1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
[ Page 9431 ]
Volume 13, Number 3
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1994
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
A. Warnke: In the gallery today, in addition to my wife, Geraldine, and a very good friend of mine, Mel St. Denis, is Arlene St. Denis. I would like the House to recognize her. Over the years Arlene has been a stalwart supporter but, more than that, was a critical part of the Liberal Party during its wandering years. Without her, there would not be 18 members here today.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today I would like to introduce some constituents from the vast Chilcotin country, several of whom are members of the Ulkatcho band: Henry Jack, Leona Toney, Tracy Toney, Charles West, David Friesen, Michael Smirl and Sage Birchwater. Please make them welcome.
B. Copping: There are a few people in the precincts today whom I would like to introduce: Mr. Al Hickey, chief executive officer of the B.C. SPCA, and Mr. John van der Hoeven, director of field operations of the B.C. SPCA. We also have Jeff Lawson, the shelter superintendent at the North Vancouver SPCA shelter, as well as the president of CUPE Local 1622. I would also like to mention a man who has been a great inspiration to me, Mr. Michael Weeks, the executive director of the Vancouver regional SPCA. Would the House please make them welcome.
N. Lortie: With us in the gallery today are 20 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary, right smack in the middle of the constituency of Delta North. They are being shepherded by their teacher, Mr. Bennett. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased to welcome two family friends with us here today: Margaret Scott and her son, Graeme. Please make them welcome.
T. Perry: I spied in the gallery Dr. Ian Kelsey, former chair of the Vancouver School Board. I'd like to make him welcome to the Legislature.
J. Pullinger: On behalf of my colleague for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and myself, I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Miss Carolyn Prellwitz, who is the president of the Cowichan District Teachers' Association.
U. Dosanjh: I would like to take this opportunity to give a warm welcome to the three legislative interns who have just begun their assignment with the government caucus: Nicole Boyer, Gianpaolo Panusa and Sarah Reeder. The legislative internship program gives university graduates an opportunity to observe firsthand the processes of this Legislature while also making a valuable contribution to Members of the Legislative Assembly. In fact, the members for Victoria-Beacon Hill and West Vancouver- Garibaldi were once interns for this Legislature. I know I speak for all members of this House in wishing the interns the best of luck over their months at the Legislature. I ask the House to make them welcome.
F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have Mrs. Del Carroll from Burnaby-Willingdon, which is your constituency. With her is my wife, Aileen, who resides in Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This bill amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In particular, these amendments authorize the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to inspect premises where animals are kept for sale, hire and exhibition; it makes it an offence to cause distress to animals; it clarifies and updates the enforcement powers of SPCA agents; it accommodates the use of animals for farming and commerce; and it establishes mechanisms for government to oversee the administration of the act by the SPCA.
Bill 4 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.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Insurance Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this bill amends six sections of the Insurance Act to generally update the legislation and make it more effective. The amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.
Bill 6 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.
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, Bill 7 amends four provisions under the Financial Administration Act. The bill clarifies the responsibilities and duties of the comptroller general in areas of financial reporting, management and control. It removes the financial reporting requirement for refund and strengthens the reporting requirement for write-offs, extinguishment of debt and remission. It clarifies reference to cash payments where there is a contradiction of the government's stated policies of accrual accounting, and allows for the use of electronic signatures in addition to written signatures in the authorization of payment.
Bill 7 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.
ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Architects Amendment Act, 1994.
[ Page 9432 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Bill 2 contains amendments to the Architects Act which will do principally three things: increase the number of lay members on the council of the Architectural Institute of B.C.; require corporations that offer both architectural and engineering services to register under the act; and replace the two-step disciplinary process with a more efficient single-step process. In addition to that, there are several miscellaneous amendments.
[2:15]
Bill 2 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.
COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, it's my privilege to stand today and ask my first question as the member for Matsqui. In 1987 the Premier described as reprehensible and a misuse of public funds the then Social Credit government's prebudget advertising campaign. So I was somewhat surprised to learn that the Premier himself spent as much as $120,000 to advertise his TV address last Tuesday. I'm certainly new here, hon. Speaker -- I'm just a simple Matsqui farm boy -- but by golly, it seems to me that newspaper ads featuring the Premier's picture and a quotation....
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm going to encourage the member to ask his question.
M. de Jong: My question to the Premier is twofold. First, did the Premier authorize the advertisements? Second, did the NDP pay for them, or did the B.C. taxpayer get stuck with this?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I indeed welcome the first question from the new member for Matsqui. The answer to the first question is yes; the answer to the second question is no. I can tell you that the people of British Columbia responded very well to the fact that the deficit has come down $1 billion. Jobs are up, and there is a three-year tax freeze -- that's good news British Columbians should know about.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: In the throne speech yesterday, this government stated: "The pocketbook of every British Columbian is a priority of paramount importance to this government." Over on this side of the House, we wish the government wouldn't take quite so much interest in our pocketbooks.
My supplementary question for the Premier is: doesn't he feel it's just a bit hypocritical spending $120,000 of the taxpayers' money to tell them that he's spending less of the taxpayers' money?
The Speaker: Does the member for Matsqui have a final supplemental?
M. de Jong: Well, I've asked the Premier, hon. Speaker....
The Speaker: I will take the next questioner, then, if the member does not have a question.
M. de Jong: Beyond the $120,000, the Premier has also spent an estimated $20,000 on his taped address to the province. The leader of the Liberal Party responded live, at no expense to the taxpayer. Prime Ministers and Presidents address nations....
The Speaker: Order, please. I really do regret interrupting the member, but I must ask him to ask his supplemental question.
M. de Jong: How does the Premier justify spending an additional $20,000 to pretape and edit his presentation? Is he too uncomfortable, or is he unwilling...?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the people of British Columbia are pleased that we have turned the corner and that this province is leading the country in job creation. Not only did the business community and the good, hard-working people of this province create 30 percent of the new jobs in this country of ours last year; in February we created 33 percent of the new jobs in this country. That's why the deficit is going down and jobs are going up. The people of British Columbia have contributed to getting our financial house in order and a three-year tax freeze is taking place. We can build on that solid financial foundation to increase jobs and to make sure that our citizens have the training they need for the jobs of the twenty-first century. So we've got much to do, and I think British Columbians should hear the good news.
B.C. HYDRO OFFICE EXPENSES AND RATE INCREASES
G. Farrell-Collins: I was a little worried. I thought the Minister of Finance had put him on autopilot there and we were going to go on for the rest of the day.
Keeping with the theme of waste, on January 7, B.C. Hydro received a 3.5 percent rate increase. In addition, they have asked for another 2.7 percent increase. This amounts to well over $140 million in new taxes. Given the Premier's personal commitment to ferret out waste, does he believe the expenditure of $12.2 million by B.C. Hydro for new office equipment is a justifiable expense?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The hydro rates our citizens pay is indeed an important issue, and I can inform the member of some more positive news. The average household in this province is paying 15 cents more per day than they were two years ago, and the hydro rates in this province are $12 per month less than they were in 1982. They have not even kept up with the rate of inflation and the cost of living. So the average household in British Columbia is very well served by B.C. Hydro.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier can say what he wants, but the public knows better. They are the ones who open the envelopes and read their hydro bills every month, and they know they've gone up.
Given that B.C. Hydro spent over $12 million on brand-new office furniture, can the Premier tell us what exactly they moved from their old building to their new building at a cost of $1 million?
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's time the Premier started to answer the tough questions instead of spending the taxpayers' money to pretape his answers and have somebody help him out with them.
[ Page 9433 ]
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Will the Premier order B.C. Hydro to cancel those rate and tax increases and get their house in order so that his government will stop sucking money out of B.C. Hydro and out of the taxpayers of British Columbia for frivolous things like $12 million in office furniture?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I've just described the very modest rates that British Columbians pay. They are the third-lowest hydro rates in North America. Our citizens are very well served by B.C. Hydro. As for some of the other questions that the hon. Whip asked, I would be prepared to get that detailed information.
I can tell you that we are getting our financial house in order. The deficit is coming down, jobs are....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Thank you, hon. members. I was just going to ask the Premier to conclude his answer, and I know that he has done that.
HIV COMPENSATION PACKAGE
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Today is the deadline for those infected with HIV through tainted blood products to be included in the compensation package agreed to by this government. The deadline is inhumane. Given yesterday's court decision in Ontario, extenuating circumstances now exist. This government is forcing individuals to give up their legal rights during a time period that is inappropriate. Does this Minister of Finance, who was the Health minister when this agreement was reached, agree with enforcing this deadline for those individuals residing in British Columbia?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Under the previous Minister of Health, this government took the lead in this country in seeking to assist people who have been affected with HIV through the blood system and put together a comprehensive package for those who have been infected with HIV through the blood system. That package, as well as the enhancements announced last December, contain an enhanced package for those who have been infected by HIV, a time line for consideration of that package, and an end to that time line. I am very pleased that some 85 percent of those who have been infected with HIV have found this assistance to be worth their while and have accepted the package.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: The previous Minister of Health did not lead the country in settling this dispute. That's absolutely untrue.
Will this minister commit today to extending the time line for these British Columbians who are now faced with making a decision without adequate time to seek legal counsel?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This government and other governments have sought to provide an alternative to those who have been tragically infected with HIV through the blood system, an alternative to the lengthy and costly process of seeking compensation through the courts. This package is a comprehensive one. It provides not only for individuals, but for spouses and children. I am pleased that this government is participating in it.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: The question was: will you extend the time line? Where is this government's compassion for individuals who are faced with very trying circumstances, who cannot afford to put their children through school and cannot afford to pay their mortgages? Your answer has not been adequate. When will you extend the time line?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will indicate once more that the time line and the deadline was part of this package. That is part of the glue that holds this package together and provides assistance to those who have been infected with HIV through the blood system. It provides for people infected by AIDS, their spouses, their families and their children's education. It is a good package, and I would urge the member opposite to recognize that this package provides an alternative to the costly and time-consuming process of the courts, and provides assistance to people infected with HIV.
VLC CASINO PROPOSAL
G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier. Could the Premier please inform the members of this House when and how he became knowledgeable of the government's partner- ship in a gambling- for-profit casino with VLC, and whether or not this government or its agents had prior discussion with Mirage Resorts with respect to the partnership they would undertake with that company?
Hon. M. Harcourt: A number of questions were asked in the same question. I will take notice of that question and table an answer in the near future.
KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT REVIEW
L. Fox: My question this afternoon goes to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Rankin report suggests that the Kemano review committee would have a mandate to mitigate the impacts of the lower flow regimes in the Nechako River through the KCP project. If this review confirms that there will indeed be a negative impact on agricultural opportunities, the environment and/or the fisheries, does the review committee have the mandate to mitigate those impacts by increasing the flow regime presently proposed for the Nechako?
Hon. A. Edwards: As you probably know, it is the Utilities Commission that is conducting the hearings. The Utilities Commission has very strict terms of reference. What they come back with will be within those terms of reference, and they will report back to the government. I believe that should answer your question.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: That's precisely why I asked the question. Have those terms of reference been expanded to include an adjustment to the flow regimes dependent on the impacts stated through that review process?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, the terms of reference allow the Utilities Commission to consider the flow regimes -- the flows and the impacts on rivers.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
[2:30]
[ Page 9434 ]
L. Fox: One final, very short question to the minister. Will the people along the Nechako River have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they support the recommendations of this review committee?
Hon. A. Edwards: There's no vote involved that I know of. They certainly have every opportunity to participate. They have had that opportunity on a continuing basis. They can talk to the Utilities Commission. The commission has made every effort to ensure that people can have input.
Hon. G. Clark: Before I announce the orders of the day, I would just like to advise all members that the House will be sitting tomorrow.
G. Campbell: I am pleased to stand in the House today for the first time as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. I'm also pleased to stand for the first time as the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
On February 17 the voters of Vancouver-Quilchena chose a road that was different from the past. They chose to move away from the politics of extremes. They chose a new option. They chose a party that is dedicated to common sense and community rather than old ideologies. They chose an option that takes choices out of the hands of government and puts them back into the hands of citizens. On February 17, 1994, the voters chose the B.C. Liberal Party.
I was born in Vancouver-Quilchena. My father went to school there. My family's history is there. My mother and my sister remain my constituents, and my children go to school there. I grew up and learned to skate there, and I'm sure that the pratfalls I took at Kerrisdale Arena will be emulated in other activities that I undertake in the future. I know from my experience there that you can always pick yourself up and you can always learn. I learned to play basketball there with my friends. I know the community. I know what people feel about the future of this province. I know the hopes that they have. I know that they look for change in this province -- change that's based on our values as British Columbians. I know that when seniors there talk of the history of this province, they're always enthusiastic about the efforts of their fellow citizens. But I also know that when they talk of change, they talk of the future with hope. They talk of the future that's built on our values as British Columbians.
Vancouver-Quilchena is a community that people once said was too far away from downtown Vancouver to be worth anything. It used to be a community of orchards and farms. It's a community that understands the importance of the Fraser River not just as a commercial entity but as an environmental asset and as a public amenity. It has not fallen prey to the cynicism which often affects people. The people of Vancouver-Quilchena believe that we can improve. They believe in progress, and they believe that human beings can add to the quality of life and improve the world that we live in.
Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to be joined today by the member for Matsqui. He's one of the youngest members in this House. He is a person who reflects a new generation of leadership in British Columbia -- a new generation that has decided it's time they took back their future. He understands the importance of moving beyond blame and of moving beyond the politics of the extreme, and he understands that it's time that we again tapped into the best that British Columbians have to offer. The people of Vancouver- Quilchena and Matsqui rejected the Socreds. They rejected the NDP. They rejected the B.C. Reform Party. They have placed their trust in a new generation of leadership, a new generation of accountability and a new generation of hope.
Today, hon. Speaker, I'm going to speak to this House and to the people of British Columbia about an NDP government's betrayal of public trust, about financial mismanagement and about their lack of leadership and accountability. Yesterday the NDP government opened this session with hollow statements about the province's finances and taxation, about education and jobs and forestry. Unfortunately, the NDP throne speech wasn't about these issues; it was about covering up their mess. It was about covering up two years of mistakes.
As I stand today, I cannot help but think back to a day in 1991. It was Tuesday, November 5, 1991. It was a day when British Columbians dared to hope, a day when they dared to believe that they had turned away from the politics of the past. It was a day when they dared to believe that they turned away from the politics that rewarded those who belonged to the club and ignored the pleas of those who did not. It was a day when they hoped that they had turned away from the politics of best friends and influence peddlers. I was in Victoria that day at the University of Victoria auditorium, listening to the words of the Lieutenant- Governor and the Premier. I remember the sense of optimism that people felt that day. I remember the sense of optimism that people felt after they had viewed these precincts and hoped that we would have a government that opened its doors. That was a hope that has been dashed by two years of experience. It's a hope that this government unfortunately began to erode within weeks of taking its mandate.
This government was in office mere weeks before they started eroding the public trust. Ask the people of Kamloops how they felt when the Premier broke his personal commitment to them that there would be a cancer clinic in Kamloops. Ask our trading partners and investors how they felt when the Premier reneged on his personal commitment that there would be no tax increases and then no new taxes in his first budget. Ask the families of B.C. how they feel about a government that made the promise of no new taxes in 1991 and since then has introduced taxes that amount to almost $2,000 for every average family in B.C. -- $2,000 of extra tax out of the pockets of hard-working British Columbians.
Ask the NDP's most loyal supporters how they felt when this government damaged our most basic human rights. The people of B.C. will remember the Premier saying: "A New Democrat government will introduce a Human Rights Code that reflects British Columbia's values of openness and tolerance." Openness and tolerance: that was the NDP on the campaign trail. The Matsqui by-election showed a government willing to sacrifice a fundamental belief at the altar of political expediency.
I lived in a place where human rights are not honoured -- as they should be here. I taught in Nigeria for two years. Differences are not celebrated there; they are feared. They are the cause of war. A man whose beliefs were different was nominated for office in Matsqui. Did the Premier say that the man was welcome to his beliefs? Did he say that his was a party of openness and tolerance? No. The Premier mocked Samuel Wagar's religion. Where was the Minister Responsible for Human Rights? Where were the members opposite to speak for Samuel Wagar? They were nowhere. The entire NDP caucus sat mute.
[ Page 9435 ]
The government proudly proclaims in the throne speech that they have turned the corner. If they have, they have turned it away from human rights in B.C. It's no wonder the people of British Columbia feel betrayed. It's no wonder that this NDP government has lost their trust. British Columbians deserve much better.
The B.C. Liberal Party understands that with rights come responsibilities. The rights of citizens gives our democracy strength, yet the NDP has sacrificed those same rights to their political friends. The NDP curried favour with labour bosses by sacrificing the rights of workers to decide their own futures. The secret ballot in the workplace, a basic democratic right, is worth nothing to the NDP. B.C. Liberals consider the secret ballot a fundamental right.
Since 1991, New Democrats have squandered the public trust in many ways. Do you remember their election platform? Remember this tattered book? It represents tattered promises. It represents promises in shreds on the floor of public life in the province. Do you remember this campaign promise: balanced government that deals fairly with ordinary men and women, instead of playing favourites with political friends and insiders? Do you remember these names? Johanna den Hertog, former NDP president, with absolutely no experience in trade, receives $68,000 a year as a trade adviser. Do you remember Ian Reid, the failed NDP candidate and constituency assistant? He now receives $89,000 per year as an adviser on public process. Maybe that's where this government's going wrong. Do you remember Dick Gathercole, former NDP candidate? He is now receiving $100,000 of taxpayers' dollars every year. And remember Mark Eliesen: NDP bureaucrat in B.C., NDP bureaucrat in Manitoba, NDP bureaucrat in Ontario and now back to B.C.? This man is an NDP bureaucratic commando. He now receives $195,000 a year at B.C. Hydro -- after he set Ontario Hydro on the road to ruin. There are thousands of names and millions and millions of public dollars. It is a record of disgrace and of duplicity that is unmatched. Can there be any wonder why this NDP government has lost the trust of British Columbians? British Columbians deserve better.
[2:45]
Hon. Speaker, this government has said that it is a government that cares about education. In fact, you may remember the promise to bring peace and stability to our education system. You may remember the promise to bring peace and stability to our classrooms. Last year alone this NDP government sacrificed two million student-days of learning to their ideology -- another broken promise. The B.C. Liberal Party believes that education is an essential service. Students want to learn; they should be in school. Teachers want to teach; they should be in the classroom. Parents, teachers and students all know that education is essential to our future in British Columbia.
Let's put this in perspective, hon. Speaker. When the NDP took power, the graduation rate in B.C. was 74 percent. Today, in just two years, we have seen the graduation rate drop to 69 percent. This is the NDP record of failure. Is it any wonder that this NDP government has lost the trust of parents, teachers and students in British Columbia? British Columbians deserve better.
British Columbians are tired of disappointment. This government's arrogance and incompetence hurts our families and detracts from a future that should be full of promise. Remember the NDP promise that jobs and paycheques for working men and women are a priority? This government has systematically eliminated jobs in British Columbia. This government has systematically destroyed opportunity. This government has systematically ignored the families of this province. Dress up the statistics, have fun with the figures, but in the end, when people in British Columbia sit in their living rooms and recreation rooms and watch that television screen and see that great big face staring out at them telling them that everything is fine, they say to themselves: "That person is not in touch with my life."
Ask people in this province if they feel better off today than they did two years ago. Ask people in this province if they feel more secure about their future today than they did two years ago. British Columbians deserve much, much better.
This government's throne speech is a pathetic attempt to paper over their failings. Any jobs that have been created in this province have been created in spite of this government's reign of terror on small businesses and investment. This government creates uncertainty at every turn. It raids small high-tech software firms, destabilizing their businesses. It taxes investment in job creation and calls it a corporate capital tax. It imposes on small businesses the highest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada. It establishes the highest marginal income tax rate in Canada. And to top it off, this NDP government has increased direct government debt by 63 percent in just two budgets. It has presided over the fastest-growing rate of government spending in Canada. Is it any wonder that the NDP government has lost the trust of British Columbians? British Columbians deserve better.
Hon. Speaker, think back to 1991 just for a moment again. The government came in and said: "We're going to get our financial house in order, and we're not going to politicize this. We're going to get someone from outside to come and tell us how we can get our costs under control." Naturally the government made sure that everyone remembered -- and I'm glad they did -- the mismanagement that took place in the previous administration. They went out and paid $1 million of our tax dollars to get a report, which every single member of this government should have read. If they didn't read the whole report, they could have read to page 30 of the summary report, where it says clearly that public sector salary increases must be limited to near the rate of inflation during the next two fiscal years. What happened? The BCGEU, only one of our public sector unions, has seen its membership increase by over 9 percent. But more importantly, their costs -- the costs to the taxpayers of British Columbia -- have increased by $215 million. That's a 26.4 percent increase -- four times the rate of inflation in just two years. That's government spending out of control. It's no wonder that the NDP government has lost the trust of the people of British Columbia. British Columbians deserve better.
What's really going on in British Columbia's small business sector? We've certainly heard a lot of talk about it, but what's really happening there? Well, a small family business writes to the Coalition of B.C. Businesses saying that it will shrink its number of employees from 20 to four because of this government's labour policies. That means lost jobs. A computer company of 90 becomes a computer company of 68. That means lost jobs. A panelling manufacturer in Quesnel, who is in fact on his own, is creating training programs for people who live in his community. He decides that he is going to put aside his plans for expansion because of this government's labour and tax policies. That means lost jobs. An automobile dealer in Chilliwack refuses to proceed with an expansion because of the corporate capital tax. That means lost jobs. Mining companies in British Columbia reduce their exploration budgets by over 80 percent. That means lost jobs. B.C.'s tourism industry struggles to keep up in world markets as
[ Page 9436 ]
this government strips away its marketing support. That means lost jobs. No wonder this NDP government has lost the trust of small businesses in British Columbia. British Columbia's small business sector deserves better.
Nowhere is this government's incompetence more obvious than when dealing with their lack of basic understanding about economics. This same government presided over the two largest successive deficits in the history of British Columbia. I wonder how many here remember last budget day. I was sitting over there against the wall, and I remember the Minister of Finance standing and deciding that he was going to tell the consumers of British Columbia that they were going to pay more tax. I particularly remember that the budget brought in taxes on luxury cars, trade- ins and repairs. I remember the Minister of Finance of the day actually standing there and chuckling with some of the members opposite who happened to be involved in the car business: "Wasn't it a good joke? We're going to tax you guys." Well, it wasn't a good joke, hon. Speaker. The result of the three new taxes on that industry was less revenue and fewer jobs. When the Premier sloganeered around this province that he was going to do more with less, little did we know that what he meant was more taxes and fewer jobs.
Make no mistake, this government has targeted working families and the poor with a series of tax initiatives that they pretend are taxes on the rich. The corporate capital tax increases rents for tenants. The regressive property tax, one of this government's favourites, in fact hits tenants much harder than landlords. It hits small businesses that lease; it doesn't hit landowners. And what about the hydro fees? Who can avoid them? Can the poor avoid them? No. Can the middle-income family avoid them? No. No one can avoid hydro increases.
The NDP has taken the largest dividend in the history of Hydro in order to hide their deficit. Who pays? The poor pay and working families pay. B.C. Gas was told to increase their rates by almost 7 percent on residential accounts. Who told them? Who pays? The worker pays; the residential homeowner pays. Who decided that the residential gas customer should pay twice as much for his or her gas in the winter, when they need it, as they do in the summer? Who is responsible? I'll tell you who: this NDP government is responsible.
Our young people watch as their mothers and fathers work harder and longer, only to see their efforts taxed away. The optimism of the past has been replaced with fear and trepidation about the future. Throughout the 1960s personal disposable income increased for the average Canadian family by 34 percent; in the 1970s it increased by 22 percent; in the 1980s it increased by 0.5 percent; and in the 1990s, year after year after year, personal disposable income has gone down under this NDP government in British Columbia.
I was brought up in a family that was supported by my mother, a single parent. She worked on a school secretary's salary. She had four children, aged 15 to nine. My father passed away when my sister was 15. I remember what it was like when at the end of the month there wasn't quite enough money to meet the needs that she thought we had as a family. I can tell you that was the same feeling that thousands of families in British Columbia had the other night when the Premier told them not to worry about a thing, that there were no new taxes. Give me a break!
The fact of the matter is that this government is looking for every possible way it can to dip deeper and deeper into the pockets of British Columbia's working families, and it has to stop. No matter how many thousands of dollars are spent trying to tell people that their lives are better, the working families of B.C. know that this government has presided over a regime that has made their lives worse, that has jeopardized their jobs and their future. Is there any wonder why the NDP government has lost the trust of British Columbians? British Columbians deserve better.
Arrogance and incompetence are a lethal mixture when it comes to quality of life. The throne speech of this government has no credibility. The public has lost faith in the NDP government that arrogantly spends thousands of taxpayers' dollars for a television program and newspaper ads to dress up their failing record. This is a government that promised health care reform and gave us health care chaos -- chaos that is costly to the community and harmful to the patient. This is a government that promised peace in the woods and delivered a process that has polarized the people of this province more than ever. Where is the leadership and accountability on these issues of public importance? Not with the NDP.
In conclusion, it's time to get back to common sense. It's time to get back to community. It's time to transfer responsibilities away from big government and back to the individual. It's time to reduce taxes. It's time to balance budgets. It's time for comprehensive legislative reform. It's time to restore education as an essential service for British Columbians. It's time to eliminate the corporate capital tax. It's time to eliminate school tax from property. It's time to restore the integrity of the public service. It's time to restore the trust of the people of British Columbia in their public institutions. The people of this province are ready. It's not the public who lack the courage, energy and commitment to change.
The B.C. Liberal opposition does not support this throne speech. We do not condone this government's arrogance or incompetence. Their course of action lays waste our future and the future of our children. Ours may not be the easy way, but it is the way supported by British Columbians. Our way calls for social obligation while creating economic opportu- nity. It is a way that understands that big government is not the answer to all of our problems, and that it's time we gave choices back to individuals.
[3:00]
Ours is the way of new enterprise and individual initiative. Our way celebrates successes and builds on them instead of trying to tax them out of existence. Our way recognizes that a sustainable future depends on sustainable work and sustainable contributions to environmental improvement. Our way will give authority and resources to communities to develop local solutions to land use and other crucial issues. Our way is a positive alternative for B.C.'s future. It moves us away from the politics of the extremes -- of polarization and of blame -- towards renewed hope, renewed prosperity, renewed jobs and renewed security for the future of British Columbia. British Columbians deserve much better than this government has offered.
