1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 13, Number 17

[ Page 11373 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

P. Nettleton: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature Neil Razzell, the bright, young, talented editor of the newspaper in Fort St. James -- my hometown. He's here with his delightful partner Faith Armitage. She is, I understand, a legislative intern for 1999. Please join me in welcoming these two delightful folks.

Hon. G. Wilson: In the gallery today are people who were formerly either on the executive of or active in the Progressive Democratic Alliance and who are here in support of a new movement toward good government for British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Would the House please make welcome David Wilson and his daughter Emily Wilson, Aaron Jasper, Arminder Randhawa, Cherie Dealy, David Kurvers, Doreen Bakstad, Lars Bakstad, Ann Buchanan, Garth Sims, Marilyn Sims, Mathew Wilson, Carol-Ann Miller, Gordon Gramlich; our former candidate in the Parksville-Qualicum by-election, Bruce Hampson; and my good wife Judi Tyabji Wilson. Accompanying them are staff members Tony Cox, Dave Biro, Trevor Williams, Maureen Grant and Angie March, who all look for good government in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

G. Campbell: I am pleased to welcome and introduce to the House Ed Kisling and Lynne Upton, two people who believe in principles and still support the B.C. Liberal Party.

I. Chong: Last week I had the opportunity to introduce Aaron Gairdner, past president of the UVic B.C. Young Liberals. He's back again today, and he's brought along a friend, Duane Woytowich, who's a past member of the PDA. So he's here as well to enjoy question period.

I would also like to introduce two very good friends who are hard-working individuals in my community and in greater Victoria: Lynne Henderson, who's involved with the United Way, and Sheila Orr, a Saanich councillor. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a former member of this House, Anita Hagen, the member for New Westminster for a decade, and her husband John. Of course, Anita's hard work for ten years is what helped pave the way for me to become the member for New Westminster. I'd like all members of this House to join me in making them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I just happened to notice in the gallery today George Garrett, and I would like to welcome him here on his retirement from CKNW.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to introduce a new member to this side of the House, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I don't think he should feel too badly about sitting over here, because apparently he could get into cabinet quicker from this side of the House than from the government back benches.

E. Gillespie: I see in the gallery an old friend and colleague, Trevor Jones, and I'd ask the House to join me in making him welcome.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF PDA DEBT

G. Plant: I have a question for the Premier, who makes cabinet appointments. According to yesterday's Vancouver Province, the new Minister for B.C. Ferries has said that the $80,000 debt of the PDA will be paid off by an NDP-organized fundraising dinner. Can the Premier tell us: has he agreed to pay off the $80,000 PDA debt with an NDP-organized fundraising dinner?

The Speaker: Hon. member, that kind of question is out of order. It's not within the purview of the Premier or any other executive council member's administrative duties. Member for Richmond-Steveston, another question?

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, the question was for the Premier in his capacity as the person who makes cabinet appointments. But I would have thought that a question on that . . . .

The Speaker: The first

part is probably all right; the second

part is not.

G. Plant: Well, fine. The question is this, hon. Speaker. The Nanaimo bingo charities are owed more than $2 million plus interest by the NDP, but they haven't seen a dime. This is a Premier who has made a cabinet appointment. In connection with the discharge of his duties under that heading, I ask him to confirm this: while he has not bothered to pay off the charities, has he in fact agreed to arrange to pay off the debts of his new cabinet minister's former political party?

The Speaker: Again, that's not . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Next question.

G. Plant: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I have a question, then, for the Attorney General, because he's the minister responsible for the Election Act. As he knows and we all know, indirect political contributions are against the law; they're prohibited by

section 186 of the Election Act. Just to make sure that we get this whole arrangement off on a proper footing, indirect in this context means that it would be against the law to make a political contribution to the NDP so that the NDP could then make a political contribution to the PDA. So my question for the Attorney General is this: can he tell us whether this plan to pay off the PDA's debts would in fact be against the law under

section 186 of the Election Act?

[ Page 11374 ]

The Speaker: That's still . . . .

Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is aware of any information that might lead him to believe that a criminal offence may have been committed, he knows where the police detachments are. He should speak to the RCMP. If they require legal advice, there will be a special prosecutor appointed to deal with the issue.

[2:15]

NEW MINISTER AND FAST FERRY PROGRAM

M. de Jong: It wasn't that long ago that the NDP member for Powell River was criticizing the decision to pour money into an unproven ship design and was criticizing the Premier for political meddling. He described the fast ferries project as "a really bad choice." Will the NDP minister tell us whether he still agrees that fast ferries were a colossal blunder by the leader of his new party? Or is that another principle that he's abandoned in exchange for a ministerial parking pass and a bigger office?

Hon. G. Wilson: I can't tell you how delighted I am that the members of the official opposition have recognized what a sharp critic I was of this government when in the role of opposition. I hope that they will acknowledge, hon. Speaker, what a good minister I am, now that I have an opportunity to do that.

With respect to the member's question, the member will know that my position with respect to fast ferries is unchanged. The difference between the official opposition and my position is that I'm here now to make the fast ferries work for all British Columbians -- rather than the members opposite, who simply sit and criticize.

The Speaker: First supplementary for the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: It's always interesting to drag a $10 bill across a parking lot, hon. Speaker, and find out who comes running.

The Speaker: Member, be careful.

M. de Jong: On Friday we found out who will come crawling when the government puts a pile of $40,000 in the middle of this chamber -- and it's disgusting.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not appropriate. Your question, hon. member?

M. de Jong: I remember when the NDP member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was using words like "opportunist" and "irresponsible" to describe his now cabinet colleagues. Back then, he described the NDP back bench . . . . He said they reminded him of the Star Trek Borg, in their mindless defence of the government line. Well, now that he's been assimilated into the NDP collective, is he simply telling us that resistance is futile? Or did his decision to sell out his principles have more to do with the promise that the Premier made -- that as a member of the NDP, he most certainly would live long and prosper?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure where the question was in that long speech. Let the members opposite know that I am committed to making British Columbia the finest province in Canada. I'm going to do so with this new opportunity I've been given. I would offer an invitation to each one of those members: rather than sit on the sidelines and throw stones, work with us to build this province -- work with us today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Government members, come to order.

D. Symons: In the past, the then PDA -- now NDP -- member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has demanded a full public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco. The then PDA member was particularly troubled by the technical aspects of this project. Now that member is the NDP minister responsible for fast ferries. Will he commit that the full public inquiry he asked for into the fiasco that was created by his new leader will be done?

Hon. G. Wilson: I was heartened this morning . . . . It is my understanding that the member for Richmond Centre said on CKNW today that his side is not in favour of scrapping this project -- which is, I think, a sensible position to take. I will extend a very serious offer to the member for Richmond Centre to come forward with me . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's very hard to hear anything, with all the noise.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm happy to give them an answer to the question if they will simply give me the time to do so.

I extend to the member for Richmond Centre an opportunity to come with me and to fully examine the technical report as well as the financial report -- both of which will be made completely public to the people of British Columbia, so they can restore confidence in B.C. Ferries.

The Speaker: For a first supplementary, the member for Richmond Centre.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Symons: The first thing is that I will agree to go on that. But that was not a full public inquiry. That was done in-house. That is not what that member was asking for when he sat on this side of the House. This minister was calling for a full public inquiry into the fast ferries over four years ago. Since that time, the following has happened: the fast ferries independent board members were removed; key executives have resigned; hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers'

[ Page 11375 ]

money have been wasted; and the government of the day then told British Columbians that they didn't know anything was wrong. In light of all the evidence that has emerged since the new NDP minister called for a public inquiry, why is he now refusing to do so?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, and then I'll recognize the minister. Come to order, please, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, there are three points I'd like to make on what is a very serious question. The three points I'd like to make are as follows. First of all, all information with respect to both the technical and the financial information will be made available to the public and be fully reviewed by the public, so that nothing, no stone, is left unturned. The second point is that my investigations to date have demonstrated that the words which came from the former minister -- that he was not fully informed -- are completely correct. The third point is that there is much work to be done in putting British Columbia Ferries back . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . on a sound fiscal footing, and I invite that member to work with me to do it, rather than sit on the sidelines and throw stones.

CHANGE OF PARTY AND CREDIBILITY OF NEW MINISTER

C. Clark: In case there was any question in anyone's mind, this minister is going to fit right in over there. He used to, when he was on this side of the House, rail against the incompetence of this cabinet. He used to, when he was on this side of the House, publish "101 Reasons to Oppose the Premier." He used to, when he stood on this side of the House, call for a full public inquiry into B.C. Ferries -- not long ago. And all the while that he stood on this side of the House and was saying those things, in his off-hours he sat in the Premier's Office, putting in the details on a secret deal to join them on that side of the House.

The Speaker: Member . . . .

C. Clark: That's what he's been doing. Why is it, hon. Speaker, that anybody in British Columbia should believe a word . . .

The Speaker: Member, what is your question?

C. Clark: . . . that this newly minted . . . ?

The Speaker: Member, what is your question?

C. Clark: Why is it that anybody in British Columbia should believe a single word that this new NDP minister has to say when it takes him about 24 hours to abandon every principle . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . . that he claims he used to stand for when he was on this side of the House?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I guess it's a matter of choice. Where there may have been 101 reasons not to vote for this government, there are over 1,000 not to . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, when it comes to the matter of integrity, I don't think I need to take a lesson from any member on that side of the House -- not one. That member will know that I have given 12 years of public service to this province, and that member will know that given the fact that that party has now gone to the extreme right wing, it's no wonder I could no longer fit in over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I'm happy to recognize another questioner, but I need some silence.

For her first supplementary, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: You know, the thing about switching sides is that sometimes you get asked to live up to what you said you were going to do in the first place.

Let's remember . . . . Let's look back at what the new minister said about joining the NDP. It wasn't long ago he said that he wouldn't join the NDP, because he didn't have the latitude to suddenly package up the principles that he ran on, put them in a box and jump to another party. It wasn't long ago that he said that. And now that he has abandoned all of his principles, abandoned everything that he said he used to stand for . . . .

The Speaker: And your question, member?

C. Clark: Now that he has done just that, why should anyone in British Columbia believe that he has done anything other than take his principles, fit them into what must be a very, very tiny box and decide, instead of fighting this government that he used to criticize, that he's chosen instead to collaborate with the government . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: . . . that he used to say was the most incompetent in British Columbia's history?

