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)
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 8, Number 7
[ Page 4813 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
A. Warnke: In the precinct this morning are grade 5 students of Choice Learning Centre School in Richmond with a teacher, Ms. Pesch. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to welcome 16 students and their instructor Ms. Lambert from the Victoria READ. Society. I understand many of the students are from my constituency of Saanich South.
I also notice in the galleries today a school trustee from greater Victoria who also comes from Saanich South, Bev Horsman. I'd ask the House to make all of these visitors welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services be empowered to examine and inquire into the issues that were referred to it during the first session.
The Speaker: Is leave granted to proceed with these motions?
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: By leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be empowered to examine and inquire into the issues which were referred to it during the first session.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: By leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be empowered to examine and inquire into all the matters and issues referred to it during the first session.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: By leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology be empowered to examine the issues referred to it during the course of the first session.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: Finally, by leave, I move that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to examine and inquire into the issues referred to it during the first session.
Motion approved.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
B. Copping: I am very pleased to speak in favour of the throne speech, which might come as a surprise to some members of the opposition.
In the first paragraph of the throne speech, the Hon. David C. Lam stated: "I pray that all members of this assembly will strive to keep the needs and well-being of all citizens of the province uppermost in their thoughts and deliberations." That is what this government is doing. We all speak on behalf of the constituents, but isn't that easy to say.
Let us have a look at our constituents. Our constituents -- certainly in Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, as I assume in the rest of your ridings -- are composed of the wealthy, the poor, seniors on fixed incomes, the healthy, the unhealthy, people with disabilities and the mentally ill. They are employed, unemployed, students and people on fixed incomes. They are people with homes and they are the homeless. Every person is unique in their own dreams, needs, wants and capabilities. We see throughout this speech that this government is bringing about equality for all people in B.C. It is giving a voice to those who traditionally have not been heard. As legislators, it is necessary to listen to all points of view and to encourage involvement and participation in decision-making by all the people of B.C. -- not just the privileged few. We must encourage a system where all people form part of the solution. We must encourage compromise and understanding; that is our duty as legislators. If consensus can't be reached after hearing all points of view, the government must have the courage to make the final decisions.
In the sixties and seventies we saw an age of affluence for many people. I quote: "We saw people spending money they didn't have to to buy things they didn't need to impress people they didn't like." Then in the eighties the recession hit. People withdrew. They became me-oriented, and they often focused only on
[ Page 4814 ]
issues that hit them personally. That's natural; it is a protective device of all animals.
We saw the Social Credit government splitting groups apart. They had a divide-and-conquer mentality. This government has worked to reverse this by bringing people together. Fundamental changes were essential to meet the needs of all people. We have seen studies and commissions set up by the various ministries, and they have enabled all people -- the average citizens -- to have a voice in government decisions. CORE is a prime example of bringing groups together on land use decisions. The summit on the economy brought business, labour, academics and many other people together. The formation of the Labour Relations Code involved a long process of consultation. Our health reform will involve people in the community in making their own decisions on health care. We refuse to be involved in backroom deals.
[10:15]
Often what the opposition criticizes us for are our boards. The change in profile of people on the boards has been profound. No longer are boards just for the wealthy, white male CEOs who have offered some of their valuable time to do community service. Instead we have said boards must be reflective of the varied people in this province: men, women, business, labour, people with disabilities and minorities; and yes, even some New Democrats, not just Social Credit appointees.
This government has laid the foundation for long-term planning and processes to bring about stability in this province. As a government we will finally come to terms with disputes over forests and lands. With the introduction of the Treaty Commission Act, negotiations of modern treaties with aboriginal peoples will finally proceed. Fair and just settlements with our First Nations -- which, I might add, are long overdue -- will provide economic stability. This government has had the courage to deal with the issues that the previous government continually pushed aside.
Let us look at renewal of health care. Renewal and reform must take place to meet our changing needs and the changing times if medicare is to be preserved. It is nothing new. It is happening in Europe and it is what has kept medicare in Europe. With the advancement of technology, there is no limit to what we can spend on health care. Health costs have increased an average of 10 percent over the past five years. Today's taxpayers cannot maintain this rate of growth, which is more than twice the rate of inflation. We spend $850,000 every hour on health care in this province. There is enough money in the system if we have the courage to change the system.
The Royal Commission on Health Care was a 20-month process of consultation, and then we had a ten-month consultation on the implementation of change. Now the government has had the courage to take on the challenge of introducing the changes recommended by the royal commission.
Hospitals and doctors are the heart of the medicare system -- that won't change. We must be able to count on hospitals and doctors to provide treatment when we need it, with no financial barriers. However, as the system has gotten bigger, with more technology, we have seen it becoming more institutional, more expensive, more centralized and more remote. We must ask: "Are we really helping people?" The royal commission found that not all British Columbians have equal access to health care, nor are they all equally healthy.
What is reform about? I have heard naysayers in the opposition talk about balkanization, the erosion of standards and increased costs and bureaucracy. There will be provincial standards that a region can't decide upon. The province will be in charge of ambulance services, tertiary care hospitals and specialty clinics, such as the cancer clinic. Every region can't decide that they want a cancer clinic or a tertiary care hospital. Those are provincial standards, and they will be maintained.
However, regionalization will respond to local needs. One area might decide they need more for seniors' services. Another might, at one point, need more for alcohol and drug services. Those are the local needs that will be met and decided regionally. Regionalization will reduce the duplication of services. It will increase the turnaround time on decisions. If there are long term care beds needed in a community, no longer will they have to go through the long process of waiting for approval in Victoria. As I said, bureaucracy will be reduced. There will be economies of scale, and, of course, there will be an increase in the local control of citizens in the community. Regionalization must and will respond to the provincial standards, but it will require effort, and it will generate resistance by the naysayers and partisan groups with self interests, who will oppose change.
Let us look at a few facts. Fifty percent of the health care dollars spent on any person in Canada is spent in the last month of their life, whether they are a premature baby, a teenager who has been in a motor vehicle accident, somebody in their forties or fifties who has had a sudden heart attack or an elderly person. Is this really helping people?
I would like to give an example of what has happened in Japan. There have been many long studies. I can't go into the technicalities in the short time available, but in 1955 the life expectancy of Japanese males was 63 years. By 1986 that figure was 75 years. This was a dramatic change in just 30 years. In the United Kingdom, to have the same you would have had to eliminate all the deaths from cardiovascular disease and most of the deaths from cancer. When one looks at all the variables in Japan -- genetic, everything -- the Japanese experience is associated with the extraordinary economic performance of that society. Japan has the smallest relative difference in income between the bottom and the top 20 percent.
The most dramatic improvements in the health of the average individual have been associated with increased prosperity. Prosperity of the regions leads to better living and working conditions. It appears that social environment is the key to changing the health status in a population. This contrasts, of course, with the traditional view that equates good health strictly with the money being poured into medical care.
