Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 3, Number 22

[ Page 2535 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: It's my pleasure to introduce a friend, a colleague to many of us on this side of the House and to others on that side of the House, the former Speaker of this assembly, Emery Barnes. I would ask the House to. . . . [Applause.] And with Emery today is Judi Angel, executive director of the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation. I would ask the House to make her welcome as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are a number of distinguished guests. First is Mayor Gillian Trumper, president of the UBCM. Accompanying her are Richard Taylor, executive director of the UBCM, and Jim Abram, who is a director of the UBCM. As well, they are accompanied by Mayor Frank Leonard of Saanich, Mayor Linda Michaluk of North Saanich and Mayor Don Amos of Sidney. Would the House please give them a very warm welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today -- and it's not too often that I get it -- to introduce someone from my constituency. There are three ladies in the gallery from the Catholic Women's League resolutions committee: Mrs. Margaret Beardon from Courtenay, Mrs. Marion Nygren from Creston, and from my constituency in the community of Fort Nelson, Mrs. Lorraine Faherty. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Abbott: The Minister of Municipal Affairs beat me to the punch, something he rarely does but did today. We on this side would also very much like to welcome the president of the UBCM, Mayor Gillian Trumper, director Jim Abram and, of course, executive director Richard Taylor. I'd like to make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: With us in the gallery today we have Mr. Jeff Gibbs, who is executive director of the Leadership Initiative for Earth program. Mr. Gibbs is a young man of immense energy whose organization has the acronym LIFE. He most recently organized the LIFEboat flotilla, which provided some 200 children over the recent break an opportunity to explore the environment of British Columbia's coasts and educated them on environmental issues. Would the House please welcome Mr. Gibbs.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the gallery today are two constituents of the member for Matsqui that I know from my very, very early days in the political process: Bob and Evelyn Heggie. Bob was a Liberal MLA in the Ross Thatcher administration and was a good friend of the current Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, when he was a young whippersnapper backbencher. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are 75 grade 11 students from one of the popular schools in my constituency, Sir Charles Tupper. Mr. Boulding and several other adults are accompanying them. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, with us in the House today are some Friends of the Slocan Valley, who are here to seek new ways in providing forestry activity to secure long-term jobs. With us are Jivan Visant, Ron Leblanc, Ricardo Hubbs, Stephen Martineau, Miriam Mason, Jenny Whipple and Phil Larstone. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce four guests in the gallery today. Monica Rogers and Carey Bird are from Peachland and have been very strong supporters of myself. Also, Frank and Winifred Bird are here from Kaleden, both veterans of the Second World War. Mr. Bird was part of the D-Day landing that freed Europe. Would the House please make these folks welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to join the hon. member in introducing my neighbours and invite members of all sides out to the front of the building to join them and hear their concerns about water.

There's been some debate here about environmental community, and I would like to read their code of ethics. It'll take me 60 seconds. It's quite lovely.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: With leave, members.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: I think it's an example for everyone to follow.

"1. Our attitude will be one of openness, respect and friendliness toward all we encounter.

"2. We will use no violence, physical or verbal, toward anyone we meet.

"3. We will not damage property.

"4. We will not bring drugs or alcohol on the protest site, and we will carry no weapons."

These people are surely welcome among us.

A. Sanders: Today in the precincts we have two members of the Vernon community, Dorothy and Harvey Eller. They are here in part to visit with the ministries, but also as representatives of the Park Environmental Stewardship Organization. Could we please make them welcome.

P. Calendino: I'd like to join the member for Peace River North in welcoming here the Catholic Women's League representatives. They made a very warm and scholarly presentation to our caucus committee this morning, so I would like the House to welcome them again.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting from the Cariboo South constituency is Marcelle Harapiak. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

SEAN PELLETIER CASE

M. de Jong: Sean Pelletier was nine years old when he committed suicide in Abbotsford on February 8. He and his

[ Page 2536 ]

family were well known to the ministry. We were told that his death would be investigated, and we've now seen parts of the internal reports. We've seen them, because on March 27 one of my constituents found those documents in a pile of garbage that had been dumped on his farm. I provided those documents to the minister this morning, and she, in fairness, has written back immediately promising to investigate.

But, Mr. Speaker, how can this happen? How can a confidential ministry report about the death of a kid that happened in February be blowing across a raspberry field in March?

[2:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: I am aware of the package of information that the member opposite hand-delivered to my office at 11:40 a.m. As I told him, when I had a chance to review that -- when I got back from cabinet at about 12:15 -- I did take immediate action. I also wrote him a note to let him know I would do that.

Any breach of confidentiality is an extremely disturbing and serious issue. That is why I took immediate steps to find out how this information could have been so inappropriately treated. What I learned was that the file in question had been in the briefcase of the car of the senior manager in Abbotsford, and that on March 5 his car was stolen from outside his home. The Abbotsford municipal police are currently investigating this, under report No. 9705915. His car was returned to him; however, his briefcase, cell phone, diary and other things were missing.

While I have some relief at having a preliminary sense of how this information may have come to be in an illegal garbage dump, I am very concerned about other confidentiality issues that this raises. I have asked the freedom-of-information commissioner by letter this morning to work with our ministry on reviewing the policies and protocols around document security.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I would be made to feel more at ease if I hadn't also been advised by my constituent that this was the second time he had discovered documents at that location, and that the first time, two or three weeks previously, he had contacted the ministry and they expressed no interest, so he burned the documents. The minister wants us to trust in the government's ability to protect children on a day-to-day basis, and though she may not believe it, we British Columbians want to trust the government to do that.

To the minister. If you can't protect the paper, why should we believe that you're protecting the people, and more particularly, why should we trust that you're protecting the kids?

Hon. P. Priddy: I have always said that people on both sides of this House are concerned about protecting children in British Columbia on a day-to-day basis. I am unaware of the first incident that the member refers to. Had he referred it to me, or had someone else referred it to me, then I would have investigated that, as well.

In the space of an hour, I got the information that I got today. We acted upon it quickly, because it is an issue that causes me immeasurable concern, and I want to act quickly on that.

If you ask why people in British Columbia should trust the government to protect their children on a day-to-day basis. . . . They should see the government and the work that government is doing around things like risk assessment, training for social workers and additional programs as part of the work of protecting children. But it is everybody's job, not only the government's job, to protect children in British Columbia.

B. McKinnon: Sean Pelletier first became known to the ministry in 1991. Concerns about his care grew in frequency in 1994. Two years and seven child protection investigations later came Sean's tragic suicide. Can the minister tell us if she has directed her staff to go back and look at the ministry's records to find other children who may have been overlooked and whose lives may be in danger?

Hon. P. Priddy: First, I think it's important to put in context the information that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale refers to. The information, which has been seen by not only the member for Surrey-Cloverdale but I assume by others, is material that was in fact released as a deputy director's initial review which began the day after this youngster's death. It was completed on February 14, five or six days later. It's intended to be a preliminary analysis of the history and circumstances of the family's involvement and our ministry's involvement with them.

Based on that initial report, the deputy director's office outlined the terms of reference for a much more complete and comprehensive investigation, highlighting areas of particular concern to us. On February 14 we notified the children's commissioner, and we worked with the RCMP and the coroner's office -- worked together to review this tragic incident. Our internal investigation by audit and review, the children's commissioner's investigation, the coroner's investigation and the RCMP investigation are still underway, and we are awaiting those reports.

As soon as our investigation is complete, its findings will be made public in a manner that respects both this child and his family and protects their privacy. But the member opposite has my commitment: if the system and individuals involved in this system failed the child, then the ministry will take -- as we have taken before, hon. Speaker -- appropriate action to hold people accountable for this.

One of the things. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I think that's a sufficient answer.

B. McKinnon: One and a half years after Judge Gove's report, we still have children at risk as a result of the ministry either overlooking or misreading the severity of child protection needs. Can the minister tell us exactly what she has ordered her staff to do in order to prevent further tragedies such as Sean's and Matthew's?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would suggest that about 85 percent of Judge Gove's recommendations have been completed, but one of the things that was identified and highlighted by Gove in his report was a lack of risk assessment. That's why this new ministry has pushed so hard to get risk assessment training done, to get it through, so that all social workers in this province will be using a consistent risk assessment model. But all field staff. . . . That will be in place by the end of June or early July, by the time all the staff training is finished.

And that is one of the key recommendations: that we do good risk assessments. That's one of the things that will help to keep children in this province safe.

[ Page 2537 ]

M. Coell: Judge Gove was very specific in his investigation of the ways Social Services failed Matthew Vaudreuil. He said that social workers did not review Matthew's ministry files, that they discounted reports because they suspected the motivation or reliability of complainants, and that they did not perform professional risk assessments.

We now have the chronology of Sean Pelletier's interaction with the Ministry for Children and Families, which is very similar to Matthew's case. My question to the Minister for Children and Families: how, over the course of seven investigations by social workers, was Sean allowed to fall through the cracks?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two parts to this answer; there were two parts to the question. One of them is the issue of risk assessment that was identified by Judge Gove as an incredibly vital missing part of the work that we do. That's why that has been placed as such a priority within the ministry and, quite frankly, has been pushed so hard in the field to get it done.

The second part the member asks about is, I think -- and I'm quoting him, so it's not my statement -- that social workers didn't rely on, didn't believe, or whatever, other people around them. We have insisted on and expanded the information that has to be gathered from the people around children -- what people call "collaterals"; a terrible word -- much more significantly than just one or two people in their life. They talk to grandmothers, friends and neighbours now to ensure that it's full information.

Regarding the last part of his question, as I know the member knows, there has only been an interim report. The children's commissioner's report, our audit and review division report and the coroner's report will be made available to the public as soon as they are done.

M. Coell: The documents that have fallen into our hands indicate that there was an inadequate assessment of the mother's ability to care for her children. The documents themselves state: "There appears to have been no family service file opened following any of the seven investigations to assist this family." Why, after repeated complaints of physical abuse and neglect, did the ministry not even bother to open a file?

Hon. P. Priddy: As I said earlier, if at the end of these investigations -- not only our internal one but the independent one -- there are either systems issues or individual issues that are to be held accountable for in this ministry, then we will take the action to do so. Let us at least wait until all of the information is in and those reviews are completed.

I think that to begin the debate now. . . . In spite of the fact that the information is in there and it talks about no risk-assessment -- and there are issues identified -- we need to allow the children's commissioner to complete her independent review, and our audit and review division and the coroner and the RCMP to complete theirs, and then we will respond to those questions. I will be happy to do so at that time.

