1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 3

[ Page 13001 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to introduce Kip and Kathy Butler and their two children, who are visiting from Kelowna.

L. Reid: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the chamber my riding president, Mr. Don Hamilton, and Mrs. Dorothy Hamilton. He's done yeoman's service, and I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: I thought perhaps the member for Richmond East was going to introduce four residents of her riding who are here visiting today for the first time: my three grandchildren, Michael Edwards, Kathryn Edwards and Taylor Edwards; and their mother, Pam Edwards. Please help me welcome them.

L. Stephens: In the House today are constituents of mine visiting from Langley: Greg and Cynthia Foster and their daughters, Rachel and Rebecca. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Schreck: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming six friends from the North Shore: Kristina Vandervoort, Carina Ericksson, Erik Moss, Fred Muzin, Tom Siska and Jason Siska. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

L. Krog: In the gallery today are four of my constituents. Accompanying Mayor Paul Reitsma of Parksville are Pam Leeuw, Julia Leeuw and Loren Leeuw. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: I've just noticed in the gallery Mr. Tom Lalonde, a well-known advocate for social housing and also the president of the Louis Riel Metis Association. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

M. de Jong: Joining us in the precincts today is Mr. Graham Howard. Mr. Howard is visiting from Abbotsford. He's here to discuss some local issues. Of course, he has to do that because he doesn't have a local member to discuss them with, and I'm sure the Premier will rectify that situation in short order. Please make him welcome.

Ministerial Statement

COLUMBIA BASIN ACCORD

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud to address the House respecting the tremendously important announcement our government made this past Sunday in Castlegar: the Columbia Basin accord. This historic agreement between the government and the people of the Columbia Basin forges a partnership for the regional allocation of the share of the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits, and marks the beginning of the end of the disruption and the despair that the Columbia-Kootenay region has endured during the Columbia River Treaty.

As part of this agreement we will be establishing the Columbia Basin Trust to invest the region's share of the downstream benefits and to provide local control of the basin's future. The board of this innovative agency will be made up of representatives from the five regional districts within the basin, the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council and a minority representation from the province. But all members of the trust board must be residents in the region to ensure that local values and priorities come first.

As residents, the women and men guiding the trust will continue to build on the unprecedented level of community consultation that led to the accord that was signed last Sunday. The establishment of the trust is in direct response to the direction that we received from the people of the Columbia Basin through a series of symposia, open houses and workshops. That extensive process of consultation will continue once the trust is up and running. So we'll continue that history we've built up with the people in the Columbia Basin.

Our government, in partnership with the trust, will be investing more than $1 billion in the Columbia region. There will be $1 billion over the next ten years through the development of the new hydroelectric generating facilities at three existing dams in the basin: the Keenleyside Dam, Waneta and Brilliant dams. Together, these projects will provide over 4,400 person-years of direct construction employment over ten years. As well, there will be many spinoff jobs and local supply opportunities. I can tell you as well that residents of the basin will be given preference in hiring and training. That was very well received indeed.

We'll be kick-starting the accord with $45 million from the downstream benefits in the first year, and $32 million over a number of years until the power projects start providing revenue. This funding will provide for diverse economic, social and environmental investments in all parts of the basin, not just where the three dams are being constructed.

These projects are bold initiatives. They are part of our jobs and investment strategy for the province, a plan that will build on our achievements and keep our economy the strongest in Canada. The investment in the three power projects will provide a steady stream of revenue into the region, conservatively estimated at $8 billion over 70 years. It will be invested in community projects throughout the basin: tourism infrastructure, new docks, environmental mitigation or whatever priorities the people of the region choose. The provincial government will earn a return on its investment equal to that of the region to help support fiscal priorities and public services well into the next century.

These power projects are sound partnership investments not only in our energy infrastructure but also in providing environmentally sustainable and competitively priced power through a renewable energy resource. In contrast to other environmentally damaging power options, which my government has rejected, these lower Columbia projects will have minimal environmental impact because they will be increasing the efficiency of existing dams.

Most importantly, these investments are sound, secure projects that will be investments in our most valuable resource -- our people. This historic accord is an investment by the people of the region and by our government for the people of the region and British Columbia.

Others have suggested that we should have sent cash to the region rather than work with it in partnership to maximize the downstream benefits to the basin and the province. This view is contrary to the expressed wishes of the people in the communities throughout the Kootenays. The people spoke loud and clear at the Cranbrook symposium and throughout the meetings we have had in the region about the need to ensure that all areas of the basin benefit from the accord.

Others have said that the trust should be able to invest as it pleases in New York, in derivatives, in Tokyo and in the stock market. Again, I reject that approach. I support local involvement. We don't need any Orange County scandals in British Columbia. This local investment will produce jobs

[ Page 13002 ]

locally. It will increase small business activity locally and provide a steady stream of revenue for the trust. I can tell you that the chambers of commerce, mayors and councillors in the regional districts who put this together are very excited about the opportunities for environmental mitigation and social and economic development that they'll have in their own hands.

By establishing the Columbia Basin Trust with regional governance over wealth-creating assets and environmental and water issues, my government and the people of the basin have rejected the shortsighted approach. This accord allows the people of the Columbia Basin to turn the page on past injustice and to move ahead to a sustainable, stable future -- a future that is envisioned and shaped by the people through continuing input and accountability; a future built on the solid foundation of an infrastructure and investment in people and an environmentally sustainable and sensitive investment in natural resources.

[2:15]

The people of the Columbia region have unjustly borne the brunt of the negative effects of the original Columbia River Treaty: flooded land, displaced communities, environmental damage and lost economic opportunities. Today, as part of our jobs and investment strategy, the people of the Columbia Basin can look forward to a just and prosperous future.

G. Campbell: The Premier is correct when he says that the people of the Columbia Basin have borne the brunt of decisions that were made three decades ago. However, he is not correct when he says that this is the way to deal with those problems. In fact, they are now bearing the brunt of this government's desperate political agenda to move quickly in order to look like they're doing something to resolve those problems from the past.

This government has no credibility when you look at this statement. I've just come back from the Columbia Basin. I've just talked to people from the basin, and they understand that this settlement has been imposed on them. They understand that this has been driven by a political agenda, not a public policy agenda. They understand that right now in British Columbia there is no full energy analysis or inventory of what we're going to need in the future. If you listen to the people from the Columbia Basin, Hon.

Speaker, they will tell you -- and they will be explicit -- that they have been pushed into the corner by this government, just as they were pushed into the corner by the last government that dealt with them.

The people of the Columbia Basin deserve to have their own say in what's going to take place with the proceeds from the downstream benefits. We on this side of the House have consistently said that a large proportion of those benefits should be left for that community in a Columbia Basin authority that does not have the political strings that this government may like to attach. There is no question.

I'm sure that as they go through their due diligence in the basin, we will hear more and more of their concerns. They are concerned about a government that pretends that these are sensible economic investments. They are not investments that anybody in this House would make if it were their own money; I can guarantee that.

The Keenleyside Dam project. We're looking at a cost of 7 cents a kilowatt hour. Right now B.C. Hydro is saying that they won't even accept proposals at more than 3.8 cents a kilowatt-hour. This is not the way to provide for the long-term future of the people of the Columbia Basin.

I concur that we indeed want the people from the Columbia Basin to decide their own future and make their own decisions. They can make decisions on the economic development of that basin. They don't need Victoria to tell them what to do.

We say nothing here about the kinds of negative impacts that the initial decision on the Columbia Basin has had on communities throughout the Columbia Basin and on the agricultural industry, or about the environmental problems that have been created. Indeed, hon. Speaker, if you look at the proposals put in place for the Keenleyside Dam upgrade, you'll see that there are significant environmental problems associated with just that decision alone -- economic and environmental problems imposed on the people of the Columbia basin because this government has a political agenda. It doesn't have an agenda that is considering the people of the Columbia Basin and what they may be able to do.

We believe the people of the Columbia Basin deserve to have their own say without political interference, without someone in Victoria pulling political strings so they get less value for their dollar than they should. They're tired of being abused by the government in Victoria. And I am surprised at this statement, rushed through so the government can look like it's doing something. I can guarantee you that this statement, over the next 30 to 60 days, will be shredded by the people in the Columbia Basin as it is seen for what it is: a desperate ploy by a desperate government.

R. Neufeld: Well, it's very interesting to listen to the Premier of the province and the Leader of the Official Opposition -- both former mayors of the city of Vancouver -- talk about problems in rural British Columbia, specifically the Kootenays or the Peace, where I come from. Neither has ever lived in those communities or areas or knows what happens when massive projects of that kind take place.

I agree with the member from the Kootenays -- I can't remember his constituency, because we're new at it again here, and I can't use his name -- who made a fair case for a return of some of the downstream benefits to that area. I can tell you in the absence of our leader -- and I've had it confirmed -- that we as a Reform government would honour that commitment. But we would like to expand on that a little bit. We would like to see some of those benefits that would be enjoyed by the people in the Kootenays and the benefits the province gets from the natural gas and the hydroelectricity from the Peace returned to those areas, much the same as has been set up for the Kootenays.

Again we see it very partisan -- the Premier sending money to the Kootenays. Let's see, we've got the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources there and a number of other ones that we want to kind of take care of, but nothing for the north -- not a thing for the north.

Again, the Premier and his government have totally eliminated that area east of the Rockies from this type of agreement. I can tell you that if we formed government, we would immediately start a program in which we would return benefits to those areas that produce the wealth for the province.

There are people who live in my constituency that do not even have hydroelectricity. There are people in my constituency who have natural gas lines running through their yards, and they can't even heat their houses with natural gas. That's a direct result of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who reneged on a program for rural gasification that we used to have under the previous government. That's how much this government thinks about the north, about the Peace and about rural British Columbia.

But it's good to see two past mayors of the city of Vancouver spar with one another over what they think is going to be

[ Page 13003 ]

an election year. So I would like to reiterate that as a Reform government, we would live up to the agreement but we would also expand on it.

The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on what matter?

D. Mitchell: I would like to ask my fellow opposition members for leave to respond to the Premier's statement.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hear a nay.

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

DEBT COLLECTION IMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

M. de Jong: Yesterday the government granted to the recipients of social assistance immunity from debt collection by their creditors. I'm afraid that the Minister of Consumer Services again doesn't get it, at a time when her government's and her objective should be to help people move off the welfare rolls. Her actions yesterday will only encourage people with debts to say: "To heck with it. I'm going on welfare so no one can touch me."

