Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 3, Number 4

[ Page 2111 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce to the gallery today my constituency association president from Surrey-White Rock, and a good friend of mine, Bill Brooks. Would the House join me in making him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 24 grade 11 students and their teacher, Mr. Marchi, from Spectrum high school in my constituency of Saanich South. I hope the House will make them very welcome and display appropriate decorum as an example to these students.

G. Wilson: We have two guests with us today. In the gallery is Mr. Bill Gardner, who hails from Surrey and is over here to watch the proceedings. And the gallery will be interested to know that Mr. John Munro, who is actively working on the constitutional efforts for this province, is also here in the gallery today. He is in the precincts for several days doing some work on this most worthwhile project. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: I would like to welcome two guests to the House today: first, a family friend, Denise Kilpatrick, who is attending Camosun College; and my daughter Richa Thorpe, a recent grad from the University of Victoria. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Janssen: With us today is a constituent from Alberni, a longtime member of the Port Alberni and District Labour Council executive, Mr. Julius Takacs. I wonder if the House would make him welcome.

K. Krueger: I'd like to introduce to the House today guests from Kamloops, B.C., Fred and Maxine Gilliland. They are here to see the Attorney General on a matter of grave family importance concerning the fact that their son is a victim of crime. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I hope you'll correct me if I'm misplaced, but I think there is an opportunity for us here today to thank a gentleman who has served this province since 1990, first in the role of acting conflict-of-interest commissioner -- and in 1991 he was appointed commissioner. For the last year he has done the job -- sometimes a very difficult one, because it generally deals with controversy -- with no pay. I know it's been a difficult role for him. He had some difficulty in the transition from commissioner to acting commissioner again, which we all recall.

I just want to have this House extend its thanks to someone who has worked diligently. He may not have always been friends to all of us at the same time, but I know that throughout the process we always respected his judgment and ability: that's Mr. Ted Hughes, who retires today. Second of all, I think we should extend some thanks to his wife, who had to put up with the long hours he had to periodically engage in.

Without commenting too far, I do want to bring members' attention to the letter he wrote to the press gallery, which commented on his desire for just some of the recommendations of his report to be implemented sometime in the future. So I hope the House will thank him for his hard work over the years.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to join the Opposition House Leader in extending our best wishes to the retiring -- from this post, anyway -- conflict-of-interest commissioner. It's unfortunate that the entire world of applicants now know that they're not going to be paid for the job in the future.

It has been a struggle, I know, as Mr. Hughes has brought forward really evolutionary and revolutionary change on the issues of conflict of interest, which have stood the test of time and have also been well regarded across Canada.

I join with the opposition in wishing him the best, and we look forward to meeting him in his other life.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair will undertake to draft a letter of thanks and appreciation to Mr. Hughes on behalf of all members of the chamber.

Point of Privilege

J. Kwan: This being my first opportunity, I reserve the right to raise an issue on a matter of privilege concerning comments or actions made by a member of this House yesterday during my reply to the throne speech.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. DEBT

G. Campbell: The official opposition has obtained a leaked Finance ministry document entitled "Deterioration of Province of British Columbia Bond-issuing Spread Levels." This document was prepared by the Finance minister's own staff -- his own officials -- and it compared performance of B.C.'s bonds to bonds issued by other provinces. The document says: "All provinces have outperformed British Columbia since January 1996."

Doesn't the Finance minister think that B.C. taxpayers deserve to know we are falling behind the rest of Canada, while he is building up debt of billions and billions of dollars?

Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps because the Leader of the Opposition was out of the House he wasn't aware that this matter was raised by one of his colleagues yesterday. It's a good reason to be in the House.

We all know that the rest of Canada went through a recession. Alberta has shown incredible growth, and it's not surprising that B.C., having had a slowdown in its economic performance last fall, would have seen the spreads affected by that. That is true.

What has this government done about it, though? For the first time in 40 years we have brought in a budget reducing spending, year over year. We've brought in a budget that has a credible fiscal management plan. Let me read from the report that came out just yesterday from Wood Gundy, in response to the budget. It referred to the budget: "Setting out a credible deficit reduction plan was a key issue for the B.C. government. We think substantial progress on this front has been made by using very prudent assumptions about revenue growth, and by cutting the level of program spending." That's the verdict from Wood Gundy.

[ Page 2112 ]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the only thing that this government has done is set record levels for debt in the province, and the problem is that when they set those record levels for debt, it costs future generations of British Columbians. It undermines our health care and our education services.

What the Finance minister's own officials are telling him -- the same officials that told him he wasn't going to balance the budget in 1995 and he wasn't going to balance the budget in 1996 -- is that they are seeing that the NDP's financial performance has been incompetent. According to this briefing note -- this is the minister's own staff -- the provincial treasury has "deliberately avoided issuing new securities into the domestic market this fiscal year because there is a perception of uncertainty by investors regarding British Columbia."

Can the Finance minister confirm the fact that B.C.'s government is now primarily dependent on foreign investors to pay for new government debt?

Hon. A. Petter: You know, hon. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition refers to as debt translates to most British Columbians as hospitals, schools, roads and light rail transit -- the investments we have to make in a growing province.

What the Leader of the Opposition hasn't told this House is that the forecast for this year's budget is to reduce debt-servicing costs by $100. What he hasn't told this House is that the cost of servicing that debt in B.C. remains under 8 cents of every taxpayer dollar -- the lowest in Canada. I daresay that any homeowner paying less than 8 cents on the dollar to service their mortgage would think they're doing a pretty darned good job -- and this government is.

F. Gingell: I thank the minister for some more ammunition for my budget response.

For the past two years this government has told the public, the media and every critic of their budgeting competence that they had a debt management plan and that they were going to stick to it. The number one goal of the plan, quoting from last year's budget, was to ". . .maintain B.C.'s credit rating as the highest among the provinces in Canada." Yesterday this government abandoned its debt management plan by eliminating all reference to B.C.'s credit rating. They came in with some new plan: the last one is down the drain, so let's bring in another one.

The Speaker: Question, please.

F. Gingell: Can the Finance minister tell this House why he has pushed B.C. to the brink of a credit downgrade, which will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia millions in interest payments to the big, bad banks?

Hon. A. Petter: The financial management plan that is part of this budget is a plan that was recommended by private sector groups and endorsed by groups such as the Business Council of British Columbia. Those groups also seem to understand what the member opposite doesn't, and that is that in balancing the need to invest in the future of this province with fiscal prudence, we must ensure that we do not contribute to the problem. For that reason, the Business Council urged us to go slow in meeting the target of a balanced budget, in order to ensure economic recovery.

In this budget we have achieved a balance between the need to protect health care, education and jobs and the need to be fiscally responsible, and that is something I and every British Columbian should be very proud of.

F. Gingell: This government will add $1.4 billion to the province's debt in this year alone. Moody's bond-rating agency has already put B.C. under a credit review because of its budget fiasco. Now we have a Finance minister who is quoted as saying: "I don't expect you to believe me." Well, he's right. Why should anyone believe this minister or this government on anything they say about the budget, in view of what has happened in the past?

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is he confirming to British Columbia taxpayers and to bond-rating agencies around the world that their last budget was a hoax -- and a cruel one at that?

Hon. A. Petter: First let me say that when the member opposite talks about an increase in debt, $1.1 billion of that increase comes from investments in schools, investments in hospitals and investments in transportation facilities, which the members on that side constantly whine about out of one side of their mouth while complaining about debt out of the other side of their mouth.

What British Columbians are looking for is a plan to balance the need for those schools and hospitals, with a growing population, and financial management, and that's what we're delivering. The alternative, I suppose, would be to do what the members of the opposition would do -- what the Leader of the Opposition proposed: slash health care spending by a billion dollars, to $6 billion.

When the Leader of the Opposition, prior to the last election, said that $6 billion was enough to be spent on health care, he set this province on notice that he would have cut by a billion dollars what this government is investing in health care this year -- more than $7 billion. And we say no. We say that health care and education are too important.

CHILD PROSTITUTION

G. Wilson: My question is to the Attorney General. Last year the Attorney General established a prostitution unit that was designed specifically to arrest people who buy sex from children. That unit spent $335,000 last year, and is projected to spend another $400,000 this year. Can the Attorney General tell us why, after one year, with a rising number of children plagued by these parasites, this government has only laid two charges and has no convictions against those people who prey on our children?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The provincial prostitution unit is doing very focused investigatory work. I can tell you that they have been assisting the police forces across the province in carrying out those investigations. They themselves do not investigate anything in particular; they assist the forces with expertise and guidance. We have a special senior prosecutor attached to that unit, and two police officers -- one from the Vancouver police and one from the RCMP -- with other individuals attached to that unit.

The provincial prostitution unit is, in fact, at the cutting edge of this kind of focused work, so much so that the federal Department of Justice of the United States paid their expenses to go to Alabama to teach all of the United States of America what we're doing in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: Could the Attorney General tell us why -- if this money has been spent and if this unit is so effective -- the

[ Page 2113 ]

number of children estimated to be affected by child prostitution in the province has gone up by over 22 percent in the last nine years? And what has this government done in the last year to curb what seems to be an additional 4 percent increase?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have done everything to stem the tide of this scourge in British Columbia. It's important that we work in a focused fashion, and this provincial prostitution unit is working, and working vigorously. We're working with the police forces across the province. There have been some prosecutions in British Columbia where this unit has been instrumental in causing those arrests and causing those prosecutions.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING

K. Krueger: In May 1996, the Premier told the public that this government, if elected, would promote tourism rather than gambling expansion. Yet, through FOI applications, the official opposition has obtained an NDP briefing paper from September 7, 1995 -- eight months before that -- which notes "cabinet's recent decision to expand gaming."

Now, in a Legislature where the Leader of the Opposition can be ejected for asking the Premier to tell the truth, I raise this question with some trepidation. Nevertheless, I ask the Premier for the truth. Did this government make its decision to throw gambling expansion open in British Columbia before the 1996 election?

Hon. G. Clark: I think the question is a little hard to take from a political party that accepted money from gambling interests in British Columbia, that said that the gambling promoters. . . . The gambling operators in this province said the Liberal Party had the most pro-gambling policy of any party in British Columbia. Do the members deny that they took money from the Great Canadian Casino Co.? Do they deny that the principals in that company were active. . .

Interjections.

Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .on their campaigns in the last election? Do they deny it? When he asks a supplementary, hon. Speaker, I ask the member to come clean and tell us how much money they took from gambling interests in the last election.

Our position is very clear, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, with this level of noise, quite frankly, I can't hear questions or answers. Therefore I'm very reluctant to cut anybody off.

