1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 2
[ Page 12995 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
L. Boone: I move that the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."
Hon. Speaker, I'm proud to move this Speech from the Throne. I think this speech clearly defines where we as a government are going and what our priorities are. Our priorities are to reduce the deficit, protect jobs and protect services such as medicare.
While recognizing the importance of reducing the government's costs, we also have to recognize that we won't be lured into achieving this at the expense of the average working person. Governments across this country are struggling to match dollars with expectations -- expectations that are increasing, not reducing. The average working person is saying that we can't afford more taxes. Yet at the same time that they're saying that they want the government to reduce the deficit, they still want the quality of life they have enjoyed for so long. Our challenge is to protect jobs and services such as medicare, but that can't be done by slashing. It must be done in a balanced way.
It's easy to buy into the right-wing agenda. We could slash without thought for people. Yet who pays the price when this happens? Not the banks; not large corporations; not the wealthy. It's the average working person who pays the price when we do those sorts of things; it's the average working person who finds himself or herself on the unemployment line. They are the ones who pay the price when we slash without concern for those things. It's the average working person who finds that she must pay for services formerly provided from government funds. Those are the people who pay for services; those are the people who pay the price.
This government will not stand by and see that type of slashing take place in this province. The Reform Party has called on the federal government to reduce social services spending. Yes, they want us to reduce social services spending, yet the Reform member in my riding is constantly calling for more dollars for the hospital. It's absolutely incredible! The Liberal Party agrees with the Reform Party, and they slashed the budgets in the transfer payments to the provinces. Those transfer payments provide social programs, education and, yes, health care. They are slashed by the Liberals in Ottawa -- with full support from the Reform Party. Let there be no doubt that the federal budget is a direct attack on medicare. Let there also be no doubt that this government is determined to defend and protect medicare.
The lines are drawn, hon. Speaker. This government will protect our medicare system, which is equal to everyone. The opposition will gladly accept a two-tiered system: one that is publicly funded -- and probably with fewer dollars, because they are supporting cuts to those programs -- and a superior one that can only be bought into by wealthy people. This government will not be driven by the right-wing agenda that would see ordinary people suffer in order to reduce taxes for their corporate friends. That is the Liberal agenda, the Reform agenda.
We will maintain a balance -- something that is sadly lacking in some provinces -- between the need to protect jobs and services, and our ability to pay. Because we have taken this balanced approach, we have the strongest economy. We have the best employment record in Canada, the best credit rating in Canada and the lowest per capita debt in Canada.
We could do what Alberta is doing and what the opposition would like us to do. We could cut education funding, and we could see parents having to pay the full cost to have their children in kindergarten. Who suffers then? Is it the wealthy? No, they can afford to put their kids in kindergarten. Who suffers? It is the unemployed and the poor who cannot afford to put their children into kindergarten, and those children will come into the education system with a lower level of education than the wealthy ones. That is not the British Columbia way; that is not the way of this government.
We could cut medicare costs, as they have done in Alberta. This province has downsized some hospitals and put extra millions into community services. What has Alberta done? Alberta has closed hospitals, not downsized -- closed whole hospitals, with no concern for workers or the people served.
Interjections.
L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I think those people are getting a little upset over there.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take her seat for a moment.
Hon. members, there will be due opportunity for each and every one of you to take your place and make a contribution to the debate.
L. Boone: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Please keep your seat, hon. member. I have not completed.... I am trying to get the attention of the members.
It would be a good idea if we thought very carefully about the risk of losing the decorum we all require in order to represent our constituents properly and with the most effective means. It's going to be an onerous task for the Chair without your cooperation. But I have a duty to enforce the standing orders you have presented to me, and I hope you will respect that that is the extent of my ability to control your behaviour. Those are your standing orders. They are your rules, and I hope you will recognize the need for them.
Would the hon. member please proceed.
L. Boone: I would like to repeat what the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca said. He shouted out: "What about Prince George Regional Hospital?" Prince George Regional Hospital has had increases in budget, is fully funded, and has had an incredible amount of money put into that area.
