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)
FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 4
[ Page 13027 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to do something on behalf of all of us in this Legislative Assembly. Would you please convey to Silken Laumann -- who is one of our favourite Canadian heroes and who comes from Victoria -- our support and solidarity for her in her difficult time right now.
The Speaker: If this is the wish of the members, I'd be pleased to do so.
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Speaker: Thank you very much, and I shall proceed.
B. Simpson: I want to introduce Mr. Kehar Sekhon, one of the great community activists in Vancouver-Fraserview. He's very experienced in multiculturalism and is a leader and pioneer in working with the ethnic community.
DUAL ELECTED OFFICE PROHIBITION ACT
D. Streifel presented a bill intituled Dual Elected Office Prohibition Act.
D. Streifel: The purpose of this bill is to prohibit any member of this Legislative Assembly from holding more than one publicly elected office at the same time, a practice commonly known as double-dipping.
Being an MLA is a full-time job. Members of this House should serve the people who have sent us here, and no one else. This bill ensures the electorate of a member's undivided attention to his or her electoral duties. There is no good reason for the practice of what some have called double-dipping. It only serves to gratify an elected person's desire for recognition and power and to pad their wallet, while robbing the voters of the representation in this House that they deserve.
It is not unrealistic to hold another office for a short period of time after being elected to this House. This bill makes provision for that. However, under this bill extended dual representation will be abolished.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE REUSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIALS
D. Schreck presented a bill intituled An Act to Promote the Reuse of Construction and Demolition Materials.
D. Schreck: It is my pleasure to bring this bill before the House today. The purpose of the bill is to apply the conservation principles of reduce, reuse and recycle to the construction and demolition of provincial buildings. This will be a positive step towards reducing the volume of solid waste that is being channelled into the landfills of British Columbia.
Under this bill every project involving the construction or demolition of provincial buildings larger than 2,000 square metres will be required to implement a waste reduction program that will do three things: (1) identify the amount and type of waste generated; (2) identify measures to reduce the amount of waste and methods of implementing those measures; and (3) separate and properly dispose of waste generated by the construction or demolition project. This bill will allow the province to set an example for the private sector by taking decisive measures to apply conservation principles to its construction and demolition projects.
From the heckling I hear from the benches, perhaps the opposition members do not know that up to half the waste in our landfills is due to such construction and demolition, and that this is a serious matter deserving legislative attention.
Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
AN ACT TO DESIGNATE A PROVINCIAL HERITAGE SITE
AT THE INAUGURAL PLANTATION AT GREEN TIMBERS
S. Hammell presented a bill intituled An Act to Designate a Provincial Heritage Site at the Inaugural Plantation at Green Timbers.
S. Hammell: The Green Timbers forest plantation consists of trees planted from seedlings in the first attempt at reforestation in British Columbia, and a remembrance of this took place at the inaugural plantation ceremony on March 15, 1930. It is my pleasure to introduce this bill, which recognizes the importance and history of forest stewardship in the province.
Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
LIBEL AND SLANDER AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
L. Krog presented a bill intituled Libel and Slander Amendment Act, 1995.
L. Krog: The purpose of this legislation is to reinforce freedom of public expression by amending the existing Libel and Slander Act. Currently in British Columbia, newspapers are exposed to liability if they publish letters to the editor which are subsequently considered to be libelous. In amending the Libel and Slander Act, this bill will relieve newspapers of the requirement that they print only those letters to the editor with which they agree.
Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 13028 ]
(continued)
V. Anderson: I now understand why the Speech from the Throne was very thin and very meagre.
C. Serwa: On a point of order, I was not aware that the standing orders had been bypassed by unanimous agreement of this Legislature. Normally I would expect that private members' statements would be heard at this time.
The Speaker: The member raises a good point. However, as all members know, there was no opportunity to give ample notice, which is required under our standing orders, due to the fact that the session was not convened in time to allow for this. Therefore, it is a matter which the Chair cannot address. It's up to the members to do that, and they were unable to come to agreement to waive the rules. This is why we are carrying on with routine business.
G. Wilson: On the point of order, unfortunately I was unable to be in the House during the debate yesterday. However, I believe the record is clear -- and perhaps the Chair might clarify this point -- that there were private members' statements filed with the Clerk as per the rules, and that there was a question of prorogation and a question with respect to the Wednesday sitting which complicated that ruling.
However, I understand that both the independent member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and the member from the Alliance were prepared and, in fact, did file statements to move forward, and that the government also had members prepared to make those statements. Could the Chair please clarify whether or not that was blocked simply by the Liberal opposition refusing to allow other private members to make statements if they were not given full rein on that statement being made.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock rises on the same matter.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday the matter was left as a matter of negotiation between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. I think it is important to clarify for the record that, in fact, those discussions were not held. There were no representations from the government on this matter, and the failure to advance those meetings has resulted in the decision before us today in the House.
[10:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I speak on behalf of the Government House Leader in saying that those discussions did occur. Consensus couldn't be reached, therefore unanimous consent couldn't be reached. There were offers made on matters of how we could proceed with private members' statements which the official opposition party couldn't agree with, etc. So by virtue of that, consent was not reached. Hence we are proceeding as we are today.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. In any event, this is not a matter the Chair is empowered to address. These matters are dealt with among the parties. All I can provide you with are the rules as they now stand, which do not allow for us to proceed with private members' day.
V. Anderson: Once again I would comment in my reply to the Speech from the Throne that I'm beginning to understand in part why the Speech from the Throne was so thin this year and promised so little action. I understand now, since we've begun to get private members' bills from government backbenchers, that they've left it to government backbenchers rather than having the government bring forth ideas and suggestions.
I listened to the throne speech this week with a very heavy heart. This time it did not even have promises for about 20 percent of the population of B.C. Those people are hurting and suffering the most in our communities. All across the province are children, women and men -- members of families -- who are striving to live, in poverty, but without a great deal of success. At least in this throne speech there were not as many false promises as one might expect, for there were no promises at all for this 20 percent of the population. Most of these persons have not been sharing the joys of this province which the Premier boasts about -- with some validity, I might add -- as the wonders of Canada.
About 20 percent of our population is overlooked again and again in the activities we are engaged in here day by day. For the thousands of children who live in poverty and for their families, B.C. is not the wonderland that the Premier boasts about. Perhaps he believes that if he overlooks these children, who are handicapped by the very social environment in which they are forced to live, then others will not notice or cry out on their behalf.
Our task here, on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, is not to play political games with the lives of our children. Our task here is to represent them, hear them, respond to them and support them in having the most meaningful life possible. I suggest, and I state strongly, that we have not and are not doing this in this province.
To solve any problem one must first recognize it, own it and give it priority. We -- and I use "we" collectively -- have not in this speech either acknowledged or undertaken to meet the needs of these children. Let's be honest: we collectively -- all of us -- are not being responsible to them.
In our governmental system, the burden of this acknowledgment and of our collective response falls, fortunately or unfortunately, on the shoulders of those who undertake of their own free will and choice to be members of the government: the 19 members of cabinet currently all having a political NDP alliance. By our own democratic system, the 19 men and women are responsible and accountable in a very significant way for the collective resources of this province and for how they may be used for or against the citizens, especially the children and seniors of this province, who are not always in the position or who do not have the opportunity to speak up for themselves.
With all the good things about this province and with all the best intentions of this government, we have failed and are continuing to fail countless numbers of the most precious members of our society. For our past failures, they and we are all suffering. Those children were, and are, deprived of the necessities of good living. When they're deprived in their childhood it results in lifelong handicaps, which have become the heritage of too many of our children. As a result, they, with all the will in the world, are not able to make use of our educational system or even our health systems, our social systems and our economic systems.
For many, the only option is the correctional system, and that is a tragic and drastic way to treat our children. All
[ Page 13029 ]
through their life, when they were not able to cope as expected by the adults around them, through no fault of their own, these children were punished, ridiculed and isolated; and as adults these children are locked up as criminals. In reality, it is not they alone who are responsible, but it is the system which is criminal and has deprived them of the rightful expectations and promises that birth has given them. It's even more tragic in this particular country, where we pride ourselves on our abilities and freedoms and style of government. Because of that, we who sit in this legislative chamber are the keepers of the system. It is to this system that the throne speech must speak, and it does not.
It was this awareness that the system was failing, failing us and our children, that first drove me to become involved in what we call the political system. I was only too aware of how the political system -- our system of governance, with all its good points -- was a miserable failure for thousands of persons. I follow a faith in which the leader said: "As ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me."
I am convicted by our collective failures. There is the necessity to try to bring about change, not for change's sake but so everyone, without exception, may have a just and fair opportunity in life. It was necessary for me, personally, as it was for many others, to change my occupation in an attempt to join those whom one would so easily criticize and condemn from the outside. So we in turn become the ones who can be criticized and condemned by those who now see the mistakes and carelessness of our actions.
Let me digress for a moment and share another important influence in my early life, which has to do with the political well-being of the people of our province and country. Besides the influence that came upon me in my early years from family, parents, teachers, workmates, religious leaders and many others, one particular political influence was a part of my upbringing. It was the heritage of and the personal opportunity to hear and know about the life of Tommy Douglas, who put forth a caring, loving respect for every person in this society. He worked that all may live together as equals, given equal opportunity. He had a vision, and his life was an example to be emulated. Around him he created men and women, youth and children, devoted and dedicated to the each person's well-being. It is too bad that our present-day political and religious systems do not remain true to the concepts and values of their founders.
To get back to the topic of the throne speech, and to why we are here and what we are about today in this Legislature, we are trying to get to the depths of a 30-minute speech which had little depth. I apologize, for that is not quite true. It did set before us a choice -- "a fundamental choice" -- of whether the government, with all its inherent power, allows the people to make their own choices, or whether it makes the choices for them. In this throne speech, the government quite clearly chooses the latter. It, not the people, will decide how to invest our collective resources and how to borrow against our resources for the future. It, not the people, will spend the money where it believes it should be spent, regardless of what our people may think.
