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)
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 13043 ]
Volume 18, Number 5
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It is with sadness that I rise today to ask all colleagues to join with me in asking the Speaker to forward our condolences to the family and friends of Monique Caritey, who passed away Friday in Vancouver. Ms. Caritey, I'm sure you will all remember, was a journalist in Vancouver with the French service of the CBC for over 20 years. She was born in France just about 50 years ago. She started her journalism career in Lyons with the daily le Progress. After moving to Vancouver in the mid-1960s, she joined the Company of Young Canadians, and in 1970 joined CUSO to teach French and English in Mali.
I think that expresses the essence of Monique, and I think those of you who had the pleasure of knowing her would know that she did have that tremendous international sense about her.
When she returned to Vancouver, she went to work with the current affairs program at Radio Canada, and soon after moved to the TV newsroom. As well, she was a legislative reporter, and, although based in Vancouver -- to show you the respect she received from her colleagues -- she was a full member of the Victoria press gallery for years. Monique covered three provincial election campaigns and, as many of you are aware, numerous NDP, Social Credit and Liberal conventions.
She was always active in her community. She served on the board of day care societies, a food co-op and many journalism organizations. She was also a very good sportsperson -- an avid kayaker and a good skier.
She will be missed by her husband and high school sweetheart, Pierre Caritey, and by her daughter Odelle, her son Rama and so many friends and colleagues by whom she was respected and loved.
D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf today I want to welcome a group of students and their chaperons visiting us from Olympia, Washington. They are taking part in what I understand is a Rotary exchange. Their chaperons are Jim Sigitowicz and Joe Beaulieu, and the students' names are Bryann Lee, Kim Vandelsen, Nicole Coleman, Nathan Chateaubriand and Rohit Rohila. There is also in their group a Belgian exchange student by the name of Edith Vincke. I ask all my colleagues to please make them welcome, wherever they are.
G. Campbell: I'd like to ask the House to welcome Cass Willem and her son, David, to the precinct today. Cass has been very active in the city of Vancouver and was one of the driving forces behind the effort to save the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra. I'd like us to make her welcome.
M. de Jong: Joining us in the precincts today from Mission are Mr. and Mrs. Ken Herar. Mr. Herar is the president of the growing group of Liberals in that riding.
Also joining us in the precincts, from the constituency of Abbotsford, is Lorraine Lantaigne. She again is here awaiting that announcement that the Premier continues to hint at, regarding a by-election in the constituency of Abbotsford.
Please make them welcome.
J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure to welcome a good friend of mine and former constituency president, Tom Harkins, who is visiting with us today. Would the House please help me make him welcome.
D. Mitchell: We're joined today in the galleries by three constituents of mine from West Vancouver, who come here for the first time. Would the House please make welcome John and Sally Finora and their daughter, Jill Finora.
G. Janssen: I ask the members to join us on this joyous occasion in wishing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville a happy sixtieth birthday.
Also, I'm sure all members are familiar with the New Democratic Party caucus director, Elaine Doyle, whose birthday it is also.
INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCTION
Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise today to make a ministerial statement on another important component of my government's jobs and investment strategy. In particular, I rise to speak about B.C. Hydro's recent request for a proposal from independent power producers.
You will recall that in December 1994, I announced a new vision for B.C. Hydro for the twenty-first century. This new vision ensured that Hydro continues to be a catalyst for jobs and economic development. Hydro's new vision is an important component of my government's strategy to create many new jobs, good family-supporting jobs, throughout this province. Part of Hydro's new vision involves promoting and facilitating private sector participation in energy supply. To that end, I announced last December that B.C. Hydro was requesting submissions from independent power producers to produce between 200 and 300 megawatts of electricity for our province. I specifically asked Hydro to seek proposals that involved not only supplying power but also saving power.
I am pleased to inform the House today that B.C. Hydro has received 48 submissions from independent power producers. In total, Hydro received proposals adding up to more than 3,000 megawatts of power. Natural-gas-fired plants account for 13 proposals, totalling 2,600 megawatts of capacity. There were also 16 proposals for hydroelectric plants, with a total capacity of 217 megawatts. The remaining 19 proposals involve wood waste generation or conservation projects.
I am very pleased at the size and quality of the response Hydro received. It is a clear indicator of the private sector's interest in and support for my government's belief in promoting private-public partnerships as a means of ensuring affordable energy for British Columbians. I can tell the House that this is just the beginning of a new partnership between government and independent power producers. This is a partnership that will result in low-cost power, which will act as a catalyst for industrial and economic development throughout our province. I can also tell the House that the initial evaluation process of the 48 submissions is now underway, and an announcement on a shortlist will be made over the next few months.
[2:15]
The request for proposals is part and parcel of a vision for Hydro that will carry B.C. forward into the twenty-first century, a vision that will ensure that British Columbians continue to have access to affordable, environmentally friendly supplies of energy and a vision that involves our government
[ Page 13044 ]
working in partnership with the private sector to create jobs and economic prosperity for British Columbians in all regions of our province.
G. Campbell: It is with some pleasure that I welcome the Premier's announcement today that the government has finally allowed independent power producers to come forward with proposals on how they can provide low-cost power in British Columbia.
For three years now, the independent power producers have been banging on this government's door, and as has been the government wont, the answer was always: "No, no, we can do better. We know more. Forget it. Don't come. You can't do it." The fact of the matter is that the government has finally seen the light, only because the BCUC rejected Hydro's rate increases and because the BCUC said it was time that they condemned Hydro for closing out the independent power producers. I think it's appropriate that the government has finally acted.
Let me say from this side of the House that one would hope the government will in fact use the proper analytical techniques to look at these independent power producers' proposals -- not recommendations like we saw from B.C. Hydro last week with the Columbia Basin. I hope that we will look at receiving the lowest-priced power for the province and stop having our electrical utility used for social development purposes and for this government's political purposes.
There is no question that with this proposal call there is an opportunity for us to provide lower-priced power to the people of British Columbia, and we look forward to that happening for a change.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, a vision coming from the other side, a vision from a government that is so old that it was.... This is a vision that this government categorically rejected in 1991. When it took office in 1991, there was in place a plan to use 85 percent of the wood waste in British Columbia to generate electricity. The new B.C. Energy Council put that program on hold. Hon. Speaker, that's a vision that puts a process on hold....
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: These folks should have an opportunity to sit back and reflect on the discussions in this Legislature in 1992. The Minister of Environment now was responsible for B.C. Hydro, and he would have heard then the program that was laid out and the program we were asking for. If, in 1993, the minister then responsible for Hydro heard those same concerns.... There have been proposals made to the government from independent producers in 1991, and they were rejected by this government. We hear that there are 48 submissions. I suspect many of them were dated before this government came to office. We hear now from a government, who have put in jeopardy the economy of the town of Mackenzie, a proposal that now acknowledges that they need more power in the system. This government has failed to, in any coherent way....
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: The nickel-and-dime seats say: "I dare you to vote against it." I implemented it in 1991 as Minister of Energy. It was this government that cancelled the plan. Why in the world would I want to vote against it?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: I trust that as the Premier rejected those policies and plans that were in place in 1991, he will also reject any advice that the Leader of the Opposition might give him on the analysis of Hydro projects, because we know exactly how he goes about analyzing projects like Kemano. This government is at least three and a half years late with this proposal, and unfortunately, it is going to cost us a good deal of money. Having said those things, it's better late than never. If you look back and reinstate some of the other misguided decisions you made, we'll support them.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: We can only hope that the last voice we heard from will never play much of a role in any policy development in this province.
What I want to say again is that what we're hearing today is the reinstatement of decisions cancelled by this government when it took office in 1991. It is sad that it took three and a half years for their government to realize the mistakes it made when it first took office.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
The Speaker: Is leave granted? I hear a nay, hon. member.
Leave not granted.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please.
C. Serwa: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
The Speaker: I hear a nay, hon. member.
Leave not granted.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please.
PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR ACT, 1995
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 1995.
D. Mitchell: This bill establishes a fixed parliamentary calendar with a schedule for sittings of this House. Under this bill, there will be two sessions of the Legislature each year. The first would commence on the first Monday in March and last no longer than four months. The second would commence the day after Thanksgiving in October for a maximum duration of two months. Furthermore, at the opening of a new session of parliament, the Speaker of the House must draw up, with the advice of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, a parliamentary calendar to comply with the provisions of this act.
[ Page 13045 ]
Nothing, however, prevents the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the Legislative Assembly from amending the parliamentary calendar or from recalling the House in between sessions to deal with emergencies related to the health, safety or economic well-being of the people of British Columbia.
The requirement for a session to commence can also be waived when a provincial general election occurs within 60 days of the date fixed for a legislative session.
The federal House of Commons has a parliamentary calendar, as do many other legislatures. It is now time to end the current ad hoc approach in our province, which sometimes results in either legislation by exhaustion or lengthy periods of adjournment such as the recent one which lasted for 256 days. Surely that was one of the longest adjournments in the history of our provincial parliament. It is now time to enact a parliamentary calendar in British Columbia, and I am pleased to commend this bill to members of the House.
Bill M205 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.
D. Mitchell presented a bill intituled Budget Presentation Act, 1995.
D. Mitchell: Many organizations in both the public and private sectors of our province are strongly affected by the government's fiscal plans and have a right to receive this information in a regular and predictable manner. This bill provides for a fixed budget date each year. It also requires the government to publicly release a White Paper setting forth the government's financial projections for the provincial economy no later that the first Monday in December. This White Paper would include the financial assumptions, trends and requirements of not only government ministries but all Crown corporations for the following fiscal year.
In addition, this bill requires the Minister of Finance to present the provincial budget for the following fiscal year for all government ministries and Crown corporations to the Legislative Assembly for its consideration no later than the third Monday in March every year.
This bill introduces a much-needed level of stability and certainty in the affairs of government and of this House. British Columbians have a right to regular and predictable budgetary reports from their government. I am very pleased to commend this bill to all members and trust that the government will agree during this session to debate private members' bills.
Bill M206 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.
TENDERING OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT MINISTRY CONTRACTS
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. On March 6 in the Vancouver Sun, he said with regard to the tendering of contracts: "The policy is that you should tender everything over $50,000" -- and it's only ever fettered by speed or particular expertise. "We don't do it very often but it does happen." Does the minister stand by his comments that non-tendered contracts are the exception rather than the rule?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's very interesting, because the Liberal caucus has come into possession of confidential Ministry of Employment and Investment documentation, and if I may say, it lists two lists: one has the non-tendered contracts and one has the tendered contracts -- and one is substantially longer than the other. I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Investment if he can explain why his comments in answer to the last question are directly at odds with documents produced by his own ministry. Will he finally tell this House the truth?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I would ask him to withdraw the last comment.
The Speaker: I didn't hear the exact phraseology. However, if the member is being asked to withdraw an offensive statement, would the member do so?
G. Farrell-Collins: I asked the minister to tell the truth. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking that question, and I will not withdraw that question. However, my question to the minister was....
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please. A request was made for the member to withdraw, and I understand that the member has done so. With that, the member wishes to state his question?
Interjections.
The Speaker: The member did withdraw, I heard.
Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. This is going to be one of those days, I see. The Chair is in error. Did the member not withdraw the offensive comment?
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to know what it is I'm being asked to withdraw.
The Speaker: The member is being asked.... Proceed, hon. minister.
Hon. G. Clark: The member indicated.... He asked if I'd finally tell the truth in the House, and as all members know, I always tell the truth in the House. I ask the member to withdraw the statement.
The Speaker: Thank you. Would the hon. member please withdraw.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps he misunderstood me. I will be glad to have the minister tell the truth. Can he tell us what's wrong with the difference between what he said and what he's been doing?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member is being asked to rephrase his comment, which he has rephrased. Is that satisfactory with the hon. minister?
[ Page 13046 ]
[2:30]
Hon. G. Clark: That's fine, hon. Speaker.
Over the last three years about 400 contracts have been let by my ministry. I think there would be more than one and a half pages. Of the 400-odd contracts, the vast majority are tendered. From time to time -- whether it be legal bills or legal advice or engineering advice or economic consulting advice or communication advice -- where there is particular expertise or where speed is warranted.... We're trying to get on with doing the job, and from time to time that means giving contracts to people who have the particular expertise or the speed, and we do that without tender. But the vast majority of contracts issued by my ministry are tendered.
NEW DIRECTIONS AND DYING HEART PATIENT
L. Reid: It is with dismay and sadness that I ask the Premier about his responsibilities towards Bobby Fraser, a woman in Saanich who is dying of heart disease. As the Premier is aware, Bobby has decided to spend her remaining days at home. Yet instead of looking at this as an opportunity to respect a patient's dying wish, this government has done everything in its power to harass and provoke this woman. Mr. Premier, from the correspondence, we know that you have reviewed this file extensively. What is your New Directions plan for Bobby Fraser? For the sake of this family, Mr. Premier.... We are there for medicare; surely you're there for your New Directions plan.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST INVESTIGATION OF PREMIER
M. de Jong: Almost four years ago to the day, the then Leader of the Opposition stood in this chamber and said: "The Premier and his government must understand that they are not above the law." He then asked: "Is no one on the government benches prepared to tell the Premier that he has to step aside to preserve the integrity of the office of Premier?"
I didn't launch the investigation into the Premier's conduct that is presently taking place. I would like to think that the Premier is not a hypocrite. We need to know from the Premier himself how he can reconcile calling for Mr. Vander Zalm's resignation during a conflict investigation, and not take a similar course of action to protect the integrity of his own office.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I have said about the allegation, it is without foundation, it is unfair and it is politically motivated. As the Premier I have my duties to perform, and I'm not going to let an unfounded allegation stop me from carrying out the priorities of our government, which is creating jobs for British Columbians and defending medicare against the Liberals, both here and in Ottawa.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: It's clear that the Premier's sense of integrity has changed dramatically since he crossed the floor to sit on the government side.
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
M. de Jong: Will the Premier at least offer us this commitment: if he or his office is found by Mr. Hughes to be in conflict, will he commit to resigning his office?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is the opposition that made allegations against the Attorney General, who was cleared. This is the opposition that made allegations against the Minister of Agriculture, who was independently investigated and cleared. This is the Liberal opposition that made allegations against the Minister of Finance and the Health minister on privacy matters, and they were cleared of any wrongdoing. This is the opposition that mocks the rule of law that people are innocent until proven guilty and have rights. They are prepared to trample over people's rights and reputation and integrity. They will be judged for this shallow gossip and for destroying people's integrity with pure allegations. They will be judged in the next election.
INTERIM AGREEMENTS IN ABORIGINAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The government's secretive approach to the development of interim measures has once again resulted in a letter from one member of the TNAC committee. The process to date has cost taxpayers and stakeholders an enormous amount of money and has caused damage to British Columbia that is not defensible by law. Will the government agree today to suspend any further negotiations on interim agreements until a clear policy is in place to direct those people who are negotiating interim agreements on behalf of all British Columbians?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, here I am in my sixties, and I can't get any respect. Anyway, I hope the member in his earlier comments wasn't referring to me when he referred to our government as old.
Hon. Speaker, I want you to know that I was just talking to Mr. Lampert, who wrote the letter. This is the second time I have received a letter from the Business Council that reached the media before it reached me. I know that was not Mr. Lampert's intent. He knows that I welcome his input into these significant issues which we are working on together, and I don't in any way want to remove the opportunity of receiving his advice. At the same time, if he had called me, I could have explained to him, with regard to the issue of the negotiations at Penticton, that there are copious documents outlining the consultation that took place pursuant to receiving that agreement.
I think that is very, very important. There was consultation every step of the way. There was consultation with the regional district; there was consultation with the city of Penticton and the city of Keremeos; there was consultation with the chamber of commerce. There were multiple meetings with these groups. There were meetings and daily consultation with Apex Resorts and with the company that had been...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister please wind up his response.
Hon. J. Cashore: ...in place to carry out the contract with regard to the development up there. So I do recognize, in receiving this information....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: I do recognize that in receiving this concern from the Business Council that we have a responsibil-
[ Page 13047 ]
ity to continue to attempt to balance the views of big business with those of the communities in the area and their concerns.
The Speaker: A supplemental question, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: One thing the minister will be grateful for is that even the Reform Party recognizes that at age 60 you should be entitled to an MLA's pension, and given that response, I guess it underlines the importance of that provision.
