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)
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 13, Number 23
[ Page 9801 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
W. Hartley: In the members' gallery today are my spouse, Alice, and our daughter, Wallis. Sitting with Alice and Wallis are Alice's mother, Mary Muir, and Alice's brother, John Muir. Mary and John are visiting from Paisley, Scotland. Will the members of the House give them a grand welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is one of the most dedicated servants of this House, Auditor General George Morfitt, who is just completing six years of service and has been reappointed for another six. I ask the House to make him welcome.
G. Brewin: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of Victoria-Beacon Hill, Mrs. Rannai Hatz. With her is Mr. Sebastion Morency, who is here studying English and is also celebrating his twenty-first birthday today. Would the members of the Legislature please make them welcome and wish him a happy birthday.
L. Krog: It is a great pleasure to announce to the House that with us in the gallery today are 27 grade 11 students accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Richmond, from Ballenas Secondary school in my constituency.
CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cemetery and Funeral Services Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 11, a significant piece of consumer protection legislation that provides safeguards for consumers when they are most vulnerable. This legislation will help consumers make informed decisions about funeral arrangements when they are mourning the loss of family member or friend.
The purpose of this legislation is to introduce a new system of licensing for British Columbia's funeral providers and other funeral service professionals. This licensing program will ensure that qualified funeral professionals and financially sound corporations are providing funeral services to the public. Another element of the amendment is an important safeguard that will require funeral homes to display the current price list of services and products offered and provide copies of the price list to consumers and to the registrar of cemeteries and funeral services. This act will provide greater protection for consumer funds held in trust by funeral providers and cemetery operators under prepaid funeral service plans and will expand the emergency powers of the registrar to deal with funeral providers or cemetery operators in financial difficulty.
In summary, this legislation will ensure that consumers receive the funeral information they need from licenced professionals in order to make informed decisions about funeral arrangements for their deceased loved ones.
Bill 11 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise today to update members on my investigation into serious questions raised in this House yesterday. The allegations were twofold: firstly, that a convicted sex offender was given access to his medical file by the Forensic Psychiatric Institute and that this enabled him to identify the name and address of his victim; and secondly, that the offender received information identifying the names of participants in a ministry-sponsored therapy group.
The facts, as I have been able to ascertain them, are these. On February 11, 1994, the patient in question asked to see his medical file. His file was reviewed with him by a Forensic Psychiatric Institute psychiatrist and social worker in accordance with government policy pursuant to informal disclosure of files. No formal freedom-of-information request was made.
The clinical decision to release the file to the patient was made in light of the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the case of McInerney v. MacDonald, which found that patients have a perfect right to request and review this information. For the benefit of members, I would like to quote briefly from that judgment: "In the absence of...legislation, the patient is entitled, upon request, to inspect and copy all information in [medical records] which the physician considered in administering advice or treatment" -- including records prepared by other doctors that the physician may have received. And further that: "Non-disclosure may be warranted if there is a real potential for harm either to the patient or to a third party. This is the most persuasive ground for refusing access to medical records. However, even here, the discretion to withhold information should not be exercised readily."
It must be understood, hon. Speaker, that both the Supreme Court ruling and our province's new freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation impose clear and certain tests which must be applied before information can be released. In the case of information which may identify or involve a third party in particular, information can only be released as long as the release of that information would pose no harm to the third party. The information may be withheld if it is not already in the public domain.
The psychiatrist's release decision was based on her understanding that no harm would come to the victim, due to the fact that the victim was well known to the patient and that the information being provided was seven years old and outdated.
Since questions arose in the House yesterday, I have spoken personally to staff at the institute and have established this: first, third-party information is not routinely disclosed as part of an informal request for access to medical records; second, access to police and court documents contained in forensic files is not granted under informal requests, but it has been granted where disclosure arose from a formal freedom-of-information application; and third, in those cases of formal application, third-party information has been severed from the files.
I have also sought and received legal opinion from the Attorney General's ministry regarding this matter. I have received confirmation in writing that releasing third-party information in this particular instance committed no offence under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or the Criminal Code. I've also received information that
[ Page 9802 ]
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police share this opinion with regard to the Criminal Code. However, I'm still not satisfied that it was appropriate in this case to release this information.
To address the second allegation raised, an intensive examination of files at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute, which was done at my discretion, has established that none of the information that they provided would have revealed the names of participants in a therapy group. These are the facts of the case.
[2:15]
I now want to turn to the issue of protecting the safety and privacy of the public while ensuring the right of all citizens to seek information that pertains to them which the government has in its possession. My information is that the offender -- the patient -- currently has a complaint before the freedom-of-information commissioner. My ministry has been working cooperatively with the commissioner's office to resolve that issue. I also understand that the commissioner will thoroughly review this incident and its related issues. Our government will continue to work closely with the commissioner to ensure that we have a consistent disclosure policy that strikes an appropriate balance between protecting privacy and providing information.
Until such time as those processes are concluded, I have directed that the following procedures be followed by the Ministry of Health:
1. No third-party information will be revealed in the course of a patient's informal request for access to his or her medical file.
2. Patients who demand to see such information will be referred to the appropriate freedom-of-information person in the ministry.
3. My deputy minister will assume direct responsibility for all disclosure made pursuant to formal freedom-of-information applications for third-party information.
I, personally, and our government are deeply concerned about any effect this disclosure and subsequent events have had upon the victim. I have personally spoken to the psychiatrist involved, and it is now clear that the applicable freedom-of-information provisions will supersede the common-law considerations used to date.
In conclusion, I do not blame members of the opposition for their calls for my resignation, though I certainly do not intend to accede to them. I do, however, regret the comments of the member for Richmond East that she, as a woman, does not feel safe while I remain Minister of Health. I can assure members that I take my responsibilities as minister very seriously. This government will work closely with the freedom-of-information commissioner to ensure that a similar situation will not arise again.
L. Reid: I will respond to this ministerial statement, because this minister just doesn't get it. This is a significant issue around protection of privacy. The majority of your statement, hon. minister, referred to freedom of information; that is not the issue for victims in this province.
Yesterday David Flaherty said on the 6 o'clock evening news that this was not an issue for him, because women in this province.... In this case, the attacker and the victim were known to each other. Well, I can assure this minister that the majority of attacks that occur in Canada are between individuals known to each other. That was an irresponsible thing for you to be condoning today, hon. minister. I'm not impressed. I am concerned that the minister has not taken this issue seriously, hon. Speaker.
I have sincere concerns that this issue is not well understood. I am not reassured today, hon. minister, that there are safeguards in your ministry. Frankly, I still have the question: how many other individuals have received information released from your ministry that, in fact, does not put the victims in this province in a secure situation?
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I'm chagrined by the ministerial statement we just heard. But my question is to the Deputy Premier. Over the last 24 hours the women in British Columbia have discovered that they cannot trust this NDP government. When a Minister of Health does not protect the privacy of individuals, as he is sworn to do, and when a minister does not carry out his responsibilities under section 30 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, there is only one course for that minister to follow. Will the Deputy Premier today demand the resignation of the Minister of Health for his breach of duty?
Hon. E. Cull: I believe that in the statement the Minister of Health just made, outlining the facts of the case....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. E. Cull: The Minister of Health has just outlined the facts of the case and indicated the actions he has put in place. This government has confidence in this minister.
G. Campbell: To the Deputy Premier. By not taking action to protect the fundamental right to privacy of citizens, the government has turned its back on the women of this province. How can the Deputy Premier smugly sit there and condone the Minister of Health's blatant violation of his responsibility to protect citizens' privacy?
Hon. E. Cull: I am appalled that the Leader of the Opposition would play cheap politics with an issue that involves real people and real concerns. This government has done more than any other government in the history of this province to protect the safety of women. We take that responsibility very seriously, and the statement of the minister indicates that.
G. Campbell: To the Deputy Premier. You may be appalled, but the women of British Columbia are appalled by a government that does not act according to their philosophy -- their stated rhetoric. A woman who was involved in a sexual attack was exposed to her attacker by you. That is not good enough in British Columbia. How much longer, and how many more human rights and privacy rights is this government willing to sacrifice?
Hon. E. Cull: I am surprised to hear this Leader of the Opposition -- who has never spoken in this House on the rights or safety issues of women -- ask questions like this about a government that has done more about the issue of violence against women and children than any other government. We stand by our record on that, and we stand by the facts that the Minister of Health has just outlined.
[ Page 9803 ]
L. Stephens: Yesterday the information and privacy commissioner stated that he is not terribly concerned about the violation of citizens' personal privacy by the Ministry of Health. Yesterday the Minister of Health denied the magnitude of the situation with his failure to take personal responsibility for the violation. My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will you tell the 1.8 million women in British Columbia that you share the lack of concern expressed by these two men?
Hon. E. Cull: I regret that the member was clearly not listening to the statement made by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health made it very clear that he is concerned about this matter and has taken all actions to ensure that nothing like this will occur again; but he has also ascertained in the facts of the case that the actions taken are consistent with the law and with the practices of the ministry.
L. Stephens: I would have expected more from the Deputy Premier. Surely the Deputy Premier knows that 54,000 women have been sexually assaulted in British Columbia over the last ten years. Will this minister guarantee that the individual privacy of these victims is not at risk as a result of the incompetence of her colleague the Minister of Health?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm a little dismayed that the members of the opposition seem to have not listened to either the facts of this case or the findings of law in this case. The facts are these: the name of this victim was known to the offender. To pretend otherwise, as the Leader of the Opposition wishes to do, is to distort the facts in this case. Second, I have made it very clear that even though this is the case, and even though, in accordance with the Supreme Court decision, no harm was done, I consider the release of this information to be inappropriate. The release of any third-party information from psychiatric files will now be done only through a formal application through the freedom-of-information office and only after a thorough review. It will only be done over the signature of the Deputy Minister or the Minister of Health.
L. Stephens: The Minister of Health has given private information to a sex offender. At the very time that sexual predators are prowling the streets of Surrey, this government will not give women the information required to protect themselves.
The Speaker: Your question?
L. Stephens: Again to the Deputy Premier: does she agree with the hypocrisy and have the courage to acknowledge the discrimination in her government?
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is for the Deputy Premier. Section 70 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act guarantees that policy manuals for all ministries are available to the public. Is the minister confident that every ministry has a clear, written policy manual on the types of personal information under their jurisdiction that must be protected under the privacy provisions? Will she table them in the House today?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think the member would really expect me to be aware of the policy manuals in place in all ministries of government. I'd be happy to take the question on notice and get that back to him.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Does the hon. member have a different question?
L. Fox: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. It's my understanding that the Minister of Government Services has recently published a freedom-of-information directory of records. Will the minister confirm this and table it in the House today?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The hon. member is correct. I will look into ensuring that he and any other members get the information they so desire.
The Speaker: The member's final supplementary.
L. Fox: My final question is to the Deputy Premier again. Can the Deputy Premier assure all British Columbians that every minister is personally responsible for the information stored in their ministry's personal information banks, as listed in the freedom-of-information directory of records?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure whether the member is asking whether we're responsible for it being there, for its accuracy or for its release. In any event, there is ministerial accountability, and I think that's well understood by people on both sides of the House. That would certainly apply in this case.
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
L. Reid: Surely the Minister of Health must take responsibility for all FOI requests that come through his office. Unfortunately, this minister just doesn't get it. Yesterday he arrogantly suggested that the breach...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
L. Reid: ...of a victim's personal trust was not his responsibility. In the last ten years 54,000 women were assaulted in this province. These victims are looking to the Minister of Health for some assurances. If the minister will not take responsibility for this most fundamental of issues, will he resign so that someone with a real sense of responsibility can take charge of that ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have indicated before and I'll indicate it again: I take this responsibility most seriously. That is why I have both investigated this matter thoroughly and, working with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, put in place measures to ensure that all freedom-of-information requests are vetted through the deputy minister of my ministry.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me explain something to that member. There is a balance in this House and in the law of
[ Page 9804 ]
this province and this land between the individual's right to information and the protection of the privacy of third parties. That is a balance that all members of this House are aware of.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the hon. minister please conclude his remarks.
[2:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The request by a patient for his or her medical records should normally be granted. When it is granted, those who are reviewing those records must ensure that third-party information which may do harm is not released.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.
L. Reid: The minister cannot hide behind doctors and his staff. He took the oath so that the people of British Columbia could trust him with their personal safety. No ministry contains more personal information than the Ministry of Health. He has broken this trust, he has played fast and loose with the public's confidence...
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
L. Reid: ...and his only response is to point fingers at other people.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
L. Reid: Can the Minister of Health tell the 1.8 million women in British Columbia who is responsible for protecting their privacy?
ABORIGINAL GAMING POLICY
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Attorney General. We know there is an ongoing review, or a number of reviews, on gaming policy in British Columbia. Can the Attorney General tell us whether or not the government has a policy today with respect to aboriginal gaming? If there is a policy, can he tell us what it is?
Hon. R. Blencoe: As the minister responsible for gaming and gaming review.... Currently there are discussions going on with the aboriginal community and a committee of the First Nations Summit. They are discussions only; they are preliminary and exploratory.
D. Mitchell: A supplementary question, then, to the minister. Is the current separate review of aboriginal gaming laws anticipating a separate policy for first nations gambling establishments in our province? Can this minister tell us if the government is prepared to commit today in this House as to whether or not there will be a single policy for all British Columbians when it comes to gaming in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have gone into exploratory discussions with the first nations, who have every right to discuss with the government of British Columbia. We've gone into those discussions on the basic parameter that there will be one single jurisdiction for policy direction....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: There will be one policy direction, one jurisdiction and one authority for gaming in British Columbia.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: I have kept a stopwatch on that. There were 14 minutes. Question period was actually one minute short.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will in future try to monitor the question period time more closely.
The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on a point of order?
D. Mitchell: No, I have a final question.
The Speaker: Notwithstanding the hon. member's advisement to the Chair.... In future the Chair will endeavour to watch the time, but the bell signals the end of question period.
REPORT ON B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION
Hon. E. Cull: I took a question on notice yesterday, and I wish to reply to it today. It was with respect to the release of the Deloitte and Touche report, known as the entity report on the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The first part of that question was: why had the report not been initially released? When the independent financial review was done, there were going to be about 40 entity reports -- that is, specific reports on ministries, parts of ministries, certain Crown corporations and other government-funded organizations. As the work progressed, the consultants decided that the individual entity reports, which were really working papers, would be rolled up into major issue papers and that those issue papers would be part of the released consultant's report. As a result, the individual entity reports were not completed or finalized and they contained errors and omissions. For those reasons they were not released.
