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)
FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 8, Number 14
[ Page 4979 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
R. Kasper: In the precincts today are 27 grade 5 students from Discovery Elementary School. They're joined by their teacher Ms. Henry. Would the House please make them welcome.
H. De Jong: In the absence of the member for Okanagan West, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this morning Mr. Bob Rimmer and 24 grade 12 students from Kelowna Secondary School. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
G. Brewin: In the gallery today are several constituents of Victoria-Beacon Hill who I would like to introduce to the Legislature: Jean and Walter McLean and Jackie and Lloyd Clarkson. Would the House please make them welcome.
M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, from my constituency, are 16 members of the 11th Westwood Girl Guides' troop and their leader, under the direction of Ms. Loewen. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
Mr. Farrell-Collins presented a bill intituled Essential Services Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: This act will reinstitute some of the powers the minister previously had in order to intervene or aid in the resolution of conflicts. It's particularly timely in light of the present conflicts in the education field. It would certainly also include threats to the economy of the province, as indicated by the type of dispute we're presently seeing at the coal terminal on the coast, at Vancouver. This would allow the minister to implement a 40-day cooling-off period to let people's emotions settle down, to continue with both the educational services and provisions for the economy of the province, and to allow things to sort themselves out.
Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR FOR DELTA
F. Gingell: I was hoping that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks would be here today. The issue I wish to raise concerns both the environment and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, so I will direct my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Will the minister please confirm whether the Ministry of Environment and the Greater Vancouver Regional District have issued a permit for a hazardous waste incinerator in Delta?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice for the minister responsible.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The question has been taken on notice, hon. member.
F. Gingell: What I would like to do, if I may, hon. Speaker, is add questions he will be able to respond to on notice.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
F. Gingell: Would the minister include in the advice that he gives us whether any public hearings have been held, and if not, why not? Is this proposed to be the same type of incinerator that caused the furor in Sumas and was turned down by the federal government? Is the minister aware that the site proposed for this is on the banks of the Fraser River?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The questions are duly noted and recorded, and I will pass them on to my colleague. Therefore I take them on notice.
PROPERTY TAX INCREASE
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The government has put the boots to homeowners in Vancouver and Victoria, who simply can't afford to pay $3,000 or $4,000 extra in property taxes. Doesn't the minister and his government understand that the vast majority of these people aren't wealthy, and that they are on modest incomes and live in modest homes?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should be aware that the changes introduced by the Minister of Finance in the budget do not affect modest homes. The average taxpayer in the province of British Columbia -- through our municipal grant system and unconditional grants, which were maintained at last year's level -- has been protected. In terms of those who are able to pay, this is a fair budget and a fair move to ensure that the average homeowner is protected, and through our grants we have protected local taxpayers.
J. Weisgerber: One would expect the Minister of Municipal Affairs, one of the members for Victoria, to understand that the problem in Victoria and Vancouver is not the value of the homes but the value of the land. Most of these people are seniors; most of them are on fixed incomes. Doesn't the minister understand that these folks, who've paid for their homes, don't want to take out a reverse mortgage and defer their taxes? Don't you understand that those people want to pay their taxes but that they can't afford to?
[ Page 4980 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: This member is aware that last session we introduced progressive legislation for local government in terms of assessments -- phasing and averaging. We've gone back to an annual roll to try to minimize the impact on property tax. There are all sorts of abilities for local government to minimize these assessment rises. Senior citizens are able to defer their taxes if that's their choice. The hon. member really should be very careful in terms of his questions and who he's defending, because the average homeowner in B.C. has been protected by this government, and we will ensure that that happens.
J. Weisgerber: Clearly the minister doesn't even understand the problem. Furthermore, many people rent these modest homes that are on expensive land. Their rents are going to go up. The government has also eliminated the renter's tax credit. Is the next step rent controls? Is the government planning rent controls? Are you going to completely destroy the real estate market in B.C.? Is that your plan?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister wishes to reply.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The hon. member knows -- he's been here long enough -- that most of his questions are emotional future policy references. But he should also know that 95 percent of homeowners in British Columbia got an increase in their homeowner grant. We are protecting the average homeowner, hon. member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the reply. Would the House come to order and the minister conclude his reply quickly.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I would just ask that hon. member be responsible, be rational, and be clear with the homeowners in the province. This government is working on behalf of the average homeowner in British Columbia.
CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING AND HIGHER GAS PRICES
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Trade. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that the cost of cross-border shopping was $4.5 billion last year due to higher gas prices. The Minister of Economic Development seems to think this government can increase gas taxes endlessly. What measure is this minister taking to counteract the impact of cross-border shopping?
[10:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I answered a similar question a couple of days ago, and he obviously didn't listen to the answer. The major impact on cross-border shopping is from the value of the dollar. When that's down, cross-border shopping stops.
I also reminded the member that it is expected that the state of Washington will raise its gas tax. In terms of the business climate in British Columbia and Washington, what you need to remember is that it is better for small business to do business in British Columbia than it is in Washington. The tax structure after this budget is more favourable to businesses by at least 20 percent.
R. Chisholm: The minister should do some homework. I phoned the Sumas crossing last night and it was chock-a-block full. So you'd better check your facts.
B.C. 21 FEASIBILITY STUDIES
R. Chisholm: A question to the same minister. Since he didn't answer the question the other day, I suggest he listen more carefully today: will he table any feasibility studies conducted to ascertain the need for B.C. 21?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to take that question on notice, but I'd like to tell you that....
The Speaker: Order! Would all members take their seats, please. Would the hon. minister take his seat. The Chair just needs clarification from the hon. minister. If he has taken the question on notice, he cannot then make comments on it. Is the question taken on notice?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, it isn't. I'm sorry that I confused you. It's my fault that I confused you.
The Speaker: The minister wishes to reply to the question. Please proceed.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The question was about Build B.C. We need to remember that Build B.C. is there to invest in the future of British Columbia. There will be strategic economic investments based on the plans that are made collectively by the government of B.C. and the local community-based planning that's in place. We're going to improve regional planning so that we make very strategic and cost-effective investments. There will be no one feasibility study for a grand blueprint, like the Liberals said they'd like to drop on people after the next election. Listen to the words; read Hansard -- they'd like to drop a plan on people. We don't do that; we collaborate with the private sector and local governments, and we will develop strategic plans for the province on a cooperative basis.
BUDGET IMPACT ON SENIORS
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. This budget is nothing less than an attack on seniors, most of whom are women. Property taxes will force them to put signs on their lawns: "Evicted by the government." Medicare is increasing for seniors near the poverty line. Also, they must pay tax on repairs, and they don't have the funds to do so.
[ Page 4981 ]
Will this minister see that this budget is reviewed, so that these seniors -- most of whom are women -- will not be punished by it?
The Speaker: Hon. member, unfortunately the Chair cannot allow that question. It does not appear to the Chair that it comes within the jurisdictional responsibility of the minister to whom the question has been directed. If the member has a more specific question to the minister, the Chair will take that question.
FERRY SAFETY
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. A year ago last March, there was a near-disaster when a B.C. ferry and a Sealink ferry collided in Active Pass. I have been attempting to get from the ferry board -- without success so far -- minutes of the March and April 1992 meetings, which I am led to believe contain discussions of ferry safety issues. Will the minister, in the spirit of freedom of information, arrange without further delay for me to obtain copies of these minutes?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.
PUBLIC OPINION POLL ON B.C. FERRIES SERVICE
D. Symons: I thank the minister very much for that reply. A new question, but in the same vein. In mid-February of this year the Ferry Corporation commissioned a survey on people's attitudes about ferry services and fare increases. Again in the spirit of freedom of information, will the minister make public the complete results of that poll?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The results of the poll will be made available in due course, in the near future.
NUMBER OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Given the 18 percent boost in the Social Services budget, can the minister tell us whether she anticipates another 18 percent jump in the number of social services recipients this year, and does she expect another 57,000 more people will be on welfare this year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am more than happy to canvass issues like that in the estimates. But let me tell you that our government has invested in job opportunities for people, specifically targeting people on income assistance. We are optimistic that, in the support we are able to give people who have very few options in this province, we will be able to reduce the increase in income assistance.
R. Neufeld: A supplemental question to the minister. In other parts of Canada, British Columbia is fast gaining the reputation as a welfare haven. The government's own figures bear that out. What steps is the minister taking to discourage people from other provinces from migrating to British Columbia, people who simply want to take advantage of our liberal welfare system?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm afraid it's all too predictable: when times get tough, the Socreds kick those less able to defend themselves.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think it's about time the Socreds got their heads out of the sand and realized that not only is British Columbia under some pressure with increased costs, but the same situation is happening across Canada -- in particular, in the other capped provinces. You see Alberta with a 21 percent caseload increase and Ontario with a 20 percent caseload increase. Because of the good management and proactive support that this ministry has been able to give people in this province, we have a reduced amount of pressure compared to other jurisdictions.
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I chose not to interrupt question period. I think it is probably more prudent to raise the issue at this point.
At the outset of question period the hon. leader of the opposition raised two questions. The first was taken on notice by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He then asked a supplementary that flowed from the question which was taken on notice. In that well-known work, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia by Mr. MacMinn, I draw the Chair's attention to page 85 on standing order 47A. It says: "There can be no supplementary to an oral question which the minister takes as notice."
Hon. Speaker, I appreciate that people sometimes tend to overlook the rules. I thought it would be best if I brought it to the members' attention now, so they can govern themselves accordingly in the future.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I believe that there should be some latitude. The problem is that we often have ministers who don't know what is going on....