I'm sorry and saddened, because it sounds to me like a collective monarchy which regards itself as benevolent, knowing what's best for all of us. That is not the democratic way. This is not the heritage left by Tommy Douglas, and it is too bad that this government has made the wrong choice.
Not only does this throne speech totally neglect on our behalf the concerns of those who live in greatest agony in our province, it also sets forth a principle that the few know best -- the 19, indeed, know best. This undermines our total social system, though it purports to do otherwise, and it sets forth the principle that the mighty few decide for others what they do with their own resources in their own communities.
In simpler terms, the throne speech plans to continue and to increase the policies and programs this government has followed since 1991. May I humbly say that this is a calamity. From all reports, the burdens of this province's people living in poverty are the greatest they have been in over 20 years.
An Hon. Member: All nonsense.
V. Anderson: The government people say "nonsense" -- which indicates the truth of what I'm saying. They're out of touch with the very people who counted upon them and their promises four years ago. Why do I say they're out of touch and that people are in worse condition than they were 20 years ago? Just reflect on the hundreds of testimonies to the Gove inquiry from across this province. From every corner of the province we heard example after example of our collective failure, both before and after this government took over. There is continuing failure to understand or respond to calamity after calamity in the lives of our children, youth and families. It's a calamity if it happens to even one of our own children or family members, but when it happens to thousands of children and families across this province, it is an untold calamity. It is a disturbing disease. It is a disaster, and we hear very little about it in these honoured halls.
[10:30]
Not only is this true of children, but it's true of many people who have handicaps. It is also true of many seniors who, in their latter years, are being treated as our children have been treated, and are being treated uncaringly and unfairly. It's the same pattern. There seems to be an understanding that if we cover it over, if we ignore it, if we don't bring it to the surface, it will go away. Or if we're not able to do that, we'll do what is even worse: we will blame the victims, for surely they must have brought it upon themselves. Even if they are one year old or 100 years old, they are the victims, and they could have chosen to do otherwise; the responsibility is theirs and not ours. That kind of perspective is not one that we can accept or support. But do we not learn? The ancient Hebrew Book of Job tells of how, many generations ago, Job's friends were convinced that the evils that befell him were because of his own sin. They were not. Throughout all of history it has been so easy to blame the victim. Why do we perpetuate the mistakes of the past? Do we not learn?
I had the opportunity -- perhaps it was not an opportunity, in some people's minds -- to learn much by growing up through the years of the Crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed. In Saskatchewan I had the experience of going through the struggles of the medical strike that brought medicare into being, and of seeing the struggles of the families in that undertaking. I had the privilege to be part of the Solidarity movement of the seventies, and to be humbled by it. I had the opportunity to be challenged by the backlash of the depression of the eighties, and I am currently frightened by the recurrence of much more catastrophic, difficult times if we don't wake up and realize there are no more roses to smell. We cannot live on false hope; we must have real solutions.
This throne speech does not in any way acknowledge the critical times in which we live. It bluntly emphasizes that all is well, especially in beautiful, bountiful British Columbia -- the best place in the world to live. But for 20 percent of our population it is not the best place in the world to live. The forces of confrontation are being promoted, on both the right
[ Page 13030 ]
and the left. The heritage of polarization is being preached as our salvation. It is not our salvation. To say we're the best in anything, even if it were true, means nothing if that best is outdated, outmoded, outclassed and outflanked. Pride has always gone before a fall, and today is no exception.
The hon. Lieutenant-Governor, David Lam, spoke with humility about the great honour it was for him to serve the people of British Columbia. In contrast, the throne speech which followed, which he was obliged to read, spoke with pride about the wonderful things we had accomplished. What a contrast! Pride comes before a fall. And what a contrast between what I hear from the government members within the legislative chambers and what I hear from the citizens in my constituency as well as from those around the province. I hear cry after cry of abused and hurting people, unable to get fairness and justice in our system of government, unable to get a straight answer, unable to cope with the imbalance of power, unable to find a place of appeal -- a clear injustice -- unable to cope when one is punished further for raising a justifiable concern.
I'm not challenging or even questioning the good intentions of the government or any of the members of this Legislature, but I am saying quite clearly that good intentions are not good enough, they are not sufficient, when the results are catastrophic. Perhaps some will think that this is too strong. But when one recognizes the havoc that one's mistakes -- like mine and others' -- have caused, one has to finally be honest and admit the reality. With this realization, there is always hope and promise; without it, there is just more of the same, which is exactly what this throne speech has promised.
We need to look again at what we are about. I would refer briefly to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada is a signatory of; and therefore it is part of our obligation here in our community to have it in the background of our thinking.
An Hon. Member: The Liberals are cutting social programs.
V. Anderson: The only cuts in social programs in this province are coming through the actions of this particular government. I would like to say that it is not the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives, Social Credit or Reform that are the concern of those who live in poverty in our province; their collective concern is how our Legislature works and how we fail to cooperate in order to accomplish the goals that need to be done. Our bickering and shouting back and forth at each other only covers up and hides what we are not willing to face publicly and openly. The rights of the child are what we must consider first of all in our bearing and our undertaking.
I quote from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
"Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 20th of November, 1959" -- almost 40 years ago now -- " 'the child, by reason of his' " -- or her -- " 'physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.' Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child...."
It is not enough just to take children out of an unsafe condition in order to "protect them." It is necessary to provide a community, an environment and a social structure where children have the opportunity for health, education, maturity and full development.
I urge all of us within this Legislature to review again the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to compare against it all the actions we undertake. Because, if we do not do that, we will miss out on the opportunities and obligations before us.
I draw attention particularly to article 3 of that convention: "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." A primary consideration in every activity in which we are involved. That's not been the case.
Just last week we had a kerfuffle among us in our community, and the phones rang across this province, because unclear regulations were put out regarding the pay of babysitters. The concern was not the children who were being babysat. The concern was the babysitters and the families. The families and parents were the ones who cried out and said: "What's going on here? What's happening?"
I tried to find out before I went to the media and asked what was happening. I phoned the Ministry of Social Services. I was referred to another ministry and got an answer from them. The next day, I got a correction of the answer, and the following day, the whole regulation was withdrawn. It had not taken into account the concerns that must be primary, not of the adults involved, but of the children. It had goofed up.
The cartoon which appeared recently in the paper shows two parents sitting down with a youngster -- a young adult, probably -- who is going to babysit that evening. One of the parents is on the phone saying: "I'm afraid we'll be late for dinner. We're hammering out a collective agreement with the new babysitter." That's not the opportunity.
Our children and the families who can care for them deserve dignity and respect. I refer to, and recommend that every member of this Legislature read, the second edition of the British Columbia Welfare Joke Book put out by the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups. Here are incidents again and again where the system -- not the workers -- fails the people who come in necessity and poverty to get a new start and an opportunity to move forward with independence.
Let me give a couple of illustrations of what they report. A person went to the office because his cheque was being withheld until he produced a receipt. The trouble was that he couldn't get the receipt until he paid the bill, and he couldn't pay the bill without the cheque. That kind of activity is unacceptable.
A sign in a welfare office -- these are real situations -- announced that all cheques will be mailed. A single parent waited two hours to see her worker to find out why her welfare cheque was being held. The worker asked her a simple question, got a simple answer and agreed to release the cheque immediately. However, even though the woman's cheque was sitting in the office and she needed it desperately, the worker could not give it to her. It had to be mailed. Time after time, there are these difficulties before us.
[10:45]
Last session, we passed Bill 46, Child, Family and Community Service Act. Probably it still has many difficulties in it, but it is a move in the right direction and has set forth some very valuable principles. However, during this last opportunity between sessions I have had the unfortunate privilege of dealing with persons from across this province who have been trying to get their family situations resolved for themselves and their children. The answer has been: "Sorry, under the present legislation we cannot help you. When the new bill is proclaimed, we'll be able to do better." It's been my contention again and again that we do not need to wait until this bill
[ Page 13031 ]
is proclaimed in order to do better. The principles of the bill were endorsed by this Legislature, and they could be in operation from the very day they were proclaimed in this House. The principles, which are not in operation at this time, do not need to wait. In fairness to the individuals, I will not name them. It's not fair because they've had enough problems already.
Foster parents have reported to the Gove inquiry and to me personally that when they have raised questions about the treatment available to them, they simply had their contracts cancelled without explanation. They had no opportunity to defend themselves unless they went to court. How can somebody who doesn't have income and resources go to court to fight the government?
Again and again, it is the children who are suffering in these circumstances. The principles of these children's rights must come forward and be dealt with. The dignity and respect deserved by these children, particularly the ones who live in poverty and with handicaps, must take priority. The throne speech given to us has totally missed the point.
W. Hurd: It is always a privilege to rise in this assembly to respond to a Speech from the Throne. It's important to reflect on the way this session opened, and the backdrop of events that occurred as we gathered for it.
The Premier of the province is required to testify under oath today before the conflict-of-interest commissioner of the Legislative Assembly. There is a forensic audit underway into the unseemly activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the NDP's fundraising arm in Nanaimo, and finally, the auditor general of British Columbia has launched an inquiry into and audit of the activities of the Premier's office in connection with the awarding of contracts without tender to NOW Communications.
Never in the history of the Legislative Assembly has the Premier of the province been involved in three simultaneous investigations, and that's the kind of legacy we see after four years of the current administration.
I don't believe this government intended to have a lengthy legislative session in 1995. The throne speech indicates that. The government intended to call a snap election to push us into the polls, which would be welcomed by most British Columbians because they have given us virtually nothing to work with in this throne speech. It is bereft of hope and ideas for the future. It does not offer British Columbians one shred of optimism that, if they were to re-elect this government, they would have any mandate or any conviction over the next four years to manage the affairs of the province.
