1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, APRIL 8, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 13, Number 24
[ Page 9827 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
C. Evans: Mr. Fred Young and a grade 12 advanced biology class from L.V. Rogers high school in Nelson are in the gallery. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
ETHANOL AND THE ENVIRONMENT
R. Chisholm: A recent report by the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy shows that on 100 days per year some part of the lower mainland experiences only fair air quality due to high pollution levels caused, for the most part -- approximately 80 percent -- by vehicle emissions. The veil of smog hanging over the lower mainland on warm summer days slowly works its way eastward to pollute and poison much of the Fraser Valley. It is a situation that shows no sign of improvement, given the enormous growth that has taken place in this area, and that growth will continue in the years ahead.
The NDP government has finally made the effort to reduce automobile traffic and its inherent pollution problems by announcing a go-train between Vancouver and Mission. Last year, when I was promoting rapid transit to the valley, I recommended a service between Chilliwack and Agassiz because of that area's increased growth. But at least the government's initiative is a start in the right direction. Let's not wait too long to put the go-train into operation. The pollution isn't waiting, each day it increases.
What else can be done to reduce vehicle pollution? One initiative that would be both practical and beneficial would be the addition of ethanol to gasoline. Ethanol, or ethanol alcohol, is produced in commercial quantities, primarily from grain, corn and hog fuel. Conservative studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency show that a 10-percent-ethanol-blended gasoline provides the following results:
1. A reduction of 25 percent in carbon monoxide emissions.
2. A 6 to 10 percent net reduction in carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, since more carbon is absorbed by crop growth than is released in manufacturing and using ethanol.
3. Net reduction in ozone-forming emissions. Ethanol blends mean less ground-level ozone formation than with the use of normal gasoline. Ozone causes respiratory problems in humans and damages crops. For instance, bronchitis and asthma have increased by 200 to 300 percent since 1985. If used, this would mean tremendous savings for our health care system.
4. It is a renewable resource. Corn, wheat and barley are used to make ethanol.
5. Ethanol increases the octane level of gasoline by an average of three points.
6. Ethanol does not require vehicle modifications, as do propane and natural gas, which are both fossil fuels and non-renewable resources.
These many attributes were instrumental in ethanol-blended gas being designated an environmental-choice product under the federal government's Green Plan, which recognizes the value of renewable fuels in limiting greenhouse gases and improving urban air quality.
Is ethanol safe to use in automobiles? Approximately 8 percent of all motor fuels sold in the United States today contain some percentage blend of ethanol. In Brazil, where ethanol is produced from sugar cane, the figure is much higher. Companies in Canada are using it too. All major auto makers in North America recommend the use of ethanol.
What are some of the other benefits of ethanol? As a net importer of oil, British Columbia could reduce its dependence on imported crude oil. It would have a significantly beneficial impact on rural British Columbia, particularly the growing Peace River region, which has been hard hit over the last several years by changing world market conditions and by nature. It has been estimated that if the federal government were to regulate an annual 10 percent ethanol blend in all Canadian gasoline, the system would require 197,315 million bushels of corn or 180,294 million bushels of wheat -- about one-fifth of Canada's production. This would put the Peace River farmers back to work.
Once ethanol has been produced, the remaining stillage is an excellent high-protein livestock feed material and has the potential to be used in fish farming, baked products and food aid for starving Third World nations. The enormous benefits to our atmosphere, the economy and the preservation of precious fossil fuels leaves no doubt that ethanol must become part of a cleaner, prosperous future.
I quote from the Vancouver Sun of February 26. It states:
"Our Air Pollution Will Soar, Computer Predicts.
"Lower mainland air pollution levels in the next decade will be almost two-thirds higher than previously thought, a new computer model shows.
"Designed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and adapted by Environment Canada to Canadian conditions, the model...shows that local experts have seriously underestimated air pollution volumes.
"The old levels have been estimated by a clean air committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which for the last three years has been drafting a plan to reduce air pollution...by 50 percent.
"But the new projections blow that goal out the window....
"But the new model showed emissions would only drop to about 390,000 tonnes before rising again.
"'It was a real shock to everybody,' says Doug Drummond, the GVRD director who chairs the air quality committee.
"'It meant our management plan could only accomplish a 38 percent reduction instead of 50 percent.'"
By the year 2010 we're expecting one million more people in the Fraser Valley, which means more automobiles, pollution and problems. I await the government's response.
A. Hagen: I want to begin by commending the member for Chilliwack for bringing to the floor of the House this Friday a matter of such enormous importance. He couched the specifics of benefit and a process in the broader context of our environment in the lower mainland in this Cascadia region; I think that is the appropriate way for us to look at this issue. We all recognize that we are living in a region of the province of enormous potential economic, social and cultural benefit, but those benefits are affected by the environment in which we live. Any of us who travel back and forth as we do between Victoria and the lower mainland are painfully aware of the quality of air of which the member spoke.
In our global context, too, we're aware that we have a responsibility of stewardship to use our natural resources
[ Page 9828 ]
wisely, to conserve them and to find new technologies that will allow us to use them more effectively than we have in the past. Even people like me, who really have no technological background, have become interested in the diverse ways in which our intellectual capital, as well as our needs, are blending to find new solutions to modern problems.
We need to use our resources wisely, and the member has spoken about the use of one resource: ethanol from grains. There are a number of other resources that we can bring into play. We need to look at energy self-sufficiency and at ways in which our environment can be improved. As a province on the leading edge of technology, we need to look at ways in which as we improve our own environment we can provide marketable products and processes that will assist other cities of the world.
[10:15]
I can think, as all of us can, of travelling in Southeast Asia. Trying to breathe in Bangkok or Hong Kong is sometimes a real challenge that tells us what the world might have in store for us if we're not careful.
We have many initiatives taking place. Among them is the announcement by our government about the Ballard bus, which is a zero-emissions transit vehicle being developed in cooperation with the California South Coast Air Quality Management District. It would be another achievement for us in enhancing air quality.
Just two days ago our government announced a partnership with Highquest Engineering Inc. of Vancouver to support a technology aimed at producing cleaner-burning fuels by the use of hydrogen -- it's already added to fuels, I understand -- where there is significant capacity to use by-products to make cleaner fuels for our area. Again, this technology could not only be used in our own region but could be marketed elsewhere.
I don't know whether members know of a plant and a process using methanol, which is similar to ethanol. A Mohawk station has been opened where methanol is added to gasoline, and there is now a regulation, which comes under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, around the quantity of methanol that can be added. Again, that's a by-product of natural gas, of which we have large quantities. The community of Kitimat is benefiting with its world-scale plant that is manufacturing methanol.
I believe the member has raised an issue that we need to look at from the point of view of legislation. There could be a good deal of cooperation around that legislation, because in order to have the additives to our fuels we need to be sure that the technology is right and that we are doing things properly and well.
It is good for us to look at the variety of ways in which our natural products, our by-products and our technology can be used at the same time as we are working at making fuel more efficient and effective in improving air quality. The fundamental issue that we need to keep in mind is that transit is key to keeping many vehicles off the road. Transit involves our feet, bicycles, fewer cars, car-pooling and the use of some of the new technologies.
R. Chisholm: I wish to thank the hon. member for New Westminster for her positive response.
I would like to refer to other alternate fuels, such as natural gas, which is a cleaner fuel. An automobile must be modified to the tune of approximately $1,500 to $2,000 to run on this substance, but the issue is that natural gas is not a renewable resource. Eventually we will run out of natural gas, and this commodity could be better used as home fuel or for power generation. Another commodity is propane. Again, it costs $1,500 to modify a vehicle. Unfortunately, propane has proven to be hazardous. Major propane vehicle fleets such as those formerly used by the Department of National Defence were altered to another fuel source due to the volatile and dangerous nature of this commodity. And again, it is not a renewable resource; we will run out.
The next subject I wish to discuss is methanol. I'll quote from the Province of Monday, December 20:
"Methanol Buses A Bust In LA."
"After spending $102 million U.S. on methanol buses, Los Angeles county transit officials are ready to abandon the anti-pollution program. Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members say the buses cost too much to operate and are plagued by mechanical troubles.
"In Seattle, for instance, a five-year methanol demonstration program was shut down after three years because of high costs, said Jim Boon, the alternative fuel coordinator with Seattle's Metro."
The next subject is the electric car. I'll quote the Vancouver Sun of June 12: "According to the Los Angeles Times, hoped-for breakthroughs in electric car technologies have stalled, but air-pollution officials there are looking at the Ballard for a breakthrough in fuel-cell technology." On hydrogen-fuel-cell technology, I must commend the government's investment in the fuel-cell bus. This technology is a step in the right direction toward a mass transit system. But like the hon. member said, we must include other complementary solutions, such as car-pooling, running ethanol in automobiles, bicycle paths, etc.
Now back to some more benefits of ethanol. Ethanol is also beneficial in fueling hydroponic greenhouses, which can be warmed by waste heat from the ethanol distillation process, watered with waste water from the distilling plant and fed with an air mixture enriched with carbon dioxide, a distillation by-product, to produce tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, etc. This process would help in reducing Canada's dependence on imported foods. The set-up is in use in Decatur, Illinois, and works very well. Ethanol use would also reduce farm subsidies on grain, and the resulting tax savings alone would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
I encourage all British Columbians to pressure their provincial and federal representatives and impress upon them the urgent need for ethanol-blended gasoline.
WORLD HEALTH DAY
D. Schreck: I rise today to speak about World Health Day. I have to admit that when one of my colleagues said to me, "Why don't you make a statement this Friday on World Health Day?" despite the fact that I've spent most of my career in health and health economics, I had to ask what World Health Day was. Well, the answer is that World Health Day occurred yesterday, April 7, and it celebrates April 7, 1948, when the World Health Organization was founded. In many ways I feel a contemporary of the World Health Organization, because tomorrow is my forty-seventh birthday, and the World Health Organization and I have been tripping along through time together.
When people think of the World Health Organization, especially in circles of health promotion and health economics, one of the first things that comes to mind, particularly in our part of the world, is the World Health Organization's definition of health. The World Health Organization has said: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." Many discussions on health
[ Page 9829 ]
promotion and health economics that I've been in start by asking what health is, giving the World Health Organization's definition, and then discussing from that point. One of the conclusions that's usually reached in all such discussions, whether the World Health Organization's definition of health is accepted or not, is that health is definitely not just the provision of services. It is definitely not only hospitals, doctors and all of those other things. It has something to do with our satisfaction, our well-being and our quality of life.
