(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 1, Number 7
[ Page 121 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: Today in the members' gallery we have some special guests from Tasmania, Australia. The Hon. Dick Adams is the federal member of the Australian Labour Party for Lyons, and he is accompanied by his wife, Dee Alty, who is a councillor for the city of Hobart. Mr. Adams is on a study tour of Canada and the United States, and of course he has started in absolutely the best part of the world: Victoria. Will you please join me in welcoming the two of them to our House today.
L. Reid: I would ask the House this afternoon to please join me in welcoming to this chamber Dr. Rhona Gordon and Dr. Larry Barzelai and their four children: Laura, Nadav, Avi and Ira. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: From my riding, visiting Victoria today, are Mr. Ted and Mrs. Marjorie Shier. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: It's my privilege to welcome to the House Urs Eichenberger from Vancouver, and Ueli Eichenberger, Heidi Eichenberger, Erika Steiner and Walter Steiner from Switzerland. I ask all members to make them welcome.
M. de Jong: Joining us in the gallery today are members of the Denizot family, who originally hail from France: Isabelle Denizot, Stephan Denizot, Karen Denizot, Gabriella Denizot and the matriarch, Michelle Denizot. Please make them all welcome.
PREMIER'S ELECTION PROMISES
AND 1995-96 BUDGET
G. Campbell: A few weeks ago in Victoria the Premier said: "I'd resign, certainly, if I felt I betrayed voters." He was specifically referring to the NDP's balanced budgets. It's now clear that the voters have been betrayed. To the Premier: your previous Finance minister betrayed the voters; your current Finance minister betrayed the voters; and more importantly, Mr. Premier, you have misled the people of British Columbia -- you have betrayed the voters of British C
The Speaker: Through the Chair, please.
G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has betrayed the people of British Columbia, he has misled the voters of British Columbia, and I want to know from the Premier today whether or not he is willing to resign and live up to the promise he made just a few weeks ago.
Hon. G. Clark: I would argue quite the contrary, obviously. I have always been forthright in my dealings in public life, and I always intend to do that. As soon as we have information with respect to forecasts or with respect to the fact that revenue is not coming in on budget, we make it available to the public. I trust the people of British Columbia implicitly. I think it's important in public life that we don't throw around monikers of not telling the truth, or this or that. I have been always consistent, and I remain consistent.
When we found out before the books closed that revenue, particularly in forestry, was not what we had projected in the budget, we made that information available to the public. The final figures are not even in yet. The books will close at the end of August. Sometime in October or November, Public Accounts will be published; people will see exactly where we're at. We have just brought in a budget which has forecasts in it for revenue and for expenditures. We intend to do what we've always done, which is work hard, be upfront with people about the challenges we face as a people, and take appropriate action. That's what governments do; that's what we intend to do.
G. Campbell: The only thing that is consistent about this Premier is that he says one thing before an election and the exact opposite after an election. The Premier said time and time and time again, in this House and out of this House, that we would have a balanced budget for the 1995 fiscal year. Since then, what have we seen? A promise of $400 million in cuts turns into an $11 million surplus; a promise of a balanced budget turns into a $235 million deficit; a promise of a debt management plan is totally abandoned, so we can borrow more and more and more money on the backs of British Columbians. Why should any voter or bond-rating agency believe this Premier or this government, when they purposely go out of their way to mislead British Columbians and to break their word time after time after time?
Hon. G. Clark: I think, we should deal with the facts today, rather than rhetoric, in this chamber. We promised a tax cut before the election, and we brought in a tax cut. We promised to protect health care from cuts that the opposition parties would have inflicted on British Columbia, and we brought in a budget that protects health care. We promised education spending so there wouldn't be cuts in education, and we brought in a budget that protects education. We promised a tuition fee freeze for university and college students, and we have frozen tuition fees for colleges and universities.
I have been forthright, and for the next five years I intend to continue to be forthright with the people of British Columbia. When there are challenges in the way, when there are problems that our government faces, we will be forthright with people. We will tell them what the problems are, and we will deal with those problems.
G. Campbell: I think it's a shame when the Legislature of British Columbia becomes known as the "wriggle room." Let's get the facts straight.
This government promised the Royal Jubilee Hospital, and they reneged on that promise. This government promised schools, and they've reneged on those promises. This government promised to eliminate portables, and the number of portables in British Columbia has exploded. This government, as recently as last week, promised a balanced budget, and they broke their word by Friday.
This Premier promised that he would resign when he betrayed the people of British Columbia. He betrayed the people of British Columbia. Will the Premier resign?
Hon. G. Clark: I know that we can expect those kinds of rhetorical questions probably every day from the member opposite. But the reaction
[ Page 122 ]
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to be clear about this.
What have we done? We're spending $1.2 billion this year on capital construction, almost all of which the members opposite oppose. We have not reneged on any commitment we've made. We simply said that we want a freeze on capital spending while we review it, because the public said to us that they're concerned about the level of debt accumulation.
[2:15]
The other thing, aside from being forthright, aside from being upfront and telling people the challenges we face and how we're going to deal with them, is that we are going to listen to what people say. They want a responsive government, and we're going to be responsive.
F. Gingell: Well, it was interesting to discover today that this Premier has added to his talent of selective hearing a talent for selective promises.
The Minister of Finance's public statements on the $230 million shortfall in forest revenues are simply not credible. First he blamed the weather. Then he blamed a new accounting system. Now he says that he just didn't know.
In the meantime, the minister's conduct is having serious repercussions on the province's financial standing. This fiasco is front-page news across this country and is raising the alarm of bond-rating agencies. The member for Saanich South was an incompetent Minister of Forests; he's now an incompetent Minister of Finance. Thank goodness for the people of British Columbia he can't be both at the same time. Will the Premier replace today his Minister of Finance before he makes all these problems worse?
Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps the member has not read what was stated today by one of those bond-rating agencies. The Dominion Bond Rating Service said today: "The thing to keep in mind is that B.C. still has the lowest debt load as a percentage of GDP. We have B.C. and Alberta rated as AA, which is our highest rating for the provinces. So, I wouldn't say that B.C. is in trouble. The balance sheet is still pretty good." The only group that's trying to cry wolf or that the sky is falling, and to foment trouble for British Columbia, is the group sitting over there. I suggest that they think twice about it before they do it anymore.
F. Gingell: The Minister of Finance has added to the Premier's talents of selective listening and selective promises that of selective reading. Why don't you read out all that was said -- that the bond-rating agencies couldn't believe that the government of British Columbia was so incompetent? Respected chartered accountancy firms such as Price Waterhouse and forest industry associations for coastal forestry and lumber producers are amazed and shocked at the Finance minister's statements. They are saying publicly that he had to have known about the shortfall of stumpage revenue: he was Minister of Forests at that time.
The Premier recently promised that he would change his ways and listen to the people of B.C. and to this Legislature. The people of B.C. and this Legislature have lost their trust and confidence in this Finance minister. Mr. Premier, it's time he should go. What do you say?
Hon. A. Petter: If the member opposite would like a briefing on how the system of public accounts works and how the books are closed, I'd be happy to provide him with one. The system is such that accounts are prepared by one ministry and then transferred over to the Ministry of Finance for verification. It so happened -- unfortunately for me, perhaps -- that that was the very process that was going on last week. Accounts had been received from various ministries, including Forests, but they had not been verified. The Ministry of Finance officials had reason to believe that they might still be subject to change -- they were very preliminary -- and cautioned me to rely upon them. That is the way the process works. I'd be happy to arrange a briefing for the member, because I know he takes an interest in public accounts and could benefit from such a briefing.