The government has, without any process, negotiated over 50 interim agreements, many of which effectively give bands veto power over resource use in the traditional territories. Indeed, the government is giving away its bargaining chips before it even gets to the negotiating table. Why have the minister and the government put mid-level bureaucrats in the untenable position of having to undermine the government's own negotiators because of a lack of any strategic plan or any strategic direction?
Hon. J. Cashore: When the hon. member repeats that again and again and again, that does not make it correct. The simple repetition of that which is incorrect does not make it correct. Interim measures agreements provide a process to give effect to court-ordered rights....
Interjections.
Hon. J. Cashore: Obviously, members of the opposition are not interested in hearing an answer.
Interim measures do not prejudice treaty negotiations, and interim measures are not legally enforceable. We cannot be taken to court over interim measures. The other thing is that in negotiating these interim measures -- contrary to what this member has said -- we have consulted vastly and widely, and we have consulted the appropriate parties. I have also tabled at the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee the updated list of completed interim measures, and those are underway. With regard to the example in Mr. Lampert's letter regarding the issue up at Fort St. James, you might wish to direct a question of the Minister of Forests.
ABBOTSFORD BY-ELECTION
K. Jones: Since November 20, 1994, the people of Abbotsford have been without representation in this Legislative Assembly. First it was a vague reference by the Premier to a spring election. Now it's hurry up and wait for the Reform Party to elect a candidate. Mr. Premier, how long will the people of Abbotsford be held hostage by the NDP government and their new-found political allies in the Reform Party?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, what a terrible thing to say about their potential allies in the Reform Party! Why, I just heard the leader of the Reform Party say sure, he'd form a minority government partnership in a minute after the next election. But you know, it's not going to happen. So I'd be awfully easy on your potential allies over there, member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
I can say that it was a decision of a Social Credit member to resign to seek the mayor's seat last November. He was unsuccessful. I said at the time that I was going to wait until after the House had started and then I would make a decision, based on two or three things that I mentioned earlier, which I'm sure the member heard me talk about in January or February. I can tell the House that I will be making a decision on the by-election soon.
Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the following documents: Legal Services Society of British Columbia annual reports, 1992-93 and 1993-94; B.C. liquor distribution branch annual report, 1994; Prowse commission of inquiry report, July 1994; report of commission of inquiry into policing in British Columbia, commonly called the Oppal report, September 1994; British Columbia Police Commission annual report, 1993-94; and Pacific Racing Association annual report of operations for the year ended March 31, 1994.
Hon. J. MacPhail tabled the report of the Ministry of Social Services for the year 1992-93.
(continued)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale adjourned debate.
The Leader of the Third Party rises on a matter?
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, there was an agreement in this Legislature that I would respond to the Speech from the Throne at commencement after question period today. That was reinforced as part of some negotiations that went on Thursday last, and I certainly anticipate that those agreements are still in force.
The Speaker: If that is the case the Chair has no difficulty with that.
G. Farrell-Collins: The agreement was that the Leader of the Third Party would have the opportunity to speak after question period today. We are more than willing to let that happen, and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale will continue his comments later this afternoon.
The Speaker: That's fine. The member's position will be reserved for later today.
[2:45]
J. Weisgerber: I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak in response to the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne was in fact a slap in the face for British Columbians from a government that is deaf to taxpayers' pleas, blind to fiscal reality and as dumb as the day it was elected. The government hasn't heard one word taxpayers have said if it thinks it can continue to tax, borrow and spend its way back into power. For this government, the concept of fiscal responsibility is an oxymoron. The throne speech suggests what the budget will prove tomorrow: this government still hasn't got the courage to cut spending and to cut debt as taxpayers have demanded for the last three months.
The NDP's new debt plan will be as pithy and pathetic as the Premier's recent performance on BCTV. It will not be a credible prescription for affordable government, because it won't come to grips with the fundamental change of reducing government spending and borrowing in real terms.
L. Stephens: What will you do?
J. Weisgerber: The member for Langley wants to know what we would do. I interrupt to suggest to her to please stay, because in this next half-hour you will learn exactly what it is
[ Page 13048 ]
we will do -- in contrast to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition.
The government won't come to grips with the need for fundamental change in reducing government spending and borrowing. I hope I'm wrong, but my reading of the throne speech suggests that it is a message of support for the status quo and the rationale that underlies it. It is an argument for increased spending and increased debt that borrows tomorrow's borrowing in an attempt to disguise the opposite. It's a philosophical piece of fluff aimed at justifying a fiscal approach which the government's senior adviser to Treasury Board warns is unaffordable. Chris Trumpy warned the government that the current debt plan is unsustainable even with modest budget surpluses over a decade. Even with all the new debt that this government has added, British Columbia still has the lowest per capita debt of any province in Canada and the lowest relative debt burden. That speaks volumes about the relative health of our provincial finances that the government inherited.
Since March 1991, the spend-and-borrow fiscal approach has taken a tremendous toll on this province. Direct government debt -- the amount of operating debt, not including Crown corporations -- has more than doubled in the past four years. Tax-supported debt, the debt for all purposes that can only be repaid from taxes, has soared by 98 percent from $9.7 billion to $19.2 billion. Tax-supported debt has grown from 11.9 percent of gross domestic product to over 19 percent today. In the last three budgets, the total direct and guaranteed provincial debt has gone from under $20 billion to $27.4 billion today, an increase in debt of more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia.
In that same period of time, taxes have increased by an average of $2,000 a family. The government's tax revenues have grown by over 26 percent in the last three years, while average, pretax family incomes have actually dropped when adjustments for inflation are counted.
There are now 345,000 British Columbians on welfare, 100,000 more people on income assistance than there were in 1991. Welfare costs are up by more than $900 million under the NDP, an increase equal to $530 for each and every taxpayer in British Columbia in just three years. Taxpayers are now paying, on average, $1,570 apiece every year to support the Ministry of Social Services. British Columbia now has the highest marginal income tax rate in Canada and the highest small business income tax rate. Three short years ago we had the third-lowest income tax rate and the lowest small business rate in the country. Annual interest costs on new NDP debt have grown by almost $400 million a year despite the lowest interest rates in 30 years. That's a 53 percent increase in debt-servicing costs in just three years. In short, it's apparent to everyone except the NDP that the government is living way beyond its means.
The throne speech doesn't seem to recognize that fact. Rather, the throne speech points to two opposing visions of how the government should operate in today's economy. The government would have us believe that there are only two options: one is to slash and burn; the other is to make so-called affordable investments in natural resources, infrastructure and people. This is a false dichotomy that skirts the central question which each option purports to answer from an opposite perspective.
The real question is: how much spending can any government reasonably cut to get its fiscal house in order without unreasonably compromising service levels or investments in infrastructure and natural resources that taxpayers truly need? Tomorrow the budget should give us a better idea of what the government's answer to that question is. For now, in response to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, let me spell out the fiscal strategy that I think is most appropriate to ensure that the government lives within the taxpayers' ability to pay.
Reform B.C.'s fiscal strategy as a general approach to fiscal planning is that the government should: (a) cut spending to balance the budget without increasing taxes; (b) substantially reduce government debt; and (c) finally cut taxes when the first two have been achieved. With the exception of a phased elimination of the corporate capital tax, major tax cuts should be deferred until the direct debt has been significantly reduced.
It is simply not credible to pretend any longer that we can have our cake and eat it too; to delude ourselves into believing that we can increase spending on health, education and social services, balance the budget, cut taxes and pay down the debt all at the same time. The truth is that even with substantial cuts in government spending, it will be a challenge to generate budget surpluses from existing revenues which are needed to pay down the debt and establish a revenue security account.
With cuts in federal transfers estimated to be $400 million next year and $800 million the following year, the government must act now to dramatically reduce its operating expenditures. In addition to federal transfer cuts, future budgets may be significantly affected by court-ordered compensation costs for things like Alcan and Windy Craggy, native land claims settlements, government land use policies and to account for necessary changes in accounting procedures. These measures must be openly anticipated in assessing the government's ongoing revenue requirements and debt reduction strategy. Given that we are at the peak of the business cycle, the government should plan to run a substantial surplus this year.
Spending cuts should be imposed fairly and prudently across the board, with special emphasis on reducing social welfare expenditures and debt servicing costs and on smaller cuts to health care and education.
Government spending should be reduced in real terms by between 3 and 5 percent this year, depending on government revenue projections. This means that the budget should be cut by somewhere between $600 million and $1 billion from last year's budget, notwithstanding population increases.
The goal is entirely achievable in view of the fact that Ralph Klein cut Alberta's budget by 11 percent in two years and reduced program expenditures by $942 million in 1993 and $918 million last year. Unlike Alberta, British Columbia would not require cuts in health care spending of 17.6 percent, or in education spending of 12.4 percent or, in other departments, of up to 70 or 80 percent. But B.C. taxpayers do want their government to slash and burn waste, inefficiency and patronage spending wherever it exists.
A good place to start would be with the government's propaganda budget, which the Premier says is more than $100 million. Taxpayers simply can't afford to make Ron Johnson and his NDP friends at NOW Communications instant millionaires, nor should they be forced to shell out millions for the Premier to give speeches on television written by Karl Struble in his comfortable offices in Washington, D.C.
Beginning this year, the government should make balanced budgets mandatory by law under B.C.'s Constitution Act. To ensure that no government is able to escape that requirement, the act should specify that the only way a deficit could be incurred is either with the approval of taxpayers by way of referendum or with the unanimous approval of the Legislature.
[ Page 13049 ]
The legal requirement to balance the budget must not be something that can be amended or repealed at the stroke of a pen by a majority government. It should be a constitutional right enshrined in our provincial Constitution Act, amendable only with permission from voters.
Manitoba's new balanced budget act allows deficits under only three circumstances: if Canada is at war, in the event of a serious disaster or where there has been a single-year revenue reduction of 5 percent or more. Such emergency situations should be anticipated and addressed in any balanced-budget legislation.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has also supported balanced-budget legislation, with the proviso that deficits would be permissible if cabinet takes a pay cut equal to the percentage overrun. In my view, this would provide a giant loophole allowing any government to avoid balanced-budget requirements. If the government spends 5 percent more than it raises in revenues, for example, it would cost the Premier $4,500 and cause taxpayers to be obliged for a debt of $1 billion more than was allowed.
Manitoba's new balanced budget act establishes a significantly harsher penalty if a government runs an unauthorized deficit: cabinet gets an automatic pay cut of 20 percent. If a second consecutive deficit is incurred, the pay cut is raised to 40 percent.
We say that any cabinet that can't balance its budget and can't convince taxpayers or every member of the Legislature that a deficit is unavoidable is a cabinet that shouldn't be paid at all. There should be no escape valve for any government that refuses to listen to taxpayers or lacks the discipline to live within its means.
Balanced-budget legislation should be reinforced by workable recall and initiative legislation that gives taxpayers real power to hold their MLAs accountable. Taxpayers must have a workable initiative law to initiate, amend and repeal legislation, including budget measures. The existing Recall and Initiative Act is a bad joke that shows the NDP's contempt for direct democracy. Reform B.C. views workable recall and initiative legislation as yet another way of holding the government's feet to the fire and guaranteeing fiscal responsibility.
[3:00]
Beyond restricting government's ability to spend, it is time we also restricted government's ability to borrow. The NDP's debt plan is clearly not sustainable, even with modest operating surpluses -- as Chris Trumpy warned Treasury Board. Tax-supported debt must be substantially reduced through a credible debt eduction program that is predicated on planned operating surpluses, revenue growth from wealth creation and a vastly reduced capital borrowing program. Government's ability to borrow for capital purposes should be legally restricted to a maximum of 5 percent of revenues, or roughly one-third of the amount being borrowed today. Borrowing for operating deficits should be outlawed altogether.
In addition, the government should abandon its capitalization initiative, which is aimed at pushing more operating costs off the annual budget and under B.C. 21. Everything from vehicle purchases to computer acquisitions to silviculture costs is theoretically capable of being capitalized as assets and financed over many years. We have already seen $500 million in highways construction buried off-budget and amortized, at four times the cost, over 40 years.
During his TV debacle, the Premier tried to draw a distinction between good debt and bad debt. Good debt, his argument goes, is like a mortgage incurred in the purchase of assets. That's utter nonsense. We all have a dream home in mind that we would buy if we could afford it. But the reality is that we are forced by economics to buy a home we can afford and that we can service the mortgage on. It's time government lived up to that same principle and scaled back its borrowing plans to meet taxpayers' needs and to be within taxpayers' ability to pay.
Only governments think they can borrow beyond their means, and only politicians think they can buy taxpayers with their own money. But if recent elections have taught us anything, it's that voters have had it with politicians and bureaucrats who think that way. The change voters want is a government that is honest and upfront about its spending priorities and strong enough to say no to expensive capital projects that it can't afford.
In principle, we support the government's experimentation with public-private partnerships. If we can attract private capital to help defray the costs of building public amenities such as roads, bridges or sewage treatment facilities, we should do it. But public-private partnerships must not be used as a means of further masking the true extent of government debt or the overall burden to B.C. taxpayers. The true financial exposure to the province and taxpayers must be fully recognized in any public-private partnerships. Genuine public-private partnerships must be measured by the risk they pose to the private investor and the net cost savings they are intended to provide for B.C. taxpayers.
So what would a B.C. Reform government do to immediately cut spending? Apart from the measures already noted, there are a number of immediate measures the government should take. Starting at the top, we would immediately eliminate the MLAs' severance plan. We could -- and should -- do that by simple agreement of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. We should immediately restrict eligibility under the MLAs' pension plan to individuals age 60 or older and appoint a truly independent judge to make the MLAs' pension plan truly fair and affordable for taxpayers. The Premier is following Jean Chretien's lead in ensuring the MLAs who have already qualified for a pension get the golden handshake. Their pensions won't be affected by changes. I suspect the Premier understands that a good number of his caucus colleagues are going to be unemployed after the next election, whether they run or not. But I can promise you this: a B.C. Reform government will ensure that every member of the House today will be covered by new pension rules, even if we have to make those changes retroactively.
Next, the government wants to reduce the real cost of public sector wages and benefits by at least 15 percent over three years through program cuts, efficiency gains, wage measures, attrition and privatization initiatives. The government should maximize administrative flexibility within the public sector by reversing the so-called Korbinization of functions that were formerly filled by contractors. I have also suggested a number of specific wage measures to reduce the cost of salaries and benefits. These include putting a legislated cap on severance packages for senior civil servants, instituting a five-day unpaid leave program for public sector workers and imposing an indefinite wage freeze on all positions that pay $50,000 a year or more.
Welfare costs should be reduced through a coordinated approach aimed at ensuring that employable recipients accept work where work is available and by enhancing recipients' employability. For example, a B.C. Reform government would insist that all single, employable recipients routinely pick up their welfare cheques in person; require single parents to be available for employment when their youngest child is six months of age or older, rather than the current situation of 12
[ Page 13050 ]
years; convert welfare for people who own their own homes from an outright grant to a loan registered against property assets that would be fully repayable on the sale of the home, similar to the property tax deferment program.
Health care costs should be cut, beginning with the elimination of the health labour accord, which has added $300 million in costs to hospitals. The government should also institute a hard cap on doctors' billings under the medicare plan and use the new federal funding arrangement as an opportunity to impose greater emphasis on maintaining quality of regional health services. We would favour increasing the availability of private health care alternatives to reduce waiting lists for specialized services. Patients shouldn't have to travel to the United States to receive specialized medical treatment that could be provided here in British Columbia. The government should embrace private delivery alternatives that complement existing public services and reduce health care costs. It's time the government sought direction from British Columbians on the options of health care user fees and insurance deductibles for expensive medical services.
Education expenditures should be curtailed by reducing the number of school districts by approximately a third and applying the resulting administrative savings to offset student enrolment costs. Education must be restored as an essential service to prevent strikes and costly walkouts.
We should be pushing for an ESL surcharge on investor immigrants to help offset the cost of ESL programs. Greater emphasis should also be placed on fluency in English in assessing immigrants applying to move to British Columbia.
Let's restore fair government tendering practices to ensure that all services are purchased at the lowest possible price without compromising service standards. Let's revoke the NDP's high-wage -- or so-called fair-wage -- program and the Island Highway construction union sweetheart deal, which are together adding between $100 million and $300 million a year in higher construction costs to B.C. taxpayers.