L. Reid: The ministry has written a report into the tragic death of Sean Pelletier, and the ministry's own internal report states: "This intake, along with the others, appears to have been inadequately investigated." Can the minister tell us why, three years after the death of Matthew Vaudreuil and one and a half years after the Gove inquiry concluded, this ministry is still inadequately assessing the needs of these children in danger and other children in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: Again I want to comment, but I need to go back to the first part of the question. The reviews are not complete. For me to start to comment on individual parts of it is simply not appropriate. It interferes with the children's commissioner's review, our own and the RCMP one. I have said I will be very open about systems and individuals when the reviews are complete.

We do need to understand that one of the. . . . I hear interesting things. We've pushed hard in this ministry to get risk assessment developed, training with social workers done and the models out there being used. And then I very often hear from people -- sometimes across the hall -- that we're giving too much work to social workers, that it's coming too quickly, etc. Well, I would suggest that risk assessment is one of the ones that has to happen, and we all have to get behind supporting that.

L. Reid: I would ask this minister: what has she done to ensure that there are not other children who have fallen through the cracks? Give us some examples of what this ministry has done and what this minister has done.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. . . .

The Speaker: The minister apparently didn't hear the question, so I'm going to give the member for Richmond East an opportunity to complete the question.

L. Reid: My question to this minister is: what has she done to date to ensure that there are not other children in the same predicament as Sean Pelletier -- that, in fact, this ministry has overlooked or neglected?

Hon. P. Priddy: What I have done as a minister, as well as this ministry. . . . I have given direction to this ministry that all social workers are to have completed training which makes them more able to do risk assessments while using their own professional judgment. I have ensured that the risk assessment training model will have been taken by all social workers by the end of June or the beginning of July and will be in the field.

I have ensured that for social workers who work in remote parts of the province, there's teleconferencing twice a week, where they can call Victoria and get information from professionals and actually do a case conference.

I have ensured that there's a database of experts all over this province that social workers can now call on. There wasn't even a database that said where you go if you need an expert in -- I don't know -- Rhett's syndrome, Hunter's syndrome, whatever.

I have done those things, and we've done many more things. But all of those things mean that social workers are better able to support children and families, which is what they want to do. And it's a tough job, hon. Speaker.

Motions on Notice

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I move Motion 54 in the standing orders, standing in my name as printed.

[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on:

1. The application of key issues arising out of the Nisga'a Agreement-in-Principle to treaty negotiations throughout British Columbia;

[ Page 2538 ]

2. How progress can be made towards treaty settlements with aboriginal people beneficial to all British Columbians.

Further, that the House authorizes the committee to provide opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal to express their views on these matters.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) To appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) To sit during any sitting of the House; and

(

c) To retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible.]

[2:30]

The Speaker: The motion is in order. On the motion, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: When the committee that we are dealing with today was first commissioned in August of last year, we as an opposition, and members on this side of the House, pledged to apply ourselves diligently to the task at hand. We emphasized our view that we thought the time had come for us to get on with the task of negotiating final and lasting agreements that would eliminate those hurdles, those differences, that have kept aboriginal people from taking their place in the mainstream of Canadian society.

We said that we intended to join in the work of this committee and listen to British Columbians, to give them that access that they so desperately sought to the treaty negotiation process. And I think it can be fairly said that the committee, by and large, has done that, under the chairmanship of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. We have travelled to about 33 communities; we've heard submissions from literally hundreds of British Columbians -- people who are interested in achieving a settlement.

That's not to say that they've always agreed on what that settlement would look like, and I think all the members of the committee, from both sides of the House, would agree that we've heard a real variety of views on what a final settlement should look like.

I think it's important for us to recognize that just because people have different views. . . . That makes them different; it doesn't make them right or, necessarily, wrong. Our report, in my view, needs to reflect those differences to the extent that that is possible.

Just as there are differences amongst the British Columbians we heard from, I think it's fair to say that on certain issues there are differences amongst members of the committee about how to address those important issues. There is, I should say, a lot of agreement -- I think more agreement, more commonality amongst members of the committee, than perhaps our Chair and Deputy Chair and members on this side would have dared speculate about at the beginning of the process.

But as I think about the motion before us, the question is how to accommodate the differences that do exist, and it occurred to me that there are a couple of options. One was simply to try to achieve unanimity on every point and risk having a report that is so general, so vague, as to be worthless to anyone. The other option is a report where government members rely on their majority simply to ensure that their view carries the day. I don't think that's the intention of the Chair of the committee or anyone on the committee, on either side.

So it's with this in mind that I have proposed an amendment, of which notice has been given -- it appears on the order paper -- and which I think is seconded by the member for Peace River South and which I understand, via the Government House Leader, the government is in substantial agreement with. I would like to move that a subsection (

d) be added to the motion, which would permit minority opinions in a report of the committee to be included in the report.

I'm much obliged to the Chairman, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, for drawing my attention to the workings of the federal committees and to the provision that exists in those rules for the inclusion of minority opinions. I think that if we proceed along that path and allow that outlet to give expression to the differences that do exist, to the extent that they do exist, this report is destined to be a much more valuable document.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. The motion to amend is in order. On the amendment, Peace River South -- I'm sorry, it's Powell River-Sunshine Coast. My apologies.

An Hon. Member: You look like a Reformer. [Laughter].

G. Wilson: One never knows when we may share the same caucus, so it may have been in order. But it's never wise to predict.

On the amendment.

Speaking to the amendment, the matter of minority reports is not new to debate in this House. I think it is a functional part of trying to make this legislative process and Legislative Assembly work in a better way. I know that in the past, parliamentary committees have dealt with subject matter that has been to a large measure controversial, in light of how public opinion may review it. Clearly, there can be no more potentially controversial issue than the issue currently being reviewed by this committee. So I think we have to look at this particular amendment and how this amendment is proposed with a very serious eye.

I would like to hear from those moving it whether or not we are talking about a minority caucus report. Or are we talking about a minority report of a member on the committee? Having listened to debate in this chamber, we find that there are many points of view held within certain caucuses, and we don't know whether the point of view that's being put forward is a minority report that reflects the caucus position or the individual member's position. This is a critical issue.

I raise it because if we are to have minority reports, there has to be some certainty that what is being put forward is identified either as the position of an individual member who sits on that committee or as the position of a caucus, and it therefore formulates the policy of that caucus.

I would like to clarify whether or not those minority reports in fact reflect an individual's point of view or the point of view of an entire caucus. Perhaps we could have that clarified before we vote on this amendment.

J. Weisgerber: I guess I can speak for my caucus with some confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I was reluctant to speak to the amendment, reflecting on advice I used to give car salesmen in my employ -- that is, when the deal is done, shut up and let it go through. However, the question having been put by my friend from Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I think it's perhaps useful to read into the record the mandate of the standing committees in Ottawa: ". . .to print a brief appendix to any report, after

[ Page 2539 ]

the signature of the Chairman, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementing to it, as may be proposed by committee members." So from that I assume that this motion would permit any member of a committee who so wished to propose a dissenting opinion.

While I'm on my feet, I want to commend the member for Vancouver-Fraserview for the work that he's done on a very difficult issue. I think we're making progress. I think this amendment will help us all to write a better report, a report that's more acceptable to those hundreds of British Columbians who spoke to us and, hopefully, the thousands who read and watched the debates of that proceeding.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to make a few comments. I believe there was a question raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast with regard to whose opinion would be attached. I think it's clear that members sit on those committees as members, although one always infers that when a member of a caucus makes a statement, they're also speaking for their colleagues. Sometimes that's good; sometimes that's bad, as the members opposite would know. But that's clearly the position.

However, I think this raises a good issue, because from time to time there have been committees of this House, which I've sat on, where in trying to reach consensus, you end up with a report that doesn't say anything. It doesn't express an opinion. It tries to walk down the middle of the road so carefully on something that all of the varying views and discussions that went into the debate and that came forward with the presentations aren't reflected in the report, and I think the House is ill served by that.

I know it's been the practice in this House not to have minority reports. When we had a very contentious issue on a special committee to oversee actions on the Gove report, we made a tentative step and provided an opportunity for minority opinions in that one special case. And in that case, to my knowledge anyway, it hasn't been required. We've managed to go ahead and move forward together, and I suspect that this would happen in most cases.

But I think it's a good amendment or a good area to move into for the very reasons that have been outlined: you do get a more diverse sense of opinion, and you cannot come to a consensus in all cases. We know how strongly we in this House feel about different issues on a wide range of things. So I think it's a good opportunity to do that.

I know, too, that the members have worked very hard to try and come to some sort of a consensus around issues, and hopefully, they'll be able to. But also, there are issues where they will not be able to. So rather than gut the report and end up with a report that doesn't say anything, let's end up with a report that may not agree on everything, but at least it says something. It talks about the work that the committee did, the opinions they heard and the advice they heard from around the province. I think that it's a good step to make. Hopefully, consensus will be reached. But if it can't be, at least we have something in a report that amounts to something.

Amendment approved.

Motion as amended approved.

RULES FOR SECTIONS A AND B

OF COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Motion 53 standing in my name on the order paper as printed.

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the passage of this Motion, the House Leader of the Official Opposition may advise the Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial Estimates which the Official Opposition requires to be considered in

Section B of the Committee of Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial Estimates shall be considered in

Section B of the Committee of Supply.

3. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and except those estimates which shall be referred to

Section B under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Order and such other Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60A. Practice Recommendation No. 6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to this rule.

Section A shall consist of 18 Members, being 10 Members of the New Democratic Party, 7 Members of the Liberal Party, and 1 other Member. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the second session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. Calendino, Giesbrecht, Lali, Robertson, Orcherton and Stevenson, Mmes. Gillespie, Kwan and Sawicki, and Messrs. Anderson, Dalton, Hansen, Masi, Symons and Thorpe, Ms. McKinnon and Mr. Weisgerber.

5. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Official Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

7. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

8. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

Section B is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in

[ Page 2540 ]

Section B, and for all purposes

Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation No. 6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

10. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rules No. 3 and 9.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: Can I ask members who are in the process of leaving to please do so quickly. I want to recognize the member trying to speak.

I call the House to order and recognize, on the throne speech, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You'll notice that I rose a little early to give you time to survey the House to make sure that someone was standing to speak on the throne speech. It's my pleasure today to respond to the throne speech of this parliament.

The member for Peace River South spoke very eloquently about some of the real issues in B.C. which were not mentioned in the throne speech debate: the issues around gambling, and I think he did a remarkable job on that; the issues around native land claims, and he did a remarkable job around that; parliamentary reform, which we're having difficulty making members opposite, or on the government side, understand has to take place in British Columbia. They're all very topical, but there's not a word in the throne speech about any of those issues, and that's disturbing.

