

said — in response to questions from mayors, for example, in some of the

communities that the memo represents — that if the city or the community wants

to have a conversation about the possibility of circuit court locations or

circuit court activity, I'm certainly willing to participate with justice system

people in that conversation too.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Krueger: It's tough to listen to these opposition members ask questions

about the delivery of health care when we had such a brutal experience in this

province on that score for the past ten years. I remember that when the Leader

of the Opposition was Minister of Health, I believe it was, a commitment was

made to fund mental health services to the tune of $125 million that was never

put in the budget and never materialized.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Krueger: So even when our own government ? which is a kinder, gentler, more

caring government by far, including the way it deals with matters in this House

? reorganizes health care, the public is somewhat cynical about whether that

will actually translate into better services for patients on the ground. I'd

like to ask the Minister of State for Mental Health how the recent

reorganization is expected to deliver mental health services to those who

desperately need it in this province.

Hon. G.

Cheema: I do understand the concerns of the patients and their families. I

have met with many families and many groups across this province. This will be

the first time in this province that we are going to have fair and active

achievement of mental health. This is the first time in this province that we

are going to have clear goals and objectives for mental health. This is the

first time in this province that we made a commitment to fully implement the

mental health plan, and we are going to fulfil that promise. There is good news

for mental health in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary

question.

Krueger: I hear the Leader of the Opposition calling out: "Ask about

the psychiatric facility." Curiously enough, I was going to do that. In the

early 1990s, Mr. Speaker, when you and Mr. Smith represented Kamloops, I

remember a decision being made to build a cancer treatment facility in Kamloops.

I remember that when the Leader of the Opposition came to power with her

government, that decision was changed. It didn't happen. But for ten years and

at least seven press announcements….

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I would suggest you now put your

question.

Krueger: I will, hon. Speaker. That member did promise a tertiary

psychiatric facility. My constituents and all constituents of our region are

concerned about when we will actually see the spades in the ground for the

tertiary psychiatric facility in Kamloops. I put that question to the Minister

of State for Mental Health: are there going to be any negative effects of this

regionalization change, or is the facility going ahead?

Hon. G.

Cheema: I do understand the anxiety of those two NDP members there. There is

a broken history of the NDP in Kamloops. People are concerned. We made a

commitment. I met with them. Our commitment is to have a health excellence psych

facility in Kamloops. This is going to be the first time in Kamloops they are

going to have a centre of excellence. This is going to happen. We made a

commitment. We are going to follow through with that commitment.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the

thirty-seventh parliament respecting the Budget 2002

[ Page 1101 ]

consultation process. Hon. Speaker, I would move that the report be taken as

read and received.

[1430]

Motion

approved.

Lekstrom: I would ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit

moving of a motion to adopt the report at this time.

Leave

granted.

Lekstrom: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

Lekstrom: Having had the privilege to chair this committee and tour the

province and hear from the hundreds of people that came out to our committee

meetings as well as those who put in written submissions, it was certainly an

honour to be able to hear from the residents of our great province and the

challenges that they faced and to come out and put their views and ideas forward

on the development of our budget that we'll be proud to present next week and

that everybody in British Columbia, I know, is looking forward to.

All of the

members on the committee worked very hard. They listened very well. They

listened to the ideas, and in putting this report together, I want to stand here

before the House and say how proud I am to have been part of that committee, how

proud I am of the people I serve and how proud I am that British Columbians took

the time out of their busy schedules to attend the meetings and put forward

written submissions. Hon. Speaker, I thank you.

I have the

honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament

respecting the financial review of the statutory officers of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I would move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report at this time.

Leave

granted.

Lekstrom: Again, having the privilege to have chaired this committee, having

worked with the statutory officers in our first attempt at this process, it was

very much a learning experience, I believe, for both sides — both the

statutory officers and the committee. I know that our committee learned a great

deal from listening to our statutory officers and what they brought forward with

their budgets, their proposals and their plans.

The

recommendations contained in the report reflect what the members of the

committee heard and have put forward. Certainly, again, it was a learning

experience. I believe we'll improve on this process as it develops.

It was a

privilege, and I would like to thank each and every one of the statutory

officers who came forward to present their plans and financial picture to our

committee so that we could have a better understanding to present this report to

the House.

Motion

approved.

Petitions

Roddick: I rise today, on behalf of Delta South and my colleague from Delta

North and all the constituents of both north and south Delta, to present a

petition to maintain our community health care.

Delta is

both active and vocal. The citizens have risen to the challenge of maintaining

their hospital not only with this petition of over 31,000 signatures and rising

but with dozens of workable ideas and suggestions on how to deliver a viable,

high-quality, effective health care delivery system in our community based on

equity, patient-centred care, evidence-based care and accountability.

Hamilton: I'd like to present two petitions. The first petition is from the

Esquimalt Legion seniors group, with 172 signatures, regarding public

transportation and medicare.

[1435]

The second

petition is from the parents of Macaulay Elementary School, with 175 signatures,

regarding inner-city school funding.

J. Bray:

Today I have the honour to present two petitions. The first petition is from the

parents of George Jay Elementary School, with 137 signatures, expressing concern

for inner-city school funding. The second petition is from the staff at George

Jay Elementary, expressing concern regarding inner-city school funding, with 33

signatures.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Chong: As always, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this chamber to

offer my Address in Reply to the throne speech. This year, more so than ever

before, I am particularly proud to support a throne speech that I believe offers

real hope, real opportunity and real prosperity for the future of British

Columbians.

A throne

speech lays out the vision and the path or the direction that a government will

follow for the ensuing year. It outlines the government's priorities, and

[ Page 1102 ]

it is clear that this government is determined and focused on revitalizing

British Columbia's economy, on restoring sound fiscal management and on putting

patients, students and people first.

These are

the very reasons why, in 1996, I sought public office at the provincial level. I

did so shortly after attending a breakfast meeting where the guest speaker spoke

of a plan to move British Columbia forward. This man, this guest speaker,

outlined his vision and a framework for achieving his objectives. He spoke of

accountability and of responsibility to taxpayers, and it was clear to me that

given the opportunity this man would be an outstanding Premier of this province,

if the people were to put their trust and confidence in him.

Well, a

majority of the citizens of British Columbia did just that last May. The member

for Vancouver–Point Grey received an overwhelming mandate to become Premier

and to lead our province back to economic prosperity. From the very beginning

the Premier has shown such a dedicated commitment to our province that other

government and business leaders are now beginning to take notice. They see that

British Columbia is back and will once again be an economic force in Canada.

I reviewed

the comments made yesterday by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of

the Opposition, and was amazed at how quickly she forgot the legacy her

government left us from the last decade, taking our provincial economy from

first place to last place in Canada. It was her government's lack of leadership,

her government's ineptitude and her government's mismanagement that created much

of the fiscal challenges we now face. For ten years her government didn't make

the tough decisions, didn't stand up to the private interest and, more

important, didn't do any long-term planning for health care or for education.

There is no

question that we are facing tough economic times. During these times of economic

slowdown we all need to work together and find solutions to new ways of

delivering and providing services to patients and students.

[1440]

Let's be

clear: keeping the status quo will not move us forward. Keeping the status quo

means that wait-lists will continue to grow. It means people will continue to

leave our province in search of a brighter future elsewhere. Keeping the status

quo means jobs are lost, and businesses go bankrupt with excessive

overregulation and red tape. I, for one, will not agree to that, nor am I happy

that British Columbia may soon be regarded as a have-not province, a result of

the previous government's inaction.

Government

has a very important role to play, and that is to provide good, dependable

services to people most in need. Before it can do that, it must ensure that the

services to be delivered are going to be sustainable over the long term — not

short term, not band-aid solutions and not the quick fixes we were so accustomed

to seeing from the previous government in the past decade.

In these

past eight months this new government has been working to clean up the problems

of the past as well as introducing new measures to move us forward. During these

past eight months this government has consistently shared information with

citizens of this province and indicated that this government would be going

through restructuring.

Admittedly,

I am sorry that in our government restructuring some people will be losing jobs,

and communities will be affected. I sincerely wish that did not need to happen,

because it was through no fault of theirs that people lost their jobs. I blame

the previous government which created jobs that were not sustainable, that were

not always necessary.

Rather than

being bold enough to take a realistic and hard look at what core essential

services government needed to provide, the previous government made decisions

based on politics without regard for the future. The previous government kept

introducing a stream of regulations without ever asking about or evaluating the

outcomes.

They

virtually killed our mining industry and ignored the concerns of the forest

industry. They diverted millions of dollars from Forest Renewal without any

accountability of that spending and embarked on megaprojects, one after next,

without proper business plans. That, too, is the legacy of the previous

government. What we are faced with today is a real mess, a mess that each day

brings more challenges for our new government.

Our

government's plan is to turn our provincial economy around. Yes, it means we

have to be more competitive, more diversified and more attractive to investors.

All this will bring more opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises,

which have always been acknowledged as the engine of our economy.

What is

really important, as well, is that more jobs will be created for our young

people. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition criticize our efforts to

restore the economy, and I am disappointed that she has gleaned so little from

all her years as a cabinet minister. How convenient it was for her to forget

that their government doubled our provincial debt in ten years to a point where

debt servicing — that is, interest payments — is one of our fastest-growing

government expenditures.