Hon. G. Wilson: I find it particularly galling that that member, who was a Young Liberal, who was a federal Liberal, who believed in Liberal principles, now accuses me of abandoning principles as she stands up opposed to treaty negotiation, opposed to minimum wage, opposed to sensible labour

[ Page 11376 ]

legislation -- opposed to all of the kinds of Liberal principles that that member once supported me in fighting for. If we can't do it over there, we're going to do it over here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please come to order. The motion needs to be heard by every one of us.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, you want to listen to the motion.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date; and that, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

[2:30]

G. Farrell-Collins: Given that it's a debatable motion, I think it's appropriate that this House debate the government turning tail and running. I know that a number of my colleagues will be glad to join in the debate, even if the Premier doesn't have the guts to do so.

On Friday, at the end of three weeks of relentless assaults on the former minister for B.C. Ferries, the Premier pulled out his secret weapon. He shipped the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast over on the fast ferry from Gibsons to Vancouver to Victoria and inserted him as the new shield to defend this government.

What is the first thing that this government does with its spanking-new cabinet minister -- the ink barely dry on his membership form, the $80,000 cheque not yet in the mail to his former political party? The first thing the government does is fold its campstool, pack up its tent, load it into the canoe and head downstream without a paddle. Where's the brave new coalition? Where is it, hon. Speaker?

The Premier talked on Friday about a brave new world for British Columbians -- how wonderful it was that his party had moved to the centre. They brought one more minister into their cabinet, and somehow they had shifted to the centre and it was a brave new world -- a new day for politics in British Columbia. And what's the first thing they do with their renewed mandate? What's the first thing they do in their effort to shift their party to the centre? Pack up and run home -- that's the first thing they do. Where's the bravery, hon. Speaker?

I thought the Premier told us about the skills and the in-depth understanding of the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- his ability to grapple with this issue and bring new viewpoints to it. The former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was probably weeping in his tea over the weekend, wondering how anybody could possibly be as brilliant, thoughtful and well-spoken as he is.

It turns out that he was right, because the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs doesn't want to continue with the debate. He wants to leave and run home. If he has such a talent base -- which was required to lever this government out of the depths of the political sewer and put it back on the front page, the front burner of British Columbians -- where is it? Where is the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and why does he refuse to stand up in the House today and defend the treaty he's been defending from that end of the House for the last two weeks?

Hon. Speaker, you can almost imagine a cartoon done by the political cartoonists. You've got the former minister of ferries, the Premier and the minister who brokered the deal -- the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- standing there holding the new minister, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in front of them as a human shield, as the public and the taxpayers take them to task for the fast ferries fiasco.

It is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, that after calling back this House so urgently, throwing the deals to the wind and urgently needing to pass the Nis g a'a debate . . . . I remember the Premier saying . . . . I remember the Government House Leader saying: "The time for talk is over; it's time to pass this deal." And a little over two weeks into the debate, they turn tail and run. It's not just till Wednesday, to give the new minister time to get up to speed; it's till some other time.

Where is the urgency that gripped the Government House Leader two and a half short weeks ago? Where is the urgency and the passion of the Premier, who said: "We have to get into the Legislature. We need to pass this deal now; the time is now." All of a sudden, two and a half weeks later -- and $200 million in cost overruns at B.C. Ferries and $80,000 to the new minister's former political party -- they turn tail and run. Where's the passion? Where's the urgency? Where is it?

Are British Columbians supposed to believe anything that the Premier of this province ever tells them anymore? When the Premier talks about his passion and talks about a historic deal, a new day in British Columbia, a new way of doing business . . . . He's required to call back the House immediately after the Christmas break because of the urgency of that and the need to get on with the job. Two and a half weeks later, he wants to collapse the House and run home with his tail between his legs.

[ Page 11377 ]

I would ask the Government House Leader, instead of just moving the motion, to actually explain why it's necessary for the House to adjourn and for everybody to leave off and depart Victoria for other positions around British Columbia. What happened to the urgency? What happened to the need to move the government's business forward? If the new Minister for Ferries and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has a whole suitcase full of new ideas and new opportunities for British Columbia, let's see them, let's unpack them.

If the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and B.C. Ferries has this suitcase full of these wonderful ideas, I would expect that that suitcase isn't full of new ideas but is full of the emperor's clothes. It's as empty as it would be if it was full of the emperor's clothes, because the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Responsible for British Columbia Ferries has found, in a short 72 hours, that there is nothing that he is going to be able to do to change the ideological mentality of the members on that side of the House, who continue to drive the economy of British Columbia into the ground day after day and make British Columbia taxpayers pay the price day after day.

If it was such a great idea to bring the new minister onto the government side of the House to create a new wealth of ideas on the government side and shift it to the centre, where are those ideas? Where is one of those ideas? We just went through a question period where the member for Richmond Centre asked the brand-spanking-new NDP minister -- the former member for the PDA -- about a commitment he's held for four years to a public inquiry into the fast ferries proposal.

In a short weekend -- not even a long weekend -- that new minister has abandoned that very principle and has turned tail and run from the accountability to the taxpayers of British Columbia which should be happening in this chamber today, tomorrow, the next day, the end of this week -- until this issue is dealt with.

If the new minister for the NDP -- the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and B.C. Ferries -- has these great ideas and solutions to the crisis with B.C. Ferries, and if he's not prepared to debate the Nis g a'a treaty, then let's debate a motion on his solutions for the fast ferries. He said he had a plan; he said he had ideas. He certainly had a lot of ideas when he sat down on this side of House; we had to listen to them day after day. If he's got good ideas, why doesn't he take advantage of them? The House is called; the members are here; the taxpayers are paying to heat the building; the lights are on. Why don't they take advantage of that?

I'm sure that members on our side of the House would be willing to give unanimous leave and consent for the member -- the new Minister Responsible for British Columbia Ferries -- to stand up and move a motion and engage in a debate about his solutions for the fast ferries problem and ferries in general.

I know there are members on this side of the House who have ferries in their constituency. Certainly the member for Richmond Centre, who knows a great deal about B.C. Ferries, and members who have constituents who are served by B.C. Ferries would love to have a discussion about solutions to the problems facing B.C. Ferries. Instead of doing that, the government is running. They're going to collapse this House. Members have just flown in from all over British Columbia at I don't know how many tens of thousands of dollars of expense, to come to this Legislature to deal with the Nis g a'a debate, and the government is pulling the pin and running.

Let's have the debate on B.C. Ferries. If the minister is not prepared to deal with Nis g a'a -- if he suddenly got less informed as he crossed the House and moved from this side over to that side, and he can't debate the Nis g a'a treaty . . . . If he's not ready to debate the Nis g a'a treaty, then let's debate B.C. Ferries. Let's open that suitcase of new ideas and solutions for B.C. Ferries and have a discussion about them.

Why the fear of government members to come into this House and be held accountable? The reason this government is running is because they can't take the heat. They've taken the B.C. Ferry Corporation from a $15 million debt when they took office to almost $1 billion in debt, to the point that we owe more money than the ferries are worth. They're afraid to stand up here day after day in question period and in debate to defend their utter incompetence, the corruptness of this government and their inability to tell the truth when they were asked about B.C. Ferries over the last four years. They're afraid to have that debate, afraid to have that discussion.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the member for Skeena, who . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know; we never actually hear him. He never actually stands up in his place and engages in debate. I don't remember that member raising the alarm bells on the $400 million at B.C. Ferries. He sits over there in the corner, ensconced in his propaganda-reading, and shouts from the distance but has no courage whatsoever to ever stand up, engage in the debates and hold his own ministers accountable to the taxpayers in his riding, who are paying the bill for this group, which we've never seen before -- the most incompetent government in the history of British Columbia.

I would think that the member for Skeena would want to get up and tell us why he thinks it's necessary to turn tail and run back to Skeena, why he thinks it's necessary to adjourn the House now to some nebulous date in the future. Is he afraid to stand up and defend the former minister for ferries or the current Minister for Ferries? Why does he think it's appropriate for this government to collapse like a cheap campstool, pack it up in the back of the station wagon and truck off back home to the ridings in British Columbia, without having finished the business that it said was so urgent that it required the urgency of this House . . . required us to be here in the early part of this year?

One has to ask oneself: what's happened to this government? We hear the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. The minister has been kicked out of cabinet twice before and is working on the third time. We heard him say that he was going to guide the New Democratic caucus and the New Democratic Party to the centre. Well, if they're using his moral compass, I have no idea where they're going to end up.

It was exactly the guidance of that minister, who brokered this unholy deal, that put us in the situation that we're in today, with a minister who's afraid to defend the Nis g a'a bill -- although he has been defending it just fine from that end of the House. Now that he's a minister, he's afraid to come in here and defend the bill. He's also afraid to defend his former positions or his current positions on the fast ferry project.

[ Page 11378 ]

[2:45]

Hon. Speaker, we're here. Members have flown in. I don't know what it cost to fly members on that side back to Victoria today for what the government would have us believe . . . a 15-minute question period and then fly them back home again. How much did it cost to fly all the members down here? How much does it cost to keep this place open every day? We flew everybody down here. The government wants us to pack up after 15 minutes and head back to our constituencies. I say that we're here now, so let's get to work. Let's do the job we're required to do. Let's do it today, and let's do it tomorrow and the next day.

I've sat in this House for seven years. It's been since 1993-94 that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has sat at the far end of this chamber and advocated for the principles that he believed in and espoused. When he was a member of this political party, when he was a leader, I remember him giving speeches in my constituency and other constituencies. Some of my caucus members will remember this -- certainly the member for Langley, who I know was there at one particularly moving moment. There were about 250 people in the room; it was a political fundraiser in Langley. We were pretty happy.

That was one of the biggest events we'd had in that constituency -- probably ever, actually. I remember the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, a gentleman I had a great deal of respect for at the time, giving a speech. He had people in tears one minute, and he had them laughing hysterically the next minute. You know what got the best laugh? It was when he imitated the NDP cabinet ministers, and he'd say: "I've got these principles. Aren't these nice principles? But if you don't like these principles, I've got these principles.

And if you don't like those principles, I've got these principles." He was characterizing the ability of the NDP to shift back and forth, based on those principles.

I wish I had a videotape of that speech and was able to play it back to the government members now, because one of two things has happened. Either the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was giving a precursor of what he did today in question period, or every single member on that side of the House has now adopted, in its whole, the policies of the Progressive Democratic Alliance. They have now changed all their tactics and are in favour of balanced budgets -- something we haven't seen -- are in favour of free votes -- something we've never seen from that side of the House -- are in favour of reforming the parliamentary calendar . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thank my colleague here for giving me all the items that she can remember: a three-year budget cycle, a chancellor of the exchequer . . . . I wish I had the document.

I assume that something's happened over the last 72 hours or so, for the NDP to completely abandon everything they ever stood for as a political party since the 1930s and now adopt the policies of the Progressive Democratic Alliance. And they're going to be putting those policies forward.