Mr. Premier, will you wrap up your answer, and then I'm going to go back to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, we've said that with our gambling policy we will be protecting charitable gaming in this province. That is the thrust of gambling policy in this province. We have 16 or 17 charity casinos, and this policy, announced by the minister responsible, will protect the charity casinos in this province.

K. Krueger: Perhaps, as at the convention, the Premier should check who is funding his political campaigns.

British Columbians have overwhelmingly expressed their fear and disapproval of gambling expansion. This government said so repeatedly in 1994, 1995 and 1996. Yet from his very first day on the job, the Deputy Premier has made it clear that he is determined to see casinos built in B.C. and couldn't care less about the fears of our constituents. Therefore my question is again directed to the Premier, for he has agreed that his Deputy Premier is injudicious in his handling of these matters.

The question is: when did the Premier decide to betray the trust of British Columbians, his constituents, his party and even his caucus members, and let his Deputy Premier trample on the safety, security, rights and future of British Columbia's citizens?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to know: will this Liberal Party mail back the money they took from gambling interests in this province? Mail it back. How hypocritical to stand up here in this House, having accepted money from gaming interests! Mail it back, and then maybe you can stand up and ask these questions.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

[2:30]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: Minister. . . . I'm sorry, Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: I appreciate it. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I've had a couple of days now to think about the throne speech, and I must tell you that I had a great deal of difficulty matching up the words in the throne speech with what was actually taking place in British Columbia. There was something amiss, something that wasn't quite fitting together. Quite frankly, it didn't make any sense to me. Then I happened into the parliamentary library, and I found a book there which started to make clear the things that had been relatively hazy following the throne speech. It's a book written by William Lutz.

It's not a new book, but ironically it was published just before the NDP took power. It seems to have been the primer for writing the throne speech. It's called Doublespeak: How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You . It's a very catchy title, I'm sure you'll agree.

Let me read to you what Mr. Lutz has to say about doublespeak, because I think it helps all of us understand the throne speech. Lutz writes:

"Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the

[ Page 2114 ]

negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning."

I think Mr. Lutz has described the throne speech to a T. It's an NDP document that follows a dictum laid down over half a century ago by George Orwell. I'm sure the hon. members from the government will remember Mr. Orwell. He was the literary creator of Big Brother, and it was Orwell who wrote in 1946, over 50 years ago: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. . .political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness." Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure whim.

Hon. Speaker, this NDP government would have us believe that their words are carved in stone tablets, but we know that they are merely murmurings on the capricious wind. We know that it is deeds, not words, that matter with government. We know, and British Columbians know, that you can't trust a word this government says.

On page 6 of the throne speech which was handed out, you read these words: "My government is committed to these priorities in the context of prudent financial management. . . ." Mr. Speaker, big numbers don't mean very much to people; it's personal numbers and how the government's budgets and economies affect personal lives that make a difference. It's what happens in people's living rooms or, more importantly, what happens in their wallets that really matters. The government doesn't mention raising taxes in the form of large increases in ambulance fees.

But those who have an occasion to use an ambulance -- those who take that unfortunate ride, usually in very trying and often frightening circumstances -- will not be thrilled to know that they are going to get a sizeable bill afterwards.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Exactly. So much for this government's commitment to health care in the province. One of the members opposite raises the issue of rural areas. If she goes to her own riding and to the communities throughout the north, she will find out that this government has been destroying and eroding ambulance service throughout the interior of this province.

Richard Allen, the chief economist for the B.C. Central Credit Union, said the following about the government's claim to prudent fiscal management: "Those growth figures proclaiming to the world just how wonderfully well British Columbia is performing economically are a great sham when considered at an individual level."

What has really happened is that the performance of this government in the last year -- as we now know from the treasury's own documentation -- has lagged far behind the rest of the country. When we look at how much it costs us to issue a bond, we are behind every province in the country. We're dead last -- this from the province of British Columbia. There is not a place in the country that has greater potential. There is not a place in the country that has better people to take advantage of that potential, if only the yoke of government would be lifted from their backs so that people can pursue their goals and objectives without government interference.

In the last ten years, real economic growth in this province, per capita, has declined. People are worse off today than when this government took office -- people, hon. Speaker, people -- and after yesterday's budget they are worse off still. Here are some serious economic words.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I'm always glad to hear from the minister across, because he has been so truthful to his constituents with regard to forest renewal and other areas of activity.

Do you want to hear some serious economic words, not from the official opposition or from a political commentator but from an agency which has a huge impact on the province? Moody's Investors Service said that a review of British Columbia's domestic currency rating "is prompted by the continuing difficulties confronting the current government in instituting strategies necessary to restore fiscal balance and financial flexibility."

For the past two years, the province has enacted budgets which, although initially projected to be balanced, have failed to meet the target. The continuing poor financial performance reflects a lack of sufficient policies to address the deficit. Overall, the debt burden has worsened significantly, with debt measured as a percentage of gross provincial product increasing from 13 percent in 1991 to an estimated 20 percent in 1996. Moody's concern is that by not taking adequate actions during this period of favourable economic conditions, the province has left British Columbia vulnerable. Let me be very clear, hon.

Speaker. When Moody's says that, what they mean is that they have left the people of this province and the critical services of this province vulnerable to the silent killer of public health and public education and public safety: debt.

Since this government took office, the cost of government has grown 37 percent. Government is much better off. Unfortunately, people are worse off. They are less secure; they are more worried. Yet this government responds with the now classic quote from a member of the cabinet that government can do whatever it wants. On this side of the House, we do not believe that government is a public master. We believe that government should be a public servant.

Let's talk about some of the services that the government touched on during the throne speech. We hear a lot from this government about jobs. Even yesterday we heard from the Minister of Finance that he was going to create 40,000 new jobs in the province. What the minister doesn't understand, what the government doesn't understand, but what people understand in this province is that government doesn't create jobs. The private sector creates jobs.

The government has said that it wants to secure existing jobs, yet its resource sector policies, its tax policies and expending policies have driven thousands and thousands of jobs out of the province. The throne speech says that the government must do "everything in its power to maximize the job capacity of B.C.'s economy. . . ."

Let's assume that the government really means that. Let's assume that they really want to put together a plan that will deliver on maximizing the job-creating capacity of the province. What would they have to do?

An Hon. Member: Quit.

G. Campbell: "Quit" is a good answer.

First, we'd have to re-establish the credibility of B.C.'s public service. How do we do that? We pass merit employment legislation that strips patronage out of the public service.

[ Page 2115 ]

People in the public service notice that since this government took office, it's easy to talk about reducing jobs; it's reducing the professional jobs in the public service. You don't hear this government -- you don't hear the NDP -- talking about eliminating patronage. There has not been one patronage job that's been lost and eliminated for good, and I can tell you that the sooner we eliminate patronage in the province, the better off all of our public institutions are going to be. We will present this House with merit employment legislation and, hopefully, the government will join us in passing it.

Hopefully, some members of the government will join us in passing it. We only need five or so to stand up for merit employment in the province, and that may be possible.

We must also pass truth-in-budgeting legislation. Time and time again we hear from people in this province, from the Kootenays to Vancouver Island and from the Peace River to the northwest, consistently saying that they don't believe what this government says. We must pass truth-in-budgeting so that we can restore the taxpayers' confidence in the financial information they are receiving. No more manipulation; the straight goods. This is the taxpayers' money we're talking about. No more speeches and no more games like we saw with yesterday's budget, just the truth and only the truth when it comes to people's financial situation.

[2:45]

We have to pass one more piece of legislation as a start, and that's balanced-budget legislation. This government continues to build debt upon debt upon debt. It is the fastest- growing cost of government, and we must bring it to a halt and start paying it down. Balanced-budget legislation will help us do that.

Finally, but more importantly than any piece of legislation that we could pass, people have to know that this government can be trusted -- that any government can be trusted. Today people don't believe that, and it's not too surprising when you look at the record.

Let's talk about Forest Renewal B.C. for a second. I hope that over the last few months many members of government have taken the time to go and talk with people in forest-dependent communities, because I believe that they now understand the depth of the betrayal by this government of those communities. Remember hearing in this House, hon. Speaker, that no one will ever dare to touch the forest renewal fund?

Remember even in the last session, when the minister was confused about the fact that the Premier had sent his own political operatives and deputy minister to the Forest Renewal board to say: "We want those dollars from you"? And they went out across the province and said to people in British Columbia: "There's a surplus." There was no surplus.

I can recall visiting a small resource-dependent town. I was walking down the main street when a young man waved me over to his truck and said: "Mr. Campbell, don't stop the fight to protect Forest Renewal B.C. I had a job, and I was told that I would get an opportunity at Forest Renewal B.C." He got paid $10 an hour, and when this government was saying there was a surplus, he was laid off. His job wasn't finished; the project wasn't finished. But as he said to me, someone flew up to him on a $750 helicopter ride to say: "Sorry, there's no money left." So what was happening to that person?

He lost his job in the mill. He had left the mill, and he had found that, in fact, he was going to leave. . . .

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I'd be glad to get the member his name, if he'd like his name, because I'm sure he'd pay attention. And maybe he'll vote against the government's theft of $100 million from Forest Renewal B.C. I'll give you the name. You go out with us. We'll protect Forest Renewal.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I'm glad the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has now given us a commitment that he will vote against the taking of $100 million from Forest Renewal B.C., which was passed in yesterday's budget.

The problem is that the government went and said to people: "Well, we'll take the $400 million, because there's a surplus." And then the government said: "Well, gee, we're getting a lot of flak from people for doing that, so maybe we won't take it. In fact, maybe we'll protect it again." And then what happened was that we got to the budget yesterday, and we found that this minister, this government, had taken $100 million and more from Forest Renewal funds for the general operations of government. Here is a government that claims to worry about forest-dependent communities, and it spends 85 percent of the budget on administration and advertising costs.

Let's just look for a minute at the people from those forest-dependent communities. Go and talk to the people in Kamloops; talk to the people in Williams Lake; talk to them in Terrace and Smithers. Ask them: "Do you think a good use of Forest Renewal money is to run an advertising campaign in greater Vancouver?" Of course they don't, hon. Speaker. These people and their lives here are being affected by this government's policies. Ask them in Terrace or Smithers how they feel about a government that in fact wants to advertise more, to spend more on bureaucracy, instead of taking care of those forest-dependent communities and their families.

I was just in Terrace last week, actually, and one person came up to me. He was out of work. His daughter needs glasses. He decided he couldn't afford to buy his daughter glasses. . . .

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I do need glasses, you're right. I don't think you should go after my handicap like that. Just because I need glasses is no big deal.

