1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 3
[ Page 4719 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today four members from the British Columbia bicycle helmet committee: John Cox from the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C., Dr. Bill Mackie from the B.C. Medical Association, Mary Ellen Lower from the injury prevention centre and Glenna Ayerst from the National Bicycle Safety Foundation. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like members of the Legislature to welcome two visitors who are psychology majors graduating this spring from the University of Victoria: Leslie Robinson and Lenora Forbes. They have a strong interest in politics, and I think, with psychology degrees, they would be of great assistance.
Hon. M. Sihota: I see in the gallery today three leading Indo-Canadian business people who are visiting Victoria. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Paul Gill, Mr. Peter Johenda and Mr. Paul Jhooty.
Hon. A. Petter: My acting executive assistant, Lorie Bennett, has brought with her into the House today her daughter and son-in-law, Marcy and Scott Matheson, for question period. They are visiting from Edmonton to help Lorie's mother, Edith Ratz, celebrate her ninety-second birthday today. Mrs. Ratz wanted to attend, but when she found out that she couldn't ask the tough questions herself, she decided to stay home and watch on television. Seriously, I'm sorry that Mrs. Ratz's health prevented her from coming today. I'm sure the House would like to join with me in welcoming Marcy and Scott and wishing Mrs. Ratz a very happy ninety-second birthday.
J. Beattie: This weekend there was a meeting of the coalition to End Legislated Poverty, and today we're fortunate to have in the House some members from that group who came to the caucus this morning to speak to us about some of their concerns. I'd like the House to make them welcome today.
Hon. A. Edwards: I would like the members of the House to help me welcome Michael G. Doyle, vice-president of Advanced Systems Integration, from Nepean, Ontario. His interest in legislatures must extend beyond that, as his brother is Jerry Doyle, the MLA for West Yellowhead in Alberta. Please welcome Mr. Doyle.
J. Pullinger: I am delighted to see -- and it's a surprise today -- my friend and president of my constituency association, Tom Harkins, who must be down here checking up on me. I'd like the House to help me make him welcome.
AN ACT TO ENHANCE FREEDOM OF PUBLIC EXPRESSION
L. Krog presented a bill intituled An Act to Enhance Freedom of Public Expression.
L. Krog: The purpose of this legislation is to reinforce freedom of public expression by amending the existing Libel and Slander Act. Currently in British Columbia newspapers are exposed to liability if they publish letters to the editor which are subsequently considered to be libellous. The Act to Enhance Freedom of Public Expression, by amending the Libel and Slander Act, will relieve newspapers of the requirement that they print only those letters to the editor with which they agree.
Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARY BAY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA
N. Lortie presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area.
N. Lortie: Without prejudice to present or future claims of aboriginal title, this bill establishes the Boundary Bay wildlife management area to protect the habitat of more than 1.5 million birds of over 300 species which use the delta as part of the Pacific flyway migratory route. The Pacific flyway goes from Alaska and Siberia in the north to as far south as Central and South America. Boundary Bay is the only stopping point on the route that has not been protected. The bill outlines the boundaries for the management area to provide adequate feeding and resting grounds for the migratory waterfowl.
Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Initiative Act.
J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure to reintroduce the Initiative Act. This bill, in concert with the Recall Act, presents a practical framework for implementing direct democracy as supported by 83 percent of British Columbians in October 1991. I'm tabling the bill so that the government will have an opportunity to follow through with the people's wishes and implement this important act.
The Speaker: Order, please. Just the purpose of the bill, hon. member.
Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 4720 ]
J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Recall Act.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, at the last session the Social Credit caucus introduced the Recall Act, which sought to implement the wishes of 81 percent of British Columbians. It's my pleasure to reintroduce the Recall Act, which would enact in law British Columbians' democratically expressed wish for the right of recall.
Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[2:15]
J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Free Votes Enabling Act.
J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure to reintroduce the Free Votes Enabling Act. This bill is the third component of a legislative package aimed at making members of the Legislative Assembly more responsive to the constituents they represent.
Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
AN ACT TO ELECT THE SPEAKER BY CLOSED BALLOT
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled An Act to Elect the Speaker by Closed Ballot.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, this is a little bit of unfinished business from the last session. Somehow we forgot to get to it, but I know that in this new session, hopefully in a spirit of cooperation, we'll get to some of the public bills standing in the names of private members on the order paper. This bill is a modest but important reform that would see the Speaker of our House elected in a democratic way by closed ballot, by all members of the House.
Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH UBCM ON FIRST NATIONS TREATIES
Hon. A. Petter: This government has made clear its commitment to represent the interests of all British Columbians in the treaty-making process. It therefore gives me great pleasure to announce the signing this morning of a memorandum of agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The signing of this memorandum follows commitments made in the Speech from the Throne last week to formalize the province's responsibility to ensure that municipal and third-party interests are represented while we seek fair and just settlements with First Nations.
This is an important step. Through this agreement the province formally recognizes that local governments have a unique and special interest in the negotiation of just and honourable treaties with the First Nations of B.C. The agreement commits the province to prior consultation with local governments about specific areas that affect them. These areas include proposed changes to legislation that may directly or indirectly affect local governments, land selections in areas within or adjacent to municipalities, and emergency services within local government service boundaries, among others. As well, it gives the UBCM an important role in public consultation and information sharing in treaty areas.
While the province retains the responsibility for representing British Columbians at the negotiating table, we feel that municipalities, as representative entities, are unique from other third-party interests. Consequently we are prepared to seek observer status for municipalities during the course of negotiations which directly affect them.
We in British Columbia are embarking on one of the most complex modern-day treaty-making initiatives undertaken in Canada. As a government, we have pledged to negotiate treaty settlements that are in the best interests of all British Columbians. It is our commitment to ensure that British Columbians, municipalities and third-party interests are well informed and represented during the course of negotiations. We have already taken significant steps to ensure that local governments and regional interests in the northwest are being consulted on issues related to the Nisga'a negotiation, the only negotiation currently underway in the province.
Finally, we are working to enhance the process of third-party consultations through the third-party advisory group -- a group composed of wildlife, industry and other interests -- to ensure that they are fully consulted and participate throughout the course of treaty negotiations.
In short, the signing of the UBCM MOU marks an important step forward as we move toward treaty negotiations under the auspices of the Treaty Commission, and I think it is a step that can be applauded by all members of this House.
V. Anderson: I commend the government for moving to improve negotiations and understanding within the negotiations that are taking place in the province. We have all been aware that municipalities, among others, have been concerned that they were not in touch with the process and therefore that they might be adversely affected by it. It is important that everyone who may be affected by this process should understand it as it proceeds and have the opportunity for input in the discussion.
Besides the direct third-party interests here that the government is negotiating on their behalf, I trust that there will also be increased opportunity for the general public of the province to be aware of the process as it takes place, to be aware of the opportunity to understand, between the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people, the real concerns and principles that are
[ Page 4721 ]
involved -- the principles of justice and fairness to all people of the province, the principle of understanding, of give and take -- so that we may build together a common community in which everyone can share. I trust that the negotiations will then involve not only those who are formally involved, such as municipalities, but also the informal groups and persons of the province who are likewise greatly concerned. I trust the government will continue to move in this outward direction.
J. Weisgerber: I'm pleased as well to see that the government has entered into a memorandum of agreement, or MOU, with the municipalities and with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I trust it truly is only a first start, because we've seen in British Columbia groups of people who feel their interests are not being represented, and they feel particularly that the province has let them down. I'm thinking about groups like the fishermen's coalition that demonstrated on the lawns of the Legislature and groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Various groups around this province do not feel that the province has been considering their concerns and interests.
Indeed, the minister talks about the establishment of a process through the third-party advisory group. I'm sure he's aware that that third-party advisory group was established in 1988 or '89 and has been there waiting for the government to come and consult with them. They have felt very much left out. It is therefore encouraging for me and, I'm sure, encouraging for them to understand that you are now going to start listening to the concerns of all British Columbians, that the government recognizes that it has a responsibility not only for aboriginal people but for all British Columbians. If the government means what it says here, they will then step into the role that they've been elected to fulfil and represent all British Columbians fairly and equally. I wish I had the confidence that this government has the courage to do that.
HEU CONTRACT
The Speaker: The leader of the official opposition. [Applause.]
Order, please.
F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I certainly hope that you'll add the time to question period.
My question today is to the Minister of Finance. Will he briefly explain to the people of British Columbia how they're going to save money by getting the health workers' union, in their renegotiated contract, to give up a 3 percent wage increase in exchange for a 4 percent decrease in the number of hours worked?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer that question. I happen to have the information right here. In the first year of the proposed collective agreement the savings to British Columbia are about 0.5 percent, or $10.4 million. In year two the cost of the proposed collective agreement is $24 million, or about 1 percent. In 1995-96 the cost is about $35 million, or about 1.5 percent. The total wage-bill increase to British Columbia in the acute care sector is approximately 2.3 percent over three years. This is a remarkable accomplishment on the part of this administration which I'm very proud of. It means that the workers in the health care system will not pay the price of health care reform. It means that a 10 percent reduction in the number of people working in the acute sector can be accomplished smoothly and with the cooperation of the people who work in the system. It means that the people who work in the system can join with management in the hospitals and with the government to improve health care services to British Columbia and save the taxpayers' dollars.
F. Gingell: Will the minister please advise us if the HEU has agreed to work the first one and a half hours over and above the 36-hour workweek at straight time rather than at time and a half? That would, of course, change all your numbers.
Hon. G. Clark: The reduction in the workweek from 371/2 to 36 hours is with no loss in pay, which results in a 4 percent hourly increase. As you know, they did negotiate a 3 percent hourly increase, but this 4 percent kicks in three months into the fiscal year. Secondly, we anticipate, and we have discussed with hospital employers, that about half of the savings -- the 4 percent reduction -- will be backfilled, so that the actual wage-bill savings to the taxpayer as a result of the reduction of the workweek without loss of pay is about 2 percent.
F. Gingell: I'm really fascinated, because the minister answered my first question with his second answer and gave us a whole bunch of babble on the first one. But perhaps more importantly, I would like to have this minister's confirmation that he has in fact made a commitment to the HEU about future spending in that area which compromises his responsibilities and rights as the Minister of Finance, the minister with the responsibility for setting the budget in this province.
Hon. G. Clark: When we entered into negotiations with the health care unions and with all the employers in the health care field, we discussed health care reform and the way in which we wanted to move cooperatively to implement it. As part of that, all parties asked for some comfort with respect to the budget for health care generally in the first fiscal year of this collective agreement.
I'm delighted, hon. Speaker, that subject to legislative approval -- which is the wording contained in the document -- the total funding for health care in British Columbia next year will be larger than this year. As we downsize the acute-care sector, as we move "closer to home," we put more resources into closer-to-home services, into long-term care and community care. This agreement is part of positive health care change in British Columbia. It is not an excuse to cut back on health care; it's to make it more cost-effective and efficient and to improve health care outcomes.
[ Page 4722 ]
SEVERANCE PAY FOR OUTGOING ICBC PRESIDENT
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the new minister responsible for ICBC. Given that Robyn Allan's appointment as president of ICBC was an interim or temporary appointment, can he give this House assurance that aside from any vacation time due, Robyn Allan will not receive a severance package?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The arrangements with Ms. Allan allow for a six-week period of pay during the transition period. There will be no severance beyond that.