M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, during the NDP's pre-election scramble to buy votes, it sent a letter to 200,000 low-income families in British Columbia promising a family bonus of as much as $500 a month, to be delivered in July. This morning the Minister of Finance stated that the program may not be delivered on time after all, and almost at the same time the Minister of Social Services contradicted him. Can the Minister of Social Services tell the House whether it is he or the Minister of Finance who is telling the truth?
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's concern. As I indicated to the press yesterday, the government has been undertaking due diligence to ensure that that program can proceed on schedule in July.
Let me share with the House one of the key considerations: the federal government has to issue the cheques. In order to do so, they have to have an assurance from this Legislature of approval for the program. We will be introducing that legislation, and based on the member's comments, I am now happy to say that I feel very confident in assuring the federal government that that approval will be given. For that reason, I am happy to say the program will be proceeding on schedule in July. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
M. Coell: The working poor of this province need better; they need a clearer statement than that. Could the Minister of Social Services tell the House why the government sent 200,000 letters to families in British Columbia telling them the cheques will be in the mail? Will the Minister of Finance resign if those cheques are not in the mail?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't know how I can be any clearer, but I guess if you've got your supplemental question written, you might as well ask it anyway.
I appreciate that the member for Saanich North and the Islands is concerned about this issue; I am aware of his background in social work. But I warn him that the attitudes taken over the last four years by some of his colleagues across the way do not reflect a similar concern for the working poor in this province. So I implore him: when this legislation comes before the House, please, hon. member, implore your colleagues to support it and pass it in time so the federal government can have the authorization they need to deliver those cheques.
[ Page 123 ]
The Speaker: The bell terminates the question period.
G. Abbott: I have the honour to present a petition from 207 people from the Adams Lake area, requesting improvements to the ferry service at Adams Lake. Appended to the petition is a cost comparison outlining how service could be improved without additional cost. I'd like the House to please receive this petition.
Hon. D. Miller: I've two reports to table: the 1995 report of the Assessment Appeal Board, and the 1994-95 report of the Science Council of B.C.
M. de Jong: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, the reply in response to the budget. Let me take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to those members who are joining us in this place for the first time these past number of days. As others have said, and it's correct, it is a commitment that each of us has made -- those new members in particular, and their families. It's an honour for all of us to be here. Based on the activity and the spirited debate that has followed to this point, I know that members will appreciate the words that were offered to me by a member of the press gallery upon my arrival: "Sir, choose your words wisely. Choose words that are gentle and tender, because it is only a matter of time before you'll be asked to eat them." I know members will be mindful of that.
An Hon. Member: It took about a week, didn't it?
M. de Jong: It was about a week, my colleague reminds me -- or less, indeed.
I want to say one other thing about the election itself -- well, I may have more to say about the election. I have at least one thing I'd like to say in a non-partisan way, and that is the fact that we can celebrate in this province, and indeed in this country, the fact that our electoral system works. That is, the mechanics of it works in a way that leaves us all confident about the legitimacy of the result. And in this election, as in others, there were some close results. But something that I think is worthwhile for us to pause and think about is that when we mark our ballot and put it in the ballot box, we know it will be counted, and we know it will be counted properly. That's not something that people in every single country in this world can say, and it's something that we should celebrate. I applaud and thank the people who work with Elections B.C. on a full-time basis, and also those people who work on a part-time basis during the time that the writ is in effect, for the job they have done.
The Speaker: Excuse me, if the member for Matsqui will permit my interruption. Can I ask members on the government side of the House to please take their conversations elsewhere? We're having a little difficulty hearing. Sorry, member. Please continue.
M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Members opposite aren't accustomed to the new, mellow, low-key member from Matsqui.
So if their professionalism -- that is, the volunteers with Elections B.C. -- was predictable, it was as predictable as the flip-flop we've seen from this government in a few very short weeks since the election took place on major election promises these government members took to their constituents. They said, "Elect me and this is what our government will do," and time and time
We are dealing now with the second budget in a few short months, with what was supposed to be the second balanced budget. But as we all know, you can't have a second balanced budget if you don't have a first balanced budget -- and even the Minister of Finance can count to two.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I'm going to assure the member for Yale-Lillooet that I'll get to him. If he can just be a little patient, we'll get to him.
Me are dealing now with the second budget in a few short months, with what was supposed to be the second balanced budget. But as we all know, you can't have a second balanced budget if you don't have a first balanced budget -- and even the Minister of Finance can count to two.
[2:30]
I ask myself how much public money -- taxpayers' money -- was spent in the months leading up to the election campaign -- February, March, April? Millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent to tell British Columbians how their government was delivering its second balanced budget, and it just wasn't true. It wasn't true, and what's worse is that the government knew it wasn't true. They knew the sham they were purporting to pull in these all-important weeks leading up to the election, and they continued in a way that's quite incredible. They've continued to play that game right through the throne speech, asking His Honour to utter words that weren't true. Shame on them!
Then we hear from the Minister of Finance how he learned that the budget wasn't going to be quite balanced: we're going to be a few million short -- a few hundred million short, in fact. And the information trickled in. The former Minister of Forests, the now Minister of Social Services, didn't get around to passing the information on to him. Who knows what he was doing during that short tenure he held in that office, but he obviously wasn't asking questions like "What are our revenues?" and "What are our expenses?" Maybe that's not the kind of questions that ministers ask. I don't know. He was getting paid to be a minister. He was getting paid to assume that office and be responsible. But he wasn't asking those very basic questions: how much money have we got, and how much are we spending? He didn't know.
So the Minister of Finance comes in and says to us: "Well, I learned about this in dribs and drabs, and I couldn't have been expected to know by February." But then when he finds out -- and this is something that I love to think
[ Page 124 ]
I didn't hear you." "I want you to have a great Canada Day weekend, and the budget isn't balanced." For the benefit of Hansard, I'll provide the interpretation, much along the lines of what the minister has tried to present in the days since then, when he has been covering his tail -- and not very successfully.
It lacks credibility. If the principles at stake weren't so fundamental to our democratic process and to the workings of this House, it would be laughable. But it's not laughable, because it's hard taxpayers' dollars that this government is frittering away.
There was no secret here. All of the signals pointed to reduced revenues from the forest sector. All of the information that was available to the government, to the minister -- God only knows what he was up to during those days -- suggested that revenues would be down. So when the now Minister of Social Services says, "Well, I didn't know," we're really puzzled. Because something does happen in April 1996 in the dying days just before the election writ is dropped. Something really interesting happens from a minister who purports not to have known. Something is done to adjust the budgetary estimates from the forestry sector on the revenue side of the ledger. But in the face of all the evidence that suggests revenues are going to be down, what do you think the adjustment is? Revenues are adjusted upwards. Go figure. And I know there are members opposite who perhaps have some information that they'd love to share with us. Perhaps they knew something that justified adjusting the revenue side of the ledger upwards. We don't know what it is. The minister responsible apparently doesn't know what it is. He says he didn't know anything.
The Minister of Finance and his government and his NDP cohorts, for one reason and one reason only, adjusted the ledger upright because it was expedient politically. It was expedient for crass political reasons to say to British Columbians: "We are the guardians of your books and our hands are clean, and the province is in fine fiscal shape." But it wasn't true. If you're going to be guided by what's true and what's right and what's honourable, you tell the truth, and this government hasn't done that.