[2:45]

I want to talk today a little bit about a northern strategy. This is nothing new to me. I've spoken on this issue on different occasions, and about jobs, infrastructure for the north and what's required to be able to have the north continue to provide the dollars that it does to the provincial economy -- although I want to give credit to the government and a certain amount to the minister responsible for having a brief statement about a northern strategy in the throne speech. It's something that has taken a long time. I hope it's not just a vacuous statement, but that they really mean that there's going to be a northern strategy.

I want to go back a bit in the history of the north. There are not many members in this House that represent the north, except the member for Peace River South and myself. Maybe it doesn't hurt once in a while for members of the government, who are mainly from the lower mainland, to get a little history lesson in what took place in the north. If we look back a short while ago in history -- 40 years -- we see there was a vision for the north; there was a blueprint for the province. It was in the Bennett era when we last saw a real vision for the north.

Later on, we came to the last administration, the Vander Zalm era, and they carried on with that vision for the north. Unfortunately, the present government has totally abandoned any vision for the north.

It was just in the late fifties that we had road access from the north to the south. We never had road access until 1958. We never had rail service from the Peace River to the south, to Vancouver, until about the same time. Hydro dams were built in the mid- to late sixties. Peace Canyon and the W.A.C. Bennett Dam are providing 40 percent of British Columbia's total hydro needs -- that's both export and domestic use. Then there was northeast coal in the early eighties.

This kind of vision from the government facilitated all kinds of investment in the north -- private investment. We saw huge natural gas processing plants, some of the largest in North America and in the world, built in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Pine River. The area I and the member for Peace River South represent supplies all the natural gas that every one of you so conveniently use in your homes. On top of that, all the gas that's exported out of this province, all the natural gas that goes across the border to the U.S., is produced in the Peace River country.

On top of that, the northeast provides almost all the crude oil requirements for the province of British Columbia. Talking about natural gas, that's billions and billions of cubic feet a year that either are burnt in this province for domestic use or are exported.

There are discussions in the northeast at the present time about building another 36-inch pipeline, which will begin somewhere north of Fort St. John and go all the way through Alberta, Saskatchewan and into the Chicago market. Those are good jobs. Those are the jobs that the mining industry was talking about; those are the jobs that we need in British Columbia. Those are the jobs that average anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. Those are jobs that can sustain families, and those are private sector jobs. That's what we have to encourage. We have to get private money doing those kind of things again, but we can't have that happen if we don't have a vision for the north.

Really, I want to try to be a little bit more positive today than what I've heard previously. I want to be a little bit more objective about what I think we can do and what we should be doing for the north. But what disturbs me is that while we talk about this kind of investment, while we talk about these kinds of jobs, while we talk in this House incessantly about creating 40,000 jobs a year, not many of those jobs are those good, high-paying jobs.

We have the government, I guess, keeping busy trying to get photo radar off the ground, trying to cover their tracks, trying to hide at different times, and creating bureaucracies and regulations that would stifle any private entrepreneur with red tape and a jungle of ridiculous regulations that would choke a horse. We heard it loud and clear yesterday from the mining industry -- an industry that provides jobs at an average of, I believe, $70,000 a year; some 20,000 jobs.

They say they can provide another 20,000 jobs in the province if the province just looks seriously at a little bit of vision -- looks seriously at the mining industry as something that's not a sunset industry, something that will provide the jobs that we need and the resulting tax revenue, so that we can continue to receive the services that we receive in this province today. We have to look at that, and we have to look at it seriously if we think we're going to continue to receive the health care and the education and those kind of things that we've come to expect.

The government talks incessantly -- in fact, I heard it yesterday -- about three new mines. We're going to open three new mines. I didn't hear a word. . . . In fact, if I recall correctly, the minister said he wanted to be on hand when all three open. But I didn't hear him say one word about wanting

[ Page 2541 ]

to be on hand when the six close the same year. That's what we have to look at. We should be opening six and closing three, because that's the normal way things go. You folks have got it backwards. I guess that's the problem with a whole bunch of things with you folks: you've got a lot of things backwards.

Talk about high taxes and overregulation of our industry. It's real; it's a fact. If there's one thing you folks can do, it's roll out policy and regulation -- piles of it. Has anyone ever looked at the whole Forest Practices Code? It stands three feet high, and it's not done. That's the sad part. You look at Sweden's Forest Practices Code, and it's a book of about 40 pages -- and they produce as much wood as we do. That's where we have to get to, and we have to get away from this cookie-cutter approach to the province of British Columbia.

Because I can tell you that what works well in Kamloops, on Vancouver Island, or in Vancouver, the Okanagan or Williams Lake, doesn't work worth a darn in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek or Fort Nelson -- any one of those communities. We have to get away from that cookie-cutter approach.

Hon. Speaker, these folks across the way would have us believe that they're going to tax these rich corporations -- that they're going to tax people that are making lots of money and that that's how we're going to continue to provide services. What they fail to mention as they continue to increase taxes on corporations is that those costs are passed on to individuals -- the working people in British Columbia, the people the government say they represent. Just ask them how they feel about increased angling fees, increased licence fees, increased insurance over the last five or six years.

I don't know; there's a multitude of things. I could on and on and on about fee increases. Not just increases, finding new ones -- they're all a tax. They're all a form of tax, and they're passed on, and the consumer -- that person who's trying to make a life for his or her family, trying to survive in this world -- is having to pay that. That's where the vision gets blurred, and that's where we need a new vision -- a new vision for this province of British Columbia.

Let's look a little closer at the throne speech, at the two items that the government talks about all the time. Let's look at health care, briefly. You know, the north has a tremendous difficulty trying to get health care professionals -- doctors and nurses, trained people -- and has difficulty retaining them. That's not a secret. But, you know, when we were in Fort St. John with one doctor to every 3,000 people, what kind of response did we get from the government? We asked that the immigration of foreign-trained doctors be looked at again by this government, because they changed the rules to start with.

They didn't. They said: "We've got enough doctors in Vancouver. Why would we change it now? We've got too many." So, in other words, we don't care about those folks up there. If we can't provide adequate health care in the north, we're not going to be able to attract people to the north, and that's what we need to have a vision for -- to start producing it in the north.

Ambulance services. You folks are so driven by the unions. . . . The ambulance service in Fort St. John has been provided, since it started, by the fire department, and you automatically just changed it. You forced a change. Spend a few more million bucks on a building, hire one full-time staff, and all the rest part-time -- and the fire department goes out with every call, anyhow. It's an absolute waste of money. But when the citizens of the north asked you to leave it alone, no, the government wouldn't.

When the federal government started changing immigration policy for foreign-trained doctors, we asked for help from this government to please talk to the national College of Physicians and Surgeons. Could we get a response? No, because this government said: "It's out of our league. It doesn't affect us." I tell you: it affects those people in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, and it affects those people in Chetwynd right now, where their hospital is closed. It's closed, you know. It's closed because there aren't enough health care professionals. How in the world are you going to attract good, capable people to the north if we can't even keep our hospitals open?

You know, hon. Speaker, we've seen the Fort Nelson hospital have to close. Maternity cases were transferred to Fort St. John -- 250 miles one way, or 400 kilometres. The other day I sat in this House and I listened to the Minister for Children and Families talk about how absolutely terrible it was that people had to travel one hour in the lower mainland, from Vancouver to Surrey, with a sick child. That's the problem: the vision is downtown Vancouver. The vision isn't for the whole province. That's what we have to get away from.

It's not uncommon for people in the north to travel 600 miles round trip to an orthodontist. That's not uncommon. We need those kinds of people. It's not uncommon for people in the north to travel 500 or 600 miles for kidney dialysis. We need some help in health care travel. And what do I get? A roadblock from Treasury Board. And who controls Treasury Board? The government. Something has to be done. There has to be a vision.

Education -- another part of your throne speech. Really, when I look back, your big move in education was amalgamation in the north: amalgamate a third of the province; we'll just run it under one board. No thought to how large the province is or what really happens -- we'll just amalgamate. That just doesn't work.

What did you do? You turned around and slapped a tax on propane. In my constituency all the buses run on propane. First off, you made them save $400,000. Then you put a tax on propane, and it's going to cost them $50,000 a year in taxes on propane to feed you folks. You know, that cuts us out of services. That cuts us out of classroom staff. Such a silly move!

For post-secondary education, I think we have to look a little more carefully at what happens in Grande Prairie, what happens in Alberta. I know you like to talk about slash-and-burn Alberta, but a few of you folks ought to travel over to slash-and-burn Alberta and find out just how many of our people are going over there for education and health care. That's where all our health care folks go. They don't go to Vancouver; you can't find a bed. We send people to Edmonton. We send them to Edmonton, out of Prince George, on top of it.

[3:00]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

If you want to get economic growth, with the resulting taxes, there must be some investment made -- some serious investment. You've got to expand health care services and education services, give local communities the ability to tax industry so they can provide a stable community, roads and sewers and those kinds of things, and a decent community for people to live in. We have to quit sending taxes south all the time. We've got to quit downloading. The Minister of Transportation and Highways, on a whim, downloads all kinds of things onto local taxpayers in the north when she knows full well that they're already at the end of their tether about taxes.

We need roads in the north. We don't need any more roads in Vancouver. Everyone complains that you can't get

[ Page 2542 ]

people on transit. Well, I'll tell you how you get people on transit in Vancouver and Victoria: you let the roads get to the same shape they are in in the city of Fort St. John. I'll guarantee that you'll need 50 more West Coast Express trains tomorrow, because they'll all be on the rapid transit -- every one of them. That's all you have to do. On top of it, you complain about pollution in the lower mainland. You build more highways, better highways -- more cars, more pollution. It doesn't quite make sense. You wonder after a while: what is the agenda? What is the vision for the north?

We've got to encourage agricultural development. We all have to eat, and the lower mainland is losing its farmland. Northeastern B.C. is a large area -- huge farms -- but they need hydro, basic things that you folks down here take for granted. They need natural gas extensions. You know, in the north, although we supply all the natural gas you burn -- even here on the Island, where you get a $700 rebate to put natural gas in your house -- folks just get to pay the whole bill. That's the vision for the north from this government.

When I talk about regulations in agriculture. . . . You know, a fellow phoned me the other day, a rancher, and he said: "You know, I just had the Ministry of Forests out here telling me that we can't let the cows eat this grass any closer than three inches from the ground, and I'm trying to figure out how I can train those critters so they don't eat it all the way down." You know, that's the ridiculous part about your regulations. I don't know if you're going to put rulers on all their noses or what. It just amazes the average British Columbian that someone would really ask for that, but it happens.