Hon. M. Sihota: British Columbians deserve much better than a cliche-driven speech by the Leader of the Opposition. British Columbians deserve much better than a Leader of the Opposition who stands shamelessly in this House and says his vision of government is one which stands for the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary people. The people of British Columbia deserve much better than a slick politician who demonstrates that the new Liberals are no different than the old Socreds.
People in this province intuitively understand the natural wealth, the abundant resources and the hope that this province offers to them. People in this province intuitively
[ Page 9437 ]
understand the promise of this province. They believe in this province. They have ambition; they have dreams; above all, they have hope. I am pleased to say that this government has shown remarkable leadership in giving people some hope, some confidence in the future. No one needs to look any further than the success that this government has enjoyed on the economic front. British Columbia has had the fastest- growing economy in Canada since this government took over. One-third of the new jobs that have been....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to enter into debate, but at this time the hon. minister does have the floor. Please continue, hon. minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want the opposition to listen to this. One-third of all of the new jobs created in Canada this year have been created right here in British Columbia. We're realizing all the hopes of British Columbians. As an expression of the confidence that consumers have in this province, retail sales have gone up a full 8 percent since this government took office in 1991. B.C. leads the country in housing starts, an expression of confidence in British Columbians. Manufacturing has increased by 11 percent over the previous year; British Columbia leads the country in manufacturing.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: It wasn't all that long ago -- in fact, if memory serves me right, it was some time in 1993 -- that the now Leader of the Opposition went to Hong Kong and tried to scare business investment away from British Columbia. He tried to suggest to them that British Columbia wasn't a place for people to invest in. Yet all of the economic indicators indicate otherwise. We have the most buoyant economy in Canada. I know that he went to....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I really wish the members of the opposition would hear this. I know they don't want to hear the truth; they don't want to hear the good news. They don't want to know about the level of success that we're enjoying in our economy. People from Hong Kong and other parts of Asia came to British Columbia and looked around. They saw the promise; they saw the potential. They've invested in this province. They see people who want to work and contribute. I'm sorry that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't share the same confidence in British Columbia that all of those investors who are investing in this province and all of us on this side of the House share.
Interestingly, during the course of his comments the Leader of the Opposition talked about small business and the fact that it is the backbone of our economy. We on this side of the House agree, and I know that the Minister for Small Business, Tourism and Culture has been taking a leadership role in that regard. When we look at the record of the slick politician, let's not forget that when the Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver, taxes for small business went up by 62 percent. Let me tell you what some of the small business people in Vancouver had to say about the record of the former mayor of Vancouver, now Leader of the Opposition, who stands in this House and defends the interests of small business when taxes to small businesses in Vancouver went up by 62 percent. On July 3, 1993, they said: "We are tired" -- and they named the now Leader of the Opposition -- "and we know he doesn't understand small business. The insensitive and cavalier treatment of the businesses affected by this last round of property taxation is inexcusable. He does not understand the damage property taxation has on small and medium- sized businesses." In that instance, business property taxes in the West End of Vancouver went up by as much as 72 percent. I could not put it any better than the owner of Gastown Printers, who said about the new Leader of the Opposition: "It's as if the city is telling small business....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister take his seat for a minute, please. I must repeat, hon. members, that I know everyone is anxious to enter into this debate, but in order for it to be an orderly debate, we need to have courtesy to members who do have the floor. Please continue, hon. minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Commenting about the business taxation levels brought forward by the then mayor of Vancouver, now Leader of the Opposition, the owner of Gastown Printers said: "It's as if the city is telling small businesses, 'I dare you to make a living and create some jobs.'" That's what the Leader of the Opposition did to the psychology and investment climate of small business in the city of Vancouver.
I know the Opposition doesn't want to hear this. I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to pretend that this is not the case. Not only are we creating more jobs here in this province, but the deficit has come down during this administration. We inherited a fiscal mess from the previous Social Credit government. The budget deficit was projected to be as high as $3.4 billion. Through a process of methodically dealing with the deficit and by bringing down government expenditures, this government brought the deficit down from a projected $3.4 billion to $2.4 billion and then to $1.5 billion. We have reduced the budget deficit by $1 billion since 1991. That is a record that no right-wing government in Canada -- Liberal, Conservative or Social Credit -- can claim.
We inherited a situation where growth in government spending in the last two years of the Social Credit administration was 12 and 13 percent.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know the opposition wants to hear this, so I'll give them a few minutes to compose themselves.
Growth in government spending has been cut in half in the past two years, while important public services in health and education have been maintained by this administration. I know that the hon. members don't want to hear this, but let me tell them anyway. Cutting the deficit has enabled the provincial government to introduce a three-year freeze on taxes. Now that's leadership. That's hope. That's performance. That's what British Columbians expected of this government, and we're delivering. As the Premier said the other day, B.C. will have a balanced budget by 1996.
People in British Columbia have seen the performance of this government. They're well aware of the economic indicators. They're well aware of how we have dealt with the fiscal issue. They're well aware that jobs are up. They're well aware that the deficit is down, and they're prepared to reject
[ Page 9438 ]
the kind of cliche-driven policies that were articulated by the Leader of the Opposition in his presentation.
[3:15]
I want to turn to a couple of other issues that I think the Leader of the Opposition touched upon when he talked about hope with regard to this province. There is no doubt that British Columbians recognize that there are enormous challenges and that for us to realize the hopes and ambitions of British Columbians, government must do more. Inasmuch as we have outperformed every other economy in the country, and inasmuch as the deficit is down, this government recognizes that one of the areas -- and we touched upon this yesterday in our throne speech -- that British Columbians turn to when they talk about the politics of hope is the need to make sure that our young people, our people who are employed and our people who are part of our education system have the skills and the training necessary to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. It was a pleasure to note that during the throne speech the government indicated that this was one of the four areas of high priority for this administration.
Hon. Speaker, through our skills and training initiative and our B.C. 21 initiative we are investing in infrastructure which means new public transit, superferries, new schools, hospitals and highways throughout the province. I know that the members of the opposition may take issue with the need to develop infrastructure in this province, but when I go through my community of Esquimalt, people are proud of the fact that this government has made the $1 billion commitment to improve our much-needed transportation system here on Vancouver Island. I know that the opposition may take issue with those kinds of initiatives on the part of our government, but that just demonstrates the degree to which they are out of touch with the needs of ordinary people in this province.
When it all adds up, when you take a look at the economic indicators and at the fact that the deficit is down, when you take a look at the commitment our government is making in terms of skills training and when you take a look at the commitments that we're making in terms of forest activity and dealing with the forest sector -- the strategy the Premier referred to yesterday in his comments after the throne speech -- it's clear that this government has touched British Columbians, has listened to British Columbians and has responded to their priorities in a fashion that says that the hope, the ambition and the promise they see in this province will be realized by this administration: first, by creating a climate that welcomes investment; second, by reducing the deficit; third, by turning to priorities like skills training; and fourth, by stabilizing communities that depend on the forest sector. I think it is a record to be proud of; it's a record we're prepared to campaign on at any time; and it is a record that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would regret having challenged in his presentation today.
D. Schreck: In phrasing my response to the Speech from the Throne, I'd like to divide my comments into three segments. First, I'd like to talk about the nature of throne speeches. Second, I'd like to talk about the application of this throne speech to the people in my constituency of North Vancouver- Lonsdale. Finally, I'd like to talk about the choices facing the people of British Columbia between the vision offered by those opposition benches -- and we finally have a definite opposition leader here to articulate it -- and the choices offered by the leadership shown by our government in the two years of good programs by New Democrats. It's the nature of throne speeches that they tend to be a little on the vague side, and sometimes they are just an inventory hinting at different types of legislation. I'd like to compliment the government for having a throne speech that was fresh and different. Rather than merely having an inventory of legislation, we saw in this throne speech a thematic approach to the concerns of government. Why didn't we see that inventory of legislation? Part of the reason is the change in style of this government: the open public consultation has been going for months now on the legislation that we will see introduced over the next few weeks in this House.
For instance, it's been known for some time that a forest practices code is going to be introduced that will dramatically change and improve forest practices in this province. It was my privilege to work on the legislative committee dealing with the issues of initiative and recall. We all heard the Premier promise that legislation dealing with those recommendations will be introduced in the House in this session. In addition to a forest practices code and initiative and recall, just last week we saw the commitment of this government to changing the bargaining structure to improve provincewide school bargaining for teachers. Open public consultation and work in four key policy areas is right there before the public.
I'm happy to say that in the new seating arrangement, I have the privilege of sitting next to the member for Port Moody- Burnaby Mountain, who, in a private member's statement on a Friday during the last sitting, called on government to do something about the treatment of animals in this province and to strengthen the hand of the SPCA. In my very first speech in this House, I referred to the importance of my cat. A local columnist by the name of Doug Collins -- who has an infamous reputation -- took me to task and ridiculed me because I am concerned about my cat. A few months later, I ran an ad in the North Shore News picturing myself and my cat. That infamous columnist, Doug Collins, attacked me again. Let me tell you, I am proud of my colleague and my constituents who care about animals, and I am proud of our government, who introduced, as the first substantial piece of legislation in this session today, legislation to strengthen the hand of the SPCA to look after animals.
Part of the reason we've seen a new approach to the throne speech is because we no longer need an inventory of legislation that is before the public and being discussed throughout the year; it's not just a surprise at the time of a throne speech. What did we see in the throne speech? We saw four broad themes. What tied it all together was the first and most important theme: the emphasis of this government to eliminate the deficit, to create jobs, to control and eliminate debt and to reduce government spending. This government has listened to the people. This government knows that the priority of the people is the elimination of the deficit, and that is the direction taken by government. It is doing so in a manner that protects services, not the slash-burn-and- destroy approach of Alberta.
I was in a store a few days back, shortly after the Premier's remarks on CBC television. The clerk in the store said to me: can we really believe this promise to freeze taxes for three years? What does it really mean? Every member in this House -- certainly on the government side -- knows that for the last two legislative sittings we faced appeals from the restaurant industry each year: "Do not put a tax on restaurants; do not put a tax on meals." The Premier has promised those restaurateurs that for the next three years they do not have to go through that anguish and anxiety; we
[ Page 9439 ]
are not going to have such taxes. I have had delegations in my constituency office from the brew-it- yourself industry, who are concerned that, as has happened in other jurisdictions, a new tax could be introduced and focused on them. I point to the Premier's comments, and I say to that industry: "Rest assured; we have heard that message. You have the three-year promise and the commitment of our Premier." Those who know the nature of this province and the businesses and people of this province know the specifics of what that three-year guarantee is all about. They know that it is security. They know that it is confidence in the future and in the growth of this province and that it is a commitment to reduce and eliminate the deficit, while at the same time listening to that message from the people: "No new taxes."
I am pleased not only with the promises regarding the Forest Practices Code and recall and initiative, the commitment to free collective bargaining for teachers on a provincewide basis, the work my friend and colleague has done in the SPCA for animals, and the broad themes of the Legislature and the government that have been introduced, but also with the work the government is doing on capital projects that apply to my constituency. I have to say, though, that despite the fact that we are one happy family on the government side, I will not hesitate to speak out for my constituents and hold the government's feet to the fire in order to get projects like the Westview interchange.
There is a backlog of transportation projects in this province that total over $10 billion. Why do we have that backlog? We have it because of mismanagement by the former government. We have it because that government fast-tracked the Coquihalla, throwing hundreds of billions of dollars away; because a former government took the most expensive avenue for rapid transit; and because a former government misplaced its priorities. And now each of the members in this House must scramble to draw attention to our projects first, because somebody has to go first. I want to tell my friends on the government benches that I will not rest until my project, the Westview interchange, is done. There is no excuse for not having that project begin today. It should have been completed yesterday. At every opportunity I will be holding my friends' feet to the fire and saying: "Listen to my constituents. We want that project." I'm happy to say that I have assurance from the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways that the Westview interchange is recognized as a high priority for government.
I'm now calling on my colleagues to listen to the funding priority as well. It's important in terms of the blockage of traffic up to Whistler. It's important in terms of the blockage of traffic to the ferry terminal at Horseshoe Bay. On a Friday night a person can sit in that lineup for two or three miles. It is not only a priority in terms of transportation; I'm calling on the government to make it a priority in terms of funding as well.
Another transportation project on the North Shore is the Lions Gate Bridge. I've been listening to my constituents, and they need more information. About 25 percent tell me to leave it alone. They tend to agree with the early statements of the Leader of the Official Opposition, which, if I heard him correctly, were essentially to say: "Cut off the North Shore; ignore its transportation needs. You don't have to do any work on the bridge." I have to say that in terms of the impact on Stanley Park, I'm a little bit empathetic with that position myself and resistant to change. But I've listened carefully to my constituents, and 55 to 65 percent say: "Build a third crossing with a tunnel."
I am taking this and every other occasion to keep government informed of the wishes of my constituents. The primary thing my constituents demand is a fair and open process -- which we are embarked on now -- and not rushing into a decision until all of their proposals, needs and considerations are heard. I'm looking forward to working with the Transportation Financing Authority, the Minister of Transportation and Highways and all colleagues on both sides of this House in coming to a solution for the transportation needs of the North Shore and a replacement, repair or third crossing for the Lions Gate Bridge.