In researching my reply to the Speech from the Throne, I found it useful to go backward to 1992 and look at the kinds of things the government said when it issued its first Speech from the Throne. In 1992, they said:
"Madam Speaker and hon. members, when this government sought its mandate from the people of British Columbia, it promised no miracles. It committed that it would do no more than British Columbians could afford and would manage our province's finances openly and responsibly."
What has happened in three and a half years? What has happened when a senior official of Treasury Board points out in a document released to the official opposition that the recent accumulation of debt in the province is not sustainable? Debt-servicing costs are beginning to mount, crowding out social program spending, and B.C.'s fiscal situation will deteriorate, just as other provinces' finances are showing real and substantial improvement. Finally, this Treasury Board official talks about a credit downgrade for the province of British Columbia. These are investigations by officers of the Legislative Assembly. This is a senior official of the Treasury Board, not members of the opposition. Senior Treasury Board officials have pointed out to this government -- in documents not designed to be released to the public -- that the debt is not sustainable. How do we rationalize that with the kind of lofty promises made in 1992?
I'll go on. In keeping with this commitment to openness, the government began its mandate by providing the opposition and the media with briefings on the state of the province's finances. And as a further step toward honest accounting, the government commissioned a comprehensive and independent financial review. Well, what has happened to that openness and honesty when the people of the province have to find out how deeply they are in debt on the basis of a leaked document in 1995? That's the kind of thing that's happening in the province.
As I go on, looking through the 1992 throne speech and keeping in mind that none of this is evident in the 1995 speech, we find the government commenting on a number of issues in 1992. I quote: "We are concerned that every job loss is a family tragedy." That's what they said in 1992. How do we reflect that concern with another leaked memo that occurred this spring -- that of the Vancouver Island land use plan -- which sought to eliminate the livelihoods of three communities and, again, talked about ways of disguising the impact? How do we conduct a disinformation campaign to convince the people of the Island that in fact we're not responsible for this decision?
More brown envelopes are floating around this Legislative Assembly in 1995 than there are raindrops in Gold River. They keep coming. They keep coming. They just keep on coming.
I quote again from the 1992 Speech from the Throne: "This government will work to achieve balanced, sustainable growth for all British Columbia's communities. We will place special emphasis on the role of small businesses as generators of employment and diversity in our economy." Have the members opposite actually talked to small business in this province? Do they actually ask them the basic question: as a small business owner, are you better off now than you were three and a half years ago?
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Really?
Mr. Speaker, I commend the members opposite to go back to their ridings this weekend and seek out a small business owner and ask him or her whether they're better off than they were four years ago. In the spirit of honest and open government, I hope they'll bring their results back to us on Monday, because I'd love to talk to those small business owners who claim they're better off under this government.
In 1992 the government said: "We will work to improve child care programs, particularly for low-income parents." How do we rationalize that with $6.50 an hour for a babysitter, which the government announced and had to back-pedal on just last week? It goes on. It goes on.
I found the 1992 speech to be very revealing. There's nothing to work with in 1995. The government's vision for the future extends well beyond its term of office. The agenda includes new measures for ensuring a healthy and secure future for our children. That's what they said in 1992, and this is what the Treasury Board says in 1995:
"The Ministry of Finance has looked at options for extending the debt management plan. Key findings are that: even if the government is prepared to run small operating surpluses
[ Page 13032 ]
over the next ten years, the government's existing plans and commitments for capital spending and related borrowing make it impossible to reduce the absolute dollar amount of the debt; the only way the government will be able to claim that it has reduced debt is by: (a) focusing on direct debt only or (b) reducing the ratio of tax-supported debt to gross domestic product -- which measures the size of the economy and is a rough measure of the province's ability to support public debt."
Doublespeak -- that's what they were offering the people of the province.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: You don't have any solutions, do you?
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The member who has the floor should not be interrupted. Everyone will in due course have an opportunity to make their own contributions to the debate. Please proceed, hon. member.
W. Hurd: A healthy and secure future for our children, with unsustainable debt? That's what they were saying in 1992, and there's more. Here's one I really love: "Long surgery and treatment waiting lists are unacceptable. We will undertake an independent audit of waiting lists to investigate the causes of delays and recommend action to reduce waiting times." I give the members opposite another task for the weekend. I urge them to drop by their local hospital, and talk to a patient on a waiting list and ask them whether they're better off than they were four years ago. They'll find the answer very quickly.
I'm utterly convinced that the government really had no intention of extending this session very long. It's obvious, because the opposition also received the government's legislative agenda in a brown envelope, and it was meagre reading indeed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You just don't get it.
W. Hurd: The minister says we don't get it.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Let me respond to that. The opposition has made good use of the time we've been out of the session. I know I have. I travelled extensively throughout the province, conducting what I consider to be a novel exercise, actually listening to what people are saying to us. Actually listening. What were the parents saying to us about education, for example?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Build schools is what they say to me.
W. Hurd: I'll tell you what they're saying to me. They're saying that education should be an essential service in this province, so if I take my child to a school on Monday morning, I'm not going to be behind a picket line.
They also said they want more choice in education. They want the ability to go to their school and become a player, an influence-maker, in how their children's education is being conducted. They said they wanted choices. That's what they said they were after.
In talking to people throughout the province about health care, we asked them: "What do you expect from the health care system in the province of British Columbia?" The people told us that they wanted a health care system that put patients first. Imagine that. Patients at the top of the list of priorities. Not the health care unions, not the fixed-wage costs of some hospital construction, but the patients of British Columbia should be put first in this province. They were telling us in no uncertain terms that that wasn't happening in the province today.
With respect to transportation and public works, they told us they wanted fair and open tendering in this province, something that has disappeared in the last three and a half years under this government.
But above all else, they told us they wanted more regional decision-making, more regional autonomy. The people of this province know best what they want for their regions, and they want a way to make those dreams and realities happen. Instead, they find themselves dealing with more and more bureaucracies, more centralized decision-making from Victoria, and having less control over their lives, not more, as a government that becomes bigger by the year continues to draft more regulations, more rules and more complexities for average British Columbians.
They said they wanted simpler government. They said they wanted a government that was easier to deal with, that had commonsense solutions to the ideas that they brought forward, and not on the basis of ideological decision-making.
[11:00]
Above all else, they said they wanted open and honest budgeting. They wanted a frank discussion about where the province's finances are at. How much do we owe, and who do we owe it to? Surely the assets of the taxpayers of this province deserve that kind of openness and honesty.
If it can't be provided by government, it should be provided by the auditor general of this province. He should set up the accounting rules to which the government should adhere. He should be setting up the systems to allow the people of this province the kind of open and honest budgeting that they need.
One of the amazing debates in this assembly over the last three and a half years has been: how much is the province really in debt? How much do we owe?
F. Gingell: It's $27.4 billion.
W. Hurd: My colleague says it's $27.4 billion. That's the long-term debt. What is the size of the deficit? Is it $1.6 billion, $1.4 billion or $800 million? The Minister of Finance opposite me may even bring in a "balanced" budget -- balanced, whatever that is. This government has so watered down the rules of accounting that we don't even know how much money we owe in this province anymore.
The debt of this province -- and the people of British Columbia should know this -- has been shifted to the books of Crown corporations at an unprecedented rate. There is now more money going through the books of Crowns than there is through this Legislative Assembly on an annual basis in this province -- 47 different agencies and Crown corporations that this government has created. During that infamous electronic town hall meeting -- we all remember that -- the government claimed that it had actually reduced the number of agencies and Crowns.
The government in British Columbia today is bigger, fatter, more intrusive and more expensive. Four more years -- heaven forbid! -- and we'd have even bigger government, even more intrusive government and even more expensive government. Treasury Board says we can't afford it in British Columbia today -- that's what they say.
I could go on and on about this throne speech and the lack....
[ Page 13033 ]
Some Hon. Members: More.
W. Hurd: My colleagues are calling for more, and I can offer more. It comes from the "A Better Way" document from 1991. I always bring this document to the debate. It's like my American Express card: I never leave home without it.
Item two is: "You won't need an inside track to get fair treatment from a Harcourt government."
Interjections.
W. Hurd: As the old saying goes, now you see 'em and now you don't.
They said in 1991, "Our justice system will be free from political interference," and: "We will balance the budget over the business cycle...and keep taxes fair...for everyone." They said "A prosperous British Columbia needs a dynamic market economy," and: "We want...business to grow." It goes on and on. I could talk at length about....
Some Hon. Members: Please do. More.
W. Hurd: I will. I'll continue, because the people of the province have a more basic understanding of this government's record, frankly, than the cabinet gives them credit for. How do we know? Because as we started our deliberations in this assembly, the newspaper came up with the goods on the government. They said: "Majority of NDP Voters Lose Faith: Nearly a Quarter Will Back the Grits. Nearly 60 percent of the people who voted NDP in the last B.C. election would not support the New Democrats today."
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't want to peak too early, though.
W. Hurd: The hon. Minister of Social Services says that the government doesn't want to peak too early. At this point the Premier wouldn't know the difference between a peak and a valley.
About 23 percent of the NDP's former supporters say that they will now vote Liberal, according to a McIntyre and Mustel Research Associates poll. The public knows the record of the current government only too well. They know unsustainable debt when they see it. They know that leaked memos which detail the government's real agenda do not inspire confidence to go out and support the current government. The polls show that. The public is very knowledgable about what is happening out there.
Debt is the single biggest issue they face. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has pointed out that unsustainable debt robs us of the ability to fund our social programs. You only have to look at what's happening at the federal level to understand that. The debt service costs in Ottawa today consume 35 to 40 percent of the expenditures of government -- just to provide service to foreign debt holders.
A government that lives within its means is the only way of ensuring that services will be available down the road. This province has racked up $28 billion in long-term debt. The debt service costs in the province are going to break us. We've seen an increase of $10 billion in the long-term debt of this province in the last three and a half fiscal years. What does that mean? If the people of the province were to go out and re-elect this government, does it mean that after three and a half years of a new mandate our long-term debt would be $38 billion, $40 billion, for under three million people? Add it up. The numbers don't make sense.
