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)
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 21
[ Page 13349 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'd like to introduce Denis, Donna and Danica Gregoire, and their friend Maya Appenzeller. These four people are from Stewart, the constituency of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Denis is the manager of the Westmin Premier gold project there. He's here attending a meeting of mine managers in Victoria. I'd like the House to help me make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: On behalf of my colleague the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I'd like to introduce two members of his constituency who are in the House: Gerry and Janet Morris. Would everyone give them a warm welcome, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the gallery today are Sharon and Doug Hayes of Coquitlam. Sharon Hayes happens to be the Reform Member of Parliament for Port Moody-Coquitlam and a good friend, and I would like to ask the House to join me in making them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Don Innes, accompanied by Sheryl Offer, a practicum student who has been working in my office over the last number of months assisting the residents of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I'd like the members to make them both welcome.
D. Symons: Seated in the gallery today are people who are members of Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Food Animals. They are here today requesting a total ban on the use of veal crates. Would the House please make welcome Tina Harrison, Loretta Marquis, Maggie Flintoff, Nicholas Reed -- I don't see him there -- Ellen Hardy, Joy Hurren, Arlene Parish and Sylvia Pemberton.
D. Jarvis: Again, on behalf of another one of my associates, the member for Vancouver-Langara, I'd like to have the House give a warm welcome to Mr. R. Picard, a teacher at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, and 70 grade 10 international baccalaureate students.
G. Brewin: It gives me pleasure to welcome in the gallery today my constituency assistant, Bruce Fogg. With him is the practicum student I have had from the University of Victoria School of Social Work, and her name is Kim Richards. She's been absolutely terrific to have with us for the last couple of months. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: In the precincts today are representatives of the British Columbia firefighters -- principally men at this point, but some women. When we see them when there's a disaster, we see them with a lot of relief. I would like the House to not only thank them but to make them welcome here today.
G. Wilson: I see among the firefighters an old friend and former constituent, Mr. Feenstra. I would like the House to make Mr. Feenstra particularly welcome, as he comes to this House anxious for this government to implement the amendments to the labour code, which they are all expecting from this Labour minister in the next weeks of this session.
D. Mitchell: I seem to be a member of the fastest growing political movement in the province today. I wonder if members of the House would like to join me in welcoming the newest independent member of the assembly, the member for Chilliwack.
The Speaker: Hon. members, with your permission I would like to take a moment to say a few words about someone I met during my first term of office, back in 1972. I don't usually like to use my position to make statements, but I hope you will permit me to make a comment on the sudden passing of Candide Temple, who early yesterday morning passed away in Victoria.
Candide had an outstanding career with the press, radio and television, and as a freelance journalist. In 1975 Candide was the first woman to win the Louis St. Laurent fellowship in legal journalism, and she studied constitutional and labour law at Queen's University. She also studied the international law of the sea, and maintained an interest in these areas during her career. In addition, Candide served in several important posts over the years with government: an executive assistant, Finance ministry communications director and manager with the Purchasing Commission. She was meticulously professional and non-partisan during her career and brought to her various important positions great insight combined with a gentle manner. She is survived by son Nicholas and husband Jim Hume, who is well known to all members of this House. I'm sure that all members will wish the Speaker to convey their heartfelt condolences to Candide's family.
Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tourism Act.
Hon. B. Barlee: Bill 14 repeals in full the existing Ministry of Tourism Act. This bill will update and clearly reflect the powers, functions and activities of the Tourism ministry. The bill, as proposed, also gives tourism a statutory presence in land use planning and resource management. The bill therefore supports the commitment made by Premier Harcourt on October 25, 1994, to represent tourism resource interests in regional resource planning and policy development.
Bill 14 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.
VANCOUVER ISLAND LAND USE PLAN
Hon. A. Petter: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I would like to inform the House of an important announcement made by our government earlier today concerning the implementation of the Vancouver Island land use plan, one of four regional land use plans undertaken by this government. Today we announced finalized boundaries for new protected and low-intensity areas on the Island. This fulfils a number of commitments we made when the regional plan was announced last June. First, it meets the Premier's commitment
[ Page 13350 ]
to achieve greater economic certainty for workers, their families and communities and for B.C.'s forest industry.
Second, it illustrates how land use planning can both protect our environment and secure jobs for British Columbians. Finally, it honours our commitment as a government to consult with all interests before making final decisions on the boundaries for these areas.
[2:15]
We have confirmed today final boundaries that result in size reductions for many of the 23 protected areas, with corresponding increases in the size of the Tahsish-Kwois and Brooks-Nasparti protected areas to maintain 13 percent of Vancouver Island as protected areas. This incorporates revisions that were requested during consultations carried out with workers, communities, the industry and environmentalists. Coupled with a strategy to address the impacts of these changes on communities and companies in the Nootka Sound area -- a strategy that was endorsed last week in principle by all the main players, including the mayors of Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos -- these final boundaries will optimize the benefits of the land use plan and result in greater economic certainty for all.
In addition to protecting important environmental values, stabilizing the overall fibre picture and improving job opportunities, this decision opens the way for the dedication of the commercial forest land base in the forest land reserve that was made possible by legislation passed in this Legislature last spring. On Vancouver Island, this means that 81 percent of the land base available for commercial forestry and other sustainable resource use will enjoy real, long-term security for the first time.
Successful resolution of contentious land use issues can only be achieved through cooperation among all parties. Real progress towards sustainability and towards certainty and stability for workers, communities and companies comes from breaking down the barriers of the past and seeking support for options within affected communities. It is always more difficult to face problems and seek creative solutions than to predict catastrophe, sow fear and divide communities. But it is vastly more productive to work closely with communities, to address their fears and to instil confidence by bringing certainty to land use.
Now that government has finalized the boundaries of a land use plan -- with extensive support from Island communities -- and has overcome opposition predictions of doom and gloom, it is an opportune time for the opposition parties, who have disagreed so vehemently with our vision and the value of land use certainty, to state clearly what they would do, spell out their disagreement and tell the public what they would do differently. What parks would they eliminate? How would they produce certainty and stability for workers, their jobs and communities? Set aside your negativity and say how you would achieve sustainability on behalf of all British Columbians.
W. Hurd: I'm amazed to hear the minister talk about sowing division and dividing communities. His government's leaked land use memo probably had much to do with the government's decision to go back to the table and try to reach a consensus with the communities on the North Island. I invite the minister to reread that leaked memo in which he talks about sowing a division in the communities. "Dividing" and "conquering" were words used.
This is the government's third attempt to establish boundaries in the Vancouver Island land use plan. It started two years ago with the arrival of 25,000 British Columbians on the lawns of the Legislature; it ended a year ago with an announcement by the Premier, without a single boundary attached to any one of the 23 protected areas. The government suggests that's a way to sow confidence in the communities of the North Island!
Finally, a leaked memo produced real pain in the North Island communities of Zeballos, Tahsis and Gold River. I recall being at a meeting, which the minister attended, at the new Ministry of Forests office in Nanaimo. People from Gold River, Tahsis and Zeballos came down bearing coffins for their towns. That's the kind of demonstration we've seen. I say to the hon. minister: if this is the way we arrive at harmonious land use and environmental decisions in the province of British Columbia, we are indeed headed for rocky times in the years ahead.
R. Neufeld: It's obvious by the so-called ministerial statement from the Minister of Forests that there's election fever in the air. I guess if there's any party that knows how to sow fear, it's the NDP; they've been doing it for 40 years. They're bringing out that expertise when we're dealing with health care now. They do it quite well.
To get back to the supposed statement that they have finally settled the park-area boundaries on Vancouver Island, I guess the proof will be in the pudding. If we have another demonstration on the lawns like the one with 25,000 people we witnessed here a while ago over a land use plan that had supposedly been done in a consultative fashion, we'll see how well this one has been done. If it has in fact been negotiated fairly, openly and honestly with the people from those communities, as the NDP promised they would do -- though they haven't lived up to it yet -- then so be it. We'll see what happens in future. There's no doubt about it: there are a lot of fears out there about jobs. We shouldn't be playing on people's fears with the type of thing that has happened with this government in the past. I just hope that this negotiated -- and, hopefully, consultative -- process leads to a point where we are going to see workers back in the woods working, and that the 81 percent that the minister is talking about is not just at the top of the mountain but is in fact some good productive forest land. Then we'll see some jobs for people, and I guess that will come in time.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?
G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
The Speaker: I hear a nay, hon. member.
Leave not granted.
IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON INTERPROVINCIAL CONTRACTS
M. de Jong: Abbotsford-based Conair Aviation confirmed yesterday that it will be forced to lay off up to 30 highly
[ Page 13351 ]
trained, highly skilled employees because of a decision by the Northwest Territories government to deny non-N.W.T. companies the right to bid on an aerial firefighting contract. It's no surprise that an NDP government that incorporates interprovincial trade barriers into projects like the Island Highway project would be met by this sort of retaliatory action. My question to the Premier is: how can he justify his government's policies that discriminate against out-of-province workers coming to B.C., knowing full well that the result will be discrimination for B.C. workers and companies seeking employment opportunities elsewhere in Canada?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the member knows, we have an agreement on purchasing with the western provinces and the northern territories where the vast majority of the work in British Columbia has benefited the prairie provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories far more than British Columbia and those other provinces. We have been working very diligently to open up the ability of other provinces to trade across our boundaries.
Obviously, the member has not been reading the paper. I can think of some reasons why he wouldn't. The hon. member has not seen that of the 41,000 new jobs created in western Canada in March, 29,000 were in British Columbia. That's on top of the 140,000 that have been created in British Columbia over the last three years -- 40 percent of the new jobs in Canada.
Conair, with their equipment, is a well-respected world leader in the area of fighting fires. I am going to follow up on the member's suggestion of getting in touch with the Northwest Territories about this to make sure that Conair can bid on these contracts.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: Notwithstanding those comments from the Premier, the fact is that this government's willingness to impose its own version of interprovincial trade barriers is resulting in lost jobs for skilled workers in Abbotsford and across British Columbia. While this government signs agreements designed solely to curry favour with their union friends, the workers at Conair are being left to pay the price. My supplementary question to the Premier is: how can he continue to promote policies, like the Island Highway agreement, that are closing doors that were previously open to workers in the territories and in provinces all across Canada?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We know who wrote that question: it was the independent contractors, the non-union contractors, who helped build the Coquihalla and who helped build the Alex Fraser Bridge on cost-plus contracts that cost three times what they were supposed to. That's where the hon. member is getting his advice.
We're making sure that British Columbians can get paid a decent day's rate for a decent day's work on the Island Highway, on dams that are going to be built in the Kootenays, on the University of Northern British Columbia and on schools in Surrey and in Richmond -- building a province and creating jobs with public sector investments that help the private sector to create jobs. That's what a New Democrat government would do, not overspend as the free-enterprisers -- whatever they're called on that side -- did on the Coquihalla and the Alex Fraser Bridge.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH CHI TAH COMMUNICATIONS
G. Farrell-Collins: The only people getting great good-paying jobs in this province are NDP hacks who are being appointed by this government. I say that because I have another example of it. The Liberal opposition has received copies of yet another contract signed by this government, with Chi Tah Communications -- owned by Ron Johnson, that good friend of the NDP. This time it's a $9,500 contract for one month's work out of the Premier's Office. My question to the Premier is: did he inform Mr. Hughes, when he had his hearings with Mr. Hughes, that not only was NOW Communications getting contracts but that Chi Tah Communications was also getting contracts intimately linked with the Premier and NOW Communications?
Hon. M. Harcourt: You can see another continuing example of the politics of smear coming from the opposition. They don't have any substantive vision for this province, so now they're attacking the Liberal Prime Minister's Team Canada trip to China. Chi Tah helped prepare the media presentation to make sure that the Chinese Canadian community in British Columbia was aware of the opportunities that were being opened up, was informed of those opportunities when I came back, and that the Chinese media were aware of the huge role that the Chinese Canadian community played in the delegation from British Columbia -- 35 percent of the 500 people who went to China.
This is how limited the opposition is. Here we are trying to create jobs for B.C. companies, and they're criticizing us for doing that. They're criticizing their own Liberal Prime Minister for the Team Canada trip, and the many Chinese Canadians who went on this trip, whom I was very proud to have along with me. We were creating jobs for British Columbia.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
[2:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: Once again, the only people who got jobs were the Ron Johnsons.
Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Investment told us that Chi Tah was the only firm that was qualified to do that work. We phoned six major communications firms in Vancouver today, and all six said they could have handled that contract without any trouble. Instead, Chi Tah Communications was incorporated on September 12, 1994. Nine days later, on September 21, 1994, the Minister of Employment and Investment put them on a $10,000-a-month retainer to provide communications advice to the Premier and to the minister.
Once again to the Premier: can he tell this House whether or not he informed Mr. Hughes, when he was being questioned, about the link between the Premier's Office, the government and Ron Johnson's Chi Tah Communications?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing example of the cynical politics of the opposition. They have nothing of substance to say.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order, please.
[ Page 13352 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: They are trying now to play further games with a specious charge that has no substance to it, that is unfair and politically motivated and that was brought against me by the CKNW bureau chief and the leader of the Reform Party. And now, rolling in the politics of smear, we have the Liberal opposition playing politics with that all over again.
Hon. Speaker, I am not going to interfere with Mr. Hughes's look at this issue. I am not going to play politics with this process, because I am too busy announcing today, with the Minister of Forests, a practical, positive solution that brings people together to create certainty and more jobs on Vancouver Island, instead of the politics of smear we have over here.
LINKS BETWEEN PREMIER'S OFFICE AND U.S. POLITICAL ADVISERS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier also. In January I revealed that the Premier's staff had made over 400 phone calls to Struble-Totten. In addition to those calls, I have now confirmed that other political hacks have made over 1,400 phone calls to Karl Struble and his Democrat friends in Washington, D.C. Many of those calls were over two hours in length, and one in excess of four hours. Can the Premier explain why, with all those phone calls and faxes, there isn't one shred of a document in the Premier's office available to us under FOI?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The leader of the Reform Party, who brought forward these politically motivated allegations against me, isn't satisfied now to let Mr. Hughes investigate this matter and report to the House. He now wants to add politics to the politics that he is playing with the allegations that he brought against me. And I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that I am too busy focusing on making sure that British Columbians have jobs in record numbers, as we have done in the last three years, working in partnership with the private sector and making sure that the Minister of Health is doing his job protecting medicare from Liberals in Ottawa and here in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Of those 1,400 calls, over 100 of them were placed to a company called the Mellman Group, a prominent Washington polling firm that works for the Clinton Democrats. Many of those calls were placed by John Heaney's office, who has recently become famous for his E-mail. We want to know whether the province has paid the Mellman Group, either directly or indirectly, for polling or other activities in Washington. If so, how much have they paid?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member has access to freedom-of-information and he has a research staff that isn't that hard-pressed, because now they don't have to get brown envelopes under the door; they just go to freedom-of-information and xerox it. I'm sure he can get that information through that process.
