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)
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 13, Number 7
[ Page 9511 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Schreck: I notice, in looking around at the galleries, that my colleague must not have arrived yet, but I understand that Norm Nichols, from the North Vancouver Teachers' Association, is in the precincts today. I hope the members will join me in making him welcome.
R. Chisholm: In the gallery we have Miss Diane Turner and Jack Turn, from the Chilliwack Teachers' Association, visiting us today to speak to the government. Would you make them most welcome.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce a good friend of mine and of the teachers in Mission: Mr. Rick Fitch, vice-president of the Mission Teachers' Union. I bid the House make them welcome.
H. Giesbrecht: On behalf of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, I'd like to introduce a constituent of the riding of North Coast. In the gallery we have a friend of mine from New Aiyansh. He's a teacher, and he's also a poet who has had a number of books published in several languages. In the gallery is Mr. Ravi Gill. Would the House please make him welcome.
THE PLIGHT OF THE STAMMERER
F. Gingell: I rise today to speak on a subject that is very close to my heart and has been very much a part of my life. The subject is one that I'm afraid does not interest the public generally, nor should it necessarily. It is, however, a subject that should be understood by government. Just as an aside, the government and the Speaker really don't understand: the white and green and red lights twink for me the same way they twink for everybody else, and perhaps I should be allowed a little latitude.
A few months ago I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of stammerers here in Victoria: the British Columbia Association of People Who Stutter. That experience prompted me to address the issue of stammering in the House this morning.
Firstly, I would like to provide the House with a bit of a historic overview on stammering. The clan of the tangled tongue includes King George VI, Sir Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson, Sir Isaac Newton, Marilyn Monroe and Bruce Willis, to name a few. In Canada there are approximately one-quarter of a million stammerers, also known as stutterers, and four-fifths of them are male.
What does stammering mean? Stammering was defined by the Greek historian, Herodotus, as the checking or stopping of the voice. The great Greek philosopher and pupil of Plato, Aristotle, described the condition as light-voicedness. I tend to disagree with him, as I know many heavy- and high-voiced stammerers, but I forgive him in light of what little was known about stammering at that time.
Down through the centuries a wide variety of theories have been advanced, from determining that the tongue was too long, too short or not shaped correctly, to a delay in progress from one developmental stage to another; or that the speech habit was learned. The fact of the matter is that there is no workable theory, and there is no known absolute cure. The speech disorder basically boils down to a tendency to speak with the lungs empty, thereby influencing the production of sound through the larynx and a lack of sufficient breath to produce voice and words. The pace and rhythm of the vocal tone is adversely affected. Voice is the product of air sent through the vocal cords under sufficient and steady pressure to cause the air to escape between the edges of the vocal cords in little puffs. These little puffs of air are the sound waves which we call "voice."
Stammering is indeed an assistable handicap or speech disorder. Although there is no absolute cure, in most cases coming to terms with it and modifying it through speech therapy is a possibility. Treatment, however, is very difficult to come by in British Columbia. What is available is inadequate for the needs of stammerers in British Columbia. Breakthroughs in speech pathology research have been put into practice in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. In those provinces, stammerers participate in intensive three-week residential model programs at approved clinics. To date, this has proven to be the most effective treatment for this speech fluency disorder.
I would like to see a similar program in British Columbia. I believe it should be a government responsibility to recognize stammering as an assistable handicap and recognize that it is a matter that cannot adequately or properly be addressed by a single-interest group. It is a condition that can only be overcome by constant attention and practice, and quality speech therapy. Intensive group work in a controlled setting with speech therapists shows stutterers how to monitor themselves. This is a primary key to overcoming a lot of the determining factors.
Therapy has evolved significantly over the last 15 or 20 years. Additional operate-conditioning methods have been replaced by fluency-shaping programs. Many scholars and others have studied this issue at length, having given it careful and studious thought, and have acquired a very extensive knowledge of the subject.
The Clarke Institute has examined the efficiency of the intensive three-week program. A 1980 study showed that more than 90 percent of the clients improved their speech patterns and demonstrated positive attitudinal shifts; in most cases additional therapy was not necessary. This is a most impressive finding, and something that I believe warrants attention. I will now take my seat to enable the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to respond.
D. Schreck: One of the many pleasures of working in this chamber and being elected to this assembly is being able to develop great respect for 75 members of the House across party lines. It has been a distinct pleasure for me to work with the member for Delta South. Both on the Public Accounts Committee and in this chamber, he clearly demonstrates how one can overcome a speech impediment and provide a role model for the community. Relative to some of my colleagues on the government benches with their particular accents, one may say that it's easier to understand my friend from Delta South than it is some of my own colleagues. Furthermore, I'd like to say that anybody who can say "clan of the tangled tongue" is well exercised with that tongue.
[10:15]
The matter of speech impediments, however, is a very serious matter, and it is particularly troublesome for parents when their children are diagnosed early. One of the first groups that I began working with after my election on the North Shore was a group called PACTS. PACTS is an advocacy group on the North Shore that deals with
[ Page 9512 ]
special-needs children. In many cases the particular challenges facing these children include the need for speech therapy. For some time it has been recognized in this province that we are still fighting to overcome and meet the challenges of coordinating, across various ministries, the policies to deal with children who require speech therapy. There is a tendency to shuffle children who are early diagnosed with speech difficulties first from the pre-school stages, where they are largely treated by the Ministry of Social Services, then to the education system, and finally to the Ministry of Health. Government in this province, starting before our government, recognized that problem with an interministerial committee on the development of protocols. I join the member for Delta South in saying that this is a small step in the right direction. But one's heart has to go out both to the parents and the children who are facing these challenges. It's not good enough to be confronted with the frustration of dealing with interministerial bureaucracy.
So I join my friends in PACTS on the North Shore, and my colleague and friend from Delta South -- although he sits on the opposite benches -- in calling on government to look at those models in Alberta and Ontario and to work with organizations like PACTS on the North Shore to move further towards the full funding and implementation of the interministerial protocols and the recognition of the needs of special children, so that when those children are adults they can provide an outstanding example like that member does.
C. Serwa: The statement this morning of the hon. member for Delta South gives the opportunity for each one of us here in the Legislature to reflect. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Health is here, because while the member for Delta South has spoken about one specific aspect, the reality is that we require many more people in the fields of speech therapy and speech pathology throughout the province. The Ministry of Health is confronted with some difficult problems. We'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a transplant or major operation on a very senior individual and deny the young children with a future the opportunity to maximize their potential. It is not only we in this chamber but also society collectively who are going to be responsible in the very near future for making some important decisions to ensure that the opportunity is available for all the youngsters in British Columbia.
When we focus on adult literacy, we recognize that many sociological problems are created by learning disabilities. These too must be addressed by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. I sincerely thank the hon. member for Delta South for bringing this issue forward today.
F. Gingell: I'm most grateful to both the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale and the member for Okanagan West, and I appreciate their understanding and cognizance of this matter. I would like to close by putting forward three recommendations. The first is that the Minister of Health ask his officials to get in contact with the three-week residential model for stammerers that is utilized in Edmonton, Toronto and Ottawa, to familiarize the ministry with the program and to report back to the minister. Second, I recommend that similar programs be implemented in British Columbia, and preferably offered in regional centres, not just in Vancouver and Victoria. After all, stammerers reside all over this province, and accessibility would ensure greater participation and results in assisting many more people.
Third, I would like to recommend that until such a program is put into place in British Columbia, financial assistance be accorded to B.C. residents who participate in the out-of-province intensive treatment program for stammerers.
I think it is most appropriate to end this statement with the words of William Shakespeare, from Hamlet:
"So oft it chances in particular men That, for some vicious mole or nature in them, As in their birth -- wherein they are not guilty, Since nature cannot choose his origin... Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect, Being nature's livery or fortune's star -- Their virtues else -- be they as pure as grace, As infinite as man may undergo -- Shall in the general censure take corruption From that particular fault: the dram of eale Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal."
RESOURCE ISSUES IN ALBERNI
G. Janssen: As every member is aware, Clayoquot Sound has been a major talking point in the Alberni constituency, the province and indeed the world. We have seen blockades established in violation of a court injunction; we have seen a very large number of people arrested and tried. On one side of this argument are people who fear for their jobs and wonder how they are going to find alternative employment to support their families, when over 3,000 of their immediate neighbours in Alberni are already out of work and on unemployment insurance. On the other side of this argument are also people who express concern over logging of the forest and conservation of the environment. You do not have to go much beyond the resources of lumber, minerals and energy before you come down to people.
Our government's position is clear. We have said we will not make changes we need to make on the backs of the working people. We will ensure that workers and their families have a real opportunity to stay in their communities and pursue their hopes and aspirations at home.
What have we heard from the opposition? The most recent position is the opposition's clumsy attempt to deal with illegal resource blockades by advocating right-to-work legislation in British Columbia. What would that do for working people? Developed in the United States, right to work was a system of labour relations dating from the McCarthy era. It is concerned almost exclusively with union security matters. Researchers have found that states that adopted these laws were not as prosperous generally as those states which did not. When we look at personal income, weekly wages, minimum wage levels and unemployment insurance benefits, those states failed dismally. That kind of life for workers may be what the opposition stands for; It is not what this government stands for.
The opposition also says it wants illegal blockades stopped. This government has made its position very clear on that issue. We believe that British Columbians have a right to express their opinions. We believe that British Columbians have a duty to obey the laws of this province and this country. If they violate those laws while expressing their opinions, they must be prepared to face the consequences.
We do not negotiate with people while they are in the process of conducting an illegal blockade. This balances the rights of individuals with their responsibilities as citizens and subjects every person to the same rule of law. It's not a neat and tidy solution, as many of those who have been
[ Page 9513 ]
involved in the Clayoquot issue know, but then democracy isn't always neat and tidy and that's probably why it works.
It's not clear what members of the opposition would do differently in this regard. Would they ban the right of people to express their opinions? Would they restrict British Columbians from certain areas of the province because they might cause disruption of some activities in the course of their visit? Would they ban some people but not others from expressing their opinions? Perhaps only people who disagreed with them would be treated in this way.
My constituency has been in the middle of some of the most heated and difficult resource decisions in this province. My constituents have lived through those decisions and the follow-up. This government has been clear on its position. We have made the tough decisions and listened to those who were unhappy with those decisions, as well as to those who were happy with them. The opposition has offered up simplistic solutions that would seem to lower the standard of living for working people in this province. At the same time they'd restrict the rights and responsibilities that we all share as citizens of this province.
I think it's time for the opposition to come clean and tell British Columbians where they stand.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I'm always cognizant of the fact that these private members' days are for non-partisan, constructive debate. However, I understand that the hon. member for Alberni may be feeling the heat these days, and I certainly understand the latitude he was provided.
I think it's important to know that 40,000 or more people will be on the lawns of the Legislature on Monday next week, and I believe they will be there because they feel they have lost the voice of government in British Columbia. They feel they have lost the ability to communicate with their government. I think that the issue the hon. member raises, which is blockades, offers a classic case in point of what's gone wrong for working people in this province and why they feel such a lack of empowerment. As most people are aware, workers work for companies and small, individual concerns that are licensed by the Crown to undertake activities on the land base. Those activities empower rights and responsibilities for both the licensee and the Crown. Given the fact that confrontations can erupt on short notice, people should have the right to access their employment.