The World Health Organization currently has a staff of about 5,000. Its total budget for servicing health needs as an agency of the United Nations, dealing largely in developing nations throughout the entire world, is equal to slightly more than twice the cost of the British Columbia Pharmacare program. I ask hon. members to keep that in mind when we look at what we in Canada and British Columbia consider health care to be and at what we do with health care dollars, and then look at the work of the United Nations, where the entire World Health Organization functions for the globe on a budget that is just slightly over twice the B.C. Pharmacare budget.
The World Health Organization's objective is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Since 1977, when the World Health Assembly set health for all by the year 2000 as the World Health Organization's overriding priority, a global strategy has been worked out to reach this goal. The strategy, which requires the combined efforts of government and people for its implementation, is based on a primary health care approach involving eight essential elements. It's interesting to look at those eight elements in the World Health Organization's global strategy, both in terms of what is there and what is not there. Those eight elements are: education concerning prevailing health problems; proper food supply and nutrition; safe water and sanitation; maternal and child health, including family planning; immunization against major infectious diseases; prevention and control of local diseases; appropriate treatment of common diseases and injury; and the provision of essential drugs. Nowhere in that list did we hear the World Health Organization calling for more acute care hospitals or more doctors. We saw safe water and safe sewage disposal high on the list.
It is a fact that major advances throughout the world in longevity and reducing morbidity have not come from what happens when wearing white coats in an operating room but from what happens by the work of a plumber and an operating engineer. Safe water and safe sewage disposal have meant major gains in life expectancy and reduced morbidity in North America and all other parts of the world. The elimination of poverty has meant major gains in the quality of life throughout the world, not what happens in a hospital operating room.
Yet when we talk in this chamber about health care, what do you hear us say? We do not hear a debate about how we improve our quality of life or about the excellent work done by our Minister of Health with the hepatitis B inoculation program; we hear debate about how much money special interests are going to get in order to keep unnecessary hospitals open or about requesting more money for particular care providers. We should be challenged by the objectives of the World Health Organization, particularly in the context of the first point I mentioned, which is one of the eight objectives of the World Health Organization: essential drugs.
I was on Internet the other night and tapped into the World Health Organization database. I found their literature on the essential drug program. Did you know, hon. Speaker, that 200 drugs are listed in Norway? Australia follows a similar strategy. There are 140 countries in the world that have said: "We don't need unnecessary, ineffective drugs that cater to the marketplace and sap our resources, taking money from real health prevention and from dealing with the questions of poverty, safe water and quality of life, and putting them into unnecessary drugs." The World Health Organization's focus on essential drugs relates directly to some of the initiatives our government took in the past few days to bring that Pharmacare program under control. That Pharmacare program in British Columbia is currently zapping resources. Twice the cost of the program is equal to the cost of the entire World Health Organization budget.
I am looking forward to my opportunity to respond to the opposition's rebuttal and to go into considerably more length about the relation between the World Health Organization's objectives and the recent initiatives with respect to the British Columbia Pharmacare program.
D. Symons: On the forty-sixth anniversary of the World Health Organization being formed on April 7, 1948, it is my pleasure to respond. Twenty-six members of the UN ratified that constitution on that date, and 170 members belong to the World Health Organization today.
Canadian support for the formation of the United Nations is well-known. After the Second World War we were one of the primary countries pushing for the formation of the United Nations. Possibly what is not so well known is Canada's participation in other aspects of the United Nations. We are probably aware of Canada's great service to the world in peacekeeping efforts in Cyprus, Korea and other parts of the world. We are well known and respected throughout the world for our contributions to peace in the world.
Canadians have also given a great deal of activity to such things as UNICEF, working on behalf of children; UNESCO, dealing on behalf of education around the world; and the World Health Organization, its acronym being WHO.
The idea of international effort to improve health is not new. In 1903 an international office for public health was established in Paris. After the First World War, the League of Nations also realized the importance -- in order to prevent war -- of improving the lot of people throughout the world, particularly their health. A health body was also attached to the League of Nations.
[10:30]
After World War II the United Nations did likewise, and that led to the formation of the World Health Organization. The main objective is the attainment of the highest levels of health for all peoples. They believe that health is a fundamental right of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief, economic situation or social condition. All people deserve equal access to health services to enable them to lead socially and economically productive lives.
To achieve this, one of the main objectives, as mentioned by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, is to eliminate poverty, because if people are poor they experience poor health and poor nutrition. Poor health leads to an inability to work, which leads to poverty. It is a vicious cycle, and approximately three-quarters of the world's population, three billion people, are caught to some degree in that vicious cycle of poverty, poor health and lack of work. In 1977 the World Health Organization set up a goal of health for all by the year 2000, based on a primary health care approach involving the eight essential elements that the hon. member mentioned. However, I would draw his attention,
[ Page 9830 ]
after he went into the B.C. aspect, to the fact that one of those eight elements is the appropriate treatment of disease and injuries -- and, indeed, we still need hospitals to deal with some of that. The eighth element is the provision of essential drugs. I guess the difference may be the definition of what is considered essential.
The World Health Organization also promotes the research required to develop the tools needed to achieve their eight goals. It is leading a campaign to provide effective immunization for up to 90 percent of the world's children by the year 2000. I'm pleased to say that they have almost reached that goal already, and they're doing immensely well. The real problem is areas of the world that are at war and therefore prevent WHO workers from getting into them. The organization set out in 1967 to eradicate smallpox and achieved that goal by 1977 -- except for a slight accident they had in a laboratory in 1978, which was the last known smallpox case in the world. They're also leading the fight against river blindness, which affects millions of people in Africa. They have been highly successful at that. They're working to eradicate poliomyelitis, iodine deficiency disorders, leprosy and malaria.
I was also going to mention the budget, because the budget the World Health Organization works with is approximately equal to the deficit that this government will run up in its current fiscal year. We can see that with small amounts of money and a lot of goodwill on the part of people throughout the world, they're having a great deal of success working in promoting the health of all the nations in the world.
D. Schreck: I appreciated most of the comments in the response by the hon. member for Richmond Centre. I hope we can take our common appreciation of the approach taken by the World Health Organization to better use resources in order to improve quality of life and that we can bring that sentiment into this chamber when we look at initiatives taken by our government.
I mentioned that one of the key strategies of the World Health Organization's global strategies on health is the essential drug program. The 1992 yearbook for the United Nations stated that by year's end, 113 World Health Organization members had adopted the essential drug list, and 66 nations had essential drug programs in operation. What's the difference between an essential drug program and the approach taken in countries like the United States and Canada, where we can boast that we spend a higher proportion of our gross national product on health care than any other nation in the world? The difference is whether one wastes resources on unnecessary goods and services or whether one appropriately directs resources to things like reducing or eliminating poverty, which has a significant impact on health.
People in Canada who are in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution still die seven years sooner than the rest of us, and they still have a higher incidence of every disability, disabling condition and illness that is known, despite our medicare system. If we are going to deal with quality of life in health care, that does not mean endlessly throwing more money into the health budget; it means not continuing to be the second-most expensive health system in the world. As another member said in his statement regarding the use of ethanol, it means taking resources and using them to reduce pollution in order to improve quality of life. It means using the resources to build social housing and to address questions of violence against all people -- women in particular.
How can we redeploy those resources? One area is Pharmacare. The cost of the Pharmacare program has doubled in the last five years. It has been growing at an annual rate of 16 percent. Some pharmacists and panels of government called on government to simply transfer those costs to seniors. I say: shame! You do not bring costs under control by shifting them from government waste to private waste; you bring them under control by spending more wisely. I am pleased to see that that is what our government has done, in line with the initiatives of the World Health Organization.
A. Hagen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Hagen: On behalf of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, I'd like to welcome 23 grade 10 and 11 students from l'ecole Victor Brodeur in the minister's riding. They are accompanied by their teacher Mme. Legault. Welcome to the session this morning.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
C. Tanner: As usual, when I make these statements I have to make a disclaimer and tell members of this House that I am speaking strictly for myself, not for my caucus or party. The last time I made a statement in the House, I went back to our offices and enjoyed quite a harangue.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. Members of all parties and all political stripes agree that the public require more input into decisions that affect their lives. This government has made a few housekeeping changes to the operations of this chamber, but nothing that the public either appreciates or even slightly understands. This Legislature needs radical change. People do not need set-piece debates where nobody listens, where the government makes its case and the opposition argues. The public wants to express an opinion. The people want input instead of a quorum of ten listening halfheartedly to a tedious, one-sided justification of government policy, or, alternatively, an argumentative member who suggests that everything the government does is automatically wrong. Where, except during a touring committee of this Legislature, does the public have an opportunity to express any opinion? All 75 of us are elected to make decisions using our best judgment, tempered by consultation with our constituents. Now is the time to broaden the decision-making process to include more people who have had experience as municipal politicians in this province and across the country. Many members of this House have come from municipal politics.
What happens when 75 MLAs take their seats in this House? Why does the common sense and good judgment that is so evident in municipal debate go out the window, to be replaced by posturing, partisan one-upmanship and pettiness? Could it be party politics? Is it the ensnarement of these members by the generally more experienced bureaucracy? Is it the adversarial legislative system? Is it because we're away from home? Perhaps it's because of the seating arrangements. Maybe it's because of the cameras in the press gallery. Is it because the majority of us are males? Is it an attempt to get the attention of our leaders or of the people back home? Is it because we were lucky enough to win a 28-day popularity contest? Is it because we have now become free of any authorities and we're MLAs? Is it due to the privileges of the House, which include total freedom to
[ Page 9831 ]
say anything without fear of recourse in the courts? Perhaps it is that we're free from arrest in this legislative chamber. What is even more puzzling is that when most of us return to our hometowns, we're not much different than when we left -- a little wiser, but not a lot different.
So what happens in Victoria -- or, for that matter, in Regina, Queen's Park or Ottawa? Power. It's a combination of all the things I have enumerated, but when you get right down to it, it's power. There are 75 of us in this House. In my opinion, that's about 25 too many, but that's another debate for another time. Of the 75, 51 have the power. They have the majority, as they should have. They're the government. Of the 51, 19 are in cabinet, and the Premier is one of those 19. He has almost supreme and absolute power in this province as long as he has the support of caucus. I belabour this point because herein lie many of today's problems. In British Columbia, in Canada and in the western democracies, we must delegate our power. We should delegate it to local authorities: the cities, towns, villages and municipal districts -- in large part because they are more representative and closer to the people we represent. Incidentally, that local authority, with some conditions, should also include the first nations on their reserve lands, but that's another debate for another day. I do not believe that we can bring government to the people until the federal government has enough confidence in this Canada of ours to delegate some of their authority to the provinces. In turn, we must have the confidence to give some of our delegated authority to local politicians.