Or if someone wants to buy a piece of Crown land to go farming, it takes two years to process it -- two years. Can you imagine if you were trying to sell your house and somebody walked in and said, "I want to buy your house," and you said: "I'm sorry, it's going to take me two years to figure out how much I want for it and two years to figure how I'm going to do it"? Guess what: they're down the street. They're over in Alberta, in our case. That's what happens.

Tourism -- a new Crown corporation created. Not one member north of 100 Mile House: pretty sad, isn't it? The Alaska Highway -- I can boast that the largest log structure was built on the Alaska Highway just in the last few years, a huge hotel. But the furthest-north representation is 100 Mile House.

When you look at those folks that are generating their electricity with diesel fuel. . . . You throw all kinds of taxes on top of the diesel fuel -- talk about a disincentive to go out there and create jobs and create an economy.

The Forest Practices Code must be results-oriented. It can't be driven the way it is now. We can't be out there as the Forests ministry, in the muskeg in the country where I come from. . . . Members of the Forests ministry go out in the middle of the winter and tell people to put culverts in a dry beaver run or a dry creek and then take them out in the spring. Water doesn't run at 40 below, and there's no water in them to start with. That's the ridiculous and stupid part of some of the regulations that this group of wizards across the way has put together. It's got to change, hon. Speaker. It has just plain got to change.

The oil and gas industry contributes about $2.5 billion a year into infrastructure in northeastern B.C. but hardly gets recognized. It doesn't even get recognized in the budget documents. All you want is the $500 million a year in revenue; other than that, you don't want to have anything to do with it.

They need some roads, just like the agricultural community does. They need to be able to drive down a road instead of being pulled by a tractor. It's sad; it's absolutely sad. Roads that were built in the 1950s haven't been upgraded, yet we're building huge highways north of here -- the Vancouver Island Highway -- to carry a whole bunch of cars. In the north we have heavy traffic, and we have a lousy road that was built in the fifties. You don't even maintain that.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: You don't even maintain that.

I'd suggest that the member for Yale-Lillooet just listen for a while -- it might serve him well -- instead of heckling me. I can handle that.

Hon. Speaker, if we continue regulation and high taxes, we're going to drive people out. Labour is a good example. We should be paying good wages, wages comparable to the people that we compete against; that happens to be Alberta, where I come from.

This Labour minister removed the oil field variance -- just removed it and said: "I'm sorry." They didn't even check in to see why they were removing it. They heard from three unions in the north. Only one represents people that work in the oil patch, and that's not in the patch; that's with Westcoast Transmission, a pipeline company. The other two unions don't have anyone that they represent, but they listened. They jerked the variance. And we're trying to compete with those folks in Alberta.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, it gets darned difficult, because I know of two huge companies in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek that are moving across the border. They're moving to Beaver Lodge and Grande Prairie, and then they're going to come back to B.C. and do the work. It doesn't do anything for us, does it? Does it do anything for workers in northeastern British Columbia? Does it do anything for British Columbia at all? It doesn't do anything.

That's the vision that's missing. We need to have some of these people from the cabinet come up there and spend some time, so they understand it a little bit more. And maybe the member for Yale-Lillooet wouldn't mind coming along, because I've got some things for him to look at in the Forest Practices Code to do with forests, forestry and woodlots. Hon. Speaker, it's real. These folks have to start looking at it; we have to start looking at it with a vision.

I'm going to close by reading a few items out of the Northwest Transportation Corridor Task Force report. It was just completed in February of '97. First off, the northwest corridor, just so you understand, is the northern part of British Columbia -- from Prince George north and over to Prince Rupert -- and it deals with Alberta and British Columbia. When they refer to the corridor, that's what they're talking about.

It says: "What is needed for this corridor to prosper is as simple as discovering its inherent advantages, thus taking hold of Canada's shortest link to Asia." That's where most of our exports go. That's the shortest link, and that's what we should be looking at very seriously if we're going to be able to continue to compete.

[ Page 2543 ]

A few more quotes:

"Even in its current underutilized state, the region within which the northwest corridor is located represents a dynamic and productive economic zone. It accounts for more than 13 percent of B.C.'s and Alberta's combined gross domestic product, and the per capita GDP is 49 percent higher than the rest of the two provinces. The northern region comprises well over half of the land mass of the provinces of B.C. and Alberta, yet has only 10 percent of their combined populations. Proportionally, the value of production in the northern region is larger than its share of the population.

"The northern economy is fundamentally driven by and dependent upon resource-based and energy-intensive industries. Oil and gas account for nearly 60 percent of all output in the north, with forestry and its related industries accounting for 24 percent of the region's GDP. The corridor's net contribution to the federal and provincial governments' balance of payments is $10.1 billion annually" -- that should catch the attention of the Minister of Finance a little bit -- "$2.2 billion to B.C., $3.4 billion to Alberta and $4.5 billion to the federal government."

That's substantial.

We looked a little further in the report. I'd suggest that the Minister of Finance have a quick look at this. In fact, cabinet should have a briefing on it and look at it in a serious way.

"The proportion of the northern population is significantly different across the two provinces, as 7.4 percent of the B.C. population inhabits the north, while 13 percent of Albertans live in the corridor north of Edmonton.

"Accounting for 13 percent of GDP, the proportional value of production in the northern region is larger than its share of population. For Alberta, 16 percent of GDP originates in the north, while northern B.C. comprises nearly 10 percent of the total provincial economy."

That's the northern part of British Columbia, and there's absolutely no vision across the way for the northern part of British Columbia. It's a sad day in British Columbia, and it's a sad day for those folks that live in the north who are trying to make a living and who are trying to compete with Alberta. And we don't have any response from the government.

I think what mostly encapsulates this whole report and the feelings of northerners, is how governments look at them -- specifically the NDP government.

"The question must be asked: if the corridor has such a great deal of potential, so many fundamental strengths and so many great opportunities, why hasn't it achieved what it is capable of accomplishing? The simple answer is that it has been hamstrung by the same three reoccurring themes that have always inhibited economic development within frontier regions.

These inhibitors are: the lack of a national and international recognition of the corridor's capacities, capabilities, benefits and opportunities; the inability to acquire the critical mass to create the economies of scale necessary to gain full benefit of the corridor's opportunities; and the traditional 'colonialism' or absentee landlord economy that so often exists in hinterland regions such as the corridor."

That wraps it up in a nutshell -- what people in the north have felt for a long time. We pay our share. I've often said in this House that I wouldn't mind the debt so much and I wouldn't complain about the debt so much if some of it was created in the north. I say that for the benefit of the Minister of Finance, who's in the House. It is true: we in the north get to participate in the repayment of the debt. We get to participate as full participants in the repayment of that debt, but we do not get to participate in the benefits of that debt. And this last point is a good reason why.

Hon. A. Petter: It's a tremendous pleasure for me to take

part in the debate concerning the Speech from the Throne and to have an opportunity to articulate why I feel the vision articulated in this Speech from the Throne is one that merits the support of all members, as we move forward to try to build a stronger British Columbia.

It seems to me that the two words. . . . The two themes that come out of the Speech from the Throne that really speak to the future and the vision that I think British Columbians are looking for are the themes of priorities -- and the need to set clear priorities -- and of people, and in particular the protection of middle- and modest-income earners in this province.

This Speech from the Throne, the budget that followed it and all of the initiatives that this government is bringing forward in this session are about those two themes: setting clear priorities for the future that reflect the priorities of British Columbians. At a time when financial resources are tight and the demands are high, governments have to lead through setting clear priorities. The test of government is whether those priorities are ones that correspond to the needs and priorities of British Columbians.

[3:15]

Secondly, we know in this province that ordinary families -- middle- and modest-income families -- have been stretched over the past decades and are looking for some relief. In this Speech from the Throne and in the budget and associated initiatives of this government, I think we see some vision that speaks to the need to provide that relief and support for those who form the backbone of this province.

The priorities reflected in the Speech from the Throne are the same priorities that this government articulated when it ran for office in the last election. Let me just review some of them and go through what this government is doing in respect of those priorities.

First of all, the priority of education. Education is the gateway to the future not just for our youth and for those for whom education is the way to move forward and gain a foothold in a market economy -- to get into the job market and start to succeed; it is also the way forward for us collectively as a province to gain financial independence and security in the face of an ever-increasing competitive marketplace around the world. What we see in this throne speech and what we've seen in the budget are not just words but a clear commitment, backed up by action, to protect and build on a record of investment in our future through investment in education.

This year's budget injected a further $63 million into the K-to-12 system, moving us into the highest per capita expenditure in that system amongst provinces in this country -- $300 million additional investment in new schools at the elementary and secondary level throughout this province. That is an investment which translates into a difference not only for children, who are our most important resource in terms of the future, but for our destiny as a province and for our economy as a whole.

I remember when I ran in 1991, in a very early debate in that campaign, standing up and pointing out that in terms of the post-secondary education investment of the previous government -- prior to 1991 -- we ranked second or third from last amongst the provinces. Yet I look at the tables that were tabled with this budget and the commitment in this throne speech, and I see with tremendous pride that, over the course of the last four years, this province now ranks amongst the top two in terms of investment in post-secondary education in this country.

Due to a stabilization of post-secondary investment funding, notwithstanding huge cuts by the federal government in terms of transfer payments for this area, we are in fact seeing an expansion in post-secondary education -- in

col-

[ Page 2544 ]

leges, in universities, in institutes -- of some 2,900 spaces this year alone.

I invite members and British Columbians to cast their minds back just four years ago and consider how their kids had to worry about whether there was a place for them in a post-secondary institution. It wasn't a question of them being qualified; it was a question of whether or not there were enough spaces even if they were qualified. Members will recall that there were waiting lists. Right here in Victoria, there were waiting lists at Camosun College and the University of Victoria. In the last two years, what we've seen is that those waiting lists have been eliminated.

Kids now know that if they put in the effort, if they meet the threshold of qualification, there will be a place for them in our post-secondary institutions. As a result, there will be a road for them through education into the workforce and into the future. That is something that speaks to the priorities of this government, both in its last term of office and leading into the future. And it's something that I think speaks to the priorities of all British Columbians who care not only about our children but about our future.

The other key priority in terms of social investment represented in this throne speech and this budget is that of health care. Again, one can look at any number of indicators; it really doesn't matter. By any measure, this government -- in word, in deed, in record -- has shown its unremitting commitment to invest in health care, notwithstanding federal cuts in this area that have been massive, notwithstanding the increased pressures that we're under in terms of meeting the needs of British Columbians in other areas.

