2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Introductions by Members

Tributes

V. Roddick

Hon. J. Murray

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Legislature reforms

K. Krueger

Forest industry in B.C.

P. Bell

2002 B.C. Winter Games

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Health Planning minister's public relations costs

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hawkins

J. Kwan

Cost of ministers' preparations for open cabinet meetings

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

Sale of Skeena Cellulose

B. Belsey

Hon. R. Thorpe

Burton water supply

B. Suffredine

Hon. C. Hansen

Safety of water supply in B.C.

B. Suffredine

Hon. J. Murray

Impact of public service reductions

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell

Government action on U.S. duty on softwood lumber exports

R. Visser

Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Report of the Crown Proceeding Act

Motions without Notice

Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process.

Hon. G. Collins

Select Standing Committee on Education. Hon. G. Collins

Amendment to sessional order. Hon. G. Collins

Adoption of sessional order. Hon. G. Collins

Throne Speech Debate

B. Lekstrom

J. Nuraney

R. Hawes

J. MacPhail

D. MacKay

D. Jarvis

S. Orr

V. Anderson

[ Page 1051 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2002

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Tributes

CINDY KLASSEN, JAMIE SALÉ, DAVID PELLETIER

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I would like to recognize some real good news coming from Salt

Lake City. We have three athletes that have brought some medals to the Canadian

team.

The first

one is Cindy Klassen, who brought home a bronze medal for speed skating. The

other two young athletes are David Pelletier and Jamie Salé. They won the

Olympic Silver last Monday night. I think these two athletes in particular

showed the quality of character, on the ice and off the ice, that young Canadian

athletes represent in Salt Lake City.

I hope the

House can share our pride in these young athletes and, with that, pride in all

the young Canadian athletes in Salt Lake City.

Introductions by Members

Weisbeck: I would like to recognize four constituents from the beautiful

Okanagan Valley: Tom and Kay Bleakley, and Chester and Sylvia Zarco. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Tributes

JAY G. GOULD

Roddick: It is with honour and sadness that I rise today on behalf of the

life of British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Jay G. Gould — a longtime

member of the Liberal Party. He was born in North Vancouver on April 20, 1912,

and elected in the twenty-second provincial general election on June 15, 1949,

as MLA for Vancouver-Burrard. He contributed significantly to the success of two

major issues in the 1952 election: a new voting system and liquor reform. He was

elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1965 and

retired in 1987 at the age of 75.

Our

friendship goes back many, many years. My father and His Lordship, who were

naval officers in the Second World War, taught me to drink scotch. When I made

my first speech in this chamber, he critiqued the video, and — my apologies,

Mr. Speaker — he told me I was far too polite. In his day one addressed the

Speaker only once and then, with whimsical cynicism, went straight for the

jugular.

I ask the

members of this House to join me in one last greeting for His Lordship.

[Applause.]

IRWIN FRASER STEWART

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd like the House to join me in recognizing an exceptional Canadian

and a truly outstanding resident of my riding, New Westminster. Earlier this

year Dr. Irwin Fraser Stewart was appointed to the Order of Canada for his

significant contribution to the well-being of others, both within the province

of British Columbia and throughout the world.

[1410]

For over 30

years Dr. Stewart has dedicated himself to helping deaf children by setting up

travelling clinics and surgical training in many developing countries. He's been

an inspiration to a number of people in British Columbia. He's been honoured for

his clinical research on childhood deafness and was named professor emeritus at

UBC. A longtime volunteer with the Rotary organization, Dr. Stewart continues to

guide numerous health care projects worldwide. I'd like the House to join me in

acknowledging his achievements.

Introductions by Members

S. Orr:

This is the first time I've ever had anyone to introduce in the House, so what

can I say? This is very exciting, and I'm going to make it worth my while in

quantity. I am very, very pleased to introduce today the UVic B.C. Young

Liberals executive. I want to first introduce Lisa Karoway. She's the president,

and she is the driving force of the UVic B.C. Young Liberals. Then Kara

Hamilton, who is the vice-president, who I have worked very closely with over

the last few years. Dallas Henault, who actually is a constituent of the member

for Okanagan-Westside. Trisha Girard. Spencer Sproule, who I actually have known

since before he was born. Bill Hepburn, who is actually presently my assistant

LA.

These

students were remarkable on the day that there was a student protest down on the

lawns. They stayed up at UVic, they set up a table, they sat down, and they

explained myth from fact. They told me and have told many people that they had a

lot of silent support. Would you please give this group of very bright students

a very warm welcome.

Penner: I have the honour of introducing Constable Tracey Atwell to the

Legislature. I first got to know her during last spring's provincial election

campaign. She's based in the lower mainland, and she's working to increase all

of our personal security here in the Legislature. Would you please make her

welcome.

P. Bell:

I, too, would like to recognize the performance of an athlete at this year's

Winter Games. Prince George's very own Scott Bellavance finished in sixth place

in the freestyle competition a few days ago and was the top Canadian. Will the

House please congratulate him.

MacKay: For the second time I stand up in the House to welcome somebody from

the beautiful Bulkley Valley. I would ask the House, for the second time, to

make my beautiful wife welcome to the House.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) LEGISLATURE REFORMS

Krueger: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House the new venue of

private members' two-minute

[ Page 1052 ]

statements. In the past private members were prevented from genuine

participation in the decisions and processes of government. Constituents often

felt that unless their MLA was appointed to cabinet, their voices would be muted

and their issues overlooked.

colleagues and I are proud to serve with a Premier who committed in opposition

what he is delivering every day in government — that every MLA will be a

working MLA. These speaking opportunities will give private members the chance

to highlight concerns, issues and events in their constituencies. They represent

one more solid, tangible demonstration of good faith to the people of B.C. from

a Premier and a government who have delivered on many promises in eight short

months in office.

In the

areas of parliamentary and electoral reform we have seen the dates of future

elections fixed to prevent the political gamesmanship and self-serving

decision-making which were the norm in the past. Legislative sessions have been

calendared in advance to enable orderly planning of the work and allow members

to more effectively service their constituencies. Government caucus committees

and select standing committees have demonstrably shaped government decisions by

funnelling in public input. This Premier has made good on his promise of free

votes on legislation, first as Leader of the Official Opposition and now as

Premier.

[1415]

In all of

these ways this government has moved B.C. away from the political shenanigans

and wasteful practices of the past and has established effective, efficient,

practical, inclusive, businesslike practices.

The old

ways of doing things in government were tough on families, and far too many

members' marriages foundered as a result. They were, in effect, hostile to

women, who have often found themselves precluded from serving as MLAs due to

family commitments that could not be met with erratic scheduling and

helter-skelter approaches to government. Those days are gone.

Today we

herald another solid demonstration of the integrity of this Premier and this

government, proof of the courage to change things for the better, evidence of

respect for the elected members of this assembly and trust in the wisdom of the

constituents who chose us to represent them here. Private members appreciate and

applaud this innovation and look forward to the positive contributions these

changes will allow.

FOREST INDUSTRY IN B.C.

P. Bell:

I'd like to talk for a few minutes today about the importance of building a wood

culture in British Columbia. I'm sure that's no surprise to most folks. B.C. was

built on the strength of our forest industry, but we have not kept pace. It's

time for us to move into the twenty-first century.

We face

huge challenges in our forest industry today. We're in what seems like

never-ending talks with our neighbours to the south while the mountain pine

beetle chews away at our northern interior forests. Product substitution from

concrete and steel is shrinking the North American residential house market.

Product substitution in the last three years has eaten up 2½ percent of that

market, and that will continue to grow.

Mr.

Speaker, there is good news. There is a huge untapped market in our own back

yard. I'm speaking of commercial and institutional construction. Wood currently

controls just 19 percent of that market, and the potential is for us to grow

that market to 50 percent or better. We really need to pay attention to this. We

don't think of wood as our material of choice in commercial and institutional

buildings, and we spend little time training our architects and engineers on the

processes of building with wood.

A few years

ago the Heather Park Middle School was built in my riding of Prince George

North. Although the school was originally designed in concrete and steel, school

district 57 had enough foresight to rethink the project. Coming from a riding

that has six sawmills and five pulp mills, the logical product to substitute was

wood. The results were remarkable. Heather Park was built with an additional

$700,000 worth of wood products, and that actually saved $200,000 in the

process.

The results

can be even more impressive when wood is part of the original design. Qualicum

Secondary is being designed and renovated currently with wood at a saving of

$507,000 on a $3.9 million project. That represents a savings of 13 percent.

Talk about a win-win situation! I encourage us to do everything we can to build

with wood in B.C.

2002 B.C. WINTER GAMES

W. Cobb:

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to invite you and all members of the

Legislature to the most northerly community of my riding, Cariboo South, and my

hometown, Williams Lake. With the support of two neighbouring communities,

Quesnel to the north and 100 Mile to the south, we are hosting the 2002 B.C.

Winter Games. The competition features over 25 different sporting events and

approximately 2,500 athletes competing for the gold.

Williams

Lake is ready and able to welcome the athletes and their fans. Local community

groups have been working tirelessly to make this the best B.C. Winter Games

ever. From what I've seen so far, I have no doubt that they will succeed. It

never ceases to amaze me — the amount of enthusiasm and spirit these events

produce. In times of change, the strength of the province is in our communities

when they pull together to make these things happen.

[1420]

personally thank all of those involved. You are the people who make me proud. I

only hope I can represent you as well as you represent your community. The games

will begin on Thursday, February 21, and continue until Sunday the 24th. If

you're in for a good time and you couldn't make it to the Salt Lake City games,

come on up to Williams Lake. Let the games begin!

Oral Questions

HEALTH PLANNING MINISTER'S

PUBLIC RELATIONS COSTS

MacPhail: The Minister of Health Planning made a presentation to an open

cabinet meeting a couple of

[ Page 1053 ]

months ago where she talked about the strategic shifts in health planning. To

the Minister of Health Planning: isn't the strategy she presented really just a

PR exercise designed to cover the fact that her ministry is just a waste of

money that could be better spent on patient care?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: That member, when she was Minister of Health, didn't plan a darn

thing for any patients in this province for ten years. For ten years patients

withered. They languished on waiting lists. There was absolutely not a stitch of

planning done for patients.

This

government has made a commitment. They've put in a planning ministry. They're

working off more than a corner of a desk. They're making long-term plans and

commitments to patients that will benefit patients in this province.

MacPhail: I guess people in British Columbia should be relieved to know that

the money they spend to keep the Minister of Health Planning at the cabinet

table is not wasted. However, the New Democrat opposition has learned that in

the case of at least this minister, it's costing taxpayers more than it should.

In fact, the minister is charging taxpayers thousands of dollars to enhance her

performance in cabinet. The opposition has obtained an invoice from a private

communications firm in Kelowna charging the Ministry of Health Planning $6,000

for a PowerPoint presentation that she gave to open cabinet on December 12,

2001. Nice maps.

To the

Minister of Health Planning: given the pain that your government is forcing on

patients, can the minister tell this House if she believes that spending $6,000

is a reasonable expenditure of tax dollars just so that the minister can look

better at an open cabinet meeting? Can she also tell the House how much more she

spent getting other outside PR help?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I will take that on notice.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with another supplementary.