Having said all of that, there should be some conditions. I suggest instituting a ward system of municipal elections, with the winner receiving 50 percent plus one of the votes or a runoff of the top two contenders. The term should be increased to four years. No council should be elected for more than three consecutive terms, but it could have a rerun after a one-term absence. Responsibilities would include local government, health, hospital, education, social services, parks and recreation, to start with.
Members of the local government should receive training after their election and be better paid, making their jobs almost full-time. The longest-serving councillor would be either the chair or the mayor; alternatively, the councillors would elect their own chair. A pension would be available, as in the civil service, prorated on the length of service. Regional government would have wider powers and be elected from among municipal councillors. Rationalization of the municipal boundaries of local governments should be effective, responsive and accountable. It's time to delegate our authority. It's time to share our legislative powers with the people who are closer to those who make the decisions on our everyday lives.
[10:45]
C. Evans: For the benefit of the people who may not understand the way the process works in here, the member's statement is listed in the orders of the day. The member has listed that he chooses to speak on "Power to the People." Another thing people need to know is that traditionally on Fridays we don't attack one another. We let one another say whatever we want in private members' statements. I'm certainly not going to break those rules today, although I am going to speak on the hon. member's choice of words.
One of the things I really don't like -- and I think a lot of us don't like -- is when the powerful and the rich appropriate the language of the people in order to sell whatever's on their mind. It's like Revlon calling shampoo revolutionary, or Chevrolet using the language of the young to sell its cars. It's like government wanting to do something they know the people aren't going to like, so they send a group of people out to consult with the public and capture their words so they know which words they will have to use to shove it down people's throats.
"Power to the people" is not a phrase that belongs to us. It comes originally from Africa. It's a Kwazulu phrase, amandla awetu, meaning power to the people. In the days of colonial power, it meant taking power away from the few who had it and giving it to the many who lived there. It moved to the United States and became a rallying cry of the Black Power movement.
The first time, and the only other time, I ever heard a person give a speech on the subject of power to the people was from a young man named Stokely Carmichael, whom I respected a great deal. It was in a condemned high school that had been turned into a community college in the black community. Stokely Carmichael was a non-violent, lay Christian worker, who organized voters in the South -- a real dangerous job. He was raised in Harlem, and in 1964 Harlem burned. In 1965 Malcolm X was killed, and Watts burned. In 1966 Stokely Carmichael's friend James Meredith was killed, and then Martin Luther King was killed. When I went to hear him speak, there were only two Caucasians in the room, myself being one of them. There were people with guns on both sides to protect the speaker, not me. He had the right to use those words.
A couple of years later that fine man wrote a book called Black Power. He said that power comes from economics and that class analysis was necessary to change who had power and who didn't. Then he saw what was happening in the country where he had traditionally organized as it moved to violence, and so he moved to Africa. The phrase "power to the people" came to this continent from the African continent, and went back to Africa.
Most of us love and respect this place. We care a whole lot that members treat this place with respect. One of the ways to treat this place with respect is to understand that as powerful people we don't take away the tools of the people with less power who will never work here; we don't take away the language of the people, for whom language is their only power. We have enough by virtue of working here. Hansard reports it, and the press reports it. We should speak in the language and the culture we represent, and if we're not proud of it we should change that culture.
C. Tanner: I'm afraid the government respondent has missed the point of what I was saying -- which doesn't come as a surprise, because the same could be said of every member in this House.
There is a growing acknowledgment that the public needs more input in decision-making in this country. Let's give it to them by delegating some of our authority closer to those people in municipal government. That's taking the power of these 75 members and giving it to something like 1,300 elected representatives across this province -- if that's not close to the people, I don't know what is -- all of whom are closer to the public and are more concerned with the everyday decisions important to the public's life. This will bring democracy closer to home and closer to our communities.
I have never been convinced that decision-making in public life can be satisfactorily implemented by any means other than elected representatives of the people using their best judgment and understanding of the circumstances to render a decision. Having made that decision, they should have to stand up and be asked about it afterwards, just as they do in municipal government and as we do in this
[ Page 9832 ]
House. There is no other efficient way of running this government than delegation of power to the people.
It is that responsibility which puts lines in the faces of cabinet ministers, grey hairs in the members of the government, and ages all MLAs prematurely. It is a system that has evolved over centuries, and which millions have died to defend. Let's not throw it out. Now is the time to make another progressive decision: really reform the system and delegate some of this House's authority.
VAISAKHI CELEBRATION
S. Hammell: I rise today to speak about Vaisakhi, the annual Indo-Canadian social, cultural, religious and political celebration. Vaisakhi, originally marked as a festival to commemorate the harvest and thanksgiving in the predominately northwestern part of India -- particularly the Punjab -- is today a cultural celebration, not only for Sikhs but for Hindus and Muslims around the world.
Its origins date back thousands of years -- perhaps as early as 4,000 to 5,000 years ago -- as records of the first Indian civilizations reveal. In 1699 the last master of the Sikhs, the tenth guru after Nanak, invited his followers from all over India to gather at the hill Anandpur in the Punjab. At that meeting he invited five disciples to follow him, now known as the Five Beloveds. At that meeting Sikhism in its present form was born and the five symbols of the Sikh faith were assumed by the Sikh people.
The Protestant reformation was taking place in Europe at that time, and Sikhism evolved as a religious reform movement in what is today northern India and Pakistan. The holy scriptures of the Sikhs embody the reformist poetry and scriptures of many saints from all parts of India, many of them Muslim, others Hindu and Sikh. So you find in the Sikh scriptures verses from all of these saints of different faiths, and that is what has made Sikhism traditionally so inclusive.
This faith was open to all people of India, regardless of class, ethnic background or colour. In fact, the Golden Temple in Amritsar has four doors -- symbolically four gates -- so that people can come to it from all directions. It was at the end of the seventeenth century, when there was some political oppression and persecution, that the last guru, Guru Gobind Singh, organized and baptized the Sikhs on the hill that I spoke of previously. The guru asked them to wear the five symbols: the unshorn hair, the sword, the comb, the bracelet and a special undergarment. The unshorn hair is why you see turbans on the many baptized Sikhs today.
In my community there is a large and prosperous Indo-Canadian community. The Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia dates back to the last decade of the nineteenth century. Presently there are about 200,000 British Columbians whose ancestral roots or connections lie in the Indian subcontinent. People who are part of this community come from India, Ceylon, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, East Africa, South Africa, the United States and many other parts of the world. Many are second- or third-generation Canadians. I'm sure you can find Sikhs in every corner of this globe -- that's a bit of a contradiction. The Indo-Canadian community has prospered and made a significant contribution to the development of this province. They live in all parts of the province: in resource-based communities across the mainland and Vancouver Island, in the agricultural regions of the Fraser Valley, as well as in the urban centres of Vancouver, Burnaby and in my riding of Surrey. In fact, Surrey now has the largest Sikh community in the lower mainland, with two Sikh temples and a thriving Punjabi market on Scott Road, the major road between Delta and Surrey.
One of the many delights when your community diversifies is joining in on the celebration of different cultures. If you listen hard enough you can hear echoes of your own culture as you celebrate the timeless cycle of our shared humanity. Today we have Indo-Canadian Supreme Court judges born and raised here or with origins somewhere else. We have farmworkers who do most of the seasonal work on many of our province's farms. We have poets, writers and artists, and we have political leaders, several of whom are current members of this Legislature.
I would like the members of this House to join me in wishing all British Columbians of Indian origin, and particularly the Sikhs, a happy Vaisakhi.
M. de Jong: I can say unequivocally that I join with the hon. member in celebrating this cultural and spiritual event that has taken place, and also celebrating -- as I think she did through her words -- the contribution that the Indo-Canadian group has made to her community and to communities around the province. I will not quarrel with anything that the hon. member has said, because it is a speech of celebration. We should all trumpet happily and without reservation the contributions that various cultural groups have made to our country and to our province. I, like the hon. member, am pleased to say that there is a vibrant and growing Indo-Canadian community in my riding of Matsqui and in the Fraser Valley, which she alluded to. In every sense of the word, they are a vibrant group making a very significant and positive contribution to my community, as I'm sure they are to hers.
I'm thinking in particular of the pleasure I feel when I do attend the gurdwara very regularly with my friends and neighbours -- because that's the people who were celebrating the festival a week ago. I take great pride, as I'm sure the hon. member does, in attending the Indo-Canadian Business Association functions that are held in her riding and in meeting with members of the Indo-Canadian population who are now occupying seats on the various agricultural councils and on the blueberry and raspberry councils that extend from my end of the valley to her own.
We should all share in the accomplishments of the members of our constituencies. I am aware also that in the member's riding the Indo-Canadian population is taking steps to create their own Punjabi school, as they are in Matsqui. We should be aware of the tremendous efforts being made by the Khalsa Diwan Society across the province -- more particularly in the Fraser Valley region -- and the charitable work that is done by these fine people and also the efforts that are undertaken in the area of education.
In my discussions with them, I urge at every instance the need to not become insular and be looking overly inwardly to one's own cultural background but to ensure that that mix and the excitement of bringing one's culture to other members of society continues to take place. I also openly applaud -- as I'm sure the hon. member does -- the efforts being made by the Indo-Canadian population to sustain their culture and history.
I would mention only one other thing, something that is pointed out in my discussions with members of the Indo-Canadian population. Not to end on a negative note by any means, but I think we should all keep in mind that it was not that long ago that a boatload of members of the British Empire arrived off the shores of Vancouver. The boat was called the Komagata Maru, and the some 1,000 Sikhs occupying that vessel, who had travelled all the way from
[ Page 9833 ]
India, were not allowed to land. They were sent away because of their religion.
[11:00]
We've come a long way since then, but I think we should all keep in mind that it is recent history in the grand scheme of things, and members of the Sikh and Indo-Canadian population certainly remember it. We should also be mindful that these things have taken place in our history, and we should go that extra mile and assist where we can, as the hon. member has done by bringing this event and celebration to our attention. We should be mindful of that and facilitate where we can the good work that the Indo-Canadian population is doing.
I join with the member in extending my congratulations to the members of her riding and to Indo-Canadians across the province. I also extend to them a happy New Year, as I understand the celebration also includes a reference to the Indian New Year.
S. Hammell: I would like to thank the member for those comments. I think we have to come back to the concept of Vaisakhi, which is a festival of the harvest, a celebration of bringing in the harvest. It celebrates the bounties of the land. When we think about festivals and the variety of cultures through our collective histories, it is a common festival that is celebrated, no matter what culture or spot on the globe you come from.
In fact, if you take a lot of our religions and scratch through and compare them, you will find a common thread that runs between many of the religions and cultures of our community. As we celebrate our differences, we should also take the time to find and sort out our common humanity. In most religions you will find the concept of what we call the golden rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It's a common theme that is found throughout the many religions of this world. Similarly, when we celebrate Vaisakhi, we have a chance to celebrate something that is also common to us.