There is a threshold for spending on formal health care. Beyond that, overall health of the population
[ Page 4815 ]
might actually suffer, because less money is available for other valuable social services, such as improved housing, protecting the environment, improving the education system, dealing with family violence and counteracting racism. These are challenges that this government is dealing with. It is very easy for legislators to be naysayers and to oppose change. Look at us: we have a good income; we have a job, albeit quite often temporary; we have a home and food, and usually most of us have a very good support system. In other words, we have all the major determinants for good health.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I would like to comment on the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. The first nail in Shaughnessy's coffin happened when the government of the day built the hospital at UBC against the wishes and the recommendations of all the major groups involved. By the year 2005 Vancouver will have 500 more hospital beds than it needs; at the same time, people in the Fraser Valley will have 850 less than required. We must have the courage to keep pace. There were two choices. We could replace the old Shaughnessy building at a cost of $80 million and create even more beds in Vancouver, or we could phase it out, save $40 million and invest in new facilities where they are truly needed. The choice was clear. We had the guts to deal with the challenge, and we did make the right decision. Patient care will not be affected during the transition. No change will be made until alternate arrangements are in place. There will be an orderly and careful transition and transfer of patient care and services.
I would like to say a few words about my riding, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. I am pleased that once again this throne speech puts a heavy emphasis on our environment. Initiatives such as the new environmental assessment act will be introduced. There will be new legislation ensuring that polluters clean up the environment, clean up contaminated sites; and the government will be introducing the first ever state-of-the environment report. The environment is very important to my constituents. The riding surrounds the head of Burrard Inlet and goes up into Indian Arm. People are working in salmonid enhancement projects in the Port Moody Ecological Society and the Stoney Creek Community Association. We are the home of the Burke Mountain Naturalists and the Burnaby Mountain Preservation Society.
We are also a riding that sets an example of industry and the community working together to protect the environment. As it is the home of Simon Fraser University, I am pleased that the throne speech recognizes the importance of creating training opportunities for our workforce and preparing our workers for tomorrow, for it is only through education and the training of our young people that we will have economic revitalization of our regions or be able to compete successfully in a global economy.
I am pleased that the government kept its promise to get young people out of portables. This is very important in my riding, and this was certainly evidenced by the large capital grants that both school districts in my riding received last year.
However, once again my constituency remains one of the most neglected regarding transit and transportation. The gridlock remains severe, and this is the number one issue for most of my constituents who commute. I am pleased that we received $7 million last year toward the Barnet-Hastings project, but this falls far short of the money needed for completion of this project. Many other road projects need construction or upgrading. A prime example is the Gaglardi-Broadway connector.
I see that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is here, so I will use this chance to lobby, lobby, lobby. There must be action on transit, whether it is commuter rail or rapid transit, and we don't want another announcement with no action, as we have had in the past. I am convinced that this government will produce some action.
In closing, I am pleased that the government continues to invest in our economy by investing in people. All the people in British Columbia are a priority with this government. By dealing people into decision-making processes, people can become part of their own destiny. We have worked to restore the government to the people by the introduction of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I am pleased that we are making the changes to lay the foundation for a stronger and fairer British Columbia. I once again look forward to the challenges.
[10:30]
L. Stephens: As the member for the great constituency of Langley and as a member of the Liberal opposition, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Speech from the Throne. I want to thank all the constituents of Langley for their support and for giving me the opportunity to stand here today. Again, I pledge to serve them to the best of my abilities.
Hon. Speaker, when I listened to the throne speech and, later, when I had a chance to look through it, the theme seemed to be the courage to change. Well, it seems to me that the change this government talks about is the destruction of economic development in this province. We have seen that the Ministry of Economic Development, despite 14 months of reorganization, is still gripped in a state of inaction on promoting economic development in British Columbia. Indeed, local economic development commissions have seen a reduction in the government support that they've become accustomed to.
In the spring sitting of this Legislature, Bill 32 was introduced. This bill would enact in legislation the government's right to expropriate legally held and fairly negotiated land use tenures with no compensation to the resource holder. This sword hanging over the head of our resource industry, plus the corporate capital tax and Bill 84, the new labour code, have seriously affected the confidence of business in British Columbia. In the February 9 issue of Business in Vancouver, one of the headlines says: "B.C. Businesses Lead the Pack in Whatcom County's Growth." According to the Fourth Corner Development Group, seven out of nine
[ Page 4816 ]
companies that opened major new businesses in Whatcom County in 1992 are from British Columbia. The number of inquiries from B.C. companies about locating in Whatcom County rose from 187 in 1991 to 376 in 1992.
It is only when statistics on unemployment, job losses, plant and mill shutdowns are brought down to a personal level that the importance of economic development strikes home. Job losses, especially in resource dependent communities, are personal and family tragedies. The continued uncertainties over land use issues in this province are eroding the goodwill of large, medium and small businesses. Environmental assessments, timber supply, the protected areas strategy and aboriginal land claims are all very serious issues that government must address as quickly as possible.
The lack of an economic policy for the province has had a serious negative effect on business investment. The Investment Dealers Association reports that capital investment in B.C. during the past two years has fallen more than 15 percent. Recently, StatsCan reported that spending intentions of B.C. manufacturers have fallen by almost $300 million. It is time for this government to begin to grow the economy, rather than shrink it. That means jobs with a future in industries with a future.
The small and medium-size sector, which creates most new jobs in British Columbia, will be watching to see how effective the government's throne speech initiatives will be. The promise of a new small business strategy, encompassing new entrepreneurial opportunities, improved business services, removal of barriers and local access to financial capital -- to be implemented in partnership with B.C. business -- is a laudable goal. I hope this is not yet another broken promise by this government.
It is extremely important that opportunities for advanced education and training be available to those thrown out of work by shifts in the world economy or by government's inability to come to a decision. We must be aware that by the year 2000 over 40 percent of the new jobs created will require at least 17 years of education and training. In order to help prepare our young people, our public schools must graduate students with three basic skills: computer literacy, numeric literacy and the ability to communicate in verbal or written form.
There was not one word about education in this throne speech. In my constituency of Langley, one of the fastest-growing areas of the province, our funding allotment was 1.1 percent -- not even enough to cover the cost of inflation, let alone anything else. Education to prepare our children for a secure future is given only lip service by this government. A 30 percent dropout rate in our system is a crisis and a disgrace.
I was pleased to hear the government admit, on page 11 of the throne speech, that spending was out of control. Total spending in British Columbia has been boosted to $5,400 per capita, the top spending rate in Canada. The government forecast a $1.8 billion deficit this year and now expects the deficit to be closer to $2.3 billion. We will have a record deficit despite having the fastest-growing economy in the country.
