1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 8, Number 13

[ Page 6821 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today the Member of Parliament for South Surrey-White Rock-Langley, Val Meredith. Val is the Reform Party critic for Citizenship and Immigration. I would also like to extend a welcome to her legislative assistant from Ottawa, a native of Chilliwack, Richard Fraser. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize a dignitary visiting us from India. He is the acting head of the management committee of the Sikh temples of India, and his name is Jathedar Sukhdev Singh Bhor. Accompanying him are Gurbax Singh Sanghera, Sarwan Singh Randhawa, Gurdev Singh Johal, Jarnaill Singh Purewal, Ranbir Singh, Balbir Singh Chingiara, Bikkar Singh Dhillon and Gurinder Singh Phagura; and a couple of farmers from the Fraser Valley who are later on meeting the Minister of Agriculture: Gurjit Singh Purewal and Gurdawar Singh Purewal. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I would like to join my colleague the Attorney General in welcoming all of our guests from India and from Vancouver. With that group also is a nephew of mine. His name is Gurinder Singh Phagoora. Will the House please make the group and my nephew welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today in the precinct I'd like to introduce Bill Frieding. He's from Southern Plus Feedlots, and he's down here doing some work with the government and hoping that he doesn't have to come back next week to get it completed. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: In the galleries today is Mr. Ross Brearley. Mr. Brearley is the newly elected president of the Progressive Democratic Alliance. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Janssen: I rise today to introduce some 35 workers from hake-processing plants in Ucluelet and Port Alberni. These people made the trip to Victoria to express their concern about the federal government's decision to allocate hake to offshore foreign plants while plants in Ucluelet and Port Alberni lose fish and jobs. They believe that British Columbia jobs from British Columbia fish belong to British Columbians. I ask the House to make them welcome.

W. Hartley: I have the pleasure to welcome 24 grade 6 students, along with their teacher and some adults. The teacher is Mrs. Douglas, and they're from East Ridge Elementary School in Woodinville, Washington. Welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: For the second time this week it's my privilege to introduce some people who have left Alberta to visit us here in British Columbia and see what's going on in the Legislature. I think it's becoming a trend, hon. Speaker. In the gallery today I'd like to introduce to the House Alan and Rendene Rutkowski and their son, Jim Rutkowski, who also happens to be my ministerial assistant. I know the House will make them very welcome.

S. Hawkins: We would also like to join in welcoming Mr. Sukhdev Singh Bhor and the Sikh delegation that met with the Leader of the Opposition and myself this morning.

J. van Dongen: I would also like to join in welcoming the delegation of shore workers from various parts of Vancouver Island. We had the opportunity to meet with them briefly before this sitting, and I would like everyone to join in welcoming them.

Hon. D. Lovick: I note that the shore workers are accompanied by an old friend of mine from Nanaimo, Mr. Garth Mireau, who is also connected with the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Garth and the many Nuu-chah-nulth people who are here today. Welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'll ask the indulgence of the House. One of my colleagues wondered, when I was reading the names, whether I spoke any Punjabi. I didn't. But may I, with your permission, say sat siri akal and jee ayan noo to these visitors.

Oral Questions

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SKEENA CELLULOSE

G. Plant: Madam Speaker, Skeena Cellulose. In a new set of reasons for judgment which have only recently been released to the public, Mr. Justice Thackray revealed that this government entered into yet another secret deal with Skeena Cellulose. In this secret deal, the NDP will fork over another $26.9 million if the pulp and paper workers union does not agree to a flexibility clause in its contract. My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: will he tell us when he plans to tell the public the full truth about this secret deal, which could cost taxpayers an additional $27 million?

Hon. D. Miller: It's interesting. I just happened to be glancing at a transcript of a CBC Radio interview from March 19, 1997, wherein the Leader of the Opposition outlines his solution to the very serious problem that the communities in northern British Columbia were faced with -- 9,000 direct and indirect jobs. I'll just read it: "So it seems to me in the short term, what we can do is Forest Renewal can lend a hand. They should basically give" -- I repeat: give -- "the money to Repap."

Repap was technically bankrupt at that time. The Leader of the Opposition said that Forest Renewal should take their money and give it to a bankrupt company. That's what they said in Terrace, Madam Speaker. What did they say at various other times?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. D. Miller: I hope we'll have another question, so we can deal with that.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston -- first supplementary.

G. Plant: Well, since then we've had secret deal after secret deal, backroom deal after backroom deal. The public of British Columbia wants to know the whole truth about this Skeena Cellulose bailout, and so far we're not getting it. Mr. Justice Thackray said . . . . This is a judge the minister knows

[ Page 6822 ]

well, hon. Speaker. This is what he wrote: "This, in my opinion" -- this deal -- "is something that should be known by the unions during the bargaining process. It is also something that should be known by the public, who are funding this concession." So I ask the minister -- whichever minister is prepared to answer the question: how much more secret information is out there about the Skeena Cellulose bailout?

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, I think one point needs to be made over and over and over again. When the residents of northwestern B.C. were faced with their communities going down, their employment going down, this government responded with assistance. We also know that when the Leader of the Opposition was faced with angry people in Terrace, he said that Forest Renewal should basically give all the money to a bankrupt company. But there's one fundamental difference. When the Leader of the Opposition left the northwest and came down to southern B.C., the Liberals took a shameless and spineless position and said they should shut the operations down. I say shame!

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, when this "job continuation contribution agreement" was presented to Mr. Justice Thackray, it came with the warning: "For your eyes only."

Just before Christmas this government stacked the deck against the unsecured creditors of Skeena and forced them to accept a deal at 10 cents on the dollar. Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell this House whether or not the full extent of the contribution agreement was revealed to the unsecured creditors before this underhanded and shameful deal was forced on the unsecured creditors?

Hon. D. Miller: Talk about shameless and underhanded! When that member -- the Forests critic, who's supposed to represent the interests of forest workers and forest communities around this province -- was up in the northwest, he said: "Skeena Cellulose may have been bailed out if the provincial Liberals had been in power" -- but they weren't sure what "form" it would have taken. He came down here in December and issued a press release, and he was asked point-blank by a CBC Radio reporter: "What would the Liberals do?" He said they would shut it down. If anybody here is shameful, hon. member, it is you.

[2:15]

G. Abbott: The one thing this side of the House understands, which that side clearly doesn't, is fairness. This government would sell out the little guy in a moment if it suited big government and big banks.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: That's absolutely right!

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question is?

G. Abbott: Mr. Justice Thackray said he had several misgivings when he received a telephone call at his home from a government lawyer. Mr. Justice Thackray felt the government was involving him in a political move outside the court-monitored restructuring plan.

Will the minister tell the whole truth and assure us that this secret agreement is not another political move by the NDP to sneak another $27 million into the massive Skeena Cellulose bailout?

Hon. D. Miller: The one thing that is absolutely and fundamentally true -- and it is on the record . . . . That Liberal opposition has taken more positions on Skeena Cellulose than you can find in the Kama Sutra. They change their minds every week.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: And I'm sure some of them know what it is.

I have asked the Leader of the Liberal Opposition to come to Prince Rupert and debate in front of the people of the northwest, and he won't come. He's afraid.

I'll say one final thing, and I will stand in any forum anywhere in this province . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: I tell the truth; I'm not afraid to tell the truth. I don't change my position when I'm in one part of the province and when I'm in another part of the province. So, hon. member . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: When order is restored, I will recognize the hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: If this minister wants to debate this deal, the Leader of the Opposition and these MLAs will meet him anytime, anyplace, anywhere. And if he wants to have that debate, let him stand in this House now and commit to tell the truth, to table the documents and to assure this House that there won't be any more phone calls, that there won't be any more secret deals. You should be ashamed of yourself. It's sickening.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, would you ask your question, please. I didn't recognize a question in those last remarks.

LANDS MINISTRY APPLICATION BACKLOG

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, that minister doesn't want to answer any questions. He doesn't want to tell the truth. So I'm going to ask his colleague the Minister of Lands, who's now had 24 hours to study her own Treasury Board's submission that says her ineptitude has cost this province 20,000 jobs. Will she stand in this House today . . . ? That document identifies five options to save jobs for British Columbians. We know she's rejected the recommended option. But which one has she accepted? What action has she taken, which recommendation has she accepted, to save jobs for British Columbians?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to thank the member opposite for this opportunity to review what this minister and this ministry have been prepared to do to be able to preserve jobs and do business in a different way in this province. In fact, the point that the member opposite didn't make yesterday is: who did develop that cabinet submission? Who rec-

[ Page 6823 ]

ognized the problem to begin with? It was this ministry, this government, that took the steps necessary to be able to deal with the problem when it was recognized.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui -- first supplementary.

M. de Jong: The minister clearly is eminently more familiar with the document today than she was yesterday. I'm thrilled to hear that. Here's what the document says. It says that her ministry, her government, is "actively discouraging clients" from making their applications for Crown lands -- discouraging the very people that we rely upon to create employment in this province.

Will the minister stand here and acknowledge that she's been an abject failure in terms of managing this ministry and tell the province which of the five recommendations she has spent a ton of dough developing -- and seems quite proud of it -- she has accepted, and how many jobs are we going to see produced in this province as a result of her getting her ministry in order?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I did yesterday, I'd like to take the time to outline for the members opposite the many initiatives this ministry is a part of in dealing with the issues related to regulation, red tape and the kind of regulatory standards that are in place in this ministry. We're working with the oil and gas sector, we're working with the mining sector, and we're working with the forestry sector. And it's not just with traditional industry, but with the new economy. We're working with the small business sector, and we're working with the commercial recreation sector.

This ministry has streamlined its processes with commercial recreation, and I want to take this time to give some examples of some of the new investment that has come into the province as a result of the approvals.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you very much.

R. Neufeld: While you're working with all those industries, your performance is less than stellar, I can tell you that.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Eighteen months ago Duke's Air Service paid their money and made their application for access to Crown land to create jobs and economic development in the north. They were told: "You may get a letter saying your application is toast, or you may have to start all over again with another ministry, and there are no guarantees." That's a direct quote. Is this the way small business and small communities can expect to be treated by your ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by reminding the member that I think these were the very same questions he asked in estimates last session, and we've solved the problem since then.

I'd like to use this opportunity to talk about some of the processes that have been approved. Let's talk about Intrawest at Blackcomb-Whistler -- $525 million in investments approved and 1,500 new jobs over the next ten years. There's the CBR application for three heliskiing ports -- $4.5 million in investment and 30 new jobs. There's the Mad River-Nordic CBR application, with a $1 million investment and 25 jobs. This ministry is working hard with the business community to put in place and into practice the interim strategy -- which the member well knows we have in place -- in order to be able to put those with economic initiatives at the top of the pile.