Hon. Speaker, correct me if I'm wrong, but I somehow expect that it was the first scenario that I brought forward. Nothing is going to change on that side of the House. It's only going to get worse, not better. The policies will become even more dogmatic than they have been in the past. Our economy will continue to suffer under a huge burden of red tape, incompetent management, unbalanced budgets, record debt, businesses leaving the province, people leaving the province, higher and higher unemployment and a collapse of this economy.

There was nothing in the comments of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast this afternoon in question period that led me to believe that he has done anything in the last 72 hours but abandon everything that every member of this House has heard him say from the back corner for the last four years.

If I actually thought . . . . If British Columbians actually thought that putting one lonely member over in that sea, that morass, of socialist ideology was going to change anything, all they had to do was think back to what happened when Mike Harcourt joined the New Democratic Party. Here was a gentleman who used to be a Liberal, a federal Liberal -- a Trudeau Liberal, for that matter -- and he became mayor of the city of Vancouver and ran a fairly decent administration.

The NDP, looking, grasping for that electoral brass ring and after trying time and time again with their ideological policies, recruited Mike Harcourt to become -- virtually uncontested -- the leader of the New Democratic Party.

It was "Moderate Mike" that they used to call him. I remember the campaigns. Remember them? The government that's as honest and hard-working as the people who pay for it, and "Moderate Mike" with the piggy bank and the penny, saying: "If we don't have the money, we won't spend it." What happened when "Moderate Mike" was immersed with the socialists over on that side? He became as dogmatic as the rest of them. We have had five deficit budgets, record tax increases for the province, a decline in our economy, more political ideology than we've ever seen. When that wasn't working anymore, they turfed him. They turfed him and they got a new Premier.

The chance that somehow the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in his own way, is going to come into the NDP and somehow infect them with the accountability virus, infect them with the balanced-budget virus and infect them with responsible management of the ferries is ridiculous. Moderates have joined that party before, only to be thrown out on their ear. One good example was Anita Hagen, who was introduced here earlier. She was one of the more moderate members of that cabinet, and she was turfed out of cabinet within the first 18 months and spent the rest of her term on the back bench.

The social democrats that used to be in that party are long gone. They're going to the Green Party or they're staying at home, but they're not supporting the Premier's party, this New Democratic Party that is really just Old Labour.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Skeena asked me how I would know that. It's because time after time after time they come to my office, and they fax and phone members of this side of the House to tell us how upset and disgusted they are with the policies of that government. All you have to do is talk to the charities and the non-profit organizations in this province.

The woman I ran against, Margaret Birrell, ran for the leadership of the New Democratic Party in 1983. I know she's good friends with some members opposite. She ran for the leadership of the party. She has worked for the Coalition of People with Disabilities for decades. She ran against the Pre-

[ Page 11379 ]

mier for the nomination in his riding, when he got the nomination in 1985 for the 1986 election. She has been an activist in that party for years. Hon. Speaker, she has been forced to take the government to court to stop them from attacking the very charity that she's worked with for 20 years.

Those people aren't voting NDP next time. Nobody takes a government to court and then turns around and votes for them the next day. Talk about the volunteers in this province, the backbone of our communities, the people who, day after day after day, for decades, have given hundreds of hours of their time to their community, trying to make it a better place for them -- only to find that this government comes in, expropriates their assets, tells them goodbye, kicks them off the board and tells them that they don't want to have anything more to do with them.

"We're going to take it over, as a government." Are those people going to continue to support the NDP? I don't think so. They've left in droves, because they too have been forced to take this government through the court system to try and stop them from expropriating their assets.

Somehow the Premier will have us believe that on the spur of the moment, in a secret meeting held in the Premier's Office, he has somehow changed his spots. Hon. Speaker, he hasn't changed his spots at all. The person who has changed his spots is the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Now he is standing up and endorsing a party that stole $2 million from the charities in Nanaimo. The Premier promised, during the election campaign in 1996, that every penny would be repaid, and to date not one cent -- not one cent -- has gone back to those charities in Nanaimo that suffered from the theft that this party put upon them.

But the Premier has no problem sitting in his office, behind closed doors, and cutting a deal with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that includes $80,000 to pay off the debt of another political party that that member ran into debt. What are the people in Nanaimo supposed to say about that? I mean, what do they think? Those charities have been waiting for years, if not decades, to get back the money that legally belonged to them -- and was stolen. They've been waiting for years.

The government and the Premier have declined and refused and avoided and tried every trick in the book to stop them from getting that money back, despite a promise to pay it back. But he can go into his office and cut a deal with a member of this Legislature that includes $80,000 to pay off the debt of his political party.

If I was a member of the Progressive Democratic Alliance -- I'm not, but if I was -- I would refuse to accept that money. If they were to give it to me, I'd take that cheque, I'd get in the car and drive up to Nanaimo, and I'd give it to the charities that it belonged to. If this party's going to have a fundraiser, it should fundraise for the charities in Nanaimo that had their money stolen by that party.

I'm at a loss to understand the rationale for why the government is folding its tent and going home now. They brought us back . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says: "Pay back the $1 million for a mailer." Well, I would suggest that that member look at his expenditures for mailing. If he looks at the public accounts, he'll find that $4.5 million trumps $1 million any day.

I wonder why it is that the urgency that was before this Legislature two and a half or three weeks ago, which required members to come to this Legislature from across the province and deal with the Nis g a'a debate immediately . . . . It was time to pass this thing. To quote the Premier: "We've talked enough; it's time to pass it." Where did the urgency go that brought us here two and a half weeks ago?

I think it's been somewhat dissipated by the fact that the public has caught on to these guys once again. One more scandal, one more cost overrun, one more example of incompetence. This one is sticking, because the public gets it. They know that this Premier has got his "toys for boys" out there -- these fast ferries -- to quote the new minister from the NDP. They're $200 million over budget, and the former minister refused to stand in this House and answer any questions, the new minister refuses to stand in this House and answer any questions, and the Premier refuses to even show up in this House to answer any questions.

This is a government that is running from the taxpayers and running from the representatives of the taxpayers on this side of the House, because they refuse to answer the tough questions. If this is a brave new world for British Columbia, let's see it here today. Let's start it with accountability. Let's start by getting the Premier in here to answer the tough questions on B.C. Ferries, his pet project: what he knew, when he knew it, how he pushed this project through, how the cost overruns got off track. Let's get the former minister responsible for B.C. Ferries in here.

Let's ask him the tough questions about the B.C. Ferries cost overruns -- the $200 million cost overruns -- and the ferries that don't work so far. Why won't he come in and answer those tough questions?

If it's a brave new world about accountability and a new shift for the government, let's get the brand-new minister in here to answer tough questions on B.C. Ferries. Everybody knows that he knows something about it. Heaven knows, he led us to believe that -- from this side of the House. If it's a brave new world and a brave new future for the NDP, let's have that minister in here to talk to us about accountability for B.C. Ferries, instead of hiding, now that he's on that side of the House.

The first thing that British Columbians would have expected from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on taking that seat over there would have been for him to be upfront and tell them the truth about what's gone on at B.C. Ferries. And the first thing he does is hightail it out of the House, along with the other members from the government side of the House, and refuse to debate . . . .

[3:00]

The Speaker: The hon. member knows about referencing members who are here or who are not here.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you for the guidance, hon. Speaker.

The first thing that this government has done in its move to the centre, in its embarking on a brave new government for British Columbia, is to leave -- to turn and run. Well, if this government wants to change its spots . . . . If this government wants to show British Columbians that it's turned over a new leaf, get into this House. Be accountable: answer the questions, debate the Nis g a'a deal, debate the cost overruns at B.C.

[ Page 11380 ]

Ferries. Earn your money: stay in this House and answer the tough questions. Don't run like a bunch of cowards back to your constituencies until it cools off.

M. de Jong: There's a lot about what is happening today and what has happened over the past couple of days that I find offensive and that a lot of British Columbians are going to find offensive when they arrive home tonight and discover what has taken place today. In no particular order of priority, let me try to summarize what I find offensive about the government's conduct and its utter disregard for the rights of members of this House and the rights of British Columbians, by virtue of what it purports to do today.

I will preface my remarks with this comment and observation. I don't know what troubles me more: the manner in which the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast finds himself occupying a chair on the government side or the fact that earlier today I saw him seeking advice from the Minister of Women's Equality. Both, however, trouble me greatly.

Nonetheless, let me back up, because I think it's important for us to recognize what has taken place here today and over the last couple of weeks. We were in the middle of what I think all members recognize as being the single most important debate around the issue of aboriginal affairs that this province has ever had. I hope the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has occasion to hear what I have to say about this, because I think it is incumbent -- minimally -- upon him to explain what really represents an unprecedented act by a government to suspend debate, dump a minister . . . . That's what has happened here, by virtue of what we've just seen.

An Hon. Member: Two ministers.

M. de Jong: Two ministers. Well, I'll get to the second one. Let's first deal with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In the middle of the single most important debate around the first modern-day treaty in British Columbia, the Premier of the day has sacked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and replaced him with an individual who until a few days ago wasn't even a member of the governing party. That's troubling.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I am going to respond to this. The member for Skeena . . . . I'm going to challenge him. The member for Skeena is referring to a filibuster. Madam Speaker, there's enough for me to find offensive about what happened today. But for the member for Skeena to suggest that there has been a filibuster . . . . Maybe it's time that he put up or shut up. If he thinks there was something in this debate that represented filibustering, apparently he doesn't want British Columbians to know the answers to the questions that have been asked in this House. If that's the case, hon.

Speaker, let him stand up and say so. I think it is reprehensible that he would be in this House suggesting that there has been anything in the way of delay tactics around this debate. It has been a debate about getting answers to questions that British Columbians need to know about.

I don't for a moment pretend to not understand the frustration of the member for Skeena. Remember, another cabinet post has been filled, and the Premier doesn't have one ounce of confidence in any member of the back bench. He's gone across the floor. What does that say about the strength of the NDP? It says that they don't have any bench strength. The Premier has no confidence in the member for Skeena; he's overlooked him again. I understand that frustration.

Let me return to why I am offended by the motion we are debating here today, around the government's desire to have this House adjourn. Let's talk about the issue that has been front and centre in the minds of the public, in the minds of the government and certainly in the minds of the opposition: the ferries issue. It's a fast cat ferries issue that, over the course of the past couple of weeks, British Columbians have learned represents the squandering of hundreds of millions of their tax dollars. I don't know about members on the government side, and I don't know about members on my own side.