With respect to the statements in the report tabled in the House yesterday, the member should know that the report, which was prepared in early 1992, detailed the plans that the Lottery Corporation had at the time of the former government. Those were the plans that the Lottery Corporation had in motion for the following years, based on directions that the former government had given them. Despite the Lottery Corporation's ambitions with respect to electronic gaming, of the $22 million mentioned in this report, only $1.8 million was actually spent. That was spent primarily on the Starship Bingo pilot project.
FORMER VANCOUVER POLICE CHIEF
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yesterday the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asked me a question, which I took on notice, with respect to the authority I might or might not have under the Police Act or the Police Act regulations concerning a decision of the Vancouver Police Board in respect of Bill Marshall. I wasn't sure from his question whether he was talking about the act or the regulations. The member should know that section 43(2) of the act has no relevance to this particular issue, given that it deals with the B.C. Police Commission, which is a different body. Section 43(1) of the regulations, however, defines the power of the
[ Page 9805 ]
police board. In those regulations it says that the police board does have the legal authority to drop the disciplinary proceedings. So, with respect to the police regulations, they acted completely within their own authority regarding the Bill Marshall case.
R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General, established during the second session of the thirty-fifth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Kasper: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: I move that the report be adopted.
Hon. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members of the committee, in particular the members of the subcommittee, and also the Deputy Chair, the member for Delta South. I would like to note that the committee had 11 meetings and that all decisions made by the committee were unanimous. The committee entertained 54 applications, established a shortlist of 16 candidates and subsequently interviewed six candidates; three of those six were reinterviewed. It was unanimously adopted by the committee that Mr. George Morfitt be appointed auditor general.
Motion approved.
R. Kasper: Hon. Speaker, I move that this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Mr. George Morfitt, FCA, as an officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the auditor general for the province of British Columbia, pursuant to the Auditor General Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, chapter 24.
F. Gingell: I'm most pleased to stand at this point and join the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca in support of this motion. I would also like it to go in Hansard that I felt the all-party committee that was delegated the responsibility to deal with this matter dealt with it in a most fair and non-partisan manner, and at all times kept only the interests of British Columbia taxpayers at heart.
Motion approved.
G. Wilson: I rise on a matter of privilege that goes to the very core of our role and rights as elected members of the assembly. Motion 41 on the order paper, moved yesterday by the Hon. Glen Clark, denies the fundamental right and privilege of a member of this assembly to fully participate in debate and vote at every stage on every piece of legislation, and to fully participate in debate and have access to the ministers of government during financial estimate debates.
Under standing order 26, a matter of privilege shall be taken into consideration immediately. On page 36 of MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, second edition, it states that privilege belongs to members of the Legislature individually and collectively. One of the individual privileges is freedom to speak or debate. It further states that one of the collective privileges is access to the Crown.
Section 10 of this motion states that for all purposes Section A will be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Yet membership in this committee, with rights to enter into debate and to vote, is restricted and determined by the Special Committee of Selection, made up of six members of government and two of the official opposition. This restriction clearly demonstrates that Section A is not a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reviewing bills.
Further, the restriction amounts to a breach of a member's privilege to have freedom to debate and to vote at each stage of legislation. I draw the Speaker's attention to the distinction -- and distinct difference -- between Section A as it is proposed and a standing committee as constituted under the standing orders. They are not the same. Referral of a bill to a standing committee is not uncommon, but no jurisdiction in Canada has established a committee of the whole that restricts membership and denies elected members the right to vote.
Members were led to believe that what is proposed is modelled after the Manitoba Legislature. I have spoken with the Clerk of the House in Manitoba, who assures me that no such procedure occurs. In Manitoba a committee of the whole means a committee of the whole. I have contacted every other jurisdiction in Canada, and they look at this motion with surprise and amazement, seeing it as a major change to the way bills are read in this country.
The amendment, moved and accepted, changed the number of members eligible for Section A. Requiring unanimous consent of the House to refer a bill to Section A offers no comfort whatever. The Government House Leader may move, without notice and at any time after second reading, that committee stage of a bill be moved to Section A. Given the time obligations of sitting MLAs, such a motion may be timed by government when members opposite who are not members of Section A but wish to contest the bill are not present in the House. This further removes the right of sitting MLAs to participate in debate and denies their access to the Crown.
Every member of this assembly has been elected to this House to fully participate in the detailed scrutiny of legislation that will impact every British Columbian. We have an obligation to our constituents to fully participate. Motion 41, which was passed, denies that opportunity, and as such it is not only a breach of privilege of the members of this House, both individually and collectively, but it also runs counter to the very foundation of the principles of democracy.
Hon. Speaker, if you feel there is a prima facie case of privilege, I have a motion that would amend that and change the situation.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't wish to comment in detail on the privilege motion the member raised, except to say a couple of things to put the matter in context. The government currently has the opportunity, under standing orders, to refer any piece of legislation at committee stage to a select standing committee of the House, the members of which are narrowly and specifically defined by the selection committee. Section A of this House, as we have constructed it over the last two years, has allowed literally all members, even on a rotating basis, to participate in all of these discussions. Frankly, the powers afforded to the government to refer legislation at committee stage to select standing committees is one that has not been exercised. I would think
[ Page 9806 ]
that a member -- particularly an independent member -- would certainly prefer the rules as they are governed here. They have the twofold test. First, Committee A is much more open and has more representation of independents than select standing committees do, and it allows for substitution of members and for full public debate -- I would think that an independent member would prefer that to a select standing committee. Secondly, and more importantly, referral to select standing committees is rarely exercised in the House. It seems to me that Committee A affords better protection for all members to participate in much more detailed debate on legislation as it comes before the House than is currently the case under the standing orders.
G. Farrell-Collins: Through something beyond my control I wasn't able to participate in the debate yesterday. I must advise this House of my disappointment at the Government House Leader for bringing forth this motion without notice. Yesterday was its first day on the order paper.
[2:45]
In addition, yesterday's motion was somewhat different from anything that has occurred in this House before in that it intended to refer bills in committee stage to Committee A. That is something this opposition has been opposed to from day one. We opposed it the first year, we opposed it last year, and we oppose it again this year. We believe it is an abuse of the government's authority and its majority in this House and an abuse of the public's right to see what this government is doing. With the abysmal performance of the Government House Leader last year in the way bills were brought into this House, it would have been a travesty of justice if we had debated bills in committee stage at the same time in both of these Houses. It would have been an abuse of this House, an abuse of the public and an abuse of the privileges of members entrusted to them by the electorate.
The government needs to recall this motion and look at it again -- or at least make amendments to it.
J. Tyabji: In addressing the Government House Leader's assertion that select standing committees currently have the ability to accept the content of bills before the House during committee stage, I would point to the Government House Leader's motion, which was passed yesterday. Select standing committees do not operate under Committee of the Whole rules, as outlined in the standing orders. A select standing committee, further, cannot authorize votes or division calls on sections of a bill, and it cannot authorize amendments of a bill unless they are passed through the assembly of Committee of the Whole.
The fact that in the small House we are giving a small group -- one-third of the elected assembly members -- the right to vote on behalf of the assembly, with all the rules of the Committee of the Whole applying, proves that you're disenfranchising the other two-thirds of the elected members. In yesterday's debate we brought that up.
Perhaps the Government House Leader doesn't understand the implications of section 10, which says: "Section A" -- the small room to which the committee stage of bills can be referred -- "is hereby authorized to consider bills referred to committee after second reading thereof, and the standing orders applicable to bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such bills during consideration...." It's not an optional issue; it's" shall." They must be considered as under the rules of the Committee of the Whole of the entire assembly. Those 24 MLAs will be acting with the power and authority of this chamber, of all 75 elected representatives. A very important distinction for the Government House Leader to understand is that a select standing committee doesn't have that power.
If the Government House Leader is saying that in order to streamline debate in this House contentious bills will be referred to a select standing committee for the purpose of debate within that select standing committee, independent of the debate of the House, that is a separate issue. I am sure that all members of this House could support the content of those bills going to a select standing committee for a preliminary debate. Notwithstanding going to a select standing committee, those bills still have to return to the major chamber for an entire committee stage debate.
In the select standing committee the process is somehow shortcut, because a lot of debate that would occur on the floor of this House can occur within the select standing committee. Obviously, those select standing committees are constituted with the elected representatives who have the portfolio responsibilities associated with the bill. For example, those members of the official opposition or the opposition members in the three parties in this area of the opposition benches would recognize their individual interests with regard to that bill, would be constituted within that select standing committee, and would have input to the preliminary debate. The content of the bill then comes back to the floor of the chamber; and Committee of the Whole is the only body empowered to vote on division calls, the only body empowered to pass the sections of the bill, and the only body empowered, with 75 elected members, to actually convey the authority necessary, through the debates in this House, for the passage of the bill.
It's a bit shocking to me that the Government House Leader doesn't understand the distinction. I would say in a very strong way that it is not satisfactory to say that Section A will be constituted as Committee of the Whole. Because it is constituted under section 10 of the motion as Committee of the Whole, that effectively disenfranchises the votes of two-thirds of the MLAs in the House. Previously, with the motion to amend the standing orders to allow estimates in the other House, there were no votes in that House, and that House was not constituted as Committee of the Whole. Because there were no votes, we were not disenfranchised; we were only inconvenienced.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to have one other point brought to the Speaker's attention for consideration. Standing order 78A allows for bills to be referred at committee stage to select standing committees. That hasn't happened in our House traditionally; it has on occasion. If it were to happen, the number of opposition members who would be involved in committee stage debate would be quite limited, to half a dozen or so. As a result, that hasn't occurred in this House.
The motion passed yesterday allows for the referral of committee stage bills to the small House, if every member agrees. Any member can prevent any legislation being referred to the small House. The member may say: "I might not be here on a certain day and therefore lose my right to veto its transference." If the member wasn't here that day, he obviously would be unable to debate the bill in any event, so his absence would be irrelevant. If the member is unable to persuade a colleague of his to veto the matter on his behalf, then I would argue that his absence and inability to persuade another member to execute the veto demonstrates that he hasn't got much of a case for that kind of decision.
It's clear that if the government chose, it could limit debate on bills very dramatically by using standing order 78A; we have chosen not to do that. If we hadn't allowed for
[ Page 9807 ]
the veto, we could say that a majority could decide that a bill goes to committee stage in the small House; we haven't done that. Any member can stop any bill from being referred to that committee. That should be enough to protect the rights of all members in this House.
The Speaker: The final submission is from the hon. member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: This really hurts and it's most unusual, but I'm going to stand up and defend the government in this particular matter -- not because of partisanship, but because I think it's right. I think we had a good opportunity yesterday to speak on the motion on the order paper. I respect that there are concerns, but in all fairness, the government listened to those particular concerns and met them with section 10 of the motion, which requires unanimous consent. We all know there are three readings -- second reading, committee stage and third reading -- so it's not as if a bill can be passed in one day in any event. With unanimous consent, we all have the opportunity to stop a bill and make it complete its passage through the Legislature.
The other thing is that the first and foremost responsibility of all elected members when the House is in session is to be in the House. If we're not in the House, then we're not fulfilling our responsibility. So absence from the House is no excuse as far as I'm concerned. The motion was put on the order paper with the appropriate 48 hours' notice. Once a motion appears on the order paper with the proper notice, it may be called up at the government's wish at any time. It's our responsibility to be aware of this and respond accordingly.
I think that the move to Committee A, whether it's used or not, is a good move; it was made in a sensitive manner. If it works out well, we can look at other latitudes, perhaps. But I think that the unanimous consent requirement is adequate protection. So I would speak in opposition to any reconsideration of this matter.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Farrell-Collins: He's already spoken.
The Speaker: You've already.... Is it on another matter, hon. member?
G. Wilson: On a matter of clarification of the point, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair has had your opening remarks and the matter has been well canvassed. I believe that at this point the hon. member should reserve any further comments, provided the Chair finds a prima facie case of privilege.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave for the Special Committee of Selection to sit.
Leave granted.
(continued)
On the main motion.
M. de Jong: The government, in the throne speech and at other times, has spent a great deal of time and energy proclaiming the great strides it alleges to have made in the realm of public education and education generally. But I would submit to hon. members that the ever-growing interest that British Columbians are showing in privately funded education does not speak well for what has taken place in the realm of public education.
We in Matsqui are doing what we can to ensure that public education remains relevant to the clients -- that is, the students and parents that avail themselves of that resource. The member for Mission-Kent, who is here today, spoke yesterday about the Clearbrook technology centre, which we are proud to say represents an innovation in the delivery of public education. The member has contributed greatly to furthering that cause. As he accurately and fairly points out, where the cause is right, he, and I presume all members, will lend their names.
As a member of the local school board, I also take pride in having contributed somewhat to furthering that cause. Like the member for Mission-Kent, I hope we will hear an announcement from the ministry very quickly confirming that our requests for assistance and funding for this very innovative project will be approved. Students can thereby tie their secondary education to their post-secondary aspirations and leave high school with one year of college or university under their belts.
In Matsqui there are other growth-related challenges. Those relate to the increased pressures being placed on our transportation infrastructure. In the short time that I've been here, I've heard a great deal about a particular interchange on the North Shore. Those hon. members who have travelled eastbound on the freeway and have tried to get off at Mount Lehman Road between 4 and 6 p.m. will know that there is another interchange in need of equal, if not more, attention by this government. I will urge, as members from all sides of the House have, the government and the Minister of Transportation to address those concerns and the concerns of individuals living in the fast-growing areas of this province, where there is a legitimate expectation that government will heed the needs of the people and their desire to be able to commute to and from work, recreation facilities and vacation destinations in a reasonable manner and have reasonable transportation infrastructure available to them. I hope that this government will heed those concerns and calls for attention and will attend to those matters in a responsible and expeditious manner.
[3:00]
Those same pressures relating to growth exist in the health care and hospital field. In Matsqui we have been promised by at least two governments -- a previous Social Credit government and the present NDP government -- both a health unit and a hospital. We wait and wait. If British Columbians and the people in my constituency can understand an explanation that a government makes a decision, that the money isn't there, or that they're not prepared to allocate money that is there, there will undoubtedly be disappointment, but there will be acknowledgement of a decision taken. What is unforgivable is a government that promises something and then doesn't deliver. Governments will not receive a sympathetic ear from constituents or British Columbians anywhere when they are misled. At every opportunity I will urge this government to follow through on the undertakings that have been given to my constituents by previous governments and by the government presently in power. Follow through on those promises. Have the courage to develop a well-thought-out capital plan, and then follow through on it. Failing that, people in Matsqui and other towns across British Columbia
[ Page 9808 ]
will be ill-served in an area where they require proper service.