As things stand in the province of British Columbia, it is now up to the licensee -- the company -- to go to court and acquire an injunction in order to access their workplace in the event of confrontations and illegal disruptions. That is the role they have been thrust into by the provincial government. Often weeks can go by before those injunctions are sought and obtained. In the meantime, those illegal blockades prevent the working people of this province, particularly those in the woods, from accessing their employment. They are not on strike; they cannot access their employment.
Given the fact that the government owns the land base and licenses the activity on that land base, do they not have a responsibility to provide those workers with some sort of access to their employment? Is it up to them -- small companies and people who have to go out and hire lawyers -- to exercise their rights? Some are able to do that. If they're large companies, like MacMillan Bloedel in the member's home town of Port Alberni, they can acquire through high-priced lawyers the kind of clout in the courts that they need.
But other companies in the interior of the province cannot find the legal and economic means to end these blockades that are threatening the employment and viability of their companies. They have come to government and asked for some sort of assistance, and they've been provided with no direction and no assistance. That is why the opposition suggested in its memorandum to local governments and regional districts that they give us a hand in stressing the importance to government of enabling workers in the province to access the land base to secure their employment.
[10:30]
We're not talking about ending demonstrations; people have the right to demonstrate on a logging bridge. But surely they do not have the right to illegally block the access of workers to their employment in this province, and that's what the opposition stands for.
A. Warnke: I notice there is a little bit of time left. I would like to remind the hon. member for Alberni that the reference he made to McCarthy.... I want to remind hon. members that the McCarthy era is clearly over. The hon. member for Matsqui made very certain of that.
If the hon. member meant the other McCarthy, a former senator from Wisconsin, I would like to remind the House once again that I was accused last year of being on a McCarthyite witch hunt. I would appreciate it if those members would look at themselves in the mirror some day.
G. Janssen: I'm rather amused with the response of the opposition on this sensitive issue of right-to-work, which, in the most heavily unionized province in our great land, is repugnant to all working people. The opposition said last session that the Clayoquot decision should have been sent to CORE. But just this week, their new leader was condemning the CORE process and calling for the government to abandon the CORE report for Vancouver Island altogether. What he said should replace it, if anything, was not reported.
Is anyone surprised that the member who just spoke wrote on behalf of his party advocating right-to-work legislation in British Columbia? Right-to-work is pretty cynical and a backdoor method of depressing living standards, which will destabilize our economy and has nothing to do with resolving resource conflicts.
It is entirely consistent with the opposition's comments made earlier in this parliament, and I remind the member: "There's a very good reason why we don't unionize our own workers. You can actually achieve more; people work more; people work better." He was referring to people if you didn't allow them to unionize. It is also consistent with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in his maiden speech, who appears even more out of touch on labour matters than Bill Vander Zalm ever was. He agrees with Bill Vander Zalm on every significant point, save one: while Mr. Vander Zalm gave teachers the right to strike, the new Liberal Party leader would apparently take it away.
It is clear where the opposition is coming from, hon. members. It is here to destroy the fabric that has built the society of British Columbia -- one that has decent wages, decent working conditions and decent benefits. That's why this province is leading the economy, that's why this province is creating more jobs than anywhere else in Canada, and that's why the restraint program of Bill Bennett failed so miserably and added even more workers to the unemployment and welfare rolls of that era.
This government is moving forward on a program, as has been indicated in the throne response, of job training. It is building for the future. We want to see that our workers in this province are treated fairly and equally.
[ Page 9514 ]
The Speaker: Before recognizing the next member's statement, the Chair was reluctant to intercede during any part of the previous statements by members, because of this being the first private members' day of the session. But I would remind hon. members that the spirit and intent of this hour is to allow members to speak on issues that there might not otherwise be the opportunity for during other proceedings in this House. By practice, during this time we try to avoid partisan political debate. There are, as I'm sure members will agree, many other opportunities in the proceedings of the House to do so.
So with those few comments, I would ask the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano for his statement on New Directions in Education.
NEW DIRECTIONS IN EDUCATION
J. Dalton: Hopefully this is less controversial. I guess you might say that we started off with the good and went to the bad. Now you can make your own choice on this next one.
To borrow from the Health ministry, my topic is new directions in education. Education is at a crossroads in this province, with announced changes in the bargaining process in the K-to-12 sector, provincewide policy discussions on business and education connections and high public interest and concern about the direction of education. I do not intend at this time, however, to enter the debate on labour relations, or curriculum changes or the local autonomy of school boards. No doubt this session will see many opportunities to address those issues. What I wish to do is reflect on some initiatives that I have learned of recently and the direction these initiatives may lead us in this province.
A few weeks ago, as an example, I had the good fortune to visit the superintendent of schools in the Nechako School District. I say good fortune because the superintendent and his administrators, trustees and teachers have embarked upon some very exciting educational opportunities, with more being planned in the Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake areas. My allotted time hardly allows me to even scratch the surface of what's going on in Nechako, so I will comment on just one of their many endeavours.
Their accelerated apprenticeship program allows students in grades 11 and 12 to attend school and, at the same time, gain hands-on experience in enterprises such as bakeries, B.C. Hydro and forestry. The students lose no instructional time. Upon graduation they have realistic opportunities for employment, or they can go on to post-secondary endeavours. The district -- and the members will be pleased to hear this -- obtained a federal grant to commence and maintain this apprenticeship program. Therefore there's no direct cost to the Ministry of Education.
The Abbotsford School District will open a career technical centre this fall at a secondary school site that became available. The centre is a three-year educational institution operated jointly by the Abbotsford School District and the University College of the Fraser Valley. It will incorporate grades 11 and 12 and first-year college studies for a number of technically based programs, including aviation, agriculture, dental assisting and office careers. There are a total of eight programs being offered in that career centre. Upon completion of the three-year program, students will receive their Dogwood Certificate. Then they can go on to second-year college or university or seek employment in their chosen career. This centre is an innovative combination of senior secondary, post-secondary and business institutions. I would add that they have the cooperation of both the local teachers' association and the local college's faculty association.
To borrow another Health ministry concept, I have proposed to the North Vancouver School District that it examine the possibilities of school- or site-based management. This concept would allow a school to control its own destiny through a management team of administrators, teachers and parents. The school would make its own educational decisions and allocate resources. The Langley School District has a form of school-based management currently in place. The Edmonds School District in Washington has two excellent schools operating on that model. In Alberta, both Edmonton and Red Deer districts are considering such a model. Finally, St. Paul, Minnesota, has set up a community learning centre, complete with manuals and newsletters, to give guidance to those who may be interested in school-based management.
Initiatives are being taken throughout this province and North America on educational revision. We can learn from the example of others, and we can also teach others from the examples I have cited -- and from many others that exist in this province. I would add that it is my feeling that we need to develop better methods to exchange information.
As an example, I had heard good things about the Nechako School District, to which I referred earlier. In fact, I previously visited the Nechako district. Upon recent further examination I discovered that these excellent programs were not known provincewide. In many cases they were not even known in the neighbouring district. It was a West Vancouver parent who first put me on to some of the recent developments in the Vanderhoof area, and he did so only through his own volunteer efforts as a parent concerned about the direction of education. I would suggest that we can do better than that.
We speak of partnerships with regard to business and education. I would suggest that we must add to the partnership discussion a need to better communicate the initiatives that are taking place in this province. I encourage the government, and in particular the Ministers of Education and Skills, Training and Labour, to take the lead in this communication process. British Columbia can take many initiatives, share the wealth of knowledge that's out there, and develop a much better game plan with regard to the delivery of education in this province.
S. Hammell: I'm pleased to respond to such a positive speech, one that describes many of the good things going on in British Columbia schools today.
Your discussion of the Nechako district described how they are using the skills and training program to get their children into the workfield. That was good to hear. The Nechako district has an excellent superintendent and school district. All the funding was made possible through policy support by the Ministry of Education and the emphasis it has placed on skills and training. You know that the Premier held a summit on skills and training for the twentieth-first century. You may also be interested to know that since this government has come in the number of students moving into post-secondary training has increased.
But these aren't the only innovations and new things happening in education. As it is my career field -- given that I assume that being here is a temporary stop in those life experiences -- I am really pleased to hear your discussion around Abbotsford. As a teacher, it seems incredibly important to me that we understand that our students are not all the same and that their ability to absorb what is going on in the classroom or in the courses that are available is not
[ Page 9515 ]
all the same, given their age. When we have the university coming in with courses to our senior high schools, the only people who can truly benefit are the students. It meets the needs of their thirst for knowledge at that time. Keeping our able students challenged and interested in schooling has always been a challenge of the school system.
I also want to talk a bit about some of the other changes that the ministry has made in supporting students in the classroom. A very fine teen-mom program is operating throughout the system. I can speak of it because it happens in my school district. Teen moms are supported to keep up with their schooling and education. As all of us know, being a single teen mom is probably the most direct path to poverty that you can get on. When we support those students, we are assisting our society as a whole.
I'd also like to mention that one innovation I find particularly gratifying is the acknowledgement that growth in school districts needs to be funded. Growth is critical to the priming of our economic pump. All of us benefit from the growth at one or two, or maybe ten -- I think it's actually 17 districts that we're in the forefront.... This government's acknowledgment that growth is a benefit but also a burden, especially when it comes to maintaining the services of those communities undergoing growth, and acknowledging that by assisting them through extra funding, can only be applauded by all of us.
There are also a few other changes that have received support. This government has added $30 million to the education system and targeted it to special education and aboriginal children. We know that as we talk to our teachers, their cry is that as children are mainstreamed and integrated into our school system, which we all respect and value, they need the resources to support not only the classroom teacher but other students in the classroom as well.
[10:45]
There are many changes I could go on with; I have a longer list. But I see the Speaker indicating to me that I am finished, so with that, I will sit down.
J. Dalton: I thank the member for Surrey-Green Timbers for her remarks. She did comment on funding for the Nechako programs. A lot of the funding is supplied by Victoria, for which I know they are grateful, and certainly in the examples I've seen, I'm grateful as well. There was some federal funding supplied to Nechako. Perhaps it doesn't really matter; there's only one taxpayer, as we should continually remind all Canadians. However, there are some very good initiatives taking place there. The main point is that we can all learn. We should not be complacently sitting back and thinking that only the large urban school districts can come up with proper initiatives and new directions in education. The examples that I've seen recently in Nechako indicate that we can learn a great deal from our rural friends. Of course, many members represent such ridings.
Recently I had the pleasure of attending a North Vancouver forum on business and education, which I am happy to say was sponsored by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. As this House knows, the opposition is always prepared to stand on its feet and applaud the government when it does good things. Very seldom do we get a chance to give that applause, but I am doing so right now. That was one of a series of 14 forums, I believe, that the ministry is conducting throughout the province to better recognize and connect the concerns and desires of business to participate in the education process. When I say the education process, I'm not just talking about K to 12; I'm talking about the lifelong process of education, which includes post-secondary, continuing education, adult basic education -- you name it. So the government is recognizing that things can be done, are being done and must continue to be done. Hon. Speaker, I can assure you that the opposition will be ever vigilant in pushing for more things to be done. It is not always a question of money. For example, earlier I referred to school-based management, and I would like to see some real examples being put together on that concept. I believe that perhaps we don't need more money to better administer the school system, but that we just need better management and more community involvement in the process.
I'm pleased to hear the members from the government side recognize the importance of education, as we all do. Certainly all of us should continue to work closely and cooperatively together in finding better paths and hopefully even more new directions in eduction.
PROTECTING JOBS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
E. Conroy: I want to give the members opposite a chance to applaud the government once more. I rise in the House today to talk about the government and the private sector working together to create jobs in this province. As a government, our top priority continues to be to create jobs with a future, while at the same time ensuring that the interests of the taxpayers are protected. It is my belief that this strategy will lay the foundation for future economic growth in all regions of this province.