B.C. ENERGY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
D. Jarvis: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources stated last week that she had worked out an arrangement with Mr. Gathercole. You will recall that the NDP created the Energy Council two and a half years ago and provided their special friend, Mr. Gathercole, with a five-year no-cut, no-trade contract. In an attempt to appear responsible, the NDP cancelled this fiasco last year, but the salary of Mr. Gathercole continued on and on. I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to tell us how much Mr. Gathercole is being paid, and what he is doing.
Hon. A. Edwards: The Energy Council presented to this government an excellent energy strategy, which had the participation of people right across this province. It is a strategy that would lead to a significantly better energy policy in the province, more jobs and a better society. Mr. Gathercole did that job. At the end of his time, which was the end of November 1994, he finished his job and then wound up the Energy Council. The negotiations, which he completed with government now, mean that he is no longer in the government employ. I would have to find out the information about the actual amount and the time that that was completed. But I must say that for a gentleman who did as much good for this province as Mr. Gathercole, I'm very proud to be able to have his strategy, which we will be bringing to the public again.
D. Jarvis: It's apparent that the minister is embarrassed about how much she paid Mr. Gathercole in salary, severance and on and on. Perhaps the minister could tell us the total cost of the Energy Council.
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe that is a question that will be canvassed during estimates, and I would be pleased to deal with it then.
ADAMS LAKE BLOCKADE
G. Wilson: My question is to the Attorney General. Hours ago we learned that violence has broken out on the Adams Lake blockade as a result of a contractor who was trying to move equipment onto private land. An altercation took place on that private land, where his tug and barge were severely damaged and some physical assault took place causing, I understand, one broken arm and other bruises to those who were involved. Can the Attorney General tell us why his ministry has not interceded in a three-week-old dispute on a public road to make sure that passage is provided for people who own fee simple title of lands beyond? Why has there been no action taken to precipitate against such violence breaking out in the Adams Lake situation today?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't been advised of today's apparent incident, and I'll take the question on notice.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Does the hon. member have a further question?
G. Wilson: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Do you have a new question?
G. Wilson: I have a new question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
[ Page 13353 ]
The minister's officer, Mr. Randy Brant, has been in that area and has been good enough to keep me informed of progress. Could the minister tell us if in fact there was an agreement that resulted from those discussions and whether or not today's unfortunate events are strictly a result of a lack of communication with those people on the blockade? Or has there, in fact, been no agreement made?
Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Brant advised me on the weekend that discussions were moving along well. I was just advised at the moment of coming into the chamber of the incident this morning. My understanding is that the RCMP are on the site and are investigating. We will, through the Attorney General, have that information in more detail very, very soon.
I do want to point out, however, that this is an issue that has a very clear federal responsibility. There was an order-in-council that should have been signed in 1982. It was not signed. It would have addressed this. But having said that, the provincial government is seeking to work with this situation. Mr. Brant has been on the site. He has been talking to the people there; he has been bringing people together. He is doing all that is reasonably possible to seek to find a resolve to this very difficult situation. I will continue to keep the member informed, as my office has been doing, on a regular basis.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act during the fiscal year ended December 31, 1993; and the report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act during the fiscal year ended December 31, 1993.
D. Symons: It is my pleasure to present a petition from the group of people called Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Food Animals. The petition of the undersigned reads:
"The Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Food Animals state that the undersigned do hereby request legislation be forthcoming regarding the well-being of veal calves to ensure that they are treated humanely -- that is, they see daylight, contact with other calves, space to move, proper diet to avoid anemia and diarrhea, etc. Such legislation will eliminate veal calf use from Canada, as has been done in England, Sweden and Switzerland. The petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House accept their request."
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act.
COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST ACT
(second reading continued)
Hon. A. Edwards: I can't say how gratifying it is to be standing in this House to deal with the Columbia Basin Trust Act after many, many years. Those of us who live in the Kootenays and the Columbia basin have been working on the issue and listening to the stories over again and knowing the situation that happened when the Columbia River Treaty was signed back in the early 1960s. When the terms of that agreement were put together and the expropriations of property went ahead, any number of people in the Kootenays were not given a reasonable return. Our concerns have lasted for 30 years. The issues have changed over those years. There has not only been the signing of the treaty, then there was the expropriation of the land and the proposals that there be diversions of one river into another. With various things from year to year, the memories of the people who live in the Columbia and Kootenay basins have been kept alive, mainly with negative memories -- not good memories. After all, compensation for the people in the basin was not adequate. That is the basis for the activity that occurred as soon as we came to power.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: One member asks what is adequate. Obviously, what is adequate is what didn't happen. If there had been an adequate return to the people of the Columbia basin, they would have forgotten it over 30 years; they would have given up talking about it. Nobody gave up talking about it; nobody gave up writing books about it. It was a situation where there was inadequate return to the people who bore the price of the dams that were built in Canada to store water for generation of electricity downstream. The reason, of course, is that the complaints were legitimate. Many of us there heard many legitimate complaints. We heard many that were not legitimate, but we heard many, many that were. Put that together with the kind of quiet bitterness that came from some people who didn't often talk about the situation but knew that what happened around that treaty and the settlement of it was simply not an adequate situation for what was paid by the region in environmental, social and economic terms.
We were able to respond to that longstanding concern in a relatively short-term way. I am very proud of that part because I was with it all the way. It came right from the people from the grass roots talking to other people from the grass roots, and we were able to respond -- some of us who are now in a position to do something about the situation, about this long memory, and about this long matter of bitterness and concern.
In January 1993, I went to the Kootenays with the then Minister of Economic Development, and we met with members of regional districts in the area. That began a series of meetings that involved the public, which led -- from January '93, basically within two years -- to the establishment of an agreement and a plan as to how we can work with the Columbia Basin Trust. We planned, at that January meeting, to have a symposium.
[2:45]
We had a symposium in Castlegar in June 1993, and it was huge. The three government ministers, a number of other government people, any number of regional government people and a huge number of the general public who had an interest in what we were talking about came to that symposium and talked in fairly great detail about the memories we had, the situation we faced and whether there was any way we could reasonably respond to this story that has become part of the history of the Kootenays. That led to other meetings; it led to people getting together in small groups and in large groups; it led to open houses at communities throughout the basins of the two rivers; it ultimately led to another symposium by November '94.
[ Page 13354 ]
That symposium followed an announcement by the Premier that we had come to an agreement on amending the downstream benefit entitlement part of the Columbia River Treaty. Because of that, the government of B.C. came to an agreement with what was then called the Columbia River Treaty Committee to work together toward this legislation and this result for the people who care about the Kootenays, the Columbia basin, the Kootenay River basin and the land that surrounds them. Again we had a huge turnout. People came from the whole region to discuss the issues and to be very specific about what they wanted to do. This was probably, as I say, the culmination of all these meetings, which finally came just last month in Castlegar with an announcement that we had the final agreement on how this legislation would go together. It was a meeting of more than 400 people on a Sunday afternoon, at short notice. People turned out because this was an answer to a concern that has been in the hearts of the people in the Columbia and Kootenay basins for many, many years.
As I said, there was another part to this. There was the part of renegotiating the downstream benefit entitlement part of the treaty. I was honoured to lead that, and I was very pleased that after months of work we were able to come back with an agreement that gave us, the people of British Columbia, a better return on the entitlement than we would otherwise have had. That better return has allowed people in this province the opportunity to do something significant with the entitlement that will begin to return to the province. Within this fiscal year there will be a first payment. Then the actual terms of the agreement will kick in. It will begin to return in 1998, then again in the year 2000, and by the year 2003 we will be having the return on the entitlement from all three storage dams that we built in Canada.
We will debate these, I hope, when we deal in committee stage of this bill, but this bill will look at the economic, environmental and social benefits to the area. That is what this legislation is designed to do. It is designed to be broad and to look across all lines to all areas where we could actually make a difference. It is going to be directed by a board of directors who are all from within the basin. That is a difference. It is the appropriate response to the concerns of people who lived in this basin and know what the Columbia River Treaty did, and who know what the difference has been because we had those dams, compared to what would have happened had we not had those dams.
The opposition has been a little confused over their response to this whole issue. When we announced that we had renegotiated the treaty, that there would be something for the people in the Kootenays and that we would have part of that return go to the people in the Columbia basin, there was a significant outcry from the people across the way. Of course, those who had been Socreds for many years -- and some of them had all of a sudden become Reform Party members -- knew right off the bat that they shouldn't give anything away. For years and years and years they hadn't listened to the people in the Kootenays, and therefore they shouldn't start now.
Well, interestingly enough, that situation has changed. I must say that the leader of the Reform Party has put his position in terms that, he said, clarify his situation. He has admitted that he has finally been influenced by the people in the Kootenays. He says: "No region has paid as great a price as the Kootenays, a fact that I have grown to appreciate with greater clarity in recent months." I am glad that the leader of the Reform Party has finally grown to appreciate with greater clarity the fact of the situation that we have been dealing with for the last two and a half years. This leader agrees that the government has an obligation to make amends. He, of course, was sorry that his response to that wasn't adequately communicated to the people of the area at that time. But now he is very, very clearly in support of what we're doing. I hope he keeps his mind made up now that he's decided to agree with us, because obviously it was a good decision.
It was a decision that made a huge difference and will make a huge difference to the general well-being and the approach to life of the people in the Kootenays, who paid a huge price for this. The Leader of the Official Opposition had a little trouble, too, because he's been back and forth all over the place. At one point he thought that all of the downstream benefit entitlement should be returned to the Kootenays. Then he decided that all of it should go to paying down the debt; now he's decided that it's really just a bad situation. I don't think he even makes it clear. He calls what we have come to an imposed settlement.
If there was any process that worked from grass roots and from one meeting through a series of open houses to another meeting of large gatherings of people with an interest in the Columbia River Treaty and the results of that treaty, it was this process. There isn't a single person in the region who could say that there was an imposition on the group. There is an offer from the provincial government as to how people in the region may take some of their part of the return from the entitlement, and that is still there.
This legislation allows the people in the region to put together a board of directors which will then deal with what we do. They can make those decisions. Every member on that board of directors will be a resident of the Columbia and Kootenay River basins. It could not be more regionally directed than that.
The Leader of the Official Opposition seems to not quite understand about the price of power, which has been talked about in one of the possible scenarios for how the return goes to the people in the Columbia basin. He suggests that the price of power from Keenleyside will be 7 cents a kilowatt-hour; he hasn't really done his research. What we understand is that the price of power from the Keenleyside, Waneta and Brilliant dams if we were to build those dams -- again, which could be done; it doesn't have to be done.... The return would be a reasonable return, and those projects would be competitive.
The projects have been put into integrated resource planning processes. They will continue to be dealt with using all the rules we have in this province. We are not going to impose a project on anyone because there is an opportunity there. If a project is unable to make its own way, it will likely not go ahead. The only way it would go ahead is if the members of the board decide that under the terms of what they can do, they want to take a different sort of return. That is the only way anything is going to happen that is different than what was ordinarily going to happen, except there is more for people in the region of the Kootenays -- throughout the Kootenays and further north -- to create a new economic climate which will give us more jobs for people who have been sitting for many years: building tradespeople. Their members have been sitting with a 90 percent rate of unem-
[ Page 13355 ]
ployment over many of the years in the last decade. We need to have jobs. We need to have work for them to do, meaningful employment that will support their families.
He also didn't quite understand that there was to be no building of dams in the proposal that will be put to the board of directors. Every project that has been proposed here would enhance what has already been built. There would be no new building of dams, no new flooding of rivers and no new reservoirs that are not lakes; no matter how you fool yourself, a reservoir is not a lake.
Now that people have lived for years with the storage dams in Canada, they know what kinds of things they can do and the kind of mitigation they could put in place that would be useful for the region, that would make their land better, that would make their rivers better and that would make all the things that come in the land and rivers produce better.
I can't go past without mentioning the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who lives in the past. He wrote a history, and he lives back there. He seems to think that the ultimate word on what would happen here is what he would see former Premier W.A.C. Bennett saying. He's going around making all sorts of statements about what former Premier W.A.C. Bennett would have said.
What the former Premier did was set up the situation that we are now trying to address. He set up the Columbia River Treaty. With that Columbia River Treaty there was not adequate compensation. It was a legacy of bitterness, disappointment and anger, which that has gone on for 30 years. I assure you that that legacy is not one we want to continue. What happened because of that Premier's decision is what we are trying to make into something positive for the people in the region, so that they can put together their economy and be sure that their children have jobs and can continue to live in the region that they consider home, and so that the communities of that region have the opportunity to thrive and continue to work with their neighbours and enjoy the fruits of what happens in this province.
I am very delighted to be able to have something tangible that we can now deal with, which says this is going to happen. We haven't doubted it, but it is nice to have this act and to be able to debate it in the House so that we can get it put into law and proceed with the work that needs to be done with a region which previously has not been recognized by government and hasn't had the opportunity to make these kinds of changes. Now we will.
With that, I will take my place. I suppose it's unnecessary to say that I will be supporting this bill.
F. Randall: May I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 55 grade 10 students from St. Thomas More Collegiate School in Burnaby-Edmonds, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Jeff Crane. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Boone: It's a pleasure to stand here and speak to a very important bill, a bill that is important to me because it addresses some wrongs that came upon not just the Kootenays but my region as well. Many people think about the Columbia River Treaty and the Columbia River basin, and think it's only the lower right-hand corner of the province that was devastated, but that's not true. The Columbia River basin reaches right up to Valemount, and in fact it had severe effects on my community of Valemount and on Kinbasket Lake.
When I first became elected in 1991 to serve this region, and a little bit before that, I went to community meetings where people used to talk to me about Kinbasket Lake and they used to laugh about it. They laughed about the fact that it was even called a lake, because it's a mud hole. They used to joke about the fact that they were actually seduced into supporting this project -- as many were during the early fifties and sixties with many of these large projects -- with ads that ran in the Valemount paper, saying: "You too can have lakeshore property." That lakeshore property came about, and we now have a boat ramp that was built in order for people to make use of that lake, and this boat ramp is now literally miles away from any sign of water. It's a devastated area, and it is a joke to call it a lake, in any shape or form. I guess it's not technically called a lake; it's called the Kinbasket reservoir, but actually it is a wasteland.