The Speaker: On the point of order only, hon. member.
F. Gingell: It is only reasonable to allow us to add to the question taken on notice matters that are supplemental to the first question -- not expecting a response -- so that we don't waste the valuable time of the House by having to bring up the whole subject again in the future in order to get attention to these other matters.
The Speaker: Thank you for those submissions. The Government House Leader is quite correct: there are no supplementals to a question taken on notice. The House will recognize, however, that by agreement in the previous session, we had questions after questions taken on notice. It is my understanding that members
[ Page 4982 ]
did not want to proceed in that manner during this session. It was the wisdom of the Chair today, during this transition time, to allow that question, with the understanding that the three House Leaders will get together and decide how we will make that transition in terms of how questions are taken on notice. I thank the Government House Leader for raising the point of order that allows us to clarify that.
Private Members' Statements
TARTAN DAY
F. Garden: It's with great pride and pleasure that I once again rise in this House and ask the House to join me on April 6 to recognize Tartan Day in British Columbia. We did this last year and it was a first for the province, but we were following the lead of provinces like Nova Scotia and Ontario in recognizing this important day.
Last year, during members' statement period, I waxed quite eloquent about the history of Canada and the important part that people of Scottish descent played in the pioneering and the opening up of this great land of ours. I won't go into all those details again this year, other than to say that we'll be commemorating the sea-to-sea voyage of Sir Alexander Mackenzie when he pioneered this country. It's very significant for me, as the member for Cariboo North, because a great part of that celebration will be taking place in Quesnel. It was at Quesnel that Alexander Mackenzie came to the Fraser River. He assumed the only way to the coast was by coming down the Fraser, and he was prepared to head down the Fraser River with his voyageurs, and they probably would have ended up in Vancouver. Of course this was a mistake. As he was heading down part of the Fraser River, a group of Carrier Indians met him and introduced him to their grease trail which they had been using for centuries. The Carrier nation guided Alexander Mackenzie and the voyageurs through their lands, across the grease trail to Bella Coola. It then became essentially a sea-to-sea voyage, which, as I said earlier, will be commemorated on July 1 in Quesnel. If you're going on holidays this year, make your way up to Quesnel, and you'll see a re-enactment by some young people of this epic voyage. Significantly, only one young person from B.C. will be taking part, as a paddler. His name is Matthew Hilbert, and he's from my riding. I'm very proud that he's been chosen to be one of the voyageurs accompanying Alexander Mackenzie.
[10:30]
Most importantly today, I want to bring Tartan Day before you. It's not a case of bragging about being Scottish but of being proud to be Scottish and part of the great Canadian mosaic in this country. The contributions by Scotsmen over the centuries have been quite significant, but most important is the fact that we want to join other Canadians from other lands in celebrating our heritage. Unlike other countries, where differences are usually fought out -- I wouldn't say celebrated -- with guns and bombs, in Canada we celebrate our differences.
One of the important things about Tartan Day is that we want it to be a day of celebration for those of Scots descent and a day for all of us to join together. It's not just Scotsmen but Indo-Canadians, Chinese, Italians, French, aboriginal people; it's people from all other lands, who in many instances left oppression to come to this great land and join in the Canadian mosaic. That's what I'm proud of as I stand in my place today. I'm proud of being Canadian, but I'm also very proud of the independent spirit that I inherited from my forefathers in Scotland.
On Tuesday, April 6, Canadian Scottish associations from all over the province will help to celebrate this day. The Sons of Scotland is an operation that for over 50 years has been having gatherings at this time of the year and donating what they raise to charity. One of the highlights of the season in Vancouver is when the Sons of Scotland get together in the Hotel Vancouver. They'll be doing it again on April 24.
One of the things I'm particularly proud of is that April 6 is a significant date. The Declaration of Scottish Independence, in which we declared our independence from the yoke of the English, was signed at Arbroath Abbey in Scotland back in 1320, on that date. Arbroath happens to be my birthplace, and the ruins of that abbey are still standing. Celebrations take place on many occasions to commemorate that day, when Robert the Bruce signed the Declaration of Scottish Independence.
As I said earlier, April 6 is a day for celebration. I believe there's a very important Indo-Canadian celebration the following weekend. I want to re-emphasize that we celebrate our differences, and we enjoy our togetherness. I'm sure each of us here of Scottish descent will be feeling a little proud of the fact that we're being recognized in a particular way. I know the Irishmen really go wild on St. Patrick's Day. I don't know how you get tartan beer, but I'm sure some Scotsman will be able to come up with it. As a matter of fact, I think there was a beer up north at one time that was called Tartan Beer, but I don't know how you get a mixture that would look tartan.
What I want to say today is: join with me and all other descendants of that great nation, because together we've made another great nation. So on April 6 I ask you to wear a little bit of tartan when you come to the House on that day.
J. Weisgerber: Try as I might, I don't think I could make a Scottish name out of mine. But I will wear my B.C. tartan on April 6 and be proud of it.
Indeed, British Columbia has a proud history and a proud mosaic of people who have built this country, and Scottish people have played a major role. Scottish people were among the early settlers, among the early explorers of this country and, I think, have made a big contribution to the country, as have many other ethnic groups. Indeed, from Europe, from Asia, from around the world people have come to British Columbia and to Canada and helped build what I think is one of the greatest countries in the world. I think most Canadians
[ Page 4983 ]
feel that way. Most Canadians are proud of being Canadian and they're proud of this mix -- this mosaic that makes us truly unique.
In his statement the member referred a couple of times to the contributions made by Scotsmen, and I'd like to finish my remarks by also acknowledging the contribution made by Scotch women.
J. Dalton: Perhaps we could add Scottie dogs too, hon. Speaker.
There are two or three comments I would like to make to the member for Cariboo North, and I certainly appreciate his remarks. I have Scottish in-laws in the Chilcotin -- which is not too far from his territory -- and they are certainly the typical breed of Scottish settlers and people from that part of the world, who are hard-working, stick to their endeavours, and never leave the course of the purpose that we're all on this planet for, which, of course, is to do the best job that we can. Also, I am very proud to say that in my own family there are many Scottish relatives. Not to brag, but one of those relatives from the past is Robert Louis Stevenson, who I'm sure everyone in this House will have read with great interest over their educational and other careers.
One further thing. I'm also proud to say that on Tuesday -- which will be Tartan Day -- I will proudly be wearing in this House my West Vancouver Highlanders school tie, which was presented to me last year and has a wonderful Scottish tartan on it.
D. Jarvis: Just a brief comment. First of all, my middle name is Morrison, which is an old Scottish name from the Highlands of Scotland, out in the Isle of Lewis. They came to this country in the 1700s, so I'd like to welcome all these newcomers that have just got off the boat.
Secondly, a point of order on the statement by the Leader of the Third Party: it's not Scotch women, it's Scottish women.
F. Garden: I really appreciate the remarks of my colleagues. I'm impressed by their depth of knowledge, and I appreciate some of the points that they've brought to educate me. But you've got to understand that there was no intention at all to disparage women. As a matter of fact, in Scotland it's the women that wear the pants. One of the greatest secrets known only to Scots people -- and you'll never know, because there's been all kinds of debate over it -- is what's worn or not worn under the kilt.
I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member about the fact that his ancestors came here many years ago, because I'm sure he's as proud of their achievements as I am. I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues in this House, knowing the diversity of their backgrounds. I'm proud of the words they've spoken today in support of Tartan Day.
I just want to finish by reading something that was said by the Scottish nobles in the declaration of independence signed on April 6, 1320. This declaration was made at Arbroath Abbey. They said: "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom; for that alone, which no honest man" -- or woman -- "gives up but with life itself."
I appreciate the comments made this morning, and I thank you for your support.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
J. Dalton: I trust that all members are anticipating this topic with some interest. I don't know that speaking on political correctness is of itself correct, but that's not going to prevent me from making my comments. This topic was precipitated by a comment I made to a news reporter towards the end of last year. I predicted that being politically correct would be out for 1993. I'm prepared to publicly defend that statement now, and that's why I'm on my feet this morning.
What is political correctness? I'll give my definition and some examples. I consider political correctness to involve pandering to special- and self-interest groups and causes for no other reason than to appease those interests by taking a soft political position because that is the right thing to do.
For example, it would be correct to support an environmental preservation group, and that is still acceptable politically; there's no question about that. But I would submit that until recently -- and I don't mean because of the unfortunate incident in this House two weeks ago -- it would have been politically expedient for some, but not all, politicians and parties to cater to the self-interests of extreme environmentalists, those who would shut down the planet in the true sense.
I use this example because until recently the environment was high on the opinion polls of public issues, and in fact until fairly recently it was number one. The environment has now slipped into eighth or ninth place on those same polls. It might surprise government members to hear that the economy and government spending are now number one on those same opinion polls. So the environment has slipped way down the list, and naturally, economic concerns have risen to the top.
What this means is that there is nothing to be gained today by supporting such extremists, even though at one time they represented the supposedly downtrodden and disadvantaged, and therefore it was then politically correct to support them. I would submit to the government that that would also mean that finding solutions to today's environmental issues should come easier than it did previously. All it takes is political courage. I just offer that as some free advice for our government, which is, of course, dealing with sensitive environmental issues.
I might add a comment. It is very appropriate that we're talking about the environment today. At this very moment President Clinton is dealing with some very tough environmental concerns in Portland, on his way to Vancouver for the summit this weekend. I suspect that Bill Clinton is not a politically correct politician, by any stretch of the imagination. I think he will deal with those issues in a very objective and forthright manner.
