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)
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 5
[ Page 4755 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Ann Muehlebach of Chilliwack Multicultural Services, otherwise known as Link, who is very involved in environmental and multicultural services in Chilliwack. With her today are 48 newcomers to Canada and two volunteer counsellors, all from my riding of Chilliwack. Would the House please make them most welcome.
G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce two longtime friends of mine and of my family. One is visiting here from Ottawa and the other now lives in Victoria. Both of them are longtime advocates for and developers of housing for seniors in Canada, and now here in Victoria. Sylvia Goldblatt is from Ottawa and Kyoshi Shimizu is from Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.
P. Dueck: It is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce a friend of mine. He is Gordon Frampton, president of Frampton Appraisals. He was my boss when he served as senior appraiser for the B.C. Assessment Appeal Board, when I was a member of that board. He also served as president of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, and it's my pleasure to now ask the House to wish him welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would ask the House to help me welcome, from the fine state of Minnesota, my wife's cousin Paul Busch.
R. Kasper: It's with great pleasure that I introduce a gentleman in the gallery this afternoon, a professor of journalism from Carleton University who has had a long and distinguished career in journalism. He served as the Ottawa bureau chief for the Globe and Mail, had a position with the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen, and is a big Hamilton Ti-Cats fan. Please give a warm welcome to Mr. Murray Goldblatt.
Hon. A. Hagen: Each year instructors from Douglas College arrange for members of the community social workers' program to attend the Legislature. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming members of this year's class to our deliberations today.
The Speaker: The Chair has noticed the presence this afternoon of a former Speaker of this House, Mr. Gordon Dowding. I'm sure the House would also like to welcome Gordon Dowding.
LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATIONS
A. Warnke: The question that I have today is for the Premier. The opposition has in its possession a confidential document outlining liquor licence application increases of 900 percent. Does the Premier understand that these increases will harm small businesses, tourism and local economies throughout the province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the hon. member is aware that no decision has been made on these matters. Of course, he will hear about them, the same as everybody else in this House, when the budget is tabled next week.
A. Warnke: The government must know that increases of this magnitude will also hurt small family-run restaurants. Why is the government engaging in this fierce tax attack on small family businesses?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair heard the Premier's answer. I did not hear a question in that supplemental.
BUSINESS LOAN WRITE-OFFS
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Premier as well. Yesterday in question period the Premier stated: "...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." According to the auditor general, that statement is blatantly untrue, and the Premier must know it. Will the Premier now apologize to the House for deliberately misleading this chamber?
The Speaker: Hon. member, that may be a legitimate point of inquiry if done in a different way, but I do not consider that that's an appropriate question for question period.
I see that the member has stood. I'm assuming that the hon. member does have a question.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker.
The auditor general reports that in the 1991-92 fiscal year there is a provision for doubtful accounts of $211 million. As part of the government's announced budget reduction measures during the current fiscal year, that amount was reduced by a further $2.4 million. Will the Premier confirm that the government will pursue collection of the outstanding $208 million?
The Speaker: Before I recognize the Premier, I'm sure the hon. member would just like to clarify in the House, and perhaps withdraw, the comments about "deliberately misleading" the House. I would ask the member to do that before I allow the Premier to answer.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I'll withdraw, assuming....
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for finally getting the question to the point where it can be answered.
I would think that the member astounds most of British Columbia by asking a question about his government's incompetence in running this province. I'm sure that if he would read the Peat Marwick report and Deloitte Haskins, who did an independent review of the shambles that the books were in, the shambles of the business loans the previous government left
[ Page 4756 ]
throughout this province, he would realize that yes, we were told by those independent auditors that $316 million was bad debt and that we should eat it in the 1991-92 fiscal year. And yes, we are trying to collect that money that the taxpayers of British Columbia deserve, in spite of your incompetence in trying to blow all of that taxpayers' money.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, leader of the third party.
J. Weisgerber: The question was in a form that was answerable; I'm not sure that it was answered. If the Premier, rather than spending his time referring to the Deloitte Haskins report -- or the Peat Marwick report, I think more accurately -- would look at the auditor general's report, he would see that the auditor general has established $25 million in bad debts and that the $208 million is established as doubtful accounts. Will the Premier...?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Your question, hon. member?
J. Weisgerber: Will the Premier confirm that in fact the write-off of accounts was only $25 million, not the $316 million that he has deliberately misled people to believe?
The Speaker: Again, the hon. member well knows that there are certain words that are unparliamentary in this chamber. I must ask the leader of the third party to again withdraw the objectionable terms.
J. Weisgerber: To give the Premier the benefit of the doubt, I will withdraw the word "deliberately."
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order.
Some Hon. Members: Not in question period.
The Speaker: Order, please. In this instance I will take the point of order during question period and ask that question period be extended to accommodate it.
Hon. M. Sihota: On the first occasion I was prepared to wait until the end of question period. Now that the leader of the third party has consciously, on a second occasion, repeated those words, it seems to me appropriate to rise and ask the hon. member to unconditionally withdraw the allegation of deliberately misleading the House.
The Speaker: The leader of the third party has withdrawn the objectionable part of the term; however, I'm sure that the leader of the third party would like to rise now and clarify his unconditional withdrawal of the unparliamentary language. I would ask him to do that.
[2:15]
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure what's left that's unparliamentary, hon. Speaker. If there is language that this government is sensitive about, then certainly I will withdraw.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members well know the rules on unparliamentary language. Perhaps I can ask the question this way. Did the leader of the third party mean to impugn any improper motives to the Premier's action? If he would answer that question for the House, perhaps we could deal with that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
J. Weisgerber: No.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
The Premier is rising to answer the question?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, I would like to do that. It is question period, and if we can finally get the question sorted out -- as you have, hon. Speaker; I appreciate your assistance -- I would like to say that the previous government misled the people of British Columbia.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I think hon. members will recognize why it is not the practice of this House to handle points of order during question period. Having handled one, I feel I must recognize the point of order by the Third Party House Leader.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, the point of order is that there is a certain standard of conduct required from all members of this House. One of the significant points in the standard of conduct by all hon. members is that of honesty and integrity. What is good for the goose is, in fact, good for the gander.
The Speaker: I think the best thing that the Chair could do in this instance is to call on the next member who wishes to ask a question.
BUSINESS INVESTMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
L. Stephens: Today, despite the Premier's globetrotting to promote investment, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada reported that capital investment in the province has taken a nosedive of over 15 percent. Statistics Canada reports that for the second consecutive year British Columbia manufacturers are cutting investment. My question is to the Minister of Finance: are you basing your spending intentions on the reality that business investment in this province is drying up?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted to answer this question. Total investment in Canada dropped by 4.4 percent in 1992 and by 0.5 percent in British Columbia. Projections for 1993 are for capital investment in Canada to increase by 3.9 percent, but
[ Page 4757 ]
investment intentions suggest it will rise by 9.1 percent in British Columbia in 1993.
Employment in B.C. rose 1.9 percent in 1992, and in Canada it fell by 0.8 percent in 1992. By every measure, British Columbia is performing better than any other province in Canada. Whether it's capital investment or jobs, we're leading the country and will lead it in 1993.
L. Stephens: Since the Minister of Finance ignores reality, will the Minister of Economic Development face the fact that your government has kneecapped business through the corporate capital tax, unproven environmental regulations and the infamous Ken Georgetti Labour Code. The results have seen another $300 million of business investment cancelled since July. This translates into 20,000 person-years of lost jobs. What is the minister doing to represent business interests in cabinet?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Somebody across the way is yelling about conflict, and I want you to know that this cabinet keeps its nose clean, unlike the previous cabinet.
In terms of investment, the Minister of Finance just gave you the facts from StatsCan, which the opposition consistently ignores. We projected growth last year of 3 percent; it was a little less. We grew at 2.5 percent while the rest of Canada declined. We expect growth this year to be 3 percent, and with that growth will come investment. What the Minister of Finance neglected to say is that we expect $1.5 billion more in investment this year than last year, which is a net increase over the year before.
L. Stephens: With grave concern, we note that the Premier plans to make another overseas trip promoting British Columbia. I would ask the Minister of Economic Development, in the name of the B.C. economy, to please take away the Premier's American Express card, or we won't be able to afford our CareCard.
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINING INDUSTRY
D. Jarvis: My question is to the Premier. In a recent interview with a B.C. magazine the Premier was asked what he was going to do about the mining industry taking off to Chile. He replied: "We are not discouraging them from running from B.C. I hope they go into Mexico and Argentina. I find it very exciting." Sir, do you understand that when these jobs leave British Columbia and go to Argentina, Mexico and Chile, they are not coming back? It's adios, amigo.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not sure the member appreciates the skill that British Columbians have built up. B.C. is now exporting engineers and technology to other areas of the world from companies headquartered here in British Columbia. The profits come back into B.C. I'm sure the member is aware of the two new mine certificates issued in the last while by the minister, and we know there are more coming. We have met with the mining industry. We understand that they're having problems. They're having problems with the 1,000 percent increase in water taxes that the previous government put on them. There are some troubled times in mining. These problems exist all over North America.
This government, unlike the previous government, knows that mining is here to stay in B.C. Those headquarters are going to work out of B.C. into the rest of the world to help developing countries like Chile, Argentina and Mexico with our technology and expertise.
D. Jarvis: I hope he does such things as take the water tax off -- everything that will help the industry.
A supplemental, hon. Speaker. The Minister of Mines is from a riding that has been really disadvantaged and devastated by the collapse of the mining industry in this province last year. More than anyone else, she should know how serious the crisis actually is. On the Premier's chilly comments representing the policy in this province, does the minister agree that the mass exodus of mining jobs out of the province is exciting, or just plain exiting?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to say that the Premier and I are on the same wavelength. We believe and understand that the technology developed by our extremely forward-looking mining industry in this province is going to be bought by people in other countries. That's exactly what has happened. There is no question at all that we have absolute confidence in the mining industry of this province, and we have confidence that our resources, our response and our work together is going to keep that industry healthy and here in B.C.
REGULATION OF B.C. HYDRO AS PRIVATE UTILITY
R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. The government has decided that Hydro should be regulated as a private utility. Can the minister advise the House what rate of return on equity the government is planning to extract from Hydro in dividends, and can he further advise us of the total cost of this new policy to Hydro users?
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a number of comments to assist the hon. member in understanding the issue. First of all, he should understand that the determination with regard to these matters...
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Settle down, and I'll explain it to you.
...is made by the B.C. Utilities Commission, the regulatory body, not by government.
Secondly, the hon. member has indicated that we are now applying a private sector test, the same test that applies to B.C. Gas and West Kootenay Power and Light. I can't see any reason why members of the Social
[ Page 4758 ]
Credit Party would have any objections to the government applying a private sector test with regard to utilities.
The hon. member should also know that this is a provision which is in the consumer's interest. This provision -- when it goes in front of the Utilities Commission -- is designed to protect the consumer's interest; he asked about consumers. It is designed to protect it as follows: it makes sure that there is a cap on any rate increases of inflation plus 2 percent this year and inflation plus 1 percent next year.
The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
A. Warnke: When one rises to one's feet in this House when bad news has been introduced by the government, it's not exactly a pleasant time to rise. However, any time there is a response to the throne speech, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise, especially on behalf of my constituents of Richmond-Steveston.
This afternoon I will touch on a number of issues. Before I do, I want to make some introductory remarks that I think are worth baring at this time, especially in light of what happened on the day of the throne speech. We live in a complex age of politics not only because the challenges are complex but because, unlike previous ages, there are many distractions to understanding and comprehending the nature of politics and therefore appreciating the nature of government. We live in an age of a pluralistic society; indeed, we pride ourselves on a pluralistic society, where a premium, even an incentive, exists to become part of and identify one's self with a group.
[2:30]
In a political context, there is the incentive to become part of a group so that we can advance our own individual interests as well. Nonetheless, when we become part of a group, those individual interests are vulnerable and are often compromised. It is not by coincidence, of course, that not only have political parties flourished in the twentieth century but interest groups and a variety of other groups who express themselves in a political way have also flourished. There are those who even welcome the development of groups and the triumph of the collective over individual interests. There are those who welcome the triumph of group and movement politics in the twentieth century. A contemporary of ours, Theodore Lowi -- not a friend of liberal democracy; in fact, he predicted its demise in a book published some years ago -- has embraced the development of group and movement politics and feels that its triumph is inevitable. He also noted that as groups develop, the iron law of decadence is also inevitable.
I think we have to be concerned about this. Lowi -- not a friend of liberal democracy -- did point out that in the context of group and movement politics there is the potential formation of totalitarian perspectives. Indeed, he noted the oscillation of policy perspectives, where the goals may be meaningful and articulated, but not fully, and therefore they are misunderstood and go off in different directions.
I do not subscribe to the thesis that such a development is necessary or inevitable or desirable, but the principles of political obligation do exist even during an era of the politics of disorder. Therefore I draw inspiration -- and I think we all should, hon. Speaker -- from John Stuart Mill, and from one sentence of his: "The idea of a rational democracy is not only that the people themselves govern, but that they have security for good government." And: "If they renounce this, they give themselves up to tyranny." I did want to make some introductory remarks on that note in the context of what occurred on the day of the throne speech, and all citizens would be well advised to reflect on that.
As to the throne speech itself -- moving from a serious note -- I also looked at previous throne speeches and the responses to them. I was struck by the member for Nanaimo, who in 1990 said that there were essentially three Cs we should focus on: challenge, change and choice. And then, well articulated by the member for Vancouver-Kensington yesterday, the three Cs reappear, but they are courage, change and challenge. It's interesting that the order is a bit mixed up. I notice that "choice" has now been replaced by "courage," but there you go.