The member cries out: "Money, money, money." Yes, these matters, these issues and these requirements do cost money, and they require creative solutions and creative approaches by government. In Matsqui and Abbotsford -- and we'll hear from the member for Abbotsford shortly -- we've attempted to implement creative solutions. Our communities have amalgamated. We've attempted to reduce duplication and reduce the bureaucracy, and that will necessarily result in reduced costs to the taxpayer. That enlightened and imaginative approach is the sort of thing that British Columbians expect from their provincial government. And I'm sad to say, after having listened to the throne speech, that they continue to wait. They wait in vain, I dare say.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The member jests, just as this government ignores suggestions that can result in real savings to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Their flippancy in matters of this kind discourages me, even in the short time that I've been here. What this government offers is not a creative, imaginative approach to government; it's simply creative accounting.
Isn't it ironic that on this day we reconfirm the appointment of an auditor general who came down foursquare on the side of condemning the practices of the Minister of Finance and the reporting practices of this government? He said that this province will not receive an unqualified audit in the coming year if those practices don't change.
The people of British Columbia understand that the province is in debt. They understand that successive Social Credit and NDP governments have driven this province far into debt. They have a legitimate expectation that they will be told fairly and accurately what that debt is. How far in debt are we? This government refuses to give that figure and refuses to report the state of the provincial books and budget in an accurate and consistent manner that British Columbians can understand. That is something that has to change. Again, there is no indication in the throne speech that we can expect those changes to actually take place. Instead, what we see from this government, through the throne speech and the budget debate, which has just concluded, are hidden tax increases, an increase in government debt and an increase in government propaganda that taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for. It's a totally unsatisfactory set of circumstances for the taxpayers of British Columbia. There is no indication in the throne speech that that unimaginative and cynical approach to government is going to change.
We have a steadily growing bureaucracy. I am disappointed to learn of the changes that will be taking place to the Legal Services Society. Those can only come about through funding from this government. They will allow for the hiring of vast numbers of individuals and will remove work from the private sector. That work was being undertaken in an economical and proper manner, and it will now be vested in an increasing and burgeoning bureaucracy. It doesn't speak well for this government's supposed commitment to cutting costs and spending taxpayers' dollars wisely. It simply isn't consistent with the government's alleged intentions.
Many weeks ago, when the debate on the throne speech opened, the Leader of the Opposition indicated his belief that British Columbians deserve better, and I am certainly inclined to render a similar submission. When I meet with the pioneers of my community, the Spud Murphys and people like Kelly Malkin -- people I have known for a long time, who have done so much to build my community and province -- it disappoints me to report to them that in my very first week in the House, this was the throne speech that was delivered and this was the vision presented by the government -- in this case, a non-vision. British Columbians deserve a provincial government that matches creativity and vibrancy with the people who have built the communities around the province.
The throne speech does not live up to the legitimate expectations of British Columbians. My colleagues and I will continue to push, prod and cajole this government into demonstrating some of that vision and leadership and delivering the leadership in all areas -- some of which I have touched on today -- that British Columbians so desperately require and are entitled to.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abbotsford. Just a moment, please. Hon. member for Matsqui, your time had expired.
M. de Jong: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. de Jong: I'm pleased to advise the House that in the gallery at this moment are some students from Pacific Christian School and their principal, Ms. Lenchuk. I wonder if the House would make them feel welcome.
H. De Jong: In the past year we've seen great changes in the political scene in the country. We are certainly living in fascinating times. This was also pointed out in the by-election that was held in Matsqui. The free enterprise vote in the Matsqui by-election was larger than the Liberal vote and, in fact, ten times larger than the socialist vote. While the NDP stalks the land, they are bound to evaporate in the daylight of the next provincial election. Bill 11, which was introduced to the House this afternoon, may well prepare the groundwork for this.
The pundits are currently saying that the new Leader of the Opposition is a sure thing. But about a year ago they were saying the same thing about another Campbell. In politics ten days is a lifetime. None of us has a crystal ball to predict the future. While I consider myself a rather humble person, I do want to take some credit for one bit of prophesy that came true far sooner than I expected. I ask the members to cast their minds back to the debate on Bill 33. At that time I warned of future NDP witch-hunts in British Columbia. Obviously, the Premier was paying close attention, because that was exactly what he did. Not something like a witch-hunt, but a real, live one with moonlight ceremonies. In fact, from press accounts, all that was missing was the black cat. I wonder if the Premier will ask members of cabinet if they do the same sorts of things themselves, or if, like Svend Robinson, he will respect this difference in his caucus while encouraging them to come out of the broom-closet. Such is the diversity of British Columbia that, in an article critical of Mr. Wagar, we saw a rival witch say that he would never vote NDP, but might, like many witches, vote Liberal. My point in the Bill 33 debate was that we must all respect our differences, and I hope we can do so without losing our sense of humour.
[ Page 9809 ]
What could be funnier than the government's throne speech? The throne speech reminds me of a fairy tale, Little Red Riding Hood. The Premier is trying to convince us that he's our grandmother, but when we look closely we have to say: "My what big taxes you have." The government has a problem: the NDP lives by bread alone. It exists only to promise giveaways and to foster dependency and group behaviour, which can easily be manipulated by big unions, big governments and, when it suits their purposes, even by big business.
The problem with being the political arm of the Cookie Monster is that when you fail to encourage the baker, pretty soon you run out of cookies, and more than the stomach is growling. The budget is not the only example. Over the years the NDP managed to promise the province's forests to loggers, environmentalists and native bands; at the same time Social Credit launched the largest reforestation program in British Columbia's history. But trees take a long time to grow, and in the meantime we are undergoing serious confrontations because of the pie-in-the-sky promises made by the NDP when it was in opposition. We witnessed an example of that unhappiness over some of the decisions on the lawns a couple of weeks ago. We must ask ourselves how much the government has learned from its time in office. Yes, it has learned to make Social Credit noises about taxpayers, spending and responsibility. The problem is that this government has no grasp of what it is actually doing. The Thompson report on employment standards is clear evidence of that. The government listens to farmers, but it has no intention of paying attention when the advice is not to the liking of the NDP's pet unions.
[3:15]
In the socialist mind, even being union is no longer good enough. If you want to bid on highway construction, for example, which is paid for by all our taxes, you will soon have to belong to the right union, or should I say the left union, under a master agreement -- and we know who the masters are. The Island Highway contract is clear evidence of this. The idealistic union people of the past wanted one big union because they were concerned about favouritism. The government sees favouritism to be as natural as breathing or eating. Then we have Liberals, who are openly admitting to punishing British Columbia in the federal budget for not voting Liberal. "The pork stops here" appears to be their motto.
We've all heard of the strange things that have happened in the Bermuda Triangle. Boats have disappeared there. In British Columbia today we have the even more peculiar triangle of the VLC: Ken Georgetti, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. Thousands of affordable rental units, millions of tax dollars and properties have disappeared there, transformed by aliens into a giant casino. Perhaps we're one step beyond the outer limits of the twilight zone in figuring out who is doing what and why. The Las Vegas Triangle is just as fishy to me as the Bermuda Triangle.
The Premier and others on the government side have tried desperately to hide their incompetence and mismanagement behind the previous administration. The previous administration did not hide its highway construction projects in a Crown corporation. What is the government doing but running a giant slush fund for its political friends with the proceeds of the savings from the Social Credit privatization benefits? That's a question the members of government should be answering. But perhaps it's sort of like rubbing salt in the wounds. Instead of imposing unworkable labour standards that will put farmworkers out of their jobs, the government should be looking at how union members can get some right to object, in a practical way, to the misuse of their pension funds. When they are not helping their real friends they are pretending to be everybody's friend. They will freeze your taxes, cut your debt and keep spending more and more. I'm surprised that the Friendly Giant didn't complain about the Premier's address. After all, with something that unbelievable, he's really giving fairy tales a bad name.
The government's dilemma is understandable. It can't deliver one-tenth of the promises raised prior to assuming office. The general public has accepted limitations and is more pained by what the government takes, by and large, than what it fails to deliver. What to do? The government has opted for disguise, but the costume is ill-fitting and showing at the seams.
As for the Premier's tax freeze, he's skating on very thin ice, with an 800 percent increase on the deceased. They may not vote in the next election, but their relatives will, and they will not forget.
Some people have said to me: "Join the Liberals so we can beat the NDP." It's too late for that; they have beaten themselves. For the first time since the Great Depression -- just as in Alberta -- voters will be able to choose a populist free enterprise government and a Liberal opposition. Just think what that would mean for investment and job creation in our province. Is this not infinitely preferable to the New Brunswick situation, where almost everyone in the Legislature is a Liberal, with the tennis or sailing partner looking for a consulting contract? Mind you, in the patronage department the NDP is hard to beat. They renamed Mark Rose agent general, but the taxpayers still get to pick up the thorns.
The NDP says you must protect the workers. We agree that the workers must be protected. The difference is that we know the best protection is a vibrant economy that offers workers choices and opportunities, not a marketplace so burdened and choked with taxes and regulations that protection amounts to a straitjacket with barely enough freedom to feed yourself.
The NDP has no room to grow....
Interjection.
H. De Jong: I will get to the children, my friend.
It faces tough trade-offs among resource workers, environmentalists and native communities. It cannot please all, but it can easily displease all.
This government should realize that traditional industrial unions are shrinking as the economy changes to more service- and knowledge-based industries. The public sector unions will not expand much either, because the taxpayer has hit the wall. Forced unionization of the small business sector will not work, because the sector is so diverse and competitive and they require such enormous flexibility in order to survive. Unions can meet this challenge -- as they are doing in the film business -- but the very openness which leads them to succeed will divorce them from the old-fashioned lockstep allegiance to the NDP.
Asian immigrants, all too familiar with the worst side of socialism, will want more free enterprise, not less. Nor are the seniors who retire here from Alberta and Ontario likely to swell the NDP ranks. As far as young people in high-tech industries are concerned, the narrow anti-trade focus of the NDP merely reminds them of the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. The birth rate is down, so we have to wonder where the little New Democrats of the future will come from. They just
[ Page 9810 ]
aren't there. The throne speech was a golden opportunity lost, simply because it was so hollow; it had no meat in it.
My colleagues and I have many concrete proposals for this session, but in order to save time, I will just mention two. They are related, like the carrot and the stick. I would like to start with the stick so that we can end on a positive note.
Canada's immigration and refugee laws have made Canada an easy mark for criminal gangs. We are so nice that we sometimes forget that not everyone shares our values; we often swim in shark-infested waters. Vietnamese gangs muscle out the Hell's Angels for the heroin trade on Vancouver Island, and we get eight-year-olds pushing heroin. Unfortunately, the entrepreneurial spirit is equally awesome with its assaults on either side of the law.
All this is because of the Young Offenders Act, brought in by the Liberals and tightened only marginally by the Conservatives in the intervening years. I'm glad the Attorney General is in the House this afternoon -- which he often is -- because I want to send a message to him through this speech.
The Attorney General, in my opinion, should be leading the biggest mass protest in the history of Canada to get the Young Offenders Act repealed. He should also be using all of his enforcement powers to turn around the highest crime rate and the lowest charge rate in the country, instead of appearing in videos for companies that want to make our society more like that of Las Vegas. The Premier should also be getting really tough on the crime that is here already. But when your own Members of Parliament are on television encouraging lawbreaking, I do suppose it is rather difficult.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Now to the carrot. Canada is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to enrolment in vocational programs. That is a serious problem, which we need to address. Social Credit's approach was to build BCIT, our college system, the Knowledge Network, open learning programs and fine university programs, but much remains to be done. International experts most often point to West Germany and Switzerland as having very practical, successful and cost-effective systems for vocational education and job preparation. The province should take a close look to see what aspects of these programs are worth copying here. I've heard many good reports about co-op education programs, and in my opinion, that is a very good direction for us to go -- something that entrepreneurs as well as young people wanting to pick up a trade would welcome with open arms.
Just as earlier Social Credit governments saw the need to invest in transportation systems and energy to provide lifelines for our economy, today we strongly support the electronic highway -- fibre optics information -- which will soon allow citizens to access information from libraries and databases around the world. The province should play an active role in supporting this initiative, which is so vital to our continued ability to compete.
Our people have come from the best of everywhere. We need only a free enterprise climate and access to opportunities and skills to prove it to the world. We already have a wonderful place to live. If we keep it that way -- a clean environment, not overrun by crime and taxation -- we will be number one in attracting the high-paid jobs in the industries of tomorrow.
N. Lortie: I'm always delighted to listen to the member for Abbotsford. He is indeed a creative anachronism. I always find him entertaining; I hope I can be at least as entertaining as he is. I also hope we haven't lost our viewing audience.
An Hon. Member: You haven't.
N. Lortie: Oh good.
I am proud to rise in response to the throne speech, and I'm pleased to enthusiastically support the directions of this government. The throne speech outlines the direction and vision of this government. It's a road map that points the way this government intends the province to take. Together with the budget and legislation, it is a blueprint of what this government wishes to accomplish in this legislative session. It's responsible, and I believe it shows leadership.
It conveys hope to my constituents. I don't know the constituent named Spud that the member for Matsqui was talking about. But I talk to my constituents, and they say it's a hopeful and visionary throne speech and budget. They enjoy and like it. I believe it's a good throne speech for all the people of British Columbia.
[3:30]
For the first two sessions of this government the opposition spoke at length about the deficit; the deficit was the thing that was killing us. Now they've changed their focus; they're talking about debt. They've moved the goalpost in the middle of the game and changed the rules on us. And I'll tell you why: because they are convinced they have the proof we've broken the back of the deficit, and now they're looking for something else to use against the government.
They give us no credit. We've reduced the deficit by 60 percent from when we took office and inherited that terrible mess from the previous government -- and members across were members of that government. We took that debt down to under $1 billion in the two and a half years we've been here. They've used the deficit as a club to beat this government, and it's not working anymore. So now they need a new club.
I believe this opposition criticizes the budget, the throne speech and all the legislation of this government for purely political purposes. It's the thirst for power. They'd criticize Mother Teresa for being inhuman and mean-spirited if they got the chance in this Legislature. And why do they do this? They want the reins of government. They want the government back so they can steer the government for all their friends on Howe Street, the rich and powerful in this province. And we represent the average people of British Columbia. They can't see the truth in front of their faces. They talk about debt. Debt is a liability of the province. I realize that. But they fail to see the other side of the ledger -- the assets owned by all the people of British Columbia.