In my opinion, it is no accident that the environment has slipped so far down the public concern list. Public
[ Page 4984 ]
attitudes changed quite remarkably in the aftermath of the Charlottetown accord referendum. The members opposite will remember the referendum; perhaps they still have their Yes buttons. It was seemingly correct in the fall of last year to support the accord, and with few exceptions most politicians and parties did so. But the backers of the accord misread the public -- the politicians and the parties supporting it did not understand that the tide of political correctness had turned.
For example, one event during last year's protracted and expensive public relations exercise -- just this morning I heard on the news that $7 million was spent supporting the accord -- went wrong. The particular example I refer to involved our own Premier. When the Premier floated the trial balloon at the infamous press conference about gender-equal senatorial appointments, he learned firsthand about the swing away from correctness. The media was shocked into stunned silence, and for the media that's an almost unheard-of thing. The public outcry was extreme. Why was that? There's nothing wrong with equity, and I'm certainly not, hopefully, suggesting in any way that I do not support equity, because I do. That is correct. But there's everything wrong with force-fed equity for the wrong reasons, those which are strictly political in nature. The Premier thought he was being correct, but in fact he got a painful lesson in the new politics -- the new politics, of course, where what used to be correct is no longer so.
[10:45]
We are in a budget response mode at this moment in the House. The public is disturbed, to put it mildly, at the 1993-94 budget. I suggest that in large part this is because the swing away from what used to be politically correct is influencing the tide of public opinion. It used to be acceptable -- and every government is still doing it -- to run deficits and run red ink, but the public is clearly reacting to that. The question being asked now is not whether we enjoy the services that all levels of government provide, but: who's going to pay for them? The legacy of debt and deficit is no longer acceptable to the public. I suggest that the public is politically way ahead of governments -- at the provincial, federal and even municipal levels -- on the running up of debt and deficit. It is no longer correct to drown us in red ink. The public will not tolerate that, because, as much as anything, the politically correct way in which we used to manage our economy is no longer acceptable.
G. Brewin: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in response to the comments made by the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano. I find them very interesting from a number of points of view -- one of which is that a couple of points came dangerously close to what I think could have been challenged on points of order in terms of the traditions of the use of this time period as a non-partisan kind of perspective. But in the interests of being generous that I know the Speaker has initiated here, I was prepared to listen to the full comments. I think it's still an appropriate point to be made.
There are a number of other points to be made about that whole issue. I came this morning from a meeting of the Victoria Street Community Association, which is to take place all day today. These are a group of people who live on the street and who work with people on the street who are poor. They are trying to develop new ways to talk with each other about getting off the street and no longer being homeless.
We as a government respond to those kinds of issues with housing initiatives and other areas, as we've heard here today. There was a wonderful woman there named Beth Loring, who has been an advocate for poor people. When I mentioned to her that I would be coming here today and making some remarks about political correctness, she shrugged that off with some irritation. She said: "I've had enough of that kind of language. Let's just get on with it."
I believe that, and I accept that that's what we in this House should be doing. Never mind the discussion about what is or isn't politically correct. Let's get down to the task of dealing with the issues where our values meet the people of this province: poverty, housing and the environment. As we talk with people in those areas, we note some of the observations that are made about the groups that are advocates for these kinds of people in our community -- the people we value. We hear them called special interest groups. Well, I have a point I want to make about all that.
Back in 1914 women's suffrage was an issue. I wonder whether the member who spoke today would have labelled that group a special interest group and therefore dismissed them. That's the attitude that comes forward when we talk about special interest groups. It allows the folks in power to say: "They don't really mean anything; we don't really have to listen to them." I don't think that's what the member was suggesting. I don't mean to impute those motives to him in particular, but I have come across that attitude many times in my political work. I think we have to be very cautious about expressing those kinds of attitudes. If we as elected representatives are not seen to be listening to whoever wishes to speak to us in whatever form they wish, then we are denying them their rights as citizens. We are denying ourselves the benefit of their good advice. Whether they press hard on the windows of our doors at the edge of our decision-making space or whether we meet them in the street, in committee rooms or in grocery stores, everyone has a point of view to which we must respond.
I say to all of us that "political correctness" is a term that began a long time ago as a facetious notion about -- as I used to hear it -- "politically correct beer." That's all that ever was. Somehow the media and others twisted that around and said it is a derogatory term. What's underneath all that? What's the fundamental value and philosophy that we're expressing here? It is inclusiveness -- bringing people into the decision-making realms and worlds -- so that they are part of what we do and we are part of what they do. That's what we're talking about here, and that's what we should be doing in this Legislature.
J. Dalton: I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that I certainly had no intention, even though my remarks may have been somewhat misconstrued, of being partisan in any way. I did refer to last fall's events in the
[ Page 4985 ]
referendum from the point of view of trying to use political examples and things that we were all familiar with. From my perspective, the attitude of the public to what is perceived as politically advantageous -- who we choose to meet and consult with -- is changing.
I can assure the House that my comments were intended to be constructive and instructive, and in no way destructive. Of course, we all have our opinions on any given topic. I have no quarrel with the member's well-chosen and appropriate comments about the poor, problems with housing and the environment. I think it is well documented that the Liberal Party is a party that advocates the social safety net. I'll give the government party credit as well, hon. Speaker. We are both parties that are more than prepared to listen to groups, whether you call them self-interest groups or otherwise -- and I think that's an unfortunate term. Every group that comes to our caucus has a purpose and a cause to advance. I have no quarrel with that, and we do listen to those. But if we get too swung to positions that are too self-serving and limiting, it doesn't serve the political purpose and the progress of government well. That's the point I wish to leave with this House: that we all, as elected officials, have to be careful of the line we draw as to how we are going to go through the decision-making process. That is the point I was making in my remarks, but I do thank the member opposite for her comments. They were certainly well-chosen, and I don't have any specific quarrel with them. I just wanted to make it clear that my comments were to be put in a particular perspective.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Before I recognize the next private member on a statement, in response to the comments of both hon. members in terms of the purpose and intent of private members' statements, perhaps it would be helpful if the Chair distributed the statement delivered by the Chair last summer on the interpretation of that intent and scope. The Chair will do that, just for the members' future information.
R. Kasper: Before I make my private member's statement, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave Granted.
R. Kasper: It's a great pleasure of mine to introduce a former member of this House who has long worked during his career on issues pertaining to my private member's statement. Would the House please welcome Mr. Frank Mitchell and his wife, Kay.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Workers' Compensation Board is a well-established, well-respected institution within this province, but I'm not here to discuss the history per se about workers' compensation. I'd like to talk about some of the issues that face many of us as elected members. We just recently received a report from the Workers' Compensation Board which portrays many glowing efforts. It's important, though, to point out some of the problems I've encountered, and I'm sure other members have encountered, in dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board.
I'd like to touch on occupational health and safety. There are fewer inspections and penalties. That's been outlined in the president's fourth-quarter report. The budget is not keeping up with essential field services' needs or inspections. In the area of claims, delays continue. We have multiple adjudicators dealing with claims, which causes delay and frustration for workers. Calls are not returned.
Recently there was a study done by Deloitte and Touche, which made recommendations, but those recommendations are long on the horizon for implementation. Even the union at the Workers' Compensation Board has withdrawn support of those recommendations.
The perception persists of a large, unwieldy bureaucracy not meeting the needs of injured workers. Workers and their reps voice concerns that the system is becoming so incomprehensible and legalistic that it's not really available to them. There's poor linkage between claims and rehabilitation. What we need is additional staff to help bridge that gap. In the area of rehabilitation I've received complaints of misdirected training, promises not kept by consultants, a lack of hands-on support and assistance network to get people back to work. We have high levels and reduced real pension needs to firmly and to properly address those permanently disabled workers. There's no record in the annual report of how many disabled workers are successfully assisted back into the workforce. A partnership is needed between the Workers' Compensation Board and employers to get workers working.
Pension delays are far too long. There's no face to face with pension decision-makers. There's no literature on how the pension system works. Pension reviews are not balanced in the area of loss of earnings and percentage of disability.
There are complaints about policy consultation: too much paper, too many studies and not enough actual positive change and results. There is concern within the WCB that there are too many committees and that responses to reports detract from the real mission of WCB to protect, rehabilitate and compensate workers.
What is happening after all these studies are lined up? In the claims area, it has resulted in another management study, an internal study, extended deadlines and more subcommittees on those issues. In the appeals area, there are review board delays -- a 6,000 case backlog. This is unacceptable. Some 1,000 hearing slots were lost last year. The average waiting period just to get a hearing date is seven months. There are strained relations between the review board and the appeal division, where over 700 appeals are in the inventory, but it seems to be a problem maintaining commitment to continue to try to meet statutory duties of timely decisions.
[11:00]
The medical review board panels have studied these areas. The registrar reports to the chairman of the board of governors. There are over 600 cases awaiting certificates at this level of appeal. These appeal delays
[ Page 4986 ]
negatively affect disabled workers' abilities to get on with their lives, and they extend their disputes with the WCB. We need more review boards.
It should be noted that there hasn't been that much favourable press on the Workers' Compensation Board. We have complaints about worker treatment, the delays at WCB, executive salaries and pension schemes, deteriorating financial picture and statements like: "We have to get more workers kicked off WCB." I can tell you, hon. Speaker, the kicking isn't needed at the workers; the kicking is needed elsewhere.
Complaints have risen in the Ombudsman's office -- a 50 percent increase in complaints from 1991 to 1992. This is outlined in the president's report. There is a need for high public trust and confidence in the system, and for proof that complaints are going down and the system is working fairly. Workers and employers need to know that the system is working well for them and not for itself.
