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)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 8, Number 6
[ Page 4781 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today is an old and good friend from North Vancouver-Seymour, Kristina Vandervoort, and her son Erik Moss. Accompanying them is a visitor from Sweden, Ms. Carina Eriksson. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.
OPENING DAY DISTURBANCE
The Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed to the next item of business, I wish to make the following comments.
On Friday, March 19, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rose on a matter of privilege, of which he had given notice to the Chair pursuant to practice recommendation No. 7. In the exceptional circumstances of this matter, I am sure it would be the will of the House to deem this matter to have been raised at the earliest opportunity.
The events giving rise to the matter of privilege occurred on the opening day of the present session, being March 18, 1993. Briefly, the events were as follows.
After His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor had taken his place in the chamber and was in the course of making opening remarks, the proceedings were disrupted by the excessive noise of a group of protesters immediately outside the doors of the chamber. The protesters eventually burst through the chamber doors. The Sergeant-at-Arms' staff managed to prevent their further entry into the chamber by forcibly closing the chamber doors. The protesters continued their assault on the chamber doors, causing physical damage and interfering with proceedings in the House, making it impossible for the Speech from the Throne to be delivered to the assembled members.
The disruption continued, without abatement, for a period in excess of one hour, preventing His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor from advising the members, in the traditional way, of the reasons parliament had been summoned. Proceedings were resumed approximately one and a half hours after the original interruption.
While the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi did not present the Chair with the factual details of the events which I have outlined, I believe it to be common knowledge that the events described do accurately reflect the complaint which is the foundation for the member's matter of privilege.
The privileges that this assembly enjoys are historic and are in part defined in the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act. Section 5 of that act defines as a breach of privilege, or as a contempt, actions which obstruct, threaten or attempt to force or intimidate members of the assembly. The Chair has examined numerous authorities on this matter and refers hon. members to Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, at page 132. Several instances of disorderly conduct on the part of strangers are listed which the House has punished as contempt.
It is not the Speaker's function to decide the matter of substance as to whether or not a breach of privilege has in fact been committed, as that question can only be decided by the House itself. The Chair, however, must decide whether or not there is a prima facie case involving a breach of privilege, and in this regard it is abundantly clear to the Chair that the events of March 18, 1993, as described do amount to a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
Accordingly, the Chair invites the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to proceed.
D. Mitchell: Thank you for your ruling, hon. Speaker.
You've ruled that a prima facie case of privilege exists here. At the time I raised this question with you, I tendered to the Chair a copy of a motion that I would be prepared to move if you found so. Since that time, the Chair may be interested to know, there has been consultation through the usual channels. As a result of that consultation, and because of the severity of the circumstances, I would be prepared now, by leave, to withdraw that motion and to allow an alternative motion to be moved in its place. I would therefore move, with leave of the House, that the motion to refer this matter to a special committee on privilege be withdrawn in favour of an alternative motion.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: By leave, the House has allowed withdrawal of the previous motion. We now need a motion on the floor.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, because the previous motion has been withdrawn, I would like to now move the following motion:
"Be it resolved that, while recognizing and affirming the undoubted rights of freedom to lawfully assemble, to lawfully demonstrate and to lawfully dissent, this House condemns the abuse of those rights, and this House further declares and asserts that it is a contempt and high breach of its privileges to interfere in any manner with the proceedings of this assembly, whose right to take further action with respect to the interference with the proceedings occurring on March 18 last is hereby reserved."
The Speaker: I call on the mover of the motion to speak to the motion.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. I really believe, as I think other hon. members do, because of the severity of the situation in the incident that we experienced on opening day, that it's appropriate for us to deal with it here and now and to reserve the right to deal with it at a later date as well, in whatever form members of this assembly wish.
[ Page 4782 ]
The question here is one of parliamentary privilege. It's an abstract concept to many, yet it's an important one to all of us as individual members and to us collectively as a parliament. We might ask what the definition is. In your ruling today, hon. Speaker, you referred to the issue of privilege. The authority that I refer to is Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice; the nineteenth edition is the one I'm most familiar with. He defines it most succinctly. He says: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions...."
Parliamentary privilege in that sense, hon. Speaker, belongs to the members individually and to this Legislature collectively. Privilege includes freedom of speech and freedom of debate. Collectively, our privileges include access to the Crown. Privilege also includes the power to punish for contempt.
[2:15]
The same authority, Sir Erskine May, tells us that the main value of the power of parliamentary privilege lies in upholding the dignity of parliament and in defending it against disrespect and affronts. Surely there was a gross contempt of parliament on the opening day of this new session, hon. Speaker. It was what I regard as a high breach of privilege: the fact that there was an attempt to intimidate a democratically elected assembly, to prevent it from meeting with the representative of the Crown, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Furthermore, there was an obstruction and interference with officers of this House in the execution of their duties. All of this constitutes a breach of privilege. Sir Erskine May is very clear on this. He says: "It is a contempt to obstruct officers of either House or other persons employed by or entrusted with the execution of the orders of either House while in the execution of their duty."
So I suppose the question, hon. Speaker, is: what can we do about it? What can we do about this breach of privilege that has so obviously taken place? First of all, I think it's important to note that it is up to us to deal with this. It's not up to the civic police of the city of Victoria; it's not up to the judiciary to deal with this. In their own ways, I suppose, some of the incidents that occurred on opening day can be dealt with by those authorities; but it is up to us, as a democratically elected assembly, to deal with a breach of our own privileges. This is not a matter that can be left to non-legislative authorities. We are, and we must be, masters of our own House.
The parliamentary authorities that can be referred to include Sir Erskine May, the standing orders of this assembly, Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, and a number of other authorities on parliamentary privilege. But there's one that the Speaker referred to in her ruling today which I think needs close attention. It's a brief act of this Legislature; it's a law of the province of British Columbia. That is the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, which is a very concise statement of our powers as an assembly to deal with a breach of our privilege such as occurred.
Section 5 of the act says: "The Legislative Assembly has the rights and privileges of a court of record to summarily inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as contempt of court, without prejudice to the liability of the offender to other prosecution and punishment...." It lists a number of those breaches that would occur. Very briefly, one of them says: "...obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate members of the Assembly." Another one refers to: "...assaults on or interference with officers of the Assembly in execution of their duty." Clearly, those are examples of what took place here on opening day.
This small act, the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, also refers in section 6 to the "Power to inquire and punish." The act talks about the "Proceedings on contravention." Finally, it also states that the decision of the assembly is final. There's no right to appeal a decision of this assembly. This assembly can be constituted as a court, but there is no opportunity to appeal that; the decisions of this assembly are final on this matter. That's quite a power. These are important powers; they would not be exercised lightly. But we must have these powers in order to discharge our duties responsibly. Also importantly, the Speaker has no authority to act on these matters unilaterally unless the assembly so directs the Chair. I think that's also an important feature of this act.
The motion that I've moved deals with our rights as a parliament. It condemns the actions of those who sought to interfere with our rights. It asserts the rights and privileges of this House at a time when they need to be reasserted. The incident which occurred at the opening of this session of the Legislature, and more importantly, the manner in which we deal with it, will constitute a major parliamentary precedent for our House as well as for other parliaments, because it's rare that an actual case of privilege occurs in parliament. The way we deal with this matter will speak to the depth of our feelings as freely elected representatives within our parliamentary system of government.
Therefore we must not treat this breach of privileges lightly. We should be -- and I would argue that we must be -- prepared to defend those rights, and we should therefore reserve the right to take further action; to summarily inquire into, and if necessary, punish those who sought to interfere with our privileges to meet as a duly elected democratic assembly.
Hon. Speaker, the authority of our Legislature was challenged on opening day. Perhaps the term "authority" in the sense that I'm using it needs to be clarified. I think it's a simple term, but it's a powerful one. I take it to mean the legal power to do acts of a specific nature and to impose sanctions if its exercise is impeded. According to this definition, the authority of our House was called into question at the opening of this new session, and now it is time for us to reassert our collective authority as a parliament.
While it would be perhaps wrong to overreact -- and I think comments have been made to that effect by members of the government -- I think it would be equally a mistake to underreact to the breach of our privilege which occurred on opening day; to ignore or to overlook the contempt that was shown for our
[ Page 4783 ]
parliament and our rights as freely elected representatives of the people of our province to meet in this assembly and to hear a message from the Crown. If we do not clarify the rights and privileges of our House -- which make no mistake, hon. Speaker, were interfered with -- who will? Who will stand up and speak out for parliament?
Our parliamentary rights can never be taken for granted. When one reflects on the lives that have been lost in the battles and wars that have been fought over many years for us to have the rights to meet here today as a Legislature, it would be wrong for us to do anything but to defend our ability to do the people's business. So the question is: who will speak out for parliament? Will it be the civic police? I think not. I don't think that's their role. Their focus is much more narrow. Their role is not to defend the rights of parliament. Will it be the judiciary? I think not. The court's role is prescribed by law and it's not their role to defend parliament. Will it be the news media? I think not. I don't think that would be an appropriate role or task for the news media. Will it be the general public? Perhaps it will, but only if we let the people of our province know, if we remind them what the issue is. What are the rights of parliament? How were they violated?
That's what this motion does, hon. Speaker. It is a reminder of our parliamentary privileges and it asserts the rights of parliament in the face of the gross contempt that was shown on the opening day of this session.
The cause of those who interfered with these time-honoured rites is not at issue here. I think that's important to note. In fact, they are irrelevant to this motion. However, I do think it is important that we reserve our right to take further action, if necessary, with respect to that unfortunate incident.
Those of us who believe in parliamentary reform cannot seek to change this institution if we are not also prepared to defend it. Our system of parliamentary democracy is a lot like love: it can survive almost all attacks except indifference or neglect. For this reason, and with these words, I ask all hon. members to support this motion.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank you for your ruling. I would also like to express my gratitude to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi for his words, his interest and his initiative, and his participation in the consultations that have taken place with regard to this issue in the last few days. Reflecting on this motion, I hasten to add that there are certain rights that form the very foundation of our democratic system. Some of those rights include the right to free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to engage in lawful dissent and the right to demonstrate.
I'm sure all members would agree with me that no right is absolute, and with all rights come responsibilities. Those who gathered at the foot of the steps of the Legislature on March 18, in my view, exceeded the boundaries of peaceful assembly and in so doing committed a contempt against this House and against this assembly. As a consequence, they interfered with the proceedings of this assembly.
I think it important to state that the rights and privileges of this assembly are the rights and privileges of parliamentary democracy. They do not belong just to members of this House, but to all British Columbians. Interference in our proceedings cannot and should not be tolerated. By this debate, I am sure that we are sending notice to all British Columbians that acts of interference and violence are not tolerated now, and will not be tolerated in the future.
In the last few days, of course, there has been a lot of discussion with regard to safety and concerns about the safety of this precinct and of the members of this House. As members of this assembly we must do everything we can to make this place more open and more accessible to ordinary British Columbians and to visitors from other parts of the world. We also must acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns with regard to safety.
I know, hon. Speaker, that you and the Sergeant-at-Arms are reviewing the matter at this time. It is noted that this legislative precinct is more open than any other in the country. Our security staff do an outstanding job, not only in difficult circumstances such as last week, but every single day, making ordinary citizens -- to whom this place belongs -- feel welcome here.
The security staff are more than employees of this place. They are our colleagues, and we know this from the day-to-day interactions that we have with them. They're our friends, and they make an outstanding contribution to the people of British Columbia. [Applause.]
One of our friends -- if I may have the liberty to say that -- Mr. Miller, was seriously injured last Thursday. This highlights the fact that the security staff and assistants in our office are often in greater danger than we are as MLAs or than we often realize is the case. Our first thoughts today must be to Mr. Miller and his colleagues. We must send a firm message today of our determination to not tolerate acts of violence in these buildings and to take steps, in keeping with our democratic traditions, to ensure that the attack that injured Mr. Miller is not repeated. I think it therefore imperative that the views of staff be canvassed with regard to determining the appropriate steps to take in the future.
But at the same time, as I said the other day, we must be mindful of the fact that there is currently a police investigation with regard to the incident which occurred on March 18. It is our view that we ought to await the results of that investigation and enhance our support for a provision in this motion which allows this assembly to reserve its right to further action.
There must, therefore, be a proper balance between protecting our institutions and recognizing that this is, after all, the people's House. While decorum is expected of all members in this House, it is also expected from the public which gathers outside. We must do our business openly, and the public must know that our political system is an open one. Our democratic system requires massive citizen participation, and only if the
[ Page 4784 ]
halls of our Legislature are open will the public have confidence in the decisions that are made in this House.
Hon. Speaker, if I may end on a bit of a personal note, I know from my experience as a member of this Legislature, that one of the most amazing days of my life was on November 5, 1991, after the current cabinet was sworn in. At that time a decision was made to open the doors of these precincts and invite the citizens of British Columbia to come in here and celebrate the election of a new government. Thousands came on that day. The cabinet offices were open for the first time, for most to see. I was amazed at the number of Victorians who said that it was the first time in decades that they had come to this Legislature. There was a remarkable spirit of openness on that day, a spirit that we will never forget and a spirit that should not be lost in this House.
[2:30]
J. Dalton: It's not often we can reach unanimity in this House, but I don't think there's any question that everyone gathered here today and everyone who had the unfortunate experience of last Thursday is certainly in agreement that this is a very serious issue and one on which there is no dissent.
I was always impressed, from the first day I entered this building after having been elected -- and I know I speak for my colleagues in the official opposition -- that this was a very free and comfortable place to enter. I endorse the remarks of the Government House Leader in that regard. It would be very unfortunate if the incident of last Thursday were to cause us to have to backtrack. I don't think anyone in this House would like to see that occur. I believe that this House will certainly try and address the issues in such a way that we will not be placed in that uncomfortable situation.
We do, however, have to be very mindful of the safety of not only ourselves and the sacrosanct precincts that we are in -- because we can't do the government's business without the freedom to debate and interact without impediment -- but also the staff. Unfortunately, one of the staff was seriously injured in last Thursday's.... I hate to use the term "riot." It's one which has grabbed the headlines. I think that's a bit overstated, but that's not to understate the very serious nature of the incident.
I think it is also helpful to this House that there is an ongoing police investigation, as the Government House Leader has pointed out. I don't want this parliament to think that it should necessarily act on its own or usurp whatever fact-finding mission the Victoria police are on. I would suggest that it will certainly be helpful to all of us to see what recommendations come from that investigation. This House certainly has to be completely conversant with all of the issues and the recommendations that come forward from the police. On behalf of the opposition, I would be very pleased to await those results before we proceed further with this.
The issue is certainly a very important one, and I thank the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi for raising it in his motion. I know that all members endorse the spirit of the motion itself.
C. Serwa: I certainly also thank the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi for bringing forward this motion to the House. Our caucus recognizes that it was, indeed, a most serious event. But I can say that I am exceedingly pleased with the meetings we've had with the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the House leaders, yourself, hon. Speaker, and the Sergeant-at-Arms. I'm very comfortable that the concerns are being well attended to, in a most realistic way. First and foremost is the awareness that accessibility to these precincts is exceedingly important.
With that, I will conclude by saying that it is, indeed, a most serious event. But I also think that it is an anomaly. It is not an event that I am unduly concerned about. It is a rarity. With that, I will conclude by again thanking the member for bringing forward the motion. We sincerely recognize the severity of this incident.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, before we vote on this motion, I will read the motion for the House:
"Be it resolved that, while recognizing and affirming the undoubted rights of freedom to lawfully assemble, to lawfully demonstrate and to lawfully dissent, this House condemns the abuse of those rights, and this House further declares and asserts that it is a contempt and high breach of its privileges to interfere in any manner with the proceedings of this assembly, whose right to take further action with respect to the interference with the proceedings occurring on March 18 last is hereby reserved."
Motion approved.
GOVERNMENT SHARES IN MacMILLAN BLOEDEL
F. Gingell: My question today is to the Premier. We note that the provincial government has purchased an additional 3 percent interest in MacMillan Bloedel. Can the Premier assure the Legislature and the people of British Columbia that this apparent conflict of interest will in no way affect the government's decision on logging in the Clayoquot Sound?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is a very clear yes.
F. Gingell: A supplemental, hon. Speaker. Would the Premier explain to this House in what manner that decision on logging in the Clayoquot Sound will be affected by the fact that the government has purchased a 3 percent interest?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the yes wasn't clear enough, I will give an added assurance that it will have no impact whatsoever on the decision that the government will reach on the issues around Clayoquot Sound. We think it's a very sound investment of some of the taxpayers' money in one of the leading blue-chip companies in British Columbia.