Much of British Columbia's economic growth has resulted simply from population increases, not from any initiatives that this government has put forward. The NDP has consistently stated that the main cause of the provincial deficit has been the continued off-loading of costs by the federal government. In the Premier's public speech on January 21, 1993, he blamed the Socreds again, the federal government monetary policy and the federal policy on transfer payments. Changes to the transfer formula started in 1985 and did not cut transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan, but rather only capped the rate of increase.
There is nothing in this throne speech to give comfort to the municipal level of government that the provincial government will not continue to download its financial responsibilities. Increased financial burdens at the municipal level must be passed on to taxpayers. There is no other option, and there are no other taxpayers. There is only one. This results in higher taxation levels on both residential and commercial property owners. As businesses are required to shoulder a larger proportion of taxation than the residential community, any tax increase hits them doubly hard.
It is paramount that British Columbia develop an economic strategy for all to see and work with that responds to the changes going on here in our province and around the globe. We need a central framework that will provide the policy direction aimed at improving our overall economic performance, and permit the maintenance of the social programs and standard of living by which we define ourselves as British Columbians and Canadians. This economic plan must provide guidance to remove interprovincial trade barriers, improve productivity, remove impediments to being competitive on world markets, examine opportunities that come from our inherent strengths in our resources, boost industrial innovation and technology, encourage diversification in our economy, encourage entrepreneurs, fund job training and retraining with the help of industry in the education system, maximize the benefits to British Columbia of the NAFTA and improve the overall focus of opportunities in the Pacific Rim.
For British Columbia to grow and prosper in the years ahead, it will indeed require courage, imagination and commitment. The questions are: does this government recognize that our future in this global economy will depend on our ability to compete, and on government managing the taxpayers' money with an attitude that is restrained in its desire and capacity, understanding that it is other people's money? The voters of British Columbia, not history, will be the judge.
L. Hanson: There is no doubt that the theme of the throne speech was the courage to change. If you read the speech and look over the record of this government, you certainly have to give them credit, because they have demonstrated exceptional courage to change -- exceptional courage to change their promises.
They had the courage to change the promise to the province of a balanced budget over five years to a promise to double the accumulated deficit over two years. They had the courage to change the promise to
[ Page 4817 ]
not increase taxes on middle-income earners and to put in position a fair tax policy to a promise to cost every family in British Columbia an extra thousand dollars as a result of new taxes. They had the courage to introduce a new labour bill that will only increase the 268 percent increase in worker days lost already in their first year. Then they had the courage to tell us that this new labour bill was a consensus bill of all British Columbians.
Apparently not everyone agrees with that position of a consensus bill. We have seen created, as a result of that bill, 28 individual organizations in British Columbia, with some 60,000 businesses, formed specifically to fight that bill.
This government had the courage to change their promise to the people of Kamloops for a cancer clinic to: "That isn't really what we promised." They had the courage to change the "No more friends and insiders" to: "We can't find enough in B.C. We have to import them."
They had the courage to introduce a fixed-wage policy that gave special treatment to people who are already earning high wages, and then they had the courage to tell us it would not cost the B.C. taxpayer more. They also had the courage to tell us that this was not a repayment of an election IOU. They had the courage to increase ICBC premiums by 29 percent and to tell us that ICBC was operating very efficiently after this 29 percent increase, and a 14 percent administration fee increase.
They had the courage to tell us that almost abandoning tourism promotion by making budget cuts and closing tourism offices improved promotion of B.C. I suggest they ask the tourism associations of British Columbia what their attitude is towards that.
They had the courage to tell us that the imposed corporate capital tax, the Schwindt commission report, Bill 32 -- even though it was never finally passed -- the plan to double parkland, the new labour bill and the firing of Russell and DuMoulin from the appeal of Justice McEachern's decision in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en aboriginal case would have no effect on the confidence of potential domestic and foreign investors and established B.C. businesses.
[10:45]
They had the courage to promise to not spend more than the people can afford, and then to blow over $500 million on unnecessary wage hikes for public sector workers. They had the courage to tell seniors that anyone living on a fixed income of $18,000 a year was doing very well. Last year they also had the courage to cancel the supplementary homeowner grant. I can't vouch for whether it is true or not, but rumour has it that municipalities have been asked to withhold the printing of their tax notices because there may not be a need for a line for homeowner grants on the new notices.
They had the courage to tell us that a cap of 1 percent this year and 2 percent next year on hydro rate increases is for the protection of B.C. citizens against excessive increases. That takes some courage, because the fact is that over the last five years the increase in B.C. Hydro rates has been 9.7 percent. If the increase in hydro rates had followed the formula that this government has put in place, people in B.C. would now be paying 40 percent more than they actually have been paying.
Hon. Speaker, this government -- and I have to give the minister credit -- has had the courage to develop a crisis in our health care system, with doctors at war with the government and special deals with health care unions that will create expectations for all of our public service unions.
They had the courage to tell students that there are jobs for everyone who is prepared to work, when in fact one out of every ten British Columbians is on our welfare rolls. They had the courage to preach about democracy and then take away the right to a secret ballot on union certification. It also appears this government plans changes to the Municipal Act which would take away the rights of business owners and thousands of property owners to vote in municipal elections. And that's democracy.
This government and the Ministry of Highways have shown courage in creating a situation where construction in British Columbia is at an absolute standstill. It is also rumoured that the creation of a Crown corporation to finance highway construction is in the government's plans. I submit that that is simply an attempt to create a new way of debt creation, and I certainly hope they don't have the courage to follow through on that.
This government has a lot of courage, but the people of British Columbia are perched at the edge of their seats with their wallets firmly grasped in their hands in the hopes that some of that courage will disappear when we see this budget come in and how much it is going to take from those wallets that our citizens clutch in their hands.
We look forward to the budget on Tuesday to see what new forms of courage this government has to take away the hard-earned money of the citizens of British Columbia.
H. Giesbrecht: How do you propose to pay off your debt?
L. Hanson: I hear from the back benches: how are we going to pay off the debt? This government has had the courage to announce that they had recently written off some $316 million in bad debts, when the auditor general of the province clearly shows that $25 million was written off and that $211 million was reserved. Then the Minister of Finance, when looking for ways to reduce the NDP-created deficit for this year, decided that $2.5 million of that was not as bad as they thought it was before and brought it back in.
As I said before, this government has lots of courage, but the people of British Columbia will see, as we in opposition see, that that courage is misdirected. I must oppose the throne speech and its principles -- if you can find any in it. I look forward to the bad news and the courage that this government is going to show us next Tuesday, when the budget is delivered.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I was reading some of the press coverage on the throne speech. Earlier this
[ Page 4818 ]
week, in one of the newspapers, someone asked why we don't just do away with the throne speech and move right to the budget. I think it's important to reflect on what a throne speech is about. It is the main opportunity for the government to clearly set out our vision, priorities and values for everyone in the province, and to outline the challenges we face and the priorities we intend to pursue. I don't think there's any disagreement in this chamber that there are some very serious problems facing us in this province and in this country today. We have some important challenges with respect to the economy, to managing the environment, to protecting important social programs such as medicare and to dealing with the persistent social problems related to poverty and to the immense changes to our society as a result of aging, immigration, and changes in the roles of women and the family. All these things require bold, new thinking if we are to be able to address them in a positive and creative way that improves the welfare of everyone living in this province.