This young woman needs glasses. She's not a young woman. She's a young girl, in grade 4, and she's been told she needs glasses. Her family went to the place where you get glasses. They couldn't afford the glasses. They were out of work; they don't have a future. The father doesn't know whether or not he's going to have a job next week or next month or next year. They can't afford their glasses. They have to pay first, and if they don't pay for their glasses, their daughter is going to be out of luck. Ask members of forest-dependent communities if they can trust this government, and they will say no, they can't.

What about the tourism industry? Last April alone, this government announced that they were going to provide $24 million to $25 million for the tourism industry. There was an election, and within months, they have unilaterally changed the agreement. They are sending fees and taxes. . . . They are increasing taxes, and they are reducing support to the tourism industry, which is one of the major engines of economic growth in this province.

Ask homeowners and small businesses and renters if they trust this government. It was just two years ago -- 1995 --

[ Page 2116 ]

when the government made an agreement with the municipalities of the province and, through them, with the homeowners and the property tax payers of British Columbia. For a $250 million surplus, which was waived by those municipalities, they were promised stability, predictability and certainty. What the local taxpayer got from this government was the shaft.

The fact of the matter is that this government is increasing the taxes on every homeowner and small business and renter in the province this year, even while it is pretending to worry about those people. They are downloading provincial roads next year; they are downloading policing costs. The government that claims it cares about public safety is downloading policing costs on local communities, so they can't afford to provide those services. Two broken promises in one is a new record for the government; municipalities and taxpayers both have been betrayed.

This side of the House is going to fight to make the government keep its word to those local taxpayers and those municipalities throughout this session.

Hon. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that you cannot build a strong economic future and a strong job base on a foundation of distrust. Investment will flee the province, and that's exactly what is happening now. Between 1990 and 1996, the level of real capital investment actually declined by 13 percent in the province. If you don't have private sector investment, you don't have jobs. Even members on that side of the House should understand that. Rather than doing everything in its power to maximize employment capacity, this government is driving investment away. Remember the promise of no new taxes?

Here we go with doublespeak at its best. "No new taxes" -- what has really happened? Instead of calling government-imposed costs taxes, they call them fees. Just the other day, the Premier was asked if there will be a fish-landing tax. "No," he says, "it won't be a tax. It will be a fee." I'm sure the fish and the fishermen will understand the difference between those two. What they will know is that it's more money out of their pockets.

Seniors' costs are increasing. Snowplowing fees are being removed. New probate fees have been added, which will be a cost on every middle-income family in the province -- and a huge cost, regardless of their ability to pay. Even for a widow who has to transfer the joint ownership of a vehicle, there is going to be a tax on that widow. If it's a tax, if they can charge it, if they can call it a fee, they will in fact issue an increase. They will send you a bill. They will take more out of your pocket.

So what we know with this government is that though they promised no new taxes, we are getting more new taxes. Though they promised that they would have prudent financial management, we are watching as more debt is built up and more jobs are driven from the province. This is not about one British Columbian or one group of British Columbians. It's about all British Columbians who suffer at the hands of this government. It's all British Columbians who are having to pay the price for their incompetence. It's all British Columbians who have to pay the price for this government's intimidation -- seniors and young people alike.

Remember last year's Guarantee for Youth? The guarantee for youth is that they will pay more taxes and get less services in the future, if this government stays around. The guarantee for youth is no more jobs. Last year alone, there were 8,000 less jobs for young people than there were in 1995. And the guarantee continues, unfortunately, because yesterday we found out that the youth of this province are guaranteed an additional $1.4 billion of debt. What we are going to do is fight for the young people of this province so they have jobs, so they have opportunity, so they can pursue their dreams in the province again.

What do you really have to do if you're going to encourage jobs? You have to go back and discover how to encourage investment, how to encourage people to hire our young people. This government doesn't understand that yet. They have attacked business, and they have attacked small business. They have provided additional fees and additional wages and additional regulation and additional red tape, but they have done nothing to encourage the creation of new jobs in this province. What they have done is that they have damaged the future of this province. They have damaged the industries they claim to support.

Think of the forest industry for a minute. I can remember a year ago when the then Minister of Forests stood up and said that he really didn't care what the forest industry said to him and that if they didn't like working in British Columbia, they could sell their opportunities; they could sell their enterprises. The fact is that people are fleeing British Columbia today because of our forest policies in this province, and people in British Columbia are frightened because of our forest policies in this province.

The Forest Practices Code must be revised, because if the Forest Practices Code isn't revised we are going to find that what happened to the mining industry in this province is going to happen to the forest industry: it's going to be decimated.

This government continues to pursue one-size-fits-all solutions. They continue to believe that there are only two forests in British Columbia. They continue to ignore the pleas of workers, companies and the communities that are saying: "Please, make some sense." They ignore the concerns of their own professionals in the public service who are saying that they are spending all their time filling out piles of paper. That has nothing to do with protecting the environment. That has nothing to do with good forestry and nothing to do with protecting family incomes in the province.

In 1996 alone, over 495,000 pieces of paper were filed with the government to try and get cutting permits. If that's not bad enough, there were over 500,000 pieces of paper that had to be filed in amendments to those cutting permits. People in the government's Forest Service and people who work in the woods are saying they can't do their jobs because they're inundated with paper. Unfortunately, that has a huge impact on people's lives.

You can't sit here in Victoria and pretend that's not happening. Certainly the member for Skeena can't sit here in Victoria and pretend it's not happening. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine can't sit here in Victoria and pretend it's not happening. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke can't pretend it's not happening. The member for North Island can't pretend it's not happening. But they sit there mute while their communities go and ask for a voice in the Legislature.

The important thing that we have to do in this province is recognize how important our forests are. We have to start listening to the people who are involved in those communities and asking them for their assistance. This government has failed. We have to try another approach. Our approach would be to ask people in communities how they would solve their problems and how they would sustain not just the environment but their jobs and their families.

[3:00]

I would like to speak just briefly about Forest Renewal. We have watched now as that hopeful -- at one point -- tool

[ Page 2117 ]

has in fact followed the path that we in the opposition felt it would. It has become bureaucratized; it has become politicized; it has become ineffective. It is no longer serving the needs of the people it was supposed to serve. So I suggest that this government, rather than pretending everything is all right, start to amend Forest Renewal B.C., not as a political tool but as a tool for the communities and the families that live and work in forest-dependent communities. They should depoliticize the Forest Renewal board. Take all the ministers and all the government employees off that.

They should leave money that's generated into Forest Renewal in the communities themselves, and they should eliminate all the grand public advertising that has been carried out by the Forest Renewal board, which has nothing to do with taking care of forest families in British Columbia.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. Speaker, doublespeak is not just how you say things; it's what you don't say. When you talk about a government that people can't trust, you cannot go through the throne speech and not recognize two major areas of concern to the people of British Columbia that this government is now approaching. On the one hand, the government says in the throne speech that they are going to fight the tobacco companies because of the problems they create, because of the addictions they create, because of the health care costs they create for all of us in the province, because of the damage they do to people's lives.

On the other hand, this government brazenly goes out and says, "We are going to expand gambling in the province," in spite of the fact that it's clearly addictive behaviour, that it destroys families and that it creates huge social costs and problems in communities. In spite of all those things, this government is going to expand gambling in the province.

This side of the House is going to do everything in our power to stop the expansion of gambling in the province, because we know that's what makes the most sense for British Columbia. I say today, as I said yesterday, that I hope members on the government side of the House will stand up and speak for their principles. I hope they will stand to stop the expansion of gambling in British Columbia. I recognize that may be a problem for some on the government side, but I hope they will stand for their communities and for their constituents.

No-fault insurance. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about a government that has decided that they know best. They are going to take away victims' rights. They are going to take away the access that people have to the courts, because this government believes that government can do whatever it wants. We're going to do everything we can to stop them from doing that.

The throne speech gives a government the chance to lay out a plan for the future. It gives a government a chance to remember that, really, what our governing institutions should do is to draw on the things that are best: our common goals, our common objectives. Government can be the glue that holds us together. Unfortunately, this is a government that works hard to divide us. It works hard to divide British Columbians along class lines, along regional lines -- any lines it can think of. I believe that, once again, this government has missed an opportunity to remind British Columbians of their common goals and their common objectives.

Unfortunately, we have a government that has lost its way, and the problem will not be for the members opposite. They'll still get their cheques. The problem will be for thousands of families in British Columbia who won't get cheques. The problem will be for thousands of children in British Columbia who won't get the education they deserve and for thousands of patients in British Columbia who won't get the health care they deserve. The problem will be for British Columbians, hon. Speaker, who face millions and millions more in debt and less and less in critical services.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this throne speech. . . . Perhaps the most disturbing gap that exists is between what a throne speech in a legislature in a democratic community can be and what we have. The throne speech, hon. Speaker, is a symbolic opening, an opportunity for a new beginning. It's a symbol of our democratic processes and our ideals, and here's a government delivering its words on the wind, while at the same time it is actively pursuing the denial of freedom of speech to individual British Columbians and to organizations across this province.

This government is prosecuting individuals and groups for daring to speak up and to stand for what they believe in. One would have hoped that the throne speech would have talked about restoring freedom of speech and rejuvenating our public institutions, but that is not what has happened. This is a government that is pursuing the prosecution of individuals and organizations under a gag law that has been passed in British Columbia. Every single jurisdiction in Canada has shown that it's unconstitutional, yet we are pursuing those people.

We are creating burdens on them because they dared to disagree with this government. They dared to participate in a democratic exchange of ideas and dialogue, and this government is prosecuting them.

The government that sits there and says it can do anything it wants is prosecuting the people who are standing up for our democratic ideals in this province. George Orwell's Big Brother would be proud of this government, hon. Speaker, but the rest of us say: "Shame on a government that will deny free speech and gag full participation of all British Columbians in our democratic processes."

This is a great province. Nowhere will you find such a place, such a people and such promise. Such a place and such people deserve more than doublespeak. They deserve more than Big Brother. They deserve honesty, integrity and hard work -- pure and simple. They deserve the truth.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am very pleased to be able to rise, after what has been a complete downer and a negative speech, to speak about all the wonderful things that have happened in my riding since I last had the opportunity to address the Legislature. Instead of taking an approach that is old, out of date and negative, and really quite ill-informed, I'm going to tell you, hon. Speaker, about the changes that have occurred in East Vancouver since we last met here.

The changes are substantial. The changes have had a very positive effect on our neighbourhoods in East Vancouver, and they have literally changed the way our children exist, the way our seniors exist, and the way we reside among parks and safe neighbourhoods. So let me just describe some of the changes that have taken place in the last year or so.