That's what was happening here in the ivory palace on the hill in Victoria. But, you know, there was some other deception going on. There were some other less-than-candid politicians out there in their ridings. And here's where we get to places like Yale-Lillooet. Here's where we get to where the member for Yale-Lillooet, that NDP member from the opposite side of the House, in a moment of smug confidence, writes to the Hope Standard and, in referencing his B.C. Liberal Party opponent, challenges him and says: "Now, which important local initiatives do you think should be cancelled to pay for your party's promise of spending cuts?" He lists them: the skills centre, sheltered housing for Princeton, the water and sewer project, the Hope pool-library complex, the Lytton Bridge, the Lytton hospital, the Cache Creek water reservoir. Well, hon. Speaker, implicit in that statement, of course, is this member's promise that his government is going to proceed with those projects.
An Hon. Member: None of them have been cut.
M. de Jong: I can't believe what I'm hearing, hon. Speaker: none of them have been cut. Well, that means one of two things: first of all, we know they've been postponed indefinitely, or maybe the member knows something we on this side of the House don't know. You don't suppose that projects in NDP ridings are going to be spared the axe, do you? That couldn't be happening. That couldn't be the case. But it's one
Interjection.
M. de Jong: You can't have it both ways, hon. member. They're either frozen and suspended indefinitely, or you know something we don't know.
In any case, hon. Speaker, we won't have to write a letter to the editor of the Hope Standard newspaper, because thousands of his constituents are going to do it for us. They are going to call and say: "Where was this promise after the election?"
I recall reading about the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke making a great to-do locally about $250,000 that was earmarked for a school-based child care facility in Kimberley. That was only in April -- on April 4, as a matter of fact. Funny how these announcements tended to come fast and furious in the dying weeks before the last election. Funny how that was, and funny -- except it isn't, hon. Speaker -- to see how quickly they've gone up in smoke weeks after the results of the last election.
That member can go back to his community and look his constituents in the eye when they say to him: "You made us a promise that this project would proceed. Where is that promise? Why isn't your government acting on it? Why has it done just the opposite? What do you think -- we're mules?" That's how this government deals with people in British Columbia. It deals with them like they're mules. Puts a carrot out in front of them and says: "You come and get it; we'll pull it away at the last minute." It's the Charlie Brown-Lucy government: pull the football away. They're so arrogant, hon. Speaker, that they think they can keep pulling the football away. Well, guess what. British Columbians aren't going to play any longer. They're not going to be kicking at a football that this government keeps pulling away from them only to have them laugh at them come the next election time -- because it's coming sooner than these members think.
The member for North Coast, the Deputy P
Members of this government and members of this NDP don't come out to visit me in Abbotsford and Matsqui very often. I'd like one of them to come out and deal with the constituents who heard this party's candidate in the last election promise that the MSA hospital would be proceeding -- a promise that they've heard not one, not two, three, four,
Let one member of cabinet come to Abbotsford and explain why that project has been put on hold yet again. Maybe they want to come to the hospital and tell the people sitting on gurneys in the emergency ward -- spending the
[ Page 125 ]
night in the emergency ward in the hallways -- why they are any less worthy than people in NDP ridings. There really is a double standard at work, and I think it's shameful -- I really do.
All of us who sit in this place have one real asset, and for any government, for any member, that asset is credibility and our sense of self-respect. I can't imagine for the life of me, after what we have seen transpire over the past couple of weeks, any member of the NDP holding their head up and purporting to have either of those qualities at this point in their political life.
We don't even have to deal with the NCHS, with what went on in Nanaimo; we don't have to deal with the various investigations that are ongoing, with the Nemetz inquiry. We don't even have to talk about that.
Interjections.
M. de Jong: The members apparently become quite defensive when the topic is raised. They don't like to hear about it. But we can do a quick history lesson. I remember the same member applauding wildly when former Premier Harcourt stood in here and stood out in that hall and said that he would sue me for suggesting that there was any link between the NDP and the NCHS.
Oh, the NDP muzzle -- that's what it was. In fact, that's precisely what we learned occurred: there was a link, in every sense of the word.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: If the member doesn't want to think about it or talk about it, I understand that, but that doesn't make it go away. The fact that the NDP was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the altar of justice that now presents itself in the guise of the Nemetz inquiry -- kicking and screaming every single step of the
An Hon. Member: Nonsense!
M. de Jong: Perhaps, then, she'll explain to me in her reply why it took four years to have this public inquiry.
Interjections.
[2:45]
The Speaker: Could I just caution all members that the practice in this chamber is for one person to speak, and not to have debates across the floor.
M. de Jong: Mellow, hon. Speaker.
This is the government that said all through the fall of '95 and the spring of '96 that they were going to be cutting spending. It's not a difficult concept to understand. I presume it meant: "We will be spending less this year than we spent last year; we will be spending less than we originally forecast in the budget." That's what I thought it meant. That's what I thought when they said: "We will be spending $400 million less to stay on track." That's the word they used: "We're going to stay on track."
Well, this is really a derailment of incredible proportions. We saw some figures yesterday that tell quite a different story. Spending was at $20.155 billion, but the really significant figure there is that they've spent more money, not less. I heard one of the hon. members say it's only $11 million. In fact, $11 million is bad enough, but it's $411 million. It's a broken promise to the tune of $411 million.
I guess if you're a British Columbian paying taxes in this province -- if you're a member of Her Majesty's opposition sitting on this side of the House -- the question you have to ask is: how can you trust this government? How can you look at the budgetary documents that were tabled last week and have any confidence whatsoever in what they purport to present about either the government's intentions or the government's projections? You can't have any confidence in them, because they're not worth the paper they're written on. This government has demonstrated time and time again that it will do what is politically expedient, not what is fiscally responsible. They ask all the time: "What's the difference between us on this side and them on their side?" It's that we'll do what's fiscally responsible.
They have a debt management program that doesn't work. But even if it did work we'd never know, because they don't intend to follow it anyway: oops, forgot that payment. How much was that again? Four hundred and fifty million dollars. Hey, I lose cheques all the time, so I suppose we shouldn't be overly critical that the government lost one for $450 million. Except the difference is that when I lose cheques, it's my money; when they lose cheques, the taxpayers of British Columbia pay the bill.
So we've got some revenue projections, such as they are. Who knows what their accuracy may or may not be? But what's certain is that the record that we have seen -- not just over the last four and a half years but particularly over the last four and a half weeks -- suggests that the longer this group of NDP members stays in power, there is going to be big trouble ahead for British Columbians. We're spending over a billion dollars now to service a debt. Where's it going to go? Will we even know? Will we even know what the debt is going to be? We have some difficulty determining it now. We have some difficulty understanding what the true state of the books is right now. The auditor general has said that, we've said it, other British Columbians -- experts -- have said it. The government carries on, blissfully unaware, ignoring the facts. We won't know, but it won't be good.
I'm trying to imagine two, three, four years from now the catastrophe we'll be faced with as a province if this government is allowed to continue on its present course. I'm trying to imagine the response we'll get from Premier Georgetti. He will, of course, have assumed the mantle. That's an old trick now: change leaders, because this Premier won't be in a position to defend what has happened. I suppose they'll go to the former Premier for comment, and he'll be down in the Cayman Islands, sipping rum and Coke and saying: "Well, look, let's just not do anything with those pension plans, for heaven's sake. I've got a million
Interjection.