For that reason alone -- because these challenges are so significant -- I think it is very important that the government takes the time to be clear about our values and priorities, and how we're going to tackle emerging and longstanding problems. That's what a throne speech is all about; that is what this throne speech has done. It has set out very clearly our priorities for the next year in this province.
Hon. Speaker, as we conclude our sixteenth month of government, I look back with pride at what we have accomplished. I also look ahead with renewed commitment to what is still to be done, because there is still a lot to be done. Over the last 16 months we've made considerable progress in the objectives we set for ourselves and, perhaps more importantly, the objectives that British Columbians set for us as governors when we were elected in October 1991. It has not always been easy. Some of the decisions have been very difficult and have involved what the Premier refers to as meting out some rough justice. But the accomplishments of the first 16 months cannot be lightly dismissed.
In terms of the economy, we have capped the deficit and cut the growth in spending by half. As a member of the Treasury Board, I can attest to how difficult it has been to deal with the spending requests from various ministries, when the needs in this province are so great. But we said we would get our spending priorities right and that we would live within the means of British Columbians, and we have done that. Despite the calls from some of the opposition benches, we have not imposed a Socred-style restraint program which ignores the impact on families and children or on seniors, the poor and the disadvantaged. No, hon. Speaker, we have taken a balanced approach. We have put people first. We've got our spending priorities right, and we have made education, health care and services for people the priorities of this government.
We have established, as we said we would, the Commission on Resources and Environment to look at land use conflicts in the province in a rational and sensible way. Just because a very small minority of people have failed to conduct themselves rationally and sensibly when it comes to their concerns about the environment doesn't mean that CORE is not a valid, worthwhile process. Peaceful settlements are difficult, but they are possible. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean that we shouldn't tackle it. That's what courage is all about, hon. Speaker.
While we're talking about the environment, I want to take a minute to talk about something a little closer to home, in my riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. Over the last year my colleague from Saanich South and I have worked hard to reverse the subdivision of a 100-year-old park, Mount Douglas Park, that was created by the former government. They subdivided the land into three and violated a century-old trust that said that this land should be preserved in perpetuity for parkland for future generations. Through a lot of hard work, the member for Saanich South and I have reversed that.
Still closer to home, and still to be done, is the preservation of an area called Mystic Vale. Members on the other side may not know about this area, but it is a unique dry coastal forest area near the University of Victoria. I'm really proud to say that my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education has pledged his support to local MLAs, the municipality of Saanich and the University of Victoria, to try to protect this unique urban ecosystem for generations to come.
Finally, I think we've made a good start -- and I want to spend most of the rest of my time talking about this -- in addressing the social issues that the former government was content to ignore for years. Some of the things that I am most proud of as part of this government are our courage in standing behind a woman's right to choose on abortion, the introduction of the meal program for hungry schoolchildren and the recognition -- not just with words, but with funding -- that violence against women and children is intolerable, wherever it appears in our society.
Earlier this year we provided funding to the University of Victoria Women's Centre to raise awareness around date rape. That's an issue that used to cause some people to snigger. I'm really pleased to see that it is now rightfully taking its place as a very serious issue. When the women at the UVic Women's Centre put up a poster campaign around the university, the posters were defaced with language that I can't repeat in this House, but the violence and the hatred implicit, and explicit, in the remarks written on those posters was absolutely appalling. But the women at the university had the courage to tackle this issue; they are continuing. They turned around that appalling situation, and they continue to raise the issue of date rape and violence against women on the university's campus. I'm proud to be part of a government that is assisting them to do that through funding under the Women's Equality ministry.
To talk about another group in our society that is very vulnerable, earlier this week I was pleased to join my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing to be the first B.C. government to address the issue of homelessness in our inner cities. We've provided funding for short-term and permanent housing, peer counselling and mental health support, and for a coordinated downtown office in Victoria to
[ Page 4819 ]
provide social services and health services. Street people are almost invisible. They're really easy to ignore, and governments have ignored them in the past. But I am proud to be part of a government which says that even the most invisible and most vulnerable people in our society are important and that we should be measuring ourselves on how we treat the most unfortunate in our community.
[11:00]
Another invisible group has certainly been the mentally ill. They have been ignored for years in this province. We have made mental health the number one issue on our health agenda this year. We have provided an incredible number of increased resources for an area that has been financially starved for decades. It's a start. It hasn't fixed all the problems overnight, but we have made a start and a commitment.
We've stood behind the mental health initiative plan developed by consumers and advocates. That was not funded by the former government, but it was a good plan, and I give them credit for at least having initiated the plan and for getting it going. We're going to follow through with it, even if it means slowing down on some of the recommendations so that we can make sure we have the services in the community when the people need them.
I want to take a minute on another mental health issue in our community. From almost the moment I was elected in 1989, people have been coming into my office and talking to me about eating disorders. I've had families crying in my office as they've described to me what has been happening to their daughters and, in some cases, their wives, who are literally starving themselves to death as they suffer from eating disorders. Earlier this year I was very pleased to be able to participate with the Capital Regional District and the Greater Victoria Hospital Society to fund, here in Victoria, a coordinated approach to dealing with eating disorders.
Another neglected group in our society has been children. I find it just shocking that in a society as wealthy as British Columbia we still have children living in poverty. And we do. Even in a riding like Oak Bay-Gordon Head, which many people tend to think of as a relatively well-to-do riding, we have families that are struggling to get by every month, to make ends meet.
One of the things that we've done to help those families is provide a dental program for children of low-income families. Those children who have urgent dental needs will now, as a result of the cooperative efforts between the Minister of Social Services and me, be able to get assistance in getting their teeth fixed and have their dental health established so that they'll be able to have good dental health and good overall health in the future.
The most challenging issue facing us is certainly protecting medicare. I have been talking about health issues for a few minutes now, but protecting medicare and ensuring that it keeps pace with the changing needs of our society is a very vital issue. Right across the country medicare is under immense pressure from the economy and from our aging population. And we have to do something about this. We can't just pretend that these pressures are going to go away.
Sixteen months ago the Seaton royal commission reported on the state of our health care system in British Columbia. They told us we have one of the best health care systems in the world, but that we're not all equally healthy; we're not all equally well served by our health care system; we have not paid enough attention to keeping people healthy in the first place; the system we have is not really a system at all, but a very disjointed, fragmented collection of programs that have built up over time; and that it's not financially sustainable in the long run.