How

convenient it is to forget that diverting scarce taxpayers' dollars to interest

payments means there will be less money for health care and education. How

convenient it is for her to forget that we do need a strong, vibrant and diverse

economy to sustain the needed services for health care and for education.

We were

elected to save and renew health care and education, and we will. Though we are

fiscally challenged, we made a commitment — a commitment to maintain the

budgets for health and for education and to look for savings in all other

ministries. Every effort has been made to protect those most vulnerable in our

society. This government remains committed to long-

[ Page 1103 ]

term improvements in services for women, children and families.

As a

provincial Legislature, it is necessary that we spend a great deal of time here

in this precinct, but the most important work is out in our communities, in our

constituencies. Every week I meet with constituents in my community office, and

truthfully, I have heard more than an earful.

[1445]

Last week,

as an example, I met with three people employed through the MSP division of the

Ministry of Health Services. One of these ladies recently lost her job, and I

felt very badly for her. She appeared to be a very capable, competent and

earnest person, and she, along with the other two, asked that I take a message

to the Minister of Health Services. They wanted the minister to know that they,

along with others still employed at the MSP office, were willing to accept

change and be part of a team that helps to bring about efficiencies. While I

cannot restore the job to that particular lady, I can and I will ensure that

their voices are going to be heard, because that too is part of my role as an

MLA.

I also met

with a lady who had never before ventured to meet a politician, never before

chosen to meet with her MLA, so I was glad when she came in to see me. She took

the time to come in to ask questions about all te things that she had read in

the newspapers. I very carefully spoke with her, allowed her to display her

concerns, and at the end of the meeting she was very glad that she took the time

to come in to meet with me. I know all my colleagues are doing that very same

thing — meeting with constituents, taking away the fears that have been so

badly misreported.

Again, hon.

Speaker, that is what our job is. We should never forget — we should always be

mindful — that as MLAs we listen to our constituents, we hear their opinions,

and we represent them the best that we can. We find a means of bringing their

issues forward to this place, where we become their voice. It is not always

easy, because there are certainly conflicting views.

In a

previous week I heard from several people and received many phone calls and

letters. These were the people who said that they have been watching silently

and carefully what our government has been doing. They encouraged me. They said:

"Please, remember your commitment to restore the economy. Remember that you

must stay the course and not be persuaded by the private interests to change

direction." These people clearly had a different view, and it is important

that we hear both sides. They were there to support us and the new direction of

our government, but so, too, were the others that I met with who wanted us to

take their message to our various ministers.

I want to

spend a little time speaking about the working people that the opposition

sometimes believe they are the sole protectors of. I say wrong, wrong, wrong. It

was our government that restored workers' rights through the secret ballot. It

was our government that returned pension rights to workers and our government

that allowed all workers the right to bid on government contracts. It is not

just the opposition that is professing to protect the workers. Our actions do

speak louder.

Not all

workers are members of the public sector unions either. There are many private

sector unions, such as the IWA. What did the previous government do for them and

for their forest industry? Well, I think we know what's happened there.

Thousands of jobs were lost.

You know,

it's strange to hear the opposition member be so negative about the throne

speech, but I guess that's to be expected. I recall when the member for

Vancouver-Hastings used to encourage us to look at the throne speech. When she

was a minister, when she was in government, she said: "Look closely at this

throne speech and support it for all its wonderful hopes and promises." The

only problem was that in their throne speech, there were always empty promises,

just like the $125 million mental health initiative that was promised and never

delivered on.

[1450]

This throne

speech is different because it is real. This Premier expects to be held

accountable for it. Unlike the previous Premiers and the previous government,

our Premier does expect to be held accountable. So, too, do all my colleagues on

this side and that side of the House. I guess that is what is so alarming to the

opposition. They cannot believe we are saying things that we believe in and that

we intend to keep them, because her government used to break promise after

promise and dithered for so long that our economy was neglected.

We really

do depend on the people in our communities to make them a better place for all

of us. We need to listen to what they have to say, especially when they come

forward with ideas and solutions.

Our

volunteers are also the unsung heroes of our communities, and I want to take

this time to thank the many volunteers in Oak Bay and Gordon Head for the work

they did in the past year. They were recognized in the International Year of the

Volunteer. Just because that one year as gone by, it has not kept them from

continuing to volunteer. They are encouraged to do that much more.

Mr.

Speaker, before I take my seat I do wish to provide an example of the renewed

sense of hope in my community. Last winter, spurred on by the energies of some

small business people in Oak Bay — not that they're small business

people; they're business people with small businesses…. These business people

in the village of Oak Bay transformed our one main street in Oak Bay to a

Victorian Christmas village. The shops and businesses benefited from the

additional traffic and interest brought in by the surrounding municipalities. I

commend all who took

part in making that worthwhile effort such a success. I

know they're already working on this current year to bring even more visitors to

our friendly village of Oak Bay.

Finally, I

wish to follow up on comments made by my colleague the member for

Victoria–Beacon Hill,

[ Page 1104 ]

who also spoke of the increasing high-tech industries and enterprises here in

the capital region. I absolutely, absolutely agree that this is happening. As

well, the member for Saanich South spoke of one particular business, Epic

Biosonics, that she was particularly proud of, and so she should be. Again, I

wholeheartedly agree with her that Epic Biosonics is a success story. I remind

her, too, that Epic Biosonics had its very early beginnings in Oak Bay but,

because of its success, quickly outgrew its premises and relocated to Saanich

South.

There is

much work ahead. My colleagues and I — and everyone, I hope, in this chamber,

regardless of how we feel — know that we have to work on behalf of our

constituents. I expect we shall all rise to the occasion.

J. Kwan:

Let me just put some facts on the record, to begin with. I know that the members

like to say that they kept all their promises, but let's just look at the facts

in terms of their campaign. Maybe they've forgotten already, since it's been

eight months.

On the

issue around income taxes. British Columbians voted for lower taxes for middle-

and low-income people. They did not vote for huge tax breaks for big

corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. That was something that the

now Liberal government specifically did not campaign for during the election. No

one from the government campaigned on big tax cuts to the wealthiest British

Columbians, who are the beneficiaries by far. Are the Premier's corporate

friends and high-income supporters gaining the best benefits now? Are they

taking those sacrifices that the Premier's now saying that everybody has to

take? They — their donors, their supporters, their friends — have the

largest income tax benefit given by this Liberal government. That is the

reality.

Let's look

at sound fiscal management. Let's see: we've gone from the largest surplus in

British Columbia's history to the largest deficit in B.C. — a deficit of $3.4

billion. Add another billion, probably, for this year's upcoming budget.

I could

probably support that kind of sound fiscal management if the government were

running a historic deficit to support health care and education for all British

Columbians, including those who are in the lowest margins, who are in the middle

incomes — all British Columbians. But that's not what this government is

doing. They're cutting services. They're forcing people to pay more. They're

forcing user fees on people. They're even contemplating that people who go into

walk-in clinics would have to pay a fee. This is what this government's doing.

[1455]

Did they

campaign on that in the last eight months? Did they come out and tell people,

"When we give you these big tax cuts, by the way, we're not telling you

right now, but we're actually going to give big tax cuts to the big corporations

and the wealthiest British Columbians as well," and that after that — to

the Minister of Environment too — they were going to cut services that you

depend on, that families depend on? No, they didn't.

Hon.

Speaker, I know members are fond of saying: "Well, gee, you know, it's just

you trying to paint your own picture, the opposition members trying to paint the

fiscal picture in terms of what it looks like." Don't take my word for it.

The auditor general today, the auditor general of British Columbia — an

officer who's answerable to every single member in this Legislature — issued

his report on monitoring government finances. He says: "People often ask me

about the state of the government's finances. Both citizens of British Columbia

and their elected representatives want to know how the government's finances

fare and compare with other jurisdictions."

Well, let's

see what this Liberal government is doing. "The government has decided to

implement this requirement" — that is, the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act — "at the end of the allowed period, rather than

earlier. 'Until this happens, the government's financial statements will be

incomplete and thus confusing,' says the auditor general." Then he goes on

to say in his report that in the five-year period ended March 31, 2001, the

economy in B.C. grew more than did the government's net liabilities.

"Net

liabilities refer to the obligations we leave for our children to pay or

finance. In the same five-year period, provincial revenues increased by 37

percent, expenses by 31 percent, capital assets by 7 percent and total debt by

18 percent. With the current year's drop in energy prices and the reduced

provincial income taxes, the trend is not expected to continue." Based on

this comparison, the auditor general concludes that B.C.'s economy has been the

second most able to support its government's past revenue-raising and spending

practices.

Another

widely used indicator of government financial performance is its credit rating.

B.C. has kept its high standing in the international financial market, although

its ranking amongst provinces has dropped to second, after Alberta.

All of this

blaming…. I know the government members want to say it's all the previous

government's fault: "They spent way too much money than they could afford

when revenues were coming in." But you know what? The report that was just

released today by the auditor general says otherwise. In fact, spending was well

within the percentage of revenues. In fact, revenues exceeded spending at 37

percent while spending was kept at 31 percent. Those are the facts. I encourage

everyone in the House to take a look at this. This is a report done by the

independent auditor of this House — independent of everyone. He's answerable

to every single legislator in this House. Don't just make up your own stories

just because they fit your own stories. Look to the facts, and go to the

sources.