Ministerial Statement

HAKE ALLOCATION TO FISH PROCESSORS

Hon. D. Streifel: I rise in the House today to talk about the hake allocation recently announced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. For the last six years the hake, as a species of groundfish, has been a vital part of the economy of our communities on the west coast. Last year the DFO set a total allowable catch of hake of 99,000 tonnes. This year the catch was reduced to 80,000 tonnes.

But that's not the real problem. The problem for British Columbia coastal communities is how that catch has been allocated to shore- and ocean-based processors.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a policy that is supposed to give priority to on-shore processors. For the past four years the DFO has met with industry in the province to determine a fair split between these facilities. The processors have spent millions of dollars upgrading their plants this winter to accommodate a greater production capacity. The provincial and federal governments have helped with infrastructure costs totalling some $7.5 million. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did meet with the processors this fall. This was before the plants could confirm production capacities. The consultation conducted was far short of the process that has worked so well in the past.

This year the DFO has guaranteed 20,000 tonnes of our hake to offshore processors -- to Polish factory ships. Those 20,000 tonnes would have given Canadian processors the flexibility they need to survive this year. Instead, it's been given away to foreign factory ships. Those 20,000 tonnes would have helped support 300 jobs in the coastal communities of Ucluelet and Port Alberni -- 300 badly needed jobs.

This isn't a new issue. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries recommended in its east coast report that foreign allocations never happen again. The committee's west coast interim report recommended that the DFO consult with coastal communities prior to announcing any further changes. I don't understand why the DFO is putting Canada in second place in the harvesting and processing of our own resources.

I spoke to federal Fisheries minister David Anderson on Friday, April 3, and told him how concerned I was and how concerned this government was about this decision and the lack of consultation. It doesn't seem to have done any good.

I'm worried about coastal communities. It seems that everything is coming to a head for fishermen in B.C. this year. Coho stocks are in serious trouble, and people living in fishing communities are worried about losing their livelihood. They can't be shut out of every decision; they can't be shut out of decisions that determine their future.

This province is taking the lead to make sure that the federal government hears the voices of everyone in coastal communities on the coho crisis and now on the hake allocation. Under this allocation, B.C. processors expect to run out of fish in late August or early September. What will those onshore workers do then?

I hope all members of the Legislature will join me in supporting fish processors in British Columbia in their fight to be heard in Ottawa -- fish processors who are Canadians and who just want to process Canadian fish in Canadian plants.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to respond to the minister's statement on behalf of not only processors but also

[ Page 6824 ]

shoreworkers and the communities that they are in. We did have the opportunity, just before this session, to meet with those workers and discuss their concerns, their issues and their fears for the future.

It is my understanding that both the federal and provincial governments encouraged the expansion of these processing plants and that there were commitments made as part of that discussion. The processors lived up to their part of the commitment. They invested millions of dollars into these plants. It is also my understanding that DFO gave their word that they would consult before deciding on allocation between local plants and foreign processors. DFO did consult and did keep their commitment last year, but this past year they did not do so, in our view.

Speaking on behalf of our caucus, I believe it is critical that as a province we do two things: that we hang on to and maintain the jobs that we have; and that we create opportunities for new employment and new job creation. I think that both the federal and provincial governments have an obligation in that regard. Consistency is important. In this case, the federal government has to maintain some consistency in what they said they would do. I am hopeful that the federal government will review this decision on behalf of all of our people here today, all of the processors and all of the communities that are directly affected.

[2:30]

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, there are two issues that are of concern to me in the statement that has been read to the House today. The first is the matter of hake; the second is that there was nothing in the ministerial statement that suggests that there is an immediate financial plan for those processors who have committed money on the expectation of an increased fishery. It's of concern to me when the provincial minister indicates that he has spoken to the federal minister, Mr. Anderson, with no effect at all. That's a serious concern.

It's important that if we are to have a share between the federal authority and the provincial authority with respect to the fisheries that the province exert its will and make sure that its voice is heard and is effective.

I would urge this government to press the federal government to provide compensation for the value of the 20,000 tonnes lost to those processors, so that those processors who have committed those dollars to expand their facilities will in fact not suffer a financial loss as a result of the federal government going back upon its word. Only when this government makes that kind of statement to the feds will the feds recognize there is going to be a financial liability when it breaks its word to British Columbians.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

I also have the honour to present the annual reports of the Forest Land Commission for 1995-96 and 1996-97.

The Speaker: I have the honour at this time to present the auditor general's report No. 4, 1997-98, entitled: "Loss Reporting in Government; Waste Management Permit Fees; Motor Vehicle Act."

Orders of the Day

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

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

G. Wilson: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the Speech from the Throne. In doing so, hopefully, I'll put forward some ideas that are perhaps progressive for all British Columbians and which point to those areas within the Speech from the Throne where I think the government was lacking and may want to pay greater attention to.

It would seem to me that all of us in British Columbia are facing extremely difficult times. I met this morning, for example, in my own riding in Sechelt, with a group of people who are in the logging and forestry industry. They tell me that unemployment in that sector is now pushing close to 30 percent. That's beyond crisis; this is a serious crisis. We have a pulp mill in my own community of Powell River-Sunshine Coast that didn't get the same kind of largesse that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development was so lucky to get for Skeena Cellulose.

MacMillan Bloedel's announcements of closures saw roughly 500 jobs lost in that community, and these are permanent job losses; this is not a cyclical downturn. That's of concern to a community that is so heavily dependent on a single industry.

I could go on with a long list of areas where we see rising unemployment, where we see economic development stifled. We heard from the official opposition with respect to the provision of land -- the difficulty in just getting a simple land application processed. Something that used to take 90 days now takes two years.

It seems to me that in the Speech from the Throne, when we look at all of these kinds of issues, the very first line that this government should have come forward with was a mea culpa: "I confess we have not done well by British Columbians." British Columbians are suffering more today than they were a year ago or two years or three years ago. It seems to me that the very first line should be an acknowledgment that the direction taken by the government to date has not worked.

All of us are going to recognize that if that's the case, then together -- and I mean together -- we must shoulder the responsibility for finding a direction and a course of action that will turn the tide and will work for British Columbians.

I want to address three primary areas where I think we can do that. The first issue is the matter of aboriginal land treaties and aboriginal land claims.

Some time ago I said that it will be important in this session of the House, as the debates progress and as legislation comes forward, that we are able to articulate our positions clearly and effectively enough that the people who observe our debates via the televised sessions or people who choose to read the debate in Hansard -- if there are those out there who do that, and I believe there are -- will understand the very real differences between the parties represented in this House: the government, who in their Speech from the Throne have put out their vision for British Columbia; the official opposition, who in response are putting out their vision for British Columbia; myself, the lone elected member of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, as I put out our vision for British Columbia; and my colleague the independent from Peace River, who will of course articulate his.

[ Page 6825 ]

Nowhere can there be more clear distinction and division on the principles and philosophies that seem to divide these parties than in the matter of aboriginal land claims. There are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed as we get into this discussion, and these issues are critically important. Up until this point the Treaty Commission process -- the establishment of the Treaty Commission process that was brought in by the former New Democratic Party government under then-leader Mr.

Harcourt -- undertook to put in place a system that would allow for discussion on treaties to move forward into a formalized process and, through that formalized process, provide us with an opportunity to come up with agreements-in-principle and to finally ratify treaties. The federal government had its obligations -- primarily financial, but nevertheless it had its obligations -- at the table, as did the province and the first nations.

All the time that the Treaty Commission process was coming forward, notably two bands were actively at work trying to bring together a resolution of their own: the Nisga'a, who had been working for close to 24 years to try to get this process forward, and the Sechelts, who also had been working and were very close to ratification. As we look to the Speech from the Throne, it's interesting that there is considerable rhetoric -- political rhetoric -- paid to the desire of this government to actually come forward and ratify these agreements.

Yet we have seen over the last number of years that there is an apparent lack of will to finalize agreements, to actually conclude these treaties. In the Nisga'a arrangement, the treaty that came forward into an AIP, we have now languished for another year without coming up with something that is effective, acceptable, and fair to all parties.

With the Sechelts, we were within a matter of weeks of coming up with final ratification, and the deal fell through because there was no clear mandate to terminate those negotiations. In the intervening period, we have had what I believe was probably the most important, most profound ruling to come down from the Supreme Court in the history of British Columbia since joining Confederation. I refer, of course, to the Delgamuukw ruling, which indicates clearly that aboriginal people have rights. Those rights run with the land, and they have rights to their land.

It seems to me that if we're to look at a vision for British Columbia, which is indeed what the Speech from the Throne is all about, we have to address this most critical and most important issue. Let me say from my perspective that we have to recognize that there is going to be no one-size-fits-all solution. The first nations people in British Columbia are as complex a people as any you will find anywhere. The differences that exist are very real. Aboriginal people tend to have governed themselves in the manner of a collective model rather than by individual rights, as prescribed within the constitution and the Charter that rule us.

It is also important to recognize, hon. Speaker . . . . I see nothing in this Speech from the Throne -- and it is regrettably lacking . . . . The history of interaction between aboriginal people and the people of British Columbia has not been one that most of us would feel very proud about. If we're to come up with a resolution to this, here are some suggestions for this government. I hope this government will take them in the constructive manner they are offered in.

First of all, I think it is important for us to recognize that there is a legacy of interaction between first nations and non-first nations people in British Columbia that has left a long and very hurtful past that needs to be dealt with. When you read the history and understand the detail of the interaction of institutions that brought in residential schools, of a federal government that had a policy of assimilation, of governments that refused to allow first nations people to practise their culture, what we are left is generations of hurt, generations of pain, that we need to deal with.

That is why I think we need to look toward -- what I think we should be doing -- recognizing that the truth must come forward and must be fully explained, and that there must be a process for reconciliation of those past grievances. We must find, through a truth-and-reconciliation process, a way for us to deal with this history so that we can together move forward.

Secondly, I think we have to also recognize that on the matter of land tenure -- a most critical issue -- and the matter of title, we in the province of British Columbia have enjoyed in the past provincial Crown title to Crown lands recognized within the constitution of Canada. The most fundamental issue in Delgamuukw, which I think most seem to have lost or glossed over, notwithstanding what they give not only to the undisputed lands that are currently aboriginal but even to disputed aboriginal lands . . . . Delgamuukw would suggest that those lands should in fact be administered in a manner similar to the lands under

section 91. That would in fact give them to the federal government and not the province. That is a very fundamental point of law that has to be addressed by this government and should be included in some Speech from the Throne vision for how we're going to move forward. It is imperative for us to deal with this, because we cannot expect to see returned economic growth, economic development, resource investment and security of investment in the province until such time as we have dealt with this issue.