Over the last five years health care spending has increased by 50 percent, and I don't need to tell anyone that the double-digit increases that have happened in the past in the health care system are not financially sustainable anymore. We have a real challenge to be able to turn our system around so we can protect medicare and provide those services that people need. One of the most interesting and useful things that the Seaton royal commission told us was that there is enough money in health care right now; it's just not in the right places. So that creates a real challenge for us as government to be able to identify where the money is being misused and wasted and move it to areas where it can do more good.
In a nutshell, the royal commission told us that change is necessary, and the government has agreed. That's why I announced in February New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia -- the first time in British Columbia we've had a plan -- setting out the vision for health care and the actions we're going to take to get there. The new direction focuses on bringing health care closer to home, focusing more on prevention and promotion, bringing decision-making about health care services closer to home, and spending smarter.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
If we're going to bring health care services closer to where people live so that they can get the services they need in their local hospitals, in community facilities and maybe even in their own home, we're going to have to bring health care out of Vancouver and into the regions, and out of institutions and into the communities.
The Shaughnessy Hospital decision -- closing the old building -- is a closer-to-home decision. It recognizes the fact that there's a 500-bed surplus in downtown Vancouver, while the Fraser Valley, Surrey and other growing parts of the lower mainland are short 800 acute care hospital beds right now. On top of that, it recognizes that we have 300 perfectly good beds in Vancouver that are closed due to lack of operating funds right now. It also recognizes the fact that Children's Hospital, which is an important provincial resource for us all, is dreadfully crowded and needs space to expand.
More and more in the future, we're going to have to look at situations like Shaughnessy and make decisions -- which may be difficult or unpopular decisions. But if we're serious about bringing health care services closer to home, and if we accept what the royal commission
[ Page 4820 ]
said -- that this is a reallocation process -- then we're going to have to take that seriously and act upon it. We're going to have to continue the budget priorities we've established this year: holding the line on acute care services and gradually, consistently and persistently increasing funding to community services.
Another aspect of making this closer-to-home philosophy work is the tentative agreement that has just been reached between the unions, the employers and the government. I can't understand why the opposition is opposed to this landmark agreement. Maybe they believe that the reform of the health care system has to be done on the backs of the workers, that we should ignore the people who provide health care services. Our government believes that the talented people who provide health care in this province deserve decent wages, and they deserve respect.
In exchange for a flat-wage deal, we're going to get a 10 percent reduction in the acute care sector. We're going to accomplish the shift of moving resources from acute care to community care. We'll be able to retain these skilled and valuable employees in the system, and we'll have relative labour peace in a very difficult transition period. I think that's a valuable and, in fact, a remarkable thing to achieve. I'm proud to be part of a government that has had the vision and the courage to even imagine such a possibility and do something different than say: "Let's just lay off 10 percent of the workers, and we'll fight the war however it comes about."
Another fundamental part of our New Directions is to bring decision-making about health care closer to home. I think it's really important that we start involving people in our communities on decisions about health care, which they have not had a part in before. We're going to create community health councils and regional health boards throughout the province over the next three and a half years; not as another layer of bureaucracy -- the last thing we need in health care right now is more bureaucracy -- but as a way of amalgamating those boards that are already out there: hospital boards, long term care facility boards, union boards of health and other agencies that are currently delivering health care services in the community, often not in coordination or cooperation with one another.
Finally, in our New Directions we're going to put more emphasis on keeping people healthy in the first place, on preventive health care and the promotion of good health. It never fails to amaze me how people can say: "Preventive health care is all very well and good, but it takes too long to pay off. You're not going to see it for another generation." First of all, I don't believe that. I've been meeting recently with seniors' wellness groups, and they believe they can make a change in their health at any age in their life. And even if it does take some time to pay off, such as with something like our tobacco reduction strategy.... We're not going to see the effects of preventing young people from starting to smoke for a number of years. Even if it does take time before it starts to have some dramatic results, when are we going to start investing in our future health? We have to start at some point, and I say we have to start now. We have not done nearly enough.
Part of what we're trying to do in restructuring health care in this province is to do more and more to make sure that people have the ability to stay healthy in the first place and the resources to keep their health once they've got it. While medical care and hospital care have to continue to be the foundation of our health care system, it's time we recognized that there's more to health care than hospital beds and doctors: decent housing, having an adequate income, being able to put good food on the table, and having a sense of self-worth in our communities and where we work. All of these things are, I believe, every bit as important to our health as the more traditional elements of our health care system. If we're going to meet the challenges of the future, we have to broaden our definition of what constitutes health care.
I've been listening to the speeches that have been made over the last few days in response to the throne speech, and I'm struck by how easy it is to be in opposition. All the answers are so simple. It's all so clear. All we have to do is cut spending, cut taxes and cry foul every time spending is cut in a priority area that affects one of the members opposite. If you listened to the speeches from the opposition, you would believe that we could have it all. We could have more services and lower taxes; it's very easy. And anything that's tried by the government simply won't be good enough. We're dealing with a bunch of naysayers on the other side.
The leader of the official opposition would have us believe that there's no support for our new directions in health care. I encourage him to talk to the nurses in the RNABC; talk to some of the hospital boards, many of which were appointed by the former government, that are represented by the B.C. Health Association; or meet with the associated boards of health, all of whom are enthusiastically behind and working with the government on the changes that we've implemented in health care. Instead of criticizing nurses and health care workers for working with the government, for being cooperative with the government on health care reform, perhaps the opposition should get on board and recognize that our policies over the last year have started to make a dramatic difference. We have reduced the heart surgery waiting list in the last year; we have reduced the cancer radiation therapy waiting list; and if we continue as we've been doing, we will soon be able to reduce the waiting list for general surgery.
In his speech the other day, the member for Surrey-White Rock referred to "the speed at which this government is moving in an untried and highly experimental direction" as something that he wanted to criticize. I suggest that he read the Royal Commission on Health Care; I suggest that he read the seven royal commissions on health care that have been produced across this country in the last decade. All the royal commissions in the last decade have called for the same kinds of progressive moves that this government has the courage to implement right now. If he had cared to do his homework, he would have discovered that governments all across Canada are pursuing these initiatives. Even Liberal governments are pursuing these initiatives. They are far from experimental. These are initiatives that have been well thought out by
[ Page 4821 ]
researchers and people who have been involved in making progressive change in health care right across the country and right across the spectrum. People are watching British Columbia right now because we are showing some real leadership and getting on with the tough issues that are facing us in health care. I'm proud to be part of a government that has the guts to do that.
Again reflecting on the speeches of the opposition, I would say to the leader of the third party -- unfortunately, he's not in the House -- that he needs to have a caucus meeting to decide exactly what their position is going to be on this. In his speech he called for deeper cuts to health care spending, saying that we hadn't been tough enough. But his Health critic yesterday said: "How in the world can hospitals live with a 3 percent budget increase?" So I think they need to do a little more work there and get their line straight.