In the face of increased demands and an aging and growing population, we have been determined to be number one. We are number one. In terms of our per capita investment in health care, we are number one. In fact, in terms of our investment in health care, we are about 12 percent above the national average in this province on a per capita basis, in the face of a hugely growing population. In the coming year, $300 million more will be invested in health care through this budget.

One could give any number of examples as to what this means for British Columbians. But I noticed one in the paper just the other day, in which a representative from one of the cancer societies noted that as a result of the investments in cancer treatment in this province, the phenomenon of people having to either wait or travel to Bellingham for cancer treatment is now going to be a thing of the past.

That is a major step forward from what we've seen in the past -- in the face of growing pressures and an aging population, to see that the investments we're making in expanded cancer facilities here in Victoria, in the interior and in the lower mainland are starting to pay off already and producing benefits in terms of reduced wait-lists for those who require this most important treatment. That speaks to the priorities of British Columbians. That is a clear indication that this government has its priorities right, because the priorities of this government are the priorities of British Columbians.

The third key area of priority in this throne speech, happily again reflected within the context of the budget and the initiatives of this government in a very systematic way, is the commitment to jobs, because we all know in this province -- and it's easy to say -- that the best way to help people is by giving them an opportunity to get a job -- easy to say but tough to translate into action.

I've already spoken about education. I'm always amazed by people who talk about job creation and don't talk about education, because the two are inextricably linked. But going beyond education, there is more we can and must do -- and are doing -- in order to encourage job growth and job creation in this province.

Let me start by saying that the record over the past number of years in this province has been outstanding. In the last year alone, we created in this province about 25 percent of all the jobs in Canada, with about half that percentage of population. Now, when I say "we," I don't mean government, because job creation is going to occur in the private sector predominantly. But we all know that it is a partnership of interests and that government plays a major role in fostering an environment and encouraging job creation as a priority within our communities. That's exactly what this government has done.

We did it in last year's budget by bringing about a tax cut for small business. Small business, widely regarded as the engine of job creation in this province, was looking for a signal that government was prepared to support investment by small business and the creation of jobs. We provided that support by introducing a 10 percent cut in small business taxes.

This year, that reduction becomes an annual benefit throughout the year, which further benefits the ability of small business to invest; and along with that, an associated tax holiday for new small business, recognizing the high costs of new businesses getting up and running, and providing some relief for those who wish to step into the role of establishing new small businesses.

Infrastructure investment. Historically, this province has grown where governments of whatever stripe have shown a willingness to invest in infrastructure, because we are a province in which infrastructure is critical to our economic development and our social well-being. This government has made a commitment over the years to invest in that key infrastructure. Notwithstanding the need to do it in a prudent and careful way, that commitment is continued. Over $1 billion in infrastructure investment in each of the next three years has been committed. That will create 13,000 new jobs in the coming year.

It will mean that the transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure and health infrastructure that are necessary for communities to grow and thrive -- for people to want to locate here, to want to start to create jobs within communities -- will be there creating jobs and encouraging others to create jobs.

The Guarantee for Youth. We all know that young people today do not enjoy the same opportunities to enter the jobs market that I enjoyed when I was of their age. We've got to ensure that we provide those young people not with a social safety net in which they are captured but with a trampoline on which they can jump up into the opportunities that can and do exist in the job market. Part of that is education, and part of it has been the Guarantee for Youth which has been introduced by this government: a $23 million investment to create 12,000 new jobs.

In traditional industries that are under pressure -- forests and fisheries are under some pressure -- this government has shown a determination to work with industry and with communities to protect and build jobs, whether it's through the jobs and timber accord discussions that are going right now or through the singular achievement of this provincial government and its leader, the Premier, in taking on the federal government and fighting to ensure that our communities have the ability to protect their ability to participate and to nurture that fish resource for the future. That was a challenge that many laughed at and said was not attainable. And today in

[ Page 2545 ]

Ottawa we see the culmination: an agreement to give this province greater jurisdiction over its fish resource so communities will be protected and jobs will be there for the future. That's what a commitment is about.

If anyone doubts that governments can make a difference in creating jobs, they need only go back a few months to the singular effort put in by this government and by Premier Clark in the Canadian Airlines situation. When jobs were on the line, the Premier was there fighting every inch of the way, and as a result played an instrumental role in protecting a critical industry for the future of British Columbia.

In this throne speech, in this budget, we are building on that commitment to ensure that the success in protecting Canadian Airlines is expanded. Through the new Vancouver airport, which is attracting visitors and provides a hub for transportation, we want to make sure that other carriers can have the confidence that B.C. is determined to remain competitive. So we have announced -- pre-announced -- a staged reduction in the international aviation fuel tax, along with a strong strategic commitment to ensure that British Columbia enjoys the benefits of being the hub for transportation -- not just for British Columbia, I should say, but indeed for the whole Pacific Rim.

In other new areas. . . . In tourism, which is a growing industry, the recent agreement -- which sets out a vision for the future and ensures that we will have the promotional activities that are necessary to foster a strong tourism industry -- announced by this government with the tourist industry to provide greater security of funding is both visionary and productive, and again reflects the priority that we have placed on jobs and an understanding of the need to work cooperatively with the private sector in attaining those jobs.

Film is another area. B.C. this year exceeded Ontario in terms of its film industry; that is a major step forward. But we can do more, and we're determined to do more. We can build on the excellent work that has been done to attract American production here to Canada by encouraging further growth in our domestic film industry. The throne speech and the budget speech speak to that initiative.

So in word, in deed, in action, in leadership, jobs have been a priority of this government. It remains a priority, and it is the key aim that we have as we move forward economically: to ensure that jobs are there for British Columbians -- not hollow words but concrete action.

I said at the outset that the other major theme was not just priorities but also the need to protect ordinary British Columbians. Middle-income earners in particular, who have been buffeted over the last ten or 20 years by various pressures that they face in taxes, etc., need some clear signal that government is prepared to stand up and protect them. Again, in this throne speech and in this budget we see very clear evidence of that, as well: a 2 percent income tax cut last year, added to by a further 2 percent income tax cut this year. A visionary family bonus initiative is part of the B.C.

Benefits program, which is being looked at now by other provinces and the federal government as a leading program that can assist not only in providing people a step up from welfare to work but in addressing the critical social problem of child poverty, which needs to be addressed.

There are 200,000 B.C. families that benefit from that program -- $235 million invested in help to middle- and modest-income families, who now have the assurance that government is there to provide them with the assistance that they need to work their way up and through the workforce; or for those on welfare to be assured that when they take a step from welfare to work, it's a step up, not a step down. That is critical in terms of not only protecting middle- and modest-income British Columbians but in ensuring that we have a system in which people have confidence that, by taking initiative, they will receive support from government along the way.

[3:30]

Furthermore, the initiatives this government has introduced continue to protect British Columbians from increased rates, whether it be ICBC premiums, hydro rates or post-secondary tuition fees, which in other provinces provide an ever-increasing barrier to ordinary citizens getting access to education. In this province that barrier has been removed. Rates are not increasing; they are being kept frozen in all three of those areas. What does that mean to ordinary British Columbians? Well, to an ordinary family it can mean as much as $700 in savings a year -- again, a substantial commitment, a substantial indication of just whose side this government is on.

Now, that is a

summary of what this government stands for in this throne speech, in the budget that followed the throne speech: exactly what our priorities are, exactly where we place our priorities in terms of protecting middle- and lower-income British Columbians. I've listened in vain for the last number of weeks to try to discern a similar set of priorities, a similar vision, a similar direction from the members opposite, particularly from the Liberal opposition.

Instead, what I've seen at best is two faces of opposition: the Mr. Hyde face, the Dr. Jekyll face. They pop up from time to time, or occasionally a certain member will switch from one role to the other, because from time to time this Liberal opposition talks about nothing but the need to cut. This Liberal opposition -- remember in the last election, hon. Speaker? -- said they were going to cut $3 billion in government expenditures. They said the federal cuts weren't enough. The federal cuts in health care and education funding weren't deep enough; they should be deeper. Cut, cut, cut.

They were going to turn over $100 million of that $3 billion cut for large corporations in the form of tax breaks. That's the Mr. Hyde side. Mr. Hyde is alive and well in the Liberal caucus, because we still hear from this Liberal caucus that we should be cutting more, that we should be eliminating the deficit more quickly, that we should be cutting in areas of capital spending. We hear that. They say that this government hasn't done enough to deal with the debt, that it hasn't done enough to deal with the deficit.

But, lo and behold, barely are these utterances out of their mouths than suddenly the same member, or occasionally another member, pops up, and Mr. Hyde turns into Dr. Jekyll. Suddenly they want to spend; suddenly they're all concerned about the social implications of cuts. Whether they want to spend on roads or on more schools -- usually in their constituency -- or on a priority or some other priority, it doesn't seem to matter: it's spend, spend, spend. Half the time they say they want to slash; half the time they want to spend. They are the slash-and-spend opposition.

We have a slash-and-spend opposition with no priorities and only one theme that's consistent, and that is negativity. They remind me of Prof. Quincey Wagstaff in that famous Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Harpo and Chico -- movie called Horse Feathers . Remember what Prof. Quincey Wagstaff used to always sing: "Whatever it is, I'm against it"? I don't know if that's the only movie they've been watching, but it's a refrain

[ Page 2546 ]

that they seem to find irresistible. No matter what this government does to protect jobs, to protect health care, to protect education, they find some reason to be against it. But the people of British Columbia are not stupid. They enjoy that kind of attitude when it comes from Prof. Quincey Wagstaff. They see the hypocrisy in it when it comes from a Liberal opposition that on a Monday and a Wednesday says, "Spend, spend, spend," on a Tuesday and Thursday says, "Cut, cut, cut," and on a Friday just wants to go home and forget about the whole mess.

They have no vision; they have no priorities. Their only priority is opportunism. What is it that motivates them? Well, I was fascinated to read in the newspapers today about where their donations come from. They're trying to turn themselves into the friendly Dr. Jekyll, but it turns out that the Mr. Hyde is the one they put forward when they want to raise funds. Banks and resource companies came through for the B.C. Liberals last year, contributing about $1 million to the party. Corporate donations made up 65 percent of the donations to the Liberal Party last year.

And guess who was chief amongst the corporate donors. The big banks were among the largest contributors: 65 percent of Liberal contributions came from corporations and big banks.

Is it any wonder that British Columbians question whose side they're on? Or if they don't question it, it's because they know the answer all too well. Shame on this Liberal Party for trying to turn itself into something that it ain't! At least be consistent. Put your vision forward, have the guts to defend it, and say whose side you're on, because when the bank ledger is exposed, British Columbians can reach that conclusion for themselves.