Let's abandon the costly capital borrowing initiatives such as the $150 million Victoria accord, which will triple Victoria's commercial office vacancy rate in order to build new luxury office space and amenities for government. As a general rule, we should eliminate government grants and subsidies to businesses and special interest groups. All government agencies, boards and commissions should be reviewed with a view to eliminating all subsidized entities that do not yield a clear and measurable benefit to B.C. taxpayers.
I would also like the government to seek public input by way of referendum on the desirability of privatizing commercial Crown corporations. Taxpayers should have a direct say on how they would feel about privatizing Crown corporations such as B.C. Place, B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Rail, ICBC and B.C. Hydro, in whole or in part. The government should know which of these companies, if any, British Columbians would consider privatizing, with a clear understanding that the proceeds would go to debt reduction.
Finally, there are a number of measures the government should take to insulate itself from the shock of future costs. For instance, we could limit taxpayers' exposure to potential compensation costs to Alcan from the government's decision to scrap Kemano by giving thorough public consideration to the BCUC report.
The province should aggressively push for reductions in federal equalization programs to ensure that B.C. is not forced to shoulder an unfair proportion of the costs of confederation. We should seek to ensure that the new federal block funding transfer system allows British Columbia full control over welfare, education and health care. If Ottawa no longer has the means to live up to its obligations under the cost-sharing arrangements it entered into, it should no longer have the right to tell British Columbia how it can and can't spend its own money.
Perhaps the biggest lurking potential expenditure is the cost of settling native land claims. The government must put an immediate freeze on interim measures agreements until it develops a framework for conducting a cost-impact assessment of such agreements in conjunction with local governments and affected third parties. There must also be a clear set of principles for ensuring that native land claims settlements and interim measures are fair and affordable over the short and long terms.
The province should be pushing the federal government for equal control over immigration, similar to what is in place in Quebec today. British Columbia should have more direct power to increase the relative proportion of investor immigrants to B.C. in relation to family reunification and refugee-class immigrants.
In conclusion, there are many specific measures that the government can and must make to get the government finances in order. The fiscal strategy I have just put forward is realistic, affordable and, most of all, necessary. It's a credible plan for reducing the debt, a plan that would reasonably cut government spending without unreasonably compromising service levels or investments in infrastructure and natural resources that are needed.
Two years ago the theme of the government's throne speech was the courage to change. Today it's the Liberal leader's slogan. I would suggest that the courage to change starts with having the courage to say what you mean and mean what you say. Today I share my party's prescription for fiscal reform, and, believe me, I mean every word of it. For tomorrow, I hope that this government lives up to its throne speech promise of two years ago and proves that it really does have the courage to change. But I fear that I have seen the future in this year's throne speech, and it's not a pretty sight. It's a budget that won't come to terms with the problems of debt and won't be balanced in any meaningful sense. It is for that reason that I'm voting against the throne speech and campaigning against the budget.
[3:15]
D. Mitchell: It's an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the fourth Speech from the Throne delivered during the life of this parliament, and it's a pleasure to be able to follow the remarks of the leader of the Reform Party.
When I first contemplated this session, I had some trepidation about this legislative session, and I'll tell you why. There's been a lot of fearmongering, scandalmongering, muckraking and skulduggery in the province, and my sense is that there might not be a serious opportunity during this session to address substantive and serious economic issues facing British Columbians. I know that with leaked documents and character assassinations, which sometimes pass for public dialogue in our province, the session might be dominated by issues that aren't of major concern to most of our constituents, so I had some trepidation about this session. But we heard some good debate during the throne speech debate. In particular, the leader of the Reform Party has outlined a coherent plan in his response to and critique of the Speech from the Throne, and that's not a bad start to this session. Last week was perhaps a false start, but maybe now we can get into the meat of the session.
It's an honour to rise and speak as a new member in this House, who was elected in the great, historic election of the fall of 1991, and to be a member of the class of 1991....
[ Page 13051 ]
An Hon. Member: As a Liberal.
D. Mitchell: Before beginning my comments on the Speech from the Throne -- in which I'm going to be addressing some of my former caucus colleagues who once claimed to be Liberals, and we'll be addressing that a little bit later in my comments -- I think it's appropriate to first of all make a few comments about some of the events that have happened outside of the assembly during the lengthy period of adjournment. So much has happened in the nine months since this House sat that we didn't get a chance to comment on during a sitting of this Legislature.
One of those things, Hon. Speaker, was your birthday. I didn't get a chance to wish you a happy sixty-fifth birthday, but could I do so now, because you are our senior citizen -- or at least one of them? So happy birthday, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Order, please. I was a little slow there. I do want to thank the hon. member for recognizing that most historic occasion. Please proceed.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker -- senior citizen -- another change is taking place in the historic office of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's position. His Honour David Lam, who delivered the Speech from the Throne, and who, after serving for six and a half years in a very distinguished and remarkable way in that capacity, along with the official chatelaine of Government House, Mrs. Dorothy Lam, is going to be leaving the position after serving in a way that has brought great honour not only to that office but to the province of British Columbia. We wish them well, and we're going to miss them tremendously.
I'd like to also welcome in advance the new Lieutenant-Governor who has been appointed. I think it's an interesting appointment and one that I certainly support. Mr. Garde Gardom is a former member of this assembly, a politician. We all know we were concerned about the idea of a former politician serving in that capacity. But if any former member, any former legislator of this House, would be appropriate to serve in that position, I think Garde Gardom would be an excellent choice.
I'd like to say that my constituents and I all look forward to Mr. Gardom assuming that position later this month and hope that he can find a theme for his term as Lieutenant-Governor that is as appropriate as that of His Honour David Lam. And if he can do that, he'll be filling some very big shoes indeed. When the Prime Minister chose and made the offer to Garde Gardom, he made a very good decision, a very good appointment.
It seemed for a while, though, that he might have been on the verge of making a very bad decision. The suggestion had been made that the former campaign manager of the Leader of the Official Opposition might make a good Lieutenant-Governor. Thank goodness the Prime Minister did not succumb to the kind of pressure and lobbying that took place. Just think how inappropriate it would have been -- members of the Liberal caucus might disagree -- to have the campaign manager of the Leader of the Official Opposition serving as the vice-regal representative in Government House.
The one shameful thing that took place during that whole episode, when a number of British Columbians lobbied and intervened directly, made representation directly to the Prime Minister not to succumb to that kind of lobbying and effort, was that the one voice which was silent was that of the Leader of the Opposition. By his silence he was complicit in the efforts and in the lobbying to have his former campaign manager become the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia. When the Leader of the Official Opposition....
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock rises on a point of order.
W. Hurd: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize that during throne speech debate wide latitude is allowed, but reference to the choice of Lieutenant-Governor is not contained in any way in the throne speech. I'm certain that the Speaker would welcome the opportunity to provide guidance to the hon. member.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. member who has his place will, I'm sure, be guided by the practices and traditions of throne speech debate. Please proceed.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to know that former members of the caucus I was a member of hang on my every word. I'll give them a chance to hang on their own words later on.
But let me conclude my comments on that part of my reference to the Address in Reply, because the point that I'm trying to make is an important one, and I'm hoping it's one that will be taken to heart by members during this session. When the Leader of the Official Opposition charges the government with conflict of interest, does he really know what he's talking about? When it comes to conflict of interest, he, in trying to promote his former campaign manager as Lieutenant-Governor, was indeed....
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Please take your seat. The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale rises on a point of order.
K. Jones: It's really, really sad when the House has to have a member make this kind of aspersion....
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please state his point of order.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, the member has taken a personal attack against some persons who are totally unable to defend themselves, and I think it is most inappropriate. It is breaking all standards of protocol.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Hon. members, the throne speech debate has traditionally been...
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please.
...one of those opportunities for members to use considerable latitude in debate. However, members should be guided by good practices and respect for decorum in the House. If some members have difficulty with the tenor of the debate, I would ask the hon. member who has his place to keep that in mind. Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: I can certainly understand the sensitivity on the part of members of the Liberal official opposition on this issue. There's no question that they should be sensitive about this.
The point I was making is that conflict of interest isn't just something that's in the eye of the beholder. When people
[ Page 13052 ]
make charges or allegations of conflict of interest, as the Liberal official opposition has done against a number of individuals associated with this government, they should realize that when they throw mud, they're getting quite a bit on themselves as well. They should learn that basic lesson of decency.
The Speech from the Throne has been commented on at great length, and I do want to turn my attention to that now. The Speech from the Throne said a number of things, including the fact that there are two opposing visions of how a government should move forward in a modern economy. That's one of the central statements and foundations of this Speech from the Throne.
I'd like to take the government to task for that. I don't believe there are only two visions. The government might like to promote the notion that there are only two visions: left and right. They may be caught in that old ideological time warp. They may believe that it's a question of good versus evil, black versus white, right versus wrong. But that old polarized world that they continue to want to live in, that ideological world, doesn't really exist any longer for most British Columbians.
There are more than two visions. In fact, already in this Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne debate we've seen a number of visions, just in this House. I would hazard a guess that even within the governing party, and even within the cabinet, there's more than a single vision of how the economy should develop and how we should manage our debt and our finances. I would hazard a guess that among the 50 or 51 members of the New Democratic Party in this assembly, there wouldn't be only a single vision, an amazing process of thought transference. There would be a number of visions. So there are not only two competing visions in British Columbia.
In this debate on the Speech from the Throne -- in addition to the government's point of view, which is courageous in the extreme in trying to defend a philosophy that has lost favour with virtually everyone else in the world -- we've seen on the opposition side a number of different visions as well. For instance, today we saw the Leader of the Third Party, the leader of the Reform Party in British Columbia, espouse what I think was a fairly coherent vision that will have a lot of appeal to many British Columbians. Last week we had the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, my seatmate, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, espouse what I could only characterize as a liberal view or vision of British Columbia -- perhaps the Liberal vision. Last week we had the Leader of the Official Opposition make a response to the Speech from the Throne. I can only say that while I didn't find any vision in his speech, maybe the lack of vision itself could compete as one of the many points of view that exist. Certainly there will be independent views as well in this House by a number of other legislators.
So the point I'd like to make is that there are not just two competing visions, as the government tried to argue in the Speech from the Throne; there might be more than two reflected in the reality of multiparty politics in this Legislature today. Some visions are clearer that others. Some are rather obtuse and vague, as the Leader of the Official Opposition's feeble response to the Speech from the Throne was last Thursday. Nevertheless, there are more than two approaches, and I think the government should recognize that. Right here in the House -- indeed, within their own caucus and within the cabinet -- there are more than two visions. Tomorrow, when the Minister of Finance tables her budget, we'll find one of the visions within that cabinet. But I would hazard a guess that her colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment might not agree completely with her approach. So there are two visions right there, with just two individuals within the socialist party that governs today in British Columbia.
I would like to pay some credit to the government, though, to the governing party, because if anything, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia has been consistent in its approach and vision. Remarkably, in the Speech from the Throne, in the words read by David Lam in this assembly last Wednesday, the government says that British Columbia continues to believe -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that we can spend our way out of a fiscal crisis, spend on infrastructure, spend on social infrastructure, continue to spend, to tax and to borrow, and that it's a credible approach and vision for how British Columbians can approach the future. I find this remarkable. I want to pay some credit to the government, because it's at a time when the rest of the world -- not only here in North America but in the rest of world, even in Eastern Europe and the former communist countries -- has rejected that kind of outdated approach that sees taxing and borrowing and spending, a kind of perverted Keynesian approach to economic theory, dominate....
Virtually everywhere else in the country, even in other NDP jurisdictions like Ontario, where they're re-evaluating that now, and Saskatchewan, where they seem to be re-evaluating it somewhat.... Here in British Columbia -- perhaps the last stronghold of socialism in the free world, if we can call it that -- this government is consistent in its approach. It doesn't believe in cutting spending; it doesn't really believe in reducing debt in any significant way. It believes we can continue to tax and borrow and spend. For that consistency, they deserve to be applauded, even though they're out of touch with the majority of people not only here in British Columbia but with the majority of people on the face of this earth. So I applaud them for their consistency. They deserve some credit for that because the courage of their convictions is something that they will bring with them to their political graves in the next election. There's no doubt about that.
[3:30]
There's a lot in the Speech from the Throne we could talk about, but I'd like to comment on some of the things that were sorely lacking in it. One of the things that has been impressive with the government, though, just in the last week since the House has reconvened, has been its refreshing ability to take a second look. I think this is one of the best qualities any government has: the ability to take a second look from time to time at a policy that might be misguided, incorrect, out of sync with public opinion or simply plain wrong.
Just in the last week we've seen this government backtrack on paying minimum wage to babysitters; we've seen this government backtrack on the notion that bill collectors shouldn't be able to go after welfare recipients. These were policies that were backtracked on within about 24 to 48 hours of promulgating them in the first place. So it makes you wonder. When can we expect the next retractions from this government? When can we expect the next long-awaited, long-anticipated retractions from this government? I'll tell you some that I would like to see.
I'll give you some examples of some second looks that I think this government should be taking. First of all, in my own constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi, there's a home-care support workers' strike right now. It's been going on in Victoria much longer than in my constituency, but in the last few months 135 recipients of home-care support have been without that support.
This strike has been going on and on, and yet senior citizens in our province who rely on that kind of support from
[ Page 13053 ]
home-care workers have been without it. Why isn't this government showing some leadership by taking some action and forcing an end to this dispute? When is this government going to get serious about the Closer to Home strategy for health care and take a look at this home-care dispute, in particular, and end this strike so that senior citizens who need this home-care support can receive it? Why doesn't the government take a second look at that? That's just one small example. That might be one of the next retractions that we can hope for from this government when it takes a second look at policies.
I'll give you another example: video lottery terminals. When is the government going to end this plague in British Columbia, not by trying to chase out illegal VLTs with legal ones, as the minister responsible, who doesn't sit in this House any longer, wants to argue? The minister responsible refuses to show his face in the House. I can't figure out why. He's still apparently the minister responsible for gambling, and he's the one who has been promoting video lottery terminals as the answer to all of our problems in British Columbia. When is the government going to take a second look at that policy and simply say: "We're going to enforce the law; we're not going to allow this plague on British Columbia; we're not going to promote gambling addictions -- particularly among young people -- and we're going to outlaw VLTs completely in British Columbia"? Why doesn't he show some leadership on that? This would be relatively simple to do, and this could be one of the next retractions that we could count on from the government. Maybe we have to wait for that minister to come back to the House.
There are a number of larger issues as well that I wish this government would take a second look at. One is the whole approach that it took on the Kemano issue. When is this government going to take a second look at how it made its decision on Kemano and whether or not any compensation is owing? I don't know if we can look forward to this in the budget tomorrow, but are we going to see a specific accrual in the budget that is going to pay the compensation that might be legally owing to that company for the cancellation that took place, in spite of the fact that the B.C. Utilities Commission report appears to have gone unread by the provincial government?
We'd like to see a second look on native land claims, in particular on interim measures agreements and whether or not those agreements are unrealistically raising the expectations of first nations in British Columbia and whether or not the government needs to take a second look at that and maybe make a retraction. Before we go out and sign any more interim measures agreements which may in themselves impact negatively on the B.C. Treaty Commission, why doesn't the government take a second look at interim measures agreements?
Another important policy area -- and this will be one of the last ones I mention -- that we'd like to see this government take a look at is the so-called Canadian social transfer or the CST, as the federal government called it in the recent federal budget. In Paul Martin's recent federal budget the proposal is to reduce transfer payments to the provinces, while at the same time we're increasing equalization payments. British Columbia is one of the so-called have provinces. We pay equalization payments -- hundreds of millions of dollars a year -- to other Canadian provinces. Under the new fiscal regime that's proposed by the federal government, equalization payments from British Columbia will accelerate; they'll go up every year for the forecast period ahead of us. But transfer payments to British Columbia will be coming down with this new CST, the Canadian social transfer.
How are we going to manage that? First of all, I don't think we should complain about that; I think we should be making our fair share and our contribution to our country's fiscal plight. But having said that, we need to know how British Columbians want us to manage a reduction in transfer payments that is going to affect post-secondary education, health care and training in British Columbia. We need to understand how the Canadian social transfer is going to work and how our provincial government is going to handle the negotiations with the federal government. Are we going to accept a reduced set of block funding of transfer payments, the CST, on a per capita basis? Or are we going to lobby for a different kind of formula that will affect British Columbia differently?