MacPhail: The invoice is here. It's on record. There are other factors that

the Minister of Health Planning has actually spent PR dollars on. There's more

to come.

The

Minister of Health Planning spent another $4,500 — health care dollars — for

a speech that she gave three weeks ago in Victoria. In that speech, we

understand, she talked about putting patients first.

Again, to

the Minister of Health Planning: that minister has said in the past that her

constituents are concerned about public relations spending. How does the

minister think her constituents would feel about her taking thousands of dollars

away from patient care and using those dollars just to bolster her performance?

Why does this minister think that PR counts for more than patient care?

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I think it takes a lot of gall, hon. Speaker, when they spent

millions and millions…. The auditor general estimated that they spent over $25

million a year on PR campaigns.

Interjection.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I said that I would take it on notice. I'll get the information for

you.

J. Kwan:

We know that the minister has spent almost $11,000 on just two speeches. We also

know that the communications firm the minister hired is Greenaway and Associates

Communications Ltd., which has been a generous contributor to the Liberal Party

over the years.

This is a

minister who shares a communications branch with her counterpart, the Minister

of Health Services, that employs over 20 people. I am sure that all of the staff

between the two ministries would be eager and competent to provide assistance to

the minister for her preparation of speeches for open cabinet meetings.

[1425]

Again, to

the Minister of Health Planning: can she please tell the House how much more

money she needs diverted from patient care for her PR campaign?

We have a

copy of the bill, the invoice, right here, and we'd certainly be happy to share

it with the minister so she can find out how much she did indeed pay for her

personal PR improvement.

COST OF MINISTERS' PREPARATIONS

FOR OPEN CABINET MEETINGS

J. Kwan:

Some have described the open cabinet meetings as staged events with rehearsed

questions and rehearsed answers. To the Premier: is it the case that his

ministers and their staff are incapable of preparing for their own open cabinet

presentations? And will he commit to do an audit today to find out the extra

costs that taxpayers are paying to his ministers in racking up just to preen for

the cameras at open cabinet meetings?

Hon. G.

Campbell: One of the things this government decided to do for British

Columbians was lay out for them the strategy of government, where we were going

and what we were doing and — believe it or not — open cabinet meetings. We

intend to continue to do that. The strategic plan that has been put together for

our health authorities means millions and millions of dollars are going to focus

on patient care instead of unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast.

Interjections.

[ Page 1054 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for North Coast has

the floor.

SALE OF SKEENA CELLULOSE

Belsey: My question today is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. The continued uncertainty around the future of Skeena Cellulose has

been very hard for the many families and people living in my community who rely

on the pulp mill for their livelihood. In spite of the government's recent

announcement that it is looking at two new proposals, many of my constituents

are beginning to wonder if there is any hope, since the previous discussions

with both Mercer and NWBC have failed. Will the Minister of Competition, Science

and Enterprise tell my constituents the current status of the talks to save

Skeena Cellulose?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Since June 7 we've been working very hard on behalf of the families

and the communities of the northwest. On January 23 of this year our discussions

ended with Mercer Financial. On January 24 of this year we signed an agreement

with NWBC. Unfortunately, on February 6 NWBC did not comply with a key financing

arrangement with respect to that agreement. We are continuing today to have

discussions with Northwest B.C. and FORCAP. I have told all of the parties that

we are prepared, on behalf of the families and the communities of the northwest,

to work around the clock in an effort to get a deal.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for North Coast with a supplementary.

Belsey: Supplementary to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. The courts have ordered the government to have an agreement signed

with a potential buyer for Skeena Cellulose by Friday. However, should there be

no agreement in place by Friday, will the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise tell my constituents whether he will ask the courts for an extension?

[1430]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Since September 5 Skeena Cellulose has been under the protection of

the courts. This has led to uncertainty for the families and the communities of

the northwest. Since September 5 we have appeared in the courts twice and have

been granted extensions on those deadlines. Mr. Speaker, the members for North

Coast, Skeena and Bulkley Valley–Stikine have been working hard on behalf of

their constituents, and they've been working hard with my office to facilitate a

sale. But let me be very, very clear. Time is running out. Time is critical, and

without a signed agreement by Friday of this week, I believe we are all aware of

the alternative.

BURTON WATER SUPPLY

Suffredine: Having pure, clean water is critical to all of us, especially

those of us who live in rural areas where community water systems are our

sources. There are reports this morning that the drinking water in the town of

Burton was contaminated last August. What is of particular concern to my

constituents is that the public was not told about this for four weeks after the

contamination occurred. Can the Minister of Health Services tell us how this

incident occurred and provide my constituents with an update on the current

status of their drinking water?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, if you go back to where some of the problems around water

originate, they were flagged by the auditor general about three or four years

ago. The previous government was all too slow in trying to react to some of the

water concerns that are throughout the province. In this particular case there

were water samples that were taken. The tests were done, and when they were sent

back to the environmental health officer, that particular officer had left his

position to go to another posting. The facts sat in an in-basket for 11 days.

That is

obviously unacceptable. The provincial health officer has reviewed that case.

They have looked at the communication breakdown that took place. They are making

sure that that kind of situation cannot happen again. We are taking action in

terms of strengthening water quality monitoring in British Columbia. We're

taking action in terms of infrastructure needs around the province, with the

announcements that were made by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services.

This

government is taking its responsibility for water quality very seriously, and we

will ensure that there are clear accountabilities and that the public can ensure

that they have safe water in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston with a supplementary question.

SAFETY OF WATER SUPPLY IN B.C.

Suffredine: Access to safe, clean water is a top concern for most British

Columbians, particularly in light of the recently released report into the

Walkerton water tragedy. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell

my constituents what her ministry is doing to ensure the protection of their

drinking water sources?

Hon. J.

Murray: We heard people's concern about safe drinking water. It's a very

high priority for our government. In the restructuring, we protected all the

field staff positions that deal with drinking water quality. We are adding a

million and a half dollars to drinking water monitoring equipment.

IMPACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REDUCTIONS

J. Kwan:

Yesterday the Premier said that we would have to ask people individually if

they were worse off because of his cuts to vital public services. Fortunately

for the Premier he won't have to do that, because there is one

[ Page 1055 ]

person who has done that math for him. His caucus chair, the member for

Cariboo North, told the Cariboo Observer : "The rich will feel it

less than those at the bottom end." To the Premier: does he agree with his

caucus chair?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think one of the things that everyone in the province knows is

that over the last decade every British Columbian, particularly the most

vulnerable British Columbians, suffered at the hands of the New Democratic

government of the 1990s. Hon. Speaker, this government gave every B.C. worker

across the board a 25 percent tax cut so they could take home more money to take

care of their families. This government restored workers' rights so they could

take better care of their families. This government is restoring the forest

industry so those workers can take care of their families and the mining

industry so those workers can take care of their families.

[1435]

Every

worker in this province should know this: this government is committed to those

workers, those families and those communities across British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DUTY

ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

Visser: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long, tough winter for many of my

constituents. To date, hundreds of forestry workers in my riding and thousands

across the province have been laid off as a result of the softwood lumber

dispute, and many are wondering if they're going to be called back to work soon,

if at all. Can the Minister of Forests provide any hope to the many families in

forest-dependent communities like mine as to when they can expect to see an end

to this crippling dispute?

Hon. M.

de Jong: It's certainly true, and I think all of us know it, that there are

literally thousands of families who have been devastated — workers and their

families who have been devastated — by the punitive imposition of this

indefensible trade sanction. Can I give those families a firm, fixed date by

which we will have an agreement? No, I can't do that. In fact, can I give them a

guarantee that we will get an agreement? I can't give them that, either, because

we will not cave in to unreasonable American demands.

What I can

guarantee them is that this Premier, myself and every member of this government

— and I suspect every member of this House — are going to pursue every

option, are going to explore every avenue and are going to take every possible

effort to secure a settlement. But it will take something that we have not seen

thus far, and that is a degree of reasonableness and good faith on the American

side of the negotiating table. Let's hope we begin to see some of that when

these talks resume next week.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: I have the honour to present the report of the Crown Proceeding Act

for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000, in accordance with

section 15(2) of

that act.

Motions without Notice

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I have four motions which I would like to move now. We

have agreement, with leave, to do that.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: I suppose you can ask, but I've asked the member from the

opposition. I'll ask leave to table a motion.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Collins: I was trying to speed things up. But if the member wants us to

follow the rules, I'll read all the motions into the order paper, and this will

take perhaps a little longer.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW

THE POLICE COMPLAINT PROCESS

[By leave I move that the Special Committee to Review the

Police Complaint Process be reappointed and empowered to examine, inquire

into and make recommendations with respect to the police complaints process

in accordance with

section 51.2 of the Police Act and in particular, without

limiting the generality of the foregoing to:

1. Review comprehensively

part 9 (Complaint Procedure) of the Police Act and

the work of the police complaint commissioner;

2. Solicit and consider written and oral submissions from

any interested person or organization by any means the committee considers

appropriate;

3. Submit a report including any amendments to

part 9 that

the committee recommends to the Legislative Assembly arising out of the

results of the committee's inquiry within one year of this resolution being

adopted by the House.

The special committee so appointed shall have the powers of

a select standing committee and is also empowered:(

a) to appoint of their

number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of

the matters referred to the committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and

during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or

following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may

be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings

of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative

Assembly.

The said special committee is to be composed of the

following members: Mr. Nuraney (Convener), Mmes

[ Page 1056 ]

Locke and Sahota, Messrs Johnston, Lee, MacKay, Wong and

Ms. Kwan.]

Motion

approved.

[1440]

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the following motion.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Collins: Perhaps, if it's fine with the members opposite, I can dispense

with reading the motion. It's a motion to recharge the Education Committee so

they can complete the work that they're currently embarked upon.

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

[That the Select Standing Committee on Education be

reappointed and empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations

by consulting with educators, students, parents, administrators and other

British Columbians on the following matters:

1.(

a) measures to improve access, choice, flexibility and quality in public

education; and

(

b) measures to strengthen our network of colleges,

institutes and on-line learning throughout the province.

2. Consider any matters referred to the committee by the

Minister of Education and the Minister of Advanced Education.

3. Prepare a report no later than February 28, 2002 on the

results of those consultations.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the

Select Standing Committee on Education, the committee shall be empowered:(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned

and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or

following any adjournment or at the following session, as the case may be;

to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings

of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative

Assembly.

The said select standing committee is to be composed of the

following members: Ms. McMahon (Convener), Mmes Brenzinger, Locke and Orr,

Messrs Christensen, Lee, Manhas, Masi, Nijjar and R. Stewart.]

Motion approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I would like to move a motion which is an amendment to the

sessional orders which we introduced in the last day of the last sitting of the

previous session, which had to do with our parliamentary calendar. With the

leave of the House, I'll dispense with reading the motion and just put it

forward.

