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 25, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 13, Number 14
[ Page 9629 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
B. Copping: I would like to introduce three wonderful people in the gallery today: Louise Baker and her two daughters, Heather and Julia. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Lovick: I want to make an unusual introduction this morning, if I might. As I looked over my shoulder, I noticed a gentleman in the gallery with whom I, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests, have had the pleasure of working for some time now. Given that I am departing that position and shan't be working with him much longer, I want to simply acknowledge the work of this particular civil servant -- and so many others who continue to do good work on behalf of all of us. I therefore ask the House to please join me in making welcome Mr. Larry Sluggett, from the Ministry of Forests.
MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION REFORM
R. Kasper: I rise today to discuss what I and my constituents consider an important matter dealing with the Motor Carrier Commission. The Motor Carrier Commission has a mandate to regulate hire motor vehicles -- trucks, buses, taxis -- that transport people and goods across municipal and provincial boundaries. It regulates the industry in order to promote safety, to establish and maintain an adequate and efficient service across B.C. at a reasonable cost, and to foster sound economic conditions in the transportation business of the province. The purpose of the regulations is to prevent excesses in the industry -- i.e., rate cutting, longer working hours for drivers, lower maintenance levels and declining financial stability through excessive competition.
I want to touch on an issue that is dear to a number of constituents in my area who are in the gravel-hauling business, and that is the problems they've encountered in dealing with the Motor Carrier Commission. While I appreciate that the Motor Carrier Commission was founded on the basis of addressing the issues of control and regulation of the industry and making sure that there is fair competition, during my investigations and discussions with my constituents I found that that is not the case.
The Motor Carrier Commission in the Victoria area was faced with a number of issues relating to licensed dumptruck operators on Vancouver Island, in particular the southern part. They've protested the granting of any additional authorities. Every application for authority is investigated by the Motor Carrier Commission, and a report including recommendations is forwarded to the Motor Carrier Commission for a decision. During the investigation, all factors are thoroughly reviewed, including support from shippers and any objections filed.
In order to deal with the many concerns raised regarding dumptruck operators on Vancouver Island, the Motor Carrier Commission called a number of public hearings to allow the parties to make presentations as to why a licence should be granted or refused. During these hearings, many licensed carriers stated that there were too many carriers and granting more authorities would be devastating to their economic well-being. Many licensees have stated that they have idle equipment and can perform any work requested by shippers.
That's the type of thing that I want to take exception to. When the Motor Carrier Commission met with those haulers, it was decided to freeze a number of licences in the southern Vancouver Island area. My constituents felt frustrated in dealing with their licence applications; they felt that the rationale being used by the commission was unfair and biased, that it was nothing more than catering to existing licence holders and maintaining the status quo. I have worked with my constituents to bring forward evidence to the Motor Carrier Commission. With their work and my work, we found 15 H-plates, or hauling plates, that were in fact sitting idle. The Motor Carrier Commission based its decision on existing licences that have been issued in the greater Victoria area and on southern Vancouver Island being an adequate share of licences to cover today's economy. That goes against reality, because if I could find 15 H-plates sitting idle -- locked in drawers and sitting on derelict vehicles -- when those same licence holders are maintaining that this should adequately address the marketplace, then there's a bit of a problem with how the Motor Carrier Commission is dealing with its deliberations and with the type of information they're gathering in order to make fair decisions regarding applicants who come through the door.
I feel that the Motor Carrier Commission should do more work with ICBC and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with regard to safety. And there should be some cross-referencing with ICBC to make sure that those H-plates are in fact being used by the industry.
During my investigation, I found advertisements in the local papers by businesses that were trying to sell their vehicles, and they also said that they were going to be selling their motor carrier plate. In some cases the price requested was $5,000 just for the plate. This goes against the act and the regulations. I forwarded this information to the commission, and I'm still waiting for some deliberation by the them on those matters. The point I'm raising is that in order for the commission to fully justify its existence under current legislation, they should be taking some serious measures to make sure that the criteria they use when making their deliberations reflect the marketplace. If businesses and haulers are just treating these licences as a future selling item, their licences should be pulled, as has been done elsewhere in the province.
I also want to raise an issue regarding the government's announcement concerning the Island Highway project. I understand that the commission has had discussions with the Ministry of Transportation with regard to that project, and in their deliberations, the commission feels that it was determined that because the work will be spread over a lengthy period of time, no immediate requirement for a large number of additional trucks is anticipated at this time. I have a major concern with that position. I don't feel that it addresses the regional employment strategy of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Transportation Financing Authority with regard to local hiring for the Vancouver Island Highway project or ensures that the issue of rented and hired equipment in conjunction with this valuable and needed project will be addressed. I would urge the Motor Carrier Commission to reassess its position to make sure that local contractors and haulers on Vancouver Island are not led down the garden path in making applications....
[ Page 9630 ]
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, your time has expired.
R. Kasper: I will conclude my remarks after the response.
J. Dalton: I was interested to hear the remarks of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. I know that the members of the back bench in the government very seldom get the opportunity to speak of constituency problems in this House. I presume that the member has the ear of the ministers responsible for the problems he has documented. However, it certainly doesn't hurt to climb to one's feet now and then and make these problems known to the House as well.
Before I comment on the remarks of the member, I have the 1992 Motor Carrier Commission report in front of me, and I thought that members would like to know some of the background information which may put into perspective the difficulties the hon. member has documented.
[10:15]
In 1992, for example, the revenue of the Motor Carrier Commission was $4.7 million, and no doubt that is climbing every year, thanks to the increase in fees and licences. There were over 3,000 applications submitted to the commission in 1992. Even though the member has appropriately documented a problem, I think that illustrates that the commission is extremely busy with the number of applications. There were also 142 public hearings conducted in 1992. Again, this demonstrates that many people have concerns and complaints that they bring forward to the commission. One other point of interest for the members is that 47,200 licences were issued in 1992, so it seems to me that the commission is quite busy. Perhaps the member is making a point -- from his and his constituents' perspective -- that it's not busy enough addressing that local problem.
The member correctly pointed out the mandate of the commission in dealing with safety and regulating the market for public carriers, including buses, taxis and freight. I was interested in one comment the member made about construction on the Vancouver Island Highway. He commented that he was surprised to hear -- and this morning I am surprised to hear -- that the commission felt they did not need to license more trucks for the construction of the highway. Well, I always thought this government was in quite a rush to get that highway constructed and completed -- at least parts of it, I presume -- in time for the Commonwealth Games this summer. Therefore, perhaps this government isn't getting the message through loud and clear enough that that highway is a priority. I can assure you the opposition is in no way intending to stand in the way of that construction. Obviously the Island Highway is long overdue to be completed.
But getting back to the member's problems that he's vocalized and will no doubt carry forward to his constituents, he's indicated that 15 trucks or plates are sitting idle within his own area. He's also indicated that some of these plates are being advertised in the marketplace for up to $5,000, which perhaps is inappropriate and certainly something the commission should consider. I wish the member well in his endeavours to address this problem. As I said earlier, all members should keep in mind that the Motor Carrier Commission is certainly extremely busy. I'm hoping the member's voice -- as a member of the government back bench -- will be heard loud and clear by the Minister of Transportation, the ICBC officials and, of course, the commission itself.
R. Kasper: I appreciate the remarks from my colleague. I know that, yes, the commission is busy. And also cabinet is busy. I've got ten pages of appeals here that cabinet has dealt with in response to decisions made by the Motor Carrier Commission. I urge the government to take the necessary steps with the amended legislation in regard to the Motor Carrier Commission and appeals in general.