If the federal government is going to interpret, as the ruling would imply, that lands that are currently under claim should be treated as though they were similar to and/or the same as lands that had been set aside as reserves -- i.e., under federal jurisdiction -- then this province has some serious concerns, because it means that the provincial supremacy over Crown land is indeed threatened by that ruling. We have to address that issue, because it's fundamental to the way that we govern this province. I've heard nothing from this government -- not a word -- as to how they intend to deal with that particular issue.

Thirdly, with respect to the aboriginal question, we have to recognize that there is a need for us through the treaty negotiation process, to come up with a final position -- something that provides permanency and that will give fairness in the final treaty. In order for us to do that, it is important that we have the data, the information and the text of these agreements out before the public so the public can fully read them, understand them and learn what the truth is with respect to what exists within those treaties.

[2:45]

I find it most concerning -- and here's where we run into some differences with respect to party positions -- when in the Vancouver Sun today the Leader of the Official Opposition writes in his own submission: "It is an outrage to think that the precedent-setting Nisga'a proposal would entrench new forms of inequality into the constitution . . . . " That is factually incorrect; it does not do that. It is so profoundly factually incorrect that I think it needs to be corrected, because we are not reading this as musings of some politician that might sit on the back bench.

This is the Leader of the Official Opposition who has put forward a notion that is factually incorrect, and it needs to be corrected.

There is nothing within the Nisga'a agreement that alters the Canadian constitution. If there were something within the

[ Page 6826 ]

Nisga'a agreement that altered the constitution, then all the rest of the argument that the Leader of the Opposition put forward in the Vancouver Sun today would be moot with respect to the need for a referendum. If indeed it altered the Canadian constitution, then by provincial statute -- by law -- we would be required to have a referendum. That's how wrong what is being presented is, and that's how dangerous what is being presented is, when we are trying, in what is going to be a very sensitive and very difficult debate, to get the truth before the people of British Columbia.

I believe that the Nisga'a agreement provides for the Nisga'a people that which they require in order for them to be able to enter into and become an equal part of Canadian society. That's what it does.

It's ironic when we see the statement here again from the Leader of the Official Opposition, who says: "The trouble is that we" -- that is, the non-aboriginal people -- "have never been asked what compromises we as British Columbians are prepared to accept in treaty negotiations." The words "compromises we are prepared to accept" juxtaposed with a population of first nations people who had their children incarcerated, who were given no rights to the land that they occupied for hundreds and hundreds of years, who were unable to enter into and become active participants in the economy in many cases, for whom the federal government spends $9.4 billion, of which a tiny 13 cents in the dollar actually goes to aboriginal people . . .

And we are making compromises? I don't think so.

What is happening is that we are finally, in these treaties, recognizing that there is a need for us to come forward with honesty, integrity and dignity, and say to first nations people: "We will reconcile the past. We will bring to the future a treaty that will provide fair, equitable resolution to past agreements and differences, and we will make all of us -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike -- equal partners in British Columbia and in Canada." That's what we have to do, not sow seeds that, frankly, are incorrect and damaging to the process that is required.

The reason I say this with such passion is because I believe that if we are not able to move forward on this question, we can't possibly move into the other areas that I'm about to talk to today.

One is with respect to a new vision for our economy vis-à-vis forestry. The forest industry is in serious, serious trouble, and we need to have changes made now. If the Speech from the Throne were providing a vision for British Columbians, it would have said that we recognize that there are two distinctly different forest industries -- interior and coastal -- and that we are going to divide and administer those two different industries accordingly.

It should have said that we will also recognize that there is a need for us to enter into tenure reform and, recognizing that, that in the coast economy in particular there is an opportunity for us to enter into a competitive log market. Through tenure reform and the introduction of a competitive log market, we would finally be able to gain an advantage with respect to the American market, because we would have satisfied any concerns the Americans have had on the softwood tariff. It would give us an opportunity to expand that market and put people back to work.

The Speech from the Throne should not have just acknowledged that they're going to reduce stumpage in the same manner we have seen in the past. It is arbitrary in terms of setting it, despite the fact that from time to time -- in fact, I think it's quarterly -- they review the market trends. What they should have done in the Speech from the Throne is said that we are moving to a new manner of applying stumpage. Stumpage will come as a percentage of actual market price -- that is, sale at market. So we would recognize that the flexibilities and vagaries within that industry are going to be accommodated.

We are not going to be punitive to people in the forest industry when we have an arbitrarily set stumpage price that is too high.

The Speech from the Throne should have said that we acknowledge that we have made a mistake with respect to how we have managed the forests; we now understand how we will fix it; here's where we're going. It didn't do that.

When I met with foresters in Sechelt today, all of whom are now facing unemployment, the IWA was there in force. They were saying: "What has this government done? It's lost its mind. It doesn't seem to understand that there is an urgent need for change." They would have been able to turn and point to the Speech from the Throne and say: "Do you know what? This is a government that understands that they made a mistake. It understands that the policies are not working, and they're taking definitive action to change it."

In the matter of forestry, I think there are opportunities, even within this session, to bring forward amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code that will go a long way to help solve the problem. I look forward to this government taking on those challenges and bringing those changes forward, so we can find an opportunity to deal with them in a fair and equitable manner.

Let me move to a third area with respect to the provisions in this Speech from the Throne. The provisions in here -- that is, the vision for how British Columbians are going to work -- also make reference to amendments to the Labour Code. When that was read out in the Speech from the Throne, I heard rumblings and champings, and the sabre-rattling started to take place immediately. The last time that came in, there was a great deal of championing of two causes: left and right.

If we are serious about turning the economy around in this province, if we are serious about long-term economic growth, if we are serious about sitting down and working out a fair and equitable Labour Code, then let us not confuse this debate. Let us have a solid debate that talks about amendments to the Labour Code and picks out those areas that we agree or disagree with.

But do not disguise that, hon. Speaker, if what you are in fact arguing is that philosophically you do not want unions. There's a different debate when someone stands and says: "I believe in the trade union movement. I will agree that it should be here. I agree that unionized workers should have a fair collective bargaining process. I believe that management should have a balanced playing field so that together we can pay people well, train people properly and make sure that we have a solid, properly trained workforce in British Columbia.

But I don't agree with this clause or that clause or this language or that line . . . . " That's an intelligent debate. But if the real debate is that we are anti-union -- we don't want unions; the reason we don't want a change in the Labour Code is because we don't want unions at all; we're trying to drive people down to the lowest wage, and the low bid must prevail in all cases -- then we're not serious about turning the economy around. We confuse that debate.

I can tell you that we in the Progressive Democratic Alliance are not anti-union; we are prepared to sit down and debate honestly the amendments to the Labour Code when it comes forward. We may not agree with everything that is in it; in fact, we may make amendments to it to try and make it better. Hopefully, this debate does not degenerate, as it did last time, into camps that are extreme left and extreme right -- one pro-union, one anti-union -- so that we are caught in rhetoric

[ Page 6827 ]

that is of no value to anybody and simply makes anybody looking at investing in British Columbia turn their head and walk away.

We need to have a sensible labour law that is fair to both sides of the equation. We do not need to have that labour legislation driven by very vocal, very effective voices who represent less than 10 percent of any given sector of the industry. Those people seek to divide British Columbians on the basis of wages. Those are the people who seek to drive in some kind of class warfare -- which in 1998 is an absolutely bizarre concept, but nevertheless seems to be their view.

This will be a test of this Legislative Assembly. It will be a test of all those members who exist within this Legislative Assembly, to see whether or not they are prepared to sit down and honestly debate the language of the legislation. Or are we really talking about some philosophical differences here with respect to unionized versus non-unionized workers? The Speech from the Throne makes vague promises on those questions. We need specifics in the language, and I look forward to the debate as it comes into this House. It will be a solid test of the mettle of British Columbians, to see whether or not we are prepared to really take seriously the economic challenges that face us.

We must understand that in all of our communities, one of the problems we face now is the globalized economy. With the globalized economy, a natural segue from talking about the need for us to be able to have solid employment that pays a good wage is that we have to recognize those devices out there that would seek to undermine our ability to hire locally, to pay well and to go into a comprehensive training program so that our workers in British Columbia are adequately trained, so that we have the highest- and best-skilled workers on job sites.

One of those movements is the multilateral agreement on investment. I raised this matter over a year ago in this Legislative Assembly, and at that time few had heard of it. The reason is that it was such a well-kept secret. Today that agreement is all but dead, because Canadians right across this country from every political stripe, from every economic sector, have said: "We will not enter into international agreements that undermine the sovereign right of our government to be able to look after our people." That's a good thing, hon. Speaker.

What we need to recognize with respect to these trade agreements is that we've now shifted venue on MAI. No longer is it in the OECD; it's now moving to the World Trade Organization -- the WTO. That's a problem, because we will find that through that organization the ability for us to protect local employment and local job opportunities is going to be further damaged. If you think that the offshore catch of hake -- which we heard about today -- is a problem, we've seen nothing yet.

Wait until those organizations decide that access to Canadian water is really what they want, that access to Canadian resources is really what they want. They don't care at all whether or not that translates into long-term, well-paid jobs in this country.

We have to be vigilant -- all of us in this Legislative Assembly. I would urge that this government recognize that one of the things it should have in its Speech from the Throne, which it didn't -- and hopefully it's one of the actions it might bring forward -- is legislation that provides the power to this government, under a constitutional authority that currently exists within this regime, to make sure we have an opportunity to protect local hiring, local work and jobs for British Columbians.

It might sound contradictory, having said that, to suggest that one of the areas we need to look at is the movement toward a greater degree of freedom to trade within Canada. Clearly one of the obstacles to breaking down trade barriers between the provinces is the fear that somehow there will be greater mobility of labour and therefore a loss of local jobs.

But I don't believe that to be true. I think what we need to recognize is that if as a nation, Canada as a country, we are to be able to build together and grow together, we also have to be able to trade together and have greater freedom to move commodities, to move ideas as well as possible across this great nation and to share the bounty that we have as Canadians. It's regrettable that the government opposite has continually opposed the breaking down of those trade barriers. I think it's the wrong way to go. It seems to me that that is an area in which this government could have and should have moved with respect to its Speech from the Throne.

There are two other areas that I want to address, and one has to do with the social services that are delivered to us. Much of what I wanted to say at the time I said during the budget debate. The word that's missing from this Speech from the Throne, which should be throughout it, is poverty. British Columbians are increasing in numbers among the ranks of the poor.