More specifically, I would like to talk to you about how jobs are being protected and created in the Kootenays and in the constituency of Rossland-Trail, which I represent. It is with great pride that I stand in this House today knowing that the government of which I am a member has protected the jobs of thousands of British Columbians. On March 4, 1994, two agreements in principle were made between the provincial government and Cominco which will save the jobs of over 2,600 Cominco employees throughout the Kootenays. The people of the Kootenays, local governments, unions, the company and the provincial government are all very proud of these agreements. I would like to give my thanks to all the individuals and groups who have participated in this process.
Many of you may not be aware that Trail is the home of the world's largest zinc smelter, which produces 5 percent of the world's total zinc production. Cominco's lead smelter produces 2 percent of the world's total lead production. It is estimated that a total of 6,000 jobs in British Columbia are dependent on Cominco's Kootenay operations. It is very important to this government and to the communities of Rossland-Trail and those throughout the Kootenays that those jobs are protected.
I would like to talk briefly about the two agreements to explain what they are, how they came about and what they will mean to the people of the Kootenays and the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'd like to begin with a bit of background on the working relationships between the province and Cominco. In 1977, Cominco embarked on an ambitious modernization program to increase efficiency of production and to reduce the environmental impacts of its operations through the construction of a new lead smelter. In 1986, as part of this program, the province joined the federal government in making an equity investment in Cominco through the purchase of preferred shares. The provincial portion totalled $55 million. In December 1989, Cominco started operating its new lead smelter, but shut it down in March 1990 because the smelting technology based on the QSL process failed from the outset. Cominco was then forced
[ Page 9516 ]
to operate its older, higher-cost and higher-polluting lead smelter.
In 1991, Cominco asked the province to provide assistance in developing a long-term plan to complete the lead smelter operation. A special commissioner was appointed under the Job Protection Act to prepare a report with recommendations for assisting Trail. In September 1992 the Job Protection Commission recommended that an economic plan be developed for Trail involving smelter workers, local governments and suppliers. While the province agreed with this recommendation, we rejected the JPC's recommendation which called for special tax concessions.
The government made a commitment to Cominco and the people of Trail that it would explore all reasonable ways of ensuring the continued operation of the smelter works at Trail, provided that any assistance we offered would be based on sound business practices. When the government entered negotiations with Cominco, we made it very clear that we would enter into a commercial transaction with Cominco which avoided the mistakes of the past. As I've already mentioned, any agreement would necessarily have to be based on due diligence and sound business practices. We also told Cominco that we'd be seeking the rights to expand power generation on commercial terms with the company. We made it clear that our participation in any cooperative economic plan with Cominco would be conditional upon assurances that Cominco would pursue and share the financial recoveries from the companies responsible for the failed QSL technology, that it would require an audit of the costs of that failed attempt and that the provincial government would conduct an independent evaluation of any subsequent technology Cominco would choose to employ for replacement of the lead smelter. I am pleased to say that all of these conditions were met with great success.
The first agreement will result in Cominco constructing a new lead smelter for the price of $145 million. The state-of-the-art smelter in Trail will be under construction quickly, as well as a $25 million five-year, long-term capital plan to expand zinc production. As part of the agreement with Cominco, the province will receive a share of the profits from the new smelter. We have closely examined the technology that will be used for the new smelter, as well as Cominco's feasibility studies, and we are all confident that this new technology will work and will ensure that Cominco and its employees will have a long, bright future in Trail.
The second agreement provides for the province to acquire the rights to install new power-generating facilities at the Brilliant and Waneta dams owned by Cominco, at a cost of $51.85 million. This will allow the province to use Cominco's two dams to develop new environmentally sound, competitively priced hydroelectric power supplies. This energy, and the revenue from the energy sales, will benefit all British Columbians, wherever they live. This is an investment by British Columbians for British Columbians, and I'm very proud to be part of this accomplishment.
D. Jarvis: The member for Rossland-Trail has probably mentioned a second thing today that the government can be proud of. Except for a few flutters, the member got it ostensibly right. The government was a little slow getting off the mark; nevertheless, the matter has been settled.
N. Lortie: Picky, picky, picky.
D. Jarvis: I'm not trying to be picky. This is private members' statements, and having been unaware of what he was going to be talking about, I thought I would go into another aspect of jobs. As I said, I appreciate the member's thoughts, but what more can one say about jobs? Jobs are of major concern to all of us in British Columbia: the security of existing jobs, the potential for people who are working now and the thought of new jobs to come onto the market. Students in high schools, colleges and universities are really concerned about where their future may lie.
One aspect this government should seriously consider is value-added jobs -- more so than they have before. Thousands of jobs are being lost throughout British Columbia in all aspects of agriculture, fishing, mining and forestry. It's perhaps one of the greatest wastes that we see right now in this province. I cannot put all the blame on this government. Previous governments have probably been more at fault in this instance, but I do not feel that this government is doing as much as it could possibly be doing. They have been aware of this for years and years. We have reminded them, and they have reminded themselves, by making statements. But as far as I'm concerned, I believe it to be essentially lip service.
The fact that we allow our fish caught in British Columbia waters to be processed outside of this country.... We know where most of our agricultural products go. We know all about the problems with forestry and logs; that is now being looked after. Mining has been slowly diluted throughout this province by this government and the previous governments, due to their different policies. But I believe that we could revive jobs through value-added and that end of it, through smelters -- such as what the government has done: going in and bailing out the Cominco situation and putting it on the straight and narrow again. We could go on and on in various fields, where more jobs could be created as a result of our abundant resources.
I'm quickly going to go over an aspect that would cut back on the lack of jobs that are being created: the bureaucracy-connected jobs in abundance in this province should be turned over to the private sector. In the public sector they ostensibly meet a dead end. The route to economic success, which means jobs, is through the private sector and the proper use of our resources.
E. Conroy: I'd like to thank the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour for recognizing the contribution the government has made to the creation of jobs in this province. But at the same time, I'd also like to remind him that this was not a bailout. This was a business deal. Our government was very clear with Cominco when we went to them, saying that this was going to be a business deal to benefit all the people of the province, as well as the company.
I'm very proud to say that that's exactly what transpired. The two agreements will mean up to $500 million in new investment in the Kootenays and more jobs for the people of British Columbia. This is an investment in British Columbians for British Columbians. As the member for Rossland-Trail, I could not have asked for a better deal for the people I represent. This agreement with Cominco is another example of our government's commitment to promoting economic growth and laying the foundation for job creation. It's also a clear indication of our government's continuing support for the mining industry in British Columbia.
Just as importantly, the construction of the new smelter will eliminate a major environmental problem facing Trail. As well as substantially improving air quality in the region, Cominco will cease dumping slag into the Columbia River, which will be a relief to British Columbians and to our
[ Page 9517 ]
friends in Washington State. This new lead smelter will enable Cominco to consume large existing stockpiles of metal residues, and it will provide a safer, cleaner workplace. This agreement is a win for Cominco's workers, the community and the environment.
[11:00]
As the Premier noted in making this announcement, the changes to be made in Rossland-Trail over the next several years will ensure long-term economic stability and employment in the Kootenays, whether you are a small business person in Trail, an accountant in Kimberley or a teacher in Castlegar. As I said earlier, this government's top priority is to protect and create jobs in this province while making sure that the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia are protected. The agreements reached earlier this month between this government and Cominco stand as a fine example of this strategy and practice.
The Speaker: That ends the private members' statements for this morning. I thank all hon. members for their contributions.
(continued)
G. Brewin: It gives me real pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne. Before I get into the substance of what I'd like to outline, I would like first of all to welcome all the members back to Victoria to this fabulous weather. It's a little rainy some days, but not too bad; we have daffodils. I also want to remind everybody that we are within approximately 150 days of the opening of the Commonwealth Games in Victoria on August 18. Some of you will have noticed that there was a little ceremony this morning across the way at the Empress Hotel. One of the very proud sponsors of the Commonwealth Games is Seiko. They put up a countdown clock, so in case any of you are wondering, it's a countdown to the Commonwealth Games.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I also want to encourage all of you to notice in the newspaper and other sources that the Arts and Cultural Festival of the games has many productions and activities in Victoria. When you have a free moment and are not spending too much time learning the rules or getting speeches ready to take each other on, you might have time to participate in some of those events. We'll try and get the information to everyone.
The second welcome I'd like to offer is to the new member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Matsqui. First, congratulations to the two of them on their election and secondly congratulations -- if my colleagues will allow me -- on their contribution in this chamber. It certainly adds to the observation that this will indeed be a very interesting session.
I also want to offer my encouragement to the nine independents who are here. It would seem that their particular shape and focus and their many parts will increase the observation that also is made about our peculiar, if not particular, reputation across the country for interesting politics. But I have to say for myself there is no other place I'd rather be than in this space.
Several days ago we heard a very important Speech from the Throne. I think this one can be described very accurately as a significant framework for action: a framework that will build a solid future for our citizens, our young people, our people in their middle years and our older people; a framework that builds houses, schools, medical facilities, a strong economy and job skills, and which deals with social concerns and environmental protection issues.
Yes, it is a general statement. That's the nature of these kinds of speeches. Our job in the next months will be to fill in that frame with significant and important solutions that will really benefit the people of this province. Because I believe so strongly in this vision and in the statements made, I have to say that I totally reject the heavy-handed approach of the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The hyperbole that I heard is no substitute for reality, principle and real solutions. I'd like to remind that member and others of the words of a famous United States President: "It's easy to make the speeches; it's far harder to make the judgments."
As a government, in the past several years we have had to make some very tough and courageous decisions. It hasn't been easy, and we know that's it's been difficult for our communities in Beacon Hill, in the north, in the east, in the north part of the Island and across this province. Change has been necessary, and I believe that we have begun to turn a corner; that the hard decisions we have made have become effective, and that what we are doing together in this province is significant in dealing with and looking forward to the external and internal changes we need to make in order to walk ourselves comfortably into the twenty-first century.
Let's check any of the economic facts you want to look at. Three basic ones are very significant: the deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes will be frozen for three years. That has a significant impact on communities all across this province. In so many ways, then, there's no doubt in my mind that B.C. does indeed lead the way in this country. The throne speech provides us with the logical next step in this building process. We see four significant priorities in the throne speech that will continue the record of this government and help us turn that corner into the bright future that we know is there. Our focus in this speech was fundamentally economic, as we ready ourselves for the twenty-first century. I want to reiterate several of the points made in the throne speech, because it matters to me, my community and the people across this province.
Let's look at the issues of sound fiscal management and fair taxation. There are several issues here that are fundamentally important. We see that in B.C., jobs are up three times the national average. What can we say except that things are doing well in British Columbia -- not that we've solved all the problems. The growth in government spending has been cut in half in the past two years, while services to the public have been maintained. For us as a government and as social democrats, it is significant that we deal with these issues while those areas that are important, particularly social services, are maintained. In the very near future, a debt management plan is going to be introduced. That too will affect all of us and will respond to many of the concerns that we have heard across this province, and we know to be true.
Let's look at long-term job creation and economic growth. What are we talking about in that area? The new B.C. 21 legislation will bring investment in transportation to so many of our communities. Increases in the communications and community infrastructure will encourage private sector investment and create jobs. We have worked with other levels of government in order to achieve these goals, and we look forward to their continued cooperation. We see B.C. 21
[ Page 9518 ]
tax dollars boosting regional economies to ensure good local jobs and training for our young people. In the next while we will see ways in which we can cooperate with the business community, our elected communities around this province and the trade union movement in order to serve our communities by getting the investment that will create those jobs for our young people and our citizens.