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge that her actions yesterday will only act as an inducement to those seeking refuge from their creditors to join B.C.'s ever-growing list of welfare recipients?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to thank the member for his question and point out to the member that the publication we've issued is a republication of a document that was put forward by the previous government. It simply points out, as a 1982 judgment has indicated, that you cannot garnishee income assistance cheques. This government has done more to encourage and support people back into the workplace than any other government in this province.

For the member's information, further to that, we encourage people in this province to live up to their responsibilities, regardless of source of income, in meeting their obligations to creditors.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary question?

M. de Jong: Sadly, we see another case of the NDP sacrificing common sense in favour of its own ideological agenda. Who is going to do business or contract with lower-income people, knowing that their ability to collect on those debts in the future has been removed by this government?

My question to the Premier is: will he acknowledge that the very people his government is claiming to assist with this ill-thought-out scheme are the ones who are going to suffer the most when the limited access they have to credit dries up entirely?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's unfortunate that the member is more interested in making political points than listening to the answers. Surely the member is not challenging a court ruling. Nothing has changed. The court ruling was in 1982. The document is a reprint of the previous government's guidelines. We have done more through our debtor assistance branch in making real recoveries to the industry. We are now up to about $6 million in recoveries to creditors through working at negotiated agreements, working in a supportive fashion through guidelines such as these, with the industry, debtors and creditors, regardless of their source of income.

FETTERLEY CASE

R. Chisholm: The negligent release of Douglas Fetterley, an HIV-infected sex offender, is one more example of this government's inability and incompetence in dealing with crime. In fact, on January 24 and on February 8, 13 and 15, I informed the Attorney General that one of Fetterley's victims demanded that this dangerous offender not be released. I never received a response. Why? Why did the Attorney General then allow this violent sex offender to be released onto the streets, giving him the opportunity to offend again?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was as upset over this...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...as any member of this House when I discovered on Monday that a very serious mistake had been made and Mr. Fetterley had been released. I got a preliminary report on Tuesday of this week. I have asked for a full report from my officials. There are three branches of the ministry involved, and it is a complex matter. I have demanded a full report from my deputies, and I will get that in the days to come.

R. Chisholm: It is hard to believe that with full knowledge of the crimes committed by Douglas Fetterley, the province released this dangerous offender onto an unsuspecting public. This smells of another Danny Perrault. My questions to the minister are whether anyone in his office even read the material I provided, and why no one responded to the victim.

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: When the member's letter and enclosures arrived in my office, they were forwarded immediately to the criminal justice branch, where they were properly dealt with.

If the member is insinuating that somehow there was a deliberate decision to let Mr. Fetterley out, then the member is wrong. There was a mistake made, and I am now trying to find out how the mistake was made so that I can deal with it.

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Attorney General. Can he tell us what his government's position is on the federal government's gun control legislation? Does he agree with us that the mandatory registration of firearms, including sporting rifles, is an unnecessary imposition on reasonable gun owners in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the federal-provincial ministers' meeting held in Victoria in January, I indicated to the federal minister and to other attorneys from across the country that in our view the federal government could not implement a registration scheme which would be onerous, expensive or bureaucratic. That view has been conveyed to the federal minister on a number of occasions. I am not interested, nor is this government interested, in having people in this country laden with that kind of bureaucratic, expensive scheme. On the other hand, given the problems that exist with respect to

[ Page 13004 ]

guns in this country, it's obvious that some measures must be taken to control the weapons that are at large in this country. I have taken the position that we support those measures which are designed to control crime in this country, and we support those measures which will not unnecessarily burden ordinary Canadians.

L. Fox: With the exception of Svend Robinson, the NDP federal caucus has opposed the proposed gun control legislation. So have the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is this government...?

An Hon. Member: You said Alberta twice.

L. Fox: Did I say Alberta...? Anyway, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Is this government prepared to take a similar stand? Has it told Alan Rock that we cannot afford to pay for the police to hunt down reasonable and sensible gun owners at the expense of looking after the criminals in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I answered that question in my answer to the first question. Let me say simply that there is no initiative or desire on the part of this government to hunt down ordinary, law-abiding Canadians.

ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT COSTS

D. Symons: My question to the Premier is about the Island Highway, which is rapidly earning a reputation as being the Coquihalla of the Pacific. The NDP member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca agrees with us that private contractors are getting shafted on tenders, while costs are spiralling out of control. What is the Premier doing to deal with these serious allegations, even from his own colleague?

Hon. M. Harcourt: My government has made it very clear that our priorities are creating jobs and protecting medicare. Whenever we hear the Liberal opposition come out attacking the Island Highway, attacking building schools in Richmond and attacking building new health care facilities except in their ridings, we know where they stand. They're against these British Columbia building projects that are going to create more jobs and even more prosperity for British Columbians.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

Hon. M. Harcourt: All the opposition can ask for are more studies, more allegations, more investigations, more lawyers and more spending, spending, spending. We're a party that is investing in jobs and a growing British Columbia. The only thing that the Liberals want to cut is medicare.

INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER

L. Stephens: The Minister of Government Services has been relieved of his duties and is under investigation for very serious allegations. Can the Premier tell this House why this member is still receiving a $39,000 cabinet minister's salary?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Unlike the opposition, I'm not prepared to make any presumptions while this very serious allegation is being investigated by a very experienced lawyer, Mr. Kelleher. In the meantime, the minister is on paid leave. The complainant is also still working. I'm not going to prejudge or colour this particular investigation like the opposition are trying to do.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary?

L. Stephens: Previous members of this House have done the honourable thing and resigned. We've seen many examples of the NDP -- your government -- paying money for less work: the health labour accord, the fair-wage policy and BCGEU contracts. Mr. Premier, your government is paying a minister nearly $40,000 a year to sit at home. Why has this minister not resigned completely?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think we should try to be consistent with normal practices in both the public and private sectors. We're trying to be consistent. I remember that when the Leader of the Opposition was the mayor of Vancouver, and the police chief at the time, Bill Marshall, was implicated in an investigation, he was asked about the chief stepping aside. The then mayor, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, said: "I don't believe there is a crisis in public confidence; Marshall has my complete confidence." He stayed on paid leave for 11 months and then went on full salary after the fact.

We're just being consistent with the normal practice in the city of Vancouver and in public and private industry.

DEBT COLLECTION IMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Yesterday, during the throne speech, the minister released her guidelines on debt collection, hoping no one would notice the new double standard for welfare recipients. Can the minister explain why she thinks welfare recipients who are in debt and own property should be treated with kid gloves by collection agencies? Why should they be treated any differently than seniors living on fixed incomes or the working poor who are in debt? This government is allowing people on welfare to turn their thumbs to the law. Can this minister explain her actions?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure that....

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member is listening for the answer....

I'm sure the member must have been out of the House for the earlier questions. Rather than taking the time of the House to repeat what I've already said to the official opposition, I would encourage him to look at Hansard.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

The hon. member for Okanagan East rises on a matter?

J. Tyabji: On a point of order.

This point of order is directed to the Government House Leader. I notice in Orders of the Day that we don't have private members' statements set up for tomorrow. I understand that

[ Page 13005 ]

we weren't sitting on Tuesday. However, there were members who had their private members' statements in by the requisite time of 6 p.m. Tuesday. I'm wondering whether it's because the other caucuses weren't organized enough, or because they didn't have enough time. If he could clarify that, we would be most appreciative.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. This is a matter between the....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Such matters are to be dealt with between the House Leaders and Whips. However, if the Government House Leader wishes to respond, please proceed.

Hon. G. Clark: Again, I'm tempted to respond, because I agree with the member. But I will say this: it is our intention to ask leave tomorrow to move the private members' motions which have been submitted. But I understand -- just to inform the members -- that unanimous leave is, I think, required to suspend the standing orders because the House was not sitting Tuesday. So we can hear private members' statements which members would like to pursue. I give notice at this time that the Government House Leader will be moving such a motion tomorrow.

The Speaker: On the same matter, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

D. Mitchell: No, hon. Speaker, I have a separate point of order I'd like to raise.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

D. Mitchell: My point of order has to do with the order paper. Yesterday, the third session of this parliament prorogued, and with the prorogation died 39 written questions on the order paper standing in the names of various members of this assembly: the Leader of the Third Party, the member for Chilliwack, the member for Peace River North and myself.

My point of order is this: standing order 47 is very clear with respect to the right of members to seek information through the procedures and standing orders of this assembly. This parliament has been the first in the history of all parliaments in British Columbia to see a government that has been unwilling to answer questions when offered through the proper procedure. Standing order 47 says very clearly that members have the right to seek information through written questions. The session died yesterday -- it was prorogued yesterday -- without any of the 39 questions that were tabled being answered.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask you, through this point of order: what other standing orders in our rule book should we be disregarding? Which other ones should we consider to be a farce by this arrogant government that refuses to answer questions, hon. Speaker? Can you tell us?

The Speaker: The hon. member has made his point. You're addressing the Chair to respond to a matter which I'm sure the member is fully aware.... Questions may be presented orally or be written. However, there is nothing in our standing orders that requires a response. Unfortunately, his questions were not answered. It is not the Speaker's responsibility to try to explain why or why not.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the member brings this question up every year, and rightly so. While the rule in the book says that we can seek information, and it's true that the rule does not say the government has to offer it, the government should keep in mind that those questions are asked on behalf of the constituents and the people of British Columbia. While they may not feel a moral obligation to answer to us, they certainly do have a moral obligation to give answers to the people of B.C. It merely shows yet again the arrogance building up in this government year after year, as we get closer to an election.

Hon. G. Clark: In order to accommodate the printing of Orders, the Clerk has advised it might be more appropriate to ask leave now. So I ask leave to move a motion to have private members' statements tomorrow at 10 a.m. and to accept statements until this evening, so that they can be printed for tomorrow morning to guide the members' debate.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: Just before the Government House Leader's motion, I think it would be important for members of this assembly to know which private members' statements have been accepted, because I understand that notice for private members' statements has been given by a number of members in the House. It would be interesting, informative and useful before voting on this motion to know which private members' statements we are giving leave to proceed with tomorrow.

[2:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: The Government House Leader made it clear that applications for motions or notices of motion would be made up until 6 o'clock this evening -- it was my understanding -- and at that time....

An Hon. Member: Tuesday.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says Tuesday; that's normally the rule. The House wasn't sitting on Tuesday -- this session of the parliament wasn't even sitting on Tuesday -- so therefore that won't work. If we're going to accommodate private members' statements on Friday, I assume that we would accept them up until 6 p.m. this evening and that the standard process would be in place, where we start with two members of the official opposition and two members of the government, and then the following week we give up one of our spots for members of the third party or the independents. I would be agreeable to that process, if that's the process in place.