[3:00]
When they flooded that area, they flooded millions of dollars' worth of timber that could be used to sustain the local economy, and that isn't there. We have shortages of timber throughout this province, which just shows what happened due to the thoughtless projections of the previous government. They never even thought in terms of what's going to happen in the future and that we could, in fact, have a shortage of timber. I guess in the fifties one never thought that that would ever take place, but it did.
When we became government in 1991, we knew that the downstream benefits would be coming to the province. We knew that at some point in time we would have to address that and figure out just what we were going to do with those moneys which would be coming. There are some who would suggest that it is a provincial resource and that it should be returned to the province as a whole. This government recognized that although it is technically a provincial resource, like many of these projects the resource came into the province and the benefits came down to the lower half of the province and into the Vancouver area. It's a benefit to the whole province, but the damage and the brunt of the problems were borne by the regions. That's very typical. In fact, if you look at the report that came down with regard to the Kemano 2 project, it clearly stated that the benefits would be borne by all of the province, but the problems -- the economic and environmental damage -- would be borne by the regions. It's time the province recognized those things, and I'm glad we have done that.
We recognized that that area in the Kootenays -- the area of Valemount -- should, in fact, be compensated for the damage to the environment, for the damage to the economy and for the damage to the future of the area. For many years we've seen young people unable to obtain any employment there. A whole generation of people had to leave their homes. They had to leave the Kootenays or leave their areas and go elsewhere for employment because there was literally no employment in those regions.
We've been working for the past three years through the Columbia River Treaty Committee, which is more commonly called the CRTC, to develop a process and to find out just how
[ Page 13356 ]
those moneys should be reinvested and what amount should come back. That CRTC consisted of local governments, which my mayor -- Mayor Townsend of Valemount -- and the regional district representative Mona Grasdal, the tribal councils, government MLAs and I sat on. We had a series of meetings -- community open houses, two symposiums, 40 community meetings. All of these things were out in the open so that we could converse with the people in the region and find out just how we could best redress the situation in that area. As a result of those meetings, what we've seen today is the Columbia River Basin legislation that puts a trust in place.
I think it's really quite amazing. One of the things I heard at a community meeting in Valemount last week was the recognition that all of those who participated in this CRTC, even those who came representing various townships -- the mayors -- or came representing a different regional district, came to that table with the good of the whole region in mind. They left behind their parochial hats. They took off their chains of office and didn't come to the table saying: "What's in it for me? What can I get for Valemount? What can I get for Golden? What can I get for Nelson?" In fact, these people sat down and said: "How are we going to make this a viable opportunity for us to invest in the whole region so that we've got investments for future years -- not just today, not just money that can be taken today and put in here, but money that can be invested so that futures are there for our people and so that our children have jobs?"
Speaker after speaker mentioned this. Josh Smienk, who is the chair, and other members of that organization said the same thing. They were quite amazed that they were able to bring this group of people together that had this total look about it and which was actually concerned about the whole region. And they did: they worked towards the whole region. When they made the decision to make the initial investment, which was $25 million per year -- $250 million over ten years -- to be invested in three power projects, they did so recognizing that the jobs for those power projects would not be in their ridings or in their towns but would be in a particular section, the West Kootenay area. They would get the most jobs. They did so knowing that this investment was going to be providing money for future investments down the road. The money that would come out of those power projects would be there, and that region could invest in their own area for as long as it produces power. It's amazing that these people were able to come together with this project after three years, as I said.
We will be seeing $45 million in upfront funding this year for projects throughout regions other than the West Kootenays. I know that the member from the West Kootenays doesn't even feel that he wants a portion of that money -- he told us that -- because he feels he's getting his fair share through the other areas: the dams that are going in there. Those are moneys that can go into projects that can help to correct some of the environmental damage, that can help to create some jobs in the areas, that can help to get young people back to work, that can give a sense of optimism and a sense that the future means something to those in the regions, and that is really important. After that, there will be $2 million each year over the next 16 years. This is ongoing funding, which means that these regions will have these dollars coming in.
I know that we can never totally right the environmental damage that is done, and it's wrong to say that we could ever do that. Nor can we ever correct or phase out the harm that was done to families who had their farms and homes taken away from them. However, this money will give us a start toward correcting some of the environmental damage and will give a future to some of those families there. The moneys will not be going into the pockets of individual families but will be going into the whole region so the whole region can survive and benefit from it.
We've heard opposition parties and both the Liberal leader and the Reform leader say.... I'm not quite sure what they're saying on this. At one time they're against it; then they might be for it. They're against putting it into certain things, and then they're against that. Then they say that the process wasn't good, even though the committee chair and the regions and the mayors and the regional district people, some of whom aren't even supporters of us, are saying: "We don't like this." They are saying: "We like this; this is a good process. The process worked and is one that encompassed everyone."
You know, we never said that. This province knew right from day one, when we came into government, that some of those moneys -- not all but some of those moneys -- that were coming back in the downstream benefits should be returned to the regions from which they came. Some of those moneys deserve to go back into the communities so the people have hope and can actually look to the future and see that they have some kind of future for their children. We didn't say: "Maybe it should go back." We didn't say: "Maybe we should be doing these things." We said: "We are going to do this. What we need to do is find out how we are going to do it." That's what the three years was spent doing: working with the communities, working with mayors and regional district members and with all the MLAs to discover how we can return the moneys so the moneys benefit the whole region -- not just one community, not just one family, but the whole region.
That's why this is such a good piece of legislation and why it really is important that all parties and all individuals -- even independents, who are becoming a very viable force in this House -- support this process, because it's one that gives us hope. I am really proud to be part of a government that has looked to redress a very damaging situation from the past. Thank you.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles behind Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act. When I'm listening to all of the rhetoric that has flowed around second reading discussion on this bill, I'm not quite confident about what the principle behind this bill is. I really wonder how much of it is based on fairness or compensating individuals. I suspect from the timing that it may have more to do with buying votes and trying to restore some shaky seats that are in the Kootenays. I'm very suspicious because of the timing.
When I listen to the debate, it is with mixed feelings, because if the principle is that the resources of this province do not belong to all the people of this province, I have a great deal of difficulty with that particular principle. I have a great deal of difficulty with it. As citizens of British Columbia, we should all be equal within the province, and we should share in the benefits and wealth of the province.
I've heard a lot of the members on the government side go on at great length about how there has been no benefit whatsoever to the East and the West Kootenays because of the
[ Page 13357 ]
development of the Columbia River, one in the two-rivers plan developed by the visionary Social Credit Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. I wonder about that. I used to hunt in the Elk River valley in the early 1950s when I went to school, and I used to travel back and forth through that particular valley and all through the East and the West Kootenays, as a matter of fact. I look at what is there now, and I remember what was there then. I remember the populations, the job opportunities and the wages available in the area at that particular time, and I see what has happened not only directly but also indirectly from the development of the Columbia River basin for the generation of hydroelectric energy.
Did those areas share in the benefit? I think so. I honestly believe they shared in the benefit the same way all other British Columbians have shared in the benefit. First of all, the development provided relatively inexpensive power and enhanced the opportunities for jobs throughout the province. When you look at the growth and development that has occurred in those areas, it has been very significant and substantial.
I listened to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources talking rhetoric about adequate compensation. Adequate compensation -- those are very nice, flowery words, with the connotation directly made by the minister that these individuals in the East and the West Kootenays have been exploited and abused by the former government. Well, growth and development is necessary. There are positive aspects to growth and development, and there are also negative aspects. I wonder who benefits and who would say that someone should be exploited, recognizing that you have to transmit the energy developed in the northern part of British Columbia, or perhaps in the East and West Kootenays, to the main consumers, who are the people in the lower mainland. Who has not been exploited with rights-of-way running through private property? It was expropriated. Is that fair? I don't think it's really fair for those property owners, but I guess when you look at the large picture it had to be an outstanding benefit for the people of the province and the economy.
Let's face it, unless we have a strong economy.... An economy is positive, and it has to be built on a proactive basis of government. An economy is not built simply by hanging onto the coattails of someone else and by redistributing income. The current government is so proud of what they do with social engineering, but they haven't done a doggone thing to turn a single penny in British Columbia that has been positive. All they do is to take windfalls such as the downstream benefits that were organized and arranged by Social Credit Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and allocate the portions. I have no difficulty with allocating a portion directly to the East and West Kootenays. I think that's fair enough, but they are allocating another portion to general revenue and saying that they will be reducing the provincial debt, which they had such a large hand in creating in the short span of three and a half years.
[3:15]
What happened to the privatization fund that the former government built up? Well, these yo-yos have decided they are going to liquidate that privatization fund. They want to make their financial statement look good. Have they earned the money from the privatization fund? Are they doing anything? No, they renamed the privatization fund the Endowment Fund. The income from that was supposed to be generated and used in perpetuity to benefit British Columbians. The Minister of Finance obviously is taking a devious and expedient route to satisfy and create an image that they are prudent fiscal managers, but you can't fool anyone in British Columbia.
When you look at it, I think the East and West Kootenays have prospered as well as any other area in the province. Yes, the lower mainland has benefited more, and so has the Victoria area. Let's face it, about 50 percent of the gross domestic product of the current government, $6 billion to $8 billion annually, is spent in the Victoria area on wages -- it's a windfall for this area, too.
We hear a lot of rhetoric, but we have to understand that highway expropriation is not necessarily fair, whether it's in downtown Vancouver or in the interior of the province. But in order to provide the infrastructure for trade and commerce, it has to take place. There are some things that are unpleasant.
But even more unpleasant than that is the bill the current government tried to bring through the House, which was expropriation without compensation. Isn't that lovely, hon. Speaker? Here the government talks about unfairness and the tragedies that befell the people in those areas, and they try to run a bill through this House which was basically expropriation without compensation. Willy-nilly, they are accruing all sorts of debts for the public and have accepted all sorts of debt responsibilities.
The Kemano completion project was cancelled by this current government, not on the basis of any exhaustive or intensive environmental impact assessment study, not on objective facts, but simply by referring to the polls. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources looks bemused by the fact that a major decision would be made on the basis of polls; nevertheless, that's what this current government did. They have accrued a liability to the people of the province for perhaps half a billion dollars. Try and excuse your way out of that responsibility.
Shutting down Windy Craggy is the same thing. Rather than becoming a positive asset, it was shut down without any environmental impact review process. So the mine's potential was lost to the province, and whether it would have impacted negatively on the visual areas or any of the others is really an unknown. It was an arbitrary decision made on the spur of the moment. As a matter of fact, it was simply a knee-jerk reaction to a decision on the Clayoquot that I thought was quite good. But the radical environmentalists, friends of this current government who were upset with the current government and who breached this Legislature and broke windows in this Legislature, had made their point well, and the current government simply bounced backwards. So Windy Craggy went the way of almost all the other mine potential in the province.
I stand here with a great deal of pride in Social Credit and in the visionary W.A.C. Bennett, who created the opportunity for British Columbians in the development of the two-rivers system. It was a wise development, and we have accrued all sorts of benefits. Not one member who has badmouthed the whole process on the government's side has ever said that they were going to help the situation by breaching the dams, by restoring the land and restoring it to the people who owned the land. Well, I'll tell you, that would be an absolute tragedy, and nobody has promoted that. But everybody on the government side has no trouble badmouthing the wise, pru-
[ Page 13358 ]
dent and visionary decisions that were made by former governments, and has no trouble spending the money that was accrued in the building of this province -- no trouble at all. But they are not going to do anything except spend the money and try to take the credit. I think what we are seeing is evidence and vision of what can be accomplished with real leadership and foresight.
A few weeks ago, the Premier announced a whole series of independent power projects; 4,000 megawatts, which is a significant volume or quantity of electricity from independent power projects. I didn't hear anyone on the government side express environmental apprehension or concerns, because a lot of those projects will be water-related. Environmental impact will be made. I didn't hear the Minister of Environment say anything about his concern when the Premier indicated that a lot of them will be fuelled by what are presently waste products from the sawmill industry.
This current government, in spite of some of their members being concerned about the timber supply, has really reduced the timber supply in British Columbia. Can anyone here imagine a more wasteful form of utilization, in view of the shortage of fibre now in the province, created by the government of the day? We're talking about consuming it in the lowest form it can be used, which is combusting it. Not all that long ago, a piece of ice approximately the size of Prince Edward Island broke off the ice shelf in the Antarctic -- global warming. Here you have a government that, rather than utilizing R and D to create developments and projects that would enhance utilization of products of this province and still retain the carbon locked in, is going to combust it. That's what they're going to do, and they'll add to the greenhouse effect that we're very concerned about in the world.
Cheap energy has allowed us to maintain a position here. The tragedy of what the current government is doing is significant and real. Rather than investing in the future, they're investing in short-term expediency and talking jobs. But if they're going to create jobs in areas of the province where there is no sound economic base, they're simply going to throw the money away.
The downstream benefits should have been used to enhance the opportunities for all British Columbians. It should have enhanced the apprenticeship trades section; it should have enhanced education. It certainly could be utilized to enhance health care and to enhance social services available for those who truly need them. There are many things that could have been utilized so that they would accrue dividends that would benefit all the people of the province for many, many years -- for generations.
Their plan is one of short-term expediency and isn't worth the significance government members are giving it. The only benefit of this particular piece of legislation -- and I'm afraid I would question the sincerity of the government following through with it -- is the short-term expediency of simply buying votes in those particular areas. If they were not concerned simply about that, they would format the trust in a different way. Rather than appointing government people and having it controlled by government, they would allow elections with respect to the trust so that the people in those areas could truly be represented by the individual serving on it.
In this Legislature I hear a lot about consultation. I am going to talk a bit about that consultation, because this government has raised this charade to a real art form. I was fortunate enough to be on one of the standing legislative committees with the recently appointed Minister of Government Services, and I can certainly indicate the charade that that public consultation process perverted the standing legislative committee.... The report was not even drawn up with the basis of input other than that of the NDP caucus. The report was actually drawn up by the NDP caucus research team. That's the type of consultative process they talk about; they have everyone come out and talk, and then they do what they're told to do by the NDP provincial board. That's what it really amounts to. I'm not satisfied that any of this consultation process is real or meaningful; it's merely to spread the dictates of socialism with a group that will say anything and utilize any means to achieve an end. I think it's disgraceful in today's world. Certainly the cynicism and displeasure they reap is well earned.
The NDP have talked long and loud about the devastation.... They opposed the two-rivers development, but what did they support? They supported the McNaughton plan. What would the McNaughton plan have done, which the socialists supported? It would have flooded the Columbia River valley. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources recalls that with a glowing smile on her face -- a good plan. It destroyed all sorts of communities throughout the Columbia River valley. Instead, we have dams such as Mica and Revelstoke, which occupy areas that were not inhabited by a number of people; it did not destroy low-level farmland. The reality is that a lot of areas in the Arrow Lakes are reservoirs, and they go up and down with respect to the flow. Nevertheless they weren't intensively cultivated areas, and they weren't the best farmlands in the province. But we've lost them, and we've lost some homesites, and I understand that. Again, as I've said, growth and development have some costs, but they have great benefits as well.