I've proposed -- and I've moved a motion on the order paper -- that a special committee of this Legislature be appointed during the session with the specific mandate and referral to address this issue and report back before the adjournment of this session, to hear testimony from British Columbians and to talk to British Columbians about how we are going to manage the new fiscal relationship with the federal government -- a federal government that appears to want, at long last, to seriously come to terms with the federal deficit. We don't know if they're going fast enough, we don't know if they're going far enough, but this reduction in transfer payments and the Canadian social transfer issue have to be looked at.
I'm expecting that the Minister of Finance will address this tomorrow in her budget. Having said that, I think there's a role for all of us as legislators to play here. And if there ever was an argument in favour of utilizing legislative committees in a constructive and creative manner, I think this would be a good example. I can only hope that the government will feel free to call the motion standing in my name on the order paper and appoint a special committee of legislators -- an all-party committee -- to address this issue that's going to be so important to British Columbia in the years to come, well beyond the next election.
There's one other issue I'd like to talk about that wasn't specifically addressed in the Speech from the Throne: the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits. I won't go into any detail on this, because I understand that the government is going to be bringing forward legislation in this session. It has not given notice of that yet, but I understand it's forthcoming. We'll have a chance to debate it in more detail at that time.
I'm amazed that the Speech from the Throne didn't have a paragraph giving credit to W.A.C. Bennett, a former "Prime Minister" of British Columbia -- as he liked to call himself -- who in 1964 very shrewdly negotiated an international treaty which was criticized and condemned at the time as a sellout of our birthright. Yet the government of today finds itself rubbing its hands in glee because of the shrewd negotiating achievement that will now see hundreds of millions -- in fact, billions of dollars -- coming back to British Columbia in the form of the downstream benefits that we own in the second half of that treaty. That's an issue we should have seen referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and it's an issue that's going to receive some further discussion during the session.
Something happened the other day in the House that caused me some concern, and I'd like to comment on it. Last week the Premier stood in this House to make a statement on the Columbia River downstream benefits -- a very important statement. It's one of the most important issues facing British Columbia, dealing with one of the last megaprojects that we'll probably be dealing with over the next generation. When he rose to make that statement and I as a private member sought leave to respond, leave was denied.
[ Page 13054 ]
Hon. Speaker, I want to address this for just a second, because there's a principle involved here. Many observers of the proceedings in this House will understand that when leave is requested, what is being requested is unanimous consent for a member to take part in proceedings. Sometimes unanimous consent is required under our standing orders. I wanted to participate and respond briefly to the Premier's statement because I had something to say on it. The Premier understood that, and he was not afraid of my criticism even though he knew I had some. I want to pay credit to the government for never blocking a private member's efforts to participate by asking for leave to respond either to ministerial statements or other proceedings of this House. The government has been quite generous in not using its majority in this House in a bullying manner. It never has, and I pay credit to the government for that. The third party, the Reform caucus, has likewise always been very generous in its support, and it has always been more than willing to grant leave. Strangely, it's the members of the official opposition in this Legislature, a minority themselves, who want to use their own limited power to bully private members in this assembly and prevent them from having access to proceedings.
I would like to analyze that very briefly, because I think there's a point here. We are here in parliament to represent our constituents, first and foremost. Parliament is a place of speaking. The word "parliament" itself comes from the French word parler. It's a place to speak. In a parliament like ours in British Columbia, why is it that we don't have the majority blocking the minorities but one of the minorities blocking private members' right to participate in debate? This has never happened; it is unprecedented, to my knowledge, not only in this Legislature but in any parliament I can think of. Why would you have the official opposition, who themselves would like to be the majority in this House one day, blocking the rights of private members to contribute to the proceedings of the House?
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
I can only speculate on this, but I can offer two points of speculation. One, since the government doesn't object, the third party doesn't object but the official opposition does, one conclusion is that members of the official opposition are so insecure in their own position and their own ability to respond to statements that they don't want to be shown up by private members who might get up and show them to be less than competent. I can only assume that that was the case last week when the Leader of the Official Opposition attempted to respond to the Premier's statement on Columbia River downstream benefits, because his response was truly pitiful and feeble. But there's another point I would like to raise here.
Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would suspect that if the member who is speaking wants to raise a point of order, he should do so at the appropriate time. He is very familiar with the rules, and this is not an item for debate. The standing orders of the House are not an item for debate of the throne speech, and he's aware of that.
Deputy Speaker: As you are aware, the throne speech debate is traditionally awarded wide latitude, and I would ask the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to continue.
D. Mitchell: I can understand why the member might be a little bit sensitive, although I do appreciate the fact that he's hanging on my every word. I'll give him a chance to hang on his own words later, if he dares to rise up on his hind legs and enter this debate.
The thought I was completing and with which I'd like to conclude is this: heaven help us in British Columbia if the group in the official opposition should ever become the majority in this House, because they have shown what they can do as the official opposition by blocking and trying to trample on the rights of private members. What would happen if they ever became the real majority in this Legislature? What would happen to minorities in British Columbia if they should ever actually be given power to govern the province? Shame on each and every one of them.
They should hang their heads in shame for attempting to block the rights of private members to contribute to debate and the proceedings of this Legislature. It's a shameful exercise on their part, and we saw it again today. Shame on each and every one of them, because each and every one wears the blame for that. If they learn the rules, they don't need to abuse them. If they had the generosity of spirit and the security of their own convictions to know that they could contribute to debate without having to fear the contribution of others, then this place would be a much more constructive place for debate, and British Columbians wouldn't be so embarrassed by their pitiful performance in this chamber.
The Leader of the Opposition's response to the Speech from the Throne last week is also worth commenting on, because his response indicated that he thought the speech was a bit light. The comment he made that was quoted widely in the papers was that the speech was "very thin, there's no substance to it, clearly the government's run out of steam." I would like to analyze that for a second, because this can be quite revealing both in terms of the dynamic in this House and in terms of the alternatives proposed to the current government.
The Leader of the Official Opposition said, on the one hand, that he favours smaller government; he wants to bring smaller government to the people of British Columbia and cut its size. He tries to promote himself as a champion of the taxpayer -- although when you take a look, his record as mayor of Vancouver and the buildup of bureaucracy in the city of Vancouver and the GVRD certainly defy that. I don't know how he can have any credibility trying to pretend to be a champion of the taxpayer. The Leader of the Opposition says he favours smaller government; yet when the government comes forward with a legislative program that's too light, he criticizes it for not being interventionist enough -- for not coming forward with more detailed legislative proposals that might intervene in the lives of British Columbians in a day-to-day manner. You can't have it both ways: you can't criticize the government for doing too much and criticize it for not doing enough at the same time. It rings hollow.
[3:45]
There are a number of parliamentary reforms that I'm hoping we can see addressed during this session; I don't have a chance to address them all right now. I'd like to say one thing: we've learned a lesson from some of the positioning that's taken place so far in the Speech from the Throne debate. I only hope that this is not the last session before the next election and that we will be here next year to see the start of the fifth session in the life of this parliament, which will be an interesting one indeed.
[ Page 13055 ]
Until then, maybe I can conclude my remarks by reminding all members and our constituents that if you don't stand for something, you can fall for anything.
Deputy Speaker: The Chair now recognizes the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: I draw to the Chair's attention that this member has already spoken and adjourned debate. In order to follow the rules, he would have had to rise and be the first speaker this afternoon. I have at no time been approached by the Government House Leader to seek unanimous consent on this question; neither have I been approached by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Regrettably, I cannot provide unanimous consent for this member to continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: This item came up in the House immediately after question period. All members in the House at that time expressed absolutely no opposition to this item. Therefore, with that result, the previous Speaker who was in the chair already gave approval to this process.
C. Serwa: This is very interesting. While my colleague here was speaking a few moments ago with respect to the treatment being received at the hands of the Liberals, the Liberal Opposition House Leader, was going on about the rules. Here we have a classic case where there is a rule standing in legislative orders. There has been no overture to any of us to be included in the agreement, so I would tend to abide by the Opposition House Leader and say that we must stand by the rules.
Hon. G. Clark: I regret siding in this case with the official opposition, but I think I have to -- not because the members aren't correct that this is not normal but because clearly the Speaker canvassed the House by inference and suggested that an appropriate course of action would be for the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to step down, to yield his place in the debate, and therefore come back into it at a later date. That was clearly said by both the Opposition House Leader and repeated by the Speaker in his advisement to the House. While technically the members may be correct that they weren't advised at an earlier date in any conversations we may have had, they were advised at the time by the Speaker that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale was yielding the floor.
I might also say to members opposite that it's certainly in the government's interest to hear from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. We're anxious to hear him.
G. Wilson: The rules are very specific: you cannot canvass by inference; you can only canvass by speaking directly to the members. I was not in the Legislature immediately after question period when the Speaker stood. The Liberal House Leader says that that is my fault. The fact is that the rules he wishes to use state specifically that at the time the member takes his feet, I can raise an objection if there is not unanimous consent. The rules are specific, and there is not unanimous consent.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair was in the chamber at the time the Speaker ruled. The Speaker was quite clear at the time. My recollection as a member and as a Chair is that the Speaker has ruled. As such, the Chair now recognizes the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi on a point of order.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, could I prevail upon you either to review the record in Hansard -- in the question period Blues, which are readily available -- or at least to defer this decision for a few moments. I was in the House at the time, as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was not, and I know that, while there may have been some discussion of it, leave was never specifically requested.
Some Hon. Members: That's right.
D. Mitchell: I think a review of the record will definitely show that.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the Speaker ruled at the time. There was considerable discussion between the House Leader and the Opposition House Leader on the place for the member for Surrey-Cloverdale in debate, and the Speaker ruled that the member for Peace River South, the Leader of the Third Party, would speak after question period and that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's place in the debate was reserved. So the Chair is making the ruling; the Speaker ruled.
The member for Okanagan East on a point of order.
J. Tyabji: Fundamental to the operation of this parliamentary democracy is the right to vote. I believe a review of Hansard will show that there was no vote taken.
An Hon. Member: There was no leave asked for.
J. Tyabji: There was no leave asked for; there was no consent given. If we ask for leave, you might get it. But if this House does not honour the rules of this House, why are we here? Fundamental to that is for all of us to at least have the opportunity to say yea or nay, and it was not asked for.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has ruled, and rulings of the Chair are not challengeable.
On a point of order, the member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: It seems to me that we have the standing legislative orders. What I would like to encourage you to do -- because I was here at that time as well -- is to do as we should do in this House: ask for the approval of the members of the House. I'm very confident in the quality of the members in the House, and I'm sure that approval will be given. But just to withstay this debate, I would ask you to do so.
Deputy Speaker: The Chair has ruled that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's place in the debate is at the present time. The Chair now recognizes the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
K. Jones: It was certainly an interesting process of democracy we just experienced, and it's good to see that the position of the Speaker is still upheld in this democracy. I think it's essential. It's good that there is the opportunity for minority parties to have a say; I think that's appropriate. They've had their say, but the Speaker has the final say, which is the appropriate thing within our democratic process.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to continue my reply to the throne speech, which adjourned last Friday just after lunch. In doing so, I'd like to note that we have here a document -- the throne speech, as presented by
[ Page 13056 ]
the government through the Lieutenant-Governor -- that really has very, very little in it. The throne speech does not address the critical things that are important to the people of British Columbia today. It doesn't address items such as government waste. It doesn't address an item that is of great concern to all British Columbians, and that is the serious debt this province is continuing to get itself into. You can't address only the deficit in this province when the debt is almost at $30 billion. When we have that size of debt, $30 billion, we have to start taking some serious action to bring that debt down so there is going to be a future for our children.
This document, and the presentation that was made of the outline of the provincial government's future through this session -- its agenda for this coming year, basically, on which all of the budget, the direction of the ministries and the operations of the government are based -- is just so thin that it indicates that we have a worn-out leadership in government today.
In fact, to quote the Premier on his election night back in '91, but to paraphrase it slightly, I think he's too tired to boogie now. I think he's had all his boogieing time. He needs to step down, as has been indicated by the various factors in his government that have caused considerable investigation -- ones that almost match the previous government for their variety, for their coverage of his cabinet and himself. He has to take accountability for those many, many investigations that have been going on, and still continue to go on.
We have to provide an economic basis for the future of this province and for our children. That can best be done by freeing up the enterprise of people to do the very best job they can without the restrictions that governments -- particularly socialist governments -- often put upon the opportunities to do the very best you can. They take away the incentive, and for that reason, we cannot continue to have this type of government in British Columbia.
Our economy has been very, very successful in spite of the fact that this government has tried to throw millstones around all opportunities for it to be boomingly successful. We have, fortunately, a better opportunity for the economics of this area than other parts of Canada. I think that has been well recognized over the last few years. That doesn't mean that we should waste this opportunity. This is the time when we should have been paying down our debt, not adding to our debt. This is the time when we should have been doing the training of our young people, and building the job opportunities. The government claims that they have got 30,000 new jobs. Heavens, it should have been about 300,000 new jobs in this time. If they had released the opportunity for the entrepreneurial talents of this province to be able to be used, they would have created those jobs.
The government has indicated that we need to do something in the area of apprenticeship training. Yes, that is essential. But why has it taken them four years to learn about it? Why have they taken all this time until they are ready to call another election before they start bringing on needed items such as the apprenticeship program, the vocational programs, the technical programs, the polytechnical needs, to try and resolve them. We should have had those structures operating today, not in 1999 or later. We need them today, because our opportunities are today in this world, where we're competing with everyone throughout the world. It's not just the people in our own province, it's not just the people in Canada or in North America that we're competing with today. We're dealing with people from any part of this globe, and either those people can be connected through a computer or it can be flown in on very short notice to do contract work, or the work gets transferred out to those other countries.
It's not that we have an exclusive on any jobs today, especially as the jobs become more of an intellectual or high-tech type, electronics-driven. We have really serious competition, and we have to train our young people and our older people. The people who are still in the workforce have to be retrained and retrained so that they can also have a say in the future of our province.
[4:00]
I'd like to really strongly support the impetus we've had for post-secondary education. We need to move with a university-type or polytechnical college in the Fraser Valley, where we have a very, very serious problem of not having sufficient people going beyond the high school level, because of a lack of facilities.
We need to create more jobs through the building of the south Fraser highway, which is a massive project. We have to find the funding through private and public partnerships to be able to make that possible. We need to encourage the economic development of our areas, particularly in the lower mainland, where the concentration of people is. We cannot continue to grow at the superspeed that we are, such as in my riding, which is probably the fastest-growing area in any part of North America today.
We have to have jobs where these people are living. We just can't afford to have people going long distances, because of all of the costs of the infrastructure: transit, the roads and the bridges that are necessary if they are going to have them concentrated, say, in the downtown area. We need those jobs on the south side of the Fraser River so that we don't have those extra capital costs, plus all of the pollution that comes as a result of the extra traffic that is already hindering the entire atmosphere of the Fraser Valley.
We need to provide an economic climate that will make it possible for business to want to establish here, to make it inviting for them to come here rather than to Washington State, Alberta or Nova Scotia. We need to remove, for instance, the corporate capital tax that has been a real millstone on the business opportunities in this province. We need to reduce the regulation that business is under today. Business operates when it's able to have a free hand to move quickly in the directions it can, so that it can respond to the marketplace when the opportunity's there. It's too late when you have to go through all of the regulatory processes and then finally get your product on line and ready to be sold, and find out that the market is already gone and somebody else is already supplying that need.
We need to simplify the business opportunities. We need to get government out of the face of business. We need to make it so that individuals and workers can have more freedom in using their talents, in not being restricted by the structures of our companies. Make them much smaller, as we have to make our government much smaller. We have to take the bureaucratic process away from this province and really free it up so that there is a speed of response to all of our needs, thereby reducing a lot of the harmful things that happen within both our communities and our social programs, because there isn't that type of responsiveness that the people really demand and the people really deserve.
We have to best equip our people for these jobs by giving them basic education programs that provide a wide variety of choice for both young people and adults. We need to look at the different types of schooling systems that we can provide. Let the people in their own communities choose the kind of schooling that they want. Let's not make it rigidly set by a teachers' federation or by a government that's doctrinaire and states: you have to do it this way; you have to do it my way,
[ Page 13057 ]
because that's the only way that it can be done; that's the best way -- "We know what's best for all of you." Let's give the people who are really close to the situation, the parents of the young people, much more say in how their children are being educated.