I don't want to say anything too extensive about my friends in the Reform Party, so I'll just say this. The last speaker spoke about the need to create jobs and the need for cabinet ministers to get out and meet with constituents in his constituency. Let me say that I was in his constituency not that long ago. In fact, as Forests minister one of the last pleasures I had was to travel to that constituency to open an oriented strand board plant that was opened because this government moved to a form of partial cut that recognized the value of deciduous timber in a way that had not been done before.

I kind of think it speaks for itself. It's easy to talk jobs, to talk priorities; it's tougher to walk the walk. When I was in that member's constituency, I got a chance to not only walk the walk; I got a chance to cut the ribbon, and that ribbon has meant hundreds of jobs for his constituency because of this government's policies. I know he knows it. I just wish he would fess up and admit it.

In closing, I want to turn to a subject that's a little closer to home and nearer and dearer to my heart, and that is: what does all this mean for the constituency and the community that I represent? This is, after all, the throne speech. It's traditional for members to reflect a little upon their own communities and their own constituencies, and I want to do that. All of the priorities I have talked about are priorities which have translated in past years -- and will continue to translate in the future under this government -- into incredibly meaningful and important differences to the community I represent.

In my own constituency, the priority for education has meant that at Claremont high school -- a high school that has the capacity to service the students that are within its catchment area -- we now have something that didn't exist under the previous government. It means that at Spectrum high school we now have the facilities to provide students with the kind of training they were promised in the past but never enjoyed, particularly in the areas of the arts and the fine arts. With the opening of Royal Roads University, it means we have three post-secondary institutions instead of two.

It means that kids in my constituency don't have to worry about whether there's a place for them at Camosun College or UVic or Royal Roads. They know that if they meet the qualifications, that opportunity exists.

In the area of health care, it means that we now have a new extended-care facility -- in fact, a multilevel-care facility -- in my constituency. The Lodge at Broadmead provides tremendous service to veterans as well as to seniors who are in need of that level of care. Within a matter of weeks, we are going to be opening a new pediatric facility at the Victoria General Hospital to provide better pediatric services and facilities to the people of greater Victoria.

It means that improvements are now underway for expansion of the cancer clinic here on southern Vancouver Island -- an expansion that's sorely needed and will contribute to providing full and adequate cancer treatments throughout the province, particularly to those on Vancouver Island. It means that the plan to expand the Jubilee hospital is on track and will proceed. More importantly, it means people in my constituency know that if they are ill, their access to health care is not a function of what the thickness of their wallet is; it's a function of what the need is in terms of their health care.

That's what this is about, that's what this priority translates into, and that's what it means.

In terms of jobs, it means that people -- the disabled and others -- can get jobs training in my constituency at the Spectrum Job Search Centre. It means that welfare recipients who previously were written off have the opportunity, through a pilot project that started as Community at Work and has now turned into a provincewide initiative called Business Works. . . . Those people now have not just the hope but the prospect of training and a step up into the workplace.

In terms of tourism and job creation, this government reinstated a ferry with Seattle that has now been sufficiently successful so as to attract private sector interest and provide an ongoing link between these two important communities. St. Ann's Academy -- a heritage structure that predates these legislative buildings and the Empress hotel -- is being renovated, and it will be a tourist attraction. A new large-format theatre is being built at the museum on a private-public partnership basis that will cost the taxpayers nothing but will increase returns for the museum and make Victoria a better destination for tourists.

And finally, in terms of quality of life. . . . I could go on. I know my time is almost up. But let me just say that I invite the member who spoke previous to me to come to my constituency, along with others. Let me show him what a difference this government's vision has made, whether it's been through the greenways initiative, which now enables members to bicycle from Saanich to downtown Victoria, or the other way -- I invite them to bicycle the other way.

Whether it's the creation of important new parks in this area, such as the new Gowlland-Tod Provincial Park, the Juan de Fuca Marine Trail or the Sooke Hills -- I know those wouldn't be appreciated in some other members' constituencies, but they are appreciated in mine -- or whether it is through a simple understanding that a community is more than simply an economic equation; it's about the way in which people relate to each other. . . . This government has shown that it understands and supports that, and it wants to work with the community from the ground up.

That's what this government's priorities mean for ordinary British Columbians, that's what it means to my

constitu-

[ Page 2547 ]

ents, and that's why I'm proud to stand in this House in support of the Speech from the Throne and to encourage other members to do the same.

Hon. L. Boone: I want to talk a little bit right now about why I'm here today. It may come as a surprise to some of the members opposite, but there was a time last year when I actually thought about not running again. This is a difficult life. It's a hard life, being a politician. You're away from your families. You're away from the people you care about. You're on the road. You're away from your community. It may also come as a surprise to anybody that's listening out there that people don't like us very much. Politicians are not particularly popular people.

So there was a time last year when I thought: I don't know if I want to do this again. It would have been easy to walk away from this life had we been ahead in the polls, but at that time we were actually down in the polls, and I couldn't abandon the principles. I couldn't abandon the vision -- the goal -- that I had for this province into the hands of the Liberals opposite, who would have in fact sold our province. It was about a year ago when I decided that I was going to have to do what I could to make sure that we had a second term.

I'm very grateful to stand here and represent the north, as I've done for ten years now. When I was first elected ten years ago, I was the only member in the north. We had the hon. member from Prince Rupert, but he considers himself a coastal member. I was a lone New Democrat sitting amongst the sea of Socreds there. But we multiplied, and we now represent a number of constituencies out there. So as I say, I am very grateful to be here.

[3:45]

I must say that it has not been easy to be government. We must implement policy, and what I've found since becoming government is that often things that I thought were black and white turn out to be various shades of grey. It's sometimes so easy to say I'm against this or I'm for this, but when you actually have to implement it and when you see what it means to different people out there and how it's going to affect their lives, you suddenly realize that it's not all that easy sometimes to do those things. It's easy to be in opposition; it's easy to find fault with things and to say, as the members opposite have done so often: "I don't like this; I'm against this; this is not good."

But it is not so easy to come up with alternatives, and it's not so easy to come up with positive alternatives. Certainly we've seen that example this past week with the Liberals opposite: shoot first and ask questions later. This Monday, the Liberals attacked the tourism training program. They claimed that we are giving millions of dollars to multinational corporations, and in fact they actually named a couple of corporations. They said Toys "R" Us and Starbucks. Oops! Neither Toys "R" Us nor Starbucks got any money.

In fact, they found later on that this is a very, very successful program, which is investing dollars to train young people to help them to get off welfare. Three hundred and thirty-six young people who had been on welfare were placed, and moneys were given to help train them; 86 percent of those people still remain in those jobs.

Employers, industry associations and clients all give a thumbs-up to this program. They all say: "This is a good program. This is what we should be doing." An independent auditor gives a thumbs-up to the program. When taxpayers learn that we are saving them $24 million over four years, they will be giving a thumbs-up to the program. But what do the Liberals say? "Down, down, this is bad." Do they have an alternative? No. What is the alternative? The alternative is to give a corporate tax break.

They say: "Give a tax break to the corporations, and they will create jobs." Will they be training those young people to get off welfare? No. What will they be doing? They will be putting more dollars into their corporate friends' bank accounts. That's what they want to do; that's their answer to getting people off welfare. Everybody wants to see people off welfare. They want to see them working out there, getting good jobs and getting dollars. This program that the Liberals condemned is doing that with a very limited amount of money, and it's saving taxpayers dollars.

We have made choices as a government. The choices that we've made have to been to protect health care and to protect education. But the Liberals say there's not enough money, and you've heard my colleague from Saanich speak about this. They say there's not enough money for this, never enough money for anything. "Cut the deficit," they say. "Get rid of the corporation capital tax." They say there's not enough money for anything at all, except that since coming into power in 1991 we as a government have put more than $1.5 billion more into health care.

That's a lot of money, yet these people over here say it's not enough. But what did they want to do when they were talking in the election? They said the federal government didn't cut enough from us, and then during the election their leader said: "We're going to commit $6 billion to health care." Well, we were already spending $7 billion. Now, when we're spending $7 billion and they're going to put $6 billion into it, anybody can see that that doesn't quite jibe, that that is actually a cut.

So they stand here, day after day, complaining about not having enough money for health care when in fact their own plan was going to reduce the dollars going to health care.

Health care is not the only area that the Liberals failed to deliver any alternatives on. During the election they also said they were going to sell B.C. Rail. That turned out to be a very foolish thing to say. The member from Peace River who spoke knows that B.C. Rail is seen throughout the north as being a lifeline for us. It is something that has promoted our communities and helped us economically. We knew that. Even the Reform Party knew that. But did the Liberals from Vancouver understand that? No. They wanted to sell B.C. Rail. So what happened at their convention?

At their convention their leader suddenly says: "Oh, this is not a good idea. I don't think we should sell B.C. Rail." Did that get passed? I don't think it even got passed by their people. Even though the Liberal leader said, "No, we shouldn't be selling B.C. Rail," in fact they didn't even pass it. So it's still on their books as saying they're going to sell B.C. Rail.

I want to talk a little bit about auto insurance. To hear the Liberals talk, you'd think that a decision had already been made. They're raising flags up there. They're getting everybody all concerned and saying that you're all going to suffer and you're not going to get the coverage you want. It may come as a surprise to individuals out there, but there has been no decision made on auto insurance yet. The Premier of this province has actually stated unequivocally that pure no-fault is not a go. What the Liberals don't tell you is that they don't have an alternative, and they don't tell you that there are absolutely good alternatives out there that will see that our system is protected.

We must make changes to the way ICBC operates, or we will be paying more than $400 per year more in insurance coverage. I don't think any British Columbian wants to see that happen. We must have a system that keeps our rates down, we must have a system that ensures fairness for drivers

[ Page 2548 ]

and for accident victims, and we must have a system that penalizes bad drivers. That is the type of system that we can implement, and that is the sort of system that we will see coming about. The Liberals are using fear tactics out there to changes to ICBC. They say they don't want no-fault, but they don't give any alternatives. The reality is that the status quo is not an option.

Yes, we must do road safety programs, and photo radar is part of that safety program. But that is not enough. Road safety programs are extremely important to keep rates down. We have been acting on some of these things because we've had some very bad trucking accidents out there, and as a result of that we've brought in some safety initiatives. I'd like everybody out there to take note -- and all the members opposite, please write this down so you can tell your constituents as well -- that we now have what they call a 1-800 number, but it's really a 1-888 number: 1-888-775-8785.

That is the number we have put in place so that all people out there can report unsafe trucks, people who are driving unsafely or unsafe loads. This is an important recommendation that came from the coroner's report. We have acted on that, and that is now in place for everybody.