AMENDMENT TO SESSIONAL ORDER

[That the sessional order passed by the House on August 27,

2001, amending the standing orders for the duration of the third session of

the thirty-seventh parliament, commencing February 12, 2002, be amended as

follows:Daily sittings.

1. Paragraph 2(1) is amended by deleting "Wednesday 2

p.m. to 7 p.m." and substituting "Wednesday 2 p.m. to 6 p.m."

2. Paragraph 2(2)(

b) is amended by deleting March 25 and

substituting "March 18".

3. Paragraph 3 is amended by deleting "7 p.m. (or 9

p.m. after March 4, 2002) on Wednesday" and substituting "6 p.m.

(or 9 p.m. after March 4, 2002) on Wednesday;"

Orders of the Day.

4. Under the heading "Private Members' Time"

before "Public Bills in the hands of Private Members" add

"Private Members' Statements (10 a.m.)".

5. Delete the paragraph immediately after "Public

Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice" and substitute the

following:"No division, on orders of the day, will be taken in the

House or in Committee of the Whole during Private Members' Time, but where a

division is requested, it will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to the

ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday, unless

otherwise ordered."

6. Under the heading "Government Days" delete

"Private Members' Statements (6 p.m. Wednesday)".

Private Members' Statements

7. Paragraph 25A.(1) is amended by deleting "Wednesday

at 6 p.m." and substituting "Monday at 10 a.m." and by

deleting "no later than 6 p.m. the preceding Monday" and

substituting "no later than 6 p.m. the preceding Wednesday."

9. Paragraph 25A.(3) is amended by deleting

"Wednesday" and substituting "Monday".]

Leave

granted.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I ask leave to move a motion.

Leave

granted.

ADOPTION OF SESSIONAL ORDER

Hon. G.

Collins: I move:

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly adopt the

following sessional order:Practice recommendation No. 11 (Standing order 47,

47A)

Public Written Questions.

1. Written questions may be submitted by persons elected to head provincial

or local public bodies designated under this order and in accordance with the

guidelines established by Mr. Speaker. Questions submitted in writing to the

office of the Speaker by 4 p.m. Wednesday are eligible to be drawn on Thursday.

Five

[ Page 1057 ]

questions drawn by the Speaker which conform to the guidelines shall be

placed on the orders of the day on Monday of each week. A question shall be

printed on two consecutive weeks unless answered.

2. A private member may ask a qualified question of a minister during

question period. The member from whose constituency the question comes will have

first refusal to put such a question to the appropriate minister. The minister

may answer the question orally or in writing by filing with the Clerk of the

House. Written answers shall be published in the Votes and Proceedings .

3. Questions should relate to current provincial issues and public affairs,

be timely, brief and stated without argument or opinion. The submission must not

include unparliamentary language and shall be directed to the minister who has

responsibility for the area of interest.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Address in Reply to the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

Lekstrom: I move, seconded by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, that:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your

Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the

opening of the present session."

With that,

hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the Speech from the

Throne. The Speech from the Throne was very straightforward and direct. It

outlined the challenges and the direction that we have set for our government

and for the people of British Columbia in the coming year.

I want to

speak on the financial reality of what has taken place in British Columbia and

the position we find ourselves in today. The fact remains that we have spent far

too much for far too many years. You don't have to go to university and become

an economics major to realize one basic premise when it comes to financial

decisions. That premise is that you cannot spend more money than you make, and

that's what we've done for many, many years in British Columbia.

Being in

government is something each and every one of us takes very seriously. All 79

members that are elected to this House bring new ideas and bring their ability

to make decisions and evaluate the information that's put before them and cast

their votes based on that information.

All of us,

each and every one of us, would much prefer to be able to stand here and speak

to our constituents and tell them we're here to deliver more programs and offer

more money for the programs that are in place. That would be irresponsible —

very irresponsible. It's very nice to look good on behalf of your constituents

and deliver programs, but it isn't very good if you can't afford those. We put

our children at risk in having to pay for those programs.

The issue

of our financial ability to pay is very serious right now in British Columbia,

whether it's labour negotiations, whether it's the social programs we deliver

— all of which are very important to each and every one of us. The fact

remains: we can't afford to deliver the government the people have had over the

last number of years.

[1445]

We are

going to get our financial house in order. We're going to do it responsibly, and

we're going to do it quickly. We cannot go another decade spending more money

than we take in.

The issue

we face as far as health care reform is very serious. Each and every one of us,

members of our communities, work hard to make our communities and our province a

better place. Not only that, but by making our province a better place to live

and raise your family and work, we make our country a better country in which to

live. Many, many people around the world look to Canada — and look to British

Columbia in particular — as the place where they would like to live, the place

they would like to work, raise their family and provide and help the economy

grow. As tough a situation as we find ourselves in here today, I can tell you

that we still live in by far the best province in this country and by far the

best country in the world, and I'm proud of it.

The

challenges we face with health care are serious as well. Virtually everything

reflects back to my first statements as far as the financial responsibility that

we as a government are here to install into the province of British Columbia. We

will do our best to make sure we provide a sustainable health care system, one

that will provide for all of the needs of British Columbians, one that is

realistic and, above all and most important, one that is sustainable, so that we

can enjoy the services that are delivered in a way that can be provided for the

years to come and in a way that doesn't, again, put our children at risk. I'm a

father of two wonderful daughters, and I can tell you I'm prepared to make the

tough challenges in this House here today and throughout my term as the elected

representative for Peace River South, of which I'm very proud, so that the

children of tomorrow don't have to face the challenges we face today and they

can face a brighter future. We are going to get there, hon. Speaker.

Our social

programs, which we've all come to enjoy ? each and every one of us, whether

we've had to utilize those social programs or not ? are ones that make our

province a great place to live. Sometimes I have to look back, and I have to

believe that possibly things went astray over the last decade. I'm going to be

gracious. I'm going to state that I believe the people before us had a lot

bigger hearts than they had bank accounts, and that's the problem we face. I

would love to be able to give things away. I would love to be able to do that.

We will get to the point where we can deliver new

[ Page 1058 ]

programs and put in new infrastructure, but until we get our financial house

in order, we aren't going to be doing that. That's as straightforward as we can

be with British Columbians. Our first priority is to make sure our financial

situation is put back on track and is in a sound financial manner.

The energy

sector, which was referred to in the throne speech, is one that's very close to

my constituency, Peace River South, as well as that of my colleague the Hon.

Richard Neufeld from Peace River North. The energy sector is driving the economy

of this province right now, and we're very fortunate to have a diversified

economy in British Columbia.

We've done

very well over the years with our energy sector, and we can do very much better.

With the issues — whether they be oil and gas, mining or new ideas in power

generation — we're well positioned in British Columbia to gain from each and

every one of those sectors. By new regulation and by eliminating the hurdles

that many of these had to go through, we're going to make it more efficient,

we're going to make it more effective, and first and foremost we're going to

make it the best place in Canada and the best place in North America to do

business for this sector.

Our forest

policy was touched on earlier. It has to be reviewed, it has to be looked at,

and it has to be revamped. I believe this is something that everybody in British

Columbia realized at one point was going to have to take place. I won't go into

depth on our forest policy other than to say we're going to make some decisions,

ones that are going to be challenging and workable, ones that are going to help

put our industry back on top and put our people back to work.

[1450]

As has been

referred to and reflected by many people in this province, we have a neighbour

to the south that we have some concern with. In particular, I can tell you that

I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with them to fight for our security and make

sure we have a safe environment in which to raise our children all across North

America. But as far as a trading partner, I have grave concerns right now with

what's taking place. That's not the type of family that I think people should be

proud of. I think they're going to have to reflect on what they're doing. I

think they're going to have to step back and realize that what we do in British

Columbia, as our forest policy, is very sound and very effective. We're very

proud as British Columbians to be able to say: "We are the best wood

producers in this country."

Agriculture

is another aspect that's very close to me in Peace River South. We're very proud

of the diversification that's taken place in Peace River South. Agriculture has

been there for as long as time itself. I said in my opening speech to this House

— and I was very proud to say it — that we can do many things because we're

a very self-sufficient province and a very self-sufficient country. We could

live if the power were taken away tomorrow. We could live and survive if our

natural gas were removed. We would find a way to survive. But the reality is: if

you remove the food from our tables, life will cease to exist.

I think that for far too long our agricultural sector has been overlooked and

has not been given the respect that it deserves. I'm proud to be part of a

government that recognizes what agriculture means not just to British Columbia

but to all of Canada and to all of humankind. I'm very proud to say that I'll

stand and fight in this House to make sure that that recognition is there. I

know that my colleagues, each and every one of them, understand the importance

of agriculture.

Mr.

Speaker, we're going through some very difficult times in British Columbia right

now, when we look at what's taking place right across the sector. One thing that

is very clear to me — and I have a background; I've worked with labour before,

I've worked in local government, I've worked in regional government, and now I'm

honoured to hold a post in the provincial government — is that there has to be

a realization from all involved that we have to find a way. Labour has to find a

way to work with government, and government has to find a way to work with

labour. All British Columbians have to find a way to work together.

Far too

often we seem to be at loggerheads over issues. Government is a very good thing.

The diversification that comes within that government and the people that bring

their ideas into government are why democracy is so great. But we do have to

realize that not everybody will agree on every issue. What we do have to do,

though, when a vote is taken and the majority carries that vote, is to leave

that room and support the majority's wishes. We leave, and we make that work for

the betterment of all British Columbians instead of carrying on the fight for

months and years on end, which is to no British Columbian's benefit, I can

assure you.

We will

find an ability within our government, and I would hope and encourage labour to

find that ability within themselves, to work together and realize the financial

situation that we face as British Columbians — not as government, not as

labour, but as British Columbians. We are going to have to get through that.

I want to

touch briefly on government in general and what it means, as one of 79 elected

officials who have been placed here by the people who voted for each and every

one of us. They've charged us with a great duty, one that I'm honoured to hold,

and I know each and every member in this House feels the same in their heart.

It's a privilege. It's an honour to be able to come and represent the views of

your constituency, to represent the views of all British Columbians and try and

move British Columbia into a better field, one that's positioned so that when

the economy in North America turns around, we'll be the leading edge where

people will want to bring their private sector dollars.

Government

cannot create wealth. The private sector investment that is brought to our

province creates the jobs that allow families to make the money to further their

children's education or to help them through

[ Page 1059 ]

their lives. That's what we have to do. That's vitally important.

It's

interesting, when you look at the issue — and I want to just briefly touch on

the issue of forest policy again — of the softwood lumber agreement. We talk

about free trade in our country. One thing that's very evident is that we have

some neighbours to the south that want to be part-time free traders. You can't

be a part-time free trader. If you want our natural gas, if you want our hydro,

then you know what? You should be big enough to take our lumber, because we

produce it very well, and we're very proud of that.