We're getting a new park. We have Hastings Park. For the very first time in a hundred years, Hastings Park is going to be used for what it was meant to be, which is a place of greenery -- an active place where families can play together and exercise together. It is a place where we will restore to our neighbourhood, for the very first time ever, some forest that has not been there and streams that have not been there for decades. It will become a safe haven for us in East Vancouver -- long overdue.

[ Page 2118 ]

We came to this conclusion of bringing about a park through consensus and through working together as a neighbourhood. We had to convince our city governments to do this, but they did come on board. We had the full support of the Crown corporation there -- the Pacific National Exhibition -- and we had a strong neighbourhood committee. My office and I worked with the people in the neighbourhood, and we now are moving forward on what I would say is going to be the first-best park in Vancouver. Others would say it's the second-best, after Stanley Park. Nevertheless, it will be competitive with Stanley Park, and that is great news.

We have more buses on our streets than ever, and we have more buses coming. We have light rapid transit coming to my neighbourhood so that people can actually do what they want to do, which is to get out of their cars, get on the buses and move around. We're investing in light rapid transit. The opposition party says that's horrible. They say it's terrible that we'll be building light rapid transit and that we should worry about the fact that we're building it -- that somehow it's an absolute disaster that we're building light rapid transit. I say to them that they're wrong. My neighbours know they're wrong.

My neighbours know that they don't understand the first thing about investments for the future. They think it's all about some relationship with the bank, some relationship that somehow the money we invest from our taxes is all just put into the air. They don't understand that we're investing in light rapid transit, in more buses and in schools. We're investing in hospitals.

We're investing in Magee Secondary. I was so surprised that the Leader of the Opposition -- maybe I missed it; I could have missed it -- didn't give any notice to the fact that Magee Secondary. . . . I may be wrong; I could be wrong. Maybe he did mention it. Maybe he did say: "Yes, we're building Magee Secondary." But you know what? I don't think I misheard it. From that, I take it that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't want Magee Secondary School built. That's the message I got from the Leader of the Opposition.

He said: "Don't spend the $1 billion in investment in capital spending." He didn't say yes for Magee Secondary School. The only conclusion I can come to on that basis is that he disagrees with the building of Magee Secondary School. And you know what? I think that's shameful. I really do, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition has the nerve to actually put it on the record soon that he disagrees with the building of Magee Secondary School.

In my riding, hon. Speaker, we have a beautifully renovated heritage-building school -- Hastings school. We invested $7 million as a government to renovate this school, and that is excellent news for the 500 students who go there. We have more day care spaces in our neighbourhood than we've ever had before, and that's excellent news for all those young people who are entering the workforce because of Youth Works.

We have thousands of families now who are getting the B.C. family bonus and are eligible for the Healthy Kids program. It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know about the Healthy Kids program. I hope he is listening to my speech so he actually knows what good things are going on in this province. We have thousands of families in East Vancouver who now get a cheque from our government every month that they never got before.

Every week I have people in my neighbourhood coming up and quietly saying to me: "Thank you very much. The B.C. family bonus is making a real difference to me and my family. For the very first time, I have some extra money to support my family with my day-to-day living expenses." And you know what, hon. Speaker? But for the NDP-Glen Clark government, that B.C. family bonus would not be here, and that's excellent news for my constituents.

We have thousands of young people in East Vancouver earning the highest minimum wage in Canada. And you know what? If it weren't for the NDP-Glen Clark government, those young people would have to go for four years without an increase in the minimum wage, because that's the commitment the opposition party made. "We will not raise the minimum wage for four years," they said during the last election, so I say thank gosh we have an NDP government here and that our young people are now earning the highest minimum wage in Canada.

We have dozens of children who for the very first time are studying Japanese and Mandarin as part of their regular curriculum. For the very first time, they are actually studying those in their classrooms, and that's because we have an NDP government that's committed to those kinds of programs. Punjabi classes are coming, and that's good news as well.

We have thousands of young people living in East Vancouver and going to post- secondary institutions who would not have been able to do so because there wouldn't have been spaces for them a mere five years ago. Now those spaces are available, and my neighbours are going to post-secondary institutions because of our government. And you know what? Their tuition is frozen. Now, I know that the opposition party disagrees with freezing tuition rates for post-secondary students, but my neighbours are thankful that last year their tuition fees were frozen.

This year, once again, the Clark government is freezing tuition fees. I know the opposition party will disagree with that, but I say, on behalf of my constituents, thank you very much.

What that means is that the average tuition fee for all British Columbians is $1,500 per year. Do you know what the Canadian average is? Probably what the opposition party would say is too low. The Canadian average is $2,500 a year. That means there's $1,000 going into the pockets of every single student in this province because of our government, and the opposition party would disagree with that.

[3:15]

I must say that there's more to be done in my neighbourhood; there is no question about it. It takes longer than one term. Thank God we've got a second term, but it's going to take a lot of effort to do all the things that are necessary in my neighbourhood.

Let me just bring one case to you, hon. Speaker, and that's the issue of MacDonald school. I have a school in my riding that is among the poorest in all of Canada. It is a wonderful neighbourhood in which they reside. I work with those parents every month, and I meet with them regularly. There are some extremely dedicated teachers at that school. Some of you may have seen them in the media recently -- very dedicated teachers. And yet we have a way to go toward eradicating the deeply entrenched poverty that faces the parents and the children in that neighbourhood. We're trying, with a lot of resources.

We have the Kids at Risk program that our previous government -- the Harcourt government -- brought in. We're investing tens of thousands of dollars in the children who attend MacDonald school.

We've created the new Ministry for Children and Families to protect children and to make sure that all the services in our neighbourhood are integrated, and it's working. It's working in the face of some very adverse conditions. We've brought in the Healthy Kids program, where for the first time

[ Page 2119 ]

But we simply have not conquered poverty there yet. There is more to be done, and we're trying. We're trying hard. We're working with the parents and with our neighbours. We're working with our teachers, and we're working with the children themselves. We're building a solution by working together. We're not building a solution by being confrontational, or by saying that it isn't proper to invest in these children or that we should have cut back and should have balanced the budget. We're not taking the approach that balancing the budget is the end itself.

We may say it's the means to an end and that we will get there and will work hard to get there. But in the meantime, we're going to use our government resources to support the parents, the teachers and the children who live in poverty near MacDonald school. And that's the difference between us and them.

I am actually very glad to be a member of an NDP government so that my constituents can benefit totally from the commitments our government has made. I am glad that we are protecting quality health care, education and a clean environment. I'm glad that we're meeting the needs of British Columbians by creating jobs. Frankly, I don't think I would have the energy to be as desperate, as negative, as deceitful, as unsure, as ill-informed and as narrow-minded or elitist as a B.C. Liberal. I just don't think I would have the energy to do that. I don't think I would have the energy to have no new ideas.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually listened very carefully to the previous speaker. I listened with great care for some new ideas. I listened with great care for the Leader of the Opposition to bring some positive ideas and debate to this Legislature, and I didn't hear one positive idea. Do you know what I say to that? Shame on him!

I also am extremely disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition. He had to resort to name-calling because he has no new ideas. He has nothing else to offer, and for that I am extremely disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition.

This session is actually a very positive time for us to bring forward new ideas. This session is about meeting the needs of British Columbians as we head into the next century. Three years from now, we are into the next millennium, and our government is committed to bringing about jobs, quality health and education, and a clean environment. We are focusing on job creation so that our kids have opportunities to work at decent, stable jobs. We are protecting and improving our health care system -- and I want to say more about that in a minute -- so British Columbians have the health services they need when they need them.

We are investing in our education system so our kids can get the education they need to find those good, stable, competitive jobs. What kind of jobs are we actually investing in? What kind of positive initiatives is our government bringing forward? Well, let me just name a few that affect my constituents directly.

Our fisheries need help. It isn't just about coastal constituencies; it isn't just about Richmond-Steveston. The fishing industry impacts on the constituents in my riding directly, and that's why we're pushing hard for a fair, effective Pacific Salmon Treaty and a bigger role for our government -- for B.C. -- in managing and conserving the fish. The federal responsibility isn't working now, and my constituents are being directly affected by that through loss of jobs as shoreworkers and in fish-processing jobs.

Our government is going to create a new partnership with everyone involved in the fishing industry, including my constituents. Fisheries Renewal B.C. will invest the profits back into the fishery to protect jobs and fish, and that's good news for my constituency.

We're also going to keep up and enhance the measures to encourage B.C.'s growing film industry. I was very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition didn't give any recognition to the benefit his own constituents get from the investments we make in the film industry and from our good working relationship with that industry. I have actually spent a lot of time working with those in the film industry. We've got a new training and apprenticeship program that is making our workforce in the industry world-class, and it's having immediate payback. Our film industry is going to be fully booked for two years, and there's much more to be done.

I was very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition chose to berate and really downgrade the efforts of young people who have moved from welfare to work. I was very disappointed that he didn't give recognition to those young people who have gotten off welfare, who have taken advantage of Youth Works and are now in the workforce. It has been a success, and we are committing to generating 12,000 more new job opportunities for young people this year alone. My constituents will benefit from that, and that's good news.

Let me talk for a minute about why it's so important for my constituents that we have an NDP government led by Glen Clark and not a Liberal government led by Gordon Campbell. I'm talking about the issue of health care here. I'm talking about our investing more money in health care than any other jurisdiction in Canada. In fact, we've done more in this budget than the opposition parties said they'd do in the first half of their entire term. This year alone, our government is increasing the health care budget by 4.3 percent. We've actually said that our health care system needs $7.3 billion.

Hon. Speaker, Gordon Campbell said that $6 billion is plenty. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry. Hon. Speaker, I retract.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member, as Government House Leader, well knows that this is not the first time she has used proper names in the House but the second time. Second, she is using props. She is aware of both those rules, and I would say that what she is doing is flagrantly disobeying the order and the rule of this House.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for the point, and I am sure the hon. minister will take that into consideration.

[ Page 2120 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am truly suitably chastised. It is the first week back; it takes a while to get up to speed. I do apologize to those I have affronted. . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .and I won't take the suggestion from the member for Matsqui that we use improper names. I know he is just trying to be funny, and I'm sure he will be successful at it very soon.

I think it is good news that our government has chosen as part of its health care plan to invest in building new hospitals, new nursing homes and new community health centres. I know that we have put in the necessary amount of dollars to invest in the infrastructure of our health care system, in capital equipment, and I know that we have done the proper job of investing the right amount of money in our capital plan for the buildings that are necessary. I also know that if we had elected a Liberal government we would have been in deep trouble in that area.

We would have been in deep trouble as a province if we had left it up to them to decide how much money we should have invested in hospitals. It isn't just because they didn't have the commitment to build hospitals; it was because they couldn't figure out the math around how much money had to be invested in hospitals, either.