M. de Jong: That's right. He'll be at the Grand Cayman airport lounge -- Club Hydro they'll call it then.
But it speaks to the issue of trust, the issue of responsibility and the issue of fiscal management. Those are qualities, I'm sorry to say, that this government simply doesn't possess. If they did, we wouldn't have been treated to the fiasco we've seen over the last couple of days from a Finance minister who
[ Page 126 ]
says: "Hey, I didn't know. I didn't know until Friday. And then when I did know, I was open and forthright. I went into a phone booth with a member of the media and whispered to him what was going on." Well, that's openness!
We're going to continue with this debate on the budget. We're going to continue, confident on this side of the House in our ability to hold this government to account; confident in our ability that they won't pull the wool over the eyes of British Columbians and won't use British Columbians' own tax money to do it; confident that we can hold them to account in every way, shape and form.
Members on that government side should know, based on what I've seen over the last couple of days and the responses that we got during the interim supply estimates, to bring their beach blankets to Victoria. We're going to be here for a while, for a long while, because British Columbians have had it up to here.
We'll get the answers. We'll keep asking from this side of the House until we get the answers. The days of shenanigans, of games, of sliding things under the carpet, of hiding things in Crown corporations are over, and the members of this government better be ready with their answers, because we're going to keep asking until we get them.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise today and participate in the budget debate. It's my first address in this Legislature since being re-elected. Mr. Speaker, I'd like first to offer congratulations to you on your selection as Speaker -- and I know you'll do a terrific job -- and to offer my congratulations to all members of this House, those who are new and those who've returned. It really is a privilege and an honour to represent the people of this province in this chamber.
I've heard a great deal over the last couple of days from members of the opposition, my colleague -- and it is nice to see you back. But I can't help thinking that we're listening to the same old record, the same broken-down comments. I think they've got to learn that you can keep playing that record, but it's going to keep landing on the same side of the House -- over there -- because people want to know solutions to their problems. They want to know that there's a government prepared to deal with the issues.
The fact that we propose solutions and we address those issues is why we're over here. Part of that commitment to addressing the issues facing the people of this province is laid out in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. It's a budget that addresses the needs that we talked about in the election: education and health care.
We've heard from the opposition over the last couple of days that we're not keeping our commitments, that we're cancelling things, that we're not building schools, that we're not building hospitals and that we're not building roads. But that's not what the budget says at all, and that's not what the people of this province said, either.
During the campaign, the people of this province told me in my constituency that they wanted schools constructed and roads built. I put to them the record of the government over the last four years, and I showed them where we had built schools. We built the first high schools in over 20 years, the first middle schools. In fact, we built more schools than any other government in the history of this province.
I showed them how we'd addressed their concerns over transportation for the fastest-growing area in the province -- which will continue to be the fastest-growing area of this province, because I represent the second-largest riding in the province -- and that we've put more money into transportation improvement projects than any other government in the history of this province.
This money was spent on these projects not just on the recommendation of myself or this government. It was spent with broad-based community support from Liberals, Socreds, Tories, Greens and New Democrats. There was widespread agreement that these projects had to go forward, and they had to go forward now. So we did that.
But you know, it didn't happen overnight; it didn't happen in the first month. It took place over four years, because that's what we were elected to do: govern for four years. That's something that the opposition doesn't seem to remember. They somehow seem to think that if every school, every road or every hospital isn't built in the first month, the government has broken its commitments.
Well, hon. members, we're here for four years, four long years -- four years of us over here and four years of you over there. I'm looking forward to that.
An Hon. Member: Enjoy it.
M. Farnworth: I think we all will.
Governing is for four years, and that's something that the opposition needs to learn -- sort of like the Vancouver Canucks needing to learn that a hockey game is 60 minutes, not 40 minutes.
The point I'm making is that we made commitments in the election campaign, and they will be carried out over the four-year mandate of this government in the same way that we carried out our commitments over the last four years.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The difference, hon. member, between us and the Canucks is that we didn't choke.
Hon. Speaker, I think the opposition needs to sort of cool down, and we've got the whole summer to do that. The hon. member says he's looking forward to being here all summer, and so am I. I can tell you, having lost my hair, that I'm wary of the sun's rays, and I'd rather be in here, not getting skin cancer out there. So it's going to be a great summer.
Now, back to the budget. The budget addressed the concerns of the people of this province who wanted us to invest in infrastructure. But at the same time they said: "We're concerned about the debt." That was something the opposition talked about constantly. They talk about it a lot. At the same time they also say spend more money and build schools. We've heard that since they got back, but that was sort of like four years ago. As I said, it's the same record, which is why they're sitting over there and we're sitting over here.
So we've listened, and we said that we'll go back and review the projects that you've asked for, the projects that we've said we wanted to proceed with. We'll make sure they're exactly what you want and that we can build them in a manner that the province can afford. That's all that is happening; there's no dramatic cancellation of projects.
I see the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain is leaving, and I just want to say that I know a project that was as near and dear to her heart as it was to mine. Gleneagle high school is going ahead. It's under construction; it's being built. That campaign commitment was made before the election, and it's being followed through on, just as I'm sure, over the
[ Page 127 ]
course of the four years, those important projects that we've announced will be built. As the hon. member still doesn't seem to have heard yet, it doesn't all get done in a month. It gets done over the term of a four-year mandate, and I think that's what is going to happen.
People also expressed concern about taxes, and they wanted tax relief. Well, this budget provides for that. It provides for a tax cut which comes into effect with this budget and will reduce the tax burden on the families of British Columbia.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "Small business." We reduced the tax burden on small business. I'm very pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that. So
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: Oh, he says businesses shouldn't pay taxes. Well, I'm quite sure that most people would like to hear that, because most people in this province have a different opinion, hon. member. They think that business should pay taxes, and I'm quite sure that your constituents would love to feel that they should share the full burden of taxation in this province and that it should not be shared between residents and businesses. But that's for another debate, for the next election.
[3:00]
Hon. Speaker, we have the strongest economy of any province in the country, and with this budget we will continue to have the second-lowest taxes of any province in this country. I think that's a record worth celebrating. We have the second-lowest retail taxes in this country, and this government keeps that in place. We have the third-lowest fuel taxes in this country, and this budget keeps that in place. This budget is good news for the people of this province.
In fact, if you compare our tax load with those of other provinces, say, that are run by Liberal governments, you find some really startling figures. The typical family in this province -- which is representative, for example, of my riding -- with an average income of around $55,000, pays approximately $3,290 in provincial income tax. But if you go to provinces that have Liberal administrations -- for example, New Brunswick,
An Hon. Member: No.
M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. member, it's a higher-tax jurisdiction under a Liberal government, and it's been under a Liberal government for quite some time. Nova Scotia, $3,764 -- again, headed up by a Liberal government; Newfoundland, $4,365 -- again, headed by a Liberal government.
So when I listen to my colleagues across the floor talk about taxation, I think it's only fair, seeing as they do call themselves a Liberal Party, that we look at the record of Liberal governments in other parts of this country and then compare it with our own. Then you'll see that our budget and our record in this province stack up against any other province in this country. That is why we are the province of choice for immigrants to this country and the province of choice for people from other parts of this country. That is why we have been the economic engine that has driven this country's economy over the last four years and will continue to do so over the next four years. I know that seems to be something that upsets the members of the opposition, but that's for them to deal with. Right now, we have the task of governing the best province in this entire country.