I have some suggestions. The assessment department cannot meet the legitimate public expectations of its performance without additional staffing levels. Staff increases will be the price of operating the assessment department in accordance with the new claims of a spirit of openness at WCB. It simply will take more people to do things in an open, responsive manner than it did in the past behind closed doors. Despite substantial increases in the caseload, there have been no staff increases in nearly a decade. It is clear that staffing shortages have hurt assessment department performance and efficiency in the past few years. Additional resources devoted to audit and collection activities could provide much of the revenue required to pay for the modest increase in staffing.
G. Farrell-Collins: I could probably sum up my comments as "wow!" In all the time I've been in the House and we've had private members' statements, I have never heard a member so aggressively approach one of the major problems that exists in the services provided to workers in this province. I give nothing but commendation to the member for taking the bull by the horns and standing up in this House and letting loose with the type of comment that he just made. I must admit I'm surprised, but I'm very pleased.
As a critic for Labour and Consumer Services, I hear daily from people -- written, over the phone and other means that come into my office -- who have very legitimate complaints about the way they're being treated through the WCB process. That's not to say that workers at WCB or the people at WCB aren't trying. They are trying, but the reality is that the workers are not being well served by that organization. I'm sure if any of the 75 members in this House had their constituency assistants come in they would have been pounding on the desks as this member was speaking, because they deal with that type of thing every single day; and I'm sure every member of this House is aware of that.
It used to be that ICBC was the biggest workload in my office, but it's now changed; it's now WCB cases that creates the largest workload in my constituency office. I hear daily just the types of things that the member is talking about: delaying claims; calls not returned; large, unwieldy bureaucracy that's not responsive at all to the people who have paid into that program, who have had themselves hurt at work and need compensation. I won't say the percentage of the cases. It seems like a 100 percent of the cases, but I'm sure it's not.
In many cases, as soon as these people walk in the door they are treated as though they are trying to rip off the taxpayer, and that's not the case. These people have been injured; they have back injuries, leg injuries, head injuries. Some of these people are in bad shape. They go there to try and get the proper attention that's needed; the retraining that's required. These people don't want to end up on welfare; these are proud people who have worked all their lives. They have an injury, and all of a sudden they're losing their car, they're losing their house, they're losing their spouse in many cases; the families are breaking up. They sit at home all day because they can't even get bus fare to go and meet with friends. There's nothing that these people can do. It's a travesty; it really is a travesty.
One thing the member didn't mention is the number of suicides by people who are awaiting decisions by WCB. I have a gentleman who calls me on a regular basis -- a Mr. David Askey -- who has been tracking WCB, and I think he puts it the best. He says: "The ultimate protest that a human being can make is to take their own life." That's the ultimate protest, and it's happening with WCB claims.
These people are waiting for years to get back into the workforce, to get their lives started up again, to contribute. They don't want to be taken care of. They want to get back and contribute, and they're not being addressed properly. It's a tragedy. It's a travesty, and I cannot agree more with the member. I would be glad to sit down with him and the minister responsible, go through some of the claims that I have, hash this out, and get to work on this issue, because it is one of the most important issues that will come before this House in the next five years; I'm sure of it.
R. Kasper: I appreciate the hon. member's remarks, and it's something we all share.
I'll just give an outline of the some of the problems that I've encountered in my constituency. I have a worker who was first injured in 1984. He managed to go back to work. He was re-injured in 1990. He was put on rehabilitation. He was injured under the rehabilitation program. The Workers' Compensation Board denied responsibility. They sponsored the program. It took two years for this individual to get his review heard. He won it, but this is the price he paid: he lost his home; he lost his family; he lived six months in a tent. That's wrong. It shouldn't happen. We have other cases where workers have been denied claims. One worker had a seven-month delay -- no money, no answers. But we found out the answer -- they lost the file. That's not good enough.
In the area of rehabilitation, I have a worker who has been deemed to have a disability injury, and he has gone through four rehab workers. My suspicions are that his proposal for getting back to work was agreed to by the first rehab worker, and as soon as that took place
[ Page 4987 ]
another rehab worker was put in to deal with this individual. The work that went on with the first rehab worker was repeated the second time, the third time, and he's now on the fourth worker. It almost makes you think there's a conspiracy against getting workers back to work, and that's got to change.
We need additional offices for workers advisory. We need additional workers within the advisory office. There's a need for an additional office on Vancouver Island and also in the Okanagan. I would be irresponsible if I didn't applaud the minister for now including farmworkers and for the additional office space and advisers in the Prince George area. There is movement, but there has to be a lot more.
To conclude my remarks, we need support from all hon. members on this important issue. It's going to take each and every one of us voicing similar concerns with the powers that be.
FUTURE OF MINING IN B.C.
R. Neufeld: The mining industry is an integral part of British Columbia's economy. Although it is one of B.C.'s largest industries and our second leading export sector, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total land mass in the province has ever been used for mining. This is quite remarkable, considering that the industry supports more than 27,000 direct and indirect jobs in B.C. Nearly $450 million in taxes and other payments were made to governments in 1991, while employees received over $800 million. In 1991 additional spending in the province came to about $4 billion.
So why, considering the importance of the industry to our economy and job creation, are we seeing mining activity decline? Why was B.C.'s mining industry hit the hardest in Canada last year, with seven mine closures and absolutely no offsetting openings? Certainly the resource potential has not vanished. Certainly the mining expertise and the desire to mine remains. But the environment has changed. The present government has demonstrated continuing disrespect for one of B.C.'s vital industries. Critical issues affecting the livelihood of the industry remain either unaddressed or are the brunt of punitive tax hikes.
Three crucial issues are now impacting B.C.'s mining industry: increased taxation, tenure indecision and the uncertainty of environmental regulations and permitting. A rough calculation of the 1993 budget's tax increases shows that an additional $15 million will be taken out of the already ailing industry. These tax hikes come at a time when the mining industry is still reeling from the $17 million tax grab in last year's budget. This year's imposition of a made-in- B.C. GST sales tax on labour services, increases in the corporate income tax, the motor fuel tax and employees' Medical Service Plan premiums and the innumerable increases to fees and licenses are all ill-timed for an industry trying to pull itself out of an economic slump. The 3.9 percent increase in B.C. Hydro rates will grab another $4 million from mining companies.
With the government using part of the motor fuel tax revenues to finance yet another new Crown corporation, we have to question this government's commitment to the economic renewal of our region's mining companies. We are seeing yet another sector of our economy being used as a cash cow by this government.
Many uncertainties are quickly eroding any confidence that companies and investors had in British Columbia's mining industry. This government must realize that the industry depends upon risk capital. The payoff for risking money in exploration is the opportunity to bring into production the few bodies of ore that are found. If the payoff is threatened, investment is driven away. It's a shame that the government has failed to appease any fears that fair and adequate compensation will not be granted for confiscated mineral rights. Investors are feeling threatened. The Social Credit caucus acknowledges that security of tenure is a prerequisite for economic development. The longer the tenure and the more secure it is, the greater likelihood of investment, because financial and investment risks are decreased. Bill 32, introduced last year, drove this issue into the Dark Ages. B.C. surrendered control of disputed lands and resources through the joint stewardship agreements. The government announced its plans to double the area of provincial parks and wilderness and recreation areas.
Indeed, many other roadblocks to securing tenure have been put in place by the NDP. I find it appalling that a mining exploration company can follow all the rules and spend literally millions of dollars to explore a property and yet have absolutely no assurance that it will be allowed to proceed. In fact, only two mining companies in B.C. have received mine development certificates. Imperial Metals' Mount Polley mine and Curragh Resources' Stronsay mine have the certificates, but they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Their proposals have been stymied by layers and layers of government created by the NDP.
[11:15]
If the issues of high taxation, apprehension over tenure and uncertainty of environmental regulations and permitting are not addressed and resolved, we may see the death of the mining industry early in the twenty-first century. Granted, the mining industry has started to hear the right words from government, such as it "values the minerals industry" and putting the industry on "a secure and positive track." But the government continues to be long on words and short on action.
"A Mineral Strategy for B.C." contains promises of consultations and studies but no commitment to actions. It's just another document that the government is using as a tool to delay any decision-making. With active participation by government, a healthy economic climate could be created, along with an influx of new investment and an increase in investor confidence. We could very well have a revitalized mining industry in B.C. Much, however, is dependent upon the NDP's taxation policies and their approach to restoring investor confidence in British Columbia's mining industry.
E. Conroy: I would like to advise the hon. member for Peace River North that no matter what the industry may be, the world simply does not change in a period of a couple of years. There is a long run-up time for the
[ Page 4988 ]
creation of problems, and there will be a long downtime needed to solve those problems. To turn around and blame the problems of the mining industry on the present government is totally unfair.
Hon. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Peace River North that the environment for mining in B.C. has changed. I want to advise the hon. member for Peace River North that this is a worldwide dilemma. It's not isolated to B.C., as he would have us believe. It's simply not the truth.
Mining in British Columbia is the second-largest export sector and a key facet of our economic base. It's an industry that supports highway jobs throughout the province and is the economic mainstay of many communities. Much of the trade through the port of Vancouver is made up of minerals. Vancouver is internationally recognized as a centre of excellence in mining and related disciplines.
But mining is in trouble; there's no doubt. During the next ten years, many of our existing mines will close -- the majority due to reserve depletion, but some for economic reasons. Mineral exploration, the lifeblood of the industry, is in decline. At current exploration levels, mining could virtually disappear in this province in the twenty-first century.