So it was hardly surprising that after the NDP's stand on that in the 1963 election, they got only 28 percent of the vote. Obviously they didn't find much favour with the people of the province at that time, and they're not going to find much favour with the people in the province this next go-round, whenever they're going to drop the writ.
This should be a happy day, but it is profoundly sad since most of the legacy will be squandered because, without any need to do so, the NDP has added over $10 billion to the provincial debt. Regardless of what they say with their rhetoric, that $10 billion addition to the debt is going to cost British Columbians dearly. So we're going to be paying more and more of the money simply to satisfy interest on debt, and borrow more -- as they have done in foreign currencies such as the Japanese yen and American dollars -- exposing British Columbians to higher and higher interest payments.
The first dams in the Columbia and Peace river systems were developed to provide economic opportunities and to allow us to go into added-value manufacturing in the province of British Columbia. What this current government has done with our cheap power in the last three years has raised the cost of B.C. Hydro power by 22 percent. Not only are their taxes driving businesses out of British Columbia, not only is the bureaucratic red tape driving businesses out of British Columbia, but the cost of businesses through licences, fees and permits and the 22 percent increase in B.C. Hydro rates are forcing businesses out of British Columbia, because they're non-competitive.
[ Page 13359 ]
There are things that are very positive about the two-rivers development, too, which haven't been noted here. It prevented the need for the utilization of nuclear power in the province of British Columbia. When we talk about environmental degradation, then I think you have it there. I got into a little bit of hot water with the former government because I wanted the moratorium on uranium mining retained in this province. I was not listened to, and the majority of my colleagues decided that it should be allowed to lapse. I note that the members of the opposition, now government, spoke against it, but they haven't been interested enough to reimplement a moratorium on uranium mining. If we'd been forced by power needs within the province to go to nuclear reactors, I suggest that the environmental degradation to British Columbia would have been much more severe. So that's another positive aspect.
But I would only like to reinforce the scholarships and the skills enhancement aspect, and I can't say enough about that. The downstream benefits should be utilized in that particular area. If we can take the people.... It's not a matter of redistributing income and giving it to those. Rather than giving people a handout, we should be giving them a hand up -- arming them with the ability, the knowledge and the education to be much more than they are able to be at the present time, so that their children can look forward to a strong, vibrant future in this great province of British Columbia.
[3:30]
The proposed investments by this government are just to cover their backsides and cover the wanton spending that has been going on primarily through the friends and insiders of the current government. It has not benefited the general interest of the people in British Columbia, and that's a sadness. Not once has the general interest been an interest of this particular government. There are special interest groups. The top echelons in the union, the union moms and dads, have benefited greatly; people like the BCTF and probably the public sector unions have benefited greatly. That's what they're doing to get the voting process. Certainly the 4,000 or more new employees that they've injected into the civil service, who are there to ensure political correctness and that nary a bad word escapes the civil service, are a very interesting expenditure of public funds.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The downstream benefits could have been utilized to fund solutions -- job training and small business training programs -- had not billions been wasted by the New Democrats. Right now the public sector is demanding far more than the taxpayers' ability to pay. Paying off union bosses with inflated labour charges on public construction is not boding well for the province. I have to remind you, hon. Speaker, as I remind all people, that we cannot escape the global competition that exists. We can only escape it, as I said in my response to the budget speech, by increasing our productivity. We can have high and good and fair wages, but we have to have the productivity that earns and warrants those wages. If we don't have the productivity or the manufactured goods, the cost of government and the services within the province make us uneconomic, and we will wind up being simply another Third World country.
The regional compensation? Yes, I think it's appropriate, and that's a positive element of the bill. I hope the government is being realistic. There has to be a recognition of regional compensation -- that's fair -- but the moneys have to be spent so that it enhances that sort of regional compensation over a long period of time.
I think this is a very cynical, partisan bill, and with the timing of it, I think it supports that particular position. I think it's a tragedy that so much of this money is being utilized and spent simply as a hangover cure for the excess spending of this government in the first three years of their administration. They defeated the taxpayer protection plan, they removed the cap on public sector wage increases and they paid off their friends, at very high costs, with wage increments that reflect very heavily into this current year.
If they would have been prudent fiscal managers at the start, we would not have accrued the type of debt this province has accrued in three short years. They've more than doubled the direct provincial debt, more than doubled the direct provincial debt interest payments and increased the total debt of Crown corporations and the direct debt by more than $10 billion. And they're not through yet.
Earlier in their mandate, the whole Social Credit caucus had projected that before this current government's demise, they would bring it up into $30 billion. We were laughed and scoffed at, but I think that with very little extra effort -- perhaps without any effort at all -- we will be looking at a debt that has escalated to that $30 billion. That means fewer and fewer dollars to provide goods and services and opportunities for British Columbians. Again, I lament that, but that happens to be the way of this bill.
In closing, the idea of compensating one area on the basis of the assets of that area is somewhat unsettling, with the precedent that it sets in the province. Whether it's highway expropriation, rights-of-way, hydroelectric projects, or oil and gas, I suppose we all have an area of contribution to the coffers of the province. Is that owned by a regional or district group or an individual? I'm concerned about the expansion of that type of principle.
It's always interesting when the government comes forward with a bill and six government members are the beneficiaries of that particular bill. I wonder about the objectivity and the substance that have enabled the formulation of the type of concept that is being proposed in this bill. In the end, I think with the patronage appointments and the misdirection of British Columbia assets, the government will hear from the public at the next provincial election on this particular issue.
To the people of the East and West Kootenays, who live in perhaps one of the most glorious regions of the province, I certainly wish them well. I sincerely hope that the trust works well for them. that it is interested in providing opportunities over a very long time by helping those people who really need help by creating opportunities that are sustainable, and that they are value-added opportunities that utilize our resources and manufacture them.
In their expansion of independent power projects and with the expansion of Hydro, the government is again looking for more money -- not to bring jobs to British Columbia, because construction jobs, while meaningful, are relatively short-term. What they're hoping to do is bring more revenue to the province so that they can spend more. They've borrowed and taxed and spent and spent and spent again, and this is perhaps another aspect of their spending.
[ Page 13360 ]
I question the validity, I question the initiative, and I question exactly what the principles of this bill are, but I conclude my remarks.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments, and recognize now the member for North Peace, the Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I'm the member for South Peace, just for the record.
It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act. In a press release issued a few days ago, the Minister of Employment and Investment referred to it as "a regional corporation with unprecedented autonomy." In his opening remarks today, he referred to it also as a "quasi-Crown corporation."
As I look at the bill and examine it with great interest, because it's an area that I do have great interest in, and I look at the preamble, the government's words are: "...to ensure that benefits derived from the Columbia River Treaty help to create a prosperous economy with a healthy, renewed natural environment...." That is very laudable, something I would expect a government in office to wish for each and every region, every community and every constituency in the province. Where would you not want to have or create a prosperous economy with a healthy, renewed natural environment? I think it's something each and every one of us seeks for the constituencies and the people that we represent.
I looked at the scope of this bill, and I was impressed with the involvement that there will be from the communities throughout the Columbia River basin. I looked at one area that did give me some concern and continues to give me concern, and that is section 14, which deals with the borrowing powers of this trust. We hear people -- if one listens to the minister responsible or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, a resident of the Kootenays, or perhaps other speakers that we'll hear who are in the area affected -- talk about giving a share of revenues back to the region. But that doesn't jibe exactly with the section which allows for the trust, the quasi-Crown corporation, to function as a corporation and "borrow money from the government and...issue securities in the form and on terms and conditions determined by the Minister of Finance...."
So we have here a bill or instrument that not only provides a return to the region but enables the government to further indebt British Columbians, under a local organization -- a regional corporation, to quote the minister -- or a quasi-Crown corporation with unprecedented autonomy. When we see a government creating debt at an unparalleled rate in British Columbia, many, many, many people will look and say: "Gosh, do we need another corporation? Are we in fact looking at the establishment of another B.C. 21, another instrument or vehicle that would allow the government to remove further debt from the spending estimates and balance sheet of this government and off the books?"
When I first became aware of this initiative -- I believe it was early this spring -- my first reaction was to say I don't think that's a very good idea. I think that indeed there is a danger that a regional corporation like this may set a precedent that other regions of the province will wish to follow. However, as I reflected on those thoughts, it occurred to me that there already was a precedent. We already had a vehicle or entity in this province called Forest Renewal B.C., which takes in some $400 million a year in stumpage revenues and has committed to reinvest those stumpage revenues in the regions from which they're generated. So it caused me to think again, this idea of reinvesting energy returns in the region from which they were generated.
We're talking about significant amounts of money here. The minister responsible has indicated that the government will invest $1 billion in the region, in which the trust will perhaps be an equal partner. That suggests to me that the trust will have to borrow somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million in order to participate. The trust has little or no money of its own today. If it is going to be an equal partner in the ownership of the power projects -- the three new hydroelectricity-generating facilities at Keenleyside, Brilliant and Waneta -- it's going to have to borrow about half a billion dollars. We know that the government is committed to giving this corporation or trust $45 million for startup in the first year and $32 million additional over a number of years, until the power projects are up and generating revenue. But we're looking at a significant new expenditure of money, not through B.C. Hydro, which has been the traditional model in British Columbia, but through a trust, managed in the region, with the ability to borrow.
[3:45]
As I said, as I reflected on this issue, it seemed to me that Forest Renewal B.C. had set a precedent.
I thought my colleague the member for Prince George-Omineca earlier today spoke quite eloquently on the parallels between those issues facing residents in the Kootenays and those facing his constituents in the Nechako Valley, who make very much the same arguments as the people in the Kootenays do, only their concerns surround the Kemano project and the effect of that 1952 undertaking on the constituency that he represents. That particular Kemano project resulted in a very large area being flooded, a very large chunk of forest resource being taken away from the economic base of those communities -- and indeed, issues of industrial capacity in the communities along the much-reduced flows of the Nechako resulting from that activity. He made a very clear argument, set a very clear parallel between the Kootenays and his constituency, and I think he did a very good job speaking out for them.
When I reflect on the issues in the Peace region of British Columbia, I hear -- and have heard much longer than I have been elected to this assembly -- concerns expressed by my constituents, concerns from people who see literally hundreds of millions of dollars in gas and oil revenues, coal royalties and water rentals that come to Victoria every year; and my constituents say: "Gee, we should get at least a small portion of that returned to our region. Why do we suffer with gravel roads improperly maintained? Why do we not have natural gas available to rural residents in the region that develops those resources? Why do our communities, like Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and Mackenzie and Pouce Coupe, struggle to maintain their infrastructure, their streets, their sewer and water infrastructure? Why don't we as northern residents, as Peace region residents, deserve some consideration for the energy revenues we send to Victoria?"
I don't think there is a good argument to say: we are simply going to focus on one region of the province; we are going to focus on one set of energy revenues -- not the broad
[ Page 13361 ]
spectrum of revenues but very focused revenues, as this act does. I think my constituents in the community of Mackenzie, who live on the biggest flooded area in British Columbia today -- Williston Lake -- believe that they too.... If there are going to be Columbia downstream benefits, there may well also be a strong argument to be made for benefits coming out of the damming of the Peace system. Those folks feel that the fact that their valleys were flooded, that big areas of forest reserve were taken away, make an argument for them as well. These same folks are looking at the controls over water levels that are referred to in this act. Mr. Speaker, for your benefit, I would look to the last section of this bill, a consequential amendment under section 32, which says the amendments to the Water Act shall cause the comptroller or regional water manager to "consider the current long term Columbia Basin Management Plan adopted for the Columbia Basin Trust under section 15" of this act. These same folks have been lobbying the current government simply to maintain water levels on Williston Lake at 2,150 feet of elevation so that the town can continue to survive, so that they can continue to have transportation on the lake, so that pulp mills and the town itself will have a water reservoir to draw from.
I'm not for a moment speaking against this bill. What I am suggesting is that the Columbia River basin is an area that has been affected -- significantly affected -- by industrial activity in the province. It's not the only region of the province that has been affected by industrial activity. It's not the only region of the province to be affected by the flooding of large areas of land within the region. Indeed, the area around Williston Lake and the area behind the Kenney Dam that provides the water base for the current Kemano project are two examples.
I think that what we should be looking at doing, and what I am committed to doing, is welcoming this initiative, this Columbia Basin Trust Act, with the clear understanding that it is a first step, I hope, toward expanding and applying the same principle to the other energy-producing regions of the province. My constituents -- those constituents in the North Peace, those constituents in the Fort Nelson area, my constituents in the Mackenzie area -- all believe that they, too, deserve some small share, at least, of the millions of dollars in revenue that are sent to Victoria from the resources that are developed, and of the money that's generated in their communities.
As I go back and reflect on my initial response to the announcement of this initiative, which was that other regions of the province would feel that they too should be entitled, I think that's a fact; that's a reality. We didn't hear this concern just from me, as a representative of Peace River South, or from my good friend the MLA for Prince George-Omineca. We heard the member for Okanagan-Penticton make an argument here earlier today that the apple growers, the orchardists and the people in the Penticton area were also entitled to a share of the Columbia downstream benefits.
I think that what we have here is an example of a government focused -- perhaps for the very best of reasons; with the best of intent -- on resolving a longstanding issue, a longstanding grievance, in the Kootenay region. They may well have come up with a solution that satisfies the majority -- most, at least, or a large percentage -- of the people who live in the Kootenays, although there are certainly some who have expressed significant concern to me over the environmental impact of a generator at Keenleyside. Be that as it may, there are always concerns that are raised, and there are always folks who will express environmental concerns over any project. I'm sure the Minister of Energy, among others, would be the first to acknowledge that there are always those who come forward to express environmental concerns about a project.
The government has gone forward. There are questions about the cost of generating at Keenleyside, Brilliant and Waneta. I don't particularly share those concerns. My recollection of the cost-effectiveness of the programs was that they were on par with other projects that Hydro had available to it at the time I was looking at them.