The people of the province are speaking. They're speaking in meetings throughout the province; they're speaking in the poll results. They want smaller government. They want more affordable government. They want more accountable government.
An Hon. Member: What are you going to cut?
W. Hurd: The member asks: "What do you cut?" How about $250 million for a fixed-wage policy that doesn't add a dime of benefit to the people of this province? How about the $5.5 million to NOW Communications, a firm run by the Premier's campaign manager? How about Karl Struble, that inestimable speechwriter from Washington, D.C.? How about cutting him out?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member who has the floor would be of great assistance if he would address the Chair, and not just make reference to the Chair, in order to avoid the kinds of activities that are going on right now. We are beginning to lose decorum in the House.
Please proceed, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know my remarks are inspiring the members opposite. I pledge to address the Chair with the serious debt and fiscal situation the province faces and the lack of vision and hope that's inherent in the throne speech.
As I close my remarks on this throne speech -- and I know my colleagues will be moving an amendment to it which will, I think, detail the serious concerns the opposition has about the direction the province is going -- I urge the members opposite to call an election. That's what the people are saying they want. I go around the province and I can't even talk issues with people anymore, because the first thing they ask me -- the only thing they want to know -- is: "When is the election going to be held? When do I get a chance? When do I, as a voter, have a chance?"
Before I take my seat, I want to recount to the members opposite an interesting experience I had in the Kootenays sometime back in the fall. I had occasion to travel to Cranbrook to participate in the downstream benefits symposium in which the people of the Kootenays were sitting around in discussion making a decision about how they were going to invest the downstream benefits. This was an exercise in grass-roots democracy, to which the government referred in its throne speech. I can remember sitting there most of the day in dialogue with regional district representatives and members of local governments and concerned members of the public in this wonderful expression, this wonderful exercise, of deciding how the benefits were going to be spent in their community to diversify the economy, to provide new hope for a region which has experienced environmental and social devastation because of the construction of dams three or four decades ago.
I can recall that, late in the afternoon, the Minister of Employment and Investment flew in. He flew in not to participate in the discussions but to advise those who had been meeting all day long that the government had a better idea. Always -- they always do have a better idea, except we can't afford it. He stood up and said: "I'll offer you $150-200 million if you'll invest in three dams that the government wants to reactivate in the Kootenays." More dams -- the Keenleyside, the Waneta and the Brilliant dams; that was his idea. I can recall to this day that somebody in the audience stood up and
[ Page 13034 ]
said: "If we decide that we don't want to invest in your dams, do we still get the $150-200 million?" Oh no, there were strings. There are always strings attached. As somebody exited the meeting, he said: "You know, it's typical of the NDP government. Their philosophy is: with their brains and our money, we'll go far." That was the philosophy prevalent at that meeting.
That's the way it is in British Columbia. There's always another agenda with this government. There's always what you see and what you don't see. There's always the media spin, and then there are the leaked documents. Is it any wonder that the people of the province have turned against this government? So I close by imploring the members opposite to do the honourable thing and call an election and let the people of British Columbia pass judgment on this government.
[11:15]
D. Lovick: First I want to say thank you to my colleagues on all sides of this chamber for the honour and the privilege they have given me of serving as Deputy Speaker again. Being Speaker -- as you well know, hon. Speaker -- is very much like being a referee in a hockey game: if you do your job well, nobody notices; if you don't do it too well, obviously you get into difficulty. Being Deputy is even a little -- dare I say? -- more difficult, insofar as you have to, on the one hand, be the referee, but if things get a little bit difficult, they expect you to suit up, get out on the ice, play the game and sometimes throw a few stiff checks or lift your elbows a wee bit. It's a difficult role, but one I enjoy.
When I first got the job I decided that I would probably become somewhat less feisty than had been my wont in this chamber; I would try and be more considerate and understanding, for fear that I would compromise whatever impartiality is required. When I was first deputized I wrote a column in which I tried to outline just what the role was. I drew the distinction that when you are in the chair, very clearly you have to be absolutely impartial. But after all, you are still an MLA; you are still a partisan player in the game. I thought I could do that, and I still believe I can, but our Clerk of the House, George MacMinn, QC, took me aside and gave me a little advice. He said: "I think you're probably right, but you also have to recognize that how you play it in the House is inevitably going to have an impact on how well the House operates when you are in the chair." So he suggested I should be a little more cool and a little less feisty.
I will be guided by his advice as much as I can but, damn it, it's hard, after listening to certain comments from the opposition. It's really hard, but I am going to restrain myself a little bit because somebody gave me an interesting message yesterday. I was in the chair, sitting there doing my duty in your place, Mr. Speaker, and somebody handed me a note that said: "We just want to advise you that you look like the Speaker of the American parliament, Newt Gingrich." Somebody else suggested that perhaps I had an evil twin, and we had been separated at birth. I want to make very clear that I am not now, nor will I ever be -- I hope -- confused with Newt Gingrich. However gentler and kinder I may be in the debates of this chamber, I am still a New Democrat; I am still very partisan. I believe in this government and in what it is doing, and I will stand and defend what it is doing at every opportunity. It is therefore my pleasure to participate in this debate.
As we all know, the throne speech is always predictable. Clearly, government is going to give some indication of what it wants to accomplish, what it thinks it stands for. The other side, of course, is going to say that the government is an abject failure by every conceivable measurement. The problem is that perhaps government tends to overstate on its side; normally, opposition tends to overstate considerably on its side, engaging in -- dare I say -- hyperbole, an extreme use of superlatives of one kind or another. Sadly, the other part of the problem is that the media in this province -- our window into what happens in this province and in this chamber -- have become patently superficial and banal in the extreme in their coverage. I can attack the media, because I can do that with some gusto, whereas I won't do that to the opposition so much.
I want to remind everybody that the throne speech is pretty straightforward. There are two main themes. The first is jobs -- a four-letter word, to judge from the opposition's apparent opposition to what we're saying about jobs. They seem to regard it as a four-letter word, not to be used in polite company. But this government believes in jobs and believes in setting up a strategy to create jobs for the long term as well as for the present -- a good thing to do.
The second major point made in the speech is that we are taking a position on medicare. We are saying unequivocally that British Columbia in 1995 will be to medicare what Saskatchewan was in 1961. Let us never forget in this country that the introduction of medicare was a brutal and ugly battle in which we saw the worst and vilest accusations made against people. We saw individuals destroyed in that struggle. After the fact, everybody said: "Isn't it wonderful! Look what we all have created." I suspect that when our government puts forward the proposal that we are going to offer to protect medicare and make sure that it is not further eroded in this country, we will be subjected to the same attacks. Our position is clear: we will live or die, stand or fall, on the basis of saving medicare in this province. We'll do that. Those are the two main points made in the throne speech.
Before I deal with those in some depth -- and I hope I will have time to do that -- I want to start by drawing members' attention and the attention of those who may be watching these deliberations to two other points in the throne speech that tend to define who we are as a government and, perhaps even more importantly, what differentiates us from those others who also aspire to be government. The first statement probably deals more with the manner than the matter of government. It's the statement that describes the consultation process and the effort to meet with communities around the province and establish land use plans and a future economic base that we can all live with.
I want to quote just a little of that, if I might. I'll be very brief. It says this: "Grass-roots democracy is very much a reality in our province in 1995. People have a say. Changes come from the ground up." I'll skip ahead to the last point. It also says: "It is perhaps not the easiest way to run a government, but it is the fairest, the smartest and the best." We believe that. The concept in the word "empowerment" has become rather out of fashion this day, but we believe it.
We also recognize, though -- and I challenge the opposition to offer some comment on this -- that it's a difficult process. We had 20,000 people on the lawn outside this chamber talking about the Vancouver Island land use plan....
An Hon. Member: Because you didn't consult them.
D. Lovick: We did consult, Mr. Member. We consulted to the nth degree. The problem is that the choices are difficult. Members opposite continue to pretend that there is some simple, magic, easy way to solve the problem. We're talking
[ Page 13035 ]
about a balance between jobs and environment, between cutting down trees and preserving trees. It's not easy to do. Sadly, people who know better continue to pretend that it is easy, and it is not. Government, however, has taken that significant, fundamental issue in this province and dealt with it directly and up front.
Of course, we pay a price. That's why our members from the Cariboo go to meetings and have a difficult time. That's why people in the Kootenays were upset and concerned, and who can blame those communities? Those are people who are trying to grind a buck, trying to make a living, in a difficult economic climate. We wonder about the economy in the future. People are obviously concerned about their livelihoods and their jobs, and of course they're going to wonder about what the impact of a long-term sustainable forestry policy in this province will be on them.
We took that on; we met with those people; we talked with them. We have worked out compromises. We have worked out arrangements that will save those communities and the industry and, indirectly, will save the provincial economy, because forestry is still the biggest game in this province. We've done that, and I am proud that we have done so.
Again, if you want to talk about differentiating between the two sides, the throne speech makes very clear that there are indeed what we refer to as two fundamental, opposing visions of this province. Members opposite -- legitimately -- are going to say, "You've overstated it," but that's what throne speeches do. The throne speech is obviously going to cast our side of the two visions in its best light, and the other side will do the same. That's fair; that's politics; that's legitimate.
But the concept of there being two fundamentally different, opposing points of view in this province is absolutely right. When I hear the Leader of the Opposition -- who means well, I'm sure -- suggesting that we need to get beyond ideology and that it's somehow obsolete, I have to shriek out loud: "That is patent nonsense." Never have the choices been clearer in terms of those two sides. There's on the one side a belief that effectively says: "Let the marketplace and transnational capital decide. Let's make sure that all of our fiscal policy is based entirely on what happens in Japan. Let's do that, and we'll just sort of live with the consequences." And there's another side that says: "We, the people, through our governments, ought to have some measure of control of our own economic destiny."
An Hon. Member: It's all black and white for you.
D. Lovick: It's not black and white, member. Sadly, it seems the member can't appreciate the subtlety of the argument. Maybe I could try it again.