[2:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: This doesn't bode very well for the drivers of British Columbia. This minister obviously has no more control over ICBC than the previous minister did. With six weeks' severance pay for the outgoing president of ICBC, that amounts to a 13 percent severance package -- over $15,000 plus benefits for a ten-month interim appointment.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Will the minister agree that that amount of money for an interim appointment is not only extreme, it's obscene?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount is, in fact, very modest.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister take his seat.
The Chair needs to be able to hear the questions and hear the answers during question period. Minister, would you continue with your answer.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The arrangement is very modest. I might point out to the members opposite, however, that a new service from ICBC may be of some interest to them: a product on leadership insurance.
PENSION PLAN REGISTRATION FEES
G. Farrell-Collins: The former minister had a better sense of humour.
To the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. The Liberal opposition is in possession of confidential Treasury Board documents, and I would like to know if the minister can confirm to this House that in preparation for next week's budget he is planning an attack on the pension plans of British Columbia by siphoning $1.5 million out of them in the form of new registration fees.
Hon. M. Sihota: This government recently enacted new regulations under the provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. As a consequence of those provisions part-time workers, for the first time, will be eligible for pension benefits. For the first time, seniors -- particularly women -- who have lost their spouse will be eligible for ongoing benefits as a consequence of this regulation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister take his seat.
This only uses up question time -- which members may wish to do. But, again, I have to ask members to please respect those who are asking questions by listening to them in silence. The minister needs to have silence to answer. Would the minister please try to wrap up his answer.
The leader of the third party.
NUMBER OF MINISTERIAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR B.C. RESEARCH
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. When Bill Clinton took office in Washington, he reduced the political staff there by 25 percent. I'm wondering whether the Premier can tell us if his government has reduced the number of EAs, MAs and special assistants working in these precincts.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll get the details for the member about the number of staff there were under the government he served in and the number in our government. I can tell the hon. member, though, that this year we were able to find about $40 million of administrative waste and inefficiencies that we inherited from the previous government, and next year we are going to do even better at finding those inefficiencies.
J. Weisgerber: I can save the Premier a lot of time. The reality is that they've increased the number of MAs, EAs and special assistants. Also, the fact of the matter is that the wages paid for those positions have increased by $315,000 a year. How can the Premier possibly justify withholding support from B.C. Research, when they ask for a $1 million loan guarantee, when he spends more than $2 million a year on political staff in this building?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We have reduced the number of government ministries from 23, under the government he served in, to 19. So we've actually cut back the number of ministries. On top of that, we have just gone through a very painful process of dealing with business loans that the Social Credit administration made without any collateral or business plans, sometimes without any interest and, in some cases, without any principal being collected. Hon. Speaker, I want you to know that in the previous government's deficit for the 1991-92 fiscal year, there were $316 million worth of bad business loans that we had to write off. So I don't think we need any advice from the previous administration. The people of British Columbia are trying to forget that kind of shoddy performance.
HEU CONTRACT
J. Weisgerber: My final question to the Premier. The combination of the reduced workweek and increased pay for HEU workers has increased pay scales
[ Page 4723 ]
by an hourly rate of 10 to 15 percent. Does the Premier realize that the reduction of the workweek to 36 hours has set a new standard, set a precedent for every public sector worker in this province? Has the Premier calculated the cost of a provincewide 36-hour workweek for the public sector? Does he have any indication of the cost of that program?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the Minister of Finance answered part of that question. But it puzzles me. I thought that the leader of the third party, who was a member of the previous government's executive council, would be aware that his government negotiated 35-hour workweeks for the public sector.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought that as an experienced politician he would realize that the HEU in arbitration had already received a 35-hour workweek. And I think that we have done a modest job in the negotiations which are taking place -- of 36 hours, of getting other benefits that are going to benefit -- not just the workers and the system, but all British Columbians.
INSPECTION FEE INCREASES
A. Cowie: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister decided to implement the recommendations in this confidential report, "Revenue Issue Paper No. 2" -- it's a Municipal Affairs report -- which calls for increases of inspection fees of up to 800 percent for ski lift operations in this province?
Hon. G. Clark: I've had intense lobbying on this subject from the Minister of Labour, but he, like you, hon. member, will learn about these questions on March 30.
A. Cowie: A supplementary, on which you might be able to give us more information. Does the minister realize that in addition to the ski lift operations -- which may affect a number of people in here -- the railway inspection fees will also go up dramatically? This will even affect children riding the Stanley Park train. Hasn't the Finance minister got a heart?
CLOVERDALE TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM
K. Jones: This past weekend British Columbians witnessed a disgusting display of this government's pillaging of our heritage: the selling of the antique vehicles from the transportation museum in Cloverdale. Can the Minister of Finance assure the people of this province that people who donate heritage items will not have them sold to the highest bidder?
Hon. G. Clark: You know, it's bit much in terms of hypocrisy for members on the other side of the House to stand up and call for 20 percent reductions in government spending; and then, when some initiatives are taken to deal with a $1.5 million annual loss for a transportation museum, they're the first ones on their feet to argue against the case.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G. Clark: It's nice to see this more democratic approach on the Liberal side, because I'd like to hear.... It's nice to hear from that member.
The Speaker: The minister will address the question.
Hon. G. Clark: Under the rules governing people who give gifts to the province, there are rules governing deaccessions. We're following those rules. Money resulting from the sale of donated items goes back into things like museums. There's some debate over questions regarding things like cars and the like, as opposed to museum pieces, but I can assure you that all of those rules are being followed, hon. Speaker, and I know the member would be satisfied. We can provide him with more details, if he'd like, on the substantive questions around that.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
F. Gingell: Observers have come to expect a certain amount of self-congratulation when governments review their own records, but even with this tradition of extravagant self-glorification, there are limitations. Credibility may be stretched, but not completely abandoned. The government's claim that it is making difficult decisions to control spending and cap the deficit represents complete and utter fantasy. Let us examine the record of this so-called spending control.
Not being overly expert at balance sheets and so forth, the NDP realized, soon after taking office, that it needed some help with its accounting fundamentals. It took the surprising step of seeking advice from Peat Marwick on how to control spending. They paid for this advice. The Finance minister even directed his ministers to pay close attention to the advice. Then the entire cabinet decided to ignore it; the advice was socially unacceptable or, at least, unacceptable to socialists. It called for holding the line on spending to those levels established in the previous fiscal year.
For a moment the NDP heard the cries of millions of British Columbians already overburdened by taxes, of people losing their jobs as their companies collapsed under the gravity of regulations and licences. In January 1992 the Finance minister even went so far as to issue tough guidelines for his ministers. He decreed that four ministries were to hold spending to 1991-92 levels, three were to spend 15 percent less than in 1991-92, and the rest were to drop spending by 5 percent.
But then the NDP heard louder voices: union friends who wanted contract settlements reminiscent of the early 1980s; supporters who wanted patronage plums;
[ Page 4724 ]
ministers who wanted empires; Bob Williams who wanted cabinet status without the bother of an election. It is to these voices that the NDP chose to listen. The Peat Marwick report became unmentionable, a trendy but never to be repeated flirtation with accountability. And what was the result? If ministers had read the Finance minister's brave directive of January 1992, or if he had cared to enforce it, total spending for 1992-93 would have been $15.9 billion. But they heard the other voices, and estimates came in at $16.9 billion. NDP excesses cost every family in British Columbia an extra $1,000.
At the end of last year, it began to dawn on this government that it was running out of both money and excuses. Blaming the obvious incompetence of the previous administration was wearing very thin. No matter how inept the previous government, it could not be blamed for the spending binges of this one. Blaming the federal government was also becoming tired. The programmed reduction of transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces had been well under way since the mid-1980s. This should not have been a great surprise to our new Finance minister. What was he doing when he was Finance critic?
Realizing that these dodges were wearing thin, the government decided on two public relations strategies. First, it would routinely congratulate itself for keeping within its own spending limits. This is rather like the addicted gambler congratulating himself for not losing more than his paycheque. Having set unaffordable spending targets, the government then announced that they were exercising spending discipline.
The second public relations strategy involved a series of press conferences to announce spending cuts. Here is where the creative accounting reached new heights -- or lows, depending upon one's viewpoint. Several of these announcements involved deferred spending. This is the principle of delay and pay. The NDP, however, refer to these delays as savings. Other heroic gestures included savings attained by turning bad debt into current debt. Marvellous, hon. Speaker. At a stroke of the pen the Finance minister took debts which the government could not collect -- or said they could not -- and charged them back to a year that was under the administration of the previous government and renamed them active and collectible receivables. If that was attempted by a corporation, I can assure you its shares would be delisted by the stock exchange. Yet the government announced this shell game with solemn tones of self-congratulation.
[2:45]
To complement this roadshow on spending discipline and savings, the government launched its own version of "Mystery Theatre," a production entitled "To Freeze or Not to Freeze", starring the Premier and the Minister of Finance. Speaking to each other through press releases and media interviews, these lead players changed the rules on hiring policy on an almost daily basis before a breathless press gallery. One day there were hiring freezes; the next day there were not. To maintain confusion and the illusion of action, hiring delays were also announced.
As to claims that this government is capping the deficit through a fiscally balanced approach, I can only say that I would never let my speechwriters do my income tax returns. Not only were spending limits allowed to balloon, but revenue projections were, in a word, outlandish. It was as though the NDP felt that the economy could not fail to yield enough revenue to cover their spending excesses -- the glories of central planning.
The projections for personal income taxes are a good example. The federal government forecast growth of this tax in the 3 percent range. The NDP tripled that forecast. Nothing in the economy provided any kind of basis for that kind of growth. Not one credible tax authority supported this forecast. Not surprisingly, it proved incorrect, and for the nine months ended December 31, the personal income tax rate of growth has been 3.4 percent. But the NDP had their excuse ready and waiting. They blamed the federal government. The NDP does not buy into the explanation that there's only one taxpayer. They apparently believe that every taxpayer has a split personality and that the provincial half makes more money than the federal half.
Having turned in a remarkably poor performance, the government now cautions us to rise above partisanship. Interesting. Can this be the conscience speaking? We've had a labour bill drafted by the B.C. Federation of Labour for approval by the Minister of Labour, and we've had contract settlements with the BCGEU in the 6 percent range that exceed anything in the private sector. Patronage appointments have become a national quest. The government has actually found it necessary to reach into other provinces to find NDP friends when the patronage machine in British Columbia can't locate them quickly enough here. Some of these worthies left Crown corporations in sister NDP provinces just one step ahead of the bailiffs as a result of gross economic mismanagement. To our prudent government, competence takes a distant second place to party loyalty.
This government lacks an economic plan and confuses globetrotting and conferences with decisive action. The Premier's triumphant tour of Asian and European cities resulted in an actual decline in foreign investment in this province. How terribly naive it must appear to foreign investors to have this government invite them to bring their capital to B.C. and then to welcome them with a capital tax. How empty it must sound to hear the message that B.C. is open for business. The new Labour Code has moved B.C. to the high-risk category in the minds of investors. As foreign firms watch our own mining companies flee to South America, how can they have any confidence in the economic policies of this government? The Premier leaves on another trip in three weeks. Does this trip foretell more draconian anti-business measures to come?
There is no economic plan. The Ministry of Economic Development has become the ministry of internal studies. Staff are either leaving or keeping a low profile. The photocopiers are burning out with continuous reorganization plans. The minister is losing turf wars to Bob Williams. In the meantime, municipalities are increasingly frustrated with the complete lack of
[ Page 4725 ]
direction. One really has to wonder at the credibility of having an Economic Development ministry in a government determined to undermine economic growth.