Let me just tell you what their plan said -- and I won't use a prop. I promise not to use a prop, hon. Speaker, but let me just read. Oh, I'm sorry -- I need glasses. I have glasses. This is from the economic plan of the Liberals: hospital capital spending is budgeted at $380 million over the term. Okay, keep that figure in mind: $380 million. During that time, they said that a medium-sized hospital is about 300 beds, for a total of $120 million each. Write that down: $120 million for a hospital. Therefore we could build at least four medium-sized hospitals over the term. Okay, 120 times four is $480 million.

Oh, my gosh, they've budgeted $380 million. Did they tell the truth? Was that the truth? Oh, my goodness, there's a $100 million math error. Thank God they didn't get elected. That's good news for hospitals in this province. We got our math right. We're committed to building hospitals. We invested the money, and we're doing it.

You know, hon. Speaker, I feel so limited by not being able to use props, but I will just make reference to one more area in which, thank gosh, we have an NDP government and we don't have a Liberal government. That would be the area of education. Thank goodness our government has increased the funding for education, has increased our commitment to capital spending for schools and has put in place 9,900 new post-secondary spaces -- and that we've actually put it in the budget. We didn't forget to put it in the budget.

I just fear for the day that we have a budget tabled by a government that forgets about post-secondary education. Let me just remind the hon. members: "Campbell Admits Education Gaffe." Asked why the Liberals did not include post-secondary spending. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. minister, excuse me. I think we've slipped again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Should I keep it on the paper?

Deputy Speaker: No, I'm sorry. It's the issue of naming names.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, let me put my hands behind my back. Asked why the Liberals did not include post-secondary spending in the economic plan's list of protected funding areas, Campbell said. . . .

An Hon. Member: No, don't say Campbell.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm quoting: "I can't. . . ."

An Hon. Member: Your credibility is slipping, too.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh. Well, what the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, said is: "I can't tell you why we did it. We just did it." Oh, my goodness! Thank goodness we won, and they lost. That's the good news.

[3:30]

Hon. Speaker, it's the beginning of a new session that is going to be exciting and focused. We're focusing on jobs. We're protecting health care. We're enhancing education, and we're protecting a world-class environmental record. I am so proud to be part of a government that makes that the commitment on behalf of British Columbians.

G. Wilson: The House will perhaps forgive me if I change the tone somewhat and speak more of the larger issues that I think are important for us to consider as we consider 1997 and the years to come. I would say at first that I am honoured to represent my constituency, Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Once again, I thank my constituents for their support, which was overwhelming at the time of the last election. For that, I am most grateful, and I will do what I can to make sure that I honour that commitment.

It seems to me that we in British Columbia are at a bit of a crossroads not only with respect to our economy but in the direction in which our government has to proceed. I'm not going to go through the Speech from the Throne line by line or clause by clause, but rather, I would like to talk about several issues I think are important. The Minister of Health suggested that she would like to hear ideas, and I am prepared to provide some ideas on some areas that I think are of crucial importance to the people of British Columbia.

There has been a lot of talk about jobs and training. There's a lot of talk about how we in British Columbia have to refocus on youth and make available to youth a sense of hope that they have long-term employment that is going to be not only available to them but available at income levels that will allow them the opportunity to live a life of dignity and to share and enjoy the wealth we take for granted today.

I fear, however, that we are not going to do that if we continually focus strictly on the matter of training and skills development without paying equal attention to the desperate and urgent need to put money into research and development that will allow us the opportunity to break into new areas, into new ventures, and to broaden the base of our economy in the province so that we no longer will be quite as dependent and reliant upon a primary extractive economy -- namely, forestry, fishery and mining -- as we have in the past.

Let me say that I don't believe for a moment that ten or 15 or 20 years down the road, forestry, fishing and mining will no longer be the most important areas of our economic concern. I believe they will be, because they are for the most part manageable and for the most part will provide us with long-term security with respect to our primary income.

But if we are to be successful as a province, we are going to have to meet new and difficult challenges. Those challenges are threatened not so much by the activities and actions within

[ Page 2121 ]

our borders, and often not even by actions that this government or any subsequent government might be able to engage in, but by an increasingly competitive market abroad, an increasingly shrinking economy globally -- and I'm speaking figuratively now -- and the need for us to remain as competitive as possible by investing in the people of British Columbia and allowing the people of British Columbia to become owners of their economy and not tenants within their own province.

I am gravely fearful that in the Speech from the Throne there has not been a focus on the need to rethink the way that we own the primary resource base in British Columbia. Now, I don't mean this as an attack on the major forest companies, because I believe they are a very important, if not crucial, aspect of our economy. But there is no mention in this Speech from the Throne of the need for tenure reform.

We must reform the manner by which we allocate our forest resources, to ensure our communities -- our interior communities, our coastal communities -- that they will have access to the very timber that grows within their regions, within their boundaries, and that they will have an opportunity to use the wealth that comes out of the access of that timber within their communities, so they can invest in job opportunities at home and not simply have to concentrate more and more on the urban densities that we already see in the urban triangle between Vancouver, Nanaimo and Victoria.

In short, the Speech from the Throne does not address the urgent need to redirect our investments to the interior of the province, the north of the province, the coastal communities -- the areas that generate the wealth that we so neatly budget and spend here in the capital city of Victoria as elected members of government.

Hon. Speaker, I have a suggestion. I have a proposal in this response to the Speech from the Throne, one that I've been working on for some time now, that the Premier is aware of, that I know the Minister of Forests -- who I've just talked with -- and certainly the Minister of Finance are aware of, and others: that is to look at Forest Renewal B.C. and recognize that there is a large sum of money, some $1.3 billion, available to us. Much of that money is destined for community-based project work; spacing, reforestation, other kinds of activities that are forest-related and forest-based.

Rather than have FRBC institute a new structure that will run parallel to or perhaps even transplant the Ministry of Forests' regions in the areas, I'm suggesting that what FRBC should do is take those dollars and put them directly on deposit in the community credit unions to allow community credit union boards -- which have representation from industry, the unions, small independent truck loggers and others that have an interest and concern -- to be able to allocate those moneys directly into their communities for that work.

I suggest credit unions for two reasons. First of all, they exist in far more prevalence than chartered banks. In fact, in many communities the only lending institutions that exist, in the interior and the north, are credit unions. Secondly, the record of B.C. Central Credit Union with respect to prediction of economy is by far and away the very best of any predicting agency in this province. Indeed, my party, the Progressive Democratic Alliance, in the last election used those projections. We were out by a few percentage points, but we certainly were closer than the chartered banks, which were used by other parties.

It seems to me that the credit unions also allow for the people who live in those communities to have ownership of those credit unions, to have shares in them. Therefore it facilitates what I said earlier -- that British Columbians will be allowed to become owners of their economy and not simply tenants in their country.

There is another good reason to do this. The administrative cost of FRBC, whether its only 20 percent, 24 percent, 30 percent, or 40 percent. . . . Different figures are used by different people who have different agendas, perhaps. I'm not quarrelling with what the figures are, because frankly I don't know -- although I have had a chance to meet with Mr. Stanyer, who I think is doing a good job as the president. He's under difficult circumstances right now, trying to deal with that issue.

There are two ways in which FRBC can reduce those administrative dollars. It can either reduce by putting a large amount of money into a number of large projects that are administered by the companies, which is one thing to do, or split those dollars -- to have some large projects but also some smaller community-based projects, which will be financed out of community-based boards through the credit union system. It seems to me that we should split those dollars.

I urge the Minister of Finance and others in his government to seriously consider the financial ramifications of that invested money sitting in those credit unions -- in terms of their operation, their own liquidity, their own ability to put money into investments in their community, to secure loans and to secure other business investments in the communities of the province. Think of what it would do to the community of Port McNeill, for example, or Port Hardy, Powell River, Sechelt or many of the communities elsewhere in the province.

I've spoken with many people -- people who are involved in the credit union movement, people in senior management positions with the IWA, people involved in forest companies, forestry people who are involved through FRBC and, indeed, even with the Premier -- on this issue, because I think it to be a good idea. We need to investigate this idea to its fullest, because it would streamline moneys going into the communities and make available in those communities an opportunity for those FRBC dollars to get invested directly. That's one way we can facilitate job creation: by allowing community ownership of a resource that is, after all, a public asset.

I'll be making reference in the latter part of my speech to the work I'm doing on the national unity question. But one of the things that's interesting, in going back and looking at the historical record and the Terms of Union when this province first joined the Confederation, is the fact that one of the things we insisted on was community ownership of our forest. Over the years, we have almost given it away, in huge blocks of tenure, to three or four major forest companies. The benefit and the resource of that forest-ownership question now needs to be reconsidered.

I restate: I don't say this as a slam in any way against the major forest companies. In fact, I think they would participate probably more effectively in a more open, more free and more competitive log market if we allowed the free enterprise system to work more directly with respect to a change in tenure systems.

I'd also say we have to start to get serious about what we mean when we talk about value-added production. We must understand. . . . There was a lot of rhetoric in the throne speech around matters of the environment. We have to get serious about the value of standing timber and the degree to

[ Page 2122 ]

which we diversify its value when we put it into various other forms. When we cut down a tree, we have taken the tree from its most valuable. . . . You cannot have it more valuable than when it's standing there retaining groundwater, feeding our atmosphere, involving itself in the ecosystem as nature and as perhaps our Creator intended it to do. As soon as we eliminate it, we have removed its primary value.

We must now make absolute value out of every single fibre within that tree, and we're not doing that. Our operations today still do not pick up what I estimate to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $350 million to $400 million of revenue potential as a result of salvage timber and a change in the manner by which the timber is scaled.

The way that timber is scaled and the scaling operations themselves must be challenged. I say to the minister that the scalers need some protection. We now need to work with scalers to provide them the opportunity, as they are agents of this government, because they're the ones that figure out how much the companies will be charged. They need to be protected by the statutes, the same statutes that protect other workers in the industry. They need to have that level of protection so that we can amend the manner by which logs are scaled. Provide protection to scalers, so that they don't get fired if in fact they decide they're going to blow the whistle on some unscrupulous contractors.

I hope the Minister of Forests hears that, because without that protection to scalers, I'll tell you that the continuing abuses will go on. And there are many; I know that some of them have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Forests. We can tighten up our revenue stream through our access to that kind of job protection for scalers.

Let me say also, on the salvage question, that we find that there are now many more opportunities, because of new technologies with respect to lamination of woods and with respect to the way that we can provide new wood product, not only for the log in its unfinished form but for log chip and for a whole variety of different cutting techniques that allow us an opportunity to put value to the production of mouldings, doors, panelling and a whole host of products that. . .we are now becoming quite sophisticated and able to do. So I say we need to define that value-added production. We need now to start to give priority to it, so that we have an opportunity to succeed.