[3:30]
My constituents tell me about more than just the process for the Lions Gate Bridge and the need to get on with Westview yesterday. They also tell me that they want an end to waste in administration. I was pleased to spur the discussion on administrative waste in the school system on the North Shore. I was delighted to see the Minister of Education firmly comment a few weeks ago that there will be a strong hand taken and that school administration will not only be fixed in a budget sense but strictly regulated to stop school boards from constantly spending over budget on administrative expenses.
On CBC television a few weeks ago I was delighted to hear the Premier make the same comments with respect to health care. He said in no uncertain terms that waste in administration and health care has to come to an end and that it's going to be strongly investigated and strongly regulated.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
I'm pleased to say that I'm here to act as an advocate, first and foremost, for my constituents. I'm proud of the record of government. I'm proud of the legislation that's been discussed in the public. I'm proud of the themes of the budget speech. Having said that, I shall also show no reluctance to hold government's feet to the fire for the needs of my constituents.
But how would those needs be addressed? Would the official opposition form an alternative government? We've heard a few hints in this throne speech debate. I think we can capsulize it in the sense of who represents whom. To most of my constituents, $20 an hour is about a typical wage. A lot of my constituents look at that as a very good wage -- more than they make now. A person phoned me the other day saying that her sons were 30 years old and were laid off and looking for new work. They had been doing roofing at $10 an hour; they would only wish that they could make $20 an hour. A $20-an-hour job is about $40,000 a year, and that's the income level -- $30,000 to $40,000 a year -- that most British Columbians enjoy.
Most British Columbians are not in the six-figure set. They don't have an income of $100,000 and over. What I would put to you is the alternative before this House and before the people of British Columbia. Are the New Democrats representing the majority of British Columbians -- the working people of British Columbia - - versus the official opposition, that Liberal Party, representing the six-figure set? How does that opposition pose a vision for the six-figure set on the backs of the majority of British Columbians? Let's take an example. Let's look at one of the first statements made by that Leader of the Opposition in response to the Speech from the Throne. He called on demolishing the Labour Code put forward by this government.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
[ Page 9440 ]
What does he mean when he says that? He says he wants to go back to an era where the employer has a free period to attack certifications and run the union out of town. In nine out of ten provinces in this nation, unions gain certification by having membership cards signed. The employer does not have a window of opportunity to run the union out of town. As one of his first promises in this House, we hear the Leader of the Opposition offering to modify the Labour Code to run the union out of town, to restore conflict to this province. The vision that should be offered is the vision of security, growth, prosperity and confidence, and instead we hear an initial promise by that Leader of the Opposition to bring conflict back to British Columbia.
What else does that Leader of the Opposition offer by way of vision, or lack thereof? The Leader of the Opposition said that they would somehow change the appointment process for boards and commissions. We know that Liberals know well of patronage. It was the Trudeau Liberals that more or less invented the term; it was the Trudeau Liberals that on their way out appointed every friend and relative they had ever seen. The new federal Liberal government, within weeks of its election, changed the head of the Vancouver Port Corporation, which then immediately embarked on a controversial decision that's before this province now.
I say to you, hon. Speaker, that these provincial cousins to those federal Liberals had better talk to the people and show us that they've learned anything, because what we've seen is that they've learned nothing.
What our government has done on appointments to boards and commissions, for the first time in this province, is assure that half of the appointments are women and that people with disabilities and various visible minorities are actually in leadership positions as volunteers on college boards, on Crown corporations and on the thousands of jobs that go without remuneration and end up providing the governance for the vast bulk of the public sector. The face of British Columbia is finally reflected on the boards and commissions in this province. What we hear from the Liberal leader is a criticism of that commitment to equality and the suggestion that we would return to the patronage days of the federal Liberals. I say shame, hon. Speaker.
We heard another reference from the Leader of the Opposition to an alternative in responding to the leadership shown by this government and to protecting free collective bargaining by changing the bargaining structure for teachers to provincewide bargaining, which is something called for by many of the teachers who have spoken to me, by many of the school trustees who have spoken to me and overwhelmingly by the general public that has spoken to me. What alternative vision is offered? We hear the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party leader, saying that they would wipe out free collective bargaining, that there would be no commitment to arbitration and that there would be Alberta- style, double-digit cutbacks. What we see is a frontal attack on the education system, the teachers and the public of this province by that Leader of the Opposition. I say shame, hon. Speaker.
In conclusion, I've tried to deal with three things. I've pointed out that we have an accomplished throne speech -- a proud throne speech that did not have to go through the many legislative accomplishments that we will see over the next few weeks, because we've already heard about the Forest Practices Code, about recall, about provincewide bargaining and about, as was introduced today, a commitment to the protection of animals. We've seen in the throne speech a commitment to eliminating the deficit, to getting the growth in government spending down and to rooting out waste.
Hon. Speaker, I serve notice on the government that while I'm proud of those accomplishments, my first and foremost job is to fight for my constituents. They are going to be hearing about Westview not only three or four times a day but every time I open my mouth, until the bulldozers are on that intersection doing that work.
I've looked at the alternative vision offered by that Leader of the Opposition, and I say that the people have a choice: a march back to the past to defend the six-figure income set versus the record of this government committed to improving the lives of the majority of British Columbians. I'm proud to be a New Democrat; I'm proud to be on the government benches.
C. Tanner: The throne speech we heard delivered was prefaced a few days earlier by a talk from the Premier in which he claimed that there were going to be no new taxes. The basis of this government's next two years in office is that there are going to be no new taxes. I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion that's a joke. This government and this Premier and this party weren't satisfied with going on TV. They weren't satisfied with having the Lieutenant- Governor make a speech on their behalf. They even run ads in the newspapers and on the radio -- at our expense, not their expense -- to tell us that there will be no new taxes. That isn't true.
They didn't have to impose any taxes this year. For the past two years all they've been doing has been imposing new taxes on the people of British Columbia to such an extent that they don't need to impose any more. They've got it all coming in, and what they've missed, they're going to get in the way of fines or fees or in some other underhanded way -- through B.C. Hydro or any other Crown corporation they can invent. They've already laid the groundwork for the taxation that they'll require in the future. They did that in the past two years. In this coming year they're just going to find some other more subtle ways of taking the money out of our pockets.
It's almost like we have a good cop, bad cop routine. For the past two years we've had a Finance minister who did all the nasty, rough stuff -- all the taxing. Now we've got a new Minister of Finance who is going to appear to be a hero because she doesn't have to do it anymore. The dirty work has all been done, and we're supposed to appreciate that. We've been fleeced already. We don't need a continuation of the same thing. There's nothing left to take.
The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin said that he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition that small business is essential to British Columbia. I can understand why, because what he should have said is that there's no business too small to tax. What he should have said is that if it's business, we'll tax it, because it's easier to tax business. They have no voice as individuals; they've got no vote. They can tax them, and they think that they're satisfying the needs of the population as a whole. What they're really doing is taxing the ability of business to find jobs for the public at large.
They claim in the throne speech that they're going to make more new jobs. That's another joke. The government doesn't create jobs; they create an atmosphere in which business -- the tourist industry, the lumber industry through exports, and any small business -- can make jobs. It's no thanks to this government that jobs are created. They only create an atmosphere in which business can create jobs. For them to claim that they've created the most new jobs is nonsense. Business created the most new jobs. The 60,000
[ Page 9441 ]
new people who chose to come to British Columbia created new jobs. In fact, this government is making it more difficult to create jobs in this province.
The whole Ministry of Education is in such turmoil that not only are they not creating jobs, they're probably going to reduce jobs. They have done half the job as far as having provincewide bargaining, but why didn't they do the rest of the job? Why didn't they do the other unions at the same time? If you don't want strikes on an individual basis, why aren't the other unions that work in schools suffering the same jurisdiction that teachers are? And why haven't they gone the whole hog and made it an essential service, like the Leader of the Opposition asked for? They're going to have strikes on a provincewide basis now, and children, teachers and the public are not going to be served.
The Health ministry is in tatters. This government has imported bureaucrats from all across the country, and now they have people in charge who don't understand the system; they don't understand British Columbia. They've got the health departments in every hospital in turmoil. They've got every local society that has for many, many years worked hard and diligently to bring various services to the public all upset because they don't know where they stand. Is that creating jobs?
The forests are in revolt. The people who work in forests in this province, particularly on this island, don't know whether they've got a job in the future or not. How is that creating jobs? Their commissioner has absolutely established the fact that jobs are going to be lost. Not only that, they've shown absolutely no leadership. They've had others try to make the decision for them, and, in fact, they haven't had a decision at all. They've just created more turmoil.
The so-called Highways ministry has been gutted of any decision-making ability except maintenance; it is making decisions on an ad hoc basis. They're designing highways as they go. They change their decisions as they're building. They're creating a totally inferior department, and they're not accomplishing anything. They might be creating jobs, but if they are, they've got to be union jobs, because you're not allowed to be non-union on the highway anymore.
[3:45]
On top of that, they've got some tricky way of financing the whole system, where a 1-cent tax on gas and a little extra tax on car hire is a way of financing, and on the strength of that they go out in a Crown corporation and borrow millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and then say they're reducing the deficit. It's nonsense; they're just moving it over to a Crown corporation.
Minister of Finance? She should now really be called the Minister of Revenue. All she does is collect taxes; she doesn't do anything more. Anything the Finance ministry used to do is now being moved to another department. What's it called? The Ministry of Employment and Investment. What does that mean? Really, we've now got two ministers of revenue in Victoria: a federal one and a provincial one. That's all they are. They just collect tax; they don't do anything else.
And who's in charge here? Who's the Premier of this province? Is beating up on a Social Services minister showing how in charge he is? Is firing three-quarters of his cabinet in the first two years -- the two years that he's so proud of -- and firing everybody in sight proving who's in charge? His Environment minister no sooner gets appointed than he contradicts the Premier. His Employment and Investment minister tells different stories than the Premier does. His Education minister has been fired. His Government Services minister was fired. His Finance minister was replaced; Small Business minister, replaced; Environment minister, replaced; Forests minister, replaced; Health minister, replaced; Social Services minister, accommodated; and Municipal Affairs minister, rebuked.
Only three of all those people that did that great job are left. And who are they? The Attorney General, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Women's Equality are the only three. All the others have been replaced. The ones we're so proud of -- they've done such a great job -- we've changed them all. That doesn't sound like a government that's not in trouble to me. So much for the Premier's judgment. I would call it a government in upheaval. And who pays? We do. The taxpayers of this province pay. We pay because this Premier, his cabinet, his colleagues and that party on the other side of the House don't know what they're up to.
And who is left to oppose them? Only the Liberals, under our new leader. Of course we could choose, if we wanted to, to have a no-House status like the Socreds, or we could choose the ultra- conservative Reform Party, or we could choose the Allied Independents Inc. But who do we choose to oppose the government's inept manner of running the government? Only the Liberals are left.
Incidentally, the speaker before me was talking about the fact that they represent 60 percent of the population. I don't agree. Forty percent of the population voted for them, and now they'd be very hard pressed to find 21 percent of the population that would vote for them.
An Hon. Member: They got 2 percent in Matsqui.
C. Tanner: They got lucky.
The Liberal Party is the only one that offers an intelligent alternative. The speech by the leader of this party, in answer to the Speech from the Throne, was a reasonable alternative that was probably far more representative of this province and these voters than anything the NDP have done. They haven't kept their promises. They've been inept in government, and they don't deserve to stay there.
J. Tyabji: It's unfortunate that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove wasn't ready to do his speech -- not that I would detract from the eloquence of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. It would be very interesting to hear from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, seeing as he is the new House Leader, but I guess he's still preparing.
When we have the opportunity to address and reply to the Speech from the Throne, we have to look back on the government's record and on the government's previous commitments to the people of the province, made both in their election campaign and brochures and, of course, in previous speeches from the throne. In looking through previous speeches from the throne, I want to highlight some things that were mentioned before to see if this government is really committed to the things that are outlined here. For example, we have a commitment to a "process of public consultation on...major policy issues affecting our citizens." We have a commitment to "balance business and environmental policy." We have commitments stating that the government "must not depart from the rigour of firm and sound policies made necessary by today's economic reality." These are all things we heard yesterday, and that I'm reading from a previous speech. We have a commitment that "a disciplined budgetary framework within which economic growth, environmental integrity, job security and social services are maintained." We have the commitment that government "can only spend what taxpayers can afford."
[ Page 9442 ]
We heard repeatedly from our Premier during the election campaign that government economic policies will stress attraction of new industry and creation of investment and employment opportunities throughout our regions, and we heard that yesterday, as well. We've seen that maximizing British Columbia's development potential through economic diversification, with an economic climate conducive to growth through private sector investments, sustainable economic development promotion, and emphasizing communication is a commitment. This was all read out yesterday as well.
Government is "working effectively with the private sector to enhance and expand export opportunities." The Premier has said that before, and we heard it in yesterday's speech. It's also in the speech that I'm reading that the "government's programs will improve forest utilization and health, and promote integrated resource management." That, too, happens to be a key point of yesterday's Speech from the Throne. "British Columbia is recognized internationally for integrating environmental and economic factors in approving proposals for new mining operations." We've heard that from this government. Yesterday we also heard that a "knowledge-based economy is emerging in British Columbia, and human resource development is essential to this modern economy." This was one of the key points of yesterday's Speech from the Throne. And one of the most important ones in this government's platform -- which is in this speech as well -- is: "Government social policy must increase the opportunity for citizens to make individual choices and foster independence and personal growth" -- in particular, to have programs to "bridge the transition to gainful employment." We heard that yesterday as well.