It is clear that the NDP sees Crown corporations as engines of economic growth. Several of these engines, such as ICBC and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, are now running on a new fuel made of hot air and red ink. Is Mr. Williams now to get another bauble for his tree with the announcement of a new corporation to build roads?
Debt is debt, whether it's money borrowed by the government or by one of its agencies. The irony is that the government is creating new corporations to further escalate government debt. The money for essential highway construction could be found if this government were willing to realize that the sixties are over. We can no longer afford government spending on every conceivable premise. In retrospect, we never could. Setting up a Build B.C. to be another fiscal government agency to borrow money won't fool Moody's or the dominion bond-rating service. They recognize that provincial debt that is serviced by taxes is direct provincial debt.
Last summer we had an economic summit. Judging from the complete lack of results, it should have been called the economic molehill. Now we are to be favoured with another summit, this one dealing with training. Again the government demonstrates its alienation from the simplest aspects of the marketplace. This government has no economic plan, and we cannot intelligently discuss training until it does. This is like planning your workforce before you know whether you'll be opening a computer plant or a doughnut shop. This government does not need lofty summits; it needs its feet on the ground. Discussion is not action, cosmetic consensus is not consultation, press releases are not vision, slogans are not policies. In the words of the younger generation, the choice for government is simple: lead or leave. Unfortunately, in those few instances where the government has chosen to lead, it has invariably led poorly. The government has aptly called its confused approach to health care one of new directions. Indeed, it appears to have several new directions, but no clear destination. Money is spent on institutions, and then they are closed. Loud protestations are heard about the cost of medicare, then the decision is made to remodel the entire system without any cost-benefit analysis that we are aware of. Assurances have been given that there will be no job losses with the shift to community care, but there is nothing on which to evaluate this claim.
We are being asked to believe that an entire new health care structure will be put in place without adding to the bureaucracy. If so, the government need not waste a penny more on opinion polls, because I can assure them that no one is going to believe this. The municipalities certainly don't. They note with concern that there is no assurance whatsoever that the government will remedy inequalities if some richer municipalities use their tax base to enhance their local health care. Is this their glorious plan -- to foster rivalries among rich and poor municipalities?
What has me personally baffled is how this government can imagine an orderly transition of health services when they have already alienated the province's doctors. The confrontation with the doctors is driven by ideology. The NDP has a phobia about success. To some extent, this explains their performance to date. For them, doctors represent a class of people they find most threatening: people who do not subscribe to the socialist Valhalla of universal mediocrity.
From the NDP perspective, if you are succeeding, you must be doing something wrong. Orchestrating this confrontation has been a disservice to all the people of British Columbia. It will not heal quickly. The Minister of Health would do well to read the Hippocratic oath herself. It contains similar advice to doctors: first, do no harm. The minister's first bumbling attempts to treat the health care system have indeed caused deep harm.
Sadly enough, the harm that this government has inflicted so far is not restricted to health care. The forest industry in British Columbia, like all of our resource industries, has fallen upon hard times in the past few years. There are many reasons for this decline. Many are beyond the control of this, or any, government. However, there are several key factors which are directly affected by what this government does or fails to do. Over the past 16 months, it has been mostly the latter.
The challenges facing the forest industry are great. The inevitable but necessary reduction in the annual allowable cut means that fewer loggers are required to cut fewer trees. Mills are no longer able to secure enough wood to run at full capacity. Forest companies are unable to be confident of their long-range planning due to uncertainty about their future.
As recently as a month ago, we witnessed the government standing idly by while one of the last remaining reman plants on Vancouver Island -- the Victoria Plywood Co-op -- was forced to shut down, not because they were unprofitable but because they had no wood to mill. Across the province, more and more jobs will be lost, families will be uprooted and communities will wither and die.
When this government first came into power a short year and a half ago, it assured us that it intended to introduce a new, understandable, concise forest practices code. They promised to start straightaway on the development of a comprehensive forest economic strategy. Now coming into its second session, the government can only utter vague ruminations about a forest practices code to be announced some time in the future. Yet the Forests minister has already informed us that he is unable to present anything to this House for debate until at least the next session. Of course, unforeseen circumstances may have prevented him from keeping to his original calendar; however, that is another matter.
The NDP has once again offered verbal assurance that they recognize the need to overcome B.C.'s land use conflicts. Of course. They said the same thing in their previous throne speech, yet the only commitment of which we have seen evidence is a commitment to avoid responsibility and decisions at all costs. The stalling and equivocation have worn increasingly thin, and there is little in this Speech from the Throne to indicate a strength and resolve. Unfortunately, without a govern-
[ Page 4726 ]
ment determined to resolve these issues, they are unlikely to get better on their own.
[3:00]
Increasingly we are witnessing the frustration and anger of people on both sides of the forestry debate. People were led to believe that the NDP would move quickly and firmly to address their concerns. They have been consistently disappointed. And while the government continues to dither, industry is being forced to make permanent decisions about their future prospects in this province. The longer the NDP permits this uncertainty to continue, the more that companies will be forced to decide that their future and their responsibility to their shareholders lies elsewhere. They have asked repeatedly for a definition of the working forest. They have asked for a hint of an economic strategy. They have asked for decisions on contested areas so that they can assess their prospects and get on with their jobs. They too have been disappointed.
Yet as bad as the situation has become in B.C.'s forest, it pales in comparison to the crisis in our mining industry. The current disaster began under the previous Social Credit government, about whom the less that is said, the better. It is hard to forget what the previous NDP government did to mining in the 1970s. In an attempt to allay fears, this new NDP government pledged to reinvigorate mining in B.C. Then it promptly engaged in a veritable flurry of inactivity while the industry fell into chaos.
We have already witnessed the NDP standing idly by while the town of Cassiar packed its bags and disappeared. They then repeated that performance with the ongoing tragedy in the Elk Valley. They may have precipitated yet another such disaster in Trail. The NDP came upon a sector fighting for its survival, and rather than searching for ways to get mining back on its feet, without bailouts necessarily, they sandbagged it with corporation capital tax, kneecapped it with increased water rental rates, hamstrung it with a gratuitous hydro rate increase and then left it to perish in a maze of permits, regulations and reviews.
If this were not already enough, this government decided to raise the spectre of massive government expropriations by rewriting the laws of fair compensation. Rather than taking action to fortify the stability of a very nervous industry, the NDP put a face to their worst fears. They gave us Richard Schwindt and his expropriation commission. Indeed, they have made veiled reference in the throne speech to the possibility of new and radical expropriation legislation. The government comments that there is no economic certainty if we dare not risk change. If the NDP feels that threatening the very economic underpinning of our resource economies is promoting certainty, then we are truly doomed. The result has been as predictable as it is regrettable. Company after company has realized that B.C. no longer seems to want them.
Other nations have not been so blind to the contribution mining makes to a hungry economy. Countries such as Chile, Mexico, Argentina, and so forth, have welcomed mining investment and exploration with open arms. This investment and exploration used to find its home in British Columbia. Other governments, knowing an opportunity when they see one, have positioned themselves to aid the mining industry. They offer joint ventures, speedy and efficient permitting laws and favourable tax structures. While B.C. still enjoys several natural advantages, NDP policy has all but negated them. It is not environmental regulations that are driving investment away; it is uncertainty, plain and simple.
The NDP promised over a year ago that they would be coming forward with a comprehensive coal strategy. They promised that they would put in place a mandate for the future of power generation and export, they promised that they would cut through the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding mines permitting, and they promised that they would not allow mining to become a sunset industry. Yet they have taken a bad situation and made it far worse. They are bereft of policy. They have advanced no constructive agenda, and they have made costly bureaucracies even more inefficient. Exploration and investment have been sharply declining, yet the Harcourt government has kept pace by raising taxes and fees. Indeed, from what this province has witnessed over the past 16 months, the NDP's mining policy can be summarized in one word: goodbye.
I must admit that I'm pleased to see yet another paper commitment by the government to remove the agricultural land reserve from political interference. However, it must seem a touch transparent, even to some on the government benches, that this pledge is being made in the wake of a continued removal of agricultural land.
Certainly when this government was in opposition, it recognized the questionable ethics of a government using an agricultural trust in order to pay off favours or win popularity. In fact, this current lot are direct descendants of the government which first introduced the agricultural land reserve. The real test of the NDP's newfound commitment to the agricultural land reserve will be in the handling of the Roberts Bank backup lands. One can only assume that they have again been converted and that they now recognize the error of their ways. I hope that this time it will be a sincere transformation; however, I'm not making any bets.
Beyond this, there is a remarkable absence in the throne speech of any agricultural strategy or initiative. Small wonder, after the non-performance of the much-trumpeted "Buy B.C." program.
The NDP have much to say about their opposition to the conclusion of a NAFTA agreement, yet freer trade of some sort is playing an ever greater role in the future of farmers, ranchers and orchard growers. This government appears totally unprepared to do their part to ensure that our farmers are competitive, fairly represented and able to undergo unavoidable transitions with as little pain as possible.
Agriculture plays an important role in our economy, and there is an important part to be played by government in agriculture. After all, as our Agriculture minister is well aware, lettuce doesn't grow on trees -- or is that cabbage?
The lack of any real reference to Transportation and Highways in the throne speech is consistent with transportation policy up till now -- nothing. They have
[ Page 4727 ]
used up their entire budget on bureaucracy, trade junkets and political favours. Now the government realizes that there is no funding remaining for less relevant priorities, such as our provincial roads and highways. Its solution to this dilemma, rather than biting the bullet and cutting spending in non-essential areas, is to introduce tollbooths on all new construction.
This same government promised us that they had no intention of introducing new taxes. However, having stretched all the old taxes to the limit, it now appears that the only solution which appeals to them is to try to tax more money through the back door. A toll by any other name is still a tax. Increasing taxation, by whatever means, is simply no longer an option. This government needs to reorder its spending priorities and start directing money into developing the economy of this province.
If the present state of the economy seems rather bleak, this is nothing compared to the problems we will encounter down the road. I refer, of course, to the way in which this government has undermined education in B.C. With respect to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, we find both a minister and a Premier who are hopelessly out of touch with the problems facing our post-secondary and technical facilities. During the past year we have seen strikes and protests across this province. We have seen qualified students refused entrance due to lack of space and increased numbers of students forced to borrow vast sums of money to pay for substandard education.
Last week came the ultimate insult to students. The Premier, in a weak attempt to justify tuition increases, told students that he worked his summers on the railroad and paid his way through university and college. If he'd bothered to pick up a paper lately, he would know that the song has changed to "No one's working on the railroad." The days of massive student job recruitment by major corporations such as Canadian Pacific or Canadian National are long gone. So, it appears, is the Premier's perspective. The Premier went on to say that he started as a dishwasher and worked his way up to a first waiter, and that there is work out there if you want to find it -- this from the Premier who is attempting to blame a 20 percent increase in social service costs on a poor economic climate.
Neither the minister nor the Premier of this province is prepared to deal effectively with today's reality, a reality faced by thousands of students. In fact, they're not even prepared to admit that the reality exists. The minister's actions to date have assailed the integrity of the president of UBC and alienated the entire provincial student body.
The throne speech, not surprisingly, is devoid of any commitment to Advanced Education. This indicates either that the government is satisfied with what is happening in the ministry or that it is too afraid to even discuss the topic of advanced education. Either way, it is a truly revealing statement about this government. A ministry which is educating the future wage earners and taxpayers of this province can't even provide the slightest indication of the direction in which the government wishes to go. Only Newfoundland has a lower access ratio to post-secondary education. The status quo is not acceptable. In all likelihood this signals a stay-the-course attitude towards the ministry. Students and administrators alike can look forward to additional financial and administrative battles with this government until a clear direction is implemented.