The throne speech, comparatively speaking, was mercifully short, but courage was a major theme and indeed is a major theme of this government. But as I looked at the throne speech and read it over again, I was struck: "Where is this courage?"
An Hon. Member: You read it twice?
A. Warnke: I had to; it was very difficult. But in rereading it, I tried to find exactly where the courage is expressed by this government. It's interesting that one of the themes where it's believed the government was courageous was the area of health care. Again, when I looked at the response to the throne speech of 1990, the current Minister of Social Services stated then:
"What's this government's answer? After years of neglect, after years of ignoring the situation, after years of ignoring the professionals and the cries of the families that need the care in our community, they take beds that are desperately needed in Vancouver and distribute them throughout this area that is so understaffed. Not an innovative program to deal with bringing these beds up to the average needed for the province, but shuffling the deck of cards. More smoke and mirrors."
As I reflect on that comment in 1990, I don't know whether we have come very far, because some of the content of what was said then may certainly be rephrased and applied now.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I'll let our own critic elaborate on the question of the health care system as it's described in the throne speech. The point is courage, courage where there is some
[ Page 4759 ]
oscillation with some problems in dealing with health care in this province and courage in terms of dealing with an acknowledged overrun in terms of social service spending.
Where was the minister a year ago, and where is her fiscal strategy within this ministry? It's no secret that within the Ministry of Social Services we have some very severe problems that will become even more acute when we receive the budget at the end of this month. It may well be that the argument is: surely you wouldn't want us to take money away from the needy, would you? Whenever I hear that, I suggest it is the old classic methodology of building up a straw-man -- or straw-person -- tactic of trying to illustrate that the minister is doing a credible job after all, because obviously we're not cutting back where it is needed. Nonetheless, I would say perhaps the Minister of Social Services is a straw minister.
At any rate, when we take a look at courage to tackle finance and economic problems, there are difficult decisions to be made; everyone acknowledges that. But when we take a look at the detail of what we can anticipate, are we going to see some controlled spending? Are we going to see a greater growth of government? Sometimes governments need to grow, and sometimes governments need to be curbed. On the other hand, when I see some of the lucrative contracts developed with the BCGEU and so forth, I sometimes wonder whether this government really knows how to control spending and curb the growth of government.
How about capping the deficit? Where is the capping of the deficit? This government was the first to introduce a deficit. The deficit has increased. It's a nice strategy to suggest that we expect a huge deficit, and then announce later on: "Well, the deficit isn't as large as we anticipated." That's really toying around with what is reality in terms of how you cap a deficit.
Where is the courage of building the economy in this throne speech? How do you do it with taxes on individuals and taxes on small businesses? Indeed, as I mentioned earlier in the day, I think some of the proposals to tax small businesses -- small family-owned restaurants -- is obviously not the way to go. But this government does not seem to be getting the message. Yes, they attack corporations all right, corporations which are in a position to pass on expenses to consumers. They attack professionals, who can do the same -- at least the more lucrative professional offices and concerns can do that. The smaller professionals, those individuals, have extreme difficulty in passing it on to the consumers. The government can tax consumers. But when we take a look at the pattern of taxation, the pattern of revenues and expenditures by this government, what we have is not courage to tackle the financial and economic problems of this province.
A few weeks ago I learned that the government, in applying expenditures to a school that it committed itself to in my riding of Richmond-Steveston, all of a sudden reneged practically at the last minute, with only a couple of weeks to go. This is with regard to rebuilding London secondary school. When I saw that, I said: "Where is the commitment?" And then, of course, I later reflected: "Where is the courage?" Oh, there's lots of courage when it means giving out funds to the BCGEU or to other friends and insiders, and so forth, but I really think one has to question where the courage is here. I have a tendency to think that the Finance minister is something like the Tin Man.
When I take a look at what the Premier said some time ago -- once again, in 1990, when he was the Leader of the Opposition -- it was essentially that he was in a position to strike a deal because he had consulted several groups throughout this province: loggers, members of the forest industry, the environmental leadership and the aboriginal peoples. These are the groups that the Premier identified he had been working with for 18 months, up until April 1990, and he was confident that he was going to strike a deal. He said at that time that he thought the government simply was not listening.
Then He Said: "I am convinced that our forest stakeholders" -- namely, the loggers, the forest industry, the environmental leadership and the aboriginal peoples -- "are ready to make intelligent accommodations. What's missing is the political leadership to strike a deal." Well, who has been driving the bus for the last 15 or 16 months? We're nowhere near that deal that supposedly was just at hand when the Premier talked about it in April 1990.
As a matter of fact, while I admire the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, outlining here yesterday the aspirations of the government in defence of the throne speech, it is still not very clear where the loggers and the forest industry are going to have an accommodation. It's not clear where the environmental leadership is in all of this. It's not even clear where we're headed in dealing with the aboriginal peoples. So what we get out of the throne speech on closer analysis are platitudes, or what I believe my distinguished colleague from Nanaimo at one time called fluff; I think that applies here.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: That's because I admire the member for Nanaimo so much.
So on the Premier and his government, the question is: do they have the courage? It appears that they have the courage not of a lion, but of a pussycat. When you take a look at the straw minister, the Tin Man and the courage of a pussycat, we're still proceeding way down the winding yellow brick road to heaven knows where.
The courage is still lacking when we take a look at the application of government policies in a concrete sense. In my riding of Richmond-Steveston, and indeed throughout Richmond, I didn't see the government exercise much courage this past year when it came to employment and business, and especially in aiding small business, small family businesses, and so forth. I didn't see the courage there. I hope that they do have the courage in this coming year. I hope so, but I doubt it.
[2:45]
It's the same thing with schools and education. I haven't seen any response by the Minister of Education in the case of Richmond and the Richmond School Board being so responsible -- and they were in the early 1980s.... I haven't seen them being compensated
[ Page 4760 ]
for that. There's no incentive for knowing how to deal with a budget when in fact governments -- the previous government is guilty of this as well -- are not responding to that. As a matter of fact, when it comes to concrete cases regarding health care, I know of one elderly gentleman who is a retired senior and obviously on a low income. He now has to pay for his testing strips, which he didn't have to pay for before. For some people, that is appalling. This is certainly occurring in my riding.
Another aspect of this throne speech I want to take a look at is in response to some of the remarks by the Attorney General. I listened closely to the remarks by the Attorney General this morning and, as a matter of fact, I commend him in this context. When I looked at the throne speech, there was not a lot there in terms of the administration of justice in this province. So it is comforting that, in addition to the throne speech, there was the elaboration by the Attorney General outlining the government's direction in addressing problems of justice and the various social issues related to the laws. I'd like to comment on some of them.
I would agree that for far too long we have left native matters to the side when they're related to questions of justice. We all know that natives have been out of proportion in terms of incarceration and so forth, and that some special attention by government is needed there. There is the commitment, as well, to addressing violence in the family between males and females and between the young and the older generations. The Attorney General is quite correct; I think everyone agrees that violence within the family -- against women and children in particular -- must be addressed in the most urgent fashion possible.
I was also interested in hearing about the problems in dealing with how to protect children in the community, especially against pedophiles. I understand some of the angst that the Attorney General may be going through in terms of protecting individual rights. But at the same time, I think members in this chamber know full well my view on the protection of individual rights; I'm a strong individualist. Yet whose individual rights are we talking about? I would tend to say that when there is a conflict of individual rights, it is paramount to protect the individual rights of children against pedophiles and such. That is the direction we should be headed toward.
There are the problems of the Young Offenders Act. While the provincial government is responsible only for its administration, the act is articulated by the federal government. I agree with the Attorney General that it is high time we put a lot of emphasis on the fact that something must be altered in the Young Offenders Act. If this ministry puts changes to the Young Offenders Act at the top of its agenda in dealing with the federal government, that is something we must support. By the same token, while we're looking for community solutions, as outlined by the Attorney General, we have to keep in mind that the community need is safety from violence for its people and its children. It doesn't even have to be violence; breaking and entering is a form of violence. But it is certainly an example of where community safety is severely compromised.
The evolution of gang violence, I would say, is not just restricted to certain parts of Vancouver or to the urban areas throughout this country; it's spreading. In Richmond we've seen some recent examples that have upset the community. Something must be done. Therefore, when we see the evolution of gang violence, increased youth violence and so forth, I think it is necessary to define how we address these problems in the context of the community, with the focus primarily on the community need -- the emphasis on safety. I too am interested in such things as the Oppal commission. The abuse of police must obviously be addressed, but at the same time I think that it's time to readdress policing in the context of the safety of our communities, and to extend support to police and to build their morale. The public desires visible and immediate protection for the people -- especially the victims of crime and violence. In that context I hope we move towards an increased focus on the rights of victims in this society.
There are many aspects of this throne speech that one could look at, but those are some that I definitely wanted to touch on today. I still have a lot of problems with this throne speech, from the fluff it contains to some of the inherent contradictions within it to some of the administrative problems that we see. I would like to propose an amendment that the motion, "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following:
"...but this assembly regrets that after 18 months after the election of this government, the province continues to operate without any economic plan which will return British Columbia to a stable financial footing and that this government continues, as a result, to plunge the province into massive debt which defers the payment of their spending decisions onto future taxpayers; and furthermore regrets that this Speech from the Throne provides only platitudes to the taxpayers of the province, calling them to be courageous in their sacrifice while this government steadfastly refuses to take up the same challenge that it offered to taxpayers."
On the amendment.
H. De Jong: Speaking to the amendment, I am rather surprised that a Speech from the Throne can be amended. However, if that's possible I guess we're dealing with an amendment to the throne speech. I certainly believe there is ample reason for it. Even many of the backbenchers on the government side who have spoken have not really spoken on what this Speech from the Throne contains or what it will do for British Columbia. Last year I referred to the throne speech as a blueprint. This year I can hardly see a rough draft of a blueprint, because there really is nothing. I sympathize with the members on the government side, particularly the backbenchers, because they have nothing to talk about except what has already happened in the past year. No one has referred to the good things that are in this throne speech, so I think the amendment is quite appropriate.
[ Page 4761 ]
The government undoubtedly celebrated last fall when they had been in office for one year, but have the people of British Columbia really celebrated with them? I would dare to say that the majority have not. I believe British Columbians are quite prepared to work with any government that is sincere in working towards the good of the province, but that wasn't found in last year's operations. The constituency I represent certainly has not shown any enthusiasm about the operations of this government over the past year.
The removal of the supplementary homeowner grant, in the face of rising assessments on all sorts of properties, has to be a slap in the face for every British Columbian. I'm sure there was some expectation by the Minister of Finance that assessments would rise, specifically on properties of a rural nature tied up under the agricultural land reserve. Real agricultural land hasn't really been driven up in price; it's the type of thing where a home is all of a sudden classified on the basis of being on one of the better streets in a well-run subdivision.
Salaries of the average worker have not increased, at least not to the extent of what teachers and nurses have received, for which this government was in control. I'm sure we wouldn't want the government in control of wage increases, wage regulations and so on. But the government was in control of this one, and I dare say that most of these people -- the teachers and nurses -- received three times the increase in salary that the average British Columbian did.
The return on farm products -- I'm talking about at the farm gate -- has either stayed static or gone down, except perhaps for apples, and the Minister of Agriculture will know better about that. The return at the farm gate was generally lower last year. Increase in volume is the only thing by which the farmer can survive. Yet this government had the courage -- or the audacity, if I may call it that -- to apply a corporate tax on farm properties, on the incorporated farm, which is the only way a family farm can be retained and has been able to be retained.
Politicians of all stripes have stated from time to time, either in this House or on the election platform, that the family farm is the strength of most communities in B.C. I'm not so sure that any of the members currently in the government -- I'm sure some of them have stated it -- are still of that same view today, because if they were, they certainly would have applied.... If the tax is to be applied on agriculture of one kind or another, apply it fairly to all of agriculture. Don't pick on the incorporated farms, because they were incorporated for family reasons.
[3:00]
But it doesn't stop at farms; it also applies to small business. Many small businesses go from generation to generation. Most of those have been incorporated. What about the car dealers? Many of them in small communities operate on a small margin, but they carry a fair amount of stock. The capital tax applies to all of that stock. It's basically another 0.3 percent in interest, not only on what they owe but on their total holdings. It's a totally unfair tax to begin with, and it's something that you haven't made a profit on yet. You're hoping to make some, but that's not guaranteed.
Last year, when this bill was debated, the Minister of Finance mentioned that it was brought in because the farmers who incorporated did so to get some tax advantages. I'm not sure whether the Minister of Finance has any knowledge of farming, but if he does, I'm sure he would quite readily agree that the results of the corporate tax are far more serious than the benefits gained through incorporation -- by any tax measure.
As I said earlier, many politicians have stood on the platform and spoken glowingly about retaining family farms. Hon. Speaker, having spoken to many farmers over the last six months, I want to tell you that this may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back on many farms. Farmers are not people who give up easily. They will work hard and try to produce more and be more efficient. But there is a time when enough is enough, and that day has come. We may well stand here and talk about preserving agricultural land and providing food for British Columbians, but if this government is not prepared to take the corporate tax off at least the incorporated farms -- and off small businesses, as well -- there may not be very many farmers on the farmland protected by the banks of British Columbia.
The throne speech talks about courage. The question is: courage to do what -- raise more taxes? There is nothing in the throne speech which says that what they're going to do takes courage. But we know what's coming next week. The budget will be coming down. I'm not sure what taxes are going to be increased, but whatever tax is going to be increased, it's going to hit somewhere in this province where people can least afford it.