J. Tyabji: A point of clarification. I heard two motions. One motion is to bring forward the members' statements that have already been filed, and the other motion was to allow statements to continue to be filed until 6 p.m. today. I think there might be consent on one of those motions and not on the other, so I'd like some clarification.

G. Janssen: I offer a solution that might solve this dilemma we find ourselves in: that the members' statements that are filed by 6 o'clock this evening be chosen by random selection.

An Hon. Member: Nice try, Gerard.

The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member. Before recognizing the hon. member, I say this is a rather unusual procedure that we're.... We do have a process by which we can achieve a resolution on the matter. I will hear the Opposition House Leader, and then decide what we should do.

[ Page 13006 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm almost tempted to quote the leader of the party of the member who just spoke about things not getting done. I do want to say that if we're going to do this, let's follow the pattern we've established previously and continue in that capacity. That's the understanding we would be moving it under: that there be two from the government and two from the opposition, and that we start this Friday as opposed to waiting until next Friday. I'm certainly willing to entertain that motion. I think we should stick to the rules as best we can.

The Speaker: On this matter, hon. members, it is appropriate for the Chair to do two things: to seek your agreement to proceed as the request was made by the Government House Leader, or to suggest that you meet and resolve the matter later. The second choice seems to be the one -- that representatives from each party meet subsequently for a solution.

Does the member for Okanagan West rise on a different matter?

C. Serwa: On the same matter, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: With the greatest respect, hon. member, it's going to be dealt with by the various party representatives. I was going to suggest how you might participate, but I don't think I have an idea how that could be done.

It's my understanding that we still require leave to proceed with private members' statements tomorrow. Will leave be granted to proceed? This would be on the understanding that you agree on whether or not you would have it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, perhaps I can make this simple. The House normally discusses these issues outside, and perhaps we can do that. If the member wants to withdraw his leave request, we can deal with it later in the day, once we've decided.

The Speaker: The leave request has been withdrawn, and you have the process available to you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I think there has been six months' preparation for this day.

I call Address in Reply to the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

G. Campbell: With this Speech from the Throne the New Democrats have proven once again that they are much better at making promises than they are at keeping them; that there is a huge gulf between what they say and what they do. Over the last year, I have visited dozens of communities across British Columbia, and without hesitation I can tell you that this government just doesn't understand what the working families of British Columbia want. They want real change. They want made-in-B.C. solutions, not made-in-D.C. speeches.

The NDP just don't understand how fed up people are with a government that taxes and borrows and spends. Or how angry people feel when government's actions hurt their families and their communities. The NDP just don't understand. The people are fed up with government doing the same old thing, in the same old ways, with the same old results. In short, the NDP just don't get it.

The last government did not understand either, and they were defeated in 1991. Today, across this province, people are angry, frustrated and disappointed with the NDP. They feel that their government is making their lives poorer instead of better.

Just a few weeks ago I met with a young woman from Tahsis. She pointed out that last spring when she heard this government make their Vancouver Island land use decision announcement, she actually believed them. She and her husband decided that they were going to live in Tahsis, and they bought a house. This January they found out that all of those promises were hollow. They found out that this government was willing to sacrifice her community.

She told me that she was going to put her house on the market and sell it, even though she felt that because of this government's actions her life savings had been cut in half. She just hopes that she can recover some of them by selling her house quickly.

We must have change in the province. People remember the election promises and the hope they had in the fall of 1991. People remember the NDP election promise that this government would not spend money we did not have and, despite the solemn public promise, they know this government goes right on spending money we do not have. In spite of promises of no new taxes and no tax increases, people know their taxes keep going up. In spite of the promise of no special deals for friends and insiders, people know about the NDP's patronage binge.

It is particularly upsetting for British Columbians because the NDP told us all in 1991 that they would be different. They severely criticized the former government, and rightly so. They promised they would not make the same mistakes, but the NDP's pattern of deception has been shredded by their own internal memos.

Here is a communications document for the cabinet of this government. What it says is that we're supposed to try to fool the public, to "de-link" the impacts of our decisions on the lives of people all over northern Vancouver Island. We're supposed to avoid the linkage of the consequences of their land use decisions with mill closures on Vancouver Island.

What on earth does "de-link" mean? You might find it in Mr. Orwell's 1984. You might have found it from Ron Ziegler with Richard Nixon, but we hadn't found it here until the NDP came to power and decided they were going to try to fool the people of British Columbia. They were going to try to mislead them, and that is absolutely wrong. It's no wonder people in this province feel let down, disappointed and betrayed.

Since this government took office, the average take-home pay for British Columbians has dropped every single year. The average take-home pay for those working families the government has talked to us about has gone down every single year under this government. In spite of the solemn public programs put forward by NOW Communications in their campaigns to convince us differently, working families know they are paying more and more in taxes for a bloated government of friends and insiders. We must change that.

Meanwhile, the things that are important to the people of this province -- public education, accessible health care, social services, public safety -- get squeezed out by the high cost of servicing the unsustainable NDP debt. In the last year alone, the NDP has borrowed $5.5 million every single day. All this

[ Page 13007 ]

from a Premier who said that you simply can't spend money you don't have, and that it was time government learned that.

British Columbians have some very basic expectations. They expect their children to be able to play in their neighbourhoods and be safe and secure. They expect our schools to provide real skills for them when they get out into the real world. They expect a health care system that's there for people when they need it. They didn't expect a woman who broke her ankle in Prince George to be shipped out to Edmonton and be abandoned by this government so she had to pay to get home. They expect jobs for themselves, and they expect jobs to be there for their children when they graduate.

They expect the government to take care of the people who are most in need. At the end of the day, people would like the government to leave a bit of their hard-earned income in their own pockets, so they can make their own decisions and choices.

This government is not delivering on any of those basic expectations. It's time for this government to listen to what the hard-working families of British Columbia are saying. They're saying we must fundamentally change the way government works, and we must protect the essential services of education, health care and social services that people have the right to expect. We must have change in British Columbia. It is time to change the basic rules of government, and not just by changing political labels and the players so they can go on doing the same old things. It doesn't matter where you go in the province.

Everyone tells us that they are sending too much money to Victoria and getting too little back in services. Whether it's the Peace River, the Kootenays or western Vancouver Island, people feel that the government is wasting their money. In short, they say that we have more government than we can afford, and we have less government than we can pay for. We must have change.

Government today must focus on what is essential, and we must learn to deliver those services more effectively and efficiently. It's really not that difficult. B.C. families practise that kind of management every single day. When my father died, my mother had to raise four young kids on a school secretary's salary. We didn't have a lot of money. In fact, I know there were lots of months when she wondered whether she'd be able to make ends meet by the end of the month.

We never went without what was important, but if there were things we just felt like having, we said: "Wouldn't it be nice if we got those things?" My mother had a very effective management technique. She'd look us in the eye, and she'd say no.

It's time that this government learned to say no to the special interests so that we can protect the public interest. It's time for change in British Columbia. If we really change our thinking and the way we do things, we will be able to support those essential services with affordable and reasonable taxes.

Another basic change is mandatory. We must establish real accountability for each of us in public office. We must challenge our government institutions to create the accountability through such measures as free votes in the House and through recall and initiative legislation that will actually work.

[3:00]

As I mentioned earlier, I've just come back from a visit to the West Kootenays. As I was visiting the people in Creston and Nelson, they informed me that the NDP MLA for Creston-Nelson said: "You know, I can't speak up for you. I don't have any control there. I can't say what you think is important, because the institution won't let me." He should be able to speak. We can change that right now by establishing free votes in this House.

At the same time we do that, let us recognize that the public service is not a partisan organization to be manipulated for political purposes. It's time to put the old politics of left and right behind us. British Columbians do not ask if something is left or right. They ask if it is right or wrong, and they say: "Do what makes sense."

British Columbians want leadership that will protect the opportunities of future generations by being responsible, by doing what is right and by treating taxpayers' dollars like their own. We can have that kind of government in British Columbia, but to get there, government must be prepared to make some real changes. Like people all over this province, B.C. Liberals recognize that it's time we cut government spending, cut government debt and cut taxes.

Yesterday's throne speech told British Columbians that you have to spend in order to compete effectively with advanced economies such as Japan. What trash! What drivel! How much longer do we have to put up with a government that just doesn't understand how to generate economic activity, sustainable jobs and an improving environment? The people know that this government is wrong. They understand that the spending regime of this government is out of control. They know that the NDP's tax-borrow-and-spend policies are trouble. The NDP's premise is that governments have to spend to compete.

Our premise is that government must be efficient and they must cut spending to compete. B.C. Liberals recognize that the road to sustainable prosperity is paved with less government and more individual initiative. We must have change.

Unfortunately the Premier of this province has chosen to listen to his friends and insiders and ignore the overwhelming case that is being put forward by the people who live here. Evidence of that was never clearer than at the Premier's town hall meeting. People said that their taxes are too high, and it's time to cut government spending, government waste and government debt. This common sense is supported by the government's own secret Treasury Board document. An Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance recognized that NDP spending and borrowing is threatening our basic and fundamental public services.

But this government doesn't act. This government continues to borrow more and more money and add to our provincial debt load at an alarming rate.

While hardworking families are saying that we have too much spending and that the next generation won't have a chance, what does the NDP member for Cariboo North say? On February 23, in Quesnel, he said: "Let the kids pay."

People all over British Columbia are saying that they are working harder and falling behind. I visited a community picnic in Kelowna, and I met with a young family there: a husband and wife and three kids. I said to them: "How are things going?" He works for a trucking company during the day and a delivery business at night, which he runs himself, and his wife works in a restaurant. I said: "Things must be going pretty well." That family said: "You know, they're not.

We have to do this just to make ends meet -- just to give our kids the kinds of opportunities that we think they deserve." We're long overdue for real change in this province when that kind of story keeps cropping up in community after community.

In 1991 the NDP said that you simply can't spend money you don't have, and it's time the government learned that. We must have change in British Columbia.

In 1991 there was another promise: to keep taxes fair for everyone. It's now clear that the NDP's definition of fair taxes is higher taxes for everyone. This government, which said that they would not raise taxes, has raised $1.5 billion in taxation

[ Page 13008 ]

alone. Hiram Walker recently closed its Kelowna bottling plant. Somehow I don't think the 150 workers who lost their jobs in Kelowna because B.C.'s taxes are too high think NDP taxes are fair. Over 100 businesses and 1,700 jobs have relocated immediately south of our border to Whatcom County. I don't think those workers would say that NDP taxes are fair.