"By…announcing

the tax cuts first, the government created a situation that can only be called

grotesque. The rich in B.C. are getting tax cuts of up to $20,000 a year at the

top end — which in and of itself is not a sin. At the same time, to cover

revenue losses caused in

[ Page 1105 ]

large measure by the tax cuts, the government is hitting the poor in ways

that are often petty and sometimes downright heartless. But the well-off

shouldn't be receiving dramatic tax cuts — small tax cuts would do just as

well — while the poor are nickel-and-dimed." This is not from me; this is

a quote from Times Colonist editorialist Paul MacRae, January 21, 2002.

This is an evaluation by someone else in terms of the actions of this

government.

[1500]

Let me just

go to another quote:

"Some

people view smaller government as a good thing. Perhaps there was fat to be

cut away, but to axe off over three years is a desperate, frightening act that

could end up costing B.C. much more in the long run.

"Fewer

courthouses, fewer jails, less money for legal aid, reduced social services,

no response to medium and minimal environmental calls, user fees for

recreational facilities, charges for fighting fires on private land and

reduction of paramedics will all seriously impact citizens, both directly and

indirectly.

"The

savings for cutting services may not be immediate, but they will happen down

the road. It's called foresight — something the government may not be

showing with these dramatic cuts.

"It's

a sad day in B.C. nevertheless. The people who will be most hurt by the loss

of public services may never be heard from. They never are."

From

another region in British Columbia, the editorial from the Kamloops Daily

News that was reported in the Times Colonist on January 21, 2002.

From

another paper, the Province , Jim McNulty:

"The

Premier has converted British Columbia into a political Petri dish for

experiments straight out of the Fraser gang's lab. This is a government that,

mirroring the Fraser Institute, doesn't like government. 'In some respects,'

noted University of Victoria political scientist, Norman Ruff, the change

'turns back government 30 or 40 years in the reduction in public

services.'"

These are the comments from the public, from the larger public,

from the media — their editorials as they see what is being done right now

in this province by this Liberal government in their promise for prosperity.

Prosperity for whom? The selected few.

If you're

in the 1.1 percentile who happen to make $150,000 or more, well, then you are

going to see a prosperous future for yourself. But you know what? If you're not

in that bracket, then it's tough times. Sacrifice is what the Premier's calling

it. Too bad if you don't have health care services. Too bad if your children

can't afford post-secondary education because the tuition fee freeze has been

lifted and tuition is going to skyrocket. That is the reality for many British

Columbians.

The Premier

says he puts the interests of patients, students and those most in need first

— the most vulnerable in our society. The Premier says that he'll put children

and family first. He says that he will not break his trust with the people. That

was from the throne speech. Those were direct words from the throne speech.

Well, let's take a look and measure those words, because honestly — honestly

— words are cheap until you measure them against actions. What happens when

the actions are measured against the words?

Let's look

at the question around the most vulnerable. Again, it's not just what I say but

what others in the community are saying.

Just

yesterday, February 13, non-governmental agencies issued a press release and had

a press conference. Twelve leading non-governmental organizations are charging

that the B.C. Liberal government is engaging in an assault on poor British

Columbians that violates standards set by the United Nations. The groups, which

provide advocacy for human rights and poverty issues, today requested that the

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights give urgent

attention to a massive assault on the social and economic rights of the poorest

people by the government of British Columbia.

At a news

conference yesterday, the NGOs released their submission to the United Nations

committee, which has headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The Liberal

government's proposed cuts to social assistance and legal aid are singled out in

the submission. The groups argue that the cuts contravene obligations that the

government of British Columbia is required to fulfil under the UN International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Canada has been a signatory to

the treaty since 1976. All provinces are bound by the terms.

This is how

our broader community is viewing the actions of this government. This government

wants to say that they are protecting the most vulnerable. Well, how are they

protecting the most vulnerable?

[1505]

Let's first

look at the issue around income assistance — welfare. Shelter allowances for

families with two children or more will be reduced. We know that particularly in

the urban centres there is a very low vacancy rate. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard ought to know because his riding has the lowest vacancy rate

in terms of rental availability for the public. You know what? Shelter allowance

is going to be reduced by this government for people on income assistance. This

is how they're going to help you, the most vulnerable.

How else

are they going to help you, aside from reducing the shelter allowance? They are

also going to help by reducing your support, the scarce amount of money people

on income assistance get from government to survive. Those allowances are also

going to be reduced. Helping the most vulnerable and those most in need, the

Liberal government is going to reduce the amount of money you can have to live

on if you are in the most need of income assistance.

How else

are they going to do it? Formerly, if you were a single parent on income

assistance, you got a family maintenance exemption. That is, if you collected

some money from your ex-partner to support the children living with you, you got

to keep $100 of that, and it was not deducted from your payments. How is this

government helping single parents and children on income assistance? The family

maintenance exemption

[ Page 1106 ]

will be gone, eliminated. That is how this Liberal government is saying that

it is prioritizing you and is going to take care of your needs first. The

Premier is going to take away the family maintenance exemption for single

parents on income assistance. That's how this government is going to help you.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Incentive.

Everybody talks about incentive for income assistance recipients. They all talk

about how they want to see them get into the workforce to gain employment

opportunities, to be self-sufficient. You know, most income assistance people

that I know actually want the same as well. As part of the incentive for them to

do that, they actually get to make a little bit of money, what is known as the

earnings exemption. If you are a single person, you get to make $100 before any

additional dollars you earn are deducted off the income assistance cheque, as an

incentive to get you back into the workforce to gain some experience, to gain

some confidence and to be part of the workforce. If you are an individual with

children in a family unit, you get to keep $200. Guess what? How is this

government going to help the most vulnerable? They're going to eliminate the

earnings exemption. That's how they're helping you.

I'd be

really frightened if the government turned to me: "Let me help you. You're

my first priority." I'd be running for the woods. I would want to say,

"No thanks. I'd be doing just fine without any of your assistance,"

because this is what this government is intending to do when they say they're

going to help the most vulnerable.

When you

tally up their many examples…. I won't go into each and every one of them, but

if you tally up all the deductions coming from this government for income

assistance recipients, for a single mom you can see a drop of as much as $370 a

month. That is for a mother with one child. This represents a 46 percent cut on

your income. That's what it means.

Single moms

on income assistance, the government is going to help you. Here's what they're

going to hand you, wrapped in nice big red ribbons no doubt: a 46 percent cut in

your support, in the ability to survive for you and your children and to try to

break out of the poverty cycle, to create a better future for yourself and your

children. That's how the government is going to help you.

By the time

your child turns three, if you're on income assistance, you'll be forced to go

to work. If you don't, you will see a further reduction of your income

assistance allowance, a further reduction of 25 percent after two years. Do you

know how many people that impacts, how many children that impacts? Approximately

15,000 in British Columbia. This is how this government is going to help you.

[1510]

Meanwhile,

the previous government brought in a universal child care program to ensure that

British Columbians have access to safe and affordable child care for their

children. The universal child care program has been cancelled, repealed, gone.

If your child turns three and you're on income assistance and you can't find

affordable child care, tough luck. That's just tough luck, because that program

is now gone — from the Liberal government, from this Premier.

Then if

you're a young person who has just turned 19, before you get on income

assistance, you have to show you can live independently for two years on your

own. You know, this provision scares me no end. In my own riding and in many

other communities, as well, I know there are a lot of young people who are faced

with traumatic situations at home — abuse in many instances. You know what?

They would be forced to stay at home and face the abuse and continue to live

with it, or they will be forced into the streets. You know my prediction? God, I

do hope that I am wrong. I pray that I am wrong. I think a lot of the young

people will turn to the streets. You know what else they'll turn to? They'll

sell themselves. They'll sell their bodies just to survive. That's what this

government is offering you when it says it's going to help the most vulnerable.

If you were

a refugee claimant, you were allowed to collect income assistance until you had

settled all the matters of immigration so that you could get a work permit and

so on and so forth. Now, with this government's change, you will no longer be

able to get assistance.

If you're

fleeing a country for your life, from persecution, and you've come to Canada to

seek better opportunities for the future, that support until you get your feet

on the ground, until you can get the work permits and go through all the

immigration procedures so that you can actually just simply survive with the

bare minimum, is no longer there. That's what this throne speech speaks to.

That's what this Liberal government is offering to those who are most in need.

If you're

on the disability benefits program, the Disability Benefits Program Act is going

to be repealed. If you're on disability, which recognizes that some people have

unique needs and unique illnesses that prevent them from working on a long-term

or short-term basis…. People with disability will now be included with the

general welfare system, something that the disability community fought long and

hard to change.

Now they

fear that with the new eligibility rules that are being applied — as defined

as employable — they will be forced to go back to work, and if they're unable

to find work, they'll get cut off. They're petrified about it. I have a letter.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned going out to talk to people.

Maybe I should just suggest reading some of the correspondence as well. I have a

litany of this kind of correspondence from British Columbians, not just from my

riding but throughout. They're concerned with these issues.