It doesn't take any courage to add more regulations for business enterprises, but it does take some courage to take away some of those regulations. That's what is needed.
I have seen nothing in this throne speech that provides a vision for this province and for British Columbians. There is certainly no vision whatsoever in this throne speech for the economic future of British Columbia. There is no vision in this throne speech like the vision Bill Bennett had when he proposed that Expo be held in Vancouver and what needed to be done to accommodate that. But the vision went far beyond Expo; it's still here today. We get people coming back to British Columbia because they visited Expo in 1986, and they will continue to come back. It's that kind of vision that is lacking in this throne speech.
What was the Premier's response to the NAFTA or to the free trade agreement? The latest was the NAFTA, of course. The Premier's response was: "Let's not get involved with it. Let's not try to make some suggestions for change. We're in British Columbia, and we can do things by ourselves. We don't need to be part of this NAFTA, and we will not do anything about it, either." That's really a lot of courage and incentive to British Columbians. If that doesn't drive away potential investors.... For the Premier to take that kind of attitude to such an important document which is going to affect everyone in this country and, in particular, in British Columbia, because we are a high trading province....
[ Page 4762 ]
On top of that, he even closes the California office. That was another move out of lack of vision for this province and for the opportunities that are here and elsewhere. Business isn't looking for grants, but business is looking for a climate in which to achieve -- not just to exist but to flourish. It's not going to, if this government and this Premier aren't going to provide some vision for this province and some action out of that vision, so that British Columbians will be able to take on the courage that's talked about in the throne speech. But nothing was said in the throne speech about what that courage really means.
A person wonders what the priorities of this government are. It's certainly not economic development or encouragement to the economic community. In late December a news release came into my local office from the Minister of Women's Equality. She had doled out some $500,000 to various community organizations throughout British Columbia. Many good, deserving organizations in many places in British Columbia are working for the good of the total community. Some of them got $3,000, others got $5,000 and some got $10,000. You may not believe it, hon. Speaker, and the members of this House may not believe it -- they may never have read the news release -- but the maximum grant of $15,000 went to the homosexual and lesbian organization in Vancouver. Is that the priority of this government? Surely not. But it is. It was right on the news release. There is a famous saying: "What you sow, so shall you reap."
Last Thursday's activities at the Legislature are another example, in my opinion, of what this government is sowing: violent opposition. During and following the election, individuals, members, ministers, Premiers and others made many promises -- promises they knew they could never fulfil. If parents do the same thing to their children, the result will be a family in disarray. Promises to society, or a part of society, destroy trust in the government. Loss of trust leads to violence. I'm informed that the last time there was a similar type of demonstration was during the years of 1972-75, the Dave Barrett days: 1,200 dark days in British Columbia. If that doesn't tell you anything, the government better take a close look at why this happened and at exactly why it did happen when it happened before.
Unless this government is prepared to display some vision and change its course, and to follow it with courage, last Thursday's events are only the beginning. It will take a long time to bring a province back from economic ruin, but with the courage and determination of the people of this province it can be brought back to a place to invest and do business. The moral decay and attitude this government is fostering by its lack of direction will be more difficult to cure.
I never like to end a speech on a negative note, but I have no alternative, recognizing what is happening in our beautiful province of British Columbia.
D. Schreck: I heard a throne speech that talked about challenges facing British Columbians. I heard a throne speech that talked about the mandate our government has to make necessary change. And I heard a throne speech that talked about the courage that's necessary to make those changes.
When I listened to the critique from the opposition, I did not hear a critique of the legislative agenda outlined in that throne speech; I heard some vague references in anticipation of the budget speech. I would have thought that by this time in the session the members would have understood the difference between the legislative agenda and the budget agenda. But with the latitude that's usually allowed on this occasion, I'm happy to talk about our accomplishments from a fiscal and budgetary point of view, and our accomplishments -- past and anticipated for this session -- from a legislative point of view.
One of the things I heard a year and a half ago were the pretenders for opposition saying they would offer a positive opposition. As I've listened to the speeches of the last several days, I've heard nothing but naysayers. I have not heard fellow British Columbians who are proud of the accomplishments of British Columbians saying what they would do to build. All I hear are naysayers trying to climb over each other to establish an opposition by attacking the proud accomplishments of our government.
[3:15]
I'd like to talk about three challenges that I see facing British Columbians; three challenges that I've experienced over the last year as I've learned more about this process. Recently I was at a meeting of the North Shore Women's Centre. I ran into a couple of colleagues, and the first colleague I ran into said: "You know, I'm very concerned because I think that the government's moving too slow, that we've got 17 years of mistakes and problems that have accumulated in this province. You've been at it for a little over a year now. Why aren't they all solved? Why can't we move even faster?" I talked to this constituent for a while and I thought I just really didn't know how to satisfy this person. It's necessary to consult, bring people along and not dictate but participate in decision-making. I tried to make the constituent understand.
As I was about to leave the meeting, I ran into another constituent, and this person said: "I'm really concerned that you're going too fast. Slow down the process; too much is happening. I know that there are 17 years of mistakes to catch up on, but you have to look at two or three terms of government to fix 17 years of disastrous government." I said: "My friend, could you come with me for a moment? I'd like you to meet one of the other people at this meeting that just said the exact opposite." I brought her across the room and I introduced them. You know, they came in the same car together, rode together and participate in the same group together. I got them to discuss their opposite views of whether we're going too fast or too slow.
I don't know if they answered it, but by bringing them together, one of the most important points and one of the most important commitments of our government is illustrated: that it is the responsibility of government to do more than implement magical solutions in isolation from the public. It is the responsibility of government to bring proud British Columbians together from opposite points of view and to provide a
[ Page 4763 ]
forum where we can work together as a community and emerge as proud British Columbians working together.
I would hope that we could do the same thing in this chamber, that we could get over the naysaying of the opposition and into a debate of alternative, positive visions for British Columbia. I've yet to see an alternative vision put forward from those benches opposite, but we have time yet, and I'm still waiting.
Let's look at a second challenge that faces government. I spent a good deal of my life studying economics. I went into great painstaking detail and mathematical models in economics in graduate school. At one point I even espoused some of the Keynesian ideas that said: "Well, government can run countercyclical deficits and make up in the good times the debts that occurred in the bad times." I even began to understand some of the difficulties -- maybe whether spending should be even greater, like what we sometimes hear from the opposition benches when they say: "Spend, spend, spend, but cut all the taxes and somehow an angel will come and make the two balance." But I've learned more about economics in the past year in this chamber and in this job as an MLA than I ever learned in all of graduate school.
I've come to appreciate that the challenge before government is not just the debt or the deficit; it is debt servicing. Honestly, anybody could borrow money forever if it was given to them for free and they never had to pay it back or pay interest. It's not just the economic theories of deficit or debt, which are so badly represented -- I'm sorry to say -- by many of my friends in the profession. The challenge before government is growing debt servicing, and unless government gets on top of the problem, the government -- whoever it is -- loses the ability to govern. If we look at what's happening right now with the federal government, where one-quarter of total expenditures go to debt servicing, we can see the crisis mounting. That is why I am proud to see that our government has met the challenge of growing debt servicing costs by looking at those ever-increasing and escalating government expenditures that were left to us by the former government, at double-digit rates of increase of government spending, and has systematically ratcheted down government spending to levels approaching, but still working towards, the ability of British Columbians to afford.
When I look at the alternatives offered by the opposition benches, the best I can find is an election promise by the official opposition that all government spending would be cut across the board by 5 percent. That means that one out of every 20 schools would be closed, that one out of every 20 hospitals would be closed, and that tens of thousands of people in need would be turned away.
Interjections.
D. Schreck: We haven't seen any examples offered from those opposition benches, when they make their calls on "cut, cut, cut," of how they would implement that hollow election promise. All we hear from those opposition benches is "spend, spend, spend."
I hear heckling from the side opposite: "What about Shaughnessy Hospital?" Let me say that I am proud of the courage of my colleague in making a decision that was long overdue.
For not just years or not just ten years, but for decades people in health care in British Columbia talked about the need to close that old veterans' hospital. Nothing was done. Last summer one of the major hospitals in the lower mainland invited all government MLAs for a day to give a tour and to lobby us. And what were we told in that lobby? We were told: "Could you please close this obsolete hospital and reallocate the resources where they are needed? We can't afford to maintain an unnecessary institution. The money just isn't there." This was in the middle of the summer, long before the announcement that everybody knew had to be made if government would only have the courage to do it right this time.
Weeks before an announcement was made, I had in my office representatives of the Hospital Employees' Union who work at Shaughnessy Hospital, sitting at my side saying: "David, we know that this is coming. Is it really necessary?" So I say to the heckler opposite: was it really such a surprise? No, it was not. Everyone in the community knew it was a decision that was decades overdue. It takes courage to do what everybody knows is the right thing but which a few interests may oppose. It takes courage to sit down with the parties and negotiate an accord which guarantees job security by using reallocation, turnover and a change in the workweek so as to significantly reduce the number of workers in the acute care hospital sector without threatening the security of any individual. That takes leadership and courage, and that's the kind of leadership and courage I am proud to be part of in this government caucus.
After that announcement was made, it was not just health economists such as I who stood up and said: "Well done, my friend, Minister of Health." It was the presidents of major lower mainland hospitals who said they were so happy to see that there was finally a Minister of Health who had the courage to properly allocate health care resources.
I am left today with a burning image in my mind. I watched television a few weeks ago, and I saw that some members of the opposition were on a tour. I saw nine members of the opposition, in a hospital about to close, crawl out of a broken-down elevator stuck between the floors, after having sweated it out together for almost a half-hour, sharing gibes about what they thought were to be former colleagues. When I compare the vision, leadership and courage of my colleague the Minister of Health with the alternative offered by that broken-down opposition, the image in my mind is leadership versus nine people crawling out of a broken-down elevator. The challenges are clear; the choices are clear; the courage, and who has it, is clear.
Let me turn to how we got here, how we have been given the wonderful trust and opportunity to make the changes that are necessary. One of the changes that dominated the mind of the public in this province at the time of the election campaign was the need for a change to open and honest government. It's hard to believe, but
[ Page 4764 ]
we did the recent counting: in five years of that former government there were 120 portfolio changes, cabinet shuffles -- count them, 120 in just five years.
You remember the days, hon. Speaker, when you had to look at your watch in order to see who was Finance minister. You remember the days when you couldn't tell who was the cabinet minister in what portfolio. We have not only given proud British Columbians the open and honest government that we promised, but we have given stability to this province -- so that people know whom they are dealing with and are able to trust and develop confidence in their ministers, and so that I am able to share in the pride of working with these colleagues. We were given a mandate for change, and the most important change -- stability and open and honest government -- has already been delivered to the people of this province.
I've talked about three challenges. I've talked about the need to bring people together for consultation.
C. Serwa: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I'm going to ask that you rule the member out of order and that he forfeit his place in this debate. He is not speaking to, nor has he addressed, the amendment. Traditionally, he would be ruled out of order and would forfeit his place in this debate.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for a valid point of order.
D. Schreck: I am flattered by the attempt of my friend opposite to shut down the articulation of the obvious truth: that it was time for a change, and that open and honest government has been delivered; that we have stability, and that the fifty government caucus members can all share in the pride of their colleagues' accomplishments. No amount of debate can hide the fact that 120 cabinet changes in just five years indicated a decrepit government that needed a long, long rest. My friend mentions the amendment. No reason speaks stronger against that amendment than the record of the decrepit government that preceded the proud accomplishments we are attaining today.
The throne speech went on to deal with three other themes as examples of challenges, the changes that we need to make, and the courage that we need to make those changes. I'll touch briefly on those areas. The throne speech talked about health reform. My friend opposite already invited a detailed analysis of the Shaughnessy Hospital situation -- how it was a decision long overdue, and how we took courage and made the appropriate decision. But much more is involved in health care reform. I carefully looked at the speeches from the opposition benches in this throne speech debate and noticed the leader of the official opposition whining about how it's impossible to make changes without the support of everyone -- in particular, having the doctors onside. I must say that I would like our government to have the support of everyone. But no narrow interest group should think that it can hold the people of this province for ransom and put its self-interest ahead of the needs of all British Columbians.
[3:30]
Let's look at where medicare has gone. Medicare is one of the proudest accomplishments of New Democrats. Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan brought about medicare. At the time, the doctors were striking, marching in the streets with placards, trying to drive him out of the province. If Tommy Douglas had backed down because of a little dissent, a little disagreement, a major conflict in his province, we wouldn't have medicare to reform today. I would have preferred that the doctors in Saskatchewan had worked with Tommy Douglas. We all would have preferred that. The doctors in Saskatchewan came to work with Tommy Douglas and successive CCF and NDP governments, but it was only after the mettle of that government was tested.
I hope that the majority of doctors in B.C. will work with our government -- many are doing so today -- because we have no choice but to change. The only question is: do we change for the better, following the leadership that our government has shown, or do we sit back and let circumstances overrun us until we no longer have a health system that we can afford? Some of my friends say: "What's wrong with our system? It's pretty good compared to the U.S. system. They only wish that they had a system as good as ours." I agree that relative to the U.S. system, probably the worst health care system on earth, we have a very good health care system. But anyone who has travelled or read the literature or looked at alternatives knows that we have the second-most-expensive health care system in the world. Taxpayers cannot afford to continue paying for procedures that may be unnecessary, for stays in inappropriate institutions, for the misallocation of resources.