I want to move now to the question of fisheries. I'm most pleased to hear that this government is taking the restoration, maintenance and protection of fisheries as a priority. It's something that I strongly believe in, and only partly because my family has a history of fishing. I've come from a family that were longtime commercial fishers. I know that when my grandfather was fishing on the coast, there were 78 canneries -- viable, active, operating canneries -- in coastal British Columbia. We're down to five, and soon to be down to two.

That's a symptom. It's a symptom of a very systemic problem we have in our province, because it not only reflects the changing nature of the economy around fishing but it reflects, more importantly, a substantive change in the way of life in coastal communities. Fishing is more than just a job; fishing is a way of life. Communities that have built up around the fishing industry enjoy a particular quality of life that is unparalleled anywhere.

My riding is a long coastal riding. It takes up almost half the coastline of the province. People are fearful now that the livelihoods that they have enjoyed, that their families before them have enjoyed and that they had hoped their children would enjoy will no longer be available. So I applaud this government if it is sincere and honest in its direction with respect to protecting and maintaining the fishing industry.

[3:45]

But let me say that if we're going to be serious about that, we are going to have to be bullish around the protection of British Columbia's interest in an international fishing agreement, in which Canada has consistently been hosed. We have been taken to the cleaners year after year after year. Why? Because Ottawa, in its ultimate wisdom -- and I point this at no political party or in any direction, because it has gone through both Liberal and Conservative administrations -- continually uses American figures to try and negotiate a Canadian position. That's wrong.

It's like going into a labour negotiation armed with the employer's figures on what you ought to be paid and negotiating that you ought to have the salary that they want, so they can knock you down.

We need our own run figures, our own catch figures. We need to do the research and development that will provide us the strength of information, so we can go to those negotiations and be powerful and win. If we don't, it doesn't matter how much we enhance the stocks here. All we're going to be doing is creating more fish in Canadian rivers to go out into the open water to be caught by American and foreign fishing fleets. That's not going to do anything for the inshore coastal or river fishery for the people of British Columbia.

So we need to get aggressive about how we deal with that international question. I'm pleased that the Premier has demonstrated some leadership on this question.

I think all parties in this House, regardless of their political stripe, will stand united on this question and send a message to the Prime Minister of Canada -- whoever that Prime Minister may be after the next federal election, but certainly to the Prime Minister who is in that chair today -- to say that British Columbians have had enough of having Ottawa sell off our coastal resources; that we demand that Ottawa take seriously the concerns of people who live in coastal British Columbia with respect to the fishery; and that they take a more aggressive role, a more aggressive stand, with our American neighbours, both to the north in Alaska as well as to the south of our borders.

I want to come to two other questions, because I know my time is short. It's difficult in this broad-ranging speech to get into detail on all the questions. I'm seriously concerned about the degree to which government is drifting, in its economic desire to get more revenue to government, to becoming addicted to revenues from gambling. This is wrong; this is just wrong.

Now, I know how difficult it is to balance a budget, because I've had an opportunity to spend time with people in the Ministry of Finance. I have had an opportunity over the last number of years to observe how the revenues to government are not always predictable. But, hon. Speaker, it tells me that this government has become bankrupt in its ideas and in its commitment to diversifying the economy if they're prepared to addict all British Columbians to gambling. Gambling causes more problems than it cures. There is no mandate from the members opposite to change, expand or in any way move toward a broader reference on gaming.

On the very first day of this House, I asked the members opposite if they would institute, as a standing committee, a committee that would look at tobacco, alcohol and gambling, because that would provide an opportunity for the Clark report and for the work that has been done by Mr. Enemark

[ Page 2123 ]

with respect to changing alcohol regulation. . . . And don't for a minute think that those two -- drinking and gaming -- don't go hand in glove, because they do. I wanted those reports to go to an all-party committee of this House so that we could study it, analyze it and take it to the people of British Columbia, so that they would have an opportunity to have input into it and give direction to us as their representatives in this House.

The government, sadly, said no. I think the reason they said no, hon. Speaker -- and I believe that I have documentation, which I'll come forward later on in this session to present -- is that the deal has already been cut. The deal has already been done. The letters have already been sent. Those people now licensed have already been given their marching orders. This government made a decision. It made a decision before they even went to their convention, where they said they wouldn't move on it until such time as at least their members had a chance to decide whether they wanted to change their position on gambling. That is not going to gain trust in British Columbia.

We will later in this session, I assure you, have this issue rise again, because I feel so strongly that if we become dependent on gaming, gambling -- that is, the taking of resources from people who most often are least able to sustain the loss, the poor who are betting on a million-dollar dream that somehow maybe they can make a break. . . . If we're going to become dependent on that revenue for health, education and social service funding, there will be no limit to the amount we will have to have.

It is the tip of a very large iceberg, because like income tax, which was put in to pay off the war debt. . . . A temporary measure: "Don't worry, guys, income tax is just a temporary thing to pay off the war debt." Now we've seen where it's got us: we're all indebted 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent. The same thing will occur with our dependency on gambling, because gambling is addictive. The government can be as addicted to gambling as anybody else, especially when it is demanded of them to put in place the kind of health, education and social services systems that we need. There are better ways to raise money than addicting the people of British Columbia to gaming.

I know there are members opposite who agree with what I'm saying; I know that. I'm hoping, hon. Speaker, that the very least the government will do is free their members to have a free vote on this question in this Legislative Assembly, so we can decide once and for all the wisdom of what is being proposed by a couple of members of cabinet.

Let me now move to the question of the national unity issue, which I have been asked to work on, because it's an important one. Let me first of all say that I'm delighted there seems to be cooperation from all quarters in this House. I've had an opportunity to meet with not only the members of government and the minister responsible but also with members representing on the standing committee with respect to matters on the constitution. I've had a chance to meet with the Leader of the Official Opposition and representatives of his caucus on this question, and also with members of the Reform Party. I think the cooperation that is being engendered around this initiative is encouraging.

I also say it's encouraging to see that there's going to be widespread cooperation from a variety of people in British Columbia, who will be asked to contribute either directly or indirectly to the process as it unfolds.

Thirdly, hon. Speaker, I'm delighted at the level of interest that is being shown right across this country by all parties -- except Ottawa, ironically enough, which perhaps is a symptom of things to come. But certainly in every province there has been widespread interest in what it is that we're attempting to accomplish.

I have to say that on this question of national unity, our papers -- the papers being prepared by Mr. Gibson, Mr. Munro and myself -- will have wide distribution, will have wide recognition, hopefully, and will certainly be available for people to give us responses and to be able to give us some opportunity to ascertain the feelings and directions of the people, so that there is a public process that will not exclude British Columbians in this most exciting and most necessary opportunity.

We know, as sure as those of us in this House sit here today, that after the next provincial election in the province of Quebec there will be another referendum. We know that. We know, hon. Speaker, how close we came to having a Yes vote succeed and how it was so narrow with respect to the No option on that referendum. So I say our work is timely and it's essential.

But what I want to report to the House today is how optimistic this work has made me become about the future of this country. I believe that we have found some avenues to pursue that are shared by Canadians all across the country, including the province of Quebec. I have good contacts now in Quebec, both within the official opposition and within the PQ government, as well as in the Bloc.

We are working, in developing these papers, to find new and better avenues for us to have an opportunity to advance not only a B.C. position but one that will spark debate right across the country about a renewal of this nation -- a nation that may not have the same structural format, might look to have institutional change and may in fact call for different power relationships between Ottawa and the provincial governments. But that will be an exciting proposition, because it will look toward economic and social opportunities for Canadians, so we can become excited about nation-building instead of lamenting national decay, which unfortunately is something we've seen over the last while.

So I'm extremely excited by this proposition, because it strikes me that one of the things we have been able to accomplish is to avoid the pitfalls that were so clearly open to those who went into the Meech and Charlottetown rounds. We are not going through the constitution clause by clause, line by line -- in fact, we've avoided it.

We're not talking about distinct society, because it doesn't mean anything to anybody anywhere in the country except for the Prime Minister in Ottawa. I urge the Prime Minister to get off that notion. Forget distinct society; it has no meaning to anybody in the province of Quebec. It has no meaning to anybody in the west. And the people in the Maritimes don't really understand it, although they think they're distinct -- in fact, they've turned around and said they are. In fact, there are a number of Newfoundlanders who want a recount on the 1949 vote that got them into this country.

But let me say that we do have to start to look at some of the changes before us. If we just take off the blinkers, if we become less fearful of change, if we're not afraid to question some of the institutions that we hold sacrosanct in this country and say that maybe there's a better way to do this. . . . Also, if we can start to focus on the root cause of Canadian malaise, and that is the loss of our independent political, economic and, I would even argue, social direction, caused by a creeping continentalization that is slowly taking over this country. . . .

[ Page 2124 ]

We were big-time losers in Canada when that free trade agreement was signed with the United States. We were even bigger-time losers when they decided to include Mexico in the NAFTA agreement. Let me say this: we have to build a strong economic alliance across this country, remove some trade barriers and develop a new direction for the Canadian economy that gives us a hope of what this nation is to be all about.

The only way we can accomplish it is if we put before the people a vision for this country of what Canada can be, should be and, with our good graces and good effort, will be. When we do, the people of British Columbia will play a lead role. We have a process now in place that will give us that opportunity and, I believe, will give hope to all British Columbians, and from us through Alberta right to the Maritimes -- hope for all Canadians -- that we will stand together in a renewed and vital nation that will provide us an opportunity to keep and protect that which we hold most dear.

That is our national identity, our ability as Canadians to make decisions as Canadians and, most importantly, to be owners in our country, not tenants to a creeping continental corporate world that is slowly trying to make us the hewers of wood and drawers of water ad infinitum and forevermore.

Hon. Speaker, I want to close by talking about a couple of matters that the Minister of Health raised to do with trust. You know, in closing this commentary on the Speech from the Throne, I would say that never before have British Columbians wanted -- in fact demanded -- more of their elected officials in terms of what we do, what we say, how we act and how we behave.

There is a great debate about the last budget -- whether it was deliberately manufactured, whether it wasn't deliberately manufactured, all those sorts of things. There are motions before this House that will be heard. In time, I think we will find out exactly how that came to pass. I don't want to focus on that in my comments today as much as I want to focus on something that's more important.

[4:00]

If we do not allow the level of decorum in this House to rise, if we do not as elected members start to conduct ourselves more directly to the business of the people of British Columbia and less directly to our own political agendas, if we don't stop fighting the last election, we are going to lose the respect of every single British Columbian, regardless of what political stripe we hold. If we as elected officials can no longer hold the respect of the people of British Columbia in this institution -- the institution of government -- we have lost a lot more than I think any of us would imagine.