I understand there should, in fact, be some amendments to the act that would take appeals out and away from cabinet in regard to the Motor Carrier Commission. I suggest that there be an independent body attached -- not necessarily the commission, but a proper appeal mechanism and an authority that could make fair, reasonable assessments of Motor Carrier Commission decisions. Representatives should come from the industry, people with both H-plates and other types of plates; but there should also be representatives from the public at large. My fear is that if we just have appointees who represent the industry -- and I'm not discrediting them as individuals -- they would be more interested in looking after the industry and not necessarily the economy of British Columbia or Vancouver Island.
In some ways I was very hesitant to raise this issue. I felt that it was incumbent on me to do so, because one of my constituents has been dealing with the Motor Carrier Commission for almost a year and a half. He indicated to me that the commission required him to forward letters of support from independent contractors in the gravel business, and for hire. He submitted numerous letters from bona fide businesses and operations as required by the commission, but those letters were deemed to be inadequate.
I've done my bit to help this individual. He will be getting an appeal next week, and I wish him every success in that appeal. But some revisions and changes to the commission are needed to ensure that they are dealing with the marketplace realities that exist on Vancouver Island and that the decisions they render are based on very strict criteria. There needs to be some follow-up with ICBC to make sure that these plates are being utilized by the marketplace and the holders of those plates. There should be some way that the commission can perform some type of evaluation on these plates to make sure that they are used for what they were issued for.
CLOSER TO HOME
L. Reid: I rise this morning to discuss an issue of some importance: the future of health care in the province of British Columbia. I will speak specifically to the initiative Closer to Home. My comments will address when and if we can proceed with Closer to Home. Let me begin by saying that this is not about pitting community care against hospital care. Thinking people know that we need both. To date, New Directions has evolved toward a reduction in acute care services, but no increase in community-based health care delivery. Paraplegics in our province believed the minister when they were told that they would receive appropriate care at home; this hasn't happened. We have paraplegics today lobbying this government to increase the number of hours of care they receive in their homes, and we have British Columbians wondering why they are forced to broker their care through an agency, when they could purchase increased care themselves and dispense with the handling fees. These issues must be addressed if British Columbians are to have confidence in the NDP's Closer to Home package.
Public service nurses have been without a contract for 26 months. These nurses are front-line workers in public health, in home care, in long-term care and in mental health services -- the very people that Closer to Home needs to deliver
[ Page 9631 ]
services. It's time for this government to back its own initiative. Seven days of negotiations in seven months demonstrates zero respect for these health care professionals, our public service nurses.
For months this government has agitated physiotherapy patients in this province by tinkering with supplementary services. Physio and chiropractic have long been considered community-based services. Is the Premier now saying that these patients should return to their hospital beds for treatment and further burden our health care system? This is the same government that said that a community-oriented preventive health care system would include a range of alternative medical services. What happened to that position? Another broken promise.
More recently, the move to regionalize health care has become a top-down exercise, rather than a grass-roots exercise. Under this administration we will see regional boards move into place prior to community boards. The time line has been accelerated. This government is in pre-election mode, and regional boards will now be required by October 1, 1994, prior to the creation of community health councils in April 1995.
What happened to proceeding on the basis of community ownership? What happened to encouraging communities to make community decisions? What happened to community boards coming together to create regional boards? In fact, community developers are coming on line on Monday, March 28 -- more bureaucrats who are not delivering direct care. We are not reforming service delivery; we are adding administrative bodies under the guise of improving direct care. Do British Columbians favour a parallel bureaucracy that may one day evolve into something else? I think not.
Take the recent edict from the Ministry of Health, given that our reform process has begun: "As very much acommunity-centred model, we now have to reintroduce the elements of effective decision-making at the regional level, and we have to accelerate the development of at least interim regional boards in the next few months to take control of the process." This is Victoria once again, in an internal memo, taking control of the process. This is not about community ownership. This government intends to take control of the process by preventing health care providers from holding any elected position. Yet British Columbiansoverwhelmingly believe that health care providers should participate in decision-making. What happened to the original commitment to communities, to localdecision-making, to local expertise?
Adding to the uncertainty is this, from the minister's correspondence of March 22, 1994: "Societies which are expected to dissolve...are all major front-line health care agencies...funded by the Ministry of Health.... Examples include community hospitals, major long-term care facilities and major mental health or community agencies."
It has been a tumultuous 12 months for patients and providers in this province, and the questions remain: what level of authority will be required to achieve the new direction, and where will this authority be vested? I'm banking that this authority will remain in Victoria. Communities will be given all the responsibility and none of the authority to do the job. As it stands, those who receive the service and those who provide the service have not been well served.
In her budget speech the Minister of Finance talked about a key goal of New Directions being to find more cost-effective ways of providing high-quality health care. This is the same person who never once provided a cost-benefit analysis of Closer to Home while she was the Minister of Health. What a difference a year makes!
The success or failure of this government's New Directions policy will be measured by the rate at which appropriate community services are established to bring health care closer to home. I await the government's response.
B. Copping: I am very confused by the comments of the member for Richmond East. I don't know if she has looked at the previous budgets that this government produced. In this year alone we increased health care funding 3.3 percent, which is over $200 million. Since we were elected we have increased the budget by $1 billion, a 20 percent increase. And of that, $300 million went to new funding in community care services. This funding provided such things as more health care to people's homes in local communities, to mental health programs, to alcohol and drug programs, to community nursing, to public health and to prevention programs.
Let's look at some of these prevention programs. We launched the first hepatitis B immunization program in Canada for all grade 6 students. We established a dental treatment program for children in urgent need. We provided substance abuse prevention grants to 618 projects in 170 schools. We have done no end.... In this year's budget, which is our Closer to Home initiative, we have provided $42 million to move from acute care into the community-based sector. These programs will increase such things as outreach for high-risk pregnant women, in-home intravenous programs, home-based palliative care, and support services to allow people to recover from surgery or illness.
Let me tell you what moving from the acute care sector means. I remember that when I was interning, every night or late afternoon I would rush so that a bed wasn't taken up by somebody in emergency. This happened in the evenings on weekends. That meant that the poor people in emergency were there because they had no place to go to in the community. If you lost a bed to emergency, then you had an acute care bed taken up, often for three or four months, by somebody waiting to get into the community, where they could be better cared for and where they wanted to be cared for.
[10:30]
I have heard continually from this government that it will not put up with that. The present Liberal opposition leader and the member for Richmond East praised the Seaton commission, and then they totally put up roadblocks to implementation. Of course, it's an evolutionary phase; we listened to the community development phase over the first year, and now firmer guidelines are coming in to help the communities. We know there have to be changes in Canada, as does every other province. Unlike the Maritimes, where it's top-down, the last year has been a community development phase.
The member is quite incorrect when she states that community health councils will not come on board until the regional health boards do. There's a time line in there. If a community health council is established, it may come on board first, and then form the regional health board. She's very confused. We are going to provide supplementary services; all supplementary services are covered. Maybe the member didn't hear that we have increased the budget by 15 percent this year. I'm very proud of what this government has done.
Then I look at the part of our Closer to Home initiative where we closed down Shaughnessy and moved the beds where they were needed, into the growth areas in which I
[ Page 9632 ]
live. I heard the member for Richmond East say: "It's not a decision that can be supported by this caucus...." Yet when the Liberal leader was mayor, I heard him say to his city council, when they asked to defer the closure of Shaughnessy, that it "was very ironic that some members of city council who have demanded that the province do some cost cutting are now shooting at the one person" -- meaning then-Health Minister Elizabeth Cull -- "who had the courage to take on a difficult job."