It's awfully easy to call for cuts, and it's awfully easy to call for more spending. It's much tougher to sit down with the health care providers in this province and work out what our priorities are -- recognizing that we won't be able to meet all of our needs, but that we can set priorities, we can do a better job, we can reduce the waste and increase the efficiency in the system, and we can come up with a health care system that is more equitable and accessible than the one we have right now. That's what we're committed to doing.
When it comes to health care, though, what galls me most as I've listened to the responses to the throne speech is the silence of the opposition on the extra billing that is now taking place in Prince George. Where is the outrage? Where are the opposition parties when it comes to joining me and the members from Prince George in appealing to those few doctors who have decided to stick it to their patients -- doubling their bill if it's not paid within 30 days and charging up to $575 in extra administrative fees to patients because they're having a dispute with the government and they're going to take it to their patients? In the dispute that they're having with us over money, who are the ones that they are making pay? They are making their patients pay. But I haven't heard a word on the other side of this House about what their position is on extra billing and a two-tier system. The silence has been deafening.
L. Stephens: That's your problem.
Hon. E. Cull: Isn't that nice? The member across can say the problem is all for the government to resolve. But I say that you have a duty, in representing your constituents, to put it on the line and tell us where you stand on the extra billing and opting out by doctors. This government has been very clear where we stand on that issue, and we have said no to a two-tier health care system. Where is the opposition?
[11:15]
I believe fundamental change is essential if we're going to solve the problems facing us today in the economy, in the environment, in health and social services. Change is never easy; certainly it's not in health care, and it's not anywhere else in the system. But we don't have a lot of choice here. We have the choice to do nothing, to make no hard decisions, to call for spending cuts and spending increases all at the same time from the other side of the House. Or we have an opportunity to set our priorities, to put people first, to make some of the tough decisions and start to move us toward a prosperous and healthy British Columbia in the twenty-first century. This government has got the courage to do that. We're going to make the decisions. We have the vision and we've set that out. And I'm extremely proud to be working with this government to bring about these changes on behalf of everyone in this province.
S. O'neill: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to debate the throne speech. I would like to begin, however, by spending a minute discussing the changes that are occurring all around us: social and cultural changes, political and economic changes. As the minister just said, change is never easy. We require an open, realistic and reflective approach to life and the world around us if we are going to take full advantage of the new opportunities which come with change.
It also requires strong, thoughtful leadership -- the kind of leadership our government is attempting to provide, and which, for me, Lieutenant-Governor David Lam has come to represent. In a quiet, thoughtful way he has worked towards making his office a bit more relevant to British Columbians, and a bit more in tune with today's world. I deeply regret that his final throne speech was marred by an outburst that spoke more of the problems of the past than of the promise of the future.
British Columbia's prosperity has always been directly related to the quality of its people. Their skills, compassion and dedication have not only contributed to a high level of economic growth, but to the development of a strong, vibrant and caring province. We have much to be proud of. But the world's economic structure is undergoing rapid and fundamental change. The speed with which it is occurring challenges us to consider how we can best adapt the institutions that serve us to meet that change. National borders are disappearing. We're in competition with the rest of the world.
For decades British Columbia's economy has been driven by the exploitation of our abundant natural resources. Many people believed that our resource-based industries -- forestry, mining, fishing, energy -- could be endlessly depended upon to provide jobs and a high standard of living.
But we must now prepare to face the challenges of this new world. The globalization of resource production has already changed Canada's labour force. Many jobs are gone forever. Jobs in our primary industries have become more complex due to the demands of new technology. At the same time, they've become less labour-intensive. Today our primary and secondary industries combined account for only one-quarter of all the jobs in Canada. Nuala Beck, a Toronto economist, has pointed out that more Canadians now work in communications and telecommunications than in our mining and petroleum industries combined.
The changes in our employment patterns pose immense challenges for our educational system. Less
[ Page 4822 ]
than half the jobs that existed five years ago required post-secondary education. It is estimated that in the next decade two-thirds of the new jobs will require some post-secondary training. Here again the challenges are immense. In 1991 nearly one in four Canadian students dropped out of high school. The terrible cost of this decision -- to themselves and to society as a whole -- is a cost we simply cannot afford.
Our government is moving to provide clear leadership on this issue. We understand that British Columbia can continue to meet the challenges of the future only if we can ensure that our children receive the kind of education and training that enables them to take full advantage of the opportunities of a changing and dynamic world.
I was pleased to hear that the Premier will convene a summit on skills development and training. He will bring together leaders from business, labour, education and training to discuss what skills the province needs as we approach the next century. To meet the challenges of the twenty-first century, we will need individuals who are knowledgeable, skilled and flexible and who can contribute to the social, political and economic well-being of our province.
The well-being of our province requires a vibrant, growing economy. There's much we can do to build our economy for the long term. We can improve infrastructure by building highways, bridges, hospitals and schools; we can add value to our primary resources; we can strengthen our trading relationships and expand new markets. But if our economy is to last for the long term, we must move towards more long-range planning and away from the quick-fix efforts of the past. We must strengthen local economies and attract new development to all regions of this province.
We're very fortunate in the Shuswap; our constituency already has a diverse economy. Forestry continues to be the major employer, but we also have a thriving agricultural industry: poultry and egg producers, dairy and hog farms, vegetable growers and wheat farmers. As well, tourists from across Canada and around the world have discovered that the Shuswap is a great place to vacation. They rent houseboats in Sicamous, stay at Quaaout Lodge on Little Shuswap Lake or stop at Three Valley Gap. They attend outdoor plays at Caravan Farm and keep time to the bluegrass bands at the annual bluegrass festival. They relive the past at O'Keefe Ranch, Haney House and the many local museums. They photograph the colorful costumes at the Squilax powwow or ski the annual Loppet on the Larch Hills. There's something in the Shuswap for everyone.
We're also a growing community: many families from across Canada have come to appreciate the benefits of life in the Shuswap. Our government has worked hard to assist our region's growing industrial base, and many imaginative industries already exist. Value-added wood products are shipped around the world; log homes built in the Shuswap are destined for Germany and Japan. Newnes Machine, winner of the 1992 B.C. Trade Export Award, started as a blacksmith shop and now designs and constructs specialty sawmill equipment. Dinoflex, a more recent addition to Salmon Arm, uses pellets made from used tires to produce rubber mats and paving squares. In fact, they are the largest user of these pellets in B.C.
In spite of this diversity, we still have an unacceptably high rate of unemployment. That is why our government moved to restructure the Economic Development ministry to put expertise in the regions where it is most needed. The Shuswap will benefit from having a regional economic development officer stationed in Salmon Arm. He will work with the many talented and dedicated local individuals, and continue to build our communities and create much-needed jobs. In all, some 22 economic development officers will be placed in regional offices around the province. The work they do with local economic development partners to support local initiatives will build on the strengths of each community and will result in more permanent, meaningful opportunities.