But what we have done.... The Minister of Energy and the Minister of Finance, both of whom are in the House, must know that with the introduction of this bill, they have raised expectations in the energy-producing regions of British Columbia. I don't know how the government is going to find itself able to say that yes indeed, the people of the Kootenays do deserve several tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars over the life of the Columbia River benefits in the sharing that is proposed under this trust, and to not say to the people of North and South Peace and of Prince George-Omineca, and perhaps even of Okanagan-Penticton, that they too are deserving of a share. I think we've got to understand that when we make significant new decisions and enter into new arrangements in one part of the province, we inevitably raise expectations in the other parts. As I said earlier, there has been a demand, for much longer than I've had the privilege of representing the people of South Peace, that a share of those revenues be returned. There had never before been a precedent, I believe, that created expectation to the level that there will be, coming not only from the Columbia Basin Trust Act but also from the earlier precedent of Forest Renewal B.C.
I'm going to support Bill 7, the Columbia Basin Trust Act. I'm going to support it by putting the government on notice that I will be seeking for my constituents the same consideration for the same kinds of concerns that were the issues driving this Columbia Basin Trust Act. With that, for the time being at least, I take my place and thank you for the opportunity.
E. Conroy: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Columbia Basin Trust Act. As a lifetime member of the Kootenays, this has special significance for me. From a historical perspective, the site of Hugh Keenleyside Dam, or what we in the Kootenays more affectionately call the High Arrow Dam, was the site of my grandfather's dairy farm. He had a dairy farm in the days when every town had its own brewery and its own dairy. He owned the pasteurization plant in Castlegar and delivered milk in the area. I say this not necessarily to talk about my history in the region, but to illustrate that for the dairy to exist at present, we would have to have dairy cattle that could live on a mountainside, because there's very little land at all left behind the Keenleyside reservoir for any form of agriculture.
I recall spending time with my family behind the present reservoir when it was still really a lake, and the good times as a child when I spent many weeks up in the Deer Park area. All the friends and school mates I had are now from settlements that no longer exist; they've been totally wiped off the face of the earth. I raise this not to be nostalgic, but to say that we've lost tremendous tourism and social value.
What has our government done? After 30 years of the people of the Kootenays pounding on the door of govern-
[ Page 13362 ]
ment, saying they need some recognition, some restitution, something to make things right for the wrongs that were perpetrated on this area, I think our government has finally recognized this. I'll get to that a little later as I speak. We need something. We have to have some kind of redress for the tragedy that has taken place here, and our government recognized that. They recognized that the people of the Kootenays needed to be repaid for their benefit.
I'll move ahead a bit and talk about what could be called foresight. Even though it was a policy of our government that I'm particularly proud of, there was a situation that allowed this whole downstream benefits package as it now exists to come to fruition and benefit the people of the Kootenays. That was the deal our government struck with Cominco.
[4:00]
We went to Cominco -- or Cominco came to us, because they were in a position where they had to clean up or get out. We said to Cominco that the days are over when we were going to reach into our pockets and give money to their industry. We said that we wanted to do a business deal, and we did it. It took a long time, and there was a lot of concern in the area. There was certainly a lot of concern on my part as to whether it was going to happen. What came out of that business deal was the accrual by the Columbia Power Corporation of the rights to the Brilliant and the Waneta hydro projects presently owned by Cominco, the rights to utilize the additional water in their plant facilities to benefit the people of British Columbia. I'll tie that in with the rest of the deal later.
I'd just like to talk for a second about the economic and social impacts. To the south of my constituency lies Lake Roosevelt, into which the Columbia River flows after it passes through all the dams on the system. Lake Roosevelt is probably the hottest tourist destination in the Pacific Northwest. It generated approximately half a billion dollars in tourism revenue for Washington State last year. Just slightly to the north, we have more beautiful mountains and cleaner water, but we also have reservoirs. I think if we were lucky we may have generated around $2 million in tourism revenue. That's the amount of tourism revenue we in the Kootenays, we in the province of British Columbia, have lost as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. We've had no opportunity whatsoever to develop a tourist industry in the Kootenays.
Just to give you a little rundown, we probably have the highest tides outside the Bay of Fundy, except ours go up and down once a year. What would happen to the Okanagan if they had a 70-foot rise and fall on the Okanagan lakes? Where would they be with their tourism industry? You know where we are with ours -- absolutely nowhere. We have lost all that economic opportunity.
In the forest industry.... One of the things we do best in the Kootenays is grow trees. Behind the Kinbasket reservoir, behind the Mica Dam, there's a study going on now. It's estimated that there could be approximately two million cubic metres of wood standing up underneath the water. How are we going to get at that wood, and how much is there? Just to give you an example, to put it in terms that people can understand, two million cubic metres of wood is the equivalent of 60,600 logging-truck loads of wood. That's how much wood is standing underneath the reservoir behind the Mica Dam. Not only have we lost that wood but we've lost the wood that would be sustainably available from that resource.
The 150-mile reservoir from Castlegar at the Keenleyside up to Revelstoke, with the 70-foot rise and fall.... It's certainly not straight up and down; we're talking about valley-bottom land with many areas of prime timber-growing country that have been put under water. The loss to the forest industry in our region.... The ability for us to sustain ourselves economically in the forest industry has been totally taken away from many aspects of our economy. One of the best fruit-growing areas -- I would suggest better than the Okanagan -- was the Lower Arrow lakes. It's all under water; all those communities are gone. The tax base is gone for everybody. The agricultural industry is gone. I can go on and talk about our fish and wildlife values that are gone, because all the wintering ranges for wildlife have disappeared; they're now just sand flats for the most part in the winter. We've lost all that economic opportunity.
One of the things that impacts me most as a lifelong resident of the area is the social devastation. I don't know how many people have seen the video done as this whole thing transpired, but when they interview people who lost everything as a result of the flooding of the reservoirs.... As many times as I've seen that, I still get a lump in my throat when I see the impact on literally thousands of people who were packed up and moved out of their homes. We got nothing at all for it, and they got very little.
Another thing I've experienced as a result of this is that I've now seen two lost generations in our region -- lost because there's no work. Anybody who wanted to find work really had to go outside of the area to find it; there has just been nothing. As a result of the negotiations between the people of the Kootenays and the provincial government, it has breathed new economic life and vitality into the region. We have young people now who are going to have opportunities, through the Allied Hydro agreement that has been signed with B.C. Hydro and the unions, for apprentices and for local hire. People who are not even in the union will be able to become part of the union and benefit from the jobs that are going to be provided.
One of the things I'd like to allude to for a second is that I worked on the lake for quite a number of years before I had the pleasure of doing this job. I'd like to tell you a little story about what happened to me one time when I was down below the Keenleyside Dam. There was a boat there, and they were pulling fish out of the lake. These were whitefish, and fisheries people were testing these whitefish for various situations that they wanted to test for. It occurred to me that it's a bit of an analogy of political life. They used whitefish, because unlike, say, trout, who feed near the surface of the river, or suckers, who happen to be bottom feeders, the whitefish tend to move throughout the entire strata of the river and therefore are the best species to analyze in order to ascertain what may or may not be in the river.
As I saw these whitefish coming out of the nets and into the boat, it reminded me of some of the things I've seen here in the Legislature of late. Fish react in different ways. For example, they'll pull one whitefish out and it just goes crazy when it hits the deck of the boat. It flips and flops all around, and it goes from the back of the boat to the front of the boat. It kind of reminds me of the position the Reform Party has taken on the issue of the Columbia River. They've been spending so much time flipping and flopping around in the boat that they haven't really landed on their feet -- but it seems, I guess, that in a way they have. I'd like to say it's kind of apropos that we
[ Page 13363 ]
did choose whitefish for this study. We know, insofar as the Reform Party is concerned, that whitefish would be the best species, because they truly represent the values of all Canadians. So I know the whitefish and the Reform Party will get along. I'm sure they thought about using fish of colour, but I'm sure the Reform Party would have said that they wouldn't meet the proper criteria as a Canadian or a British Columbian.
Another thing we did with this Reform whitefish that was flipping and flopping....And I'm glad to say I don't know whether it was a flip or a flop when he landed, but he landed and now seems to be agreeing that this was a great deal. But the fisheries people tagged that fish before they put it back into the river, because I guess they weren't sure if he'd change his name before they could get him back out again. We now have this fish tagged so that when it comes back out, we're going to know who it is.
There was another kind of fish there. When he got in the boat he'd lie there in the bottom. He'd do a big flip, and then he'd do a big flop and just lie there, not doing anything. I guess that fish was just taking the position that if I lie here in this boat and don't do too much, they'll just throw me back into the river and I can do what I do best -- and that's head right back down to the bottom and feed. So that's my insight into the fisheries and the opposition.
To go back to the Cominco situation, it certainly did show a lot of foresight on the part of our government. It opened a new door for us -- and I say that as a citizen of the Kootenays -- to go through and examine. We took three years of consultation and talks. We're to a point now where I'm hopeful that we've reached an agreement between the people of the Kootenays and the provincial government that will supply 500 jobs for 13 years. Unlike the opposition, who sort of pretend to say that they're looking to the future and understand the future, I want to remind them that we're living in a time when people don't just change jobs a number of times in their lifetimes but they change careers four or five times. That's the average now -- and it's not jobs, but careers. And 13 years worth of steady work in the year 2000, I suggest, is probably as good as it's going to get. That's the new reality we all have to deal with. So these are not short-term jobs. These are long-term, good-paying union jobs with local hiring, which allow people not even in the union to become part of that union and partake in the benefits that are going to accrue to our region. So it's with a great deal of pride that I talk about that.
It was kind of interesting for me to listen to a couple of the previous speakers. In particular, I'd like to allude to a few of the things that the hon. member for Okanagan West and, I guess, the leader of the Reform Party talked about. You know, they just don't get it. They talk about us being a special case. They and other regions are contributing to the province. Why does the Kootenays deserve something for their contribution that the other areas of the province aren't getting? It's a legitimate question, and there's also a legitimate answer.
The answer is that, yes, we in the Kootenays want to contribute to the well-being of the province. It's to our advantage to do so, and we want to be part of British Columbia in a very constructive and meaningful way. But in making that contribution to the province, we've had our whole world totally torn apart. We've had our economic future totally go. It's not like putting in some gas wells and taking some gas out; we'd gladly do that. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of acres and about resources that are lost. We're talking about an area that's been devastated. And I suggest to anybody on the opposite side of the House that if that devastation were to take place now anywhere in British Columbia.... It would never take place like that again. To say that the Kootenays isn't a special case, I suggest, is totally incorrect.
We are a special case, because the damage that we've incurred in making our contribution to the rest of the province has been just absolutely devastating. As I said, lost generations of children who can't work and stay in their own communities, who have had to go all over the country in order to find employment.... You have to be there in that situation to fully appreciate how it's affected us all.
[4:15]
It's a tough one, I agree. I fully agree with the hon. members on the other side that wealth should be evenly distributed. I don't have a problem with that at all. I also agree with them that we benefited from the Columbia River situation in the same manner as the rest of the province. However, the argument is that the devastation was totally unthinkable. We need something so that we can be put back on an even footing with the rest of the province and begin to build our economy in the Kootenays again, because 30 years ago that was taken away from us. We've lost it.
Now, through the foresight of this government and the hard work of the Columbia River Treaty committee and the elected members in our region, through the hard work of our MLAs -- like Jim Doyle, Lois Boone, Shannon O'Neill, Corky Evans and Anne Edwards -- we've....
Interjection.
E. Conroy: Oh, sorry. I'm not supposed to say that, am I?
To the hon. members from all those places, and in particular the people from the Kootenays, I just want to say thank you very much. It's certainly a chance for us in the Kootenays to be able once again to be masters of our own destiny, in some form.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We are certainly embarked on a very interesting debate here, but I do now move adjournment of the debate on second reading of Bill 7 until the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I call the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
(continued)
On the amendment.
F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, how much time have I got left? I don't know where I cut off.
Deputy Speaker: We'll check that out with Hansard and let you know, member. I think you probably have a fair amount, as a matter of fact. I shouldn't say a fair amount, but most of your allotted time remains.
[ Page 13364 ]
F. Randall: I think I broke off stressing the importance of jobs and medicare. Talking about medicare a little bit, I know there is a lot of concern with regard to seniors in care homes. I know that in my riding there are quite a few thousand of them. I have Hall Towers at Edmonds and Kingsway; the New Vista Society, which has quite a few hundred people; the Normanna Rest Home; the Dania Home; Canada Way lodge and Deer Lake lodge. There are just a raft of them in the immediate area of my office. I talk to them a lot, and they have a lot of concerns about what is happening with regard to health care. I think it's important that this government take a strong stand to ensure that health care as we know it is maintained in British Columbia.
I just want to run over a letter that I was reading, and I think it has been mentioned here previously. It's a letter from Darcy Rezac, the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade. I don't want to read it all -- it's fairly lengthy, and it just takes up time -- but he states in the letter: "We realize these benchmarks are demanding, but nevertheless we feel they are appropriate." They lay out a whole list of benchmarks here. This was a committee that was structured through the Premier's summit.
On that, I would just say that the Minister of Finance certainly met all of the suggested guidelines and recommendations -- improved on them, in fact. It was interesting to note the makeup of the members of that working group, and I just want to mention them. There was Larry Blain, who is the chair of the Investment Dealers' Association, Pacific region; David Bond, the vice-president of Hongkong Bank of Canada; Robert Fairweather, vice-president and director of Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd.; Ken Georgetti, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Arthur Hara, chairman of Mitsubishi of Canada; Donald Hudson, president and CEO of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; David Levi, president of the Working Opportunity Fund; Darcy Rezac, the managing director of the Vancouver Board of Trade; and Mike Pedersen, senior vice-president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
It was interesting. I was surprised that the minister was able to meet all of the recommendations -- in fact, improve on them -- that were made by this working group of qualified and respected business people. I felt that was just worth mentioning again, because that's fairly important. We do listen to what the business community has to say. They contribute substantially to this economy in British Columbia, and to meet their desires and learn how they felt the province should be run as far as debt and deficit goes.... It was well done.
Arising out of that was a whole list of quotes which were very impressive. I don't want to read them all, but they talked about.... There was a quote from the Chartered Accountants' Institute of B.C. I think it's one of the better documents they've come up with. The headline news release was: "B.C. Budget Scores Three Out of Four -- Immediate Reaction of the B.C. Chartered Accountants." The B.C. Taxpayers' Association said: "It's a good budget for taxpayers. They've responded to the mood of the public." Wood Gundy: "B.C. remains in the best fiscal shape of all provinces, with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest ratio of debt-servicing costs to revenues. This budget will not change the market's perception that B.C. and Alberta remain the top-tier provincial credits." Jerry Lampert, president of the Business Council of B.C., also goes on to say: "Minister Cull deserves good marks for leading an open and constructive prebudget consultation...." It's fairly long. Bob Vincent, who is the president of the CGA Association: "We are pleased with the budget's emphasis on both the deficit and debt. While one can quarrel with the details, it is refreshing to finally have a provincial Finance minister present a management plan which contemplates a substantial reduction in B.C.'s accumulated debt." RBC Dominion Securities also say: "The province's standing as a premiere credit among Canadian borrowers is solidified further following presentation of the budget." Nesbitt Burns goes on, and there are others. There's a fairly long list.