Our Indo-Canadian and, in particular, our Sikh communities are very important parts of our community. They are enthusiastic members of the community who have embraced our system with vigour. They have taken part in all elements of it. As you know, they have taken part in our political and economic processes.
We welcome their enthusiasm, we thank them for sharing their culture with us, and we celebrate their harvest festival with them.
(continued)
On the main motion.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise again and continue where I left off yesterday, after I had a few brief minutes to speak. Just to remind members of the House, I decided to touch on the impact of education on my constituency and how important the decisions of the past ten years -- and the last two years -- are to what will hopefully be a vital and growing education community.
We had a meeting with 1,200 parents the night before last to talk about school construction. It was a very important meeting, because it outlined, to the government and to the public, the problems facing us in today's world. In order to understand why we have this problem today, it is important to go back and look at what happened in the ten years preceding our election, because that's where many of the answers lie.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The previous government encouraged growth and development, but they forgot a very important thing: when you expand your family, you have to expand the infrastructure to support that family. District 43 fell dramatically behind in school construction. In the name of false economy, insufficient money was spent on school construction for the children of the new people who came into our province. Yesterday I pointed out figures for some years. In '82-83 they spent $1.2 million, nothing in '83-84, and $4.4 million in '88-89. They loosened the purse strings for a couple of years before the election -- $13 million in '91-92 -- but that didn't keep pace with the some 12,000 students who arrived in the last three or four years.
We took office in October 1991, and in our first budget, for the fiscal year '92-93, we spent over $50 million in my constituency. That's equal to all the money spent in the previous ten years. Last year we spent some $31 million. The effect of that was to open three elementary schools, and two middle schools will open this September. Yet we still face a severe shortage in high schools because there has not been one constructed since 1973 -- over 20 years.
Hon. Speaker, that's just intolerable. It shows what happens when you practise false economy, when you continue to put off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. A backlog builds up -- a massive backlog. We can fix that backlog, but at the same time the needs of today are building up, and it creates pressure for huge amounts of money. In this year alone, on the priority items of our district, they're requesting some $200 million worth of projects -- in just one district. Compound that with ten or 15 growth districts around the province and you see the enormous financial impact.
Yet at the same time that the government has to find a way to achieve a balance and build what's required to deal with that backlog, we have opposition parties that condemn the government for long-term borrowing and investing in infrastructure. We have a Leader of the Opposition who says that we must cut education funding and that we can't afford to do long-term capital financing of schools. That would have a tremendous impact on the students of my constituency, many of whom presented letters to me Wednesday night. Yesterday I mentioned some of the names from division 16, Viscount Alexander Elementary School: Justin Neufeld; my favourite, Matt the whiz kid, drew a wonderful picture; Falen Dunne; Dallas Lonechild; Lora Brownlow. These are some of the children in my constituency that are counting on government to make the necessary investment in schools to ensure they have a quality education.
Yesterday one of the members of our party was criticizing the opposition for not realizing that when we incur a debt we also incur an asset. A retort came back from one of the leading lights of the opposition benches -- I think the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- that assets are liabilities as well. I infer from that that the children of this province are seen as liabilities by the opposition, and I think that's a disgrace.
The children of our province are our future, and we have to invest in them. That is why this government has spent more in the last two years than in the previous ten years. We've not just made the investment in capital funding but in operating funding. We were elected in my constituency in large part because we campaigned on changing the way the block funding formula worked in this province. When it was set up, too many districts were penalized -- districts that
[ Page 9834 ]
had run lean operations. So we found ourselves receiving less money than other districts. Our government went out this year with an extra $8 million to address the high-growth districts, and the result was an extra million dollars for operating expenses in our district, which helped a great deal. It went to rapid-growth districts, where student growth had been so tremendous.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: I hear the member for Surrey-Cloverdale saying that it didn't go to Surrey. Unfortunately, once again the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is totally ignorant of the facts. Surrey received over $2 million of that $8 million fund -- the largest amount received by any school district in the province. My own district received $1.02 million of that money -- the second-highest amount of money received by any district in the province. So if you had done your homework, you might know the facts.
When Roy Stibbs Elementary School burnt down, I, John Cashore and Barb Copping responded on behalf of the concerned parents in our districts. We lobbied our government intensely, and our government came through for the district. Once again our government showed its commitment to the students of this province and to the people of the northeast sector. We face a crisis now. Once again the MLAs from our area are going to be lobbying the government to ensure that the capital spending takes place, that School District 43 gets its fair share, that Coquitlam River Elementary School gets built and that we build another high school in our district, because 20 years is too long to wait. You cannot allow 5,000 homes to be built in two and a half years and not expect problems that need to be addressed. I am confident, based upon this government's record to date, that we will address those problems.
We have made tremendous strides, and we will continue to make tremendous strides. There's a lot more to be done, but I find in the comments of the opposition that they want to have it both ways. They made comments yesterday about school construction in my riding. I found it quite fascinating that the Leader of the Opposition figures that the first thing we'd need to do, if he were Premier of this province, would be to cut education spending by 5 percent. As I said in reply to the throne speech, he would follow the lead of Ralph Klein in Alberta and just gut education.
Our party is committed to education. That's why we gave education in this province a 4 percent lift overall -- the highest of any province in the country. And what was the response from the opposition? "Increased spending." We know where their priorities are. Their priorities lie on Howe Street; they lie with the bean-counters back east -- the big-money boys who are concerned only about the bottom line and the credit rating. They're not concerned about the human side of the debt and deficit problem; they're not concerned about the human capital that this province must provide for.
Our government has a record we can be very proud of. We know we can't do everything; we know we have limited resources. We know that the demands of the public for services outweigh our financial ability to provide them.
[11:15]
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member says that we need to reallocate funds. Well, I'm quite sure that the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale won't mind giving up that road he wants in Surrey-Cloverdale in order to build another school in my constituency. I might take him up on his offer to reallocate funds from Surrey-Cloverdale.
We did not get into this problem overnight, and we won't get out of it overnight. It's a lot of hard work dealing with the mistakes created by the Social Credit government. I don't know if I can....
R. Neufeld: No members are present.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Peace River North says that none of the members are present. Technically he's right, because the Social Credit caucus has split into two. Now you have the orthodox Socreds and the Reform Socreds. I'm not sure how you tell them apart. Are the orthodox Socreds the ones who say "Grace" before they take their seats? Do they buy their own suits? The Reform Socreds are the ones who are always yelling: "Fourth! Fourth!" Is it a fourth for golf, a fourth for bridge, or are you just looking for a fourth for a party? I can well understand why the member for Peace River North says none of the Socreds are present.
That doesn't take away from the fact that it was previous mismanagement that got us into this mess. We are attempting to deal with it, not by hiding our heads in the sand, but by addressing the priorities of what needs to be done. How do we relieve the pressure and put some long-term planning objectives in place?
Building schools is part of the solution. We have to address those needs today in schools like Coquitlam River Elementary, Riverside high school, Scott Creek Middle School and Gleneagle senior secondary. We also have to rethink how we go about building schools. We have to bring in legislation -- which I hope this government will do -- that will address the problems created when the previous government sold off vast tracts of Crown land in our area. We ended up buying the school sites back at full residential market value. That was crazy. Instead, we should be setting aside those sites at the beginning and then putting the land up for sale. We should choose the land to service our needs first and then put the land onto the private market. We also have to rethink the whole concept of what a school is about.
I see a member of the orthodox Socred party has just returned. I'm very glad to see that.
We have to rethink the way schools are built. For example, should a school be freestanding by itself on a particular piece of land, or can we be more creative? Can we look at such things as combining it with a seniors' housing project to make better use of the land available in an area? The Ministry of Education suggested the other day that perhaps we should go to a trimester system. Our current school system was based on an agrarian tradition, whereby students had to be home in the summer and early fall to bring in the harvest. That does not happen in this province today. Maybe we need to look at other areas and see whether we can make better use of existing facilities.
At the end of the day, we have to address the pressing problems that are there. We need....
K. Jones: I hope your cabinet's listening.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member says he hopes the cabinet is listening. I can assure that hon. member that we have a cabinet that not only listens, but acts. They have proven it before, and they will prove it again.
Hon. Speaker, I said that there are priority schools in my area, and we want those schools. We want Coquitlam River Elementary, we want a high school and we want Scott Creek Middle School. As I said the other night, I will be pressing
[ Page 9835 ]
this government, and I will be a pain in the neck until we get those schools built. But I know this government is going to come through.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, this is a splendid opportunity for me to speak on the throne speech, which is inclusive of the provincial budget. As a matter of fact, I think the Premier got good mileage from the speechwriters, because it followed virtually the same speech and format as the Premier's televised broadcast. The embarrassing moment for most of us in this Legislature was when the L-G had to read that very biased, partisan throne speech. I felt very badly about that. Then the Minister of Finance reiterated and utilized the basic format of that original televised address.
A great deal of the debate that has gone on in this Legislature has not really been related to the throne speech, because the throne speech didn't say very much. So we'll talk a bit about what it didn't say. I've also listened to a lot of government members on that side of the House talk about former Socred governments. The hon. member just finished talking about school construction and capital costs of schools, and I'd like to speak a bit about that.
But what I'd like to say, first of all, is that I think most of us in this Legislature were very upset when, following the presentation of the throne speech, the Speaker was literally turfed out. That was a reprehensible act by the government of the day. The government used very crude tactics and techniques to remove the Speaker of this particular Legislature. I'm afraid that it's an embarrassment and a shame that the current government will have to live with. It has upset and distressed many of the citizens in the Victoria area, who are not used to that level of tactics, and I think most British Columbians are quite distressed over what transpired here. The spin doctors strived to cloak it as a reform measure, but it was hardly cover enough.
What can I say to British Columbians? The first thing I can say is be happy and don't worry. We've got to survive till '95. The good stuff is in British Columbians, and we can survive until the next provincial election in '95. British Columbians are seeing -- and even the government is well aware -- that this has basically become a one-term government and, in many ways, a disaster. It's not a complete disaster, because they have brought in some programs and taken some initiatives that are very positive. I applaud them on that. But on the whole, the public interest has certainly not been a fundamental or paramount concern of the current government. The mood of the general public, even those who support the government, was evidenced by the vacant seats on the floor of the Legislature and in the galleries -- for the first time in my memory since I was elected in 1986 -- during the throne speech at the opening of this legislative session. It doesn't augur well. The less-than-spirited debate that government members are entering into on both the budget speech and the throne speech exemplifies a type of fracturing or lack of confidence in the activities of the government -- or the recognition that fortunes are going to change very dramatically after the next provincial election.