[1455]

In closing,

I want to touch briefly on the job of an MLA and what it means to me to be able

to represent the people that I represent in Peace River South. It's an honour;

it's a privilege. Most of all it's a challenge. I went into this because I

believed I could make a difference, just as each and every other member in this

House did. Each of us is going to make a difference. We're going to bring our

ideas to the table and debate them, speak on them and work hard to study. I can

tell you that in the 12 years that I attended grades 1 to 12, I never did

anywhere near the reading I've done in the last eight months. It's quite

incredible. There's not a day, not a minute, that goes by that you can't learn

something new when it comes to governing British Columbia. It's a privilege, and

it will take years to understand every aspect and every corner of government.

The one

thing I've learned…. I can tell you this: whether people agree or disagree

with their MLA, with our Premier or with our hon. cabinet ministers, each and

every one of them works harder than I could ever have imagined. They put more

hours in, they put more heart and soul into their job than I've seen before, and

I've worked with many, many people.

What's

going on — the people out there protesting and expressing their views — is a

healthy thing, but I would hope that they understand the amount of work and

effort that's going in by not just 77 but all 79 MLAs elected to this House. It

takes hours, days, months and years to get to the point that many of my

colleagues who sit in the cabinet are at. Our Premier, whom I have a great deal

of respect for, has worked many, many years to get to the point of being in

government, being the Premier of this province, so that he can bring forward his

ideas, with his colleagues and his cabinet, to make British Columbia a better

place.

It's been a

privilege to move the throne speech today. It's a privilege to stand here and be

the first response to the throne speech. I commit to you, hon. Speaker, and to

all British Columbians and all my colleagues that I will do my best to bring a

balanced approach to this House, to all discussions, just as I know each and

every one of them will. We will get to a brighter future.

In closing,

I want to say that things are going to get a little tough. They aren't going to

get better before we suffer a little pain together. It isn't going to be pain

suffered by labour by itself or by the health sector or by the public education

sector. We're working to shift the way we govern in this province to one that's

sustainable. Each and every one of us, if we work together, will get through

this. The key is having British Columbians pull together — something we're all

very proud of — to get us through the tough times so that we can get back to

the times that we know we can and will enjoy.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. Address in Reply continues with the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon.

Nuraney: It is my privilege and honour today to second the motion made by

the member for Peace River South. I rise today to respond to the throne speech.

Yesterday

we heard the Lieutenant-Governor very eloquently talk about the task of

rebuilding that lies ahead of us. She talked about the need for change. She said

that change is never easy. Yet, more than ever, fundamental change is required

to the size and scope of government and to the role it serves in the lives of

its people and in our economy. In my opinion, this defines the course this

government has taken in the few months it has been in office and shapes its plan

for the months to come.

We found

structural deficiencies not only in our fiscal situation but also in the systems

like health care, education and social services. It would have been easy to draw

a sponge across the slate and erase the ills of the past, but this is not to be.

We have no choice but to embark on a course of reconstruction. We can no longer

afford the status quo. Changes are inevitable.

[1500]

This

government has to ride out the storm, outlive the cynicism and stay steadfast on

the course it has chosen. That is the resolve of this government, and that is

the will of its members.

Everything

we had said we would do in the first 90 days after assuming office, we have

done. We have since continued to effect changes to ensure good management to our

education and health care. I have seen long waits in emergency in the Burnaby

Hospital. I've also seen looks of disappointment on the faces of students who

could not get into the classes of their choice, both at BCIT and at SFU.

This state

of affairs has put lives on hold, and many dreams have been shattered because of

this. This cannot be allowed to continue. We must give these institutions the

tools to better manage their affairs. There is also an immediate need to get our

financial house in order. My grandfather used to say to me that one can only cut

the suit according to the cloth one has.

Fiscal

responsibility is the very essence of any administration. While we control our

spending, we have to find ways of revitalizing the economy. The devastating

effects of the events on September 11 and the ongoing dispute in the softwood

lumber industry have taken their toll. The United States must come to terms with

the concept of free trade. You are either for free trade, or you are not. I must

compliment our Minister of Forests for his hard work in this matter.

[ Page 1060 ]

The

government has also opened the doors for investment in sectors like aquaculture,

mining, oil and gas. Small business will benefit from deregulation and

improvement in the Employment Standards Act, the Workers Compensation Act and

the Labour Code. The investment climate is one of enabling environment. We are

putting in place the right recipe for the investment that will bring prosperity

to our province.

mentioned in the throne speech, the course is clear, and its direction is firmly

set. We find ourselves just starting out on the long journey that will require a

concerted effort of all British Columbians. We must stay on course for the

future generation and for their well-being. Some have faulted us for our focus

upon finances. They say that we care only about a balanced budget and not about

the people.

I would

like to quote the relevant passage from the throne speech yesterday to explain

this focus. In the throne speech it was said that when the economy suffers, the

people pay the price. This is why our government is so concerned about the state

of the province's economy. We realize that a strong economy is the foundation

upon which a sustainable social framework can be built.

[1505]

We need to

be prudent with our finances at this time. We need to reduce spending in some

areas and look for ways to save money in others. We have said that we will renew

economic growth. It will not be an easy task, but it is the one that we have

promised to follow through on. It is a responsible course of action, one that

will serve us well in the future. We have a vision of where British Columbians

want to go. We have an excellent leadership and a team of people who are working

on a plan to get us moving in the right direction.

Over the

past ten months we have been working steadily to implement the framework for a

course that will lead us to a brighter future. We must be patient and wait to

reap the rewards of this new direction. Our government believes in investing for

the long-term good of our province, as evidenced by the cuts we gave in the

personal income taxes of people and the reduction in needless regulations.

We have

taken steps to encourage new investment, but the results of these measures are

not immediate. They are long-term measures that will take many years. In the

last decade or so we have got ourselves entrenched in a culture of immediate

gratification, and this has not served us well.

I believe

our plan is working. I have been hearing from my constituents who are supportive

of our measures. They are happy and relieved to find that change is finally

coming to British Columbia. They are glad to see our government moving past the

economic stagnation that has plagued our province for many years. Their messages

have an air of excitement and hope about the course we have set for health care,

education and the economy. I am encouraged by these messages of support, and I

know that my colleagues are encouraged as well. It is a long and arduous road

that we have ahead, but the journey will be that much easier if we keep our eyes

focused on the goal we have set for ourselves to meet the needs of the people of

our province.

I have had

the opportunity to serve on the government caucus committee on health and the

opportunity to chair the police complaints review process. In the course of my

committee work I have heard many innovative ideas for change and new models of

delivering service. This government is one that is ready to listen to the needs

of British Columbians. We have also shown ourselves to have the capacity to

change. With this combination of listening and flexibility for change, we will

set in motion ideas that will shape the course of our government. We have to

find ways of shifting from a culture of entitlement to one of self-sufficiency

and self-reliance.

I have in

my riding a community school, Maywood School, which epitomizes for me the notion

of self-help and altruism. The dedication of the parents and teachers is

exemplary. It is a group of people who have helped many others by showing the

way. I feel very proud when I speak of their accomplishments.

[1510]

Mr.

Speaker, we have chosen a path which is difficult and painful but courageous. We

must, however, be cautious that we do not lose sight of the fact that the

conceptions of what is right and decent must not be lost. We must have a marked

regard for fair play — especially to the weak and the needy — a stern

sentiment of impartial justice and, above all, the love for personal freedom.

Finally, in

the words of Sir Winston Churchill: "Let us rise to the full level of our

duty and of our opportunity."

I thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Hawes: I wish I could say that it was a real pleasure to stand here and

address yesterday's throne speech, but I have to tell you that I am disappointed

that the throne speech had to contain tough measures for tough times. I'm sure

all of us wish it wasn't so, but it is so. The times are difficult, and we have

taken over a province that has a great deal of difficulty and has some difficult

times ahead.

Before I

really address the throne speech, I'd like to speak to some of the e-mails that

I've been getting. I'm sure that all of my colleagues are getting similar

e-mails from people in our ridings. Many of them express fear. Many of them

wonder what's happening. I would like to address those people by saying first

and foremost that there is a campaign, I believe, of misinformation and

fearmongering being waged in the province. I would like those people to know

that we are working hard on their behalf. We are going to build a better place

for them. I want to speak a little bit more about the information campaign

that's being waged in the province a little bit later.

[ Page 1061 ]

What I

would like to tell them as they ask is what happened to the euphoria of the

election time and the platform that we stood on, etc. They want to know what

brings us now to this time of great difficulty.

We were all

told by the auditor general that there was a balanced budget last year. We were

suspicious but a little bit more optimistic, maybe, than we should have been as

to what had really happened. If I could give you an analogy, we live in a

province that had been living way beyond its means — like a household,

perhaps, that lived way beyond its means for a long period of time. Just when

the banker was appearing at the door, we won the lotto. We had a big wad of

money come in, and we were able to cover our current bills. Everything looked

really good, but we didn't change our lifestyle.

The lotto

win was a one-time pension fund transfer. We had a big win in the stock

exchange. We had a huge influx of capital — one shot. That money was spent.

Now we're still left over budget. We never trimmed back our spending. At this

point, we are left with a huge deficit. There really was a balanced budget for

one year — balanced on the backs of things like high energy prices.

Now, what's

happened since the summer, when we sat here in this chamber and were fairly

optimistic about where things were going? If you think back to the summer,

things were beginning to go very well. The province felt good. There had been a

tax decrease across the board for all British Columbians, the real estate market

was beginning to move, people were investing in construction, people were

looking at building new businesses — and then September 11, followed shortly

thereafter by the softwood lumber tariff. That has been devastating for us.

[1515]

Yet we

still must, like any household would, balance our budget. That's an absolute

necessity. As we move through this process, we have to ask ourselves how we will

then address the changes that we have to make. One of my colleagues, in a speech

that he made to a chamber of commerce in his riding, called it the iron

triangle. That's our problem. We had overtaxation. We had overregulation. We

have a strangling labour policy in this province, and that's killed investment.

If you take a look at the Statistics Canada financial results for all of the

provinces over the last decade, we are tenth out of ten in most of the leading

economic categories, including investment and job creation — and the two are

linked.

When you

take a look at what's happened to investment in this province, why we have

finished tenth and why investors aren't putting money here, you have to take a

look then at that iron triangle. Who would invest in a province where you can't

keep the money that you earn, or much of it, because it's being taxed away by a

government that is overspending, is out of control and has no regard for the

risk that you as an investor have taken? That was the situation in this province

for the last decade.

We have

over 400,000 regulations governing the businesses in this province and in many

cases strangling them to death. We've taken a look at that too. We understand

where job creation comes from. We understand what it means to take your life

savings and invest it in the hope that you're going to earn a profit and along

the way, in doing that, you will employ people. We understand that the

government does not create wealth; the government uses wealth. We know where

wealth comes from and where it's created. It's created from the private sector

through investment. That's been happening in our neighbours' jurisdictions, in

Alberta and in Washington State, and much of it is being done with British

Columbians' money.

We are

moving to change labour policy. In the throne speech we have talked about what

is coming. We are going to deal with several issues that are going to make this

a fairer place and are going to allow job creation and investment to restart

here and put us back on the road to recovery.