It's interesting to me that when we start to look at the problems that we hear about in the Ministry for Children and Families with respect to child apprehensions, the difficulties we hear about in health care and the rising cost of health care, the problems we have with education and the inability of children to either access or complete education, the problems that we face with respect to rising crime, the problems we have with youth who are out there on the streets, with prostitution rings . . . .

With all of those kinds of things and the great social cost that makes the government spend so much money, look to the root cause, and nine out of ten times the word is poverty. It's because people are poor, and they're having a harder and harder time making ends meet.

[3:00]

We're seeing more and more of them moving into the ranks of the working poor. Nothing in this Speech from the Throne gave any of them hope that this government was even listening to the poor, let alone recognizing that something has to be done for them. We have to get out of the mindset that somehow the solution to the health care situation is to simply push more money into health care. No. The solution to rising health care costs is to keep people healthy, and the way to do that is to give them adequate nutrition, proper diet and proper housing. We wanted to see something on that in this Speech from the Throne, and we saw nothing.

We need to know that the solution to child apprehensions and broken families is to make sure that those families have the basic resource wealth in order to be able to meet their primary needs. We wanted to see a reference to a guaranteed annual income; that's what we wanted to see. That will greatly reduce the cost of the delivery of those services and provide those base numbers.

The last comment I want to make is that there is another thing that was not in here. It's called the Workers Compensation Act. We've had a commission that travelled this province and has already given out its little old report. I understand it's going to file another one. In this session, this government must move to amend the Workers Compensation Act to stop what has become the most insensitive and aggravating -- I can't think of a better word -- institution that every MLA in this House has to deal with.

Beyond any other complaints we get, there are people who are despairing because of the Workers Compensation Board. There's a man outside on a hunger strike right now. He was taken to hospital last Satur-

[ Page 6828 ]

day because he collapsed, and now he's back again because he's desperate to get the Workers Compensation Board to pay attention to his needs and concerns. They refuse to do so. It is an insensitive institution, with

an act that protects it from accountability. This government, in this session of the Legislature, must bring forward an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act that provides protection to the injured workers of British Columbia. If this government has any integrity at all, it will recognize that those who worked -- and worked hard -- and who were injured on the job need protection. We hope to see that come forward.

With those remarks, hon. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity, and I take my seat.

M. Coell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Coell: I'd like to introduce to the House 21 grade 8 students from Salt Spring Island Middle School. They've come over here today to have a tour and to watch the proceedings in the House for a while. They did tell me that they stopped and had a swim at Saanich Commonwealth Place before they came here, so I think they've had a very full day. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, when we look at the Speech from the Throne that was presented on March 26 -- and I went through it carefully -- there are 29 references to economic growth and development. I think it is very strange that those references come from a government that just tabled its seventh consecutive deficit budget which will run our debt to over $31 billion by the end of this current fiscal year. It's taken British Columbia to last place in economic growth in this country.

When we look carefully at the throne speech -- and no doubt at what this government will present in its spring agenda -- we see that it talks about economic growth but obviously fails to accomplish it. There is a blasting headline in today's financial news. The B.C. Central Credit Union predicts that this province is 80 percent certain to hit a recession very shortly. Now, that is a shameful comment for a province with these riches and opportunities.

What do we see in this throne speech to in any way substantiate this claim to economic activity? Well, for example, there are six lines devoted to mining. There's a reference to the new Ministry of Northern Development, but nothing in the budget to give any hope to those in the north. There's a promise to launch the first fast ferry. This is the same promise that government made in 1996 and 1997, so who knows when that may happen. The throne speech also places blame on the Asian flu. For our number one industry, forestry, here's a ringing endorsement -- and this is a direct quote from the throne speech: " . . . our forest sector is going through tough times." Well, that's an understatement.

I would like to examine these tough times. At spring break, I happened to join my family in the Chilcotin, as I've been known to do. I'm pleased to see that the MLA for Cariboo South, the Minister of Forests, is in the House. He can certainly share my concerns about what I saw on the March 19 front page of the Williams Lake Tribune . I have that edition with me. Of course, I won't use it as a prop but as a reference for the comments that I wish to make. The front page of the Williams Lake Tribune reads like a financial obituary page. The

article at the top of the page is headed: "Polley Seeks Jobs Protection." Now, Polley is not a parrot; Polley is a mine -- Mount Polley. Of course, the Minister of Forests will know that well because it's very close to where he lives.

What does the

article in the Trib tell us? We're informed that Mount Polley needs assistance or it will follow the path of Gibraltar -- coincidentally, another mine in the Cariboo region. Gibraltar, as we know, has announced it will close in December of this year. So that's one down, one to go. Polley will temporarily close this July 31 unless it gets some relief. That is the future for a mine that just opened last September.

Hon. D. Miller: It's the price of copper.

J. Dalton: I hear the minister responsible for the north tell me in this House that it's the price of copper. Quite frankly, I think we've seen the evidence from the questions that the Environment minister was unable to answer both yesterday and today on the reason why this government has created the mess with Mount Polley and Gibraltar. And I could name umpteen other mines.

An Hon. Member: Huckleberry.

J. Dalton: Our critic for Energy and Mines will be speaking later today, and I'm sure he will be able to give us volumes on these disaster stories. So there's the future for Mount Polley, a mine that employs 167 people directly and has indirect employment for 335 people.

This may be helpful. Again, we have the Cariboo South MLA here. One of the mine's reported problems, as the Tribune tells us, is recently imposed road restrictions. I'm inviting the MLA for Cariboo South to perhaps assist on that road restriction issue. It's certainly one area where the mine would have some useful relief from its economic woes.

We go down further on the front page of the Tribune and there's a headline: "Taseko Review Still Open." That's a reference to the Taseko Mines proposed Prosperity project. That's one that's having to jump through endless hoops, both provincial and federal, to get the requisite approval to open. Prosperity would support 600 direct and 620 indirect jobs over a 32-year productive life. It would generate an average of $82.6 million in annual tax payments over the life of the mine.

Perhaps the Finance minister's promised one-window permitting approach, which she gave in her budget speech, will be able to assist Prosperity to in fact prosper. It's rather ironic that Prosperity has the name that it does, because it is certainly not able to prosper at this time. I would say, for the sake of the besieged Cariboo-Chilcotin region . . . . I cite these examples in particular because I think that area is a very good measuring stick for the economic problems that this entire province faces, not just because of these items on the front pages of the newspaper.

There is yet another

article on the front page: "Forest in Spin Control." That story is about the Carrier Lumber lawsuit against the Ministry of Forests. The cause of action goes back to 1983, or at least it's a problem that started in 1983. At that time Carrier Lumber was granted a ten-year non-replaceable licence on the Chilcotin plateau. In 1989 there was a native blockade, which resulted in the ministry halting harvesting and stating that further logging would require the consent of the Ulkatcho Indian band. Another blockade occurred in 1992, and in that same year the ten-year licence was cancelled.

So before the ten-year lifetime of that timber licence was allowed to play its course, the government arbitrarily cancelled the licence.

[ Page 6829 ]

Not only did the ministry cancel the licence, which was shameful in itself, but it has also refused to provide documents which the court has ordered to be provided to the plaintiff. The judge commented -- and this is a direct quote from his judgment -- on this failure to provide documents: "Whether it was deliberate and calculated or the result of utter incompetence is an issue that in my view must be resolved." Again, perhaps the MLA for the area, who happens to be the Forests minister, could assist in that regard.

Here we see a shameful example -- and I'm going to be citing others -- where citizens and companies have to resort to the courts to seek redress, and then they get these barriers thrown up against them by this very government as to why their legal cause should not proceed in a timely fashion.

The Carrier case that I've just referred to is disturbingly similar to a matter that one of my constituents is dealing with. In this case, I'll just give some background as to what has led up to the problem at this time. In July 1997 my constituent was granted two shellfish licences, one in the Hardy Island area and one in the Clayoquot. The Hardy Island licence has not caused any problems. In fact, he is now harvesting in that area. On December 18 of last year, the one for the Clayoquot Sound was arbitrarily reduced from the 20-year licence that he was granted in July to a ten-year licence.

In that case, there was a unilateral decision made -- quite unexpected. My constituent had no knowledge until December that this was going to happen. In that case, a 20-year licence was converted -- like that -- to a ten-year licence.

Why? Well, I wrote to the Minister of Environment, and she did provide me with a response. According to the minister, the province had an interim measure extension agreement with the central region board, which is the board that deals with the Clayoquot area. My constituent did not know of this. He had not been given any prior information on this requirement for the central region board to rule on such licences. It was not a condition of the original July licence.

[3:15]

When the minister wrote to me, she also went on to say that approval was obtained from the central region board in October. This is approval that had in fact been granted in July, and in October this board decided that yes, they would allow my constituent to harvest shellfish in the area -- but for only ten years, not 20. As a consequence of all this, which may not surprise many people, my constituent consulted a lawyer and may have to seek redress, unfortunately, through other avenues, because he's going nowhere as far as the government is concerned.

So what do we see in these examples? In the Carrier case, a 1983 ten-year licence was unilaterally cancelled after nine years. You don't treat people like that, and you certainly don't treat my constituent -- the other case that I cited -- that way. You certainly don't attract and retain business and investment by such courses of action.

While I'm on the subject of lawsuits against the government, which seems to be a growth industry in this province, we've seen examples of charities and non-profit organizations that have had to resort to legal action in order to gain redress. We all know the Glacier View Lodge case in Comox and the Queen Alexandra case in the city of Victoria.

There's also another one on Vancouver Island that I think this House should be aware of. That's the case -- and this an actual case before the courts -- of Arrowsmith Rest Home Society v. the province of British Columbia. Arrowsmith is located in Nanaimo. This is just a quick background factual statement about what the plaintiff is seeking in the Arrowsmith case. The defendant -- and the defendant, of course, is the province of British Columbia -- is seeking to end the existence of the plaintiff's charitable society.

"The defendant, against the plaintiff's wishes, would take all of its assets without compensation, without review or appeal. The defendant would have all the members and directors of the plaintiff cease to be members or directors. The assets of the plaintiff would flow to a corporate entity created by the defendant and under its control."

That's the essence of that lawsuit, which, of course, is pending before the courts. We can only speculate on what the outcome would be. But it seems very unfortunate -- in fact, it is very unfortunate -- that citizens, volunteers, non-profits, companies and individuals have to resolve through the courts the very problems that this government opposite has created.

These are all examples of government eroding private property rights. It occurs continuously and in many other forms. Just today some of the problems out in the Fraser Valley dealing with the drainage issue were on television. Farmers in the Fraser Valley have created drains on their private property to drain their fields. Of course, this is the time of year when they have to do this.