Having said this, hon. Speaker, there are some solid grounds for optimism. The basic strengths on which British Columbia built itself into a world-class mineral producer have not been eroded, much as the previous government tried.
Nonetheless, we believe that a provincewide mineral strategy is needed. Why do we need such a strategy? We need a strategy to make sure that government policies and programs are sensitive to their effects on the mining industry. In a fiercely competitive global economy, our industry cannot rebound and prosper unless we create a healthy climate for exploration and improve our overall competitiveness in the province. We have a strategy to bring mineral policies into line with the government's economic, environmental and social goals. To survive, the mining industry must have public support, and that support must be earned by adapting to today's social realities. We need a strategy to develop opportunities for growth in the mineral sector. Mining must find new markets, new products and new technologies to ensure its long-term health well into the next century.
What can we do as British Columbians to ensure a stable future for our mining industry? Last year the ministry began to develop a strategy plan that won the approval of cabinet and the Premier. The result of this work set out three priorities: to revitalize the exploration sector and restore a healthy climate for exploration and investment; to improve competitiveness; and to maximize value-added through processing and other opportunities.
In order to achieve these priorities, our government has moved further by building confidence through more and better information and improving understanding of the industry among all the players; by dealing with mineral tenure to combine tenure and land use planning and give the industry a feeling of tenure security; by identifying valuable resource areas and how to access them. A case in point with regard to access is the reduction of the tax on road allowances for mining companies, which was just put forth in the budget. The next steps are to have the work of the ministry in the field mesh with that of the mining companies; to rationalize environmental and regulatory needs; to deal with aboriginal groups and foster communication and cooperation; and to work with industry to manage taxes and to identify inequities.
This is the plan that our government has laid out. The Socreds never even had a plan. All they did was shuffle off money and let the mining companies do what they wanted. They left us to inherit a mess.
The Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired.
R. Neufeld: Talk about a mess; I think we're going to inherit a big one here in the next election. It's been estimated that by the end of the decade more than half of B.C.'s existing mines will be closed. Falconbridge pulled its head office out of Vancouver; Fording withdrew its proposal for a coal-fired power plant in the Elk Valley; the fate of Cominco's smelter in Trail is still hanging by a shoestring; Cassiar has vanished off the face of the earth; Windy Craggy has an estimated 4 million tonnes of copper worth millions and still awaits a verdict....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Do you want to stand up and finish? Labour disputes have paralyzed the Kootenay mining industry. Has this government responded? Absolutely not. In 1992 exploration and development was barely one-tenth of 1988 levels and 80 percent below the 1990 levels under Socred administration. Has the government responded? Absolutely not. The government continues to be long on words and short on action. Rather than promoting investment, the government has increased existing tax rates, inflicted new taxes, changed land tenure policy overnight and brought uncertainty to the process of environmental regulations and permits. The profit-blind corporate capital tax continues to plague the industry. Thanks to the government, B.C. Hydro can now annually increase its rates by 2 percent more than the inflation rate.
They've enacted the new Labour Code, which makes it easier to certify, more difficult to decertify and harder for employers to survive a strike. In the first year in office this NDP government experienced 153 percent more labour strife than ever. Bill 84 will encourage this figure to climb even higher. The results have led to a dramatic decline in investor confidence, higher industry losses and increased difficulties to raise the necessary capital.
As an MLA from northeastern B.C., where mining is responsible for some of the economic activity, I observe the impact of the NDP policies. It's not a pretty sight. When the Premier was asked about his desire to keep the mining industry from totally taking off to Chile, he replied: "We're not discouraging them from going to Chile. I think it's very exciting. I hope they go to Mexico and
[ Page 4989 ]
Argentina." Social Credit recognizes the importance of the mining industry in British Columbia, and now it's critical for the NDP to do the same.
D. Jarvis: I'd just like to add a few more comments to what my friend from the Peace River said.
The Speaker: I'm sorry, hon. member, the time has expired.
Hon. M. Sihota: Not only has the time expired, but also I think the Liberal Party is about to expire, too. That didn't go over that well, did it? If I may, I call debate on the budget speech.
Budget Debate
(continued)
H. De Jong: Yesterday two members of the government back benches made reference in their comments -- in order to justify some of the expenditures proposed in the budget -- to Christian compassion. I don't think anyone in this House has any problem with Christian compassion. In fact, last Christmas when the call came from the hon. Speaker for all of us to participate in the Children for Somalia Fund, there was a great response. That call of charity or compassion comes to every British Columbian, every Canadian. That's nothing new.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
The point is that if the members on the government side really feel that there should be some Christian principles in legislation, then we have to go back to Bill 84 and ask ourselves: "Were they present in Bill 84?" The answer is no. In fact, the power that was given to the unions in Bill 84, through a continual hold on property once a union had been in a place of work, comes very close to a union being allowed to steal through legislation passed in this chamber. Where was the Christian compassion or charity in that respect? I'm sure that most British Columbians would appreciate it if some of the basic, fundamental principles that have guided this world for so long were included in all legislation. They would have no problem with that.
The NDP election platform in 1991 produced a pamphlet called "A Better Way for British Columbia." Promise No. 4 in this booklet says: "We'll balance the budget over the business cycle...." That's not all the Premier promised; he stated he would keep taxes fair for everyone. The Premier further stated that the NDP government would stop the tax grab, which means not entertain a tax grab on ordinary people and small businesses. Well, hon. Speaker, taking that statement for what it is worth, this government, led by the same Premier who made the above statements, has a totally different view of what ordinary people are today. They are under the illusion that ordinary people are only those who are fed through the public purse and those who belong to special interest groups that are totally dependent on government grants and contributions to further their interests and lifestyles. In many cases these lifestyles are at a continually accelerating cost to society as a whole, while the people who have made strong contributions to society and the economic well-being of this province seem to be something other than ordinary people.
[11:30]
There was nothing in the Speech from the Throne that provided any encouragement to small business, which is the economic machine that has brought this province to what it is today, which we have enjoyed until today. How quickly the members of this government forget who built this province and how. It was built by small business, the engine that drives the economy -- not by government. For many years small business has been the job creator of this province -- real, lasting jobs, not short-term jobs. These were jobs in which people had pride, which provided satisfaction for the employer as well as for the employee and which provided a stable tax base for government revenues.
In fact, this is what the Premier promised in No. 6 of the election pamphlet: "An NDP government will help small and medium-sized businesses grow. We will work with business to achieve regulatory reform and reduce the paperwork burden." Quite the opposite. This government -- by its callous approach and lack of interest -- turned away the business community's advice. They have completely turned away from this government. What a change in a short 18 months. A change for the better? Certainly not, hon. Speaker. In the eyes of this government, all of a sudden the business community have become unordinary people. The tax grab by the NDP is hitting these very same people of this province, and it's hitting them hard. In fact, it is hitting them so hard, even those who have been in business for ten or 15 years are at their wits' end.
I have received many phone calls over the last few days, but one in particular was outstanding. An entrepreneur was planning to build a 20,000-square-foot assembly plant for rec vehicles. It was well into the stages of just about being ready to go into contract. When they heard the details of this budget, that project was cancelled immediately. That should tell us enough.
Even though this Legislative building is on an island, British Columbians know full well that we are not an island to ourselves. The full extent of the corporate tax of last year -- taxing the paid and unpaid assets as well -- is now being felt by the business world. The labour law passed last fall places many workplaces that are unionized under union of law until the law is changed. This is totally counterproductive for the investor as well as for the operator. On top of all of that, what's demanded from these types of businesses is more taxes, which throws the product right out of competition in the marketplace. Is this what the small entrepreneurs of British Columbia deserve? Does small business -- the engine for economic strength and recovery -- deserve this? Shame on the Minister of Finance, and shame on the Premier of this province and his government for such a betrayal of small business.
This is not the only thing that's disturbing in this budget. Not only is this government attacking those in business at present; that's not enough. They're also retroactively taxing those who have worked hard for
[ Page 4990 ]
years, paid their taxes and provided or held jobs in industry, agriculture, or commerce -- you name it. Just with the stroke of a pen these people are now denied a privilege which every other homeowner has enjoyed for years past: the homeowner grant. And if that is not enough, you tax them more than anyone else by way of a surtax.
This must be discrimination of the worst kind. The principle of property tax has been based on assessed values. That basic principle has been thrown right out the window with this measure. Even though this tax is collected by the provincial government for a specific purpose, the municipalities are obligated to collect them. So it is seen by the average person that the municipalities are garnering these funds for their operations. I believe that this is just another attempt. While this government has been critical of the federal government for unloading their responsibilities onto the provincial governments, they've at least been open and forward with it. This government, by this move, wants to hide its ineptness to govern this province and use the municipal councils, who will be blamed for these additional taxes, to increase the provincial coffers. This is nothing other than dictatorship by this government on local government. It is a direct attack on the autonomy of locally elected councils and the democratic process by which they have been specifically elected for. Is this the kind of response that the Minister of Finance received from the people on his dog-and-pony show throughout the province? I have strong doubts.
I'm sure people know that this province has flourished because of the local autonomy of communities. What built this province was people having faith in each other, and that faith is greatest within the local community. After taking a stab at ordinary people, small business and those who worked hard all their lives for the home they occupy, who else could the government take from? Why not take a shot at the children, or the grandchildren in my case and many other cases? After all, they can't vote for quite some time. Why don't we enjoy things now and have our children pay for it? What's wrong with that? The Premier obviously thinks these are fair taxes for everyone. In his budget the Premier calls it investing in people. Well, what an idea -- investing in the people. What's being done by this government will be a burden to the children and grandchildren. Investing in people means having faith in people. Obviously, the Premier has no faith in the people of today.