In terms of training, the throne speech is, again, sadly lacking. It is centred around a three-day summit to be hosted by the Premier. If this year's summit bears as little fruit as last year's, we hold little hope for any progress. Training cannot and must not be looked at as fodder for a three-day summit. Training is a real need within our resource sector. It is needed to upgrade the skills of older workers who could be considered unemployable as the dislocation within the forestry industry begins to worsen. Unemployed miners are already sharing this bitter experience. We must improve the prospects for our young people to enter a high-skill, high-wage technical workforce.
[3:15]
In our system, the universities receive far better operating funding, which in turn perpetuates the myth that unless you attend a university, you are not fulfilling your potential. Government can and must remove the stigma that is attached to attending a technical institute. This can and should be done through the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Education falls into the same category as the Ministry of Advanced Education when it comes to government support in the throne speech. This is a ministry facing massive challenges: the second-highest budget in government, the ministry charged with the education of our young people. It is absolutely deplorable that the ministry rates only a passing comment in the NDP throne speech. There is no mention at all of the challenges facing this ministry.
Education in the province is in serious trouble, from the crisis in funding, to curriculum changes, to the continuing furore surrounding the length of the school year, which has caused so many problems in the Nanaimo School District. Yet this government has chosen to ignore these problems and the warnings of the Liberal opposition on the consequences of ignoring them. On a consistent basis, the government has chosen to ignore every issue facing this ministry. The minister, as we speak, is faced with a strike in her own school district. The continued avoidance of these problems will lead to further aggravation. The system of collective bargaining will collapse under the weight of cumulative concessions granted in lieu of additional wage increases.
The time is now, hon. Speaker, for the government to present its blueprint for education. Last year the province delegated these problems to the Spangelo commission, which would form the basis of changes to education financing. This report has either been forgotten or buried by this government. The stalling tactic and the attempt to pawn off a decision onto a consultant didn't work. Now the taxpayer is not only holding the bag for a meaningless study, the taxpayer is also paying for a system that could be greatly improved through the reduction of administration and certain provincewide bargaining components. As one who has been actively involved at both the college and the school board level,
[ Page 4728 ]
I can sympathize with those administrators who are left holding the bag for both misguided policies and a total absence of policy.
Let us remember that we have a system of education with a 30 percent dropout rate. The system fails one out of three students. That is a disgrace; that is a crisis. On the one hand, this government is neglecting its responsibility for the education of today's young; on the other hand, it passes on to them the task of cleaning up the environmental damage which has continued unabated. The throne speech, while not as bereft of direction for this ministry still presents many problems in the government's approach.
The government has implemented the Commission on Resources and Environment. We supported this initiative and still believe it to be of great benefit in reaching consensus over land use issues. However, it was 18 months ago that the NDP came to power, and we are still witnessing valley by valley confrontations. While the Liberal opposition condemns and abhors the actions of those who participated in disrupting the address of the Lieutenant-Governor, we recognize that the frustration level is becoming critical. Unless this government takes immediate action to calm the situation, we will be faced with increasing conflict and frustration.
Perhaps the members of cabinet, after strolling through the halls of the Premier's wing, have enjoyed their own luxurious offices so thoroughly that they have forgotten to return to their own ridings that elected them. It is these British Columbians who are in the middle, with their jobs, their hopes and their futures tied to the outcome of these land use decisions. The government must immediately end the uncertainty. They must begin to make decisions which they were elected to make. These families and these communities are held hostage while the government decides which method to use. It is time that the uncertainty is dealt with once and for all and that decisions are made.
The NDP imposed environmental regulations on the emission of effluents from pulp mills, calling for the eventual elimination of all such materials. Industry does not know if such technology is possible, let alone affordable, in the world pulp market. The government, without a shred of empirical evidence that industry can comply with such an order, has handed out a bill to them in excess of $1 billion. Some pulp and newsprint companies are presently running their equipment at a loss of $6 million a month, rather than shutting them down and losing $8 million a month.
This government did not understand the situation of the forestry industry last year, and from the performance thus far, it continues to foster a lack of comprehension surrounding not only forestry issues but resource issues as a whole. The impending legislation concerning a new environmental assessment act must be looked at with great caution, considering the NDP's track record in resource legislation and regulation. First we had Bill 32, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act. Then we had the Corporation Capital Tax Act, taking money away that should perhaps be spent on environmental capital costs. Then we had the AOX emission regulations. The government has done an extremely poor job of reconciling the needs of the environment and the needs of industry.
I am extremely nervous, along with many current and potential investors in the resource sector. Environmental assessment legislation must balance the need for public input with the need for quick decisions. Industry, in a rapidly changing global market, may determine that the length and cost of any such review will be too expensive and too uncertain. This will jeopardize any future investment in the province. I've seen nothing in the first year of this administration which would convince me that the NDP can properly formulate such legislation. I, for one, am not holding my breath.
The last comment I wish to make on the Ministry of Environment concerns the state of the environment report, which was introduced in the throne speech. I believe that this is a positive initiative. There certainly is a need for British Columbians to have an unbiased report concerning the state of their environment. Quite frankly, however, I have great concern that this report will be yet another self-congratulatory PR move by this government. This, in my opinion, would be extremely unfortunate. This government so rarely comes up with worthwhile initiatives, and it would be a shame if they failed to act on one with so much potential.
I would be remiss if I failed to discuss the impact on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. During the past year this government consistently and systematically downloaded costs onto the backs of municipal governments, the governments with the least ability to either raise funds or pay these additional costs. The removal of the supplemental homeowner grant, changes to the grant stabilization account and downloading removal costs for abandoned hazardous waste are all reminders of how the provincial government treats municipal government.
The NDP have been so well-schooled by the federal government in the art of downloading that they have decided to imitate it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the government's contention that the grant stabilization account was a phony. The NDP now wish to tell the municipalities that the money they held in trust on their behalf was never in the account. This, of course, is patent nonsense. The money has been put into the account under the revenue-sharing agreement over a period of five years. For this government to attempt to suggest that the account was a shell, as was the budget stabilization account, shows an appalling lack of respect to municipal government.
We are concerned that this government will attempt to steal -- and there's no better word for it -- $35 million from the municipalities of British Columbia. It is the firm resolve of the Liberal caucus that the government will not get away with this without a fight.
There is likely no greater example of that hypocrisy than the way in which the NDP have violated their own freedom-of-information guidelines. The government indicated in the Speech from the Throne that it has acted in the spirit of freedom of information since the bill was adopted last spring. However, the official opposition is still awaiting information requested from this government as far back as last spring.
[ Page 4729 ]
The Attorney General might want to ask the Minister of Labour how committed he is to the government's spirit of information. The Labour minister committed to the Labour critic last spring that he would provide information on program spending prior to the estimates debate. In addition, he promised to respond to a question taken on notice regarding hiring practices at B.C. Hydro. The Labour critic is still waiting. The government has shown that it cannot be trusted.
This government is not only amending laws, it's rewriting them to suit its own agenda. The government has stated that it will reintroduce the 6 percent tax on legal fees, and the Minister of Finance has already indicated that this is the case. The government makes the argument that it is taxing lawyers. In reality, the government is taxing the consumer. The B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association challenged the original legislation on the grounds that a further 6 percent tax on legal services puts access to the exercise of constitutional rights 6 percent further beyond the reach of disadvantaged groups. What the throne speech does not say is that in February the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled the tax to be unconstitutional, which effectively cancelled the tax. The Finance minister has since indicated that this government will backdate the legal services tax to June 1 of last year. Once again this self-proclaimed open and honest government has sent a clear message that it is not open, that it is not honest, and that it sees itself above the law.
During the last sitting of the House, I made clear my opinion that this government talks about investment on the one hand and then discourages it on the other. The government promised to help small and medium-size businesses grow. Instead, the business community got a new, biased Labour Relations Code. The government talked directly to the unions to ensure that the labour sector got the bill that it wanted. It talked to big, organized business to make sure it got a bill it could live with. The government only talked around medium-size business.
[3:30]
The government did not in any way consider the problems of small and medium-size business owners when it required smaller business to bargain not only with organized labour but with the government as well. The government did not consider small and medium-size business owners when it included banning replacement workers. The government did not consider the offshore investors who have since been frightened away by the government's inclusion of successor rights. The government indicates in the throne speech that it has heard the chorus of voices demanding change. The only voices this government has heard are the siren songs of organized labour.
The throne speech indicates that the government is building British Columbia through construction projects, but it does not indicate that the so-called fair wage program has increased building costs by an additional $29 million in a nine-month period -- this at a time when the government is plagued by its deficit. The government promised an open and honest government, but it did not listen last year when the Vancouver Board of Trade warned that this policy would increase the cost of public projects, inflate public sector wages and drive up the cost of private sector projects. The government did not listen when the president of the B.C. Provincial Council of Carpenters warned that the policy would interfere with the marketplace. Prices, wages and profits are determined by demand and therefore exert pressure on the government to set wages in other public sector areas.
This government must consider these five important words: What can the taxpayer afford? The government told us that it's making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending growth and cap the deficit. The government did not demonstrate this when it awarded healthy contract settlements to the BCGEU and the HEU. The Business Council of B.C. reported earlier this year that public sector wage settlements were running far ahead of private sector settlements. The council's data showed that public sector settlements averaged 5.27 percent, while private sector settlements averaged 1.56 percent. When the public sector settlements, on average, more than triple settlements in the private sector, there is no doubt that this government's spending habits are out of control.
In its 1990 paper on post-secondary education, the New Democratic Party declared that its proposals for expanded educational opportunities were of crucial importance for promoting a dynamic research sector in British Columbia. Similarly, during the election campaign it made a commitment to expand research and development. A report released last year on the B.C. Research Corporation noted that the company was exceptionally well situated to support technological development in this province. It recommended that the government continue to support the corporation.
In only a few short months, this government has forgotten its commitment to education, research and development. Surely there was someone in the Ministry of Advanced Education or Ministry of Economic Development who could have helped B.C. Research reorganize before it was too late. That type of corporation, with private sector revenues of $10 million, isn't a case for the bankruptcy courts; it's a case for a band-aid, a case for some help. It could certainly have been helped and put on its way to doing a very important job for this province without any massive injection of provincial funds. The crisis that B.C. Research Council found itself in two weeks ago -- and early last week -- simply proves that this minister is incompetent. Obviously this government does not understand that research and development draws money into the province, creates jobs and provides hope for the future.
It is interesting to note that last December this government made a commitment to guarantee a $30 million loan for a new race track at Exhibition Park in Vancouver to finance a grandstand addition, to rebuild the barn area and to reconstruct the race track. When the Attorney General announced the decision last December, he said that because of the urgency of the issue and the importance of the racing industry in British Columbia, the government would introduce legislation this spring to establish the new track. Yet this same government is hedging its bets and is not looking after its responsibilities with respect to the B.C. Re-
[ Page 4730 ]
search Corp. Research and education are synonymous, yet this government has disappointed students and educators at all levels.