But I've never seen a million dollars, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars. I can't even conceive of how much money that is, but I know it's a lot of money. We have learned, over the course of the last couple of weeks, that this government, this Premier and the Deputy Premier have overseen the squandering of not $1 million, not $10 million and not $100 million, but hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars.

And all we hear from members of the government or from members of the C team -- like the member for Skeena -- is an attempt to minimize and dismiss as somehow insignificant the fact that this government has no ability to manage the public purse.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I think it's important for the record to reflect what the member for Skeena is trying to say off the record. He challenges me. He says to me that I can't verify my falsehoods. Well, my invitation to the member for Skeena is that if he is going to challenge me in this Legislature . . . If he's going to challenge me in that way -- as somehow trying to mislead the House -- then at least have the courage to stand up and do so openly.

I think that's what his constituents want to know: that the member apparently has no trouble with the fact that the Premier's pet project is over $200 million in the hole. That apparently is a non-issue for him. I suggest that it is very much an issue for his constituents. But if he wants to minimize the importance of that, if he wants to say to his constituents: "Forget about it. It's only $200 million. What were we going to do with $200 million in Skeena anyway? We don't have any hospitals; we don't have any health care needs; we don't have any school needs . . . . " If that's his message, then let him say it.

Let him stand up and say it. But no, he prattles on from the far reaches of the government back bench -- that bastion of talent that the Premier looks at for all of one second before going to another party and another side of the House.

I understand that frustration. I understand that the member for New Westminster woke up on Saturday and said: "My God, what's happened? I've been overlooked again." But he then got his speaking notes from the Premier's Office, who said: "Now remember, when you go out this morning and people ask you about the fact that we've drafted someone from another party -- from the opposition side of the House -- ahead of all those government backbenchers, remember to put a smile on and say: 'That's good news for us. I'm happy that I got overlooked by the Premier one more time.' "

The member for New Westminster has followed his lines to a T. I've heard him on the radio; I've seen him on television. He's out there smiling and saying: "Hey, we don't have any

[ Page 11381 ]

talent in the back bench. We had to go across the floor to the other side of the House. We had to get the member from the PDA." I congratulate him on his ability to put on that happy face. It's the same happy face he put on when he discovered that the ferry project was $200 million in the hole. It's the same happy face he put on when he found out that the government had lied about the budget. He's a good actor; he's good at the theatrics. That's something I admire. Maybe one day he'll teach me about that -- teach me some of the theatrics that are involved in operating in this place.

But that does nothing to address the fact that at a time when this government should be held to account for fiscal bungling of an absolutely incredible proportion, they're running and hiding. They're heading out the door; they're packing up the place; they're turning out the lights; they're putting the plywood over the windows, and they're heading for home. I want to ask the member for Skeena . . . . The Education minister is here. I've got a question for them. I want to know how much it cost them to come here today.

I want to know how much their expense claims are going to be, associated with their trips from Skeena and Prince George. I want to know how much the members of the government are going to bill taxpayers for coming here for 15 minutes of business today.

I wonder if even one member of the NDP -- the A team, the B team, the C team, the D team -- will have the courage to stand here and reveal what the taxpayers are going to pay for them to come here for 15 minutes to play games with this House. Ultimately, that's what it represents, and that's what it reveals: a degree of contempt for the rights of all MLAs and the rights of British Columbians. Before his duties take him elsewhere -- and I know that the member for Skeena has an expense form that he needs to fill out -- I want to challenge him and any member of the government to reveal to British Columbians how much this travesty is costing.

Can you imagine? Understand what's happened here today. We adjourned on Thursday. We had a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and we had a minister responsible for ferries. They were sacked; they had those responsibilities removed from them. I think I understand why the member for North Coast was thrown a lifeboat.

K. Krueger: An anchor.

M. de Jong: An anchor, as my colleague from Kamloops says.

I think I understand that. It was a means for getting him out of the kitchen, because the heat was obviously getting too much for him. So let's move him away; let's save him by throwing him an anchor or a life jacket or a lifeboat.

I'm curious in the extreme to understand why the member for Nanaimo, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, on Thursday led me to believe that we would come back here on Monday and continue with the debate that's been going on for three weeks. I have no idea of the basis on which he has been relieved of his duties, but I don't think it's much of a leap for people to assume that it represents a vote of no confidence in that minister -- an absolute vote of no confidence in how that minister has handled his portfolio.

How else would you account for a minister being relieved of those duties in the middle of the most important debate taking place on his portfolio? I can think of nothing. That is the question that someone on the government side should have the courage to stand up and answer. Is this an indication of a change in government direction on the issue? Is this an indication of the Premier's lack of confidence in the now minister's predecessor? What is it? What have we just seen take place here?

We know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spent the last three weeks engaged in something of a charade -- which, quite frankly, I find equally detestable, equally reprehensible. To be sitting on this side of the House and purporting to exercise duties as an opposition MLA, when at the very same time negotiations were taking place which the member knew would lead to his changing sides and occupying a place in cabinet, seems to me unseemly at best.

It's unseemly that that charade should be acted out not just by the government but by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who -- remember -- presents himself as a man of principle and who for seven years tried to distinguish himself as the man who would take his ideas to the people and let them decide. Well, in the battle between maintaining those ideas and succumbing to the temptation of a ministerial parking pass and an increase in salary, we found out on Friday which one he opted for.

[3:15]

So the question is: will a member of the government -- the Minister of Education, for example -- have the courage to stand up and tell British Columbians why this House needs to adjourn now? Will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the former minister or the new minister, have the courage to stand up and provide that information to British Columbians?

As I think about what's going to happen and about the fact that the government will undoubtedly, at some point, press ahead with its desire to clear out of the chamber and adjourn this House indefinitely . . . . We don't even know when they're going to come back. They won't provide that information. I think to myself: what else is at work here? What else is troubling the government?

I'm mindful that when we came here, of course, this was going to be the session in which the government pulled up its socks, presented a new face and reclaimed all the popularity that it had lost over the last two or three years. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's been an unmitigated disaster from the outset. If the government believes that it has derived any political benefit from its shenanigans over the last few days, I think it will very quickly learn otherwise.

But what else is in play here? Why does the government want out of here? Why is it that the government has abandoned the strategy that it maintained it had just before Christmas -- the need, as my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain said, to come here and do the people's business, as it related to the Nis g a'a treaty? What else is in play here? Is it possible that the government has another agenda? I think that's entirely possible.

Let me speculate openly about some of the things that might occur sometime after this debate is finished and the government rams through its desire to adjourn this House until an unspecified date. Let me think about those areas of public policy that the government perhaps feels vulnerable on.

Could it be gaming? Is it possible that following the termination of this debate, that following the government ramming through its adjournment motion, we might see an announcement from the minister responsible for gaming that his long-awaited White Paper is available to the public? Surely not, when we could have had that paper tabled here in this

[ Page 11382 ]

Legislature and available for debate. Surely that is something that would provide a logical subject for debate. Surely the government wouldn't adjourn the House and then try to table it at a time when no one was watching. Would the NDP do something like that? Heavens no! Tell me it isn't so.

An Hon. Member: No, they have principles.

M. de Jong: They have new principles, at least.

Hon. Speaker, let me speculate about what might take place in the days that follow the government ramming through this adjournment motion. I think it's entirely possible that the long-awaited White Paper may see the light of day, at a time when the opposition has no opportunity to pose questions about where the government intends to take gaming policy -- an area of public policy that has been a shameful albatross for this government, that they have made a mess of from the beginning and that they have used as an assault on the charities of British Columbia.

Maybe there's another agenda at work. One of my colleagues says to me that there's an auditor general report that we're expecting. Now, I get all of these investigations confused, so sometimes I have to appeal to my colleagues for help. Is this the one about bilking the charities in Nanaimo? Or is this the one . . . ?

Interjections.

M. de Jong: That's not the one? No, it's not the one about bilking the charities in Nanaimo. As I and my colleague here recall, we don't think the government's paid any of that money back yet -- although they have promised to -- and now we learn that they're going to pay the new Aboriginal Affairs minister's bills, to the tune of $80,000. But I don't think that's the one. I don't think that's the scandal we're talking about here.

Is it the scandal associated with the recall campaign in Prince George? I think that's the one involving the Minister of Education and some questionable accounting practices. I think there's an investigation -- a forensic audit -- taking place around it. Is that the one?

Interjections.

M. de Jong: That's not the one; that's not the auditor general report. Okay, maybe, Madam Speaker . . . . Wait a minute; I recall one. This goes back a little way in the hit parade of scandal. What about that one where the government said we were going to have two or three balanced budgets? Is that it? And then the auditor general decided: "Hey, I'd better have a look at that. If people can't trust the government when they presume to tell them about the state of the provincial books, that's not a very healthy state of affairs."

Does anyone really think . . . ? This would just be the height of all hypocrisy and deviousness. Does anyone really think that the NDP would be adjourning the House because there might be more bad news coming, in the guise of the auditor general report? Oh, my goodness! Would the NDP do such a thing? I can only ask the question and challenge the Minister of Education to stand up and tell us why we have to leave this place now, and ask the Minister of Women's Equality, who sits there proffering advice to the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs . . . . Oh, my God! If anything worries me, it's seeing her offer advice to the new minister; but so be it.

We need information. Something unprecedented is taking place here today. The government is collapsing. The government is tucking its tail between its legs and it's running. It's running at a time when there is no end of important issues for British Columbians to have debated and dealt with in this chamber.

K. Krueger: Highland Valley Copper.

M. de Jong: My colleague from Kamloops pre-empts me -- as he's inclined to do. As I was making notes earlier today, I looked down at my pen. It says: Highland Valley Copper. I went to Highland Valley Copper just a couple of months ago. There are a thousand families out of work.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: "One thousand and fifty-six," says the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, with whom I would never quarrel over such a thing. So 1,056 families have been thrown out of work. They're in bad shape, and they're worried about their future.

In Gold River, hundreds of families are wondering what is going to happen to them, their children and their future. In just about every single part of this province, every single sector of the economy, there is bad news. There are credit rating downgrades. There are people flocking to Alberta and flocking south of the border, because they know that if they want to get ahead, they've got to leave British Columbia under this NDP administration.

Do you think, even for a minute, that the government might contemplate the need to take some action or to engage this House in a debate designed to reverse trends, to reverse an economy that is heading down the toilet because of its policies? Do you think, even for a minute, that the government, which said it was going to take steps to reduce the regulatory burden, might wake up this morning and say: "All right, we're going to temporarily suspend the debate around Nis g a'a, but there are a lot of other things and a lot of other business for this House to attend to." Do you think that might occur to them, hon. Speaker?