If the people of this province had not already lost faith in this government, they surely have now. At least, that's what I hear from my community and from many people throughout the province. Never before have the people of B.C. witnessed headlines on the provincial budget such as we saw this week. Just wait for the public reaction when the results of these budgetary measures arrive in their mailboxes. There's already a lot of public outrage, mainly because this government is failing to deal with the prime problem, which is the expenditure side of the financial spectrum. I'm sure the people of this province are asking themselves what happened to the promises that this Premier made to get elected. I understand that U.TV conducted a poll last night, and within an hour some 2,300 calls were received. The question was very simple: what did people think of this budget and what was their reaction to it. Ninety-six percent of those calls indicated that they were in favour of a tax revolt. Is that what this government wants? I thought this government wanted communication and no confrontation. When they were in opposition, they were screaming every day from this side of the House about the confrontation that was out there. We'll have some coming.
What has happened is really quite simple. This government has surrounded itself with bureaucrats and party hacks committed to one purpose: to fitting everyone into a socialist mold and, more specifically, to create a welfare state. The socialists just don't understand what makes for a strong economic climate. As a result of the measures in this budget, every British Columbian with the purpose of being a responsible citizen, working for a living for the family and running a business and providing jobs are led by this government to the slaughterhouse called socialism -- to pay more and more for another 1,200 party hacks waiting in line for jobs this year.
Yes, this is what the Premier calls courage. I agree that it would undoubtedly take a lot of courage to cut back on a bureaucracy that is now of their own making. Is it too much to ask of the Premier to give a pink slip to friends, insiders and party hacks? This is exactly the problem within this budget. Spending smarter, as the Premier called it, simply does not allow for hiring party hacks and political friends, because it just does not end there. There are, without a doubt, still some socialists left who cannot be accommodated in the bureaucracy, so they need some protection -- either from Mr. Georgetti or John Shields.
Why is there such a strong increase in the Ministry of Women's Equality, which is nothing more than a ministry to serve self-interest groups in this province? It is time that governments at all levels recognize that we're first of all Canadians and British Columbians. I have the highest respect for all British Columbians, men and women.
[11:45]
To prove this, the district of Matsqui, during my period as mayor, was one of the first municipalities to hire a female administrator. The selection was made on ability to perform, and perform she did. This is where government is going wrong: ability to perform does not come into play. The real women of this province, and I'm speaking of the mothers at home caring for their families, are considered by this government to be women who do not work. What a shame. It's quite the opposite. Women in this province who care for the material and moral needs of their children ought to be applauded for doing so. A strong family with high morals and strong convictions for the well-being of society has been a cornerstone of society for many years, which build strong communities and ultimately a strong province.
No government or government program can ever replace what is being lost when parents send their children to day care centres, nor will the government ever be able to raise enough taxes to deal with these ills
[ Page 4991 ]
of society -- not necessarily created by those in whose care these children are placed but rather by the absence of continual parental supervision and training. This budget is the strongest and most dangerous weapon toward the destruction of the initiatives, drive and dedication of the private sector within this province. This budget is an onslaught against the basic principles of equal opportunity for all and special privileges for none. This budget is intended to place every British Columbian on the same economic level at the cost of destroying the entrepreneur -- and, ultimately, the economic stability this province has enjoyed.
Last year's budget took away a lot of the fuel from that engine that drives the economy; this year's budget as presented is going to take away the oil from the engine as well. We all know what happens when an engine is without oil. It will come to a grinding halt. Is this what British Columbians deserve? I don't think so, nor do the people of this province. Even those who are on social assistance do not agree with that. They know full well that in order for their needs to be taken care of, a strong economy is essential: first, to get them off of welfare; moreover, to provide meaningful jobs for them in the private sector.
This budget, simply stated, does not reflect what all of the people of this province expect of this government. In light of the promises made by the Premier, this budget is nothing more than a betrayal of the people of this province by this government.
L. Stephens: I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Langley to respond to the budget speech and the introduction of the estimates. It is with conviction that I rise today to oppose this budget and the direction of the government that is responsible for it. During the last election the NDP promised the people of this province fairer and more open government. In March 1992 the people saw their first NDP budget in 19 years. It was a budget that sent shock waves through the public. Individuals were hard-hit; business was hard-hit; no stone was left unturned. There was an increase in income tax and an increase in corporate income tax. There was the implementation of the asset tax, and there was the slashing of the homeowner grant. This year's budget is far worse than last year's budget. Again, there are more shock waves to private individuals and businesses. The increase in corporate income tax, the surtax to middle-class families, and the increase in the gas tax, the property tax and the increased sales tax will all have tremendous negative effects on the economy of this province. When the budget was released, it became evident that this government was not committed to making difficult decisions in order to control its spending. The public reaction was accurately that of outrage.
This government is saying to the taxpayers of this province that times are tough and the people must pay the cost of government irresponsibility. The people are saying in response that we cannot afford this NDP government. We saw the Hong Kong bank state that many of its foreign investors will simply look elsewhere. We saw the board of trade declare that the budget is an act of insanity. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked where the spending cuts were that would see the government share the cost of this painful fiscal policy. This concern was echoed by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Several organizations representing the business sector have rejected NDP taxation and spending increases because of what they will do to investment security in this province. Their comments go to prove that this government has lost the confidence of the business community. Investors will be hard-pressed to consider British Columbia as a viable investment region, even though we have tremendous natural resources and an ideal geographical locale. Investor confidence is not there, and the NDP are determined to keep forcing it down.
Further to investor pessimism is the consumer's side of the equation. Just when we were beginning to win the war on cross-border shopping, the NDP decided to increase the sales tax and gasoline tax. Numerous studies have shown that if the gasoline tax is not the number one reason consumers shop across the border, it's certainly the number two reason. Why is it such an incomprehensible concept to this government that increasing these two taxes alone would force consumers across the border for gas, food, clothing and other essentials, in spite of an unfavourable exchange rate and duties? This should be testimony to just how wrong this policy is.
In spite of the federal GST and large duties on American goods, people will still see cross-border shopping as more economical than shopping at home. Many will go south of the border to spend their hard-earned money, and others will simply be forced to stay at home and spend less. Testimony has already been given to this effect. People will be able to afford fewer necessities of life. The public, through real spending cuts of their own, will shrink the GDP of this province, because the government is taking away their ability to spend. So we have an investor who won't invest and a consumer who won't spend.
Last year we saw just how lethargic an investment economy can become when the government implements prohibitive measures. It increased the corporate income tax, and real investment went down by 8.6 percent in 1992. This year the NDP increased the income tax a further 0.5 percent, and we can expect even more investment to flee this province.
The NDP likes to talk about job creation; they need to do more than talk. When real investment goes down, so does employment. We currently have 67,000 people unemployed in this province, and almost 300,000 on welfare. A large number of welfare recipients are young, single men who are willing and able to work. The question the government must answer is: how many more people will be unemployed before it figures out that it is responsible for the decline in the number of jobs? It is ironic. The Minister of Social Services talked about how much more efficient it is to create jobs than to support people on income assistance. Perhaps her colleague the Minister of Finance should consider those words of advice from the minister who is responsible for feeding the very people he is putting out of work.
Let us not forget what happens to government revenues when investment and corporate profits de-
[ Page 4992 ]
crease. The government relies on profitable businesses to pay a substantial amount of taxes. When businesses in B.C. start to lose money because of an inflationary economy and higher property, gas and legal services taxes, the government will have to face the wrath of the people. They should ask themselves now how they will react to a shortfall in general revenues, because there will be a shortfall. How will this government balance a budget when it receives less than it forecasts, while at the same continuing to spend without control?
With regard to spending without control, this government is completely without shame. It is patting itself on the back for creating a deficit of $1.5 billion; it is proud of that. The House has sat and listened to the NDP talk about difficult decisions and sharing the cost of previous governments. Make no mistake, this government lacks the political courage to stand up to any difficult decision -- be it labour's demands, patronage appointments or a moratorium on government spending. Let no one be fooled by the political rhetoric and the Premier's costly TV shows. The NDP are incapable of making difficult decisions. They are too busy building empires and filling patronage appointments.
We note with interest the creation of Build B.C. and the pride with which this government proclaims it. This project is nothing more than an NDP slush fund, established in the tradition of pavement politics. It is yet another bureaucratic Crown corporation being window-dressed as an autonomous organization. This method of accounting is shameless. The Ministry of Economic Development is essentially receiving $100 million to play with in the name of job creation. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is essentially receiving $86 million in borrowing authority to spend the money of our future generations. It is to receive funding for schools and other infrastructural components. These are funds which should be accounted for in the budget.
B.C. 21 is nothing but a method behind which the NDP can hide excessive spending. It takes funds out of the ministries and puts them into a general spending account. This a bait-and-switch accounting method that has no place in this Legislature. It is appalling that the NDP should stand before the people of this province proclaiming the wonders of this project and their questionable accounting practices. Let us all recall that it was this very same New Democratic Party that yelled to the high heavens that the previous government was cooking the books. They're shameless. Also shameless is what cabinet and this government have done to the Ministry of Economic Development. As the critic for Economic Development, I have stood and watched this ministry undergo massive changes. The minister has been stripped of his responsibility for the B.C. Trade and Development Corporation. He has been stripped of the investment and economic development aspects of his ministry, leaving him virtually nothing to administer.