We will lose more than just our seats. We will lose the very basic foundation upon which our democracy is based, and that is the ability to have people respect the institution of democracy, this Legislative Assembly.

So while I know there is going to be raucous exchange -- and I think a certain amount is in order -- it seems to me, hon. Speaker, that I'd like to leave with these words. During an election it's a bit of a game. You play the game to get elected. You do what you can, but you try to do it in an honest and forthright way. But once the election is over, it's business. We're charged with doing the business of the people of British Columbia. The government of the day sits opposite. The opposition sits here. Whether we like it or not, it's time for us to roll up our sleeves and work together, because all British Columbians depend upon us to do so.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I now recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate having the opportunity to follow two fairly distinguished speakers in this Legislature -- actually three, more importantly, I suppose: the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke first; the Government House Leader, who spoke second; and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who just completed his comments. I take to heart some of the words of the previous speaker and comments that he made with regard to this House and to the last election.

If I can just sidestep for a minute, I recall an occurrence in the very first sitting of the Legislature, when your colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon sat in the chair. I remember a comment by the member for Nanaimo, who is now the Speaker in the Legislature here in Victoria. There was an exchange; it was on private members' day. I took it to heart, because I think that member, who is now the Speaker, understands this place. He respects this place and has a sense of what goes on. It was an exchange that took place on a private members' day, which is generally fairly non-partisan and non-controversial.

It was in regard to a series of interjections that were made by myself and -- at that time, I believe it was -- the Opposition House Leader, the former member for Okanagan East.

The member for Nanaimo was ruled out of order continuously by the Speaker -- continuously. The member rose. . . . Actually, I think he should read that speech; I think it would be good for him to read his comments at that time. He talked about the Speaker and the Chair, and he said: "Let us be respectful; let us debate; let us be vigorous. But don't ever make us be nice."

This isn't a place where everybody gets along wonderfully. We come into this House with strongly held views. We come into this House with a history. We've worked hard to get here. We represent our constituents, and we fight for our constituents -- no matter which side of the House we're on. We fight vigorously. We sit in our constituency offices and we take the phone calls; we read the letters; we have the interviews.

We meet with our constituents, who have real problems, who have been, in their opinion -- and in many cases, in my opinion -- abused by the Workers Compensation Board, abused by ICBC, abused by a ministry or not treated fairly and with respect by the government. I'm sure that when those members sat in opposition before the previous, previous election, they got some of those calls. I know, because I've talked to some members who have been here longer than I have.

So we come to this House with passion. We come here some days even with anger, because we have to represent our constituents. And thank God we've got this House, hon. Speaker, because in other places around the world they don't have a place like this. They don't have a place that allows free and open debate. They don't have a place that allows passion. They don't have a place that allows that anger to come out and be discussed. They fight their battles on the streets. They fight their battles with bombs and guns and rocks and stones.

All you have to do is turn on the television any night and watch the international news and see what other people have to put up with in their daily lives. Thank heaven that we're lucky enough to have a place where people can be passionate, where they can be angry, where they can talk about that and sometimes even vent those feelings. Thank goodness we've got that, hon. Speaker.

When I sit here during question period, in particular, and see the students, the school children who come in here every year almost on a daily basis and watch what goes on in here, part of me feels a little awkward that this place gets so

[ Page 2125 ]

raucous, that this place is so animated. But at the same time, when I go out and talk to them, somebody always asks the question: "How come it's so loud? How come other people are talking when the person who's speaking is talking? We're not allowed to do that in our classroom." I talk to them and say to them the types of things that I've just said. This isn't a classroom. This isn't a debating society. This isn't a coffee party. This is a place where the people's business is done, and sometimes that business isn't very attractive. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes we disagree vehemently. And, hon.

Speaker, this is the place to do it. Not out on the streets. Quite frankly, not even in the corridors. This is where it should be done.

So I don't apologize for this place being raucous. I don't apologize for the passion members bring here. I don't apologize for the hard work members do in representing their constituents -- from all sides. I think it's something that makes this place strong and makes it important.

Hon. Speaker, I want to comment one thing about the previous speaker. I've made it my habit in the last number of years not to do so, but I do want to comment about one thing that he said. He opened his speech with a dissertation on Forest Renewal B.C. -- well thought out. I don't agree with everything he said, but it was interesting to hear his comments and interesting to hear his thoughts and his analysis.

But as I was listening, I recalled something he said in the House last time, less than a year ago, when there was fairly protracted debate in this House about the raid on Forest Renewal B.C. -- I know the Minister of Forests remembers it -- in question period, in estimates, and I believe it even popped up in legislation from time to time.

It was one of those debates that got pretty animated. And members here were. . . . First of all, it took us five days to get a straight answer from the minister on exactly what he was thinking about doing with Forest Renewal B.C. We had to ask the same question in every question period for five days before we got an answer. It was the answer we expected to get -- that in fact the government was thinking about dipping into Forest Renewal B.C.

At that time, I remember I was walking out of the chamber one day, and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was speaking. I stopped dead in my tracks, because I know that member represents a forest-dependent community, Powell River. Powell River has been in forestry as long as there have been people living here in British Columbia. There are a lot of IWA people there, and I know that member is sensitive to those issues. I want to quote what the member said on August 1, 1996 -- last year, less than a year ago. He said:

"Noting the hour, I have a couple of very brief questions that I want to put specifically to the minister. One of the concerns. . . . I should go on record -- I think it's important -- that certainly members of our party see absolutely no problem with the government, if they have a surplus in FRBC money and a deficit, taking that money and putting it against the deficit. It's like taking from the bank account and putting it against your credit card."

And the member is nodding.

If the member believes that, then how can he believe what he said earlier? I recall speeches by that member, where he talked about: "If you don't like these principles, I've got these principles." Well, you can't raid Forest Renewal and protect Forest Renewal at the same time; it's one or the other. I think the member must take some time -- and I am being careful in my comments, because I've made a habit over the number of years not to comment -- to read what he said before, to read what those principles were on August 1, 1996, and then to reread what he said here today -- because they are different things.

Now, maybe he has changed his policy, but he should say that. We'll let the member go, and we'll let the member reread the Hansard and decide what his position really is on Forest Renewal B.C. I am anxious to find out whether it's the policy and position he had on August 1 or whether it's the policy and position he raised today, because the two are quite different.

But hon. Speaker, I want to come back to the throne speech, in particular, and I want to talk a little bit about the throne speech. I was intrigued by it. I sat here in shock.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui says he was bored. There was a little bit of that there, too.

But I was intrigued. I was actually shocked by it, because the member for Yale-Lillooet, who was sitting over there briefly before. . . . The member is on his way out. I can honestly say there is no need for him to stay around; I don't intend to draw too heavily upon his comments.

I recall the member for Yale-Lillooet sitting there and saying, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking: "This is the same speech you gave last year; tell us something new." Well, hon. Speaker, it's a lot similar to the speech the member gave last year because the throne speech is a lot similar to the speech we heard last year -- and the year before, and the year before, and the year before. And the budget speech the other day was amazingly similar to ones we've heard before, talking about: "We're going to be prudent.

We're going to spend money on education." It's the same stuff we've heard since these guys came into office in 1992. But the point is that we're still waiting for it to happen; we're still waiting for the balanced budget. It's been six years, hon. Speaker.

I remember when the member who is now the Premier, when he was House Leader for the opposition -- he was Finance critic at the time -- said in the House: "Balancing the budget is absolutely the easiest thing I could ever imagine doing." Well, every day since then the Premier has got up, put his pants on, tied his shoes, done a lot of things that are pretty easy. He's had his breakfast, he's drunk his coffee, he's gone to work, he's gone home, he's gone to bed, he's fallen asleep -- all really easy things to do. But not once since 1992, since this government took office, has he done that easy thing -- the absolute easiest thing he could ever do -- which is to balance the budget.

As a matter of fact, no New Democrat administration in the history of the province of British Columbia has ever been able to balance the budget -- not once. In fact, if one looks at how wonderful their record has been in the few short years since they took office in 1991. . . . Up until 1991, in the 120 years that British Columbia had been in Confederation, our total accumulated debt in this province was $20 billion. It built all the schools, the roads, the dams, the hospitals, the whole health care system -- everything in this province.

Not just one or two hospitals, not replacing portables in schools, not repaving a road that's already there; it actually built every single hospital, every single school, paved and laid the groundwork for every single road, every interchange, every traffic light in the province of British Columbia. And our total debt was $20 billion.

In the five and a half years since the NDP took office, the debt has gone from $20 billion to $31 billion. In six years,

[ Page 2126 ]

doing what the government says they've been doing, which is replacing portables and building schools and building hospitals, they have managed to rack up a debt, over and above what we had done for 120 years in building this entire province, of $11 billion. I'm terrified of what kind of numbers we're going to see at the end of this government's mandate. Is it going to be $35 billion, $37 billion, $40 billion? What's it going to be? How far are they going to go?

We have the member who's now, I guess, the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- I believe I'm correct. It's the member for. . . . I can't remember the name of the riding. She said that the deficit isn't important; that deficit-fighting, paying down the debt and balancing the budget aren't important to British Columbians. I'm going to go to her riding again. I drive through there periodically and stop for gas and talk to people.

I'm going to go and spend some time there, I think, because there must be very different people in her riding than there are in every other riding in this province I've ever been in. A lot of people are telling us -- most people are telling us -- that they want to see the deficit dealt with. They want to see it dealt with. They want to see us start to pay down the debt.

Hon. Speaker, the throne speech was fascinating. It was fascinating for what was in it. It was really fascinating for what wasn't in it. It was fascinating because two of the biggest issues that have been on this government's agenda for the last little while are gaming and no- fault insurance. I know how New Democrats feel about those issues. It's not hard to find out; all you have to do is watch the news. Anybody who was watching the news on television a couple of weeks ago, as the New Democrat members walked down the corridor and went into their caucus meeting. . . .

On the very day that the government announced their gaming policy, the television broadcast -- I wasn't here that day, unfortunately; I would have loved to have seen it -- showed members walking into their caucus room saying they didn't agree with the government's gaming policy.

[4:15]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard was quoted in the Georgia Straight newspaper as saying that he's opposed to an expansion of gaming. The Minister of Education had some comments to indicate that it wasn't exactly what he'd like to see for a gaming policy, either. The Minister of Labour, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who wrote the United Church policy on gaming, now sits in a cabinet that's going to put casinos in communities that don't even want them. The member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, walking into that meeting, said that she wasn't comfortable with the government's gaming policy.

I know that in the past, the member who's now the Attorney General has been opposed to an expansion of gaming in Vancouver.