Well, it would if they were genuinely concerned with the fate of the people of British Columbia, if they were genuinely concerned with those people whose lives are in trouble because our economy is going down the toilet. What this action today demonstrates is that they don't care about any of that. The member for Columbia River-Revelstoke doesn't care about any of that; the member for New Westminster doesn't care about any of that; the member for Burnaby . . . . They don't care about any of that. Not only are they bailing out of this place . . . .

I can't help but notice that the Environment minister is here, tending to her business, at a time when 1,056 families in and around her constituency have been thrown out of work. She is sitting silent while the government bails out of this House, bails out of this assembly, for no other reason than that it's gotten too hot in the kitchen. The Deputy Premier is in trouble, and the Premier is in trouble, and they're going to head for the hills. And this Minister of Environment, this member for Kamloops, whose duty it is to represent the interests of her constituents, is going to sit silent and acquiesce in

an act of political shame that is unprecedented in the history of this province.

[ Page 11383 ]

When you look across at the government benches and understand, as I do today -- really, in a way that even I didn't understand until this moment -- that there is not one ounce of political principle at work on those government benches . . . . It is all about maintaining power; it is all about politicizing issues. It is all about ignoring the genuine needs and interests of British Columbians, whom they have done the most damage to with their policies. Not a single one of those NDP members will have the courage today to speak against a motion to send MLAs home -- from whence they came only a few hours ago.

Not one will stand up in this chamber today and offer even one excuse, one reason, for voting in favour of this adjournment motion.

We can talk about the cost of bringing MLAs to this chamber, to Victoria. We can talk about the money that would have been saved . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the member for Matsqui has the floor.

Member for Matsqui, continue.

M. de Jong: Thanks, Madam Speaker.

We can talk about the money that would have been saved if, if nothing else, the government had had the courtesy -- let's talk about that -- to announce on Thursday something they clearly intended to do . . .

An Hon. Member: Thousands of dollars.

M. de Jong: Thousands and thousands of dollars.

. . . if the government had had the courtesy to tell members that at 2:15 p.m. on Monday, February 1, the House would adjourn. They're not interested in that. They're not interested in saving money; we know that from the ferry scandal, from no end of budget fiascos. All they're interested in doing is manipulating the legislative process, manipulating the public, manipulating their responses to issues for patently political reasons. And in the meantime, the public can go to -- whatever.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I don't know what it is with the member for Skeena. He seems somehow drawn to the chamber, somehow drawn to the edge of debate.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: No, the member is partly right; he just can't stand. But it's not that hard. Maybe if he's having trouble, I can send the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and he can operate one of those revival hour things he's so famous for. We can get the member to stand up in this House and deliver what I'm sure would be a very enlightened address. But he won't, and they won't. We've learned yet again today the degree of contempt that the government and the Premier have for this assembly, the traditions of this assembly, the members of this assembly and, most importantly, the people of British Columbia.

[3:30]

But let me end with this, Madam Speaker. The real delight that I take in an otherwise shameful series of events we have witnessed over the past couple of days is the fact that the public isn't buying it. That day of reckoning that British Columbians in every single region of the province are looking for is drawing closer. There is one thing that this government can't change, and that is the fact that sooner or later they will have to account for their actions. It is days and events such as this . . . .

It is a performance -- and it is the contempt that they show for British Columbians on days such as this -- that British Columbians will not forget. On that day of reckoning, it won't matter if the member for Skeena decides that it's finally time to give an answer. It won't matter if the Education minister is going to say to the people of Prince George why he spent their money to come here. It won't matter at all, because they won't be there anymore.

J. Weisgerber: It's with a bit of surprise that I find myself rising to debate the adjournment of the House in the midst of committee stage of the Nis g a'a treaty, something that, we've been led to believe by the government members, is critically important -- important for the Nis g a'a, for the treaty process and for the people of northwestern British Columbia, including the member for Skeena. It's important for his constituents. It's important enough that the House has been called back a second time to debate this critically important issue, an issue that I too believe is important.

It's important enough to start, important enough to follow through with some continuity, important enough to conclude. Whether or not we agree with the tack taken by the government, by the long list of Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs that we've seen since the member for Saanich South first took that portfolio . . . . There was the member for Saanich South, the good member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member for Nanaimo and now the recently converted member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Those kinds of changes have to be incredibly disruptive to aboriginal people and to people who are serious about moving ahead with this process.

Instead, we find ourselves on a Monday, immediately after question period, calling for the adjournment of the House. Madam Speaker, you will know that this is not the first time that members have come back to this Legislature on a Monday only to have the government adjourn the House. The government members and the Premier would have us believe that this is a fiscally responsible government, something that I'm sure evokes chuckles not only on this side of the House but across British Columbia as we look at the record of the government. Nevertheless, the government members want to continue to portray themselves in that light.

We have 75 members in this House. Most members travel anywhere from a few miles to 1,000 miles in order to get here. Airline transportation in this province is not cheap. Most members fly back to Victoria on Monday morning or Sunday night in order to prepare for a week's work in the Legislature. Twice in the last two months we've seen this House suddenly adjourn on a Monday -- once as we were concluding second reading on the Nis g a'a treaty. And what happened? The government, facing defeat in Parksville-Qualicum, a defeat that they knew was going to be humiliating for them, cut and ran.

They abandoned the House, adjourned the House on a Monday, with absolutely no regard for delegates who were planning to come to Victoria to make presentations to the government -- people who perhaps wanted to come and visit either the New Democratic caucus or the Liberal caucus, or to

[ Page 11384 ]

see me or perhaps even to visit the PDA caucus. Who knows? The PDA may well have had quite a long list of presenters wanting to meet with that fair-minded and independent member who, being among the best minds in British Columbia, would be in a position to articulate for them the great concerns they might have with this government. Knowing the member from the PDA -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- and his ability to cut to the quick with the government, they would probably have been lining up to see that worthy member so that he might make presentations on their behalf. But there was no consideration there.

I look back at the record of this Legislature -- which is determined by the Government House Leader -- around this whole Nis g a'a treaty debate. Members were advised on November 23 that the House would be back on November 30, with absolutely no indication of how long the debate would last. As I mentioned earlier, on December 14, facing a serious licking in the polls up in Parksville-Qualicum, they cut and ran. Members came back to this House on December 14, only to turn around and fly back, at significant public cost, because the House had indeed shut down.

Then we were advised on January 6, while some members were away . . . . We had been led to believe that the House would be coming back near the end of January. But no, it was critical that the House be back on January 13 to do the people's business.

For me, it was no problem. I was happy to be back here talking about the Nis g a'a issue, as I think most members were -- although courtesy would have seen a little more notice for that. Here we are today at question period, 15 minutes of the people's business, after members have been called back from all around the province to do their duty in this House . . . . After 15 minutes of business, the Government House Leader rises to adjourn -- because, I guess, we have a new cabinet minister.

I've been around this House for a while. I've seen new cabinet ministers come and go. Cabinet ministers get appointed in the middle of a session or between sessions. If it happens, as this does, that there are a couple of hot issues that the minister has to deal with, then the Premier has to decide: "Should I make that appointment now so that the member can in fact pick up the ball and carry it, or should I look around the cabinet and see if there is someone else?"

Maybe the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast could have sat over on the back bench for a few days until the Nis g a'a treaty was concluded. He's not in a position to change one word in the treaty. That's not my thought; that's not my idea -- that's the statement of the Premier. The Premier said that regardless of the best or the worst minds over there, as the minister, not one word in the Nis g a'a treaty is going to be changed. So why, then, is it so important to bring in a minister but then adjourn the House so that the minister can in fact get up to speed? It simply doesn't make any sense.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Skeena, who I suppose has been given strict instructions to only natter from his own seat but never to take his place so that he might be recorded in Hansard , has once again started making those comments that are so typical. But let's let him, at least by the back door, get into the debate. He can say something; I'll repeat it. I can rebut it, and then the member will actually be in Hansard twice. By acknowledging the member who said, "What's the hurry?" his words can now be heard two times.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member says -- and I stand corrected: "What's the hurry? You voted against it." So his commentary broadens, and pretty soon it's going to be difficult for me to repeat two or three sentences that the member manages to cobble together. But as long as he sticks to one, I can probably read them into the record for him.

The reality is that the member for Skeena -- the Terrace area, according to this government, being the primary beneficiary of the Nis g a'a treaty -- said: "What's the hurry?" He doesn't care; he thinks it's funny. He thinks it's a big joke that he flew in yesterday from Skeena at about a thousand dollars' worth of taxpayers' money. He thinks it's funny because he's going to hop on the plane not tonight but tomorrow morning -- for reasons that needn't be expanded on further. Tomorrow morning he's going to fly back to Terrace, and he's going to say to those folks: "What's the hurry?

What's the hurry?" Maybe that member will take a trip up to the Nass. Maybe he'll see Chief Gosnell and say: "What's the hurry, Chief? What's the rush, people?"

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, hon. members, again the member for Skeena launches into complex sentences. Were he writing them out, they would require a comma. And again we see that member's abilities tested sorely in this debate. But, hon. Speaker, I know that Hansard finds this exercise of the member speaking, me repeating it and then having to put it into the record twice somewhat redundant. So I'm going to continue with my line of thought.

And I'm going to encourage the member to seriously try and put his into something cogent enough that it would allow him to take his place in the House and carry on a debate for perhaps five, six, seven minutes -- you know, something almost as big as a private member's statement but without quite the time to prepare for it.

The issue around the abuses of this House . . . . There's no other way to describe what's gone on since November 30 but as an abuse of this Legislature, an abuse of the people and the purse of the people of British Columbia.

It underlines, better than I could ever dream up scenarios, and spells out the reason that legislatures require calendars, why legislatures require an order of business -- not just for the members, but for the people who like to come to Victoria and find the caucuses together, so that they can make presentations, and for delegations who want to come and see a minister in the minister's office. I wonder how many British Columbians have appointments with ministers over the next two weeks that are furiously being cancelled today, because the ministers are heading home, going back to their constituents.

Meetings that were scheduled for Victoria for the next couple of weeks are put on hold.

Legislatures like the legislature in Ottawa, which has many warts on it . . . . But at least that House has an order of business. You know that come February -- about now; today I guess it is -- the MPs are going to go back to Ottawa, and they're going to be there until the third week in June, at which time they will rise. The members will go home to their constit-

[ Page 11385 ]

uents and spend the summers meeting with their constituents. I have no doubt that MPs work as hard as MLAs do. And I know that summers find them in their constituencies. They go back in the fall, and they stay until a prescribed and agreed-upon date. They don't cut and run in the midst of a by-election. They don't cut and run when they promote some rookie as a cabinet minister, somebody from the back bench who needs to be brought up to speed. In a responsible parliament, you're not appointed until you're able to bring yourself up to speed. You do it in the evenings; you do it all night if you have to. And you're back here the next day to answer the questions in the House.