I'd like to talk to you a little about the serious problem in education we have in my school district. We have such rapid growth that it is causing serious problems for our community to be properly served with the kind of education they deserve. I'd like to talk to you about the fact that the operating funds in Surrey this year -- for the first time in four years -- have now moved us up the ladder from seventy-fifth, the bottom of all school districts in British Columbia, to seventy-fourth. Unfortunately, there is now one community that is in a poorer position than us.
The situation is that even though we are seventy-fourth -- almost at the bottom of the per capita funding arrangements for operating funds -- we have to be able to maintain the same type of services that were provided last year. So there's a $9 million shortfall. We have to find some way to address that. I'm saying we have to look in our school district to find the lowest-cost way of providing all of those services. We cannot just say: "Government, give us more money." We have to look at where these moneys will come from.
Going back to highways, we can do partnerships. We can have private enterprise create them, and we can have various means of tolling on those highways. Or the people who will be gaining benefit from them -- the owners of properties that are along the rights-of-way of those highways -- can make a contribution based on the fact that they are getting something from it. I don't think they would have that kind of problem in dealing with that approach. We cannot keep going to the trough of the taxpayer to find the funds that are necessary.
I'd like to also point out that projections for 1995 in the Surrey School District show that the student full-time-equivalents will be nearly 2,000 this coming year. Today there are 282 portables in Surrey, with the prospect of those increasing to upwards of 600 in the near future. Those house 6,000 students, which is equivalent to 12.9 schools. There are 49 of the 75 school districts that have less total pupil enrolments per school district than Surrey has in portables.
Another example of the inadequate funding of Surrey students is in the fact that in 1981 there were 27,000 students, and the total capital equipment replacement budget for those 27,000 students was $1.5 million. This year, with over 50,000 students, that same budget item has been cut to $300,000. This is because it is one of the few areas over which the local school boards have any control, as 90 percent of the budget is made up of employee contracts and close to 9 percent of the remaining amount is tied up in fixed costs of heating, lighting, electricity, busing, postage and, particularly, targeted accounts.
These targeted accounts represent such things as hot lunches and accreditation, which are fixed accounts established by the Ministry of Education. The busing segment is primarily made up of transportation for special education students. The need for that has grown rapidly in Surrey. That's primarily because of the presence of the Variety Treatment Centre and the lower housing costs in most parts of Surrey compared to other areas.
We have a larger than normal number of special ed students. For example, in 1989-90 we had 60 teaching assistants who helped with special ed students. This past year we had 600 teaching assistants doing that work -- going from 60 to 600 gives you an example of the growth in the number of special education students.
In 1988 we had six targeted accounts; this past year we had 166 targeted accounts. Those are all the government and ministry identified accounts that are fixed. The school district has absolutely no say over those; I remind you that the school board has absolutely no control over those. The school boards today are only able to administer local capital equipment replacement; supplies such as paper, which has doubled in price this year; and library books and a few local programs, such as elementary band, which in Surrey -- much to the consternation of the parents and students -- had to be cut to stay within budget last year. Parents are having to run casinos in order to find books for their libraries and computers for their classrooms. What kind of an education system requires gambling as a support fund? In my book, education should never be a gamble.
I would like to describe another aspect of education that is occurring in our province that seems most unusual and most inefficient. Every capital school project has had Ministry of Education school facilities branch staff doing field inspections in the past. They still do that today. But in addition to them, the hon. Minister of Employment and Investment has his own staff going out to these same sites to do the same inspections, because he now holds the purse strings for all capital projects. Why do we have this kind of duplication?
There is much more we could say in the area of education about things that would meet the high growth of our area. Last year, while the school board identified approximately $130 million in current capital needs, such as school buildings and classrooms, the ministry saw fit to initially provide them with approximately $30 million. After considerable lobbying by parents from Surrey, the Minister of Education was able to find additional moneys. The school board has indicated to me that they will probably require over $100 million capital again for this year's school needs, so I hope that this government will be making the necessary cuts in other areas so that essential items such as the education of our children can be achieved.
I would now like to go over to another area that's of great importance to my constituents, and that's the area of health. The regionalized Closer to Home program that we have spent so much money on this past year has provided no improvement to the health care of my community. All we have are dedicated people navel-gazing while they try to determine what role they have for another year. While major decisions such as the establishment of a new government-funded continuing-care facility and the beginning of a hospital have been announced -- and, may I add, without consultation with the community by the member for Surrey-Newton -- in a location at 152nd Street and Highway 10, which truly has to be a mistake.... The location, with minimal population around it, has been condemned by the member for Delta North, who appropriately identifies the need for an emergency ambulatory facility in the mid-Scott Road area -- that's 120th Street. And I have had a lot of urging from my high-growth area of Cloverdale, which is filled with young families right through to Willowbrook, which has identified a great need for a similar emergency ambulatory treatment centre in their area.
We truly need to provide stabilized and transport facilities, rather than build additional hospitals, as well as to provide appropriate expansion for the centralized Surrey Memorial Hospital to meet the needs of the south Fraser. Surrey Memorial has identified that it has shortages in almost every area of their operation, with particular emphasis on psychiatric needs which have to be addressed immediately.
[4:15]
We also have a major need to encourage expansion of continuing-care facilities, as our community attracts more and
[ Page 13058 ]
more older people from within B.C. and across Canada. We have to look seriously at how these facilities can be funded. Currently, government-funded operations are being asked to provide very expensive multi-care beds, which give flexibility but at an awful price. We need to encourage the private sector to provide the majority of these continuing-care facilities. The government can provide needy recipients with support funding, so that individuals may then choose the place they would like most. Currently, the government provides support funding for specific beds, while people stand in line waiting for one of those beds to become available. This truly is not acceptable.
Another area of concern in my community of Surrey-Cloverdale is that of crime. The failure of this government to address the concerns and fears about crime in all communities right across British Columbia is paramount. Without question, violent crime has to be the most intimidating for the people of our communities. The failure of the Attorney General to have proper mechanisms in place to prevent the release of known violent offenders from holding facilities, one of the major ones being the Surrey pretrial, causes great concern to our citizens. I remind the Attorney General, as my colleague from Chilliwack did last week, that the improper release of Douglas Fetterley has brought about a complete lack of confidence in the ability of the corrections system to hold these people who pose a threat to the people's security.
Another issue that I would like to address is one of our very, very wonderful conservation areas. Surrey has many wonderful conservation areas and two urban forests -- the Green Timbers area and Sunnyside Acres. Now hopefully we can have set aside under reserve, so that they can be preserved for the people of the future, the Surrey Bend wetlands. This area is located at the north end of my riding adjoining the Fraser River, just west of Barnston Island and north of the CNR tracks. It's a unique example of undiked floodplain, with forested and grassland areas which provide a home for small birds, animals and fish. I urge the government to work with the city of Surrey and the people of the lower mainland, including the GVRD, who are already involved with this area, to jointly come up with the means of acquiring the privately owned properties that make up better than half of this site. I also urge the owners of this site to consider making a land donation to the people of British Columbia, in exchange for tax credits, which have been expanded in our last federal budget.
My community has a lot going for it. It is probably the fastest-growing community in North America today. It has some of the finest amenities anywhere in this province, a point which I would bring to the attention of the Minister of Environment, who in his ignorance trashed our community not too long ago. I find it most surprising that the hon. member would not have taken me up on my invitation to have him visit and see the real Surrey instead of the false image that he has been putting out to the public. Perhaps he should spend a little more time visiting his mother, who lives in Surrey.
We have great opportunities in our community, with some of the finest golf courses in North America. Northview, a 36-hole course designed by Arnold Palmer, has a great chance of becoming the host course for the greater Vancouver PGA golf tournament, scheduled to be re-established in this area next year. We also host the headquarters of the B.C. branch of the Professional Golfers' Association at our new Morgan Creek golf course. Professional AA baseball will be starting at the new Stetson Bowl stadium in Cloverdale in June, with the Surrey Glaciers team being the only Canadian representative in that league. We urge everyone in B.C. to adopt this team as their own.
Proposals to have specific parts of the Pacific National Exhibition moved to the Cloverdale exhibition grounds.... The increased popularity of the Cloverdale racetrack, and the major truck traffic growth and commuter needs, will require major expansion of highways throughout Surrey. In particular, the Pacific Highway, No. 15, from 32nd Avenue to the No. 1 freeway, will require expansion and upgrading, as will Highway 10, which requires major work from 180th Street to Highway 91 and Highway 99. The Fraser Highway requires more work to handle the heavy volume of traffic from the King George Highway to Willowbrook. That will probably require four lanes ultimately.
A major convention centre, and associated hotel and restaurant facilities, are needed now in the Cloverdale area to meet the needs of the golf, baseball and rodeo theme park participants. Encouraging the economic development of this area is a role that I will continue to play, as I see it as a major source of jobs for all of our people in this fast-growing area of the province. Hon. Speaker, we need a government in British Columbia that is going to be progressive and is going to allow our economy to develop.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I've already allowed you an extra minute. I would ask you, please, to wrap up very quickly.
K. Jones: Yes, I'm doing that.
Deputy Speaker: If you would. You're already overtime.
K. Jones: I'll just wind it up.
Deputy Speaker: Very quickly, hon. member. You are out of time significantly, and in fairness....
K. Jones: Just one more....
Deputy Speaker: One sentence, please.
K. Jones: I urge the Premier to go to the electorate and let the people have a choice that will give us a future that is not scared to death.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time is up.
Hon. B. Barlee: I found the varying opinions rather interesting. I don't agree with some -- in fact, most -- of them. If one looks at the throne speech closely, at the second-to-last paragraph on page 4, this is one of the keys. As Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, I find this probably the most important part of the throne address. It says -- and I don't disagree with any of it -- that we have "health care second to none" and that British Columbia has "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." Perhaps we should examine each one of these statements rather quickly, taking into consideration that it is, I think, the basis of our government's long-term strategy.
We're looking very carefully at health care. I think the medicare system is at risk. We have backed the medicare system absolutely. If you were in the states of Washington or Oregon, and you had an equivalent health care system, your medicare premiums would be about $450 per month. Tran-
[ Page 13059 ]
slated into Canadian funds, that would be about $7,200 per year out of every working person in British Columbia. So it's extremely important. And what are the opposition parties doing? Well, the federal Liberal government is essentially washing its hands of medicare. That's very obvious. Within six years, the federal Liberal government's funding, which is paid for by our taxes, will eradicate their contribution to medicare.
What has the federal Liberal government got to do with the provincial Liberal Party? Let's take a look at a couple of quotes from the provincial Liberal party -- and if you've asked, "Is there a link?" I think there is. One of the links is this: I used to play tennis against Dr. Gur Singh in Kamloops. He wasn't a bad player -- not a magnificent player, but not bad.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, consistently.
Dr. Gur Singh had this to say about the medicare system, and he is carrying the Liberal banner in Kamloops. He is the nominee for the Kamloops riding, and he says this -- not from a biased opinion, of course: "I think physicians should be very involved in managing the health care system, even to the point of taking it over." I find that very strange. Why would the physicians want to take over the medicare system? Does he want a two-tiered system? I think so.
Now let's take a look at the critic, the member for Richmond East. She says this in a quote from March 1994, about a year ago -- and I'm rather surprised at this quote: "We have the only publicly funded system in the world without gateway deterrents" -- that's true -- "without some form of legislatively controlled, direct private sector financing to supplement government-funded core programs." Translated, that essentially means the average person would pay a lot more if the private sector were to come in on a two-tiered system.
What about the Liberal Party? They say this -- this is from the Liberal convention resolution in 1994: "The B.C. Liberal Party supports outsourcing to private sector providers where appropriate." That's very interesting. You know, it's funny. I was talking to two federal Liberals who came over on the ferry last night. Provincially they vote New Democrat and federally they vote Liberal. They're old friends of mine, and they now live in Oak Bay. We had a rather interesting conversation.
They were just down in Ashland, Oregon, a small town; it's a nice town, if you've ever been there. She went in for some minor ailment. At the same time a woman in her fifties came in to this private hospital in Ashland, Oregon, and she needed some immediate help. Actually, she was bleeding rather profusely. She'd just been separated from her husband, and she had not sold her house. So she had no funds, and she didn't have a medical insurance scheme. An intern came up to her and realized she needed immediate help. He phoned the surgeon. My friend was listening on the other side, and she heard a one-way conversation. Evidently, the first question the intern was asked was: did she have medical insurance? He said: "No, I'm afraid she has not, but she does need immediate care." It went on and on, and three times the intern tried to convince the surgeon that she needed immediate care. Finally, after this conversation was over -- after about ten minutes, and the surgeon would not come on duty -- he went to the woman and said: "I'm sorry. We'll have to stitch you up and send you home," which was essentially a death sentence to the woman.
So we have a medicare system that is expensive, but it's worth about $7,200 per person in British Columbia. I think it's worth keeping; I don't think it's worth privatizing. The public is very definitely at risk in the private system. The dollar is out of the public's pocket and going to the pockets of those in charge of the private clinics.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Indeed they do, and they have everywhere else in the world. I see we received some immediate response from the opposition.
Let's take a look at British Columbia as the number one economy in Canada. I'm glad you're listening very closely.
I have a question I ask the businesses in British Columbia when I'm wearing my other hat as Minister of Small Business. Where else in North America, I ask, would you rather do business? You know something? They're coming back from Alberta and the state of Washington. A number of companies have come back from the state of Washington in the last few months, because they found that it wasn't quite as good as they had anticipated.
What about long-term strategies? Why are we doing so well?
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll tell you all about promotion in a moment.
First, one of the major indicators of the health of the economy in British Columbia is the occupancy of the hotels. Hotels in North America average about 65.2 percent. British Columbia is the highest in North America by far, at well up to 75 or 76 percent, sometimes 80 percent. I'm not referring to the Pan Pacific or first-class hotels such as the Empress or others. I'm referring to a number of hotels like the Heritage Inn in Nelson or the Overlander in Williams Lake. We are so far above the North American average that the hotel people can't even believe it. It's not even close.
[4:30]
What about other indicators you have to watch? What about the bankruptcy rate? We were down last year about 10.4 percent, and the year before last about 16.4 percent. What about the businesses? Are they avoiding British Columbia? Not a bit. We had over 20,000 new incorporated businesses in British Columbia last year. They are absolutely flocking in.
A couple of other things are indicative. Last year in my Ministry of Tourism -- which is kind of a cash cow, to be quite candid; definitely a cash cow....
An Hon. Member: It should be.
Hon. B. Barlee: It should be indeed, because we're operating it perfectly.
The Ministry of Tourism got $5 million extra last year for generic advertising around the world. That $5 million turned into $472 million in increased revenue. For every dollar we got, we brought back $94 into British Columbia, and half of that money....
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll tell you exactly about Washington State. I'd love to answer that question.
For Washington State, the federal government came up with the idea of saying, "We'll stretch your dollar," and that's how they advertised in the United States. I said that they had
[ Page 13060 ]
it all wrong. I said that what we had -- and this was last summer at the time -- was an American dollar worth $1.40 in British Columbia. "That's easy to figure out," I said. "Spend a week in British Columbia, and the first two days are free." We emphasized the Canadian dollar. We emphasized two days free in British Columbia out of every week spent here, and we emphasized security and safety. The other provinces in Canada averaged a 3.8 percent increase in American traffic. We averaged an 8 percent increase, more than double the national average.
An Hon. Member: Tell us about the rolling billboards.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, we'll save that for another day. That's too good a story to tell them, actually.
And what are we doing with this? I regret the $472 million wasn't half a billion; I regret it. We'll probably make the half-billion this year. That $472 million resulted in $70 million in taxes to the Crown and another $402 million to small businesses all around the province. That money spun out and circulated in all the small businesses around the province, and we also created about 10,800 new jobs. That's just one part of the long-term strategy.
The other thing the people have to realize is that the money coming in from tourism is about 50 percent new money. The member from the other side was talking about schools. You know something? When the tourist dollar comes into British Columbia from Japan, Great Britain, France or Germany -- you name it -- 50 percent of that money is free; it's new money. We don't generally have to worry about doctors or hospitals or schools or teachers as long as our basic infrastructure is relatively sound.
Look at all the indicators. In the first two months of this year we had the highest retail sales in North America: 12 percent. We can't do any better than the highest retail sales in North America.