More importantly -- this is the one I love, because I bore the brunt and the wrath of this member when she sat on city council -- the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, when she was a member of council, put a letter out around the community saying that I was in favour of expanding gaming, and wasn't this terrible, and stop that member. "He's got to stop gaming. Gaming is a terrible thing. We're going to get a casino. Isn't that awful?" Now that member sits not an arm's length from a cabinet that's ramming casinos and gaming down the throats of communities in British Columbia right across this province.

What happened? Maybe they put her close to the cabinet benches so that she'll be sitting there trying to decide what's more important. "Do I want to get into cabinet, or do I want to represent my constituents?" Which is it? Well, so far, I might say, in the last three days, and certainly in her speech moving the reply to the throne speech -- I thought she was an amazing person to choose, given her position on gambling -- she didn't mention it, either. She didn't talk about the expansion of gaming that's about to happen in her riding. She didn't talk about the letters that she wrote chastising me -- falsely, I might add -- for advocating a casino in Vancouver.

What happened? What happens to people when they take out a New Democrat membership card, get elected, travel around their riding, knock on doors, talk to people and say: "Oh yeah, that's a terrible thing, that gaming. Can't have a casino. Can't do that. Can't have no-fault insurance. Oh, it's a terrible thing. We'll never do it." What happens to those people from election night when the votes come in, they're tallied, and they arrive here in the chamber? Is there some deprogramming thing that occurs? Do you have a little cult meeting somewhere and burn incense?

I don't what it is, but something happens to the members opposite from the time they're standing on their doorstep telling people one thing, to the time they arrive in this chamber and either say something else or, more disgracefully, say nothing at all.

Where is the member for Vancouver-Burrard? Oh, there he is. He's sitting right there. I couldn't tell, because I've been listening for three days and I've yet to hear him comment on gaming. Haven't heard a word. The member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant spoke and didn't say a word about gaming. I've yet to see the Minister of Education, Skills and Training. . . . He's sitting there; I'm glad to see he's hard at work finding other NDP ridings he can build schools in. I've yet to see the minister stand up and say what he said when going into the caucus meeting, which was that he wasn't happy with the government's gaming policy.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I'm incorrect, I'll check the clippings again. I will check it for the member and I will see. But I seem to recall it was you. It sure looked like you -- and there aren't many who look like you -- but I'll check.

Hon. Speaker, what's happened? Where is the Minister of Labour? I've been listening for three days and I haven't heard anything on gaming. I haven't heard him say that he doesn't want an expansion of gaming in British Columbia. I know that was his position when he was. . . . I think he's still a minister. I don't know how it works. Once you're a minister, you're always a minister?

M. de Jong: Not in this cabinet.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui says: "Not in this cabinet." Well, that's true, but I'm referring to the gods temporal as opposed to the gods political.

The Minister of Labour, who is a United Church minister, helped to draft the policy on gaming for the United Church, and I'll bet you $100 that there's nothing in the United Church policy on gaming that says: "Let's put casinos in British Columbia." I doubt there's anything that says: "Let's have slot machines instead of VLTs." I'll look. I'm trying to find it, but I haven't seen that stuff yet. Maybe the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- I don't know if he's speaking today -- wants to jump up and participate in the debate and tell me where it says that. I haven't been able to find it.

I'll bet you what's happened. . . . I know what's happened. I'll bet you that the Premier. . . .

[ Page 2127 ]

They've gone to the caucus meeting, they've had their little row, and the Premier said: "Look, you're not going to have to vote on it. You don't have to vote on it, see, because gaming's done by regulation." The Criminal Code of Canada says the government will regulate gaming by regulations.

An Hon. Member: Do you think he was whispering like that?

G. Farrell-Collins: I doubt he whispered, but he might have. He said: "Don't worry, you don't have to vote on it. Nobody's ever going to know how you really feel. You can go back to your constituents and tell them you're opposed to gaming. Blame it on me. Tell them I did it; tell them it's my fault. You don't have to worry about it. You don't have to be happy about it, just leave it alone."

We'll see what happens. We'll see, when these members are finally called upon to stand up and vote, whether they'll vote for their constituents, whether they'll vote for their principles or whether they'll vote for the Premier. They'll have a choice, and we'll see how they decide. We'll see what they do, hon. Speaker.

I want to talk about another issue, too -- another one that wasn't in the throne speech -- and that's no-fault insurance. There was a previous New Democratic Party member of this House who was known as Bernie the Bagman. I know he raised a lot of money from the law firms in Vancouver.

An Hon. Member: Corporations, too.

G. Farrell-Collins: And corporations, too. We know that. And that's okay. I don't mind that, if that's what they want to do. It's nice that the government's finally being honest about it, that the party is finally going to tell the truth about how they raise money. But he did really well with. . .not the no-fault system.

You know what was interesting? This is sort of a personal thing I have, because I campaigned against Margaret Birrell. She ran against me. Margaret Birrell was the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Little Mountain. I have introduced her in the House, and I have a lot of respect for her. She heads up the Coalition for People with Disabilities -- that's what she really does; that's her real job -- and she's been active in working with the government for a long time.

An Hon. Member: Twenty years.

G. Farrell-Collins: Twenty years, the member tells me -- 20 years representing people with disabilities. If it wasn't for the fact that I would have had to be defeated, I wish she was here in this House, because I'll bet you that if she was asked to vote on no-fault -- as long as she didn't go to the incense-burning ceremonies that the NDP set up to train their members. . . . If she was sitting in this House over there, I can bet you dollars to doughnuts -- if you want to get back to the gaming metaphor -- that she wouldn't stand up and vote for no-fault insurance. I can bet you she wouldn't.

The member for Surrey-Whalley is speaking very soon, I believe. I'd like to hear her comments on no-fault. I'd like to hear what she has to say. Although I don't know, I suspect that her personal position on no-fault is somewhat different from what we've been hearing rumoured around that the government's plans are. I don't know if she wore a button at the convention or not. I know certain people did have buttons at the convention that said "ban no- fault" -- an issue which was quietly swept under the carpet. But I'd be anxious to hear what her position is on no-fault insurance, whether she thinks that it's the proper way to go, whether she thinks. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay. She's going to talk about it, so I'll wait for it, hon. Speaker. I'll wait for it with bated breath.

But what I see happening in the New Democratic caucus. . . . The very fact that those two big issues were not mentioned in the throne speech at all -- two of the largest, burning public issues before the people of British Columbia right now weren't even mentioned; not a word in the throne speech -- indicates to me that they haven't decided. The Premier may have decided. The Premier may know where he stands, but I think he's had a little bit of trouble trying to convince the back bench. Maybe they need more incense; maybe they need to have a retreat, when they can do a little healing circle and talk about how they're going to bring this stuff in.

But I suspect that some of the social democrats who sit on that side of the House, versus some of the cash-grab guys sitting over on this side of the House trying to balance their budget, differ on a couple of these issues, and that's why we didn't see it in the House.

So I'll be thrilled to see the member for Vancouver-Burrard stand up and champion the government's no-fault position and what it's going to do to people with injuries and their rights, and see what he has to say about gaming. I'm waiting for it. I'm waiting to hear it. I hope it's going to happen. He's not nodding, so I'm not sure if he's going to do it or not. But I'll be waiting for it.

A questionnaire was sent out to this government. I believe it was. . . . I'm not sure if it was the trial lawyers or if it was the people with disabilities. A questionnaire went out to the members of the New Democratic caucus during the election, and they were asked about their position on no-fault. And the answer came back: "We're opposed to it." Seventy-five members of the New Democratic Party said that they were against no-fault. This House has 39 members in it. I wonder how many of them are going to live up to the commitment they made to the people of British Columbia during the last election.

I wonder how many of them are going to do that. When are we going to see that? When are we going to hear these members opposite tell us what their position is on those two issues?

One other issue I want to talk about in particular deals with the creation of jobs. I was astounded yet again to hear the Premier and, through him -- I guess, through the throne speech -- that this government. . . . I think the comment was that they're committed to creating 21,000 new jobs in our forest sector by the year 2001. Now, that's a promise that people remember. It was made about a year ago. Remember that? Well, in the last 12 months, 5,500 forest workers have lost their jobs in British Columbia. So at this rate we've only got 26,500 to go to get to 21,000. That's progress. Way to go!

I can just hear the IWA workers in British Columbia, I can hear the forest workers, I can hear their families saying: "More government, more NDP. Please help us create jobs in the forest sector. Do more of what you're doing." They love it. And in 12 short months, this government has managed to progress retroactively, has managed to progress backwards by 5,500, on the road to creating 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector.

I expect that this commitment is going to go the way of the debt management plan. What you do is talk about it one

[ Page 2128 ]

year. You announce it, you keep talking about it, and you throw it in all the throne speeches. Every member opposite stands up and talks about it. And then, when it doesn't work, say: "Oh well, we'll change the name. Let's call it the financial management plan rather than the debt management plan."

M. de Jong: Financial Renewal B.C.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, sometimes I wish the hon. member for Matsqui was allowed to speak more than once on issues.

So you have to ask yourself what the government's plan is. Really, what's their real plan for forest workers in the province of British Columbia, if in one short year -- while fighting in the trenches, while slogging, while battling the big forest companies, while rolling up their sleeves, as some of the members said, and getting down to work -- they've managed to lose 5,500 forest workers?

If I was in the IWA. . . . The member for North Island held an executive position, I understand, with the IWA, either at the local level or not. What does he do when he goes home on the weekend?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe he doesn't do it; maybe he has somebody do it for him. When you go out and buy groceries -- we all buy groceries -- you go to the store. . . . When I go to buy groceries, it's a two-hour process. It's like a constituency meeting. You talk to people. You hear their complaints; they talk to you about them. I wonder what that member does when he goes through the local. . .?

M. de Jong: Express lane.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Matsqui says he does the express lane, so he gets in and out as fast as he can.

But when he's there and he's talking to the people that support him, his fellow members -- his fellow brothers and sisters, to use the terminology -- how does he explain to IWA members in his riding that the government in one short year has managed to lose 5,500 forest jobs? How does he explain that?

An Hon. Member: The weather?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, maybe the weather is something he uses. Who knows?

There is a bit of humour, but these are real people. These are forest families. These are forest-dependent communities -- people who have to, day in and day out, get out there and work in the forest and try and make a living. That's a hard enough job as it is, without having to fight your local MLA, without having to fight the government for your livelihood.

[4:30]

Hon. Speaker, what I was hoping to hear in this throne speech was a real vision, a true vision, not the same rhetoric we've heard for five and a half years. Where is the vision of this province? Where is the plan for this province, other than a bunch of promises t