The Labour minister has chosen to ignore the daily disruptions facing teachers, parents and children. Thousands of children have lost hundreds of school hours due to strikes by teachers in recent months. The Labour minister has claimed there is no crisis yet, because no one was starving. The government went so far last fall as to remove education as an essential service under the new Labour Relations Code. The education of our children and the daily lives of families across the province have been affected. Schools in Quesnel, Fernie, Surrey, West Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Maple Ridge, Cranbrook and Nanaimo have all been affected.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
The government has no one to blame but itself for setting the expectation of lucrative wage settlements with the BCGEU and the HEU. We have seen just the tip of the iceberg. According to the "Calendar of Expiring Collective Agreements," 1993, 40 collective agreements covering almost 62,000 employees will expire between March 31 and December 31. These collective agreements represent only 19 percent of the workforce of British Columbia, but they will affect all sectors of the economy, including B.C. Tel, B.C. Hydro, CNR, CPR and Canadian Airlines. How did the workers at Canadian Airlines react to reality? Will public sector Crown corporation employees also recognize those same realities? Significant negotiations will also occur in municipal services and areas such as the trade industry, including retail food store contracts. These agreements will act as test cases for the government's new Labour Relations Code.
In addition to the costs that the government has incurred, the Ministry of Labour has had additional problems. It was reported in February that the Workers' Compensation Board lost approximately $150 million in 1992. This follows a 1991 surplus of more than $66.5 million. Although the Minister of Labour has had his responsibilities for ICBC removed, ICBC was his responsibility during 1992. This was a year in which it lost $64 million; a year in which administrative costs went up by 14 percent; a year in which investment income went down by 30 percent while the average premiums went up by 17 percent.
This government should be ashamed when it tells the people of this province, through the throne speech, that it is making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending growth and cap the deficit. Where has this government been during the past year? Is it just waking up to the financial responsibilities that the people placed in its hands? The government should apologize to the people of this province.
Through the throne speech, the government has indicated that it will be asking those most able to pay to contribute their fair share. Within the week this government will be telling us to tighten our belts. It will be asking us to make additional contributions to reduce the provincial deficit. However, had this government been doing its job, we wouldn't be making the extra notch in our belts that we'll need after the March 30th budget.
As the government grants precedent-setting wage settlements to its union friends, it warns seniors that the B.C. government cannot afford to give subsidies and discounts for affluent seniors. The Finance minister made this off-the-cuff remark during his pre-session tour, without defining the level at which a senior becomes financially affluent. This not only demonstrates an arrogance which British Columbians can well do without but also indicates that the Minister of Finance is totally out of touch. When he indicates that only half of the seniors really need subsidies, does he consider that seniors will need to be affluent just to be able to afford basic medication -- assuming that they can even afford to go and see a doctor -- as various medications are removed by protocol?
Granted, the minister made his remarks while attempting a 20-year forecast. If all goes well, British Columbians won't have to worry about an NDP government in 20 years.
Its destructive legacy is another matter altogether. The government made a commitment in the throne speech to the health of women and to the safety of women and children who are the victims of family violence. However, it is not enough to pour money into health care testing and safe houses; we must also look at prevention, rehabilitation and counselling. The human resources that assist families through the healing process are just as valuable as the financial resources. This opposition will wholeheartedly support meaningful reallocations of resources to help in this important area of concern.
The most relevant area of human rights legislation, by far, is that respecting B.C.'s aboriginal people. In this regard, the government has been no more successful. The government reminds us that it has been challenged to resolve our land conflicts. In their 48-point plan, the NDP criticized the Social Credit government for not facing up to this urgent responsibility for so long. They said that it had been unfair to the aboriginal peoples and that it has seriously hampered B.C.'s economic development.
When we contrast those comments with the real actions taken by the New Democrats, what we see falls far short of any real change. In 16 months the NDP have failed to resolve one comprehensive claim. Their election platform committed the government to cooperate fully in expediting the process, yet so far they have wasted 16 full months, and it will be at least another four until the Treaty Commission Act is passed, thereby enabling them to accept claims. A year and a half will have passed before they begin to move on claim negotiations.
I was most pleased to hear today that this government has agreed to bring the municipalities into the process. It is important for this government to recognize that many stakeholders are involved. We in the opposition will continue to encourage them to ensure full and open consultation, full and open discussion, so that this matter of great uncertainty to all British
[ Page 4731 ]
Columbians can be dealt with in a fair and open manner.
This government is silent on its plans to address the plight of the fishing industry, both native and non-native, across the province. Federal government policy has polarized these two groups, and provincial policy has only aggravated the issue. The industry worked well when the priorities were conservation, native food fish and a viable commercial interest. Now the industry is operating in fear of losing its resource and thousands of jobs. The province is silent on how it plans to deal with so many people who may be forced out of this industry.
[3:45]
This government claimed that there would be an end to the uncertainty, yet they have disclosed no details on how much land claim settlements will cost the forest industry, the mining industry, the taxpayers or the province as a whole. The people of this province are anxious to have more information on settlement claims. They all want to see a fair and a quick resolution of this issue; but the lack of information provided by the government is unacceptable. It is an area that affects every person in this province. So there is confusion, and where there is confusion, there is fear. In a society where mutual respect and trust is valued, the government has become a barrier to communication and understanding.
Absent from the throne speech were answers to many questions about native self-government. The government has not clearly enunciated what it is willing to negotiate and what it is not, nor has it disclosed any of the elements of self-government being discussed. The government refuses to reveal whether alternative justice systems, independent health care, immersion school funding and even advanced education will be functions of native governments, and at what costs. Over the years many injustices have been committed, but these questions must be raised if acceptable and workable changes are to be made.
We are left not knowing how municipalities will work along with native governments to ensure that infrastructures are fairly administered. We are left not knowing how resource licences will be negotiated, or even if they will be available at all. We are left not knowing how native women will be guaranteed equal rights. We are left not knowing how social programs will be adequately funded in such a new system. We are left not knowing how much the provincial government is responsible for in terms of settlement costs. We are left not knowing the answers to these and many other questions, because the government does not have the answers we seek -- or if they do, they are unwilling to share them.
In keeping with this unofficial policy, the government also decided not to share any of its tourism plans with us this year. Here again, we question whether the government even has any plans. Tourism is not given so much as a fleeting mention in the Speech from the Throne. The government had many plans last year. It decided to close the Los Angeles and Seattle tourism offices, decrease the funding to the Partners in Tourism programs and impose new permit fees and inspection licences on restaurants. At this rate, there may not be much of an industry left. Perhaps this is the reason for its omission from the Speech from the Throne.
This government fails to recognize the importance of the tourism industry. It is estimated that one in 15 jobs is created in the tourism industry. The provincial government collects nearly half a billion dollars in taxation from the tourism industry. In 1988 the restaurant industry alone provided $1.3 billion to the province's GDP. In spite of the extensive contributions the industry makes to the province's well-being, this government has no direction for tourism.
The government is not remiss regarding tourism alone. It is consistently remiss in policy of a long-term nature. Unfortunately, the shortsighted approach the NDP has taken to government will prove very costly in just a few short years.
The Ministry of Economic Development provides a clear example of shortsighted policies. That ministry claims it has downsized, and yet in reality what we find is a regional redistribution of the central ministry. It claims to have cut back some 250 FTEs in the ministry. Then it announces its new strategy of regional economic development offices. Ministry staff have told us that these redos, as they're known, may themselves employ up to ten FTEs each. So really, they have merely redistributed the size of government; they have not taken those difficult decisions of which they speak so much. Of the jobs that remain in Victoria, former employees of the ministry are all competing for positions. Some positions are under appeal, a process which could take months to finalize. This ministry will thus be prevented, like many others, from having accomplished any significant goals in the first two years of its mandate.
The official opposition feels that the electorate deserves better than a government in limbo. The electorate deserves a government that will actively support small businesses and value-added industries through fiscal policies which are proven effective and efficient. Instead, we have a government determined to drive investment out of this province. Instead, we have a government that insists on travelling road shows to determine the public's opinion on the North American free trade agreement, rather than simply dealing with the situation. The NDP position on NAFTA is to not even participate in negotiations. The NDP position on NAFTA is to close the door to the world market without even knowing the details of the agreement.
Recently, we heard the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade commit to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers by June 30, 1994. Then he listed a number of areas where he would not negotiate, including environmental standards and the labour code, which are both significant trade barriers -- or can be. The NDP consistently commits to negotiate deals, and then comes back to the table and says: "We won't negotiate on this, and we won't negotiate on that." They claimed they would negotiate on the labour code, but refused to negotiate secret ballots and automatic membership. Now they have committed themselves to negotiating interprovincial trade barriers, and they have already determined that they won't discuss labour and environmental standards.
[ Page 4732 ]
The NDP talk about tough decisions, and they spend money on committees which only seek to have their opinions reinforced. They talk about tough decisions, and yet they plan to spend $600,000 on a British Columbia Investment Office to promote investment in manufacturing and value-added industries. Why this government did not decide to have the British Columbia Investment Office's function handled by the B.C. Trade Development Corporation is beyond me. The organization is there; they are staffed. I'm sure they are capable and able to take on this project. The B.C. Trade Development Corporation has the mandate of promoting export companies to outside markets. The consideration of export markets and foreign penetration is of prime importance to potential investors. Industry is designed to expand and to export. There is no reason why the B.C. Trade Development Corporation could not provide this function. The BCIO is irrelevant and in keeping with much of the direction of this government.
And another thought -- it's so simple; they could simplify all of the regulations so that you don't need some special organization to help people through the maze. Take a power saw to the maze and cut it down.
This government speaks of making difficult decisions. We know that it isn't really them making the difficult decisions. It's the investors who must bear the heaviest burden. It's the investors who are making the difficult decisions as to whether or not to place their money in British Columbia and suffer the wrath of NDP fiscal irresponsibility.
Investment and economic development in the province are sliding rapidly as a result of the economic climate created by this government. Capital investment in 1991 fell by 6.5 percent. In 1992, after the first budget brought down by this government, capital investment fell by an unbelievable further 8.6 percent. These figures are a damning indictment of the NDP's economic policies.
During the election the NDP promised the restoration of provincial child advocacy and preventive programs. The government also promised after-school child care programs. We heard no mention of these in the Speech from the Throne. It leads us to question if the government is still planning to accomplish these important social goals or if they have been cleared from their political agenda. Further to this, there was no mention of the need to change the approach with which we provide essential social services. There was no mention of how the current system strips individuals of their dignity and pride and of whether the ministry intends to change this. There was no mention in the throne speech of the need to assist people out of the welfare cycle and into fulfilling, self-sufficient lives. Why is this government silent on these important issues? It is with regret that we heard nothing from the government on these matters.
The Ministry of Social Services is the third-largest in budget allocations after Health and Education, yet this government is in need of a special warrant for $67 million. Perhaps when the government is finished paying off its union supporters and friends, it will get to the task of creating jobs. Job creation is vital to ensuring people do not get trapped on the income assistance cycle. Yet again the government has remained silent on this crucial point.
It has also remained silent on how the Ministry of Social Services would implement some of the changes suggested by the auditor general in his recent report. The auditor general found that improved accountability was necessary for this ministry, yet the government seems to have no plans to address the remarks made by this objective, non-partisan authority. It would seem that the government does not recognize the importance of accountability for all levels of public institutions.
The government was silent on the issue of seniors and the rising cost of living relative to their fixed incomes. At a time when inflation takes a bite out of everybody's disposable income, seniors feel it the most. The government failed to detail how it will continue to support an aging population and, at the same time, bring its deficit under control. Here again we are reminded of their tough choices. But how will those translate for these people?