Is this the SW2 party? Is this the sway-with-the-wind party? I don't know where they stand on an issue, and I don't know how anybody else in this province will ever know where they stand. You have the Liberal leader saying one thing; you have members of the caucus.... I have watched this party for two years. I see one stand up and argue on one matter and one on another matter. Perhaps if they just did their homework, if they read the initiatives that this government is taking, they would understand that this government is going to take part in reform.
The Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for Richmond East to conclude, I would remind all hon. members that statements are intended to bring information, not argument, and are non-political in nature. Just keep that in mind.
L. Reid: I can tell you that it's time for this government to walk the talk, hon. Speaker. The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain talked about a 3.3 percent increase. Thinking individuals in this province know that that will not even cover the cost of the health labour relations accord that was negotiated in this province. I can tell you that public confidence in the reform process depends upon the government's ability to demonstrate that quality health care services are being maintained. I can assure members of this House that public confidence is slipping. Many British Columbians are now waiting months, as opposed to weeks, for care. Health care providers know that the continuing reductions in acute care funding will threaten services, because these reductions are not being offset by enhanced and expanded community health services. Patients and providers know that a full range of comprehensive services are not available in their communities.
The lack of expanded community services also means that there are no community jobs to which displaced workers in the hospital sector can be transferred. By the minister's own admission, the anticipated 4,800 job reductions and realignments have not occurred. On February 28 of this year the minister said that 300 health care workers have retired, and 200 have been reassigned. What about the remaining 4,800?
Is New Directions capable of closing the gap between downsizing the acute care sector and establishing services closer to home? The implementation plan is not working. Patients are not reassured by where we are today. The Seaton royal commission was a good idea. Can it be implemented under the existing structure and the overlay that this minister has anticipated for health care? Patients think not. British Columbians who come to my office do not believe they are being well served by this process.
RACISM
B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker and hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly, I address you today on a subject that is attacking the social fabric of our society, and that is the issue of racism. As a member of the Jewish community, I know only too well what racism can do if left unabated. I'm sure that many members of this House saw the movie Schindler's List. You undoubtedly felt for the victims and their survivors and asked yourself how the leaders of such a cultured society could victimize and destroy their fellow human beings. The world stood by while six million Jews were annihilated. The defence of world leaders then was that they didn't know what was happening. What is their defence now, when they see ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? It's a deliberate attempt to annihilate the Muslim population. The response of world leaders is that it's none of our concern; it's none of our business.
We do not have to look to history or to a remote European country to find evidence of racism; it is literally at our doorstep. In today's Times-Colonist: "Columnist's Holocaust Stance Riles Councillor." The hatemonger Doug Collins is now writing for one of Victoria's newspapers. Much to the credit of Victoria City Council, Councillor Bob Friedland slammed him: "This is the vilest anti-Semitic [material] that I have seen in a mainstream publication" in Canada. "People in the city have been very deeply hurt and concerned about this." Councillor Helen Hughes, wife of our conflict-of-interest commissioner, Ted Hughes, described the column published March 16 as "one of the most prejudicial articles I have ever seen."
Hate literature and racism are rearing their ugly heads in nearly every riding. Hate literature is being distributed in schools throughout the province. Literature denying that the Holocaust ever happened has recently been distributed at the University of British Columbia by John Ball. This is the same John Ball who ran for one of our major political parties and is the publisher of a publication that glorified Adolf Hitler. In Mission we have the Aryan Resistance Movement, whose political goal, to quote from their literature, is: "Our aim is white power, and I intend to achieve it irregardless of what it might take to do so.... The white race is vastly outnumbered by the hordes of mud people all over the world."
In North Vancouver we have the well-known hatemonger Doug Collins, who endorses the views of well-known racists in our society, like Zundel and Keegstra. He refers to Schindler's List as "swindler's list." This well-known columnist praised a racist organization whose leader told an audience that a foreign invasion would be preferable to the city's current influx of Asian immigrants. It is to the credit of the distinguished member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale that he has challenged the racism emanating from this columnist. It is hoped that the other members of the Legislature who represent ridings in Vancouver would join this distinguished member in condemning this blatant racist.
Then we have the Christian Aryan Nation State, whose leader set up a dial-a-racist telephone service operating out of the ridings of the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara and the Leader of the Opposition, whose riding is Vancouver-Quilchena. This message service promoted white supremacy and was abusive towards blacks, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Chinese, Jews and other minorities. It warned that an immigration policy allowing non-whites is tantamount to national suicide.
We have the publication called the Phoenix Journal, which operates out of the riding of the hon. member forParksville-Qualicum. The Phoenix Journal promotes the idea that the Jewish Holocaust is a trillion-dollar lie and states that hidden historical evidence proves that the Holocaust did not exist.
In my own riding the largest East Indian place of worship in Canada, the Ross Street gurdwara, has been desecrated. In the Jewish community synagogues have been desecrated and
[ Page 9633 ]
one was burnt to the ground. In East Vancouver there is a white supremacist who owns a store which helps arm ultra-right-wingers. Last year, in an interview with the Vancouver Province, he claimed that Jews are conspiring with non-whites to destroy Christian society.
But racism is not just confined to the lunatic fringe in our society. During the recent hearings regarding Vancouver police operations, Justice Wallace Oppal noted that there were a flood of complaints of racist police officers. To quote Justice Oppal: "It's my view that this is a major, major concern. We don't want to have the same problems that now exist in major American cities." He noted that the complaints were strongest from the Indo-Canadian and native communities. The chair of the Vancouver race relations committee, Anita Boscariol, said that her panel has received racism complaints from Asians and blacks. We have racism in the Armed Forces, as evidenced by the brutal murder of a Somali youth by the ironically named Canadian peace-keeping forces.
Yes, racism is expanding; it is prevalent in all our ridings. Racism, prejudice and discrimination all threaten the very fabric of our society. It is incumbent on us, as legislators, to destroy this cancer which is corrupting our society. British Columbians take pride in the rich cultural diversity of our province. Social differences based on race, kinship, religion, language, region of origin and way of life make up the fabric of our cultural mosaic in this province. Such differences deserve acknowledgement, understanding and respect. Our sense of community in British Columbia depends on that respect and an appreciation of diversity. It is based on the principle that all people, no matter what their colour or creed, deserve equal dignity.
I know that all members deplore the rantings of such notable racists as Jim Keegstra and David Irving. We deplore the racial intolerance and display of cultural ignorance at the Newton branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, where Sikh veterans were denied entrance on Remembrance Day. I know that all members condemn such examples of racial intolerance and hatred. We must work together to create a society free from racial discrimination. We must take every opportunity to promote understanding between cultures and create a harmonious and tolerant environment in this province. Our social and economic well-being depend on it.
A. Warnke: A subject such as this does not invite partisanship. Indeed, I'm proud to say that I do not have to engage in partisanship on this particular issue, especially when I take a look at my colleagues the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, and the genuine contributions they have made to addressing some of these very serious problems in terms of race.
Canada is a multicultural society. We believe that is a basic tenet of Canadian society and our culture. On the other hand, it is necessary for each generation to relearn what it means to be a multicultural society. It is not enough just to say it is a multicultural society and pay lip service to it. Quite the contrary: each generation has to learn where we have come from.