[3:45]

Over the last two weeks -- I've not been as active in this debate as I might like to have been, but I've been involved almost every day -- we didn't hear much from the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Indeed, he seemed to have been pushed to the margin by the Premier and by the Attorney General. So one wonders, then: what is it that the new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs needs to be brought up to speed on?

With the number of staff that he's able to bring into this House at committee stage, can't he respond to those issues that aren't responded to by the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Highways, the Attorney General or the Premier? It's not as if that poor minister were hung out there all on his own to answer those questions. You know, one of the best minds in British Columbia, one would think, would snap quickly on these issues and be prepared to answer these questions almost immediately.

I guess it underlines the danger for all of us in political life of reading selected media quotes and wanting to believe the good ones, while ignoring those that are more critical of us. It's kind of tragic when we grab onto something and start to really believe it -- and believe it so strongly that we actually write it into our speeches.

If one thinks that given a good, solid grounding . . . . And I'll give the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast credit: I think he understands Aboriginal Affairs; I think he understands the issues. He certainly understands them at least as well as the last minister did. I suppose that that's being damned with faint praise, but nevertheless, I certainly think it's fair to say that he understands the issue as well as the last minister did. I think it would be hard to make an argument to say: "Our new guy is only up to speed as much as the last minister was, so we want to be out of here for a couple of weeks to try and bring him into a more complete understanding of the issues."

Then one must believe that it's because he has taken on this hot potato, the fast ferries. "Faced with questions daily in the House, we've got to get the new minister in and make sure that he's up to speed on the ferry issues." I have to reflect on the answers we have heard over the last two weeks from the former minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. With all due respect to that good member from Prince Rupert, the member for North Coast, those answers don't require a lot of depth.

You don't have to have a very deep understanding of the issue to say: "Well, I didn't know anything; nobody told me anything about overruns. I depended, not on the member for Comox Valley -- who sat on the board -- to bring me information; not on the many, many critics and sometimes supporters of the project, who for two years had been talking about it being over budget and obviously way, way behind

schedule . . . . " But the good minister, the member for North Coast, wasn't particularly forthcoming with his answers. What is it that the new minister has to know that the old minister didn't know? What is it that we can expect from this new minister? Will there be an insightful review of B.C. Ferries that will allow that new minister to be so much better informed than the Deputy Premier, the minister who has had this portfolio for three years now, who sat in on board meetings, who had a caucus member attending the ferry board meetings?

"Why is it that we're adjourning?" you have to ask yourself. We're about a third of the way through a careful scrutiny, I think, of the Nis g a'a treaty -- a scrutiny that has been thoughtful, a scrutiny that has been respectful of aboriginal people and aboriginal aspirations -- and a process that allowed us to examine the government's rationale, some of it very sound.

Some of the things we learned in this process, I think, caused members on this side of the House -- myself, at least -- to reconsider criticisms that we've had of various elements of the treaty -- answers that I think were useful to us and to people who are interested in the process. Why would we stop this on a Monday, 15 minutes into the week's work?

Imagine, Madam Speaker, if you were a foreman on a job -- an important construction project -- and you called everybody back to work Monday morning. Work shut down on Friday, and you gave them absolutely no indication that there was going to be a new straw boss among the elite the next Monday morning. You called everybody back to work, introduced the new straw boss and said: "That's it; we're all going home. We'll let you know when we need you again, folks." What kind of management on a project would that be?

What kind of a private sector corporation would bring in a new staff member, one of 20 -- I guess it's up to 20 now -- new managers? I think the managers actually outnumber the backbenchers. What kind of an organization, promoting someone from outside into the corporate structure, would have everybody come back to work Monday morning, clock on for 15 minutes and then adjourn, not to a specified day and not even giving those people and the people who were interested in the completion of the project any sense of when work on the project was going to resume -- in this case, the Nis g a'a treaty?

I heard nothing from the Government House Leader that said: "We would like to adjourn the House for two weeks and come back here on a given date." I don't care whether it's one week, two weeks -- whatever it is. But I think that if the New Democrats are as sincere about this Nis g a'a treaty as the Premier would have us believe, they would at least have had the courtesy to the Nis g a'a to have established a date on which they're going to resume debate, with the notion of concluding this issue. That's not the case.

I think it's an abuse of the privileges of this House; I think it's an abuse of the people of British Columbia. I think it's arrogance that is offensive; it's abrasive. To use the House as cynically as this House has been used since November 20 doesn't serve the people well. It sure as heck doesn't reflect very well on the government. I am, quite honestly, shocked that members of this assembly would be brought back to Victoria twice within two months, only to see the government cut and run the same day -- in this case, after only 15 minutes of debate.

I know that my friends in the Liberal caucus take some pride in their ability to put the government under the gun. With all due respect to them, I don't think the pressure today was that great. I mean, sure, there were some tough questions. But to all roll over . . . . It makes one wonder how, in the good

[ Page 11386 ]

old days of the pit bulls, which I recently had an opportunity reflect on, former governments ever managed to stay in the House. You would have thought that having been able to hand out the abuse, these folks would let this stuff bounce off them like Teflon people -- but not so, apparently. Now, there are some new members on the government side who never had the opportunity to sit over here and hurl things at the government . . . .

Some Hon. Members: They will.

J. Weisgerber: Well, members down the way say: "They will." I think that's incredibly kind. I think you're being far too generous with most of those members; many folks are on their last trip. For some, it's their first and last, I guess.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Easy come; easy go.

But I want to finish up on a note that is serious. I do believe, and I've campaigned . . . . Well, I won't say for how many years, because it sounds as if one is equating years of service with some great sacrifice that has been made. I wouldn't want to do that, because I've been privileged to serve in this House every year that I've been here. I don't consider it any sacrifice at all; I consider it a privilege to serve in this House.

But I have long felt that this Legislature has matured to the point where it needs a calendar. It needs some stability; there needs to be some certainty and some predictability as to the sittings of this Legislature. These last two months have certainly gone a long way towards reinforcing in my mind the notion that the sittings of this Legislature should not be at the whim of the Premier or the Government House Leader.

I suppose one of the great benefits of an abuse of that kind of privilege is that it often takes a series of events like those we've just witnessed for people to understand a concept. I believe that British Columbians will surely start to understand the importance of a calendar for the efficient operation of their government. And let's make no mistake about it: this isn't our government; it's not our House. It's not, as one member was quoted as saying . . . . These aren't "toys for the boys" -- or girls.

These are serious matters of state, and this Legislature should run in a way that respects that obligation to the people of British Columbia. What we've seen in the last two months is evidence of a disregard for that responsibility.

[4:00]

When we get back here -- and I have no doubt that someday we will be summoned to this House again -- I hope that all members, the Speaker included, will start working on a process to introduce to this Legislature a calendar that sees the people's business receive the kind of priority that I believe it deserves in this chamber.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Campbell: It is with some regret that, unfortunately, I have to stand today to speak to this government's motion to adjourn.

As the member for Peace River South mentioned earlier, when we run for office, when we seek to be elected and seek public support, we normally undertake that we will carry out our public responsibilities. As I've said many times before, the first time you come into this legislative chamber, you think this is a true honour. It is a true honour to be able to speak and work and act on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Most of us who get involved in public life understand that public life in a democracy -- public life where the citizen is the driver of public policy, where we are servants -- involves debate, involves discussion, involves a government being forced to answer difficult questions, the questions of the public. What we have seen today is simply the capping of a session of a government that has lost not just the authority to govern but public support. It is clearly a government without integrity, a government that is unwilling to stand accountable for its disastrous record in British Columbia.

Instead of the feisty little east-side fighter standing up and saying, "I'll stand on my record," he runs away, hon. Speaker. This Premier will not carry out his obligations. It is the Premier who has an obligation here. He has an obligation to fire the minister responsible for the B.C. ferry fiasco, and he doesn't. He says: "Gee, that might be a little tough, to hold someone accountable for a $200 million overrun, accountable for the destruction of one of the proudest Crown corporations in British Columbia." Instead of holding him accountable, what does he do? He says: "Oh, sit over here.

You'll get your same paycheque. You didn't really have to know what was happening in your corporation. Run and hide, Dan; run and hide. I'll back you up. I'll stand in front of you." But does he stand? No. The Premier runs and hides too.

Two weeks of questions -- two weeks -- and a number of opportunities . . . . Last week the Premier had an opportunity to answer question after question, and the Premier sat there mute. The Premier, like his former minister responsible, stood up and said: "I didn't know. Oh sure, I was there cracking the champagne on the bow of the ferry. I just didn't realize that the champagne cost $100 million for one bottle."

They're running away from their duty. You travel across the province, and you find that MLAs from the government side run away from their constituents. We have a Premier who runs away from question period. Now we have a government that runs away from the public. This is unquestionably the most cowardly government in the history of the province.

Let's just look at what we're dealing with; let's think about what we are supposed to be doing in this House. This was the Government House Leader -- when was it? -- just three weeks ago . . . . "Everybody else is back at work. It's time to get on with it. It's a very important issue. We need to conclude it," she said with regard to the Nis g a'a treaty. Yet what does this government do? It runs. It runs from the opportunity to explain its position.

I guess it's pretty hard to explain spending $7.5 million of the public's money to mislead them. I guess it's pretty hard to explain when the Premier comes in and can't even tell us how they valued the land component of this. It's pretty hard to explain why the government claims this is a municipal style of government, when it's not. It's pretty hard to explain why a government said it was absolutely critical that we come back in January and bring people from their constituencies, yet now they're going to run from the very questions that this House is demanding that we ask.

This government's got to understand that this is a duty that they face -- a duty. The reason they get a paycheque is to

[ Page 11387 ]

answer those questions. It's to develop policy -- honest public policy. There may be differences of opinion. But these are the taxpayers' dollars that they're spending. This government, once again, has shirked its duty. They are running like a band of dogs with their tails between their legs.

What do we have, hon. Speaker? Here's a government that says that there is no need for us to be in the House. Here is a back bench that sits mute, just doing whatever they're told. They're patted on their heads and told to be quiet -- even the member for Skeena is told to be quiet -- and they silently let it go. What about the member for Kamloops and the member for Yale-Lillooet, who are sitting there silently as over a thousand people are losing their jobs at Highland Valley?

When are those people going to stand up for their constituents and demand that the government stop subsidizing American workers and put B.C. workers back to work in British Columbia? When are they going to stand and speak for their constituents? When is the member for Cariboo South, the Minister of Forests, going to stand and speak for his constituents at Gibraltar? Within 40 days, 280 families are going to lose their work, and this government adjourns the House.