In the government's second year in office, it is unacceptable that it has failed to outline its direction. In the name of open and honest government, this government has decided to zip its lip, while everyone else must continue to unzip their wallets.
This throne speech indicates that the government has not learned from its past mistakes. The rampant spending, misguided priorities and continued waste and inefficiency remain as always. However, the single greatest downfall of this speech is not any one policy or statement; the greatest disappointment is what this government has failed to say and do.
This province requires a government with direction and a vision for the future -- a government which makes its mistakes through action rather than inaction. The hollow platitudes, empty promises and ample rhetoric do not obscure the truth. This throne speech is less of a guide to future action than an apology for past indolence. We in the opposition will continue on our path to ensure that the voices of all the people of British Columbia are heard and understood.
[4:00]
J. Weisgerber: Before I begin my remarks, I'd like to pay tribute to a former member of this assembly who, regrettably, passed away quite recently and was not noted in the throne speech. Ernie LeCours was an outstanding Socred MLA who served his Delta and Richmond constituents admirably during his three terms from 1963 to 1972. He will be dearly missed by all who knew him.
I want to congratulate the member for Delta South not only for his fine speech but also for his recent appointment. On behalf of our caucus and all 45,000 paid-up members of the Socred Party...
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: I think they're awake, Mr. Speaker.
...I wish the member good luck in his new capacity as interim leader of the official opposition.
[ Page 4733 ]
It will come as no surprise to members opposite that the Social Credit caucus will not be supporting the throne speech. Not only was it totally lacking in imagination, but it's also utterly devoid of any real leadership or -- dare I say it -- courage. In that sense, it's entirely consistent with everything we've seen from this NDP government. In that sense, the throne speech talks a lot about courage. It's a word we didn't hear often from the NDP during our first 37 years in government.
It never seemed to matter how much the Socreds spent on health, education or social services -- and sometimes we spent too much -- the NDP always demanded more. They railed against restraint and pleaded for more money, saying that we had no heart. They said that the government could cure every social ill without raising taxes, and still balance the budget, if only we had a heart. They were living in the land of Oz.
Now the NDP is singing a different tune. Courage, they say, is what we really need -- courage to increase government spending, to increase taxes and to double the deficit. If only they had some real courage; indeed, if only they had a brain. Any government with the slightest bit of courage and even half a brain would recognize the need to tackle the deficit. I'll be willing to bet that by the end of 1993 the accumulated deficit will be double what it was when we left office. In just two and a half years this government will have racked up a deficit that's equal to the accumulated deficit of all other governments over the previous 125 years. Last year the NDP increased taxes by $1,000 a family and still had the largest deficit in B.C. history. That was child's play compared to what they're going to do to us this year.
If this NDP cabinet had the slightest bit of common sense, it would understand that most taxpayers didn't get a raise at all last year. They can't afford to have their taxes raised without good reason. If this government truly had the courage to make difficult decisions, to "cap the deficit," it wouldn't need to raise taxes at all; it would cap the deficit by cutting spending. But capping the deficit isn't good enough. The goal should be to eliminate the deficit and to balance the budget.
If the people could believe that this government had any intention of pursuing that goal, if they saw major spending cuts and a reduction in the size and scope of government, then we would all be prepared to sacrifice a little. Indeed, if the Premier wanted to demonstrate real courage, he would put an immediate two-year wage freeze on all public sector salaries. He would stand up to the union kingpins who now call the shots, and eliminate the fixed-wage policy.
If this government had any courage it would get on with the job of promoting economic growth instead of blaming other governments for its own problems. Real courage would mean standing up for the jobs that are being threatened or lost by this government's fear of decision-making. Real courage would mean making a decision on the Clayoquot Sound and other contentious areas to put people in our forest industry back to work. Real courage means standing up for the mining industry by making a decision on those 20 proposals and 5,000 new jobs that are currently frozen in the mine development assessment process. Real courage would mean getting on with the Kemano completion project without further delay.
Sadly, our Premier has displayed an acute lack of fortitude to date. He's the guy who gave away the store at Charlottetown, who is afraid to implement recall and initiative, who bowed to John Shields and the BCGEU and who simply can't say no to Ken Georgetti. I'll be willing to bet that the Premier won't have the courage to stand up to Ray Worley and the BCTF on the issue of provincewide bargaining.
The Korbin commission noted that it costs $900,000 for provincewide bargaining in the health care sector versus $9 million for teacher bargaining in 75 school districts. Case closed, one would think. But not with this NDP government. They've got their marching orders from the BCTF, and they don't include provincewide bargaining. Instead, we're going to see higher school property taxes, as this government seeks to cash in on increased assessments.
That's where this throne speech is taking us, even if we're dragged kicking and screaming. So I ask you: where's the leadership? Where's the common sense? Where's the courage? I see the members opposite looking our way. That's right, because we know that tax hikes just won't cut it. People want their government to live within its means, and that means cutting spending to the bone. But that's not in the cards this year, a fact that won't be lost on the bond rating agencies in the weeks ahead. We can kiss our top credit rating goodbye if next week's budget raises taxes without major cuts in spending.
More importantly, British Columbians have watched what has gone on over the past year and a half, and they don't like it one bit. They're tired of having their pockets picked by the NDP, only to see their tax dollars frittered away on policies and programs that we can't afford. People are sick to death of having their incomes cut by higher taxes used to subsidize unionized construction workers making $22 an hour. The fixed-wage policy costs us $200 million a year in hidden wage subsidies. It's a shameless payoff to the union brass that's entirely unfair to the working people who foot the bill.
Taxpayers are fed up with their money being doled out by the truckload for high-priced snake oil salesmen and patronage appointments. Literally hundreds of NDP hacks now have their snouts firmly planted in the public trough. The names Baker, Chilton and Lloyd come to mind; they're the infamous big three. My advice to them: rehire Marcus Davies; he would never have written a throne speech as bad as this one. Other NDP power brokers include Ford, McArthur, Gunton, Parasiuk, Gathercole, Walsh, Eliesen and Pollard.
Others, like former NDP MLAs Gordon Hanson, Bill King and Mark Rose, are better known and handsomely paid. Of course, there's always Bob Williams, the man who reports to no one more exalted than himself, the dark angel who hovers over the Crowns. Taxpayers get a little miffed when they see their modest incomes being reduced to pay for Bob Williams's six-figure salary. They get irritated when the government goes in debt by any amount to pay for John Pollard, the czar of patronage.
[ Page 4734 ]
Taxpayers have reached the end of their rope. These are the symbols of people's frustration with government. And no wonder: believe it or not, the people I've just mentioned cost taxpayers $1.2 million a year in salaries; yet the government claims it can't afford to provide a $1 million loan guarantee to save 145 jobs at B.C. Research Corp. B.C. Research not only employs 145 top research scientists in North America, it's the leading R and D facility in this province. Its success stories are legendary. As the former science and technology critic, one would think the Premier would understand the significance of B.C. Research for the future of high-tech in our province. After all, the facility is located virtually in his own back yard.
Indeed, who do you suppose the Premier paraded around with him on his trip to California when he was trying to promote high-tech in B.C.? Who do you suppose the Premier took to California to answer questions on the only existing diesel engine in North America that's capable of meeting the States' tough vehicle emission standards? It was none other than the former president of B.C. Research Corp., who was fired without notice, without severance and without holiday pay when the government pulled the plug on the company that developed the engine.
Where was Captain Courageous when this decision was made? Where was our Premier when the minister of science and technology personally pulled the trigger on the foremost research facility in this province? He didn't even have the courage to release the independent review that was commissioned by his own government, so we released it for him. For the sake of a $1 million loan guarantee, this government has signalled to investors everywhere that it has no commitment to science and technology. This government is not just economically blind, it's brain-dead. By turning its back on B.C. Research, the NDP has snuffed out more potential jobs and future industries in this province than we can even imagine.
[4:15]
Instead of crippling our economy with crushing debt and increasing taxes, the government should be reducing its expenditures and stimulating wealth creation. At a time when most working British Columbians sacrificed salary hikes and accepted pay cuts to keep their jobs, what did this government do? It handed out 7 percent retroactive wage hikes to teachers and allowed school boards to run budget deficits. Apparently education in any form is secondary to teachers' salaries.
I ask the Minister of Education, our Deputy Premier: where was she when the throne speech was written? Education wasn't even contemplated in the speech. Where was her courage when education was removed as an essential service under the labour code last November? We didn't hear a peep out of that minister when that happened. The government claims it has no money to make good on its election promises with respect to education. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? It doesn't. How could it? This government gave the BCGEU a whopping 6 percent wage hike, which is three times higher than the average in the private sector.
A similar settlement was offered to the HEU and retroactively tacked on to last year's deficit. Now the government has negotiated what one columnist rightly labelled a total sellout to the health care unions. Not only will unionized health care workers receive wage increases of at least 10 to 15 percent over the next three years, the government's also guaranteed them no layoffs, no contracting out and a shorter workweek. What a deal for us -- and a better one still for the NDP's election coffers.
The throne speech promises that Judi Korbin will soon be tabling her recommendations to control public sector wage costs. But she's been on the job for over a year now at the unbelievable pay rate of $1,200 a day. Where does this government get off telling taxpayers they have to cough up more when Judi Korbin's collecting that kind of money?
In addition, as we revealed today, this government has increased the number of political staff in the parliament buildings and raised their salaries by $316,000. Instead of cutting political staff by 25 percent, as Bill Clinton did when he came to the White House, our Premier has done the opposite. At least $500 million in annual wage costs that could and should have been avoided have been added to the budget. Taxpayers aren't stupid. They can see what's going on. They understand what the government is up to with its decision to convert 1,500 contract workers into permanent civil servants under the BCGEU.
British Columbians also know that the promises contained in the throne speech will mean even higher wage costs for government. We say: enough. It's time to get things straight. We simply can't afford the government we've got. It's too top-heavy and it's too liberal with our tax dollars. Public sector wage costs have grown out of hand. About 60 cents of every tax dollar collected goes to public sector wages, either directly or indirectly. That's got to change. But that kind of change would demand real courage, which this government simply doesn't have.
Expenditures have to be brought down. Nowhere is the need more pressing than in the area of Social Services -- a budget that will likely be $1 billion higher in 1993 than it was in 1991. By the end of the 1993 fiscal year, welfare costs will have grown by 40 percent in just under two years with the NDP. One out of every ten British Columbians is now on welfare. That's more than 320,000 people -- an increase of 57,000 people in just over one year.
How can this be, when unemployment rates have fallen? How can it be that one out of every eight kids in British Columbia -- 125,000 children -- are now dependent on welfare? That's a 20 percent increase in the short period of time since we left office. What explains the fact that 73,000 single employable men are now on welfare -- the largest increase of any category; one-quarter of those added in the last year alone? It's well known that the vast majority of welfare fraud and abuse is perpetrated by single employable men. But instead of cracking down on welfare fraud and heeding RCMP warnings of widespread abuse, the government has actually loosened the rules. Moreover, single parents are now considered unemployable and don't even have to look for work until their youngest child reaches age 19.
[ Page 4735 ]
And the Premier has the gall to say he's done everything in his power to reduce spending. It's clear that this government is deliberately creating a dependency society. What British Columbia needs is more opportunity, not greater dependency. It's time to start investing in our economy again. Unfortunately, there's no economic strategy, no plan to restore investor confidence.
The word "tourism" was missing from the throne speech. I couldn't believe my ears. One of the province's most important industries didn't even rate a mention.