This one

letter is from a woman in Victoria. I'll quote a part of her letter:

"My

oldest daughter has recently been diagnosed with Crohn's disease. She suffers

almost daily with nausea, diarrhea and unbelievable pain and has been

[ Page 1107 ]

prescribed some very costly medications. She has worked very

hard since she was 18 years old. Never once has she had her handout or

assistance from the system.

"It

is my understanding that after two years on social assistance, she'll be

forced to return to work. What happens to her if she's not well enough to

resume working? Will she be cast aside like everybody else in

this province? Where do abused mothers and their children turn to who need

assistance from the Ministry of Children and Family Development? I get the

feeling that the Liberals don't know, nor do they care."

This is a letter written by a woman in Victoria.

[1515]

The

astounding part of it, aside from cutting direct services, direct support to

people on income assistance, is that the government is going to revamp the

administration of income assistance as well. Who are they looking to? They're

looking to a firm that has already done that work in Ontario. You know, far from

having a stellar record, this firm actually has a very blotchy record as well.

Let's look

and see what the auditor general from Ontario had to say around the

restructuring of the income assistance system in Ontario.

"In

a blistering report the government's own auditor general slammed the deal with

Andersen Consulting. The report states: 'We continue to question the

achievement of value for money for taxpayers from this agreement.' He added:

'This project is failing to deliver the replacement technology and

functionality required for administering the income support and Ontario Works

programs economically and efficiently within the timetable planned…. We

consider this failure ominous, because the Ministry of Social Services and

Andersen Consulting have agreed on the need to extend the contract from four

to five years to complete the project. This extension threatens to diminish

the benefit to the taxpayer from this project.'"

This is, again, from the auditor general in Ontario, who has looked

at what the restructuring in Ontario has done to the welfare system and found

that indeed that system has been nothing but a dismal failure. In fact,

taxpayers didn't save any money. They actually spent more money trying to

restructure the system, and people actually got fewer benefits in that

process.

It isn't

just Ontario that has done this but other jurisdictions. In Nebraska in 1996-97

the same work was being done, $24 million cost overrun. Texas, 1997, $63.7

million cost overrun, four years behind. Virginia, 1996, 150 percent cost

overrun. U.S. energy company, 1996, sued for $100 million for the work that was

done that failed to deliver the two system development projects. The U.K., $40

million. The company that did this work, Andersen, was sued for being inept, for

$40 million. Yorkshire, U.K. You know, the company that did the work,

Andersen's, walked out before the project was complete. They said they were only

there for the money, so when it wasn't profitable for them, they left before the

project was even completed.

The

Canadian government cancelled a $44.5 million contract with Andersen Consulting

in May of 1995 after the firm failed to meet its contractual obligations. The

list goes on and on. Yet this government is determined to head down in that

direction, head right down in that direction to revamp the income assistance

delivery program, irrespective of the record shown in other jurisdictions that

have done exactly that kind of work.

When we

think about the most vulnerable, hon. Speaker…. Earlier today, in question

period, the Attorney General said that he is going to be the defender for access

to justice. Well, how is this government acting as the defender to access to

justice? Well, because you'll be the most vulnerable who need access to justice,

when you need it, will you be able to access it — if you're low-income people

who need legal aid? The answer is no. Forty percent of the legal aid budget is

being cut by this government. That's embedded between the lines in the throne

speech.

Forty

percent of the cut in legal aid over three years will mean the closure of a

number of legal aid offices. It would mean a drastic reduction in legal aid

support in family law, in poverty law. The cuts will affect many vulnerable

British Columbians, including disabled workers, tenants, women, women fighting

custody battles, the unemployed and many other citizens who face issues, whether

they be mental safety or physical safety. Those who cannot afford legal

representation will simply not have access to justice. That is the reality. This

is in the era of a new government that says: "Don't worry, we'll make sure

that we will protect those who are most in need." That's how the government

does that work.

Communities

throughout British Columbia have been writing many, many letters to myself and

to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. I want to quote a letter for the

record.

[1520]

"Dear Attorney General:

"What

do you expect to happen to the justice system in B.C.? Courthouses, some

already operating at more than 100 percent, are to be closed. Legal aid, which

of course benefits the most vulnerable in our society, is severely curtailed.

It has often been stated that a society is judged by the way it treats its

children and its elderly. If this generally accepted criterion is true, B.C.

certainly fares ill or poorly.

"It's

just fine to have the largest cabinet in B.C.'s history. What happened to the

promise of a lean government? Cabinet ministers received substantial pay

raises, felt necessary to attract quality. Why do they not want

quality in our justice system? Apparently not. Please reconsider."

You know,

some members are wondering what pay raises cabinet ministers got. Well, in their

quiet little rooms behind closed doors, this is what cabinet ministers did. They

went and gave themselves a $150 pay raise for travelling to Victoria to do their

business. They switched the rules. That's how they do it. Treasury Board made a

decision behind closed doors, and behind closed doors this is what the

government does. That's when they say…. When you need your services the most,

that's what they'll do.

Other areas

— human rights. Access to the Human Rights Commission has now also been

denied. Many of

[ Page 1108 ]

the people who face violations will not be able to go there.

Women who

face violence. The government talks about how they want to protect women who

face violence by saying they will protect transition houses. Well, they're

shutting down women's centres, pre-employment training programs that help women

escape violence, that help women in transition get self-sufficiency. Those

programs — gone.

Housing —

gone.

Inner-city

kids. I wonder where the advocate is from Vancouver-Kingsway, from

Vancouver-Kensington, from Vancouver-Burrard. Why don't they stand up in this

House and ask their minister why they are cutting inner-city school funding to

the children who are most in need? That inner-city school funding will help them

stay in school, enhance their learning opportunities — succeed and not drop

out — and deal with violence issues and multiple barriers, literacy questions,

counselling. Where is that funding? Well, this minister, this government, has

deemed it unnecessary for the most vulnerable children in all of British

Columbia, who are faced with multiple barriers. That money is now gone.

What about

the environment? The minister likes to talk about how they're protecting the

environment and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that when you cut

programs, it's not just the water quality that could be in jeopardy. When you

cut services to highway improvements, you jeopardize the lives of British

Columbians.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

The members like to say it's fearmongering, but the reality is…. When they

said that they wouldn't raise MSP and that the opposition was fearmongering,

what was the reality? MSP actually went up.

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

J. Kwan:

Hon. Speaker, I know that my time is up, but I'd like to close. If members

want to heckle on a point of order, they should be sitting down.

Deputy

Speaker: Member, your time has expired.

J. Kwan:

Thank you. I will just wrap up my statements, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I'm just going to wrap up my statements, hon. Speaker, if I may.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. The member's time has expired. You may wrap up.

J. Kwan:

Thank you. When this government says that they're on your side and that

they're going to protect you, you know what? My advice to British Columbians is

this: look out, because it means all your services that you depend on are in

jeopardy.

Christensen: It's an honour to stand in the House today and represent the

fine people of Okanagan-Vernon. It's always interesting to follow one of the two

members of the opposition, because they always raise a number of points that

just seem fascinating. Certainly if I were a citizen of this province listening

to what one of the two members of the opposition says, I would be fearful,

because they're very good at fearmongering.

[1525]

What they

do is take announcements the government has made or announcements about the

direction the government's going to be taking before those announcements have a

lot of meat on them, and they then try and think of the worst-case scenario.

They then double it, and then they spout it off as fact. It's simply not fact.

The reality

in this session is that there are a number of issues the government will be

dealing with, and we'll be introducing legislation. At that point, we'll be able

to all see — the citizens of this province — the validity of that

legislation and the fact that this government is taking this province in the

right direction.

Mr.

Speaker, what I found remarkable and quite pleasing about the throne speech is

that there were no great surprises. It reflected the commitments this government

made in the election campaign. Imagine that: a throne speech, eight months into

the term of a government, that actually reflects the election commitments the

government made.

It also

confirmed many of the challenges this government faces, challenges the Premier

and various ministers have been telling British Columbians about in open cabinet

meetings and otherwise over the last number of months.

The fact

that there were no surprises speaks volumes to the openness and the transparency

this government is following in confronting the challenges we face as a

province. Once again: openness, transparency — another campaign promise

fulfilled.

It's been

eight months since we were sworn into office, and in that short time, this

government has taken many, many steps to get this province back on track. The

first thing we did was make tax cuts — yes, tax cuts — to make this

province, once again, a competitive jurisdiction, able to attract investment and

stem the flow of capital and talent leaving this great province.

The Premier

also did a number of very innovative things in terms of establishing his

cabinet. The one I am particularly proud of the Premier for establishing is the

Ministry of Health Planning. Imagine that: an area of public policy that takes

almost 40 percent of the provincial budget, and we're actually going to plan

ahead for the challenges that arise in that area of public policy. That's

incredible foresight, and it's long overdue.

[ Page 1109 ]

Another

thing this government spent a lot of time on in the fall, and which is ongoing

in terms of some Crown corporations, is the core services review. Again, Mr.

Speaker, imagine a government that gets elected and then actually sits down and

says, "What is government doing? What should government be doing, and how

can government do it better?" — another step long overdue in terms of the

governing of this province.

A number of

select standing committees of this Legislature toured the province in the fall.