Interjection.
N. Lortie: Yes, debts are liabilities, but they're used to purchase assets. We have $60 billion worth of public assets in British Columbia, not including the value of land.
The Premier pointed this out when he spoke earlier this week, but the opposition didn't even listen. They were too busy catcalling and trying to interject, and they didn't get the message. The Finance critic for the Liberals -- a man I know very well -- is an accountant. I assume he can read a balance sheet. As a trained accountant, he knows what assets and liabilities are. Yet he refuses to see both sides of the ledger sheet. The Premier asked these questions: "Why is it that we only hear of half the equation? Why do we always hear of the debt, and nobody on that side brings up anything to do with the assets of the people of British Columbia?"
[ Page 9811 ]
I have an idea why this happens. It's because all of our brains have two separate sections. It's the yin and the yang, the left side or the right side of the brain. For most of us in society, the two sides of the brain have some connections between them, like telephone wires. These two sides communicate with each other. The opposition leaves half of their brains in their caucus room before they come in. Very often they come in with the debt side of their brain and talk at length about that, leaving the other side hanging in their caucus room. Sometimes they come in to this chamber with the spend side of their brain. Their spend side will say: "We need schools; we need hospitals; we need roads; we need bridges. You should spend more on education; you should spend more on health care." The next day they'll come in with the other half of their brain, which is the "no debt, no more taxes and no more deficit" side. They'll come in and rail against the government for having a debt, or for not reducing the debt and the deficit fast enough. But they never come into this chamber with both sides of their brain together.
The opposition hasn't seen one good point. Here are three: jobs are up; the deficit is down; taxes are frozen. That's good news for the people of British Columbia. That's good news for my constituents and your constituents. We should be working together in a mature and responsible way for the benefit of all the people of British Columbia, instead of getting involved in this charade that we play in this House -- the charade of opposition for the sake of opposition and that thirst for power that demeans those people across the floor.
The opposition Liberals haven't commented on the federal Liberal government budget. Federally, their debt is far larger on a prorated basis than anything in British Columbia. They haven't complained about the off-loading that the federal government is doing. They won't complain about the federal Liberal government, because a Liberal is a Liberal. That's dishonest. The Liberal opposition keeps saying that we've increased the average tax for a family in British Columbia by $2,000. That may be true if you think that the average family in British Columbia makes $125,000. It's true that that family has contributed $2,000. That isn't the average family in my community. The average family in North Delta is way below $125,000 a year. It's not even the average MLA's salary or family's salary. We all know MLAs get slightly under $50,000, and many people think that is too high.
The people that they represent are the Howe Street hucksters and corporate leaders. We represent the average people in British Columbia. The average family in Delta has had an increase in taxes of $600 since the day we took office. This is to help this government get our province's finances back in shape, clean up the mess left by the former government and fund the off-loading of the federal government's responsibilities onto us.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm having some difficulty following the line of this debate because of the noise on the other side of the House. I want to point out for everybody's clarification that the noise is coming from both government and opposition members. I would ask both sides of the equation to please be a little quieter and listen to the member's comments. Member, please continue.
N. Lortie: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I must be the first member ever to be heckled by somebody on his own side of the House.
Is it any wonder that Murray Pezim has quit the Social Credit Party and joined the Liberal Party? He understands; he's a born-again Liberal. We also have born-again Reformers and born-again independents in this Legislature.
The hard-working people of my constituency have many needs. There are needs for highways, health care, education and the environment, but they know that this will cost money. We must protect Burns Bog -- this environmental jewel so close to the centre of the lower mainland -- from encroachment by development and keep it for our children and future generations.
We need infrastructure. One infrastructure program that would be a great benefit to the people in my community is the South Fraser perimeter road. This is a proposal to connect the Roberts Bank superport and the ferry terminal in my municipality of Delta to the industrial areas along the south bank of the Fraser River. It would service Tilbury Island, Annacis Island, the Fraser-Surrey docks, the Bridgeview industrial area and the Port Mann and Port Kells industrial area and end up connecting with Highway 1 in Langley.
Too often in planning and building highways, bridges and transportation systems, we think only of the commuter. It is important that we should all be able to get to work in a fast and efficient way, but we also need economic activity in this province. This project is an economic generator with the highest cost-benefit ratio of any proposal in B.C. It has the support of the Surrey and Delta municipal councils, community groups, both chambers of commerce and the Fraser River Harbour Commission, which is a federal organization. It's a prime candidate for the federal infrastructure cost-sharing program. We need the extension of Nordel Way and an upgrade of the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge, which was left unfinished by the former government. We need a university south of the Fraser River in order to provide better post-secondary opportunities for our students. We need a new health care facility to better serve the people of my community. I'm not the only member of this House who has a shopping list. We hear a shopping list every time one of the members opposite stands up. They all know they have needs in their communities. They think we can accommodate those needs without spending any money, and that's just not realistic.
That member from the CIA representing Cloverdale, the one who wears the trench coat at 3:15 in the morning, had a long list of projects that he'd like to see accomplished. He's one of the people from that side of the House who criticizes the government for spending money and for taxing and debt. Well, you can't have it all. It's just not possible to increase services, build the infrastructure, reduce taxes, and eliminate the deficit and the debt.
This is what some of the experts say about our government. In the last session of this Legislature the Liberal opposition took great pleasure in reading letters they got from people in the community, and I have a couple of letters that I would like to read just a small part of. This is from G.A. Pedersson and Associates, and it says: "B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada, and the highest quality of public services in Canada. Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada -- the reasons will become even more compelling in the future." That is from an independent, well-respected financial institution in our province and not, as the member for Abbotsford would think, a socialist hiding under his bed.
Here's another letter from Wood Gundy -- not another front for the NDP, I would point out. It says:
[ Page 9812 ]
"B.C. finds itself in the enviable position of strong economic growth and job creation, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any of the provinces, the lowest debt-servicing-to-spending ratio of any of the provinces, and the highest credit rating."
It goes on to say:
"The commitment to balancing the budget by 1996-97 by holding the line on taxation and further reducing the growth rate of spending to 2 percent is a positive development.
"...B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is still the lowest in Canada, and this budget will not alter the market view of B.C. as a top-notch credit risk."
Those are independent assessments of this government.
This throne speech and this budget are realistic, and they're doable. I'm proud to support this fine document. Thank you for the opportunity.
[3:45]
H. Lali: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the throne speech. It is indeed a great pleasure to stand here today to do that. I'm proud to be a New Democrat, as are my colleagues on both sides of the floor. Before the October 1991 election, as you know, we had the Social Credit for 16 years. During those 16 years their regime was marred by neglect. The right-wing coalition under the Socreds neglected all the problems in British Columbia that needed to be fixed. During the restraint era of Bill Bennett, capital projects were a thing of the past. In one year the Social Credit spent only $20 million on capital projects throughout British Columbia. During those restraint years, schools, hospitals, roads and bridges, and courthouses and other public buildings were left to deteriorate.
They left the economy in neglect. Forestry was in shambles as they allowed overcutting. Unemployment was at an all-time high in British Columbia when this government took over. The environment, as I mentioned, was also in shambles, with pulp mills polluting the water and the air. Logging companies were leaving a huge mess in the forests after cutting, slashing and burning. The aboriginal land claims question was another of those items that were being neglected by the right-wing coalition.
The second thing that described the Social Credit regime was their postponement of decisions. Their motto was: "Why make a decision today when you can postpone it until tomorrow, or never do it at all?" That's because for 16 years the right wing had no courage to make the right decisions that were demanded by the taxpayers of British Columbia. Indeed, they were playing politics with people's lives in valley-by-valley conflicts by pitting people against people, environmentalists against industry and aboriginal people against communities. They did that by postponing every major decision that needed to be made.
Interjection.
H. Lali: That's right; they're all Liberals now, as my friend from Skeena just mentioned.
The third way you could describe the right wing in those 16 years is that it was marred by financial mismanagement of our economy and our resources. The right-wing coalition under Bill Bennett took over a debt in 1975 of $2.4 billion, and by the time they were finished in 1986, it was $9 billion -- a 400 percent increase in just 11 years.
That $9 billion debt became under Bill Vander Zalm from 1986 to 1991, when we took over, a little over $20 billion. That's an increase of over 120 percent in five years. I know that my right-wing friends in the Liberal Party don't want to hear these facts, because they know they're true.
When Mrs. Johnston brought down that one budget, the deficit was a record $2.4 billion. When you look at the right-wing Social Credit mismanagement during those years, you think of all the boondoggles that they put British Columbia through -- like the Coquihalla Highway, which had a cost overrun of over 100 percent. It was not on time, and it was definitely overbudget.
And the Alex Fraser Bridge....
Deputy Speaker: I'm going to ask the member to take his seat for a moment. The tradition of heckling and witty comments is, of course, honourable and to be desired, but the constant noise level that seems to be increasing as we go is not to be desired and will not be allowed. So I would ask members to please refrain. Will the member for Yale-Lillooet please resume.
H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for quieting the hordes. Hopefully they will stay quiet while I finish my speech.
I was getting to the Alex Fraser Bridge -- another of those items that the Socreds said was going to be on budget and on time. Again, it was overbudget and not on time. They were supposed to spend $175 million on that project, and they ended up spending $375 million. That's a cost overrun of over 100 percent.
Who can forget the Expo land sale? In the middle of a real estate boom, the right-wing coalition managed to lose money on that land sale. It was a real shame.
Then, of course, there was the infamous BS fund, which had no money in it at all. All these boondoggles that the Social Credit were involved in contributed to the debt that they created. And, of course, the health costs were spiralling out of control at a rate of 12 percent growth per year.
In forestry, as I mentioned earlier, they allowed overcutting of our resources. For at least 40 years they hadn't done any inventory to see how much resource is actually there. They allowed the destruction of our forestry because of bad forestry practices. Indeed, there was no single legislation to cover it all; I think 60 separate documents under which forestry practices were governed were put forth by the right-wing coalitions. At the same time, I guess you couldn't blame the companies, because they had no one set document they could look at for forestry practices. There was no environmental legislation enforcement against the multinational companies that were polluting our environment. Then, of course, they perpetuated the valley-by-valley conflicts.
Of course, the last word with which you can describe how the right-wing regime functioned was scandal. During those 16 years, especially the last five years under the right-wing Socred coalition, not only were cabinet ministers involved in scandal -- and I know my friends sitting to my right here don't want to listen to that -- but also their Premier was involved in scandal. Back in Merritt, where I live -- in the beautiful Nicola Valley, the land of sun, sage and sand -- we have a saying: a lake a day as long as you stay. We had the Social Credit; their motto was a scandal a day as long as you stay. That was what they were telling tourists. Indeed, tourists were coming here because B.C. was a laughingstock left by the Social Credit, the right-wing coalition -- which is now forming under the Liberals here. Then there was conflict of interest after conflict of interest under that scandalous regime. Who can forget Bill Reid, the lottery scandal, the Knight Street Pub affair, and Bud Smith and his tapes affair?
During the election my constituents told me they wanted change from all of that. They wanted a fairer tax system, a
[ Page 9813 ]
settlement of the aboriginal land claims question, equality for women and funding for women's programs. That's what my constituents were telling me. They said: "When you get elected we want an end to the valley-by-valley conflict in our forests." They wanted more consultation and community say. They wanted fairer labour laws -- unlike the infamous Bill 19 brought in by Vander Zalm, which was an attempt to break unions and create havoc in our industrial labour relations. My constituents also told me they wanted tough conflict-of-interest laws that were enforceable -- not just wimpy guidelines that were put forth by the Socred Premier of the day. They wanted freedom-of-information laws and access to information. It was their information; they wanted to have free access to it. They wanted a cleaner environment. They wanted tougher pollution laws, stricter penalties and tougher enforcement of those laws. They wanted a revitalized forest sector, a forest sector which had been neglected by the Socreds for the last 20 years. No set strategy for jobs was put in place by that last regime. They also told us they wanted recall and public referendum. Who can blame them for wanting recall, when you had the Socreds going through scandal after scandal every time you read the newspapers or turned the...?
Interjection.
H. Lali: I said Socreds, my friend, and you know that very well. You're lucky you're one of those who probably didn't get involved in one.
People voted for a change during the October 1991 election. They voted for the New Democrats, and we came in. We were elected, as I said, on a platform of change. We had a 48-point platform during the election that contained 110 promises. My friends, I'm happy and proud to say that, in just a short two and a half years, most if not almost all of those 110 promises have been acted upon by this government. That's because this government has had the courage, conviction and determination to bring about the change. That courage was direly lacking in that right-wing coalition. Not only did the last right-wing coalition lack it, but the official opposition -- my friends the Liberals, the new right-wing coalition -- lack the courage to bring about any change.
We brought in the toughest conflict-of-interest laws in North America, which said that if you got your hand caught in the conflict-of-interest cookie jar, your career was over as a politician -- you're out. And that's what the people were telling us during the election. We brought in freedom-of-information legislation, which made it a lot easier to access information. We brought in a new labour code that was fair to both sides. That was brought about as a result of consultation, solicitations that came in writing, as well as consultation throughout the business and labour community and the community at large -- not like the backroom boys under Vander Zalm who brought in Bill 19.
We were the first jurisdiction in North America to have a stand-alone Women's Equality ministry. As a result, a lot of positive changes came into existence, not the least of which was the women's centres that are springing up all over British Columbia to help women in their struggle.
We also set up the aboriginal treaty commission to deal with the aboriginal land question and self-rule.
We also introduced the New Directions in health care to bring health care closer to home. That is starting at the community level. Community health councils are springing up throughout the province. Regional health boards will be established so that when a small community like Merritt or Lillooet has funding needs, they will no longer have to travel to Victoria or try to deal with the minister or deputy minister -- or whoever happens to be in charge of a particular program -- in order to get funding. They can go to their regional health board to access that funding.
We have also cut waste. In last year's budget we eliminated ten agencies. This year we eliminated another four: Government Air, the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the B.C. Energy Council and B.C. Petroleum Corporation. We are also going to eliminate the Endowment Fund, which will, after its assets are sold off, bring in $600 million. That money will be used to pay off the debt that these friends of mine to the right accumulated before we took power.
We have also introduced some changes in cheque pickup and other things in Social Services, which will save us $20 million a year. Other measures are now being contemplated as well.
Interjection.