This government, which has targeted B.C. industry and B.C.'s industrial workers, said: "We will tax you more and more. We will subsidize the Americans, and we'll tax B.C. workers." Guess what happens: British Columbians lose their paycheques. Just think of what that means.

The other day I was sitting in a restaurant, and a woman came up to me and reached across and said: "Mr. Campbell, I want to thank you for the B.C. Liberals raising the issue of Highland Valley in the House." She referred to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. She said to me: "You know, I have a job. This isn't about my job; it's about my husband's job. He works at Highland Valley." She couldn't finish her sentence, because she was crying. She was crying because there is a human cost to this government's incompetence.

I wonder how many of the members opposite have decided to go up to Gold River and talk to the people in Gold River about what's happened to them and their families as they lose their hope, as they despair for the value of their homes, and as they wonder whether they're going to have a job next year or not. What's happened to that entire community?

This government says: "It's time to adjourn the House." Those members opposite are going to sit there and say we should adjourn the House while we have thousands of British Columbians who are worried about whether they're going to own a house because of this government's economic policies. It is absolutely unheard of.

This is about the people of British Columbia. This is a place where we are supposed to do the people's business, and this government says: "We'll adjourn; we will run away." This government has single-handedly taken the B.C. Ferry Corporation and destroyed it. They have basically and effectively put that Crown corporation into bankruptcy. In spite of this Premier's promise that the public would know everything that's going on with B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro -- with Crown corporations -- not once since he made that promise has the Crown Corporations Committee of this House sat. And this government says it's time to adjourn.

We have a health crisis in British Columbia. The other day we met with the B.C. Cancer Agency. Do you know what they're looking for? They're looking for $100 million to support research; they're looking for $100 million to find a cure for cancer. In British Columbia we have an opportunity; we have the talented people that can do that. I'm only mentioning that because there were a number of government members at that reception, and they all said how important this was. But this government has wasted $200 million. While they'll make the Cancer Agency look for $100 million, they've wasted $200 million on a boondoggle like B.C. Ferries.

Not one member of this government can claim to support health care when that's the kind of thing that's taking place in this province. We have communities in this province that have no ambulance service. We have communities in this province that have difficulty getting health care. Many members opposite represent them, and they say that it's time to adjourn. It's just health care, it's just patients that are going to suffer, but we'll adjourn. There's the Health Committee that could meet. We could have the Health Committee meeting in this House right now, but this government has not called that committee into session once.

What has happened? Waiting lists have grown. Doctors spend their time trying to figure out how to move patients from one community to the next and from one bed to the next, looking for a bed where they can provide care for the people of British Columbia. And this government says it's time to adjourn. Is the government so lacking in imagination? Are the backbenchers so lacking in imagination that they don't think it is important for us to look for solutions to the health care crisis that's taking place? This government can keep to themselves all those crocodile tears they have shed, because no one believes them anymore.

We have a health care crisis in the province, and we have an education crisis in the province. Talk to the teachers of British Columbia; talk to the people who are working in the classrooms. Talk to the parents who are worried about the programs that are being taken away from their children. Talk to the school trustees about what's taking place in their communities. We have a serious problem in this province when a government turns tail and runs from the problems of B.C., instead of facing them and coming up with solutions that will work for every single British Columbian.

Just think of this. In the last month alone, what is this government's record? The NDP have taken this province, which used to have the number one economy in the country, from first place to last place. They've taken a province that used to have a very good credit rating . . . . We have watched as Standard and Poor's -- this month alone -- took our economy and downgraded our credit rating from stable to negative. They smugly sit on the other side and say that it doesn't matter. Tell the 16,000 people in the forest industry who have lost their paycheques that it doesn't matter.

The government should tell people in the mining industry who have lost their jobs that it doesn't matter. They should tell the people on waiting lists in hospitals -- whether it's for cardiac surgery, hip replacements, knee improvements or special surgery for children -- that it doesn't matter. That's exactly the message that this government sends when it says it's time for this House to adjourn.

[4:15]

What about all the British Columbians who want to be included in the debate with regard to the Nis g a'a treaty? What about all the people who want to be given voice -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike? What about the Gitanyow and the

[ Page 11388 ]

Git x san who were concerned about the treaty? What about the people who believe in equality for all British Columbians? What about the people who believe that there should be a vote for citizens who are being regulated by a government? What about the people who believe they should be included in a provincewide referendum? Why are they being closed out? This is even worse; this is even more of an insult.

This government seems to think it's no longer important to debate these issues openly and honestly and publicly, so they can be held accountable. No, this government thinks it's important to run from their obligations, run from their responsibilities and run from their duty. Hon. Speaker, I want to tell you that this government may be able to run today and it may be able to run next week, but it will not be able to run from an election. When an election is called, they will be defeated once and for all.

This is evidently the new NDP. This weekend we were told that there's a new NDP. Of course, we were told by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who believes in his principles so much that he was prohibited from practising law for a while. He said that we've got a new NDP. Well, what is the new NDP? It's the "no damn principles party" -- that's what the new NDP is.

Why are they running from a discussion and a debate about a piece of legislation that's so critical to the future of the province? We all want treaties, in this House. We all want treaties that work for all people -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Why are they running? The Premier used to be able to stand in the House and support the treaty. Why is he running? I'm sure that the former minister, the fired Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, will be glad to stay and help the new minister. Why are they running? There's simply no excuse for them to run.

Why is it that the Deputy Premier, who sits in his place and says: "I didn't know that we were $200 million over budget. I didn't know that B.C. Ferries, for which I am fully responsible, was going bankrupt. I didn't know I was supposed to ask questions when the bills kept coming in and we didn't get the quality of product that we were expecting. I don't know the answer to that . . . . " Why does the Deputy Premier run today? He runs from the questions of the media; he runs from the questions of the House; he runs from the public. Why does he run?

I thought he was supposed to be one of those brave, tough guys from the NDP. He's supposed to be some guy that could stand up. He hasn't been able to answer one question in this House in a straightforward manner in the last three weeks.

I wonder if they're running because it's almost time for the auditor general's report. You remember, hon. Speaker, that this was the government that told British Columbians it had two successive balanced budgets. In fact, in 1996 they said to all of us in this House and to 3.8 million British Columbians: "We have a surplus, a $16 million surplus. Aren't we good managers?" What was the truth, hon. Speaker? The truth was that they had a $684 million deficit.

It just happened, within two days of this Premier being elected by his party, that out of the blue $800 million materialized onto the balance sheets -- $800 million. Page after page after page of information is available for all the people of B.C. to see that this government had a deliberate program of misrepresentation of that. This government and every single member opposite, by inference, deliberately misled the people of British Columbia.

Now, after months and months of review, could it be that the government members are afraid of what the auditor general's report will say? Could it be that they are running from that obligation, as well -- the obligation to tell the truth about what's happening with people's tax dollars, to tell the truth about the state of our finances in British Columbia? You wonder why some of the members opposite even decided to run for office, if they weren't willing to stand on some principles. Remember the principle about no expansion of gambling in the province of British Columbia?

What we've really found out is that this government is run by one principle, and the principle of every member opposite under this government is that government can do whatever it wants, regardless of what the law is. We have watched as time and time again this government has had to be dragged into court by the citizens of British Columbia, so citizens could protect themselves and their communities from this government's arrogant and abusive policies.

I know that there is growing dissension in the ranks of the government, and there should be. I would love to see one member from the government side stand up and speak to the principles that she or he ran on in 1996 -- just one.

Many times I'm asked, "Isn't it possible to get someone from the government side to cross the floor, to move across the floor to this side of the House?" and I say to them: "You have to understand that it seems -- at least to me -- that these members didn't know why they ran." They evidently didn't understand that when they ran, they were going to watch, as we watched, our health care system be divided into a two-tier health care system between rural and urban communities. They sat mute as that happened. We've watched as hospitals have effectively been closed to patients in the north and rural communities.

This government sat mute. We've watched as one debacle after another has been foisted on the taxpayers of British Columbia, and this government has sat mute. We've watched as school trustees have been relegated not just to the back bench -- like some of the MLAs opposite -- but totally out of the discussion about how to improve the quality of education for our young people. Members opposite have sat mute. As their communities have suffered the loss of thousands of jobs, members opposite have sat mute.

So the question, I guess, is: what does the government think the Legislature is here for? The Legislature is here to carry out its obligations to the public -- not to some pathetic Premier who's lost confidence. He's lost the confidence not only of his caucus and not only of the public but of everyone in British Columbia, and he is an international joke.

The Deputy Premier has lost the confidence of the people of British Columbia, of the workers of British Columbia. I can still recall when we were told that the Deputy Premier was one of those great advocates for the forest workers of B.C. He's such a great advocate for the forest workers of B.C. that we watched as over 20,000 workers lost their jobs in the last two years. Again, I want to remind those opposite that those jobs are paycheques; they're families; they're kids. The social irresponsibility of this government has been phenomenal; it has been brutal. They have brutalized the families of British Columbia.

They have taken our future and stolen it from British Columbians. And they are saying it is time for us to adjourn?

Do they think we've solved the problems in B.C.? Well, ask the people at Highland Valley; ask the people in Gold River; ask the people at B.C. Ferries. Ask the workers at B.C. Ferries, who are embarrassed by what this government has put them through. Workers at B.C. Ferries used to be able to

[ Page 11389 ]

walk with some pride in the quality of the service they provided. They know very well that this government has done serious damage to the ferry service for every British Columbian -- every family and every community that depends on the ferry service for its quality of life, for its economy. Every single one of those communities has been hurt by this government's policies. Yet this government says it's time to adjourn.

Well, in a non-partisan way, let me suggest to the government that it is not time for us to adjourn; it is time for us to get to work. It's time for every single member of this House, regardless of their party, regardless of their constituency, to stand up and fight for their constituents so that we can have a province with a future that we can be proud of again. It's time for this government to stop running from its responsibilities.

It is time for this government to hold itself to account, to give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to have a say, to restore the quality of public life in the province of B.C. It is time not for an adjournment but for an election in British Columbia. It is not time for this government to run from its responsibilities; it is time for this government to face up to its responsibilities. I would suggest that it is time for every member opposite to remember that the honour of serving the public is to act on behalf of the people of this province -- not to rule them but to serve them.

It's time, in fact, for the members opposite to stand up for their constituents. It is time to remember that this Legislature is a public place. It is a place to do the public's business, not to play political games for the personal satisfaction of one man, the Premier.