My Reform colleague says, "Too little, too late," yet he is telling the federal government to cut. What does he want? Does he want us to cut or does he want us to increase spending? That is the kind of message we are getting from the Reform Party.
In Alberta they are closing whole hospitals, and they are doing so without concern for the employees there or the jobs that are being lost. The workers are being put on UIC. That is
[ Page 12996 ]
not helping the economy in Alberta. People are spending more money out of their own pockets for services. That's not helping the economy either; that's not helping the working person. Who gains in those things? It's the wealthy, who pay less tax; the corporations, who pay less tax; and the private companies which provide services for profit that make money out of those things -- not the average working person.
We've also protected jobs. We've recognized that the people who serve the public are valued, and society would not be well-served by abandoning those people. It doesn't help to put people on UIC. It helps no one at all.
The health accord we have, which has been soundly criticized by the opposition party, is a unique way, a genuine way, of dealing with people and recognizing that they have valued people that contribute to our society. The labour adjustment strategy, which worked with, and is working with, unions to provide services to downsize the hospitals and deliver health care services to our people, has actually saved this government money. In the first year we have saved $79 million through the health labour adjustment accord. And we have done so without putting people on unemployment, without throwing them away, recognizing that these people and their families are valued in our society.
[10:15]
We have chosen a different way. We've worked on agreements with unions and we're working with those unions to provide those services. In exchange for a reduced compensation clause, employees are redeployed and retrained.
Has there been pain? Of course there's been pain. But there hasn't been the bloodletting that has taken place in Alberta to this date. I'm not surprised that the opposition supports privatization and user fees. I'm sure many of their Howe Street corporate friends are rubbing their hands in glee, waiting to get into the lucrative privatized health care business.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has consistently interjected, and I must caution the hon. member.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale -- pardon me. I apologize to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. However, I believe the hon. member can well appreciate the need for restraint, as he has had previous experiences with the Chair on matters in the past. So with that, I would simply ask that the member not interject unduly in the future. Otherwise, there will be no recourse for me other than to ask the member to excuse himself from the chamber. Please proceed.
C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. While I appreciate and respect your call for decorum, I note that what is transpiring in the Legislature today is not any different from what has transpired over the perhaps eight years that I have been here. There has to be a certain latitude and freedom, and there is a quality in the delivery of the speaker at the moment which perhaps incites the response. I note that, on the matter of decorum in the standing rules, there is nothing which restricts the type of dialogue that is emanating in this room at the present time.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I don't wish to enter a debate with any member on the standing orders; I think we're all familiar with what they are. But I will be in deference to the hon. member with respect to restraints on members speaking from their seats. I'm sure the member knows as well as the Chair that it's inappropriate. As he has stated, however, there has to be a certain amount of latitude for the natural flow of emotions and legitimate concerns to be expressed among members, and I'm not attempting to diminish that in any way. I think that all members know, in good conscience, that it is very difficult to deliver your speech when you are constantly being thrown off track by inordinate interjections.
Would the hon. member please proceed.
L. Boone: Seeing as how they were so interested and not listening to what I said, I will repeat what I said last time. It's important that people out there recognize that the support from the opposition parties for privatization and user fees is because we can see their corporate friends rubbing their hands in glee, in anticipation of....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order. Would the hon. member please take her seat. The hon. Opposition House Leader.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member is making statements in this House which she clearly knows not to be factual. I would ask her either to support her comments with facts or not make them.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have ample opportunity to refute any irregular or inappropriate statements by the speaker, but this is an improper interjection and is totally out of order.
L. Boone: I'll start again. I'm not surprised that the opposition party supports privatization and user fees, because I'm sure many of their Howe Street buddies are waiting on the sidelines with glee in anticipation of getting into the lucrative privatization of health care businesses -- businesses that will provide services to the wealthy, services that will not be available to the average working person and that will line the pockets of their friends.