I'm really very proud to stand in this Legislature as a member of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. I'm going to talk a little about that, because that's really important to me and, I think, most British Columbians. When we look at the throne speech and see the philosophy, focus and emphasis it represents, and we see what has been accomplished in the province over the past 40 years of Social Credit government, then I think it warrants real consideration.
The reality is that our population, as well as the infrastructure throughout the province, has grown tremendously. Perhaps half of the people in this province wouldn't be here if it hadn't been for the partnership that exists....
I believe there is a request for leave to make an introduction.
Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Port Coquitlam ask leave to make an introduction?
M. Farnworth: Yes, I do.
Leave granted.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to say how much I appreciate this opportunity from the member for Okanagan West. I do apologize for interrupting him.
In the gallery are a number of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in my constituency, and I ask that the House please make them welcome. They're here to see us in operation today.
Deputy Speaker: It's nice to see that the students are given an opportunity to see parliament operating in its best tradition of courtesy and civility. I thank the member for Okanagan West and ask him to please proceed.
C. Serwa: The slight delay on my part was due to the lack of sign language reading here. But we got it together, in any event.
So the great irony in this whole situation is the fact that the majority of the population of British Columbia wouldn't have come to this province if it wasn't for the economic opportunities that Social Credit governments made available in cooperation, in a joint venture, with the people of the province. They're hard-working, innovative and a great group of individuals, who work well in an environment that allows all sorts of good things to happen. I see the member for Kamloops, and I wonder where that member and his community would be if it wasn't for the Social Credit builders of British Columbia. The socialists have railed against that particular Build B.C. philosophy, but I wonder where Penticton, Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George, North Delta, Merritt, Salmon Arm or Smithers would be without the ability to participate actively and fully in the economy of British Columbia.
That required a strong network of roads and transportation systems. We've got the best ferry system of any jurisdiction almost anywhere in the world, with the exception of Norway, I think. The reality is that our transportation system, roads and highways, B.C. Rail and the services that were necessary to develop the interior of the province and benefit the lower mainland and certainly the southern part of Vancouver Island were all concepts of that great vision W.A.C. Bennett had. I'm particularly proud of that.
Where would the members for Burnaby, New Westminster and Surrey be? Would they scrap the Alex Fraser Bridge? It cost well over half a billion dollars and the costs are still climbing, but it's very necessary to serve that great and growing population in the lower mainland and the greater Vancouver area. Would they scrap the SkyTrain that their party fought in opposition? I think not; they're expanding SkyTrain.
[11:30]
Where would the member for Prince Rupert be? Would he give up the northeast coal superport? I listened to some
[ Page 9836 ]
of the members on the government side talking about the waste of capital that was invested in northeast coal. That coal goes out primarily through Prince Rupert.
Would jobs, economic activity and opportunities for British Columbians be scrapped? I think not. Would the members for Victoria, Saanich and Esquimalt pull down the convention centre and tell their constituents they don't need the provincial ferry system? Would the Vancouver members say Expo was a mistake and that False Creek should still be a run-down corridor of barrel factories and warehouses? Would the member for North Vancouver tear up the Lonsdale quay or the SeaBus? I think not. Would the member for North Delta junk the Deas Island Tunnel? His party denounced that tunnel as a tunnel to nowhere. Would the Environment minister say that we no longer need to protect the Valhallas, the Purcells or the Skagit Valley? Would the former college instructor from Prince George say we had gained little from British Columbia's college system? Education was a primary concern of the previous governments. The college-university concept was created. The University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University were created under Social Credit governments. There's a strong commitment for education in the province.
While it doesn't relate directly to the throne speech, in the last few days I have heard so much debate on the throne speech hammering the daylights out of Social Credit governments, I felt that I had to seize the opportunity and say why I am so proud to be a Social Credit member in this Legislature. In all fairness, I would say that we had a very good, viable, vital opposition. They perhaps kept Socred governments on their toes and made them perform, and I think that was a very positive attribute. As a matter of fact, I would like to see that viable opposition as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition once again.
In matters of social services we had a good conscience as well. We tried to help people to help themselves, and I believe that's the only way you can do it. You can't simply throw money at poverty and expect it to go away. We've thrown money at poverty for many years and it hasn't gone away. We have to be able to help people help themselves, and that takes a greater involvement than throwing money at it. If throwing money at it would eliminate or alleviate poverty, we would have succeeded. In spite of all the money thrown at poverty in the name of poverty, we have not succeeded in reducing the poverty level. As a matter of fact, it has tended to increase. The reality is that we haven't helped those people to help themselves; we attract them to the situation and then they are unable to extract themselves from that environment. This government has a long way to go in that.
In my constituency there's an organization called KEREDA. It works very well, and I spoke just the other day to the Minister of Social Services about it. It truly helps people to help themselves. It is not only active in a variety of environmental initiatives, but it enables people to take that half-step to get back into the labour force and it creates employment opportunities. We know that re-entering the labour force requires physical changes, but it also takes psychological changes on the part of the individual. KEREDA has a plan that really works, and it's a significant asset to the community. As a matter of fact, it's a blueprint that could well be used throughout British Columbia.
Would the member from Cranbrook dump the Roberts Bank superport, which opened up southeast coal in her constituency? I think not. Would the West Kootenay members like to go back to the days before the Castlegar connector and the Salmo-Creston highway? The southern transprovincial highway system opened up both the East and West Kootenays and certainly made the East Kootenays feel like a full-fledged partner in and member of the British Columbia economy for the first time in their history.
I don't think the Minister of Government Services would like to forget all about the B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games, which are the greatest community and fitness builders in North America. I don't think the Minister of Social Services could pick up the tab for all the volunteer charity work throughout British Columbia and for the revenue that the B.C. Lottery Corporation contributes to charities. It's estimated that volunteers in the province save the taxpayer approximately $2.3 billion annually. That is something that good Social Credit governments have encouraged. I think all members in this Legislature would encourage that volunteer activity. I don't think the Attorney General has any difficulty with the CounterAttack program that, again, was built up under Social Credit governments. I know he doesn't.
Would the members of cabinet -- for example, the Minister of Environment -- reject the concept of the benefits of a private school system and reduce government funding to independent schools? I think not. I really believe in the competitive atmosphere. I think most of us -- certainly those of us on this side of the House -- believe in competition and the necessity of being efficient, productive and innovative. I think the independent school system encourages that, and the public school system benefits.
I'm really very pleased with what former Social Credit governments have done. I could go on and on with respect to the things that have been done here, but I'm very comfortable with and proud of what has been accomplished in all areas. A great deal has been done since the 1986 election with respect to the fiscal responsibility of Social Credit governments. I have heard a great deal.... Almost every member talks about the huge deficit incurred in 1992. I want to talk a little about that and try to clear the air -- I said I would when the member forRossland-Trail stood up yesterday.
Most people have to understand that the item called "direct deficit" is a result of the current government's expenditure for the current fiscal year -- April 1 of one year to March 31 of the next. Any accumulated surplus or deficit of that period either becomes provincial debt or reduces provincial debt. Deficit is an annual situation; the direct debt is an accrual of the annual situation.
What happened in the last five years of government? In the first fiscal year of the previous government, there was a surplus of $49 million in the 1987-88 budget. In the second fiscal year, 1988-89, there was a surplus of $851 million. In the third year, 1989-90, there was a surplus of $351 million. In the last year...
Interjection.
C. Serwa: These are statements from the auditor general. They're available; they're objective, realistic figures. They're not tampered with or created. I'm just bringing them to the light of the House, hon. member, so that there is a clarity of vision here.
In 1991 there was a deficit of $519 million. The net result of the previous five years of government was an increase in the direct provincial deficit of some $1.4 billion, but we had a reduction of $1.2 billion because of the surpluses. So I stand very proud on the fiscal responsibility end of things.
When you talk about the $2.4 billion that showed up in '92, you have to remember that the election was held in '91, and the NDP was government for six months during the last
[ Page 9837 ]
fiscal year. The auditor general had a great deal of difficulty accepting the $400 million that was spent in 1992-93 -- not in 1991-92 -- and applied to the '92 budget. The $2.4 billion deficit that the Minister of Finance, the Premier and all the other members talk about was fabricated by the current government of the day; it was not left behind. I want that reality imprinted on the minds of members. Those are not my figures; they are objective and accurate figures from the auditor general. That has to be clearly understood.
The other day I asked a question in the Legislature with respect to education funding. That question was really important to me because there are a number of schools in my district that are still awaiting capital funding for major projects. Four major projects require the go-ahead from the Minister of Education, and that has not been forthcoming. There are, I believe, 138 portables in School District 23. It is a rapidly growing school district, and the number of portables has increased in the past two and a half years. While the school system is burning, the Minister of Education is fiddling around. He says that he will come back with the capital expenditure budget in the fullness of time.
He also said that I, of all people, should not be asking a question with respect to capital funding for school districts. He quoted some figures to indicate that the previous government had committed very few dollars -- an average of something like $70 million a year over the previous five years. The reality is that over the previous five years the average was over $290 million a year -- more than four times what the Minister of Education had put together.
One of the things I want to point out to the people in the province is that there are mixed signals coming from the Minister of Finance and the Premier through the budget speech and the throne speech. They take a great deal of pride in having the lowest per capita debt and the lowest per capita debt repayment schedule of any province in Canada. How can anyone believe that, when the current government has actually increased the deficit substantially in two and a half years? The growth in the provincial budget has been something like 18 percent in that two and a half years. The direct debt -- this is out of the annual budget -- has gone from $5 billion at the end of the Social Credit government to a projected $10 billion at the end of the 1994-95 budget. That is excluding the $1 billion in B.C. 21. So I think it bears keeping in mind that the responsibility of this government with respect to fiscal management remains to be sincerely questioned, and restraint is not occurring.
What has happened, though, is the direction of government spending and where it has gone.... Billions of dollars have been raised in new taxes, and where has that money gone? Well, the public sector wage system has increased by 25 percent in just two and a half years. The BCGEU membership has grown by 10 percent in just two and a half years. Public sector wages consume approximately 65 percent of the budget. This year it's $19.6 billion. That really means that $13 billion is utilized simply on wages for the public sector in the province. It means that a great deal of the new money that has come in through taxation revenue has not gone out to provide goods and services or programs for people in the province. It's simply gone to provide higher wages for those selected unions that are on the inside track with the current government. We haven't benefited as a population from the increase in tax revenue or the expenditures. The point I'm trying to make is that when members on the government side say to us that we can't have it both ways, I would say that it depends on where the expenditures go.