[ Page 4785 ]
F. Gingell: Would the Premier then please advise this Legislature how much money of British Columbians has been spent on this? And what does the government really believe they have accomplished by shipping this money down to Toronto?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will certainly get detailed information for the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to inform the people of British Columbia -- who I think are probably aware of this -- and the Leader of the Opposition that the ownership of MacMillan Bloedel is no longer in Toronto. There was a major sale of the shares -- $900 million, I think. It has a widely dispersed ownership, and the headquarters of Mac-Blo has returned from Toronto to Vancouver -- in British Columbia, where it should be.
B.C. FOREST SERVICE EXPERTS IN MEXICO
W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister confirm that six representatives of his ministry have left, or will be leaving, for Mexico, where they are apparently to act as trainers or observers for a Mexican forest fire suppression exercise?
Hon. D. Miller: I can't confirm the number, but I can confirm that we have an ongoing relationship with Mexico. I was at the Salmon Arm rapattack base last summer. There have been people from the Mexican ministry of forests training in the facilities that we have here in British Columbia.
I should say to the hon. members that our fire suppression branch in British Columbia is unparalleled in the world. We are the envy of the world, and we routinely sell services that have been developed within the fire suppression branch to other countries. We have arrangements with France, we have ongoing arrangements with Mexico, and we did a deal last year -- as members might be advised -- with South Africa.
We have reduced the cost of putting fires out. A ten-year average indicates that individual fires used to burn about 300,000 hectares a year; they now burn about 30,000 hectares a year. That's something we should all be very proud of.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the House come to order, please.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm whether any outside, private contractors have the same expertise and whether, in fact, they bid on the same work being provided by the B.C. government? And while he's at it, can he tell us whether the Mexican government actually paid the representatives of his ministry to visit for a period of up to three months?
Hon. D. Miller: I will get the specific details of the financial arrangements to the member. But I can tell you that we make money marketing the services we have developed within the Ministry of Forests. That's good for British Columbia, and it's good for the companies that purchase those services.
W. Hurd: I have one final question to the minister. Could he confirm reports that a director of protection and an assistant deputy minister may be planning to visit Costa Rica or Honduras on behalf of his ministry in the near future?
Hon. D. Miller: They may be there now. Again, I'd be happy to get further details for the member as soon as I can.
HEALTH CARE WAGE EQUITY
L. Fox: Before I ask my question, hon. Speaker, I'm really pleased to hear the Forests minister endorse the programs that were started by the Social Credit Party.
My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health. At the same time that this government is giving health care workers more money for less work, it is asking doctors to work more for less money. For the sake of fairness, if nothing else, does the minister not agree that the government should at least treat the health care workers and the doctors consistently?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I agree that we should treat the doctors equally, and I think we have made a very fair and equitable offer to the B.C. Medical Association. We've offered them $12 million a year in each of two years for overhead costs. We've offered them a cost-shared registered retirement savings plan, and this year we gave them a 4.7 percent increase in the Medical Services Plan budget. However you measure that, I think that is very fair. I invite the doctors of this province to have a good look at the cooperation that was evident between the employers, the unions, the government and the hospital sector and see what they can learn from it.
HOSPITAL SECTOR COSTS
L. Fox: Some hospitals in this province have advised me that they are expecting an increase of 1 percent or less in revenue from the province. However, the agreement just reached with the health care unions has a cost impact this year of 4 percent, due to the reduced workweek. Given this situation, how does the minister expect those hospitals to balance their budgets?
Hon. E. Cull: Hospitals overall in this province will be getting a 3 percent increase. That was announced by the Premier some weeks ago. Individual hospitals will get different amounts depending on their population, the severity of the illnesses in their community, the age of their population, their growth -- whether they're opening up new beds -- and it will vary from hospital to hospital.
When we look at the tentative agreement that has been struck between the unions, the employers and the government, we have to look at what was already agreed to in the contracts that were to come in on April 1; indeed there was a 4 percent wage increase that had
[ Page 4786 ]
already been negotiated. This agreement allows for a managed reduction of 10 percent of the employees in the acute care sector over the next three years. That managed reduction will allow us to bring in needed health care reform and to increase our services in the community and long-term care sectors.
L. Fox: The fact is that the shorter workweek will indeed increase costs for many hospitals who have had no budget increases. While you suggest, hon. minister, that in fact there is a 3 percent increase, many hospitals in this province will have little or no increase. There's no way that the hospitals will be able to balance their budgets without layoffs or additional revenues.
Can the minister confirm that she's advised these hospitals that the government will pick up the costs of those employees who would otherwise be laid off? What does she estimate those costs will be?
[2:45]
Hon. E. Cull: I've said many times that over the terms of this agreement we're looking at a flat wage bill over the hospital sector. The attrition this year in hospitals was 5.7 percent. There is lots of room in the normal turnover that's going on in hospitals right now. When you talk about the budget increases for different hospitals, yes, there is going to be a difference in what hospitals get, and that formula has been negotiated and worked out with the B.C. Health Association, with the very representatives of hospitals. We're reflecting the needs of those communities. Some communities have far more resources than others, and we're directing the resources in this province to the fast-growing areas that need more hospital services.
FOREIGN TRAVEL BY B.C. TRANSIT BOARD MEMBER
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. Will the minister confirm that in a period of supposed fiscal restraint B.C. Transit sent a member of its board to Italy -- to Italy, hon. Speaker -- to deliver a 20-minute presentation on a topic of which that member readily admits to having only the barest knowledge?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm not certain of the answer, except to say that B.C. Transit has won a major international award for transit services. The people of British Columbia are very proud of that, and as a government we're very proud of that. I think it's delightful that board members could go to accept an international and prestigious award on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
D. Symons: A simple yes would have answered the question.
Does the minister not feel that the people of B.C. find it repugnant that B.C. Transit, a Crown corporation with public subsidies of over $250 million for 1992, is sending NDP patronage board members to overseas conferences to give a 20-minute slide and talk show?
NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS
L. Reid: This morning this government received a petition, hon. Speaker, of 400,000 signatures -- British Columbians indicating their concern over the future of medicare in this province. Is this government still prepared to defend its mishandling of this issue in the face of such overwhelming opposition? My question is to the Minister of Health.
Hon. E. Cull: I agree with the people of this province who have said that it is time to resolve this dispute. That is why our negotiating committee is meeting today to discuss this. That is why they have been meeting regularly, exchanging offers over the last number of months. That's why they have days scheduled next week. We are committed to sitting down and negotiating with that organization until we reach an amicable agreement between the two parties.
L. Reid: My supplemental goes to the Minister of Health. For a government which prides itself on consultation.... Will this minister admit that her top-down approach to the handling of this issue has given British Columbians 18 months of uncertainty and many years of bitterness in the health care industry?
Hon. E. Cull: I'll remind the member that the history of negotiations between the B.C. Medical Association and the government has always been difficult. In fact, the last negotiated settlement between the BCMA and the former government took two and a half years. We're hoping to be able to resolve this dispute very quickly. But I think that if the BCMA wants to have a look at the agreement we have sorted out with the hospital employers, the hospital unions and the government, we have proven that we are able to cooperate. We have proven that we are able to compromise and come up with solutions that are in the best interests of the public, and I think the doctors of this province should take a good, hard look at that agreement.
L. Reid: I won't take this opportunity to remind the minister that we have had 25 years of cost-sharing in this province between physicians and government. This is not a new enterprise. In terms of where we're headed today, you are now going to offer a pension plan to the physicians in this province? You took one away a year ago. So no, that's unacceptable.
HEALTH CARE COSTS
L. Reid: My question looks at downloading to municipalities. Can the Minister of Health assure us that the cost of medical care in this province will not be downloaded onto the municipalities.
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I can. There is absolutely no change to the cost-sharing arrangements for health care proposed in our New Directions strategy.
[ Page 4787 ]
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
On the amendment.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in the throne speech debate.
First of all, during the Speech from the Throne delivered by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor it was noted by His Honour that this might be his last speech delivered as Lieutenant-Governor. I'd like to pay tribute to His Honour David Lam for the fine job he's done during the course of his almost five years as Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia.
The Speech from the Throne that His Honour delivered was a brief speech, and yet it promised a very full legislative agenda for this second session. It promised a very full legislative agenda, and yet many areas of vital concern to my constituency were missing from the speech. So I'd like to comment on the speech today and refer to the amendment that was moved yesterday by members of this House.
Many issues to be debated during the session, according to the Speech from the Throne, will be of vital interest, as I indicated, to members of my constituency. But the throne speech was silent on areas of expenditure reduction, significant economic strategy and parliamentary reform, including the right of recall and initiative, which a select standing committee of this Legislature is looking into right now.
The throne speech stated that the NDP administration is making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending growth and cap the deficit. I found that curious, because the speech fails to recognize that controlling and capping are not the same as reducing. That's the lesson they'll have to learn if they're going to have any real impact on the growing public operating debt of British Columbia, which is now approaching $9 billion. The Speech from the Throne asks for courage to deal with the issues of the day, and yet it doesn't reflect any courage on the part of the government to deal with the necessary cuts in expenditures that are going to be required in order to achieve a balanced budget.
The speech -- and the government in recent times -- talked about a balanced approach, but it didn't speak about a balanced budget. I fear there's a play on words going on here; we talk about a balanced approach but not a balanced budget. This might be semantics to the government, but it's crucially important to the people of British Columbia. What really galls me, and what concerns and upsets many of my constituents, is that the throne speech also talked about those most able to pay contributing their fair share to this administration's distribution of sacrifice. But what the government still hasn't learned, after almost 18 months in office, is that before asking others to sacrifice, they themselves must show some real appetite for cutting existing government expenditures.
Also sadly lacking from the throne speech are any references to soaring welfare rolls, problems in our public education system and increased taxation. Residents within my constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi will have considerable interest in the references to the agenda items dealing with health issues. The government's intention in this session, apparently, is to move forward with a number of issues in the area of public health. It refers to a provincial health council act, a regional health delivery act, and to its decision to shift more health care decisions from Victoria to local communities. It talks about a decentralization of health care in British Columbia, and that causes concern that our health care system is going to become a multi-tiered system in which one will have access to a different quality of health care depending on where one lives in the province. If that's what decentralized health care means, then I think British Columbians need to be concerned. We look forward to debating this issue in the House to ensure that the highest quality health care is available to all British Columbians.
However, I would like to congratulate the government for its interest, as stated in the throne speech, in placing a new emphasis on prevention of poor health, in the elimination of waste, inefficiency and duplication in the health care system and in meeting the changing needs of women, seniors and children. How the government actually makes an orderly transition into these areas of health care reform will be the test, and I will rely on my constituents to keep me informed of how these changes are being administered.
Another major area of interest to my constituents is the reference in the throne speech to tax dollars building bridges, highways and ferries. That means jobs. I hope this means work is now going to begin on planning for a new crossing of Burrard Inlet at the First Narrows. I think the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and I both agree that this is a high priority. Whenever talk turns to highway construction, the long-term ability of our transportation system to meet commuters' needs has to be addressed.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo asks about a public opinion poll that I conducted in my constituency, and I will get to that in a few moments. I know that the member for Nanaimo has looked at that poll with interest.
According to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, tolls are apparently something that we have to look forward to in our B.C. highway system. It's an interesting concept. Philosophically, user-pay is something most British Columbians don't have any difficulty with, but we need to be asking what it is we're going to be paying for. Again, that's something we'll be looking forward to with interest during the course of this session.
One other area of the speech to which I'd like to refer is the municipal elections changes that may be forthcoming. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated in the past that he's going to be bringing forward legislation in this session making changes to how municipal elections are held in the province of British Columbia. This has been a very high-profile concern
[ Page 4788 ]
within the constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi, particularly for residents of the unique resort municipality of Whistler. The minister has assured me that no decisions were made in advance of consultation. I know he's received extensive representation from my constituents. We look forward with some anticipation to see what legislation he actually brings forward with respect to changing the procedure for municipal elections.
One of the most important roles of a member of this House is to be a constituency representative. During the course of serving as an MLA, many members -- and I've discussed this with members of all parties -- face this challenge: how do you represent your constituents? How do you know what your constituents actually want? How do you know if you're actually serving them? Of course, we're living in the post-constitutional referendum period, when a national referendum told us how our constituents felt on one decisive issue. But how do we know on a day-to-day basis what our constituents feel are the priorities and what their views are on the issues of the day?
Something that the member for Nanaimo referred to is a tool that I've used. While it's not a panacea, it is one tool that an elected representative can use to determine the wishes of his or her constituents. That is a poll -- not simply a survey, not simply listing the calls that come into a constituency office or tracking the cards and letters that come in but actually a scientific poll. It can be conducted inexpensively with the assistance of authorities on public opinion research and well-trained volunteers.
I recently conducted a poll in my constituency, and I hope to conduct many more to track public opinion on a number of issues over the course of time. I recommend this technique to other members of the House: to actually use the device of constituency-based polling to help determine the views of their constituents on a range of issues. It's one technique; it's not the be-all and end-all. We've talked about a number of others, such as town hall meetings. But scientific polling, perhaps, is an idea whose time has come in a day and age when that technology is available to members. It's not something that's mysterious or byzantine or that requires significant amounts of money. It can be done very inexpensively. It's one technique that is available to further determine the wishes of constituents on important issues of the day.
[3:00]
A year ago, when I contributed to the debate on the first throne speech of this parliament, I indicated my hope that this new parliament would one day be known as the reform parliament. I indicated my hope that a number of reforms would be implemented during the sessions of this parliament -- positive changes to our parliamentary and political system -- so that we could take advantage of the historic opportunity of a change in government and a new parliament with the majority of members serving for the first time. I'm sad to say that we haven't made much progress yet. We've made a little bit of progress, but we have a long, long way to go if we're going to fulfil my hope that we someday be known as the reform parliament. We haven't really seized the initiative. I fear that -- as the old adage goes -- if the most significant changes are likely to take place within the first term of an administration, then we really haven't seen the kind of change that was promised by the hope and expectations which followed the last election.
We've made one area of progress that does deserve to be noted, though, and it's in the use of legislative committees. We've seen an increase in the kinds of referrals that have been sent to legislative committees. We've seen a number of committees travelling around the province, seeking input and submissions from British Columbians. According to a recent report generated by the Clerk of Committees, the committees during the first session of this parliament have received submissions from almost 1,800 British Columbians on a variety of issues ranging from parliamentary reform to free trade to health and other issues. It's significant that almost 1,800 British Columbians have had an opportunity to have some direct input into the parliamentary process through legislative committees. That's one area that I think we deserve some credit for, and the government in particular deserves some credit for initiating these legislative committees. One can only hope that the reports of these committees will be as meaningful as their promise.
Hon. Speaker, we're missing something in the area of legislative committees. On opening day when the committee of selection was appointed and the list of select standing committees was announced, I was disappointed that we were missing one committee. The Minister of Finance -- the former government House Leader -- knows what I'm referring to. He and I have discussed on many occasions the need for and my desire to see a committee specifically earmarked to hold Crown corporations accountable in British Columbia. We need a special, separate committee on Crown corporations. Right now we have a select standing committee that lists Crown corporations as one topic with Finance and Government Services. I note that that committee hasn't had anything referred to it yet; it has been inactive.
There's a problem here, hon. Speaker, and I'll tell you what it is. Much of the day-to-day activity of government today occurs within the corporate forum of Crown corporations. It doesn't occur within the line ministries that are headed by public figures known as cabinet ministers, who are accountable to this Legislature on a daily basis during a legislative session. Crown corporations are beyond the daily legislative scrutiny that is needed to hold them accountable. Increasingly, Crown corporations are where the action is and where the most creative public policy is being pursued. The day-to-day drudgery of public administration occurs within line ministries headed by ministers who are public figures and who are accountable. But Crown corporations are headed by very well-paid public officials who are not accountable, by and large, to this assembly. So we need a legislative committee on Crown corporations.
Bob Williams hasn't died, but he has gone to heaven. He is now heading the Crown corporations of British Columbia, which are a major cash cow -- as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour knows so well.
[ Page 4789 ]
British Columbia's government has the ability to tax, to borrow and to spend, and those powers are increasingly being exercised by Crown corporations, not line ministries. Those powers are being exercised by Crown corporations, which are beyond the pall of legislative scrutiny of any kind. Those Crown corporations need to be held accountable to this assembly, and that's why we need a separate committee to deal with them.