If this government truly wants to understand why it's got a growing welfare crisis, it should take a good long look in the mirror. Investors are rapidly losing confidence in our economy, or more precisely, in the economic environment that this government has created. Don't take my word for it. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada said the investment climate has been damaged by a significant increase in the business tax burden and the introduction of anti-competitive labour laws. You don't create confidence by imposing a profit-blind tax on capital. That tax has got to go -- period. Nor do you create confidence by increasing taxes on water, fuel and electricity.
The government was warned that the new labour code would adversely affect investment, and we're already seeing that to be true. Confidence has been undermined by increased labour-management conflict under this government. Worker days lost due to strikes and lockouts were up 263 percent last year. There were two wildcat strikes -- illegal strikes that left travellers on B.C Ferries and B.C. Transit high and dry -- yet this government didn't even have the courage to discipline the workers involved.
You certainly don't increase confidence by threatening to expropriate private property rights without fair and adequate compensation. Red tape, unnecessary intervention and unacceptable delays are crippling economic growth in all of the resource industries.
Perhaps the most potentially explosive problem facing the NDP is the unrealistic expectations they helped to fuel in opposition and now in government. The Premier spent five years touring the province and telling every group that would listen to him that they could have their cake and eat it too if only they voted NDP. Now those groups are calling in their markers, and they feel betrayed. Preservationists, loggers, miners, hotel operators, teachers, doctors, aboriginal people -- the list goes on and on. They all feel they've been deliberately deceived, and indeed they have. But now it's up to the government to temper the anger of these groups and engage them in a constructive dialogue.
I applaud the government for launching the CORE process and for continuing the previous government's commitment to consultation. I say this with no malice or partisanship. I worry that these consultative mechanisms are being used as a means to defer decision-making. I worry that this government is continuing to elevate expectations of special interest groups to unbelievably high levels that can never be met. I say again that it's up to the government, and the Premier in particular, to dampen those expectations now. Failure to do so will not be without a price. If last week's deplorable demonstration was any indication, people's tempers are running short. Where's the plan in the throne speech to deal with these problems? There are no solutions offered, only platitudes.
The more uncertainty there is in our economy, the less confidence investors will have. Last year we saw capital investment reduced by almost 9 percent -- double the average rate of decline for Canada as a whole. What a huge shift from the 22 percent growth rate of a couple of years ago, when British Columbia's capital investment rate was three or four times higher than the Canadian average. If this crisis of confidence persists, revenues will surely fall. There's no need for that to happen.
There's no justification for increasing taxes without substantial cuts in spending. Last year taxpayers were hit with the largest tax assault in B.C. history. The government thumbed its nose at homeowners when it wiped out the supplemental homeowner grant and increased property taxes. It scoffed at wage-earners when it bumped up income taxes and doubled the income surtax. The Finance minister sneered at small business when he increased their taxes and imposed a provincial GST on legal services. He laughed at the corporate community when he brought down his profit-blind capital tax. This government raised every tax on the books last year; it jacked up fuel taxes, sin taxes, water rentals, grazing fees and hundreds of fees, licences and permits.
But nothing the government has done comes close to approaching the massive tax grab that's been quietly launched through B.C. Hydro. Without any debate or justification the government brought in new regulations that will see hydro rates increased each year by 2 percent more than the rate of inflation. If this formula had been in place under the previous administration, hydro rates would be 40 percent higher than they are today. The government's goal is to scoop about $400 million each year from British Columbians in hidden taxes disguised as B.C. Hydro rate increases. Cabinet didn't even have the courage to do its own dirty work, so it forced the B.C. Utilities Commission to do it for them.
Nothing in the throne speech will alleviate the growing tax burden that soaked an extra $1 billion in income out of our economy last year.
If they were here, I am sure I would see the grins on the faces of cabinet. It's a look of confidence that ofttimes borders on insolence. It's that cocky look the Minister of Finance exuded last month in Nanaimo when he launched his infamous assault on universality. I'll repeat the quote for the benefit of Hansard. He actually said: "A senior with a paid-off house and car, no debts and $18,000 a year in pension is doing very well in B.C." Then he suggested that perhaps these well-off seniors should not be subsidized any longer through the Pharmacare program, the homeowner grant supplement, reduced ferry fares, bus fares and camping fees. What courage from the minister! It's fine for him to scare the wits out of seniors who can barely afford their car insurance, let alone the tax hikes that are coming next week. After all, the Minister of Finance won't have to live on a pension of $18,000 a year
[ Page 4736 ]
when he retires. Even if he's turfed out of office in the next election, he's eligible for a $31,000-a-year pension 15 years earlier than the normal age for retirement -- that is, if he survives the conflict-of-interest investigation the ICBA is demanding for his alleged hanky-panky at the awarding of the recent B.C. Ferries construction contract.
The public detects an air of arrogance about this government that's becoming more transparent every day.
[4:30]
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, the leader of the third party has cast aspersions on the reputation of one of the members on this side. An apology is clearly in order -- a withdrawal.
Deputy Speaker: The member is being asked to withdraw any aspersions cast on an hon. member. Would the member withdraw.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps, hon. Speaker, what I should do for the interest of all members is repeat what I said, and if you then believe that a withdrawal is in order I would certainly follow....
D. Schreck: I'm certain the Speaker heard the offending remarks, and aggravating the insult is not going to assist the matter at all.
Deputy Speaker: The rules of the House are quite clear to all members. When a member is being challenged with respect to having cast aspersions on any hon. member of the House, the withdrawal is usually made at the time, without question, if the member indeed intended any aspersions or imputed any improper motive. So if the member did, then of course he should withdraw. And if he didn't, he should be prepared to indicate that no such imputation was intended.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I certainly did not intend to cast any aspersions at the Minister of Finance. What I suggested was that if he survives the conflict-of-interest investigation, then perhaps he would have an opportunity to have a period in office beyond the current sitting of the Legislature.
The public detects an air of arrogance about this government, which has just been demonstrated again and becomes more transparent every day. It's the look we saw on the face of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin when he refused to come clean on his settlement costs in the Firestone case. This is a man who has been chided -- not once, but twice, by Supreme Court judges -- for his inappropriate conduct as Consumer Services minister. This is the guy the Deputy Attorney General of Alberta said should be criminally charged for his peeping-Tom tape antics a couple of years ago. This is the champion of organized labour who quietly hired non-union contractors to build his home, who defaulted on his mortgages without remorse, and who said "Sue me" to a former client who was bilked out of her money.
Deputy Speaker: Order! The hon. leader of the third party is now moving into an area of debate that is causing some concern for the Chair. I would ask the member to be more cautious in his choice of expressions with respect to hon. members. This has been a most enjoyable afternoon so far, but I'm getting a little uncomfortable with the comments you are beginning to allude to. So please proceed, but try and be more cautious about the unparliamentary language that you may be getting close to.
J. Weisgerber: I can understand your discomfort, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I think all British Columbians are uncomfortable with the kinds of things that I've just been talking about.
The Premier has now picked this member as his top gun in this chamber. The folks across the way think that's funny. They have big grins on their faces. Hon. Speaker, we want to change that. We want to wipe that smile off the government's face. We've still got enough time to do it before the fall of 1994, when this government will start to get election fever. Next week's budget will be bad enough, but there will be at least one more budget for this government to endure.
Then there's Ace Henderson, a special prosecutor of considerable skill and tenacity, whom we have tremendous confidence in. I daresay his investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth scandal is already responsible for the sleepless nights some cabinet ministers appear to be suffering from.
We must also bear in mind the tough new conflict-of-interest legislation, even if the Minister of Forests chose not to, for not every offence will be punishable by a mere three-month stint in the penalty box. Sometimes ministers lose their jobs permanently and perhaps even their careers and pensions. Far be it from me to suggest that any particular member of cabinet will suffer that fate, but crazy things have a way of happening in British Columbia.
After all, who would have dreamt that the Minister of Advanced Education would have survived his rocky start? Consider his first year in office. On at least two occasions he has been accused of politically interfering in the collective bargaining process. He has sworn at students for their lack of personal political support. He stood idly by while the Finance minister threatened to chop the matching-grant program and then challenged the credentials of one of the most respected scholars this province has ever seen.
After proudly announcing a one-year tuition freeze, he's now responsible for this year's double-digit tuition hikes. Most recently, he personally pulled the trigger on the B.C. Research Corp., the top R and D facility in this province and, with it, thousands of future jobs and small businesses. Talk about the need for gun control.
Hon. Speaker, can you imagine Pat McGeer or Stan Hagen standing still for such treatment? Not on your life! Regrettably, the weak-kneed approach we've witnessed in Advanced Education is endemic in the cabinet. For example, the Minister of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture presided over the destruction of our sales efforts in our two largest out-of-country markets: Washington and California.
[ Page 4737 ]
She bragged to Chris Dafoe of the Globe and Mail that she would raise the province's contribution to our vital culture industry to an amount equal to 1 percent of the budget, when in fact she has ushered in the greatest reduction in support of culture in B.C.'s history.
Hon. Speaker, only one minister in B.C.'s history has presided over a ministry with absolutely no responsibility: the current Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
What about the Highways minister, the minister from Kamloops, the only minister in history who has so willingly surrendered his capital budget? He may have the courage to impose tolls on new highways and bridges, but I can guarantee every member in this House that he won't be around to collect them.
The Minister of Trade is no better. He spends his time arm in arm with Jesse Jackson in protest of freer trade. He too is a minister without a ministry, having been stripped of just about every responsibility in his portfolio.
Then we get to the Minister of Agriculture, the minister who wouldn't be convinced that there really was a drought in the Peace. He is the first Agriculture minister in B.C. history who couldn't tell a head of lettuce from a head of cabbage. We're going to have a good deal to say about him in the future, and his government's political interference in some high-profile land deals.
There are a few things in the throne speech that our caucus cautiously supports. We're very pleased to see that the Minister of Forests intends to follow through with the former government's work towards a forest practices code. The environmental assessment act also sounds promising, but only if it doesn't erect unnecessary new barriers to economic growth and job creation. I think we can all applaud the summit on skills development and training, even if absolutely none of the prominent business leaders in the business community had been consulted about the idea prior to the throne speech.
Nevertheless, if ever there was a government born for oblivion, it's this one. Under normal circumstances it would be all over except the shouting. But nothing in our political environment is normal, especially the official opposition. Not only have they divided and conquered themselves, they've breathed new life into the government. Ironically, the main danger from the government's perspective is that the Liberals will continue on their suicidal course. This has to be the only jurisdiction in Canada where the government's very survival depends on the improved health of the official opposition. But the NDP's worst fears are coming true before their very eyes. They see the logic of history conspiring against them. They see the dreaded Socred phoenix rising once again.
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: You can feel it, can't you? It's like virtual reality. Keep your heads up, because we're coming.
Deputy Speaker: Please address the Chair, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps indirectly I was, hon. Speaker. We don't quite have them shaking in their boots yet, but I want to tell you that next week's budget is going to blow this government apart. Taxpayers have had it with tax hikes, especially when they aren't justified. They didn't buy the Premier's sales pitch on BCTV last month. The people tuned in looking for strong vision and what they got was weak television, a lot of finger-pointing, flip charts and tough talk from the softest touch of them all, our Premier. People didn't see courage in that face; they saw the words "higher taxes" stamped on his forehead. Those two words are what this throne speech is all about. The government spent the last two months softening us up for next week's budget, the mother of all tax attacks. The bombs are up in the air, and no one in this province will escape their impact. Now it's just a matter of waiting, and indeed I look forward to the upcoming budget debate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for sitting so politely through my response in opposition to the throne speech.