We will not sit quietly by and allow that to happen. Our medicare system is part of being Canadian. We will not allow the Americanization of our health care system to take place. Our government will continue to invest in hospitals, schools, post-secondary education and other infrastructure.
Interjections.
L. Boone: Methinks they do protest too much, hon. Speaker. It's amazing what a touchy nerve I have hit there.
But I'm sure that we will make sure that British Columbians receive health care and are educated. Government investment in my region has pulled us through the recession. UNBC -- a pride, a jewel in our community that we all think about -- has provided incredible jobs, new investment in our community and a sense of optimism that certainly wasn't there before 1991.
The right wing is fond of saying we can't leave debt for our children and grandchildren. That's true: we can't. But the other side of that is that we can't abandon our children and leave them to face a world where the quality of health care and education is determined by income. That is not acceptable in this province.
The damaging proposals of massive slashing would be as damaging as spending sprees. Cuts in services mean that
[ Page 12997 ]
people are unemployed, that there are no construction jobs, that there are no services out there, that more people are on UI. That does not help our economy. It means that the average person must pay more for services. That does not help our economy. We need a balance.
That is what this throne speech is providing. The direction that we have taken is working. We've slashed the deficit 80 percent. We have the strongest economy in this country, and we've done that while protecting jobs and medicare.
It's time that both the opposition parties declared their agenda. What do they want? We've heard here in this short time: cut, cut, but give more money. What is it that they want? They are demanding that they cut money at the federal level and at the provincial level, but at the same time they want more money for their pet projects.
I'm amazed at the audacity of the member for Chilliwack. His federal party did what his leader asked them to do. They reduced the budget and they announced the closure of the military base in Chilliwack. What did that member do? That member wrote to our Premier and said: "Your first reaction should be to lobby for the retention of the base." Not the retention of transfer payments to support health care and education, but to keep that base. The second option should be for the province to acquire the base. Yes, he wants the province to acquire the base. These facilities would be excellent for a boot camp for young offenders, or for the technical school which has been slated for Cloverdale, or for a long term care facility. So cut, cut, cut. Don't cut here; cut somewhere else. But don't cut in my backyard.
What is it that they want? Do they want us to cut? Or do they want us to spend? If they want us to cut, what do they want us to cut? Obviously not military bases. The federal government can't do that. What schools do they want us to cut? What hospitals? What programs? How many people should be placed on the unemployment rolls?
We live in a great province, and I am proud to be a part of the government. People have developed a set of values here that are important to them; and they want to know that the care that has been available to them and their families in the past will be available to them in the future. They want know that their children will receive an education that will prepare them for the twenty-first century. They want to know that their communities are safe, that there will be jobs for them in the future and for their children, and that they will have a roof over their heads.
This can only be achieved through a balanced approach that recognizes the needs of our families and our communities. That is not done when you do the slash-type thing that is happening in Alberta. This government will not abandon the people of this province through a desperate attempt to meet the corporate agenda of the right.
Who loses when you buy into that corporate agenda? It's the average working person who loses. The alternative to this type of slash-and-run economics is what we've been doing for the past three years. We've maintained social programs such as medicare. We've changed the way health care is being delivered. We've moved it closer to home. We promote prevention. We've introduced innovative services such as mobile MRI units. This government has deliberately chosen to put the needs of families first by protecting medicare, despite federal cutbacks.
This throne speech clearly shows this government's vision for this province. It is a province where people count. It is a province willing to invest in the future by providing jobs and services for its people, a province that delivers medicare based on need, not on how much money you have in your pocket.
The profit-oriented American health care system has no place in British Columbia. I challenge all opposition parties to take that message to their corporate friends.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
D. Schreck: I continue, despite the lack of decorum in this chamber, to be eternally grateful to my constituents for giving me this real honour of being able to speak in this chamber. All of my life I have viewed the opportunity to be able to speak in a chamber like this as one of the most important factors in a democracy. While the loss of decorum lowers respect for this chamber.... Certainly from the viewpoint of those in the galleries and those watching on television, it brings disrespect to democratic institutions. In many senses it reminds me of a couple of Reform rallies I attended recently.