The Environment ministry stepped in and designated these ditches as fish-bearing waterways with requisite corridors. That really means that the farmers in the Fraser Valley cannot go onto their own land in order to drain the fields and to plant and create their crop for the current season.

These problems also occur when private property owners face heritage site claims by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. There are homeowners in Oak Bay and Sidney -- and these have been well documented in the newspapers, so I'm not telling you anything that hasn't been publicized . . . . Homeowners in very close proximity to this Legislature have objected to the unexpected. unregistered, unannounced and unwarranted claims that the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture is imposing upon them.

Not only that, but these private property owners are then told by the ministry: "You have to have your property assessed at your expense to determine what cultural or archaeological value may be on this private property." When they object further and say, "Why should I undertake those expenses?" a ministry official is on record as saying: "Well, if you shop around, you can get other estimates and you might get a cheaper price" -- a cheaper price to have your own property assessed. This is a strange sort of logic.

And the estimates for the two particular cases are as high as $6,500 in one case and $20,000 in the other -- private property, hon. Speaker.

If the government wants to advance these cultural or archaeological cases, I would submit that they foot the bill -- that they do the assessment and not impose it on the private property owner. That's a basic right that I would like to think we all enjoy in this province, in this country -- not only the right to own property but the right to the use and enjoyment of that property. That's very seriously lacking in this government's actions. So there we have it in regard to lawsuits, and looming lawsuits as well.

I predict that when you look at the background and the picture of some of these causes of action . . . . There are probably a million, a ton of them, out there on the horizon, ready to hit the courts. That's a very tragic comment in a province that has the most opportunities in this country and yet has been knocked to its knees economically. And it treats its citizens with such utter contempt.

In the throne speech, we see 29 economic opportunity references, and yet we read the front page of the Williams Lake Tribune and we see that quite the opposite is in fact the case.

[ Page 6830 ]

We see firsthand how contracts with this government are arbitrarily rescinded or changed, and then we really know the true picture of British Columbia. We see the growth in lawsuits, and we know the truth about this government.

The throne speech makes no reference at all to the bad news, of course. It is all very flowery and sort of skirts over the issues of the day, and it fails to tell the people of this province the truth -- the economic truth, the individual-freedoms truth, and many other truths that have to be told. To cover up the reality, what does the government do? It runs continuous ads on education, health care, the budget and you name it. B.C. Hydro was advertising during the Oscars -- a very expensive time to be advertising, I would suggest.

They create fanciful titles. For example, in the throne speech, we are informed of Youth Options B.C. -- that's the title, right in the throne speech -- and it says that every option for a job is being created for the youth of British Columbia. Well, the only option that I and many of my friends can see for our youth is a ticket to Alberta. For example, in the case of a friend and fellow graduate of my son, she's off to Edmonton to work for the summer. There's no employment in British Columbia for her. In order for her to continue her university education, she has to go to Edmonton.

Another friend of my son will be spending his second summer in Jasper, for the same reason. To raise his tuition and living expenses for the next academic year, he's driven to Alberta.

These stories are repeated time and time again. The Premier claims to be the minister and the spokesman for youth. In fact, just yesterday another press release came out from the government -- 17,000 new jobs and training positions will be created, according to the Premier. [Applause.] I see that the Minister of Advanced Education seems to believe that there may be some truth in this. Well, the evidence, I'm sure, will counter that announcement. That's another example of say one thing, do another. That's the government record, and the throne speech demonstrates it.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: My colleague is talking about balancing budgets. Well, we know the exercise this government goes through in maybe getting close to balancing their budget. I would predict on that theme that maybe next year we will see a balanced budget, because we're getting closer and closer to a general election. If we think back to 1996, we did have a balanced budget -- at least the minister at that time said it was, and we know what happened in the aftermath of that one.

Before I conclude, I would be remiss if I didn't make some comment about the Lions Gate Bridge, because I know my constituents are vitally interested -- and not just my constituents but all the constituents on the North Shore, on the Vancouver side and elsewhere. The Lions Gate is a continuing irritant to its users: the people on the North Shore and in Vancouver and the lower mainland in general. It's not just because of the lack of activity on the bridge itself. It demonstrates the lack of transportation planning throughout the lower mainland and in the province.

What do we see in the throne speech, hon. Speaker? There's a reference to northern roads. We in the opposition applaud that, and I know my colleague from Peace River North certainly does. That's long overdue.

This one is somewhat amusing. There's a reference to the rapid transit line from Coquitlam to UBC. In fact, the line is not going to UBC; it's going in the other direction. They didn't spot or correct the error in the throne speech about that. UBC officials have told us that they've had some interesting phone calls from people, saying: "What's going on here? Are you getting a rapid transit line?" They say: "No, that's an error." So the government failed to get it right even on that one, but at least there's a reference to that project.

There is a reference to the proposed greater Vancouver transportation authority that we'll be debating in this session. The new trade and convention centre rates a reference, as does the new PNE, wherever that may be going, but there is nothing in this throne speech about the Lions Gate Bridge. I went back to last year's throne speech, and the Lions Gate Bridge was at least important enough then to get a reference. In fact, it's on page 9 of last year's speech, if members and others would like to double-check that.

In this year's budget reports there is a comment about the Lions Gate Bridge as one of the pending projects of the government. It rated two lines in the budget reports but nothing in the throne speech.

Hon. Speaker, I might ask: has the bridge become newer or safer or rehabilitated in the meantime? No, it has not. Will it be a priority? I would suggest not. It's not a priority, because we see how it's almost ignored. In fact, in the throne speech it is ignored. But it's also a signal -- and it's in important signal -- that nothing happens in this province and nothing is planned.

I'll make just one other comment about the Lions Gate. A previous Highways minister, Art Charbonneau, who was the member for Kamloops in the previous parliament, had a time line of five years, starting in 1993. In 1998, under his time line, the project would be underway and we would at least have some assurance from the government that the Lions Gate issue was being dealt with. We were fortunate at that time. At least Art Charbonneau was an engineer. He had some true understanding from a professional point of view of the need to deal with that project.

Since then we've had a change of ministers -- in fact, at least two changes that I can recall since his day. The previous Minister of Transportation and Highways announced at a press conference last April 18 -- and my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour and I were at that press conference . . . . She announced that by January of this year the decision on the Lions Gate Bridge would be made and we would be getting underway. Well, this is April, and what do we read in the Vancouver Province last week? Because yet another new minister has taken over, it will be further delayed.

The indication that I was given just two weeks ago -- that by mid-April we might have a decision and requests for proposals going forward . . . . That's out the window; that's toast. April will become May and June and July, and the annual maintenance, which is now at least $3 million, will go up. This government is either incapable of making a decision or just doesn't care about the issue and doesn't understand the importance of it. So they make passing reference to other projects and no reference whatsoever to the Lions Gate Bridge.

In the meantime, more and more public money is being wasted on what I truly believe -- and not just because I'm a North Shore MLA . . . . If the government can signal to business, "Yes, we understand the importance of that project" -- because it is a very important project -- it would generate labour union jobs. Maybe that will wake the government up. No -- no action.

[3:30]

Just to cast our minds back to what the Lieutenant-Governor read in the Speech from the Throne just two weeks ago -- a speech full of platitudes, fancy titles, passing refer-

[ Page 6831 ]

ences to things that may or may not happen or are not likely to happen, and vague promises. . . . My last comment, hon. Speaker, is that the speech, just like this government, has no substance.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise today and speak in response to the throne speech. I might begin by observing the obvious: that the throne speech is usually the annual opportunity for the government to say what it sees as the way forward for British Columbians in the year to come. It's the chance for the government to set out its vision. It's the chance for the government to set out the list of commitments it's making to the people of British Columbia. It may be a chance also for the government to say: "Yes, it's time for a new course. It's time for a change of direction, and here is the direction."

The speech which was read on March 26, 1998 -- 29 pages of promises or raised expectations, new program commitments, new jobs, new titles -- does purport to set out some new ideas, some opportunities for a new way forward for British Columbia. But I think that we're entitled here to examine those promises against the context of reality. That is to say: here's what the government says it's going to do; how do they measure up? What is their track record on keeping their promises? What is their track record in terms of honouring the commitments they make?

How can we measure the promises, the grand statement of vision, against what actually happens on the streets and in the communities and houses of British Columbia?

So I thought that what I would do in my remarks today is comment for a few minutes on some of the issues that have occupied the public's attention in British Columbia and certainly some of the attention of the members of this assembly over the past few days. I think they say something about what I see as the gap between the promises this government makes and the reality of what it delivers and fails to deliver.

I want to talk first about the general theme of the economy. As the speaker before me, my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano, made abundantly clear, the economy is a recurring theme in this throne speech. The economy has become the message of this government. We heard it in the throne speech; we heard it in the budget. We heard a lot about how this government says it's listening to British Columbians, about how British Columbia is now open for business, how British Columbia will become a new land of economic opportunity.

But if we take just one example of the government's actual track record on this front, and we look at one ministry -- let's take the Ministry of Environment and Lands -- we see that, unfortunately, over the past years and months and even today, the track record is that this is a government which cannot deliver on promises of economic opportunity, because it is mired in its own incompetence and enmeshed in its own complete lack of understanding of the real action that would have to be taken in order to create the British Columbia that we all think is the British Columbia that our children should inherit: a British Columbia where economic opportunity is real.

For longer than a century -- in fact, since before British Columbia became a province -- the Ministry of Crown Lands has been the vehicle through which this province has been developed. It has been the place where those who wish to become British Columbians and those who are British Columbians have gone to say: "Look, I have an idea; I have energy; I have commitment. I may have some money. I wish to help participate in the great project of building this province; I wish to put my life and my opportunity and my enthusiasm on the line, in order to see if I can make something for my family, for myself, for my community and ultimately for British Columbia."

So what has happened? What Crown Lands does is respond to applications for grants of land. The people who go visit Crown Lands, who say, "Here is my idea," and who make application for lands, are the whole range of people who make this province the place that it has been: farmers; people who build homes; people who operate fishing resorts; people who want to build marinas; large organizations like telecommunications companies, utility companies; gravel pit operators; community groups that have ideas for developing the lands around their communities, like opening a ski hill, maybe building a new snowmobile resort.

These are the people, these are the ideas that are the lifeblood and the linchpin for prosperity in British Columbia.

What has happened in this ministry, unfortunately, is to deny those hopes, those opportunities and those dreams by enmeshing the applications for Crown lands in a bureaucratic nightmare. We discover, because we've had the opportunity to look at a confidential cabinet briefing document, that the time is takes for a successful application for Crown lands has risen over the past years from two to three months to where it now takes 18 to 24 months -- maybe even longer than that, as long as three years.