H. Lali: "That's leadership," my friend from Qualicum is saying to my left.
The cap on MLAs' salaries has continued for the third year, and the 5 percent reduction cabinet ministers took last year is continued this year. These are all positive measures to help control the deficit and the debt. The administration budget in education has been capped. As well, we brought in provincewide bargaining so we can start cutting some of the waste in that field.
Starting in our first budget in 1992, we introduced a fairer tax system so that those who are able to pay would pay their fair share, unlike the right-wing coalition which gave cuts and tax breaks and loopholes, etc., to the multinational corporations and their big friends, and then dumped the tax burden onto the backs of the poor and the middle class.
This government also brought in the protected areas strategy under which we will live up to our promise of doubling park land from 6 to 12 percent. We have also brought in a consensus- and community-driven Commission on Resources and the Environment to deal with the land use question so we can end this valley-by-valley conflict which was perpetuated by the right wing.
We also introduced a new Forest Practices Code that would put all those other pieces of legislation, orders-in-council and what have you under one set of laws, making them easier for everybody to utilize. We also have a timber supply review, which is going around region to region. The chief forester indicated that at its present level the annual allowable cut is not sustainable; it has to be reduced. We're doing an inventory of our forest resources throughout the province so we can bring in a realistic annual allowable cut.
[4:00]
We have had record consultations in our communities over matters that the government deals with day to day. We had a record number of active standing committees of the Legislature, constituted by all parties in the House, that went around the province soliciting consultation and advice on specific topics, ranging from the First Citizens' Fund to remanufacturing, recall and referendum, and others that I can't recall at this moment.
An Hon. Member: Good research.
H. Lali: I see that my friend here has found some humour, for a change.
[ Page 9814 ]
Under the right-wing coalition, whenever a tree farm licence changed hands or a company bought a sawmill, it was done behind closed doors. Instead, we had public hearings in the communities that would be affected by these transfers in order to hear what the public had to say. My friend sitting next to me was with me when we had Teal Cedar Products buy the mill in Boston Bar from Fletcher Challenge. He, along with the Minister of Health, the member for Mission-Kent and I, went around to seven or eight communities in all of the ridings that were going to be affected to find out what the people wanted and if they were in agreement with the licence transfer. That was unheard of under the Socreds. They made backroom deals. They allowed companies like Ainsworth to take over from Evans Forest Products in Lillooet, which allowed a workforce of 300 to come down to 83. They made a backroom deal that eliminated over 200 jobs. The protected areas strategy and CORE also have community consultation. There are lots of others; the list is endless. I could go on, but time does not permit it.
The last budget that the Socreds brought in was in 1991-92. That right-wing coalition brought in a record deficit of $2.4 billion. And they didn't tell us the truth when they brought it in; they said it was going to be $400 million. Our first budget lowered that to $1.8 billion, the second one lowered it to $1.2 billion, and I'm glad to say that this year's budget lowered it to below a billion -- $898 million. We will balance the budget, my friends, in 1996.
In 1993, 45,000 new jobs were created in this province. That was three times faster than the rest of the country combined. In 1994 that level of job creation will sustain itself. Since we took power, we have created 90,000 new jobs in this province. The deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes are frozen for the next three years. This government has rejected the slash-and-burn policies of Premier Klein of Alberta, who has directly put 16,000 people out of work, and Lord knows how many thousands of people will be put out of work indirectly as a result of the archaic slash-and-burn method that he is using.
My friends, we've been able to do what we've done while still being able to build roads under B.C. 21. We created B.C. 21 to finish capital projects. We will build roads; we will build bridges; we will build hospitals and schools and courthouses and playgrounds and rec centres and fire halls in every region of the province, unlike the Social Credit, that right-wing coalition, that had a prosperous lower mainland but a sadly neglected interior, north and North Island. This government is going to be creating jobs in every region of this province.
The Whipsaw bridge is currently being rehabilitated in the Princeton area. Also in my riding, we were able to start phase one of the Fraser-Hope Bridge, a $13 million project, last year. New fire halls are going to be built in Seton Portage and Cache Creek. In Merritt and Ashcroft we have pools that have been funded by community grants under this government. The list is endless. Had we looked at that list at a previous time.... I won't delve into it at this moment, hon. Speaker.
What does the new right wing -- the Liberals -- want? They're actually retread Socreds -- we all know that. They're no different than the Socreds. It's a new bottle, but it's still the same wine.
Interjection.
H. Lali: And a sour vinegar wine, as my friend from Coquitlam across the way said.
They want to roll back every progressive piece of legislation that we have brought in in the last two and a half years. They want to roll back the Labour Code, they want to end collective bargaining for teachers in education, and they want to roll back the corporation capital tax and dump the burden on the backs of the average worker and the poor people of this province. These retread Socreds, who now call themselves Liberals, want to somehow take us back to the future.
Indeed their leader, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, had a tough time deciding whether he was going to go Socred or Liberal. He wasn't a card carrier of anything. He saw this opportunity. He is a Socred, as we all know, but now he's the leader of the Liberal Party. He has basically retreaded that same old worn-out tire.
We know who they represent. They represent the Howe Street boys and the multinational foreign-owned corporations that pay their election bills. They represent rich and powerful people who already have lots of money and power. They don't represent the poor; New Democrats do. We represent the average working man and woman in this province. Those Socreds, who are now called Liberals, make comments that are anti-aboriginal, anti-rural, anti-northern and anti-North Island.
They have no members outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District. They do have one: the member for Saanich North and the Islands. They have no members representing the rural ridings of this province. What do they know about rural concerns? What do they know about what's going on in Yale-Lillooet? What do they know about the forest industry? I doubt if any of them have ever taken a tour in a sawmill or a mine. Then they stand up here week after week preaching to us about what we should or shouldn't do in our own back yard.
These urbanites and suburbanites from the GVRD are telling us what to do. On one side, they said: "We're going to eliminate the corporation capital tax, and we're going to roll back the school property tax and rural tax." On the other side, they said: "We could have balanced the budget this year." My friends, they can't have it both ways. If they're going to eliminate those taxes, where are they going to make up the $2 billion? Where are they going to raise the taxes and on whose backs are they going to do it? My friends, we know whose backs they are going to do it on. It will be done on the backs of the poor people, the average worker and the middle class of this province, while they give their rich and powerful friends on Howe Street those big breaks that they've been asking for.
In conclusion, I'd like to say again that the deficit is down, jobs are up and taxes have been frozen for the next three years. We will balance the budget in 1996. When I talk to my constituents wherever I go in the Yale-Lillooet riding, they like this budget. They're telling me: "Keep the pace that you're at. We like it because it's helping us and the small businesses in our riding." One of my constituents stopped me on the street one day and said: "Harry, you New Democrats are beginning to move up in the polls." He said that we would win the next election.
Interjection.
H. Lali: Listen carefully, my friend.
When he said that we were moving up in the polls and would win the next election, I retorted that Liberals are down, New Democrats are up and the Socreds are frozen for the next three generations.
[ Page 9815 ]
W. Hurd: I must say that the rhetorical oratory from the member for Yale-Lillooet was most refreshing in the chamber. I was particularly struck by his references to the Coquihalla Highway. I hope that in deference to his comments about the Coquihalla Highway, he will ensure that he now drives home via the canyon every Friday when he leaves the precincts. I have confidence that he will.
This is actually the third time I have risen in this assembly to offer my comments on that other Speech from the Throne from the NDP government. Unlike the last speaker, it's not my intention to go back three years and ignore the three throne speeches that have gone between. I find the member's comments about the Social Credit party rather interesting. I'm struck by the comparison to what occurs regularly on the Coquihalla Highway, when animals unfortunately venture out on that thoroughfare and are run down. The member's comments were a little like hitting an animal on the Coquihalla Highway and then backing up to make sure the deed has been done. I intend to confine my remarks to the throne speech that has occurred and perhaps to a brief comment about the two that preceded it.
It is always a privilege to stand in this assembly, even when the content of the speech further reinforces the reality of a government that is really bereft of new ideas. It challenges British Columbians to cope, but not to succeed. It is a government which is fatigued, in disarray, out of step with the demands of the new economy and unable to comprehend the new reality in British Columbia. In reviewing past throne speeches, I am struck by the tired, recurring themes. The ringing endorsements to change are followed by none. Promises are not kept; the hope for a better way is tempered by the hard reality of expediency and indecision at every turn. "A Better Way": we all remember that as the government's election blueprint in 1991 -- a 48-point election platform on which the government won a mandate. Today it lies in ruins, a victim of false expectations and false hopes.
I believe that British Columbians were looking for three things from their government in this third Speech from the Throne: leadership, accountability and, above all else, hope and security for their jobs and families. They will search in vain in this document. They see a government now preaching the gospel of fiscal restraint after pillaging the treasury and the public pockets in this province for close to two and a half years. They will marvel at how a government which has presided over a mushrooming civil service can now say in the throne speech: "Our record of fiscal management speaks for itself." It speaks for itself -- in a province where one out of every five jobs is now a public sector job, there is no commitment to reduce the size of government or the oppressive bureaucracy which hangs over British Columbians like an economic guillotine. That's exactly what it is: a guillotine poised to lop off the head of any British Columbian who has thrift and initiative.
[4:15]
This is a government which punishes those who strive to succeed. It is a government obsessed with wealth redistribution, not fair taxation -- and there's a difference. It is a government which views its future as bigger and more intrusive. It wants more control, not less; more revenue, not fiscal restraint.
The government's throne speech talks about balanced budgets and a tax freeze, but only after three years of presiding over the most brazen and insatiable appetite for tax increases this province has ever seen. The government is freezing taxes in this year's budget, but has made no commitment whatsoever on fees and licences. We've only graduated to a more sophisticated level of raiding the pocketbooks of British Columbians. Nothing has changed.
What about the average British Columbian, to whom the previous member referred, who is supposedly better off as a result of this throne speech and the budget that followed? They have seen their individual opportunities shrink and their disposable income plummet. The amount that they have to spend on discretionary purchases has plummeted in this province. To heighten their indignity, they are forced to endure a $120,000 con job from the Premier -- we're now told that it's up to half a million dollars -- telling them how fortunate they are to live in the province of British Columbia.
Perhaps it's time to refer to some of the Ministry of Finance statistics that weren't contained in those half-million-dollar budget advertisements. I've brought them with me here today. I have the "British Columbia Debt Monitor," which shows the amount the public debt has increased from the fiscal year 1991 to the end of 1995. In 1991 the level of public debt in British Columbia was $17.2 billion. By the end of 1995, it will be $27.4 billion, for Crown corporations and ministries of government.
What about the net NDP taxes per B.C. family to which the member referred? Where have they gone between 1991 and 1994-95? In 1991-92 the average B.C. family paid $10,980 in taxes. Today that same family pays $13,392. That's not considering the ICBC increases, the hydro increases, increased fees and licences and Pharmacare increases. The reality is clear: the average B.C. family is poorer off over the three years of this government than they were previously. There is no doubt, and to hear the members opposite stand up and say that they represent the families and working people of British Columbia is absolutely astonishing.
These are Ministry of Finance statistics. The direct debt per B.C. family has gone from $7,800 to $11,660 in 1994-95. The spending per B.C. family -- and this is where the real indictment occurs -- has gone up an average of $2,000 for every family in the province over three consecutive budgets. What has happened to family incomes in British Columbia? Have they kept pace? These statistics clearly show that they haven't kept pace. This is money that is coming out of the pockets of families in B.C. who have no ability to offset the increases they're facing.
It continues to astonish me when members opposite say that they represent and understand the aspirations and concerns of small business people and working British Columbians, people who have to pay these bills and dig into their pockets every month to afford a light bill. Everybody pays hydro rates. It doesn't matter whether you are a high-income earner or a poor British Columbian. How can any members opposite say that a hydro increase falls equally on the people of this province? How, for example, does a Pharmacare increase affect wealthy British Columbians? How do fees for guide-outfitters and people who earn their living off the land base affect wealthy British Columbians? Who do these taxes really affect? They affect average British Columbians who have less money to spend, less ability to borrow to finance small business acquisitions and less ability to pursue their dreams. That's the effect of higher government debt and higher levels of taxation.
Working families will look in vain for inspiration in this throne speech. In fact, I believe they've lost their willingness to even listen to the government. They are coming to Victoria by the thousands to seek protection for their jobs and communities on the very lawns and steps of this assembly. I quote from the throne speech: "In order to protect the pocketbooks of British Columbians and provide the highest level of service to the public, the government has moved to
[ Page 9816 ]
further eliminate wasteful spending and control administration costs, realizing significant savings...." Can you believe it, after the events of the last two years and the events of the last two weeks in this assembly with B.C. Hydro? After all the horrific stories of government largesse and sky-high tax increases, if people read such a statement in a throne speech they have no reason to believe they have a government that is connected to reality. The government isn't just intent on picking their pockets; it appears to want to insult their intelligence at the same time.
As some in this assembly may know, I had occasion to travel the province as a candidate for the leadership of our party, and I used that opportunity to talk to British Columbians from one end of this province to the other. I talked to people in our province with individual dreams. They're people who have great faith in their own future and want the opportunity to get on with it. I talked to people who want to take back their future, but they are finding there's a government roadblock at every turn. I spoke to people who feel they've been consulted to death by the government. The government has given us a plethora of commissions, reviews, public consultations and hearings. Never has a government consulted people more and listened to them less than in this province. I can tell you that the people are worn out with the current government. They are tired of being told they are getting the ear, when they're getting the shaft. While every other jurisdiction in Canada is controlling the size and growth of government, we have a government giving us more.
As I said, one in five British Columbians now works for a level of government, which pays their salary. Who really pays? Is it the government or is it the taxpayers? Who pays for the rich bonus provisions and salaries for the hacks and insiders of the government? It's the taxpayers, absolutely, who pay the salaries of those of us in this assembly. They expect us to represent their interests in this assembly, and that's exactly what the opposition has been trying to do since this session opened, because they're the ones who pay the Hydro tax increases at the end of the month. They pay for the result of government overspending. Again I ask the government: who pays for all the boards, commissions and reviews and agencies that are topped up by government appointees? Again it's the taxpayers of the province.
The government has no idea who pays anymore in this province. They don't even know where the revenue comes from. If they did, how could they have made some of those spending choices? How could they have wasted money so wilfully and without proper apology? How could they raise taxes as they did in the budget last year and actually lose revenue? They accomplished the impossible -- they raised taxes and brought in less revenue than they would have if they had left the tax the same. That's a fact of life today in British Columbia.