When we look at the contributions of people such as Andre Siegfried, who wrote the book The Race Question in Canada in the first decade of this century.... He noted that the anatomy of the race question in Canada has actually brought together a unity that is unique in this country. It is a unity of a polarization that once existed between Catholic French in Quebec and Protestant English in Ontario. Yes, those fissures are still there; they present us with a challenge. But we've also responded to that challenge and kept this country united. Political parties have made that contribution as well, and they've dominated the development of Canada over the course of the twentieth century. At times -- and I've mentioned it in this House -- it's been at the peril of ignoring the aboriginal question; we will have to address that question. In terms of the whole question of race, Canadians can be proud that they've actually examined the question. They know what it means to deal with that question in terms of the fabric of Canadian society.
[10:45]
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview that every now and again we will see a cycle of the re-emergence of racism. Indeed, when we're dealing with the Jewish community, I'm appalled at what has happened not only in Europe -- particularly at some of the events in France -- but also right in Ottawa and Quebec. We should all be disturbed that there is the rise of anti-Semitism. It's always difficult to deal with these questions. But by the same token, that is what presents us with a challenge. We and every generation must respond to that challenge.
There are some indications we're having a few problems. With the question of ethnicity and racial prejudice and discrimination, racial intolerance is the basis of both. When I hear Prof. Desmond Morton of the University of Toronto state that we're seeing once again the bipolarization of French and English and a disparity between the various ethnicities' incomes and all the rest of it, we should be disturbed by that.
I think it's incumbent upon all of us who are political leaders to respond. I'm very optimistic that we can deal with the questions of race and ethnicity. We can deal with the school questions that have challenged each generation in Canada, and that are often the central questions. It's on this, when we look at the record of our party -- and I also acknowledge the record of the party opposite -- that the record has been darn good. That's why I'm very proud this day to deal with the question of race, racial intolerance and ethnicity. That's also why I'm very proud to call myself a clear Grit.
B. Simpson: I'm most encouraged by the sincere words of the hon. member. I would like to state for the record some of the initiatives our government has carried out in fighting racism. For the first time in this province's history a Multiculturalism Act has been established. This act recognizes the inherent right of all British Columbians to be treated with dignity and respect, and to participate freely in the social, economic and political life of our province, irrespective of ethnic origin, religion or culture.
Multiculturalism B.C. sponsors a cross-cultural understanding program and an anti-racism program, which seek to educate British Columbians about the importance of positive race relations. An example of this support is a recent grant to the Canadian Jewish Congress given under Multiculturalism B.C.'s anti-racism program. The forum put on by the Congress in the fall of this year will provide an opportunity for public education on the manifestation or effects of racism. The participants will learn about monitoring and evaluating anti-racism strategy. Representatives from various ethnic communities will be brought together to enter into discussions designed to bring greater cross-cultural understanding.
Last year our government passed a Human Rights Amendment Act. This act added public expression of discrimination or hatred to the definition of discrimination in the Human Rights Act, and it broadened the protection
[ Page 9634 ]
against publication, issue or display of discriminatory material. This year our government appointed a special adviser to carry out an independent, comprehensive review of the B.C. Human Rights Act in order to ensure that the rights of British Columbians are protected in a way that is fair and practical.
Hon. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join this government in fighting prejudice in the areas of education, health, social services, the workplace and housing. Let us work together to bring in enlightened legislation that will put British Columbia in the forefront of the fight against racism.
The Speaker: Hon. members, that concludes private members' statements for the day.
(continued)
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, the deficit is down, waste is being cut, jobs are up and taxes are frozen for the next three years. I rose in this House last week and stated how proud I was at being able to respond to the throne speech on behalf of my constituents, because I was first speaker. At that time we had heard the throne speech and the Premier's talk on television about the intentions of the government. We'd heard that there was going to be a freeze on taxes for three years, that the deficit was down and that jobs were going up. I thought that was great news.
I heard the budget speech, and I would have been quite satisfied as a backbencher and an MLA to just go along with what had been said by the Premier about what we were going to do. For governments all across this country, the last two or three years haven't been the easiest time to be struggling with deficits and the demands of people for services. So you can imagine my surprise and gratification when I heard not only that were taxes to be frozen but that there were actually some reductions in taxes for many parts of our economy. I was very pleased to hear that there would be no increase in personal income tax and no increase in corporation capital tax. I was pleased to hear that there would be no increase in the sales tax, the average school and rural property tax or the property transfer tax. I was also pleased to hear that the freeze applies to Medical Services premiums, and to fuel, tobacco and hotel room taxes.
[A. Warnke in the chair.]
As I said earlier, the thing that really pleased me was the tax reductions. There are cuts totalling $112 million in this budget. Half of that $112 million is going to businesses, and the other half to ordinary British Columbians.
Also in the budget -- and I'm going to wave a red flag here, because I'm sure in our "Better Way" booklet.... We made a promise during that election campaign to eliminate the property tax for eligible first-time homebuyers. We've done that in this budget. If the people opposite would take the time to read it, they would be hard pressed to find anything in this booklet that we haven't acted on in the last two and a half years. That's only two and a half years of government. We thought some of these things would take a lot longer, but we're doing it now, and I'm sure there are first-time homeowners out there who will buy on the basis of the elimination of that transfer tax. I'm pleased about that. Good news for British Columbians!
We're restoring the trade-in allowance on automobile purchases. I heard from the opposition benches: "But you brought it in." Governments bring in taxes and they listen to people on the basis of some of the moves they make. We did have a strong lobby, and in my area I got surrounded in a back room in Quesnel by car dealers who were concerned about this portion of taxation. They made a very strong lobby to the government, and the government said that if it was having a really negative effect, we would take a second look at it. We have taken a second look and we've taken away that tax, which was hurting them to some extent. I'm pleased about that.
The other really important thing is that small business gets a break in this budget. Last year we lowered or eliminated corporation capital taxes for 3,500 small businesses. This year we're introducing tax breaks for small business. One thousand more small businesses will be exempted from the corporation capital tax, and another thousand will be paying less. Good news for British Columbians!
Very important to the people in my area is the exemption of 500 cooperatives and family farm corporations from the corporation capital tax. That will reduce their tax bill by about $4 million. Very good news for the farmers in this category in the Cariboo! I'm really pleased we're doing that.
I won't go into the reduction of the jet fuel tax, because I want to keep this as short as I can. I see my friend over on the other benches who's very interested in this next subject.
Mining is a vital part of our economy. It accounts for 60 percent of B.C. exports, and thousands of skilled jobs. They've been taking a beating lately. Mills are shutting in my area because of the very low copper prices, and that's a shame. But that's a market thing that we don't have too much control over, and that's a shame. We do have control over some things, and we're giving them a break. We're putting together an $18 million package to be extended to the mining communities in order to help them prospect and start up new mines. Placer miners in the Cariboo will be particularly pleased with this piece of legislation, because they have said: "Does this government dare to help us, or what?" I have been saying for years that as far as this government's concerned, mining is important to the economy of British Columbia. This move shows that the government is committed to that principle. Miners and prospectors will be able to apply for grants from the government so they can locate these valuable minerals. Good news for the miners, good news for the Cariboo, and good news for all of B.C.!
I don't know an awful lot about coalmines, because I don't have one in my riding, but the specific measures we are taking to bring in a tax cut for coalmines also have to be good news. In this time of restraint, any tax cut should be appreciated by the opposition. They keep saying to us: "Cut spending." We're cutting taxes. When you cut spending, you throw people out of work.
Several times over the last couple of days in this House, I've listened to people talk about the draconian measures Alberta is using to control their deficit. I'd like to remind the Liberal opposition that they're no strangers to deficits. The federal Liberal government started this country on the slide to massive deficits, and then the Conservatives came along and built on that. But the Liberals started it. The Liberals in Ontario left the Rae government with a massive $8 billion deficit, which they had to work with. Nobody wants to take over a government with that kind of deficit -- just as we did here. But the Rae government and this government are doing their best to overcome them as painlessly as they possibly can.