An Hon. Member: Sure we can. We can go to 15 percent.
Hon. B. Barlee: Oh no. That's a little too high; that's a little too hot. Actually, we like to keep it around 9.6 percent. It's much better.
An Hon. Member: Why?
Hon. B. Barlee: Because what goes up sometimes comes down, and that's unfortunate.
I look at all the sectors. I look at the film industry. We do very well in the film industry, I must admit. In 1993 we took in $283 million; in 1994 we took in $400 million; in 1995 we'll probably take in $500 million. It's double-digit growth again.
I have noticed that both opposition parties like to compare Alberta with British Columbia. Well, let's compare Alberta with British Columbia; let's just take a look. In all of the speeches that are covered in Hansard from both opposition parties, both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party....
Interjections.
Hon. B. Barlee: The leader of the Reform Party just brought it up, so let's take a hard look at Ralph Klein's record, because I think your research is basically flawed.
British Columbia has between $27 billion and $28 billion in debt; we have about 3.7 million people. Alberta has about 2.4 million people; they have $33 billion in debt. That's 50 percent higher per capita than ours.
I look at the unemployment rates. Just compare the largest city in Alberta -- which is Edmonton, with 9.1 percent unemployed -- with Vancouver, with 5.7 percent unemployed. That means thousands and thousands and thousands of people are out of work in Edmonton. They would not be out of work in British Columbia.
Ralph is my counterpart in Tourism; he has put on the Tourism minister's hat. I just went over the other day and got a report from February 15, 1995. He has 130 people in his Tourism ministry, and Alberta takes in $3.3 billion. I have 69 people in my Tourism branch, and we take in $6.3 billion. So we're almost four times as efficient and almost four times as lean as Alberta's Tourism department. I find that very interesting. As far as public support of debt is concerned, Alberta is at 37 percent; we're the lowest in the country at 20 percent.
I just noticed that the leader of the Reform Party held up New Zealand as a beacon. Let's take a look at New Zealand. In 1984 New Zealand took a sharp turn to the conservative Right. What happened between 1984 and 1994?
An Hon. Member: They went bankrupt.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, they didn't go bankrupt. Crime rose almost 300 percent; that's the first thing. So that doesn't help too much. Unemployment in 1984 was 4 percent; in 1994 it's 16 percent -- only a 400 percent increase. Teenage suicide is the highest in the world. There is another credit. You know something? In 1984 the number of children in poverty in New Zealand was zero percent; in 1994 it's 24 percent.
Let's take a look at what we are all talking about: the debt and the deficit. New Zealand had a debt of $11 billion in 1984; that has rocketed up to $38 billion in 1994. So much for the great experiment of the hard Right. It's rather interesting when you examine it all the way down the line, and I do that; we track it all the time.
Let's track the best credit rating. We made that statement in the throne speech. Have we got the best credit rating? Yes, we have. We have it by far. And do you know something? I went to an interesting chamber of commerce meeting the other day. I said something entirely out of character. A couple of guys got up and said: "Bill, what about the debt?" I said: "You know something? I'll tell you what. Don't believe me." That's very unusual for a government minister to say. I said: "Don't believe the Liberals and don't believe the Reform." It took several times to get it through. They said: "Well, who do we believe?" I said: "Believe the professionals." And who are the professionals? The professionals are the bond rating agencies: Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Dominion Bond. Why don't they care? They bet hundreds of millions of dollars on it every year. They do not care whether we're social democrats, Liberals or Reform. What they do care about is how we handle the economy. They gave us the finest credit rating in the country by far, and they're not the only ones.
I used another one. I used a totally unbiased magazine which can certainly not be called a social democratic organ: it's called Maclean's magazine. If you look at Maclean's for May 23, 1994, they have it all laid out in a marvellous graph on the lower right-hand side of the page. In that graph it says: "The good, the bad and the ugly." The ugly is the federal government with 74 percent debt to the GDP -- it's staggering. The bad are the other nine provinces, which range from 19.84 percent to 47 percent. There's only one province they call the good. That happens to British Columbia, at 10.91 percent.
The record does speak for itself. I think the public is slowly understanding. When I look over our comments in the throne speech, they are basically sound. The economy is good.
[ Page 13061 ]
Like every part of Canada, we are continuing to focus on jobs, which is very important, and medicare, which is extremely important. So there's the difference between the opposition parties and the government, and I think we'll stand on our record.
F. Garden: The previous speaker is a hard act to follow. I appreciate his comments. He's got to be the best Tourism minister in the country, and he's showing it in jobs for people and the progressive economies in tourism all through this province. As a matter of record, I'd like to read something at the outset. Talking about tourism and jobs and the whole nine yards, I have a letter addressed to the Premier, and I'll read a couple of lines from it.
"It's been a great year for tourism, and refreshing to see a minister not only deliver on his commitment, but in fact exceed an aggressive, measurable goal.
"In these days of fiscal restraint, where there is immense pressure on our provincial government to reduce the debt, although well-warranted [this] unfortunately seems to result in a simplistic approach of either cutting costs or increasing taxes, or both. Your decision to apply an alternative strategy demonstrated an element of leadership and vision which is sadly lacking in our political leaders of today.
"On behalf of our 350-plus-member organization, we commend your decision to take a risk and believe in Mr. Barlee and his industry partners." This is from the president of the Cariboo Tourism Association. Well done, Mr. Minister.
It's once again a great pleasure for me to rise in this House and speak on the Speech from the Throne. It was only three short years ago that I experienced the thrill -- I'm sure the thrill every one of the members in this House experienced -- of standing up in this House and making a maiden speech and replying to the throne speech. We usually do that to put forward the hopes and aspirations we have as MLAs and also to put forward the aspirations and hopes of the people we represent, and what I consider priorities for the riding.
Little did I realize then the tremendous job we had before us in accomplishing this. First we had to overcome a tremendous deficit -- $2.5 billion, as I recall. Spending was increasing at the rate of 12 percent a year, and there was confrontation in the forest industry everywhere. It became very clear to me that before I could get the things I hoped for for my riding and the province, these things had to be dealt with. Things I had as priorities at the time were jobs for people in the forest industry and our region, and regionalized decision-making. Now here we are, three years later, and how do we stand on these issues? As a member of this government, I'm proud to say that we have tackled all these problems and have dealt with them in a spectacular manner. Our Premier has set the stage for economic growth through his Summit conferences by bringing business, labour and environmentalists to the table. That in itself is a tremendous achievement, and there's no doubt in my mind that it was a job that would be impossible for those who represent the opposition party, because people out there just wouldn't trust them.
An agenda was set for our economic priorities. We set an agenda for recovery and sustainable forest jobs, and at the same time protection of the environment. The deficit is almost gone, and the rate of spending is cut. We enjoy the best economy in Canada. Our credit rating is also the best in Canada, and our debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, is the lowest in Canada -- all this in three short years.
[4:45]
The groundwork has been laid. We are now poised on the brink of reaping the benefits of the work that was done, as the throne speech stated: creating jobs, reducing debt, while at the same time protecting vital services to people, which includes medicare. We will not buy into the federal and provincial Liberals' program of gutting medicare, as they continue to press for a two-tier system in Canada. The opposition will deny this, but as has been stated already by my colleagues, they remained silent when the federal Liberals reduced their contributions to this province in the recent budget. The Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that he favours the methods being used by Ralph Klein. He would scrap New Directions, which was stated by the Seaton commission as being vital to the preservation of medicare as we know it. Only three weeks ago Mr. Klein, in the city of Edmonton, slashed one in four health jobs -- 2,000 jobs, which included 250 nurses. He just cut them. There was no accord in place to help the workers through the transition period; just cut them -- you're on the street.
I'd just like to read an article on where we're heading if we follow Klein and the Liberal opposition and their two-tier gutting of the medicare proposal. I don't know if anybody read the Times-Colonist on Friday, but there was an article in there by Mike Grenby. He talks about the kind of system you could get into if you ever get away from what we're doing -- making medicare affordable to every British Columbian. He cited one hospital in Burbank which normally charges $4,300 for a one-day maternity stay for a mother and baby, if you're insured. If you're not insured, you can bargain with them, and the cost gets slashed to $2,900. Normal delivery in another hospital costs $4,300 to $7,100, but if you bargain with them and pay cash, you can get it for $2,600. Is that what we want for the people of British Columbia and Canada? Certainly not. If the opposition continues on the road they're on, that's where we're going to end up. There is no room in this country for that type of American system in British Columbia or Canada, and as New Democrats we are going to make sure that does not happen here.
The opposition also mentioned the other day that there's nothing in the throne speech -- very light legislative package. They said we're running out of steam. I can recall in the last couple of sessions when we were bringing in needed legislation to reverse the kinds of policies that had been rampant in this province for so long and when we started to put the emphasis on people by bringing in legislation that benefits ordinary British Columbians, the opposition was saying: "Hey, you're putting it in too fast. You're bringing it in too quickly; we're not getting time to research. You've got too much legislation coming in." Two sessions in a row they said that. This time they're saying it's not enough. It's not enough because we've already done it.
It's now time to bring in legislation that entrenches some of the values we've been fighting for in the last two or three years. I'm sure that as we get into the session, based on the leaked document which we were very glad you leaked for us because it did get our agenda out front and centre. We want to thank you for the publicity you gave us. You can do that anytime you like, because it was heads-up, and it was appreciated. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that in one session there's too much legislation and in the next session there's too little.
This government has brought in more progressive legislation for ordinary British Columbians in three years than the previous right-wing government, which the opposition represents, in the last 50 years. I call them right-wing, and I do that specifically because in my book they ceased to be Liberals when the Leader of the Opposition and his Howe Street broker buddies hijacked that party from the only true Liberal in this House, who is now the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. So there they are; they're not Liberals any-
[ Page 13062 ]
more. They're buying into this Klein-Manning, right-wing, cut-slash-and-hack agenda, and that's what they represent on that side of the House.
Having said that, it's now time for us to build on the legislation that we've brought through the House in the last two or three years. It's going to mean jobs for British Columbians all through this province. I was pleased to hear the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast praising the initiatives under the forest renewal plan and what we're going to do up there. The forest renewal plan is up and running. Up in the Cariboo they're lining up with proposals to do it better and take advantage of protecting streams and watersheds through the forest renewal plan. That means concrete jobs for the people in my riding. The Forest Practices Code is in its final stages of implementation. The Skills Now program is giving renewed hope to our young people by giving them the training so they can get out of school, partner with industry and get on with meaningful jobs in the upcoming years.
Apart from what I just said about the silviculture and watershed jobs, what does this really mean to the people in the Cariboo? It means jobs in the woods and the mills, adding value to the product that's been getting wasted under previous administrations. The new density fibreboard plant that's soon to be built in Quesnel will mean jobs for people there. That's because the industries in this province have renewed confidence and are now prepared to invest in communities all around the province. It means jobs in mining, now that the Cariboo land use plan has been settled and the mining companies start to invest in projects such as the Kinross gold mine on the Quesnel River. Just in case you don't know where that is, there's a little town called Likely just up the road from Horsefly; that's where the new Kinross mine is going to be built on the Quesnel River. It also means jobs for the Likely people in the new investment by Imperial Metals in the Mount Polley project.
An Hon. Member: What's the price of copper?
F. Garden: My colleague in the opposition asked "What's the price of copper?" I don't know. All I'm interested in is providing jobs for the people in the Cariboo. I don't care what the price of copper is. If we put in the infrastructure so that companies can invest, then I'm sure we'll see jobs, regardless of the price of copper.
Anyway, there is another big project that is coming up pretty soon. It's an infrastructure project -- which again means jobs and investment by this government -- and that's the north-south connector at Quesnel. This project has been bandied about for over 30 years. There's been some infrastructure ready, but the successive administrations have chosen to ignore it. The longer you ignore a project like that, the more expensive it gets, and it certainly is expensive now.
But we've got to the point where there's almost gridlock in downtown Quesnel. My colleague was talking about his connector; I believe it's at Westview or something. There's not another holdup until you come in to the middle of Quesnel. On a given day, some of these large trucks that are travelling from the north to the south will sit idling at these lights, going through town, for at least half an hour. It's got to cost money; it's got to really make the time longer for people getting goods to market.
By putting this piece of infrastructure in there, we'll enhance the investment in that area. I've already had a company come to me and ask, "Oh hey, where's this connector going in? What could we do as far as accessing it?" because they want to move a plant. It will be jobs and money in the town of Quesnel, and that's gratifying. I have said this several times in this House: it will allow the city of Quesnel to take some of the Minister of Tourism dollars and develop the downtown area. We've got a jewel in the Cariboo. There are two rivers that come together; it's just ripe for development as a tourist attraction. But it's disappearing in a cloud of dust with all that traffic going by.
The past weekend, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition naysaying the actions of this government, ridiculing the government's billion dollar proposal for the people in the Columbia Basin. At that time he said we didn't consult -- we haven't talked to the people. Here are the facts. The province has been working with the people of the basin region through the Columbia River Treaty Committee for three years. We've talked to people representing local government, the tribal council and six government MLAs, of course. We held a series of community open houses in the fall of 1993. Over 40 community meetings were held by the CRTC, and two Columbia-Kootenay symposiums with broad regional representation. As well, five detailed updates have been made available throughout the basin. The Leader of the Opposition is out there not quite telling the truth when he's saying people have not been consulted.
He has also been saying that about CORE. He was down at a meeting on the weekend where there was a coalition of coalitions, telling people how we hadn't consulted with anybody on the CORE process and we didn't really know what we were doing. I challenge him to come up into the Cariboo and say that there hasn't been consultation with the people.
I just want to read something again. I like doing this, because you can never get away from the truth of people's statements. This statement was released on March 22; it came from one of these coalition groups, the Cariboo Communities Coalition. Listen to what it says: "Now that we've had a chance to analyze the government's implementation program, we feel it reflects the broad public interest of the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin." Who said that? Mayor Walt Cobb, one of the fiercest critics during the CORE process, but he sees what we've done, and he's given us credit for it. Wade Fisher, another member of that coalition and also a member of the IWA, says: "I think it's unprecedented. It essentially protects workers' jobs and lays out a plan that protects the major economic, social and environmental interests...." A ranching representative on the same coalition: "It appears that ranching has the access it needs." A forestry individual who was involved in the coalition: "We're pleased that the land use plan contains firm access to timber in the form of targets." I could go on. A small business: "The plan gives security to the mineral industry...." All are part of this coalition that was not consulted.
Interjection.
F. Garden: They don't represent the people up there. They don't....
Interjection.
F. Garden: I hear the opposition saying that the people we talked to don't represent the people up there. I'll tell you this: this particular coalition was as vocal and out front as any group during the CORE process, and this is a letter of endorsement from the people in Cariboo for that plan and for jobs for the future. So I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that before he makes these statements, he'd better get his facts straight. We don't need him and his urban cowboys from Howe Street trying to tell us in the Cariboo what we should
[ Page 13063 ]
do. He could stay down here in the lower mainland and say: "Swallow this." In the Cariboo we just won't eat it, because it doesn't taste good.
[5:00]
I'm getting a little carried away; I'm getting off my script, and I shouldn't. I said to the person who wrote it that I wouldn't do that.
I've already told you about the people who are endorsing the CORE process at the same time that the opposition leader is badmouthing it. I dare him to come up there and say these things publicly. I dare him to come up and say that they wouldn't have built the University of Northern B.C., they wouldn't have built the north-south connector, they wouldn't have put skills centres in Williams Lake and Quesnel. Because that's what they're saying: "We're going to cut, we're going to cut, we're going to cut."
I honestly agree with the opposition in one respect. I hear them all yelling for an election. This election will point out the clear difference between the right-wingers that sit in opposition over there and New Democrats. You'll get a choice. It'll be either protection of jobs and an increasing number of jobs and medicare with the New Democrats, or cuts in service and layoffs by the opposition. They've had a good example to follow: the federal Liberals have already shown how it's done. They've cut services to the provinces, they've laid off 45,000 people, and at the same time they've let the billion-dollar-profit-making banks have a free ride. They'd sooner lay off people than touch their corporate friends, the big money people. They'd rather throw 45,000 people out on the street on unemployment insurance and/or welfare and at the same time leave $45 billion in unpaid taxes sitting out there, not getting touched.