I was very pleased to have been appointed to the Select Standing Committee on

Education, and I think people are eagerly anticipating our report, which will

soon be presented to the Legislature. The other committees did do their job.

They heard from British Columbians. They heard a diverse number of views

reflecting the diverse population of this province and the many regions of this

province. They submitted those reports to this Legislature, and those reports

form a foundation for ministers and for all members of this Legislature to think

about a number of very good ideas that have been brought forward — a number of

innovative ideas. Those reports can often form the foundation of very

progressive policy in the future.

The throne

speech confirms that this government isn't going to waver in making the

difficult decisions necessary to follow through on the commitments made during

last year's election — commitments to bring a new era of prosperity, hope and

opportunity to all British Columbians.

My friend

the member for Peace River South remarked yesterday that he would be gracious in

that he thought that perhaps the previous government had a lot bigger hearts

than they had dollars. It sort of made me think for a second, and it made me

think of another quote I heard a former member of the previous NDP government

say — a leadership candidate at the time: "We made announcements about

things we weren't even going to do."

Well, we

can wear our hearts on our sleeves and talk about all the wonderful things we

want to do for British Columbia. Perhaps when we make those announcements, it

does bring some comfort to various people in our province. But government

doesn't do anybody any favours when it makes promises and announces programs

that have no hope of being sustainable or that the government hasn't even

budgeted for or, worst of all, simply for the sake of making an announcement,

with no intention of following through. Such announcements are a cruel taunting

of British Columbians who might genuinely benefit from such programs. Mr.

Speaker, I know the days of empty promises are over.

[1530]

The throne

speech did confirm that we face a number of great challenges, but more

importantly, it sets out a path for addressing those challenges head on, a path

for renewed hope and prosperity in British Columbia. There are numerous

highlights in the throne speech. It recognizes and confirms the very strong

necessity of a renewed private sector economy in B.C., the need to attract

investment and attention to British Columbia. We all know this, but the world is

going to come to British Columbia if we only let them know why they should, and

we're doing that.

Since

coming to office, the Premier's been in China and Hong Kong and Japan on a trade

mission showcasing British Columbia. He's getting, from what I hear, rave

reviews in terms of what this government is doing for the province and the path

this government is setting forth. He's also been on the Team Canada mission down

in the U.S., to Dallas and, I believe, to Los Angeles, again getting rave

reviews on what this province is doing.

It's those

messages that the province of British Columbia needs to get out. When the world

recognizes what we have to offer and what we are doing here, the world's going

to be knocking on our door. In that regard, I'm very pleased to see that in the

throne speech, this government has confirmed its commitment to support the bid

for the 2010 Olympics, an Olympics that's projected to perhaps bring as much as

$10 billion in direct and indirect benefit to the province and provide up to

228,000 jobs.

We all have

watched in the last few days — and over the next week — the Olympics in Salt

Lake City. We watch our athletes doing so well there, and we all know the

extensive coverage that such games get — that they showcase the locale in

which they are being held. As I've said before, when people see British

Columbia, a couple of weeks later they're going to be here.

I was very

pleased to see that the Premier is going to initiate a number of small business

round tables this spring. As all of us in this House know, many of the members

here have backgrounds in small business or have worked with small businesses.

Small businesses are the cornerstone of our local community economies.

I spent a

number of years as a director and president of the Downtown Vernon Association,

which was a downtown business improvement area in Vernon. Our mandate was to

assist small businesses in attracting more customers to downtown. I can tell

you, those small businesses have struggled over the past decade. This government

is committed, and I'm glad to see that it's committed, to ensuring that small

business can thrive in this province.

The Premier

initiated his council on technology in the fall, and their work is continuing. I

think that of any area of the economy, high-tech really does have the potential

to…. Well, there's a number of British Columbia companies already on the map

in high-tech, but we certainly have the potential to grow exponentially there.

Vernon is

not alone in having a number of high-tech businesses. I just want to mention a

couple of those that are on the leading edge. One, Tekmar Control Systems Ltd.,

is a world leader in hydronic heating systems. And guess what: since the last

provincial election, they're expanding. I've met with them, and they've told me

they're happy with what this govern-

[ Page 1110 ]

ment's doing. They know that we want to be a competitive jurisdiction to

attract and retain business. What that means to my community is a doubling of

the number of people employed by Tekmar as well as the fact that they've bought

new property in Vernon. They will be building a new facility, a much larger

facility, and they will employ a number of local contractors in doing that and,

obviously, provide economic benefit to my community.

[1535]

Another

leading-edge company is Ultradoc Software Inc. Ultradoc has just been invited to

accompany the Prime Minister and a number of business leaders on their trade

mission to Russia and Germany. Ultradoc was started by a local Vernon physician

and deals with medical records information. It's a web-based system that is very

interesting and certainly, I think, has a very bright future as we come to grips

with the significant challenges we face in the use of medical information, in

keeping that information secure but making it available around the province for

our physicians, hospitals and all our health care professionals to provide the

best service possible to the patients of this province.

These are

just a couple of examples of entrepreneurial British Columbians that are

succeeding in Vernon. I know if you speak to any of the members of this House

who reside in the Okanagan Valley, we're trying to brand the Okanagan Valley as

the Silicon Vineyard. I think you will see more and more over the next five

years that this brand is going to stick, and there's going to be very good

reason for it.

The throne

speech mentioned the Energy Policy Task Force — again, another task force,

another review of government policy and provincial policy that was long overdue.

You don't have to think too hard to recognize that consistent, relatively

inexpensive energy is the foundation on which an economy can be built. This

province has done well on that in the past, but we've fallen behind because we

haven't been thinking about what we need five and ten years from now. I was very

pleased when the Premier established the Energy Policy Task Force to look at the

long-term energy needs of the province. I'm very much looking forward to their

final report this spring and to being involved with this government in

responding to that task force report and in developing a policy to address the

long-term energy needs of the province.

The

government's outlined a commitment to renewing the mining industry. In my

meeting with local individuals in Vernon who tend to be involved in the start of

mining — that is, the prospecting end — I was surprised, not knowing much

about the mining industry, and pleased to learn about the incredible potential

this province has for mining. The mineral potential here is second to none in

the world. We, as a government, simply need to get our act together — which

hasn't been done by previous governments — to ensure that we're attracting

mining investment, that we're doing that in an environmentally responsible

manner and that we're exploiting that resource for the benefit of all British

Columbians.

The same

goes for oil and gas, for coalbed methane. I've mentioned mining. This

government is going to ensure that these opportunities are pursued for all

British Columbians. That's long overdue.

When we

look at the natural resources of this province…. It's truly amazing when we

sit back and actually look at what we have in the way of natural resources, look

at where we are and the challenges we face and recognize that there's simply no

reason we should have gotten to this point. Nevertheless, we're here. It's clear

that there is no challenge that's greater or more necessary than reform in the

management of our forest resource. There the challenges are daunting.

We're

currently dealing with the softwood lumber dispute. It's something that every

single member of this House would like to have seen resolved a long time ago.

The difficult part of any negotiation such as that is it's tough to negotiate

when one party doesn't seem to really want to come to the table too much. I

know, certainly, that our Minister of Forests is working hard on that file and

will continue to do so, keeping in mind not just getting an agreement, but

getting an agreement that's for the benefit of British Columbians.

[1540]

The

Minister of Forests certainly has his plate full in the next while in dealing

with forestry. We've made commitments to stumpage reform, and we've made

commitments to tenure reform. All of those things are major challenges. When we

look at forestry in the province, we've got a history of decades — in fact,

centuries in some cases — of doing things a certain way. We have considerable

vested interests. Like anything, when you're looking at change, there's always a

general resistance to change, just for the sake of resisting. All of that must

be overcome if we're going to have an internationally competitive and viable

forest industry in this province.

We need to

take the necessary policy steps to promote and ensure forest health. We need to

ensure that fibre is available to allow the expansion and success of our

value-added product manufacturers. We need to ensure that the Crown — you and

I and all the other people of British Columbia — receives a good return for

the sale of our timber resource. We need to ensure a viable, sustainable and

diversified forest industry overall.

That's

going to require us to be cautious. All of us in this House are going to need to

listen carefully to those who have experience in that industry as well as to new

ideas. We're going to have to think very critically.

One of the

good fortunes of this government, Mr. Speaker, is that this government caucus

represents almost every riding in this great and diverse province. Most of us

can see the critical importance and influence of forestry and the many aspects

of the forest industry by simply looking out the windows of our constituency

offices. Certainly, if we can't see it from our constituency offices, we can

probably see it from our homes.

[ Page 1111 ]

I'm confident that we will ably meet the task of reforming our forest

industry to meet the needs of all British Columbians.

I was also

pleased to see in the throne speech a confirmation of this government's

intention to work with our aboriginal and first nations communities to build

capacity and to improve aboriginal British Columbians' economic opportunities,

health and quality of life. Those are important commitments. From my meetings

with representatives of the Okanagan Indian band in my constituency, I know that

the band council and members are looking at innovative economic opportunities

for their band and their members. I'm looking forward very much to government

working with them to pursue those opportunities.