We see private and public sector cooperation in another area, as we look to the expansion of knowledged-based industries across this province. We have many industries growing in this area, in Victoria-Beacon Hill in particular. High tech has been strongly identified as a part of our future in this region.
As a government we are enhancing the strengths of all the regions across this province. While I come from the capital city area, and of course have an interest in what should happen here, I fully support all the effort and work involved in strengthening the regions across this province. Only in that way will we all be strong.
Small business is a very significant factor in the economic growth of our province. We have heard the statistics many times. They are accurate and accepted facts. In my community, I work very closely with the small business community and the chamber of commerce to encourage and bring to our government's attention the work that they do to bring small business into Victoria, and make it even stronger than it currently is. But it needs support. As a government, we are continuing to look at those areas and support them. I speak particularly of the tourism industry, which is very strong in Victoria and needs all kinds of support. I say to my colleagues: "It's a nice place to visit; it's also a nice place to live." We're looking to increase support to and recognition of the fundamental role that small business plays in all of our communities.
As we look at small business, we know that part of all business has to do with skills training. Are we really preparing our young people for the jobs of the future? Are we really supporting our workers in their middle years for some of the changes that are happening to them? I would say that yes, we are moving very strongly in that direction.
We see that some new initiatives will be coming forward to strengthen high-quality skills training. Yesterday we saw labour standards come forward. That will help support this. We're looking to establish community-based training to help bridge the gap between social assistance and work. That is one of the fundamental tenets of what we as a government, what we as social democrats want to say and do in this province. I am really proud of the work that we've done so far and of work that I know will be coming down.
We are looking to create new apprenticeship and work experience opportunities for students and young people. That too is one of the fundamental tenets as we work with working people, working families in this province. Can we say that there will be a place for their children and for our young people in this province in the future? There's no question that the answer is yes to that. With the effort that we're making in partnership with the private sector, I think we will see some significant gains there that we will really be proud of.
At the college level, the granting of four-year degrees is to be expanded to more colleges and institutes to help give our young people more post-secondary choices. We see this as more and more young people are finding that education is what they need and that spaces need to be created.
I know what the pressure is like on UVic and Camosun, two significant institutions of higher learning in greater Victoria. They are stretched to the limit now. As we have seen recently in reports, more and more young people are staying in school, and that's to be applauded. I think that's a hallmark of some of the support that we have provided to the education sector over the last couple of years.
While I've talked about the tourism industry -- and there are lots of other industries that need the support -- fundamental to our whole province and to Vancouver Island particularly is the forest sector. We have seen major shifts in direction coming forward in the past, while in the forest sector that has been a long, long time in coming. We got elected with a commitment to make those changes, and we are following that commitment very strongly. I want all of our people across this province and on Vancouver Island to spend some time following up on some of the reports that are available on all that.
The very first part of all of that has to be the Forest Practices Code. It's going to be introduced in legislation in this session. We are going to see stronger enforcement and tougher penalties there. That's been asked for for many years, and now it's going to happen. This social democratic government will have done it, and I'm very proud of that.
I have a wonderful friend who is in the Raging Grannies group. I have talked to her a lot over the past while. It's been a very difficult time for her and for all of us in this province as we struggle with maintaining and moving into the new balance that will be happening between the forest sector, industries and the environment which we know we must preserve. I am pleased, in my conversations with my friend, to see that she is acknowledging the difficulties we all face in spite of and in the strength of her own commitment to the environmental movement.
That speaks volumes for this government and the way it has acknowledged and knows -- in our hearts, we know -- that pressure and the need to work out that balance. It's a tough decision, and we're prepared to make it. I'm looking forward to the solutions that we come up with.
[11:15]
But there are two other areas in there that are very important to all of us -- new measures to talk about and to ensure future jobs and the sustainability of our forest communities. We will see and we will hear in the coming days -- face to face, if you like -- what those pressures are in those communities. So we're going to be looking for gains in job creation, training, labour adjustment, value-added manufacturing, long-term timber supply and environmental values and participation by first nations. We have seen all of that happening -- not easily, not always comfortably, but nonetheless, there is that fundamental belief that we can do it. We as a society recognize the strengths of all of those segments in those discussions. They all have a role to play, and we, as a government and as a society -- and as a Legislature -- must work together to see that those issues and values are supported.
Surrounding all that is the CORE process, which we put in place. It is coming to fruition on Vancouver Island. No decision has been taken on that yet. We will be wrestling with that, as we know. We cannot make a decision on that until we are assured that the economic and social impacts of the decision around the CORE recommendations will not detrimentally impact the people in those significant communities. I want to offer my congratulations to Stephen Owen, who has worked so hard and so diligently and who believes so strongly in those issues and in the work he has done. In the weeks ahead a decision will be made about how we will proceed, and I'm very much looking forward to that.
In the few minutes that I have left, I want to refer briefly to two other areas that are of concern to me and to my citizens in Victoria-Beacon Hill, as well as in other parts of
[ Page 9519 ]
this province. This deals a bit with housing and touches on crime and the need for strengthening public security.
Some 66 percent of the population of Victoria-Beacon Hill are renters. An equal percentage of the builtaccommodations are also rental units. This has a significant impact on the nature of our community and the ways in which many of our citizens who are on very low incomes -- senior citizens, single mothers, disabled people, first nations people -- have to live. We in this government have begun the important work of solving that issue with the rental housing market bill that is coming forward. There are some key elements in that bill that will be of major significance to the people in this province, as well as many of my constituents in Victoria-Beacon Hill. It is designed to be protection from unjustifiable rent increases. At the same time, it is to help to provide a fair return on investment. Its purpose is also to strengthen communication between landlord and tenant, which is often seen as an unequal power game. Tenants need strengthening in that relationship. Key elements of the model include a process activated by individuals. Tenants' tenure means a tenant may stay in an apartment while a rent increase dispute is being resolved.
The next point is particularly important, because it seems to be deliberately misinterpreted in the minds of some. There is to be no cap on rent increases. We have seen reports that suggest that there is to be a cap. That is not the case. Despite the pressure from many tenants who would like us to put a cap on, we're saying no. What we are providing, though, is a method for determining a reasonable rent increase and a three-step dispute resolution process: clarification, reconciliation and arbitration. These will not be easy issues to deal with, but they're going to be there.
We have some sense of where the opposition may be coming from. There is certainly a record of the views of the Leader of the Opposition concerning some of the issues of rental and working with tenants. To this point I don't have any sense that that group has any understanding of what the role of tenants is and what the importance of support for tenants is at this stage. I will be looking forward to more information around that and watching what they do. We know that tenant advocacy groups are strengthening because the situation, not just in my constituency but in many others around this province, is in dire straits. So tenant advocacy groups are coming forward strongly. We will need to be paying attention to some of the issues that they raise for us.
I am very proud of one solution that has come forward in Victoria. It is a solution that has come forward from this government: we have established a housing registry for greater Victoria. Over the last years, with a very tight vacancy rate, waiting lists with all the agencies that deal with housing in this community have lengthened unconscionably. It was important for all of us to get a handle on what was happening in this area and make a coordinated effort. Not many months ago, this government established a housing registry. It will provide two important things for this community: comprehensive information on affordable housing offered through non-profit societies, through co-ops and the private market; and one-stop housing information that was formerly only available through a variety of unconnected sources. The purpose of this one-stop shopping, this storefront operation, is to work with tenants, to help them find the accommodation they need, and to find their way through the maze of difficulties they sometimes face in trying to find solutions to their significant housing needs, particularly for the homeless and at-risk in our community.
One of the things we have to bear in mind is that providing new housing for sale is not always a solution. It particularly doesn't work in Victoria-Beacon Hill, where we've determined that of the 66 percent of the population who live in rental accommodation only 9 percent are able to purchase a home. They live at that economic level. We know that we have to be in the rental market. We have to participate with the private sector in the rental market, so that our citizens have the kind of living accommodation that they are entitled to.
I was going to talk a bit about public security. I will refer briefly to some issues around that. It was mentioned in the throne speech, and I have high hopes that there will be some activity -- and there is some -- happening. I just want to give a brief overview. It's important in this area. I was chair of the police board in greater Victoria for some five years, and I came to understand a great deal more about the issues of public security. It's not our role, nor should it be, to make any attempt to overstate the nature of the concern. We don't want to create panic, but at the same time we have to recognize that there is a reality to the difficulties that some people perceive to be the case. Lots of statistics are out there, and we need them to get a better handle on what is going on in our communities. This is very important. But sometimes, as we've seen recently -- and I've seen particularly in a recent national magazine -- the stats get used in ways that aren't entirely reflective of what is happening in the community. That needs to be clarified pretty soon. I feel perfectly safe in Victoria, so I'm always keen to challenge national bodies that suggest that Victoria isn't a safe place to be. I also know that other people, particularly older women, feel differently. That's what we as government and as a community can respond to. As government, we would be encouraging communities to understand what's happening and to begin to work with that. We as a government are in a position to facilitate some of the things that can help to resolve those kinds of issues.
I want to put on the record my enormous appreciation for some of the support for Victoria that has happened in the last two years -- support that has never happened before or has happened in a very limited way, and which the community in greater Victoria is very supportive of. We have launched a number of different kinds of programs that are provincewide, not just in Victoria-Beacon Hill. I want to thank the Minister of Women's Equality and the Attorney General's ministry for the major contributions they have made to this, in recognizing those social issues and concerns.
Not long ago we launched a $10 million Stopping the Violence initiative, which included 80 new counselling services for women in more than 100 communities in this province. In addition to that, 11 new sexual assault centres have been opened and developed. This is all new in the last two and a half years, and that is significant. We are reaching into women's communities that have been struggling for years and years to make their case known and to be heard by the government that purports to serve all the interests of all the people.
We as social democrats and as a government have, in fact, put those commitments, that understanding and that fundamental belief and feeling into legislation, and we see that all across this province. Women and men -- families and communities -- across this province are now getting the kind of support they deserve. We would like to do a lot more, and hopefully, over the next while we will.
In addition to all that, 145 new spaces in transition houses across British Columbia have been established, and counselling services for children who witness violence have
[ Page 9520 ]
been established. All of these are important facets to the sense of public security that we in the communities have, so that we can move and live with the dignity and comfort we are entitled to as human beings.
In the Victoria area, I'm really delighted that a number of community organizations have received major support from this government. The Pacific Centre Family Services Association, which is not in my riding but in a colleague's riding, has received significant money in the counselling area. The Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Centre, with the strong reputation it has for the work it does, led the way among sexual assault centres across this province and received substantial funding to carry on the work it's doing. The Victoria Women's Transition House has received some substantial funding. It was one of the first in British Columbia many years ago, and it recently moved. In addition to that, we're looking at second-stage women's transition housing. This is of vital importance to women who find themselves in these difficult situations.
Overall we've seen this government's commitment to the social fabric of this province and of our communities, and it has put our money where we know the needs are. I'm so proud of what we have done to date. As the days, months and years come forward as we complete our mandate in this first of many opportunities to serve our community, I know that we will see more of this.
[11:30]
The throne speech has offered us an opportunity to focus on the economic issues in our province, on young people, on skills development and on our forestry sector. I think it is significant at this time that we are undertaking the kind of work that will then solidify our base and our communities in a very strong economic sense. I'm very proud of this throne speech, and I'm looking forward to the details of all those things in the days and months ahead.