In a whole host of areas, we've listened to what the public had to say. They've said they're concerned about post-secondary education. We've addressed that with a tuition freeze, so that students can attend post-secondary education with some certainty as to what their costs are going to be. We chose to absorb the federal off-loading and to make cuts elsewhere in government. That's a benefit to the people of this province. The Leader of the Opposition said that under his administration, if he ever became Premier, students in British Columbia would pay more. We rejected that approach.
We've made choices in this budget that benefit families and individual British Columbians, as opposed to the corporate friends of the Liberal Party. We've frozen ICBC rates. We've brought in a tax freeze for the next three years. It's going to help continue to maintain this province's reputation as a desirable place to live, a place for business to invest, a place of opportunity for the people of this province. This is a province of opportunity.
Yet we listen to the opposition, and somehow, as one of my colleagues said, the sky is falling. Nothing is ever right in this province -- you know, the world is coming to an end. Everything is doom and gloom with the opposition. I reject that.
I only have to look out, as I pointed out to my opponent in the last election, when making the same claims that colleagues across the floor
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: We have grown by an average of over 5 percent a year in our area, and we're going to continue to grow. My colleague over there says that it's in spite of the government, and to a certain point I'll agree with him. I mean, our mountains are there, our trees are there and our spectacular scenery is there. That's a huge incentive, but I also know that if we'd gone into a recession, that member over there would be saying: "It's entirely the government's fault." Unfortunately, hon. member, we don't control everything, but we're going to take credit for those things where we do enhance the quality of life in this area: the ability to protect medicare and education, and the things that people come here for because they know they're good for their kids.
It's because of the policies of this government that we have a first-class medical system. It isn't going to be compromised and become a two-tier system like the opposition wants. It's of the policies of this government that have eliminated the backlog of school construction in school district 43; that have allowed us to make investments in our communities and in the creation of jobs that goes with that; that have allowed us to build the first high schools in over 20 years, which will see the opening this fall of Riverside Secondary School and Scott Creek Middle School; that will see the opening this fall of the new Bailey bridge which replaces a bridge washed out in 1983 that should have been replaced, but governments didn't make the investments that needed to be
[ Page 128 ]
made. It's because of the policies of this government that we will see the widening of the Mary Hill bypass in my riding this fall, which is going to help alleviate traffic problems.
Again, those are investments that have been made because the government recognized that we can't tell private investment, "Come to British Columbia and invest money; come to British Columbia and create jobs; come to British Columbia because this is the best place in the world to live; we expect literally hundreds of thousands of people, over the next five years and the ten years after that, to continue to come here," and at the same time say: "Oh, I'm sorry. We can't spend any money on roads; we can't spend any money on schools; we can't spend any money on hospitals because the debt's going up." That has been the approach that was taken in this province because we didn't make those investments. This budget recognizes that we are going to continue to grow and make investments -- $1.2 billion worth of capital investment in this province this year.
The opposition asks: "What schools? What promises have been broken?" There have been no promises broken. There have been no commitments that have not been kept. At the end of four years, when we go next to the public to be reaffirmed for a third mandate, we will be able to say: "We have continued to build and invest in schools. We've put in place long-term transportation plans that will address the transportation needs of a growing lower mainland and a growing province. We will have put in place the hospitals and health care facilities required to provide first-class health care services for the people of this province." We know that we're going to be paying dividends years down the road, because we have a well-planned province and well-planned communities. That's what people are asking for.
Hon. Speaker, this is a budget that will help put those things in place. This is a budget that will address the needs of the communities, of the people I represent. That's why I'm proud to support this budget, and I would encourage members of the opposition to vote in favour of this budget, though I won't hold my breath.
Interjections.
M. Farnworth: I learned a long time ago that holding your breath never accomplished anything.
This is a budget of hope. This is a budget of prosperity. This is a budget that will see this province retain, I am quite confident, the best credit ratings of any province in the country. This is a budget that will see this province retain the second-lowest taxes of any province in the country. This is a budget that will see us maintain our pre-eminent position as the economic engine of this country and as the province that will carry this country into the twenty-first century.
Hon. Speaker, I know my colleagues and my constituents will reject the doom and gloom and the focus on the past, as the opposition seems to want to do. I know they'll join with me as we walk to the future.
M. de Jong: Watch out for sinkholes.
M. Farnworth: Sinkholes, hon. member, are meant to be filled and they will be filled. At least we're in a position of being able to fill those sinkholes, while you are only on the other side to remind us that they're there to be filled.
This is a great budget for British Columbia. It's one that I ask my colleagues to support and, I say once again, the opposition to support.
S. Orcherton: This is my first opportunity to rise in this House since the election on May 28. I want to say to you, hon. Speaker, that I'm certainly privileged and humbled to be here today. I am privileged on behalf of the proud history and heritage that's inherent in this House in terms of the democratic process, and humbled to be the representative for the constituency of Victoria-Hillside and to bring their issues and interests to this great House.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not bring congratulations from my constituency to you on your election, and I'd be equally remiss not to offer the best wishes of the constituency in terms of some of the difficult decisions that I am sure you are going to have to be making in the future.
I'd also like to bring greetings to the Deputy Speaker from a neighbouring constituency, Victoria-Beacon Hill. Our constituency wishes her well, as well, in her deliberations in this House.
I'd also like to bring congratulations to the members who have been re-elected to this House and to the members who are newly elected to this House, and wish them well in their deliberations in the democratic process that we will all be involved in over the coming months and years.
It's important, as well, that we in this House all recognize that we share a common bond and a common purpose, in that we all share the public trust. I believe quite firmly that it is a sacred trust that each and every member of this House holds.
The riding I represent is Victoria-Hillside. That riding has historically been a very active riding in the province, and I would be remiss if I did not bring attention to some of my predecessors who served in this Legislature. Robin Blencoe, Gordon Hanson and Charles Barber have served before me in this Legislature, representing that constituency. I must say to you, hon. Speaker, that our constituency is one that has a very active community office dealing with a whole myriad of different issues that affect the citizens that reside in Victoria-Hillside. I'm pleased to have been offered the confidence of the constituency to carry on in the capacity of my predecessors and make sure that the issues that are necessary to be dealt with for the people in Victoria-Hillside are ones that can be dealt with effectively and efficiently in this Legislature.
[3:15]
My history in this constituency is that I grew up in it. I attended school here. I grew up almost in the centre of the constituency. I went to Quadra Elementary School, S.J. Willis, Victoria High School. I still reside in this constituency. I've lived in this constituency for over 40 years. I believe I have a very good sense of the needs and aspirations of the people who reside in the community where I now reside with my family.
Mr. Speaker, there is an electorate of approximately 30,000 in Victoria-Hillside. One of the boundaries of our constituency is adjacent to Victoria-Beacon Hill. The majority of the constituency is in the capital region, with a small area in the municipality of Saanich. I guess we could probably be best defined as an urban riding. In that riding approximately 40 percent of the people are renters. Housing and housing issues are very, very important to the people of Victoria-Hillside. In terms of renting, I'm very pleased that we have a Residential Tenancy Act that protects the rights of those individuals in Victoria-Hillside who find themselves in positions at this point in their lives where they're not able to afford to purchase their own homes.
In our constituency we also have different groupings of people in terms of ethnic background. We have a large and
[ Page 129 ]
very strong and active Indo-Canadian community, a Jewish community, an Iranian community, a Latin community, a Chinese community and a Vietnamese community. I'm pleased that those communities are very active in Victoria-Hillside, and that they take an active interest in the roles of their issues and their interests in the community at large, and I hope that they'll be able to continue to do that. I am confident that they'll be able to do that, given the legislation that this government has brought in in terms of multicultural issues and human rights. Those are certainly steps in the right direction, and ones that I think we can build on in Victoria-Hillside.