[11:45]
For example, take the Ministry of Agriculture. Its budget was over $102 million in 1992 at the end of the fiscal year. Presently its total budget is down to a little over $80 million. So Agriculture has lost out. You can look at many of the ministries -- Transportation and Highways, Tourism, Economic Development -- and see that ministry after ministry has suffered severe reductions. Those ministries have the capability and the potential to revitalize the economy in the province of British Columbia, and it's not being done. The money is being poured into areas that are really not productive.
The government of the day voted in support of the taxpayer protection plan. As a matter of fact, it was one of the few times in this Legislature that there was unanimous consent on a particular bill. When the government of the day was in opposition, it voted in support of that. Immediately upon becoming government, they repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act, and I think we can now see why. It took 125 years to hit the $20 billion mark in direct and guaranteed debt in the province of British Columbia. What has happened in two and a half years? Projected to the end of 1995, by the Minister of Finance's own statements, that figure is $27.5 billion -- an increase of 38 percent in just two and a half years. And what does that mean? Well, it means simply this. When the last government left office, we spent 3.8 cents out of every revenue dollar to pay interest on debt, and the interest rates were higher at that time. We're now paying, with the low interest rates, up to 54 percent more. And these are the lowest interest rates in two decades. When the interest rates rise, it means that billions of dollars will be taken out of the provincial revenue. Rather than being able to accomplish the delivery of goods and services such as hospital care, education, social services or all the other necessities that are required -- that's what the government's responsibility is, to provide those things for the people with the people's money -- more and more of that revenue will be going to debt repayment and paying interest on debt. It's non-productive, and it's not a good thing.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
The other day the member for Rossland-Trail indicated that there were left-wing economics and right-wing economics. There is actually no such thing; there is only economics. The reality is that you cannot sell your children's future and your heritage by going into deficit financing. At some point that deficit and the accumulated debt have to be accounted for, and that's what the current government fails to recognize. There are not good times out there.
There was a fair bit of talk about the devastation that occurred through the restraint package in the early 1980s. I agree that it hurt all of us. It hurt us out in the private sector, and it certainly hurt people that work in the public sector -- no question about that. But there was nothing we could do about that. We had to act in a very responsible way, and I think it's to the credit of the Bill Bennett government that they took responsible action. The legacy of that action has been very positive and productive. It allowed our economy to spring up and advance far more rapidly than any other jurisdiction. That legacy allows the investment and optimism that still exist in British Columbia in spite of the current government. It's a vital aspect of the people that reside here. Those individuals are hard-working entrepreneurs who will continue to work hard, because they have an abiding faith and belief in the future of this province.
I'm very proud of being a Socred and very proud of the legacy that was left. Those were not easy decisions; they
[ Page 9838 ]
were hard decisions. But we're all part of the same province and economy. No individual can be excluded from the good times, nor should any individual -- be they in the public sector or the private sector -- be excluded from the bad times.
We use the Athenian model of democracy here in the Legislature, and the Westminster parliamentary system has evolved from that. What happened to Athens? Well, from a small city-state, smaller than the population of the city of Kelowna, they created a form of government that we still utilize today. But why isn't it the power that it once was? The reason is that after a period of time, the people decided they wanted security, comfort and freedom from responsibility. When they started to think they had acquired that, they lost everything. That's perhaps part of the problem with us today -- I say "us" collectively, as Canadians. We're focusing so much on comfort, security and freedom from responsibility that we've lost sight of our responsibility.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. Speaker, I note the time is up. It seems to have accelerated by. I would have liked to continue much longer, because I have an abiding faith in this province.
D. Symons: I've enjoyed very much listening to the comments of the previous two speakers, particularly of the speaker just before me from Okanagan West. I think what he's been saying about the current government's fiscal responsibility, or lack thereof, maybe trying to correct some of the misimpressions this government has been giving of what was the previous government's responsibility.... I think it's worthwhile listening to and weighing these words in the context of past events, and in that way we can use them for the future. I also was somewhat impressed -- or amused, I suppose -- to hear the speaker from Port Coquitlam. Being a government member, he seemed to have very little to say for the throne speech. He took most of his time putting barbs into the opposition parties -- which would give me the impression, then, that he couldn't find much to commend in the throne speech and tried to deflect interest in its shortcomings by going on to something else.
I have the pleasure this morning of rising and speaking to the assembled members here. I wrote some notes as the Lieutenant-Governor gave the throne speech. I remind any listeners out there that the throne speech is not the creation of the Lieutenant-Governor but is supplied to him by the government in power. What I say does not apply to the Lieutenant-Governor but to the current government.
The first note I wrote after hearing the whole thing was: never has it taken so many words to say so little. It was a great document, but when you thought about what was said, it was very difficult to find any substance. I also noted that it contained some fantasies, wishful thinking and inaccuracies. I looked further, and I couldn't find an accurate evaluation of the past few years. The member for Okanagan West was trying to correct some of the evaluations of the last few years. And it didn't contain a clear plan that would lead to a better tomorrow for the citizens of British Columbia. In short, it's full of platitudes but short on reality.
The throne speech of the third session of the thirty-fifth parliament begins: "Here in British Columbia the winds of change swept in a new government, elected to lead our province in a new direction." Let us look at some of those changes. Spending is up, taxes are up, debt is up and the welfare caseload is up. We have a fixed-wage policy, and we have a union-only welcome on some government projects. Some change!
Further on they say: "Spending growth has been cut in half." That is a hoax; you cannot really take that seriously. As the member for Okanagan West pointed out, there was a lot of fancy bookkeeping to come up with that statement. If you add in all of the spending of the Transportation Financing Authority and other such accounts that the government hasn't included in the present deficit figures, it would certainly bring the deficit up to a figure similar to last year's. There is not much of a reduction at all.
The government allowed spending to balloon in its first five months in office, back in '91-92, which created an artificial high that this government could blame on the previous Social Credit administration, as alluded to by the previous speaker. The deficit figure that was left to them in their first year is the one that this government keeps alluding to. Hon. Speaker, we must remind you that this government was in office for half of that fiscal year, and it did nothing. The previous government was responsible for going that way, but this government is responsible for continuing those spending excesses. I think it was almost intentional: they created the deficit so they could keep on claiming that their excessive spending in following years wasn't as bad as in the previous year. It's not very honest, and it's certainly not going to deceive the people of this province. They can see that spending and debt are up every year. If you count the figures that the government diddled with, the real deficit is closer to last year's.
As we read further, we find that the government talks about its fiscal house being in order. "Employment in British Columbia increased," so they say. But the government doesn't talk about the 35 percent increase in social services in this province. Growth is bolstered by the high price of our forest products, which this government really had no control over. It's also bolstered by the immigrant investor program, which was set up by the federal government. If you factor those out of the growth of this province, actually it's not all that great. Those are transitory sorts of economic factors in our province. A change in the price of forest products could have dramatic effects upon the economy of this province.
They also talk further on about discriminatory reductions in federal transfer payments, and I find that laughable. Indeed, the federal government has not reduced the federal transfer payments; what it has reduced is the rate of increase. But this government has done exactly the same thing to municipal governments. It says it's frozen.... It's frozen the overall budget of what it gives to municipal governments; but some municipal governments are actually getting less than they did last year. My constituency of Richmond is one of those that has a reduction in its transfer payments from the provincial government. So I find it rather ludicrous that this government should end up criticizing the federal government for what it itself is doing to the municipal governments of this province.
We also find, as we read further along -- I have a copy of the throne speech here, and I'm just reading it and commenting on it as we go along -- that dealing with the forest industry will require close and continued cooperation. Cooperation? We saw the cooperation that the forest workers in this province feel they got from the government. We had 20,000 of them on the lawn of the Legislature two weeks ago, and they didn't feel that they had been consulted or that their concerns were being dealt with. So I hardly think this government can talk about how they've been cooperating with the people involved in the forest sector and with the
[ Page 9839 ]
communities where what happens to the forest sector is of great interest.
We find further on that international trade presents an excellent opportunity to expand our export industries. This is the same government that, when we were discussing not long ago in this Legislature the free trade agreement, was talking about what devastating effects the free trade agreement would have on the province. Here they talk about excellent opportunities presented by trade and our export industries. I'm not sure if they know from one day to the next what they believe.
[12:00]
When we read further, continuing with the points that are in here, we see that they talk about welfare in the province and about enforcing strict regulations that curb fraud. We had two Social Services ministers in this House deny that there was any fraud going on in Social Services, and it was only through prodding by opposition members that we finally got the government to take some action on it. Indeed, when they did, they discovered there was some fraud out there after all. They're still playing down the amount of it, but nevertheless, with the opposition members pushing them, the government finally admitted there was some fraud going on and began doing something about it. But what did they say in the throne speech? They're taking credit for enforcing strict regulations against fraud. It's a little belated.
An Hon. Member: Nonsense.
D. Symons: The member says nonsense. We can find in Hansard where those two ministers spoke and denied there was fraud taking place or that there was fraud to any extent going on in this province.
"The well-being of every citizen depends on maintaining stability in our health care system" -- another quote from the throne speech. Well, this government, with its clumsy handling of the Closer to Home initiative, has created nothing like stability. Shaughnessy Hospital is closing. There are sweetheart deals with the health worker unions that have increased the cost of health care in this province, not decreased it, as we were promised when that was brought in. We're finding seniors terribly upset with what's happening with Pharmacare. There are all sorts of things going on in our health care system, but we could hardly call it stability. There's a great deal of instability there, and I only hope that this government will address that instability quickly. But to say that they're maintaining stability in our health care system is a far-fetched statement, I would think.
It also says: "This government stands ready to meet the challenges ahead." The only challenge that's been ahead is that the public has had to meet the challenge of this government's tax-and-spend policies. Through their pocketbooks is where the challenge has been to the people of this province. Their policies have assaulted the taxpayers' pocketbooks to a great extent, and that has been the challenge this government has presented.
We also find that they talk about "building a more just and more prosperous province." Well, their policies have impeded the growth of prosperity in this province. The corporation capital tax has had a downturn effect on investment in the province, to name just one that would have helped to bring about growth and build a more just and prosperous province.
The government also talks about their four key priorities in the throne speech: investing in long-term job creation and economic growth; skills training for the twenty-first century; revitalizing our forest sector; and sound fiscal management and fair taxation. These are all very nice-sounding terms that I would heartily endorse if they were true of what the government was carrying out.
The government says that it will re-establish public confidence in our social safety net. I'm pleased with that statement from the throne speech, because it at least admits that they had done something to erode public confidence in our social safety net. I'm pleased that the government is admitting that they had some part in eroding that confidence after two and a half years, but it would have been nice if they had simply established that confidence two and a half years ago, rather than realizing it belatedly now and doing something about it.
We find the statement that the government intends to ensure that medicare keeps up with our changing needs. I think the term "Closer to Home" appears to be moving more and more toward "you're on your own" in hospital care in this province -- quickly out of the hospital and sent home with very little care, unless your family can provide it for you.