I'm suggesting that there are two broad divisions: those people who believe that the only game in town is to be competitive in the international marketplace and therefore conduct all our fiscal and economic policies accordingly, and those of us on this side who say: "We, the people, through our government, ought to take some control and do what we can to mobilize the power of the state." We do it very well in this province, it seems to me.
The election that we're all talking about should be fought on a debate between those two sides and on a debate on the record of this government, not on the silliness, accusations and allegations that we get every week -- most of which have been found to be absolutely silly and nonsensical, of course. It should be fought on the record of this government, a record that is the envy of every other jurisdiction in this country.
We need to know that politics ultimately is about the balancing and the reconciling of competing interests. It's about making hard choices, not easy choices. One of the things that I must confess offends me to my marrow is the notion that people think there's some easy way to solve problems.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: I hear members on the opposite side suggest that oh yeah, we could easily solve our problem. The problem is the debt and the deficit and all of that, and all you have to do is cut services and cut spending. But the same members stand up in this House and ask us to spend more money.
My friend from Peace River makes a point I want to acknowledge, because he's right -- a change -- when he says: "Wait a minute, you guys in opposition maybe did something the same." I fear he's correct. The predicament is that because of an adversarial system, we tend to ratchet up the stakes and therefore engage in debates that, quite frankly, are sometimes silly, as if there were no such thing as limitations on what government can and cannot do. This throne speech, to its everlasting credit, says let's recognize some of those difficult realities.
What the comments from the other side -- the few I've heard -- tend to suggest is: don't worry about economic reality. You can, in fact, solve all the debt and deficit problems overnight, and you'll never have to do anything about reducing services to people. Patently, the two are contradictory; they can't be done. They can talk one day about getting rid of the deficit; the Leader of the Opposition can do that. Then the member for Vancouver-Langara stands up and gives us a 20-minute speech, all of which translates into one thing: we should spend more money. I'm sorry, member. I fear the member's in the wrong caucus if he says that. They complain bitterly that government is not providing the services that it should be -- that we're not doing as much as we should be -- and at the same time they want us to cut budgets which provide those services.
Let me give you an example of the kind of world we live in today, this magical world of unrealistic expectations and demands. In my own constituency in Nanaimo, the local newspaper ran an editorial on the federal budget, the bottom line of which was: "Bravo! Good for you guys. You did something about cutting the deficit and the debt."
[11:30]
The next day they ran an article from somewhere in the northwest of the province -- not even our own constituency -- talking about the legitimate tragedy of some poor elderly citizen who wanted to get continuing care in her own community and couldn't. She was occupying an acute care bed at some $450 a day and was refusing to move from that bed and go maybe 20 or 30 miles out to a facility which was available, because they felt that that was too great a trauma or shock to that individual. And the newspaper coverage of that effectively said: "Isn't this awful? Everybody should write to his or her MLA and protest."
This is the same media that says to the federal government: "Good for you, you cut the" -- not debt; they haven't touched the debt -- "deficit." The same people the next day are attacking the government that has got the best record of providing medical services in this country, bar none -- the government that has had to pick up the federal off-loading of medicare for the past three years. We get attacked for cutting the services and the other guys get praised for reducing the money that enables us to give those services. You tell me, Mr. Speaker. You tell me.
I am sorry to say that the media, for reasons known only to itself, continues to do that on a daily basis. Individuals I can
[ Page 13036 ]
understand doing that. I can understand the people I meet in North Cedar, who want a high school or a junior high school in their region -- and I have some good grounds for saying so -- not necessarily understanding the trade-offs that have to happen in terms of debts and deficits and budgets. But the media and opposition are continuing to pretend that you can on the one hand say we want the school, and on the other hand that you don't want to pay for it. It won't work.
I'll give a couple of examples, if I may, from the other side. I think it is the member for Saanich North and the Islands who loves to trumpet the cause of cutting the deficit and the debt. I just received a copy of a letter the other day suggesting support for a group that wants to spend -- get this -- $450,000 this year on a tourist attraction in the name of artificial reefs. Now artificial reefs may be a very good way to spend money; it might be a good program. Who knows? But this person is suggesting we should spend $450,000 on this, and the next day in the chamber is going to be standing up saying we shouldn't spend any money, we should reduce the deficit further and we shouldn't have debt.
An Hon. Member: Hypocrisy.
D. Lovick: Somebody says "hypocrisy," and I fear you are right. It does translate into that.
We in British Columbia have been saying for the past three years that medicare is threatened, that this province's economy has been threatened by federal cutbacks. Curiously, when we saw the federal budget, the official opposition in this chamber -- same party and maybe that's the explanation -- said not a thing about federal cutbacks. Where were they defending B.C.'s interests? Where were they?
Interjection.
D. Lovick: No, you weren't there. Don't say: "Get serious." Where were you, member? You didn't say a thing.
Instead, what they did was try to stick the provincial government with it and say it's our fault, rather than acknowledge the simple reality. And if they don't believe us -- we've only been telling them for three years -- let me just refer them to yesterday's Globe and Mail. We have the standard bond-rating service in this country that makes the point that the rich provinces take the hit, that over the next three years it is going to be the four wealthiest provinces that are going to absorb almost all of the federal deficit problems. B.C. is going to take the beating. B.C. and Alberta together will take about 25 percent, even though they represent 22 percent. Ontario will take the biggest.
An Hon. Member: The province has to take its share.
D. Lovick: The province does have to take its share, and it has. It has indeed.
Let me give another example. The same members here who want to talk about how the debt is too high and how we shouldn't be spending any money, and take that powerful position, nevertheless, when the shoe begins to pinch and it affects their own constituencies, suddenly change the rules. I'll give you an example. The member for Chilliwack we heard about yesterday in the House. He not only said to the federal government: "Don't worry about your debt; obviously it's okay to increase debt or keep the debt where it is as long as you save my constituency," but worse than that, said: "If the feds won't do it, B.C. can do it. We'll pick up the tab; we'll pay all the money." The same guy who sits only three seats over from the leader is telling us we've got to cut spending.
You want the height of hypocrisy? Guess who? Preston Manning. Presto, as he is affectionately known in some circles, took the position that the federal debt would be wiped out in three years or some such thing. Guess what he said when the good people of Chilliwack came to him? "Well, maybe the base at Chilliwack we'll make an exception for, because after all...." You say to yourself: "What kind of credibility can anybody claim to have if they can do that?"
This government has taken a hit and the heat over reducing services. But what we have is an opposition that frequently, I'm sorry to say, is irresponsible and suggests that you don't need to do it, and then climbs on the bandwagon about kicking government around for a reduction in services.
I went to a chamber of commerce luncheon the other day in Nanaimo, and the speaker at the time was Richard Allen, chief economist of B.C. Central Credit Union. Allen, I think, is pretty much universally regarded as a pretty bright and capable person in this province. Allen put the debt question into perspective, I think. He reminded the audience that the total government debt in this province, all the other provinces and the federal government together equals $750 billion. British Columbia's government debt is less than $30 billion. Now, think about that. That's not bad, eh, in terms of perspective. Better than that, though, let's recognize that that debt is, in fact, still the lowest per capita of all the provinces in Canada. It's manageable debt, and it is used to create jobs. The greater percentage of the increase in those debts is directly attributable to the creation of jobs.
Members opposite may want to say: "Oh no, you can't have debt." But I don't hear the people in my constituency saying: "Don't build our school. Don't bother with the Vancouver Island Highway project." For ten years we had in this province what amounted to a capital construction strike. We didn't build schools, we didn't build additions to hospitals, and we didn't do a lot in terms of infrastructure like highways and roads and universities. What has happened, however, is that we have had an average increase in the last three years of 80,000 new people coming to this province. What do members opposite want? Do you really believe that kids should be educated from kindergarten to grade 12 in portables? Or do you think they ought to have schools? Well, we think they do.
Members opposite love to make much of this notion of this horrendous debt problem, and: "Oh, the sky is falling." But look at what the Treasury Board document actually did, compared to the distortion we hear from the other side. You got bureaucrats who are paid to give advice and caution to government, and they said: "Look, guys, you've got an enviable financial record across the country, but recognize that there is a ticking time bomb, and if debt continues to increase at the rate it has, it could become unmanageable" -- not that it is unmanageable, but that it could become.... What they said is you need to cap the debt, and you need to have a debt repayment plan. Both of those things have already been announced. Government has already said we are going to do that; indeed, we promised we'd bring that down in the budget this year. So there's no mystery. There's nothing to be alarmed about. Sadly, however, people want to suggest that our debt, which is manageable -- minuscule by comparison with the federal government's, even proportionately; we still have the best credit rating and the lowest debt per capita in the country -- is out of control. The same people suggesting it's out of control are, of course, the ones who want to argue that we should spend more in their particular areas or on their particular projects.
That's the problem with modern government. Every member in this chamber knows that, with 75 percent of the
[ Page 13037 ]
constituents who come to talk to you with a problem or complaint, what it amounts to when you clear it all away is that they want more money. That's what it's about. The same people, understandably, are saying: "...but don't spend any more money."
Let's be honest with one another. Government is a balancing act, and it's a difficult thing to achieve. This government has a better record than any government in Canada in doing that balancing. We have a buoyant, active economy. We have been growing, and we've been creating jobs. We protected essential services, but we've done so in a fiscally responsible way. You would certainly never guess that listening to members opposite, and that leads me to my concluding point.
The member for New Westminster spoke yesterday, not for very long but very effectively. In her own inimitable, quiet, dignified way, she talked about the role of the opposition, making the point effectively and correctly, not in an adversarial way, that one of opposition's sovereign, crucial duties is to say what they would do, what their alternatives are and what their agenda is. What should happen in this chamber is.... Instead of these wild claims that the sky is falling, instead of this finger-pointing and innuendo, or this suggestion that all these nasty things are going on, simply because under the Freedom of Information Act and the Members' Conflict of Interest Act -- which we created and beefed up, and made the best in Canada -- there are investigations going on -- as there should be, because they have to go on when somebody makes a formal complaint.... Instead of doing that stuff, I would challenge the opposition to tell us what they want to do. I want to hear their plans to solve the debt problem and make things happen.