I'd like to

talk for a moment about health care. I was privileged to travel on the

legislative committee on health through the province and speak to communities

throughout British Columbia about what's happening in their own areas and where

they live.

Just

resoundingly we heard: "The health system is broken; it's badly

broken." And so rather than apply a bandage, what we need is a complete

rethink. When we did that rethink, Mr. Speaker, we asked British Columbians to

think outside of the box and give us creative solutions. How will we address

change in health care? Dozens and dozens of people came forward and gave us

wonderful solutions.

As they

came forward, we brought their recommendations back to this House. I can tell

you that one of the most wonderful things that's happening with this government

is that we do have a Ministry of Health Planning that is taking those kinds of

recommendations that came from British Columbians — a made-in-British-Columbia

solution to our problems — and we are going to implement them into a revised

health care system in this province that will work for all of us. We will

deliver on the new-era commitments that were made in health care in spite of the

terrible financial situation that we have inherited.

When I

speak to what we've inherited financially, all of the fearmongering out there,

all of the talk about our tax cuts being the ones that have created the budget

deficit, Mr. Speaker…. That's hogwash. The facts are that you cannot rebuild

an economy until you make yourself competitive. We were bloated in our spending

habits, and we must change them. We, as a government, recognize it and are

changing them.

There are

those out there, the naysayers, that would say: "Let's carry on. Let's just

keep spending the money that the wealthy will give us." But the wealthy

have left. They're going in droves to places where they are welcome.

[1520]

We have

created in this province a class warfare. We want to point fingers at those who

have money. Those who would make investments and provide jobs

[ Page 1062 ]

and create wealth are the enemy now — not for our government but the

previous government. It's time for that to stop. I say to those who send e-mails

saying, "Tax the wealthy," that they need to stop and think about

where that money's going to come from when the wealthy leave. As we go about

redefining who's wealthy, because those who truly are wealthy are leaving, we

will soon be talking about them as being the wealthy ones, and we are going to

have to try to tax those who can't afford to be taxed at the very high levels.

We can't sustain what we were doing. It was wrong. We're moving now to a

correct, proper and fair way of taxing those who would take risks, those who

would create jobs, and understanding that the higher-income people in this

province pay proportionately more for income tax and are as entitled as anyone

is to a tax break.

I am very

proud that we were able to do that. I am very proud that we are no longer going

to tax businesses because they have capital assets, regardless of whether they

make a profit. I think that's the right thing to do, and it's the right signal

to send.

As we move

ahead in my own riding, we're looking at a new hospital in Abbotsford. The

fearmongering that's going on around that hospital — a new MSA hospital — as

we consider whether or not we will build on a PPP…. Are we going to allow

private money? Mr. Speaker, there is a private consulting firm that's taking a

look at whether or not it makes sense financially for British Columbians,

especially for the MSA hospital, at this time to proceed with private financing.

There is a

big campaign waging now to say: "That's wrong. It's going to destroy health

care." The campaign is being waged mostly by the health employees union,

who fear that there will be jobs lost. These people want us all to see a

bogeyman under every bed. "Private investment in health care is bad,"

they tell us. Really, what they're saying is: "Protect my job."

We are

saying: "We are going to provide a hospital at the best possible cost with

the most efficiency to provide health care to those people in the Abbotsford

region and the Fraser Valley region who need health care and a new hospital.

They, frankly, do not care who finances it, who owns it. What they care about is

that health care is there when they need it. It will be, and it will be done in

the most efficient way.

The other

thing I would tell you is that the union at this time is telling people that it

will be the death of health care if the laundry, somehow, is done by someone

other than an HEU employee or if the food is prepared by someone else.

I have to

tell you that I was asked by one of the HEU executive that visited my

constituency office if I would consider standing up for them in my riding, in

our hospital, as I will fight to protect health care services in the Mission

area. I had to reply that I'm going to stand up and fight for every health care

service, every health delivery system that we have in Mission, but I will not

fight for the HEU jobs in the laundry or the food service. As I said to them,

frankly, there's isn't one parent bringing their child into our hospital to look

for a meal or to have their laundry done. They come for medical services, and

that's where we need to concentrate our dollars and where we need to concentrate

our attention.

That's what

health care planning is doing, and I'm very proud that we do have a minister

that is looking at health care planning. It's finally about time someone thinks

about the direction in which health care is going.

I was one

of those that were fired as a volunteer in the 1997 purge of hospital boards

when the regions were set up. At that time what happened was that the regions

throughout this province — 52 different health authorities — floundered

around trying to set plans, because there was absolutely no provincial plan.

There was absolutely no thought about where health care should go. These regions

were asked to prepare their own plans, and they were all over the map.

As we

travelled the province with the legislative standing committee, we visited some

of the smaller regions, some of the areas…. I'll give you an example. As we

visited the Terrace area, a man came up to me after one of the meetings there

and told me about a broken leg he had suffered a year or so earlier. The

orthopod to fix his leg was in Kitimat, a few miles away. There's an

anaesthetist there, but the anaesthetist was away on vacation. No one from any

other hospital in that area can go into that hospital. They didn't have

cross-regional or cross–health authority practice agreements, so the orthopod

couldn't fix his leg in Kitimat.

[1525]

A similar

situation existed for him in Prince Rupert. So he had to fly from Terrace to

Vancouver to get his leg set. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense at all, when those

hospitals are just a few miles away. But because of absolutely no planning, no

integration, no thought to health care delivery, this man flew out…. And his

situation is not unique. Throughout this province, people were getting lousy

health care because of absolutely inconsistent delivery.

We've

promised that people are going to have consistent delivery. They are going to

get that. They're going to get that because we're planning it. That's a word

that I think the last government didn't understand — planning — and we're

moving there. I'm very proud to be part of a government that considers planning

to be an integral part of running the government. It's the right way to go.

I just want

to close by asking…. I'm hearing repeatedly that we're a bunch of heartless

cretins, that we're out there with a business agenda and not caring for the poor

or anyone else. But as I look across our caucus, I'm proud of the cross-section

of people that have been involved in their communities for years and years, are

integral parts of their communities and ran for office for one reason: they want

to make things better where they live.

There's

absolute commitment not just to the communities where each and every one of us

live and serve

[ Page 1063 ]

but to all people in this province, whether they be wealthy or whether they

be poor. Every single one of us feels for those that will be affected by the

choices that we now are forced to make because of the incompetence that preceded

us. But as we make those choices, we know we have to make them. We don't have a

choice. We have to make very difficult decisions, decisions that are keeping

many of us up at night, making many of us feel terrible. But at the same time we

know that to build a better British Columbia, those decisions have to be made

today. We are prepared to make them. We are not going to back down from doing

what's right.

I would

like to say, and I have no problem saying, as I know most of my colleagues feel

that we would prefer to lose…. In the next election I would prefer to lose my

seat and do what I believe is the right thing to do rather than to give in to

some of the pressure groups and the naysayers, to try to hold onto a seat by

doing what I know is wrong. I know all of us feel that way. We are doing the

right thing. We are on the right course.

In closing,

too, I want to say we got rid of the glossy advertising campaign. I was

absolutely appalled today to hear what the opposition had to say about some

preparation that was done, when in the last government…. I'm thinking back on

people like Karl Struble, the media guru from the United States, and Now

Communications and the things that used to appear on my doorstep — the glossy

brochures. I know, Mr. Speaker, you also were receiving them and were probably

as appalled as the rest of us as you opened your newspaper and saw those

self-aggrandizing advertisements or the television advertising that was

purchased.

I'm proud

of the fact that we've done away with that. You won't find those things on your

doorstep. You won't see the glossy advertising and the newspaper advertising

saying what great fellows we are. What you will see are solid policies that are

being delivered thoughtfully and in a way that is going to make this a better

province. I believe that the vast majority of people in this province know we

are on the right course. I receive the calls — many, many calls — saying:

"Don't listen; don't give in; don't listen to the naysayers." The

naysayers are self-interest groups who want to continue with the status quo. The

status quo is not an option.

I'm not

happy to have to speak to a throne speech that contains some hard news, but I

know that it's necessary. I also know, though, that the next throne speech that

I may have the privilege of addressing will contain better news, because better

days are ahead. I would expect that by the end of our term, this province will

be moving smoothly, properly — much, much better employment, a balanced budget

— and the opposition members will again be relegated to talking about such

trivial items as they raised today in question period that really are shameful

at a time when we're facing such important decisions.

[1530]

With that,

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I'll let someone else speak.

MacPhail: Well, it is interesting to follow such a seasoned politician as

the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, who clearly puts his words on record

knowing that the public will examine them closely and that he will be held

accountable for those words, and he makes such missteps in his comments.

However, that member will have to live with his analysis of how he views British

Columbians and how he labels British Columbians, what he considers important and

what he considers trivial. It does cause me serious reflection, as I stand up

here to address the throne speech of yesterday. I expect I could have followed

any number of Liberal MLAs and had such qualms as well. But unfortunately, the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission has given me great cause for consternation, and

my speech will reflect that.

Yesterday

the government delivered a nice, neat package, several pages long, of the

highlights of the throne speech. It was an interesting digest virgin — digest

version….

Interjections.

MacPhail: No, it's true. The government has had lots of experience in

messing around with people already, so we can't accuse them of being virgins.

That's true.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: It was a digest version of the throne speech, and they called it

the highlights. Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give my version of the

throne speech, and it's entitled "the lowlights of the throne speech."

It almost seems as if the first few speakers didn't actually read the throne

speech. I'm actually going to take the members through the throne speech and

read between the lines.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Yes, it will be a time where British Columbians can actually have

the time to consider what is meant, what the real version of it is, and I'm very

proud to be able to stand up and allow British Columbians to see the other side

of this government's agenda.

Here's the

opening statement: "My government's priorities will not waver, and its

mission will not be altered."

"My

government's course is clear, and its direction is firmly set." [Applause.]

I actually know that the Liberals will be clapping and clapping and clapping.

However, they'll probably have to choose their claps very carefully as we

proceed through this analysis. That's their prerogative.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

[ Page 1064 ]

I must say

that British Columbians have already learned that the Premier is a stubborn,

inflexible leader who will not change course. He will not adjust to changed

circumstances, even in the face of a broad chorus of advice that urges him to do

just that.

[1535]

Let me read

to the members a letter from 40 British Columbia economists — 40. I'll just

start, because I'm sure the members have taken the time to read this. In case

they haven't, let me tell you the institutions of education that are represented

in this advice: the University of British Columbia, the University College of

the Cariboo, Kwantlen University College, the Contract Training and Marketing

Society, Simon Fraser University — many of these have four and five

signatories from that institution — the Trade Union Research Bureau, the

Canadian Council on Social Development, the Social Planning and Research Council

of B.C., the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the B.C. Federation of

Labour, the University of Northern British Columbia, Malaspina University

College, Malaspina University College again — I want to make sure I don't

leave anyone out — the University of Victoria, the school of social work and

family studies at UBC, the former president of the Canadian Economics

Association, a retired economist and professor from Simon Fraser University and

the University of Lethbridge, professor emeritus from the University of Alberta,

the Telecommunications Workers Union, the school of social work and professional

associates at the Institute for Resources and Environment of UBC, and the

University of Victoria again — 40 economists. Let's just hear what they have

to say about Mr. Campbell's stubbornness and inflexibility:

"Dear Premier Campbell and Minister Collins:

"We

are writing to express our concern about your intended spending cuts. For

reasons largely beyond the government's control, the B.C. economy is in

serious economic downturn. The average forecast from the most recent B.C.