I Sometimes Hear People Say: "Isn't it awful that Washington State has more CAT scanners or MRI scanners than British Columbia?" And I say: "Is it bad that the United States has more nuclear weapons than Canada?" Sometimes a whole lot of a particular thing is not a good thing; it's a bad thing. Because the United States chooses to waste 25 to 40 percent more of its resources on unnecessary services, because more people die in the United States on the operating table of inappropriate heart operations than in Canada, does it mean we should emulate that most expensive, undesirable system? No, hon. Speaker. What we need is more rational decision-making, and I am proud of my colleague who has the courage to bring more rational decision-making in health care to this province.
The throne speech also dealt with the topic of building our economy for the long term. I must say, the criticism from the opposition benches is just fascinating. They style themselves as champions of no government involvement in the private sector, yet we hear speaker after speaker say: "What is government doing to assist private enterprise?" I am so delighted that the members opposite have finally come to appreciate what we have argued for a long time: that we have a mixed economy in which government works together with business. I've got a secret to share which maybe the members opposite haven't understood: successful businesses pay taxes and make government look very good. We figured that out a long time ago. We know that helping our friends in private business helps all British Columbians.
[ Page 4765 ]
It helps pay for the programs that all of our constituents desperately need. Our government is committed to working with our friends in private business to build a strong British Columbia. And we are utterly baffled, hon. Speaker, by precisely what position those on the opposition benches are trying to articulate. We find that their philosophical position shifts depending on what chair they happen to occupy. We appreciate their support in looking for ways to further our mixed economy.
We know that when we look at the record of British Columbia, people are still flocking to British Columbia in record numbers. Our success is one of our most difficult challenges. That 3 percent population growth that drives every aspect of our economy and our spending testifies to the fact that we are so successful. Were we not so successful, were we not offering such a strong, proud province, we would not have to cope with the consequences of this success, of this almost 3 percent population growth. I am proud to see that the record of my government is one of continuing to consult with the private business community to see how we can further advance the interests of all British Columbians by working together.
Finally, the throne speech dealt with the question of land use conflicts. There's a lot of irony in that: as the Lieutenant-Governor was talking about land use conflicts in the throne speech, we had the regrettable demonstration here where some of us saw the stained glass windows wilfully broken by a megaphone that was thrust through them. But it is important not to characterize very sincere people who are working for the benefit of the environmental movement by the unfortunate antics of a few anarchists.
Our government is committed to a process of consultation with all stakeholders to assure that decisions can be reached, that everyone is given the opportunity to participate and no one is left aside. If some parties choose to break glass and commit assaults rather than to take their opportunities to consult, that is something about which we all should be, and are, sad. But those actions are not typical of the majority of British Columbians; they are not typical of the majority of people committed to the environmental movement. The majority of British Columbians are committed to the consultative process established by our government that will lead in the very near future to definite decisions. It is a certainty upon which both the environmental movement and the business community can count and plan on.
I conclude by saying that like all other proud British Columbians, I am proud to live in this province. I am also proud to be part of a government caucus with such a record of accomplishment. We've faced the challenges, made the choices and demonstrated the courage. Such is a reason to reject those naysayers and turn down that amendment.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member from Skeena. I apologize -- that is Bulkley Valley-Stikine.
J. Pement: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll remind you of how great and large my constituency is as I speak today to the throne speech itself.
I'd like to first of all say it was a breath of fresh air to hear my colleague speak in terms of this wonderful province. The doom and gloom that we've heard from the opposite benches is being counteracted with the responses to the throne speech that we've heard from this side of the House. I was wondering for a while if perhaps the member from Abbotsford had killed a chicken for the ides of March, and perhaps looked at the wrong end of the chicken -- I'm not sure.
I am honoured to respond to the throne speech and to speak against the amendment that was put forward by the opposition. I'm honoured to speak on behalf of the constituents of Bulkley Valley-Stikine, and in this response I will speak of the constituents and the communities that I'm proud to represent in these chambers today.
First, though, I feel that I really must comment on the difficult and often turbulent times we are experiencing. The words "courage," "commitment" and "imagination" are written in the throne speech. In order to activate these words, we require strong and stable leadership. We require leadership that will face the challenges of the changing economy of this nation; the realities of unemployment, through the restructuring of Canadian industries; the multiple and often conflicting interests and needs on any given issue; and the uncertainties of change itself. Leadership must face the challenge of laying the foundations for the future of British Columbia in order to pass on a lengthy legacy to our children, a legacy that provides an opportunity for all to experience a clean environment and economic and social well-being. Our government has shown this leadership, and we speak of our government with pride.
Our government has had the courage to face the challenges, albeit at a time that has required it to make tough decisions. Our government has shown strong leadership by laying the foundations for bringing health care closer to home and preserving medicare with new health directions; by laying foundations for the resolution of land claims through the introduction of the Treaty Commission Act; and by laying the foundations for a sustainable economy through the introduction of a new Environmental Assessment Act, which will provide the processes to review the environmental impacts of any major development.
Our government is also providing leadership by laying the foundations for a healthy economy through the settlement of land use disputes, with the help of the CORE process, and through recognizing the need for a skilled workforce that is flexible in the changing workplace. I look forward to the implementation of the summit on skills development and training, which will focus on the skills and training needed by workers in British Columbia.
Further, foundations for a healthy economy require expanded markets and investment opportunities, with the strengthening of trade in the Pacific Rim and Europe. This government continues to encourage businesses in British Columbia to become involved in discussions with these trading partners.
[ Page 4766 ]
Hon. Speaker, others have spoken about this next issue, which is very important to me, and I feel it must be mentioned within the context of the throne speech. I must raise the issue of violence against women. Each day we hear of incidents of the abuse and violence that women suffer. Our daughters, sisters and mothers continue to live in fear because we are women. Our society, our province and our nation will not be healthy places to live until that fear is eliminated.
The message sent must be that we will not tolerate abuse and violence in any degree. We must ensure that those responsible in our systems of policing, justice, social services and government are diligent and committed to breaking this cycle of violence, whether it occurs on the street or in the home. This government has shown commitment by funding shelters for women and by assisting with educational programs for young people, women themselves, families and even the offenders. Further, a rigorous approach to arrests, charges and the prosecution of those offenders must be supported by all in this House and in the justice system. What does the fact that we need shelters for women say about this society? This Legislature and its members must ensure that women can feel safe and walk without fear on our city streets and country lanes. I hope this Legislative Assembly will commit themselves to ensuring that that will happen.
We have often spoken of open government. My colleague before me eloquently spoke of this government's openness. Our government has placed high priority on public participation in government, consulting and listening to the full range of opinions expressed by British Columbians on important issues. Through consultation we are able to bring forward new ideas to explore, and allow the opportunity for evaluating government policies and initiatives. Openness and accessibility require not only consultation, but also the dissemination of information. With the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act, this province will be the frontrunner as the provisions of this act are implemented. With this much openness in government we may able to eliminate the need for the official opposition, although some would say we have currently been functioning without one anyway.
[3:45]
I welcome the focus on regional development. Local communities will benefit from the regional development officers established in northern communities through the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Councils, chambers of commerce and small businesses within the communities of Bulkley Valley-Stikine are prepared to develop strategies for sustainable development and to look for assistance in attracting investors for the local economies. I look forward to working with the community members and the regional economic officers as plans and strategies are activated.
In September of this year, Bulkley Valley-Stikine will have the honour of hosting the northern ministers' conference in Smithers. This national conference focuses on the economic needs of the north, and ministers responsible for northern development will be attending from provinces and the territories. This will be the first time this conference is held in B.C.
The official opening of the Burns Lake Specialty Wood plant will herald the production of value-added wood products. This project is the result of partnership investments with the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation and other businesses.
Many communities have accessed the funding for downtown revitalization and town square programs. One of these communities, Hazelton, has developed its downtown area, attracting tourists to stay longer, and developing pride for the community.
Constituents of Bulkley Valley-Stikine are looking for government leadership in bringing stability to our resource industries. Forestry and mining are important to our community's economy, and all involved in the resource industries recognize that sustainability is the priority.
We welcome the mineral strategy developed by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This strategy has been developed to assist the revitalization of the mining industry in British Columbia. We welcome the one-window environmental review process. It is imperative that the process be clearly understood by all the stakeholders and that the review time lines are reduced.
We encourage the continuation of consultation on issues through the select standing committees of the Legislature and the leadership this government has shown through consulting with communities on matters that affect them directly. No other government has done this to the degree that this government has.
Bulkley Valley-Stikine offers a beautiful geographic region of British Columbia: a lakes district with 3,000 miles of lakes; the Bulkley Valley, with beautiful farmlands and alpine areas; the Hazeltons, with the Skeena River; and the northern reaches of the Stikine and Spatsizi rivers, with the villages of Atlin and Telegraph Creek -- all of which provides adventure tourism second to none.
Opportunities abound for the entrepreneur who is willing to grasp the challenges. Our government recognizes the value of our northern communities. We in the Bulkley Valley-Stikine are ready for those opportunities.
An important issue to the constituents of Bulkley Valley-Stikine is the resolution of land claims. Our government's commitment to resolve land claims through negotiation is welcomed. We look forward to the establishment of the Treaty Commission Act in order to start the process. Very important to Bulkley Valley-Stikine is the strengthening of representation of third-party rights at the negotiation table. Also welcomed are the interim guidelines on aboriginal use of fish and wildlife. These guidelines will ensure conservation and management of the resource as negotiations progress.
Access to health care continues to be a concern in Bulkley Valley-Stikine. We welcome the new structures that bring health care assessment and decision-making closer to the community and out of Victoria. We feel that a better system will result from these initiatives. Concerns arise for the transitional time from acute care
[ Page 4767 ]
to community care, and assistance from government on the planning and implementation of those changes will be required. We are pleased that the planning has started for a new medical centre in Dease Lake, a growing community. This centre will bring stability to health care in this community and enhance existing medical services.
Our government has done much in the time it has been in office. I'm very proud of its accomplishments. I and many others are angered by past Social Credit governments' mismanagement of the province's finances. The debts that were left, the legacy of the now third party, have become the responsibility of all British Columbians. To turn a phrase, never have so many owed so much because of so few. Our government's commitment to reduce this deficit, which is a black mark -- or should I say a red mark? -- on our economy, requires leadership and courage. We have shown, and will continue to show, sound, balanced fiscal management.
This government and my colleagues have shown stability during the turmoil within the opposition. One remains thankful that the government is steering a steady course to ensure that the business of the province is done. I'm proud of the government's ability to show creativity in order to ensure continued growth during tough financial times and leadership during the transitions and changes. We expect government to lead; however, we are also prepared to share the responsibility to ensure that our children's future is not mortgaged. That responsibility requires the courage, imagination and commitment of every British Columbian. This throne speech has begun the process of change, and it sets the foundations for British Columbia as we approach the twenty-first century.
D. Jarvis: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to respond on the amendment to the government throne speech. Naturally I'm in favour of it; however, I'm far less pleased with the speech itself. I do hope the government pays careful attention to what I have to say in the chamber this afternoon. There is far more at stake here than just party politics. At stake, quite literally, is the future of this province.
There is a very simple principle here, a principle that this government appears to have failed to grasp. Unfortunately, this makes it the second year in a row. Before a government can provide services to its people, there must be a revenue base on which to tax. However, nowhere in this throne speech does the government provide any economic strategy. Without a sound economic strategy, there is no way that this government can hope to draw enough revenue to cover even the most basic requirements without driving this bleeding province into further debt. Of course, that has to be the NDP's magic formula, and it seems that they fully intend to go that route yet again.
It's very clear that the NDP know how to spend; and they obviously know how to tax. The one thing which this government simply cannot comprehend is the obligation to raise money to pay for their spending. It is as simple as this: if you don't have the money you can't spend it. In running up the most massive deficit in the history of this province, they have only succeeded in mortgaging our children's futures. Our children are the ones who will truly have to pay for what the NDP is doing to us now. I don't believe that they will remember this government in friendly terms.
I could use up my allotted time just reading through the throne speech line by line and allowing the total lack of substance and vision to speak for itself. However, today I will confine myself to one major subject: how this throne speech impacts on the resource industries of this province, and particularly on mining. The resource industries are the single greatest revenue generators in this province. In total they bring in approximately $800 million.
This government has utterly failed to appreciate the advice of even Peat Marwick Mitchell, which provided some sound suggestions for saving money to this government. The irony is that this government paid $1 million for this report and is ignoring one of the key points of the report: don't set unreasonable, high-spending goals based on unrealistic revenue projections." This government, ignoring their own precious study, has consistently overspent. This is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia, whose greatest fear is that taxes will be piled on top of taxes to feed this government's gluttony.
How can the people of this province be expected to balance their books and plan for the future when their own government cannot be relied on to be responsible? The role of government, above all else, is to foster a climate of growth, to promote investment and enterprise and to provide a long-term strategy for the growth of this province. By this definition the current administration is a far cry from a government. In order to create this sort of positive economic climate -- assuming that the NDP should ever want to do so -- the government must create confidence in its own ability to provide a stable, rational environment. Investors in B.C. are faced with a government that cannot make a decision and will not commit to a plan of action. As a result, the provincial economy is becoming increasingly unstable. Everywhere you turn in B.C. we are faced with indecision, vacillation and avoidance.
Minor issues are turned into major crises, and major crises are simply not dealt with. Unless we do something, and do it quickly, any hope we have of a lasting economic recovery will be destroyed. Examples of this pathological indecision abound. Clayoquot Sound has been a controversial issue for more than a decade. A majority option was submitted last November, yet as of today there has been no response. The Schwindt commission, the brainchild of this government, set out to determine the entire concept of tenure and property rights. Without these, the mining and forest industries will collapse.