There's one thing I'd like to also mention with regard to the debt. I listen to CKNW a lot, and there's a person....
An Hon. Member: Shame.
F. Randall: I do. Well, I'm on 'NW all the time. I hate to admit it, but I am.
There's a chap on there by the name of Mike Campbell who has a program and who....
Interjection.
F. Randall: I think it's Mike Campbell. Yes.
Anyway, it was interesting listening to his program one morning. He talked about how all governments for the last 20 years have been overspending. They've all been overspending. He said what has happened is that it's just all come home to roost now.
Interjection.
F. Randall: Well, his name is Mike. But anyway...
Interjection.
F. Randall: You're going to get me in trouble.
Anyway, it was interesting to listen to the comments on that program, where they said all governments have been overspending for the last 20 years and it doesn't matter who is in government now in any province or in Ottawa. They're all getting the flack of the debt and deficit that has been built up.
I thought that was interesting, because politicians often blame each other for the problem. I thought it was interesting that they said it has been going on for 20 years, and it has just now caught up with whomever happens to be in government in any particular province. I think it's also interesting that when this government took over there was a substantial deficit -- about $2.4 billion, if I remember right -- and that has been eliminated with this budget, which I think....
Interjection.
F. Randall: Obviously, there are people here who don't agree with that. You know, I find it very difficult at times when I talk to members of the opposition with regard to some of the things that go on in this House. Privately, out in the hallway, they tell you that that stuff's good or that it's good legislation. And I say: "Why don't you say that in here?" They say: "We can't. We have to oppose everything you do, whether it's good or bad." So....
Interjections.
[ Page 13365 ]
F. Randall: That's right.
I find that very difficult. Anyway, they do admit privately that we are doing some good things, so I'm pleased about that.
Interjection.
F. Randall: They know who they are.
I also wanted to mention.... The infrastructure has been mentioned a number of times here, and I certainly think it's important that we continue to try and provide an infrastructure.
I was born in Vancouver and lived in Burnaby for a lot of years, and I look at what's happening with the highways and bridges and those kinds of facilities, strictly with transit -- a whole host of things. I know that those highways haven't been touched for 30-some years, and the population in that time has increased drastically. Somebody -- some government -- has to start to provide some decent roads for people to drive on which will eliminate a lot of pollution and a lot of waste time. It's so bad that the cost of moving goods on highways now.... Trucks are in lineups with cars, people are being paid, and those goods have to cost more. The argument that you should not spend any money at all and cut everything just doesn't make sense. You have to provide facilities in the province so that there's a good economy and business can flourish; they have the infrastructure to do the job rather than close everything down. The only thing I can figure out is that maybe the opposition wants us to do nothing, in the hopes that that might defeat us in the next election. Unfortunately that's not going to happen, because this government is going to provide a decent infrastructure for business in this province to survive and do well.
There are a few more points I want to make about the credit rating. I know it's been said numerous times, but I also feel proud because.... I might just say that Odlum Brown, who do my RRSPs, keep buying B.C. bonds. They say they're the best in the country. I'm getting a little worried with the amount that they're buying, but B.C. is certainly preferred by people who are looking to invest. It certainly has the best credit rating of all the provinces; I think you're all aware of that. And British Columbia has by far the lowest taxpayer-supported debt as a percentage of the GDP. I might mention that Alberta is at 36.9 percent and B.C. is at 20 percent. British Columbia also has by far the lowest debt-servicing cost in the country as a percentage of the provincial revenues, at 7.4 cents out of every dollar. That is less than half or one-third of most other provinces. It's certainly less than half of Alberta and New Brunswick, etc.
Looking through all this material, the other thing I found interesting was that British Columbians pay the second-lowest taxes for a two-income family of four with an annual income of $55,000. We have heard all kinds of comparisons about people paying taxes in other provinces, but they're using incomes of $80,000 and up. There are a lot of people in this Legislature who don't come anywhere near $80,000; very few of us do. In looking and comparing with what's happening in British Columbia, things are going very, very well.
I mentioned the importance of jobs in this province. Certainly there are more jobs being created, and I'm very happy. I probably feel better right now than I have felt in the last three years about the job this government is doing. I really feel we're on track, I'm very optimistic, the people I talk to are feeling good and there isn't all that doom and gloom people keep talking about. So I certainly support the Speech from the Throne, and encourage all members of this Legislature to also support it.
[4:30]
J. Beattie: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak in support of this excellent throne speech that's been presented in this fourth parliament of this New Democratic Party government. It's certainly one of the most wonderful visions of the province that I've had the opportunity to see.
Nothing symbolizes the progress a government could make -- in fact the progress this government has made -- more than our successful attempts to bring forward the grass-roots views of British Columbians in this province and include their vision of British Columbia in our policy directives. Years from now I think that will be a telling trademark of this government that this government reached out to all British Columbians and included them in their debate and discussion. Such an approach to government takes a great deal of vision, because you have to be confident of the position that you take as a governing party. But it's also a bold initiative to include people in your decision-making. There's risk involved, because you don't get the answers you always want to hear when you speak to the people and you hear what they have to say about policy directives.
The vision of this government is easily contrasted with the vision of the Liberal Party of B.C., the tragedy of liberalism in this province. The proud tradition of liberalism in this country, as represented by this party, has fallen to a very deep low. Pearson and Trudeau.... I'm sure one of them is rolling over in his grave in shame at what this Liberal Party represents, and I'll get into some of the specifics.
But I'm reminded of two years ago when the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the now Minister of Forests, got up to speak about the Liberals in the opposition, and he characterized them very well. He called them Marxists -- "Groucho Marxists." He referred to the Groucho Marxists, as represented by Hugo C. Hagenbush in the movie Horse Feathers. You recall that movie where Hugo C. Hagenbush has a song that he sings: "Whatever it is, I'm against it." That's the Liberals: doom, gloom, nay, nay -- it's so tiresome.
Look at the Liberals over the last two years and at this naysaying, this doom and this gloom. What have they done to bring themselves up from the depths of their depression about governing and about what it takes to be government? Let me tell you that they've brought in a new leader from the right, a leader that had to make a choice between Social Credit and Liberal. Well, he made a choice for the Liberals, and it was a wise choice, as Social Credit has been reduced to one.
An Hon. Member: What's his brother's name?
J. Beattie: His brother's name is Michael Campbell, hon. member.
What else have they done in the last two years? They certainly haven't come forward with any new policy. They're bereft of policy on forests. This morning the hon. critic got up in debate to talk about the Forest Practices Code and had absolutely nothing new to add to the discussion, just more doom and gloom, more negativism -- the nabobs of nega-
[ Page 13366 ]
tivity the hon. member from up-Island speaks about. What have they got to say about health? Their position on health is to throw out all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and go back to wheeling your family to the hospital in a wheelbarrow, and maybe then get some health care.
Hon. Speaker, there's more. What have we heard from the opposition in the last number of weeks about what they would do if they were government? They'd reduce taxes for their friends; they'd cut spending; they'd pay off the debt in a heated rush, right down as quickly as possible. But at the same time they're going to provide more services for the people. They're talking to the people of British Columbia about the services they're going to provide after they reduce taxes and cut spending.
When I reflect on the wonderful speech that the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs gave about these Groucho Marxists, I realized that they've incorporated another view into their philosophical grab-bag: it's from the Wizard of Oz. The hon. members in the opposition have now become "Dorothyites," and they're led by the chief admirer of Dorothy, the Leader of the Opposition. All the little Totos are yapping behind and following the chief admirer of Dorothy. Given what the opposition has discussed in the last few weeks about their vision, do you know what their theme song is now? It's "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." They've got this vision, this Pollyanna view of the world, that they can cut taxes and reduce spending, and increase programs and build buildings, but they won't run up debts -- they can cut the debts. It's unbelievable; it's Dorothyites combined with Groucho Marxism. That's the opposition: unrealistic dreamers who would like to fly over a rainbow, but they're tied to their pedestrian policy by naysaying and no vision.
Hon. J. Cashore: And wishing upon a star.
J. Beattie: And wishing upon a star, as the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs says. But I want to deal with matters that do require a little more serious reflection. We obviously can't take the opposition's view very seriously. I would like to discuss what has been the result of this government's consultation with the people in British Columbia. I want to talk about the bold new initiatives in the Forest Practices Code. I want to talk about Forest Renewal B.C. I want to talk about skills and training that this government has invested dollars in. I want to talk about the number one economy in Canada. British Columbia has the number one economy, the strongest, most consistent growth, the most new jobs, the best credit rating, and the lowest per capita debt. That's a record any government can be proud of.
There are obviously two opposing views; there are always two opposing views. There's one view that we can stop building up the infrastructure, cut services, reduce wages, lower social standards and have a race to the bottom with all the right-wing governments over in Alberta; or we can take a commonsense approach. I do hope the members opposite are paying attention, because this throne speech is a path they should embark upon as well. We can invest in our strengths; we can update the skills of our youth and of people who are being displaced from the old resource sector into the new resource sector. We can increase our productivity, and we can attempt, by comparison, to match the productivity of Europeans and Asians. We can be involved in that and we can win; we can be successful.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: How are we going to do it? Let me tell you. Our strategy does focus on three key investments. I notice I have the attention of one of the Liberal members opposite, and I'm glad of that. I'm very sure that she's going to carry the message of this throne speech back to her caucus; she's going to talk to the Totos and the Dorothyites and get them onside. Forget the dreaming, forget flying over the rainbow; let's get real -- a balanced, structured approach. You can learn from this, hon. members.
First, we must invest in our natural resources, in our infrastructure and in our people. We must continue to do that nonstop, in a sustaining fashion. Balance and security are at the heart of our strategy, hon. members. We believe that there is a way of reducing deficit; we've introduced a budget now that speaks to that. It's been well endorsed by all the bond agencies in Canada and around the world.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: The hon. member opposite says that the bond agencies are unable to see behind the smoke. It goes to show that when the Liberals want to attack a New Democrat social democratic government, they say that our programs for people are smoke and mirrors. But they'll turn on the business community and the bond agencies, and accuse them of being unable to see the real picture as they've been able to do for the last three or four years. The highest credit rating compared to all other provinces in Canada is in British Columbia, and that's from international bond agencies, hon. member.
Listen, this argument about smoke and mirrors doesn't wash, because we've been well endorsed by bond agencies and by the people of British Columbia. Not only do we have a deficit-reducing plan but we have a debt-reducing plan, and we've done this within a balanced budget -- in fact, a budget which will generate a surplus in the coming year while it continues to support those important programs that build a country and a province and that are good for all British Columbians. We've increased funding in education, we've increased funding in health, and we've increased funding in social services for those people who are unable to care for themselves.
Let me talk a little more about our vision. Let me talk again about investing in our natural resources. No longer are decisions left in the hands of large resource companies alone. We are working with the people of British Columbia, labour unions, environmentalists and aboriginal people to bring forward bold initiatives like the forest renewal plan, the Forest Practices Code and the four CORE initiatives that we introduced and finalized, which the hon. Minister of Forests spoke to today.
This session will be a brilliant session for this government. Despite the smear tactics of the members opposite, which the hon. Premier spoke so eloquently and indignantly to this morning, despite the pettiness and the naysaying and the dooming and glooming on that side of the House, this session will enshrine and bring together all the initiatives that this government has embarked upon in the last three or four years: our land use plans, our vision for health care and our vision for skills and training. We will enshrine our land use
[ Page 13367 ]
plans in law, and they will include stewardship in key waterways. In addition, we will take action during this session to further protect British Columbia's freshwater rivers and fish.
I'd like to digress only slightly at this point. I feel like I'm on a continuum here, but I hope the hon. members opposite can maintain their attention for a few more moments. I would like to make a comment about how my constituents -- in fact, two constituents in particular from Naramata: Arie Brusse and Clive Johnson, members of the Naramata irrigation district -- have worked with the community of Naramata to bring more protection to a watershed behind their community. It's a very important watershed, which provides fresh, clean water to many citizens in Naramata.
It's been my view for many years that we can't abandon the watersheds for the water from the lake. What I am saying by this is that the quality of the water in Okanagan Lake, which is fed by the rich watersheds on the hillsides.... If we don't maintain the integrity of those watersheds, the quality of the lake will go down quite quickly. As we are moving toward more protection for fresh water in our coming session, I wanted to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to two bold constituents, Arie Brusse and Clive Johnson, who have worked very diligently for clean water on behalf of all the people in British Columbia.
The second part of our three-point plan for investing in British Columbia is investing in infrastructure. To prepare for the twenty-first century, we must improve our infrastructure. Business knows that. Business in British Columbia knows that they can't have a vibrant, healthy economy where infrastructure is rundown. Infrastructure is a very broadly scoped undertaking. It doesn't just include highways; it doesn't just include having good electrical plants and up-to-date communication networks. It means having sewer systems where people are able to dispose of waste safely so that communities aren't worried about seepage and businesses can come and set up on these sewer systems. Infrastructure is an incredibly important aspect, and it's a broad area. On the mainland of British Columbia, the population increases by 50,000 every year. Those people need schools, hospitals, courthouses, sewer improvements and road improvements.
[4:45]
I know that the opposition members want to please their own constituents. I know they'd like to say to them that they'll bring them schools and hospitals so they can be cared for. They say it, but they don't have a way or a plan for providing it. All they can talk about is the indignity of having a debt. They somehow can't get themselves beyond the fact that to earn money and to have a strong economy, you have to invest in the economy and in the children. You have to invest in the infrastructure so you can have a strong, sustainable economy.
B.C.'s private sector understands how crucial a strong and modern infrastructure is to attracting new businesses and investment and for creating good, secure jobs for British Columbians. Not only do you create jobs through the actual work of building the infrastructure -- by investing that $27 million in Summerland to build a sewer or the $2 million in Penticton for that Memorial Arena improvement -- but in the long term, you're creating jobs by attracting new industry and business.
This government will be moving forward with new transportation plans for British Columbia in the coming year. We'll be working to relieve congestion in the lower mainland, and I will be working to relieve congestion in the Okanagan and on the work that has to be done on the highways between Peachland and Summerland and to get a new bridge over Okanagan Lake into Kelowna. The flow of traffic and the congestion that results from that have to be addressed.
The third important aspect of investing in British Columbia is investing in its people. When we talk about investing in people, we're talking about programs. We're talking about health, education and the creation of jobs through the provision of education that will meet the demands of the twenty-first century. There is a direct link between health, education and jobs. Our forefathers recognized that when they embarked upon the establishment of universality in this country. I use the word "universality" in a very general sense to include not only health care but also the safety net program for those who are unable to work, so we're talking about UI, social assistance and universal education.