How would such a committee work? This is not a new idea. In fact, we would be re-establishing a legislative committee on Crown corporations if we were to introduce one, because ten years ago we had a Crown Corporations Committee of this House. It was doing its job so well that a previous administration got rid of it. It was doing its job so well that when it was abolished ten years ago, the New Democratic opposition cried, howled and screamed with rage. They said that it was terrible that Crown corporations were no longer being held accountable through the scrutiny of this Legislature.
Hon. Speaker, they got rid of the Crown Corporations Committee, and the NDP members of the day were upset, and justifiably so. They weren't upset just at the time. Year after year they raised in this Legislature their concern about the fact that Crown corporations were no longer held accountable to this assembly. I could quote a number of current and former members of this House who made that point, but I will read a quote from only one of them. It is a recent one from May 3, 1989. Here's what a member of this House said about this issue:
"There is no accountability with respect to our Crown corporations in this province. There is no full process. We have no Crown corporations committee of the Legislature. Every other legislature has one. These Crown corporations go for years without reporting to the House or to committees of the House.
"We're talking about multimillion-dollar corporations that don't have to report to the full elected group here, the representatives of both sides of this House. It's incredibly unhealthy, and it's something that should disturb us all. It may be comfortable to have that arrangement when one is in government, but it isn't good for the body politic, it isn't good for the process and it isn't good for the Crown corporations."
Hon. Speaker, those very wise words were uttered by a former member of this House and former seatmate of the Minister of Finance. His name is Bob Williams. I wonder if Bob Williams remembers those words today. Is he satisfied to have the Crown corporations accountable to him alone, or does he still believe that Crown corporations should be accountable to this House in the forum of a Crown Corporations Committee? I think it's time to re-establish one.
I'll point out just one fact, one statistic, that highlights the concern: the direct operating debt of British Columbia today approaches $9 billion, but when you add in the debt of Crown corporations, it's over a staggering $24 billion. Most of the public debt and the attractive assets of the government of British Columbia are stored away in Crown corporations, which are beyond the ability of us as legislators to ask questions about. A Crown Corporations Committee could be re-established. I think it would work in a similar fashion to a Public Accounts Committee in performing a post-audit function, where the annual reports of each Crown corporation, when they were tabled in this House, would be automatically referred to the committee. That committee would have the chief executive officers and the ministers responsible appear before it to answer questions of members of all parties of this assembly. Only through that kind of a post-audit procedure can we have direct legislative scrutiny of Crown corporation activities.
This is an idea whose time has come back; it's not re-inventing the wheel. Many other legislatures have such committees. It's time, especially now, with an activist government, an interventionist government, that has stated publicly that its desire is to make Crown corporations active agents of development of our province, to take a look at this idea. When this government is talking about forming new Crown corporations, when they're talking about investing in private enterprises such as MacMillan Bloedel, who knows what their intention is? Do they intend to turn MacMillan Bloedel into a Crown corporation? If so, all the more reason why we need to have a Crown corporations committee to provide detailed legislative scrutiny of these public enterprises that today are not bound by legislative authority or scrutiny of any kind.
I think it's an idea that could assist the process of reform. There is a need for reform. We've made a little progress -- a teensy bit -- but we have so much further to go before we can make a dent in the public need and demand for reform of our legislative institutions. Can we meet the need? Can we make the political system work? Can we make our parliamentary system more accountable? Can we make our party system more representative? These are questions that I think the people of British Columbia are hoping we're going to be able to answer, but we're not going to be able to do that without the initiative of all members of this House, and in particular the government, which holds the majority in this Legislature.
I'm speaking to the amendment to the throne speech, and the amendment raises some serious concerns. I regret to have to inform the House that I must support the amendment. I wish I didn't have to; I wish the throne speech that was brought in addressed the concerns that I've raised. I wish the amendment wasn't even necessary. but unfortunately, the amendment raises some very valid concerns about the throne speech, so I will be supporting it.
I don't want to end my speech on a pessimistic note, because I know the member for Nanaimo is distressed by my decision to support the amendment. There is some good in the speech. We look forward to this session and we hope that when the government brings forward the legislative initiatives that they've highlighted in the throne speech there are some that we can support, because there's nothing that the people of British Columbia would like to see more than this Legislative Assembly from time to time acting in concert, in unison or, at the very least, in a way that transcends party lines.
[ Page 4790 ]
There are other reforms that we need to look at: relaxing party discipline, having free votes in this Legislature and reviewing the question of what a confidence motion is. What questions coming before this assembly should constitute a question of confidence in the government? Should it be every trivial motion, issue or question that arises on the floor of this assembly? Should it be only the most important issues, such as the budget, the throne speech that we're debating today and perhaps major pieces of legislation that the government so declares as questions of confidence? Wouldn't it be more appropriate and in tune with the public mood to see free votes in the House on a regular basis, as actually occur in other legislatures? These are some of the changes that the people of British Columbia want to see implemented in our House, and I can only hope that the parliamentary reform process as initiated in the committee on parliamentary reform moves on to embrace some of these ideals and ideas.
When I was elected for the first time as a member of this assembly almost 18 months ago, I felt at the time -- quite idealistically -- that the only thing that prevented us from creatively solving the major issues in public administration in our province and the need for parliamentary reform was our imagination. Today, after being somewhat bloodied over a year and a half as a member of this House, I still believe that the only thing holding us back is our imagination.
J. Tyabji: I'm happy to stand today in response to the Speech from the Throne. To some extent, I do agree with the previous speaker that some serious reform through this Legislature is long overdue, but I'd like to suggest that what we really need is a form of civilized revolution. One year ago when we stood in this House and looked at the Speech from the Throne, which was the first Speech from the Throne put forward by this government, there was a lot of talk about the bloodless revolution that had occurred on October 17, 1991. There was a lot of expectation, I believe, that some of the commitments brought forward in that Speech from the Throne would be followed through. Before I start to talk on what we can expect, I'd like to look back on some of the commitments that were made one year ago in this House and what we've seen since then.
We had a commitment from this government in last year's Speech from the Throne that it would do no more than British Columbians could afford, and it would manage our province's finances responsibly. Instead, a record deficit was tabled in this House, a deficit that went far beyond the expectations of the average British Columbian. Now we've seen serious hints in this Speech from the Throne of increases in taxation to pay for last year's spending, increased spending in the coming year and an onward spiral of debt.
We also had, in last year's Speech from the Throne, open government demanding that people be included in decision-making, especially when it affects their economic well-being. One of the most important issues facing us as a province is conflicting resource allocation and how it affects small communities. In my capacity as environment critic and member of the opposition, I've talked to people in Gibsons and Port Hardy and Powell River and Sointula who don't believe they've been able to get the ear of government in terms of their own economic well-being and resolution of the resource conflicts that we've seen before the House. There again, I think they've fallen short on last year's Speech from the Throne commitments.
[3:15]
We also had a commitment that this government would create jobs in local and regional economies, while making new capital investment in schools and health care. I happen to represent one of the fastest-growing school districts in the province, and we had an assurance from the Minister of Education last year during the estimates that adequate provision would be made for capital costs for the growth in that district. That hasn't happened. There again, we've seen something fall short. And we have not seen job creation. On the contrary, we've seen a lot of jobs leave the province because of things like the corporate capital tax, increases in taxes and licences and a generally hostile climate for business.
We had this comment from the government in last year's Speech from the Throne: "We are concerned that every job loss is a family tragedy." Family tragedies are occurring in every small town in this province, because British Columbia has historically been dependent on the resource sector of the economy. Although we looked forward to an economic development strategy that would move us toward secondary industry and some form of innovative job creation, we not only have not had an economic development strategy with secondary industry, but the primary industries are shutting down. Rather than develop some kind of strategy to train people and move them to other jobs, resource conflicts have occurred in a lot of these small towns; the land has been frozen and the jobs have been lost. Those family tragedies are not being reported, nor do I see any reference to them in this year's Speech from the Throne.
We had a commitment in last year's Speech from the Throne that small businesses were recognized as generators of employment and diversity in our economy. Yet any small business owner in this province will tell you that the licences and fees that have come on board in the last year are virtually unprecedented. A campground in Osoyoos that wanted to maintain their licensed establishment had to get a health permit. It cost them $250 to be inspected by the liquor inspector or else they would have lost their liquor licence. The health permit had absolutely nothing to do with the running of their business. It was yet again another layer of taxation that they could hardly afford to pay. So we see that commitment going by the wayside.
The government said it would save taxpayers' dollars while increasing air ambulance capacity by rationalizing the operation of government air services, however that is supposed to be interpreted. I regrettably share with the House that a very fine company in Kelowna called Southern Interior Flight Centre, which historically had provided air ambulance services for the House and for the province, in addition to Seymour Air and in addition to the services out of Prince George, they lost the contract. I see that the Minister of Government Services is here today. We will address this
[ Page 4791 ]
during the estimates debate as well. But I do not feel that the public has been well served, not only in terms of safety but also in terms of finances.
What has happened, particularly in Kelowna, where that company went into receivership, is that they lost a contract despite eight years of an impeccable record of government service. They lost the contract to a patronage contract of this government. Subsequently, not only did they go out of business, but a lot of college students were affected because they were expecting to get their training through Southern Interior. That is a very sad reflection on what happened in the past year with regard to some of the commitments from the government in the Speech from the Throne last year.
Let's turn to this year's Speech from the Throne. This year's speech had three main platform initiatives that came forward. Generally speaking, if one could believe that there was a lot of credibility in the commitments that were made, then in one of those three planks there are a lot of benefits. That's with regard to some of the proposals they brought forth for medicare. If you look at the platform of the Liberal Party of British Columbia in the last general election, you will see that we put those proposals forward with regard to regionally based health care with locally driven policies. That's something that the Liberal Party put forward some time ago, so if the government follows through on that, we will commend them on it. But based on what we saw with regard to their commitments last year in the Speech from the Throne, I don't know that we want to hold our breath.
With regard to building the economy, that seems like a thinly veiled reference to the Crown corporation that we expect to see brought forward -- which one of our members broke in the local media. That is a radical departure from the way capital projects have been approached by the province in the past. I think there's some nervousness and trepidation with respect to how the official opposition feels about yet another layer of government being added to what we've already seen as a monstrous addition of staff and government departments. Really, it's like an octopus that continues to strangle the taxpayer, and yet there's no real addition of government services. There really isn't any clear indication of what the rationale would be for the addition of a Crown corporation. It would add another layer of bureaucracy and it would obviously cost more tax dollars just to service the Crown corporation. Yet it will be providing the same services that you can get from the ministries as they are currently structured. That causes us some great concern.
We have the Premier announcing that there will be a summit on skills training and development, and yet we have no economic development strategy. What's the point of having a summit with skills training and development when we don't know what skills are supposed to be emphasized? Will this be environmental technology, of which British Columbia happens to be on the leading edge? Will it be mining? We know that B.C. is on the leading edge of mining technology. Are we now saying that we are moving from a primary-based resource economy to a secondary-based resource? We don't know, because that wasn't in the throne speech.
Yet we do know that probably hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars will go into yet another summit which will be an expensive talk-shop for a lot of people who are already employed to sit around and talk about all the people who aren't employed and what should be done about them. After the summit is finished, we're still left where we were before, and that's without any kind of economic development strategy whatsoever. There's no point talking about what tools should be given to workers when you don't know the job they're supposed to be doing.
The third plank.... We've got medicare, building the economy and the land conflicts. They talk about having the courage to peacefully resolve our land conflicts. We've seen absolutely no indication from this government that they have any serious commitment to doing that. We saw last year the parks plan proposal, which froze 18 percent of the province without any kind of strategy for representative ecosystem preservation. There was no call for this piece of land or that piece of land because this is the kind of ecosystem it represents; it was basically some large green dots on a map that were put there because they happened to be places where people had caused protest. Somebody protested and said they wanted it saved, and therefore it was saved. There was no rationale behind it.
We see what happens. We saw it here in the Legislature -- a disgraceful display that should have been pre-empted, in my opinion, by somebody having a dialogue with the people and telling them what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. I understand the frustration of the people who were demonstrating. I don't accept their methods, but I understand their frustration, because in my opinion we have a government that won't listen. When you have a government that won't listen, you will see people just like the Fisheries Survival Coalition, who are frustrated; the environmentalists, who are frustrated; the doctors, who are frustrated; and the teachers, who are frustrated. And we can go on and on with every single group in the province who feel they cannot get the ear of this government. Not only do they not get any audience with them, but even when they do get a chance to talk to them, it doesn't make any difference, because they don't listen. They continue to provide patronage appointments for their friends and pursue their agenda, whatever their agenda is. Hopefully they have one and they're not just doing this in some sort of disparate manner. But their agenda is not something that they were elected to do, because during the last election and during the Speech from the Throne they promised that they would listen to the public.
In addition to that, we have CORE being touted as the salvation of the land use conflicts. Yet over $3 million later and over a year after CORE was struck, not one concrete decision has come out of that body. They have been handed complete documents from groups in Williams Lake, Sechelt and the Kootenays, which are already representative of a broad base of interests. These committees have existed for years and have come up with a concrete solution, and CORE can't decide where to go with their solution. I know, because I've sat in on those meetings with a representative from CORE
[ Page 4792 ]
who says: "Well, we're still trying to decide who should be at the table." Well, surely to goodness a year later they know whether or not the people who represent insect preservation should be on the Anahim committee of Williams Lake.
D. Jarvis: Friends of the squirrels.
J. Tyabji: Exactly -- the friends of the squirrels. I don't know if they were represented.
One year and $3 million into the process, surely to goodness we could have solved one of the contentious issues that went to CORE. Instead, we find that this is still being touted as the salvation of the land use conflict. I see absolutely no indication that there's any real commitment from this government -- particularly the ones who were elected who are supposed to be accountable for these issues -- to actually deal with them head on.
We have an environmental assessment act coming on board. It's about time. I'm glad that a year and a half into their mandate they're going to finally take some move with regard to the environment. But that is in the Speech from the Throne. Let's look at last year's Speech from the Throne with regard to their commitments to the environment. First they said, "We will amend the Waste Management Amendment Act," which was done. And it says: "To encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling."
D. Lovick: Done.
J. Tyabji: Where is it done? Not only has it not been done, but they said: "We will continue to support environmental industries and improve waste management by introducing a comprehensive beverage-container strategy."
D. Lovick: It's on the way.
J. Tyabji: Where is it? That was a year ago.
Not only that, we had this debate last year on the Waste Management Amendment Act, and the opposition proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that that was a foolish way to proceed. You dealt with only 3 percent of the waste stream as opposed to 40 percent that could have been dealt with in the alternate strategy, which I hope is being pursued -- although I hear from one of the environmental -- I won't use that word -- supporters of the Minister of the Environment that he is assuring us that the beverage-container strategy is still coming on board. If that is the case, then one year later not only are they delayed but they haven't learned from their mistakes, because it was a mistake then and it's a mistake now.
I want to talk about a couple of issues that are long overdue for this government to address head on. They are bulk water exports and, of course, what they're going to do with regard to the resolution of the aboriginal conflict and the federal fisheries strategy. I'll leave a lot of that for later on.
I have a real concern about what the government will do regarding bulk water exports. There was a conference in Barriere, B.C., a few weeks ago with the Minister of Environment. There's a proposal currently before the Ministry of Environment and the Minister of Economic Development, who happens to be sitting here and who, I hope, will indicate his amenability to this proposal. The proposal, by a company in the United States called Multinational, is to divert the North Thompson River through a 20-kilometre tunnel through the mountains and then south of the border through a 500-mile pipeline into California.
One would assume that that is not going to get any kind of audience with this government, yet this Minister of Environment, at a rally in Barriere to protest this proposal, would not rule it out. That's shocking. It's absolutely horrifying that our own Minister of Environment, who stated in last year's throne speech that this government was committed to not allowing bulk exports of water.... We know that the moratorium is going to be lifted shortly. We know that orders-in-council have gone through increasing volumes on some of the existing water export permits, even while the moratorium has been on. We know that there's a proposal right now to divert one of our rivers -- just as the Nechako was diverted, just as the Peace River dam has backed up Williston Lake. Yet we don't have our own Minister of Environment ruling that out. I don't understand that, hon. Speaker, and I'm certainly going to take that up in the Environment estimates. But I wish we would have seen yet another commitment in this year's Speech from the Throne, and we didn't. That causes me some concern.