The only difference between yesterday's Speech from the Throne and the one that I'm reading from is that this one is from 1990. It's the Speech from the Throne under the leadership, at that time, of Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm. It is very similar, I might add, to the Speech from the Throne that we heard yesterday.
What are the key differences between yesterday's Speech from the Throne under an NDP government and the Speech from the Throne under Mr. Vander Zalm and the Social Credit government? The difference is that in that former Speech from the Throne -- the one from Mr. Vander Zalm -- there is mention of affordable housing as being a key component of the Speech from the Throne; agriculture and fisheries were recognized as a wealth-generating sectors of the economy and had to be held as important; and waste management was mentioned as something of key importance to the government of the time. The Science Council of British Columbia was specifically named as an avenue for research and development to help the economy and to help the people of the province advance the technology industry.
Senior citizens were mentioned as an important part of our society that had to be recognized for their contributions. Tourism was an important industry that had to be fostered and enhanced through regional development and regional investments. Community water supplies had to be investigated to ensure their adequacy and water quality.
Those elements of the Speech from the Throne yesterday were missing. I find it ironic because, in looking back at the speeches from the throne from this government in the previous two years, some of those elements were in those speeches. Agriculture was peripherally mentioned in the first Speech from the Throne of this government. Certainly we've seen commitment to resolve land use conflicts in the first Speech from the Throne of this government. Yet under the Social Credit government, which I certainly would never have supported at the time.... There seemed to be a more progressive platform outlined in the Speech from the Throne of Mr. Vander Zalm than what we heard yesterday. Yet the points that were the key points in yesterday's Speech from the Throne were being articulated as long as four years ago under Social Credit.
So let's look to some of the things in previous speeches from the throne from this government in reference to the level of confidence we can have in the things put forward in yesterday's Speech from the Throne. First of all, we see that in the 1992 Speech from the Throne there was a lot of talk about restoring the confidence of the public. We have to remember that it was only six months after a very dramatic provincial general election in B.C. and that as we started our first Speech from the Throne, there was a real feeling that the people of this province wanted a dramatic change and that the government was intent on embarking on a plan that would restore the confidence of the public. Yet prior to this session, and certainly in the last session, we have seen issues come before the House that have really shaken the confidence of the public in this government. The issues that I mention would be the Bamberton issue and the issue of casinos.
When this government -- most commendably, I might add -- brought in some conflict-of-interest guidelines that allowed a member of the public to file a conflict-of-interest complaint with Mr. Hughes, we found that Mr. Hughes found an apparent conflict of interest, yet there was no action taken. Well, when you have an issue like Bamberton come before a session -- an issue of that magnitude in terms of the confidence that the public can feel in the process -- and when you have a machine such as a conflict-of-interest complaint that can be launched by a member of the public, and that mechanism is used, and in being used the conflict-of-interest commissioner says: "Yes, I believe there is an apparent conflict of interest...." When the very government that put that in place doesn't act on it, then I think we have a problem in terms of the confidence that the public can feel in the process.
Further to that, we found that the minister who was responsible for Bamberton at the time was moved over to Government Services. As well, that Minister of Government Services was given the gaming act to review. In reviewing the gaming practices, the very minister who was found to be in apparent conflict of interest with Bamberton is going to be the person who will be deciding what we will be doing in the future under this government. There was no mention in the Speech from the Throne about one of the biggest issues that is facing us with regard to whether or not we should have profit gambling. Yet the minister who was found to be in apparent conflict of interest on Bamberton will be deciding whether or not we should legalize profit gambling in this province. That doesn't restore the confidence of the public.
As the speech in 1992 pointed out, there is a need for the public to feel reassured about the governments they elect and the people they elect to represent them. Yet how can they feel confidence when they use the mechanism that's in place and is found to be positive, and nothing is done, and then that person is put in a position of trust with an issue as sensitive as profit gambling.
In addition to that, in the 1992 Speech from the Throne this government said that they would help protect the interests of British Columbians who make their living from the west coast fishery by increasing our involvement in the management of that resource. Hon. Speaker, if you talk to people in the west coast fishery today, they feel like they
[ Page 9443 ]
have nobody on their side from either the provincial government or the federal government. On the contrary, the people in the west coast fishery now feel that the provincial and federal governments are not listening to their concerns, are not willing to act on their concerns and in fact are bringing about policies and initiatives that are in direct contravention to what needs to be done to advance the interests of the west coast fisheries. As that was in the 1992 Speech from the Throne and hasn't been acted on, it's a little ominous that no reference is made to agriculture and fisheries in the 1994 Speech from the Throne.
In the 1992 throne speech we see a large emphasis on environmental initiatives, most particularly on waste management. If I can speak to my riding for a minute -- actually it happens to be technically out of my riding, but the residents of my riding use it -- a landfill there has a history of dumping of potentially contaminating substances, such as PCBs and batteries and tires. Like many landfills, it received all kinds of substances that wouldn't be allowed today. It has a clay base, and there's a potential for groundwater contamination through leachate from the site.
As we sit here, that local government is going for a 260- acre expropriation of land that is currently a working farm. It's in the agricultural land reserve. We sat here in 1992 and listened to this government talking about their commitment to agriculture and fisheries. We know that the commitment to the agricultural land reserve has been expressed a number of times by this government -- and yet nothing is being done. No mention has been made of some 260 acres of one of the most productive farms. I believe the family members who live there are third-generation farmers on that site. They are not happy about the expropriation. They have been unhappy with the fact that the landfill has historically contaminated a small portion of their site and have been in constant negotiations. This issue is before this current government with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Agriculture.
[4:00]
But if there is a commitment to reduce the waste that would be going to that landfill site, surely this government would not allow a 260-acre expropriation. And if there is no legitimate process in place to prevent a local government from that expropriation, then I would recommend to this government that they move through their Agricultural Land Commission to at least freeze the land, as it is designated agricultural land reserve.
That was the 1992 Speech from the Throne. A number of commitments were made in terms of restoring confidence -- a commitment to agriculture and fisheries -- that really haven't even been mentioned in this Speech from the Throne. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if the budget takes us in a different direction from the throne speech. Perhaps we can have some hope for that.
In the 1993 Speech from the Throne we had a promise from the government to provide us with government that is innovative, independent and effective. We know today that that means the implementation of government through Crown corporations. We know that that means a change in the way we finance things that normally go through the operational budget. We had a motion yesterday from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi that recognized that we are going to have an innovative, independent and effective government -- if that's how we define it -- through the Crown corporations. In recognizing that, we will need to look at Crown corporations independent of the operational budgets of the House. We should have an all-parliamentary committee. We should have an avenue to examine Crown corporations in terms of their functions, their accumulated debt loads and how they appear on the books -- whether those debt loads appear as assets. The public deserves to have better accountability of Crown corporations if that is how this government is choosing to meet the expectations of the electorate.
The other thing in the 1993 Speech from the Throne that I find a bit ironic is that the government made a commitment to "lead British Columbians forward to peacefully settle our province's land disputes." When I was the opposition Environment critic -- and as I stand here today as an independent and Alliance member -- I can say that I was very unsettled by the terms of reference of the Commission on Resources and Environment. At the time that it was announced and given those terms of reference, I, and a few others in caucus, expressed extreme nervousness that there wasn't enough of a mandate for the commission to follow through and too much of a mandate if it was only going to be a recommendations board or a talk shop. What we have had is an authoritative body come forward with recommen- dations that were a result of consultation with all the groups at the table, and now we're being told that those recommendations will not be acted on until there's an economic and social impact study. That was exactly the kind of assurance we were looking for when the Commission on Resources and Environment was struck. What will be the precursors to that report being adopted by the government? We know the terms of reference, but the public didn't know them at the time they were participating in all those speeches. So we have a process that is not going to be seen as legitimate. We no doubt have a very frustrated chair of the Commission on Resources and Environment, who on the one hand has the ability to listen to the public and make recommendations, and certainly all the qualifications for it, but on the other hand has no ability to proceed without yet another series of tests being done by the government. We anticipate that on Tuesday of next week approximately 20,000 British Columbians -- as I understand it -- will be on the steps of the Legislature to specifically try to bring the government's attention to the settlement of land use disputes and to the valley-by-valley conflicts that we have.
For the third year in a row this government has been boasting about its record with regard to increases in government spending. For the third year in a row I have to take strong exception to the position being brought forward by the Premier. First of all, we know that in the last two years of Social Credit, government spending increased at a record rate -- I believe it was by 10 percent and 12 percent in the last two years. Those figures might be a little bit off, but it was roughly in double digits for the last two years. As I've said before in this House, this government had an opportunity when they came in to freeze government spending increases. Instead of that, the government has come in three years in a row with increased government spending.
Notwithstanding the very pretty charts and graphs that we saw on CBC the other week, the fact is that each year we increase government spending, it is a cumulative increase, and that means the pie is continually getting bigger. There is no room for the pie to continue to get bigger. The government should not be bragging that the increase in government spending is 50 percent of what it was in the last years of Social Credit, because that is really not a record to be proud of. It is misleading at best to be suggesting to the people of the province that another year of increased government spending is a record that they should be proud of. It is not a record to be proud of. A record to be proud of would be a freeze in government spending or a rollback,
[ Page 9444 ]
perhaps even a rollback on some of the consumption tax increases that we've seen in the last two years.
I want to change the focus of my response to the Speech from the Throne a little bit to talk about mandate and the very things that each of the 75 elected members brings forward with them when they come to the debate in this Legislature. It is, I suppose, with a touch of sarcasm that I can say that this session brings me a completely different perspective on the chamber. But with this new perspective on the chamber, I still have the same mandate, and I think that is at the heart of the value that we can give our constituents when representing them in the House. When one is elected, one is elected based on the campaign platform that one puts forward. If there is anything of value that we can give to our constituents, it is that we will be true to what we represent to them when we stand for election in the general election. It is only in being true to that mandate and platform that someone can stand up with pride, honour and integrity in this House and reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I am happy to say to the House that although I sit as an independent now and although I don't have any title that would confer to me some of the dignity -- perhaps perceived dignity -- that would go with being a member of an official caucus, I can stand and say with pride that I have been true to my constituents; and things that I brought forward, such as the issues of agriculture, small business, the environment and education.... Those principles and that philosophy stay with me today in this seat, with a different perspective. I find it truly regrettable that more members of this House were not prepared to stand on principle when the time came to make a difficult decision. I find it regrettable that for some members of this House money is an issue in terms of loyalty. That's unfortunate.
Going back to the Speech from the Throne, I would like to give notice of a motion for an amendment to the Address in Reply. I move that the motion, "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia...."
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member may simply present her motion.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member taking her seat?
J. Tyabji: I have concluded my debate with the notice of the motion for amendment.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Parksville- Qualicum is rising?
L. Krog: Yes, hon. Speaker. Just so I may be perfectly clear -- you'll pardon my ignorance -- are we speaking to the response to the throne speech or to the amendment?
Deputy Speaker: The amendment is being served as notice and will appear on the order paper.
We will proceed with the debate.
L. Krog: If I could, then, with your leave, hon. Speaker, I'd like to proceed.
Many comments have been made by my colleagues in this House about the throne speech. I noted with interest that one of the former Lieutenant-Governors of this province was here yesterday to hear his successor speak. It's a momentous occasion. Speeches are often not great flights of oratory, but they do speak to what the government represents and stands for.
When I was listening to the throne speech, what I was trying to do was relate it to my constituency; I suspect that many of my colleagues were doing the same thing. What I heard was a tale of success for two and a half years in my constituency. The previous government promised for over two decades that there would be a new Island Highway. In two decades nothing of any substance whatsoever was delivered. The death toll continued to mount. The congestion and the pollution that resulted from that congestion continued to mount. But finally, after 20 years of promises, with the election of this government, that promise was delivered on.
In my constituency alone over $200 million will be spent to build that portion of the Island Highway. It will mean jobs for my constituents, it will mean safe driving, and it will mean a transportation route that will serve this island for decades to come. That's what the throne speech is about, when we talk about long-term job creation and economic growth in British Columbia. It's the leadership of this government and the kind of infrastructure that's necessary. Roads continue to be improved in my constituency. Whether it's the paving of shoulders to allow for pedestrian safety or cyclist safety, or whether it's the Island Highway, this government continues to fulfil its mandate to create something good in this province for the future.
In the area of health, this year in my constituency I will have the privilege and the pleasure of attending the opening of the Eagle Park Health Care Facility in Qualicum Beach. Over 80 long-term and intermediate care beds are being provided to my constituency by this government. They have been needed for years, and this government has delivered upon that promise and that need.
Ambulance service. Some of the urban members may not understand this. My constituency is served by the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, and that means a long ambulance drive. It means that ambulance service is crucial to rural constituencies like mine. I attended a sod-turning ceremony only a few weeks ago for the building of a new ambulance station in Qualicum Beach: $310,000 of government money to provide good access to the Nanaimo hospital for my constituents.
That is the record of this government through B.C. 21 and the record of this government in its commitment to health. Those two projects represent the continuing commitment of this government to the directions set out by the Seaton commission on health in bringing health care closer to home. This means that my constituents will not have to travel to Nanaimo or some other community to visit their aging and sick relatives. They will be able to visit and care for them in their own community, and that is another commitment of this government that we have carried through on.