We have also increased brake fines. We worked with the Trucking Association to increase brake fines so that those people will have a penalty that will actually touch them in their pocketbooks. Previous brake fines of $100 for not adjusting brakes was nothing. Nobody saw that as a penalty. We are now saying that if you are found with brakes that are faulty or not adjusted properly, you will be assessed $100 per brake. If 50 percent of your brakes are out of adjustment, then you will have an additional $500 fine. Responsible drivers are saying that this is the right thing to do.

There is a tremendous amount of responsible drivers out there. We want to get those drivers who are not responsible, who are failing to check their brakes and who are making our roads unsafe for us and for our families.

The Task Force on Commercial Vehicle Safety will soon be releasing their report, and I know there will be some very good initiatives coming out of that report. We will soon be proclaiming something that's been a little long in coming -- and I must admit that I would have preferred that this had been done a little sooner -- but it's still good news for us. Vehicle impoundment is coming down, and that is something that is widely acclaimed by all of the RCMP and the police officers around.

That will make sure that those people who continue to drive while under prohibition or who drive without a driver's licence will have their vehicles impounded at the site and be off the street. We will also be bringing in the administrative driving prohibition, which allows officers to give a roadside suspension for 90 days to those people whom they believe are impaired or who have failed to take a test. We are acting on recommendations, we are making sure that our roads are safer, and I'm proud to be a part of the actions that are taking place.

It's not often that government gets bouquets, but I must tell you that I was really touched. At 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning in Prince George, I got a call from an RCMP officer. He told me that there had been a bad accident and two young people had been killed, and I thought: "Oh, my gosh. This is due to something that we have done wrong." He was phoning to tell me how much he appreciated the efforts this government had taken on safety initiatives on the road. I must say that that is the sort of thing you don't often get as a politician.

I really appreciated it, and I think it shows that the actions we are taking as a government are really being appreciated out there by the law enforcement community.

However, despite all of these safety initiatives, we must make sure that the changes to ICBC take place in order for us to keep costs down. We must make sure that insurance rates are such that the average working man and woman can afford it.

I want to talk a little bit about gaming. To listen to the members opposite, you'd think that we were turning B.C. into a Vegas North. I mean, that's how bad it is: "Don't do this, don't do that." Well, the increases that have been announced in gaming are actually very moderate. Vegas-style casinos are out. We are going to be protecting and enhancing revenues to charities, something I think all of us want to make sure we do, and government will not impose a casino on any area.

A casino will only be built (1) if it has the support of the local government, (2) if there's input from adjacent communities, and (3) if it has a viable business plan that includes such things as water, sewers, parking and extra policing.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There are some who have mentioned -- and members opposite have suggested -- that we should have a provincewide referendum. We've said no to that. We think that this must be done community by community, because each community has a different approach to this.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: The population in Vancouver, hon. member for Peace River North, must not be able to dictate what happens throughout the rest of the province.

There are areas of this province that want gaming. People in the Kootenays want gaming so that they can see some of those dollars stay in British Columbia rather than go across the border to a casino immediate to their area. People in Barkerville have talked to me about having a casino-type gaming facility similar to what they have in Dawson City, one that would attract tourism to their area. I am not going to tell these areas that they are not able to have these things because the people in Vancouver are not going to have them. I am not going to allow those things to happen.

[4:00]

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you.

The doubletalk coming from the Liberals on this issue is interesting. The Great Canadian Casino Co. was expressing strong support for the Liberals during the election, and they said that the Liberal Party had the policies most compatible to the gaming industry -- the Liberals that are standing here time after time saying: "Don't increase gaming." In fact, the Great Canadian Casino Co. said that they had the best policies compatible to them.

I'm glad to see the member for Kamloops-North Thompson is here. Don't forget that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson condemned gaming; in the next breath he lobbied for lottery tickets to be printed in his own riding -- and without a tender. Not just promoting gaming and doing all of these things, but actually promoting it

with-

[ Page 2549 ]

out a tender. It's absolutely unbelievable that they think they can get away with these things. It's amazing that they want to talk about not increasing gaming, but at the same time say that they've got the policies promoting it. I would think you may even want to check to see if there may be a donation there from the Great Canadian Casino Co. to the Liberal Party -- wouldn't that be interesting? -- or maybe to a particular member.

This government continues to reflect the vision and the goal that I stand for. We've made education and health care our priorities. We are the only province in Canada to continue to increase spending in these areas. It's fair to say that we could spend more. Of course, we can always spend more, but there isn't any more to spend right now, because we have cut in every other area of government in order to keep those areas whole.

This throne speech has a vision for this province, and everyone else in the country understands this, because they're flocking to British Columbia in huge numbers to be in the best province in Canada. Why do you think they're moving here? They're moving here because we've got good education; they're moving here because we've got good health care; they're moving here because jobs are being created in British Columbia. The naysayers on the other side ought to get on the bandwagon and recognize that this is a good province, that we've got a good economy and that we've got the best health care system around.

I want to talk a little bit about the north before I end, hon. Speaker. The member from Peace River. . . . I share his concerns about roads. I know your roads aren't great. I understand that, and we will do what we can, but we have to do so within the fiscal realities. You also mentioned that it's been that way for a long, long time. You had many, many Socred ministers come from that area, and not one of them touched the areas there. So I think you have to recognize that we've got a lot of neglect to make up for.

The north is an important area, and it's an important area to this province. We see a tremendous amount of wealth coming from there. But you know, hon. Speaker, in the past. . . . It's true, and I don't think I would be lying -- no, I wouldn't be lying; I certainly wouldn't be lying -- and I don't think I'd be stretching the truth to say that each and every member that comes from the north recognizes that we have a responsibility to always make everyone else in this chamber understands that there is hope beyond Hope. Now, that goes whether you're in opposition or in government.

It's a job that we have to do, because the majority of the population still exists down in Vancouver, so we've got a battle. But I'm pleased that as government. . . . We have been able to make government listen to us; we've been able to make some substantial gains in a lot of areas.

UNBC, a tremendous university. Yes, it was originally announced by the Social Credit government, but it was this government that put the money in place to make it a reality. We could have walked away from that project at any time, but we put the money in place to make UNBC a reality. It is seen by everyone as being the light that has really opened up the north for many of us.

We have put in place many different areas in health care that are helping us achieve more health care there: mobile mammography units. . . . We've got a mobile MRI unit. We now have a family practice unit in Prince George, where, for the first time ever, we are training physicians, we are training interns, outside the Vancouver area. For the first time, we are actually having physicians that are being trained outside UBC. And we're really proud of that, because we feel that once physicians come to the north, they in fact will stay there and will maybe move outward -- go up to Fort Nelson or to Dawson Creek or to Burns Lake.

The reality is that we need to get physicians into our areas so that they recognize the importance of our areas. They find out that we have a tremendous area, that it's a great place to live. We have a tremendous lifestyle. We don't have the smog that they have in the lower mainland, we don't have the traffic problems, and we have lots of space around us.

So in closing I'd like to say that I am proud to stand here and support this throne speech. I'm proud to be a part of a government that has a vision for British Columbia and that will not see us destroy our health and education systems just to slash them down, in an inevitable way, so we can achieve debt reduction or deficit reduction. We must reduce all of those things, but we must do so in a realistic way, recognizing that we have a responsibility to the people of this province. This budget has done so, this throne speech has done so, and this government will continue to do so, hon. Speaker.

P. Reitsma: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House, as the member for Parksville-Qualicum, Lantzville and North Nanaimo, to address the throne speech.

A couple of little nuggets about my riding: it's one of the largest in British Columbia -- I believe the fourth-largest -- with some 61,000 constituents. We have an abundance of tolerant citizens striving to make our communities a better place to live. Our best-known volunteer organization, which is a model for British Columbia, is SOS, the Society of Organized Services, with some 700 registered volunteers -- a great credit to our district.

My riding has an abundance of natural beauty, miles of sandy beaches. It's a haven for families to visit. There's the best fishing anywhere in B.C., and some of the fish are really of "liberal" proportions, I might add. Canoeing, beachcombing and simply R-and-R'ing are some of the things that visitors and locals alike do. We have breathtaking sunrises and sunsets.

Our area is one of the most sought after to retire in because of the quality of life which still exists and which still counts. As a matter of fact, in the last census, released just the other day, Parksville had a population increase of almost 29 percent within the last five years; Qualicum had 31 percent. Tourism, the hospitality industry, the construction industry, fishing and agriculture are some of the economic mainstays. We're also a bedroom community for Port Alberni and Nanaimo.

Parksville was named after our first settler, who also became a postmaster: Nelson Parks. He came to Parksville in the late 1800s. Nanaimo's name comes from a Salish Indian word, sny-ny-mos , meaning "united tribe." Qualicum's name comes from the now extinct language of the Pentlatch tribe. It's from quali , meaning "chum salmon," and cum , means "running" -- in other words, "where the chum salmon run."

A couple of other things about our area: we just this weekend finished a very successful -- about the seventh or eighth -- annual Brant Festival in school district 69, with thousands of people that visited. It's to do with migratory birds coming to our area before they fly on. On May 3 of this year we'll have the Fire and Ice Festival in Qualicum Beach. On May 25 we'll have Qualicum Family Days; that has been going for some 20 years. On June 14 is the sinking of the destroyer Saskatchewan at Nanaimo for an artificial reef. Of

[ Page 2550 ]

course, you, Mr. Speaker, would be interested in that, it being in your riding as well. On July 1, of course, we have Canada Day, with celebrations all over. On July 19 and 20 in Parksville we'll have the International Sandcastle Competition. Some 35,000 to 40,000 people will be coming to the beach and building sand castles. It's a tremendous family day; there's always sunshine, as a matter of fact. On July 27 we'll again have the international bathtub race in Nanaimo, and from August 7 to 10 we'll have the World Croquet Championships in Qualicum Beach.

Turning to the throne speech and the vision or lack thereof, it really reminds me a lot of two things: Bre-X and the three Ds. Bre-X because Bre-X made a lot of promises in that saga -- lots of promises and great anticipation, yet it was a great disappointment. The final results are like the three Ds: deceitful, deceptive and disastrous. The letdown was so pronounced. This budget I rate as a triple-A: abrasive, arrogant and abusive.

When I look at the accounting system of this government, I can't help but think of the first bookkeepers in this world, Adam and Eve, who founded the looseleaf system. That's what they're doing here with the budget: a loose leaf here, a page there; put it together and make it believable.