With regard to the resource conflict, it bothers me that we haven't seen any indication, or even any public statement, from this government that they have accepted the aboriginal package contained within the constitutional accord that was soundly defeated in the referendum. Internal memos have been leaked to us, and we know that the aboriginal package outlined in that accord is being accepted and advanced by the provincial government. I wish the government would come clean with the people of British Columbia. We know that the federal government has also accepted that package. And if they are going to proceed with that, even if we can't stop them, we can help them define it, so that the people of the province know exactly what they are up against when we start to resolve our land use conflicts.
Regarding what they call "land conflicts" and "building the economy" in the throne speech, one of the things that I'd like to go back to is the Ministry of Economic Development. I'm happy to see the minister here, and maybe we can take it up again during his estimates. But they talk about reorganization of the Ministry of Economic Development into 22 different areas. That sounds to me like they have the same deck of cards and they're just shuffling it. Where is the strategy that accompanies the regionalization of the Ministry of Economic Development?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm being told that we will hear about that on Friday. That's good; I hope we will, because it's long
[ Page 4793 ]
overdue. It's unfortunate that it takes a year and a half into a mandate to try to establish some kind of economic development strategy.
I would hope that when we have that economic development strategy, it's also tied into advanced education and research and development. Last year, when we stood in this House and did the estimates for Environment and Economic Development, I remember going from portfolio to portfolio, asking: "Where is the budget for research and development? Where is the money being allocated so that we continue to be on the leading edge of environmental technology, which transfers into economic benefits, small businesses and job training?" Every minister that I asked said: "Oh, well, ask this minister, ask this minister" -- until finally we ran out of the estimates. There was no money allocated last year. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be no different this year, notwithstanding the fact that we have critical issues with regard to airshed management in the lower mainland and the Okanagan Valley, with regard to transportation....
We have exciting proposals coming forward on small business in the Arrow Lakes system, for example. One proposal that came forward was that rather than having wood chips transported by semi, which would mean a total revamping of the highway system, costing several million dollars, we could use hydroplanes because of the way that the Arrow Lakes system is set up. Not only was that cost-effective and much easier on the environment, but it happened to be very good for small business. It happened to be a lot cheaper, not only for the government but for Celgar, which was the company that was interested in this. We can't even get an audience with this government to really explore those kinds of alternatives in a rational and methodical way. Not only is it environmentally good but it's better for the province because it's cheaper on the taxpayers.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: You have a file on it.
Sorry, hon. Speaker. I know that a file exists in the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Environment. You can count on me bringing that up during the estimates, because we have to start looking to alternative methods of transportation.
I'd like to talk a bit about this government's commitment to end discrimination, which we heard last year in the throne speech. If we review the entire year, there have been a lot of blatant examples of discrimination taking place in the private sector. Very recently, in an ICBC appointment, $50,000 a year more is being paid. You could argue that that is some form of discrimination.
[3:30]
I don't understand where the Minister of Women's Equality is. I haven't heard anything from the Ministry of Women's Equality in terms of breaking down the barriers. One of the most critical aspects of breaking down discrimination is the education process. The way that you advance the education process is by talking about it; you get a public awareness going. I was hoping that there would be some kind of tour of the high schools, some kind of campaign that would take place in the universities. I haven't heard a thing. In fact, for the money that is being spent on that ministry, it could probably be done through the Attorney General's office a lot more cost-effectively and with the same profile that we're getting by having a separate ministry. I'm very disappointed with that, and I hope that will be addressed.
I want to reiterate my opening comments. We are long overdue for a civilized revolution in British Columbia. That takes a lot of fortitude of character. There is no question that we need the things that were referred to in the throne speech: courage, commitment, character and challenges. Not only do you need that but you need the political legitimacy that comes with having the people on your side. When you advance the agenda, you must ensure the public is with you -- not like what we saw during the referendum campaign and not this underhanded approach of adopting part of the referendum package that was resoundingly defeated but with the public in an open way. We don't need some kind of window dressing, where you have parliamentary committees touring the province -- a stalling tactic like we had with the two referendum initiatives that were on the ballot -- but an honest approach, where you're prepared to take the kind of political flak that comes with making those difficult decisions. If we have that civilized revolution, the people will be with us. It's long overdue for us to have a tax revolt, a revolution in education, and some kind of economic strategy that recognizes that B.C. as a province is ready to grow up and branch out into secondary industry.
D. Lovick: I suspect that anybody watching the proceedings will have detected by now that the throne speech debate is a rather ritualistic one. There's nothing for any of us here to be embarrassed or concerned about because of that fact. Rather, what we engage in here in the throne debate is a comfortable tradition, a ritual in which we all play out our parts -- of necessity. It's a civilized and formalized debate. That, of course, is ultimately why the Lieutenant-Governor is called to give the speech. Clearly, if the Premier gave it, nobody would hear what he was actually saying, because the opposition would be rushing into the breach to say things.
The speech itself traditionally reviews the state of a province or of a body politic, which provides government with a chance to pat itself on the back somewhat. It also provides, usually, a statement of the legislative program -- however, only in the barest outlines. Let us emphasize that the throne speech does not spell out in any detail the government's agenda; at least traditionally it doesn't. That's why it's rather surprising to hear some of the sentences of sound and fury signifying something emanating from the other side. For example, yesterday one member from the opposition benches rhetorically and indignantly asked: "How does the throne speech impact on the resources of the province?" The answer is, of course, that it doesn't -- nor should it, except that we probably had to cut down a few trees to make it. The leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition began in fine style by deploring what he referred to as
[ Page 4794 ]
the lack of content. I would emphasize that this throne speech had an addendum of four closely-typed pages of specific initiatives. Lack of content? How can you say that? How can you make that claim?
The same Leader of the Opposition, though he may be an interim leader, said that the opposition had hoped that in this session the NDP would finally begin to deal with the issues before them. Now the question is: what is an issue, at least in that individual's mind? The throne speech that I read addresses -- and, indeed, devotes about 70 percent of its attention to -- three specific, fundamental issues before this province today. Let me quote for members opposite -- I will even give them a page reference -- what the throne speech actually said. On page five it says that there are three fundamental challenges. These are the primary issues before us:
"First, to renew medicare to meet our changing needs. Our health care system keeps getting bigger, more institutional, more expensive, more centralized and more remote. It's time to steer the system in a new and positive direction."
Lack of content? Lack of commitment? Lack of direction? Lack of issues? Whatever is the Leader of the Opposition thinking of?
Again, let me quote from the document, to help members opposite. The second challenge that we state is:
"Second, to build our economy for the long term. This government will lead a coordinated effort to build British Columbia by investing in people and in our regions."
That's a pretty clear statement of an issue.
"Third, to resolve our land conflicts. It's time for British Columbians to finally come to terms with disputes over our forests and lands."
That's pretty basic stuff. That's a pretty clear enunciation of what this government is about. That's a pretty clear delineation of the fundamental issues facing this province.
How, then, can the Leader of the Opposition say what he said? How dare he say that?
I'm delighted to see that I have a few coming, once again, for another lesson in parliamentary government from the member for Nanaimo; I'm pleased to see you.
The role of the opposition, to be sure, is of course to oppose. We all know that. But a little more attention to the facts and to the evidence would help -- please, ladies and gentlemen.
I also want to refer a bit to the comments of the other leader of the opposition, the leader of the third party, on the throne speech. His assault on the throne speech was interesting, primarily because it was an assault not only on the throne speech but also on persons, personalities, relatives -- living or dead -- friends and enemies, anybody who bears any resemblance to any person who thinks slightly left of Attila. What a transformation, hon. Speaker! It used to be Smiling Jack; yesterday it was Jack the Ripper. He really went after us.
The problem was that he used a method of debate which is reminiscent of Rambo. I think the phrase is "ultimate deniability." He said that the throne speech was totally lacking in imagination and was utterly devoid of any real leadership or courage. [Applause]
Good. I'm glad to see that you're following.
"Courage," of course, is a word and a concept that figures prominently in this throne speech. The throne speech amounts to a challenge to we who govern and to the people of this province to look beyond the old ways and the old approaches. Again, let me quote very clearly and specifically what the throne speech says. The challenge, as stated, is: "What the Premier, his cabinet and caucus commit to is nothing less than redefining government in British Columbia."
I would suggest to you, hon. members, that if you look beyond just the obvious and think about what is actually being said there, you will recognize that that will, indeed, require some courage. To redefine government in British Columbia is going to mean saying no, a bit, and it's going to mean telling people: "You can't have everything, you can't have it when you want it and you can't do it all now." It's going to take a little courage to do that, but the leader of the third party says the throne speech is devoid of courage.
What, then, does he mean? What is this courage that he talks about that is apparently missing? Here's what he says -- and to give him credit, he does indeed say what he means, a nice change from some of the members opposite. He says that real courage would be "to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget." Courage? If that's courage, friends, that's the same way "guts" is defined as only what's between your ears. That's not courageous; that's frankly stupid. When you consider that 70 percent of the budget, 70 percent of gross provincial revenues, are devoted to Health, Education and Social Services, anybody who has the temerity, indeed the foolhardiness, to say that courage is to cut the deficit and balance the budget, as if we could do it like that.... That's foolhardy; that's not courage. That's insensitivity; that's ignorance. It's also, I submit, based on the record of that past government of which he was a part. It's also a healthy dollop of hypocrisy.
C. Serwa: Point of order. I'd ask the member to retract the word "ignorant." I think that's unparliamentary usage regarding the leader of the third party opposition.
The Speaker: The Chair was listening carefully, but perhaps I could ask the hon. member for Nanaimo if he had used that term addressed to any other member in this House.
D. Lovick: I did, Madam Speaker, and I will certainly be most happy to withdraw it if I give offence to the other side, especially because I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to have a glass of water.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Lovick: Thank you.
I want to give some other examples of courage as defined by members opposite. The statement was made that it would be courageous, it would show courage, to really just get on with the Kemano project -- to stop the discussion, stop the consultation and stop the reporting process; to say to the native people that all their
[ Page 4795 ]
legitimate concerns, their complaints, the fact that some of their brothers and sisters have lands under water because of the last time we tampered with that river.... To say it's the end of discussion, no more attention to their concerns; to tell all the environmental coalitions that nothing more is to be heard from them, that legitimate concerns don't matter; to say further that the provincial governments from the past and the federal government should be totally absolved of a responsibility that verges on a criminal irresponsibility; to say let's get on with it, and it's over and done with....
I suggest that isn't courage. I suggest that is also foolhardy. That's macho politics; that's a macho definition of courage. For heaven's sake, if we've learned nothing else in western civilization, surely we ought to know the limitations of that limited definition of courage. Courage isn't just a matter of making tough decisions and bearing the consequences. That's how we get into wars. Courage, rightly understood and properly measured, surely is the willingness to not just take the unpopular stand when we have to but to also take the unpopular approach and accept the unpopular process -- to do it right but to allow the people to have their say and be convinced we are doing it right.
[3:45]
Sometimes the process is slow, sometimes it's inefficient, and it's certainly sometimes expensive. But it's appropriate and it's necessary, and it's an integral part of the new way of governing, of what I would call the courageous way of governing. It's not a matter of dictating from the top down; it's not a matter of dictating to the people. Rather, it's a matter of inviting people into the process of decision-making. It's easy to be courageous if you define it the way the leader of the third party did, because you can be tough and you can stand there and say: "We're going to make decisions, and we don't care what you say." And you can do that because you have the power on your side. It's not, however, the kind of courage that is acceptable and workable in the world we live in today. Courage has to be more than this.
I want to emphasize to members opposite that our government will make the hard decisions. Have no fear of that. But we will make them with some intelligence, with some care and with some sensitivity to the wishes of the people. That, friends, is what CORE is about. For people like members opposite to stand there and say that in a year CORE hasn't settled one major land use conflict in the province is preposterous, if you know anything about the dimensions of the conflict. What CORE is doing is going to be slow and cumbersome. It's probably going to be expensive, but it will be done right. It will provide a blueprint for us in this province that will enable us to go on working together, instead of having a war every week -- a war of the kind that we saw in this chamber not too many days ago.
That's also the process behind the announcement in the throne speech of the Treaty Commission Act: to say that we are going to sit down with aboriginal peoples to work out agreements. Again, to accuse us of not yet settling a single land claim is equally preposterous, if you know anything about that subject. The philosophy of proceeding carefully, of empowering people and of taking them into the process is behind other stated measures in the throne speech. That's what is behind the Provincial Health Council Act. That is what is behind and what animates the Regional Health Delivery Act. It's also what is behind the statement of the participant assistance reform policy. We're talking about making it easier for people to participate in decisions that directly or indirectly affect them and about making resources available to do that.
If I can say with the greatest amount of modesty I can summon, that's also what the new Environmental Assessment Act is about. We did not bring the new Environmental Assessment Act before the Legislature as quickly as we wanted to. I wish it had been otherwise. For the process to unfold as it had to and to be true to itself, it took a longer time. We are now going to bring forward legislation to which I suspect -- I'm guessing -- all the major players in the game are going to say: "Yes, this is the kind of thing we had in mind. We've had our input and our say, and now it is time for government to get on with it and make the tough decisions."
Sadly, I don't think -- in all fairness and forgetting the theatricality of this place for a moment -- that the opposition listened very carefully to the fundamental, quintessential nature of the throne speech. It said that fundamental change is essential. It said that we cannot carry on conducting our operations and our business as we have; rather, fundamental change is required. I was looking for a reference to quote, but I don't think I need to, except to say that fundamental change is essential. However, the opposition, rather than grappling with the implications of that declaration, is busy leading a tax revolt. Indeed, we heard that reference from the previous speaker.
A tax revolt sounds tempting, but let's look at what that means. On the same morning that a delegation from End Legislated Poverty talked to our respective caucuses and gave us that passionate and moving rendition of the difficulties and the awful circumstances in which they live, we had the Liberal and the Social Credit leaders -- Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- standing together and singing in unison, saying that the comfortable middle class can no longer afford to pay more, that we have to do something about it.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. The member for Nanaimo seems to throw personal insults and use name-calling every time he gets thirsty and requires a drink. Perhaps he could keep to the seriousness of the debate and not refer to people by names other than those which they have.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, if he wants an explanation, all he has to do is read Hansard.
Pursuant to standing order 43, I believe -- according to Bourinot's rules -- he has insulted two members of the opposition: the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party. I would ask him to retract that.
[ Page 4796 ]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo has withdrawn the reference to the leader of the third party. In response to the point the hon. member just made on this point of order, I would ask the hon. member for Nanaimo to take those comments into consideration and to remember that moderate language is always the characteristic of parliamentary debate.
D. Lovick: I shall, of course, accept that admonition. I'm sorry the member opposite hasn't read Lewis Carroll.
G. Farrell-Collins: A point of order, hon. Speaker. I realize that perhaps you were in the middle of an exchange between you leaving the chair and the Deputy Speaker taking the chair, but the member clearly referred in insulting terms to both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, and I'm requesting a retraction of those terms.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that the Chair did not hear the disorderly comment the member is referring to; therefore I can only repeat that I have asked the hon. member to use more moderate language. I have ruled on the point of order, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a second point of order. All I would ask, then, is that once we have a chance to look at Hansard and see what terms were in fact used, perhaps at that time we could elicit a retraction from the member for Nanaimo.
The Speaker: The Chair will undertake to review Hansard.
D. Lovick: I must confess, just en passant, that I can't quite understand why a reference to Lewis Carroll would offend anybody, but I guess Alice in Wonderland is beyond the literary comprehension of some members.
In any event, let me switch to another part of my comments. I see that time is expiring rather quickly; obviously I've been thrown off a little by members opposite.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I'm rather proud of the accomplishments of this government and of its promises and proposals for the future as well. It seems to me we have indeed accomplished a great deal in difficult times, and I'm confident that we're going to do a great deal more. I want to focus on my own constituency for just a moment or two, and to do so using it as a mirror of what I think our government is doing in terms of the new way of governing, the new approaches.
Take, for example, education. All kinds of people in my constituency and others around the province will argue that we don't put enough money into education. I think it's probably safe to say that there will never be enough money to put into education. That's probably true. But what we did in my constituency, and in many others around the province, is something that I think demonstrated an intelligent and, dare I say, a gutsy approach, and that was to take a very large chunk of money -- in the case of my constituency, some $387,000 -- and devote it to a school meals program. As somebody who has read a little about the impacts of poverty and nutrition on learning, I think it was the best investment in education we could possibly have made. I make no apology whatsoever for the fact that we put our money into that indirect funding for education rather than into direct funding.