Sometimes I really feel for some of the members opposite, because they are the ones who have to return to their constituency offices every weekend and try to explain some of the policies of this government. They were the ones forced to defend the Premier's constitutional agreement to British Columbians last fall. They were the ones forced to explain the smash-and-grab budget in 1992. Imagine trying to justify $800 million in new taxes and a property tax grab. Imagine going back to your constituency office and having to explain labour chaos in schools throughout this province.
Last September we witnessed one of the most amazing political developments on the government side of the House in the history of this province. We witnessed a Premier who ruefully admitted that he hadn't actually been in charge for the last two years. He merely confirmed what most of us had suspected. Yes, the Premier had been driving the team bus, but the steering wheel wasn't actually connected to anything. Can you imagine the warden of a prison admitting that for the last two years the inmates had been running the institution? But he vowed to change. He vowed that he would now be in charge. So he shuffled the cabinet -- the biggest shuffle in B.C. history. Sadly, the names and faces may change, but we're getting evidence that the tired policies continue to remain the same.
This kind of cabinet shuffle was surely an admission of failure over the last two years. It was an admission that the public had been right all along in assessing the Premier and his government. If there was any doubt, the by-election results in Matsqui and Vancouver-Quilchena only confirmed it.
In the next two years the public will undoubtedly tell this government that its record has not been acceptable, and that they will not accept the kind of tax increases and government intrusion in their lives that they've seen. The people delivered the same kind of message to the federal wing of this party that they will deliver to it provincially. I feel badly for the members opposite; many of them are decent men and women who will be swept up by this electoral carnage in the next two years. They will be forced to wear the failed promises of their government, and this is unfortunate.
The Liberal opposition and the new Leader of the Opposition have delivered the call for reform of this institution. He has called for free votes in this assembly and for a balanced budget by law. Imagine a budget that is required to be balanced by law -- by an act of this assembly, not by some morally bankrupt election platform promise that was given to us by the previous government. We will balance the budget over the life cycle of parliament, whatever that is -- not by some vague election promises but by a law that would require a balanced budget. It would tell the people exactly how much debt they're in.
It's becoming more and more apparent as years go by that the people of British Columbia do not really believe that this Legislative Assembly is relevant to their lives and the problems they encounter on a daily basis. The hon. member has called for more relevant private members' days. He has called for expanded question periods to enable government members to ask the government questions about their own constituencies. We have called for private members' days to be guaranteed under the standing orders of this assembly. We have called for a greater voice for select standing committees, which a number of government members currently chair. We have urged an expanded role for the Public Accounts Committee to review the spending of government, and we have also urged a fixed date for the presentation of a budget each year.
With perhaps as little as 18 months left in this parliament, why will they not support these initiatives? The throne speech says that times change and we change with them. Why will they not support a package of changes which will make this House more accountable and more sensitive to the aspirations of their own constituents? There is little indication that they will change, because change requires determination, courage, vision and confidence. We wait in vain on this side of the House for those qualities to be demonstrated.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 9817 ]
I was very interested in the decision of the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to stand alone in this chamber on opening day -- and I'm glad that he's here today -- to support a measure from an independent member to summon a select standing committee to look at the gaming issue in British Columbia. He stood and supported that motion from the opposition. In the two and a half years that I've been in this assembly, I have not seen such an action from a government member. A responsible initiative from this side of the House is finally supported by a government member, not because there was a partisan issue involved but because it was a public policy issue that needed the support of this assembly.
Under the package of changes suggested by the opposition, those could be regular and daily occurrences in this assembly. People look at the kind of decisions that are made, and they wonder where the relevance is. Where is the relevance in this assembly when that kind of event occurs maybe once or twice in the entire life of a parliament? I really feel for the members opposite sometimes, because I know that some of the changes they'd like to see occur in this assembly.... I hope before we leave this parliament that some of these changes will occur.
[4:30]
The current Leader of the Opposition issued a code of accountability -- a novel and foreign idea to the members opposite, I agree, because it means taking responsibility for the actions of government. The opposition leader's remark on the recent Matsqui by-election was profound. He specifically mentioned the shameful and shabby way the NDP candidate in that riding was dealt with. I quote from press reports that said that Samuel Wagar, a 37-year-old priest in the Covenant of the Goddess Church, was defeated in a hastily called nomination meeting. According to the same press reports, it was noted that the party had killed Mr. Wagar's original nomination. What a sad spectacle for a governing party. What a commentary on those members opposite who uttered not a word in Mr. Wagar's defence. Where is the accountability? Who is accountable for the fact that the party defeated the nomination of a duly elected candidate on the basis of religious grounds -- and not one member opposite stood in this assembly to defend his right as a Canadian citizen and as a member of a political party.
Fortunately, one of the NDP's federal brethren was not so retiring. I refer to Svend Robinson, the hon. MP from Burnaby. He said that he found any suggestion by the Premier that a person's religion should disqualify him from being an NDP candidate abhorrent. He said that that was fundamentally at odds with the longstanding traditions of his party. It's significant to note that Mr. Robinson survived the carnage that befell his federal party in the election of 1993. He survived because he had the courage to stand up and say that this was wrong. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, those members opposite should be doing the same in this assembly. Whoever is wrong, whether it's a citizen or a candidate by government policy, those members should stand and make their voices known -- because their constituents have an expectation and a belief that that's what should happen in this assembly.
I still have not heard the members opposite speak out on this religious intolerance in their own party. Why am I not surprised? With the exception of the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, none has spoken. They will not even support a modest set of reforms in this chamber.
I referred earlier to my odyssey around the province as a leadership candidate for our party. As I participated in the leadership forums, I was struck by recurring themes. People were looking for leadership in Victoria. They wanted a government that was accountable for its actions. They wanted a government that offered them hope and security for their future. They were looking for reductions in the insatiable demands of government. They were looking for rewards for individual initiative in our province.
In British Columbia today they see government as a yoke on their back, no longer as a servant of the people. They see a government that makes demands on individual British Columbians. It offers more rules and less hope. It appoints commissions, boards, reviews and agencies, and then stands back and tries to avoid responsibility. They see a government which turns its back on its most basic principles and campaign promises on a daily basis in this assembly.
During the course of this debate I've listened carefully to the ramblings of those members opposite. They've talked about courage and change in their throne speech. They've talked about fairness and balance. They've talked about making tough decisions. They did not talk about Samuel Wagar. Is it hypocrisy? Of course it is.
I heard the members opposite talk about CORE; many have referred to the Commission on Resources and Environment. Thousands of British Columbians gathered on the lawns of the Legislature last week. As I said earlier, the valley-by-valley battles have merely moved to the lawns of this assembly because people feel their voices are not being heard. Like many MLAs in this assembly, I have received hundreds of letters on the Vancouver Island CORE report. I was particularly struck by their appeal: the concern for their communities and for their way of life in this province.
I was particularly struck by one letter from a member of the North Island community, and I would like to read it for the benefit of the hon. members. It was a letter that had much to say about the working men and women in our province: "We need our jobs. We need our communities. We enjoy our way of life, and we do not want our taxes increased to pay for this." The message for government was: "You need our tax dollars. You can't afford more people on welfare. You can't balance your budget even in good times, and above all else, you need our vote." I think that says it all for the people on Vancouver Island who gathered here on the lawns of the assembly and were concerned about their very future.
After three years, the government in British Columbia and the people who are governed by it are tired. There is a desire for real change. This is the third throne speech. It comes after an unprecedented cabinet shuffle, and a momentous federal election which ousted the federal colleagues of the members opposite. It's interesting to note that many had to move into their own constituency offices for the first time.
This was a moribund and depressing throne speech. I suspect that the government will probably deliver one more before the next election. I wish that the members opposite could have worked the doorsteps in Matsqui as I did on behalf of the candidate for Matsqui. I wish they could have had an opportunity to listen to some of the comments that I received. They might have realized the urgency for change in British Columbia, the frustration that exists out there, and yes, even the fury in some corners of the land. I suspect that many elected officials went to the bottom of their electoral fortunes in October 1993 without realizing what happened to them or why. I only hope that in the time they have left in this chamber, fate does not cause the members opposite to wonder what went wrong in the years they were in government. They will have achieved only minimal changes during that time, not something that would have outlived those of us who were elected to public office.
[ Page 9818 ]
There is a hunger for change in British Columbia but a lack of political will. It is now obvious that change will probably have to wait for another day and another government. It is obvious that on that day, the Leader of the Opposition will be summoned by British Columbians to lead that change, to redefine government and to in bring a new generation of leaders. But above all else, it will be to give government back to British Columbians and turn it into the servant of the people and not their master. We will reform the way this chamber operates, so every member here can serve the people they represent. It will be a government that gives British Columbians choices about their future, that encourages and celebrates their successes and that taps into the fierce pride and independence that we know exists in every corner of this province. We need a government that challenges British Columbians to succeed, that celebrates their successes, and that does not tax and spend it all away. I'll tell you, it cannot come too soon for the people of the province.
K. Jones: It is indeed a pleasure to follow my colleague for Surrey-White Rock, who is so eloquent in presenting the case for this parliament and the serious problems we're facing after the throne speech. As he already stated, this throne speech offers us absolutely nothing. In fact, I could probably sit down at this point and have said everything that needed saying about this throne speech.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: They want to hear more.
K. Jones: It sounds like they want to hear more about this transparent throne speech. I believe their former Minister of Education referred to it as a transparent Speech from the Throne. We obviously have to agree; it is transparent. It is without substance at a time when our economy needs substance. It is without justification and lacks sensitivity to the needs of the people at a time when those needs have never been so great. We need a real sense of direction. And what did we get? Platitudes, lack of leadership and rhetoric that does not provide any direction to the various ministries. It certainly doesn't provide confidence in the economy of this province.
This Speech from the Throne is without any basis or substance. Yet when they speak on behalf of it, this government claims that they are doing everything for everybody. There seems to be more substance coming from the back bench than from the speech itself. We really have to expect a government that has been in office for over two years to come forward with some very clear and direct responses to the wide-ranging demands of the people for direction, guidance and understanding. This whole Legislature is looking for leadership. We have a great vacuum of leadership in this NDP government.
There are serious problems in our various ridings. We hear concerns from the various representatives of the ridings throughout British Columbia. They have all stated their concerns, yet they are not being addressed. There is a continuum of need with no response. I realize that we don't have a lot of money. We cannot expect the taxpayers to take additional money out of their pockets; they just don't have it. They are fed up with the demands of the government to take more money from them. They claim there are no additional taxes. They're making promises that there will be no additional taxes in the next three years -- hollow rhetoric. As they made those same promises back in 1991 when they were running for election, they are once again breaking the trust of the people who elected them. They have failed to complete any of those promises. In fact, they have gone against many of those promises. The people want to change this government. They are demonstrating their dissatisfaction with this government in front of this Legislature and all over this province.
[4:45]
The people in my riding have innumerable concerns. They are concerned about their safety in their community. They are concerned that they can't go out at night. They're concerned that they're not even safe in their own bedrooms. This government is not addressing the serious problems of the violence perpetrated in many areas throughout the province.
Interjection.
K. Jones: The hon. minister makes a joke of this concern that single parents are not safe in their own bedrooms at night. It's shameful that he should take such a cavalier approach to it. I am taken aback that he would think this is a big joke. I don't consider this a joke. Any one of us could be in that situation. We should be very concerned, and we should be addressing the problem. We should put the maximum effort into getting this resolved today -- not tomorrow. We should not put it off or get bothered with other issues that are not quite as important. We seem to be looking after the unimportant issues, but we're not addressing the issues that are very vital to the people -- the things that happen in their own lives, in their own homes on a daily basis.
We need answers to those problems from this government, and we're hearing nothing but platitudes. We're hearing nothing but heckling from the member for Delta North, who should be concerned about that. Oh, I'm sorry. It's the other members in that direction. I thought it was Delta North. I apologize to the member for Delta North. I had heard him earlier referring to these things as not being important.
An Hon. Member: What do you think should be done about it?
The Speaker: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member. Proceed.
K. Jones: This government is in the position of leading this province. It is their job to come forward with direction and guidance to the people of British Columbia -- to direct the ministries and all of the 40,000 employees of British Columbia, to focus their efforts -- to bring them to resolving the issues that are important today. Those and the plan for the next year are supposed to be outlined in this throne speech. But there is absolutely no mention of these concerns.
They're talking about skills training -- which is important, but it's long-range. It looks at the promises that they're going to do these things, but they haven't got anything concrete to put forward to address them. Where are the university opportunities for the students in Surrey, Langley and North Delta? They are waiting and waiting to try to get access into the universities. They're having to travel three hours to get to a class at the University of B.C., because there is no university in the Fraser Valley. There needs to be a high-quality skills training program in the Fraser Valley. Where is the technical training program in the Fraser Valley? We still have promises but no construction. It's going to take years to get the facilities in operation, yet we don't even have
[ Page 9819 ]
the plans being developed or any assignment of dollars for planning purposes.
An Hon. Member: Lack of vision of the minister.
K. Jones: There is just no direction and no vision and no action. This government is typically doing that: lots of rhetoric, but absolutely no action.
They like to get out there and jump on the SkyTrain, which really was built as a result of the former Social Credit Premier, Rita Johnston, who put just a tremendous effort into getting that extension across the Fraser and then up into the Whalley-Surrey city centre area.
An Hon. Member: The NDP opposed it.
K. Jones: Yet all of the NDP were up there taking all the credit for it. They were just having fun getting all the publicity. They spent $48,000 on a brochure that duplicated the brochures being put out by the local newspapers as an insert at the very same time. What a waste of money! Why would this government authorize that type of waste of money when there are people in need, people on social services who couldn't get a decent social service paycheque? But we can spend it on flacks of the NDP who are in the publicity business to make brochures.
We've had a whole series of them for the last two and a half years, spending almost half a million dollars on these types of propaganda that only promote the government. In this transit example, the government members who represented those parts of Surrey were included in the photographs, but those persons who represented the Liberal Party in the rest of Surrey were not included. They were considered to be peripheral and not part of the representation of Surrey. This is how politicized transit issues and the transit organization have become.