You know, it's characteristic of this government to be secretive, but every so often we get a glimpse of what this government really thinks. A powerful political appointee, Deputy Attorney General Maureen Maloney, laid out the government's agenda for tax increases: tax lottery spending, tax jewellery, tax clothing, tax restaurant meals, tax video rentals, add taxes to homes, tax dry-cleaning -- and those are just a few of the additional taxes that were outlined for this government. NDP thinking is clear: if you can define it, tax it. This kind of thinking is wrong, and people in British Columbia know it's wrong.

Make no mistake: NDP taxation policies hit working families harder than anyone else. In spite of this government's promises, the government has literally hammered B.C.'s hard-working families with taxes, taxes and more taxes. In the last three years tax increases have gone up at five times the rate of personal incomes, and that's a disgrace. That is why British Columbians now spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.

These policies have proven fatal everywhere else in the world that they've been tried, and they will prove fatal in B.C. as well -- fatal to capital investment, fatal to today's jobs and fatal to job opportunities of tomorrow. We must have change, hon. Speaker.

In 1991 the Premier told the people of British Columbia that he was committed to "open and balanced government that deals fairly with ordinary men and women instead of playing favourites with political friends and insiders." The people of this province can no longer believe that NDP commitment either. They have seen the benefits of an inside track with the NDP: blatant bias and flagrant favouritism.

People are appalled that the NDP will not hold a full and open public inquiry into the criminal acts of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Who is responsible for that criminal behaviour? Who benefited? Instead of opening up, the NDP covers up. That's putting political friends first and public interest second.

Contracts are manipulated so Ron Johnson and NOW Communications don't have to compete, and they secretly shovel public funds under the table to an American spin doctor in Washington, D.C. That's putting spin doctors first and honest information second.

Education is no longer an essential service in this province. That's putting political friends first and students second.

People are outraged at the unfair treatment of workers in the interests of satisfying the demands of labour's big bosses. That's putting union bosses first and workers second.

People are sick and tired of a giant health care experiment that is eroding the quality of patient care across this province. That's putting political friends first and patients second.

People are angry about the wasted money on the Island Highway agreement, and the so-called fair-wage policy for insiders. That's putting political debts first and value for taxpayers' money second.

People are outraged at the multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns that spend taxpayers' dollars for election propaganda. That's putting their political hides first and fiscal responsibility second.

It's time in British Columbia to put students first, to put patients first, to put workers first and to put taxpayers first. It's time for change.

If you added all the money that this government has wasted on patronage and political payoffs alone, the government would be able to put well over half a billion dollars straight into paying down the public debt. When the Premier defends his spending and borrowing, he says: "The opposition sees debt and I see schools." Well, let's clear that up. When the opposition sees debt, we see the result of NDP financial incompetence. We see what Mr. Trumpy and other senior Finance officials in government see. We see what hard-working British Columbians see. We see portable classrooms and less money for students.

We see patients waiting longer in British Columbia than in any other province in the country. We see exactly the opposite of what the Premier promised in 1991, and that's why we need real change now in British Columbia.

This government says that we're prosperous, that we're well-managed, and that we're doing fine. We say that this government has squandered a good economy with bad management. We say that they've squandered an opportunity to guarantee a sustainable prosperity for British Columbia by burdening working families with more per capita costs for government than people anywhere else in Canada.

British Columbians should be leading service innovation, but we aren't. There is no doubt that British Columbia is a first-rate province, and there is no doubt that it deserves better than this second-rate government.

There is an alternative to the spend, spend policies of this government, to the tax, borrow and spend approach they've taken over the last three years. There is a solution that is embraced by people across this province in every single region. Our solution -- the people's solution -- is to cut government spending, to cut public debt and to cut people's taxes. That is a plan B.C. Liberals could support. It is a plan based on common sense.

First, instead of ignoring them, respond to the accounting recommendations of the auditor general. The government should legislate truth in budgeting. Standardize government accounting and include everything: no more off-budget capital programs, no more hiding the debt in Crown corporations. Government should demand no less of itself than it demands of every single person in the province. It's time for government to keep our books straight.

Second, it is time for government to legislate balanced budgets in British Columbia. Make it illegal to spend more than you take in. That's what British Columbia's families have to do at home with their budgets. That's what every small business in British Columbia has to do to make ends meet at the end of the month and to secure long-term prosperity for their employees. Why should government be any different? Bring in balanced-budget legislation that works.

[3:15]

With those principles in place, a responsible British Columbia government would turn to cut spending. Everywhere else in our economy people are striving to provide better service for less cost, but not this government. Cut the number of ministries in this government from 18 to 12. Cut big chunks of bureaucracy by leaving responsibilities and resources in local communities where front-line people can make commonsense decisions that meet local needs. One-size-fits-all solutions do not work.

I know that's a big shift for the NDP, but you are the only people in this province, in this country, who do not

under-

[ Page 13009 ]

stand that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. B.C. Liberals say: establish a community charter to get the provincial government out of the way so cost-effective decisions can be made without political interference from Victoria.

Let me give you just two examples. Seventy-five percent of all revenues from traffic fines should stay in the communities which generate them to pay for policing and crime prevention. Communities would use that money wisely and effectively, and we could all learn from their experience. Establish regional transportation authorities so that communities are able to plan for cost-effective transportation solutions that meet their needs instead of the political needs of a provincial government of the day.

We say reestablish the integrity of the civil service: make appointments based on merit, not political credentials. Ensure that no contracts for your political appointees extend beyond the term of this government. Eliminate the golden handshake.

This is just the beginning. There are millions more wasted government expenditures that should be eliminated. They are buried in the Dave Stupich accounting practices of the NDP. It's time this government cut out wasteful spending. Rescind the NDP fixed-wage legislation, which is costing B.C. taxpayers at least $200 million a year.

The government clearly doesn't understand the impact of that legislation. The city of Surrey has just prepared a report pointing out how their costs have gone up as a result of this government's fixed-wage legislation. There is a 2 percent increase in construction costs for roads and sewers and storm sewers. There is a 6 percent increase in construction costs for building projects. There is a 13.5 percent increase for either renovations or maintenance work.

Let me put that in a different context so the members of the government can understand exactly what that policy does. Those savings alone could build 3,111 classrooms in British Columbia so the students could be in classrooms instead of portables. That decision alone would create 5,000 new jobs in the construction industry if this government would just stop paying off its friends and start taking care of the public's business.

It's time this government went back to open tendering. Even members of this government would go to an open tender if it were their own money, but they don't when it's taxpayers' dollars. It's time to go back to open tendering so that taxpayers get the maximum value for their hard-earned tax dollars. Just putting the Island Highway contracts out to open tender -- that one project alone -- would save taxpayers $70 million.

We have to go beyond just cutting that government spending and waste. We have to go to the second step: we must cut government debt, because debt is the silent killer of both our essential core services and our economic opportunities. People are not fooled. They know that cuts are necessary. B.C. workers are struggling every day to give better service at lower cost. Our government must do the same. We need look no farther than the Treasury Board memo that issued a warning to the members of this government and to this cabinet:

"The simple message is that the recent accumulation of debt is not sustainable without: debt-servicing costs...crowding out program spending; without B.C.'s fiscal position deteriorating just as other provinces' finances are showing real and substantial improvement; a credit downgrade."

The Treasury Board official goes on and points out that even if the government is prepared to run small operating surpluses over the next ten years, the government's existing plans and commitments for capital spending and related borrowing makes it impossible to reduce the absolute dollar amount of debt.

Worse than that, this document goes on to say that this government can claim -- and I underline that word "claim" -- to deal with debt only by focusing on direct debt and reducing the ratio of tax-supported debt. It's funny how we heard that in the throne speech yesterday, isn't it? Another claim, another deception for the people of British Columbia. The fact of the matter is we have to deal with the public debt if we are going to provide for the long-term opportunities of all the people of British Columbia. Let's remember this: this NDP government isn't in debt because the taxpayer doesn't pay enough; it's in debt because the government spends too much.

B.C. Liberals believe it's time to initiate immediately a review of all Crown corporations. There are some obvious first steps: sell B.C. Systems Corporation; sell B.C. Rail. All Crown corporations must be examined with a view to maximizing value to taxpayers through their sale and through increased competition. All the proceeds from any sale -- 100 percent of them -- should be used to pay down the public debt. As the Treasury Board memo says, these steps must be taken to protect public education and to protect our health care services.

Let's take a moment to talk about those two critical services in British Columbia, because the government seems to think they're important, and so do we. Let's be clear that there has not been a government in British Columbia that has done more to erode the quality of health care, in community after community, than the NDP government has done in the last three years. You literally cannot go into a community in this province where they will tell you their health care services have improved. People are in fact recognizing that this great experiment is a failure.

It is time to put patients first for a change and to put aside the New Directions experiment. Everywhere I go in British Columbia, I hear the same complaint. The experiment has thrown our system into turmoil. Ensure that the community facilities and resources are in place before hospital services are dismantled, not the other way around. It's time that we stopped the trade-off of lower-quality patient care for bigger health care labour settlements. And if real change is to be made effectively, we must improve public awareness of our system through patient care statements and through a health care atlas.

To get the best outcomes for patients, caregivers must be invited back to participate in improving our health care service for all. Listen to what patients say: they say we must have change.

For our children's sake, we must make education an essential service in British Columbia. We should ensure that students stay in the classroom getting the education that they deserve. Give parents, students and teachers more choice and flexibility about the best way to deliver education in their communities. Establish accountability in education that encourages school-based management. Shrink the Ministry of Education. Reduce the number of school boards. All of that will free up resources so we can focus them on the classrooms, where our students and our teachers belong. Listen to what parents and students are saying: we must improve the system.

Not only is the NDP government costing us in taxes, but they're costing us thousands of long-term, full-time job opportunities. It's time to cut regulations and to cut the cost and the risk to employers of creating new jobs in British Columbia.

The Premier of Alberta has said two of the most important economic development policies his province has are the NDP's taxation and regulatory policies in British Columbia. I'll tell you right now, that that's not good enough for the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 13010 ]

I visited Dawson Creek a couple of months ago. I met with a retailer there, and she said: "I've been in business for 18 years, and I'm closing down." I said: "Why?" She said: "I'm closing down because I'm working 80 hours a week right now, and I figure ever single effort I make is simply taken back by the government. I'm not willing to work for the government any more." You know, when she closed her business she didn't just close one business in Dawson Creek. We lost five jobs in Dawson Creek. That's happening in community after community.