Talk about education in this province. Talk about building for the future. Talk about skills and training. I've opened two new schools in my constituency in less than six months. Plans are underway for several more. In the north end of Nanaimo, one of the high-growth areas of this province, School District 68 has received further funding and recognition of that high growth. This government has listened to the people of British Columbia.
It has listened to my constituents in the areas of education, health and infrastructure, and it has responded. It has responded strongly and fairly in the same way as it has responded across this province. Decades of neglect of basic infrastructure are being met, and I wish my colleague -- the
[ Page 9445 ]
member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- success in his pursuit of the Westview interchange.
The government has not simply created the vehicle for growth and economic regeneration. It has also addressed some of the very basic needs of people. School District 69, which falls entirely within my constituency, has a school lunch program. It is through those kinds of government programs that government reaches out to the weakest in our society to give them the lift they need to get a decent education. I recall the words of the former members of the government of this province under the Social Credit Party who railed against that kind of proposal and said it was the job of parents. It's all very well to say it's the job of parents to care for their children when they live in an economy that has ground them down, when they live in poverty, when they live on social assistance rates with which they cannot support their families properly.
[4:15]
This government has delivered on a program that will help create a generation of British Columbians prepared to participate in the school system fully, who will get the benefit of the continuing increases in education that this government is responsible for so that we can meet the challenges of the twenty- first century, deliver on the promises of this government, and deliver upon the vision of the throne speech laid out so clearly yesterday.
Some of my colleagues have talked about CORE, and they have suggested that perhaps it wasn't the best way of dealing with land use conflicts. I want to remind everyone in this Legislature where this province was three years ago. It was valley-by-valley confrontation. It was the setting up of antagonistic relationships between the loggers and the environmentalists, and this government delivered again on another promise: the promise of bringing peace and consultation to that process. In two significant areas of this province, CORE has delivered on a consultation process that has resulted in agreement. Unfortunately, on Vancouver Island that process did not come to a conclusion. But it was not through want of trying, and it was not through want of appropriate government policy to deal with that issue.
This government -- and my friend from North Vancouver- Lonsdale put it best -- has consulted so much in this province. This legislative agenda comes as no surprise to anyone in British Columbia. It represents further the fulfilment of our promise to consult, to deliver on our campaign platform, and the fulfilment of our desire to bring some peace to this province.
I could not help but listen with some surprise to the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he talked about going back to the good old days of a Labour Code when the secret ballot was the rule of the day. I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, that the number of certifications of working people in this province granted by the Labour Relations Board indicates pretty clearly to me that the working people of this province know what the Labour Code is all about. I was touched by his remarks about his mother and about being one of four children, because I share that distinction. I'm one of four children of a widowed mother. But I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, that my mother never lost faith in the CCF and she never lost faith in the NDP. That's one of the reasons I'm here today being able to defend that philosophy. She worked hard, and she didn't begrudge paying any taxes because she knew she had a good job, and she was prepared to share. What we do through government in this chamber is simply to ask those who have something more than they need to share it with ordinary, decent working British Columbians who are a little less fortunate. And if that's wrong, all I can say is that we don't only have different visions, we don't live on the same planet politically.
Hon. Speaker, I watched with interest as the Leader of the Opposition concluded his remarks. He was treated to a round of applause from his colleagues, who all stood up in honour of his speech. First, I think it's appropriate that I welcome the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to the chamber, and the member for Matsqui; I wish them well in the debates in this House. But I've got to tell you, hon. Speaker, that what I heard today from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition has inspired me -- if I ever had any doubts about running again in this province -- to run in the next election. I heard a vision of British Columbia that I didn't like. I heard a vision of British Columbia articulated to appeal only to the strong, the rich and the greedy; it has nothing to do with helping working people in this province. To talk about the secret ballot in the Labour Relations Code and then to turn around and call for teachers being declared an essential service and deny them the right to bargain collectively is the height of hypocrisy. You either believe in the rights of working people to organize collectively in order to protect themselves against employers or you don't. You either believe in their rights or you don't. You cannot talk about taxes and about helping working people and at the same time deny them the ability to organize in order to secure decent wages and decent working conditions.
The signing-up of union cards is a longstanding tradition of the trade union movement, and it's recognized in every progressive province in this country. I find it absolutely incredible that the Leader of the Opposition, who comes before this House to talk about his vision for the future, in fact wants to turn the train around so quickly that it will be off the tracks. He wants to head us back to the days of the land barons and the privileged few, as far as I can see. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale put it best: the vast majority of British Columbians are not six-figure income earners. They are not the hounds of Howe Street who support the Liberal Party today. They are not the major corporations who will leave this province tomorrow, the minute they can't get access to our resources at cut rates.
Hon. Speaker, what this party represents and what the throne speech represents is the articulated vision of ordinary British Columbians who want to have a say in their future, who want to look forward to a future and who are prepared to make some commonsense sacrifices to get there.
I note with interest that the Leader of the Opposition talked about the increase in personal disposable income. He talked about the heydays of the sixties when it was 34 percent, of the seventies when it was 22 percent, of the tragic eighties - - the me generation -- when it was only 0.5 percent, and he talks about how it has declined in the nineties. I never heard the word sustainability used once in that long speech to this House.
If what we read and hear and see and understand has any relation to reality, then surely we have to appreciate that we cannot go back to the days of mining in parks, as the opposition has suggested. We cannot go back to the days of just cutting the forest wherever we saw it. We cannot return to the kind of prosperity, if you will, that we enjoyed then. We are in a new age and in a new world where the wealth will not be concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot expect that our nation would continue to enjoy that kind of lifestyle. It's not sustainable.
I want the opposition to remember that word sustainable, because this government -- in the Forest Practices Code, in the Commission on Resources and Environment and in the timber supply review that it has undertaken -- is looking
[ Page 9446 ]
honestly and fairly to the future and is being direct and honest with the people of British Columbia.
This government could ignore entirely Mr. Owen's recommendations for Vancouver Island. We could let the loggers in Port Hardy and Port McNeill and Gold River keep on logging at the same rate year after year until they were absolutely out of jobs and their communities were devastated. This government will not do that. This government has a responsibility to do more than spout rhetoric about a return to something that we cannot return to. It has a duty to face the future squarely and fairly. The future is looking us in the face. Our ability to meet that future will be measured by our ability to make the tough decisions that we're making now. The Commission on Resources and Environment is one of those tough decisions.
The Tatshenshini represents one of those tough decisions. It is saying that the planet cannot continue to be exploited. We're setting aside an appropriate percentage of this province in perpetuity through the protected-areas strategy. We're asking that some lungs, if you will, be retained in the body politic of British Columbia that allows us to remain here. It is that kind of leadership that is represented by what this government proposed in the throne speech.
If working families are worse off in this province, it is not because of this government; it is because the previous government tolerated a cut-and-run strategy and failed to care for the interests of working people. What I heard from the Leader of the Opposition was that if somehow we went back, working people would be better off. If we just keep filling this enormous vessel such that the strong, the rich and the greedy can't consume it all, it will spill over the side and help all those lovely working people that the Leader of the Opposition pretends to have such empathy for. I don't see any empathy over there. I see anti-labour and pro-big business. I don't see pro-education. All I hear is cutting.
The Leader of the Opposition has talked about it in the press. He is quoted and reported as saying that he wants to return the provincial budget to 15 percent of the gross provincial product. It's at 20 percent now. Let me tell you what that represents. If we did that, it would mean lost revenue to the government of British Columbia of $5 billion. Five billion dollars means that we could close all the hospitals in British Columbia and half of all B.C. schools, colleges and universities, and then we'd have met the magic 15 percent, and we'd have balanced the budget. Well, all I can say is: way to go. Is that what the people of British Columbia voted for in the last election? No, I don't think so. With great respect, the miserable turnout of voters in Matsqui and Vancouver-Quilchena didn't exactly resoundingly support that vision either.
Hon. Speaker, this government has taken tough decisions, and it will continue to take tough decisions because it's prepared to meet the future squarely, as I indicated.
In my constituency a number of women work for the government service; a number of them work here in Victoria. There are thousands of women in this province working for the government service. They got a wage increase. The Leader of the Opposition says it's too high, it's too much, it's wrong and it's awful. What the Leader of the Opposition overlooks is pay equity. He overlooks the miserable working conditions of women in this province who have continued for generation after generation without any hope of having their condition alleviated. This government, in its settlement with the British Columbia Government Employees' Union, helped those women, and that's nothing to be ashamed of.
I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have had more sympathy for them, and that he would have appreciated giving a lift to those at the bottom as not only right, but also good politics. It's good for the tax base of British Columbia, because more dollars in their pockets means more money spent; it means more revenue, and it's good for business.
H. Giesbrecht: Look how they fired their legislative assistants.
L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I hear a suggestion that I should comment on what happened to the staffers in the Liberal office. I'm not going to comment on that. That shameful act has already been well reported in the press.
In my constituency, child care is important. This government has funded a study of the needs for child care in Parksville- Qualicum. That study is now completed. Now they can move forward to the next stage of that review. They can talk about getting some funding to enhance the number of day care spaces. If you want to talk about helping the economy of British Columbia, then you want to give confidence to the parents in this province that their children can be cared for while they work, because if there's anything we've learned, we know now that women in this province are absolutely essential to our economy. The image of stay-at-home moms, that chauvinist model, is long gone, thank God, and we have women out there who are supporting their families on their own and who need decent child care. This government, through the establishment of the Ministry of Women's Equality, has delivered on that.
Hon. Speaker, I must make a confession to my colleagues in this House. I have been committing a little philosophical adultery of late. I have put myself to bed for the last three nights reading the memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. All I can suggest is that this has clearly not been happening over on the Liberal side of this House, because if they took some time to read Mr. Trudeau's memoirs, they would recall those lovely words "the just society." I don't hear much about the just society from the Liberal Party anymore. I hear about a party that's concerned about keeping working people down, and that's concerned about cutting and cutting into the heart of government expenditure to the point where every thinking person knows it will lead to the killing of this province's economy.
[4:30]
Mr. Trudeau introduced the progressive tax rate. The Liberal Party in this country once spoke to some moderating influence between what they saw as the extreme left and the extreme right. What we have now in British Columbia is not the Liberal Party of old; we have the new Liberal Party -- the Liberal Party that has tossed aside its leader, who was seen as too progressive, and that has now solidly centred itself on Howe Street to protect the interests of the people who have exploited this province and its working people for generations. It is with great surprise that I see some of those Liberals still remaining in that caucus.
There are alternatives to what was outlined as the vision of the Liberal Party today. Those alternatives are in part outlined in the throne speech and in the record of this government. They are outlined in legislation that deals with pay equity and with forest practices; they are outlined in legislation that will deal with skills training for the twenty-first century. It is a very different vision. It is a vision that inspires me and that I believe will inspire British Columbians. It is a vision that I don't think the members of the opposition have any ability to even understand.
Fairness and balance are important. No one wishes to be dealt with unfairly; everyone wishes to be heard. Through consultation, this government -- whether it was in the
[ Page 9447 ]
Labour Code, or whether it is with respect to employment standards, legislation dealing with mobile homes or legislation dealing with animals -- has consulted, and continues to consult. Sometimes that process takes a little longer, and it's a little harder. It's not as simple and as dramatic as just making a nice, quick decision and saying: "To blazes with the consequences."
What comes out of it is a better society in which people know that they've been consulted and have been heard. I suppose that's what the vision of this government is about. It's about fairness and about balance. It's about listening. It's about taking this province out of its frontier way of thinking and positioning it, ready to take advantage of the technology, the education and the needs of a new society for the twenty-first century. It's a vision that you can appreciate. It's a vision you can understand. It's a vision that the voters of this province, I believe, will understand in the next election. It's a vision that I am proud to support.
We only have to look across the border of our province to Alberta to see the other method of achieving financial success in terms of balancing budgets. What we see across the border is the vision of Reagan, of Thatcher and of people who are desperate to preserve systems of economics and politics that exploit the vast majority for the benefit of the few. It is not the wealthy in Alberta who have been attacked. The Premier of Alberta has not asked the business people in the province to play one less game of golf a month. The Premier of Alberta has not asked them to give up club memberships or pay a little extra tax. He has asked the teachers to get laid off. He has asked students to have a worse education. He has asked the sick to go without care.
Hon. Speaker, that is exactly what I hear from the opposition. It is an ugly, cruel and mean-spirited approach. It is not an approach which educated, thinking British Columbians are prepared to support. It is not a vision consistent with the ideals of the vast array of religions that are represented in this House and in this province. It is not consistent with that which is good in all of us. It is with great pleasure that I can say that this government, through its throne speech, has once again tried to articulate something that is good and that appeals to the good in all of us.
This government will balance its budget. It will not do it on the backs of working people or by taking money from the hands of working mothers; it will not do it by taking the food from children who are hungry in schools. It will do it by addressing the financial needs of the people of this province fairly. It has done it by an increase in taxation, which I think is absolutely justifiable. It has done it by making cuts in expenditures where they're not necessary. It is something we can all be incredibly proud of.
The Liberal Party has made its choice, and we have heard its words spoken today. I am ever so happy to see the Liberal Party represented by a new leader who articulates their vision most clearly, because if there has been a difficulty for this government and for me as an MLA in the last couple of years, it has been the inability to say in clear terms to the voters how we were different. There was no opposition. The Social Credit Party was busily searching for a new leader; the Liberal Party was busy getting rid of its old leader and trying to find a new leader. We now have a new leader in this chamber, and we have a clearly united Liberal Party standing and rallying around its new leader, who is ready to support something that will now give me the ability to contrast myself and this government with it. That is exactly what I've talked about for nearly half an hour -- a different vision.