There are serious road needs in Surrey that cost in the millions of dollars, and there is just a pittance of money being allocated. But there is a billion dollars being spent to serve all of the NDP ridings on Vancouver Island. There are probably a tenth of the number of people there, with not nearly the accident potential or the slow-downs that prevent people from getting to work as is the situation in the Fraser Valley and Surrey. They can allocate that money to their own ridings, but they can't service the needs where there is great growth, great problems and high risks. They are not addressing that. They're building roads up the middle of Vancouver Island, where they're going to have to build linking roads to get to the population centres. That is an unbelievable waste of taxpayers' money. There are certain areas on Vancouver Island that appropriately need some improvement to their highways, but not to the scale that's being proposed -- a superfreeway down Vancouver Island. What for? Are we going to rush everybody from Campbell River to Victoria? Is it so the Attorney General won't have to use the government jet to fly down to Victoria? He'll be able to drive down at jet speed to make sure that he makes his appointments.
A. Warnke: It's to get the Minister of Environment to Mount Washington.
K. Jones: Maybe it's to get the Minister of Environment to his ski lodge at Mount Washington. Perhaps that's really what this superhighway is all about.
We really have to question the intelligence of the decision of this government to spend that kind of money in that place while there are people who are really in need. There is no money available for low-cost housing in White Rock. There is no money for transition homes in Surrey. There is no money for social services or for people in abuse situations to enable them to move to another location. There is a continuous litany of WCB claims that are not being adequately dealt with, because there aren't sufficient funds or direction from the government to allocate the money that is needed. The billion dollars from the Vancouver Island Highway could certainly address a lot of those things.
Other members have stated that spend, spend, spend is their watchword. That is the NDP watchword: spend, spend, spend, and tax, tax, tax. But it is in the wrong places; all their priorities are misplaced. We have to address social problems and health care problems. We have to address the need of getting people onto transit, so we can improve the pollution problem in our cities. We need to make those facilities receptive to their needs, so that they will use them. It's very hard to get a person to take a bus when the nearest bus is located eight miles away. This is in Surrey, an urban centre. You cannot get a bus to go between White Rock and Cloverdale. No bus service goes through the southeast half of Surrey. They don't have a single bus. They once had two trips a day that were not advertised -- that's not two routes. Some seniors got used to using that service. The government made the decision to cut back on that service. The transit authority made the decision because they didn't have the money from the government to continue that service. The bus service was cut, and these seniors now have no means of getting to town. They have to hire a taxi on their low income. That's the kind of service this government is providing. We have to change that.
When I worked with Vic Parker in 1974-75 on transit for the Surrey-White Rock-North Delta area -- that was under the former NDP government -- there was a responsiveness to getting service provided throughout the growth areas. A recommendation came out at that time to get transit into the subdivisions before people got into their second cars and before they made that purchase. Once they've made that purchase and have the convenience of a second car, they're not going to sit at a bus stop waiting for a bus that may come once every half-hour, once an hour or something like that.
We have to provide them with decent service: 15-minute turnarounds. In some of our more dense areas, we should be doing like Montreal does, with buses every three minutes. There aren't very many places in British Columbia where you've got anything like that. In fact, I doubt if there's any place; maybe the SkyTrain is the nearest thing to that at rush hour.
[5:00]
We really have to address how we're going to change the social fabric of our communities. One of the areas that I'd like to address is gaming decisions. We need to make the decision, first of all, as to whether or not we should have gaming in this province. I think that's a decision that all the people of British Columbia must have a say in. There has to be an opportunity for them to speak to this Legislature through some vehicle that will allow them to have their voices heard.
A lot of people do not think that gaming is an appropriate thing in this province, and they need to be heard. There are some who think it is a good thing. I'm very concerned about the various firsthand stories I've heard, as the representative of the official opposition on gaming, about the terrible tragedies that have happened to people and families as a result of compulsive gaming or the misuse of gaming. They may not be compulsive, but they may expend more money at the gaming tables than their families can afford.
[ Page 9820 ]
A gentleman said on the radio yesterday that his misuse of gaming cost him $35,000 to $45,000 in the last three years. That might not be considered to be compulsive, but it was a tragedy to him. It forced him to lose his house and to find new employment because he lost his job as a result of this. There are many social factors. There are families that break up over gambling; there are children who don't have sufficient food on their table because of the gambling that goes on.
We have to make a decision -- and I want everybody in this province to be involved in that decision. We have to be really concerned about what should be done in that area. I urge all members to search their souls and go to their constituencies to find out where they really stand, and invite them to bring the message forward. Let's make that decision before we start putting the cart before the horse, as we have with some of these....
We have to recognize that some decisions that have been made may have been ill-timed and certainly ill-advised. Those decisions will have to be put on hold until the public has their say. This decision that the government may have made in conjunction with development proposals for the waterfront in Vancouver is rather premature and probably considered by many people to be arrogant, because they were not consulted or even allowed to know that this was going on. That has to stop. That type of government is not one that the Liberal Party wants to be party to. A future Liberal government would be one where the public is fully informed of what's going on and no special treatment is given to any special group -- certainly not to special insiders. We want -- and the people of British Columbia want -- open and honest government. This is the claim that the NDP made when they were elected last time, but they have not fulfilled that. They have gone totally against it. Today the people say: "Give us a new election and an opportunity to change this government. Let the Liberal Party form the next government so that we can have open, honest government."
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to take my place and respond to the throne speech. Having had the opportunity earlier to respond to the budget speech, I will try to keep my comments as pertinent as I can to the throne speech. I can't, however, go on to what I intend to say with respect to the throne speech until I make a few comments about some of the contributions made by government backbenchers, and even about some of the comments made by government ministers.
I'm somewhat dismayed and actually disturbed -- as I'm sure the people of British Columbia are -- that the government continues to look into the past and try to re-rake the old mud rather than talk about how it's going to address the needs of British Columbia in the future. I was extremely disappointed in two of the government backbenchers earlier today. Their whole half-hour was spent mudraking rather than talking about the real problems that we as British Columbians are going to face over the course of the next ten years -- and certainly over the course of the mandate of this government. I've also heard many comments from the government side, including those of the Premier in his presentation yesterday with respect to the throne speech.... He spent most of his presentation talking about how he had created an asset and liability section in his government's accounting process and how all this debt that has been incurred was similar to a mortgage.
There are a couple of real differences, and for those who haven't been in business, I want to try to point them out. If they look in Webster's dictionary, they will find the definition of an asset. I want to read that out so that members in the House might understand what I am talking about. The definition of an asset in Webster's dictionary is that it is "a valuable possession or a quality resource; all the property of a person or business that can be applied to cover the liabilities." Very simply, that means that if you're going to create a legitimate asset, it has to have a market value so that it can be marketed to offset a liability. The fact of the matter is that a mortgage is a true asset as well. Most British Columbians are fortunate enough to have mortgages, and we all know that if we choose to sell our home, the first thing that happens is the liabilities against that home are paid out of that asset.
I want to suggest to government members that if they consider a road, hospital, bridge or school an asset, they should look back over the course of the last 20 years and find out how much the government has been able to get for any of those assets when it has had to close them or do away with them. I'll tell you the difference. In fact, we have to pay people to tear down those assets. There is actually no value there when that asset is no longer of use. If you put a bridge, road, hospital or school in the asset column, it is not an asset in the true sense of the word. It is an asset in terms of providing a service to all British Columbians but not in terms of the way this government is choosing to account for it in its bookkeeping.
They don't have to take my word for it. Any one of these members can go back to their constituency and ask their hospital boards and school board how much they were able to get for a school or hospital when they had to do away with it.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Exactly!
Let's not attempt to fool British Columbians or confuse the message that is out there. Earlier the member from Delta North -- and we've heard it from other members -- talked about the fact that the overall debt per capita is the lowest in Canada and in any jurisdiction in North America. That's a common phrase used by every member. Well, they're right. But what they're forgetting to say is that in 1991 the debt per capita was $5,900; in 1994 it is $7,800. The province has grown by some 600,000 people over the course of those three years, yet the per capita debt has grown by $1,900. So they shouldn't stand and brag to the people of British Columbia that the per capita debt is what it is, because in fact they've increased it substantially over the course of the last two and a half years. In fact, they've increased the debt substantially over the course of the last two and a half years -- by $7.5 billion.
Those are some of the comments that I wanted to make in order to set the record straight. As I said before, the members don't have to take it from me. Just get any accountant to sit down and discuss it with you, or discuss it with your own constituents, and you'll find out that what I've put forward right now is factual.
Historically, when we've stood and responded to the throne speech, we've talked about the needs of our own constituency and about what our constituency has done -- in this case, over the course of the last two and a half years, as I was elected to this chamber two and a half years ago. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot to talk about in terms of what's happened in my constituency on the part of this government.
[ Page 9821 ]
What I could talk about is how this government has interfered with the opportunities of entrepreneurs and others within my constituency to move forward and enjoy the quality of life that they used to enjoy prior to two and a half years ago. However, I had the opportunity to outline that in the budget speech, and I will leave it there. It's on record, and it's available for the people of my riding and others to see.
Perhaps it's a time when we all should sit back and look at what we're doing as a government. What has happened over the course of the last two and a half years? We also should look very seriously at where we're going in the future and at some of the main obstacles that will be facing British Columbians in the years to come. I think it's also worthwhile, to a degree, to look into the past and learn from the mistakes made by successive governments over the course of many years in terms of how we deal with certain issues and problems, so that we can deal with the future with some aggressiveness and some ability to face the needs of British Columbians.
I think very seriously about the number one issues that are going to be facing us, irrespective of which party we belong to and irrespective of which part of the province we're from; and collectively we're going to be facing very similar problems over the course of the next three years -- over perhaps as many as ten years. When I look at the fact that our spending has increased some $4 billion over the course of the last two and a half years, and that that alone has caused us to spend some $400 million in debt servicing over what we did two and a half years ago, it tells me, most homemakers and most small business people that it's something we've got to get under control. If we don't, the cost of servicing the debt is going to take away from our ability to service the public. It's going to take away from our ability to provide a good, solid health care program and good educational programs and to meet the needs that we all talk about on a daily basis in this Legislature.
[5:15]
One of the ways we could do that -- and we must do it -- is by decreasing the size of government. We've got to stop the growth of this government and decrease its size. We can examine the numbers that have been given to us in the recently tabled budget and see the growth of government in this year alone. That is a direct cost to the taxpayer and takes away from the delivery of programs. When we look at the cost of the different budgets -- and I will touch on them very briefly -- more and more money is going into health care and education, yet less and less is delivering the programs. In fact, we have fewer nurses on staff, fewer operational days available to doctors, fewer students in the classroom and a higher student-teacher ratio; yet we're spending more money in those budgets. We're failing the people of British Columbia, and we must get a handle on the size of government if we're going to address the other concerns I am going to bring forward. If we don't, we won't be doing a service to British Columbia and we're not going to give the service that I would like to see given to the ridings.
Outside of the budget and spending of government, the number one issue that will face us -- as elected members over the course of the next number of years -- has got to be the land use issue. Along with the other issues I will bring forward, that is going to be one of the main issues facing all of us. I believe very strongly that the CORE process was a well-intentioned one, as I believe the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was a well-intentioned process. But to get those groups to come to a consensus is going to be virtually impossible. How do we handle it? It could be handled with the heavy hand of government coming down and saying, "This is what will happen," but that would produce more confrontation and roadblocks. Or we could make more workable a local land use and resource planning process that respects an economic unit designed around the resource community that a resource supports, with the guidelines developed by the provincial government. I believe that process would withstand the test of being taken over by either big business or the environmental groups.
How could we ensure resolution? In my experience as a council member -- and I'm sure those who have sat in council will agree with me, whether it was a land acquisition or the building of a fire hall, a community hall, a swimming pool or any other community building -- when council was aware that it had to take it to referendum, it made very sure that all the t's were crossed and all the i's were dotted. In fact, it made doggone sure that the electorate well understood the issue and understood what the cost was going to be to that municipality or region.
By having regional referendums designed to encompass the same area as that land use planning process, you would find that those negotiations would be realistic, honest and open, because at the end of the day they would have to put them before the people to have them sanctioned in order to move forward. That does away with the influence of outside values or the urban environmentalists coming into the North Island, the Cariboo or the Kootenays and influencing the discussion at the table. They would know full well that that end discussion had to go before the people of that area and be passed before it could be enforced. We should be utilizing that kind of process in settling these land use issues on a valley-by-valley basis.
I believe very strongly that the CORE process, as we have it today, is doomed to fail and should be scrapped. I respect that it was well-intentioned. Like most British Columbians, I wanted to see it work; I truly did. But it hasn't worked.
Actually, I find it quite amusing. The Premier brought in the land use decision on Clayoquot Sound. The party I belonged to supported it. The Liberal Party wanted to use CORE to resolve the problem, but the government chose not to, which was, in my view, admitting that the process would not work in the Clayoquot. Now the Liberal Party wants to scrap CORE, a process that they believed would have worked in Clayoquot. That just goes to show that the wind changes from day to day, and sometimes we find a change....
I'm really serious when I suggest that the problem before us is very important. My constituency is primarily made up of lumber-based resource communities, although we do enjoy fairly healthy and growing agricultural opportunities. As well, UNBC coming to Prince George is obviously going to change the demographics and the economy of that community.
One other issue coming before us that is very important in the rural parts of the province is native land claims. Land claims and resources are the two most important issues facing the rural parts of the province. I had hoped that the throne speech would identify a process that would allow all British Columbians to take part in land claim negotiations in a way that would make them feel comfortable and that they would be able to support at the end of the day. It's in all our best interests to resolve these issues.
Part of that has to be opening the process for negotiating interim-measure agreements. We've seen agreements signed between the bands and the government that have given native people virtual veto power over development in British Columbia. We've seen where all logging practices in
[ Page 9822 ]
Clayoquot must be approved by the band. In my community all agricultural land leases must have the approval of bands before individuals can expand their agricultural lands and therefore their opportunities. I think it's wrong that any special interest in British Columbia should have veto power over the interests of all other British Columbians. If that process were open and available to all British Columbians once again, we would see a very different agreement -- an agreement that could be supported by British Columbians in all regions. It would encourage the development of our native people and of our regions. That must happen. We must have an open negotiating process.
In terms of the actual land claim settlements, hon. Speaker, we know, as do you, that some negotiations are underway. But it's very difficult for the average British Columbian to be aware of what's happening with respect to those negotiations. It's very difficult for average British Columbians to understand how it's going to affect their farms, their jobs in terms of the resource industry, their livelihoods, their children's future and, in many cases, the homes in which some of the rural people live. There's a lot of fear out there. We could resolve that with an open negotiating process that was subject to a referendum based on that territory under claim, so that the negotiators on both sides of this issue know that it has got to have the support of all British Columbians. That is the kind of approach that we must take to resolve these land use and native land claims issues.