I would hope that notwithstanding this loss of decorum and even when speaking over this constant heckling, we would recognize that this institution is the cauldron of democracy, and it is very important to what we all sought election for, all 75 of us.
The throne speech that we heard yesterday was one of the most interesting, challenging and visionary throne speeches I have ever heard in following this Legislature. What I heard was a throne speech that talked about helping the private sector create jobs for British Columbians and a throne speech that talked about preserving medicare for British Columbians. That thrust of helping the private sector create jobs, creating the necessary environment and protecting medicare was set with a vision of choice, a vision of alternatives. In particular, the throne speech said:
"There are two opposing visions of how a government should move forward in a modern economy. We can stop building infrastructure, cut public services, reduce wages and lower social standards in a race to the bottom, to compete with less developed economies in attracting new jobs, or we can invest in our strengths, in up-to-date skills, increase our productivity and add value to what we produce, in an effort to match the advanced economies of Japan and the European Community in attracting new jobs."
[10:30]
That dichotomy, that choice between "a race to the bottom" versus matching the best, is the dichotomy that will soon be before voters, a choice between a government led by the New Democratic Party today or those wannabe naysayer opposition members. We can go point by point through this throne speech and look at where those clear choices are put before British Columbians.
First, let us look at the area of helping the private sector with the environment necessary to create jobs. The throne speech talked about three initiatives: the initiative of renewing our natural resources, the initiative of providing the necessary infrastructure and the initiative of helping the skills of our people.
What are the choices in creating jobs, helping the private sector, through renewing our natural resources? The throne speech talked about two initiatives. It talked about our forest renewal strategy, about which those opposition members have been naysayers and said no. I want to say that this government has brought together parties that would appear to be mortal enemies in joint praise of a strategy to renew our forests. Should we clearcut this province, there would be no
[ Page 12998 ]
jobs -- there would be nothing left. And should we turn this province into just one massive park, there would be no jobs. This government has found the necessary balance to renew our natural resources while honouring the commitment of the Brundtland commission of preserving our environment, and it has done so in a visionary manner. That's an investment in our future.
And through a courageous, well-thought-out approach to looking at our water resources, this government has saved the Fraser River. And it has indicated it will move to save other rivers throughout this province with legislation that will be brought forward in this session. Again we find the naysayers on the opposition benches rushing to help those who would export water.
We also found, in the throne speech this session and in the actions of this government, a commitment to investing in our infrastructure, particularly infrastructure in the form of roads -- real transportation for goods, services and people -- and infrastructure for information technology and the information highway.
Let's look at the area of roads. I've said many times in this chamber that the Westview interchange must be completed immediately, if not sooner. Anyone standing at that interchange knows it's a barrier to the transportation of goods. Up to Whistler, it adds from a half-hour to an hour in transportation time to catch the ferry from Horseshoe Bay. It is a constant nuisance and harassment to people on the North Shore just trying to get to their homes.
I am pleased that the invitation to tenders went out and that those tenders have been evaluated. I will not be quiet and stop harassing my friends on the government benches until we see that project completed. I say here again today that while I have faith that the announcement will soon be made and dirt will soon be moving, it won't be soon enough to suit me. I will continue to press for that transportation project in my constituency.
I say let any member on those opposition benches stand up and tell the people on the North Shore that they would cut and slash and stop the Westview interchange from being completed. What project would they cut and slash? They want to have it both ways. As long as I am able to defend the people of the North Shore, that Westview interchange is going to be completed.
An Hon. Member: It's only money.
D. Schreck: We hear a heckle here, hon. Speaker, from the last Social Credit member in this Legislature, implying that maybe Social Credit would not build that project. I'll ask members in this House to recall the last Social Credit member who represented the area where the Westview interchange sits. That member stood up, month after month, and said: "I will resign my seat if my government doesn't build the intersection." That member never resigned his seat, and that government never built the intersection.