Aboriginal rights. On the one hand, this government has yet to resolve one outstanding land claim; on the other, interim agreements are being concluded with native bands behind closed doors without any input from third-party interests. This uncertainty is threatening people's entire livelihoods.
An Hon. Member: Give us an example.
[ Page 4768 ]
D. Jarvis: CORE, an idea which looked good on paper. But due to the slow pace of this government -- a snail's pace -- it has yet to yield any tangible results. Meanwhile, expectations of both environmental and industrial factions have been allowed to far exceed reality.
[4:00]
The parks and wilderness review. This represents a decision to set aside a fixed amount of wilderness land, without even beginning to determine an overall land use strategy. Apparently the government has convinced itself that this assortment of studies and reviews will be seen by the voters as actual progress. In fact, this government is demonstrating to the resource industries its utter contempt for them and also its complete lack of understanding of what the role of government should be.
Perhaps the most disturbing of all is the failure of this government to consult, in spite of the constant rhetoric. They employ the term "consensus" like a mantra, but they do not understand it. Every ministry is in a state of conflict and tension: Education; Health; Forests; Aboriginal Affairs; Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Tourism; Labour; Environment -- and fisheries and mining. And all this under a government which ran on a platform promising that consultation with the resource sector would ensure stable development and public policy planning by all parties. Classic rhetoric -- a consensus to chaos.
Mining has reached a crisis stage in this province. There is no question about this. Here we have this province's second-biggest exporting industry, a major key to our economic strength, and it is in a complete free fall. Yet this government is not the least bit concerned; it's not concerned at all. We are witnessing an administration which has mishandled the resource sector so inconceivably, so poorly, that the very future of our province is being exported.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
As I said earlier today in question period, you had to have listened to what the Premier had to say in a recent interview in Business in Vancouver, when he was asked: "What is your government going to do to keep the mining industry from totally taking off for Chile?" The Premier replied: "We're not discouraging them from going to Chile. I think it's very exciting.... I hope they go into Mexico and Argentina. I'm not uptight about our companies finding other opportunities...."
Well, I agree that this is an exciting situation, as the Premier said, especially if you are the President of Chile or Mexico or Argentina. However, if this particular Premier would like to be remembered as the Premier of British Columbia, and if he wants to hold on to that title, then he had better get one thing straight and get it straight right now: when those companies talk about going into Chile and Argentina, they are not coming back. Yet here we have our very own Premier waving goodbye at the door, promising to keep the candle lit. If that is the attitude of this administration, then you might as well blow out the candle and watch this province die as its economic lifeblood drains away. This is not exciting; it is pathetic. Where does this Pecksniffian man think he's coming from? His comments are a tragic example of this government's attitude towards industry. It is an unacceptable insult to this province and to the over 30 communities throughout B.C. that actually depend on the resource industry for their livelihood.
As I take a moment to look around the chamber, I wonder how the NDP representatives across the north, the Kootenays, the interior, and even the Minister of Mines herself, can possibly look their constituents in the face and say to them: "I support my government's policy. I support them when they tax the mining industry to its knees. I support them when they freeze new development in its tracks. I support my government when they invite the mining industry to pack its bags and head across the border." They do all this with a smile when they're talking to their constituents, I imagine. They say to their constituents: "I support my government when they board up your houses and close down your towns. I support my government and invite you to pack your bags and head for God knows where."
These people are supposed to be here to represent their constituents. How do they sleep at night? It's all very well to criticize this government and its ministers for their inept performance and lack of vision for this province -- a lack of vision of how they could put this province back on the road to recovery. This is especially easy when referring to the mining industry. However, I'll go a step further and offer several tidbits of advice free of charge to you.
First of all, get rid of the corporate capital tax. This is perhaps the most regressive of all new taxes conceived by this government, a pre-profit tax which demands tribute from corporations regardless of their financial position or situation. A company can be losing money hand over fist in this province -- and they mostly are -- but they are still required to pay that tax. This is an illogical form of taxation that restricts investment and development. Also, allowing B.C. Hydro to pass this tax on to the consumer and the resource industry is nothing but a pre-profit, double-taxation system. For example, Highland Valley pays Hydro's share of this corporate capital tax -- up in the neighbourhood of $600,000 -- plus their own.
The second piece of advice would be to take the Schwindt commission and set it aside as an interesting academic exercise. The question of tenure is not in the realm of government ideology; it is a decision to be left up to our courts.
Thirdly, government must accelerate the mine development assessment process. This lengthy review is expensive and discourages investors. Where it used to be a six-month process, bureaucratic red tape has now extended it to four, five, sometimes six years. This government should accelerate all these areas of interest and give them the highest priority at this time. This would get B.C. moving and send out positive signals to developers and investors that a measure of responsibility is at last being applied by this government.
For years now we have been overtaxing the mining industry. Taxes in B.C. are in excess of 52 percent. This is the highest rate of the 24 major mining jurisdictions
[ Page 4769 ]
around the world. How do we expect to support 40,000 people -- plus or minus -- in this province when we discourage investment and development by taxing them to the max before they're able to make any profit at all, if any. Taxes from mining alone brought in $240 million last year. This year we are down by at least 30 percent so far. Where do Health, Education, and Social Services expect to realize their funding if the resources in this province are frozen and the tax base is eroded away? The 40,000 people are also not contributing personal income taxes earned from this industry; another $200 million will probably be lost as well.
It is quite clear that the principle of a social conscience is to look after those who cannot compete in an open market. This requires the state to look after them. However, those who are able to compete in a free market society must be allowed to have a positive investment climate that is conducive to expanding the development of mineral resources in this province. We cannot live without minerals, so we must promote this industry as we have done in the past. We must create incentive for new mines through tax incentives, exemptions or whatever is needed to get it going in order to create new wealth for this province. We are not creating any new wealth now, nor are we receiving any new tax income, because there are no new mines opening in this province.
It's obvious that this government has not woken up to the enormity of the financial problems that face this province. This government is as starved for cash as it is for imagination. They will continue to bleed the mining industry like some bureaucratic parasite, unaware until it's too late that they have killed their own host. I have offered these suggestions to the government not because I believe they will listen to them, but out of a sense of obligation. Unless this government changes course now and realizes that its role is to help build the economic health of this province instead of destroying it, I fear that the mining sector will truly become a sunset industry. The really sad part is that it doesn't have to happen.
Hon. Speaker, I finish off by saying I support this amendment, and I thank you for the opportunity.
Hon. D. Marzari: I welcome the opportunity to address the throne speech and discuss its meaning and its relevance to the Ministry of Tourism. The past 16 months have been a period of transition and resolve for this government; they have been a period of challenge for the Ministry of Tourism. Despite the hardships that have been imposed by tough economic times, we've been committed to moving forward and facing the challenges of the twenty-first century. The tourism industry in this province....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Marzari: The blatherskite across the road, Mr. Speaker, is getting involved here. Despite the hardships that we've had, we've had a vital role to play in laying the foundations for a stronger, more diversified economy. To support tourism's role, the Ministry of Tourism and Ministry Responsible for Culture has had to make some difficult but very critical decisions. These decisions have involved controlling spending and establishing new priorities in order to work toward long-term benefits for the tourism industry and for our partnership with that industry.
For example, in order to continue to serve the U.S. market, this very important sector of our tourism industry, the ministry has developed new initiatives which make more effective use of marketing dollars, which to this point have not properly -- in my opinion -- been monitored and evaluated. Inside the new $10 million Canada-British Columbia tourism agreement, we've partnered our resources with those of the federal government, Tourism Victoria, Tourism Vancouver and the Whistler Resort Association, to spend $425,000 on a product-specific marketing campaign in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The results of this campaign are evaluable and instant. I have heard that within a few days of the advertising reaching the neighbourhood and city newspapers in Los Angeles and San Francisco, $100,000 worth of business responded -- and that is only to speak of the first few days. We are looking towards a very effective, very responsive market with that $425,000 investment in direct marketing, targeted into the very neighbourhoods that we feel our demographic response group will be.
[4:15]
This is the kind of initiative which makes maximum use of our marketing resources, and is of maximum benefit to tourism operators and the taxpayers of British Columbia. This initiative basically replaces the offices we have in Seattle and Los Angeles -- it supplements them until the end of June. Although they were run by good people, they could not boast of the effectiveness and the actual dollars into our community that our marketing initiatives will bring about.
Another U.S. marketing initiative contributes funds from the Canada-British Columbia tourism agreement to a $1.3 million advertising campaign launched in partnership with Tourism Alberta, Tourism B.C. and Holland America Lines. This campaign is specifically geared towards the growing number of over-55 American visitors who are coming to the interior regions of our province and, obviously, the huge cruise ship population that is coming to our province on a more and more regular basis. In Vancouver we now boast of 11 cruise lines which dock at the Vancouver convention centre.
We now estimate that United States and overseas visitors annually invest a total of $1.2 billion in our province -- in our coffers -- and the percentage of overseas visitors coming to our province continues to be exciting. Total overseas entries were up by 5 percent in 1992, Japanese visits were up by 6.5 percent, and arrivals and departures at the Vancouver Airport rose by 5 percent. We want to make sure this level of investment continues, by planning for the expansion and diversification of the tourism industry.
I seem to be losing my voice. I will sit down at this point and perhaps finish it later.
Deputy Speaker: On the amendment, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.
[ Page 4770 ]
J. Beattie: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, I wasn't in the House. But if you meant me, I thought I was following the hon. minister, to give my speech. Is that the process?
Deputy Speaker: That is correct. Unfortunately, the minister has difficulty with her voice and has had to terminate her speech. If you are prepared, then you can be recognized now.
J. Beattie: It is my pleasure today to rise in my place to address the House and direct some comments towards the throne speech.
It has been said that the ultimate measure of a person is not where that person stands in moments of convenience and comfort but where that person stands in times of challenge and controversy. In this time, here in British Columbia, in Canada, and indeed around the world, people are facing challenge and controversy. The time of simple solutions is past. Issues pertaining to the global economy; pervasive violence in nations, communities and homes; racism; complex moral and ethical issues; and dwindling natural resources of all types are presenting challenging and daunting questions which will hold the people's hands to the fire until we have the courage to make tough decisions and answer these questions in a satisfactory manner.
Something that compounds and makes more complex our search for solutions is that the traditional decision-making institutions have, for numerous reasons, become less credible. The negative view that much of the public has regarding elected bodies is almost a philosophy -- a philosophy of distrust. It has taken on a life of its own, creating greater and greater alienation from government and the decisions the government is sworn and, indeed, compelled to make.
We as a society cannot abandon our will to govern ourselves. In hard times, such as times like these, we are all under scrutiny. How will we handle the challenges? Will we have the vision to imagine the bold changes required and the courage to carry them out? Citizens, interest groups, businesses and politicians have important goals to accomplish, but with unprecedented urgency, these goals must be discussed in relation to each other and finally realized without some sectors and values of our population being completely denied, dismissed and excluded.
Certainly, as a province, we will not be able to meet the expectations of everyone at the same time, but it is fundamental that every honestly voiced need and concern be recognized as legitimate. As we begin the task of structuring solutions in the long and short term, let us have the confidence in our own ideas to tolerate and understand one another's views and, in so doing, to confer on one another the legitimacy that builds mutual respect and confidence. This will lead to the willingness to work together and find solutions that include us all. This is consensus, hon. Speaker.
In the past few months I have met with hundreds of constituents in the Okanagan-Penticton riding, at public accountability sessions, at panel discussions, at regular group meetings, in my office, on the phone and in their homes. I have enjoyed and benefited from the opportunity to share concerns and ideas with the people I represent. As a supporter of this government and its representative in my constituency, I have received kudos for jobs well done; statements of acceptance or criticism of policies and initiatives; anger at the slowness of progress in certain areas; and, indeed, occasional verbal abuse and physical threats, which I can assure you are not pleasant. But without exception, these exchanges have been informative, and they help me do a better job.
From my vantage point I have been greatly impressed by the depth and breadth of the unofficial and official leaders I have seen in action in the region I represent, and I would like to take my hat off to them. The collective works of these individuals in the arts, the environment, native issues, community planning, agriculture, care for the elderly and the young people, issues of women and violence, and so on, create the life and excitement of the Okanagan. They are posing the questions and defining the problems that need a response. Frankly, without these leaders -- many of whom have different views than my own -- this government, or any government, would be unable to execute its duties. It's people in their home, speaking about their home, who define what is necessary and important action.
Recently the hon. Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade met in Penticton with a cross-section of citizens -- including mayors, native leaders, chamber presidents and others -- to discuss his bold initiatives in restructuring the ministry to make it more responsive to community needs. Incidentally, the response to the assignment of a regional economic development officer to Penticton to serve the South Okanagan and Similkameen was well received, and I thank the minister for that.
It was clear from this meeting and others that I have attended that there is an appetite for greater regional control in the interior of the province, a demand for more comprehensive services on the level experienced in the lower mainland and a desire to diversify and strengthen the economy in my part of the province, which has traditionally been seen as a provider of resources for use in the expansive, dynamic economy of the lower mainland. In the Okanagan we have our unique advantages and concerns. As one of the most rapidly growing areas in the province, land use -- specifically the issues involving residential development, resource extraction, use of native people's traditional territories and the protection of important natural landscapes -- is uppermost on people's minds. I am strongly supportive of the Commission on Resources and Environment and the CORE strategy initiative announced in the last throne speech. I believe that this model, with all of the players at the table to build consensus, is the only realistic and workable approach we have available. I am also encouraged to see that the regional districts of the valley are making the first steps towards valley-wide planning. This is a necessary and responsible move; I commend them for it.