Economic Forecast Council was for an economic growth of 0.9 percent in 2002,

predicated on a U.S. recovery in the second half of the year, while the

Minister of Finance is projecting 0.6 percent growth. Despite last summer's

tax cuts the unemployment rate has risen sharply from 6.8 percent in May to

9.7 percent in December." This letter was written on February 7, 2002.

"In

such a climate we look to the government to extend help to those in need and

not to aggravate the recession through fiscal drag. Now is not the time to

cut spending, government programs and capital projects, and it's certainly

not the time to cut access to welfare and welfare benefit rates. Such income

support is needed by those without jobs and represents an important

automatic stabilizer.

"If

the government proceeds with its announced spending cuts, economic growth

will decline, economic recovery will be delayed and unemployment will

increase. Moreover, many of the proposed cuts represent a false economy.

They will cost the government in the future. Federal and provincial tax-cuts

and lower interest rates are clearly proving insufficient to fend off

serious economic hardship. The spending cuts you have proposed would only

make matters worse.

"B.C.'s

fiscal situation is healthy. The province's low debt-to-GDP ratio of 21.7

percent and low debt-servicing costs, 7.4 percent of revenues, mean that the

province can afford to run deficits during economic downturns. The goal of

balancing the budget by 2004-05 should not be set in stone. Other, more

pressing economic concerns must take precedence.

"The

government claims that a $3.8 billion 'structural deficit' leaves it no

choice but to cut spending. We reject this claim and believe such deficit

forecasts are based on overly conservative assumptions by the fiscal review

panel. It is our view" — the view of these 40 economists; sorry —

"that the 2001 tax cuts of over $2 billion create an underlying deficit

with little economic benefit. Therefore, we recommend that the tax cuts be

selectively scaled back and that the recouped revenues be made available to

maintain and strengthen current programs. The emphasis at this time must be

to restore confidence, protect jobs and defend the economic and social

security of British Columbians.

"Given

the current economic climate, no one should fault the government for

thoughtfully reconsidering its fiscal strategy. We urge you, therefore, to

rethink the spending cuts before bringing down the February 19 budget."

"Sincerely…."

And then it was signed by the 40 economists of the institutions that I read

out at the beginning.

There's a

thoughtful analysis that says to the government: "Things have changed. Just

rethink your position." Instead, what do we get? We get a Premier who says

that he will not waver, that he will not alter his mission, that his

government's course is clear and the direction is firmly set, even though these

professional economists are urging him to do exactly the opposite. And we're

letting the Premier have a second think without any blame being assigned to him.

He rejected that.

[1540]

The throne

speech goes on: "When our economy suffers, people pay the price." You

bet they pay the price, and some people suffer far more than others. Those are

the very people that this Premier and this government have targeted in a

mean-spirited agenda of cuts and reduced public service.

We heard

from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission that he ain't gonna listen to the

people, because "they're just trying to protect their job," says he.

My gosh, I predict those words will come back to haunt him.

Is it the

seniors who are trying to protect their position? Is it students who are trying

to get an education? Is it single moms who are having their welfare cut while

they're getting retraining? Is it the young people whose employment programs

have been cut? Is it the forestry workers who were trying to eradicate pine

beetle?

It was very

interesting that my colleague from Prince George arose this afternoon in this

new innovation to talk about members' concerns in the ridings, and he talked

about the pine beetle infestation in his

[ Page 1065 ]

own riding. Well, his government is the one that cut the workers trying to

control the pine beetle. His government cut those workers, and he's concerned.

Why didn't he stand up and ask the Minister of Forests why the minister cut the

forestry workers trying to eradicate pine beetle? Why didn't he do that?

Why did the

caucus chair of the governing party stand up and say that the rich will feel it

less and those at the low end will feel it more? The government caucus chair was

in Cariboo North, a region that's really being affected by these actions.

What about

the role of government to make sure that people don't suffer during times of

economic downturn? Why has this government completely abdicated its role of

looking after people who are harmed through no fault of their own?

The throne

speech goes on to say: "No economy is immune from the volatility of global

markets, and British Columbia has been particularly exposed from its heavy

dependence on natural resources."

Well, I

say: "Hallelujah!" Finally the government acknowledges that we are an

economy of price-takers, not price-makers, in the world market. For a full

decade, this now government — then opposition — said over and over again:

"It's not the world economy or the commodity market affecting this economy.

The solutions are found right here in British Columbia." That's what they

said in all the years of the 1990s. Every single day when forest towns were

being hurt, when the mining industry was affected by low copper prices and low

lumber prices, they stood up and said: "Oh, that isn't a problem. Fix the

economy here in British Columbia."

Today I

say: "Hallelujah!" I will take small victories where I can find them

— sorry, not a victory. It's not a victory. I will take comfort where I can

find it. Finally this government, after a decade of blinders on, has said that

we are heavily dependent on natural resources and, ergo, heavily dependent on

commodity prices. Good. Good — but why didn't it then go on to seize the

opportunity to say: "The economy and the world markets have changed, and

it's now time for a rethink"?

No.

Instead, the Premier stands up and says: "I'm proceeding, come hell or high

water." That's what he said yesterday.

Another

quote from the throne speech: "My government has a solid plan to turn our

provincial economy around. The steps it has taken, and will be taking this

legislative session and beyond, will make our economy more competitive,

diversified and attractive to investors."

[1545]

investors — sure. Yeah, you bet it's going to be attractive to investors, but

what about the people who live here? What about the people who wake up every

morning and send their kids off to school and want a job to go to, who have

aging parents who need health care, who want a park on the weekend they can take

their kids to? What about those people?

What about

our seniors? Damn to those people as they slash public services, as they put in

the most regressive form of taxation through skyrocketing MSP premiums, through

user fees that we've only had an inkling of to date.

The sky's

the limit in tuition. We saw that yesterday. We saw the Minister of Advanced

Education stand up and say: "Yippee! You parents can pay as much as you can

possibly afford in tuition. By the way, you're going to pay all the costs in

advanced education, because we're not going to give the institutions any money.

We're going to give them zero. We've frozen their budgets. So, you parents, the

good news is that you're going to pay as much tuition as we can possibly squeeze

out of you."

That's what

this government has done. The investors may be happy, but what about the parents

sending their kids to university and college? A lowlight for me has to lead to

this question: at what point does this government stop in its efforts to make

B.C. attractive to investors and think more about the citizens, the people of

this province who are living here?

An economy,

a government, that focuses solely on being attractive to investors resides in

South America. That's what Argentina and Chile did. You know what? That was to

the detriment of the quality of life of every single person who lived and lives

in those countries, and it has led to the collapse of their economies as well.

Another

quote from the throne speech: "Specific subsidies that have been identified

for elimination were outlined at last month's open cabinet meeting in Fort St.

John" — I wonder if there was any preparation for that announcement —

"and will be repealed by legislation as necessary this session." Oh,

goody. Reading between the lines — this is our symbol for reading between the

lines — that's "stay tuned for more regulations to be ripped up and

thrown out so that investors feel better in this province, and everybody else

who lives here is worse off."

Oh, goody.

All that is going to be repealed just in time for this summer. The Premier is

going to eliminate the Summer Works program. He's going to eliminate Job Start

for welfare recipients. He's going to eliminate training programs. He's going to

eliminate the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, but he's not just

getting rid of subsidies. He's redefining what subsidy means so that subsidy

means any assistance given to working people to help them in taking advantage of

the economy. That's what he's doing.

To quote:

"Within the next few weeks, the independent B.C. Progress Board my

government appointed will issue its first report. It has established a series of

benchmarks and performance measures to hold my government accountable on a

quarterly basis for progress in our economy." Good, good. There are

hundreds of thousands of British Columbians trying to hold this government

accountable, and we'll have the Progress Board.

But who is

the Progress Board? Well, it happens to be a group of business people. That's

right — a group of business people. A diverse group of business people? No. A

group of business people. Are there any people

[ Page 1066 ]

from any other walks of the community? No. It's a business group. Anyway,

we'll see. It's very interesting that the throne speech talked ad nauseam about

putting patients and students first. Oops, watch out! When you're first in line

with this government, watch out.

[1550]

This

government didn't actually think it was necessary to say: "We'd like to

hear your opinions, ordinary citizens." They didn't actually say that they

want to have anybody on the Progress Board determining how well the economy is

doing — just business people.

I hope

everybody goes out and asks the seniors, the students, patients, welfare

recipients, if they feel like they've been put first. The government eliminated

the Seniors Advisory Council. Oh, really. Was it too expensive? Was it too

expensive to have that Seniors Advisory Council giving the government their

advice?

The

regional health authorities. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission said that, oh,

he's so happy with what this government did around health authorities. Oh,

really. Instead of having hundreds of local community people from all walks of

life — and all political parties, I might add — sitting on the regional

health boards and the community health councils, this government did away, in

one fell swoop, with all of them and replaced the community-based health

authorities with five business people. Five business people are now who's in

charge of the community needs.

Every MLA

gets to now go home, and when they have to answer, "Who in our community

actually is on the health authority?" these Liberal MLAs get to stand up

and say: "Actually, no one. But we do have a business person in charge of

our health system." Clearly, we now see why. It's the bottom line. When

this government says, "Patients first," they really mean: "The

bottom line is first."

They've

ignored the concerns of students. They've refused meetings with health groups.

This government has refused meetings with health groups. They removed a smoking

ban, instituted a regulation overriding the WCB — the first time ever that any

government has overruled the WCB — to put in the right of people to smoke in

bars, to exacerbate health costs and to say that they…. They refuse to meet

with any health people to talk about that — overrode the WCB, etc. They also

targeted their most mean-spirited cuts at the most vulnerable in British

Columbia.

The next

part of the speech: "With major sectors of our economy in distress, B.C.

still has a long way to go to once again lead the nation in overall economic

growth. But a winning framework is rapidly being put in place for economic

renewal." How does the government define their winning framework? What's

the next paragraph? Is it about job creation? Is it about communities in

distress? It's about a plan to gut the Employment Standards Act. That's the

winning strategy.

Here it is

— next sentence: "Gut the Employment Standards Act, the Workers

Compensation Act and the Labour Code." That's the winning strategy.

"We don't want to recall the Legislature every time we have to override

worker rights. We don't want to do that. We don't want to have to recall the

Legislature every time people freely negotiate something and have to use our 76

to break a contract, so we're just going to change the law. It's a lot easier.