Further down we find this: "By spending B.C. 21 tax dollars wisely...." That is a difficult concept to judge. What do we find out about B.C. 21 tax dollars? First we find that $100 million is budgeted for B.C. 21 this year. We don't know how that's going to be spent; we just know it's budgeted there. Nowhere does it appear what that spending will be on. Not only that, but capital expenditures for education, health and highways will be considerably more than $100 million. So where is that money showing up in the budget?
We find one column that contains $1.33 billion borrowed for Crown corporations and agency purposes. Many of the things that are talked about in the budget and many of the things the government is talking about in its B.C. 21 projects are going to come through the $1.33 billion we're borrowing. But there's no breakdown, no notice of intent and no way to see if the government is going to be spending our tax dollars wisely.
Previous governments have had those things spelled out in the budget. The opposition has had the opportunity of knowing the intent of the government in their spending. That way we could determine whether the government was using the money wisely. This government cares to do things behind closed doors -- in secret, not out in the public -- because you cannot find where that $1.33 billion is going to be apportioned among the various things.
This is fiscal irresponsibility, and to say that they are spending B.C. 21 dollars wisely leaves it up in the air. How is anyone to judge? It's difficult for me to swallow that term. When they talk about the deficit this year, they say that the deficit is down. Well, if you add $1.33 billion to the $900 million deficit they're saying they have, we have a deficit that's one of the biggest ever in this province. It's hardly a deficit that's down. That is another fault with the government's bookkeeping: we can't tell where the deficit really is by this government's fanciful bookkeeping. We can add things together and come up with something that's much higher than the $900 million they are claiming. So when they say the deficit is down, it is a lie; it is simply an inaccuracy that should not be allowed to be perpetrated on the people of this province.
I find, as I close, that the government continues to talk about how they're constructing new schools in areas of rapid population growth. This government has had two and a half years to identify the need for classrooms. In my constituency of Richmond there currently are 237 portables -- in that school district alone. In this district we find that Steveston Senior Secondary has 27 portables; Boyd high school, a junior high around the corner from me, 15 portables; Hugh
[ Page 9840 ]
McRoberts, ten portables; and Matthew McNair, 18 portables.
I won't mention London school. It has 51 portables, but that's because the school has moved totally into portables. The school is being rebuilt because it was badly designed to begin with and because it had a fire a few years ago and wasn't worth reconstructing. So at least in that case the government is attacking the problem.
But it is disgraceful that the previous government and the current government have allowed this deficit in our school construction -- if we can call it that -- to accumulate to this stage. So what we have here, with the 237 portables in Richmond, and added to that the large number of portables in other growing districts like Richmond, is a deficit, or a debt, that has been built up by this government and the previous administration by allowing it to get so far behind.
As we continue on in the budget, we find that they talk about supporting education and training outreach for women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and persons with disabilities. I think those are very good goals, and it's wonderful that the government is addressing the disadvantaged in this province. To give equal opportunity for employment to the disadvantaged is something that we should all support, and I'm sure we all do. We must, however, ensure that employment equity does not produce reverse discrimination. There's a joke going around in Ontario nowadays, something to the effect that if you were trying to say something won't happen -- sort of like a snowball in hell, and you know that place -- you'd say that it's as likely as a single, white male getting a government job. What they have there are a lot of people who now feel a reverse discrimination. That can be destructive to the community as a whole if people feel that's taking place. It must take place in a way that is seen and known to be fair and just to all, and not simply by addressing past injustices. You don't address past injustices by creating current injustices. We must ensure that we employ on the basis of ability. Taxpayers want the knowledge that they have the best, most efficient and capable civil service for their tax dollars. We want to maintain it that way.
As we read on, I find in the throne speech that the Premier has indicated that land use changes will not proceed until economic and social impacts can be dealt with satisfactorily. Unfortunately, I think that these studies were not done simultaneously with the land use report by CORE. It's really too bad that that wasn't the case, because if we had done the studies simultaneously we might currently have a lot less unnecessary uncertainty out there. Indeed, we had 20,000 people on the lawns of this Legislature two weeks ago that felt very uncomfortable and uncertain about land use in this province. So what we must have, then, is this study of the economic effects and of the other social effects going along with the land use plan.
Finally, as we get near the end of the throne speech, it mentions B.C.'s first forest practices code. I think that's good. [Applause.] I'm glad the government agrees. I agree with them that having a code is a good idea. It's overdue. We must guard against it being too complicated or oppressive, with too many rules and regulations that can lead to more bureaucracy and more difficulty for the forest industry of this province. Having a code will be good, but having 400-odd regulations might be oppressive.
Further on in the throne speech: "...this government has brought spending under control...." Hon. Speaker, can you believe that they could claim that they have brought spending under control when you look at the growth of the debt in this province in their two and a half years and at what they will spend next year?
Interjection.
D. Symons: The member over there is asking if I want more schools closed to control the spending. What he isn't talking about is the fact that they've made the statement here that they have brought spending under control. They haven't. Spending has gone up every year, and they admit to a $900 million deficit. How much of the $1.3 billion that I mentioned earlier would add to that? Their fancy bookkeeping and cooking of the books is the only thing that has made them capable of claiming that they have a deficit of only $900 million. It's much higher.
Further on, they claim the government "will soon put in place a plan to manage provincial debt." Can you imagine that, hon. Speaker? Two and a half years in office and soon they're going to put in place a plan to manage the debt -- that's two years too late. It's an admission on their part that it took over two years to recognize that we have a financial problem in this province. I think that is a terrible admission on the part of this government.
As we go on, it says that the government is going to ensure that all of British Columbia's social programs will look good and rosy in the future -- that's good. I hope it will be more open and consultative than has been the case with this government up until now. We see the statement that the Premier is going to be sponsoring a Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living, and I commend him for doing that. But this government has held consultations at the last moment, when people haven't had a chance to organize to speak. They have held consultations in areas and at times that aren't convenient to people, and often, after the consultation, the results that come down seem to bear no relation to the consultation reports given by the people of the province. I hope that the Premier will carry through with his Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living. It is needed. And I hope there will be open and meaningful consultation with the people of this province.
[12:15]
Further on, it says: "The average taxpayer is the true beneficiary of this government's balanced approach to fiscal management." The benefit -- if you could call it that -- for the people of this province has been two and a half years of unprecedented spending and taxation. And we have: "...this government has done its best to meet the challenge." If the past two and a half years of this government represents its best, it's not good enough. There is too much uncertainty in education and health care and in our resource industries, and too much spending. There is not enough attention to the development of an economic plan that will lead to the creation of jobs for secure, meaningful employment, and that is what the citizens of this province really want.
F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take my place in the House today to speak in response to the throne speech. I would like to start by congratulating you on your new position. I think that you look quite comfortable there.
In my first speech in this House two years ago, I emphasized three things: that we had the right to be here and that it was an honour and a privilege to be here. I repeated that a year ago, and I would like to state again that we have a right to be here, it is an honour to be here and we are privileged to be here -- but this year I say that with some qualification. In order for these three things to be true, we should also know why we're here. The reason I bring this up is the debate on employee standards last year. Some
[ Page 9841 ]
members of the opposition accused the government of allowing ideology to influence our legislation. I expressed some surprise at that, because I believe this place is here because of ideological and philosophical differences.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who followed me, took me to task for saying that. He said: "The member suggested that this Legislature itself was a tribute to ideology." I believe that this place is here so the people of British Columbia can express support for individuals, parties, ideologies and philosophies. Ever since the knights got King John to sign the Magna Carta the process has developed, and today we have a building like this and people like us here because there are differences in ideology and philosophy.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said: "The member for Kamloops-North Thompson also indicates he believes in the virtues of a polarized social structure." I don't believe in that at all. I wish everybody in here was a democratic socialist just like me, but that's not real.
Interjection.
F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, I know from my travels with the forestry committee and my conversations with the member for Peace River North that I'm never going to get him to fill out an NDP membership card. I confirmed that this morning. Does that make him wrong, or does it make me wrong? The voters will decide that; but the difference between us is at issue here.
I would like to take some time to talk about the differences. The member for Peace River North is not a Socred anymore -- and his constituents will deal with that, I'm sure. There may be some confusion about what he is. I would like to help to get rid of that confusion by misquoting Shakespeare, if I may: "A rose by any other name will smell just the same."
The first Socred Premier was a Tory who walked across the floor to join the Social Credit Party because he could see the advantage of that. He was able to do that, I would suggest, because there was very little difference. The member for Peace River North is now a member of the Reform Party. I quote the Alaska Highway News: "He's comfortable with the basic principles held by the Reform Party, stating that they are not much different from those held by the Socreds." The member for Peace River South is also now a member of the Reform Party, and I quote the Peace River Block News: "When I looked at the principles of the Reform Party, it was clear to me that their position was identical to mine on every issue." The member for Prince George-Omineca was a little bit different. He took off towards the Liberals and said in the Prince George Citizen that he realized that "the Liberals are all over the map." He turned around and headed back the other way, passed the Socreds, and now he's a member of the Reform Party.
The moral of this part of the story is quite simple: a Tory by any other name is a Socred, a Socred by any other name is a Reformer and they all smell just the same. We know who they represent -- or at least we know who they would like to represent. With the new leader of the Liberal Party talking up to downtown Howe Street, maybe they won't get to represent anybody.
A word of two about the Liberals, hon. Speaker. The member for Richmond Centre talked about our NDP constitution in here the other day. In order to talk about the Liberals, I thought I would take a leaf out of his book. So I went and got the Liberal constitution. I must admit that this is the federal Liberal constitution. I'd just like to read a little bit: "In accordance with this philosophy, the Liberal Party of Canada subscribes to the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons under the rule of law, and commits itself to the protection of these essential values and their constant adaptation to the changing needs of modern Canadian society." It's nice and it's humming like warm milk.
Interjections.
F. Jackson: Seeing they don't want to associate themselves with the federal Liberal Party, how do we identify them? We could listen to what the present Prime Minister said, when he was in British Columbia a while ago, in reference to an issue of the day: "We sit squarely on the fence." Or we could go back to the member for Prince George-Omineca and the Prince George Citizen, where he says they're all over the map. Or we could listen to Vaughn Palmer who says that at least one of them is an extraterrestrial. Who do they represent? The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale says that it is the six-figure crowd. I would suggest that it's a high six -- maybe even seven figures.
I'm not quite sure where the Progressive Democratic Alliance is in the House. They're not here today. I don't know whether they're progressive or democratic, but they certainly are allies -- and the best of luck to them.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi called himself an independent Liberal. That must be the ultimate in middle of the road. It reminds me of a line from a Jon Cleary character who said that the only things you find in the middle of the road are white lines and dead wombats.