Similarly, in terms of health care, one of the small amounts of money we spent -- about $70,000; not a huge amount -- went to the Mobile Outreach for Seniors Team. That's a manifestation of a closer-to-home approach, a community health approach, one that I think gives us more value for dollars spent than most of the institutional dollars we spend.
Thirdly, the Ministry of Women's Equality, I'm happy to say, made wonderful things happen in my constituency. The funding for the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society centre was probably the happiest occasion that I've seen for years for about 52 percent of my constituency. For a relatively small amount of money we made something happen; we did something important.
Of course, I can also point to a couple of more traditional kinds of expenditures that came into my community. I didn't turn down the $4.2 million for the physical plant at Malaspina College, and I didn't reject the upgrading of Nicol Street right through my constituency for about $800,000. But that's old-style spending; the new-style spending is what excites me.
Speaking of Nanaimo, I'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to two very important people in my constituency who died in the past year, one a man of some considerable years, the other a young woman. The man was no stranger to this chamber, namely Frank Ney, mayor of Nanaimo, and, indeed, was at one time a member of the Legislature representing the Nanaimo constituency. Frank, as we all know, was the ambassador personified, the entrepreneur, the bon vivant, the guy who was larger than life. We won't see his like again. We all miss him, and I certainly want to acknowledge his contributions.
The other person who passed away untimely was an environmentalist extraordinaire in my community. Less than 40 years old, she suffered insulin shock, or something of that kind. We were all shocked. She made tremendous contributions to all those good and important causes, none of which were directly of benefit to her. We shall miss Gayle McGee.
In the few moments I have left, I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that it is indeed an honourable tradition in throne speech debate for members to lobby their own government a little. I'd like to say two things. I want to commend the Attorney General for his comments on youth crime and the difficult problems we have with it, and for not falling into the trap of playing macho politics and saying we'll just get more cops with bigger guns. I thought the case he presented was intelligent and rational, and I'm confident that we will take steps to do something good in that area.
[ Page 4797 ]
The other minister I want to lobby, of course, is my friend the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'll just say to him that the Nanaimo section of the Vancouver Island highway project should of course be first. I'm confident that will happen, so I needn't say any more.
Hon. Speaker, I must confess that my watch is no longer an accurate record of time, because there were some interruptions. Could you give me an idea of how long I have left, please?
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I believe you have about six minutes.
Interjections.
D. Lovick: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I could tell, given the alacrity with which your comments were greeted, that members opposite probably would have moved a motion to extend my time if need be.
It's very clearly not an easy time to be government; I don't think I'm giving anybody any news in saying that. We all recognize that we can't assume that we'll be able to do things in the future the way we used to. We know that the days of onward and upward, of more chicken in every pot, of anything you want and of a revolution of rising expectations -- all of those things -- are over. The reasons....
W. Hurd: Shame!
D. Lovick: You can say shame, hon. member, if you wish, but it's a reality. It's a reality because of environmental constraints; it's a reality because of technological change; it's a reality because we are no longer going to be able to function on the basis of unpaid labour -- slave labour, you might want to call it -- by women, for example. All of those things are changes to the nature of our economy and of our society. Everybody -- save the member opposite, perhaps -- seems to understand that. We're in a difficult period of transition between the old economy and the new, and between the old style of government and the new.
I want to commend this government for, above all, telling the truth in its throne speech. The throne speech says that fundamental change is essential if we are to solve the problems we face today. I for one am reassured when I read in the throne speech that to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, this government will face tough choices and is ready to make the tough decisions. I am proud to stand in my place in support of this government and in support of this Speech from the Throne. Thank you very kindly.
[4:00]
R. Chisholm: I rise today in support of the amendment. We've heard the agenda laid down in the Speech from the Throne. It requires a great deal of thought, consideration and review. The people of British Columbia have expressed their concerns to me over the past year. They are troubled over the high levels of unemployment, violence and pollution, the high cost of living and high taxation -- to name but a few of their concerns. The people of British Columbia want a new and different approach to government. They want a government that is honest, open and more direct. In the past year they have felt that they have not had that type of government. British Columbians want real leadership and vision. They want to be assured that all British Columbians can live together with dignity in a free society where all persons are considered equal, regardless of race, colour, creed, language, religion or gender. The throne speech did not reflect the will of the people. British Columbians want their province to be an equal partner in a united Canada. Just as in the constitutional question, this government is not listening to the people.
The direction and priorities which this government has outlined have a limited vision. This government is not committed to the wealth of our whole society; instead, its policies are for a selected segment of our society. I find it deplorable that last year millions of dollars of taxpayers' money were spent on special studies and increased bureaucracy, thus increasing our deficit, while necessities such as hospitals are being closed.
The people of British Columbia are fed up with this government's election promises being broken. We have no open, honest or fair government. The people have lost faith. The Premier promised no new taxes and no increase in taxes, yet we have received both. Since forming government, the NDP has introduced new taxes. Look at the disastrous corporate capital tax, the tax on legal services of 6 percent and taxes on telecommunications of 6 percent. What about our increased existing taxes? Personal income tax has been increased. Jet fuel tax has been increased. The surtax on high-income earners has been increased. Corporate income tax has increased. Small business tax rates increased. Rural property tax increased. They removed the supplemental homeowner grant, which raised property taxes. Non-residential property taxes increased.
This government also increased hidden taxes such as fees. They increased ICBC rates by 29 percent. Water licence fees and commercial transport fees have increased. Vehicle infraction fees have increased. British Columbia Ferry rates increased. Birth, death and marriage licence fees have all increased. We are being overtaxed. This must stop.
The throne speech indicated that the Premier will waste our tax dollars on expensive junkets to try to woo investments into Canada. No one is going to come here to see their money go to taxes. The Premier should stay at home and keep our present industries open. Only a strong economy, not the Premier's handshake, will attract investments.
The throne speech didn't say that the government will rectify the disastrous corporate capital tax. As a result of the corporate capital tax implemented by this government, money is not being invested in British Columbia. Those firms now in British Columbia are finding that this tax is creating a hardship. They are considering leaving the province. This is very detrimental to our economy and to employment. I urge the government to rescind this tax immediately, before it is too late.
[ Page 4798 ]
The people of British Columbia cannot afford any increases in their taxes. This government is burdening them with taxation both on their income and on the goods they consume. This government must implement a new tax reform which will take the burden off British Columbians. This can be done. You curtail the rising cost of government by reducing the size of the bureaucracy. Don't increase the bureaucracy by hiring new regional development officers in 22 areas and creating the British Columbia Investment Office as indicated in the throne speech.
Only by creating a stronger economy will the Pacific Rim and Europe want to be our trading partners. Then they will come to us. The Premier won't need to waste our tax dollars visiting them needlessly.
An economic strategy must be put into place to increase the wealth of the province so the economic burden is not put on the people. Our resource industries must be encouraged, not discouraged as this present government has done over the past year. In my own riding of Chilliwack, forestry is being threatened, yet it is one of the largest economic bases of the riding. This is repeated throughout the province. If we do not protect our forest industry throughout British Columbia, there will be massive unemployment which will affect all areas of our economy. Consequently the social services demand will increase, and they are already overburdened. The government must develop a strategy that is compatible with the forest industry and the environment. We must do more than just create an inventory of trees and the potential number of logs in an assessment of the markets, either domestic or abroad.
The government must have a comprehensive, integrated land management strategy which will expand the industrial base and diversify the economy of our communities so that they will be competitive in a global marketplace. This integrated land management strategy must also include mining, fishing and agriculture. Our mining industry is a valuable economic base which we cannot afford to diminish. Yet under this government, mining is not progressing, and we are losing jobs and investment in this area.
Agriculture wasn't even mentioned in the throne speech. Agriculture is a lifeline of our province and our country. We must not allow ourselves to become totally dependent on others for our food supply. It is crucial that we stay self-sufficient and independent in this area. Why? Because we have high health standards which are not met in other countries such as Mexico. We must protect our people from food shortages or high food costs due to drought or other unfavourable climatic conditions in other countries. It is not enough to simply freeze farmland in an agricultural land reserve. We must keep farming a viable and profitable business in British Columbia.
The government must not give temporary relief to the problems faced by farmers by throwing money at them. Instead, we must find long-term solutions. As an example, the grain growers in the northern part of British Columbia suffer tremendous hardship. This is so unnecessary. All excess grain not used for food can be made into ethanol. This is used as an additive for gasoline instead of the dangerous chemical MTT. Ethanol in gasoline reduces pollution by up to 20 percent, thus improving the quality of life in British Columbia. In automobiles, the higher octane content of ethanol blends promotes more efficient burning at lower engine temperatures, prolonging the life of the engine and the exhaust system. As a renewable resource it reduces reliance on our limited petroleum resources.
In addition to these benefits, production of ethanol creates new markets for surplus low-grade grains as well as yielding distillers' dry grain, a high-protein product sold to farmers as livestock feed and also as a natural fertilizer. There are economic advantages beyond the obvious increase in economic activity in the farm and industrial sectors. Ethanol saves the taxpayers money, since it would reduce farm subsidies. By the way, ethanol has been used in this country for the last ten to 15 years. This is only one example of how this government can help those farmers who are now in difficulty become viable and create other profitable industries. We cannot wait. This government must act now before it is too late.
This throne speech has not convinced me that this government is really committed to maintaining farming as a viable growth industry in British Columbia. Another example of this is the lip service this government is paying to the Buy B.C. program. So far, the government's efforts -- a 16-member committee to implement the Buy B.C. program -- have only put a few flags in the Thrifty's stores on Vancouver Island. This is appalling. The growing season is approaching and the public must be educated as to where and why to buy B.C. produce. The provincial government must ensure that the federal government protects our farmers from dumping during their growing season. Was this mentioned in the throne speech? No. As a matter of fact, British Columbia needs a strong right-to-farm bill, similar to bills in other provinces and in states such as Washington, to protect our farmers' way of life.
This government has not been forceful in expressing concern by pressuring the federal government to ensure a strengthened article XI of GATT. The throne speech has not indicated that the government will forcefully express its views about how NAFTA will affect our farmers or fisheries. It's time they gave some indication.
The throne speech also forgot the fisheries. The province must be involved, and stay involved, in fisheries issues. One billion dollars' worth of processed seafood is sold annually in British Columbia. All these jobs will be lost, forcing retraining and another burden on the social services, which we cannot afford.
We are in danger of losing the native species of our province if this government doesn't intervene. This government must be involved in initial consultations and negotiations, and not as an afterthought. The fisheries must be enhanced through onshore value-added, not through shipping value-added offshore.
Stricter laws and quotas must be implemented, and it is crucial that they be enforced and monitored. The province must take the initiative to assist and inform the federal DFO about their fisheries. This government is not doing this forcefully and effectively.
The salmonid enhancement programs must be continued -- not cancelled -- and operated by all levels of
[ Page 4799 ]
government, industry and volunteer groups. It is essential that this government take the initiative to ensure that this happens. One thing we must remember is that the fish have been adequately managing themselves for millions of years. We must now learn to manage the people who harvest them.
We all recognize that aboriginals have certain rights to fish, for ceremonial and sustenance requirements. But we must recognize that the commercial fisheries are of crucial importance to the well-being of this province. The fishing industry benefits all British Columbians. It is time this government got involved and stopped saying that it's a federal issue.
Instead of being a cop-out, the province can make great headway by setting an example and indicating that all Canadians are responsible for land claims settlements. All Canadians are equal, regardless of heritage. All Canadians must have the same access to our resources. The continued existence of our resources is crucial, for the benefit of all Canadians. Conservation, fairness and cooperation are paramount for future prosperity.
An additional problem is the U.S. plan to lobby for additional salmon quota. We must remain vigilant and not let this happen. The throne speech has not addressed this.
[4:15]
Hon. Speaker, the throne speech hasn't addressed aquaculture. This is an extremely viable industry which was not discussed in this throne speech. Aquaculture is the fastest-growing area in fisheries, but this government has not given it adequate attention. This government promised a moratorium on aquaculture during the 1991 election but has failed to even do a study on it. Fish farming licences have been increased, while some farms have been quarantined due to disease. This government has not told us about the effects of aquaculture on our ecosystem. Why? Because this government hasn't taken the steps to find out. According to the throne speech, we won't know about those effects in the near future.
When the government talks about its economic strategy, it must realize that the strength and wealth of our communities is dependent upon the health of the people. A greater emphasis on health care in the community is long overdue, but this must not be done at the expense of basic health requirements. There are more effective and efficient ways of delivering health care to the people of British Columbia. Closing Shaughnessy Hospital and telling my constituents that 100 beds from Shaughnessy are going to Chilliwack is just not correct. The 100 new beds in Chilliwack are extended care beds authorized in the 'eighties, long before Shaughnessy was to close. Chilliwack will not be getting an additional 100 acute care beds due to the closure of Shaughnessy, as the Minister of Health has stated. This government is not being open and honest with the people of Chilliwack or the people of British Columbia.
This government must invest in our people so that our future generations will be able to meet the economic challenges. The many volunteers who work for our community to help the less fortunate.... This assistance must not go to special interest groups or to societies that do not represent a broad range of services.
Our young people need superior education, both secondary and post-secondary, and it must be affordable. We cannot afford strikes and uprisings as seen during the past year of this government. An integral part of this government's economic strategy must be an emphasis on education and training. The throne speech and situations of this past year clearly indicate that this government has failed our educational system.
This government has failed infrastructure development. In order to realize greater wealth and a sustainable economy, there must be investment in the infrastructure that the economy depends upon, such as sewer and water systems, and the maintenance and construction of our highways and our highway services, which are the arteries through which the economic blood of our communities flows.
In my riding of Chilliwack, many people work in Vancouver and must commute by car or bus. It has gotten to the point where the Trans-Canada from Chilliwack to Vancouver is a continuous traffic jam, regardless of the time of day. Consequently the air in the Fraser Valley is becoming polluted due to car emissions. This government cannot afford to wait to rectify this situation. Bus lanes and car pool lanes must be installed immediately. A commuter rail system using existing rail lines, as was used during Expo, must be implemented immediately. We must correct the pollution before it is too late. Also, buses and government vehicles must use natural gas to help reduce pollution. This throne speech has not addressed these very crucial issues.
Since the passage of the labour bill I've received hundreds of letters from constituents asking that I inform the government of the negative effects it is having on their businesses. All these letters have been forwarded to the ministers. Yet in the throne speech there is no indication that the labour bill will be readdressed. This is very disappointing. It shows that the voices of my constituents and of businesses all across B.C. have not been taken seriously. I therefore once again urge this government to rescind the labour bill to ensure that our businesses will survive in these difficult economic times.
Likewise, I have had many letters from parents and doctors concerned about the recently passed act that allows children to obtain medical care without the knowledge of the parents. These letters have been forwarded to the minister for consideration. Since the family is an essential element of our society, this consideration should have been addressed in the throne speech, but it was not. I urge the government to reconsider their position.
The throne speech has not adequately addressed how we should deal with violence, to reduce the need for emergency shelters and transition houses. Instead, this government's band-aid solution is to build more emergency shelters. Violence has increased in B.C., and at a rapid rate. It seems to be everywhere, as we found out: in our schools, on the streets, in the home, in the Legislature. The government must take action to curtail
[ Page 4800 ]
such events. The Young Offenders Act must be enforced, and addressed to become stricter.
In light of the recent killing of Silvia Leung at BCIT campus in Burnaby, I had hoped this government would see fit to propose restrictions on purchases of 25-pound crossbows by classifying them as weapons, as set out by one of my constituents and sent to the minister. Unfortunately, the throne speech feels that the violence is not a government concern, and violence will not be addressed.
I had hoped that this government had learned something after its first year in office. I had hoped that this throne speech would be in advance of the issues, rather than constantly chasing them from behind. It is unfortunate that this throne speech has not given us both a short-term and a long-term vision for British Columbia. I had hoped that we would see a blueprint today which we could start implementing tomorrow, one that would move British Columbia towards a new and progressive way of dealing with education, transportation, environment, agriculture, fisheries, the economy, health care and other important issues. Then we as British Columbians could flourish and prosper.
While I'm extremely disappointed in the throne speech and in the performance of the government in the past year, I am still dedicated to serving my constituents and to assisting the government where I can for the betterment of all British Columbians.
When I criticize, as I've done in this speech, I will ensure that I have alternatives, rather than criticizing for the sake of criticism. I have given some viable alternatives today which I urge this government to consider. This government must acknowledge its responsibilities and stop blaming the federal government and past provincial governments for its poor performance. It must not cop out of its responsibilities by downloading its jurisdictions onto the municipalities, which it has alluded to in the throne speech. I am grateful for the privilege of presenting an alternative vision.