I took a somewhat different approach. I said to my colleague the hon. Premier that not only will I not resign, but I will hold his feet to the fire, day after day, until my constituents get that interchange. And that's what I'm here to do.
Let's look at the information highway.
Interjections.
D. Schreck: I should know what I said yesterday.
The office of the Speaker and the good offices of government have extended the visibility of this Legislature to potentially 30 million people via the Internet and the information highway. Anyone dialling in through what's called an FTP, file transfer protocol, Gopher or World-Wide Web browsers -- they cover a range of technology -- to the address bbs.qp.gov.bc.ca can read every word that has been said in this Legislature for the last three years and everything that will be said from this point forward. They can look up the biographies of every member of this Legislature, and those on a World-Wide Web browser can even see our smiling photos. They can read the budget and throne speech documents. They can have access on their home computer terminal to every piece of legislation introduced in this Legislature.
I have reviewed comparable Internet access to government and legislative information for every government in the world, and the B.C. Legislature has, without question, set the highest standard in the world. There is no government, no legislature, anywhere in the world that currently provides the level of access to information that is provided out of this Legislature. Hon. Speaker, your office, the staff of the Queen's Printer and my colleagues in government deserve praise for setting this world standard.
I challenge those who would remain, and should always remain, invisible behind the Speaker to take me up on my boast, and look at what other governments and legislatures do in terms of access to information -- particularly access to legislative documents through the Internet. You will see that I'm right. No one comes close to matching the standard that this Legislature now makes available at the click of a mouse, not only to the people of British Columbia but to the entire world. That story needs to be told, because all British Columbians should be proud of what we have accomplished here.
Having said that we should be proud, I always say that this should be a challenge to do even better. I will continue to lobby everyone who will listen to me for improvements. I want to see the statutes of British Columbia available on that Internet server. I want to see an indexed version of Hansard, so rather than searching throughout various editions, people can have the Hansard index on the Internet. We have set a high standard, and we should continue to expand that standard.
I'm also looking to government to make government documents in every area available through a similar extension of electronic access to information. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks together with the Ministry of Government Services has set the lead in opening up government through the Provincial Archives via the Internet. I'm looking to all 18 ministries of government to match that standard.
We heard in the Speech from the Throne about making an on-ramp to the information highway available. An outstanding record of access to this Legislature has been accomplished, but there are additional challenges before us that go beyond content provision.
We in British Columbia have the unique situation of having Crown corporations that can affect access to the information highway and telecommunications competition. I believe that we should not risk public sector capital when the private sector can create the wealth. I believe that the actions of this government have demonstrated that same philosophy. I expect our government to work with Crown corporations, not to threaten the private sector in extending the on-ramp to the information highway but to partner with the private sector to create wealth and access to technology throughout this province to keep us on the leading edge.
I've talked about the choices. What we've heard from those opposition benches is a rejection of this creation of wealth, a rejection of this technology, a rejection of renewing our forests. What have they said with respect to our people?
[ Page 12999 ]
The third area in which we are creating the environment for the private sector to create wealth is the investment in our people through the Skills Now program. For too long in this province the attitude has been: you're great if you can go to university but we will ignore you otherwise. For the first time in this province we have a government initiative which says to each and every British Columbian: "No matter what you do, you are valued, and we want to link your training to a job place and value your contribution, whether you are a brain surgeon, a retail clerk, a child care worker or a manager." Our economy needs all types of people, people with all types of skills. And we have a government initiative through the Skills Now program that says to all British Columbians: "You are valued; we want to partner and invest in your skills."
So, hon. Speaker, we have choices here. We have the choice of a forward-looking government that invests in our natural resources of forests and water recourses, invests in our infrastructure -- our highways and our information technology -- and in our people, or we have the choice of the opposition, in a race to the bottom and the lowest standards to meet the worst that this world has to offer. I clearly know where my choice lies, and that is why I am proud to support this New Democrat government.