We are not a wealthy riding; we have people of modest income, and we have people who find themselves in positions of poverty. We have many community organizations that are very active in Victoria-Hillside. We have the Burnside-Gorge Community Association, hon. Speaker. You may be aware that they've done a lot of work in their community in terms of building a park at Cecilia ridge. They've worked with this government to secure a bike path across the Gorge waterway over a trestle. They are active and involved in the Burnside-Gorge area in terms of cleaning up the Gorge and Selkirk waters and making it a more environmentally friendly place for everyone in this community to visit and enjoy. They've organized picnics and community events that have really brought that particular community in this riding together to be able to build the bonds that are needed to build a healthy and productive community.
The Oaklands community has a newly formed community association. It is interested in building a new school at Oaklands school. I am certainly supportive of that initiative in particular, because that initiative couples with building a community centre in Victoria. I look forward to the prospect of pushing that particular project forward in the coming weeks and months in this Legislature.
The Blanshard Community Centre is also active in Victoria-Hillside and has taken some leadership positions in building their own community centre. That construction is now underway. They've also taken issue with an area that is very fragile: an area known as Summit Park, a natural habitat. They are taking leadership on that on behalf of the community in Victoria-Hillside, to ensure that the area stays environmentally friendly for people to visit with their families in our community.
Victoria-Hillside is a working-class -- middle-class community, and I am extremely proud to have been selected by Victoria-Hillside to represent that community. My history is one where I have had a number of jobs in my life. I was a janitor at the Empress Hotel, just across from this precinct. I have worked in automobile dealership lots, I've been a dishwasher, and I'm currently a cook working in a hospital -- that's my position -- and through a series of events I have held a number of positions in the labour movement. I have most recently been the secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour Council, and I've also been an officer and a ranking officer of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I've dealt with a whole number of different issues in terms of working-class people and the issues that affect them, and I'm extremely proud to have been selected by the community in which I reside -- and have resided for pretty well my whole life -- to represent them in this Legislature.
It's an active and vibrant community, as I think you'll recognize from the different community organizations that are ongoing and participating in our constituency. I'm sure that this House will be hearing much about the issues that occur in Victoria-Hillside.
One of the main issues that I heard in the campaign that was recently undertaken was family issues and child care issues, and family economics and single parents. I want to bring those issues to bear in this Legislature. Those are very, very important issues to the people in my constituency, and ones that I know the difficulties of from a personal perspective. I think that this House can bring support to individuals who find themselves in situations, particularly around child care.
There are a number of major institutions in our constituency as well. Camosun College, where I recently served as a governor, is an excellent community college, one that has been able to serve the community of Victoria-Hillside very well over the last number of years in terms of education, ongoing education and training, night school classes and the like, and one that this community certainly relies upon in a very heavy manner. We're looking forward to a new arena in this community -- a new sports complex for the citizens of Victoria-Hillside to use and also for the citizens of the lower part of Vancouver Island, the greater Victoria area, to utilize as well.
We have a number of areas where major employment opportunities are available. I guess the main area right now, in terms of people who live in Victoria-Hillside, is employment opportunities with the provincial government. The second-largest opportunity is with the federal government. Until recently, with the federal budget coming down two years ago, the federal government -- and it may be of some interest to the members of this House -- in fact was the largest employer in the greater Victoria area. I must say that the policies the federal Liberals came out with in that budget caused some very serious economic damage to the community at large, reducing the largest employer in Victoria to the second-largest employer -- the federal government -- and also some very serious damage to people who reside in the constituency and who relied on that employment with the federal government to make their living and buy their groceries and keep a roof over their heads.
We also have light industry in our community around the Gorge area. We are certainly supportive of that, and we hope to be able to see more light industry moving into Victoria. In our constituency, as well, we rely very heavily on the retail sales and tourism industries. We also have a whole lot of people who are employed in the hospital sector, in health care and long-term care, and in social housing for people in our community who find themselves in need of those services. The construction industry is another area where a number of people who reside in Victoria-Hillside find the means to make their employment, to take care of their families, particularly in the shipbuilding industry and the commercial construction industry.
It's interesting to note that in this riding the social and economic status of the community and individuals has changed markedly over the last ten or more years. In 1980, there were 1,800 good-paying, industry-based jobs in this area -- 1,800 IWA jobs, with good salaries and benefits that went along with those -- working in mills, and there were 15 mills operating in greater Victoria. Today there are no mills operating in greater Victoria or in this constituency, and there are 60 members of the IWA continuing to be employed in this area. So we've seen some very serious changes in terms of employment opportunities in Victoria-Hillside.
I know there are many people who are employed in good-paying jobs in this community. There are many, many people who are employed at low-paying and minimum-wage jobs in this community. I'm sad to say that those jobs are predominantly
[ Page 130 ]
in the retail sales industry and the tourism industry. I firmly believe that this government and this House have a responsibility to elevate the standard of living for those individuals in those sectors, and I look forward to the opportunity of debate and discussion on those issues.
There are also many people in this constituency who are living in poverty, and that's something that we have to deal with, in terms of the situation of poverty for those people. I know that these are difficult times and difficult situations, and I don't know how anyone can live on the benefits available through Social Services. I don't know how they can manage in this constituency. One of the issues that I've been told by the electorate who have voted me into this office to deal with is that issue, particularly in terms of our seniors. There are many seniors in this constituency who find themselves in serious situations of poverty, and I believe that's an issue for this House to address. I certainly know it's an issue I look forward to debating and discussing, as well.
This last election, I believe quite firmly, was a crossroads in the political dynamics not only of this province but of this country, of North America and -- if I can be so pretentious -- perhaps of the world. There were clearly two different agendas placed before the people of this province in the last election. There was an agenda put before the people that said that meeting the needs and aspirations of middle-class working women, men and their families should become the role and responsibility of government.
There was another agenda put before the people of this province that said that the responsibility of government was to meet the needs and aspirations of big business and the wealthy. I am extremely pleased that in this constituency, Victoria-Hillside, the people overwhelmingly supported the notion of putting the interests of middle-class working people and their families ahead of the interests of business and the wealthy. I look forward to the opportunity to ensure that their interests stay in the forefront. That was the question in the election, I believe. We can put all the rhetoric aside; that was the question before the electorate. I am very pleased that the people of this province have elected a government that will do just that.
Health care is a very important issue in this province and in this constituency. I heard all through the election from constituents that protecting and enhancing health care for families and seniors was something that government had to take some ownership over and responsibility for.
I want to talk a little bit about my own story in terms of education. I said earlier that I come from a working-class family. I had an opportunity to go to university in 1970, and I worked in the summer of 1970 to do that. My parents didn't have the money to put me through university. Consequently, I have one year of university.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
I am very, very pleased that this government has taken initiatives to freeze tuition for students from working-class and middle-class families so that they have the opportunity to attend post-secondary education institutions. I firmly believe that that is a proper role in terms of government: to support those needs and aspirations of our young people when they are trying to better themselves through the education system. I firmly believe that access to those institutions should not be determined based on the economic standing of one's self or one's family in our community; that access has to be guaranteed and assured for all, irrespective of the wealth or standing of individuals in our community.
Crime prevention was a very serious issue for people in our community, and the policing initiatives that are being brought forward in this budget are ones that the people in Victoria-Hillside are certainly supportive of. In particular, they are supportive of community policing. They find community policing a program that benefits the community and lends itself well to coupling with the community organizations which I spoke of earlier.