J. Weisgerber: Before I begin my remarks in response to the throne speech, I would like to congratulate the new members for Vancouver-Quilchena and Matsqui. I can assure them that their victories weren't lost on those of us in the new Reform caucus. Indeed, we shall always look back on those crucial by-elections as a pivotal moment in British Columbia history. There is no doubt that the road to reform was fast-tracked through Matsqui, a fact that grows clearer with the passage of time. To both new members of the House let me say: welcome to our House, welcome to the "bigs" and welcome to your first week in opposition. I hope you like it in opposition, because I have a feeling that you're going to be there for a long time.
Now I really want to get on to the business at hand. But I also want to commend the new Leader of the Official Opposition on his maiden speech made on Tuesday. It actually sounded pretty good. My initial impression was that I'd heard it all before, and then I remembered that I hadn't just heard it all before; I'd said it all before -- twice in fact. Two years ago I laid it all out in Hansard, even the line about deserving better government than this. Last year I said it all again, as the Liberal researchers have apparently discovered. As that speech has been given for three years in a row, I'm not going to pilfer from my past critiques and give it again this year; rather, I'm going to talk about a subject that is close to my heart and that is now indelibly stamped on the minds of voters. I'm speaking, of course, about Reform: a change in B.C. politics that's all about change and a concept that defines in one word what no nineteenth century ideology can, be it liberalism or socialism. Reform is not an ideology at all; it's a commonsense way of governing. It's not about left- or right-wing politics; it's about citizen empowerment, fiscal responsibility and individual enterprise in a new global economy. In other words, Reform is about change, a word that was often repeated in the throne speech but was altogether absent in its content.
Once again, the throne speech was little more than pulp, pith and packaging. It spoke of change but reeked of rhetoric. There wasn't a single new idea in it -- not one reference to direct democracy. There wasn't one word about referenda, recall or initiative; free votes; or fixed election dates. There wasn't even an inkling of leadership on the most pressing problem of our time: how to deliver better value for money from every tax dollar without spending a penny more than we did last year. There wasn't anything in the throne speech about the kind of direction that small business is looking for and nothing close to a recognition that the growth of government is the central obstruction to economic growth today. It was only another shopworn attempt to buy votes with borrowed money, through B.C. 21, and only a hackneyed blueprint for increased debt, borrowed from the Liberals in Ottawa: buy now, pay later. It's the same old bankrupt approach to governing that has put the country so deeply in debt over the last two decades.
Is that change, hon. Speaker? The only thing that's different about this government's borrowing habits versus those of the federal government is the number of zeros after the dollar sign. Together, both governments have colluded to convince taxpayers that they are somehow getting a good deal with a $6 billion spending scheme that is old-style pump-priming at its worst. Each level of government in B.C. is kicking in a tidy sum to build a sewage treatment system in Vancouver that will be paid for by future taxpayers throughout the province. Roads and bridges which used to be built on a pay-as-you-go basis will now be amortized over their lifetime, at four times their original cost. Millions more will be dished out in IOUs to buy make-work jobs for workers in resource-based communities who are losing their resources and jobs due to this government.
If that's the type of change this government has in mind, we say that it's time for Reform. The NDP and Liberals still haven't got the message: the well is dry. Taxpayers are tapped out, and they are demanding that everyone in this chamber should stand up for that message and deliver it loudly and clearly, regardless of which party you belong to. It's time for real change. It's time to give MLAs the right to vote freely in this Legislature, without the whip and the threat of party discipline. We could do that by agreement today if the NDP or Liberals cared about meaningful change.
At the UBCM convention last September I challenged the present Leader of the Opposition to make a commitment to free votes in the Legislature. He ignored the challenge then, just as the Premier has done over the past two years. I introduced a free votes enabling act during each of the past two sessions, and will do so again this year. But we could introduce free votes without legislation; it would only take an agreement. So I will repeat my challenge here and now: if the Premier and the Liberal leader really believe in reform, let's agree to have free votes on all matters except those explicitly identified as questions of confidence. I'm sure that my former caucus colleagues would support free votes in the Legislature, as would the other independents in this chamber. We don't need to change the standing orders or have a lengthy debate; we just need to have the political will to do it. True reform is about having the political will to do the right thing.
Nothing is more badly needed in our democratic system than the basic right of free votes in the Legislature. Party discipline is a self-serving, antiquated convention of
[ Page 9521 ]
democracy gone wrong. It's a relic of representation without reason, that expects acquiescence and delivers mediocrity. In an age when leadership and courage are more desperately needed on the part of legislators than at any time in history, party discipline invites only cowardice and public contempt. Each one of us can change that today if we make a common commitment to free votes in this assembly.
As I noted, the throne speech was strangely silent on the issues of recall and citizen initiatives. We'll have much to say on these subjects when the government brings in its phony legislation this spring; that is, if it is still committed to keeping its word. For now, let me just say that genuine reform would give British Columbians a workable recall and initiative process, and that means giving constituents the right to fire their MLA if he or she is unfit for office. As one of the three new Reform members in this House, I would welcome a realistic recall process that would give my constituents the right to judge my actions and hold me accountable at any time. I'd love to give them a workable tool for initiating referendums on subjects the government doesn't have the will to deal with. By the same token, British Columbians should have a means of tossing out legislation that they don't support. But I won't hold my breath waiting for either of these reforms from the NDP or the Liberals, because neither party is truly committed to direct democracy. The truth is that both of these parties fear people.
The throne speech is a testament to that fear of the majority which is ingrained in the NDP. Above all, the throne speech is a document crafted with one utterly passive and pathetically timid purpose in mind: to say nothing that will provoke controversy or meaningful debate in this chamber. In that limited sense the speech is a success, for it is so devoid of substance that it's even tough to talk about, let alone swallow. Anyone who believes that this government is going to freeze taxes for three years and balance the budget is sadly deluded. Fortunately, the only people who may actually fall into that category are the members opposite, and even most of them know better.
This throne speech makes an excellent case for fixed election dates. We know that the government's plan is to pull the plug on the pretext of a balanced budget in 1996. There's nothing new about the practice of manipulating the timing of an election to suit the political agenda, but it doesn't serve the public interest, because it lends itself to the kind of chicanery and vote-buying that lies at the heart of B.C. 21.
B.C. 21 is indeed a licence to spend without licence. It's a shell game, pure and simple. British Columbians are sick of those games; they are fed up with the politics of playing politics. A fixed election date, combined with free votes, would ensure that the only way an election could be held prior to its scheduled date would be if a government lost a vote of confidence. Otherwise elections would, and should, be held at fixed intervals that would be beyond the power of the government to manipulate to its own ends. The central challenge for all of us should be to reduce the size, scope and cost of government, and to give the people the power they need to ensure that government is both affordable and responsible.
The throne speech not only failed to address that challenge, it flatly rejected it. At the end of the day, it speaks to bigger government, greater intervention, more bureaucracy, increased debt and higher taxes. In spite of the lofty talk of change, the throne speech leaves the taxpayers with no real power to effect meaningful governmental change between elections. Real reform must start with a new form of grass-roots political power as the foundation for fiscal and economic reform. This is essential if we are to have the political will to tackle the serious fiscal challenges that face all of us as taxpayers. If we are to dramatically downsize government and make it truly affordable and accountable, taxpayers must be empowered to be heard. It's not enough for the throne speech to speak to the people; it must also demonstrate that the government is listening.
This government has studied and consulted itself to death, but it obviously hasn't heard a single word the taxpayers have said. People don't want the bill of goods this government is peddling. They want a balanced budget guaranteed by law. They want real spending cuts, a smaller bureaucracy, less red tape and a more competitive economy. They want lower taxes, less spending and a better bang for each buck. They want an equal and meaningful way to affect the laws and lawmakers who affect their lives.
[11:45]
That change is the stuff of change that British Columbians are looking for. It is the essence of reform in the years ahead. Indeed, that essence is already in the air. There is an unmistakable smell emanating from the benches across the way. It's the smell of burnt toast, one that the cabinet is often the least able to detect.
All I can say in closing is that I hope for the sake of the members across the way that the new skills training program really works, because after the next election you guys are going to need it.
R. Chisholm: On rising, I'd like to give my congratulations to our new leader and the new member for Matsqui for being in this House. Being a Liberal, I'm very glad that they won their by-elections, but I'm very happy that we have the members here so that they can partake in this democracy that we endeavour to live with here.
I unfortunately have to rise and vote against the throne speech. Unlike many of my colleagues, especially those on the government side, I am deeply concerned about the Speech from the Throne. This throne speech indicates that this government has not properly addressed the issues of greatest importance to my constituents, even though I have ensured that the government was made well aware of the concerns of the people of Chilliwack and those of my critic role.
This throne speech indicates we are heading for disaster. We are going in the wrong direction. We need a strong short-term and long-term plan, which this government obviously lacks.
The polls are telling this government that the people of British Columbia want an election. The dismal performance of the New Democratic Party in the two recent by-elections showed that British Columbians don't believe them. In Matsqui, they got a whole 2 percent popularity. They see through your "no tax for three years" scam. They know they are being conned. Mr. Premier, beware: stop robbing us. We all know your tax freeze does not cover fees for government services. We know you plan to resort to hidden tax increases. We already feel the recent B.C. Hydro increases that cost the average family an extra $200 a year, when B.C. Hydro has reported a $1.2 billion profit over the last four years.
We feel the increased tolls; increased ferry fees; increased medical fees; increased ICBC rates; increased WCB rates; increased subdivision fees, such as a 400 percent increase on farm subdividing, from $125 to $500; increased grazing fees; increased water licence fees; increased commercial transport fees; increases in vehicle infraction fees; increases in birth, death and marriage licence fees. There have been increased tuition fees, and there are now parking fees on campuses. There is an increased vehicle registration fee and there are increased hunting and fishing fees.
[ Page 9522 ]
The list goes on and on. There are hundreds of them. Fees are just another name; they're still taxes. They still reach into people's pockets. This is the government's new cash cow. This year's $50 million fee increase follows last year's $32 million increase and a $50 million increase in 1992-93. That's $132 million more in fees since this government took office just two years ago. My constituents and the people of British Columbia cannot afford these higher fees. It must stop. We are being robbed.
In addition to the huge increases in fees in the last two years, this government has raised taxes drastically, by $1.5 billion. The people know the government's claim to freeze taxes for three years is a scam. We'll be paying the recently implemented higher taxes over the next three years. Here are a few of the new taxes implemented by this government in the last two years: an increased gas tax; a new corporate capital tax; increased personal income tax; increased commercial and business taxes; a new automobile tax and a 3 percent surtax on luxury vehicles; an increased provincial sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent; from October 1, 1993, PST on more things and on labour and services, such as car repairs, house repairs, legal fees, haircuts, etc.; PST on parking; removal of the supplemental homeowner grant for some; as of March 31, 1993, the sales tax allowance for passenger vehicle trade-ins eliminated; as of April 1, 1993, a new flat tax of $1.50 per vehicle rental; as of March 31, 1993, tobacco and alcohol prices increased by up to 30 percent; and in October 1993, Medical Service Plan premiums increased. Every conceivable tax has been increased.