Why should I compare the B.C. Liberals with the federal Liberals? Because they've already stated that they will cancel the health accord, they'll repeal the corporation tax, and we know that by doing what they're going to do, they will gut medicare. Even major corporations don't do that anymore; even major corporations don't throw people out in the street. We brought in the health accord so that at the end of that process there would be 4,000 less people in the system, but we would do it gently. When they're faced with downsizing, major corporations do the same thing. In Powell River, major downsizing. They went to their employees, and they offered early retirement packages. They offered bridging packages between what they were making and pensions, and let them down easily. We did the same thing with the health accord. This opposition party wouldn't do that. They'd cancel it and throw these people out in the street. Well, we don't work that way; we are not going to buy into their methods. What we are doing as a government is offering people hope in the form of jobs and in the knowledge that their medicare system will be protected.
If they think they are going to go to the people of this province in an election and sell them a Klein or a Manning agenda, they are dead wrong. They've got a fight on their hands. We didn't get elected to bring in the kind of job-creating legislation we did to see it go down the road with a group of Howe Street -- what will I call them? -- apologists. It's not going to happen. We'll get out on the hustings. We'll put our record before them of creating jobs and saving medicare, and we'll be here in government the next time we come around.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I just want to finish by saying this. Manning and Klein, and now the opposition, seem to have bought into Thatcher and Reaganomics in a big way. They seem to think that if you let the corporations loose, then eventually the benefits will trickle down to the people at the bottom. It just hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in Britain, it hasn't worked in America and it won't work here. When the people of this province weigh these options, see what they stand for in gutting medicare and putting people out in the street on unemployment, and see where we stand as a government that's compassionate, balanced and prepared to build partnerships with industry to put people to work, I'm sure that at that particular time the people of this province will do as they always do. They will elect a government that is good for them, and that will be a New Democratic government.
D. Symons: I really thought I was going to speak to the throne speech, but I'm tempted to respond to the inaccuracies and the scaremongering that the previous speaker was doing, but I won't.
After listening to the throne speech, I began to consider how I should respond to it. My first inclination was to say something like: "Hon. Speaker, I would like to speak to the content of the Speech from the Throne." Then I would pause and then sit down. I'm sure they would be happy about that. As a symbolic gesture, that would just about sum up the content of that speech. One usually looks to the throne speech for the vision the government has for the coming year and for their economic plan. The vision of this address was somewhat myopic. To hear the government tell it, you would think the NDP was responsible for the creation of the beauty of our province, for the natural resources and for creating the position of B.C. on the Pacific Rim. They seem to take credit for all of that. I doubt that they will realize, considering the narcissistic view they have of themselves, that all these things were created by a deity other than the NDP, long before this socialist horde came on the scene. That creator will be here long after the coming demise of this government.
I look in vain, as I have each year since the election, for the economic plan, an outline of how this government intends to stimulate the economy, an indication of how jobs are to be created -- other than laying them off in the forest industry and having them plant trees -- and a plan to show how they will maintain their high level of spending, yet at the same time pay down the massive debt they've accumulated in just three and a half short years in government. Maybe all that will be explained in the budget tomorrow. I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.
It would have been nice to have heard of the government's intention to rescind many of its patronage appointments, of an end to friends and insiders, of a reduction in the size of the bureaucracy of government, of open and fair tendering of government contracts and of a public inquiry into the operation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. All of these would have been a welcome indication that this government intended to mend its ways, but we didn't hear any of that. No, that was not what we heard. What did we get? We got platitudes and the government resting on its dubious laurels. I did expect a bland, feel-good sort of document, as this government has already done all it dares to in taxing and spending and heavy-handed legislation over its first few years in office. They reason: lay low and do nothing that might upset the electorate or remind them of our record of the previous years as we enter into an election period. I don't think the people of British Columbia are so easily fooled. They are not fooled by such a bland throne speech. They are not misled by massive government advertising propaganda, paid for out of the taxpayer's pocket. You realize that to reelect this bunch would lead to more taxes, more spending, more debt
[ Page 13064 ]
and the continued growth in costs of government, as well as more ideologically driven legislation, regulation and intrusion by government into our lives.
We had a little glimpse of this accidentally a few days before the opening of this session of the Legislature. The government decided, in its wisdom, that babysitters were an exploited class, being exploited by the rich and powerful. They decreed that, henceforth, babysitters would be paid the minimum wage of $6.50 per hour. Only the public's outcry awakened them to the fact that it was the working poor who would be hurt by this ill-thought-out policy. I must give the government credit, at least in this case, because they heard the public outcry and reversed their stand. It's too bad the government did not have better hearing when it imposed the corporate capital tax and some of its other ill-advised legislation.
And in that sense I must say that I believe the government did hear the people in that case. But so often they don't, and this is the real problem. I think, in one sense, the government's heart is often in the right place -- of looking after people -- but the NDP does not seem to have the pragmatic manner of putting it into place. Their ideological beliefs get in the way, and what might have been a good idea is poorly implemented and doesn't work. That's, I guess, where we find the federal government were the ones to implement the medicare program in Canada. The NDP make good prods from opposition, but they don't make good government. Their throne speech says: "...other Canadians..."
H. Lali: You guys don't even make a good opposition.
D. Symons: Well, we're going to move to the other side, then. Thank you for your endorsement.
"...look to our province...inspired by our dynamic economy...." It's our natural resources -- particularly the forest industry, which is experiencing a worldwide boom -- that are fuelling our economy. It has nothing to do with this government's policies. In fact, it's the opposite: it's in spite of the NDP not because of it that our economy is in better shape than the rest of Canada. The address goes on to say: "Nothing symbolizes our progress more than how our government and people have moved to bring peace to our woods, and found solutions with typical British Columbian spirit and vigour." Yes, I remember that vigour when they were storming the Legislature, even breaking the stained-glass windows in this very chamber in order, no doubt, to congratulate this government. I remember the enthusiasm of 20,000 loggers protesting on the Legislature lawns. I also remember, just last fall, the confrontation at Port Alberni, when police and mill construction workers were assaulted. Some peace this government brings!
And how does this government react when there's confrontation involving their labour bosses? In the case of the Port Alberni dispute, when illegal pickets turned up at the ferry terminals, they banned the innocent mill construction workers from the ferries and turned a blind eye to those doing the harassing -- a classic case of blaming the victim. The same is true with the school strikes and the B.C. Rail strike. When it comes to labour disputes, this government cannot act in a responsible manner. Its bias becomes all too apparent, and because of its bias it is they're impotent to act when action is called for.
An Hon. Member: Did you write this yourself?
D. Symons: Indeed. My speeches are not written in Washington, D.C.; they're written in my home.
The government goes on to claim: "Never before have so many people...participated in the decisions about the future of our forests that so profoundly affect our lives." In fact, the previous speaker made some comments to that effect.
Unfortunately, what so many people found was that they were participating in a sham. They expressed their views, but they were not listened to.
An Hon. Member: That's not true.
D. Symons: There is a group called the Kootenay-Boundary Communities in Action. They got together because they were concerned about the CORE report, and I'm simply reading from their document. This man says this is not true, but indeed I'm reading from their document; they were at this community Coalition of Coalitions, as the member referred to it last weekend.
It says why we need a locally developed land use plan. Throughout the two years of land use negotiations, there was common agreement by everyone involved that local people should develop a land use plan for the area -- a worthy goal. But what did they find? In its final recommendations, a lot of what the CORE negotiation people agreed to got lost. It got lost, hon. Speaker. So throughout that time they found that what they were participating in.... The actual things got lost. Needless to say, this left an awful lot of people disturbed and upset. We saw this happen on Vancouver Island, and we saw it happen in the Cariboo and in the Kootenays as well.
Indeed, the group the member was referring to earlier was a group set up because they were in conflict with the CORE results and they wanted something better. And they worked out a better program after the government process fell apart.
People having a say, changes coming from the ground up is what the government propaganda machine says. How far from the truth! Last week I attended a Coalition of Coalitions conference in Vancouver. It was attended by groups from all over this province, groups concerned about their future and the future of their communities. I don't think that even one of the attendees felt the changes were coming from the bottom up. They were there for the very reason that they felt this was not happening.
[5:15]
I sat with some people from Tahsis. You might remember Tahsis, hon. Speaker. That's one of the communities where an internal government document suggested that the government delink -- what a wonderful term -- its land use decisions from job losses and associated effects on the community. Any reasonable person would have thought that those effects would have been taken into account as part of the decision and not delinked. I can report back to this assembly that the people of Tahsis do not want to be delinked. Their livelihoods are vitally affected by land use policies, and they want their needs taken into consideration also.
As you may gather, I'm not too enamoured with this government's throne speech. Too much of its claims of success reveal, upon closer examination, gross exaggerations or misrepresentations. It says health care is second to none. Tell me: does Washington State send its patients here for treatment? Does nasty Alberta do that also?
Interjection.
D. Symons: I don't believe to the same extent that B.C. does.
It seems, for a system that is second to none, we are short of some much-needed treatment facilities. What we are long on are waiting lists. It claims....
[ Page 13065 ]
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat. The hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
T. Perry: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I know the member will graciously withdraw his comments about Alberta. Both the Premier and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs were born in Alberta, and by no means of the imagination is Alberta nasty. So I'd ask the member to withdraw that.
The Speaker: Hon. members, from time to time members will take advantage of standing orders in order to get into the debate. But that was not a proper point of order, and I would ask the hon. member to make his comments when he takes his place in the debate. Would the hon. member please proceed.
D. Symons: I thank the member for that, because the impression that Alberta is nasty is not my impression; it's the impression I keep getting from the government. We even heard the previous speaker here sort of doing some Alberta-bashing. I used the term because it seemed to be the impression they have. It's certainly not my impression.
The government claims that skills training is the envy of the country. Look around as I may, I have not seen that expressed by other people in the country. I've not heard or read of other provinces envying our skills training programs. It makes mention of us having the best credit rating, but I read of the Dominion Bond Rating Service expressing concern over how British Columbia is keeping its books by shifting debt from line ministries into Crown corporations. There's also a concern that British Columbia's debt continues to climb rapidly while the other provinces are getting theirs under control.
Therein lies the most serious fault with this document: it does not contain any indication that this government intends to deal with the growing debt crisis. Quite the opposite.
Interjections.
D. Symons: The members obviously don't like to hear this.
It talks about two fundamental choices: reduce spending or continue on the debt path. This government's choice is clear: it's the latter, which is more spending and debt.
The government goes on to say that their strategy will centre on investment in our natural resources, in infrastructure and in people. This is an objective that nobody would find fault with, but this government does not have a monopoly on these issues. There are various methods of approaching the problems facing us on these important issues, but we in the official opposition also recognize their importance -- as much as they would try to say otherwise.
There is a poem by Will Allen Dromgoole that very nicely sums up my concerns. Listen up.
An old man, going a lone highway, Came, at evening, cold and grey, To a chasm, vast, and deep, and wide, Thu which was flowing a sullen tide. The old man crossed in the twilight dim; The sullen stream had no fears to him; But he turned, when safe on the other side, And built a bridge to span the tide. "Old man," said a fellow pilgrim near, "You are wasting strength with building here; Your journey will end with the ending day; You never again must pass this way; You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide -- Why build you the bridge at the eventide?" The builder lifted his old head: "Good friend, in the past I have come," he said. "There followeth after me today, A youth, whose feet must pass this way. This chasm, that has been naught to me, To that fairheaded youth may a pitfall be. He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building the bridge for him."
The question is: what sort of bridge are we building? You see, I'm concerned about what we will be leaving behind for those that follow us. Will it be a province hamstrung by debt? Will it be loaded with bureaucracy? Or will it be a strong, vibrant economy with a lean and efficient government?
One last story to finish up -- a story passed along to me by a former MLA, Jim Nielsen. He tells of W.A.C. Bennett, who said: "A departing Premier leaves three envelopes on the desk, with instructions to open letter number one when the new leader of the government is against the ropes. The contents of letter number one reads: 'Blame the previous administration.' " Well, we saw a great deal of that in the first two years of this government's mandate. "If the trouble grows worse, then the new person in charge is to open letter number two. The contents of this letter reads: 'Blame the media.' " What have we heard recently from this government? "If the trouble continues, then the third envelope is to be opened, but only in desperation. Letter number three reads: 'Prepare three envelopes.' "
Interjection.
D. Symons: They've heard the story.
We've had the first two, and we've been blaming the media. I humbly suggest to the Premier that he now prepare the three envelopes and then call an election. Let the people of this province rate your performance at the polls.
D. Jarvis: I rise to offer my comments to the government's throne speech. I regret that I am not as eloquent as my friend who just finished. I have to say that it is really an honour to get up and speak to the throne speech. But I am somewhat disappointed to say that the throne speech was about as much as I could expect from this government, unfortunately. It was a speech that offered nothing new, really -- just riddled with the same old rhetoric.
I ask: how long can this government go on deceiving British Columbians? How long can this government continue to reward their own political friends at the expense of the people of British Columbia? As the Premier and this government wander aimlessly toward the end of their agenda, we in the Liberal Party and the people of British Columbia are left with nothing more than a feeling of frustration and a string of broken promises. In 1991, when this government was elected, it promised British Columbians that things would be different. It promised fundamental changes in the way government was to be run so that things would be better for the working family in this province. They promised to balance the budget and to reduce the debt. This was not just a verbal promise; it's right here in the writings of "A Better Way for British Columbia," 48 points on the NDP platform. As a matter of fact, that platform was written by Mr. Ron Johnson. If you all remember Ron Johnson, he is the gentleman at the NOW Communications Group. That gives new meaning to the expression: "How now, cash cow?"
We don't have to look far to see that they have failed to keep all of these promises. Our provincial debt is rising at an alarming rate, and it is killing our core services like education and health care. But what is even more alarming is that this government doesn't have a plan to deal with debt reduction. We are at the end or, if not, near the peak of the business cycle
[ Page 13066 ]
in this province. With this government it's an attitude they have that if government can borrow on its assets, it must; if the government cannot borrow, it must tax. We all know you cannot run up debt indefinitely without consequences. This is perhaps where we are heading if things aren't changed. In fact, it seems the only people who don't understand what the debt is doing to our province is this government. This is evident by the fact that they keep spending and spending, and our debt load keeps growing and growing.
When this government first came into power, the debt stood at $16.4 billion. In just three and a half years this government has increased the total debt by 59 percent: it is now pushing $30 billion. This government is borrowing -- believe it or not -- $5.5 million a day just to service its debt. It's a sad, sad state that we are in.
British Columbians do understand one thing: they understand what this government is doing to them. British Columbians know how to balance their own books, and they expect the government to be able to do the same themselves. British Columbians understand that we can't afford any more of this government's reckless spending. We just have to look at the polls. They consistently show that the number one concern of British Columbians is our debt and our deficit.
British Columbians are tired of listening to this NDP government spreading half-truths about our economy. The fact is that our economy is doing well in spite of the NDP, not because of them. The resource industry was built up prior to this government, and the low Canadian dollar is helping us with our exports. We could have taken advantage of the turnaround after the last recession to eliminate our deficits and really cut down on the debt, but we didn't. Instead, this government has used its time to spend its way into the record books.
The NDP have argued that they have a duty to spend in order to provide services for the province with the fastest-growing population in Canada. The plain truth is that when the NDP is serving up the dollars, it's to their political friends who are sitting down at the table, and it's the people of B.C. who are eating the scraps off the floor. They are building monuments to look back at when they are thrown out of office. This government has got to stop giving priority to government friends and insiders, stop spending on the already bloated bureaucracy that they have, stop patronage on programs like the health labour accord, the fair-wage policy and the closed-tender Island Highway projects which have cost this province a sum pushing the $400 million range. We just have to look at the excessive wage bill on the Vancouver Island Highway, which has left too few dollars for the actual highway. Now we see four lanes going into two lanes and stoplights instead of overpasses. We have four or five Westview intersections up and down the highway now. Just try telling the people of Vancouver Island they should sacrifice highway services so that this NDP government of yours can line their own pockets.
British Columbians are tired of seeing their hard-earned money being used to fund government pet projects. British Columbians are fed up with tax increases from a government that promised them none. The whole lot of them over there are Pecksniffians. In the last two years alone, taxes have increased over $2,000 for the average B.C. family. Take-home pay has dropped every year that this government has been in power. In fact, we are now in a negative position. Perhaps this government should come down out of its bureaucratic ivory towers and see what British Columbians really want and use. For a change, they have to use some common sense in their approaches towards governing. We'd all be better off if they realized that. This government doesn't understand that if it cuts its wasteful spending and got its monstrous debt under control, taxes could be decreased without hurting those core services that are so important to British Columbia.