The reality is that this government is like a newborn baby: an inexhaustible appetite on one end and no sense of responsibility on the other. So lacking in responsibility is this government that it had to trash its own debt management plan set out in the 1994-95 budget. Instead of paying off some $700 million in debt over three years, the government will add $2.7 billion. Instead of reducing the province's tax-supported debt to 18.7 percent per dollar of provincial income, they have now increased it to 20.9 percent. The government wants to avoid the debt management plan because it is an objective measure of its fiscal performance.

The B.C. government did poorly because it has an inexhaustible appetite for money and the worst standing in North America when it comes to taxation. It's got the highest marginal tax rates and the biggest increase in average family tax burden. Since it took office, this government has presided over a 15 percent increase in the total provincial tax rate.

The second reason that B.C. is doing so poorly is because there has been a complete loss of control over spending. Spending per person, adjusted for inflation, is $521 more in B.C. than the average of the other provinces in Canada. Mr. Speaker, it's just not good enough.

Some notes of. . .I'll call him the real Finance minister; he is really our Finance critic. As I mentioned, the debt management plan, which was tabled in the 1995 budget, describes the plan as a commitment to repay the province's direct debt and to cap and reduce the overall cost of debt. Among other objectives, the NDP set the medium-term projections for the 1997-98 tax-supported debt -- presented, as I mentioned, as part of the GDP -- at 18.7 percent. However, the actual results were 20.9 percent.

The NDP has abandoned the debt management plan in the '97-98 budget, admitting that it ignored an independent panel of experts when it tabled its original plan in '95-96. In its new financial management plan it has lowered all of its debt performance benchmarks.

[4:15]

In the revised estimates, the NDP revised its original budget surplus of $87 million for the 1996-97 year into a deficit of $395 million. Some of those numbers I'll mention to you, hon. Speaker: $55 million for a 1-cent-per-litre fuel tax that was supposed to go to the Transportation Financing Authority but that they decided to keep in general revenue, and a $70 million additional dividend demanded from B.C. Hydro that they cannot afford to pay. They're going to have to borrow the money to pay for it. Of course, you know who's going to pay for that: you and I as the consumers.

Some $85 million has been passed on to FRBC to cover costs of central government that were off-loaded onto the supposed independent agency. If those factors are added to the revised estimates, the true deficit for '96-97 is $605 million -- nearly $700 million more than its budgeted surplus of $87 million.

The cost of the election promises -- for example, the frozen Hydro and ICBC rates -- will not appear in the consolidated revenue fund but are reflected in the results of the

summary financial statements. Not included in the budget for this year are whatever the costs are going to be to pay for the Kemano settlement.

The NDP has bragged that this time, for the first time, year-on-year expenditures have decreased in '96-97 compared to '97-98, a decrease of almost $100 million.

However, this decrease did not take into consideration a number of the following factors: $70 million in rehabilitation expenditures previously budgeted and spent in the Ministry of Highways is now allocated to the Transportation Financing Authority; $20 million of Tourism expenditures is now allocated to Tourism B.C.; $100 million in Forest Renewal silviculture expenses is allocated to FRBC, whose programs were meant to be incremental to provincial government responsibilities; $35 million in renewal and renovation expenditures for schools is no longer funded as part of Ministry of Education grants but rather through the B.C.

School Districts Capital Financing Authority; and a $60 million cut to municipal grants, which municipalities must recover either through reduced costs or increased taxes.

This is the sixth budget, the sixth deficit, yet this government boasts of a surplus over the last couple of years. This is the credit-card syndrome, by shifting -- side-shifting, as they call it -- debt from one area to another, revenues from Crown corporations to general revenue. Debts are future taxes. Our children and grandchildren. . . . What a way for them to start! There are so many fee increases, adjustments, which are so contrary to the promises made. As they mentioned, it's kind of a sideways shuffle. But then, as we've heard so many times, the government can do anything it wishes, and indeed it does.

In 1991, when this government took over, the total debt was less than $20 billion. In 1997, after adding another $1.4 billion, we are looking at almost $31 billion. "I don't expect you to believe me," the Finance Minister said the other week, which surely must be the truest statement by this government that I've heard for a long, long time. The government admits it has a credibility problem. As much as I wish to comment on that, my comments wouldn't do any justice to what they have said: that they have a credibility problem.

This abacus that the government is using is ancient, and it is out of date. I'm in small business. I've got four or five small businesses, mostly tourism-related. I know what it is to borrow; I know what it is to meet the payrolls; I know what it means to have certain interest rates. I strongly oppose the health labour accord. I strongly oppose the fixed- or fair-wage policies. I strongly oppose the corporation capital tax; it's an absolute deterrent to new jobs.

Just look at the Victoria Line experiment. It's an example of steering the B.C. taxpayers firmly towards the financial rocks, with an injection of about $8 million of taxpayers' dollars and another $3 million to cover shortages -- a total of

[ Page 2551 ]

about $11 million. It's a financial anchor on the B.C. taxpayer. What happened under this government's prudent financial wisdom of "let's make a deal" is that we hope to get maybe $2 million for its sale. Indeed, what a deal!

In the limited time that I have, I have a couple of items I would like to touch on. One, of course, is the lighthouses. I noticed with pleasure that the president of the light-keepers association was here this afternoon. I would like to go back to the Province of May 24, 1996. Each day a question was put from the readers to the leaders. This one was: "Will your government take over responsibility for maintaining staffed light stations on the B.C. coast?" The Premier said:

"It's a federal responsibility, and I'm going to make sure Ottawa lives up to it. Yesterday I wrote to Prime Minister Chr�tien what has to be done. Keeping our coast safe is a high priority for me, and that means keeping lighthouses staffed."

My leader said:

"Yes. As with fisheries, we believe it's time for British Columbians, rather than Ottawa bureaucrats, to administer this vital coastal safety system. We would maintain the staffing of lighthouses, as we know they play a key role in monitoring commercial and recreational boating traffic."

Well, in December -- December 3, or around that time -- I attended a meeting of the Senate subcommittee on transportation and safety. I was the only one there. There are 11 NDP MLAs, representing 11 coastal communities. None of them was there trying to project what the Premier said: keeping the lighthouses, the safety, the people, the jobs are of utmost importance. They were not there. So much for that commitment; so much for their words; so much for their actions.

Nor did I see in the throne speech the ungag-the-gag law. Whilst this government has spent and continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars -- indeed, millions -- in public funds -- promoting alleged balanced budgets, deficits under control and their version of everything, it was quick to enforce the notorious gag law on those who tried to tell their side of the story with private funds. This gag law has made it illegal for groups or individuals to spend more than $5,000 attacking the government's record and reasoning during the election.

The last point, Mr. Speaker. . . . And I've probably got about an hour more, for that matter, in terms of the tourism that has been announced three or four times. I wish all the announcements had been put in moneys rather than in promises and words.

However, one thing I would touch on is photo radar. Really, Mr. Speaker, I wish that photo radar was put in this House on the government side, because it couldn't even clock the speed at which the promises here are broken. And if they paid for it, we would be out of debt -- so many promises broken. Do the math. The government has spent $62 million to set up photo radar.

Nearly $1 million of that was for travel -- which poses a question, but so be it -- $14.6 million for information operating systems, and a whopping $26.1 million for professional services, details of which were unavailable in the government's audit of the program. The company which will be providing those services says that it has a deal where it doesn't have to let us know how it is spending our money. Of course they don't have to; the government tells them they don't have to.

The $62 million is more than double what the NDP told us photo radar would cost. This experience was supposed to save us $160 million in insurance premiums and pay its own way. From August through January, photo radar has raised a grand sum. . . . Maybe I should pause, because you won't believe the amount. Photo radar has raised the grand sum of $3 million. "That's because you're slowing down; it's doing its job," is the spin doctor's, the defender's, answer. "It's not about money anyway; it's about safety." Taxpayers cannot be conned by such nonsense.

As usual, the government of B.C. hasn't exactly been honest with us. They pick our pockets, and drivers are turning into paranoid, bitter foes of photo radar. Mr. Speaker, photo radar is not working.

The last one I wish to touch on is the protocol agreement with the UBCM, which certainly was not applauded when the minister at that time. . . . We've had so many Ministers of Municipal Affairs, it's like musical chairs -- a revolving door. Certainly the applause wasn't there for the protocol or the minister or the Premier last year at the UBCM. It's another example of talking about things but not living up to their talk.

Announcements were made pertaining to off-loading or declassification of highways to municipalities, reductions in municipal grants, etc., without so much as a hint that the recently signed and much-touted, heralded, trumpeted protocol agreement between the government and the UBCM, which represents all municipalities and districts, would be implemented. As a former mayor of Port Alberni and of Parksville -- I was mayor of Parksville as well -- I very much welcomed this agreement to consult and to communicate. It turned out that this consultation and communication was only on the government's terms.

The unilateral cuts in grants, fee increases, off-loading and all of those will result in tax increases, layoffs and contracting-out.

I just remind the government that when the federal government talked about off-loading, at least they gave a two-year warning to the provincial government. This government has given a couple of weeks to the municipalities -- but then, the government can do anything it wants.

The last item, Mr. Speaker, is another shifting -- side-shifting, if you like. That is in Bill 2,

section 2. The change to be made to the Assessment Authority Act basically means that $2.3 million a year that the Assessment Authority. . . . The cost for the appeals, which came out of general revenues, will now be loaded onto local taxpayers in the communities. It is another tax downloaded to the municipalities. We cannot afford it.

I'd like to talk about education: 11 schools in 11 NDP ridings, yet in one of my schools in Errington, sewage is still coming. The safety bell is still ready to be rung when there's an overflow of sewage. It's been promised about three or four times. Finally they have announced some funding to look into it, but it should have been built two years ago.

In terms of health, in terms of the user fees. . . . I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but there are other speakers as well. As you can imagine, reluctantly but firmly I will be speaking against the throne speech.

K. Krueger: I rise, obviously, to respond to the throne speech. On the day of the throne speech, I chose to indulge in blue-sky thinking: to suspend disbelief and listen closely to what was in and what was out of the throne speech. And I was encouraged by both. Because what was in, of course, included recognition of the employment difficulties British Columbians face and an intention to do something serious about them, and I hope that can be accomplished. It included commentary on fisheries and rivers, which is very similar to the B.C. Liberals' Living Rivers project. I was happy to see that.

I was even more encouraged by things that were out of the throne speech: the fact that the throne speech didn't deal with the gambling expansion issue, even though the Minister

[ Page 2552 ]

of Employment and Investment had announced that intention on March 13. But it gave me and the many people that talked to me about the problems of gambling expansion some encouragement that perhaps the government wouldn't go ahead, because it certainly didn't say it was going to in the throne speech, which is to set out the blueprint of this government's intentions for the coming session.

[4:30]

Another thing I was encouraged to not see in the throne speech was a discussion of no