The throne

speech confirmed this government's commitments to putting students and patients

first in our education and health care systems. In education I was particularly

pleased that we will be following through on our commitment — in this session,

I believe — to provide more autonomy to school districts and post-secondary

institutions. I've met with a number of my school trustees and with officials in

school district 22, as well as with a number of principals, students and

teachers. All of these people have innovative ideas. They're creative. They're

dedicated to serving the students in Vernon, Lumby and Cherryville — the

students of school district 22. I know that when we give them the ability to do

their jobs and to exercise their discretion, they're going to do that in the

best interests of students. They're going to do it considerably more capably

than somebody 350 miles away down in Victoria can do. That's the benefit of

local autonomy, and it gets better results.

In the

post-secondary realm, Vernon is proud to be the home of the Kalamalka campus of

Okanagan University College. That's a college that I believe is particularly

responsive to the community's needs. There's a panel of community members that

provides advice to the college campus on occasion and tries to identify what the

community's needs are in terms of programming at the college. I think they've

been relatively successful in having strong input with the college.

[1545]

The

Kalamalka campus is going to be undertaking the construction of an addition.

Hopefully, they'll get shovel to ground sometime this year. That's an addition

that doesn't cost the province any money. They're not coming with hands

outstretched to the Ministry of Advanced Education. What they've done is be

creative in looking at what they were spending for various facilities and how

they could use those funds to actually make an addition at the main Kalamalka

campus to house their continuing education needs. What that's also allowed them

to do is free up some space in their main building so that they can finally —

after about ten years of the student association putting aside funding towards a

fitness centre — go ahead with facilitating those students having their own

fitness centre at the Kal campus.

The

Minister of Advanced Education announced in the last week that this government

would be removing the tuition freeze and allowing post-secondary institutions

around this province to set their own tuition. Of course, that predictably set

off all sorts of fireworks from predictable sources in terms of how tuitions

would skyrocket and so on.

I don't

believe that's at all the case. The reality is that when you get into individual

communities around this province, they're very good at assessing the capacity of

their community in terms of the tuitions they'll pay. Those tuitions will

reflect the needs of local students, as well as the needs of the institution to

be able to serve the needs of the local community.

Again, it

is only a good thing when we are allowing local institutions, local school

boards, the autonomy to make decisions in the best interests of those local

communities.

In health

care we face incredible challenges, but again I'm confident that those

challenges are going to be met. People are concerned — rightfully concerned.

All of us very much want and need to have the confidence that our health care

system's going to be there when one of us, or perhaps one of our family members,

needs it.

I had

opportunity last week to meet with a number of folks who have elderly parents in

the Alexander wing of the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, which is a long-term care

facility. We had a very good chat about what some of their concerns are. Many of

those concerns arise from uncertainty. I'm certainly hopeful that as our health

authorities come to terms with their new mandate — let's remember that they've

only been there a couple of months, and they need to come to terms with the

number of facilities and the human resources that they have to deal with —

we'll be able to allay some of that uncertainty and some of those fears.

The folks I

met with at Alexander wing are actually taking a very proactive approach.

They're going to try and meet on a monthly basis to discuss concerns that they

have. They'll invite me now and again to those meetings to hear those concerns.

That will allow me either to contact the health authority and relay the concerns

there or to bring them to the Minister of Health Services, if I think that's

necessary.

When we

look at health care, we need to have an open mind, to be creative and try new

things. It's abundantly clear that what we've been doing in the past isn't

meeting the needs of all patients in this province, so we need to do better. I

think that this government has shown guts in its willingness to look at new

ideas and new ways of doing things.

It's raised

the possibility of looking at the so-called P3s — the public-private

partnerships — to try and solve some of the challenges we face there in terms

of infrastructure needs. I doubt that P3s are a panacea in terms of solving our

problems, whether they're in health, education or other infrastructure needs,

but they certainly provide an opportunity. They're indicative of a government

that's prepared to try new ideas,

[ Page 1112 ]

prepared to look at the options to meet the needs of the people of British

Columbia.

The

regional health authorities, in a very strong move, have decreased

administration. They're allowing the government — and the authorities

themselves will be doing this — to focus their resources on patients. There

are very difficult decisions ahead, as I've said, but we remain committed to

access and timely, quality care for all British Columbians.

Unfortunately,

we've had to make some tough decisions in health care already. There have been

some necessary changes in what government expects British Columbians are going

to be paying for themselves in the broad range of health care services

available. When we've made those changes, we've specifically protected those

that are least able to pay. Those on MSP premium assistance continue to receive

supplementary health care services at no cost. Recent changes to the MSP

premiums lowered the premium — lowered the premium, Mr. Speaker — for

approximately 230,000 low-income British Columbians — often lowering it to

zero so that where they paid some premium before, they're not paying any now.

Those are progressive moves to protect those most vulnerable as we undertake

some of the difficult changes in health care.

[1550]

I'm

particularly pleased that the throne speech reiterated that the government will

act this year to advance the target of treating 5,000 new intermediate and

long-term care spaces by 2006. My constituents, particularly those in Lumby, who

have been advancing various creative and cooperative proposals to meet their

community's need for spaces in long-term and intermediate care for their

citizens, will eagerly await the government's action on intermediate and long

term care spaces.

It goes

without saying that each decision we make in this House has an impact on

individual British Columbians. It's an awesome responsibility that each of us

undertakes every time we walk in these doors. Over the last eight months I've

been fortunate to meet with many constituents and correspond with an even

greater number. Some agree with the steps the government is taking. Predictably,

some disagree. That's the wonder of a diverse constituency. I appreciate all of

the folks in my constituency who have taken the time to come and commend what

the government is doing and to come and tell me where they have concerns. I

appreciate in particular the individuals who may be directly affected by a

particular suggestion the government has made. They've come in and sat down and

had a good discussion with me, and I've tried to explain the challenges facing

the government and what we're trying to do. In many cases we come to some

agreement. It's important that I recognize what their concerns are and the

impact that certain steps have on them so that I can come back down here and

work towards minimizing the impacts from the necessary steps the government

needs to take.

What I've

heard most loudly from those who are expressing concerns about the direction of

the government is that they are concerned about the impact on those most

vulnerable in our society, whether those be the poor, the developmentally

disabled, those living in or fleeing from abusive relationships, or children.

Over the last number of months I've had the pleasure of sitting as part of this

government's caucus, which includes a number of passionate advocates for those

most vulnerable in our communities. I very strongly believe that this government

has and will continue to take into account the needs of those most vulnerable in

our community as we go about making the difficult changes ahead.

The vast

majority of us in this House know that the path pursued by the previous

government was a failure and was unsustainable. It was the road to ruin for this

province. Some of the goals were laudable and well-intentioned, but

unfortunately good intentions are not enough. Good governance requires making

difficult choices. It requires looking ahead — far ahead, in some cases —

not only to ensure the well-being of current British Columbians but to also pave

the way for the well-being of future generations. We must be, and we are,

committed to government providing strong, effective services for British

Columbians, particularly in health, and in the greatest equalizer of all,

education. But those services must be sustainable.

We've

already borrowed too much from our children. We owe it to them to get our fiscal

house in order and to not mortgage our ability to provide services to future

generations. I'm confident that we're setting out on the right path as set out

in the throne speech.

While it is

an honour for each member to sit in the House and represent his or her

constituents, that honour does come at a price. We all spend far too much time

away from our families, and in doing so we all expect a great deal from them in

holding down the home front. It's our families that often see the letters to the

editor first. I know in my case my mother has quit reading the newspaper and

listening to the radio. I'm not sure if she's watching television anymore. She

only talks to people who don't know me or don't know that she's my mother.

Nevertheless, she remains very proud. My wife is teetering on whether she's

going to continue to read the newspaper. But they get to see the letters to the

editor first because they're at home when we're down here. They get to fume over

how misunderstood we often are. For those of us with children, the

responsibility we leave with our spouses is even greater.

[1555]

In closing,

in reflecting on the fact that today is Valentine's Day — and the member for

Delta South brought this up earlier, but I'm surprised that nobody else has —

I want to thank my wife, Jennifer, for her unwavering love and support, and I

certainly want to confirm my infinite appreciation for all that she does for me

and my children and for allowing me to be here and represent the people of

Okanagan-Vernon.

W. Cobb:

The throne speech indicated and outlined for British Columbians the plan this

government must

[ Page 1113 ]

implement in order to have a renewed economy, an economy that can present new

opportunities while ensuring funding is in place for patient care and education.

This is a basic principle. We need a strong, thriving economy in order to pay

for the social programs we all value. It's a simple concept that we can't

continue to pay out more than we take in. The previous government didn't

understand that basic fact, and we're all paying the price for it, as you heard

today, when we were talking about closures of hospitals and courthouses.

We are

making some very strong statements about the seriousness of where we find

ourselves and are putting some bold changes in place to find and implement those

solutions. It is important for all British Columbians to understand and not

forget what the past ten years have done to this province. We used to be an

economic leader, and we're now at the bottom of the heap. We're looking up at

other provinces that don't have the abundance of resources and natural beauty of

British Columbia. The past decade saw us fall to last in the country in job

creation, to last in investment, to last in economic growth — and on top of

that a doubling of the B.C. debt. It is obvious that we have not had very good

managers of our finances.