The throne speech lays out a clear and concise notion of where we stand on those issues. The issues are fundamental, clearly differentiating between government and opposition. I would be proud to stand on the record of this government. I challenge the members on the other side to tell us what they stand for. I fear we are going to discover a vacuum louder than the one we sometimes hear when we ask the opposition to speak out in this chamber.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased to enter into the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, a speech that exemplifies a wonderful government record in 1995. The speech is so well addressed to the working people of British Columbia, I want to reiterate a portion of it.
"...I speak of a province that leads the country in so many ways. Landmark environmental protection. Bold initiatives to renew our forests. Skills training the envy of the country. Health care second to none. And Canada's number one economy -- with the strongest, most consistent growth, the most new jobs, the best credit rating and the lowest per capita debt."
Then we proceed to talk about how we make sure we entrench such a wonderful economy and keep it going. The Speech from the Throne says:
"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.
"And so we are faced with a fundamental choice. Some governments in Canada have opted for the first course, persuaded that the answer is to slash budgets, reduce real value and dismantle laws that protect working people and the environment. British Columbia's government, though, believes that however fashionable this choice may be, and however harmless it may appear in the short term, the long-term economic costs would be devastating."
[11:45]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
And you know what, members of the opposition? We're not going to follow that path. Instead, our government is going to continue on its record of investing in our people, infrastructure and natural resources.
It's interesting to see our record so ignored and besmirched by the members opposite, talking about how we haven't invested in people. I think there is a reason why they are misleading the public about how much we have invested in people. It is because they know quite clearly that to invest in people you have to make a commitment. A government has to make a commitment to invest in resources. You have to spend some money in investing in people. The members opposite mislead by saying that we should cut and slash, and at the same time protect certain programs.
I absolutely agree with the split view held by the members opposite in the Liberal Party. I agree with the member for Vancouver-Langara that it makes sense to invest in our children. And yes, numerous studies are presented to the public day after day -- well-founded and well-researched studies done by our own universities. The University of British Columbia, through the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, shows that when a government invests in children, it pays off for children and for us as citizens in British Columbia. It absolutely makes sense to invest in children. The studies also show that it makes sense to invest in the parents of those children. It makes sense to invest in giving them the necessary skills and training. It makes sense to assist those parents in feeding their children, through the hot lunch programs. It makes sense to invest in good, affordable, accessible day care so that those parents can work. We have made that commitment.
I read the studies. Our government knows what makes sense from an investment point of view. We don't sit around a table and think that we know best for working people and their families. We go to the experts. We read what the experts are saying. We actually listen to them, and discuss with them what makes sense. So yes, we agree that investing in children and families makes sense.
I don't know what the members opposite believe when they talk about investing in children. I am very, very glad to hear the member for Vancouver-Langara stand up -- courageously, as a Liberal -- and talk about investing in children. He knows very well that that means a real commitment in dollars, and it's courageous for a member of the Liberal opposition to make that commitment.
I fully look forward to next week, when our government makes good on its commitment to balance its budget, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable and not at the expense of slashing and cutting health care and social programs, I look forward to that member opposite standing up and saying hurray for the New Democrat government of British Columbia.
K. Jones: Is that a budget leak you just made?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am actually surprised to see the member for Surrey-Cloverdale here. I thought he'd be out resting up and preparing for skulking around and looking for the budget next week. Anyway, I'm pleased to see him in the House.
Let me talk about some of the problems that our government has invested in on behalf of working people and their children. We've actually done something for the children who
[ Page 13038 ]
are most vulnerable in British Columbia: those who are on the streets and engaged in the sex trade. We've put forward an action plan to get those children off the street and in real training programs that will lead to real jobs. That takes a commitment of resources, and that's what we've done. We've actually made a commitment of dollars investing in children and protecting against the abuse of children.
Maybe the members opposite missed the announcement when the Children's Hospital stood up with the government of British Columbia and said: "We're going to work together on behalf of the children of the province and protecting them, and we're going to invest resources to do that." Perhaps they missed those kinds of examples, because they're saying to us -- or at least half of their split caucus is saying to us -- "Invest in children." But do you know what? I am pleased that they have finally come out on record saying that that kind of investment is important, and I look forward to their endorsement next week when our budget is brought down.
I am sorry to say that it does raise the question about what the Liberal opposition stands for. You know, it's pretty hard to figure out who speaks for whom over on that side of the table. Is it that the member for Vancouver-Langara speaks for the Liberal Party on investing in people? I hope it is. But I'll tell you something: maybe it's the Leader of the Official Opposition. Maybe he speaks for the official opposition when he says, as he goes around this province: "I'd rather have a Ralph Klein than a Mike Harcourt." Is that who speaks for the Liberal Party? I suspect it is.
Let us clearly understand what the Leader of the Official Opposition is saying when he says: "I'd rather have a Ralph Klein than a Mike Harcourt." He is rejecting bringing peace to the woods. He is rejecting investing in skills training for people. He is rejecting a growing, vibrant economy that's based on partnership, not confrontation. He is rejecting investing in children and families. That's what he's doing when he rejects a Mike Harcourt government.
What is he buying into when he says he'd rather have a Ralph Klein? Let me just quote to you the most recent, horrendous statements of Ralph Klein about the very people that the member for Vancouver-Langara stood up and said were the most vulnerable in our society and needed to be protected. Ralph Klein says that welfare recipients should be kicked out of his province, and he will personally show them the way to a bus depot. He also says that if people don't like the fact that there's high unemployment in his province, if people don't like the fact that he's destroying the social safety net, then he'll give them a helping hand to get the heck out of Alberta. That's the kind of government, that's the kind of British Columbia that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition, wants to see here. Is that what the Liberal party stands for? You couldn't possibly determine it from a united voice of that opposition party opposite, but when the Leader of the Official Opposition says he'd rather have a Ralph Klein than a Mike Harcourt, that's what this party opposite stands for. The slash-and-burn approach to defending the most vulnerable in our society is what the Leader of the Official Opposition supports.
Is it the Leader of the Official Opposition who speaks for the Liberal Party when he talks about and supports the federal off-loading that the Liberal Chretien government is doing? Is it that person who speaks on behalf of his provincial Liberal Party colleagues? I say yes. That is the voice of the provincial Liberal Party, which supports the fact that the federal Liberals have withheld $1.3 billion this past fiscal year alone from what British Columbians justly deserve. They have supported those cuts in transfer payments to British Columbians. The federal Liberals have slashed the rightful entitlement of what we deserve as British Columbians, and the provincial Liberals opposite support that.
What do those cuts actually mean? What does it mean to working people when the federal Liberals refuse to make the just contribution to British Columbia to make sure that our economy is healthy, vibrant and growing? Every time the Liberals in Ottawa cut a dollar to British Columbia, a British Columbian suffers and suffers greatly.
I'll just give you an example so that you can really understand. It's actually in the town where a couple of the members opposite reside: Vancouver. How are those federal Liberal cuts affecting our young people in Vancouver? Is it just going by the board? Is that $1.3 billion really unimportant to the well-being of the economy in British Columbia, and therefore it's okay to defend the cuts as the members opposite have done? Or does it affect real people? It affects real people. It affects those who need our support right now in investing in a strong economy. That's young people.
Let me tell you about a federal program that's coming to an end in one week. It is totally funded by the federal government. The Youth Empowerment Project is an excellent program that includes employment experience, life skills and social and recreational programs for approximately 45 newly arrived Canadians who have English as a second language, approximately 50 first nations youth and 70 youth who are at risk of not achieving a productive adulthood because they're out on the street -- because of family crisis, poverty, cultural and language barriers, lack of direction, training and support, and other socioeconomic factors. The Youth Empowerment Project is a fully funded federal program that has absolutely excellent success. And what is the federal Liberal Chretien government doing about that? Not a penny more to this program come March 31. Not a penny more, because of those Liberal cuts to British Columbians who are not only the most vulnerable but also those who would gain the most from the investment. And this program is very, very successful. What do the provincial Liberals opposite say about that?
And you know what? Because a Mike Harcourt New Democrat government actually invests in people, actually takes our responsibility very seriously to partner in investing in the economy, this group -- this Youth Empowerment Project, which is a fully funded federal program -- has come to us and said: "Can you not take us over?" But, you know what, with all of the hype and criticism offered by both opposition parties opposite about having to cut spending and to stop investing in the economy, we're not able to take over and invest again in all of the federal cuts. We just can't do it. You know what I say? I say that's a shame. But we can't take over the responsibility for those federal cuts. Because of the federal action, which the members opposite support 100 percent, all of these people will no longer have an opportunity to be productive citizens in a growing economy. That is a big shame. I feel very sad about all those people who are benefiting from that Youth Empowerment Project that will no longer be.
[12:00]
How is our government taking our responsibility about investing in people? We are taking it very seriously. We are investing in people. We're investing in skills. We're investing in training. We're investing in partnerships with business to move youth into the workforce for life-sustaining jobs. We're moving people from welfare to work, so that they have a good chance -- a strong and viable chance -- to raise their families in a healthy and strong way.
This week my own local paper, the Vancouver Echo, has two wonderful stories about how our New Democratic gov-
[ Page 13039 ]
ernment is investing in people to move them into the workforce. Let me just read you one. This is just this week's edition of it. I know every member on the government side.... Actually, if the members opposite would be forthcoming, they would be able to stand up, too, and give example after example of our government investing in skills training and moving people into the workforce, and taking advantage of a strong, healthy economy.
In East Vancouver, there's a program called Astep. It's for people to learn and develop skills for auto mechanics. It's supported by our government, but it's a community effort. It's targeted at young people and single parents to give them the real skills that they need to take advantage of the growing economy. It's a very successful program. They not only get the credentials to move into the workforce, but they gain the confidence to work in partnership with business to deliver on those credentials. You know what? That's good news for British Columbians. That's the kind of investment our government is doing.