I am very pleased indeed to see the Liberal Party rallying around its leader and articulating its vision, because I can go back to my constituents now and tell them in no uncertain terms what is being represented. If a Liberal government was elected in this province it would mean the cancellation of the construction of the Island Highway. It would mean the cutting-off of funding for schools. It would mean decreases in education spending, decreases in health and social services. It would mean cutting the people in this province who can least of all afford to take that cut, and it would mean tax breaks for those who don't need them.
This government has finally found something it can measure itself against; it's a yardstick that I'm pleased to see. It's a yardstick that this member and my constituents will be happy to look at and measure this government against. It's a yardstick of mean-spiritedness; it's a yardstick for measuring the strong, the rich and the greedy. I am as pleased as punch to end my words today by saying that this government, through the throne speech, has again said clearly to British Columbians that we are going to approach the future with a strong hand, a warm heart and a generous spirit, consistent with this party's ideals through the decades. There is no better place to look than at the Liberal Party to see how different we are.
J. Beattie: I was concerned that maybe I wouldn't be able to present a speech that would be acceptable to my constituents. The ideas might not be as coherent as I might like, but I can say now that regardless of how I speak today, I have something to send to my constituents. The passion that the prevous speaker has brought to the Legislature this afternoon is the embodiment of the spirit that created his movement and my movement, which is the driving force in this province today, and will be in the future.
I'd like to honour the hon. member, but I'd like to take a few moments before I speak about the throne speech to honour one of my constituents who died just a few days ago -- a very close friend of mine and a close friend of the many activists in this province who have worked to make British Columbia a better place. John Cameron was a newcomer to Penticton, but he was a son of British Columbia -- born and raised. He passed away on March 7. He was a man of great honesty, of great integrity. Before I say a few more words about John, I want to read into the record a poem by Dylan Thomas. I know many of you will be familiar with this poem, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night":
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their failed deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with fierce tears, I pray,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.[ Page 9448 ]
This is a poem of hope. This is a poem of a future, even against the tragedy of death. My friend John Cameron -- a friend to many of my constituents -- was a wise man. He was a strong advocate for peace and spent his life working for peace. John was a good man. He was active in Ten Days for World Development. He worked with the church and with many people to bring a different type of hope and development around the world. John was a wild man. Six years ago, when he was 71, he rode across Canada on his bicycle. Last summer, a few months before his death, he rode up Vancouver Island, then to the Queen Charlottes and toured. John was a grave man. He never lost sight of the complexity of the world and the part that he had to play in shouldering responsibilities to deal with the complexities of our community, our society and of our world. He always put his resolve into solving those problems. His family held a wonderful service at his death. Many people from diverse parts of my community were at his honouring. I want to extend my deepest heartfelt thanks to his wife Coral, and to his children, for what they and John did for British Columbia.
[4:45]
The province of British Columbia has been going through a great deal of change in the two years since this New Democratic government took office. Much of the change that has happened in this province has been embodied in the process that we've introduced, through approaching the resolution of problems with a new perspective, a new openness and a new fairness.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I recently received a letter -- which I am sure many members in the House received -- from the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., signed by the chair, Mark Angelo. He was commenting to us specifically about the CORE process on the Vancouver Island land use plan. I think it's important to read the last two paragraphs of this letter into the record since they exemplify the view of many in this province about the new type of openness and consultative methods that are at work and are resolving problems in this province:
"Never before has there been in our province such effective and constructive participation in decision-making by those affected. Government ministries have never before worked together as cooperatively, nor provided as much information and analysis, as they did for the Vancouver Island table. And never before has the public had as much access to information and the opportunity to assess and understand the consequences of potential land use decisions. This participation and access cannot now be taken away.
"We know from discussions with other sectors that participated in the Vancouver Island process that our conclusions are shared by all but those who prefer to maintain the status quo -- a course which is not sustainable and would lead to severe economic, social and environmental problems within the next two decades."
The experience of those who sat at the CORE table on Vancouver Island is experienced throughout this province, and not only at the CORE table. The fairness, balance and openness that has been presented by this government from our pre-election strategy through all of our endeavours in the last two years have resulted in a new openness in government, in fairness in government representing all aspects of our community, and in a balanced approach at the table that does not cater to one side or the other.
I heard the hon. member of the opposition say that we've chosen the easy way. This is not the easy way. Hon. members, we've chosen the way of consensus and of consultation. This is the challenge. From the openness of our process, we've been calling people to the table and we've been calling people for input. The CORE process is but one example of how we've made an entreaty to people -- if that's the correct word -- to come forward and speak to us about what their needs are. And we've said that we will include their views to the best of the government's ability. CORE is one example, and freedom of information is also a good example. This is a policy that this government has brought forward in the last two years. We've said to people -- as Mark Angelo said -- that we want ministries to open up. We want to guarantee that we will provide that information. The CORE process has been able to do that, and ministries have opened up. But we're saying that that has to go throughout government. That's the kind of process we want to see.
We're bringing forward a new type of approach to the protected areas strategy. We're saying that 12 percent of the province has to be protected. We've opened up the protected areas strategy, and we're holding hearings around the province. I know that in my region in May there will be public meetings to talk about Brent Mountain and Lacoma Lake and to have public input. But we've already designated those areas, and we're protecting them. We're saying that the process has to be fair to the extent that there's not going to be some steamroller move through. This is the type of attitude that I think is beginning to show the public in B.C. that this government is committed to fairness, openness and balance.
I hear the member talk about the North Island. I want to say on the record that at the end of the day, the CORE process, as a process for input and consultation, could have been no better than what it was. If at the end of the day people have to walk away from the table refusing the opportunity, abdicating their responsibility to achieve consensus, that's something that the government will deal with. We will deal with it through the eyes of a fine man, Mr. Stephen Owen, whom I think all of the province has a great deal of trust in. I believe that that individual will take the information fairly and, as a result of the fact that consensus has not been arrived at, bring forward at least the second-best recommendations. This government has said in the throne speech that we will move on those recommendations, but we will not do so until the economic strategy and the job strategy are in place.
Another example of this government's vision regarding acknowledging the needs of British Columbians is in our forthcoming legislation and package on skills and training. We have made substantial moves towards addressing the needs of the public, because the public has spoken to this government in regard to education, the direction of education, the direction of educational institutions and the needs of the business community. We will be introducing a new package which will represent all of those diverse interests. We didn't draw those ideas out of the ether; they came to us because we reached out to the public of British Columbia.
A further example of a process which shows no intent to direct is the New Directions process which is being administered by the Minister of Health. This process is fraught with pitfalls, risk and danger, but we have given the public of British Columbia the responsibility to create new health boards, to create local health councils. At the end of the day we've said: "You in Prince George-Omineca will have the responsibility for creating the type of health governance you want." This policy is based on faith in ordinary British Columbians managing their health resources. That trust never came from any other government.
[ Page 9449 ]
In the main, hon. members, our initiatives are directed at the empowerment of the people of British Columbia; that is the politics of hope. That is the only hope: that people can, at the end of the day, control how their tax dollars are spent. We have not backed away. That is not the easy way; that is the way we have chosen. I challenge anyone to say that we have not embarked on a new direction which is supported by the people of British Columbia.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: The member for Prince George-Omineca wants to deal with some specifics which this government has been very open about and has dealt with publicly. In fact, this government has always been humble enough to acknowledge any miscue. We've even taken information from the independent who was once a Socred. We have listened to that member speak; often he speaks well on municipal affairs. We have never shied away from taking advice from the opposition. Most of the time we've had to ignore it because it wasn't quite up to the standards of ordinary British Columbians.
Hon. Speaker, I listened very intently to the throne speech yesterday. I went through a series of moods about it. At the end of the day I saw the throne speech as a light shone on the record of this government, on its achievements. The throne speech delivered by the Lieutenant-Governor was able to highlight the positive initiatives of this government in a way that said that we're not embarked on a radical course to change the face of British Columbia. In the months and years leading up to this throne speech -- as the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano said -- we spoke openly about our initiatives. Yesterday's throne speech highlighted a vision of the future that has already been stated through the Premier's address, through our discussion of the Forest Practices Code, through the discussion of our new programs for education at the post-secondary level and through the discussion of water stewardship. We have no surprises. We have been very forthright in our agenda. That's why the throne speech contained no surprises but was a light to highlight the good work that this government has done over the last two years.
The fiscal policy of this government, although derided by the members opposite, speaks for itself. Jobs in this province are up. One-third of all the jobs in Canada were created in this province in the last two years -- a 2.2 percent increase in February, a 3 percent increase in employment last year.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: You can say what you want. The figures speak for themselves. More people are working in this province now than has ever been the case.
With regard to the deficit, a projected deficit was left to this government by Social Credit. We addressed that in an open and honest way. We opened the books. We did what had to be done, and we have reduced the deficit by $1 billion. In the coming year there will be a further reduction of that deficit. The Premier has said that at the end of the fiscal cycle in 1996 there will be no deficit in this province -- and that will be done with no tax increases. There is nothing more to be said about that. It is a commitment of this government; it is a commitment of the Premier.
Not only have we improved the fiscal situation in this province much more than have many provinces in this country, we have done so at the same time that we supported social services, education and health. No government in this country has increased the support to those essential services as much as this government.
Last week, after this government introduced the new approach to teacher bargaining, I was waiting for a lot of phone calls. I was waiting for dissent. There were some members of the teaching profession who indicated a concern about the loss of autonomy. We discussed it in a way that addressed their concerns, and I stated my concerns. But a number of people, teachers included, said two things: "Jim, I saw the Premier on television. I agree with what he said. We must take control of our fiscal situation, and I agree with the way he's doing it. Secondly, I'm in full support of the need and of his move to bring further accountability to teacher bargaining in this province by reducing the costs of bargaining." This was a teacher who is not a member of this party, but who, like most British Columbians, is looking for a vision of how to address the important concerns and challenges of this province.
The issues I've addressed represent the positive moves we've made in addressing the fiscal situation. To tell you the truth, I am more proud of our record on social policy and legislation in general. I'm going to be one of the proudest people in Okanagan- Penticton when the Forest Practices Code comes together in the coming months. We are enforcing some of the strictest forest practices regulations in the world. We've made a strong step toward bringing sustainability to our forest resources, and I'll be very honoured to be part of the government that's done that.
[5:00]
Our new jobs strategy in the forest sector is going to direct more resources to remanufacturing and alternative means of employment for forest workers and their families in this highly developed and highly technological sector. This province will see it as the way to economic stimulation and economic growth in the future. At this point I want to say that the work of the select standing committee led by the member for Nelson-Creston will bear a great deal of the responsibility for the direction of this new strategy.
The skills training package that was alluded to in the throne speech will do nothing less than revolutionize our approach to jobs and skills training in this province. Yesterday I listened to the President of the United States speaking at the Detroit summit. Everybody, from the G-7 to Premier Klein to Premier Rae to Premier Wells to President Clinton, is talking about the need to put some teeth into the development of new skills training. This government will be one of the first in North America to have a comprehensive policy on skills training. I believe that when British Columbians see this program, they'll recognize that this government is in the forefront not only in areas like forest practices and freedom of information but also in skills training. I'm very certain of that.
I want to speak for a few minutes before I close about how the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton have benefited from the policies of this government in the last couple of years since this government came to power. The rental protection that was brought to manufactured-home owners has had a significant impact locally. Many of my constituents live in manufactured homes. We've taken some bold steps to regain some protection for them that was lost under the previous administration. We've given them the means to have their decisions arbitrated by an objective body made up of both manufactured-home owners and park owners. We're going to see further moves in that direction under the Minister of Housing that will bring added protection to those people who live in apartments and manufactured homes.
Since this government instituted the freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality -- the first one in Canada -- I
[ Page 9450 ]
have seen a vast improvement in the state of affairs for women and children in my constituency. In day care alone more than $300,000 has come into Okanagan-Penticton to support services to children, to provide a means of getting access to tools for day care, to actually support day care spaces, to do needs assessment and to train people. It's a fantastic improvement in the situation for women and children in my constituency. Not only that, Penticton is one of the 22 communities that now have a women's centre which is receiving core funding from the Ministry of Women's Equality. Women's voices are now being heard, because they have advocates who are there on a regular basis without the threat of losing funding. I think that this government will be recognized for the raising of women's profiles in their communities.
Many women in my community are now taking prominent positions on boards and commissions that this province is responsible for. I think that addresses a great injustice that has been perpetrated upon women. They've been excluded for so long from the reins of power, and we're addressing this through a very rational process. This government deserves a great deal of credit for making those significant steps.
Back in 1990, the Agriculture critic -- the hon. Minister of Tourism now -- and the Premier came to the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association convention and talked about agriculture and its importance in the Okanagan Valley. We made a commitment at that time to spend $30 million to support replant programs, to put money directly into the pockets of growers who have been supporting the agricultural land reserve and protecting the green space. We made that commitment before just how incredibly large the deficit that we were going to be left with was known to us and to the public. Even after we found out about the mess, and the incredible deficit, we made good on that promise -- to more than 80 percent. We put money into growers' pockets; we fulfilled our commitment on a replant. I think that the agricultural industry recognizes what we've done. I want to say that this has been an important part in sustaining agriculture in the Okanagan over the last two years.