When the government does a good job, I will be the first to give praise. When I present views in this House, one must remember that they are the views of my constituents, not just my own. The appropriate ministers have received copies of my constituents' correspondence on the respective areas of concern raised in this speech. My challenge during this session is to work together with my fellow colleagues in the government to ensure that we develop a vision that is more progressive and more directed and that reflects the wishes of the people of British Columbia.
R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne. But before I do, let me first congratulate the member for Delta South on his newfound job. I'm sure the member will serve his party well.
It will come as no surprise to members opposite that I, along with my colleagues, find this speech as devoid of content as it was last year. Even after listening earlier in this chamber to the remarks from the member for Nanaimo, trying to convince us otherwise.... He has still not convinced me. The government continues, in a kind of utopian, never-never-land approach to this coming year, to pat itself on the back for what it perceives to be a commendable year.
They talk about challenge and change. Well, I can confirm that the challenge will be whether British Columbians can withstand another year or two of these tax and fee increases while our real economy dwindles to nothing. As for change, you bet. Change will come when this government gets the courage to call the next election.
Government members have repeatedly spoken about the accomplishments of this socialist government over the last 17 months. It's much different from the last spring session when most of them were still jockeying for position and trying to figure out the constituency they were to represent. In fact, the second party was also getting together at the same time to do much the same. Government members have been telling stories about how much their individual constituencies have received from this government. I listened intently, and lo and behold, I found that the only activity that had taken place was government spending -- nothing to do with jobs from the private sector, nothing to do with private investment. That is what is missing in this speech -- the need to get our economy going, and not only by government spending.
Some talked only about all the problems they have. The Kootenay constituency comes to mind. The minister talked about her problems in the mining industry. One would think that having a minister from that area would help get the mining industry moving. One would think that a labour government would be able to settle some of the labour strife in that industry, but apparently not. Instead of getting the mines producing, putting revenue back into the province, and above all, putting people back to work, nothing has happened. Well-paying and productive jobs are what the people want, not useless rhetoric from a government unable to even negotiate a contract with its own office staff.
This government commissioned the Energy Council to accommodate more NDP hacks for work and pension benefits. The mandate given could have easily been handled by the ministry on its own. After all, not much was happening in the mining and energy sector. The ministry budget had been slashed by 40 percent with the same staff. Rather, this government sat on 20 mine applications and completely shut down the independent power producers, which would have contributed to jobs and to the economy in British Columbia.
I stress jobs again. That is one issue that this government has lost totally. This government does not have the courage to make the tough decisions. In fact, as I listen to members opposite attack the past administration, I wonder if they really know they are in government or whether we are still in government. They should really begin to drive the bus.
Then again, it's probably difficult for members opposite to be able to talk for 20 minutes or so about so few accomplishments over the past 17 months. In fact, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine talked yesterday about her constituency and the benefits it received by electing a socialist government. That member did not mention once the removal of 500 or 600 jobs, the
[ Page 4801 ]
destruction of lives and dreams and the elimination of economic activity when they just wiped Cassiar off the map.
That member reflected the arrogance of so many NDP members by saying that perhaps we no longer need the opposition in government. It's unbelievable that the member does not understand democracy, but I guess that's the socialist way. In fact, Churchill once said that if you were twenty years old and not a socialist you had no heart, but that if you were thirty and still a socialist you had no brain.
[4:30]
Health care is one of the challenging issues facing the government. We all hold our health care system near and dear to our hearts. We should all be thankful for the introduction of health care in B.C. by a Social Credit Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. I hope this government is serious in the provision of closer-to-home health care for all British Columbians, whether they live in rural B.C. or in the lower mainland. It is a fear of rural B.C. that a two-tiered system will evolve unless this government is sensitive to the needs of everyone -- and I stress everyone -- in British Columbia.
The speech tells about building the economy, already fuelled 20 percent by government expenditure. When we see the increased debts this past year, in excess of $3 billion, we can only assume that this government intends to fuel the economy of British Columbia with more borrowed money, not by encouraging private investment. That's the type of dependency on government that we cannot tolerate.
This government intends to create another Crown corporation to borrow more money to build highways. Increasing the gas tax and tolls and creating another Crown corporation -- obviously there must be more NDP members in Manitoba, New Brunswick or Ontario who need a few more jobs. It's absolutely ridiculous that this government cannot continue doing what has been done before and take most of that money out of general revenue to build those highways, as has been done for a long time.
What we have is more and more debt. That's what this government is good at: debt. They talk about leaving something to be proud of for our children. Are massive debts, such as we see in the federal government, something to leave our children? Is that something to be proud of? I hope not.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The member from across the way talks about $20 billion in debt. He doesn't even know how to read the last budget manual.
Money markets are telling Canadians and British Columbians to reel in the debt. Dominion Bond Rating Service and Moody's Investors of New York have made that very clear to governments in Canada. But will this government listen? I believe not.
Why does private investment feel uneasy about investing in British Columbia? Could it be because of the skewed labour legislation that was pushed through this House with no consultation with small business, even though the members opposite continually talk about it? That was tremendously unfair labour legislation. We thought this government would bring forward something that would be palatable to all British Columbians, but they failed again.
A corporate capital tax -- a blind tax. Whether corporations make money or not, they are now going to pay the corporate capital tax. The appalling part about the corporate capital tax is that it applies to B.C. Hydro, to B.C. Rail and to all Crown corporations. I wonder if they're going to apply it to the new Crown corporation that's going to borrow money for our highways. Can you imagine the amount of money that's derived from that type of tax? That's all it is: a despicable tax that should be eliminated immediately. Every business in this province has written letters to this minister, this government and the Premier, and has told them so. But will they listen? No, they will not.
Corporate tax increases -- room to move. The Premier was on TV, and he talked about how British Columbia had so much room to move because we were low on the totem pole in all kinds of taxes. So he felt he could move the taxes up to the highest. It's absolutely ridiculous. I can't imagine that type of thinking.
Personal tax increases. Commercial and business tax increases. Small business is having a hard time making ends meet. They're taking funding away from them. They're taking away funding to help students get jobs and experience in small business during the summertime, so they can earn money to go back to university. What does this government do? It cuts it all out and increases the fees in the universities and colleges. That's a great way to do it. They didn't even talk about education in the throne speech; that's how important it is to this government.
Motor fuel tax increases. Increases in all fees and permits -- grazing fees; subdivision fees. In fact, the subdivision fee on a farm has now increased somewhere around 400 percent, from about $125 to almost $500. The need for this government to get money, to tax people so that they can blow it, is absolutely crazy.
The Schwindt report is another reason why investment isn't happening in British Columbia.
The fixed-wage policy is costing British Columbians another $200 million a year.
Massive increases in hydro rates. Hydro was ordered to increase their rates 2 percent over the rate of inflation for the next however many years. It's despicable. This government is going to use B.C. Hydro as a cash cow, through the corporate tax on return on investment, of probably $400 million or $500 million a year. Who's going to pay that bill? What about that senior on a fixed income? What about that person who is out there trying to make a living on what the Finance minister feels is sufficient, $18,000 a year? Maybe we should cut his wages down to $18,000 a year and give him a car allowance and a phone booth to work out of.
Increases in transportation costs of all kinds. Fees. Licences. Public sector union increases three times that of private sector settlements. Massive land assessment increases. An NDP GST on lawyers' fees. It's just a start. They try to tell people that the lawyers are going to pay this. Hon. Speaker, you know who's going to pay it: again, it's the ordinary British Columbian.
[ Page 4802 ]
The creation of a regional airline with scheduled daily flights to every cabinet minister's constituency in the province. It's really a great way to treat those little jets: just keep them in the air steady. They talked about the taxi service before. It was nothing like what we see now.
Protected areas strategy plans, which conveniently cover any area in British Columbia where resource activity is taking place, or could take place in the future. How are we supposed to encourage investment in the mining and forestry sectors in British Columbia if we continue to do that?
Exploding welfare rolls. The minister tells us we have the best-growing economy, but we have the fastest-growing welfare rolls. Welfare is up 22 percent this year -- an overexpenditure of just under $100 million. What is happening?
Massive ICBC increases. ICBC still shows large deficits and still has an increase of somewhere around 30 percent. The list goes on and on and on.
The land use issue is a huge undertaking for CORE. I only hope that it will serve its purpose and that it will not be used to defer decisions that should be made now.
This government talks about getting spending into line, but about the only thing this government has been successful in getting into line is all the little snouts at the trough. Remember the Premier talking about no more friends and insiders during the election? Let me tell you, the NDP have given new meaning to the term. I do not remember any of the NDP members extolling the virtues of the insider group and the jobs they perform. They like to back away from it; they don't like to talk about jobs that cost British Columbians millions of dollars in salaries and benefits.
The skyrocketing assessments are of great concern to the agricultural community in the Peace River district. The member for Abbotsford spoke about the same problem in the Fraser Valley. Oil and forest companies have the same fears. Let's hope the government acts responsibly when it sets its tax rate.
Let's hope it has the courage to act responsibly, if that is possible. If there is anything that this government can do, it is tax and spend -- no different than the NDP government of 1972-1975. But who will pay? The present government will certainly lose its mandate at the next election. But it is the people of British Columbia who will pay for this false NDP economy. The members over there make light of it, and I find that despicable. It's the people of British Columbia that are going to pay the tax bill.
British Columbians want less government, less taxes; and it may surprise members opposite that British Columbians will accept less services if taxes and fees are cut. They want the government to live up to its promises.
Remember the campaign and the picture of the now Premier dropping the coin into the piggy bank? You must remember it; it came across the TV steadily and cost Ken Georgetti hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Premier would say: "Not one penny more than you can afford." Mr. Premier, live up to that promise. Hon. Speaker, it's time this government lived up to some of its promises, and that's one of them. They've cost the average British Columbian $1,000 in taxes and fee increases this past year. Heaven knows what's going to happen in this coming year, but it's time that they lived up to their promise.
Jobs are what British Columbians want -- well-paying jobs, jobs that our young people can be proud of. I don't know how many members opposite know of young people who are out of high school or university or have training who are looking for jobs. There's a tremendous number of them out there, and the government doesn't even have the wherewithal to talk about jobs in the throne speech. We have the highest unemployment rate in that age group -- no wonder we have dissent. Those young people are out there trying to find a job and make a living. But what do we have from this government? They can't even mention jobs. In fact, I'll retract that, hon. Speaker, because that's not quite correct: they mention jobs once -- one time -- in the throne speech. And besides the debt, to me that is the most important thing in British Columbia right now: jobs.
For those reasons, hon. Speaker, I cannot support any part of this throne speech. I look forward to the upcoming budget debate, and I thank you very much.
[4:45]
L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, shortly after this government took office it embarked upon a very cynical course of action that continues to this day. Specifically, this government had an agenda it intended to impose upon British Columbians -- an omelette that could never be unscrambled, in the words of one of its own gurus. It decided to pursue this intractable, ideologically driven agenda in a cynical fashion. It would do this by applying a veneer of consultation to all its policy decisions. So we have seen a plethora of road shows, summits, commissions and outreach exercises -- all accompanied by unctuous, soothing words from cabinet ministers about the importance of consensus and consultation. There was only one missing ingredient: the government was not listening, nor did it intend to.
Nowhere is this cynical approach more evident and more disastrous than in the delivery of health care. It started with this government's relationship with the doctors, with legislation which unilaterally destroyed the existing balance between doctors and government in the bargaining process. The challenge sent to the doctors was authoritarian and blunt. The intent was: "We have changed the rules; now let's talk."
Just to raise the temperature a bit more, the government eradicated pension entitlements which had been hastily cobbled together by the previous government as an ill-conceived act of appeasement in its dying days. Whatever the merits of that pension plan, the lack of prior consultation by this government was unacceptable. Today, hon. Speaker, you heard the minister suggest that it's now opportune to put the pension plan back on the table in terms of bargaining. It was unacceptable to remove it; it makes limited sense to somehow suggest that it will be a better pension plan. The original pension plan was registered; it was contributory. I never believed that I would see a labour
[ Page 4803 ]
government in this province deem a contract not to have existed.
The official opposition, like many observers, saw a disturbing double standard in these actions. First, the NDP, which is, after all, a creation of the labour movement, displayed a remarkable insensitivity to the principles of mutual respect which underlie good collective bargaining. Second, the NDP had to know that its pre-emptive strike against the doctors would establish an atmosphere of acrimony and bad will that would haunt health care well into its tenure of government and perhaps beyond. For a party that has convinced itself that it indeed invented medicare, this is an irony, to say the least.
The charade of consultation carried on as the government moved to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. The underlying theme of the royal commission report was one with which the official opposition would have no quarrel. The principle of bringing health care delivery and decision making closer to the community is basic and fundamental, to the point of being a truism. No one would argue that health, being a most important value among our citizens, shouldn't be available where it is needed and, to the greatest practical degree, managed by those who need it. But it was the very simplicity of this dogma that demanded further consultation before it was implemented.
We have seen the chaos in recent years as large economies have tried to change their fundamental philosophical premise overnight. For example, the former Soviet Union is discovering that instant capitalism is a great deal more elusive than instant communism. Simple dogmas can become incredibly complex when they are hastily applied to large, complex systems, with a hope of achieving instant results. But the NDP, as a dogma-driven party, did not have the patience, the tolerance or the commitment to participate in further consultation. Using the same top-down approach that worked so well with the doctors, they have blundered into a reorganization of the health care system. The results have become a daily item on the 6 o'clock news.
The task of the royal commission was to ascertain what British Columbians wanted from their health care system. The task of the government was to ascertain how those expectations could be met. The government bypassed that obligation and went directly to implementation. Serious questions have been left unanswered in the process. What criteria are being used for appointments to new community health authorities? Will they be open and consistent? Will there be a requirement that capabilities be standardized and consistent with these mandates? The most important question, however, involves the new costs which will be incurred as we phase in the transition to community health care. This is a topic on which the government is being unacceptably and irresponsibly silent. No cost studies have been disclosed, which means either that they are being withheld or that they haven't been done at all.
The opposition will not accept this process of accountability by omission. The opposition will not accept the implied contention that the move to community health care can be accomplished without incremental cost and without building a new bureaucracy. It appears to be this government's intention to apply the same kind of redistribution thinking they have used so unsuccessfully with other bureaucracies. They seem to believe that you can take Victoria bureaucrats and move them to a community setting where there are different needs, different skill requirements and different resources, and that they will function effectively. This is a foolish premise when you are dealing with some government programs, and it is a dangerous premise when you are dealing with health care.
As to the contention sometimes made by government that the new resources required for community-based health care can be recovered through closures in the existing system, this is voodoo economics. The government should leave that to the witch doctors. We are talking about real medicine. We need a cost-benefit analysis. Community health care incorporates a whole new range of skills covering a host of disciplines from prevention to family practice. Community care requires new facilities -- new bricks -- the distribution of testing and laboratory apparatus, and expanded, equitable access to physiotherapists, home-care workers and other providers. This will take new dollars. It is categorically impossible to recover that kind of money through a series of abrupt, ill-conceived closures.
We have a minister who, on the one hand, would have us believe that she is committed to community care, and on the other hand, not fund $658,000 to look at family practice physicians in this province. We have physicians across this country who are being trained in family practice. We have 900 spaces across Canada. British Columbia, I believe, accounts for 19 of those spaces.
We are not carrying our load. There is work to be done. I suspect that the government is beginning to realize this, though not admitting it. With this realization will come an understanding of the cuts that will happen to health care workers. The professionals in the health care industry are shrewd judges of cost. They are on the front line of the system. They know that it is patent nonsense to suggest that you can move health care without incurring new costs for buildings, new jobs, new technology, new apparatus and new training. They wanted assurances that their jobs would not be sacrificed to fund this poorly planned transition, and the government capitulated to this demand through a deal which has been universally criticized for its naivety.
Again, the irony is that this deal -- which the government is portraying as a perfect accommodation -- will turn out to be a disservice to the very health care workers it seeks to mollify. At a time of restraint, when all of us are being asked to make sacrifices, this deal will alienate the public. It will make health care workers a lightning rod for public discontent, and that is not doing health care workers in this province a favour. This panic arrangement by government to buy their support is bad justice now, and it will result in rough justice later. Let this government make no mistake: new
[ Page 4804 ]
money will be needed, and no money will be recovered from an abrupt dismantling of the old system.