It's unfortunate that the member for Yale-Lillooet does not understand the importance of deciding and dealing with these issues in a positive manner. He only looks at the past and spits out rhetoric that requires no research, except to read previous minutes and previous Hansards and, actually, previous newspapers in order to dig out the garbage.
Interjection.
L. Fox: And even then he can't do it right.
All this points out one other problem. Planning for the future is of extreme importance. I see very little mentioned in the throne speech about how we're going to integrate planning among the municipalities, regional districts and other provincial agencies in order to deliver a service more cost-effectively in the future. The situation that we have in health care, where, without a lot of consultation an initiative was brought forward that hardly complies with the Seaton report recommendations.... Health care in my riding is in a real mess. I can read a number of headlines on the conditions of health care in Prince George to make my point. We've seen 90 beds closed and a layoff of about 70 personnel. We've seen doctors leaving to the point that there's the prospect of seven surgeons leaving. We see headlines every day in the local newspapers. This was in the Province: "Doctors Duck Out. MDs Quit Prince George Hospital, Cite Critical Underfunding Woes" and "Doctors Protest Hospital Cutbacks. Hospital Cuts Take Effect Here." We have seven surgeons prepared to leave. We have ten days a year when the operating rooms are not open. Therefore we have longer lineups and less surgery available in our area. At the same time, those cuts are being made in order to enhance the Closer to Home initiatives.
The problem is that there are no core programs there for the community health councils to deal with. Every health council in this province is designing its own system. In the meantime we have tremendous problems. I could read letters on the problems in health care. A young man took his son, who had a broken leg, to the operating room, and his son ended up in an operating room with an opted-out doctor. The individual had to pay $200 up front before he could have his son's leg fixed. That's the kind of mess we have. It leads me to question....
[5:30]
When the Premier held up the American Express card and the CareCard prior to the election, he said that this province did not deserve two-tiered health care. I ask you: what have we got today but a two-tiered health care system? It's unfortunate. There are many other incidents of that kind in my riding. If we took a poll of the difficulties within the system around this province, I'm sure we would understand what a mess health care is in. Yet what do we see? We don't see a budget that has been cut overall. In fact, we see a budget that has been increased overall. Where is that money going? It isn't going to the delivery of the service to British Columbians. It's going into larger government, and we've got to get a handle on that.
Normally the throne speech is a blueprint for or a window into the future, and it's unfortunate that I don't read that in this document. I see political rhetoric in this document. The government should have been ashamed to ask the Lieutenant-Governor to read this. It was a real insult to His Honour to have to read this document. I'm pleased to have taken my part in this afternoon's discussion, and I'm also pleased that the members saw that I did have something positive to contribute; members were attentive, for the most part. With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity, and I look forward to some government members giving us their vision of how they're going to address the issues of the future rather than trying to rake the mud of the past.
E. Conroy: First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. member for Port Coquitlam for relinquishing his spot to allow me the opportunity to speak at this time. In some ways I'm very glad, because speaking after him can be an awesome experience. I think that speaking after him and the member for Nelson-Creston is a very difficult task, so I really am thankful.
I want to begin by talking about three things: the deficit, jobs and the forest industry. For us in British Columbia, the deficit has always been a problem. It has been something that the opposition has railed against for years and years. In the two and a half years of the New Democratic government, our deficit has been cut in half. Maybe the hon. members from the Reform Party should follow the lead of the members of the federal Reform Party by saying that a good idea is a good idea and that they'll support a good idea no matter where it comes from. We have to be given credit for doing that. In two and a half years the deficit has been reduced by $1 billion.
I want to explain something, so that the people on the opposite side can finally get it. I keep hearing the analogy: if I ran my business or my home like the government runs its business, I wouldn't be in business anymore. I run a farm. I don't happen to have a deficit. I'm fortunate for that. The government does, and it's committed to reducing the deficit to zero within the next two years. What I have is manageable debt. Not only that, but I'm going to double my debt by buying the farm next door to me. It's manageable debt, and it is not wrong if you have sufficient money coming in to manage it. It's for the future of my family: my wife, my children and myself. Right now, as an NDP government, certainly we're borrowing money, but it's for the future of the family of British Columbia. It is debt that we can manage; we have to.
Look back at what the Socreds did under the Bill Bennett restraint program. They didn't build schools; they didn't
[ Page 9823 ]
build hospitals; they didn't do anything. They never spent any money. Now we're trying to get out from underneath that, and we're having to spend. Then the hon. members opposite criticize us for going into debt and spending money that should have been spent ten years ago. I don't understand that.
C. Serwa: I'll explain it to you.
E. Conroy: I hope you will, hon. member, because you've got a lot of explaining to do, believe me.
Our rate of employment increased by 2.8 percent last year -- three times faster than the rest of the country. We're doing a good job. Today I spoke to a business person, and he said that business has never been better. He said: "I don't know why business has never been better." I said: "I'll tell you why. It's called good government." We are fostering good business practices in British Columbia. If we don't have the best economy in Canada, I would argue that we may very well have the best economy in North America. We as British Columbians should be proud of that.
We've done a terrific job, and I challenge the members of the Reform Party to give us some credit for that. I challenge the members of the Social Credit Party to give us some credit for it. Our taxes are frozen over three years. What is it going to take to have these people come across and say that we're not doing a bad job? I don't know.
I want to move on to jobs. B.C. 21, the government's major initiative introduced in last year's budget, will make public sector investments -- and I want to stress the word "investments" -- in our infrastructure. They are investments. When we're spending money, when we're going into the international marketplace and borrowing money to spend money for British Columbians, we are investing in the future of British Columbia. When we build a new school, when we turn out better-educated children for our productive workforce, we're investing in the future of British Columbia.
I think it's one of the things that many members opposite failed to realize they were neglecting under the restraint program. They stopped that completely. We now have to recognize, given the situation in the 1990s and toward the year 2000, that we must come to grips with this, and that we also have to play catch-up.
I don't want to harp on that, but I'm very serious about it. We're playing catch-up. There was a lot of stuff that should have been done. When I look at what's happening in Alberta right now, I see they're doing the same thing. Who's going to pick up the pieces in Alberta? Right-wing economics does not work. You slash spending, you don't build anything and you don't create a future for your own people, and then whoever has to inherit the government that you've ruined has to come in and pick up the pieces.
Not only have we come in and picked up the pieces, but we have done so in probably one of the most responsible ways of any government in Canada and, indeed, in North America. We have taken a very responsible view of this whole situation and have tried to address the needs of the people of British Columbia. We haven't taken a slash-and-burn approach; we've taken a very responsible position with regard to this. I certainly don't expect anything from the opposition, but I expect the taxpayers of British Columbia to say: "Thank you very much; at least you're trying. You're looking at picking up the pieces, and you're trying to build a better province for British Columbians in the future."
B.C. 21 dollars are going to boost regional economies and ensure good local jobs and training for young people. I own one of those young people; I have a 21-year-old son. I get people coming into my constituency office and saying: "Ed Conroy, I voted for you. My kid doesn't have a job. Get my kid a job." I turn to them and say: "I own one of those kids. I have a 21-year-old son who can't get a job." I'm saying that we are not playing favourites; we are trying to have a blanket program so that all young people in British Columbia can be treated fairly and can have access to training, without special treatment or anything like that. I think that's very important. Our government is on the right track on that. We're going to see some initiatives in the future that will be responsive to that, and I'm very proud of that as well.
We're promoting small business. We're developing extra trade markets. Our Premier has been overseas. Just to give an example, as a result of work done through overseas development, my constituency has been the recipient of an $800 million project. We're looking forward to more of that. The tax spinoff has put $150 million into the provincial coffers in goods and services tax and income tax. Not only has it helped my constituency, it has also helped the people of British Columbia.
Over the coming months our new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour will be introducing new incentives to include new emphasis on high-quality skills training and community-based training to help bridge the gap between social assistance and work. We realize there is a tremendous gap out there with our young people and we have to find some kind of a conclusion. If we were to leave it up to the marketplace, I suggest the marketplace would not deal with it. It's incumbent on government to deal with it. It's also incumbent on government to deal with the various post-secondary educational facilities in the province. I know that the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is working very hard in that direction, and I want to congratulate him on the initiative he is taking. It's good stuff.
[5:45]
Before I run out of time, I want to talk about the forest sector, something dear to my heart. As promised, the B.C. government introduced a new Forest Practices Code. This government has had the guts to do what no other government has had the guts to do. This Forest Practices Code should have been in place 40 years ago. There is no excuse for us being in this position right now. We've been put in this position because people in government didn't care. They used the forest industry as a cash cow, and that's all they cared about. They didn't bother with studies or looking at the future. Now that we've taken over government and are responsible, we are coming to grips with this whole thing. I have to confess that I was angry with the previous NDP government for not coming to grips with the forestry situation when they were in power.
Interjection.
E. Conroy: That was 20 years ago. It should have been done 20 years ago. It should have been done 40 years ago, but there is no excuse for people who put this province into debt to the tune of $2.4 billion. There is no excuse for not getting the forest industry under control. There is no excuse other than you used it for a cash cow, and you did not care. Now you've put the entire future of the people of British Columbia in jeopardy. It's shameful.
I don't care where you come from in terms of how you stand politically. You can be a small-c conservative or a small-l liberal. I even say jokingly that there are some real Liberals over there -- one or two, anyway. But to do the right thing is the important thing, regardless of what political brush you're tarred with. Somebody has to wear it for the
[ Page 9824 ]
damage that has been done to the forest industry in British Columbia. We're having to wear it now as government, and we're prepared to wear it. We're prepared to take the flak from the environmentalists and from the people who work in the industry. We have to, because the industry has been so abused over the years by previous governments that somebody's got to take it. Somebody has to finally bite the bullet, and we're going to bite it. We're going to do it.
Interjection.
E. Conroy: Bingo, that's exactly what we're going to do. We're going to have leadership.
Interjection.
E. Conroy: You should have had some. We wouldn't be in this position.
Over the past year the Forest Sector Strategy Committee has brought together representatives from labour, industry, municipalities and first nations, as well as environmental advocates and academics. The committee is in the process of formulating a comprehensive strategy that will enhance the economic and social benefits derived from our province's forests. Does that make sense to you guys? We've made mistakes in the past. I say we as British Columbians. We elected you, so we've made mistakes. We're not going to make mistakes in the future. Hopefully, we won't make a mistake by electing the corporate Liberals, who will turn everything around and force it back into where we've just come from. I'm optimistic that the people of British Columbia have at least that much together.
C. Tanner: They only make the mistake with you once every 20 years.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
E. Conroy: In conclusion, I would say that for the first time in the history of British Columbia that I've known it, we finally have....
Interjection.
E. Conroy: I thought I explained it...
The Speaker: Would the hon. member for Chilliwack please come to order.
E. Conroy: ...but I guess you still don't get the difference between the deficit and the debt.
For the first time in the history of British Columbia we have a government who cares about the future and, as the hon. member for Delta North said, has a plan. We really do have a plan. We want to see this province move forward with an economic plan, a secure plan, for the people of British Columbia. We feel good about it, and I think all the people of British Columbia should feel good about it. I think this is a very good time to feel proud about being a British Columbian. We have the best economy in Canada. We have good and honest government. We have opposition that will fight us, for whatever reason -- not for any reasons of practicality, certainly, but for reasons of power, as the hon. member for Delta North said earlier. Finally, I'm proud to be a British Columbian and a member of the New Democrat government.
M. Farnworth: I have just a few minutes. I want to touch briefly on the major portion of my response to the throne speech tomorrow morning. I attended a meeting last night in my constituency of some 1,200 parents and students -- community activists -- concerning education and the building of schools. It's a very important issue in my constituency.
I received a number of letters addressed to me and to the Premier from students attending some of the schools in my constituency, including one here from an Eric Frilund and another from a Justin Neufeld -- I don't know if he's any relation to the hon. member over there. I said I would be bringing these letters over, and I just want to take this opportunity to let them know that, yes, these letters are here.
I want to briefly outline why we're at this crisis in schools in our particular constituency. I notice the member for Okanagan West is acknowledging the fact that he is, in part, responsible, and I will address that. I would like to review for a moment why we're where we are. We've had record growth over the past 12 years. Unfortunately, it's only been in the last two years that we have begun to address that growth, because for the ten years prior to our election we received negligible amounts of capital spending. In 1982-83, for example, we received $1.2 million. In 1983-84, we received nothing -- not a penny -- from a provincial government that is supposed to be looking after the interests of the future citizens of this province. In 1987-88 we received $1.9 million. While this negligible amount of spending is taking place, our population is growing by 5 percent per year.
But we were elected in '91 and resolved to address this issue. I'd like to inform the hon. members and my constituents that in 1992-93 we spent some $50 million, and in '93-94 we spent some $31 million. So I think that demonstrates our commitment.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough time right now to roast the hon. members. So I hope they return tomorrow, sometime after private members' statements, to atone for their sins. I'm sure they'll find it informative, as well as entertaining.
With that I will yield my place to the Speaker, who I believe.... I move the debate be adjourned until tomorrow at the appropriate time.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before calling on the Government House Leader, I'd like to take this opportunity to read to you my ruling on the matter raised on Tuesday, April 5, by the member for Peace River South. He sought to raise, as a matter of privilege, party designations used in the television broadcast of the debates of the assembly. The member alleged that his privileges as a member were contravened, as the television broadcast identified him as an independent rather than indicating the name of the political party he currently belongs to.
During this session there have been a number of changes in party designations, which has led to this unique situation. I believe it is the member's position that if a member of the House indicates that he or she belongs to a particular political party, that party should be shown on the television screen regardless of either the number of members of that
[ Page 9825 ]
party in the House or whether the member ran for election under the name of that party.
In 1991, electronic broadcast of debates was authorized by a decision of the then-Board of Internal Economy, which resolved as follows: "That the board proceed to provide quality gavel-to-gavel television coverage for the next session of the Legislative Assembly under the authority of Mr. Speaker." I invited submissions from other groups in the House following the raising of the matter of privilege. I note that there appears to be a general consensus to allow the television broadcast to reflect a member's political party, provided that this would not lead to a claim for procedural or financial considerations. Accordingly, I am prepared to accede to the member's request, and will so direct Hansard, beginning with tomorrow's proceedings.
I have not dealt with the matter as one of privilege, as I believe the material before me does not reveal a prima facie case of privilege. But it will, as indicated, be dealt with by the exercise of the Speaker's discretion in the manner mandated by the Board of Internal Economy.
Hon. D. Miller: I thank all members for the informed debate. I move that the House adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]