We also have just worked in partnership with another group in Vancouver called Parents and Children for Education and Employment. They're a group of parents who are now living on income assistance, working with their local schools and our government to ensure that they get the skills necessary, through the Skills Now program, to participate in 20 weeks of education and training, beginning next month. It's wonderful. The children are going to be in school, in a safe place, with both after-school care and a hot lunch program, and their parents will be there at the same time getting training to move into the growing economy. This program would not have existed but for our New Democratic government.
Those are just two examples. Each and every one of us in this Legislature, who represent all British Columbians including the constituents of the members opposite, can list program after program where we're investing in people, in training and in education. I have many other examples, but I think the point is well made that, in order to continue to have our strong, healthy economy grow and expand, good government has to partner with the private sector and the working and middle-income families of British Columbia to make that economy strong.
You can't cut and slash investment in such programs or in the economy and the infrastructure just because it might be politically popular for the moment. You can't do that and really expect the economy to be and to continue to be healthy. You have to make sure that, as a government, you make the responsible choice. Back to our throne speech. You have to have the guts to make the right decision in choosing the right avenue, and that is to invest in people so that working families have the skills necessary to get jobs that can sustain not only them but their communities. That's what our New Democrat government is doing.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's good to see you in the chair after that rousing speech. You'll see that our benches are a little bit bare today, so I am sure that some of the other members will stay around and listen to the few words of, I hope, wisdom that I can give. [Applause.] Thank you very much.
I, along with many British Columbians, am expecting this to probably be the last session in the thirty-fifth parliament of British Columbia. I think most people are praying there will be an election called soon so we can get on with getting rid of a tax-and-spend government, one that is totally out of control and has been since it was elected in 1991.
It is my honour to respond to what has been coined "the most vacuous throne speech in B.C.'s history" -- again, one of the great words of the press that you spoke about.
Before I start, hon. Speaker, I want to relate to you a few things you expounded on in your speech. It came home to me, because at times I find myself in the province, and specifically in my constituency of Peace River North, defending -- heaven forbid! -- some of the things this government is doing, because they are not all wrong, and people should know that. I agree that this chamber leads to people standing up and continually hammering at one another that you're wrong and I'm right, I'm right and you're wrong. There comes a time when we have to start looking after people. I know I would take a different path than your government has taken -- no doubt about it. That is not to say that part of the path your government has gone down is not right.
I've listened to the Liberal members talk about cutting this out and cutting that out, and they really haven't thought it through. In some cases, you can't just slash and burn. I agree with some of the things that Ralph Klein is doing in Alberta. Some will come back to haunt him and some won't. There is a need to do some slash and burn in governments of all stripes in Canada, whether it's British Columbia, Ontario or the federal government. We have to do that, but we have to do it cognizant of the people we are here to represent.
That's what I want to talk a bit about today: the people of British Columbia and what our roles are, both as government and opposition members, to represent the needs and wants of people in the province -- specifically, the ones I represent in rural B.C. I want to talk a bit about our natural resources, and finally a bit about our infrastructure and about debt and taxation.
All the people in the whole province are too often forgotten. We have to be fair. The Minister of Social Services talked about some services that were delivered that she took part in, in Vancouver. That's specifically what I hear from the members opposite in the government: it's always the lower mainland. I do not hear too much about what happens in rural B.C.
It's the people that have to count. Your party stands up and talks about how you are the only party capable of representing the people of British Columbia. You're very astute at it; you say it well. But go around the province and talk to some of those past staunch supporters of your government who thought you were representing them, who have now found that you are not representing the people of the province. Heaven forbid!
People are still wondering what the Liberals would do. It's no wonder. They haven't come out with anything that we can look at and say: "Yes, we can put some teeth into it." Liberal philosophy was best described by the member for Saanich North and the Islands last session when he said: "A Liberal is one, my goodness, who stands on the fence and stands on the fence and stands on the fence until they finally figure out where they think everybody is going, and then they follow that way." That is typical Liberal philosophy. It's no wonder people in the province are wondering what the Liberals would do for them.
A well-oiled, well-financed political party, whether financed by the unions of the province or Howe Street, will have its chain jerked at times by those contributors. We have witnessed that in the NDP pandering to the big unions at the expense of the people of British Columbia. We would see, as we have in the past, that if the Liberals were government they would have their chains jerked by Howe Street. The people get left out: sound bites; coloured, glossy brochures; speeches crafted south of the border to mean something other than what they say. The people of B.C. are tired of this.
[ Page 13040 ]
Some may say I'm knocking unions or big business. I am doing neither. In this province we need unions and the people in them. We need all kinds of big business if we are going to continue to supply the services to the people that we have in the past -- but not at the total expense of the average British Columbian. We need people from all walks of life, whether represented in this chamber by a government member or by an opposition member.
Hon. Speaker, I don't know about your constituency, but if I were to go to my constituency -- and each one of us will this weekend -- and talk to people in their workplaces.... In my community I could talk to dairy farmers, grain farmers, bison and beef ranchers, store workers, business people, public employees, truck drivers, cat operators, well-site operators and office workers. The list goes on and on. They are the salt of the earth. They are the people who pay the bills in this province. If I were to tell them that I am here responding to a Speech from the Throne, along with everyone else expounding on what government has done wrong and what they should and shouldn't do, almost any one of those people would say: "Well, it's time you got off the throne. It's time you started representing me. I sent you to Victoria to govern this province and to live up to your promises. And for goodness' sake, quit spending my tax money foolishly and start running government like I run my household: within my means. That means that what I take in is all that I can expend."
This government has not received....
An Hon. Member: Have you got a mortgage on your house?
R. Neufeld: The member opposite chirps about whether I have a mortgage on this house. Yes, I do, and I know it will be paid off in 15 years. The way this government goes, we'll never be paid off. We'll never be out of debt. If you keep borrowing the way you have, we'll hit the wall like New Zealand has. The tax and debt that we see now in this province is absolutely unsustainable. The Liberals leaked a document from the Finance ministry that confirmed that just recently. It was just before the little BCTV speech, or whatever it was called, where your government was going to tell the people of British Columbia how great you were doing, and you couldn't even get that right.
A. Warnke: Some town hall meeting.
[12:15]
R. Neufeld: A real town hall meeting.
What does it take for this government to realize? I hear members talk about spending more and spending more. You look at the throne speech: it's spend, spend, spend. And I don't care what stripe, whether you're a Liberal, a Conservative, an NDPer, a Reformer or a Socred -- all have overspent. I guess Reform has never been there to have the chance, but may. But all have overspent, every one of them.
Where are we in Canada? The Minister of Social Services was talking about how the federal government is cutting back on giving money to the provinces and cutting back services. My goodness, they should have been doing it an absolutely long time ago. Here we are $550 billion in debt, and we've got people over there saying spend more. It's no wonder that we're in trouble -- $550 billion in federal debt alone.
We have members opposite, members of the government, saying spend more. So we know what they would want to do in British Columbia -- in fact, it's in the throne speech -- and that is to continue spending. I'm not going to go back to the last year that you shared with Social Credit, where you really racked up the bills. I'm going to take just this government's record, just the last three and a half years. A $4 billion increase in taxation: where does that come from? It comes from the ordinary person, the person working on the street, the person carrying the lunchbucket.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: "No, no, no," the member opposite says. That is where it comes from.
On top of that, there has been a $7.5 billion increase in debt in three and a half years. That's almost doubling the direct government debt. With only a few more billion, you would have doubled the direct government debt in three years. This is absolutely unsustainable, as this government was told by the Finance department.
We have the highest personal income tax rates in British Columbia now, thanks to you people, and the highest corporate tax and highest small business tax rates. Servicing just the direct government debt has gone from about $450 million a year to almost a billion -- doubled. And you're still saying: "Spend more. We're going to spend our way out of this. We're going to go out there and buy votes in British Columbia."
People are tired of that. People are so tired of politicians coming around with big promises like your government made during the last election, promising the sky, and then not fulfilling them, and putting people so far in debt that they can't see the end. They can't see the light at the end of the tunnel.
The expectations that we've given people are enormous. You talk about capping the debt at the end of your term and starting to pay it down. The expectations that your government has given to people in the last three and a half years.... I'll tell you, you're going to have a hard time capping that debt.
I wonder: does that mean the end of schools? Does that mean we're not going to build any more hospitals, not going to do anything more, not going to build another Island Highway, not going to do anything more in Vancouver or in the north, not going to buy any more ferries? Does that mean we're just going to cap the debt, because we've done everything? Hon. Speaker, most people wonder where your government is coming from.
We're all to blame for the expectations we've given our young people. I'm to blame; I've done it in my family. I rode a used bicycle all the time when I was young. I said to myself that when my children grew up they were going to have a bicycle that fit them -- right from when they were small till they were tall, and I did it.
When I look back today just at that little part of life, that was wrong. I've given them expectations that they're going to have a tough time meeting in today's world. It's not fair; it's not right. At some point in time we have to start thinking about our young people in the province. And that doesn't mean we slash and burn everything; that doesn't mean that we don't provide services to people; that doesn't mean that we don't provide medicare. What it does mean is that we provide what we can afford, what we can live within.
Along with the debt that we've incurred in this province, we've done it at a time when we've had the best economy. Your government brags about it. We've had the best economy of any province in Canada, and we've racked up debts that are unsurpassed in per capita rate by any other province in Canada. For goodness' sake, in her speech yesterday the member from Prince George talked about being in a recession.
[ Page 13041 ]
It's no wonder you're confused. We've got a few thinking we're in a recession and some thinking we have the best economy in Canada. We're racking up debt faster than we can ever pay it off. And taxes and fees -- there isn't anything that there is not a fee on today, and whatever there were fees on before are either doubled, tripled or have gone up a thousand times. In three and a half years this government has accomplished all that.