That brings us to the discussion of the financing of health care. This is a topic where the government's disinformation campaign has run unchecked. The assertion by government that health care spending is out of control simply does not reflect the facts. For the last five years health care has extracted a stable level of support from the economy. Budgets have increased to reflect inflation, demographics and other indicators, but the drawdown on the economy has remained the same. By contrast, other areas of government spending and debt have increased their demand on the economy.
The funding crisis in health care is not based on uncontrolled health spending. It is based on the government's refusal to make health care its first line of financial defence. The crisis is based on this government's continuing determination to fund dubious ministries, a shaky Crown corporation empire and patronage appointments, knowing full well that these millions of wasted dollars are being drawn away from the priorities that British Columbians believe to be most important.
Instead of acknowledging its complicity in this crisis, this government has adopted the weak cosmetic technique of fed-bashing. It is a device that has great appeal. I would not for a moment defend the wasteful ways of the federal government, which we have tolerated for the past two decades, nor would I deceive the people of B.C. by suggesting that there is some untapped pot of gold in the federal treasury that will bail out the provincial health care system. The federal government spends 30 percent of its budget to pay the interest on yesterday's promises. This won't change in the foreseeable future. All the whining and posturing in the world will not bring an extra federal dollar into the system. This government must address that reality.
There are two ways in which these issues can be addressed. First, we have to safeguard the health care system and the health care budget as the first principle of planning our total budget. Only when we are sure that we have sufficient resources for the system should we give consideration to the programs of doubtful benefit. Again, we continue not to have a cost accounting at our disposal. We continue not to know how to measure success in health care. The days are gone when provinces, including British Columbia, could pursue the fantasy of being nation-states. The days are gone when all ministers could give blank cheques to build empires at the expense of undermining, eroding and perhaps destroying what we hold most important.
The second strategy to deal with a funding crisis must involve exploring new sources of funding. The federal cash cow has dried up, and this province knows that it faces increasing self-reliance for its own health care funding. Diversified approaches must be explored, together with tangible efforts to eliminate wasteful spending in other areas. We cannot leave health care funding to the vague uncertainties of the tax cycle, which is vulnerable to swings in the economy. Given this government's lack of economic vision, that would indeed be a dangerous gamble.
When we talk about increasing dollars in health care systems, I want to see this province move towards a research and development base. I want to see us work toward commitment to research and development in this province, toward ensuring that we employ our own scientists and engineers, that we ask people to be participants in the system we are going to create over the next ten years.
Hon. Speaker, this government came to office challenged with the need to bring visionary change and invigorated thinking to health care in this decade. Instead, they brought closed doors, precipitate action and cosmetic consensus. They took the concept of community-based care and made the jump from a slogan to a structure. As a result, we face a climate of uncertainty in health care that will only be remedied when this government leaves office.
J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted to see you in the chair for my first speech to the House since we last met in December. I'm delighted to see my colleagues opposite again, and I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in saying that we hope this will be one of the best sessions that British Columbia has ever seen. In the first part of my speech I'm going to address specifically the issues that affect my riding, and then we'll have some general discussion that I hope will be enlightening for the members opposite in terms of what they, too, can contribute to this session.
[5:00]
Vancouver-Hastings, the east side, the northeast corner of Vancouver, is growing and thriving; there is absolutely no question about that. But we still face some very tough choices on the east side of Vancouver. However, I'm confident that the direction outlined by our government in this throne speech lays the foundation for a safe, healthy and economically stable future for all of us. We've met many serious and real challenges already. Much has been done even since we last met in December. The residents of my riding in East Vancouver have benefited directly from our having the courage to make some tough choices and decisions that will affect us all for the long term.
I'd like to give you some examples of what has been done for us in Vancouver, particularly on the east side. I'm going to highlight the issues that are important to me and that have been of great benefit to my neighbours.
On the issue of child care, last year we made some major breakthroughs in the area of real child care funding -- not just subsidies to parents by giving them a cheque but no opportunity to find affordable, quality child care. Our government, for the first time ever, said: "Not only are we going to fund child care but we're also going to provide the facilities, the workers and the opportunity for you, as a parent, to have good, meaningful, quality child care in your own neighbourhood." It had never been done before. It had never been done by the members opposite or by anyone in this province, until we came into government.
One of the examples in my riding is the Kiwassa Neighbourhood House. Our government was instrumental in funding the actual centre -- the actual
[ Page 4805 ]
walls, beds and toys for the kids. Our government helped fund the Kiwassa Neighbourhood House child care centre. It's a wonderful child care centre. Whenever you pass through my riding, come in and see what it means to have a New Democrat government. What it means in East Vancouver is the Kiwassa Neighbourhood House child care centre.
We have also made major core funding to women's centres -- day-to-day, ongoing and sustaining funding -- that provide real services for women who really need the services in our communities. Women's centres in East Vancouver have benefited from that, and they are very grateful for that core funding. There's more to be done. Nevertheless, we are working in partnership. We've stopped the nagging fear that women's centres have about not having funding to meet the needs of women. We, as a government, have stopped that fear, and we have allowed them to get on with the real work of working on women's issues.
School lunch programs. I have several schools in my riding that now benefit from a hot-lunch program. It is very exciting to go into them at noonhour and see the kids getting a good, solid meal, in a social situation. Everyone joins together and sits at the same table no matter who is paying for that school lunch, whether it's their parents or our government. The point is that they are getting the lunch. That is good news, and our government is responsible for that.
We're also working on things that are very important to me in my neighbourhood. We're supporting programs such as Block Watch, which is an excellent community program carried out with the assistance of insurance companies and the police. They say: "Neighbourhoods, take responsibility for your own safety and comfort, and we'll assist you wherever we can." Our government is fully supportive of that program. We on the east side of Vancouver are working to get the Block Watch program in all our neighbourhoods.
I told the House last year that the largest urban aboriginal population resides in my riding. That is a growing community. It's getting stronger each and every day and is taking control of its own future, and our government is assisting in that process. We gave funding to the aboriginal community -- much of which went into my riding -- to address the issue of family violence. Those programs are now well established and are giving true assistance to our aboriginal families.
English-as-a-second-language funding is very important to the residents of East Vancouver. Thirty percent of my constituents have Chinese as their first language, and they very much want to have a second language. They want to be fluent in their own community and in the English-language community as well. Our government gave funding, through our '93-94 education grants, to continue English-as-a-second-language programs. It's wonderful. It will be good news when East Vancouver residents can not only participate in their first language in their own community but also get the full value of having English as a good and strong second language.
There was more good news for the citizens of East Vancouver yesterday. Our government announced that we were putting $10 million into capital and operating funding for safe housing. That is good news for East Vancouver, where so many of our residents, until our government came in, did not have safe housing. Our government was fortunate enough to hire the services of Jim Green, the former organizer of the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association in Vancouver. Hon. Speaker, you know him well as a community activist in your riding. He is working with our government to develop innovative ways for the province to deal with homelessness and all the associated problems. He is to develop new approaches for preserving and increasing affordability and secure housing for people who are homeless and at risk.
I know that the members opposite who live in the comfort of the North Shore may not understand the needs of the homeless, but they are real people. They have something to contribute to society, and all they need is a safe, secure roof over their heads. That is not asking too much from a government. Our government is providing that for them, and I am so pleased about that.
We're not just doing it on our own. We're not saying to the homeless: "We know what's best for you. We will tell you what kind of home you live in." That won't work. We're working with community organizations to help build partnerships that involve not only the homeless themselves and the organizations that represent them, but also the private sector. We're involving the municipalities in creating this new, affordable housing. That means that it will actually work, and I am very pleased about that.
I am very excited about 1993-94 and the role that our government is going to play in the continuing growth of B.C.'s economy. Our future is very bright; there is absolutely no other way to describe it. In the North American picture, the future of British Columbia is very rosy and very bright. I am privileged to sit as a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. It's an excellent board. Its talents are diverse and wide-ranging, with a very strong business background. The board is working in cooperation with our government to make sure that British Columbia has the ability to lay the groundwork for a strong and much fairer economy than has existed in the past. We have many interesting discussions about the opportunities that are available to us across this province and in reaching out to business opportunities not only in the other parts of Canada but in the rest of North America and with our Pacific Rim partners. That's all good news, and more good news about that will be forthcoming.
I am going to inject a little note of concern in the good news that's arising not only out of the throne speech but from our first year in government. I'm going to express some concern about those who should be our partners in bringing about real, meaningful change for all British Columbians. I'm going to urge those who should be our partners, but who are not at this stage, to come on board. It's as simple as that. Come on board. Let me talk for a minute about the members opposite.
It goes without saying that our first year was a learning year. I was part of that learning exercise. My colleagues here, many of whom were rookies, had to
[ Page 4806 ]
learn from those of you who have been here for a while. But do you know what? The learning period is almost over. It's time to participate in a mature, helpful way toward what's good for B.C. It's time to assist and stop: assist what's good for B.C. and stop the inward navel-gazing that's going on. It's time to show some real leadership in what must be a group point of view from the members opposite. We can no longer be held back as a province by what can only be described as naivety. I urge members opposite to get on board and to be a part of the good news of the future. I urge them to do that in this session. I honestly think that the members opposite are capable of joining with us to stop the naysaying and the negativity.
I have a concern about what should be another partner in making British Columbia a better place to live. That concern is about the city of Vancouver. I worry about the mayor of Vancouver and his NPA cronies who sit on city council, deliberately sabotaging what our government is trying to do for my neighbours in East Vancouver, your neighbours on the west side, hon. Speaker, and people all across Vancouver. I worry about the mayor and the NPA-dominated council.
There has been a decided lack of cooperation from the city of Vancouver, which should be playing a major leadership role in these issues. There is a decided lack of cooperation on the issue of public transit. There is an absolute refusal by the city of Vancouver to give us on the east side the green space we deserve. Rupert Park sits there; it's a disgrace. It is the city's responsibility to restore that to green space. New Brighton Park is the only waterfront green space that we on the east side of Vancouver have, and the city of Vancouver does nothing. The city refuses to cooperate with us in returning Hastings Park to green space.
They do not join with us in the solutions on housing. They're pro-development, not pro-people. I say to the mayor of Vancouver: "You've got to change, Mr. Campbell. Get on board for what is good news for the city of Vancouver."
It will be so much better for the people of Vancouver when the governments at all levels can set aside their partisan differences and work together to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. That's leadership; that's what it is all about. I must say that under our Premier's leadership, our government is doing just that. I urge the city of Vancouver to join with us in showing that kind of leadership.
I'm very much looking forward to the good-news budget of next week. It will be a good week for British Columbia; it will be a good week for the residents of my riding, Vancouver-Hastings. I predict that once again British Columbia will be seen to be very much leading the way.
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a singular pleasure to rise in the House to not only defend my government's strategy as briefly outlined in the throne speech but to also elaborate upon my government's vision for the future, a vision which I believe will have a beneficial effect not only upon the citizens of British Columbia -- and I mean all of them -- but also upon the province itself.
When I reflect on it, it is a very unique and unusual province. It is not only the farthest west but also the most diverse of all the provinces in Canada. Perhaps I could be permitted to allude briefly to the significant differences in British Columbia.
This is a province which stretches from the Pacific slope, from the Rockies to the Pacific shore. We have the Rockies, the Coast Range, the Selkirks, the Purcells and numerous other mountain ranges in this unique province. It's virtually a sea of mountains, which I fortunately -- in another life -- have trekked innumerable times. I've never ceased to be amazed by their uniqueness and grandeur. I'm still staggered by the beauty of the province as a whole -- the solitude of the high country, the Inside Passage, the wild rivers, the remote reaches of the interior plateau. I, like many others in the precincts, including some members of the opposition, have a special affection for British Columbia.
[5:15]
I believe that the strategy outlined in the throne speech addresses many of the problems confronting us today -- and we have some problems. My government and I, as representative for Okanagan-Boundary and of my government, take our responsibilities extremely seriously.
Let us examine the vision -- I think I can safely say that -- or the long view touched on in the throne speech. There is, of course, little elaboration in the throne speech. It is not intended to have that, so I think it's up to us as individual members to elaborate. We have a number of initiatives that have not been addressed in that speech. Yesterday in this House the opposition member for Richmond-Steveston asked where the courage is in building the economy. I think the courage in building the economy is in adopting a different and more rational look at it. It's not an immediate knee-jerk response; it's not ad hoc. It's cooperation between ministries. I know that in my ministry, which is not large, we cooperate significantly with other ministries. We cooperate with the Ministry of Tourism; we cooperate with the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; we cooperate with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Are the programs working? You bet they are.
Just a few minutes ago in this House, the MLA for Chilliwack stated that this government only pays lip service to the Buy B.C. program. Perhaps that member did not do his homework. We have committed $9.5 million, which I think is fairly serious, over a five-year span. This will eventually be a $30 million program. Has it worked? I would be answering from a biased position.
L. Reid: Who's buying?
Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much, member opposite. I'll give you a statement from an individual who is certainly not a friend of the government. He's a talk show host.
Interjection.
[ Page 4807 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: If the member will give me his undivided attention, which he may find difficult, this is from Terry Spence, a talk show host at C-FAX Radio 1070, who has thousands of listeners and is not known as pro-government. Here's what he said on December 18. I'd gone there to outline our program about a week before. He decided to do an editorial on it. After examining it, unlike the member for Chilliwack, he said to his listeners:
"I hope you're sitting down, and not working with any sharp implements, because I'm actually going to give a politician a pat on the back this morning. The politician is Bill Barlee, the provincial Agriculture minister. He deserves a pat on the back for two innovative pilot projects launched in the Victoria area -- projects that no doubt will spread across the province."
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: As soon as I reduce it to monosyllables, I'll send it across.
"The first one" -- and I wish the member for Chilliwack were here -- "was a test of whether people would buy B.C. products in their supermarket if those products were labelled clearly as having been grown or manufactured in this province. During the test period in the Thrifty Foods chain in the Victoria area, sales of the specified products soared dramatically."
I may mention that they not only soared dramatically, they soared 168 percent over the same period the year before. We placed 27 new products on the shelves. We got rave reviews from companies that had never been associated with any government, including the previous government. They all want to participate again.
"The second pilot project, launched only yesterday, involves 100 restaurants in the Victoria area." We went to the Restaurant Association of British Columbia, and we said: "We can set the table for the British Columbia consumer. If you want beef, we have the beef in British Columbia, including in the Peace River district. If you want turkey, we have turkey in the Fraser Valley."
Interjections.
Hon. B. Barlee: Don't be too sensitive about the word "turkey," please.
"If you want fish, we have it offshore." We also mentioned that we have all the vegetables; we have cranberries. If you want to finish it off with blueberry pie or apple pie, we have that too. If you want to finish it off with a VQA wine, we do that.... Oh, by the way, talking about VQA wines, the most dramatic increase in these British Columbia wines in the history of that program: they went up 37 percent last year -- 100,000 litres. Absolutely staggering!
[The Speaker in the chair.]
So with this program, which we launched in conjunction with the B.C. Restaurant Association, we thought we'd get 50 restaurants at first. We don't throw money at stuff; we look at it very rationally. We try a pilot project and see if it works. What we did, of course, was to look all across North America and study 43 jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. We were told that consumer loyalty was very low. Well, consumer loyalty isn't low, and -- certainly the member for Chilliwack will be very pleased to hear this -- consumer loyalty in British Columbia is probably the best in the country. So our second pilot project numbered 100 restaurants. We got those hundred restaurants -- and they paid $50 each to join -- in 72 hours. And was it a success? Let me read from Terry Spence: "The second pilot project, launched only yesterday, involves 100 restaurants in the Victoria area." These restaurants range from the Empress, right down to the mom-and-pop, right to the ferry service. "All of them are featuring special menu items from British Columbia growers or producers. Brian Mulroney will spend a million dollars on an overseas trip that doesn't generate one job for a Canadian or one dollar for a Canadian company."
Interjections.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm glad I'm getting the attention of the opposite side. It's the first time you've wakened up all day.
"But Bill Barlee can launch two pilot projects that help farmers, help fisherman" -- and small businesses -- "and people who work in the food industry all over this province, and do both for about $80,000."
Actually, the total price was $81,500 -- pretty good for two projects.
"There's no doubt in my mind" -- would you please listen to what he's saying about our government -- "who's delivering real value for the tax dollars spent. Two good ideas from a politician who deserves a pat on the back."