[ Page 9635 ]
It all depends on where you're a Liberal. If you're a Liberal in B.C., you're saying: "Cut spending." But Liberals in Alberta -- where they're already cutting health care jobs and closing schools and hospitals, where they've already had a 5 percent cut in public sector wages, and where old age pensioners are getting hit quite hard by the Klein government -- are standing up and saying: "Stop that. Don't cut spending. You're hurting old people, workers, nurses and everybody in the public service."
[11:00]
As an example, I'd like to let the opposition know what they're talking about and bring it down to figures they can understand. I did a little survey in Quesnel a couple of weeks ago, because I was going to be talking to the chamber of commerce. I'm hoping that the opposition will listen to this and take the same message to their chambers of commerce. I took the three areas in Quesnel where there were going to be increases: in the Health, Education and Social Services budgets. I didn't cut 20 percent from that, the way Klein is doing in Alberta. I just said: "Let's hypothetically say that there will be a 10 percent cut for the city of Quesnel." What would that mean? I'll tell you what it would mean. If you are from Penticton -- or wherever -- you should be going to your chamber of commerce and telling them about this. If we just stuck with the present bureaucracy.... I heard a member of the opposition saying the other day that we've got to cut the bureaucracy. If we just made a 10 percent cut -- not 20 percent like Alberta did -- it would mean a $5.6 million cut to the budget in Quesnel. Go to your chambers of commerce and tell them that you're going to cut 160 jobs from your community. I challenge the Liberals opposite to take these cuts that they're talking about, transfer them into jobs and go to their chambers of commerce and say: "When we tell the government to cut the bureaucracy, we mean that in small towns like Quesnel, 10 percent means 160 jobs."
That is what the Liberals want to do. They want to cut spending and cut the bureaucracy. We're talking about people here. When you cut a job anywhere in the bureaucracy, you're putting people on unemployment insurance or possibly social welfare, and that is a cost to the government. You had better start considering that. We're not doing it that way; we're not doing it like Ralph Klein. We're doing it on a systematic basis, causing as little pain as possible, and we're bringing the deficit under control. He and the Liberals over there would have us do the same thing: hack, slash and cut spending.
In the meantime, while Mr. Klein is cutting all these jobs, one corporation had a $200 million grant from the government, and it was forgiven because they lost money. That was $200 million of taxpayers' money, while they're cutting welfare rates in that province. The people said: "We'd like to know where that $200 million went." The corporation said: "We can't tell you that; we'd be giving out our business secrets." It's not a secret when you get $200 million from the government and put it in your back pocket at the same time as the government is cutting welfare. We're not going to do that in British Columbia. We're going to do it the proper way, slowly and constructively. We'll cut the deficit by 1996 and put this province on a sound economic footing.
I want to close by saying that we've heard a lot from the opposition about the long-term debt and that we're building up the debt. I would presume that the University of Northern B.C. is part of that debt, so I challenge these people to go up to Prince George and say: "We want to cut the debt. That might mean that you won't get to finish university in northern B.C." They won't do that, because they don't really mean cut debt. They mean slow down spending -- but not in my back yard. That's the cry from all of the Liberals over there. But go into these communities where these facilities are being built and say: "Our program wouldn't let you build that university." Our program does let them build it.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I want to finish by saying this. I've got some projects in Quesnel that have been waiting for completion for a long time. If we don't borrow the money to build these facilities that then become assets, just like UNBC is a tremendous asset to the north, they will never be built. If it means borrowing money to build the Quesnel bypass that has been needed for 20 years, then I say borrow the money and build it. The people in Quesnel are behind me on that. If borrowing the money is going to mean the continuation of the extension to Dunrovin lodge, then I say borrow that money and build it. The people want it. If it's going to mean the replacement of Helen Dixon school, and it means borrowing money, they're saying to me: "Borrow it. Build it, because we then have an asset."
Hon. Speaker, it's been a privilege to stand up here and defend a budget that's fair and that's going to set this province on a sound economic base. Once again, I'm proud to be a New Democrat in this Legislature.
L. Reid: I'm rising in debate on the budget. This is a budget that I am not prepared to support. My interest in this particular issue centres directly on the New Directions policy. It centres around whether or not this policy has any direction.
As British Columbians, we certainly know that the health care sector is undergoing massive change. Yet these new directions have not been put into action, as the government has failed to provide adequate transitional measures. Communities are facing the challenge of decision-making without the necessary support. The 1994 budget does nothing to solve these problems. The $33.5 million allocated to community care are lost taxpayer dollars, as the former and current Ministers of Health have not ensured that efficient and cost-effective structures are in place for the transition into community care. Despite the NDP promise, aboriginal health grants will be reduced.
The Finance minister's doublespeak is most obvious when she says the health accord is working. Even the Health minister has acknowledged that the health accord is not proceeding as planned, when he allocated a further $15 million for retirement purposes. The HLRA accord is not the landmark agreement that the current Minister of Finance described. This government talks about the growth of health care. I would suggest that the growth of government in this province is a threat to health care, not the other way around.
Much of the recent public debate about health care is focused on whether or not the province's New Directions strategy is working. New Directions is the government label for what it would like to portray as a pragmatic, sensitive restructuring of health care. It was announced last spring with an elaborate media campaign which was paid for by the taxpayers in this province and included the frequent use of phrases such as "community empowerment" and "bringing health care closer to home." Some critical observers say that this restructuring strategy is not working. The government responds defensively that the strategy is on track, while quietly acknowledging a few minor setbacks.
In reality, the New Directions strategy is a sideshow -- albeit an expensive one -- with cumbersome new structures, unrealizable promises and cosmetic consensus arrangements. The real restructuring in health care is
[ Page 9636 ]
occurring where it always has: behind closed doors in Victoria. The decisions being made on the real issues in health care include what services will be funded, what measuring tools will be invented to assess eligibility for funding, which agencies will receive funding, and the compensation arrangements and supply restrictions for health care professionals. These fundamental issues -- what is treated, how much of it is covered, who provides the treatment and how they get paid -- are far more significant to the future health care of British Columbians than all the warm and fuzzy language in the New Directions strategy.
The only significant action to date under New Directions has been the health labour relations accord, a sort of political peace bond. This was to be the government's bridging strategy to take the province to a new era of health care. The plan was simple, other than the initial flurry caused when government cost estimates were less than 10 percent of what the experts predicted. Essentially, the government agreed to provide job guarantees for three unions for the balance of their contracts -- and this will be debated during the estimates process. In return, the unions would allow government to move 4,800 people from acute care positions to guaranteed jobs in community care. If targets for attrition, voluntary retirement and enthusiastic acceptance of new positions all followed the grand plan, savings of $80 million a year over three years were projected.
The accord, launched in a controversy over costs, has been in trouble ever since. People who were expected to retire are holding on to their jobs at a higher than anticipated rate -- this will be reflected in the estimates debate. New jobs offered in the community setting are not as attractive as was hoped. Ministry officials acknowledge that acceptance has been less than enthusiastic and have adopted a these-things-take-time position. But these things also cost money. Promised savings are not being realized, promised benefits to community care are not occurring and labour peace has not been purchased, although the price has been paid. New Directions has become no direction. Other than this elaborate and contentious job guarantee program, the New Directions strategy has produced very little of its promised results.