Let's compare B.C. to another one of our major competitors, Washington State. In terms of job creation and investment, there's no question that people should be attracted to British Columbia. But if it was your money that you had to invest, if you were having to decide where you would expand your plant, just think of these facts. Our approval process in British Columbia takes six times as long to establish a business -- which will also establish long-term jobs. Our licensing and other fees are four times as expensive. Our business taxes are higher.

And there is a threat of huge future tax increases because of the massive public debt that this government has been building up. This government's income surcharges make the marginal tax rate for the workers in this province the highest of any jurisdiction in North America. Our corporations have to pay the job-killing corporate tax, which taxes borrowing and investment and increases the costs for renters and small businesses. We have a WCB that is totally out of control. They're sitting right now with unfunded liabilities that are mounting day in and day out.

To make matters worse, they're not taking care of injured workers. Hon. Speaker, where would you decide to locate?

All of these policies -- the taxation, the regulation and the WCB -- have been brought in by a government and a Premier who in 1991 said that a New Democrat government will help small and medium-sized businesses grow. No wonder small businesses in British Columbia are saying: "We must have change."

In the end, tax reductions will have the largest impact on the daily lives of B.C.'s working families. The three-decade-old experiment of taxing ourselves out of a deficit has failed. It is time for tax reform in this province that shrinks the tax load. We have to learn to attract investment, not attack it.

I hope that this government will eliminate the capital tax in the budget we're expecting next Tuesday. If it doesn't, I can guarantee you that we will eliminate it in our first budget if the B.C. Liberal Party is ever in office. It's time to remove school tax from property. That will aid small businesses and homeowners across this province. Finally, the government of British Columbia must have as its primary objective a reduction in personal income taxes. Listen to the taxpayers. We must have change.

The solutions that I have outlined today will place government in the position of doing not only what is essential but also doing it more effectively based on results. Our plan will free British Columbians to move ahead to secure their own future and truly seize opportunity. All British Columbians will have the freedom to know what is being done with their tax dollars through truth in budgeting legislation. Students will have the freedom to learn through making education an essential service.

Citizens will have the freedom of opportunity to decide for themselves in their own communities through a community charter. Everyone in this province will have the freedom of opportunity and the freedom to have a real say in government through workable and realistic recall and initiative legislation and through free votes in this Legislature. Most importantly, British Columbians will gain freedom from fear of their children's economic future through cutting government spending, through balanced budget legislation and through cutting debt. We must have change.

[3:30]

Under a B.C. Liberal government, things will change right away. This NDP government has entered its twilight with a skimpy agenda bereft of ideas. It has failed again to respond to the real needs of B.C.'s working families. This NDP throne speech continues a web of deception that the NDP started spinning four years ago. But the people are not fooled. They see the deception. They know.

We live in a prosperous and beautiful part of the world. There is no single place in North America that has more promise and more potential if we just act now to make real changes in the way we do things. British Columbia continues to provide exceptional opportunities, as it always has. But the future of each of us who lives here is threatened by a government that cannot or will not control its taxing, its borrowing and its spending.

Unlike the NDP, B.C. Liberals see a better and stronger future for British Columbia through less government, not more; through less spending, not more; through less debt, not more; and through less taxation, not more. The ability and energy of British Columbians is unquestioned. The only question is: when will this government call an election so British Columbians can pursue their own dreams in their own communities in their own way? We must have real change right now, hon. Speaker. [Applause.]

G. Wilson: I must appreciate such a round of applause from my former colleagues. That was very ingratiating, I must say.

In a former life, I spent some time as a farmer. I actually used to raise hogs. It's interesting how I noticed that when you rattled the bucket of feed, the little wiener hogs would all champ and scream. The bucket of an election gets it really going over here too.

While politicians like to often have fun in possibly the last session before an election, I think it's important that we rise in this throne speech debate and recognize that the people of British Columbia really deserve more than the kind of cliched response that we've just heard. It simply doesn't add up. They're saying: "Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, because we want smaller government." At the same time, they say they're going to give you more schools, more hospitals, more roads. This is just simply....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear from my colleague from the Reform Party: "This Liberal magic. I was once there." Believe me, any Liberal magic that was once in that place left when the rest of us came over here.

Let me say that the people of British Columbia want to know a lot more than simply the patent rhetoric about how we're going to deal with some very difficult problems. I would say that if we go to the heart of the throne speech, which is what we should do, the key commentary.... I applaud this government on doing this, because for the first time we are able to really get to the nub of the debate. It says on page 5 that we are faced with fundamental choices. I'm talking about the economy here. Now there isn't a British Columbian -- and I don't believe there's a Canadian -- who doesn't acknowledge that we have to get debt and deficit

[ Page 13011 ]

expenditures under control. There's no monopoly on that in any one political party. Clearly the public knows that we have to get our deficit and debt under control. The key is: how are we going to do it?

On page 5, this government says: "Some governments in Canada have opted for the first course, persuaded that the answer is to slash budgets, reduce real wages and services, and dismantle laws that protect working people and the environment." And that may be a fashionable way to go, but they're going to do something else. Clearly, what we've just heard from the ranks of the Liberal opposition is that they prefer the former course: that they are going to involve themselves in these kinds of massive cuts to try and reduce the cost of government. That may be one way to go. Let's not just dismiss that out of hand. But if that....

For example, let's just take one thing that the Leader of the Opposition said he was going to do -- which is actually a page out of Liberal policy when I was leader of that party -- and that was to remove education as an isolated tax on property. That's going to cost $650 million of revenue to the government. That's the cost of doing that. What he didn't tell us -- and I think it is patently dishonest not to tell us -- is how he's going to raise that revenue. How do you get the $650 million if you're going to do that?

I happen to believe that we should remove education as an isolated tax on property, but at least I'm prepared to stand here and say that the way we are going to raise that revenue is by having a more equitable distribution on corporate-industrial taxation. That may not be the popular thing to say. There are people out there in the corporate-industrial sector who will say: "My goodness, we don't want that." But if you look at the actual cost share for education in the province, it's inequitable today, and the people who are paying the principal burden for education are homeowners. That shouldn't be the way it is.

I really think it's dishonest to turn around and say that we're going to remove the corporate capital tax, that we're going to remove education as an isolated tax on property and that we're going to bring in balanced-budget legislation that works. What does that mean? You either have balanced-budget legislation, which means that by statute you must table a balanced budget in the House, revenue to expenditure.... You really have no way of keeping a hand on what revenues are going to be, because we are in a variable marketplace. Or does it mean a balanced budget that works...?

That is, do we take a page from the Leader of the Opposition when he was the mayor of Vancouver or the chairman of the GVRD and balance the budget by raising taxes, which is what he did for all the years he was the mayor of Vancouver and sat as the chair of the GVRD?

I find it incredible to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying: "When we get in, it's all going to be better, because we're going to make it better." Look at the record of that gentleman when he was major of Vancouver and chair of the GVRD. You had record tax increases. And what was his response? His response was to balance the budget by further increasing taxes, driving small business out of Vancouver. And when the small business community came together and said, "Mr. Mayor, we need your help," he said: "I'm sorry. It's not in my jurisdiction.

Go and talk to the provincial government." We need to stop the political rhetoric and get down to the details of discussion. I have some comment to make about that.

I would say one other thing. I'm vexed right now, as a politician in this province, by a couple of very disturbing trends. The first is a trend that has run away with the good interests and offices of members of the press gallery and some other members of the media, and that is in the reporting of events that have occurred.

Whose job is it to report on the issues that are important to the people? Whose job is it to come out and speak about what the people have elected us to do? It is our job to do that. Whose job is it to report on the events fairly, as they have unfolded, so the public has a way of knowing what their elected officials have done? It is the job of a free, unfettered media. But if we're going to have a free and unfettered media -- and I'll be the first to defend the right of freedom of the press -- there has to be responsibility in the manner by which that is reported. And there has to be some acknowledgement that we are dealing with matters that are factually correct.

I would never stand in this House as an apologist for the government, because I sit as a member of the Alliance; I'm in the opposition. But I believe that if you see something that is patently false being portrayed in the media as true, you should stand up and say something about it.

Let me say that when the information came out on NOW Communications, I did a little bit of homework -- which I wish others had done. While I am never an apologist for this government, let me say that the public must know that notwithstanding the fact that NOW Communications is patently partisan in their former political allegiance -- that's undeniable -- what they have done has been done at either fair market value or below market value. Even the biggest opponents to this government who sit in that level of industry -- the people who are in the business, from the Palmer Jarvises and the Finale Productions of the world -- will tell you that the public are getting value for their dollar.

It is despicable that we lose sight of the agenda of the people, because there are partisan gains to be made by turning what should be a venue such as this on matters of principle and political direction into personal vendettas, innuendo and rumour that gets portrayed in the media, without an ounce of research work to verify what's being done, so that they can discredit politicians -- not necessarily discredit politicians simply for their own benefit, but for the larger gain, which is power, which is government, which is a thrust to be able to get to the trough so that they can put their own set of people in place.

That's what we saw in 1990 and '91, that's what we saw in 1993 and '94, and now we're seeing it again in '95 and '96.

I can tell you that the people of this province are pretty fed up with it. They don't want to hear any more personal attacks on politicians from other politicians. They're not interested in the muckraking and the mudslinging. They're not interested in hearing about all kinds of information that's put forward, half of which is fictional. The other half may have an ounce of truth but is spun in a manner to try and paint the worst picture of the opponent politician. You know what happens when we do that? We discredit every single politician in this hall. And you know what else we do?

We make this institution a mockery. Because no longer are we dealing with the meaty, heavy issues that the people want us to deal with; we are dealing with petty, partisan questions that simply are self-serving, to try and get us into power. And what I have witnessed from some members -- not all; there are some exceptions within the Liberal opposition ranks -- is really despicable.

It makes me very clear about my choice to leave and to stand now as the leader of the Alliance -- a party that is dedicated to discussing issues on matters of principle and question, that can take to the people honest choices for them to make in the next election as to how they wish this country to be governed and how they wish this province to grow.

[ Page 13012 ]

We have to recognize that whenever the next election may come, part of our role in the analysis of this speech in this legislative session is not to simply stand up and champ at the bit to have an election, because the thirst for power is so great that we're now blinding ourselves to the real issues in front of the people. Our role is to take honest debate to the people, put those choices out clearly and articulate on a matter of fact, not on a matter of fiction.

[3:45]

Let me say this with respect to the throne speech. It is important that we recognize that this province is indeed at a crossroads. Government is not unlike.... I would use the analogy of an engine. If you have, say, a 1965 Chevy V-8 engine with an automatic transmission, it really doesn't matter who you put behind the wheel of that engine; it can only perform to the maximum capacity it was designed for. Sure, you can tinker a little bit. You can change the spark plugs and do some odds and sods -- some of the kinds of little things we heard from the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago.