I want to take a few moments to speak to the reorganization of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. When the NDP took over, the Premier took control of the B.C. Trade and Development Corporation, thereby removing a significant portion of the minister's responsibilities. Real investment in British Columbia has decreased by 16 percent since this government took office. Further to this change in the ministry was the reorganization, which was simply a redistribution of the bureaucracy from Victoria to the regions. Once again, when the NDP cabinet herald their ability to make difficult decisions, this government was unable to make the tough decision to maintain the size of the bureaucracy, plain and simple. Instead, the government had to spend more and increase the size of government.
[12:00]
Another costly decision of this government which demonstrates the fiscal irresponsibility of the NDP, for which they're becoming famous, is the one to establish the British Columbia Investment Office. The BCIO may prove to be the most redundant, useless, patronage-filled bureaucracy the government has established yet. To the tune of $600,000, this office has been established to attract investment to this province. The Premier has told this House several times that the function of the B.C. Trade and Development Corporation is to promote exporting industries and attract foreign investment. Essentially, what we have here is another high-priced, semi-autonomous bureaucracy, which is completely redundant and unnecessary.
Consequently, I put it to the hon. members on the other side of this House to end the pretence of making difficult decisions and claiming to have the right priorities when evidently nothing could be further from the truth. This budget is nothing to be proud of. The government is patting itself on the back for a deficit of $1.5 billion at the minimum. We can reasonably expect it to be higher than that, given the NDP's creative accounting methods. They are patting themselves on the back for increasing taxes and spending. This is not a government which is able to control itself, so it must turn to the people of this province -- the people that contribute real dollars to the economy through increased taxes.
It is a sad day when the people of this province must forfeit their lifestyle to pay for the extravagant lifestyle of this NDP government. It is a sad day when business turns the plane around and takes its business somewhere else because they simply cannot survive in this province. It is an even sadder day when the pleas of the people -- through the opposition and through you, hon. Speaker -- fall on deaf ears.
This is a shameless government that has brought down a budget which will spend too much, borrow too much and tax too much, and it must stop. There was no attempt to look out for the long-term interests of this province, its economy or, most of all, its people. This budget continues to burden our society and our children with mounting deficits and debts.
It is for all of the reasons I have described above that I move the amendment on the budget motion:
"Be it resolved that the motion 'That the Speaker do now leave the chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: ', but this House regrets that the government has seen fit to siphon an additional one billion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia, further impairing the fragile economic recovery of the prov-
[ Page 4993 ]
ince; and furthermore, that the budget continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy through its interventionist, ideologically-driven spending measures'."
Deputy Speaker: The amendment appears to be in order.
I believe the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wishes leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery at this time -- from Second Street School in the riding of Burnaby-Edmonds -- are 47 grade 5 students accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Hirst and Mr. McLaughlin. Would the House please make them welcome.
On the amendment.
E. Barnes: I want to speak against the amendment by the hon. member for Langley. We are indeed fortunate for many things in this province, and I think this is a challenging opportunity for each and every one of us on both sides of the House, regardless of political persuasion, to make the changes that the Lieutenant-Governor challenged us to make when he read the throne speech.
I referred to the Lieutenant-Governor. It's unfortunate that on that day when we sat here, the Lieutenant-Governor was beginning a bit of a preamble prior to reading his throne speech, becoming more personal and talking about what it's like to be the Lieutenant-Governor and how he has felt over the past four years plus; as we all know, he will be concluding his term of office later this year. He was interrupted by some demonstrators who took it upon themselves to demand to see the Premier -- not in the usual manner of waving placards, protesting verbally and conducting themselves in the orderly manner that is provided for in our democracy and our free society, but by literally attempting to crash through the walls.
As I sat here and watched those doors crumble and the stained glass crack, I was overwhelmed with emotional inconvenience, shall we say. I've been here almost 21 years, and I've never seen anything like it. It really was a sobering reminder of how delicate the whole process is that we all rely on. The Lieutenant-Governor personifies all of the things that we in parliamentary democracy require in order to have this free and open debate that we're having this morning and that we hope to continue to have in the future. He was taking it upon himself to set a precedent by departing somewhat from tradition, sharing with us his humanity and the honour that has been bestowed upon him as the Queen's representative and as a person who is prepared to live a life that we all aspire to in terms of leadership in a free and democratic society.
I take my place in this debate with considerable humility and considerable appreciation. I am not standing here to be strident in a partisan way, as far as politics are concerned. I fully respect the need for any government in office to be scrutinized diligently by capable members that we refer to as the opposition. They have to have the opportunity and the resources and the support and the means to scrutinize. I certainly understand that, because most of my career has been in the opposition. We need to reflect upon this institution from time to time, as some members have certainly done this morning. The private member's statement by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and the response from the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill talked about how we must include more and more people, more and more members in this process.
I am honoured to stand as a member of the New Democratic Party and of the government to defend the decisions made by the Minister of Finance in his budgetary proposals, which we will be debating very soon. I say that notwithstanding my attendance at many representative delegations who have been attempting to get before this House their agenda for alternative approaches to fiscal proposals. There are no easy solutions for something as complex as government services and the kinds of agencies, leadership and projects that have to be in place to serve such a diverse population.
We shouldn't forget that things are not static: not the government, the population, our institutions, our schools, our universities, our transportation systems or our people. Nothing is static. I came to this country in 1957, and the population was a million less than what it is today. The predictions are that in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard alone we're going to have probably five to ten million people by the end of the next generation. There are only three million in the whole province right now. Can you imagine the change that has taken place and the challenge that we 75 have as representatives? Speaking of the 75 of us, when I was elected there were only 52. We've grown in representative numbers and we're going to continue to grow. It's going to be a challenge to find a new home for us. Are we going to have another floor for MLAs in another generation?
These are realities. This is what the Lieutenant-Governor was talking about. He is a man of colour, of Oriental descent. There was a time when his people were discriminated against, and anybody who voted for a government that was supporting the rights of the Orientals was considered to be voting for the yellow plague, I think they called it. Racism was rampant in those days. I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who are surprised to see a black man in this place. Mind you, there has only been one, and one black woman. But we're aware of that and we are doing something about it.
We are doing something about a lot of things, but we are chasing to catch up with the dreams. It is not easy. This is not a time to condemn the efforts of people in this place who are attempting to the best of their ability to provide the best advice they can to the government and to the representatives, so that we can attempt to fulfil some of the dreams that our constituents have. They are so immense.
[12:15]
I've worked -- striven -- for going on 21 years as a member. I came to this House as a former social worker. That's where I come from, and sometimes I wonder if
[ Page 4994 ]
I'm misplaced in this place, because we talk about dollars and cents so much. Sometimes I wonder why we don't stop to think about what they are supposed to be for, who's responsible for generating them, what the options are and how we cope with change. None of us is endowed with absolute solutions to these complex problems; no government is. This is why I support this government: it has shown some courage; it is willing to take some flak. It is inviting input; it is asking for the process and inclusion of others. This is what the change is all about. As we change and grow, we still have to make decisions and we have to be prepared to stand for something. I know what this budget stands for. The intentions are very important, and they are attempting to address needs.
I've listened to members attempt to criticize the budget. They talk about details that affect segments of the population: small business, big business or entrepreneurs of various descriptions. But let's get it straight. If we don't have a healthy environment.... I don't mean just physical; I mean human resources -- people. If they are not healthy, well-educated and capable of participating in society, if they don't have some fulfilment in their lives and if they don't have means by which they can function in good health and confidence, then how secure are any business ventures? How secure are those who are concerned about their property rights? How secure are people who have to walk the streets in dimly lit communities? How many police do we need to protect people?
What I am really saying is that, as the Lieutenant-Governor suggested, we have to change too. This isn't anything new. As long as we've had a free democratic society, we've always been challenged to change. It has never been easy to have a democratic society. We have always had to have some place to express our varying points of view without fear, knowing that that is enforced by statutory rights in this parliament, that we can stand here in confidence and not be afraid of anyone undermining that right and that privilege.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Why can't we review this budget and its proposals in realistic terms? It didn't start with the New Democratic Party, which has been in government for only 18 months. The problems that the government is trying to address have been with us for years -- as long as I've been here. I'm not saying this to cast stones at the former government; they also inherited problems. They have always been with us; that's what politics is about. The people who face their responsibilities and really care about doing their jobs are going to relinquish the power that the people think they should have by starting to include people. That's where the problem is. People want us to do what is impossible to do without their cooperation, and that's why there are problems with the adversarial system.
That's why it's a problem when members of the opposition think their only job is to search and destroy, and to attack. I know because I built my career on attacking. I built my career in the opposition by going after the jugular vein and by kneecapping politicians on the other side. That is not the way of the future; we've got to change. All of us know what I'm talking about.
Interjection.
E. Barnes: Hon. Speaker, I have no problem with hon. members interjecting and saying: "Now you've changed." That's quite true; I have changed. I've become enlightened. I built my career by being very aggressive; I was a professional football player at one time. I can assure you, my friend, that if you don't hit first and hit hard, you don't have a career. You're going to be injured, and you're going to be out. I know about that.
But is that the example we want to create? Is that the only hope? Is that really the means by which we can have any hope for the future? I'm saying that we've got to make a change. People want a change. I'm also saying that people feel that the process as it is now has lost its credibility. We all know what I'm talking about. Many times members have stood in this place and talked about the lack of credibility in the political process, the spin doctors and the movers and shakers. We all have to live with that. It isn't the fault of any one politician, political party or process. It's the way it has happened. The democratic process has been shanghaied. It has been confiscated from the people and taken over by those with vested interests in keeping it the way it is. Believe me, I'm as tired of it as the opposition and my constituents are. I know that this government is attempting to address the concerns of people who want a better life, and they are catching hell for it -- pardon the language. They are now the inherent operators or owners of the government, the office of the executive council, in a process that is inappropriate for people who aspire to better things. Sure we're catching hell, but I can assure that my colleagues -- and I know this from working with them -- want to do a job, they want to deliver, and they're trying.