The member for Chilliwack said several other things. He said that fisheries and agriculture should be enhanced. Well, do you know something? We're already working on that. We've been working on it quite consistently for about eight or nine months, and doing quite a good job.
How have we enhanced it? In 1990, when the government was in the hands of the Social Credit Party, we produced no hake, a fish that is in some demand -- zero tonnes of hake in British Columbia. In the latter stages of 1991 we produced 6,500 tonnes in B.C. and about 90 new jobs. In 1992 we trebled that to 19,000 tonnes; we now have 130 new jobs, plus 180 indirect jobs. By 1995 we will probably produce 90,000 tonnes. This helps little towns like Alberni and up the coast, and it absolutely works like a charm.
Just a few minutes ago the member for Chilliwack said that we must keep farming economically viable. We agree. We have 20,000 farmers. Let's look at 20,000 farmers. In Canada there were almost 400 bankruptcies in farming corporations and large farms. British Columbia has 13 percent of that 400, so we should have about 50 or 60 bankruptcies. We had exactly ten, a fraction of what we should have had. By the way, none of those ten were in the Peace River. I'm not saying that the Peace River district hasn't had some difficulties, but they're
[ Page 4808 ]
taking the long view, as we are: no more ad hoc; long-term strategies.
How have the farmers done generally? In 1991 the average revenue, according to federal income tax figures, was up 16.5 percent. Not bad. In 1992 they estimate it will be up 21 percent. That's very good. So what we're doing is taking a rational look at how to increase jobs. And talking about jobs, the member for Peace River North just stated, if I remember correctly, that there is a distinct lack of jobs. I just happen to have the figures with me, and here's what it says about the distinct lack of jobs in British Columbia: wrong again. In 1992 the rest of Canada, the other nine provinces, created 27,000 jobs; that's 3,000 jobs per province. British Columbia created 36,000 jobs -- federal figures, not ours. We created 12 times as many jobs as the average province did. We created more jobs than all the other provinces in Canada. So I think that the members on the opposite side have not taken a rational overview.
An Hon. Member: What about the farmers in my riding?
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, let me elaborate on that; I'd be delighted to elaborate on it.
First of all, perhaps the member didn't listen, but our farmers are better off than any other farmers in the country by far. Secondly, we not only have the farmers onside, we have the companies onside. We just formed a food council.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: That was under your regime, not ours; and certainly they will be back with us.
Now let me comment a little more succinctly on that. We have approximately nine or ten giants in the retail industry. I have a food council. There are 16 people at the board, and these 16 people represent everybody in the industry. We have 600 companies in British Columbia in the food-processing industry or in the cooperatives and so on. So I thought: "Will we have a difficult time getting the big boys to the table? Will we have a tough time getting Safeway there? Will we have a tough time getting Overwaitea there?" They were never at the table before -- never sitting down with you. "Will we have a tough time getting Save-On there or little companies like Thrifty's?"
I went down to talk to my food management council about ten days ago, and I was absolutely astonished. As I looked down the left side of the table -- that was coincidence, of course -- there I saw the vice-president from Safeway; next to him was one of the major managers from Overwaitea. Save-On was there; Thrifty's was there. So I went back and covered the statistics, and I found that -- my heavens! -- we had between 60 and 70 percent of the major retailers at the table, gentlemen. And why have we got them there? Well, we've got them there for a very logical reason. Every million dollars that we keep in British Columbia, with a multiplier effect of four, creates about 15 new jobs.
[5:30]
The Speaker: Order, please. I very much regret I must interrupt the minister, but according to standing order 45A, it being 30 minutes before time of adjournment, I must call the question on the amendment. I'm sure the House will allow the minister to very quickly wrap up his comments.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'd be delighted.
If any of you want a quick analysis of it, you may visit my office. The door is always open, as it is to business around the province. They are very pleased. I imagine you will be too, and I thank you for your kind attention. There are many more people here than when we started.
Amendment negatived.
On the main motion.
J. Dalton: I shouldn't say it's a pleasure to rise and address the throne speech; after all, there's nothing pleasurable in the document. But I will certainly make some comments, mainly on things missing from the throne speech and perhaps on one or two things that are very vaguely alluded to in the speech.
There probably is for some people a false expectation that a Speech from the Throne would address the important issues of the day and that the government would have the courage -- if I can emphasize that word, given that they used it so many times in the speech -- to address those issues. Unfortunately, having had the pleasure of reading this document, as I am sure we all have, we do not find addressed any of the issues, major or otherwise -- certainly not in any significant way.
With this government we certainly expected platitudes, and without question, we got them. For example, in case anyone is feeling that perhaps there aren't any platitudes in this document, let me just quote from page 5 of this Speech from the Throne: "...steps have been taken to make government more open and inclusive, and hold elected officials to the highest ethical standards." I would suggest that that sort of statement is much more likely to appear in a Speech from the Throne from this government than, for example....
Let's try this one on for size: "Our government will be self-serving and insular, ensuring that friends and insiders are rewarded and that elected officials are not bound to any standards, ethical or otherwise." Of course, I'm using that as a hypothetical example. I'm not suggesting that this government is in any way tainted by such remarks. But that's what I consider to be a hollow statement in this document with no substance.
What do we find in this speech? We have comfortable statements, but they are of little comfort. The government tells us it will "make tough decisions." That may be so, but I do not feel that this government is going to make the correct decisions.
A great deal of the throne speech was devoted to health. My colleague from Richmond East recently commented at some length on health. I think it's appropriate that the government at least addressed that issue, because it is controversial and is an ongoing
[ Page 4809 ]
concern. No one needs to tell us, however, that the system of health care is going through changes; that is quite evident. Just ask the doctors, for example, with their ongoing dispute over the capping of fees. Just ask the people in the Shaughnessy community, where the Shaughnessy Hospital will be closing over the ongoing dispute. That's the sort of thing which unfortunately has caused a lot of confrontation and very little in the way of meaningful discussion or expected decisions.
I suppose the Minister of Health will tell us that these are "tough decisions" -- coming back to one of the phrases repeated in this throne speech. I know that those directly impacted were never consulted, but they will certainly say that the decisions are ill-conceived. So whether they be tough or otherwise, the decisions are hardly going to be productive in solving the very serious issues of health funding and health delivery.
So what do we see, hon. Speaker? A good deal of the speech concentrated on health as the number one ministry in terms of the budget. As I said, it should have addressed that. But it is certainly very disappointing to me, in particular, if I can make my comments as the Education critic. It's very disturbing to me to go through the document and find only five very passing references to education in the entire Speech from the Throne. Just so that the House is aware of what those are -- and it won't take me long to outline them, because they are so shallow and so brief -- the word "education" appears only twice in the entire document, on pages 4 and 6. I think that's a statement in itself, that education seems to be almost a forgotten factor.
In addition -- just to flesh out this healthy discussion of education a bit -- on page 8 we're informed that the government will "construct schools." Well, isn't that amazing! It's nice to hear. On page 9 there's a passing reference to education when they mention the new training opportunities for our current workforce and the BCIT summit to be held in June of this year. I'll be making some further comments in a moment on that summit. That's only a passing reference to education, because it's really more about the training of the current workforce and not a very significant component of education delivery.
Finally, on page 12 we are given this brilliant advice: universities, colleges and school boards make their own budget decisions. And that's it. We don't know whether education is going to be a high priority, a low priority, or, as I suspect, no priority.
I must ask what happened to the glorious promises of "A Better Way"? We are all familiar with that infamous NDP campaign document which placed a strong emphasis on education. Let me quote briefly from "A Better Way" in reference to education: "Education is the best investment we can make." Well, I certainly endorse that comment, but I'm very disappointed that the throne speech of this year made no reference to whether education will be treated as the investment that it should be.
What has happened? Has education dropped out of sight? Well, we know it is not essential, according to the debate of last fall on the Labour Relations Code. It certainly isn't a happy area of government delivery, given the growing number of strikes and slowdowns, not to mention the four-week lockout in Fernie. Perhaps I could briefly update the House on the current labour disruptions in the school districts. Tomorrow New Westminster will be shut down by a strike. I am informed today that Powell River will be locked out, and there is more to come. We're making a very unhappy situation much worse as a consequence.
H. Giesbrecht: What do you suggest we do?
J. Dalton: Perhaps this very next comment I'm going to make will address the question of the member opposite. I am going to suggest that perhaps education is missing not because it's not important enough, but because it's too important. Now, you might wonder how that can be. What I will advance as my argument is that this government has no economic plan. As that is the case, there is no need to mention a vital component of such a plan, which, of course, would be education: no plan, no need to mention education. With no blueprint, why bother to discuss a foundation for a building? This government has no blueprint; we don't need to get into the foundation arguments.
The day after the Speech from the Throne, the lead editorial of the Vancouver Sun was informative. The headline of that editorial was: "Why No Mention of Major Issues?" I will comment on just one reference from that editorial: "Also conspicuous by its absence was any indication of a willingness to clean up the mess in education." I would suggest that the mess is, at least, twofold: as I've already mentioned, the work stoppages, the very unfortunate disruptions to the system; and the ongoing debate about education funding and the process itself. The Speech from the Throne has not addressed these things. I'm hopeful that the spring session will see us discussing some of these -- probably because we're going to have to drag them out of the government side, not because they're prepared to present any package of education reform or to address the issues.
We know that a throne speech doesn't deal in specifics. That's fine, and other members have commented on that. But it certainly would have been helpful in this very important area of education if they had at least given us some glimmer of hope. It is curious that the Speech from the Throne goes to some lengths on health, and then it gets to the number two department, the number two spender in government -- number two in importance as well -- and we have nothing other than vague passing references. So what do we read into that? B.C. may be healthy -- and I would suggest that it's not healthy from the point of view of how they're dealing with our health system -- but certainly B.C. will be uneducated. I think that's a logical conclusion to draw from the absence of references to education.
What can we look forward to? I referred earlier to the summit on skills development and training that will be held this June at BCIT in Burnaby. That's fine for the workers, for those who are currently employed, those fortunate enough to have jobs and therefore in need of upgrading. I quite agree with the government that we have to address that issue. But let there be no mistake:
[ Page 4810 ]
the current workforce needs opportunities for training, yes, but what about the upcoming workforce? What about the young people whose education to prepare for the global economy is so vital? What about access to post-secondary education? There's no reference in the throne speech to that. What about new training opportunities above and beyond the upgrading of workers, those who will be coming into the workforce and have to have the opportunity for retraining? It's estimated that the average working person in this province will have five different occupations in their lifetime, where-as traditionally I guess we always thought maybe two at most.
If we're looking to the future of training people for five job opportunities, this document doesn't give us any glimmer of hope as to how we're going to undertake that process. What about the needs of the adult who wants to upgrade his education to basic grade 12? What about the needs of the ESL learner? What about the needs of the life-long learner? None of these things are commented on in any way in the throne speech. These aspects are a very important component of a much larger picture. That picture, again, is an economic plan. Our amendment -- which unfortunately has been defeated, but if I may just comment on it briefly -- addressed the question of there being no economic plan. This speech clearly has no economic plan whatsoever.
This government is prepared to put up smoke-screens on education issues. Recently, for example, there were screaming front-page headlines about administrative salaries in school districts. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale led the charge on that one and was very dutifully supported by the Finance minister. It was very curious to me that the Minister of Education was not heard from during that public debate. I did wonder whether this was put up as a smokescreen by some members of the government, but it was obviously not shared by others in the government. As I commented in a letter to one of the newspapers, I felt it was strictly a deflective strategy by some members of the government to take away from the more serious issues facing education in this province. I have no quarrel with government addressing the cost of administration, but I certainly take issue with isolating only one part of a very large picture. What did they do? They picked on the administrative salaries in a few school districts and scored a few Brownie points in the headlines.
[5:45]
Does the Speech from the Throne talk about down-sizing government? No, it does not. Does it talk about reducing the bureaucracy? Does it talk about attending to the very serious impact on the tax dollar? No, it does not. There's nothing in there on that. That's where I take issue with grabbing a headline for a day and forgetting that there are far more significant issues which I am on my feet to accuse the government of not addressing. If they don't address it soon -- other members have alluded to tax revolts -- I think we may be facing a tax revolt one day, quite frankly. Why? I'll tell the members opposite why we may be facing a tax revolt. It's because government -- this government and the one in Ottawa -- is not listening to the people of this province and this country. The people of this province and this country are far ahead of government in downsizing and in addressing deficits and debts. You people are going to learn the sorry tale the hard way. Don't say we didn't tell you, because we did.
Coming back to the absence of addressing very serious issues in this throne speech, we have to assume that the government doesn't want to address them or feels uncomfortable addressing them. Or because they have no plan in many cases, why address them anyway? For example, coming back for a moment to the education issue.... Other serious issues that have been raised in public debate but that are not in this document -- the funding formula, the question of bargaining.... We do have a reference in the speech to the Korbin commission, which will be reporting later this spring, so perhaps some of those issues will surface through that commission report. But I don't have any great expectation that there will be anything more meaningful than some of the very hollow statements that I find in this speech.
I would suggest -- because an addressing of the very serious issues in education is absent -- that what this government really wants to do is to pull off an ostrich act: to bury its head in the sand and hope that the pickets and the disruption in the school system will go away.
Interjections.
J. Dalton: Well, the pickets aren't going to go away, my friends opposite. Why? Because there are more strikes and lockouts on the horizon, and I've already commented on two of those.
Some Hon. Members: What would you do about that?
J. Dalton: I hear the members opposite asking what I would do about it. Well, I'll tell you what the Liberal caucus and I will do about it: we will address the funding situation. We will talk about meaningful budget preparation, such as multi-year funding. We will consult with all of the people involved in education delivery in this province, not do as the government typically does with health -- decide now and then say to the doctors or to the Shaughnessy people: "Well, by the way, here's the decision. You may not like it, but that's tough. You're going to live with it." That's not the way to function. You people need to do some planning. No economic plan, no plan in any regard -- that's where we're at.
I have to make a comment on another missing element in the throne speech. It's perhaps a little more mundane, or maybe not quite as....
An Hon. Member: Sexy.
J. Dalton: "Sexy" is a fine term that my female colleague has suggested. But there's another important missing component: highway construction and highway budgeting. In this document we're informed that
[ Page 4811 ]
our dollars build bridges, highways and ferries. I guess that's true, but there's no references to how or where these events will take place. Again, there are hollow statements with no substance.
In particular I must make reference to two very serious difficulties in my riding, or bordering on my riding. It will be of no surprise to anyone that Westview is.... I'm sorry that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale may not be here to win back the $5 he lost last year. There's no mention in here any hope that the Westview overpass on the Trans-Canada Highway will be taken care of. More important, and a more current topic, is the Lions Gate Bridge. Do we have any hope for the Lions Gate Bridge? I doubt it. We'll have to see.
I might make a very quick comment on two references that government members made to highway construction. The member from Comox was very critical -- just as I am being -- of the absence of any highway discussion in this document. She has a concern in her riding about the Island Highway. That certainly has to be addressed. I was very pleased to hear a government member on her feet being critical of the absence of discussion in the throne speech of that problem in her area.
In contrast to that, the Government House Leader was on his feet yesterday applauding all of the great highway projects going on in Esquimalt and Metchosin. That reminded me: last year in 12 NDP ridings there was $15 million in highway construction. Would anyone want to venture a guess on how much money was spent in Liberal or Third Party ridings?
D. Schreck: Jeremy, cross over.
J. Dalton: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale asks me to cross over, but I have no overpass on which to cross over. As the member for the southern part of that very problem, I would hope that he will be endorsing my remarks.
An Hon. Member: They're a bunch of scallywags.
J. Dalton: They certainly are.
What do we conclude from all of this?
Some Hon. Members: No!
J. Dalton: I will conclude.
We obviously conclude that education is of no importance to this government. The movement of people is of no importance to this government, other than in a few isolated government ridings. Both of those components are vital to the economy of this province. This government has no game plan, no economic plan. What do we have? We have no reference. We have no sign of direction or commitment. What do I conclude from this? My children's learning opportunities are at risk. The way things are, I am destined to be gridlocked on the North Shore along with any other members who may find their way over there and never get off the North Shore. It is a bleak picture, one about which I am in no way encouraged when I read this document. I'm hoping that the government has only sort of glossed over these things and there will be some substance to address the serious issues facing this province; but I have no confidence about that.
I have to conclude by stating that I cannot support the throne speech and that when the opportunity arises I will be voting against it. I thank the members for their attention.
Hon. M. Sihota: That was a scintillating and overpowering presentation by the House Leader for the opposition, and it causes me to move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]