They

allowed ideology to get in the way of creating a cooperative front to keep our

economy strong. Turning around the years of neglect will not be easy for anyone,

especially for the many public servants affected by this change, just as it has

not been easy for the thousands of forest and mine workers who fell by the

wayside over the last few years. Coming from a small town, I fully understand

the impact this restructuring has on people. I see them in the coffee shop; I

meet them on the streets when I'm downtown. These people are friends and

neighbours. I can promise you: no one has enjoyed this process.

There were

many job losses in my riding of Cariboo South and a lot of uncertainty, but I

believe that what we are doing is absolutely necessary. Some say that I haven't

been a voice for my constituents, that I am simply toeing the party line. Well,

I have been a voice for my constituents, because I believe these changes will

lead to a stronger and more prosperous British Columbia. I am fighting for

Cariboo South, trying to ensure that we have a forest policy that makes sense

and a regulatory system that will encourage the rebirth of the mining industry.

The

comments in the throne speech about needing to revitalize the forest industry

were very welcome. The government made clear the need to bring a final and

lasting solution to the softwood lumber dispute. The actions of the American

industry have been disappointing, to say the least. As mentioned yesterday by my

colleague Blair Lekstrom, you can't be a part-time free trader. If you want our

energy or our natural resources, if you want an open border, then you must also

accept our wood. But more than that, the government understands the problems

that have been built into our forest industry over the past ten years.

We will be

working to create an industry that is globally competitive and embraces

market-based reforms. The Forest Practices Code will be revamped — none too

soon, I might say. The code has strangled our industry, and the people of

Cariboo South have felt the impact more than most. The government's plan to

market B.C. wood products around the globe is a welcome idea. For far too long

we have let others set our image. It's time we got out there and sold B.C.

products and sold them with pride.

The mining

industry is also getting the attention of our government. For the people of the

Cariboo that is also good news. We want to get people working again. We want to

have people have pride in our province. We want all of us to get the benefits

that flow from a restored economy.

[1600]

I know this

is contrary to what some try to portray, but these changes will put patients

first and ensure that we have a sustainable system for the future. We will have

an education system that puts students first, but government needs to be in

control of the issues that mean the most to the people — like health care,

education and our social programs. During the discussions on the merits of Bills

27, 28 and 29 it became very apparent to me that government did not have

control. If we did not take back the right to manage our health and education, I

believe we were giving up our right to govern. We were not elected to have this

province run the way it was in the past. We must govern for the future.

It has been

asked of me on many different occasions if there ever was a politician with an

eye on the future, not just the next election. I must say that 77 members of

this Legislature are doing exactly that. We are looking forward and making plans

so our children have a future — a future of hope and prosperity, not a future

of debt and despair.

Mr.

Speaker, we can no longer use our Visa to pay off our MasterCard. We are putting

in place the building blocks to enable B.C. to grow out of the ruins of the last

decade and regain its place as the number one province, not continue as a

have-not province.

Our

three-year restructuring plan will allow business and industry to come home,

rebuild and prosper so we will have the funds needed to support our health and

education system. As hard as it will be and has been, these decisions must be

made.

I try to be

back in my riding at least two days in every week, and there is a lot of

uncertainty and fear out there — fear of the unknown — but most people who

think it through are willing to make some sacrifices, knowing that in the end we

will create a better place to live and raise our families.

conclusion, the past eight months have been difficult, but it is now time to

focus on the future. We have laid out a plan to rebuild the province, and I urge

all British Columbians to put aside partisan politics and, instead, join us in

creating an economy that will flourish and provide the benefits we all desire in

this great province.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The throne speech. It's the ninth or tenth time I've actually had

the honour to sit in this

[ Page 1114 ]

place and listen to the Lieutenant-Governor deliver the Speech from the

Throne. I must confess that notwithstanding the passage of time and the number

of times one participates in that exercise, it is always enjoyable. The pomp and

the ceremony associated with it does remind one of the history and the

traditions associated with this place and, I think, also serves to reinforce in

all of us how fortunate we are to occupy a desk — with 79 members, an

increasingly smaller desk — in this chamber.

There are

other changes in this place that have occurred in the time that I have been here

— certainly over the last number of months since the election of a new

government which I think we are all proud to serve in. I noticed the member for

West Vancouver and the member for Prince George North working away on their

computers here in the House. The Legislature has moved into the twenty-first

century. I actually always enjoyed and looked forward to coming into the House

as a place to escape any of those devices from which we might get messages.

[1605]

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: As my colleague from Peace River North points out, that might have

something to do with my ability to operate one of those electronic devices. But

here we are, where members now can come into the House and actually communicate

with their constituents from their desks. Isn't that amazing? It's an age when

constituents can ask questions of members and have them placed on the order

paper, thanks to innovations that the Speaker himself has brought to this

chamber over the last number of months. There are changes — I think healthy

changes — that will serve this institution, serve its members and, as a

result, ultimately serve the people of British Columbia. That most certainly is

a good thing.

It's the

second Speech from the Throne we have listened to since the election of a new

government. I think that upon reflection we can all look back — and do look

back — with a degree of satisfaction and pride upon the first session of this

parliament, when a new government, a new Premier, came into office with an

overwhelming mandate, a mandate for change.

That change

was spelled out, I would suggest, with a greater degree of particularity than

any government in memory which I can think of — particularity not just on the

issues but on the timing: a 90-day agenda. I, for one, and, I think, all of my

colleagues were proud and are proud of the fact that in the last session the

government fulfilled its 90-day pledges — 21 of them.

On our

first day in office a dramatic tax cut was delivered to all British Columbians

as was promised. Education was deemed and designated an essential service. These

and other promises were made with a view to bringing change to British Columbia,

to bringing improvements, to fixing problems that had been permitted to develop

over time and were an impediment to the people of this province reaching their

full potential.

At the

conclusion of that exercise we all left here exhilarated and proud but in the

back of our minds understanding, as well, that as fulfilling as that was, the

tough work was yet to come. That was tough enough — tough personally to learn

new jobs, to learn about being a member of the Legislative Assembly, to learn

about being a member of cabinet. We're all still learning.

I think

when we left this place at the end of last summer, the last session, we knew

there was a challenge awaiting us. Though we could not know with precision the

extent of that challenge, we knew it would test our resources, test our

commitment to public service, test our commitment to the platform we ran on and

were elected on.

That was

what was in my mind as I listened to the Speech from the Throne and, I have to

say, listened to the Premier on television last night. They are, combined,

rather remarkable addresses, rather remarkable presentations, in my view —

extraordinary, actually — when you think that they really represent a

departure from the past, in this sense.

[1610]

They

represent a calculated and deliberate desire to communicate the state of this

province in as straightforward a manner as possible with the people of this

province, pulling no punches and in no way trying to gloss over some of the

difficulties we face. As the Premier said last night, that's not always easy. In

fact, the record of governments past — certainly over the last decade — is

to do quite the opposite: not to tell people the facts, not to give them the

straight goods but to tell them what they would like to hear.

As I was

thinking about the past — without dwelling on it, Mr. Speaker — it occurred

to me that it would have been more difficult to tell people the truth in 1996,

after that election — that the budget wasn't in fact balanced, as the NDP

government of the day had promised it was and would be. Of course, people, in

their hearts, really would have preferred not to hear that, I suppose. It would

have troubled them to know that they hadn't been told the truth. It would have

been the right thing to do, but it would have been difficult.

It would

have been difficult to tell people that tax dollars had been squandered on

electrical projects in far-away places like Pakistan and easier, I suppose, to

tell people something else, to withhold that information from them, withhold the

facts — but more difficult to tell them the straight goods. It would have been

more difficult at some point during the construction of those fast ferries to

give people the facts and tell them it wasn't going to work, as was surely

apparent long before the facts became known by other channels.

It's not

easy telling people bad news. It's not easy telling them that the treasury that

governments are charged with protecting and administering has been mismanaged.

It's not easy to tell them that we are adrift in a sea of debt. But those were

the facts. Those were the facts then, and the fact that they were withheld

[ Page 1115 ]

from people doesn't diminish their import. It doesn't diminish the impact

they have on government's ability to deliver services to people today and in the

future. It is a shame that it has taken to this point for people to learn the

facts. That's what the Speech from the Throne, in part, does — pulling no

punches and withholding nothing. It has laid out for people the challenge we

face as a society here in British Columbia.

It would be

easier, I suppose, to tell British Columbians that we have a health care system

that will meet their needs and is sustainable over the long term. That would be

a much easier, more palatable message. In communities that the member for

Cariboo South and the member from Vernon spoke about, it would, in the short

term, be a message that would be probably be received more positively. But it

wouldn't be true.

[Mr.

Speaker in the chair.]

It wouldn't

be true because our health care system as it is presently established is not

sustainable, and people deserve to know that. People deserve to know there is a

government which is prepared to make that admission, to make that

acknowledgment, and which has a plan in place that it is executing to ensure we

do have a sustainable, publicly funded health care system there when people need

it, where they need it.