That takes me back to the beginning. People expect us to be ideological and philosophical, and they expect us to be here because of our differences. I'm not saying that the member for Peace River is wrong; I'm not saying that the member for Saanich North and the Islands is wrong; I'm not saying that I'm wrong. What I'm saying is that we are different, and that's why we're here. The people don't expect us to be jumping up and down and screaming and yelling about our ideology or our philosophy. They expect legislation with some pragmatism that is workable and doable.
That brings me back to the throne speech. If you look at what we've done in the last two years or so, and if you look at the throne speech, you'll find evidence of our ideology and our philosophy. But what you'll find most of all is good government. That's what the throne speech is about.
It's about job creation, which will help our young people look into the future with some sense of security. B.C. 21 will help that job creation take place. It means construction work which in the long term will lead to a better province, and communications work which will enable us to get information around and make B.C. a better place to live and do business in. That will mean jobs.
In order to diversify the economy, the small business sector of our province will be encouraged, particularly value-added manufacturing in the forest industry. As members of that committee last year, the member for Peace River North and I became very aware of the need for value-added and secondary manufacturing in the province.
The first time I spoke here, I praised our government for setting up the Ministry of Women's Equality. Now, the Ministry for Skills and Training is something that I would also like to congratulate our government for doing. As an apprentice myself in the coalmines of Scotland, and having gone to technical college to get the necessary education to back up my practical experience, I can tell you that standing here in this House I still feel the benefits of that experience.
[ Page 9842 ]
I wish that all of our young people could have that opportunity for the future. Whether they remain as electricians or plumbers, or whether they become members of the Legislature, the training that an apprenticeship brings will stand them in good stead. Education should go along with training. We are making it easier and more accessible for women and aboriginal people to get involved in further education and training so that they may take their rightful place in this society.
One thing in this throne speech that is very dear to my heart is the granting of four-year degrees by B.C.'s colleges and institutes. I know Jim Wright at UCC, and Paula McRae and the board. And Archie Brown, although he is getting near to retirement, is in this city today trying to get degree-granting capability for UCC. It is something that will help bring the city of Kamloops closer to full maturity.
My constituency, Kamloops-North Thompson, is primarily trees, forests and sawmills. That's what we rely on to make our province work. Without the forest industry, there is no British Columbia. The forest sector strategy is working. A meeting in Kamloops last night was well attended, with good response. It involves first nations and is going to take us along the road toward a forest industry which will be sustainable in every way. Value-added manufacturing and long-term timber supply is what's needed in order to make that security work for us. CORE is a process that I'm quite proud of. It is having some difficulties, but it's an achievement of this government that we should never allow anybody to discredit. Following from these will be the B.C. Forest Practices Code, a collection of past legislation, past regulations and new legislation that will enable us to see the forest industry work for our people well into the twenty-first century.
[12:30]
I will just take a little while more. Speaking at the end of the list means that most things have been said, so you can get away with speaking a little lightly, I hope. When I was campaigning, one thing that was always brought up was the myth that the New Democratic Party couldn't manage the economy. It's quite clear that any government that has brought spending under control and lowered the deficit as we have done has shown a record of sound fiscal management. Our social programs have been protected, and they will continue to be protected, because we need them to help us cope with crises in our lives, which we all suffer in this Legislature at one time or another.
This ability to control the deficit will lead to us being in a position two years from now -- with a new mandate from the people -- where we will not only control the deficit and manage the debt, but also have a new era of prosperity for British Columbia because of the firm footing of the province. That firm footing will enable us to continue the work of this session, enable us to dispel the myth of fiscal mismanagement and enable British Columbians to live on in prosperity, happiness and contentment with their situation.
The last part of the throne speech talks about British Columbia being our home. I can truly say that British Columbia is my home; it is my home through choice. I said in my first speech that I have travelled halfway around the world and no place is better than British Columbia. It gives me great pleasure to finish by saying that again today. I'm glad to be here; I'm glad to be able to speak in this House.
R. Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Neufeld: It gives me great pleasure to introduce another Reform person in this House. The Reform MP for Kootenay East, Mr. Jim Abbott, is on the floor listening to the discussions. I'm sure that member is as proud to be a Reform member as I am. Would the House please make him truly welcome.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I know that time is short; I only have about ten minutes. I did have a chance to speak to the budget, so I would like to speak briefly to the throne speech. I say that because the throne speech is pretty brief, so it probably won't take all that long. If you read the throne speech of last year, the three challenges were: renewing medicare -- the NDP have gone a long way in that; building our economy -- if you call building our provincial debt building our economy, I guess they went a way on that; and resolving land conflicts -- obviously they're a long way from that. It was the promise of the Leader of the Opposition at the time -- now the Premier -- that we would no longer have valley-by-valley conflicts. I wonder when that's going to end.
There was all kinds of talk in the House -- and the last member was indicative of a lot of government members who didn't have much to say about the throne speech, either.... All they could talk about were the Liberal opposition members, the independent members, Reform caucus, Social Credit or PDA, but they didn't have much to say about the throne speech. I guess that's pretty obvious, because there's not much to say about it.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: The member for Nanaimo asked for five minutes of my time. I am not going to do that, because I've only got about that long. I'm going to take up every minute I have, so that member doesn't have an opportunity to stand up.
I'm not going to call the opposition members names, or anything like that. I respect them, and I respect the gentleman that spoke earlier. I was on a number of committees with him. I can't use his name, but I said: "Sir, I really like you; you're a nice guy." In fact, we were out in a little club; he was having a spot of beer and I was having a Coke. I said: "You're not a bad guy, but you're just bent the wrong way." And that's the problem with this government; they're just bent a little bit the wrong way. They're nice people, and I acknowledge and respect that.
A number of very important issues face British Columbians that we should be dealing with instead of talking about personalities or parties. Some of the main issues facing British Columbians are future land uses. To give the present government a pat on the back, I think the agricultural land reserve was a good move when it was done. Obviously it was; it's still there. I think it needs a little revamping -- no doubt about it. But I think the same issue in land use has to come forward for mining, oil and gas activity, and forestry, so that those industries have specified areas and parameters they know they can operate in. That's a very important issue which this government is going to have a hard time getting through. The issue of Clayoquot Sound is still ringing in everyone's ears. The CORE report on the Island -- and in Williams Lake, in the interior and in the Kootenays -- is still on everyone's mind, and it's not working too well. It's difficult, and I certainly don't make light of it. But I hope that in a short time we can have those land use issues resolved.
[ Page 9843 ]
Another huge issue in British Columbia is native land claims. The federal government and the provincial government of the day are trying to bring in native self-government through the back door. They are holding back the costs, as in the Peat Marwick report, of dealing with aboriginal land claims over the past two years. That's unfair.
The issue of sustainable development goes along with land use and the resources, and that's important. I commend the government for bringing forward the Forest Practices Code, although it was initiated under a previous administration. At least they're bringing it forward, and we're going to deal with it. As for the Environmental Assessment Act, we have to deal with Kemano completion and all those things. Those issues were not started by this government; they are just issues that this government is trying to finish off -- or maybe kill in some areas.
The agricultural land reserve should be changed in areas so that different parts of the province have authority over the agricultural land reserve. Issues dealing with agriculture in Peace River North and Peace River South are totally different than what they are in the Fraser Valley. Those are some of the small issues that should be dealt with.
Regional planning is another issue that should be dealt with so that communities such as Fort St. John, where I reside, can get access to an industrial tax base and can supply services to residents at a reasonable amount -- one thing they're not able to do now.
There are all kinds of issues that I think we should be dealing with. Probably one is -- and I'm going to bring it up very quickly -- government debt-servicing and some accountability in government. I appreciate and know that this is not the only government that's built schools, hospitals and those types of institutions. That's happened under past governments; they have built those. In fact, past governments built a hospital that this government just closed down here awhile ago. But the part that bothers me about the debt and should be made evident is that, although.... Go to the budget manual. Since the NDP took office, the debt is up $7.4 billion. A good part of that is for buildings -- schools, universities and hospitals -- and I appreciate that. In fact, $3.4 billion of it is for that. But $4 billion is overspending. That's the part of the debt that we are talking about and that you people just don't catch on to. I think the Minister of Finance said it's like spending on your credit card -- and you can't pay the interest. If we should have in this House any indication of the problems this country is in, it is federally. We've got a $500 billion debt. We can't afford to pay the interest on the debt. So why in the world would we in British Columbia try to get to that position as quickly as possible? If there's one thing this government has done, it is to try to get to that point as quickly as possible.
The member from the Okanagan talked about the increase. He talked about....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Listen to him catcall, Mr. Speaker. Why don't you ask him to listen? Obviously, they could do with a lesson or two here -- you know, grab a calculator.
The Speaker: Order, please.
R. Neufeld: As I said once before, make sure they take calculators with batteries, because the ones that work on light certainly won't work with this government. They're in the dark all the time.
But that's the part British Columbians and Canadians are afraid about. And that's where we should be accountable.
Accountability. The other day I listened to one speaker talk about scum in here. A little later in his speech he talked about going back home and talking to an eight-year-old. He said that he used to be a logger, but now he's a politician, and that eight-year-old thought: "Oh, that's a terrible person." When he gets up in this House and talks about members of the opposition and of his own party being scum, what does he expect? That's the waking-up that that group needs. There has to be some accountability.
Accountability also goes to members opposite like the member for Nanaimo. In 1989 he talked about the freedom to move and how terrible it was that the Social Credit government of the day was going to build an Island Highway, paving this beautiful island. He said that we should be making that highway narrower, if I remember his words correctly, so smaller cars and fewer of them could drive on it. The same member for Nanaimo stood up and spoke recently about a billion-dollar highway that this government is going to build up the Island. That's accountability.
The member for Saanich North and the Islands, I think, talked today about accountability in government. You can stand up and talk that way for only so long. When the time comes that you are in government, all of a sudden you have to eat those words.
I notice that my time has waned. I wish I could have had another 15 minutes -- or another hour and a half -- because I would have really enjoyed it.
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: Obviously members opposite feel the same.
To quickly end this up, I believe we need more citizen empowerment and more fiscal responsibility and individual enterprise. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, and I look forward to the next time I rise in this House.
The Speaker: According to standing order 45A, hon. members, we must now put the main motion to the question.
[12:45]
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Petter |
Pement |
Priddy |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Smallwood |
Gabelmann |
Blencoe |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Farnworth |
|
Simpson |
Sawicki |
Jackson |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Schreck |
|
Lali |
|
Hartley |
|
NAYS -- 11 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Hurd |
Stephens |
|
Serwa |
Wilson |
Neufeld |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
Warnke |
|
Jarvis |
|
Tanner |
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]