That's our winning strategy."

[1555]

Well,

that'll give a lot of comfort to British Columbians. Oh yeah — the most open

and accountable government. That's what their winning strategy is: to gut the

protections of working people. After what the Liberal government has done to the

WCB smoking ban and to labour contracts so far, it's frightening to know what

could be next. What more can you do?

Here's what

the B.C. Chamber of Commerce president, John Winter, had to say. He said this at

a time when there was plenty of time for the government to listen — the now

government. He said it before they were elected. I assume Mr. Winter wasn't

being partisan. I happen to know that he is a very thoughtful person. He said

that it was time that business and labour got together and began to pull in the

same direction and knock down the walls of suspicion.

How can

that possibly occur in this climate where the business person rules supreme and

working people and the people who represent them face draconian measures day

after day from this government? In eight short months in office this Liberal

government has done more to create polarization and distrust than anyone thought

imaginable.

How can any

working person take seriously the words "fairness" and "balance

in the workplace" when this government's agenda has been to undermine their

health and safety, to rip up their contracts and to say one thing to their faces

before and during an election, then immediately after say: "Oh, sorry. We

didn't mean what we said. We're going to rip up your contracts"?

Another

quote from the lowlights: "Considerable effort will be focused on

pioneering so-called 'P3s,' which have proven very effective in attracting

private capital to support public policy objectives in B.C. and in other

jurisdictions." Then today we see what that may mean in certain areas. It

may mean that there will be tolls on highways where British Columbians will have

no choice but to pay those tolls — no choice. The Premier is speculating that

there will be a toll on the Sea to Sky Highway. How do you think the people

along that highway — Squamish, Whistler, Lions Bay — feel about knowing that

their government intends to toll their road?

Another

quote: "My government is aggressively supporting the bid to host the 2010

Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Combined with an expanded convention centre

in Vancouver, the games would generate up to $10 billion in economic activity

for our province, 228,000 jobs and $2.5 billion in total revenues for all levels

of government."

You know

what? I hope so. I really do. I love the Olympics. I love the Olympics and

everything that arises from the Olympics.

[ Page 1067 ]

But British

Columbians want some answers from the Premier and his cabinet members, who sit

in isolation. They want to know how that jibes with legal aid funding cuts, cuts

to child care subsidies, the elimination of seniors bus passes and the

elimination of funding for women's centres, just to name a few. They wonder how

it jibes with jacking up tuition and jacking up MSP premiums. They wonder

exactly what the Premier means when he says that we can't afford not to provide

millions of dollars in assistance to the Olympic bid.

The

athletes themselves wonder what it means. How much of a commitment is this

government making to the actual concept of promoting sport? This government cut

the athlete assistance program. Today I woke up to hear that athletes in this

province will have $1,500 less per athlete — today — as a result of cuts

that this government made to their support.

There was a

very articulate young woman who said that to some, $1,500 may not sound like a

lot of money. Probably to a lot of Liberal MLAs sitting in this room —

yeah…. She went on to say that it means the ability to carry on or not carry

on. It's the difference between being able to carry on as an athlete…. How

does that jibe with the Premier's comments that we can't afford not to?

[1600]

The Premier

also had a memorable comment that the games will pay for themselves. Everybody

better be clipping that out. Let's get that out and save it in our chest of

drawers of gems. Everyone should see whether the target of 228,000 jobs is

another quote to remember. The accountability is coming in the coming days on

this one.

I also

thought it was interesting how many times there was a tie-in between the

convention centre and the Olympic bid. That's interesting. We'd better all watch

out for that one too. I know that the CEO of the Olympic bid, Jack Poole, has

been one of the largest proponents of the convention centre. Jack Poole, a very

worthy business person, is heading up the Olympic bid. He's a Liberal, but he

also happens to be an excellent community person and a good business person as

well.

But it was

interesting. What does the convention centre have to do with the Olympic bid?

Maybe British Columbians should be asking that question about why it is that

there won't be subsidies for business — I would think a convention centre

would be labelled as a subsidy — under this government's rules, and yet all of

a sudden we see the convention centre back on the agenda. I was just curious. It

may be something that we'll be wanting to look more closely at. Is it maybe a

backdoor way of the Liberals breaking another promise about their business

subsidies and rewarding a good friend and proponent of a convention centre under

the guise of something else?

Another

quote:

"My

government's Energy Policy Task Force has been developing recommendations

for a comprehensive provincial energy strategy. Upon completion of the

current public consultation process, a final report will be ready next

month. This should ensure that my government properly plans for our

citizens' energy needs and also takes full advantage of the enormous

opportunities for investment and job creation in energy development."

Well, let's see the interim report. How was it received by the people? Well,

the task force's interim report received a pretty scathing review from

environmentalists, from working people. But interestingly enough, it also

received a scathing report from the Joint Industry Electricity Steering

Committee. Okay, let me just say that again: industry steering committee.

Here's what

they wrote in a letter to the Energy minister. This industry committee said:

"The

task force report is poorly done, and the shortage of time they were given

to produce it may have contributed to that outcome. It lacks substance,

contains inconsistencies and generally demonstrates a glaring lack of

knowledge and understanding of the electricity market in B.C., its

relationship to industrial operations and the role it plays in attracting

investment to the province. It is a dangerous piece of work with dangerous

consequences for the province."

Oops. But instead of the Premier taking advice from the people whom he

embraces, what does he say? Have at it. Carry on. We're marching down that road

despite the potential for dangerous consequences.

Another

quote from the throne speech:

"Measures

will be introduced this session to boost investment and job creation in both

the energy and mining sectors. Steps will be taken to enhance the

effectiveness of the Oil and Gas Commission and improve the investment

climate for mineral exploration. The Environmental Assessment Act will be

updated to streamline the major project assessment process. The Waste

Management Act will be amended to eliminate overlaps in the regulation of

mines…."

And it goes on to talk then about appointing, last October, a scientific

panel to assist on whether offshore oil and gas exploration could be conducted

in a manner that is scientifically sound and environmentally responsible. Well,

given what the Liberal government has already done in the area of environmental

protection…can only assume that these legislative changes are reasons for any

British Columbian concerned about a sustainable economy to be even more worried

now.

[1605]

Let's look

at what David Boyd had to say on the Liberals' use of streamlining. David Boyd,

as you may know, is a senior associate with the University of Victoria's

eco-research chair in environmental law and policy and an adjunct professor in

the school of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University

— yes, an independent professor at one of our universities. First of all, he

says that the environmental assessment process is the cornerstone of responsible

environmental planning, and yes, it is reviled by industry because it takes

months and sometimes years to gather the environmental data needed to make

informed decisions. Streamlining of that process is a clever euphemism for

sabotaging the integrity of the process. These measures, also, will probably

water

[ Page 1068 ]

down important land use legislation to please the business community at any

cost.

You know,

the business community last session said: "Oh, it's Christmas in

July." That's what the business community said. I guess this year they'll

be able to say: "My goodness, it's Christmas already here in February. It's

Christmas in March. It's Christmas in April, and it's Christmas in May."

That's what the business community will say this year.

The

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection doesn't see her role as protecting

the environment. She stated quite clearly: "No, that's not my job. My job

is to work collaboratively and cooperatively with those who create investment in

this province." Who is? Who in this government will stand up to protect the

environment in the face of these draconian changes? Who is it that's going to

come forward and stand up? It's not the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection. Who is going to help stop the erosion of these environmental

protections?

Today we

heard the Minister of Forests talk about the softwood lumber dispute. The Speech

from the Throne said: "The softwood lumber dispute has dragged on, despite

my government's best efforts to work with the federal government and other

provinces to negotiate a resolution with the United States." Then the

government announces that whether or not it will help negotiations, they plan to

move toward a market-based stumpage and to tackle the incredibly complex

challenge of forest policy reform.

"Obviously,

a change on this scale cannot be undertaken without some sacrifice," the

throne speech states. Well, the government's strategy so far hasn't worked. It's

failed at every turn. It's left forest workers and forest communities across the

province high and dry. The plans for reform this government is proceeding with

anyway will hurt workers and will hurt communities. This government is moving to

end the appurtenancy clause and sever the link between timber harvested at mills

and the jobs of local forest workers. That's who will have to sacrifice.

It's moving

forward to eliminate the cut control so that we're completely subject to the

vagaries of the world market. The one protection communities had against the

world market was cut controls, and now that's gone. Communities are left

vulnerable again.

Next month

the U.S. is expected to slap permanent countervailing and anti-dumping duties on

us. If the rates of almost 32 percent that they are currently charging us hold,

that will cost the B.C. industry about $1.5 billion. The impact of those

permanent duties will lead to forest unemployment jumping to 20,000. The

unemployment is now about 14,500 — staggering numbers, yes.

[1610]

Of course,

as we pointed out at the beginning, finally an acknowledgment from this

government that we're a resource-dependent economy. B.C. Stats confirms that, to

show that one out of every five jobs in British Columbia is strongly dependent

on forestry.

Yet, what

is the plan? What is the plan of this British Columbia government? In years

past, facing these same circumstances, they said answers should be had here in

British Columbia. What is the positive plan? Their positive plan is severing the

link between our publicly owned resource and the communities and workers that

depend on it.

You know,

at the end of the throne speech there were storm analogies — that there will

be times of storm ahead and huge change. Well, it was interesting. Someone — I

don't know whether he had an early copy of the throne speech; I doubt it — a

very good reporter, often very tough on matters that I was personally

responsible for in the past, a very tough reporter but an informed one, this

Sunday was writing about the fallout from the softwood lumber dispute. This is Province

columnist Brian Lewis. He was prescient in some of his metaphors. This past

Sunday as he was looking at the fallout, he said of the softwood dispute, in the

context of this government's plan to balance the budget: "Amid this

gathering storm, let's hope our cost-cutting Premier will have the flexibility

to bend if the winds become too strong."

Well, the

Premier says: "Suffer the storms. I'm not providing you any shelter, and

I'm proceeding ahead come heck or high water." But Mr. Lewis said just this

Sunday: "Please, Mr. Premier, have some flexibility."

You know,

it reminds me a little bit of a woman politician to whom I have never been

compared, I might put on the record. That was Margaret Thatcher. She said that

this lady's not for the turning. Well, clearly, this Premier is taking a page

out of Margaret Thatcher's book.

To go on to

read the throne speech:

"One

critical reform needed is to streamline the Forest Practices Code to make it

more results-oriented, cost-effective and workable on the ground while

maintaining the same standards of environmental protection. My government is

also acting to facilitate investment and job creation in the salmon

aquaculture industry. Recent changes will ensure that this sector is

enhanced with the toughest environmental protection framework in the

world."

Does the government think that just by saying that, people will believe them?

My gosh. British Columbians are waking up every day to have to scour the

Internet, scour the papers, scour documents to find out what's really going on.