One member spoke yesterday about the fortunes of the forest companies and how their revenues are up, and it's all because of such good government. Oh, my goodness. Can you imagine? How hypocritical! It has nothing to do with good government. I'll tell you what it has got a whole bunch to do with: it's the fact that we've reduced cutting, and we should because we couldn't continue to gobble up our forests like we were in the past. But there are places where we have increased the harvest, and there are places where we have decreased it.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
There are no cutting permits being given out by the Ministry of Forests. In fact, in my constituency they haul logs from the Yukon so B.C. Rail can transport them to Prince George. That's a distance of about 1,000 or 1,200 miles, to put it into perspective. It's the same distance if you get on an airplane and fly from here to Fort St. John. That's how far they're moving logs to keep this province going. There's a shortage of fibre in this province; there's a shortage of fibre in North America. That's what's driving the price up. And guess who gets to pay the price? Go out and build a house. Talk about a mortgage! Who pays for that?
Increase the debt so that Standard and Poor's can start giving us debt-rating problems. Guess who pays the price there. Guess who pays when their mortgage rate goes from 7 3/4 to 10 3/4. It's the average British Columbian; it's the average person out there who's trying to make a living. And it's that average person who's saying: "Government, I don't care what stripe you are, because you're all the same. What you're doing is spending too much money. It's time you spent less and spent a little wiser." You used to hear that "spend wiser" from this government. The record shows, and it is terrible. Spending wiser? Yeah.
Compass Inc. polled about 2,600 Canadians this past December, talking about debt, taxes and the delivery of services. There were people from all walks of life: $30,000- to $70,000-a-year earners. They listed the poll out. Some 85 percent of those polled, and it didn't matter whether they were rich or poor.... This government will say: "It's only the rich; it's only the rich; it's only the rich." Listen to me, hon. Speaker. This government doesn't know what it's doing. Whether they're making $20,000, $30,000 or $70,000, it's the people of British Columbia who are concerned about the state of finances, the state of taxation and the state of our services in this great country of ours, Canada. If we don't get our house in order -- and we'd better start here at the provincial level -- we're going to be in the same place.
Right now the average wage in Canada is just under $58,000. Of that, $27,000 goes to taxes and fees of some sort. That's as much as they pay to have shelter, food and clothing. People are really afraid, and so they should be. It's incumbent on us as government and opposition not to continually ask for more. It's incumbent on us to look after all of the people in the province so we can continue to enjoy the services we have for so long.
I wanted to go through some of the promises that were made by the NDP government prior to the election. I'm going to do just a few of them fairly quickly, because they tie in quite well with the throne speech. Promise No. 4: "We will not spend more than British Columbians can afford." I wonder who's telling them who can afford what. Is it Karl Struble or who? Because let me tell you, as I go around this province people are saying: "I can't afford any more." That's what they're saying.
Promise No. 6: "A New Democrat government will help small and medium-sized businesses grow. We will work with business to achieve regulatory reform and reduce the paperwork burden." Let me tell you, we've heard from different members that small businesses have shut down because of the increase in paperwork and regulatory control. In fact, it's blossomed under this government something tremendous to 80 bills a session. I think what we should be doing is coming back here and maybe sitting down and saying we're going to remove 80 bills a session for a change, so that we can get down, so that people can start doing the things that they want to in this province and start receiving some of the services that they should.
Promise No. 15: "There's no excuse for poverty in a fortunate province like B.C." You're absolutely right. But what have we seen? They talk about the province having the best economy in Canada. We've seen the Social Services ministry budget go up by a billion dollars, and the Liberal member says it's not enough. We've seen it go up a billion dollars. We've seen over 100,000 more people added to social assistance; one in every ten British Columbians is on assistance of some kind from this government. That's looking after poverty? That's creating all these marvellous, phantom jobs they talk about -- 65,000 phantom jobs? I don't know, but there are obviously some jobs. But you can't go out and borrow money as government to create jobs and think they're long term. It has to be done by the private sector -- that's who creates meaningful, long-term jobs.
We go to the one that I am really enthralled with: "Fair treatment for our regions and our suburbs. Our growth, our prosperity and our services must be shared fairly by all British Columbians." Well, that's one promise that this government has broken, and broken badly.
You talk about the regions. Talk about my region, the Peace River and Peace River North. We've seen this government reduce the spending on roads to almost nothing. We've seen the roads deteriorate to almost nothing. My constituency has the most gravel roads of any constituency in the province. We've seen them deteriorate to nothing, but we've seen the natural resources of that community, of that part of British Columbia, increase tenfold. And where have they gone? Down here to the black hole of Vancouver, never to return. That's another promise broken by this government. And there's a whole list of them. The Columbia River Treaty was expounded on yesterday by the Premier, trying to prop up a lame minister and a few MLAs from that area by giving a billion dollars back to the area for what happened during the construction of those dams. What about the Peace River? One-third of B.C. Hydro's electricity capabilities come from the Peace Canyon Dam and the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. Did anything go back there? Nary a stitch. There are people within ten miles of that dam who don't even enjoy electricity -- can't even flick the switch.
We've contributed millions from our natural resources and natural gas, and that's the only part of the province it comes from -- hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to the provincial coffers. Some people in my constituency don't enjoy natural gas, yet thousands on the lower mainland don't even know they have it; don't even know how fortunate
[ Page 13042 ]
they are to have it. We have a public utilities commission driven by this government that goes up there and says: "Hey, in the wintertime when you burn natural gas to heat your house, we're going to double the price; in the summertime, we're going to turn it down a bit." Those people were run out of town. Can you imagine doing that to people in the north? They heat their homes longer than anybody else in the province. They produce it. The drilling is done in their back yard. The pipelines go through their back yard to help the masses down here. And what do they get in return? "We'll double your price." That's really fair.
[12:30]
If we look at rural B.C. and at the contributions made to Vancouver, not just those my constituency makes but those made by every constituency in rural British Columbia, if it was not for all those natural resources -- all those logs, sulphur, lumber, natural gas and hydro -- what would Vancouver be? It would be just a little place. You wouldn't be worried about building new highways to look after everyone. We work hand in hand. People in the north understand quite well that you need new transportation links in the lower mainland. They're quite happy about the Vancouver Island Highway. They're quite happy about doing work on the 401. They say: "No problem, let's do it. But let's spend a little bit in rural British Columbia, too. Just because they are a smaller population...." Again, it's the people who are getting shafted by this government and who, in a lot of cases, got shafted by the last one. That's not fair. We should be looking after the needs of people.
The NDP talks about slash and burn. Talk about slash and burn. We have a Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources who slashed and burned a rural gasification program; roads in rural B.C.; the Beatton crossing that has been under construction for six or eight years. There are six bridges there. My goodness, we got a million bucks last year, so I guess we should be happy, but this year they say they are not going to do anything, because of overexpenditure in other areas -- I guess the Island Highway. Again, it's the people who are getting it in the neck. They're getting shafted.
There is a litany of friends and insiders.... Promises one and two are that you won't have to be a friend of this government to get a job. Friends and insiders. "Mike Harcourt...committed to open and balanced government that deals fairly with ordinary men and women instead of playing favourites with political friends and insiders. You won't need an inside track to get fair treatment...."
This is only a list -- I think it's about 12 pages -- up to early 1992. If we went on to now, it would be huge. That's what people are tired of: the government not telling the truth, making all kinds of promises, like the member for Nanaimo has, and not living up to them. Even the Premier is under a conflict probe, in three and a half lousy years. You talk about the last administration being bad. It took them 20 years to get there. This government has managed it in three and a half, in fact less than three and a half years.
Then they stand and say they're the defenders of medicare, that they are the only ones who care about medicare. Every British Columbian, whether they are an NDPer, a Socred, a Reformer or a Liberal, really cares about medicare. All of us care about medicare. But because it is one-third of the budget, of course there are things in medicare we have to look at, as to what we can and can't afford. No one on the opposition benches says we're going to eliminate medicare. I have never heard a Liberal say it. Yet if you listen to the NDP, you would believe that that's what everyone on the opposition benches is saying. That is totally unfair and wrong.
Here they are: the defenders of medicare are closing hospitals, there's reduction in services, and Closer to Home isn't working. In Peace River North, we're losing doctors faster than we can find them. We can't get the Minister of Health to help us get doctors from South Africa, because you can't get them to come out of the lower mainland. No, you just leave them, then you fly those patients you can't look after in your own hospitals to that slash-and-burn Alberta. And guess what. They do it cheaper, and you come back just as healthy. Absolutely amazing, isn't it?
Talk about Alberta and slash and burn. They continue to compare Alberta to what would happen in British Columbia. The number of welfare recipients is down in Alberta, but not in B.C. Their own stats show them that the people who have infiltrated the welfare rolls in B.C. are from that other NDP haven in Ontario. That's where they're coming from.
Alberta's unemployment is down. You know why? Because they are starting to get their house in order. Companies are starting business, and people are going to work in the private sector. Can you believe it? That's what's happening in that terrible slash-and-burn Alberta.
They're getting spending under control. It was out of control, and there's no doubt about it, but they're getting it under control. They have fewer payroll taxes and a tremendous amount of room to move in taxation. That's one thing we don't have in British Columbia, because we have removed the room to move. We're at the top in taxation and debt, and it's time we started looking at it for the people of British Columbia.
K. Jones: It is with pleasure that I rise to reply to the Speech from the Throne. There is so little substance in the speech that has been presented by this government -- this agenda for the upcoming session, this indication of their drive and enthusiasm, which is not there. They are a dead, dormant government, and it is shown in the total inadequacies, the nothingness, the thinness and flimsiness of this Speech from the Throne.
Since we don't have sufficient time at this point to really elaborate on that, and in view of the time and the desire of members to get back to their constituencies, I move that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of this House.
K. Jones moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the House do now adjourn and that people have a wonderful weekend and enjoy themselves with their families and constituents.
Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:38 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]