The main problem is one of overselling. Government announcements last February -- again, paid for by the taxpayer -- created three misleading impressions. They promised local control and openness, and vowed to preserve the strength of our existing health care system. A current reality check on those promises is revealing. Local control, for example, has become a confusing overlap of a hundred new health bureaucracies at the regional and local level with no legal standing and a maze of fine print. The proposed structures for core services illustrate the point. Provincial services such as women's health and dialysis will only need to be accessible in the province, not in any particular region. Locally managed core services such as health protection or home-based care need only be accessible on a regional level. So neither regions nor communities will get the range of services suggested in the initial launch.
In terms of openness, a strategic preview circulated by the Ministry of Health to all MLAs confirms that bureaucrats are developing systems of outcome measurement and funding protocols behind closed doors. As for preserving the strengths of the system, this promise shows the gap between public relations and planning. It is abundantly clear from reading the ministry's published priorities that reduced access, delisting and funding cuts are very much on the front burner. The Ministry of Health is definitely not preserving health care as we know it.
Yesterday the Minister of Health indicated a series of tax grabs which will come into effect April 1, in a little more than three days. When is a tax not a tax? This is a definitive tax grab into the pockets of British Columbians. The minister's press release from yesterday talks about accommodation rates for residents of continuing care facilities and extended care units and for long-stay clients in acute care hospitals rising from $23.50 to potentially $36 per day, effective May 1, 1994. The government that talks about preserving health care and having people take some responsibility for their own health care is now raising the cost of alcohol and drug treatment programs from a rate of $16.40 to $36 a day -- a little under a $20-per-day increase. When is a tax not a tax? That is a horrific increase. As a society we have said that we want British Columbians to participate in drug and alcohol reduction programs. We want them to be less dependent on those substances. Now we are going to price the treatment programs out of reach. That is tax measure that is not in the best interests of the health of British Columbians.
There are those who support this move toward centralized efficiency experts, possibly because they buy into the view that health spending is out of line. This perception was rejected by the Seaton royal commission, but seems to keep a toe hold among some commentators and analysts. As a percentage of gross provincial product, health care spending has remained basically stable over the past five years. The real issue is competition with other areas of spending. Unless governments change the fundamentals of this global budget planning process so that it reflects public priorities, health care will continue to erode. This is not to deny that there is opportunity for greater efficiency in health care. It is to suggest that we cannot maintain the integrity of the system in the long term unless all government structures respond to the challenge. The recent announcements by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein preface the kind of rough justice we face in health care, unless governments realign total spending to reflect public priorities.
My colleague has just handed me a sheet of paper that refers to key recommendations taken last September from the Pharmacare Review Panel. We have talked consistently about a health care system that honours the contributions that seniors have made. We are now looking at a system, introduced yesterday by the Minister of Health, where new taxation will be placed upon seniors who are required to purchase drugs.
[11:15]
The real dilemma with the Pharmacare review was that it was brought on line to ensure that seniors did not take drugs that could negatively interact or were contraindicated in some way. We are now saying they are going to pay the full dispensing fee. This will send the message to receive prescription medication in larger volumes to save one or two dollars per prescription. This government seems to believe that tacking on an increase of one or two dollars is somehow going to have a positive impact. The position of the official opposition is that when seniors in this society receive larger prescriptions, the negative impacts will be that these same patients end up in hospital receiving medical care paid for by the taxpayer. This government is contributing to the problem, not solving it. I'm not convinced that that is a useful direction for this government. I accept the notion that there are many seniors in society who cannot afford to pay any increase in cost, are on a fixed income, and having paid taxes all their lives, cannot now afford additional inroads into their pocketbook. It's not something I thought an NDP government would do in terms of eroding the social safety net for seniors in this province.
[ Page 9637 ]
To return to the Alberta example, Alberta announced a reduction of 18 percent in health care spending over four years. In the surrounding chaos, there were layoff estimates of 5,000 health care workers. Families now fear that they will be forced into the role of secondary caregivers. The only favourable comment that can be made about the Alberta initiative is that health care was not the biggest casualty. However, projected reductions in municipal transfers of more than 75 percent over the next four years mean that other levels of government will not be able to take up the slack.
One wonders if other provincial governments are watching the aftermath of Dr. Klein's radical surgical techniques, as they sharpen their own fiscal scalpels. There is a better way. Surely the time has come to make health care spending the last line of defence in cost-cutting strategies of deficit-plagued governments. Contrary to the official line of most finance ministers, there are alternatives.
This country has about 200 cabinet ministers at all levels of government. By comparison, France has 20 and the United States has 14. Every one of Canada's 200-plus ministries comes complete with separate and growing budgets, deputy ministers, bureaucracies and travel allowances. With this embarrassing glut of government, completely out of line with any other nation, it is remarkable that Canada can consider slashing the one thing that makes this nation pre-eminent among the countries of the world: our health care system.
Some politicians argue that cuts in lesser ministries would not accomplish much. They contend that only by hitting the big-ticket ministries like Health can we hope to address our fiscal problems. I think Canadians would argue that before health care funding is slashed, governments have about 200 ministries to adjust, downsize, and in some cases eliminate. Until the first ministers of this country can assure Canadians that Canada requires all 200 ministries in order to function as a competitive nation -- that Canadians should be asked to tolerate the erosion of health care -- health funding should be the last line of defence. A preferable strategy for fiscal management in health care should be to place priority on providers and caregivers, rather than highly paid bureaucrats. Statistics show that the growth of management positions in health care has been out of sync with every other area in the provincial economy.
Between 1981 and 1991 the entire economy of British Columbia produced about 74,000 middle-management jobs. Of this total, about 34,000 were created in health care. This means that the publicly financed health sector created about 45 percent of the total management jobs in British Columbia, although health jobs represent less than 10 percent of total employment. Even more telling is that during the same decade, only 7 percent of the new jobs created in health care were for skilled workers, while 80 percent of the new jobs were in middle management. The current government has exacerbated that trend by creating 100 new health care bureaucracies within the New Directions strategy.
This is not a condemnation of management expertise in the health care sector. In the hospital environment, British Columbia turns in one of the best performances in terms of administration costs. However, this explosive growth of management can neither be justified nor continued. Some rationalization and flattening of reporting structures would seem to offer great potential for reallocation of health care dollars. By taking the first and important step of putting dollars closer to care, the government can move away from shifting the responsibility for health care to private homes. That downloading scheme, hidden between the lines of the New Directions strategy, refers to an expanded role for informal caregivers in the home.
There seems to be a misplaced assumption that if the sick are moved out of facilities, somebody at home will take over the tertiary care responsibility. The reality is that in 1994 there is virtually nobody home. Less than 20 percent of working households have an adult at home during the day, and many who are at home are self-employed. Government cannot turn the clock back to the 1950s when planning health care for the next century. To many observers the term "informal caregiver" is government-speak for women. Instead of a health care strategy that attempts to download responsibilities to citizens, a long-term reallocation strategy that would move dollars away from bureaucrats and toward caregivers would be a meaningful way of preserving the strength of the system.
Another important and positive area for strengthening the system involves an emphasis on payback. It is not heresy to say that health is a big business, an industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on medical apparatus, technology and pharmaceuticals. There should be an emphasis on building a strong health care industry sector that is supported by research and development. Based on our population, British Columbia should be enjoying about $50 million a year in pharmaceutical research, plus another $150 million in capital expenditures by industry. We actually get a small fraction of that amount. Over 90 percent of investment continues to go to Ontario and Quebec.