I am encouraged that in this new session the government will continue to add support to good land management with a number of legislative initiatives, including a new system of regional planning to em-
[ Page 4771 ]
power local governments; a major discussion paper on water conservation, ground water management and water export; a new environment assessment act; and the abolition of direct agriculture land reserve appeals to cabinet. Just yesterday in the Legislature the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs released information about the memorandum of understanding that this government has signed with the Union of B.C. Municipalities which formalizes the government's responsibility to keep third parties informed and to represent their interests as we seek just and fair settlements with the First Nations.
Hon. Speaker, I don't need to tell you, who have responsiblity for the smooth operation of this House, that changes in the direction and priorities of government require a long-range vision. Nowhere is vision more important than in land use. This year's legislative agenda, some of which I have outlined, combined with CORE, the government's solid waste management initiatives and the protected-areas strategy, comprise a vision which in the long term will help guarantee that our province has an environment which will be sustained.
A couple of weeks ago I attended some events hosted by the mining industry of British Columbia. At that time the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources introduced her progressive new mineral strategy to help revitalize the mining industry -- a strategy which closely parallels suggestions from the industry itself. Her presentation included a candid critique of how governments have failed the mining sector. In her straightforward manner the minister said that both industry and government must recognize the new public mood and sensitivity towards the environment. She was able to present a vision of a productive mineral industry which is compatible with the protected-areas strategy. She is committed to making it work.
The Liberal opposition critic, on the other hand, his sights set on currying favour with the partisan crowd, said to rousing applause that he believes that mining should take place anywhere and everywhere in the province. He said that includes parks. He was not the only member with blinders on. The interim leader of the Social Credit Party spent most of his speech saying that he knows his government -- the government he served in cabinet with -- was a terrible mess and deserved to lose, but that he hopes the mining fraternity will take them back. This is despite the fact that the mining industry made it clear that the Social Credit government failed them miserably by showing no leadership on land or other key issues. However, what was most upsetting about the day was the Social Credit interim leader's continued attack on social assistance recipients, as he adhered to the honoured and most despicable tradition held by his party's leadership of pitting one group of British Columbians against another. This leader's vision is to the past; he never learns.
On a more positive note, it was a courageous government led by Tommy Douglas that battled a conservative health establishment a few decades ago to bring in universal medicare and create the most humane and high-quality health system in the world. He said that the first stage was the provision of care for all people and the second stage was the move to a wellness and prevention model. This government is now meeting the challenge of making prevention of illness and injury the number one aim, while maintaining and bringing closer to home the acute care and other services we need and depend on.
[4:30]
At public meetings, one of which included the president of the B.C. Medical Association and the president of the B.C. hospital association, I have discussed the merits and challenges of reforming the health care system. I have been greatly pleased with the positive response that my community leaders, the general public and many health care workers are giving to this effort to make the health care system more responsive and extensive.
In Okanagan-Penticton the population is unique and presents unique challenges. I am pleased that in the last year local citizens have demonstrated a dynamic interest by being one of the first communities to embark upon implementation of the new health care strategy. We have made the Minister of Health aware of this.
At the same time, the government has made some significant commitments to the area of Okanagan-Penticton in support of health care and people services generally. We are now well into the planning and development of a new public health facility, which will be located close to the Penticton Hospital. Hospitals in Summerland and Penticton received some of the most significant increases in budgets in the province. Core funding has been achieved for the Penticton Women's Centre. New day care spaces have been funded. Funding to community health programs has increased more than 25 percent.
These are important initiatives, and I appreciate the government's leadership in these areas. New legislation will also create community health councils and regional health boards, increase public representation on professional bodies and protect children from tobacco addiction. I am proud to be part of a government that refuses to allow a two-tiered health care system through the establishment of user fees. The royal commission says that there is enough money available and that we need to spend smarter. It is a challenge worth meeting.
There are many things in the throne speech and on the government's legislative agenda which will benefit the citizens of my constituency. I will speak to these initiatives as the session proceeds and report to those to whom I am accountable.
This government is presenting a vision based on clear principles: the right to health care and education, combined with the need for a strong, fair economy and sound fiscal management. The scope of the vision has broadened since the last throne speech and will encompass more in successive years. But the strength of this government -- any government -- is not in the halls of power or in well-crafted, fair statements of intent. Democratic governments only suggest and direct; people do. I believe that the majority of hard-working and thoughtful British Columbians will support our initiatives.
[ Page 4772 ]
Despite the best efforts of all of us here in this chamber, there will be some frustration, anxiety and disapproval in certain parts of the province as we work towards solutions. I look, as I believe we all must, to the leadership in our communities. We need -- and I know it exists in all of our constituencies -- a style of leadership that supports sitting down and openly, honestly striving towards building consensus. I have urged, and I continue to urge, all of my constituents to become active in the politics of the region, to let their voices and concerns be heard. We can meet the challenges of the next century, but only if the public helps to define and own those challenges.
This government has taken it upon itself to be self-critical. Government does sometimes fail the people it is meant to serve; but we can, and we must, learn from our mistakes. Now more than ever, it is profoundly important that we remain open to different ideas. Change will come even if we turn our backs on it. Let us decide to master change for the benefit of all.
C. Tanner: I rise to speak on the amendment made by the member for Richmond-Steveston.
"Those with partisan or self-interests who oppose change will have to rise above their narrow positions or they will be left behind." So says the throne speech. I read this twice, three times, and came to the appalling realization that the NDP do not understand that they are the partisan, the self-interested, those of the narrow positions -- read minds, majorities or perspectives -- and that they were left behind years ago, but most certainly in October 1991, when only 40 percent of the electorate voted for them. Their philosophy is a relic of an outdated and long past era. They were again out of step with the times, heading for yet another three-year mandate.
The 14-page throne speech is a pablum of platitudes fit only for the destitute of thought, the forlorn and the incompetent. First, the speech talks of a renewal in medicare. That's already underway. What's new, except the second-rate effort that passes as NDP management and is illustrated by the clumsy, thoughtless hospital closings?
Second, the change of our land conflicts -- not new, but expected after 18 months of ignoring the problem or passing the buck. We agree that land claims, natural resources and environmental problems must be resolved, but what's new? The NDP said the same thing in the throne speech in 1992 -- promises, promises. After 18 months I would have thought action was called for. After all, during their 17 years' probation -- it takes socialists longer to learn than other politicians -- they had plenty of advice for everybody else, particularly the Socreds, who I suppose need help from wherever it's available.
And so we arrive at the third great tenet of their plan in the Speech from the Throne: building our economy. What a laugh! Better to describe it as "declining our economy" if the feeble attempts of the last year are any guideline.
So there we have it. Their mandate to lead British Columbia in new directions consists of the revision of medicare, an awareness of problems with natural resources and land claims, and some vague reference to the economy. Are you people out of touch? Are you people for real? This empty Speech from the Throne might better be called the speech from the drones, those non-thinking rote workers who freeload off their friends. There is one overriding question in this province, in all provinces in all of Canada: debt. We've got to deal with the debt. Saskatoon recognizes it, Newfoundland recognizes it, international bankers recognize it, the federal government has finally started to recognize it -- everybody, it seems, except the boy trying to do a man's job who calls himself the Finance minister in British Columbia.
Here we are in the midst of an economic and financial revolution, and our government comes up with a throne speech in which they proffer this profundity: "Provincial government spending accounts for 20 percent of B.C.'s economic activity." Bravo! Do they have a solution for this unproductive state of affairs? You bet. Listen to this: "This government is committed to getting greater value and new benefits for these tax dollars...." Does the government say: "We're alarmed at the expansion of government"? No. Does the government say: "We'll work diligently to reduce the size of government"? No. Does the government say: "Well, perhaps we pushed expectations too high during the 17 years we were in opposition, and now, after 18 months as government, we've learned the error of our ways"? No.
This nouveau riche government has the unlimited gall to tell its electorate that they will get greater value and new benefits for their tax dollars -- our tax dollars. Thanks a lot, Mr. Premier, Mr. Finance Minister and the rest of your free-spending buddies, but that's not what the majority of us want to hear. We want to find out what all of you are going to do to reduce government, cut taxes, and stop increasing fees and permit costs. When does the duplication in levels of government cease? When do the departmental turf wars cease? How long do we have to wait until we see a government that legislates and regulates but gets out of our lives and our businesses? This Speech from the Throne does not address anything to do with us; it addresses everything to do with you and your friends, whom you've been so diligently putting to work with our money, our tax dollars.
But wait, there is a glimmer of hope. In a latter paragraph, our friendly drones pay lip service to "the expansion and diversification of the private sector economy." How? By having the Premier, that salesman par excellence, relate to our trading partners. Hopefully he will stay away from Hong Kong, because since his last devastating visit, investment in B.C. from Hong Kong has slowed down considerably. Please, Mr. Premier, stay at home. We can't afford to have you go on these trips.
We all know that he is ready now for his second European junket. Let me tell you straight out: business people from B.C. won't accompany him. They've been burned by this Premier's Labour minister and his labour code. He won't be accompanied by very many departmental business experts; they've all been replaced by NDP patronage appointments. And I can
[ Page 4773 ]
assure the Premier that he won't be accompanied by an all-party legislative committee, because Liberals know better than to waste the public's money. Even the Socreds are learning, finally.
Who will go with the Premier? Maybe his pal Georgetti or his crony Williams. Or how about his funny-money friend from SFU? It certainly won't be the boy who would be king; he's too busy at home learning his job. Nor will it be the House Leader; he's too busy at home learning how to rearrange the expanding public service. So perhaps he should take the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, if he can find which of the 28 offices around the province he's living in today. No, I'm in error. Of course he should take the Minister of Tourism. She at least knows how to cut budgets, and she understands the economy of closure. But I digress.
The drone speech is a farce -- fulfilling no hopes, foretelling no dreams -- that might be better used for that old wedding saw: something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. Something old? How about that old, well-worn dogma of socialist doctrine? Something new? That could be something soon, but I haven't seen it in this piece. All I see in here is the brevity from the last government speech. Something borrowed? Friends, these 14 pages of trite pablum are borrowed from the archives of failed NDP economic history. As for something blue, need I say it? The public is blue. They're blue, they're fed up, and they're tired of this nonsense. They want reality, not puffery.
This throne speech has no substance, and it has no merit. But finally, and so sadly, this throne speech has no courage. What this throne speech lacks is any sort of economic plan or, at the very least, some sort of practical reduction-of-debt plan, the basics of which would include two fundamentals: cut costs and increase profits -- your costs, businesses' profits. Since the major cause of debt is the government, that is where the costs must be cut.
The government does not create jobs. It creates a climate in which to create jobs: that is, they depend on individual and business enterprise and resources to generate products. Although there is a requirement for some essential government services -- especially health, social services and education -- other government work is better undertaken by other employees. This throne speech does not recognize the need to cut debt, to reduce the deficit and to cut costs, by attrition, over a specified period of time.
This government does not have the courage to face up to the fact that basic decisions must be made, or to choose between programs, departments and services it is going to retain and those it is going to discontinue. This government, while paying lip service to a reduction of the government debt, does not have the intestinal fortitude to eradicate what is not essential to the economic well-being of this province. So on the first basic tenet of fiscal responsibility -- cut costs -- this throne speech fails. It lacks courage; it's without a plan.
The second half of any deficit reduction must be to create a climate in which business and the free market can flourish, to create employment and to help people off government programs such as welfare and UIC. It is the non-government sector of the economy which is totally ignored in this throne speech. The essential ingredients of a healthy economy are low interest rates; reasonable tax bites; fair regulations; evenhanded labour-management relations; and the recognition of profits as the yardstick of success, not the source of an ever-increasing tax gouge and of licences, permits and fees for service.
Nowhere in this throne speech do I find a reference to small business. There is no recognition of the vital, dynamic role played by tourism, that essential element in any economy, but particularly in B.C.'s, which is changing so rapidly from large, basic industries like mining and forestry to smaller, individually managed enterprises -- whether they be hotels, restaurants, trailer parks, tourist attractions, bed and breakfasts, or any one of a myriad of small enterprises. Where are the incentives? What is the government offering as inducements? Where is the apprenticeship training? Why are the taxes increasing? This throne speech offers no help, no hope, no encouragement, and is personified by a Minister of Finance who thinks the hotel industry is not worth his consideration and says so.
[4:45]
So here we are this afternoon discussing a throne speech poorly written, badly conceived, ignorantly motivated and totally lacking in foresight, planning and understanding. Mr. Premier, you have failed. Master Finance Minister, you have misunderstood. Mr. Labour Promoter, you are wrong. As for that pathetic trio of ministers of mining, forestry and tourism, you all gave it your best shot, I suppose, but wild expectation, self-serving friends, a disillusioned public service and your own total lack of credibility in the business community and with our trading partners has defeated even your pathetic efforts. You should all hang your heads in shame as a result of this mundane pablum you call a throne speech.
L. Fox: I rise to speak on the amendment. This throne speech, while full of nice words and flowery sentences -- and, as some members have suggested, platitudes -- is totally lacking in vision. The theme of the speech was supposed to be courage and change, but I don't see any courage or willingness to change. In fact, it reminds me of an ancient clich�, in that it's good and kind: good for nothing and kind of useless.
All I see in this throne speech is a continuation of more taxation and larger government, and a complete lack of vision about how to develop a strategy to lead this province into the twenty-first century. We've seen evidence of the economic strategies over the past year, with 50,000 more British Columbians on welfare than in 1991. That in itself does not speak well for the government of British Columbia. Yet this government's answer to that is to move 22 regional development officers into the regions of the province.