[5:30]
In my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour the feeling is no different. Over and over again I hear my constituents saying: "Cut wasteful government spending and decrease taxes." At one time, education in North Vancouver was the envy of every district in the province. It had an enormous amount of innovative programs and very high standards. Now we have a government which has tried to put every district in this province down to a common denominator so that the less effective districts won't stand out. This is fatal to our education system on the North Shore.
In 1992 the Minister of Education said: "Let us put out a technical distribution group plan." The Minister of Education wanted to establish a fair and equitable method of disbursing funds throughout this province. So with the technical distribution group, he came out with a plan that showed that half of the province would have to drop a few of their dollars. The rest of the districts would gain. When he realized he was going to upset some people, he cut the whole plan apart -- destroyed it. We lost $1.5 million of funding in North Vancouver. Now we see that 44 out of the 75 districts in this province are on the verge of deficit budgets. We haven't seen any improvements. In fact, we have been cheated out of $1.5 million by this government.
While we must cut spending, cut the debt and bring down taxes in order to protect our core services, we cannot just say we have to cut; we also have to grow a bit. We must also ensure that we stimulate the economy. In order to create an environment for business -- large or small -- to prosper and to ensure that we don't stifle the wealth creation of our resource industries, we'll have to grow.
On this note, the government's throne speech was a great disappointment to me, in that it did not address the benefits of the wealth creation in this province of industries in the energy production field or the mineral extraction field. There is a mind-set in this government that mineral production is not necessary or that it cannot be developed by simply digging a hole. I believe it's the Gunton theory they are talking about.
It's quite obvious that through development of the park strategies, the Forest Practices Code, the CORE process and the aboriginal treaty approval process -- by that I mean the interim agreements.... If the interim agreement is in place, the aboriginal band must be able to approve the exploration in that area. These ground rules as they relate to mine exploration are, and will prove themselves, fatal. They are excessively restrictive, especially when you get into the environment end of it and when chairman Moe and his green guard are on guard.
Why is the majority of B.C.'s mining companies exploring in South America, Mexico and elsewhere when there are valuable resources in this province? Do the people in this room know where all the minerals in this province are? Not very likely, and neither does this government. So why is this government impairing exploration by setting up such restrictive guidelines that limit the areas for extraction? In fact, not only do they limit, but in case after case, areas that are known to possess minerals have been excluded. Little do they know that minerals aren't found in valley bottoms, they're found on mountain tops, and half the mountains in the Kootenay area have been excluded from exploration. And that's how smart....
Interjections.
[ Page 13067 ]
D. Jarvis: In the Kootenays, the total protected areas amount to somewhere over 30 percent of the land base. This is unacceptable. The CORE report on the Kootenays is unacceptable as submitted, and if we are in power we will have to look at it again. We believe in the CORE process; it is right. But it will have to be reworked. We'll have to have a socioeconomic study to see what fatal impacts may be in store before any legislation is passed. Does this government not realize that mining has always been a significant contribution to our provincial economy and that it's generated substantial mineral wealth throughout the province?
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I wonder where all these little socialists over there will be if they have to stand up on their street corners in their towns and say that they are not in favour of resource extractions.
We must recognize that mining does not have the same impact on land that, for example, forestry and agriculture have. It is important to recognize that mining exploration is extremely benign, and with proper reclamation most mine operations can be compatible with the existing ecosystems. In fact, only one-tenth of 1 percent of this province's land base is impacted by mining. We are an energy-rich province; we are a forestry-rich province. Yet under this government we have become major importers of both electricity and wood. This is deplorable. Last year we spent approximately $80 million....
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: The gentleman from the Cariboo suggests that it's not true, but it's a fact that we imported approximately $80 million in electricity from Alberta last year -- electricity that was created by burning dirty coal that our Environment minister would not allow in British Columbia. So the NIMBY effect was there.
We also see that we're short of wood. Hundreds and hundreds of trucks are coming across our border from the United States, from Alberta and even from Saskatchewan to supply fibre for our mills because of the green guard and Chairman Moe. Unfortunately, this government doesn't seem to recognize the untapped wealth potential we have right here in British Columbia. This government is too caught up in spending with its own friends and their pet projects. They fail to see what's good for the province, and this is hurting British Columbia.
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: I ask the members across the floor this question: who do you MLAs work for? Do you work for your constituents? Do you work for the province? Or do you work for your friends? I believe it is for their friends.
Unfortunately, we are in a problem in this province, but this government does not understand how to produce and how to create wealth. In three years of power, the NDP has shown time and time again that they prefer to ignore the interests of the very people they are presuming to serve. Upon that note, I shall close.
T. Perry: I look forward to some good heckling in a moment, but I'm just going to make some quiet remarks first.
One of my best friends was seriously injured yesterday in a skiing accident and he's in the spinal cord unit at Vancouver General Hospital today -- recovering, I hope very much. I just want to begin by paying him a tribute, because the experience of hearing this bad news yesterday afternoon made me think again about what I might say in this debate.
He's a man not much older than me who has been preoccupied with social justice all his life in South America and Central America as well as here. He's risked his own safety to help bring the children of refugees back from El Salvador into a safe home in Canada. He has been a very generous community activist. He has served on a board appointed by this government where he faced some exceedingly difficult challenges, won the respect of his colleagues and was elected chair of the board. It reminded me that we should think more often of the opening prayer we heard before the throne speech was read to us and of the prayers we hear daily, and we should think how fortunate we are to have people like this serving us in our society. Some of you know him and perhaps some of you don't. Perhaps he will choose to identify himself, or the news media might make that decision for him. You'll know who I'm talking about in due course. I'm sure all the members here will join me in sending him wishes for a good recovery.
During the course of the weekend, I also had two other experiences which made me rethink what I might say today. One was listening to the Lieutenant-Governor in his farewell speech at a tribute dinner in Vancouver organized by SUCCESS. One of the patrons and prominent organizers of SUCCESS, Mr. Dan Chan, made what may have been a slip of the tongue or may have been deliberate, but I thought it was very beautiful. He referred to the Lieutenant-Governor, Dr. Lam, and his wife as "our honours," not "your honour." It was the plural possessive, and I thought it reflected very nicely the warmth with which British Columbians have come to think of the Lams. I want to relay that to members of the Legislature.
Dr. Lam gave a very thought-provoking speech, as he usually does, and I made some notes last night. Among other things, referring specifically to immigrants but it's equally applicable to those of us who are non-immigrants, he said: "Although we all have different paths, all of us can share the same future, especially if we refuse to let our past poison our future." He alluded to the three constitutional rights of the Lieutenant-Governor: to warn, to know and to encourage. He emphasized the last right, the right to encourage. As he put it, he encourages the "unenforceables." And what are the unenforceables? Dr. Lam defined them as what makes Canada the best country to live in, and said that "we must protect the unenforceables, for no government can legislate love, compassion and harmony or the spirit of caring and sharing," given that these are unenforceables. To me, that's a classical Judeo-Christian message, but Dr. Lam pointed out that it is also a Buddhist message. It's also a Muslim message. It's a message of all the great religions and many of the smaller religions of the world. I felt I wanted to share that with other members here.
The third experience I had over the weekend was to listen to tributes in honour of our colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who was described by many people -- from the United Church, from political life and from the community he lives in -- as a man of fundamental decency. His children gave him wonderful tributes, as did his wife. He also revealed something that we've seen here occasionally, but not as often as we might like: an amazing and remarkable sense of humour. I think that those members of the Legislature who love Lewis Carroll should know that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville will bring "Jabberwocky" to a life that you have never known before. I hope that members will insist, along with the press gallery, that "Jabberwocky" be performed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs at the annual dinner this year.
[ Page 13068 ]
[5:45]
That said, I leave one last regard for the five crew members of the B.C. Ambulance Service flight who died at Masset in January. Some of what I'm going to say about medicare reminded me of their willingness to make an ultimate sacrifice in trying to rescue a woman pregnant with a baby about to be born.
Now, members, feel free to heckle if you wish.
I have heard enough in the last few hours about the throne speech that I picked it up again and perused it quickly to remind myself, because the debate I heard from the opposition benches did not seem to bear any relationship to the document I heard the Lieutenant-Governor pronounce last Wednesday. I think it's actually an important document. Throne speeches are traditionally brief and somewhat vague, and they're not renowned for their humour, but they are nonetheless important.
This throne speech is perhaps more important than most, because it outlines fundamental differences of philosophy, fundamental differences in approach to the public in the values that we place on life. It ties into many of the unenforceables that the Lieutenant-Governor referred to last evening in Vancouver. It does not purport that we can legislate all of those unenforceables. In fact, most of them we can't.
We must trust in a spirit of community in society. That debate over whether our society is a community and whether government has any role in maintaining a sense of community, or whether we are all atavistic individuals living in a state of nature subject only to the laws of Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill -- that's the fundamental debate about this throne speech, to me.
I listened with care, albeit with some interruptions, to the hon. member for Peace River South, who, at least in my view, gave a rational discourse. There were some things I disagreed with, and there were many things I agreed with in his speech. He had thought it through carefully. Most of it was free of demagogy. I wish I could say the same for the speeches coming from the Liberal benches. I find them remarkably demagogic.
The Leader of the Official Opposition ran an election campaign type of advertisement in a local newspaper in Vancouver yesterday, the Courier, replete with promises to slash taxes, cut spending and reduce the deficit all at the same time. He in no way identified what spending he would cut. He promises grossly irresponsible tax cuts in contrast to the leader of the Reform Party, who stated frankly that major tax cuts would be impossible to deliver at this point in our history. The leader of the Liberal Party promises wild assertions that he will maintain social services, medicare and education in exactly the same way that we just heard from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who wants government spending to be cut but much more of it to be in his riding -- a completely irrational and totally demagogic position. It made me wonder whether the Leader of the Official Opposition had paid for the advertisement out of his own pocket, or whether he too had chosen to run up the deficit by another $1,500 or so to pay for that advertisement.
What are some of the key core issues that are raised in the throne speech? I see three that are particularly important to me. The preservation of our medicare system as a system that provides high-quality health care services for all British Columbians, all of our citizens, regardless of their wealth, social status, race, sex, sexual orientation or any other consideration -- that has not just happened by chance. It was fought for by generations of Canadians.
It was fought for in Europe. It was fought for in the United States and never won. My late father was involved for 40 or 50 years trying to fight that battle in the United States, hoping for a fair, just, equitable health system for people regardless of whether they were rich or poor, and he never succeeded. Many others have come after him and tried. Even President Clinton and his wife have tried and failed abjectly, because that society does not agree that it is a fundamental human right to have good health care.
We do. Let us never forget that. We in Canada believe that good health care when you're sick, good preventive care when you can be prevented from getting sick and good home support when you're sick and can be better treated at home than in hospital are fundamental human rights. They're like the rights of liberty, free speech and freedom of religion; they are that important. Canada subscribed to those in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We subscribed to them in Canada, and still do in this province in particular.
Not all people do. Let us not confuse ourselves. I find it very sad personally to see that the propaganda organs of the British Columbia Medical Association, like the BCMA News, are now stridently calling for the privatization of the health care system. I'm proud to say that I remain a BCMA member, yet I'm very disappointed to see the professional organization that represents doctors in that way calling overtly for the weakening of a system which has benefited physicians almost as much as, if not more than, virtually anyone else in this country. Let's not forget how much it has benefited the average Canadian citizen, because many of our younger people don't recall a time when we did not have universal medicare.
My friend who was so grievously injured yesterday had left his wallet at a party on Friday night. No one asked to see his wallet or his medicare card. No one asked for his material wealth or a declaration of his assets before treating him. He was met at the mountain where he was injured by the highest-quality, finest ambulance service in the world -- bar none. It was established by an NDP government because of that fundamental respect for health care as a human right, not a privilege. He was rushed into one hospital and transferred to another without a single question ever being asked about whether he could pay for that service or not. That is a right in Canada, but it is not a right in many other countries of the world -- notably the great nation immediately south of us, which has led the world in so many other ways but has dragged behind it in that one way so sadly.
That right is potentially imperilled. The last patient whom I treated in my active medical practice before the government changed hands in 1991 was a very poor man found on the tracks of the Arbutus rail line in the middle of the night, hypothermic and covered with lice. Yet he was brought to the University Hospital by the same ambulance service, and he received the same standard of care that any wealthy person of high social status would have received. He was treated to the best of the hospital's ability, promptly and with the same respect that any other individual would have received.
That's not a privilege, in my opinion; that's a human right. But it's not a human right accepted everywhere else in the world. Let us remind ourselves of that. Have we benefited from those rights? Anyone who has been sick knows that a high standard of care is still available in this province -- occasionally there are exceptions. We must strive constantly to make sure that the exceptions are as few as possible. Yet over and over I hear the remark from patients, who have been in hospitals that they have received a very high standard of care and that the quality of caring delivered by health professionals in our health system is as good as anywhere else.
[ Page 13069 ]
Not only do we have a high standard, but we have an affordable system which has remained much less costly than the American system. It's perhaps more costly than some systems in countries that compete directly with us, which have been even more rational than us in development of services. But our system is much less costly that the American one in global costs for one very simple reason: it's a public system. It does not have a high entrepreneurial element like the system in which hospital corporations, investors like Humana, investing doctors, nurses or anaesthetists or anyone else, can make as much money as they possibly want and can drive the demand for services, regardless of social values or necessity or good medical science.
We have a system in which we've been overly generous sometimes. We still provide services that are not necessary. Yet we have the ability at the level of government to make rational decisions to ensure that necessary services will be provided and to protect people -- believe it or not -- from unnecessary services.
We've come a long way from the days when Moliere described doctors as people who poured medicines about which they knew little into patients about whom they knew even less. We're not perfect yet, but we've come a long way towards rational medical science, largely because we have a public medical system. What has happened in countries where that's been eroded? You have to look no further than the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Europe, and you will find an intense entrepreneurial element, the provision of services that are unnecessary and the continuous erosion of public health care services. When those people who are the most well-heeled and the most powerful in society no longer require the public system and can, at the drop of a cheque or credit card, purchase services -- whether necessary or not -- they deem important at that time and bypass the public system, then the pressure to maintain a high-quality public system is inevitably eroded.
That's why I'm so scared about what I see coming from some of the leadership of the B.C. Medical Association, such as the Liberal candidate from Kamloops, Dr. Gur Singh. The extent to which he has profited personally from a medical system which was very generous to doctors is a travesty. One need only look at the blue book billings of Dr. Gur Singh to see how well he has done by the medical system in Canada. And now he would like to take that away from poor people. That's shocking, and it's very disturbing. It is shocking that the Liberal Party would welcome a candidate like that. Dr. Gur Singh has every right to his views, but to be welcomed into a party which purports to be a party that defends medicare -- someone who is actively campaigning for the sabotage of medicare -- is frightening. It behooves those members of the Liberal Party who are still committed to a public system to examine their consciences and to think where their party is drifting. It's drifting so far to the Right on issues like this that it frightens me. It has nothing in common with the federal Liberal Party, which has at least a nominal commitment to protect medicare.
I hope there are people listening to these debates. I know there are not many. For all of you out there in TV land who are watching, I hope you're thinking about this because this may be a central issue of the 1990s. The debate over medicare will determine whether or not you and your children will have a public medical system into the future. I find that at least the Reform Party is thinking about these issues and asking questions in an intelligent way about whether or not the system is affordable. The Liberal Party is flirting with privatization, nominally pretending to be defenders of the public. I think the public ought to look at that very, very carefully.
There are a number of other matters I would like to raise in my response to the throne speech, and I think I have some time left. But as I've reached a logical dividing point in my remarks, I would propose, with the indulgence of the House, that we now adjourn for dinner and that I reserve my place in the debate for the remainder of my allotted time until tomorrow morning.
T. Perry moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: Just before I move adjournment, I wish to say that I've reviewed the Blues, and I may have inadvertently misled the House today in my answer to the question from the House Leader. So I'd like to clarify the record briefly. When one includes personal service contracts by my ministry, clearly the vast majority are not tendered. So in that respect I did inadvertently mislead the House, and I apologize to them for that. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]