The people who have ideas, the people who are prepared to commit their energy and their resources to British Columbia, go to the door of Crown Lands and they're told: "Go home. We're actually not in the business of encouraging applications. We're in the business of discouraging applications, because we're so far behind we don't know how we're going to catch up."

And so the branch, somewhat to its credit, I suppose, undertakes a study: what is the impact of this bureaucratic malaise? The front page of the Vancouver Sun today made it all too clear what that impact is -- a loss of perhaps 20,000 jobs and a loss of capital investment in the province of $1.3 billion. That is truly shameful. It is truly unfortunate.

There are people who would like to make their contribution to British Columbia who are not being given the opportunity to do so because this government can't figure out how to operate the business of making Crown lands available -- with all of the complications that are admittedly part of modern-day life. Clearly we as a province need to manage in a way that is sustainable the resources which we have inherited as citizens. Clearly we need to manage them and develop them so that they're there not just for today but for tomorrow.

Clearly we need to manage them in a way which respects the legal rights of first nations people. All of those obligations, I think, are known and accepted by everyone.

But it should still be possible, notwithstanding the whole host of complications that have become part of the fabric of land and resource development in British Columbia, to actually make land and resource development possible. And if we don't figure out how to do that right, then we are truly sending the province down a road that no one wants. I'm happy to acknowledge that the business of land and resource development in British Columbia has become complicated over the last decade.

A lot of the complications have been because of the land and resource use policies that this government has created, which have raised unnecessary obstacles for ordinary citizens who want to get access to land and resources. Some of those obstacles have been created by the courts; some of those have been created for other reasons. Clearly the business of land and resource development is

[ Page 6832 ]

more complicated today than it was ten years ago or 25 years ago or 50 years ago. But if we don't figure out how to get the lands and resources of this province developed, we are going nowhere fast.

When this government speaks in its throne speech about its commitment to the economy, I respect that commitment. But I say: where's the reality? The story of what's happening in Crown Lands is, I think, all the proof one might need that, unfortunately, the reality is far different than the promises.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

There's another aspect in the news recently that gives me some concern when I think about what this government says about its economic policies. I understand that B.C. Hydro has now entered into some kind of special arrangement with a home security and alarm company. That means that all across the province, people who are B.C. Hydro customers -- starting today or yesterday or tomorrow -- are going to receive a solicitation in the mail that says: "We've got this great new deal we can offer you, our customers. We can make available to you the free installation of a home security and alarm system if you sign a long-term service contract."

Well, on the surface I suppose it looks like a good deal for consumers. Here's the problem -- in fact, there's more than one problem. I want to be fair about this. I look at this idea, at its genesis, and I think: where is this company that B.C. Hydro has found that's going to create this tremendous opportunity for Hydro consumers? Is it located in the lower mainland? Is it located up in the riding of the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development? Is it located in Surrey? Is it located out in Cranbrook? No, this company is actually located in Alberta.

Do you know what this company is going to do, like all home security and alarm systems do? What's actually going to happen is that the people who do the monitoring to determine whether or not in fact someone's alarm is tripped . . . . Those new jobs -- and there could be dozens of them -- are not being created in British Columbia; they're going to be created in Alberta. That's where the people who will be employed to monitor these security and alarm systems will be living. That's the economy that they'll be contributing to, not the economy of British Columbia.

I know that this government doesn't like it when businesses earn profits. We heard the Minister of Forests recently speak very eloquently about this government's attitude towards businesses that earn profits. But, you know, there may be a better way to deal with that problem than the way it shows in here. The way it shows in here is to export the profits from this operation to Alberta. I think that's not really sending the right kind of message to small businesses and ordinary folks across British Columbia -- when this government says it's committed to developing economic opportunities in British Columbia but its actions are to export jobs and profits to Alberta. That makes no sense to me.

What other problems are there? Well, there are people in British Columbia who actually are already in the home security and alarm business. They get their licence to carry on that business from the government of British Columbia.

So how do you think those people feel, knowing that a Crown corporation has entered into a special arrangement with a company? It's an emanation of the same government that on a regular basis will determine whether or not to issue licences to that company's competitors. If I were one of the competitors of that company, I would feel apprehensive that all of a sudden the government, in effect, is not only in competition with me but is in a situation where it can make the rules up about how the ordinary folks in British Columbia have to play when they're playing in the field of business.

I have other concerns about this initiative. I have concerns about privacy; I have concerns about whether or not Hydro is acting appropriately in making customer lists available or not making customer lists available. It may be that those issues are not a problem. I'm sure in the days to come we'll learn more about that.

[3:45]

There is, I think, a really fundamental concern, at least for me, about this new sort of joint venture between B.C. Hydro and the alarm company. What is B.C. Hydro doing in the home alarm business? I looked in the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act, and I didn't see anything in that statute that said that the business of B.C. Hydro was to sell home security and alarm systems. B.C. Hydro is supposed to be in the business of making and transmitting power -- hydroelectric power, in most cases.

What is B.C. Hydro doing wielding all of the power that it has a monopoly in, in the field of power transmission and generation in most of British Columbia, wielding all of the economic power that flows to it from that fact and wielding it in the marketplace by entering into a contract which will essentially make life a heck of a lot more difficult for all the dozens, if not hundreds, of businesses in British Columbia that currently think they have a good product to offer when they try to sell home security and alarm systems to the consumers of British Columbia?

Frankly, it just seems unfair when a Crown corporation goes outside its mandate to play in the private sector in this way. If B.C. Hydro were a private corporation, I'm sure I'd have a heck of a lot less difficulty with that. I don't mind when a private business that is in one business engages in another business. That's what private enterprise is all about, but it's not what serving the public through Crown corporations is all about. That's my fundamental concern with this.

Again, I hear the speeches. I listened to the Speech from the Throne, where it talks about what this government says its commitment is in respect of the economy. But I look at this particular story, and I think the government talks up a great storm; but their actions are a complete failure in almost every respect. What a lost opportunity for B.C. Hydro -- if it were to engage in this business that it's going to engage in -- to say: "Well, fine. We found this neat idea. We're going to sell home alarm systems to British Columbians." Why didn't B.C.

Hydro say, "Look, let's go out and make these deals with British Columbia companies," and at least exercise that kind of economic leverage? They can't even seem to get it right on that. I mean, I'm prepared to listen. I'm prepared to . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: You say you're committed to economic opportunity. How are you delivering on that? I'm open-minded, but unfortunately, I don't see any evidence . . . .

An Hon. Member: They're sending all our businesses there.

G. Plant: That's right. The Premier is well on the way to becoming Alberta's businessman of the year for the second year running.

[ Page 6833 ]

Let me talk about another subject: public safety. Well, the government says that this is a priority. In the throne speech, the government says: "My government will continue to take action to ensure public safety is paramount." Again, what is the gap between the promise and the stated commitment -- the stated priority on the one hand, and on the other hand the reality.

In the past few days we had a joint announcement by the Attorney General and the RCMP that the 1,100 men and women who serve across British Columbia as volunteer police officers, as auxiliaries in the RCMP auxiliary program, are going to have their firearms taken from them. Frankly, this announcement raises a whole host of issues. I'm prepared to recognize that this is not a wholly black-and-white issue. I understand that people have a wide range of concerns about public safety in terms of whether auxiliary officers have the necessary training to actually do the job that they've been asked to do.

First of all, if you're going to make a decision like this, at least consult with the people who are going to be affected by it before you make it. In this case, that wasn't done -- in fact, far from it. The day the decision was made, I'm told that rather than saying to the RCMP auxiliary people in Coquitlam, "Look, we've had to make this tough decision about taking your guns away; could you give your guns back," what they did was break into the lockers with bolt-cutters. They cut open the locks, and they just took the guns.

If you're trying to design a policy or run a government in a way that encourages people to think, "Yes, I'd like to serve; I'd like to help my community; I'd like to work in a context where I think the government respects my contribution," how could you abuse that respect and that trust more than by acting unilaterally and without consultation and simply walking in -- oh, I don't know -- under cover of darkness and snapping the bolts and take the guns out? The next thing the RCMP auxiliary officers know and the next thing they feel is that their services are no longer valued.

I think the government could learn a lesson from that. If you're going to make tough public policy decisions, share the news a little bit ahead of time. Engage in a little consultation. Make the decision and implement the decision in a way that respects the legitimate needs and concerns of the people who are being affected by that decision. So on that ground alone I'm disappointed that this decision was made, and by the way it was made.

I do have more concerns about that issue. I think the reality of public safety in British Columbia today is that the government finds itself unable or unwilling to commit the resources to increase the presence of trained police officers on the streets. Two years ago the government said in the throne speech that they were going to hire 100 new community police officers -- new community police officers. Well, two years later that promise has still not been kept.

Meanwhile, there are 92 fully trained police officers across British Columbia sitting in photo radar vans -- a job which I'm told anyone could learn to do after a few hours in a little night-school course on how to operate the camera. It's not really a job that is appropriate for someone who costs the taxpayers $100,000 a year and who's been trained for years in the techniques of crime investigation and so on.

So we have a challenge. There doesn't seem to be the commitment to ensure that the admittedly expensive need for additional police resources on the street is going to be met by the taxpayers of British Columbia through the assistance of this government. The auxiliary program, it seems to me, provides a wonderful alternative to ensure that public safety and the presence of policing on the streets of British Columbia is maintained, if not enhanced, at what amounts to practically a free lunch.

It costs the province of British Columbia almost nothing to put 1,100 RCMP auxiliaries on the streets and in the communities of British Columbia. Yes, I think the fact is that in communities across British Columbia there is a need for properly trained auxiliaries to be on the streets, on the front line and serving the public, even in situations that involve some risk. I think it's unfortunate, in a way, that that's become necessary, but in fact it is necessary. There are communities across British Columbia that depend on their auxiliaries to provide front-line policing.

So the question comes: should they be armed? The answer is, at one point, apparently: "They're not properly trained. They're not fully-trained police officers." The auxiliaries have responded to that by saying: "We will take the training. We'll take the training at our own expense." And they have done so. A year or so ago the decision was made to go to nine-millimetre handguns. That was a change in the weapons for RCMP officers, a change in the weapons for auxiliaries, and the questions arose: "Listen, we need new training. Who's going to do this training? Are the auxiliaries going to be properly trained? We can't let them on the streets unless they're properly trained."

So what happened? The government made some investment in training programs, and each one of the auxiliaries made a significant personal investment in obtaining the training to ensure that they could continue to serve the public -- as volunteers, at no cost to the taxpayers -- in a way that ensured that public safety was enhanced, that they were not creating a risk to anyone and that they could do the job that, frankly, British Columbians have come to expect them to do.