[1615]

It would be

easier, I suppose, to try and hide from people that government has a spending

problem on a massive scale — deficits in the billions of dollars. Maybe my

colleagues here in this House will correct me, but I don't know of a lot of

people that are proud of that. I don't think people in Port Alberni are happy

about that, but I think the member from Port Alberni, who has spoken on this in

the past, is correct when she says that they want to know. They want to know the

truth. They want to know the extent of the problem. They want to know the impact

it is going to have upon them, and I think, by and large, they are ready to deal

with it. They want their government to show some leadership in dealing with that

problem, because they understand that over the long term, the ability government

has to deliver those services in Port Alberni, in Merritt, in Maple Ridge, is

tied to government coming to grips with a structural deficit that is in excess

of $4 billion — one that this government inherited from a previous NDP regime.

As I have

spoken with people in my constituency — as all of my colleagues have — I

have been buoyed and encouraged by the reaction that I have received that says:

"About time. It's about time a government came along and in its defining

statement for the session didn't try to gloss over the facts." I'm from an

agricultural area, so excuse me when I quote one of my constituents who called

me right after the throne speech was delivered and said: "Thank God, at

least you're no longer trying to b.s. me." You can't fix the problem if

you're not going to admit it's there. The Premier and the government and the

members of the government caucus have had the courage to acknowledge the problem

and the extent of it.

All of us,

I think, are dealing to one degree or another with the anxiety and nervousness

that exists in our community around the government's stated intent to fix the

problem, because it is going to require change. It's going to require change on

an unparalleled scale. Change on that level should engender a certain degree of

nervousness, and it does. All of us deal with that in different ways. It

manifests itself in different ways in our communities. Whether it's Prince

George, whether it's North Vancouver, whether it's Surrey, all of us deal with

that nervousness and that concern within our communities.

In my

community, in Abbotsford, a hospital facility promised more than a decade ago is

now in the final planning stages. We're doing something new. We are involving

the private sector. P3s, they're called: public-private partnerships. It's never

been done before on this scale. I, for one, am proud that we're doing it. I, for

one, am proud that this will become a potential model for future capital

construction in this province.

understand that there are people who are nervous, but they should not be

nervous, and surely they should not be surprised that the government is intent

upon proceeding in a way that will extract the maximum benefit to patients for

every health care dollar spent. That, most certainly, is the objective. To

suggest that the government should look away from various construction models,

from various management models, simply because someone's notion, someone's

perhaps antiquated notion, of what our health care system needs to look like is

offended…. I say: "Too bad."

We have

gone beyond having the luxury of hiding behind dogma and ideology. Patients

aren't getting the care they need and deserve. Every one of us sitting in this

chamber has a duty to those people to explore every avenue and every option to

ensure that they get that care. That's what we're going to do, and we're going

to make no apologies to anyone for doing it.

[1620]

In my

community there are concerns — as there are everywhere, except, I think, Peace

River North — around transportation infrastructure. Maybe they have those

concerns there too. Apparently, they do.

We live in

a world where there is tough competition for scarce public dollars. The

challenge for communities across this province, I would suggest, is to work

together within various regions to establish what those regional transportation

priorities are.

It is a

simple and straightforward matter, I understand, for a community to create a

shopping list. You know, in the year 2002 British Columbians move not just

within their regions; they move around the province. Probably what we need to do

and should do and what I know this government intends to do is establish

regional transportation planning and regional transportation priorities.

I think I

can make a very compelling case — and I intend to, to the best of my ability

— that in my com-

[ Page 1116 ]

munity transportation infrastructure surrounding the expanding airport at

Abbotsford is a priority and something to which overall economic growth is

inextricably tied. Our community has to make that case with the realization that

there are around us other communities with other priorities. I think that case

can be made.

It'll be

made better if we work together on a regional basis, and I'm pleased to say that

is something that the locally elected people in that end of the Fraser Valley

are doing in, I think, a very positive way, and I think and hope that will reap

rewards.

We should

be under no illusions no matter where we live in this province that the fiscal

well is virtually empty. It is empty because of some very poor decision-making

that governments before us have made, and we will pay a price. British Columbia

will pay a price for that poor decision-making.

I have

listened to my colleagues make their speeches in response to the throne speech,

Mr. Speaker, and I have heard in those addresses an understanding of the impacts

of some of these very difficult decisions that government is making on their

communities, courthouses and in my case, in my present job, forestry offices —

district and regional offices.

There are a

couple of things as I turn my mind for a moment to that portion of the throne

speech that addressed forestry matters. I thank some of the previous speakers

for their insightful remarks on that issue and their kind commentary, in many

instances, on the attempts the government has made on a dispute that has raged

for some time now with the U.S. — but more about that in a moment.

[1625]

Whether you

are from Yale-Lillooet, from the Cariboo, from Prince George, from the North

Coast, it is a difficult thing when government offices close and people lose

their jobs. I know that everyone in this place understands that the trauma

associated with losing one's job does not disappear any quicker because it is a

public sector job versus a private sector job. These are people who have been

asked to serve the people of British Columbia as public servants and have done

that, done it to the best of their ability and, in many cases, performed

exceptional service, and now find themselves out of work — in the Forests

ministry, many hundreds this year, some of them long serving members of the

Forest Service.

There are

two reasons they find themselves in that position, neither reason attributable

to them personally. One is a $4 billion structural deficit that has obliged this

government to take some very difficult decisions right across the board, and

that has been visited upon this ministry that I presently have charge of and

virtually every other ministry within government. In the case of forestry there

is another dynamic at play — I think a more significant one in the longer term

— and that is the realization that we need to change the way we manage our

forests in British Columbia.

I want to

talk about that for a moment because the throne speech dwelt on some of those

changes and highlighted what some of them may be — the fact that they will be

played out, rolled out over the course of the year. There are not a lot of

surprises anymore. I think most people know what they are, but there is, again,

anxiety about the impact some of these changes are going to have on workers,

their families, communities and licensees.

I thought I

would take a moment at this point to try to articulate some of the reasoning

behind the general direction of these changes. I'll begin by saying this: I

don't think we achieve anything by addressing this from the point of view of

criticizing decisions that were made ten, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. I don't

think we achieve anything by second-guessing those decisions, because I think in

many cases, perhaps the majority of cases, those decisions that gave rise to a

policy regime that we now have in place were defensible, were the right

decisions.

We have

built a province around the development of the forest sector over the last

century. Towns exist because of forestry. Road systems exist because of

forestry. But part and parcel of that is in so doing governments have preserved

unto themselves a tremendous amount of decision-making authority to direct the

evolution of the forest economy. I think you could make an argument that there

was a time when that was appropriate or required. I think you can equally make

an argument today that that time has past. So, in general terms, extricating the

government from the decision-making process, removing the government's ability

to artificially direct the evolution of this industry is very much at the heart

of what we are doing. For many people that is troubling. But I have to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that I have been impressed by is the degree

to which agencies, business or otherwise, that enjoy success in the year 2002

are generally those that are able to adapt to changing conditions in a global

community. I think that is very much a given. To remain stagnant is to

eventually disappear.

Why, then,

do we believe that government policy over such a fundamental issue as the forest

economy in British Columbia should be immune from that dynamic? Because that's

really what's happened. These policies that we are tackling and changing today

have been in place for generations. The argument that says that they must remain

in place forever, it seems to me, ignores the reality that unless we are

prepared to adapt them to changing circumstances, we are condemning our forest

economy and forest-dependent communities to a bleak future.

[1630]

Don't

believe me; look at the recent past. Go to those communities that have seen

facilities shut down and ask them how the social contract has operated to

preserve those communities. I would suggest that it hasn't, and I will suggest

that you will get agreement on that point from people who live in Tahsis, Gold

River or any number of communities across this province.

[ Page 1117 ]

We have

said that as part of our legislative package as announced and referred to in the

throne speech, we intend to move ahead. We have dared to speak the heresy that

we will change and eliminate appurtenancy provisions as they presently exist —

a heresy. I have said it before and I will say it again: you cannot on the one

hand say that you want — as I think we all do want — to exact the highest

value from timber harvested in British Columbia and in the very next breath

point to policies that preclude that from happening.

These are

significant changes as they relate to cut control and timber pricing and other

mandatory requirements that presently exist within the Forest Act. Yes, they

will change the way that industry operates in British Columbia, but they'll

change it for the better. They will help revitalize and build hope again. It

requires us, in order to fulfil our objective and achieve our objective in that

respect, to overcome one other obstacle — that is, the present impediments

thrown up by our neighbours to the south, our largest market.

No one

should underestimate the challenge we face in the weeks ahead, but as someone

said — I think the member from Vernon — just a few moments ago, we will make

every effort to secure an agreement. Not an agreement at any cost, but an

agreement that works for British Columbians, an agreement that will allow us to

move ahead and make some of these fundamental changes that will allow our

industry to reattract investment, that will allow our industry to prosper, that

will allow our industry to once again begin to employ the people in the

communities that are dependent on our forests. No one should underestimate the

challenge that we face in reaching that agreement with the Americans.

I've had

some tough things to say, and my time is at an end, but I will say this: the

degree of support that we have enjoyed — the Premier, I, the government —

from every member of this House and from people around the province leaves me

feeling entirely confident that at the end of the day, notwithstanding the

trials and tribulations we may face along the way, we'll get that agreement and

we'll be on our way to rebuilding a vibrant, profitable forestry economy in

British Columbia that people can be proud of once again.

Chutter: I must say I certainly ad