In closing, let me say that it is time to change; it is time to change this House. I want to watch as the members opposite stand and speak for their constituents and vote with a free conscience. I want to watch as we lay out for the people of British Columbia what our plan will be -- our legislative plan. When will we meet? Do we need a fixed calendar? Of course we do. We need it for our constituents; we need it for our families; we need it for people across this province. We need them to know when we're doing the public's business.

We need them to know that public debate is healthy and honest and open and accountable in British Columbia. I can tell you that today the people of this province understand, particularly as a result of the events at the end of last week . . . .

Principle has been thrown out the door by this government, and the principle of public service has evidently been thrown out the door today. We should not be voting to adjourn today. We should be voting to do the public's business, the public's work. We should be voting to expose the incredible incompetence and negligence of a number of members of this cabinet. I think there's an opportunity for the backbenchers of the NDP. Surely the backbenchers could do a better job than this sorry group of cabinet officers that we have today. Surely the member for Skeena would be able to replace the member for Cariboo South and do a better job for the forest workers of his constituency.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: I've changed my mind. I think that the member for Skeena is appropriate in that position -- maybe out of the House altogether would be best.

But seriously, we have a government that has destroyed our economy, that is ruining our health care system and that has sent chaos through our education system -- a government that has lost all sense of value. British Columbians want values reflected in our public debate; they want values reflected in the legislation. The least they can ask of the people who were elected to serve is that they serve. If you're going to serve, you should be in this House. We should be debating these issues, and we should be coming up with solutions that will work for every British Columbian, regardless of the political party that an MLA was elected for.

I would ask the members opposite to show integrity, to stand on principle, to stand for service and to vote with us against this adjournment motion, so we can come up with solutions to the negligence and incompetence of an executive committee that clearly should not be there.

[4:30]

C. Clark: When the government asked us today to debate a motion to adjourn after 15 minutes of debate, I'm sure I wouldn't be alone amongst British Columbians in feeling absolutely disgusted. I have been disgusted over the last two years as I have watched members of the NDP back bench hide from their constituents. I have been disgusted over the last two weeks as I have watched a Premier hide from question period. Today I am even more disgusted to see a whole government attempt to hide from the people, to hide from the questions that will be brought forward in this House, by moving a motion to adjourn.

This House is here to be the voice of our constituents, so that we can make people's concerns be heard on their behalf. That's why this House comes together. Instead, the government, when times get tough -- when things get difficult -- says: "Well, there's no reason to sit anymore. Let's all go home."

Well, if by moving this motion to adjourn today they are asking for a reason not to adjourn, I'll give them a reason. I'll give them a lot of reasons. How about 16,000 reasons: the 16,000 people who have lost their jobs in the forest industry -- in one industry alone? Surely that's enough reason to have this House sit. Sixteen thousand British Columbians have lost their jobs in the forest industry since the NDP took power. That used to be the pride of our province, the strongest industry in British Columbia, the lifeblood of our economy -- not just a few jobs here and there around the province, but the foundation of our entire economy.

Sixteen thousand people have lost the dignity of work, the dignity that goes along with being able to go to your job every day. They've had to learn what it's like to stand in an unemployment line for the first time and what it's like to have to explain to their kids why they don't get anything at Christmas this year or explain to their families why they can't go and visit them in another province. For the first time in their lives, they have nowhere to go when they get up in the morning. Why are those 16,000 people facing that indignity today?

Why have they lost the dignity and the pride that go along with working with your hands in what used to be the lifeblood of British Columbia? Why have they lost that?

They have lost that because this government's policies have driven the forest industry into the ground. That's where those jobs have gone. It's overtaxation and overregulation. It's been a government that hasn't paid attention, which has shown itself to be so totally incompetent that it can't manage a ferry project much less British Columbia's forest industry. It's a government that is so incompetent that it has taken what

[ Page 11390 ]

was once an industry that everyone believed would be able to support our province for hundreds of years, and driven it into the ground. They have taken that industry and made it such that it's now a liability to have an operation in British Columbia. It drives your stock price down. Who would have imagined that that could ever happen in our province?

If this government wants a reason to be here to debate, there are 16,000 reasons in the forest industry. Even one of those would be enough. A hundred of them would be enough; a thousand of them would be enough. In the forest industry alone there are 16,000 reasons. Then we could look at Highland Valley Copper, a mine in Logan Lake near Kamloops, on which a whole region was dependent. A thousand people are losing their jobs at Highland Valley Copper.

Not only does this government refuse the Leader of the Opposition's request for an emergency debate, not only do they scoff at him when he stands up and suggests that we should talk about how important those jobs are and maybe make it a matter for urgent discussion in this House . . . .

Surely this is where we should be having that debate. Surely that's what this Legislature is for -- so that we can stand up, discuss and try to find solutions to the urgent problems facing this province. Instead, the government scoffs at the Leader of the Opposition when he stands up and says that that issue is important enough for us to debate. Guess what, hon. Speaker: we still haven't had an opportunity to debate that.

We've had a few opportunities in the 15 minutes we get in question period every day, but we still haven't had an opportunity to get up in this House and talk about how important those 1,000 jobs are to Logan Lake, to Kamloops and to Vancouver, a city that's dependent on the resource towns in this province to keep going. It's a city like any other in British Columbia that needs those jobs in places like Logan Lake, Merritt, Kamloops and Prince George.

We're all dependent on those jobs, but the government doesn't think it's important enough that we get up and discuss it. They say: "Well, it's not urgent. Don't worry. The mine's not closing down for three months. Trust us. We'll have done something about it by then. We've got three months to come up with a plan and fix it."

Well, that's what they said about the forest industry, and look what happened there. That's what they said about the rest of the mining industry, and look what happened there. That's what they said about small business, and look what happened there. Investment has fled our province; people have left our province. Jobs have evaporated in British Columbia, and this government doesn't think it's urgent enough to stand up and debate it. Now they say they don't want to have a debate; they don't want to have a discussion on Highland Valley Copper even in the future. They want the House to rise.

You've got 16,000 jobs in the forest industry alone; you've got 1,000 jobs at Highland Valley Copper; you've got hundreds of jobs at Gibraltar. Goodness knows how many more job losses we are going to have in British Columbia before this government feels it's important enough to have a discussion about it on the floor of the Legislature. If we are going to have this debate at all, surely it should happen here, where every member of this House can get up, represent his or her constituents and talk about it publicly -- stand up for their constituents and talk about how important those jobs are to their communities and talk about what these government policies mean for real people's lives.

You know, when a small business shuts down, when somebody loses a small business in British Columbia, it isn't just jobs. It's also their life's dream; that's what a small business is. Anyone who decides to start a small business probably doesn't just invest their life savings in it. They invest their life dreams in that; they invest their dreams for their children, for their families, and their hopes for the future. They invest themselves in that business, not just their money.

You know, this government sits back while we see small businesses in British Columbia shutting down in every community. We see small business people struggling under the burden of red tape that gets added on every year until finally they give up -- until they finally give up, and they're forced to liquidate not just their assets but their dreams. This government doesn't think that it's reason enough to be here; it doesn't think that those thousands of small business people and those thousands of small business jobs that are dependent on them are reason enough to be here.

Well, I disagree, hon. Speaker; I think that is enough reason to be here. I think that if there is anywhere that we should be talking about that, it is here. That's what the people expect us to be doing. People expect their Legislature to meet and discuss the issues of the day, talk about what's urgent and stand up for them in what's going on. You know, when I go back to my constituency, I have to admit that I do have a sense of how privileged I am to be here, not just because there are only 75 people that get to do this for a living in British Columbia, that get the opportunity to play a role in public policy-making at this level -- not just because of that.

But when I speak to my constituents, I realize that I'm struck every day by the frustration that they feel about this government, the frustration that they feel as people and members of the general public who don't feel like they have a voice, who don't feel like they can do something -- people for whom it might be enough just to be able to stand in front of the Premier, point their finger and say: "You're wrong. What you've done to our province is wrong; what you've done to my family is wrong; what you're doing to our economy is wrong. I will not let you sit there and destroy my life's dreams."

That's what my constituents want to do. They want to stand in front of the Premier and be able to tell him face to face what he's done to their lives and help him understand what it means for their families not to have the dignity of work anymore, what it means to wonder if they're going to be able to afford to send their children to university, what it means to wonder if they're even going to have their grandchildren living in the same province as they are, because their parents can't find work here anymore.

They want to be able to tell them that face to face, and I have the privilege of being able to at least do that -- to stand up in this House and tell the Premier right to his face that I think what he's doing is wrong. What he's doing is totally devoid of any kind of ethical or moral framework. The road he's leading British Columbians down is a dead end, and we can't afford it anymore. I have the privilege of being able to do that on my constituents' behalf.

It's not good enough, I suppose, for many of them -- not being able to do it themselves -- but maybe it's the best they can get. Maybe the best they can get is to have me stand up here on their behalf and remind the Premier about those 16,000 reasons in the forest industry or those 1,000 reasons in Highland Valley or those hundreds, probably thousands, of reasons in Port Moody in the small businesses. Maybe that's enough.

But you know what? I can only do that when this House is sitting. It was the House Leader who said: "Let's get on with

[ Page 11391 ]

it; let's get down to business; let's have this House sit. It's time we got on with the business of government." Well, I agree. We're here; let's do it. Don't adjourn the House at the end of July, call it back for a few weeks in November, have it rise again, call it back for a couple of weeks in January and then figure out that you're getting beaten up too badly, stick your tails between your legs and go hide. That's not the answer.

Maybe the government needs to figure out that if it's getting beaten up, it should start providing some answers. If things are getting a little tough for them, maybe it's not time to run and hide; maybe it's time to face up to what's really going on. Maybe it's time to stand in this House and be accountable for what you've done. Stand up and admit that what you did was wrong and that you've got to find a new way. Start searching for solutions and asking for help. The first step is admitting that you're wrong, and that's something this government is clearly not prepared to do.

They want to get up after 15 minutes of debate this week and run with their tails between their legs and say: "Well, we don't feel like answering any questions. The heat's too high. We don't like getting beaten up the way we have been."

I want an opportunity to hold this government to account. I want to hold the Premier to account for the 231,000 jobs he's promised to create since 1996. I am being very generous. The Premier didn't put an exact number on the jobs that would be created by the semiconductor plant in Golden. I'm also being a little generous . . . . When he said there were going to be thousands of jobs in the new Nike plant he was bringing to British Columbia, I only put that down as 1,000. So we've got him down for 231,000 jobs in British Columbia. That's how many jobs he said he was going to create.

British Columbia lost 11,000 jobs in the private sector last year. We are the only province in Canada that is predicted to lose jobs in 1999 -- from a Premier who said we were going to have hundred