But effectively, you still have an inefficient engine. And that's the problem with our government today. We have an inefficient government.

The reason that debt and deficit is rising is that we need to take the bold step -- and it will be a bold step -- to restructure and change; in effect, to build a new engine to provide government to the people of British Columbia. And we don't do that on the backs of the middle class. We don't do that on the backs of the employed poor. We don't do that on the backs of people who, for reasons well beyond their own resources, find themselves in need of social assistance. Neither do we do it at the expense of a health care system.

And regrettably -- and I direct this directly to the federal government -- we don't do it by breaking our constitutional obligations to provide national defence investment in British Columbia.

Let me digress for one moment. It's regrettable -- it's lamentable -- that this was not raised in the Speech from the Throne. I would like to have heard something from the Premier on this question.

D. Mitchell: Or the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Wilson: Or the Leader of the Opposition, for that matter.

The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide to this province adequate resources with respect to first response for a provincial emergency -- the PEP emergency response. They are not doing that. By closing the Chilliwack base, the federal government is flying in the face of its own constitutional obligations. It is unacceptable to British Columbians that we would allow that to happen.

I have heard only one member -- quite obviously, it was the member for Chilliwack, and rightly so -- stand up in defence of that base by articulating what is in fact the proper argument: that the federal government should not be empowered to remove that investment. If they are to fulfil their obligation to us, we must remain with an adequate, properly financed first-response team on that base, or if not on that one, then on another in B.C. It is simply not enough to suggest that we can airlift troops in from somewhere else in western Canada.

If we need to have evacuation -- and I do not wish to be an alarmist, but I do want to let you know that we are in a very active earthquake zone; we have only to witness what took place in Japan not so long ago -- we need adequately funded, properly trained emergency response. We won't have it in this province if that Chilliwack base goes.

I call upon the Premier to stand up with those of us who say Chilliwack must be maintained and that the federal government must live up to the constitutional obligation. As British Columbians, we must not allow them to shirk their duty in this regard, because when we need emergency response to come forward, we will rue the day we did.

In building this new engine, we also need to reform the institution of parliament. I would like to have seen that in this Speech from the Throne, but we didn't see it. We have to make this institution more relevant to the public.

I often wonder what members of the public must think when they come up into the galleries. Some are in the galleries today. They look down and listen to our speeches, and they witness what goes on in this interaction, especially during question period. What relevance has this institution to the public unless we are doing the public's business? That's where our obligation and duty is.

One of the reforms we need to make is to look at opening this institution to what we would call a direct delegation process, so that you would no longer have the opportunity for backroom lobbying and the patronage kind of scene. You would open it up to registered delegations that would be adequately and properly funded to come directly to the floor of the Legislature and bring to it materials they would like to see drafted in the form of law.

How much more relevant would this institution be if people, rather than sitting in the galleries unable to take notes or speak, or to use any kind of interactive method, had, as a direct delegation, an opportunity to come directly to government, and provide in proper format the kind of initiatives they would like to see directing the government with respect to the propositions they might find necessary or essential for our community? It would make this institution that much more relevant.

While we reject the notion of the initiative as proposed by the Reform Party, because we believe it to be expensive, unworkable and often very divisive, we do believe that initiative can be brought about through a direct delegation process. This is something I have spoken about before.

Another reform of this institution must be to move toward fixed sitting days. Right now there is a bit of a debate as to whether or not we are going to have private members' statements. The reason there is a debate is that while at least one member of the Alliance and my colleague for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, whom we like to think is a member of the Alliance -- he acts like a member of the Alliance....

D. Mitchell: We sit close.

G. Wilson: We sit very close. And who knows?

We filed to do the private members' statements, but the Liberal opposition wouldn't cooperate. They said that either they get two of their own statements, or we are not going to have any private members' statements. This is a very strange way to proceed, because it is the right of all members to bring forward matters important to them. When we have this opposition, supposedly interested in open and interactive government, which absolutely hammers away at the need for private members' statements, yet denies that opportunity for people who don't happen to be from the same political party, it does not bode well.

It deals with an anti-democratic procedure rather than a democratic one. We need to have these sessions extended so that we have adequate opportunity for private members to bring forward matters that are relevant to their communities. That's an important consideration.

Let me say also that one other matter here is not raised in this Speech from the Throne. It's lamentable; it's an oversight

[ Page 13013 ]

that we really do need to deal with. That's the whole question of the Treaty Commission process and the aboriginal land issue. This resolution of the aboriginal Treaty Commission process and how we're dealing with first nations people is the most important issue in front of British Columbians today, yet it receives virtually no debate in this House. That is inexcusable, because the people of British Columbia want to know where the parties stand. They want to know, first of all, whether this government has even mandated its negotiators to negotiate.

In my own community, for example, the Sechelts are ready to negotiate a successful conclusion to their negotiation, yet this government refuses to do so. This government refuses to finalize that negotiation, because they claim cabinet hasn't given the negotiators the mandate to finalize the agreement. The Sechelts have had eight years of successful self-government, working successfully with their surrounding municipalities. The Sechelts put forward their specific claim and had that dealt with years ago; I raised this matter in 1992 in this House.

In 1995 the Sechelts have put their comprehensive claim together and are ready to finalize it, and they can't. This government won't negotiate with them, because they haven't given their negotiators the mandate. Why?

If it's because the Sechelts want $77 million plus a large land area to finalize their claim, and if that might open the door to final resolution on land claims and we can't afford it -- which I'm told by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and his staff is going to cost us about $18.6 billion, and I agree that it's going to be a tough thing to find in times of shrinking budgets -- then the government should have the honesty to come out and say so. If the government isn't prepared to close off on these deals, don't enter into what is essentially a fraudulent process.

And if it is prepared to close off on these deals.... The Sechelts are excluded, because their system of self-government is well accepted and extremely well adjusted now because of the eight years they've had to work out the bugs, and that one can and should be finalized now.

On the matter of other negotiations, however, a lot of other things are on the table. We need to make sure that if this government is prepared to negotiate on matters of title, sovereignty and citizenship -- all of which are on the table -- and to say we are going to establish within the jurisdiction of British Columbia special rights, jurisdictions and status exclusively to one group on the basis of their racial origin, over all other groups.... If we're going to put that kind of indelible division in our society, then you had better come out and say so. I don't think the majority of British Columbians are going to buy that for a minute.

We have to work to break down the barriers and remove those kinds of indelible divisions between our people. We have to start to recognize equality among people, recognizing that we can all be different. We are different; we are not the same. We speak different languages, perhaps practise different religions, perhaps have different customs, may dress differently. We have different ancestry. But we must all be equal under the law -- no special rights, privileges or jurisdictions, and especially none indelibly written on the basis of one's racial origin.

If that's what's on the table, and in some instances that is clearly being negotiated, then we'd better know about it. I don't think the public are going to buy that.

In the case of the Sechelts, we have seen how we've been able to work a model of self-government. It's the best chance this government has to prove that the Treaty Commission process will work. I would expect to see that that's going to take place.

One of the things in the throne speech that I think is good and that we need to acknowledge is the fact that the government is moving toward greater funding on infrastructure. We have to have and we must see a greater degree of divestment of resources from centrally controlled authorities into the communities so communities have an opportunity to benefit from those investments. I am delighted to see that the moneys that were committed in the last year are in fact going to good use.

I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that I find it absolutely encouraging to see that the community of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, for example, topped the list with respect to moneys coming out of the forest renewal process. We have one of the most active forests. It is one of the richest and most regenerative forests in British Columbia, and it's only right that we should have received the lion's share of those moneys. I am delighted to have been able to assist those people in my riding who have worked so hard to have that money come forward.

Similarly, in terms of the infrastructure grants, I am delighted that we were able to get four most important grants approved for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, which are going to provide us with an opportunity to get a lot of good investment moving forward and make sure that residential communities are properly dealt with. I was delighted to have worked with people.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Similarly, with respect to grants-in-aid, especially to community service organizations, I am delighted that the riding had a total of roughly half a million dollars come in last year. That went directly to absolutely essential social services, such as the community service organizations that put second-stage housing in place for women who were coming out of the transition houses. They were also able to secure a building that allowed for a better degree of seniors' day care and a seniors' drop-in.

We are doing good things, and I think we have to point a finger at those good ideas and good aspects and say that we will encourage them and enhance them and make them work.

But where in the throne speech, in all of this transportation discussion, do we get any kind of assurance that it isn't all going to be lower-mainland-based? What proposition do we see in terms of the investment that's going on?

We are going to be spending $800 million on a new ferry service that is largely going to look at one run and a couple of ferry terminals. We are going to embark on the questionable technology of aluminum catamaran ferries and of building a larger ferry -- one of the largest in the world -- that has never been tested anywhere else. Why would we have not gone the route that most engineers recommended? I question this government, and I will continue to question this government on the wisdom of $800 million that will deal largely with two ferry terminals and two additional vessels, when the whole fleet is in trouble.

[4:00]

Goodness knows we recognize that we have an aging ferry service. My own community is absolutely dependent on it. People on this island are dependent on it. They don't take kindly to a $33 million subsidy -- possibly, I'm told, a $41 million subsidy -- that had to go into B.C. Ferries.

Recognize that what we're now going to do is borrow and spend $800 million on an unproven aluminum technology, given the size and class of vessel that is being expected, when what we need are more, smaller, faster ferries to be able to move people more frequently -- not another great big huge ferry that is going to have to reduce its speed. It's supposed to be a fast-speed ferry, and it's going to have to reduce its speed because of wave

[ Page 13014 ]

configurations and seasickness and the fact that they're going to have to latch down cars and everything else. It is a questionable decision at best; it is a bad decision at worst.

We have moved into these new stakeholder committees, which again, as in the throne speech, is part of the consultation process. These stakeholder committees are now meeting all over Vancouver Island, coastal British Columbia, the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast and the north. If this government is really interested in making sure that the community has its say, then this government will recognize that they will not embark upon that $800 million expenditure until they hear from the people.

What you're hearing from that ferries' stakeholders process is: hold on a second; let's not be spending that kind of money there; we might be able to distribute those investments more equitably into different kinds of construction that will provide a better base of support for more communities around the province, rather than simply looking at those two terminals and those two ferries.