What happens when you say, unilaterally and without consultation -- as the Attorney General and the RCMP did last Friday -- to the auxiliaries of British Columbia: "We're taking your guns away"? I think that you create a risk to public safety in the communities in British Columbia, because in the communities that are accustomed to having auxiliaries in the cars with RCMP officers . . . . They're not going to be there anymore.

All across British Columbia in communities like Nanaimo, Trail, Prince George, Burnaby and Richmond, the auxiliaries are saying: "Listen, if you don't want us, we're not going to force ourselves on you. If you don't think that we are contributing to the cause of public safety, then we won't serve."

That's what is happening in community after community. In the Western Communities here on southern Vancouver Island, I think the auxiliaries have said: "Listen, we can't serve under these conditions." So a decision that at some level may have been well intentioned -- because there are concerns at some point, in the government and in the RCMP, about whether training is adequate -- is going to have the effect, I think, of imperilling public safety on the streets of British Columbia. It wasn't a terribly well thought out decision; it wasn't implemented very well.

And I'm not even sure that it was really all that coherent an idea in the first place. If there is an issue about training and supervision -- and I'm sure there will always be questions about training and supervision when it comes to volunteers who serve as auxiliary police officers -- then let's deal with that issue. Let's provide more training; let's ensure that there's more supervision. But don't slap the auxiliaries in the face. Don't undermine the contribution they're making. Don't, in effect, say: "We no longer need your services." All that does is send the wrong message to them,

[ Page 6834 ]

and in the short run, at any rate, I think it creates a risk. Who knows how real the risk is? But I sure wouldn't want to contribute to that risk if I could avoid it.

As the literature on this issue has come out over the last few days, let's be clear about one footnote. Today I saw a note from the local British Columbia RCMP detachment that said there was no one incident that sparked this decision. So it's not a question, apparently, of a reaction to a concern about public safety because there are some auxiliaries who have demonstrated that they're poorly trained or that they're not well supervised. There was just a decision made in order to, I guess, achieve some public purpose in the short term.

But I'm afraid that in the long term, it undermined an extraordinarily valuable program to which 1,100 men and women are happy to donate their time. In fact, in 1996 auxiliary RCMP donated and devoted over 250,000 volunteer hours to community policing in their hometowns. I think that's a tremendous achievement, and I really think it's unfortunate that this decision was made last Friday. I think it says something about the government's commitment to public safety.

The government says it is committed to public safety, on the one hand -- we hear that in the throne speech -- but days later we see a decision that I think will not contribute one iota to public safety in British Columbia.

Let me talk about another aspect of justice issues. From time to time we hear this government say that it's interested in affordable justice and that it's committed to access to justice. I don't think that it said those things in this Speech from the Throne, but I know the Attorney General says those things when he travels around British Columbia. I think that those are laudable commitments, that those are necessary commitments and that government needs to make a commitment to ensure that access to justice is affordable, fair and efficient and that there is accessible justice.

So I'm disappointed when the government takes actions which I think are contrary to the spirit of that commitment. The example that occurs to me right now is the recent decision by the Attorney General to raise court fees in small claims court.

Small claims court is the court where ordinary British Columbians go to try and collect their debts, to try and resolve -- when they have no other recourse -- their civil disputes with their neighbours, with people who have done a piece of work for them, with their creditors, with their debtors and so on. It's an important place within the justice system of British Columbia. For it to continue to do the good work that it does, it is important that the small claims court be affordable and accessible.

[4:00]

What the government has done is increase the fees associated with the filing process in small claims court. To start a small claims court action, it used to cost $75; it now costs $100. The fee for issuing garnisheeing orders, which is the way you enforce a judgment after you've obtained your judgment . . . . When the defendant says, "I'm not interested in paying you; you'll have to harass me to get me to pay up," you go off and get a garnisheeing order. That fee has doubled, if my memory serves me right. These may not look like big-time numbers to all of us sitting in this chamber.

But for ordinary British Columbians to be told that if they want to try and collect on a bad cheque for $700 or $800, the fee for starting that claim is another 33 percent higher this month than it was last month . . . . I don't think that's making justice more affordable or more accessible; I think that's making it less affordable and less accessible.

That is an issue which, together with other issues, bespeaks a government that lacks vision for the province of British Columbia, and it bespeaks a throne speech that does not offer any new vision for British Columbians. I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to make these remarks today.

B. Goodacre: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a group of young adults from Ebenezer School in Smithers, who have come down here to take a look at how our parliament serves the people of the north. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I certainly want to extend my best wishes to the young students from Smithers -- the place with the best ski hill in British Columbia, if you ask me. I've been up there skiing a fair bit over the years. It's an example of how quickly we can release land from Crown Lands to allow for skiing development to occur. It's a great ski hill there in Smithers.

I kind of want to break out of this ritual that we always have at this time of the year in the Legislature. The opposition rises on the throne speech and can't find anything good to say about the government. They can only find it within themselves to criticize this administration -- speaker after speaker, time after time, with speeches written by the spin artists saying the same things with the same phrases. It gets kind of hypnotic, almost trancelike. I know there's an enormous desire on our part to shoot right back. I've done that in the past; I'm not going to do it today.

Instead, I just want to spend a few minutes sharing some random thoughts with members of this Legislature. Quite frankly, the throne speech is the only time we get a chance to do that. I want to talk about some things that are on my mind and perhaps haven't been a component of the debate that has occurred to date. So you won't get the usual speech that you might be accustomed to from me.

As I've been listening to the debate over the last few days both around the budget and around the throne speech, I've been thinking that this is the chamber where we come to give voice to the dreams of British Columbians. British Columbians have dreams of their own. They have aspirations for this province, for themselves and for their families -- hard-working people constantly looking to the future. Sometimes I say to myself that often on the floor of this Legislature there really isn't much creativity in the debate, particularly in this day and age.

As I listen to the speeches from the opposition, they have the same little spin stuff in them time after time. This is the place where we give voice to the dreams of British Columbians. What better time to talk about the dreams of British Columbians, the aspirations of this province and the direction of this province than now, given that we stand at the threshold of the next millennium? The year 2000 is -- what? -- 18 or 20 months away. It's a time to think about the future.

It's a time to take stock of where we've gone as a province, where we've come from and where we want to go -- to talk about some of those things that we should be doing as a society to improve the quality of life for British Columbians. It's time to sit back and say: what kind of public policy initiatives can we take as a society that can continue to build on the remarkable record of achievement that we have as a nation and as a province?

There's no doubt that when you travel -- and I travel a lot -- it's well known around the world that people look to

[ Page 6835 ]

this country as a jewel on the face of the earth not only in terms of its wealth but also in terms of the social progress that we've made as a country and what it is that we offer to our people. Those things are well enumerated. We are, after all, the world's peacekeepers; we are, after all, a people that have a passion for the environment, for environmental values. We are a country that is known for the kind of health care services that we provide to our people. But surely, on both the economic and the social agenda, as we stand here at the threshold of the millennium, there's much more to do.

There's more that we can do. There are dreams that we can achieve that perhaps, in the day-to-day trying to make it from paycheque to paycheque, we sort of put aside. It seems to me that the worst thing you can do in your life is put aside your dreams, lose hope, lose that desire to go out and achieve some of the things that we need to achieve as a society. It would be a sad day indeed if we lost that in this chamber. I know it's tough for people, on a day-to-day basis, to see the forest for the trees -- sometimes even in this chamber.

Let me just offer some thoughts around that. You know, hon. Speaker, it occurs to me that one of the deficiencies in social policy that we need to have a dialogue about both on the floor of this chamber and as a country is the area of pensions, particularly as they relate to women. One of the real tragedies of life -- I see this in my constituency and as I travel -- is, as women get older, how difficult it is for them to make ends meet, particularly single women on their own.

It seems to me that the absence of pensions for people who are at home, in particular, frustrates people's ability to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. Women in particular often interrupt their time in the workplace to attend to children or to give birth or whatever, and they therefore don't have the ability to build credits towards a pension in the way that others do in society.

In this Legislature we have the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, if memory serves me right. Anyway, it's a B.C. pension statute. It's a statute that we as a government brought in some time ago. It just seems to me that perhaps we should have a debate in this chamber about the steps that we could take in this province to increase the amount of pension available to people who stay at home. Let me give you an example, and I want to give you an example which would not involve an increase in payroll taxes, let's say.

We have the Workers Compensation Board. This year alone, the Workers Compensation Board returned to employers about $250 million in premium payments. If memory serves me right, I think it was about $100-some-odd million in payments that went back to employers last year. These are payroll taxes that we have right now which are returned to employers. Maybe -- just maybe -- if we were to sort of extend the parameter of this debate into the context that I was putting it into earlier on, we should take a look at other utilizations for those funds. And maybe we should take a look at the utilization of those funds to fund a pension plan for homemakers in British Columbia.

This is not a new idea. It was first put forward by the Barrett administration, subsequently by a Social Credit administration and never acted upon. But maybe now, as we go towards the year 2000, it's time we took a look at that.

Day care. I say this, sitting here at 4:10 today, as a parent with my son in a day care, and he'll be there until 6 p.m., I guess, until the House adjourns. In my mind, if there has been a deficiency in terms of social policy, it lies in the fact that we as a society have not provided the kind of infrastructure in terms of day care . . . . And I think it is far more poignant than the example I just used about pensions for women. But certainly around day care . . . . Even Ontario, I think, is providing a subsidy of five bucks an hour in terms of day care, and maybe that's a place to start to sort of augment the licensed for-profit -- or non-profit, even -- day care operators.

There is so much in terms of wasted social space in schools -- after school hours are completed or before school starts -- where we can access those facilities to begin to take a look at providing adequate day care facilities for both preschool and after-school care. It seems to me, in the context that I put this in earlier on -- i.e., as we move into the millennium -- surely there's a place now in our society to begin to have a debate about the provision of those kinds of services.

Education. In my mind, there is no reason why we cannot provide virtually free education for students who want to access it in the first year of their experience at a post-secondary institute. Surely we should set some goals for ourselves as a Legislature and as a society to be able -- sometime before the millennium or shortly thereafter -- to begin to provide that kind of opportunity for young people. Everybody understands intuitively in society that the best passport that you have in life is that education.

Surely to God, we can start to put together a social framework, at least in the first year of one's experience at the post-secondary level, for those who want to access it. They ought to be able to access it without the financial barriers that are currently there.

In terms of laying out some of these social objectives for the year 2000, I want to move to another area which I've talked about before in the Legislature and want to talk about again. There is no reason today, in my mind, that we ought to have the quantum of violence on television that we do have. It's absolutely, totally unnecessary, and surely, as a common objective on both sides of the House, there can be some will on the part of all members of this House to begin to deal with what I would term a social evil.