In the past two years, increases have already been implemented by this government to cover the next three years and longer, yet the Premier has the gall to say there will be no tax increases for three years. What a gimmick! But it is one that the people of British Columbia aren't accepting. They're not stupid. They know who created the deficit. They all feel your tax grab. They want an election now. We'll balance the budget for you.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
British Columbians know this government has been misleading them about government spending and the deficit. They remember the excessive spending by special warrants in 1991-92. They know about the expensive trips abroad, when the throne speech indicates reductions in spending and the deficit. We all know it's NDP math, where the numbers just don't add up.
Hon. Speaker, the B.C. 21 fund created by this government is the NDP's way of quietly going into debt without having to share with the people all the ugly details in the budget. It's simply the old Socred BS fund. The NDP election promise of open and honest government has been forgotten. The bureaucracy is growing and spending, and taxes are out of control. The throne speech didn't say that the government will rectify the disastrous corporate capital tax. As a result of the corporate capital tax implemented by this government, money is not being invested in British Columbia. Those firms in British Columbia now are finding this tax is creating a hardship. They are considering leaving the province. This is very detrimental to our economy and to employment. I urge the government to rescind this tax immediately, before it is too late.
Agriculture and fisheries were completely neglected. These areas have 208,000 employees, but there was not a word about them in the speech. These areas have not been a priority with this government in the past two years, even though they are wealth-generating industries. They obviously will not be a priority in the future. Both industries are in crisis, yet they weren't mentioned in the speech -- and two cabinet ministers come from the farming community.
I'll deal first with agriculture, which is essential for British Columbia's prosperity. We must maintain the capacity to feed ourselves, because it gives us critical independence. It keeps us free of future market monopolies in an industry that is impossible to replace once it is lost. British Columbia farmers can compete; they have in the past, so there's no reason why they can't in the future -- with a fair competitive climate, one with balanced taxes between Alberta and British Columbia. This doesn't necessarily mean subsidies for farmers, but it does mean giving the British Columbia farmer the same breaks as their competitors.
The Liberal Party firmly believes that the best investment we can make in our agriculture and food industry is the education of young men and women who will continue the long tradition and legacy of progressive agriculture in the Fraser Valley and all of British Columbia. We must ensure that the agriculture industry is strong and viable. Do hon. members realize that a 5 percent increase in sales of farm products in this province would increase jobs by 4,000? That's food for thought. Do they realize that new agricultural technology centres with natural labs are available to educate our young farmers?
I will urge this government to work in consultation with the private sector to develop more of our primaryagricultural products into marketable processed and packaged goods. Underlying agriculture and farming is a dynamic, thriving processing industry, which our government must tap into. It is apparent that the agrifood industry plays a major role in the British Columbia economy. Chilliwack is the major player. There are many more jobs in that area.
The throne speech also forgot fisheries. The province must be involved, and stay involved, in fisheries issues. There is $1 billion worth of processed seafood sold annually in British Columbia. All these jobs could be lost, forcing retraining and putting another burden on social services, which we cannot afford. We are in danger of losing our province's native fish species if this government does not intervene.
This government must be involved in initial consultations and negotiations with the federal and American governments, and not as an afterthought. The fisheries must be enhanced through onshore value-added, not through shipping value-added offshore. Stricter laws and quotas must be implemented, and it is crucial that they be enforced and monitored. The province must take the initiative to assist and inform the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans about their fisheries. The government is not doing this forcefully and effectively. The salmonid enhancement programs must be continued and operated by all levels of government, industry and volunteer groups. It is essential that this government take the initiative to ensure that this happens.
The funding and control of this program must remain with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It must not be funded by B.C. 21, whose jurisdiction is confusing, where it gets lost. One thing we must remember is that the fish have been adequately managing themselves for millions of years. We must now learn to manage the people who harvest them.
We all recognize that aboriginals have certain rights to fish for ceremonial and sustenance requirements. But we must recognize that the commercial fisheries are of crucial importance to the well-being of this province; the fishing industry benefits all British Columbians. It's time this
[ Page 9523 ]
government got involved and stopped staying that it's a federal issue. Instead of being a cop-out, the province can make great headway by setting an example and indicating that all Canadians are responsible for land claims settlements, are equal regardless of heritage, and must have the same access to our resources. The continued existence of our resource is crucial for the benefit of all Canadians. Conservation, fairness and cooperation are paramount for future prosperity.
An additional problem is that the U.S. is lobbying for an additional salmon quota north of the border out of the Fraser River system, while implementing a zero quota on all fishermen south of the border off Washington and Oregon states. Meanwhile, Alaska refuses to cut their quota of Canadian salmon heading to the Nass and Skeena rivers. We must ensure that there is equity in cutbacks on both sides of the border. And conservation of the species must be paramount. We must remain vigilant and not let this happen. And I re-emphasize, for a third year in a row the throne speech has not addressed this issue of agriculture, fisheries and foods. The previous government did not address it either, so the fault is not solely this government's.
[12:00]
Hon. Speaker, the throne speech hasn't addressed aquaculture. This is an extremely viable industry; aquaculture is the fastest-growing area in fisheries. But this government has not given it adequate attention. The government promised a moratorium as one of its promises on aquaculture during the 1991 election, but it has failed to do even a study on it. Fish-farming licences have been increased, while some farms have been quarantined due to disease and the fish destroyed. This government has not told us about the effects of aquaculture on our ecosystems. Why? Because this government hasn't taken the steps to find out. According to the throne speech, we won't know about those effects in the near future.
Forestry is also of major consequence to the economy and livelihood of the people of Chilliwack and the province. The Chilliwack forest district has a large annual harvest from some of the finest forest land in British Columbia. As a result, reforestation and intensive silviculture practices are important. We will urge the government to develop a sound reforestation policy, in order to develop a more revitalized industry, which is a critical part of our local and provincial economy. The continual development of secondary wood processing is also necessary to assist the industry and becoming increasingly important. The proposed Cascades international park and the Pinecone Lake-Burke Mountain park proposals could have a devastating effect on forestry and the economy of Chilliwack. I urge the government to consider this, and balance forestry and environmental concerns in my riding of Chilliwack.
Many people work in Vancouver and must commute by car or bus -- or broom, if they are a member of the NDP. It has reached the point where the Trans-Canada from Chilliwack to Vancouver is a continuous traffic jam, regardless of the time of day. Consequently, the air in the Fraser Valley is becoming polluted due to exhaust emissions. This government cannot afford to wait to rectify this situation. Bus lanes must be installed immediately. This government has indicated that commuter rail will be built to Mission in the not too distant future. This is a good sign. But most of the traffic moves between Chilliwack and Vancouver. A commuter rail system using existing rail lines, as was used during Expo, must be implemented immediately from the Chilliwack area. We must eliminate the pollution before it is too late to make a difference. Also, buses and government vehicles must use pollutant-free fuel to help reduce pollution. This throne speech has not addressed these very critical issues.
In local issues, the traffic congestion on the Yale-Vedder Road overpass in Chilliwack has increased drastically due to population increases. This government must immediately address the unsafe on-off ramps from the Trans-Canada Highway to Vedder Road. Also, there is no safe place for pedestrians or cyclists in this area. The people of Chilliwack want this unsafe situation resolved immediately.
Another area where Chilliwack has a problem is in the courthouse system for the Supreme Court. There are rumours that it may not be Supreme Court but just for Provincial Court. Unfortunately, the nearest Supreme Court to Chilliwack is in New Westminster. The Supreme Court is presently in Chilliwack, and it services the Fraser Canyon and the upper valley. Distances are far too great. They have one in New Westminster which services the central Fraser Valley, and they have one in Vancouver. They need one to service the northern end of the valley and the Merritt area.
Since the passage of the labour bill, I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents, asking that we inform the government of the negative effects it is having on their businesses. All these letters have been forwarded to the minister, yet there is no indication in the throne speech that the labour bill will be changed. This is very disappointing. It shows that the voices of my constituents and of businesses across British Columbia have not been taken seriously. Therefore I once again urge this government to readdress the labour bill in order to ensure that our businesses will survive in these difficult economic times.
Hon. Speaker, not all is rosy in British Columbia, as this throne speech would like you to believe. The Business Council of B.C. study concludes that British Columbians are poorer than we think, and that other provinces are gaining on us. Statistics indicate that British Columbia didn't feel the 1990s recession like the rest of the country did. Last year our economy grew by 3.2 percent, compared to 2.5 percent for the Canadian economy as a whole. Our employment expanded by 2.9 percent, compared to the federal employment growth of 1.2 percent. But this is giving us a false sense of security. This growth is due to the healthy service and construction sectors. It is not sustainable, because the underlying engine of growth, the industrial economy, has been lessening. The industrial economy includes high technology, manufacturing, forestry, mining, fishing and agriculture.
The Business Council argues:
"The industrial economy is the main engine of wealth creation in the principal source of exports, a key employer of relatively well-paid workers, and the part of the economy most exposed to global competition. Nurturing the dynamic and competitive service economy in British Columbia is unquestionably important, but the fact remains that the health of the service economy is tied to that of the industrial economy. But the strong net migration into British Columbia in the past few years, along with inflation, has been masking our true economic performance."
Adjusting the data for population growth and inflation, the study found that British Columbia's gross domestic product per capita actually fell during 1990-92. In other words, the average British Columbian became poorer in the 1990s. The industrial economy, on a per capita basis, shows a dramatic decline since 1988. As industrial performance fell, so did per capita personal income levels.
The growth of government taxes and regulations has made it more difficult for our B.C. industries to compete. In the Province on March 8, 1994, it was reported that Microsoft Corp. is transferring most of it's 85 workers at a Vancouver
[ Page 9524 ]
development lab to the United States. We have seen Cassiar close. In my own riding of Chilliwack, Fraser Valley Foods closed. And I can cite hundreds of other plant closures in the past two years, since this NDP government has been in office. The provincial government's share of gross domestic product in British Columbia has risen very significantly, from 15 percent to 23 percent between 1991 and 1992, the Business Council of B.C. reports. They feel, and I agree, that bigger government and its accompanying increased taxes and regulations add up to more costs for business, and these costs show up directly in your jobs. The study stresses that if this trend isn't reversed, the narrowing of the gap between British Columbia and other provinces will accelerate and outpace British Columbia growth.
With the evidence found by this study, and this government's showing in the two recent by-elections standing in recent polls, I urge it to either call an election or get out and listen to the people. Don't con them. Get rid of your new regressive taxes; reduce taxes; stop using fees as a cash cow; balance the budget today, not only in an election year; encourage the industrial economy; reduce the bureaucracy; and cut excessive spending, such as expensive trips and conferences.
Overall government debt has increased by 63 percent -- $10.5 billion -- under this government, and the cost of servicing this debt has risen by 53 percent. It is time for every member of this Legislature to put issues and policy before political agenda. Let's work together as a team for the common cause to improve British Columbia, lower the debt and get people back to work. Those are the problems, and I am committed to rectifying this. I hope that all members of this House are the same, regardless of political affiliation, and will join me.
D. Jarvis: I listened with great interest to the throne speech, which further supported my feeling that there are crises looming in this province. One aspect is that there is a crisis in the leadership and management of the energy resources of this province belonging to the people -- not because of a crisis in energy resources, but because of a lack of leadership and policy direction from the government of our province.
Our province is blessed with excesses in energy resources. We have large deposits of coal, tremendous hydroelectric capacities and long-term supplies of natural gas. History tells us that in other times and other places wars were fought over resources that do not come anywhere close to the natural resource fortunes we have inherited in this province.
We must ask ourselves -- and if we don't ask, our children and grandchildren will: will we spend our inheritance into oblivion? Will we squander what we have without consideration of how we will benefit, how the benefits accrue to all of us or how they will be divided among us?