While that may in fact be commendable, and I do commend the minister for that initiative, those economic developments on their own cannot change the province. There has to be a climate which will encourage development and investment. We do not need a continuation of higher taxes which decrease the oppor-
[ Page 4774 ]
tunities of individuals in business to make a profit. We do not need a greater commitment by this government to just look at the social programs of the province. We must understand that if we're going to fund those social programs, we have to have increased business and increase our economy.
Many members on the government side have talked about what this government has done over the past year in their ridings. At times I feel that I must be reading a different throne speech than the government members have read, because I see a different content, or lack of content, in this speech than they see.
But before I get into that, let me just go over some of what this government has done for the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Let me first look at the city of Prince George. The first thing this government did was fail to live up to the promise to locate a cancer clinic in Prince George, a promise made by the Premier and two NDP members, one from Prince George North and one from Prince George-Mount Robson.
N. Lortie: That's history.
L. Fox: That may be history, but I've heard a lot of history in this chamber and seen a lot of people pat their backs about what this government has done for their ridings. I want to express what we in Prince George-Omineca appreciate about this government.
The next thing they did in Prince George was to refuse to fund the rural gasification program, a program that has done a lot throughout the northwest to....
Interjection.
L. Fox: If the hon. member would listen, perhaps he might learn something. The gasification program has done a lot in the northwest of the province to clean up the environment while at the same time allowing homeowners to decrease the cost of heating their homes.
Another thing that they've done for the Prince George area is absolutely no highway construction whatsoever. Roads are badly needed to increase our resource opportunities and to allow resource dollars and products to flow to southern British Columbia. We've had absolutely no action there, and the government fails to recognize the importance of Highways 16 and 97 to the economics of this province.
The other thing that this government has done for Prince George is to close 60 hospital beds and lay off 70 people, something that has really helped the economics of the city of Prince George. As well as that, through that process we have extended the waiting time for our senior citizens who are waiting for hip and knee replacements from four months to eight months -- a very nice initiative. On top of all that, we are now faced with 13 doctors who have opted out of medicare. Those doctors are now having to charge an administrative fee in order to pay for their insurance liabilities and other office expenses which would have been paid through the medicare system. This is putting more stress on the people of Prince George who require those services.
This morning the Minister of Labour suggested that the people of Prince George should be pleased that there's $9 million being spent by B.C. Hydro on a substation in that city. It should be pointed out that had it not been for the dedication and vision of the people of the north, we wouldn't have had UNBC located in Prince George and there wouldn't be a need for that substation. So we have to thank the people of Prince George and the previous member for Prince George South, Mr. Bruce Strachan, for that vision -- something that this government is lacking.
What has this government done for other communities in Prince George-Omineca? Let me tell you, hon. Speaker. The Minister of Economic Development has sat on the Vanderhoof pulp and paper project for 17 months. It would provide 100 direct jobs and 200 indirect jobs and would do a lot towards diversifying the economy of Vanderhoof and adding to the economy of the Prince George region. He has done absolutely nothing and holds up the project and a possible industry that would help pay for the deficit of this province.
What has this government done for Fort St. James? Here is a community that has survived predominantly on the lumber and manufacturing industry and that has committed three years of hard work and dedication by the chamber of commerce and the municipal council to diversifying that economy and to taking advantage of the mining resources in the north part of that area. But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has virtually turned her nose up at that community. The Minister of Economic Development has failed to recognize the opportunities by not granting a very small grant of $10,000 that was requested by that community to hold a trade fair, a mining symposium, to expose the mining industry to what the community has to offer, in order to diversify their economy. Thumbs down by this Economic Development minister. He has done absolutely nothing to encourage development in British Columbia, and particularly in the riding of Prince George-Omineca.
What has this government done for Fraser Lake, another community that has survived and thrived on the woods industry? Three years ago it managed to reopen a mine that's marginal in terms of operation. Now the workers in that mine are extremely concerned. They see increased taxation through the capital tax, the corporate capital tax and other initiatives in taxation, along with Bill 84, threatening the jobs of over 100 workers in that mine. Still, there's no action by this government that would encourage that mining development or mining at all in my riding. In 1991 Placer Development spent $60 million in exploration in British Columbia; in 1992 it spent $5 million and $60 million outside of Canada, in exploration. That's what this government's done for my riding.
We have a little unincorporated community within my riding -- Fort Fraser -- which had achieved a commitment from the previous government that irrespective of what happened with the Kemano completion, the difficulties in achieving quality water would be resolved by the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That promise was in
[ Page 4775 ]
place and failed to be acted upon by this government. It's been 17 months, and the minister has only recently acknowledged that he's going to address that concern.
N. Lortie: Where's their MLA? Why isn't he working for them?
L. Fox: I have to point out -- for that individual appears to be hard of hearing -- that I have met with that minister on four occasions to address that, only to receive promises from the minister that he would address the problem. He failed to do it.
All this has happened over 17 months, but that's not all. There's more. Our farmers, when clearing their land, find themselves in a position where they can no longer windrow their waste and burn it, because of the Minister of Environment's new burning law, which states that you must only have one ten-cubic-metre pile per hectare. Had that policy been in place we would have no agriculture at all in the Nechako Valley, because the increased costs and the logic of that process are absolutely stupid.
I'll read from a letter, one of about 25 that I've received from the farmers in my constituency:
"This document also contains some childish advice on alternatives to burning for slash removal -- for example, composting and incorporating residue into the soil. The minister obviously doesn't understand what kind of clearing is involved here. We're talking about large aspen trees which are not being utilized and cannot be utilized" -- and I'll get to that in a moment. Does this minister think that we are "...cleaning up a few leaves that have fallen on the lawn? Another idiotic notion is that all the wood waste could be turned into horticultural mulch. We are advised that the wood waste can be turned into pellets for consumption in pellet-burning stoves and that the residue can be used to produce other products such as chipboard and particle board."
I want to go on to one other initiative that this government nixed that would have done exactly that. It would have looked after this revenue, but as happens so many times with this government, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Opportunity did exist, and it was B.C. Hydro -- along with this government -- that nixed that opportunity. There was a cogeneration plant proposed for the Fort St. James-Vanderhoof area which would have used that residue, but what they did was nix it by changing their policy to purchase hydroelectricity from the private producers. It shows a clear lack of understanding and a lack of understanding of the issues in rural British Columbia.
And still there's more. On top of all that -- and I could go on and on and on; I only hope I have enough time to list it all in a half-hour -- this government has raised our taxes, just to pay for all this nice stuff that we've received, to the tune of a thousand dollars per family in one year. Not only that, but they've raised virtually every fee that was on the books, some of them 400 to 500 percent. Beyond that, they've created ones that never existed before.
So all this gives me cause to reflect back to prior to October 1991, dig out some of the promises that the people of British Columbia were made, and just recall, for interest's sake, how we've progressed. Promise No. 1 -- at least, the promise that was number one in my constituency and, I think, in most of British Columbia -- was a balanced budget every five years. We have all seen the evidence of how that promise has gone out the window. We had last year's budget tabled with a $2.4 billion deficit. Our projections are that it will double in the next year; this government will have doubled the total deficit of this province in two years' time. They were going to reduce the taxes on the middle-income earners. Well, I think I've laid out where that hasn't happened. In fact, everybody in this province is paying substantially higher taxes than they were in 1991.
[5:00]
Economic stability, new investment and wealth creation. I've seen wealth creation. The only place I've seen it, however, has been in the union ranks. I certainly haven't seen it in small business; I certainly haven't seen it in any other portion of our society. You know, it may very well be a good initiative that the Minister of Finance should look at -- incorporating the earnings of those unions into the taxation brackets. In fact, the unions seem to have more investment in this province than any other sector. Perhaps it's time that this government started looking at taxing those resources the same way it taxes business resources, rather than just excluding them and allowing them....
Improvement in labour relations. We've seen that already. In Prince George recently we saw a very big dispute between a small grocer and his employees. In Quesnel we saw a logger being forced to unionize. We're seeing more loss in work time under this government than we've seen in the history of the province since the Barrett government.
Better health care and education services. This is one that I'm really pleased with. We've made remarkable progress in this. We've got such a mess in health care today, and we've got no strategic plan on where we're going with this. We've got ad hoc decisions being made all over the province. We've got independent communities trying to sort out the huge mess being caused by this government. We've got people who don't know where to turn and how to achieve and access health care. I think we've really improved that system to the point where we really don't even have one any longer.
But the last promise I brought here for your attention was another key one: no more friends and insiders. That was a promise by this government, and we have seen the case where the trough is growing longer and longer; it stretches from one end of this province to another, and there are more NDP snouts in that trough than we've ever seen in the history of British Columbia.
How are we going to stimulate this economy? The other day the member from Comox made a passionate plea that we had to recognize the issues, and I agree. We have to recognize the abuse situations in this province -- from alcohol abuse to drug abuse to abuse in the family. One thing that we fail to recognize and to be proactive about is how we're going to address that. In my experience I have seen that a lack of employment opportunity or of the ability to earn a good wage increases those situations. They lose their personal
[ Page 4776 ]
values; they become so tired of trying to fight the system in order to find a job that they turn to alcohol and other forms of abuse. That increases the opportunities for them to abuse their families. However we're trying to do this, we cannot do it only, as well-intentioned as those ideas are, by putting more and more money into the social pot. We've got to look at ways and means of building a positive climate for investment and of allowing business and industry to create jobs.
This government has done a good job of creating jobs, but it's all within government. It's straight tax and cost to the taxpayer. We've got to look at stimulating the economy so business and industry can create those jobs. I sincerely hope that there is more to this government's program than what's in this throne speech, because I see very little evidence that this government has any idea of what the real concerns are out there in British Columbia.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to start off by saying it's very good to see you in the Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak against the amendment and in favour of the throne speech presented last week.
I'd like to make a comment around that day in this House. For most governments, it is a challenge to deal with change; it's a challenge to deal with a time where we are not only seeing individuals and communities impacted by significant change -- change that is often not within the control of those individuals or those communities -- but we are talking about international competitiveness, global economies and the impacts brought about by negotiations between countries with the free trade agreement or the NAFTA.
Communities often feel helpless to respond to that change. Individuals themselves count on government to support them, to stand beside them in helping the family cope with that change. It just underscores the importance of this institution of government and the Legislature. In a time when there is tremendous uncertainty and fear, the leadership that is provided by this House and this government has never before been quite as important. I think that was one of the reasons why many of us in this House felt quite sobered by that experience, because for the first time in my short time in this House I truly felt as though this House and the sanctity of this place were at risk. Just to underscore that, at a time when we need stability and balance it's important for all parties to come together and to make that statement very strongly about the importance of government and government's connection with the community in support of a community agenda.
I'd like to refer to a couple of things in my comments -- first of all, the balance shown in the throne speech. In times of uncertainty, I think it's incumbent on governments to show leadership and bring balance to the decisions they make. Time and again I hear references, usually from the corporate or business lobby, to government getting its act together, driving down the deficit, and cutting costs, programs and investment. What that means is cutting the social infrastructure. One of the things we need to keep in mind when we're dealing with the tools of management for government is the need not only to manage our responsibility to taxpayers well, to manage the systems well, to be accountable for those tax dollars, but also to bring a balance to those decisions.
Often, when people are talking about the cutting of deficits, they refer to our children's future. They talk about borrowing from our children. What about today's children? What about those children who are struggling to be part of their community, struggling for their future with their friends and schoolmates? Governments cannot abandon those families or those children. When the lobby for governments to cut unmercifully is put into a balance, we see a government that is prepared to stand beside communities and with families, ensuring that they have a future so that they, too, can enter the struggle for democratic choice.
C. Tanner: How are you going to pay for it?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member naively approaches the subject as if it were a zero-sum game: not to invest, not to support those children -- and we will continue to pay. We are seeing the legacy of a Social Credit government that over the last ten to 15 years divested in social infrastructure in this province. Look at the investment over the last ten years after the days of solidarity in this province, after we saw an agenda rammed down the throats of people in this province. We have seen increased costs. Increased poverty and increased family breakdown is a cost. It is a cost not only to those individuals, it is a cost to the system -- and we are paying for that legacy.
We are paying for a government philosophy that said: hands off the economy; hands off business; the market will dictate. We're seeing the legacy of the market dictating. We're seeing corporations make decisions to increase their profits. If you listen to the Social Credit Party -- and indeed, to some members of the Liberal Party -- it's very clear that they believe this is the sole agenda for the province. They don't understand that working people are the backbone of this province; they have created the wealth, the strength and the creativity that has built this province.
This government stands very clearly beside people, beside families and children, supporting and facilitating both social and economic strength, because there needs to be a balance. You cannot have economic strength without a strong social fibre, without strong support for families. Businesses understand that. Businesses looking to invest in a community often look at the social infrastructure. Not only do they ask questions around whether or not there is a trained labour force, but whether there is the social infrastructure to support families involved in their businesses, whether the community is a nice place to live. That's the balance that this government brings. We're not looking at one side opposed to the other; indeed, we're bringing a balance to the social and economic lives of communities throughout this province.
These speakers have talked about an economic strategy. Let me refer to a component of the strategy that I'm most familiar with, a strategy that has been in place in my ministry for the past year. We have changed
[ Page 4777 ]
the direction of a ministry to a more proactive agenda, an agenda that very clearly invests in people and provides choices for people. We have invested in employment and training opportunities for people on income assistance. That reality has brought about real opportunities and real chances for people to break the cycle of poverty, to enter into the job market and to be full participants in a democratic society, in a workplace and in a community. We have doubled the money for employment and training over the past year, which has impacted 85,000 individuals through either providing training support, subsidizing wages with small business or actually creating real job opportunities. This is an initiative where government brings a balance to social and economic opportunities in communities around this province.