[3:30]
The Nights Alive program this government announced is one that people in Victoria-Hillside are particularly excited about. The utilizing of our school systems during the summer and off-hours to bring young people and others together in a community atmosphere to build that sense of community, deal with issues around crime prevention and find activities for young people to do is certainly supported by people in the Victoria-Hillside constituency.
We are also very pleased with the issues that this government has taken up around the environment: enhancing parks and green spaces; air quality legislation that has been brought in by this government; environmental standards, particularly around logging and forest practices and around the pulp and paper industry. We are looking forward to the Gorge and Selkirk waters being cleaned up and to the dedication of Summit Park as an environmentally protected area for all to enjoy for all time in Victoria-Hillside.
I believe that there are many problems facing governments across this country. My view is that in every decision taken by government there has to be a main criterion and a main strategy. When I talk about criteria and strategy, I talk about issues around employment. When we talk about debt and deficit, it is my view that they are a problem but they are not the root problem. They are a symptom of a greater illness in this province and in this country, and that greater illness is unemployment. I firmly believe that this
We have to move to a full employment strategy in this province. I had the opportunity to sit on a committee on the employment standards review commission and offer some points of view to Mark Thompson, the commissioner. As we went around the province and heard discussion and debate, it struck me that the employers were calling for more flexibility in terms of employment. They wanted to have a shorter workday for people -- have people work fewer hours -- and to be able to increase their hours should the call in their businesses and their places of employment provide more hours for those people. While employers may call that flexibility, I think it is quite different than that. But in any event, employers seem to be moving to a shorter workweek in terms of hours that they want to define for people who are
[ Page 131 ]
employed and trading their labour for wages. It strikes me that at some juncture workers will be wanting to move to a shorter workweek, and perhaps as a point of strategy -- in terms of a full employment strategy -- government should be considering moving in that direction as well. Perhaps employers have set the tone here in moving towards a shorter workweek for employees, as guaranteed under the Employment Standards Act. I think government can follow along and do that as well.
I truly believe that the root problem facing people in British Columbia and across this country is unemployment. The discussion and debate that will occur in this Legislature over the coming months and years will be around what wages and benefits are paid to people who are working less than what we define as full-time -- 40 hours a week -- and what wages and benefits are paid to people who are working part-time. It is my view that that is the direction the workforce is moving in, and I look forward to that discussion and debate in the future.
There are other issues affecting working people in this community of ours: unemployment insurance. We've seen in the newspapers, as recently as today, that the federal government is yet again making it more difficult for working people to access unemployment insurance to tide them over between employment opportunities. In my view, they are forcing more people onto welfare, which this House and you know, hon. Speaker, is a program that is paid for by the provincial government. That is yet another situation where the federal government is abrogating its responsibility to working people in this country, by pushing it over to provincial government and provincial coffers to pay for. That legislation that has been brought into place, in terms of the federal government's unemployment insurance, also restricts the mobility of labour to move from province to province, and I think that is unacceptable.
We have to move as well, in terms of employment, to deal with issues of disability. We have to work with disabled workers. I was very pleased to see that the workers' compensation royal commission will be put in place in this budget. There is every indication, in every statistic that I have seen in terms of this issue of disability, that each and every individual who works for a living, at some point in their work life, will incur a disability. We have to make sure that we provide areas of accommodation and accessibility for those people. In terms of the Workers Compensation Review Board, I would hope that at the end of the day there is a recommendation that the board itself will at some point end up with a higher administrative budget than it has currently, and a lower benefit budget than it has currently, because it strikes me that if there's a good administration process in place in the Workers Compensation Review Board -- a good process in place in terms of enforcement, monitoring, education, and fines and assessments for employers who are in violation of the Workers Compensation Act -- then the benefit entitlement will go down, which really means that fewer workers will be injured at the workplace. I believe that's really what we want to see happen in this province.
I'm really pleased as well to see that the Ministry of Women's Equality is still in place and intact in this government. I heard a lot of debate and discussion around that issue in the election, and it was fairly clear that there were some other parties that were running in the election that did not take a view that it was an important ministry. I'm very pleased to see that women's work and women's issues are still at the forefront and on the agenda of this government, and I'm certainly supportive of that.
The use of volunteers has been cropping up recently in our community, and I am very hopeful that through the Employment Standards Act we'll be able to deal with that. There are many, many people who are being offered employment opportunities with the caveat that they volunteer their services for a period of time -- and sometimes that is a goodly period of time -- until the next volunteer comes forward.
There are some in this House, I understand, who take a view that there is too much bureaucratic red tape and government involvement in terms of employee-employer relations. With my experience around the Employment Standards Act, which is the minimum standard for individuals in this province and which lays out the minimum rights and responsibilities in the employer-employee relationship, the only people that I could see who could say that they have difficulty with the bureaucratic red tape that's in place are employers who are either ignorant or in callous disregard of the Employment Standards Act. Most of the regulations requiring keeping of records and so on are ones that are currently in place under federal statute.
I am pleased that we have a Skills Development and Fair Wage Act in place in this province, and I am hopeful that this government will bring in regulation to enhance the enforcement of that legislation. It is my experience that there is much, much too much, abuse in that area.
I believe that this budget really delivers on what we talked about and what was discussed and debated in the most recent election. This budget is cutting taxes for B.C. families; with the tax cut, ICBC freezes and Hydro freezes, that amounts to about $500 per family on average in this province. Let me say that $500 in the constituency I represent, Victoria-Hillside, is the equivalent for many people of an additional paycheque every year, which goes a long way in assisting those families. It is also the equivalent, in many cases in my constituency, for much more than that in terms of a paycheque. I think that this government has delivered on that area exceedingly well, and I am extremely proud to be part of a government and part of a platform that stood up for working people in British Columbia and said that we were going to cut taxes, and then turned and did just that.
We've also frozen the taxes to the year 2000, which gives people the opportunity to have some stability in their lives. There are many people in our society, I think, who take a view that this is a dog-eat-dog world where the rich survive and the poor somehow fall by the wayside. I think that the people in the constituency I represent are better than that. We do not take that view. We live in a kind and caring society, and I trust that I'll have the opportunity to work with all the members of this House to make sure that that is not the view taken by this House. I trust that it is not.
[3:45]
T. Nebbeling: Indeed, what an honour and privilege it is for me today to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the people in the West Vancouver-Garibaldi riding. Many of the members who've spoken so far have indicated that they are honoured, privileged and humbled by the experience of being in the House. I feel -- up to now at least -- invigorated and stimulated by the experience, and I hope it will continue.
I would like to take the members with me on a little trip through my constituency, so that you know what is encompassed in West Vancouver-Garibaldi. It's a very long riding. It takes about three hours from the moment you start in West Vancouver, the residential area, and Horseshoe Bay, via Bowen Island, along the Sea to Sky Highway via the commu-
[ Page 132 ]
nities of Lions Bay, Brunswick Beach, Britannia Beach and Squamish. In Squamish we go into the mountains, where we drive towards our town that we all know and we're all proud of as British Columbians, and that is Whistler, my hometown. I will speak on Whistler a bit later. At this moment I'd like to go on to Pemberton, the next town. Then via Mount Currie, where we have an aboriginal community, via Birken, Devine and D'Arcy, we arrive at Anderson Lake. That is three hours later. I intend to spend a lot of time on the road taking care of my constituents.