I'm really proud that we have a Minister of Education in this province right now who has made very strong statements about private education versus public education. This government and this Minister of Education will not be led down the road toward privatization of our education system. Education is for all; it is for the advancement of the society. If we don't educate all those people, even those who can't afford it, our society is doomed. It is doomed to a two-tier system, one way or the other. We're doomed to have those who are in control and have power, and those who are victims and have to beg for every little scrap that the rich will throw their way.
The investments we're talking about are affordable investments. I notice the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is chuckling about my description of two classes of people in British Columbia. The Liberal Party once had a proud tradition of speaking for all people.
An Hon. Member: That was 50 years ago.
J. Beattie: That was 50 years ago or maybe longer. One would even say that Trudeau, perhaps, and Pearson had a vision of British Columbia, with the support of New Democratic initiatives to fall back on in terms of their direction.
But this opposition across the way has a different vision. Their vision includes a two-tier health care system, for example. It could include charter schools.
Interjection.
J. Beattie: I hear the member across there clapping for charter schools. It could include more funding for private schools. This is a two-tier system that will be the legacy of a government which, heaven forbid, could be a Liberal government someday.
As I was saying, the investments this government is committed to making, through this throne speech and through our budget that came soon after, are affordable investments. The banks and bond-holders have signalled their approval of this government's record by giving us the best credit rating of any province in Canada. I hate to repeat that, but I must drive it into the heads of the members opposite. We will work to maintain our top rating by further strengthening our record. We will cut taxpayer-supported debt as a percentage of GDP from the current 20 percent.
[ Page 13368 ]
This compares to Alberta's debt -- the one the opposition seems to look to as a role model so often -- which stands at 37 percent of the gross domestic product. It compares to the federal government debt, another Liberal government, which represents 75 percent of the gross domestic product. We will continue to cut real government per capita spending without sacrificing medicare, public education or other vital services that working families rely on. As presented by the Minister of Finance just a few short days ago, it's been shown and accepted that this government has reduced spending for the first time to negative 2.3 percent -- a very significant change in direction in terms of expenditures on a per capita basis.
I want to talk for a few brief moments about protecting medicare. This government and I are deeply troubled by the recent statements from the federal government with regard to what medicare is, how it has been defined in the past and what their vision of the future is. I want to say that not only am I astounded by the death of what I thought was the Liberal tradition -- i.e., the support of universality -- but I'm astounded by the reality of what they've done in their last budget. The block transfer of funds to the provinces is a serious blow to universality.
For the benefit of the audience and for those who may take the time to follow the important debate both federally and provincially, it should be noted that Canada was founded upon a sense of tying together very, very disparate areas of our country: Newfoundland, a rugged fishing outpost; New Brunswick, a rocky agricultural and fishing area; the Gaspe, Quebec -- different languages; the rich heartland of Ontario; across the Prairies burgeoning with wheat, oats and barley, sometimes with a wealth of crops, sometimes without -- always in a very competitive world environment and often needing support; and British Columbia, one of the wealthiest provinces for all the years in Confederation.
But the tradition Canadians have developed and the philosophy that has evolved has been one of sharing resources so that every Canadian feels they can share in the wealth of their country, even if they don't happen to have benefited from the jobs that have sprung from the rich cod off the Grand Banks, the bountiful grains from the Prairies or, indeed, the rich tree harvest that we've been able to take from British Columbia. This sharing of resources is not a pipedream; it's not a mythological vision. It's a reality. We've done it; we've hammered out, with tong and anvil, a structure where we have shared the resources of this country.
One of the key components of that was the transfer payments that were directed by all of our Members of Parliament, who were elected from all parts of this country, for post-secondary education. We were directed by our federal government to spend money in those areas. We were directed to spend money on social services for those who needed our support, and on health care to make sure that there was universality. What was the purpose? The purpose of those directed funds was to make sure that despite the hardships in other areas of a province's activities, and despite the hardships in their economy, they would have the funds to guarantee universal access to education and to social services. By lumping them together, by making this block transfer and saying to the provinces, "You may now spend this money as you see fit," we know who's going to suffer. The weakest, the least able to speak for themselves and defend themselves, will be impacted. The best example is in the neighbouring province of Alberta. That province has always worked to the edges of the federal government requirements when it comes to social services. They have always cut corners in order to deprive those who are in need because their economy has failed and their UI has run out. Their answer has been to give them a bus ticket and send them to the strongest economy in Canada: British Columbia.
This is the legacy that the Liberal government in Ottawa is going to wreak upon this country. They are going to have the actions of Alberta replicated in all of the areas in this country as the politicization of how we spend money on health care, education and social services gets down to the voting day. The sexy issues of health care and education will probably be the ones that governments can defend. With the social services aspect there will be a spinout to the bottom, and it will be a tragedy for this country.
I want to speak to the Liberals' vision on medicare before I go on and talk about ordinary British Columbians a little more. Here's what the Prime Minister said about medicare when he was speaking to the CBC: "Medicare should cover only catastrophic illnesses...federal involvement in national public health insurance was intended to be temporary." Hon. Speaker, is that the vision that you have for health care? Is that what your family -- your mother and father -- talked to you about when they talked about the struggle they had to bring in health care -- that it was temporary? No, it was not a temporary initiative; it was something that was to be structured and in place for generations to come, so that we wouldn't have an American system where millions of people sleep on the streets over subway vents so that they can be warm. Otherwise, if they freeze in the night they may be taken to a hospital that won't take them unless they have a credit card. That's the vision of a two-tier health care system where people can't afford to get the health care they need.
At least there are still some Liberals with integrity. We have longtime federal Liberal MP Warren Allmand publicly criticizing his own government's budget cuts to medicare, saying that the budget repudiates everything the Liberals promised in the 1993 election campaign. Hypocrisy is unmasked by a true Liberal, Warren Allmand, one who stands up and says what the Liberal policy was in the past and what it was in 1993. It shames me to think that this opposition Liberal Party has fallen in step with its Liberal cousins in Ottawa in this terrible hypocrisy. Unfortunately it's true, because in October 1994, Campbell's Liberals passed a resolution that said that outsourcing of health care to private sector providers, where appropriate, is fine.
[5:00]
Let me wrap up by saying that this government will speak for ordinary British Columbians, whether they are the fruit pickers in the Okanagan or whether they are the PhD students at UVic. We will speak for ordinary British Columbians, and this budget is a testimony to that commitment.
M. de Jong: I am positively thrilled to follow in this debate the wizard from the Okanagan, who, like that other wizard who spoke from behind a curtain through an artificial amplification system.... Ultimately, of course, with the Wizard of Oz there was no substance and no magic, and the wizard from the Okanagan follows suit entirely accurately. As I listened to that member, I also thought of those words from the movie he alluded to, and I kept repeating to myself: "I wish I were in Kansas, I wish I were in Kansas."
[ Page 13369 ]
Parliaments evolve, parliaments change, and certainly that is the case here in this Legislature. We have evidence of that today. Nonetheless, one of the changes that has taken place of late which has sadly gone unnoticed, aside from the partisan political rhetoric that followed the event, is the departure from the House of the former member for Abbotsford, Harry De Jong.
I would beg the indulgence of the members in order to take a moment during this throne speech debate, which I suspect is the only opportunity one would have, to comment on the fact that the former member for Abbotsford is no longer in this place and to say that although we never shared similar parties, he was mayor in the community I grew up in and I have a lot of respect for Mr. De Jong.
He was a man of humility and dedication, and I think hon. members would agree with me that he was not, and is not, a man who trumpeted his own virtues with the same gusto that some others of us in this House tend to do. I was not in this place when he was for any great length of time, but I recall the day he rose to speak in this House on a subject that was near and dear to his heart -- the day that this House spoke to a motion dealing with racial intolerance.
On that day Harry De Jong didn't need any notes, because he was able to recall his own experiences in Holland during the Second World War that affected him and his family so profoundly. You heard the words of one who cherished freedoms more than anything else -- freedoms that in his case had been denied him during some pretty formative years. You saw in his eyes the fear that each of us should know when we think how fragile those freedoms are and how quickly they can be removed from us.
He came to Canada and, in spite of a language difficulty, found a place in the parliament of the province of British Columbia. I think it's fitting in this year, when we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation by Canadian troops of his homeland, that I say that Mr. De Jong, above and beyond everything else, thought he had a debt to repay to his adopted country. Though he is here no longer, I think he repaid that debt admirably in the more than 20 years he spent in public service.
Having said that about the former member for Abbotsford and all that he epitomized in terms of sincerity and consistency, I am not able to offer similar adjectives in my description of the throne speech that has been delivered by this government. The government's actions sadly bespeak a litany and history of broken promises, disappointments and unwillingness or inability to follow through on undertakings given to the people of British Columbia. I will try to relate the effects and the impact that some of those broken promises have had both across the province and, more particularly, in the area that I call home and represent in this Legislature.
Members opposite have spoken about their commitment to health care and to health infrastructure. I remind them of the ongoing promises that members of this and former governments have made to the people in Abbotsford and Matsqui -- now one community of Abbotsford -- for a hospital facility. Members will say: "There he goes, calling for infrastructure in his riding." Well, I do that on a very simple basis. It has been promised consistently, over and over and over again. If they put up a beam for every time the sod-turning ceremonies have taken place in that town, the hospital would be built by now. In fact, we get announcements -- carefully orchestrated and carefully calculated to appeal to the electorate -- and no delivery. Where is the substance?
For the people in Abbotsford, the question is: where is the sense in it all? Though the plans are there and all the approvals apparently have been granted and all the promises have been made, we are told that for some unknown reason the government is unwilling to proceed. One can forgive the people of that area, who are not known to lend hearty support to the New Democratic Party. One can understand their suspicion that this is pork-barrel politics, pure and simple.
It's costing British Columbia $1.8 million every month that the hospital is delayed, but it goes well beyond that. I think the people in Abbotsford are no different from people across the province. They ask only one thing of their government: that their government be honest. They believe that they need a new hospital facility. They have been told by the government and the Ministry of Health that they need and deserve a new hospital facility.
But they are big people. If the government is unprepared to proceed with that project, there will be unhappiness; I think there will be people who are upset. But it will be tempered if the government has the gumption, honesty and forthrightness to stand before the people and say, if it's the case: "You have a need. We have a desire to meet that need, but we can't afford it. Plan accordingly." But what do we get from the government? More promises: it's coming.
There's an additional hurdle placed in the paths of the people who are planning the delivery of health care services in that community. Time and time again there's another audit and another study. These things come along magically, just on the verge of what is supposed to be an announcement to proceed. The people want some honesty; they want to be told where they stand.
As bad as it is that the construction of the hospital doesn't proceed, of course, the other end of the equation relates to the funding that is presented to the existing facility. Those officials are told: "Well, we realize that your community is one of the fastest-growing in the province and that there are these stresses on your infrastructure. But come now, you don't really expect us to inject massive amounts of capital into an old facility; you're getting a new facility."
It sounds good in theory, but it doesn't sound good to the people who are occupying the hallways night upon night after night, whose surgery is being delayed. There are human faces to be placed on all of these situations, and if members opposite haven't had to look into the face of a man or woman who has been waiting for two or three years for hip replacement surgery, if they haven't been subjected to that discomfort and been confronted with the question: why the delay? then they're like me, and they have no answer.
When a woman's family called to say, "My mother, whom you met last week, has been on a waiting list for two years for hip replacement," I assumed I was being called to be advised that she had finally been granted a place on the surgery list. Sadly, however, I was advised that she had passed away, finally succumbing to the pain. She never knew the joy of a pain-free existence during the past five years. These are difficult matters, and it's trite to say that there are no easy solutions. But that woman and the thousands of other British Columbians on those wait-lists ask for nothing more than
[ Page 13370 ]
honesty from their government -- to tell them like it is. This government shows a singular and consistent unwillingness to do that, and I find it terribly disturbing and dishonest.
In my community, as in other communities around the province, those very people that members opposite claim to be defending above and beyond all others -- those least capable of speaking for themselves, least able to draw attention to their particular causes or problems -- are the ones the members of the governing NDP say they are representing. We have an example of literally thousands of those people in the guise of people who require home-care services. They are voices that have been lost in the wind. Literally hundreds of constituents of mine call and say: "The people I depend on to live independently in my home to help feed me, help clothe me, help me with some rudimentary cleaning and ensure that I can maintain an independent existence aren't coming to see me anymore. I don't have anything beyond a very minimal essential service being provided." Those are the voices of the people who have been lost.
I daresay it is not coincidental that those are people who cannot organize. They can't gather to put pressure on government to take the steps that government might otherwise be inclined to take to ensure that this dispute, which has caused so much grief for so many people, isn't forgotten, yet that's precisely what has taken place. I am told that a resolution to this dispute is imminent. Let us hope that is the case. But the fact is that we have heard nothing from the government side in terms of answering those despondent cries from the people who so desperately require minimal services in order to maintain their independent lifestyle. That those cries have truly gone unanswered is deplorable in the extreme. Let us hope the matter can be settled, but I daresay it will not be forgotten by those people who were abandoned in their hour of greatest need.
This government arrived on the scene at a time when there was much hope that things would be different. That was the promise included in the manifesto of 48 promises: no more patronage, no more gifts for friends and insiders; those were all things of the past. Yet, in the guise of the Island Highway project and the health labour accord, we see examples of institutionalized patronage. It has gone beyond a job for the minister's cousin or an appointment for such-and-such a member's friend. It's been elevated to a new art form, hon. Speaker, to institutionalized patronage in the extreme.
[5:15]
At the same time as that is taking place, working men and women -- and we had an example today in Conair Aviation -- are being released because other jurisdictions are taking retaliatory steps against this government. This government thinks it can have it both ways. It's a government that says on the one hand: "B.C. only. We're erecting barriers at the border. We'll take care of British Columbians first." Yet it is seemingly blind to the fact that other jurisdictions in the country aren't going to put up with those sorts of shenanigans. That's precisely what we've been confronted with today in the guise of the Northwest Territories: "British Columbia, you're not going to allow our workers to engage in occupations in British Columbia. Therefore we're not going to allow your companies opportunities in our jurisdiction." It's deplorable, but it is entirely understandable. It is an example of yet another case of sheer hypocrisy on the part of this government that thinks it can have its cake and eat it too, and it just ain't so. Other jurisdictions aren't going to put up with the kind of shenanigans being propagated by this government.