[5:15]
A number of members have referred to the work of the Ministry of Economic Development. You see, the difference between this government and previous governments is that we believe in partnerships. We believe in cooperation and cooperative action. My ministry has been working with the Ministry of Economic Development to look at real opportunities.
There's a reference in the throne speech to new regional development officers. Let me tell you that my ministry alone has 300 offices throughout this province, and many of those offices have employment and training officers in them who work with community groups to provide opportunities to identify job creation proposals and to then match talents with those job opportunities. I say "talents" because those people who are represented on income assistance have been marginalized -- become "technologically redundant," to quote a business term. They have been excluded by the Tory government in Ottawa, which has pulled out all investments in those communities; and those people now find themselves on income assistance. We are working with them to match their talents with opportunities right in the communities they live in.
I want to share with the House an experience I had that points out the difference between this government and previous governments in this province. In the last month I had an opportunity to sit down at a leadership table with the IWA. I was very interested in finding out what the working people in forests had to say about the opportunities in communities. Unfortunately, many of the people reliant on income assistance also rely on the resource industries in this province.
I want to tell you a story that was shared. One leader of the IWA talked about an instance where their plant was being automated. The particular plant was going from a shift of some 300-plus down to an automated plant that saw three or four men pushing buttons and the production of that plant doubling and perhaps tripling. During that exchange the leader met with the management of that plant and said: "We're really concerned about the job loss, and we want to work with you to look at opportunities to keep these people working in our communities." The management in that plant, being part of the community, also shared those goals, and they said: "Fine. Let's strike a committee to look at the opportunities and try to identify ways that we can keep people working." They identified one of the resources that that plant was burning, and that was waste wood. They used that waste product to identify productive products, again matching the talent, the expertise and the resources of that workplace with the tangible resources in the forest. It sounded great; management liked it. It provided an opportunity for profit; it provided a way to keep people working in that community. So they sent this proposal off to the headquarters in New Zealand and asked for their support. Surprisingly -- to some, maybe, but not to many -- New Zealand nixed it. That head office in New Zealand sent back this message: "This company is in the business of making profit, not in the business of making jobs."
That is a reflection of the changed agenda we all are facing in this province, and it is time for governments to be prepared to stand with working people by matching the resources of this province to their talent and their skills. That's what our ministry is doing. We are now actively working with the community to ensure that we can match the resources of government with the talents of the working people who are now on income assistance.
C. Tanner: Get the management side.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The whole point of the exercise, Mr. Member, in case it has eluded you, is that we need a balance in this province. We need a balance where we see the talent of the working people who have built this province matched with the expertise of government and business to ensure both social and economic prosperity for this province. We cannot continue with a single, one-sided focus, the kind of focus that we have seen in the last number of years.
I don't have to remind anyone in this House, or indeed in this province, of not only the legacy of divestment of social and economic infrastructure that we saw under the Social Credit government, but also the kind of confrontation that we saw under that government's leadership and the history over the last ten to 15 years. When we suffered the recession back in 1982-83, we saw this province on the verge of a general strike because government decided, in an extraordinarily heavy-handed way, to deliver on an agenda that saw them cutting the social infrastructure by 25 percent in this ministry alone. This government will not do that. We will bring balance. We will continue not only to invest in the present but also to work for the future.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: One of the members refers to this ministry's budget, and I'd like the opportunity to address that. In 1991-92, under the previous government, we saw not only a caseload increase of 18 percent but also a special warrant of $80 million come into this House. We have continued to see that caseload increase, because the reality is that you cannot turn that kind of trend around overnight. But you will not see the kind of warrant, the kind of overexpenditure, that you saw with the Social Credit government. During 1984-85, an
[ Page 4778 ]
economic boom time, we saw a 21 percent overexpenditure by the Social Credit government. The point I am making is that not only are we using management tools, accounting for dollars, but we again are bringing a balance -- the kind of governance that we have not seen in this province -- by investing in today to build for our future.
I have talked about job creation and real options for people on income assistance, working with communities and ensuring that those at the decision-making tables are more representative, bringing the talents and resources that have been excluded from those tables to bear on the solutions. This government's change agenda is one that will build on strengths -- strengths that haven't had an opportunity. The story around the IWA and the leadership that they have provided in that change agenda is only one example that I could share with you.
We've also talked about the stability that this government has had underway in the last year in working with aboriginal people. When we look at aboriginal communities and the poverty that exists there, statistics show that 85 percent of aboriginal people enjoy an income of less than $10,000 a year. When we realize that aboriginal communities have been torn apart by the legacy of previous administrations, we begin to understand what the divestiture and its cost truly are; not only the cost to aboriginal families, the loss of their culture, the loss of their children, but the cost to the state in providing care and support for those children. That's the lack of foresight we have seen.
The change agenda that this government brings not only meets aboriginal communities in working to resolve land claim issues but also supports families in staying together in aboriginal communities: bringing about a moratorium on adoptions of aboriginal children out of their community, and working very closely with those communities to bring those children back and provide a future for those children. That's investment in the future; that's forward thinking. And quite frankly, that is fiscally responsible, because if we do not tend to that business, we will continue on the kind of downward spiral that we saw under the leadership of the Social Credit government and escalating costs, because it costs to deal with that kind of social divestment.
We have seen -- and you'll continue to see -- the expansion of child care spaces in this province to provide real options for families, because today in this economy it takes two people working to be able to support a family. We have seen a shift over the last ten years, where we now have an increased number of women in the workplace to simply maintain the standard of living for families in this province.
We've heard a lot of concern and criticism from the members of the third party of this government's investment in single parents. They have yet to understand that those children only have that single parent; they have no one else. If government is not prepared to stand with them, then truly government will pick up the costs later. They'll either pick up the costs of those children that in their later years have lost hope, or they'll pick up those costs immediately because the family will not be able to stay together. That's the kind of forward thinking and investment in today's reality that will pay off tomorrow; the kind of balance that is brought about by investing in social infrastructure because it provides strength to an economy. When you invest in day care spaces, it provides stability in the workplace and in the family, real choices and real options, both for employers and for families and security for those children.
I'm saddened by the shortsightedness of the previous administration and others who would criticize that agenda. I think that we are seeing a government that is not only prepared to name the challenges, but is also prepared to meet those challenges and to bring a balance to the governance and the leadership that they have committed to this government -- a balance that sees communities working together, bringing working people and management together to resolve problems, bringing communities of interest together to provide their insight and expertise and investing in people so that there will be a people-led recovery. That's a different vision, and that's a very different role and changing role of government. I think that it is not only a far more balanced approach in human terms, but will prove to be a far more balanced fiscal approach. Very clearly, the previous government's agenda -- the agenda they continue to drive in this House -- has proven to be faulty and far too costly for the people of this province in just about every term that you can name. It is very clearly a time for the people of this province -- with the support and active participation of their government -- to bring about the kind of change agenda that will bring British Columbia into the future in a strong and productive leadership way in this global economy, rather than being driven to the lowest common denominator.
[5:30]
We've seen leadership provided by the Premier in his call for a summit on employment and training. Because it is a recognition that by investing in people and working with both business and labour.... The previous government never managed to achieve that level of cooperation: bringing everyone to the table. They were too busy dividing, rather than working on collective strengths. It is the kind of leadership which is provided in a proactive agenda from government that will see the kind of change and investment we can all dare to hope for.
I look forward to the debate around the budget. I expect there to be more of the same old thing from the third party. I hope for more from the official opposition. I'm prepared to address those concerns because, very clearly, the official opposition is quite a mixed bag. It's very difficult to speak to the official opposition's agenda, because it depends on who happens to be speaking as to what the agenda is at the moment.
I look forward to rising in this House to talk about the specifics of the budget for the government generally, and specifically to have the opportunity to talk not only about the change agenda for this government but the change agenda for our ministry -- one that I am very proud of.
[ Page 4779 ]
Deputy Speaker: In recognizing the hon. Minister of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture, I just want to advise the House that previously she was making her presentation, had difficulty with her voice and had to take leave. By agreement of all parties she is being permitted to continue her presentation.
Hon. D. Marzari: I thank the Speaker and the House. My absence of voice was absolutely temporary, as it has been often used in the last number of months articulating and strongly advocating for tourism in this province. I do hope that the next few minutes will find my voice in strong form.
My colleague the hon. Minister of Social Services has spoken eloquently and well about the necessity to plan and do solid work around training and development of human potential in this province. The business of training is not the business of building bricks and mortar; it is the business of investing in human capital. And investing in human capital largely means helping people achieve what they want to achieve, and helping people to produce and perform in an economy. Because it is a growing economy, our economy is a perfect one in which to start matching skills and matching people with jobs.
Tourism is no different here. Tourism does provide us with a very large window -- one of many windows -- that we can use, and we can use training effectively and use it appropriately to bring people into the picture, into the economic mainstream.
When my voice quit on me a few minutes ago, I was speaking to the growth of the tourism industry in this province. I was speaking to the numbers of people who have stepped off planes, who have driven north from America. I have talked about people who have decided to come to B.C., and told this House that we have numbers that are unprecedented in 1992. I just want to relate that to the training agenda and to the business of human capital upgrading in this province, because if we don't train people for the economic revitalization in our regions and core cities and if we don't prepare our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we will be missing an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.
At present, the tourism industry accounts for more than 105,000 direct jobs and 180,000 tourism-related jobs. Before the close of the century, we're estimating that 60,000 jobs will be created in tourism. The tourism jobs of tomorrow will not be low-paying, entry-level jobs; they will be positions associated with a high degree of technological and marketing expertise.
In recognition of the importance of professional accreditation in this industry, we've helped to establish a new association for tourism professionals. We're working in cooperation with the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, where the dedicated staff and the board have developed a framework for action which identifies a collective and coordinated direction for tourism human resource development throughout this province. This is a landmark document, because it's now regarded throughout Canada as a blueprint for job development in the tourism industry.
The growth in tourism professions is also witnessed by the increasing number of university campuses and community colleges throughout this province which offer academic training. We're now working with Advanced Education, the University of Victoria and the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism to develop new academic training opportunities in tourism and hotel management, and we'll soon be opening a first-class hotel school at the University of Victoria. We want to ensure that people in British Columbia have the training to assume the jobs that we are creating, that this province is creating and that the tourism industry is creating on a day-to-day basis.
We're also meeting technological challenges, not just the challenges of development of human capital. We've established a new corporate partnership with B.C. Tel to develop a new travel information and reservation system. This system will include an information and reservation service to travellers who live throughout North America. But even more important -- and perhaps interesting to the House -- is that for the first time residents in British Columbia will have access to tourism information and reservations, an important innovation for British Columbians who wish to take advantage of at-home tourism. This accounts for about 53 percent of the total tourism in B.C.
Our commitment to strengthening the tourism industry also extends to encouraging the responsible and sustainable use of the province's natural resources. We recognize within our increasingly competitive global environment that tourism's role is not to replace or compete with resource-based industries but to provide viable, stabilizing economic opportunities. Because the prosperity of B.C.'s tourism depends on the state of our natural resources, we have taken part and sat at the tables that deal with land use decisions, and we are attempting to resolve competing land use questions within a framework of fairness and consultation.
Through discussions related to the protected-area strategy and the CORE process, we have sought community and interministerial cooperation. I have also represented Tourism's interests at the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development. The need for a wilderness management strategy in our world-renowned back-country recreation areas and the need for our input into protected-area strategies are all part of what tourism can now mean in this province and of what this ministry can bring to the discussion.
We can maintain our market share of international tourism dollars through wise investment and effective marketing, and we can develop more and better partnerships at all levels in order to access available marketing dollars. These are marketing challenges which lie ahead for the Tourism ministry and the industry as a whole.
We've listened to the concerns of the industry regarding health and environmental issues and taxation policies. I'm working proactively with other ministries and the community itself to develop resolutions which will acknowledge the economic realities of tourism operators, cut some of the red tape and try to ensure that we can get on with the job of providing tourism service and creating wealth.
We're also addressing concerns regarding the effect of land claims on tourism planning, and we're also
[ Page 4780 ]
looking at the potential of first nations people to develop their own tourism businesses. There is a market there that we should be involved with assisting and planning, and that is what we'll be doing -- and are doing. We realize that the 12,000 or more businesses in the province who rely on tourism for their livelihood depend on fair and equitable solutions to meet these challenges and these developments. We'll meet the challenges; we'll have the courage and we'll have the commitment to lead the province into a new era. This does not mean eliminating vital service; it means reassessing the needs of industry and host communities to ensure a strong future for all.
Tourism is a stabilizing influence in an economy that needs stabilizing; it's a growth industry in an economy that requires diversity and change; it's also a vehicle for economic expansion and diversification. Between 1984 and 1990 tourism's contribution to the GDP grew more than 5 percent annually. In 1992 tourism contributed $2.6 billion to the gross domestic product. According to the current dollar figures issued last year by the Ministry of Finance, tourism's GDP grew by 77.3 percent between '81 and '91 -- a remarkable growth industry.
The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism has estimated that the average annual growth of employment in B.C.'s tourism industry will be at 2.6 percent to the year 2001. That's one and a half times the annual average growth rate of employment in B.C.
I can assure this House and my hon. colleagues that investment in human capital, technological change and investment in the service industries in this province will provide us with not a polarized debate around who should win out in an economy that's in transition, but rather.... A balanced discussion of these opportunities that I've outlined will show that tourism is one of many industries that are developing and can continue to develop in this province which will provide a fulcrum around which the debate between resource-based industries and the environment on land use can continue. I believe that tourism is the point at which the discussion can find its balance.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, with that excellent speech concluded, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]