But perhaps the biggest challenge facing British Columbia, and indeed all developed nations, is providing health care for their people. Canadians are justly proud of their health care system; it's the envy of the world. But as the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and our own Health minister have indicated, medicare is under severe pressure. We have an aging population that is living longer in spite of a lifestyle that is much less healthy. The cost of providing high-quality, institutionally based health to a sparse and far-flung population is increasing. As well, our own expectations of the system seem limitless.
As a result of these and other factors, health care costs have soared by 50 percent during the last five years. Our economy simply cannot sustain this rate of increase. We must work to make the system that we all count on more cost-effective, preventive and community-based if it is to survive. It takes courage to change. Change can be seen either as frightening or as an opportunity. As John F. Kennedy once said: "It would be easier to look at the safe mediocrity of the past." Our government has chosen instead to step confidently forward to build a better, more responsive system.
Today we have the opportunity to build a health care system that can meet our changing needs -- not just for the lifetime of this administration, but well into the next century. We want to renew the commitment of the pioneers of our party by building a system that acknowledges the realities of today and encourages us to develop a healthy lifestyle that emphasizes wellness, not illness -- one that is accessible to all.
I know that my constituents are pleased by how directly our government's commitment to making health care more accessible has affected them, through community health centres and through the establishment of community health councils and regional health boards. Under the community partnership program, the Shuswap Lake General Hospital received almost $83,000. This grant enabled the hospital to implement a supported discharge-planning program to provide home care in order to reduce the length of time people stay in hospital. It will also fund a nutrition outreach clinic, through which the promotion of healthy eating habits will help people to stay out of hospitals.
[ Page 4823 ]
On a personal note, it was a pleasure to serve as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. As you know, our committee was charged by the Minister of Health to inquire into ways of reducing the accessibility of tobacco products to children and young people. We heard submissions from many individuals and groups, but none was more telling than the appearance of a 13-year-old girl. She brought with her cigarettes that she had bought in her neighbourhood, with no questions asked. I would like to commend the minister for taking steps to curb this addiction of our young people.
In seconding the Speech from the Throne, my colleague from Comox Valley spoke movingly of the fear that many women and children face every day of their lives. They fear violence -- not the violence of war or riot, but violence from their co-workers, parents or partners. This is intolerable.
[11:30]
Last year this government started to change this situation. The Ministry of Women's Equality was established. Community agencies that support women and families in crisis were funded. In my riding, the Armstrong, Enderby and Spallumcheen Community Health Society, the Shuswap Family Resource and Referral Centre and the Eagle Valley Community Support Society all received funding from this ministry. They received funding to carry out their important work, and our community is a better place because of it.
I am also pleased to be able to tell British Columbians that, through a new Family and Community Services Act, our government will continue to provide support to families in crisis.
We must prevent this violence. The restructuring of family support services will emphasize prevention services. At the same time, we must send the message that this behaviour will not be tolerated. New policies that will be introduced this session will direct the justice system to emphasize the criminality of violence against women. You cannot build a healthy society if half the population lives in fear. We must prevent the violence, but we must also prosecute the offenders.
Hon. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to deviate from this debate on the throne speech and mention two anniversaries that are taking place in my riding this year. The Falkand Stampede will be 75 years old this year. It is the longest continuously running stampede in Canada. This event is organized and run by a group of dedicated volunteers -- a big undertaking for a small community.
In my initial speech in this Legislature, I spoke about the Salmon Arm sonnet contest and the beneficial effects of writing poetry. This year is the tenth anniversary of that contest, and I would like to invite all members to take time from their busy schedules, not to smell the roses but to write a sonnet. For those of you who may find the thought of writing a sonnet rather daunting, I would like to tell you that there is also a prize for an "un-sonnet." If you can't find the time for a 14-line sonnet, perhaps you could try a 17-syllable haiku or even a limerick, provided, of course, that it's clean.
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, it's also with pride that I rise in my place to discuss the throne speech. I say "discuss," because it has been mentioned by more eloquent speakers than I over the past two or three days that the throne speech is generally meant as an overall guideline to the direction the government is proposing. I presume that you are waiting with bated breath -- as I am -- for the next big occasion in the House, the budget speech, when we'll all see some of the details that we will put before the people of B.C. for the implementation of some of the goals that we as a government desire for this province.
Before I go much further, though, I would also like to congratulate Mr. Lam on the composure and dignity that he showed in this House last week in the face of a rather nasty situation. We didn't get the chance to hear what he wanted to say from his heart -- he was about to do that. I guess he was going to reminisce a little bit, but he didn't do that, because he was interrupted. I for one certainly admire the Lieutenant-Governor, and I'm sure all of you here today join me in wishing him well. He gave an indication that it would probably be his last speech before us. I think he has exemplified the kind of citizenship that we're proud of in this country, especially in British Columbia, and Mr. Lam certainly deserves our congratulations on how he's handled his office over the past years.
I heard some of the opposition speakers say that there's nothing in the throne speech. Well, they said exactly the same thing about the throne speech last year. While they've been fighting for a year and a half to get their own caucus in order, this government has been moving and bringing change to British Columbia that's been long overdue. If they continue to do what they've been doing over the last year and a half, we'll continue to do our job as government and implement the things that the people of British Columbia are expecting from us. So notwithstanding not having an opposition, we'll continue to do our thing.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I just thought I'd remind the member that in fact the opposition is here and listening intently to his debate. Perhaps he could stick to it.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order.
F. Garden: I'm sorry I touched a nerve there, and if I've hurt any feelings I certainly apologize. I'm sure you'll be able to get it sorted out, and we'll be able to get on to running the House as it should be run.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I'd like to say that I, for one, can certainly look back over the past year with pride in some of the changes we've made with the legislation that we've brought in. In the Cariboo, for instance -- and in Cariboo North, which I specifically represent -- I'm proud of the fact that we've been able to give more assistance to women's resource centres, especially the ones in my riding. I'm proud of the fact that schoolchildren do not need to go
[ Page 4824 ]
to school hungry anymore, that we've provided a program so that they can go and learn without wondering where their next meal is coming from. That, in the long run, will save all of the taxpayers in the province money. A hungry child can't concentrate on learning when it's thinking of what should be filling its stomach. In the long run it could only be good for the province of B.C. that we give the best possible circumstances for education that kids could hope for.
I'm proud of the hepatitis B program that was launched last year. I'm proud of the grants for home care so that single mothers can go to work, earn a living and know that their child is being looked after in a safe, clean environment. I'm proud of the advances we've made in the CORE process. I heard a little bit of criticism from one opposition member the other day on this process, but this is the first time it has been done in this province: bringing every stakeholder into a room to get consensus on what we should do with the resources of this province. Sure, there are differences of opinion. I was at one meeting where 51 people came together, all with their own points of view.
Interjection.
F. Garden: I hear the Environment cricket...I mean critic.... Sorry, it was a slip of the tongue. I meant critic, hon. Speaker, and I'm sure she understands that.