Those who have occasion to read the Bible will recall the story of a nobleman who entrusted each of three servants with ten minas. A mina is Greek coinage they used at the time. He travelled the country, and upon his return he found one had earned ten minas on the original ten and another had earned five. So each of these two servants was rewarded proportionately for their earned return. The third servant had done nothing to earn a return for his master, arguing that his master did nothing to deserve a return. In response, the master said that since the servant who had been entrusted with the resource had done nothing to grow it in value, it would be taken away and given to the servants who had earned the greatest return. The analogy is that in this province we have no idea if we are pursuing the course of the servants who maximized the return, and if we are, what our strategy will be to achieve our goals; or if we are pursuing the course of the servant who believed that the owner of the resource did not deserve any return on the resource.
In the two and a half years this government has been in office, we have seen many of our resources shrink in value as a result of poor public policy decisions. The hijacking of the mining industry by the environmental pit bulls in the government caucus has been so complete that the minister responsible for the mines in this province could double for the minister in Chile or Peru. There is no leadership, no policy, no gain for British Columbians; only a slow, inevitable drift of investment to other countries where they know how to set their goals, how to capitalize on the resources that they have inherited and how to use the resources to create jobs for their people. How different from the aimless flocks that we see across the floor!
While the government taxes and restricts, we make other jurisdictions prosper at our expense. Employment and industry related to our forest resources is in a slow, descending spiral -- a vicious downward drift for want of a policy that will maximize the jobs and economic returns on the greatest of the resources that we have been granted. Hard-working British Columbians logging in the forests, driving the logs to the mills around the province, working in the sawmills and the pulp mills, working in the wholesale, retail and service industries supporting the forest industry are crying out for leadership -- leadership that has not been evident from the government benches.
[12:15]
Will there be forest jobs in this province when this government has run its sad, short course? Will the government stand and pronounce its view as to whether this resource will be treated as an asset on which we can all earn an honest return? Will we treat our forest resources as a crop? Will those who earn their living in this industry be treated with the respect we give to farmers who harvest crops? Or will they be treated as pariahs, like the east coast seal hunters? What is the direction of this government? Can anyone say: "I know"?
We have had a lack of leadership, and the consequence is a lack of security for working British Columbians, a lack of the basic security to plan ahead one year or five years or to further a child's school years ahead. How can working parents in the forest industry or the mining industry plan any future for themselves or for their children in this vacuum of government? It's leadership that threatens job security in every corner of this province.
And what of our energy resources? If there is a policy vacuum darker than in energy, it's simply seeing no light at all -- especially with this troglodyte government. Look at our history: energy has made us prosperous beyond the dreams of our forefathers. Look at the Kootenays, where Cominco has been a major source of high-paying jobs for decades. Low-cost energy made mining and smelting a profitable proposition in the Kootenays. Some have suggested that the single largest contribution to making smelting a profitable business in the Kootenays was the ability of Cominco to generate its own electric power at rates lower than it would pay a government utility or private utility earning a regulated rate of return.
Look at Kitimat, a community that would not exist if it were not for cheap power. High-paying jobs for British Columbians in the aluminum industry simply would not be there if it had not been for the leaders with a vision at that
[ Page 9525 ]
time, who saw how to make a return on our energy resources for the benefit of all British Columbians.
Look at the communities in the Peace River country and think of what has been created because of the vision of the leaders in the fifties, who saw the potential of natural gas for domestic use and of gas for sale to earn export dollars as well. Look at the high infrastructure investments in pipelines and distribution networks that have followed. Look at the secure, high-paying jobs for British Columbians that go with them.
Now look at the Kemano completion project process. Can anyone fathom a sense of government direction? Can anyone see a policy framework? Can anyone catch the scent of the government's purpose? Does anyone think that these guys have any blessed idea of how working British Columbians can benefit from this energy project? Not likely. It's not likely that this government knows, for they are adrift in a sea of uncertainty and lost in a fog of indecision, with no policy and no leadership. British Columbians would be in a sad state today if this gormless government had been around when Cominco and Alcan were building electrical generation plants, which support so many jobs today. We could forget about Trail and Rossland. We could do away with Kitimat and eliminate the pulp mill towns that were dependent on cheap power and cheap B.C. natural gas. This government has simply not come to grips with the idea that we have a tremendous energy resource that we must use to grow the economy of our province.
We must ask ourselves who is making energy policy in this province. Most would start with the assumption that it is not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. After all, the minister is not even entrusted with the responsibility for the government's own main energy producer, B.C. Hydro. If the Minister of Energy does not make energy policy, who does? Does anybody? Could it be Mr. Richard Gathercole, that longtime New Democratic representative, sometime candidate and patronage appointee? Will he determine energy policy? Could it be that this government has decided to go around the usual public policy process, in which people are elected by the voters and are responsible to the voters? Will they be replaced by councils invented by the government party and responsible to the government party, as it has reduced policy development departments or personnel in the Ministry of Energy since the responsibility for policy was given to Mr. Gathercole? Why should the public have any confidence that an appointed party apparatchik like Mr. Gathercole should have any grander vision for our energy resources than the duly elected members of the government? Could it be Dr. Mark Jaccard, the Simon Fraser Unversity professor who was this government's appointee to regulate energy utilities in British Columbia? What assurance do we have that bill-paying energy customers won't be put adrift in the sea of his academic theories or his economic notions which ignore the real-life opportunities and benefits of energy but disregard the real-life pain caused by costs imposed in the pursuit of his economic theories?
The evidence to date is discouraging. Hydro and gas customers are calling MLAs' offices in waves of protest against a massive increase on their bills. Those who are most angry are those who have investigated the cause of the steep increases in their energy bills and have discovered that increase after increase is driven by policy or, better still, by poor policy backing.
Look at our hydro bill. Hydro has not built any new generating facilities for years. Hydro is living off investments made and paid for years ago. Hydro should be able to cover any annual increase in operating costs out of the annual growth of its customers added to the system over these past years. Our bills for electricity should have been going down, but we all know that this has not happened.
Our bills are going up every year because this government has decided it can collect massive amounts of revenue to serve its own purposes, without having to declare any increase in taxes. It simply directs that Hydro collect more money and send it to Victoria, when in actual fact Hydro should be collecting less money and sparing British Columbians in their pocketbooks -- not like this pickpocket throne speech, where under the section "Sound fiscal management and fair taxation," the Premier says: "The pocketbook of every British Columbian is a priority of paramount importance to this government." There should be no mistake about it: higher hydro bills are not caused by higher hydro costs. Higher hydro bills are caused by a deliberate government policy outlined in special direction No. 8 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission. That ostensibly transferred $670 million, almost double the government's take in 1991-92 of $340 million. The only known policy decision this government has made affecting B.C. customers is one compelling them to pay government dividends on investments they have already paid for out of their tax dollars and electricity bills. In other words, this government regards this energy resource as something for its own benefit -- not to create jobs or benefits, not for working British Columbians, as should be the case.
Then there is the matter of our natural gas bills. Here is an area where the government has done nothing but dither and wring its hands, leaving its appointed academic in a policy vacuum as well, a vacuum that Dr. Jaccard has been quick to fill with academic notions. Our natural gas bills have soared by 20 percent as a result of his decisions. How did this happen? The commodity price of natural gas took a major jump last year. As British Columbians, we are owners of this resource and we should be pleased with that fact, as prices for our resources have been severely depressed over the past years because of a glut of gas on the North American market. As a result, exploration activity and jobs had slumped, along with royalties, exploration fees and licences earned by this government. Therefore when the prices climbed last year, activity, jobs and government revenues started to jump. We all knew this had to show up in some way on our home-heating bills -- eventually it would. The question was: how much and how soon? In the lower mainland, the "how much" turned out to be 10 or 11 percent of our heating bill. As you know, regulated utilities manage large accrual accounts and deferral accounts, and this allows them to mitigate the extremes or the sharp departures from the norm in their dealings with their customers. Using either one of these devices, they could have reduced the impact to the residential customers by two or three points if they had wanted to. Did Dr. Jaccard order gas utilities to pursue such a course? No. Did the government give Dr. Jaccard any policy direction to suggest regulating in the interests of the bill-paying customers? Apparently not, and B.C. homeowners paid the price in their gas bills.
Then there is the matter of the rate restructuring. Apparently the rates for delivery service by our gas utilities have overcharged the big industrial users and undercharged the residential homeowner since the system was built in the fifties. Naturally, the industrial customers were trying to change the rates to their benefit. In the fall of 1993, Dr. Jaccard said that this was good economics. The result? On top of a 10 percent increase to their gas bills, homeowners in the lower mainland were hit with another 7 percent increase.
[ Page 9526 ]
The old system had been in place for almost 40 years, but this government's regulator couldn't wait one more year to change it. If it looks good in theory, it must be right. It must be the right thing to do right now; it can't wait until real people have a chance to absorb real increases.
The fact that the British Columbia Utilities Commission did this on their own is bad enough. But what bothers me is that this government offered no policy direction to Dr. Jaccard to protect people on fixed incomes against these jolting increases. Some Ministry of Energy! Some caring government! But the ultimate slap in the face came to B.C. homeowners when the very academic Dr. Jaccard decided to send them an economic signal and ordered B.C. Gas to charge residential customers twice as much for gas delivery service in the winter as in the summer. The effect of this woolly-minded directive is that elderly residentialcustomers who use gas only to heat their homes in winter will be the significant losers, while people who heat swimming pools will be the winners. Surely this cannot be the intent of this government. This is the sort of thing that happens when a government lacks leadership abilities and is incapable of providing a public policy framework within which it expects regulations to operate.
Is it the policy in British Columbia to use our abundant energy resources to create jobs for working British Columbians, or is it the policy to punish British Columbians for using these energy resources? Is it the policy in British Columbia to use our energy resources to generate new wealth for the benefit of all British Columbians, or is it the policy to take more and more money out of the pockets of British Columbians to pay for our own resources? At a time when employment in mining and forestry is spiralling down, is it beyond the visionary capacity of the government to consider using our abundant energy resources to attract new jobs to British Columbia? We have electricity, coal and natural gas at a very low cost. Surely, with a little leadership, we can turn these assets into secure, good-paying jobs for British Columbians.
Surely someone across the way can see that when our government discourages investment in our province by taking the very capital that is invested, when we impose environmental laws and regulations that prolong the uncertainty and extend the liability for capital projects, when we write labour legislation that is more heavily weighted in favour of unions than in other jurisdictions, we must provide some incentive, some reason for investing and creating jobs in British Columbia.
[12:30]
I can only hope that someone across the way can grasp the idea that energy is a blessed gift to this province -- and that the province is given some leadership. Given some coherent policy, we might all gain from its abundance. The route to economic success for this province, and to an even better quality of life for our citizens, is through the proper and responsible use of its natural resources. The creation of wealth that natural resources and utilization of them permits is the driver of the standard of living of this entire province.
V. Anderson: During the Speech from the Throne I listened with interest and anticipation. Particularly, I listened to see what might be promised to some 25 percent of our citizens who live in economic hardship, at or below the widely recognized poverty line. That is, they live at a position below what is considered to be the minimum income required to have a basic standard of living in our present urban and rural society. They are what I would call the economically disadvantaged.