It is no surprise that British Columbia is failing to attract health industry investment when you consider the almost hostile attitude shown to business by this NDP government. A current example involves Merck Frosst, a multinational pharmaceutical company, which recently donated $15 million to the University of British Columbia for research. The government took the cheque and issued a glowing press release promising new partnerships with business. A few days later the government allowed one of Merck Frosst's competitors to market a copycat drug in British Columbia even though the courts are still deciding if it is a legal copy. With this kind of double-dealing, British Columbia decreases its chances of restoring some balance to the health care system by getting private sector investment in return for the billions of dollars of public money spent.
Restructuring Canada's health care system is the political issue of the nineties. But it is more than a system; health care in Canada is a national expression of public will. Because of this we need candid, open discussions of both alternatives and those matters for which there are no alternatives. That candour has been missing in the glitzy road shows and orchestrated town hall meetings that have masqueraded as consensus exercises. I would submit that we will see the same glitzy road show as budget tour '94 takes to the road. As part of that objectivity we may even have to address some issues that are almost dogma to Canadians. We have the only publicly funded system in the world without gateway deterrents, and we are the only industrialized country without some form of legislatively controlled, direct, private sector financing to supplement government-funded core programs.
Canadians may accept the need for change, or they may not. Instead of talking about it, our governments are allowing passive privatization. About 25 percent of our health care delivery comes to us through non-government agencies. Governments can no longer practise avoidance behaviour on the issue of privately funded health care. We in Canada and B.C. do not have a health funding crisis, but we do have a staggering deficit problem resulting from the
[ Page 9638 ]
insupportable cost structure of government. Treating health care as though it were just another government program is not the answer, nor is the creation of new bureaucracies. We need to spend health dollars on direct care, maximize the economic contribution of health care and openly engage all citizens in applying the values of sustainability to the system. This budget is not supportable. It's not about the future.
As such, I move the following amendment: "Be it resolved that the motion 'that the Speaker do now leave the chair' for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following, 'but the House regrets that the government has seen fit to take an additional $1.2 billion out of the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia, further impairing the fragile economic recovery of the province; and furthermore, that the budget continues to hamper the development of a healthy, diversified provincial economy through its interventionist, ideologically driven spending measures.'"
Speaking to the amendment, it seems to me that the government didn't wait the week out to move away from the stance of no new taxes. They may change the name of taxation; they may call it a fee, licence or premium. But it is increasing the dollars leaving the pockets of British Columbians. We talk about government money. It's not government money; it's always taxpayers' money, dollars that British Columbians pay. They have to believe that the services are being provided and the money is being spent appropriately.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Speaking directly to the amendment, I draw the House's and British Columbians' attention to the decisions taken by the Minister of Health yesterday. It's not in sync with what this Minister of Health has said in terms of supporting community care. The Ministry of Health's 1994-95 budget submission of yesterday is entitled: "A Summary of Program and Budget Changes." It should simply say: "A Program or Summary of Budget Cuts." It talks about taking away under the guise of fee or premium and somehow suggests we don't have to call it a tax. The Minister of Finance stood in this House and said: "No new taxes." So we simply have a government that's playing the name game, changing the title of tax dollars.
But British Columbians know they will be paying more for services in the coming months. They know that the NDP budget has increased spending by $675 million. That's $771 per family in new government spending. Since 1991, spending has increased by 16 percent. The NDP budget means that every family in British Columbia is responsible for $2,600 more debt this year than last. It means that the debt has increased more than twice the rate of inflation. It means that since the NDP took office the total provincial debt has increased by 50 percent. This means the provincial debt per family has increased more than $10,000 since the NDP were elected.
[11:30]
Despite the Premier's promise just a few days ago, this NDP budget shows that taxes will increase. Therefore the average family will pay $3,600 more in taxes due to NDP increases since 1991. The NDP have grabbed more than $4,000 in additional taxes from British Columbia families since they promised no new taxes in their 1991 election campaign. They continue to betray the trust of British Columbians. The sooner there is an election in British Columbia the better.
On the amendment.
D. Jarvis: I support this wonderful amendment to the motion.
Forty years ago, Flying Phil Gaglardi said: "I am not lying. If I am, it's because I think I'm telling the truth." There's an analogy here somewhere with regard to this budget. I don't know quite what it is, but I'll get around to it eventually.
Another year and another failure equals another budget. I must confess that I do admire this government and the backbenchers who are trying to support this budget, but they have no comprehension of how this province actually survives. It is fortunate that we have an investment in this province from the past that we are now riding on. The investment over the past has carried us into this last two and a half years and saved us from going completely down. We are having a brief fling with socialism, and we in the opposition know that this government is doomed to be on the opposition side, where they are best located. When we look at their past record and their experience, this budget certainly supports the conjecture that they are a good opposition government.
All major economic indicators show that this economy is on the verge of big trouble. The members talk about the housing boom we are having. If they look at the actual records, they will realize that the only reason we're having a housing boom is because of immigration. People are flooding out of Ontario, where the NDP are located.
Resources are this province's basic source of income. Millions in revenue is derived from our resources, yet nothing significant has been done in this budget to encourage the major expansion of wealth in this province. We can all appreciate that this government is trying to balance the books after its binge of spending these last two and a half years, especially after taking over an indebtedness of reckless spending by the previous government -- the Socreds, who are now the Reform Party.
The fact is that the deficit in this budget is actually $1.2 billion. It appears from this budget that we are in a pre-election mode, if not in an election mode. What else can we expect when we see a freeze on wages for two years, a cut in taxes for two years, spending up to $19.6 billion, which is an increase of 3.5 percent over last year? And the debt to be reduced to nothing within three years? Fortunately, we know that this government will not be here in 1997. If they go their whole term, I think we have only 447 business days left of this government.
I would be hypocritical if I didn't say that there are myths in this budget, and I'd like to mention a few points. The deficit is really $1.2 billion, not just under $900 million, as the minister reports. There's a myth being spread that there will be no tax increases. There's a myth that spending is under control, whereas it is out of control -- with this government and with the past government. Spending in this province in the past five years increased from $13.3 billion to just over $20 billion -- an almost 50 percent increase by this government -- and our overall debt in fact is $27.4 billion, not as this government suggests it is. We are in a crisis of spending. This government is out of step with the ordinary British Columbians who are trying to make ends meet. Ordinary people, average citizens, are told no taxes, yet they are faced with rising hydro rates, gas and electricity rates and fees and schedule taxes from previous years. The myth grows and grows and goes on. Hydro got a 3.9 percent increase on January 1, solely through the direction of this government. They picked up another $340 million of
[ Page 9639 ]
taxpayers' money to go into the general coffers -- over and above what they would normally get from Hydro. That was three months ago. They have now applied for a further increase of 2.8 percent that the taxpayers out there are not aware of. That will become effective on April 1. April Fool's Day is no joke when you don't have the money to pay for it and you're on a fixed income. And this government keeps saying that there will be no new taxes.
We have experienced the two largest deficits in our province's history. This budget appears to be adding to that record, and we're going for our third. I keep hearing the myth that this is a budget for the people. On the government side, all those good backbenchers and the odd government member stand up saying: "It's a good budget." The truly good backbenchers that they are.... Perhaps this is the analogy of Flying Phil's: they get up and say that this is a good budget. Who knows?
This budget continues this government's program by shutting down the economic activity of this province and driving people underground. The member for New Westminster, the former Minister of Education, has a good handle on the budget. The other day she said that it was a very transparent budget. Glory be to the world. It's finally breaking through to some of the members on the government side.