I heard the Environment critic criticize the process, but the point is, there is a process in place. Like her, I was a little concerned about how something like this could possibly work, when you've got 51 people with such diverse views trying to come to a consensus. There were times I was ready to throw up my arms and say that it wouldn't work. But as I sat at the back of the room and observed this process, an industry official came up to me. As I was expressing some of my concerns to him, he said: "Frank, I was like you when I came into this process a couple of months ago. I thought it would not work. But I'm beginning to see it unfolding. I'm beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel, where we can come together and have consensus on the future use of the resources of this province."
When I heard that, it encouraged me. There were people ready to walk away from that table, but now they're starting to realize that this is one of the best opportunities they've ever had to have a say in how these resources shall be used. I'm proud of that process, and I'm sure that when CORE does make its report to this Legislature, and when we act on some of the recommendations they make, we'll all be proud of the process.
I'm proud of the initiatives the government is taking in providing affordable housing. The other night we saw a major initiative announced which will get people off the street and into places that are warm, and at least give them a little bit of comfort while we work on rebuilding an economy that will take care of these unfortunate people. In the past they've been totally forgotten. This is a caring government, and we're working towards making sure all the people in B.C. have equal access to some of the prosperity that we know is there for them.
I heard the opposition say that we didn't have a plan.
Interjection.
F. Garden: Well, we do have a plan, and it's gradually unfolding.
Interjections.
F. Garden: I hear some comments from the opposition. About three weeks before the election, this group of people completely changed their plan because they thought there might be a chance that they would get elected. Since they dumped that plan, I've heard nothing but negative comments in this House. Never once have I heard one of the opposition members stand up with an alternative to what this government is doing. Not once have they stood up and said: "Instead of doing this, do that." They haven't come up with anything concrete that would replace a government initiative. They should be ashamed of that. I know if I'd been in their place I certainly would be.
Anyway, we do have a plan that we're taking step by step, and in the implementation of that plan we're making the tough decisions that are required.
Many people out there would like to have their own pet project attended to yesterday, including the members of the opposition, but some facts have to be taken into consideration. These facts are becoming obvious to every government in this dominion.... I shouldn't call it a dominion -- in this country of ours. I'm getting back to the old-country days of the empire and the dominion. I probably shouldn't, and I apologize for that.
It's becoming increasingly obvious to governments all across this land that we need to get this deficit under control. I've been watching a program all week on BCTV where the clock is ticking away and our deficit is getting higher and higher. But this government has taken tough measures to control that deficit and will continue to do that, because until we get that deficit under control none of us can look forward to the kind of prosperity we should enjoy. But the opposition, every time there's some bandwagon they can jump on and say: "You shouldn't do this. You should be throwing money into that money-losing situation. You should throw money into that losing situation...." Just because it's a bandwagon, they jump on it. Then they turn around and say: "Don't raise taxes, but bail them out. Why don't you bail out this money-losing scheme?" We're making the tough decisions that are required to bring this province financial stability, and I'm proud of that.
One of the most difficult decisions any government has to make is whether to close a hospital, as we're having to do with Shaughnessy. That's not an easy decision to make. We know the emotion linked to that type of situation. We're aware of it, but it was a decision that was necessary, and we did it. As a result of that decision, we'll be able to provide needed hospital beds in some of the opposition's ridings. We're doing the opposition a favour by some of the tough decisions we're making. They'll be getting more affordable health care in their ridings.
[ Page 4825 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, I need to remind you that the hon. member for Cariboo North has the floor.
[11:45]
F. Garden: It's just like I was saying earlier: no plan; just negative; don't do it; give us numbers; don't give us any alternatives; just naysaying. That is the kind of opposition we've got, but I guess we have to live with it. We'll continue with our plan.
This government realizes the challenges that lie ahead for us. We've got supporters of our own really concerned that we're not meeting their desires immediately. We've only been in government for a year and a half, and we've made more progressive changes than any government in this province in the last 20 years. I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that I was able to sit down in Quesnel with the Minister of Health and discuss moving health care closer to home. I was proud to be able to sit there with a minister. She's been in our riding twice. I don't know how many ministers from previous governments got into ridings the way our ministers have been moving around, but Elizabeth Cull talked to the people about bringing health care closer to home. She was talking about community health centres; she was talking at a public meeting about the whole deal. Then the opposition has the audacity to say that there's no consultation going on. I just can't believe what I hear coming from the opposition benches from time to time; it's incredible.
The royal commission gave us guidelines that this government is following. There is a document available now. I suggest the opposition get hold of it, because there are 379 recommendations in it. The report that I've got is just a chronology of what has been implemented, what is being implemented and what we plan to implement. For the opposition to say that we are doing nothing and that we don't have a plan is incredible.
We brought in a Freedom of Information Act last year that was second to none in parliamentary democracy. Citizens can now ask for letters or documents from just about every government office in B.C.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, and they are not getting them.
F. Garden: The opposition again obviously hasn't done its homework. I have in my hand some documents from a constituent of mine who was having a little trouble with a particular issue until we came along with the Freedom of Information Act. She was able to go into the office, get a stack of information, mail it to me immediately and give me a further headache, because she now has all that information available. So when the opposition say they can't get it, they are again naysaying and don't know the facts.
This government is progressive. The throne speech is just an indication of the fact that we're going to bring government to the people, bring them into the process, let them have access to information like this so they can continue to see that their democratic rights are protected. I'm not ashamed of where we sit right now as a government. I'm proud of the fact that we're leading Canada out of this economic recession, as far as the financial institutions in North America are concerned. We've got the best credit rating in North America. How could you argue against that? I think that's wonderful news. We have a plan to meet the challenges of the next century, and we're well on our way to implementing it.
When I listen to the opposition, I get the impression that we're going to hell in a handbasket. People are flocking to this province because of the opportunities we have here. I'm proud to be a British Columbian today. I'm proud to be a member of a progressive government that has the courage to implement a plan to make B.C. the best province in the world.
We have made tough decisions. There are tougher decisions to come, but in making them, we will bring this province.... I hope the opposition.... I know we have a bit of fun with one another; we attack and heckle, and we do our thing. But there is a bright future for B.C. There are tough decisions to be made, and I invite the opposition to join us in facing them squarely.
I appreciate the work they do with us in committees. We get into this, sitting here, and we go at it hammer and tongs across the floor. But I appreciate the work that the opposition members do in our committees on health care and smoking and other issues. We do a fantastic job together. So I'm asking them to join us. Look to the great, bright future that we have. Plan for a better B.C. for our children -- which we are doing. Get that deficit under control. Provide the kind of future that our kids deserve. I'm sure that, next election time, it won't be a case of "the government has done this and the opposition has opposed." It will be a fact that collectively this Legislature has done some wonderful, progressive things for the people of B.C.
Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]