A very high proportion of those persons also have other disadvantages and inherent disabilities -- emotional, physical, mental, educational and cultural. Many have multiple disadvantages, none of which are of their own making. They are inherited, circumstantial, the results of accidents and of community and environmental circumstances -- all beyond their control. These persons will come close to numbering about one million of our population here in B.C. The number is growing rapidly every day and applies to men and women, persons of every age from babies to seniors, people of all educational and cultural backgrounds, and particularly to our youth, who have an unemployment rate around 20 percent, almost double the average rate of unemployment in our province. Nothing in this throne speech holds out any promise to this million people, nor was their presence or the urgent state of their existing need really acknowledged. In the Premier's report to the province on television, they were even more ignored. The Premier spoke only of the middle class, of their needs and their desperate plight. This from a Premier who, it is thought, belongs to a party which historically was concerned with all the people, and especially with those who had great economic disadvantages to overcome. Apparently the NDP in our present state has divorced itself from the most critical needs of the people, both in its actions, as we have seen, and in its words. Twenty-five percent of our population have apparently become the forgotten people of this government. Because of this, I for one am very disappointed, frustrated and angry.
I became involved in the political forum in 1981 because of the distasteful, drastic and draconian actions of the Social Credit government against those who had significant difficulties because of their disadvantages. They were a government with their own agenda and they would not listen to the people of the province. Ten years later the people voted them out in no uncertain terms. They elected persons who promised to listen and to care: the NDP and the Liberals. To their credit, the NDP started out by listening. There has perhaps never been a time in our province when more government consultation has taken place around the province, with all kinds of people and groups. However, though they have listened, they do not appear to have heard.
Like the previous Social Credit government, the New Democrats had an agenda of their own into which all information was poured, and out of the funnel at the other end came the party line: power to the unionized workers. Power to the unionized workers is quite a different message than equality, equity, fairness, caring and sharing for everyone -- especially for those who have no power except the will to survive and who will never, in all of their life, become a union worker.
I favour labour unions, in their place and when there is a balance of power so that everyone -- not just a select few -- has a fair opportunity. I favour a community which is like a family where everyone shares the prosperity and everyone shares the hardships and pain. This is the kind of relationship we have not seen in this province for many years.
The Premier has asked us to judge the government by their actions, which I am glad to do. But also I now judge them by their words, and the differences between their words and their actions. On one point their words and actions are different. They spoke about the advantages of all, and worked best for the advantages of the few. Now they both speak and work for the advantages of the unionized few, and are both inviting and enforcing the unwashed,
[ Page 9527 ]
the non-unionized, to go with the flow -- the union flow -- or be left out entirely.
The NDP accused the Social Credit Party of being biased towards the minority who happened to be the rich. It appears that the NDP are also biased -- towards the minority who are the union workers. I agree that appearances may be misleading, but for most of us seeing is believing.
As I said previously, I came to the House having grown up in a CCF environment. The NDP is not the CCF in action or in philosophy. No wonder the NDP nationally, like some other parties, is trying to change its name and rewrite its purposes. They certainly have gone far from their original roots.
But I have gone away from my main topic -- namely, that the throne speech, like the actions of this government, has ignored a crucial portion of our population in every community of this province. These are the very people who are speaking out and are so angry that they were promised much, have been ignored and have received so little. I consistently get protests from across the province that the dignity and well-being of the people is being challenged and destroyed by the rules, regulations and systems of government, which are imposed from outside the communities people live in. Big Sister and Big Brother are making decisions like they never have before; Big Sister and Big Brother are watching every move of every person. The people are anxious and afraid.
One example of a growing fear is the Public Sector Employers' Council, which, like the Health Employers' Association, is being forced upon the community. As a result, it's forcing every volunteer, non-profit organization and society in this province that receives grants from the government to belong to this organization. They are being forced into the position of paying union wages and being governed by union philosophies and controls with the backing of the full force of government. Volunteer board members and executive staff with whom I have talked are frightened by the process and concerned that their organizations will be forced out of existence, that the many services in our communities which have been built by volunteers will be lost, and that people who are in greatest need will suffer most. Since these organizations have come to depend on government grants for their community services, they are afraid to speak up; they perceive their grants to be in jeopardy if they do. This is not an open, free, democratic process.
Another example is that those who are on the receiving end of government social services are appalled at the treatment they receive again and again, but since they don't have anything to lose, they tell it like it is. They have produced The British Columbia Welfare Joke Book: or, It's Not Really Funny, But If I Don't Laugh, I'll Cry! I recommend it for reality reading. It tells of real-life incidents of unacceptable, disrespectful, uncaring and unthinking treatment at Social Services offices across this province. Let me be quick to say, on their behalf, that the blame is not placed on the workers in those offices, except for a very few; the blame is on the system, the way the system is organized by the government and all the regulations which come from on high and are totally out of touch with the real-life situations in which people live. One simple illustration: they are required to respond to written regulations, when many of them cannot read or write.
I'm told consistently that the system is not any better than it was ten years ago under another government -- and because of more difficult circumstances, it is actually worse today than ten years ago. The New Democrats' promises are behind the times. This need and the urgent needs of children and adults living in dire circumstances in our communities, with little or no hope, were not reflected in the Speech from the Throne.
But let me be fair when I challenge the NDP and Social Credit. I'm prepared to look in the same mirror myself. I would likewise challenge the Liberal Party of British Columbia to re-examine social planning. For my part, I will demand that it gets the highest priority. In my understanding, people are more important than forests, minerals, businesses and profits. Those are the tools people use and that are used to serve people. People are not to be sacrificed for the well-being of the tools, but the tools and resources are there for the people. The people must always come first, and those in greatest need must come first of all. Any party that does not have a valid and effective social program as a base will fail, and the voters will judge them harshly. Fortunately, people from of all walks of life are now voting. Twenty percent of the population is a large and powerful voting bloc, when even one vote can make a difference.
[12:45]
As I listened to the throne speech, I wondered what perspective I should try to listen to it from. I finally decided that while listening to it and reading it, I would think of myself standing on the street corner of Main and Hastings in Vancouver or Douglas and Johnson in Victoria or on the main street or a side street of many small towns and villages throughout the province. When I did this, I had to say: "Pardon? Who are you talking to? What are you trying to say? What relevance does it have for me, the unemployed, the economically disadvantaged? "It was very difficult to find any relevance at all.
In the throne speech there was a concern that the social safety net should be repaired. There was also the statement in the throne speech: "Our goal now must be to ensure" -- referring to social programs -- "they remain relevant, effective and accessible." I hope they do not remain as relevant, effective and accessible as they now are, because they are not. We dare not have them remain as they are. They must be totally changed and revamped from the ground up -- from the very depths of the roots of the people themselves. From that perspective, we need to look at the people within our community who are disconnected from the services, the educational system, the employment system and the family system.
I heard the Premier talking to the middle class. In his television presentation he particularly stressed that he was speaking to, about and for the middle class. There was no reference in his television presentation other than to the middle class, and warning the richer elements that they need to take care.
From an NDP point of view, which is a move away from the former CCF position, I understand that they are no longer championing all the people but only the ones who sit in the middle, who are perhaps the largest number of voters, rather than the percentage on one end who have the greatest needs. It is true that the NDP government may be tough on the wealthy and supportive of the middle class. But where did its concerns go for those of low income? Their real record of making life better for people in difficult circumstances is meagre. More time seems to be spent promoting gambling than promoting the well-being of the people. I see ad after ad on my television every day promoting gambling to all sectors of our society by an organization that is run, managed and controlled by the British Columbia government. The majority of ads and concerns provided by
[ Page 9528 ]
our government that come across daily on television are for gambling processes. We see that being promoted every day, night and week. Why are they not promoting the needs of the people of our province with the same enthusiasm, vitality and consistency?
Uncertainty from the cradle to the grave has become an increasing reality in our province. I cannot emphasize too strongly or repeat too often that up to 25 percent of B.C.'s population find that the basic necessities of life are unavailable to them, even though they may be available in large part to the middle class. We are increasingly aware that even the middle class is finding it harder and harder to maintain their prospects for the future.
In 1981, under the Social Credit government, we saw the demise of jobs for many business and professional people in this province. We saw the demise of jobs for construction workers, and we entered into a depression. We have never come out of that depression. It has varied a little, but we are back into another one. If the Premier is saying that our province is in wonderful shape and everyone is doing fine, and that our province is going ahead against the trend and is doing better than any other province, what good is that statement to the 25 percent of our population for whom this is not true? Regardless of where we stand in priority, 25 percent of our population are without the necessities of life and are barely surviving. It appears that here in the Legislature we are, as we are accused of being, sometimes out of touch. But I find it hard to understand how the Premier could be out of touch. The very constituency of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant that he represents has a far greater percentage of the disconnected and the disadvantaged than most places in this province. He must be aware of this in his own constituency, and yet he has not responded to these people in the Speech from the Throne.
The study of the Vancouver inner city by the Vancouver School Board clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the social conditions of many children and families who live in the inner city. These conditions are not only in the inner city of Vancouver; they are also here in the inner city of Victoria and in other cities and areas around our province. We hear about the difficulties of students within the school system and we hear about the number of dropouts. The school system has been blamed for this. But many children's difficulties in school are not primarily the fault of the education system. The difficulty is that these children have to go to school without the same opportunities, without the privileges of food, clothing, social conditions, family and environmental and community support. When they come into the school setting they don't have the physical, mental and social ability to respond to the opportunities that are there as other people are able to do.
We need to be aware that we are overlooking a vast percentage of our population. And when I say "we," I include all members of this House, not just the government or the other members within the independent parties. I include all members of the House, and stress that for my own party as much as for anyone else's.
The present government has talked a great deal about the family, but has failed to promote the family supports that are needed across our province and in the communities where people live. Just ask these families who, because of circumstances beyond their control, needs to seek benefits from Social Services. Because of the overload on staff, as I've mentioned before, the consistent consultation they need is not available to them. The lack of confidentiality and dignity is seen in every welfare office across our province where people are forced to line up.
I say that people should be treated the same as if they went into a lawyer's office, or a doctor's office, or any professional office where they are ushered in and talked to personally and privately, and not made to give information in a public lineup. People object to this very strongly. They have objected to it for years, and little has been done to correct it. They do not appreciate that the majority of them have not been defrauding the system; nor do they appreciate the fact that they have to line up in public, outside in the rain, to receive their opportunity for a livelihood, and have their pictures put in the paper and be made big headlines of because a few have taken advantage of the system. How is it that we are able to punish all the disadvantaged people because a few have made mistakes? There is no other portion of society that we would do that with who have a voice to speak out for themselves.
Everyone knows that all families have times of urgent crisis. Everyone knows that our social system is not structured in a way to meet those unexpected needs. We need to change the system.
I urge all of us, not just the government, to be part of that change. The throne speech, though presented by the government, no doubt reflects to some extent the strengths and weaknesses of all of us who sit in the Legislature. After all, it is the throne speech not just of the government but also of the Legislature, and those who sit on the opposite side cannot simply write it off and say: "That has nothing to do with us." We must also accept its weaknesses. So I'm not trying simply to put the onus on any one group; I'm saying the onus is on all of us as we sit and work here together.
Unfortunately, the families and the youth of our province are having a difficult time. Even those who would attempt to change their circumstances through education and job training opportunities fail to have the privilege to do so. For many of them are offered six-week training courses, or perhaps six months, which is nowhere near adequate for our present-day needs.
I trust that not only the government is challenged to rethink the implications of the throne speech for the economically disadvantaged 25 percent of the population. I trust that all of us are brought to the need to rethink our position and our response to these people in our province.
A. Warnke: After such a stimulating speech given by my colleague for Vancouver-Langara, I'm just raring to go at it myself. But I have noticed the time, and I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjourment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]