I want to talk about agriculture again in a minute or so, but I want to move on, finally, to a couple of other issues in which my constituency has benefited from the policies of the last two years.
This government has been very forward and honest in their relationship with aboriginal people. We've supported the establishment of the Treaty Commission; we've enlarged the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs; we've made approaches....
The Speaker: I just wanted to bring the hon. member's attention to the green light, which says that you have two minutes left.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I want to say that in the Okanagan there are many bands that are members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Although they don't support the Treaty Commission process, this government has not turned its back on them. This government speaks to all native people. We're attempting to establish other tables. I think it shows the flexibility and the openness of this government.
There are challenges in the Okanagan. One of the greatest challenges is growth management. I know that this government is committed to dealing with the issue of growth management in the Okanagan in a bold and progressive way. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has been supportive with dollars -- $75,000 to date, approximately -- and also through moral support, charting the course of the Okanagan and action by the regional district and municipalities. We will do more; we will do more internally to coordinate ministries. We will be taking bold steps to make sure that growth is managed in the Okanagan.
With regard to agriculture, we struck a deal two years ago, but we must strike a new deal. There are problems in the Okanagan that have been brought about by incredible competition, poor apple quality and the loss of the anti-dumping mechanism. We will address these needs in the context of agricultural policy in a food sector strategy, and by again looking closely at the agricultural land reserve. Through powerful legislation, this member is prepared to fight for the issues that are important in the Okanagan and to all British Columbians, and I know that this government is prepared.
F. Gingell: I think that I'm fairly safe in saying that roughly 50 members are going to rise in this House and speak in favour of this Speech from the Throne, and 24 are going to rise and have some criticism of it. I would like to deal with an issue that hasn't been dealt with in the throne speech. While in opposition this government made many promises, and while they were in the habit of making promises they haven't kept, they spoke about open and honest government and a more improved process for running the legislative program.
Last November I had the opportunity to represent this House at the annual meeting of the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. The Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation used "Good Governance" as its theme for their 1993 conference. Many politicians, including our Minister of Health, were part of that program, and a great deal of time and effort was focused on the issue of good governance. When I was asked to think about this issue, I came to the conclusion that this Legislature is not an example of good governance. It is antiquated; it is inefficient. We expend a great deal of energy, and I think the taxpayers are perfectly right to question the results they get from the very substantial amount of money that is spent in operating the Legislature.
I think some changes need to be made. After spending two years in this House, I can come up with some. Many of these items have already been brought to the attention of this House by my friend the member for Saanich North and the Islands, but it's been done through private members' statements. I would like to deal with some of these items now, because I believe it is important that the issue be brought out during this very important throne speech debate. One of the items that this government has spoken in favour of wasn't even mentioned in the throne speech: recall and referendum. I presume that this government, having supported the process in the first place, then having set up a committee to travel around this province and listen to the thoughts of British Columbians, and then having made a report that I don't think reflected those views -- although I wasn't there, but the report is in such a fashion that I don't think it produces a practical solution.... I noted that there was no reference to the issue of recall and referendum in the throne speech, so I was disappointed, because reform of the way this Legislature works is a very important subject.
[5:15]
The first thing I would do is reduce the number of members. This House presently has 75 members. The size of an average constituency is roughly 40,000 people. In Ontario, which has a population of nine million, they have a total of 130 members, representing far larger constituencies. Constituencies in Ontario average a little over 50,000 voters.
[ Page 9451 ]
I don't have all the statistics for the other provinces. I think we need to reduce the number of MLAs and give them more work to do. Give them more work that is important. Give them more work that is meaningful. Give an opportunity for the MLAs who have a lot of talent and a lot of experience to use it in a meaningful fashion. One of the first things we should do is reduce the number of members.
Secondly, I think we have to recognize that every constituency is different.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Well, I think we only need one in Delta. I'll toss the member for Delta North for it.
If a member represents a large northern riding, it may be more appropriate for there to be two constituency offices there, and the government should fund two constituency offices. I know that in my riding as it presently exists, one constituency office in Ladner is fine, but in other constituencies -- many northern ones -- there needs to be more than one. An electoral boundaries commission that would set a reduced number of ridings could easily determine at the same time if there should be multiple constituency offices.
Also, there should be more resources for constituency offices. They are an important part of the communications link between the electors of British Columbia, the residents of British Columbia and their government, and they should be properly operated and funded. The method at the moment, where everybody gets a similar sum, simply isn't workable. Certainly some changes have been made that are appropriate and that have helped the situation. But it seems to me that major improvements could be made -- not for the benefit of the members but for the benefit of their constituents.
This Liberal Party, the official opposition, has said many times in this House -- and in the various committees that deal with these issues -- that MLAs' remuneration should be dealt with by an independent body. We strongly support that. However, I would like to make a suggestion to that independent body. I appreciate that it makes sense for a portion of the MLAs' remuneration to be paid in the form of a tax-free allowance because the federal Income Tax Act happens to allow it. It saves the government of B.C. a minuscule amount of money in federal taxes that would be paid on that sum. It's time that MLAs recognized that they have to set an example. For us to receive a tax-free allowance is considered a boondoggle. It is considered some kind of racket by British Columbia voters. It's fairly obvious why. They don't get tax-free allowances. Why should we? It simply isn't logical. From the point of view of common sense and equity, it is more advantageous to those in the top-income bracket than it is to those in the lower-income bracket. If members of this House who worked before they became members have some form of private income or pension, that tax-free allowance is more valuable to them than it is to the MLA who has no additional income -- maybe a younger MLA with a wife and family, or a husband and family, trying to get by. It's just ridiculous to give the benefit to the MLAs who are better off. It's a bad example. It should go, and the MLAs' salary should be adjusted accordingly.
I'm sure the commission that sets the MLAs' salary will recognize that it is a full-time job and should be remunerated in that fashion. In fact, it is more than a full-time job. If we are already being paid for a full-time job, why do we get special allowances for sitting on committees? That's ridiculous. If we have to come to Victoria when the House is out of session, our travel expenses are paid. We have our pass for the ferry or the cost of travel is paid. Why should we be paid an additional allowance? It simply isn't logical, if one accepts that it's a full-time job. If you're doing your full-time job working in your constituency office, you don't get some additional allowance. If you're doing your full-time job and you happen to be sitting in a committee room serving on a committee, you're suddenly paid an additional $100 for each day, or if you're a chairman, I believe the number is $250 -- although opposition members are never invited to be chairmen of those committees, so we wouldn't know from personal experience how much those additional salaries are.
Hon. Speaker, recognizing that being an MLA is a full-time job and being a cabinet minister is a full-time job, I have a problem justifying in my mind the very large differential between a cabinet minister's pay and a backbencher's pay.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I'm not exactly sure. When I get paid as a cabinet minister, I'll....
Hon. Speaker, I think you and I are the only two members who, without being told by the Premier, voluntarily agreed to a salary cutback. I just think we should get that on the record.
An Hon. Member: I think there were three.
F. Gingell: Oh, sorry.
Anyway, I sincerely believe that the differential between MLAs and cabinet ministers is too great. I'm not suggesting that cabinet ministers are paid too much; I'm perhaps suggesting that MLAs are not paid enough. But the differential should be reduced.
Before the 1991 election this government and the previous government made a private arrangement to deal with the issue of separation pay for members who are defeated. Of course, people never believe that they're going to be defeated. But, as I understand it, the separation pay issue applies to everybody as long as they run. It isn't an issue of whether or not a separation allowance is to help pay your daily and monthly bills while you're getting re-established. You get it anyway, even if you are a teacher with tenure who can return to your job. Or if you're on leave of absence from some other position, you still receive this separation allowance. That's the sort of thing that gets the taxpayers of this province upset, and rightly so. Perhaps a separation payment is appropriate for those who require it, but only for those who require it. It should be applied for. They should be seeking employment. It should be done in a fair and sensible manner.
I think we also need to deal with the issue of capital city allowances, the allowance that we are given to pay for our expenditures while we're in the capital city looking after our responsibilities. Some members choose to stay with their children that happen to live here. Some members don't have that opportunity, so they stay in hotels. It seems to me that the purpose of the capital city allowance is to reimburse the member for moneys paid out to sustain themselves away from home when they are required to be here. But we have capital city allowances that go for 60 days and then, for some unknown reason, suddenly stop. What do they expect us to do? Are we to go out and pitch a tent on the lawn of the Legislature? This is also ridiculous. MLAs should be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses, which must be reasonable. You obviously don't go to live in a corner suite in
[ Page 9452 ]
the Empress Hotel. But this needs to be changed and it needs to be done in a fair manner.
Moving off the issues that deal with MLAs, I'd like to deal with.... Oh, there is one item that I missed that must not be missed, and that is the issue of the MLAs' pension fund. I believe that there should be a pension fund. If someone has a work career of 35 years, ten years in the Legislature should represent ten thirty-fifths of a reasonable pension. But there is no private pension scheme -- and I challenge anybody to find one -- for any worker, any trade union member, that pays a pension equivalent to 5 percent of their final salary for each year served. The only people who have that kind of arrangement are members of this Legislature and other legislatures in the country who quietly sat down and made their own deal. A normal employer- employee shared pension fund pays 1.5 percent or 2 percent per year for each year of service. We could have a 50-50-funded money purchase plan. But the present pension plan is considered by all British Columbians to be too rich, to be unfair, and I agree with them. I think that needs to be revised. I was really pleased to hear that the Prime Minister of Canada has stated unequivocally that the federal plan is going to be changed -- and about time, too.
[5:30]
Hon. Speaker, I would like to move on, if I may, to this issue of the way we deal with legislation in this House. It was interesting to hear the member from Okanagan who preceded me mention that the opposition doesn't have any effect on the legislation that is passed. That is true. During the course of my two years in this House, I have got the Minister of Finance to change one bill in two ways. They were the most minor changes, but he realized that they'd goofed up and had done it wrong, and were so embarrassed they actually agreed to a friendly amendment.
We spent a lot of time dealing with issues that are of critical importance to the people of British Columbia. I truly believe that legislation dealing with these major items should go to an all-parliamentary committee first. The all-parliamentary committee should have the opportunity to talk to experts, call in witnesses and properly canvass the issues being decided.
Today they brought in Bills 2, 3, 4 and 5, I think, and none of them sounded as though they were monumental pieces of legislation. But the message that they bring from the Lieutenant- Governor is that they really should bring in a cart to put them on because they are written in stone. It's all engraved there in stone and they're not interested in making any changes to it. They're not interested in listening to constructive criticism. They're not interested in trying to improve it. They're only interested in using their majority to force it through. I'm not suggesting that debate in the House would in any way be restricted by the fact that it's been to an all-parliamentary committee first, but it certainly might help to have the debate a little more focused -- and I'm sure you, hon. Speaker, would appreciate that.
There is one other issue that I would like to bring up again. I fail to understand how any government cannot agree to allow the Public Accounts Committee to work in a sensible manner. Every other province in this country allows their public accounts committee to sit out of session -- everyone except B.C. We meet on Tuesday mornings between 8:30 and 9:30. They turn up late and they leave early, and we have an awful job to get through a proper agenda. The Public Accounts Committee should be an important part of the democratic process in this province. It is an important part of public accountability. I'm sure that members of the government, who, when members of the opposition, called for exactly the same things that I'm calling for now, recognize that everybody will benefit, particularly the citizens of British Columbia -- and they, after all, are the people that we are here to serve.
Hon. Speaker, I spoke to you in February, wondering when the House might sit, because I wanted to make sure that I'd be able to look after my responsibility to be here and that I wouldn't be caught short away from the lower mainland. It occurred to me at that point that we -- not you and I -- go through this silly war dance that goes on about when the House is going to sit. Surely this government is sufficiently organized that it can determine that way ahead of time, or work to a schedule where there is a fixed calendar for the House to commence sittings. I think it's the most terrible admission of incompetence on the part of the government to suggest that, until ten days or 14 days before the date the House is called to sit, they can't set a schedule. We need to start acting like adults. Let's have a fixed schedule for the commencement of sittings. Of course, we don't know when they will end, but certainly there could be a clearly established date for the commencement, and members can then plan their lives accordingly. It makes a lot of sense.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I thought about adjournment, but I don't think we can do that, because of the problem of not knowing how much legislation is going to come forward. Important issues have to be dealt with. We can't suddenly rush them at the end because some final deadline is coming up. Instead of just sitting for five months, Monday to Friday, with Easter off, as we did last year, why don't we sit Tuesday to Thursday to allow us to work in our constituencies on Mondays and Fridays? Maybe we could work for three weeks on and two weeks off and operate throughout the whole year. Instead, we are brought to Victoria and get into this sweatbox with all of the pressure to get things done. We should operate as though we were sensible business people going to work every day. To be sensible, the whole thing needs to be changed.
Yesterday the members for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, West Vancouver-Garibaldi and Okanagan East tried to deal with the issues of select standing committees, but the government didn't follow. In my opinion, the select standing committees do not work. I have been on the Finance and Crown Corporations Committee now going into my third year, and they have never met -- not once, and Crown corporations are a large part of this government.
Hon. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I believe that we need to drag this beautiful chamber kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, because the twentieth century is almost gone. Let's take a progressive view, let's improve our processes, and let's bring legislative reform that will benefit all the people of British Columbia.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:41 p.m.
Last Modified July 3, 2001
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]