The budget goes to great length to say that they are creating $18 million in tax incentives to create jobs in the mining industry. At the same time they have the audacity to say that this $18 million incentive will also improve competitiveness in the B.C. mining industry. Twelve million dollars goes directly to the coal industry to help relieve taxation. That is good, but it is a little too late. The Finance m inister admits in her budget that she expects to see revenue in mining fall 9 percent. They give away $18 million, but it's going to fall 9 percent. That is down $19 million, to an unbelievable figure of $31 million in revenue from mining. That's a disgusting figure when you consider how this province grew. It's hard to imagine what a sad state it is for the Mines minister, who is supposed to be an advocate of mining in this province.
The expected revenue fall is $1 million more than the incentive she is giving. We now see an all-time low in revenue -- even for this NDP government -- from a once-major resource that was known worldwide for its skills, knowledge, expertise and environmental conscience -- believe it or not. These assets were exported around the world. Not only was our production exported, but our knowledge was. In return, thousands of people in this province had jobs. Millions of dollars of revenue were brought into this province. We see a government's pathetic attempt to prop up a mining minister's unbelievable attempt at a mining strategy for British Columbia.
In South America, Mexico, the U.S. and the Far East there is a driving concern to create jobs. They understand how to create wealth and jobs. B.C.-based companies are spending billions in Latin America, despite the threat of military coups, civil wars and even dysentery. Why? Because an economic climate of confidence does not exist in this province, but it does exist everywhere else in the world.
Mining is on a decline. The budget shows a drop of $700 million in mineral production. This budget offers incentives to an industry that has had a drop in its exploration of over 49 percent ever since this government took over, yet she offers approximately $8 million as a plum for exploration. It is not just exploration in the southern jurisdictions that we're worried about: every other province in Canada has four times the exploration that we have in British Columbia. The $8 million is just not enough for every.... As I said, every jurisdiction in the world has taken firm and positive steps to encourage an environment for the mining industry. The minister says that she is encouraging mining in this province. I'd just like to point out that we have no substantial mines on the go in this province; everything is declining. We are going down and down.
In regards to the minister's proposal for a great mining industry in this province, one aspect is.... Our environmental rules and regulation system has broken down in this province. We have to cut out this red tape to encourage investment. We need a high-quality system, not one so punitive that it restricts production.
The minimum offer to this industry in this budget will be accepted by the miners. Anything will help. But this budget is a sad attempt to try and recover the billions of dollars that have left this jurisdiction over the past two and half years, when this was the resource that built this province. As I said, all the Mines minister will say is: "We have a strategy; we have approved several new mines coming into production." I would like to point out to her that there are no substantial new mines coming into this province. There are about six that have been permitted: Mount Milligan, Mount Polley, the Cirque, Eskay Creek, the Sulphurets. The Sulphurets, for example, has had its permit for over six years. They are so worried about the investment climate in this province that they're apprehensive about bringing capital into British Columbia. Industry does not want to put capital into this province. There is an uncertainty here, and that is why. Because of that uncertainty, you wonder.... The fact is that they are not going ahead, and that has to tell you something, Mr. Speaker.
I would say to the Minister of Mines: "Stop processing words and start processing minerals for a change." The real life aspect of this is that capital is reticent to come into this province. Unfortunately, at this time, there are no substantial mines on the horizon. Small projects are planned and are welcome. Hopefully we will see the day when this investment potential will be back.
I just want to mention one more thing about mines coming into this province. Things are so tough that they are now drilling on 50-by-100-foot lots. The irony is that it's in my own riding in North Vancouver. A gentleman has the mineral rights to mine there, so he's doing it. What worries me is that we're now down to 50-by-100-foot lots; pretty soon we're going to be down to 33-by-100-foot lots in order to make a living in the mining industry in this province.
[11:45]
The wealth of this province is only as good as the resources we utilize responsibly. This budget and how it treats the mining industry certainly reflects the insincerity of this government and shows why there is a crisis. Mining is declining all over this province, and the citizens are worried about it. How are they going to make a living? Mines in every jurisdiction of this province are closing down. What is to happen to the thousands of families who find themselves out of work? What will they do? How will they educate their children? How will they feed, clothe and house them? All they ask is: how are they going to look after their families? They're not asking for a burden. With this budget the government has put another $7,500 of debt on to every member of every family in this province. Where is the future of British Columbians?
Another aspect of this budget that concerns me is the cancellation of the B.C. Energy Council. The minister was very proud to support the Energy Council two years ago. We told her that it was of no value whatsoever to this province. She had a full staff, and she never used that staff. But she
[ Page 9640 ]
hired an Energy Council and spent millions and millions of dollars, and now she's going to cancel it. During the interim, however, she never fired or removed any of her staff; she kept it.
I want to mention that the Energy Council had another NDP patronage appointee, Mr. Gathercole. I wouldn't say he was a hack, but he certainly was a party apparatchik. He was a defeated NDP candidate. The Energy ministry has handled energy matters for years and years. Not only that, but when the council was formed to make energy decisions, personnel in the Energy and Mines ministry was not reduced. That's a sad state. Energy matters were taken out of the hands of the ministry and given to someone like Mr. Gathercole, who believed he had a grander vision.
We told the government two years ago that this was wrong and that it was a waste of money. Well, the vision is gone, and Mr. Gathercole is gone. Millions of dollars have been spent, and still no direction appears in the energy field of this province. When the minister has no one to counsel her, what will she do? She will probably form another commission -- another social experiment by the government gone astray.
To sum up -- and this is not a pun -- in terms of mining, this government is digging a deeper hole. Mining since 1991 has been in a state of free fall. Employment is down; 10,000 people are out of work because of mining in the last two and a half years, not counting all the side jobs that come with it. Tax revenues fell by $50 million since this government took over. Spending is down by over $500 million in this industry. Yet they have the audacity to say that this is a good budget. I can hear Phil Gaglardi saying it now: "If I'm lying, it's because I believe it's the truth." That's this government.
The $12 million tax incentive may help the coalmining industry, and that's good. But this government, with this drop in the bucket of $18 million that they're putting into the mining industry, is throwing money at a problem. This is a classic NDP approach to how to run the government. Taxing is another classic NDP approach to running government. They're classic cart-before-the-horse situations. These approaches do not solve anything. For example, with the smidgen that they gave to prospectors in this province, they're saying: "We're going to give you some money to go out and find mines. Find a mine today, and we'll turn it into a park tomorrow." That's why they're not prospecting in this province, and that's why there's no revenue coming in. If you want a park, create a park. If you want 12 percent, give 12 percent. But do it now and stop the incessant committees and everything else that you have set up. Set the ground rules so everyone knows they're on a fair playing field. What the mining industry needs is fewer taxes and regulations; quality regulations; positive land use decisions for a change; and a new Mines minister. This budget unfortunately does not provide any of those.
Before we go, I have one other small quote for members on the government side. I know they're anxious to get to their convention. Tommy Douglas once said: "You cannot build an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism." Well, my friends, look around you. B.C. is an island of capitalism -- free enterprise and free business. If you can't build your island around it, get the hell out! Take Tommy's advice and get out of this province. Call an election. You'll be defeated tomorrow. The NDP ship is very low in the water. It's wallowing in a sea of debt and patronage, and it's going down fast, like the Titanic.
I would like to support this wonderful amendment put forward by the member for Richmond East.
The Speaker: The question is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: Before recognizing the Government House Leader, the hon. member for Richmond East has a point....
L. Reid: I beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Reid: I would like the House to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of two dear friends of mine, George and Darlene Howe, from Richmond. Darlene and I were administrative colleagues in the Richmond School District. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a beautiful spring weekend in British Columbia, and some of us will be relaxing. It's also good news for social democrats this weekend. I now move that this House do adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]