Think of some of the initiatives. Think of some of the things this government has done. I can remember that when the Minister of Finance was on the other side, he was the first one to stand up and demand that we feed hungry children. The New Democrats didn't create that situation. It costs millions of dollars to feed those kids. Why were they hungry in a society such as this? Why were they neglected? They were going to school hungry, just like it was back in the Dirty Thirties. Nothing has changed. You can't blame contemporary politicians for that.
We have to look inward at our system. We've got to realize that we must do whatever we have to do to this system -- upgrade, refit or retool -- to make it a hopeful one and one in which we can deliver, so that when we make a commitment in a campaign to do something, we don't even have to question whether we're going to do it; it's just a matter of how fast. If people vote for us and ask us to do something, then we should know why we're doing it. We should be fully open; there shouldn't be any question. I think that we would all be able to retire -- whether we win, lose or whatever -- with some pride and dignity, knowing that we did our best and did it honourably. We're all honourable members. I
[ Page 4995 ]
don't think there is a single member in this place who doesn't want to do a good job and who doesn't want to deliver. It's just not good enough for us to attack, attack, attack; we've got to find solutions.
We talk about who can afford to pay. I heard the phrase "there are no free lunches" quite a long time ago. I think the Social Credit Party members used to say it all the time. When we were in the opposition we asked them to be more sensitive and humanitarian and to concern themselves more with people issues and people projects. They said: "How are we going to pay for it? There are no free lunches. Let them get out and pull themselves up by their bootstraps like the rest of us." Hon. Speaker, we have to do better than that.
When I was talking about the change in how the.... I didn't mention demographics. This is no longer the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture that we had at the turn of the century and for nearly a generation after that. We now have a diversity here that makes us a microcosm of the world, in terms of race, religion, or socioeconomic status. Everybody is going to be here. That's happening all the time. We've got some tough players coming into our culture and society. We've got to make sure that we set the tone as to how this society is going to be. Human rights have to be foremost.
We're worried about capital running away? It may mean that we just have to back off a bit and set the stage so that when the capitalists do come in, they will come in in a manner that is respectful of the opportunity they're going to have in this great and beautiful province and country of ours. It can't be business as usual; we can't carry on the same way we've been carrying on. We're learning about the disastrous consequences of the free trade agreement and what we're going to experience with the North American free trade agreement. We know that these are just examples of the same old thing: exploitation of the weakest.
We're seeing the confiscation of our democracy by the capitalists, the people with the money and power, because they are the most effective interest group in the world. We've learned this by their behaviour all over the world. Every country is realizing that they have been had, that they've been violated. They will continue to be violated unless we begin to change it. I can't think of a better time than now and by this group of legislators.
There is plenty to constructively criticize a government for, but let's cooperate. We'll do the election when the time comes to play those kinds of politics, but we have a duty now to try and find some answers. There's a long list of things that the government is doing that I appreciate. I know there are people who are unhappy with some of our fiscal initiatives, especially those people who have lived in their homes for 30 or 40 years and now find that the home they bought for $10,000 is worth $500,000, and they don't feel they should have to pay on that growth. There are complex problems with that, but I think the idea of taxing those who have the financial.... The reality is that they do have that money but they can't use it. We've heard that story before: you may be property-rich, and your cash flow is such that you just can't make it. But that doesn't mean that we can't find a way to deal with that problem. We can defer the taxes of those people who are 60 years of age and over. Maybe we're going to have to look at deferring for those who are not -- whatever. There can be a constructive solution. But we've got a problem: we've got too much debt that's growing, and it's costing us too much. I don't think anybody wants to see that continue. I certainly don't want it to happen in my own family. I don't want to be in debt to these credit cards forever; I tear them up every time I see one, because it's fiscally a disaster course to get on, and we all know it.
But what else can we do if we don't stop to change things and if we keep finding ways to tax people? What other way than to tax those.... As some people say, it's the Robin Hood syndrome of taxing the rich to help the poor. But we know that they're not really rich. No one is really rich or really safe until all of us are safe and we all have an opportunity. But let's stop promising. Let's try to do something about it.
I just want to look at some things that I know will bother some members who think only about the dollar. What would happen if we didn't pay attention to street youth or to people who are sleeping on the streets and have to panhandle, and who are aggressively doing so, and in some cases who are committing criminal offences to survive?
At last count there was something like a third of a million adults in this province who are literally illiterate. They cannot read a street sign, they can't dial a telephone or leave a note for a member of the family when they're stepping out. These are adults, not schoolchildren, and the list is growing of people who need basic education to participate in this society. Are we going to leave those people aside because we can't afford it? No. This government is doing something about literacy for adults.
I used to be quite an aggressive driver. It was a symptom of something that was bugging me. Maybe I was charged up too much. I used to say I was just young and exuberant; I just wanted to get out and go. I burned rubber every time I got behind the wheel. But when I look back now, I know that I needed some education. I needed to understand that it was a privilege to drive a car in a community where people are relying on you to be responsible. We're cracking down on those people, and it's about time. It's a privilege to drive a car, not a right, and it's certainly not a right to do it recklessly. ICBC costs are going up by leaps and bounds. We've got to stop that.
We have to begin teaching people how to be better citizens -- not to pontificate, not to lecture inappropriately, but to tell them that there's no free lunch. There are rights, and there are responsibilities. That's duty, and that's what we have to try to do here. We're going to play our politics, but in a responsible way. We're going to have our own points of view, but we've also got to remember that everyone has a right to express themselves, and we've got to find solutions to complex problems.
[12:30]
Inner city schools: that's a growing new category. I wonder how many people know what that's all about. They say that inner city schools are where the greatest number of dropouts are, where most of the broken
[ Page 4996 ]
homes and single parents are, where the kids are going hungry. Would you imagine that there's one seeking to get that status in the middle of my constituency in downtown Vancouver? It's not just the east side; I understand that they're right across the city. Times are changing. People are being neglected more.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The list goes on. Who's going to pay? I think we all pay, whether we realize it or not. Health care: people at Shaughnessy Hospital understandably don't wish to be dislodged from a functioning service to their community. But in light of our responsibilities to one another, we have to look beyond the familiar view within our own localities. We have to be prepared to contribute -- I don't like the word "sacrifice"; I like to say contribute -- to the good of the community, the good of our province, the good of our fellow human beings, the good of our fellow citizens. But really, if you wish to call it a sacrifice, I guess it is, because people believe they've worked hard for what they have -- they've earned it and they don't wish to have it taken away from them.
But what would happen if we allowed the so-called "survival of the fittest" only -- those people who have the muscle, the contacts, the ins, the connections and all of the capital -- to hold the government and the people to ransom in order to ensure that their capital, and no other, is protected? This is one of the problems that happens time and time again in my constituency. People who are basically captives in highrises, in apartment buildings, are -- without any protection whatsoever -- at the mercy of property owners who flip their properties whenever they please and think they can gain without maintaining those properties, violating their contracts to the tenants.
We need to do something about levelling that playing field of tenants' rights and property owners' rights. "Landlords" tells you a lot -- landlords, indeed! We have a long way to go in understanding our duty to make this a society that is balanced and that provides opportunities for everyone. Those people who are fortunate enough to accumulate material wealth are doing so at the expense of our maintaining good government, safe communities and good management of our resources, so that they can continue to exploit them for a profit -- or whatever their purpose is. But there has to be a price to that. As we say, there are no free lunches -- not for the poor and not for the rich. If the rich can make money -- even if they're only getting 10 percent on the dollar and the 90 percent is going into maintaining a healthy community, maintaining jobs, giving people some security -- great! The rest of us are living on meagre incomes with barely enough, hand-to-mouth, 30 days at a time. Why can't they? And if they need to exploit some new venture, then why not include the people? Let them in on the action.
That's the kind of security that lasts. That's why we say small businesses are better, because most of those people work 16 to 20 hours a day. They don't have any security. They work long hours: six or seven days a week. I know, because I was in business myself. And my staff, I must say -- maybe it was due to my not-so-good management -- did better than I did. But that's okay. When I look back I think: well, you grow and you learn. They were good people. We did a good service. I didn't get rich, but when I think about that whole process of business and the freedom to do business, you do need consumers -- people with money in their pockets. I think we're trying to get to that point.
This budget, although it's not supported by some people, for various reasons -- and I think we should address those concerns seriously -- is an attempt to include more people. It's an attempt to address the serious educational needs in various communities in the Fraser Valley, Richmond, Surrey and Langley, and through the University of Northern B.C. It's creating more spaces in the high school system and providing support for single parents who have to leave their children in a non-profit day care centre, so that they can afford it. All these things are essential in a changing society. I don't think any of us oppose doing something about these things and getting on with the job. We abdicate the serious challenge of coming up with solutions by saying that we can't afford it.
The Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired.
E. Barnes: That is a very good point to end on, hon. Speaker.
G. Janssen: Hon. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate, but I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on an excellent speech and for reminding us why we're all here.
Having said that, I reserve my right to speak in the debate. But noting the time and by mutual agreement, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the House do now adjourn. I wish everyone a pleasant weekend, whether it be summit-watching or Blue Jays-watching.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:37 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]