Although the Premier will wax eloquent about this, that and the other thing, what he won't do is confront the reality of the fact that today in the town of Abbotsford 30 people are in jeopardy of losing their jobs. He doesn't want to acknowledge that. He doesn't want to acknowledge that's the case, just as he remains entirely committed to his earlier statement that not one job in the forestry sector will be lost -- not one job. We know that's not true. What we don't know is how many hundreds or thousands it will be. What we do know is that we can't rely on the Premier or his government to be honest and forthcoming about what those numbers will be. But ultimately it isn't necessary, because those towns will speak for themselves -- the towns of Tahsis and Gold River, other towns in the northern areas of the province and the resource towns of this province. They'll speak for themselves, because they will be the people forced to live with the legacy that this government is ditching piece by piece through its misguided policies.
The government and members of the government back bench continue to stand in this place and speak of their balanced budget and their debt reduction plan. And it's just so much poppycock and so misleading for the people of British Columbia. The Treasury Board documentation, of course, removes any doubt: the debt that this government is incurring is unsustainable. The difficulty is that we tend to have a fixation on debt, notwithstanding the government's desire to play games with the budget and cook the books and try to hide the true state of affairs from British Columbians. We tend to have a fixation with the number, but I think we have to get beyond that, because debt, ultimately, is nothing more than deferred taxation, as we all know -- at least on this side of the House we know it. I'm not certain they know it on the other side of the House. It's deferred taxation.
But when you get to the nub of the issue, this constant and ongoing accumulation of debt is, at the end of the day, going to preclude this government and future governments from doing those things which I think -- I hope -- they want to do. And that is to deal with education and health care matters. The debt hangs like a millstone around this government's neck. The millstone is getting bigger and threatens to drag us into the dirt to the point where those legitimate objectives that we have to meet -- the educational needs of our children, the health care needs of our families.... It will be impossible to meet those objectives because of the debt that this government continues to incur without any regard for the future implications for the people of British Columbia. Again, I find it deplorable; I find it dishonest in the extreme.
I was surprised to see what was not referred to in the throne speech. I was surprised, for example, to learn that in spite of the fact that the Premier of British Columbia was content to leave the people of Abbotsford unrepresented for in excess of six months -- on the grounds, by the way, that he needed to get a better handle on the situation in Quebec.... I must confess that I don't see the link. I didn't see it when he mentioned it, and I don't see it now. Nonetheless, in the Premier's mind at least, the Quebec referendum situation was so all important that it warranted leaving the people of Abbotsford unrepresented.
I can only presume therefore that constitutional matters are uppermost in the Premier's mind and that he has a plan,
[ Page 13371 ]
that he has some vision, some idea of what will happen in the event of a referendum this fall -- a yes vote, a no vote -- that there is something, the genesis of some idea, of some grand plan perhaps for a renewed federalism, that these are all things germinating in the Premier's mind. And do we hear anything? Nothing. What is the plan? What is the plan from this government?
The country is potentially facing one of the most important issues in our history in the guise of another referendum, a referendum the Premier said he had to study before granting the people of Abbotsford representation, and we have heard nothing from the government. We are heading down the road to another Meech Lake disaster because there is no plan. The government is bereft of ideas; it is bankrupt of ideas. If it has turned its mind to this very important issue at all, it has come up empty -- and I hazard to guess that it hasn't turned its mind to it. I find that shameful. I find it shameful that the government of British Columbia would turn a blind eye to an issue that undoubtedly is going to involve every single British Columbian, whatever the result of that referendum is. I think it's shameful.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
We heard very little, if anything, about aboriginal affairs, and I just referred to constitutional matters. Well, if members of this government genuinely believe that there are no constitutional implications for the road they have embarked upon with respect to aboriginal treaty negotiations, then they are misguided to the nth degree. We are talking -- and have heard the Premier and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs talk -- about nation-to-nation negotiations. I won't get back into the simple Matsqui farm boy's analogies, but what does "nation" imply to you or the average person? It implies sovereignty. What sovereignty? When we talk about aboriginal title that extends beyond fee simple, surely the government understands -- having read the decisions that it has at its disposal -- that we are speaking of some concept of sovereignty that is different from anything we have.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The hon. Minister of Education appears confused by the line of debate. I'm not surprised that he would be confused; I'm not surprised at all.
This government would embark the province of British Columbia down a path that leads they know not where, denoting concepts of sovereignty that they haven't thought out, the implications of which are not understood -- certainly not by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and certainly not by the Premier, because when the questions are asked, they don't have the answers. The fear that that strikes in the hearts of people across this province, well-intentioned individuals, who bear no malice, I think, towards aboriginal peoples but who would appreciate some degree of certainty in their lives and who would like to know whether their privately held interests in land are going to be affected. And the government has the gall to stand up and say private property rights aren't on the table. Well, Mr. Minister, what do you mean by private property rights? "Well, I'm not prepared to define that now, for heaven sakes; I wouldn't want to do that." The government wonders why there is this growing fear across the province. Well, it's there and it's real.
We heard nothing....
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs rises on a point of order.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member attributed a quote to me that I did not make, and I would respectfully ask that he withdraw it.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have due opportunity to refute any concerns he may have about the member's statement. As all members know, points of order do not allow members to rise and enter debate or refute comments that have been made, unless it's to do with an unparliamentary remark.
Would the hon. member please proceed.
M. de Jong: I'm not surprised that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would find my comments disturbing. I find him and his government's conduct in this matter equally disturbing.
I waited with interest to hear in the throne speech of the government's plans for land use, agricultural land use in particular. As I was waiting to hear about that issue, I thought of those school boards, health boards and church groups in growing areas of this province that have been all but eliminated from the ability to purchase land and construct their facilities.
The school I went to, which fortunately still exists in a very rural area, would not be built today. The land use plans which exist -- and I might add, fairly -- were introduced by a former government. It was not this one but a former NDP government. Those land use plans, in my view, are now in need of some very significant overhauling. That is not to say that the agricultural land reserve does not have merit. It certainly does, but the brutal reality is that a one-size-fits-all solution to agricultural land use in this province is no longer applicable, if it ever was. It certainly isn't applicable today. The church groups that are looking for sites to build their churches and the school boards that have been run out of the market in terms of their ability to obtain sites for new schools are issues that need to be addressed.
The government's spartan -- may, I say thin and spartan -- legislative agenda, as we learned upon its release prior to this session, ignores these very grave and legitimate concerns of British Columbians. A government that arrived on the scene full of promise and hope, which was shared by British Columbians across all political stripes, has disappointed us in nearly every single venue on nearly every single issue it has or has not addressed. The time has come for this bankrupt government to declare that bankruptcy, and the way to do it is to say to the people: "You have an opportunity to vote for a new government, to bring people to this parliament who will come and address your concerns, who will seek consultation with communities across the province and address those legitimate needs." They are not being met by this government, and no amount of table thumping, no amount of laughter and no amount of ignoring these legitimate concerns by government members is going to change that fact. My time is up and I thank you.
[5:30]
F. Jackson: It is with pleasure that I stand to take my part in the debate on the throne speech -- a throne speech that
[ Page 13372 ]
shows that this government intends to lead British Columbia toward a bright and prosperous future.
Before I begin, I would like to repeat what I have said in my responses to throne speeches on previous occasions. We who sit in this chamber are honoured to be here and are privileged with this job, which we truly appreciate. We also have a right to be here, because the people gave us that right -- the people out there, on the other side of the camera. But along with that right comes a responsibility, and I would like to urge the people to live up to that responsibility: get involved in the political process, join the party of your choice, help form the policy that's discussed here and help select the members who sit in these chairs. If they do that, this place will function as well as it can and as well as it should.
The throne speech refers to investment: to make use for future benefits and advantages through resources that we have today. There is no place where we can invest more easily, more readily and with a better return than in the forest industry. When the first immigrants came here, I am quite sure that they looked around, and they believed that there were trees forever. The people who started to work in the forest industry also believed that there were trees forever. I'm not just talking about the businessmen who made money out of the business, but the people who worked the saws and the axes believed there were forests and trees forever. In the last few years, we all -- the citizens, the industry, the environmentalists -- have come to realize that indeed there are not forests and trees forever.
In order to make that work, our government took certain actions. The Forest Practices Code provides guidelines and standards for the forest industry to work within -- guidelines and standards which will make sure that the forest industry survives into the future.
Another way in which we've invested, of course, is the forest renewal plan, which has taken increased stumpage from the industry and put it into silviculture to enhance stream enhancement, secondary manufacturing -- all ways which will guarantee the industry's future. By guaranteeing the industry's future, we guarantee jobs for our people and for the children of our people.
Along with that investment in the forest industry, there is also the issue of land use in general. What this government has supported and taken action on through the CORE process and, more local to my constituency, the LRMP, was to bring people together so that they could express their wishes and dreams for land use in the future.
Two young men from Kamloops, Kevin Kriese and Gary Reay, did a remarkable job in bringing people together around the table -- people who, in the first place, were not readily compatible. But we finished up with a land use plan recommendation which will be discussed and passed into law very soon.
Besides land use, an issue which is very dear to my heart is water use. It has become quite obvious that along with protecting our land, we must indeed protect our water. I think if there's one thing which is common up and down my constituency, it's the high regard which my constituents hold for the North Thompson River. Time and again over the last three or four years, they have endeavoured to send a message to those people who would take that river and divert it for the use of the people in southern California. My constituents say no to Mr. Clancey or anyone else like him who may come along and see a way to make a dollar from a river. It's not going to happen.
Another way in which we will be investing is through infrastructure. I would like to say at this time that the member for Peace River North struck a chord when he talked about gravel roads in his constituency. I have a very small piece of gravel road that I would dearly like to see paved in the near future. However, I think we must recognize the reality of the province. Anybody who has tried to travel around greater Vancouver in rush hour knows that that is where the priority must be. The priority is for rapid people movement of some kind, whether it's on CP tracks or with the extension of the SkyTrain; it's the investment in people movers, the ferry system and public transit. I read just the other day that we're about to get some new buses for the public transit system in Kamloops. It's quite a coincidence; I sent a letter one day saying that this is a good idea, and I got a letter the next day saying that in fact they were going to do it. That's good government in action.
The other highway is the information highway. As a non-computer passenger, I'm always struck by the magic that computers and the technology that has been developed along with them have managed to bring into our lives. We had the opportunity in Kamloops not too long ago to read a story to school children. I read them a story about Finn McCool, who was an Irish giant who worked on the Giant's Causeway on the northern coast of Ireland. After it was done, when I was being shown out the school by two of the older students, we went into the library. I'd been telling them that around the legend of Finn McCool there was the causeway and Fingal's Cave, about which Mendelssohn wrote some music. They were quite interested in this. In the library, there was a young man working at a computer with a new CD-ROM. I asked him to look up Fingal, and out it came: four references to Fingal and Finn McCool, right out of the library computer. The two young women were most impressed, and so was I. It's a simple thing that displays the magic of information systems and the way we can move information around.
Another way in which to get information into people, of course, is to educate them. For new college spaces, count 8,100. That's a hundred times how many seats there are in the chamber, give or take, but one and a half times the number of people who watch the Blazers' games in the Riverside Coliseum.
An Hon. Member: The winning Blazers.
F. Jackson: The winning Blazers. Thank you.
We're about to do the same thing again with 48,000 more, and that's another winning game at the Blazers.
This education and training that we'll be providing is directed at only one thing: so people can make a living. We call it jobs for us, for our children and our grandchildren. We will be using our colleges and institutions of learning to train and retrain people to take their place, and in some case to take new places, within the working atmosphere in British Columbia. We'll do that by bringing people together, using partnerships between the forest companies in particular and the educational institutions, using Skills Now and the forest renewal plan to provide jobs and more jobs.
There will be skill centres developed in Clearwater, and I hope it will be soon, to bring people together from UCC, the
[ Page 13373 ]
school board and the local community and to put into place programs that will train our young people to go to work.
We will also be investing in our financial structures, so that they operate for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. The member for Matsqui talked about cooking the books. I have a feeling that that's not quite parliamentary, and I would like to set him straight on what we actually did. We took the finances of the province and laid them out in two different ways, so that even the member for Matsqui would see that this year we have a surplus of $100 million. The member for Matsqui has left. I hope he's watching TV up there.
One of the things which happened leading up to the budget was that the Premier's advisory group set out benchmarks, which we intend to better. We'll cut the debt, which nobody wants, and get government spending in line with what the people need. But we don't intend to sacrifice our education or health care while we do this. On Friday the Liberal Health critic said that the Canada Health Act reaffirms the federal government's commitment to universal, accessible, comprehensive, portable and publicly administered insurance systems. That sounds very good, but it doesn't weigh up with what we hear from either the Prime Minister or the country cousins down the road here. The Prime Minister talked about a health system that would prevent people from going into bankruptcy. The Prime Minister talked about a health system that would only be used if there was a catastrophe.
Interjection.
F. Jackson: The Liberal candidate in Kamloops says it a little bit differently; he says it will kick in when people are about to lose their houses. I don't think that's the kind of health care system that we on this side of the House have any time for. It has nothing to do with health, and it has nothing to do with caring.
[5:45]
The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, speaking on the throne speech, referred to drawing lines; he said it drew lines. I think it's quite obvious, and it said so in the throne speech, that it's our intention to put ordinary people first. I think a good example of how that works is the fact that we put into place a minimum wage and increased it. It's going to go all the way up to $7 an hour, and the people on the opposition benches are most annoyed about that; they think that's far too high. There is a man in this province who, over the last 20 years or so -- in fact, I think 40 years -- has accumulated wealth at the rate of about $2,800 an hour. You would think that the member for Vancouver-Langara would be setting his hair on fire, considering his reaction to the $7-an-hour minimum wage. Maybe the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove could go out and sponsor a revolution against that kind of wealth acquisition, but that's not going to happen.
What they are going to do is put out their hand and say: "Put some money in my hand. Give us a donation so we can beat the big bad NDP." Are they likely to get it?
Interjection.
F. Jackson: He said he would give them some if they formed a coalition to beat the big bad NDP. So what we have now is the possibility of the members for Vancouver-Quilchena and Peace River South getting together and trying to come to some arrangement around this idea of a coalition so they can beat the big bad NDP. What I would suggest to them is that they go all the way back to 1951, take a leaf out of W.A.C. Bennett's book and call themselves Socreds. That's where we're returning to: Socreds, each and every one of them.
Where we are is quite simple. I'd give you the $2,800-an-hour crowd to my right here. For me, $7 an hour, $10 an hour, maybe $20 an hour -- ordinary people in British Columbia are who I came here to represent. We will, in fact, put people first.
Hon. Speaker, seeing the lateness of the hour, I move adjournment of the debate until tomorrow.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Charbonneau moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]