But there is something else that we as Canadians have been proud of, and that is our accomplishments with our medicare system. Many people in this chamber and many people in this province may not realize that Canada is the only country in the world that does not have a two-tier health insurance system. Whether you look at the U.K., India.... Anywhere else in the world, any other country in the world, has a two-tier medicare system, in which at least 5 to 10 percent of health provision and health expenditure is done through some sort of parallel private system, where those with the fat wallet can jump the queue and rush to the top. And from the heckling I hear in the benches opposite, I can clearly see that there are members in this House who want to bring that type of two-tier medicare to British Columbia. I will do everything in my power, and I know that my government will do everything in its power, to stop that destruction of Canadian medicare at the hands of those opposition wannabes.
What we've seen is the current Liberal federal government totally withdrawing from the field of health, education and social services. The withdrawal began under the Trudeau Liberals in 1974 with the established programs financing act, and it continued under each successive federal government until this last budget, when we can put a date on the death of federal participation in health, education and social services. Six years hence, hon. members, there will be no federal participation in health, education and social services, and I say shame!
Do we see those provincial Liberal wannabes partnering with their federal counterparts and saying: "Yes, we want to destroy public education; yes, we want to destroy public health insurance"? Or do we see them standing up and showing some backbone, saying: "We will defend national standards"? Maybe we have to wait and see what they are made of, hon. Speaker. But from the heckling I hear coming my way, I am not encouraged in counting on their support in fighting off that federal attack.
[10:45]
Perhaps there's a reason I'm not encouraged. Part of that reason is that we have some serious problems in British Columbia. We have private MRI clinics encouraging people to jump a queue and go to the top for what I think are dangerous procedures to reprioritize the resulting surgeries. Physicians are making decisions that you do not need an MRI scan. People are jumping the queue, going to private clinics and then receiving surgery that can be based on false diagnosis. I challenge those members opposite. Do what I've done: search the literature under diagnostic errors in MRI. Just last night I found 200 articles pointing out the number of unnecessary surgeries done as a result of such false diagnosis.
When we privatize that system -- through a two-tiered system, as we have through clinics like that -- it is not that it is separate and apart from the public system, because that privatization is at the margin. It's that little bit extra, when they then come running back, saying: "And now pay for tens of thousands of dollars of unnecessary procedures at public expense, because of the little bit I've levered at the margin by jumping the queue at private expense."
It is time that we base our health care system on good science and good economics, not on the thickness of one's wallet. When I challenge those Liberal wannabes to distance themselves from the federal Liberals who are destroying public health, public education and public social services, the reason I question whether I can count on seeing that backbone is that I look at who is seeking to run against me as a Liberal opponent in my own constituency. We have the president of a private MRI clinic. We have a person who is advocating a user-pay, ability-to-pay destruction of the Pharmacare program. As we see these two advocates for the destruction of our public health insurance fighting it out to represent that Liberal Party, I say shame. That is what will drive us to the bottom. That is what will destroy our public health insurance system. There is no room to base access to health care on the thickness of your wallet. Access to health care should be based on proven medical need, good science and good economics, and that is what this government stands for.
I praise that throne speech because it made it clear that there are choices. Politics is about choices. There is a choice of looking at the best in this world and moving British Columbia in that direction in those areas where we aren't already there -- and in many areas we are already there. Or there's the choice of driving us to the lowest common denominator, to the bottom, where those with the fat wallets may survive -- and look out for all the rest of us! That choice is in the hands of British Columbians, and I'm proud to be on the side that stands for excellence.
G. Campbell: We've now heard from both the mover and seconder of what has been described by some as the weakest throne speech we've heard in this House in years. Having created massive problems, jeopardized jobs and seriously damaged our health care system across the province, and having taxed, borrowed and spent to the limit, the throne speech tells us we can expect more of the same. The seconder of the throne speech was correct: there is a clear choice for British Columbians to make.
I understand that the government will accept a motion to adjourn debate until this afternoon, and I would so move.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:51 a.m.
Last Modified June 14, 2001
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]