U. Dosanjh: I take great pleasure in standing today and wholeheartedly supporting the throne speech. But before I proceed, I want to talk about brains. My friend the leader of the third party was talking about brains. The official opposition and the third party are particularly endowed with them, but I can assure you that ours are not identical to theirs.
This throne speech wasn't about two words; this throne speech was about three words. It was about courage, change and challenges. This throne speech was about the government's courage to make changes to face the upcoming challenges, which the Socreds, in the many years they were in office, never had -- courage to make the kinds of fundamental changes that we need to make if we want to progress towards the twenty-first century.
[4:45]
The throne speech essentially talked about three major areas: reforming medicare, building our economy and resolving land use conflicts.
Interjection.
U. Dosanjh: I know the third party keeps talking about taxes and deficit. One of the things that I can't understand.... When you're in government, as I have said already, you need to have the courage to face the challenges and to make the tough decisions. When we were campaigning to win the last election, we never said we wouldn't have the courage to make those tough decisions. We had the courage to make those tough decisions; we are controlling the deficit; we are controlling the growth in spending. We said that we would do that, and those tough decisions are being made.
In terms of the throne speech, there's no question that the major choice before us as British Columbians and, I would say, as Canadians is as the hon. Finance minister put it the other day: either we go for the American health care system or we improve, change and amend our medicare so that it will serve our future generations well. Over the last five years there has been a 50 percent increase in spending on medicare. We can
[ Page 4738 ]
either reform that system or we can go for the two-tiered system that the Socreds were planning to implement by bringing in the user fees that they were so proud of. This government has had the courage to make those fundamental changes that need to be made -- for example, going to community health care, taking the money and the facilities out of where they aren't needed and giving them to where they are needed in outlying areas and in long term care facilities.
This government has focused on promotion of trade and of investment. The Premier has taken several trips to the Pacific Rim, Europe and the United States to promote that investment, to encourage investors to come to British Columbia, and that continues to happen.
Before I continue with the main thrust of the speech, let me digress a little. Over the last year and a half that I've had the privilege to be a member of this House, our government has brought in many initiatives and programs, funded many projects that have assisted my constituents and all British Columbians. I've had the privilege of working in my own constituency with several neighbourhood houses, community centre associations and other organizations that assist people on a day-to-day basis, and I can assure you that the impact of the programs our government has brought forth has been felt positively by those institutions. It's important to keep this in mind. That's why there has been consultation on the issue of ongoing medicare reform. There was consultation on the major changes in the labour relations area, and consultation is ongoing in the area of employment standards. There is consultation in the area of the Commission on Resources and Environment. Consultation has been one of the cornerstones of our policy for the last 16 or 17 months that our government has been in power. I think it's important to recognize that this consultation takes in our constituents, the people of British Columbia and various sectoral organizations, institutions and associations that assist people in their daily lives.
I know that our government contemplates many new initiatives which were mentioned in the throne speech. I'm interested in talking about just some of them. For instance, the agreement on the concept of the Treaty Commission that was entered into last year -- the year of the indigenous peoples -- between our government and the aboriginal peoples is going to take more of a concrete shape with the Treaty Commission Act that will be introduced in the coming months of this session. I've had the privilege of working on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, dealing with one of the most fundamental issues -- the issue that the opposition is always interested in talking about; creating jobs, creating prosperity -- and that is the $25 million fund to encourage investment and business development within the aboriginal communities. If some members of the opposition misunderstood, I'm saying it simply to highlight that this is our issue that we talk about, and we do those things that need to be done to bring about more jobs and prosperity in this province.
In the last session of this Legislature many pieces of legislation were passed that I'm proud of. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is going to throw the government of the people of British Columbia open to the people of British Columbia. When that act comes into force shortly, it will be an historic occasion. The government of the people, for the people and by the people will really be handed back to the people of British Columbia. I'm proud to say it was my government that accomplished that task.
There was the conflict-of-interest legislation for MLAs, which moved this Legislature and our government into a more open and honest environment.
Interjections.
U. Dosanjh: I see some members of the Socred caucus trying to talk about conflict. I guess they were mired in it; it was difficult for them to talk about at that time. I'm glad that they have now breathed this fresh air that's been provided to them by the New Democrats of British Columbia. They are now able to talk about conflict of interest.
In addition to freedom of information and privacy legislation and conflict-of-interest legislation, we have restored democracy and fairness in another aspect of our life in British Columbia: election-day registration for the citizens who were usually left off the voters' list and never had the opportunity to vote on election day. I'm proud to say that we've also lowered the voting age from 19 to 18, bringing it in line with the rest of the country.
As we know, our government installed the first and only stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality last year. By my calculation, all of this government's different programs have injected over $125 million of new money into women's programs or programs affecting women and children. That is something of which we can be proud, and that commitment continues. I was recently involved in handing one of those grants to a very small child care centre in my own constituency, the Sunshine child care of the Chinese Pentecostal benevolent association. It gave me a great deal of pleasure that our government has recognized that if we really want meaningful equality for B.C. women and appropriate facilities for B.C. children, we need to plow more and more resources into child care and women's programs.
In terms of labour relations, the kind of consultation going into the legislation passed in our last sitting is not hidden from anyone. Contrary to the allegations made by the opposition and the third party, that's one of the most progressive pieces of legislation anywhere in North America. I'm also delighted to know that there is work progressing, as I said, in the employment standards area.
In line with its commitment to affordable housing, this government set up a review process and a housing commission. The report from that commission has been produced and is available to all of us. Coming from an urban constituency, I can tell you that that is one of the most important issues in places like Vancouver-Kensington and the whole of Vancouver -- the affordability of housing and the livability of the cities in general. With the kind of commitment that this government has made in that aspect, I'm certain that we will make great progress.
[ Page 4739 ]
Of course, then there was the freeze on the MLAs' salaries. That was a bold step, because the whole issue was turned over to an industrial relations expert, and his recommendations are available to all of us to read.
This House continues to improve in terms of the functions assigned to its various committees. I wasn't here before the last election, but I know that there were very few committees that ever did any work in this House under the last administration. You now have full involvement of the MLAs, many of them opposition and third-party MLAs, on various committees. As I said before, the Aboriginal Affairs Committee has a task that it is grappling with, the Forests Committee has the task on the remanufacturing issue that it is grappling with, and the Parliamentary Reform Committee, of which I am a member and chair, has a task that it is grappling with. Those are challenging issues, and those issues force the members of this Legislature to bring their creative energies to bear. And it's important.
[5:00]
When we talk about democracy.... We had the leader of the third party reintroducing the Initiative Act and a couple of other acts, one of them being the Recall Act. I'm just wondering where this opposition, the third party, was when it was in power for so many years, when its own members needed to be recalled -- and they would have been recalled in an instant. Where were they? I can assure you that if this legislation had been available at that time.... The leader of the third party sat in that cabinet during those days and months of turmoil and had no courage to address that very issue, and now introduces the recall legislation without any consultation. The Socred government had no courage in consulting people on fundamental issues such as those. They formulated that question without any input from the people of British Columbia. They formulated it in the cabinet back rooms, they put it on the ballot, and now, in opposition to their own literature that they had produced at the time of taking that very question to the people of British Columbia -- which literature, I might add, said that if the people overwhelmingly supported those two concepts a committee would look into the implications of those two concepts for British Columbia and make appropriate recommendations.... We, as government, are following that mandate established by the previous government. But former cabinet members of that particular government now want us to not consult the people of British Columbia again. Have they not learned anything?
[The Speaker in the chair.]
In any event this just shows that the members of that particular party have not learned any lessons. One of the issues that really bothers me with respect to that legislation that's being reintroduced today is that in that recall legislation there is a provision....
H. De Jong: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, I thought we were debating the throne speech and not a piece of legislation that was brought in today.
The Speaker: It is the practice of the House to have fairly broad-ranging debate on the throne speech, but I think all members will appreciate that detailed discussion of legislation is usually not appropriate. Please continue, hon. member.
U. Dosanjh: A piece of legislation was introduced in the last sitting of this Legislature, and I'm assuming it's the same one that's now before the Legislature. I'm not talking about the legislation per se, but there is a clause in it that says that any member, if and when recalled, does not have the right to run for the same office.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. I would encourage the member who has the floor to address his comments to the throne speech.
U. Dosanjh: This is a throne speech that talks about a government that's fair, balanced and open. We're talking about whether or not democracy should extend to individuals. That would be part of any throne speech, if it's mentioned or not. Implicit in what we do inside or outside of this House is the fundamental precept that we, as British Columbians, want to promote democracy. All I'm saying is that the kind of legislation or issues that are raised by the third party sometimes don't even address the real constitutional issues and in fact take away people's fundamental constitutional rights. I'm suggesting that before one can talk about the third party's being fair, one has to talk about whether they really understand what's right and wrong, and what's fair or unfair.
Coming back to the throne speech, which I was on all along, but more specifically.... As I said, this government had the foresight and the courage to establish the Commission on Resources and Environment, a commission that was long overdue and had never been brought about by the previous government in its many mandates, because obviously the governments then were not interested in the orderly development of our economy so that the people of British Columbia could engage in economic development in a peaceful fashion and could resolve their disputes peacefully and amicably. Obviously it's a thing of pride for me as a member of this government to be able to say that this government is totally committed to resolving those land disputes in a peaceful way, to full consultation and of course also to ensuring that the interests of the aboriginal people and the government of British Columbia and the third parties will be taken into account, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said today in his statement. That's a commitment to resolving land use issues in a way that's conducive to a harmonious, prosperous future for British Columbia.
In terms of this government's commitments to health, education and programs for the disadvantaged in the area of Social Services, the Premier had announced some time ago -- dealing with 75 percent of the total budget -- that there would be a 3 percent increase in those areas. That's in keeping with our commitment as a government to make bold decisions,
[ Page 4740 ]
to not take away from the needed services, and to plan appropriately for the future generations. There was close to $1 billion invested in education in capital construction: $582 million on construction programs to build new schools in the last year and about $308 million -- the largest annual capital budget in B.C.'s post-secondary history -- for new campuses and other items to do with advanced education. That's not a small amount of money.
The opposition and the third party continue to talk about wanting no tax increases, yet they want spending increases. This government has the courage to make the appropriate choices, to deal with the changes that need to be made, to deal with the tough issues, to make appropriate reductions in spending if we have to, to increase taxes on those who can afford to pay their fair share, and to provide services to those who need those services. We owe it to the people of British Columbia to provide some of the basic services they need on an ongoing basis.
Of course, it's not easy to reform a health care system or medicare system that takes almost a third of the annual budget of British Columbia, but nobody said it would be easy. It is a tough issue. It's an issue that goes to the very core of what defines us as British Columbians, as Canadians, in terms of the basic commitments that we've had from our governments over many decades to continue medicare and health care, and to improve it on an ongoing basis. That commitment is found in the throne speech, and I'm delighted that our Minister of Health is meeting those tough issues head on and dealing with them as constructively as possible under the circumstances.
As I said, several million dollars of new money has been injected into women's programs. Money has been going into ESL, into the immigrant settlement programs. There have been human rights amendments. Those areas have been dealt with in the last 16 to 18 months. In keeping with the basic commitment to improved standards of living for people in British Columbia, to improved services for those who need them most, and to retaining and improving medicare, I am certain that our government will continue to make the best use of the resources available to us. I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that this government has the courage to make changes to face the challenges ahead.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]