Similarly, what about the interior? We don't hear much about road and bridge construction and the need to make sure that those moneys go into the interior. There's an awful lot of discussion about back-pedalling on the Island Highway; there's a lot of discussion about lower mainland investment. You wouldn't expect much else. I mean, we've got the Premier, who is the former mayor of Vancouver. I don't think the people will make that mistake with respect to former mayors again, however. You start to recognize that their focus is the lower mainland. And I understand why the Liberal opposition didn't pick up on it because of another former mayor of Vancouver.

In closing, let me say the following. I think we have to stick to issues, and what I've attempted to do in my speech today is address several issues that are of critical importance. We have to recognize that there are some very real philosophical differences with respect to the way parties approach the government of the people of British Columbia. We can only do service to the kinds of issues I've raised in the latter part of my speech if we pay attention to the comment I made in the first part.

What I would like, because I hear this banter about the people wanting change.... I'll tell you, if the Liberal opposition ever gets into power, all they'll have in their pocket is change, because the rest of it will all be taken away. But let me say this. As I travel the province, I don't hear people screaming for an election. I don't hear British Columbians yelling: "Let's have an election!" What I hear British Columbians yelling is: "Let's have good, responsible government!" And government is more than just the governing party. It includes every member in this Legislative Assembly.

It is time that we drop the partisan rhetoric. It is time that we stop the personal attacks. It is time that we stop putting out the kind of misinformation being garnered around this province, and get down to the serious business of governing. It's time that we recognize when things are right and applaud and support them. And when we believe things to be wrong, it's time that we challenge them honestly on an intellectual basis, so that the people can hear a proper debate on these matters and make proper firm decisions. That's our obligation and duty, and I appreciate this time to put this forward.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments.

I understand the member for Parksville-Qualicum wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: On behalf of the office of the Speaker, and with great pleasure, I wish to announce that some 26 grade 8 students from Fairhaven Middle School in Bellingham, Washington are here in the precincts. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Lehni. Could the House please make them welcome.

L. Hanson: It's great to have an opportunity to respond to the speech we heard on Wednesday. I know that the issue of the American speechwriter and NOW Communications owner, Mr. Johnson, is very current in everyone's memory. I would suggest that if they were paid for that speech, the government should demand a refund. I didn't have the privilege of having a speechwriter do this for me, so you have to listen to my words.

Obviously the Premier and whoever put that speech together didn't have much of an idea of what the people of British Columbia are looking for. Either the Premier -- who probably gave the instructions -- or whoever gave the instructions didn't hear what was said, or they simply don't care what the people of British Columbia are concerned about. The speech shows that there is obviously no intention of cutting back on spending. They plan to continue spending money, creating huge debts, all in a pathetic attempt to woo the popularity back that they've lost since they became government.

I understand that the Premier has been under a lot of strain recently. I believe there are six investigations going on at this point. Even the Premier is being investigated for conflict of interest. The Minister of Government Services, who has not been present, has been charged with an allegation of sexual harassment, but he continues to collect all of the benefits of a cabinet minister. There are two investigations relating to the NDP's role in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society charity concern.

The auditor general has agreed to our request to investigate the relationship with Ron Johnson and NOW Communications. And finally, we learned today that a prominent lawyer is investigating government contracts given to the husband of one of our deputy ministers.

I don't doubt that the Premier has had some difficulty going to sleep. I would suggest that maybe it would help if the Premier would count the millions of dollars the government is racking up in debt. If he's still awake after that, he can try watching the video reruns of the town hall meeting on BCTV the other night. I think that would probably put him to sleep.

This government has been very proud and very vocal in telling us how good they are at listening to what the people want, but they actually ignore that. One of the orders-in-council passed recently that changed the adoption rules to allow same-sex couples to adopt infants was not publicized. Only 40 babies were placed for adoption last year, with 800 families wanting to adopt an infant. This change will make it even tougher for the traditional family to adopt.

I see the Minister of Labour in the House. I give the example of the minimum wage requirement for babysitters. Someone asked how he could back-pedal so fast on an issue. I suppose a government that's fighting an uphill struggle finds it very hard to pedal uphill and much easier to pedal backwards.

I give you another example, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I hear the minister telling me to keep trying. He can be assured that that will happen.

Windy Craggy and the Kemano completion project. The government has made an art of pre-empting its own processes and turning its back on the independent advisers they give responsibility to.

[ Page 13015 ]

There were all sorts of things in the throne speech, but most important were the things it failed to say. There was not a word in the throne speech about the treaty negotiations. The government appears to be too embarrassed about its true agenda in those negotiations to discuss it in public: the Nisga'a negotiations, the secrecy in the interim measure agreements, and the secrecy in negotiations of the aboriginal gaming policy. There is a need for ratification of all proposed settlements by regional referendums in the areas directly under claim.

There was not a word in the speech about agriculture, mining, tourism or small business. There was not a word about public safety and the need for law and order in our society today. But most importantly, the throne speech failed to recognize that the biggest threat to the British Columbia economy is government debt. Since 1991 the socialists have nearly doubled tax-supported debt -- the debt that can only be repaid by the taxes we collect from our citizens.

An Hon. Member: What have the free-enterprisers in Alberta done?

L. Hanson: They've increased taxes by nearly $2 billion a year, or $2,000 a family. I hear a member asking: "What has happened in Alberta?" The speaker before me suggested that the issue is not this government compared to other governments; it's what this government is doing. And if you look at the record of this government, you will think Alberta is doing wonderfully. They have increased the marginal income tax rate to over 54 percent; that's the highest tax rate of any province in Canada.

They've doubled the accumulated deficit in just three years; the socialists have doubled the amount of deficit accumulated by all the other British Columbian governments in B.C. history combined. The debt problem is so bad that the government's senior financial expert warned the Treasury Board that it should abandon its borrowing plans. Yet the government has thumbed its nose at that advice.

Let's talk about the three themes identified in the throne speech. Investment in natural resources. The cumulative costs of CORE, forest renewal, the timber supply review and native land claims.... Combined, these measures could exceed $2 billion and 20,000 jobs. And this government doesn't have a clue as to what the true cost of its plan to double parks will be. The Forest Alliance has gone so far as to commission a national accounting firm to identify the true cost of this measure.

The forest renewal fund is potentially the biggest political slush fund ever seen: $400 million a year raked from rural B.C., with absolutely no guarantee it will be spent fairly on the regions it came from. It's mostly going to be gobbled up on vote-buying schemes in Vancouver that have absolutely nothing to do with forest renewal.

Let's talk about investment in infrastructure for a moment -- capitalization of highway construction. At one time there was a policy -- a good policy -- in British Columbia: pay as you go. At least $500 million a year in operating costs is being shuffled off the books to B.C. 21 and buried in that debt. The Island Highway contract: not one interchange should be scrapped or one dollar in tolls imposed until that sweetheart deal is gone. There are many areas in North Island.... It would make you think that maybe the member for North Island has given up on trying to get re-elected.

They seem to have suggested that the cutbacks on the Island Highway that are in excess of what they had budgeted for will be done mostly in the northern end of the Island Highway. It's curious to see how much money is being spent on NDP-held ridings in the rest of British Columbia. Rural B.C. has pretty well been shut out.

The Victoria accord -- at least $200 million to build luxury office space for bureaucrats. The government is putting future taxpayers deeper in debt to build a tremendous new area in James Bay for civil servants, including a luxury health club and great big offices. I'm sure the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour will have something to say at another time, and I will listen with great interest.

[4:15]

The third issue I wanted to talk about is investing in people and protecting medicare. The record is that welfare costs have increased by almost $1 billion under this socialist government. One in ten British Columbians is now on welfare, and 340,000 are on income assistance, which is up by $100,000 since 1991. It took the government three years to finally admit that it's still got a problem with welfare fraud and abuse, and it still hasn't taken any serious action to stop it.

The government doesn't give a fig about medicare. If it did, the Health minister wouldn't be wasting all those tax dollars on TV ads aimed at selling himself. He would be spending them on maintaining hospital service. Rural hospitals have been reduced to little more than first-aid centres in a lot of communities under the New Directions strategy.

The only people who have benefited from this government are the people covered by the health labour accord. It was supposed to cut 4,800 positions in return for job security, a shortened work week and a handsome pay raise. So far, only a handful of positions have been cut, the government is $100-300 million deeper in debt, and we don't know where that is eventually going to end.

We know who this government is really referring to when it talks of "people first": the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society charity ripoff, a scam that would appear to have benefited the political party that's government; $5 million in contracts to Johnson and NOW Communications; a retainer of $556 a day that was never tendered; $100 million a year wasted on a sweetheart deal with the Highways Construction Council; a health labour accord that will cost taxpayers $300 million extra; and as much as $200 million a year for construction unions under the high-wage or so-called fair-wage policy.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a government for the people. The only question -- and it's one that I would like to have answered honestly is: what people? If you have the right credentials and the right political background, you become one of those people that this government is for. Let me remind this Legislature and the people of British Columbia: Robyn Allan at ICBC, Tom Bulmer at B.C. Systems and Marc Eliesen at B.C. Hydro. And I go on: Bob Williams, Gordon Hanson, Maureen Maloney and Hans Brown. I would not want to take up the rest of this afternoon naming all of the names that would fit in that category, but I sure could.

I hope that this government will have the responsibility and the intestinal fortitude to place that question before the people of British Columbia before we have to sit through another throne speech that really says nothing about what should be done for British Columbia.

L. Krog: I would normally begin by saying that I was delighted to speak in the throne speech debate, and that would be because I was engaging in a battle with an opposition that was powerful and strong, fired up, and full of vim and vigour after months of keen preparation for an assault on a government that they believe is somehow in trouble. So I came here today prepared to face a raging elephant -- well, perhaps at least an angry bull; I exaggerate a little. Instead, what we have seen and heard is a squeaky mouse, circling in

[ Page 13016 ]

terror, looking for some avenue of escape from the simple, basic fact that they're not prepared to talk to the people of British Columbia in an honest way and really do their job as opposition. Perhaps that is simply because they are feeling extremely frustrated. Perhaps it is the fact that this government has done such an excellent job in three and a half short years that they have no ammunition with which to attack it. In that sense, they have my sincere pity.

We just heard from a member of the Reform Party, the retread Socreds -- the people who did such a wonderful job of managing British Columbia's economy in 1991, the last year they were in office, that the forest companies, the backbone of this province.... Do you know what their profits were? They didn't have any profits; they were $350 million in the hole in 1991. This government's stewardship of the forest resource has led us to the enviable position now that the publicly traded forest companies in this province made $800 million in profit in 1994.

The sunset industry that people talked about that employed 91,000 people directly in 1991 employed 105,000 British Columbians in 1994 directly in the forest sector. No wonder the opposition is a little weak and a little shy.