Here's what

someone said about the Liberals' agenda in environmental protection. David Boyd

again:

"The

fox is being put in charge of the chicken coop, and the Liberals already

eliminated the province's environmental watchdog, the sustainability

commissioner. Although the Liberals continue to speak of environmental

leadership, their actions prove that this is absurdly empty rhetoric. In the

span of a few short years B.C. has gone from a national centre of

environmental excellence and innovation" — that was then —

"now to a laggard on par with Ontario, Canada's most polluted province

and home to the Walkerton tainted water disaster."

[ Page 1069 ]

That's what is the real situation. That's what you have to really read

between the lines to understand what this government has done.

Another

quote from the throne speech: "A referendum will be conducted later this

spring by mail-in ballot that will put forward questions that have been approved

by this assembly. Those questions will build on the work done by the Select

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs."

[1615]

Well, okay,

I have a confession to make. This is a new-era promise I wish this government

had broken — abandoned. It's not just New Democrats — my colleague and I —

telling the Premier this. It's pretty much everybody in the province saying:

"Please abandon this new-era promise." He's heard it from community

leaders, social justice groups and of course the first nations themselves. He's

even heard it from one group that he's supposed to listen to, he says. That's

the business community. But still he doesn't listen.

This

disastrous plan was again the subject of derision in the national press. When?

Oh, today. Today in the Globe and Mail , February 13, 2002, a columnist,

Jeffrey Simpson, writes:

"B.C.'s

business community always worried about the referendum, believing it risked

polarizing the province. Some business leaders tried to talk Mr. Campbell

out of the idea before the election, but he had his right-of-centre

coalition to consolidate and wanted to make gains in rural B.C. He would not

be deterred before, during and after the campaign.

Mr. Simpson concludes:

"It's…possible

the aboriginals will say to the province, 'It was your referendum, based on

your rules and your questions, to decide your negotiating position, but it

means nothing to us,' in which case further impasses" — in the treaty

process — "are ahead."

That's pretty prescient as well, I would say, because first nations leaders

and communities are boycotting this fatally flawed process. A great number of

British Columbians who disagree with it are boycotting it as well.

What are we

spending on this fatally flawed process? It's $9 million for the mail-in ballot.

And Mr. Campbell is setting up an independent education office that's going to

be up to British Columbians to access. After they've spent…looking after their

children, looking after their parents with far less resources, after they're

having to do with less and pay more, they're going to have to call the

independent referendum office and say: "All right, now what about those 16

questions that cover 125 years of negotiating history with our aboriginals?

Could you help me out on how I should be thinking about these questions?"

I don't

think the working families in my constituency are going to have time to do that.

And you know what? I think the independent office is going to cost way more,

outside of the $9 million it's costing for this mail-in ballot.

Oh, here's

one that's particularly interesting, again: "My government is also

committed to giving local governments more autonomy and better planning and

revenue tools to reduce property tax pressures and to enhance community

stability." Well, school districts have already learned what the

government's glowing words, like "autonomy" and

"flexibility," really mean. What that means…. Here's what the

Liberal definition of flexibility and autonomy means: nowhere near as much money

as we promised, and you're on your own. That's the Liberal definition of

flexibility and autonomy.

Now local

governments are going to get those same rights. Understandably, they're nervous.

Let me just tell you why they're nervous — not words from my mouth, words from

the minister responsible for Community Charter. He gave municipalities recently

the good news that they're going to be allowed to levy a whole bunch of new

taxes. And guess what. It's an election year, and he got a frosty reception.

Municipal councillors are going to have to go to the electorate this year, and

what is their provincial government saying? "Don't worry. Here, we're going

to take money away from you and download a whole bunch of stuff, but here's the

right to tax. We're going to let you tax the bejesus out of your constituents.

Isn't that good news?"

Deputy

Speaker: Member, could I remind you, please. That language is

non-parliamentary.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I'm so

looking forward to some senior cabinet members getting up, for once, and

speaking on behalf of their constituents. It'll be very interesting to hear the

comments of senior cabinet members and what they have to say. To date, the

silence has been deafening.

[1620]

Here's why

they gave a frosty reception to their right to tax. Here's what the minister

said when he was asked about what this actually means. He was commenting on what

citizens should know, and he was asked to give examples about what powers the

province was giving to municipalities. Here's the example that the minister

responsible for the community charter gave: "Cities can decide to shut down

a park and sell the land to someone wanting to develop a mall or shut down a

road and sell the land to a residential developer."

Oh, no

wonder civic leaders said: "Oh my gosh." Now, was that quote long ago

and maybe the minister straightened up after he's consulted widely? No, that

quote was given two weeks ago. Oh, here's good news: shut down a park and build

a mall; shut down a road and give it to a developer. My goodness, it is

unbelievable — the arrogance of this government in their plans to completely

abdicate responsibility for their decisions.

They're

offloading onto school boards. My colleague will have lots more to say about

this. They are saying to school boards: "You've got autonomy, and oh, by

the way, you're on your own, and we're cutting, and there's no more money."

They're saying to health authorities…. We don't have health authorities. We've

[ Page 1070 ]

got five businessmen running the health system, and oh, by the way, those

health authorities will have to answer all the tough questions. Now they're

saying to municipalities: "You've got autonomy, and oh, by the way, we're

cutting all of our support for you, but you've got the right to tax."

Now, I was

wondering this. This is another thing that I found a little bit curious. The

government has broken a lot of promises, and I'll be going through the list in a

few moments. This was one that they really broke. They said: "We'll have

the community charter in place a.s.a.p." It was a 90-day promise, actually

— a first 90 days promise. Then we found out that no, no, no, we were just

going to consult. Now the government says: "Within a year we'll have a

community charter." Is that because the blow-back has been so strong from

your farm teams at the local level that they don't want to have to fight an

election based on your downloading? I bet you it is. I bet you they're saying:

"Don't give us the community charter 'cause we'll lose elections on that

basis." Hmm, I'm going to watch for that one. I'm going to watch and see

whether that's….

So, I

actually want to go to the issue of broken promises. The throne speech says:

"My government will not break its trust with the people." That's a

bold statement. It's an aggressive statement, given the context, because within

eight short months this government has already broken its trust so many times it

is breathtaking. I think they now all believe that the front of their election

platform read in huge letters, "New era of sacrifice, slashed services and

mean-spirited policies," because yesterday there wasn't any talk of good

times. It was sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. Maybe there's some strange but

possible case of collective disillusion and delusion that has occurred.

[1625]

Let me just

go through some of the top ten promises that the government made and has now

broken. Top ten — there's more, but there's been kind of a nice nuance to

top-ten lists. So, this is the top-ten list of broken promises.

No. 1 —

and these are quotes from the New Era document: tax cuts will pay for

themselves. Well, British Columbians know what a whopper that was. I guess we'll

see the harm and the sacrifice and the hardship caused by that whopper next

week, when the budget is brought down with the largest-ever planned deficit in

the history of British Columbia.

No. 2, to

quote the New Era document: "You should keep more of every dollar

you earn, and the government should take less."

Gee, I

wonder how British Columbians feel about that. They had some change put in this

pocket and dollars scooped out of this pocket. The government is engaging in the

most regressive form of taxation and increasing health care premiums by 50

percent. They've increased Pharmacare costs; they're threatening user fees.

Camping fees are going to go up. Firewood is going to cost. On and on it goes.

Promise No.

3 — broken. To quote the campaigning then opposition leader, now the Premier:

"First of all, I don't believe in ripping up agreements. I'm not tearing up

any agreements."

Well, you

know, my colleague and I said during the debate two short weeks ago that the

most draconian changes ever were made to collective agreements and the most

draconian changes ever were made to labour laws. The media didn't report on any

of the substance of those bills, but the community knows that they were the most

draconian changes. Somehow this government thinks it's okay because: "Oh,

they're only union contracts."

We had the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission say: "Ah, those HEU members." He says

it with a scowl on his face, as if those tens of thousands of hard-working

people delivering health care services are a category to be looked upon with

disgust. Well, he did. They rewarded them with disgust a few short weeks ago.

He said to

them: "I am not tearing up any agreements. I don't believe in ripping up

agreements." Now he has betrayed that trust.

This is a

quote from a media columnist:

"There's

no ready excuse for misleading voters during the election campaign. The

contracts were public documents; the Liberals knew exactly what was in them

when they pledged to honour the agreements… We cede our governments great

power and expect them to use it honestly and judiciously. The Liberals have

betrayed that trust."

That was in the Vancouver Sun — Paul Willcocks, January 2002.

Here's one

from Mr. Mark Milke, Canadian Taxpayers Federation: "I'm not sure Canadian

Taxpayers Federation members will be thrilled that a contract has been broken

before an attempt by the government was even made to negotiate" — January

28, 2002.

Here is an

interesting one. "The optics of this dispute" — Bill 29, tearing up

of the contracts — "are worse off the farther you get from British

Columbia," said Mark Wexler, a professor of management and organizational

study at Simon Fraser University. "Businesses need two things in order to

relocate: low taxes and stability. The message they are getting from this is

that they might get the low taxes, but the stability is a different thing."

I could go

on and on, because there are dozens more examples of people saying to this

government: "Shame on you for that broken promise."

Broken

promise No. 4: no expansion in gambling. Isn't this an interesting one? You

really had to read between the lines of the throne speech yesterday. At the

January 16 cabinet meeting, the Premier and his cabinet voted to expand

gambling. He broke his new-era promise to "stop the expansion of gambling

that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families."

Guess what.

Here's what the Premier said about why he had to expand gambling — and so did

his solicitor general. They both gave the excuse for fudging

[ Page 1071 ]

their promise with this oh-so-earnest plea: they had to respect contracts.

Oh, isn't

that interesting? Isn't that interesting? This cash-strapped, failed government

will honour contracts when it comes to expanding gambling, but not when it comes

to honouring the contracts of people who deliver services to our most

vulnerable.

[1630]

Broken

promise No. 5: resources for children and families. Year after year, when they

were in opposition, the B.C. Liberals said that children were their number one

commitment and promised that they would vote to support any level of budget

increase to the ministry responsible for children and families — any level of

budget increase. They also went to great lengths to praise the work of the

child, youth and family advocate. I think we don't have a child, youth and

family advocate anymore. Oh! But in those days the good work of Joyce Preston

castigated the government for not spending enough. And every time that the

government of the day didn't implement every single one of her recommendations,

the then Liberal opposition were up on their feet.

What's the

new-era reality? Not only is the Liberal government committed to cutting the

Ministry of Children and Family Development by 30 percent — 20 times as deep

as any other cut ever contemplated in this ministry — but they also eliminated

the persons who could possibly challenge them on that: the child, youth and

family advocate and the children's commissioner. They've created a whole new

office that has zero independence — zero independence.

Broken

promise No. 6. Well, we just had an example of this today. The member for Maple

Ridge–Mission says: "These are silly issues to be brought up." Let's

just see whether the public thinks it's silly that the government has broken a

new-era promise that says they'll reduce the cost of government by increasing

efficiencies and eliminating wasteful spending. Well, isn't that interesting?

The new-era reality is that the Premier appointed the largest cabinet in B.C.

history, gave enormous pay raises to deputy ministers and