In that regard, I find it all too troubling to know that by the time my daughter reaches the age of 16, she will have witnessed 2,000 murders on television. It's totally unnecessary. But we as a society seem to accept that blindly, as something that, with a shrug of the shoulder, we move on with. I think it's a comment on the kind of society that we have today, where that kind of activity is seen to be so commonplace. Surely, in the context of defining some social goals for us as a society by the year 2000, we can begin to make a common effort to begin to deal with the volume of violence on television.

[4:15]

[ Page 6836 ]

The quality of our air means a lot to people in this province. Again, there are steps that we can . . . . We certainly have some of the most aggressive air-quality standards in North America, but there is nothing that says we can't move those standards forward, in time. As opposed to demanding certain standards by certain years, perhaps we can move those forward and acknowledge that by doing that, not only do we take steps to improve the integrity of our air in British Columbia but we also develop technologies in this province that are highly saleable.

In fact, I just came back from a trade mission overseas on behalf of our government, and I was struck by the demand that existed overseas, in Asia, for British Columbia technologies in terms of wastewater and clean air. Why are they looking at British Columbia? It's because we have the toughest standards, therefore we have to find technological solutions, and as a consequence, we have developed export commodities to deal with problems elsewhere in the world.

Well, you know, my time's almost up, and I'll probably end maybe on a lighter note. Maybe as we . . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: You guys should be enjoying this. It's the first time in a long time that I'm not beating the you-know-what out of you. That'll happen later.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Very gentle. Let me end . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Don't tempt me.

You know, maybe we should have a new holiday in British Columbia. Maybe we should talk about having a new holiday in February or something like that and maybe have it a little more inventive and different: not just simply a day off for the sake of being a day off, but a volunteer day where we all volunteer our time to go and help out at a school or help out at a stream or help out at a hospital -- a day where we build that into the calendar for all British Columbians to be able to take time off work. I don't know. But what I'm saying, and what I said at the outset, is that this is the place where dreams are spoken of.

This is the place where we give voice to the dreams of British Columbians. This is the place where we can come and talk about policy alternatives that are available to all of us as citizens of this province. As members of this Legislature, we ought to have more debate in that context, particularly from the opposition, which just seems to be sort of caught up in this negative rhetoric, incapable of acknowledging anything of value that's being done for the people of British Columbia. As I said at the outset, it is tragic, in my mind, how bereft . . . .

It's important that we step aside from that preprogrammed spin-doctor rhetoric and begin to offer some constructive policy choices -- nothing expensive, but something creative that recognizes where we've come from as a society and where we're going.

With that said, I will conclude what the Minister of Education calls one of the gentler speeches I've given in this House.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am very pleased to be able to rise today to speak to the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered in this chamber a couple of weeks ago. It is my first opportunity to rise since the selection of the new Speaker in the House. I imagine that she is watching on the TV system here, so I want to say congratulations to her on her new position. The Speaker and I were elected to this chamber at the same time, back in 1991, and I've grown to know and respect her over the last seven years.

I think she brings to her job exactly the right mix of respect for the seriousness of this chamber and a delightful sense of irony and wit when seriousness turns into pompousness. I think both of those qualities will serve her well in her new position, and I expect that she will bring all of us to order, as sometimes we need to be brought to order.

I also want to begin this speech in response to the Speech from the Throne by saying how pleased I am to be here, representing the voters of Prince George North. I say that probably as few others members of the chamber can say it this session, having been through a very divisive and acrimonious attempt at recall in my riding. I want to begin by thanking the voters of Prince George North for their support during that campaign.

Close to 70 percent of people in the riding simply said no. They weren't prepared to sign this petition; they weren't prepared to see this abuse of what they felt was the good intent of recall legislation. They weren't prepared to see it used for partisan political purposes, and they said a clear no to this campaign. The people who declined to sign were clearly not all New Democrats.

Clearly the rejection of this was from a wide band of people in the community who said that what we had was a campaign not really brought about by anything that I had done as a member of the Legislature, but in response to the urging of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and some special interest groups -- a campaign that seems to have been funded largely by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, one physician and a car-dealership owner from Richmond. I'm sure the car-dealership owner from Richmond was deeply concerned about Prince George North.

I want to thank the voters. They saw the recall for what it was: an attempt to refight the election. They said that they wished to have me continue as their MLA. That's the perspec-

[ Page 6837 ]

tive I want to bring to this throne speech. I see in here a speech that reflects what I hear are the needs and concerns of people who live in my riding, who work in Prince George and who want to see this province continue to prosper and grow.

What they want above all is to have a government that's focused on creating new economic opportunities. There are many things that we as a government have done in the last while that have had a positive effect on Prince George. There has been progress made, and we should not forget that.

I've heard the opposition discounting the jobs and timber accord. It's a commitment to providing 700 million board feet of lumber every year to value-added industries in Prince George and Williams Lake -- throughout the north and throughout the province.

I hear people saying: "That's not real." I've worked very closely with the value-added forest sector in this province for many years, and they tell me and have told me that one of their biggest problems has been getting a supply of the material they need to produce the diversity of value-added products that we now see being produced in Prince George and throughout the north. When I was first elected in 1991, forest products from Prince George were almost entirely the commodity products of pulp and paper, which had served our economy so well for so many years.

But now in Prince George we see a diversity of industry producing everything from window frames for the German market to building components for Japanese houses to doors and windows for the domestic market, using an ever-increasing range of forest products to produce an ever-increasing range of retail commodities for our markets. The jobs and timber accord is being welcomed by that sector. I would ask the opposition to recognize, as they talk about what this government has done, that this has been the most significant step for the value-added forest industry in a decade or more.

Another thing that I think people in my riding are very pleased about is the accord we reached last year between this government and Alcan. For too many years people in the north, and perhaps throughout the province, have been divided over the issue of how the Kemano completion project was going to affect the environment and how this project really was wrong both for job creation and for the environment. While they agreed with this government that the Kemano completion project had to be cancelled, they also wanted to see some opportunities for moving ahead.

Last year we got a deal which enabled us to do just that. They saw Alcan and the provincial government sign an accord that said that we can do right by the environment in the north, and at the same time, we can lay the groundwork for an investment of over $1 billion in a new smelter in Kitimat and the creation of thousands of jobs, direct and indirect, in the northern part of the province. We can do that sort of thing if we work together, and that's the sort of initiative that people in my riding want to see the government undertake.

The third project I want to talk about briefly as an example of the sort of work that people expect of government has to do with a small business -- relatively small -- in my riding called Pacific Western Brewing. If members opposite have never had the opportunity to taste a product by Pacific Western, I hope they do seize that chance quickly, because they do indeed produce a very fine product.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the members opposite says he's a regular user. Is that right? I hope so.

Pacific Western took a brewery in Prince George that had a very troubled past and turned it into a success story of marketing, both domestically and in the Pacific Rim market, a variety of beers, ales and lagers. Now they're looking at expanding into an entirely new product -- bottled water -- for both the American and the Asian market. Why they're doing it is interesting, because in some ways it's counter to what those on the far right would have us believe are the only ways to do economic development.

They are not going to be looking at a bottled water plant because we have low environmental standards in this province. In fact, one of the prime reasons they're looking at a bottled water plant is because we have high environmental standards. The quality of water that they have access to is second to none that they can find in this province or in the Pacific Rim. That's what they see as their competitive advantage in this new market that they're interested in investing in.

[4:30]

The second thing they're looking at is some of the programs that this government has put in place. They see the Power for Jobs accord as having real advantages for them as they contemplate expansion. They're also looking at this government's training programs for training new workers for new industry and the assistance we give to firms when they are looking at that sort of expansion. These are real programs that are welcomed by entrepreneurs looking at real expansion.

So I was very pleased when the owner of Pacific Western Brewing Co. announced back in January that they intended to do a thorough study of expanding their operation in Prince George, including bottled water, and creating some 100 new jobs in my riding.

The throne speech and this government do not pretend that there are not problems; there clearly are. Fifteen percent of all forest products manufactured in Prince George go into the Asian market, and that market has become virtually nonexistent -- 15 percent. That has a real impact on the marketing of forest products from northern British Columbia. The lumber markets and the pulp markets in North America and in the world are, to put it mildly, soft. There are real problems with this in the forest sector. In Prince George that has a real impact, because around 60 percent of employment and employment dollars in Prince George rely on the forest industry.

This throne speech and this government are responding to that challenge in precisely the way that the forest industry asked us to. They told us that we need to look at how we reduce stumpage charges, and we are doing it: $300 million in reduced stumpage -- a deal that will result in a significant decrease in costs of wood for the forest industry in Prince George and throughout the province. In the interior, that's a $4 reduction per cubic metre. The average cost of wood in the Prince George area is around $30 a cubic metre. This is a reduction of 13 percent in the cost of material for that industry. This is real a reduction, and a real help to the industry.

The second thing was, of course, the very significant changes in the Forest Practices Code that my colleagues the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests announced last week. It's not to change the standards and not to say that we're going to go back to the bad old days when watersheds were trashed, logging roads fell into creeks and cutting was done with no thought of reforesting for the next generation of trees and the next generation of workers that would depend on them; but it's reducing red tape and bureaucracy and saving the industry close to $5 a cubic metre.

In addition to that, the throne speech says that there is going to be significant support from Forest Renewal B.C. to firms that are struggling, to make sure that we have a compet-

[ Page 6838 ]

itive forest sector this year and into the future. I've got to say that these are exactly the issues that have been raised with me by forest companies in the Prince George area. This government has listened, and this government is responding.

The Leader of the Official Opposition was recently in Prince George, attending a conference of forest industries in my community. I would have thought that he might have understood that what the forest industry was asking of government was to look at reduced costs of stumpage, look at simplified regulation and look at how we use Forest Renewal B.C. as it was intended -- to put money back into the industry during the downturn in the forest sector. Instead, he delivered an address up there that pretended that none of this was happening.

I recognize that the opposition has certain privileges in saying one thing in one part of the province to one audience and another thing in another part to another audience. But really, I think this was ignoring the true action this government has taken and the true impact that it's going to have on the forest sector.

The other thing that I want to point out in this speech is the very significant commitment to the northern initiatives, which I know are welcomed in Prince George and throughout the north. We now have a Minister Responsible for Northern Development. Very soon in this Legislature, we are going to be debating legislation to establish a commissioner for northern economic development. These initiatives grow out of the Premier's Summit on Northern Jobs and Development that took place last fall.

I don't know why, but I've heard members of the opposition criticize that summit. I've heard them criticize the idea of establishing a commissioner for northern economic development.

An Hon. Member: You mean they were negative about something?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Negative. They don't understand a bit about what's happening. I've been listening