We took office inheriting a deficit of $2.4 billion in the fiscal year 1991-92. Where are we today? Down by 80 percent, and coming very close to a balanced budget. So much for the criticism of the inability of the New Democratic Party to manage a popcorn stand. It's a heck of a popcorn stand, and in three and a half years we've done the best job of any government in Canada.

The Liberal Party....

An Hon. Member: What Liberal Party?

L. Krog: "What Liberal Party?" my friend across the way asks. The Liberal Party that says it's the friend of big business and that it will strive to make the economy roar in this province. Well, the business community in this province....

Let's look again at the forest sector. Capital expenditures in the B.C. forest industry in 1991: $1.43 billion. What does it show for 1995? It will be $1.86 billion, an increase of 30 percent, reflecting the confidence of the business community in the forest sector of this province. Why is that? I'll tell you why: it's simply good stewardship and good management of the resource. It's the forest renewal plan: $400 million a year to restore our forests to good health and restore the backbone of our economy. It's a forest land reserve that guarantees a stable forest base for that industry....

R. Neufeld: Remember that, when you create new parks.

L. Krog: And at the same time, parks, as my friend and colleague the member for Peace River North has pointed out.

In addition, this government is better than halfway to its goal of meeting the 12 percent recommendation of the Brundtland commission for preserving ecosystems across this province.

Let's go back and examine what things were like in 1991. In 1991 there was a war in the woods and a declining economy. What you have now are people in the interior of this province -- an area where no one thought consensus could be reached -- applauding CORE and what has happened. You have the people in the Kootenays finally now getting justice with the Columbia Basin and seeing their rights restored and investment in their area. This has all been done in three and a half years.

This government's record on the environment in my riding: preservation of the upper Qualicum, saving the Parksville Flats, saving Jedediah Island, the protected-areas strategy. The second-tier proposals for my riding will enhance and protect the quality of life that has brought people to my constituency and made it one of the fastest-growing constituencies in the province. That didn't happen by accident; that happened because this government has foresight and wisdom and vision.

It is prepared to face the twenty-first century, instead of the dinosaurs in the opposition who want to talk about going backward into some glorious era where somehow you can cut taxes, cut spending and still keep an economy rolling.

This government has made significant investments. Part of those investments are in the environment, because people come from all around the world to see British Columbia. We have something precious here -- a resource that is markedly available and shown to the community via the advertising undertaken by the Ministry of Small Business. That includes areas that people will flock to for hundreds of years.

Tatshenshini, Ts'yl-os, Khutzemateen: those are names that are now known around the world because this government was prepared to say to the industrial hounds of Howe Street, which the Liberal Party represents, that we're not going to let you rape and pillage every corner of this province in order to make profits, and then scoop off someplace else around the globe. We are going to insist that areas of this province be preserved for everyone.

Jobs and the economy. What did this government inherit? As I've said already, a large deficit. In three and a half years, where is British Columbia going? In the last year alone unemployment in this province is down from 9.8 to 8.4 percent -- 66,000 new jobs, most of them full-time. Do you want to talk about doing something for working people, hon. Speaker? This government is doing something for working people.

I've talked about the environment and the protected areas. Let's talk about what's happening in my riding. I carry a pair of boots around in my car for walking through muddy construction sites, because I get to do it so frequently. That's because this government is investing in infrastructure -- $200 million in my riding alone on an Island Highway that the Social Credit government promised for 20 years and never delivered and that my friends in the Liberal Party suggest shouldn't be built at all. We should pour it all back into Surrey, perhaps.

The Island Highway is going to be built, and it's going to bring prosperity to the northern part of this Island, provide useful transportation and cut down on deaths.

My friends in the Liberal Party said, "No, that's not what we mean; we're not really opposed to the Island Highway," after they were stupid enough to suggest that perhaps they were opposed. They are backing down. I think back-pedalling is the term the member for Okanagan-Vernon used today.

I was able to visit the SPCA building site in my riding the other day and deliver a cheque to them for $92,000 -- again, people working, and it was the people's money. I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that a number of them were very happy to see me arrive and very happy to support this government's investment in infrastructure.

[4:30]

There is something about the opposition that they just can't stand the thought of people on construction sites. They would rather see government cut its spending; they would rather see the kids line up at the school doors and the sick line up at the hospital doors. I want the Liberal candidate in my riding, whomever that may be -- if they have the courage to run one -- to go to the doors of the Eagle Park long term care facility and tell them that this government shouldn't have built it and that dozens of elderly British Columbians in my riding should stay at home; they should be looked after by

[ Page 13017 ]

somebody else somehow. Where are they going to go? They have a place to go now because this government had the guts and the courage to build that facility.

The Liberal Party talks about spending and debt, spending and debt. They pretend to represent business in this province. I cannot begin to understand how a party that represents the interests of big business can be against the building of infrastructure. I cannot understand it at all. You have to invest to make money. You need infrastructure; you need schools.

In my riding, what are they going to do? Are they going to tell the government to cut the building of the Springwood school that was announced today? The elementary school that's been needed, and that will take better than half an existing school that is now in portables and put it into a decent school -- do they want to cut that? Are they perhaps suggesting we shouldn't have helped purchase the Parksville Flats? In the north end of Nanaimo that I represent there is incredible overcrowding in the schools. School District 68 needs $160 million worth of schools. Where is the money going to come from?

G. Farrell-Collins: How about the extra $72 million on the union-only contract you did on the Island Highway?

L. Krog: I'm always delighted to hear the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove heckling me about fair wages for the workers on the Island Highway. Again, the party that pretends -- and was so lovingly referred to by the Leader of the Opposition -- to represent British Columbians, those little people who the Leader of the Opposition talked about visiting in the province in the last few months, pretending to represent them.... But, my God, when we suggest that they be paid decent wages for doing a hard day's work, no way, that's not what representing working people is all about.

No, no, we want them to work for non-union companies because, as we know from the opposition members, non-union workers work better. We all heard it here last year in the Legislature. No, they just can't stand the thought of working people earning decent wages.

F. Gingell: All British Columbians need opportunities for those jobs -- all of them.

L. Krog: My friend the member for Delta South says: "All British Columbians need opportunities for jobs." Perhaps he didn't hear the first part of my speech: 66,000 jobs in one year. It's the best record in Canada. People are coming to British Columbia because they know it's a good, well-managed economy, and they have some hope for the future.

G. Farrell-Collins: Because they know your time's up.

L. Krog: Jobs and the.... My time's not up yet, my friend, and you will have your opportunity to talk.

We have the lowest per-capita debt of any province in the Dominion.

An Hon. Member: Better than Alberta.

L. Krog: "Better than Alberta," my friend cries out -- absolutely. There we have the example of what the Liberal Party and the Reform Party regard as the paragon of virtue of economic management. We're going to slash, slash, slash so that people can't get into hospitals and kids can't go to school. What do they want to do?

They talk about the rights of parents. I believe the Leader of the Opposition talked about putting in place choice in schools. It's not choice in schools they're talking about; they're talking about an assault on public education, about the funding of private schools, and about going after the public education system. And we know what their attitude about medicare is; that's pretty clear. I'll get to that in a few moments, though.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about it being time to put old politics of Left and Right behind us -- absolutely. They want to put the politics of the Left behind them entirely and take everything to the Right. It is absolutely fascinating to watch the Liberal and the Reform parties scrambling to the right, like children chasing after a ball in a playground, screaming at each other, each of them trying to get as far right as they possibly can before the other gets there.

What does that mean, to go to the right? I'll tell you what it means. To come back to what I was talking about, it means a refusal to invest in the kind of infrastructure that communities need. It means turning to places like the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital and saying: "We don't want to build a palliative care unit." It means saying to the people being crowded into acute care facilities: "No, we're going to keep you in hospital beds for a long time, as opposed to putting you into long term care beds where it costs the taxpayer more."

That's the good economic policy of the Liberal Party. It means that we're not prepared to deal in a compassionate way with those in our society who are in need. It is a slash-and-burn approach. It is an inability to understand and accept the role of government. This is not -- and I said it last year -- the Liberal Party that British Columbians and Canadians once knew. This is not the party of Louis St. Laurent, benevolent uncle to the country, or the party of Lester Pearson, who gave us international stature.

This is the party that now takes its ideology from the Reform Party; this is the party that now speaks for the black Tories. This is the party that historically used to let the New Democratic Party or its predecessor, the CCF, do the spade work, create the public knowledge and acceptance of and enthusiasm for programs that have made this nation unique and great: medicare, old age pensions, old age security. But now they're taking their tune from the Reform Party drummer. And what beat is that drummer pounding?

Globalization, free trade, cutting social programs, elimination of medicare, elimination of funding to the provinces, the creation of disparate levels of wealth across this country. It is the destruction of the weakest parts of our nation. It will lead to no good end. And that is what they are talking about. What does the Prime Minister of this country say about medicare? "Oh, it was never meant to cover anything more than catastrophic injuries."

An Hon. Member: Is that a Liberal?

L. Krog: "Is that a Liberal?" one of the opposition members cries out. Well, I think he is, hon, Speaker. Certainly the Liberals here claim to be Liberals.

This is what a Liberal candidate -- Dr. Gur Singh, Kamloops -- says: "I think physicians should be very involved in managing the health care system, even to the point of taking it over." The leader of the Liberal Party talked today about grass-roots democracy. It was very touching -- very touching indeed. Oh, I was moved, hon. Speaker. Then the member for Richmond East, in September 1994, said about the implementation of grass-roots democracy, the reforms in health care, moving to Closer to Home through greater local control: "These people have nothing to do with health care. These are lay people deciding how to spend your health dollars. It

[ Page 13018 ]

doesn't surprise me that they are excited. They don't know what they are doing." Well, isn't that a remarkable comment on grass-roots democracy! We mouth the platitudes in the Legislature when the press is listening, but the fact is, that when you deliver on grass-roots democracy, which this government is doing with Closer to Home, you are not prepared to acknowledge that it's the right thing to do.

Today the Leader of the Opposition dishonoured the work of the late Justice Peter Seaton, one of the greatest British Columbians who has ever had the pleasure and the honour of living in this province. He dishonoured him today by attacking New Directions. He dishonoured the efforts of this government to bring health care closer to home. He dishonoured the efforts of people throughout this province who are willing to take up health care reform and to meet real challenges in health care.

They talk about being able to eliminate the corporate capital tax -- over $300 million a year. They talk about eliminating property taxes and school taxes. We're probably up to a billion dollars now. Then they're going to talk about cutting spending. And they're talking about preserving medicare. They can't preserve medicare. They're talking about allowing