Before I go on, I also would like to recognize, hon. Speaker, that we have had excellent representation in the House from West Vancouver-Garibaldi. One of the first ones I would like to mention is John Reynolds, who -- like you right now -- took the seat of the Speaker during his term. I know from stories that he did a remarkable job. Through you and for you, Madam Speaker, I hope that you will also have the wisdom and patience that you are going to need dealing with this House -- I feel, after two day's experience.
Another member whom many may remember is Allan Williams, who still today, at the age of 73, is a member of the council of West Vancouver and continues to play his role in being part of making decisions that will make life for people better, something that he did in this House as well.
The last person I would like to recognize, whose big shoes I have to fill, is today the Senator in Ottawa, Ray Perrault, who at the time was the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party and represented West Vancouver-Garibaldi in this House as well.
West Vancouver-Garibaldi has a population of 28,000. I would like at this stage to commit to the people of West Vancouver -- whether they voted for me or not, and I know most did -- that I'm here in this House to represent each and every one of them. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the people who, during the last election, worked together with me and shared my commitment and vision in working towards bringing change in this province, change that would indeed benefit all British Columbians.
There are many issues important to my constituents that I believe parallel the importance of concerns that we see in British Columbia. They are issues related to health care, education, transportation and job creation, but also job preservation. The lack of job preservation in my particular riding in certain areas is becoming an increasingly big problem, and I will speak on that in a little while.
We care, because we are a natural resource-using area, about integrated resource use. That is something we do not see enough of in dealing with the problems that we see happening in the Sea to Sky corridor -- and in many other areas in British Columbia, where every group or interest tries to fight and stand up for its own needs, disregarding the needs of others. Often, in that disregard, is the disregard for the people who need the jobs that often have to be given up in areas when we speak about environmental protection, about annual allowable cut reduction, about protected-areas strategy and about the well-being of the spotted owl. All these elements have their needs; all these elements need to be taken care of. But what we are lacking is a concerted effort to integrate these needs and thereby eliminate much of the damage to jobs that we otherwise see happening. Again, I will speak more on this a little bit later.
Madam Speaker, as the mayor of Whistler, I have had the privilege to sit on many commissions and many committees representing the whole corridor -- West Vancouver and, from time to time, the province of British Columbia. Because of that experience, I have seen many concerns that
There's a painful sense of uncertainty about the social and economic future that people working in forestry have to face today. I believe nothing has created more upheaval in the communities of Squamish and Pemberton -- and no doubt in other communities where forestry activities are happening. Nothing has created more upheaval and a sense of hopelessness than the various forest policy initiatives which have been taken and have been created by the present British Columbia government since 1991. I'm again talking about the loss in annual allowable cut, about the protected-areas strategy and in particular about the Forest Practices Code.
All parties in the Legislature and virtually all British Columbians supported the concept of the Forest Practices Code in 1993. Everybody knew something had to happen in order to make sure that our forests would be sustainable and that environmental values would be protected. At that time there were 750 different regulations and standards that were used to determine how a forest area would be taken on. The intent of the Forest Practices Code was clearly to bring all these 750 different regulations and standards together in one law, in one document, and thereby bring clarity to how the forest was going to be harvested, with the objectives in mind that I just indicated.
However, as with so many good ideas that the NDP has had, the implementation has left a lot to be desired, and the resulting product is a confusing and ill-defined act that has proven impossible to implement and is beginning to hurt communities throughout this province in such a way that people are beginning to lose hope of a future for them in this province.
Despite increased staff levels and a new administrative bureaucracy dealing with all the different questions that are out there today and in the past, neither the government nor the industry has been able to fully utilize the law. This inability of the forest districts and the industry has led to many delays in the issuing of timber licences. There have been many delays in making decisions as to what lands were for harvest availability and what lands were to be protected. Because of that delay, we see tremendous job losses in communities throughout the province, including Squamish and Pemberton.
Last week I got a phone call from a logger, who told me that the timber licence of the company that he was going to work for had been withdrawn just before it was supposed to have been issued. With him, eight other workers were laid off, and they asked me what they could do. I also got a phone call from the wife of one of these loggers, who asked me what to do. She didn't have the rent money, and she didn't have the food money. It's these kinds of small emotions that I am constantly being confronted with when I go to communities such as Squamish and Pemberton. No doubt, if I travelled to other forest-dependent towns I would hear the same stories.
It is true that there is no firm figure available today on the cost of what the Forest Practices Code is doing to our economy, but we can know for sure that today the human price is
[ Page 133 ]
enormous and needs immediate attention. In forest-dependent communities the view of many is that the code's regulation and enforcement has gone too far and has added to a great cost burden on the industry. There is no doubt that the code's greatest challenge is to deal with economics.
Our province does not lack the intellectual capital needed to cope with the complexity of the forest and of how to harvest our forests. There are men and women who are fully capable of dealing with our ecosystem, and certainly these people are able to determine the probable outcome of a forest management direction. They will be able to calculate the impact of the provincial wealth and the effect on the standard of living for people living in the forestry-dependent communities, and the standard of living for all British Columbians because of what is happening related to the Forest Practices Code.
The Forest Practices Code, in a sense, has stupefied the whole industry. It has immobilized the industry. We have to do something right now; otherwise, it will destroy the industry.
The last point I'd like to quickly address is the code as it is now administered. It is significantly diminishing the wealth creation of our B.C. forests. Where the code's intentions were clearly to be a tool for better management of our forests, it has turned out to be a creator of an administrative nightmare, at tremendous cost to the industry. This added cost has rendered a large volume of timber economically inviable, and it has been removed from the market because no small business operator can afford to go into these small cutblocks. No doubt, more timber will be removed from the market as a consequence of the code.
Analysts estimate that the annual provincial cut could be reduced by 15 million cubic metres, which represents a value of approximately $2 billion less in annual wealth delivered to this province. I don't know of any measures being taken by this government to replace this loss of economic strength, and I certainly have not seen any alternative presented to the forestry-dependent communities to sustain themselves and to sustain at least the quality of life that the people in these forest communities have experienced up to now -- a quality of life that is already considered meagre. We are killing the goose that is already laying the golden egg.
It may come as a surprise to the Minister of Finance that the forest industry is not doing as well as had been expected in creating provincial wealth -- as has been explained for the last two days -- but I can tell you that the people in the communities that depend on the forest industry know it very well, because they have been suffering the consequences for the last year of the Forest Practices Code, and it has to stop. We have to do something about it right now. They can't wait any longer.
The second element that really undermines the security of the communities in the forest industry is the protected-areas strategy. We all love to see parkland created throughout the province. But many decisions are made by the protected-areas strategy selection committee without any consultation with the communities that will be impacted by the removal of harvestable land masses. Already, tremendous amounts of timber supply have been removed from the traditional annual timber supply because of the protected-areas strategy, and what really makes it a bad experience is the fact that all these communities today are sitting back waiting to be asked what the impact will be on the communities. They don't hear anything, and the fear now is that the protected-areas strategy committee will come forward with recommendations that do not include in any way or shape the opinion of the people who will indeed be affected. It is a shame that it is happening, because it is destroying the social and economic viability not only of the families that work in the forest industry but also of whole towns that rely on the servicing of this industry.
It is all these elements that are killing the hope, and it's almost too much to talk about it. But the fact that we see people on the street today not knowing if they can be on the same street next week, or if they can stay in the
But I was talking about other elements that are covered in a veil of secrecy, and it is that veil of secrecy, I believe, that leads people to have such a dismal feeling about the future. When we talk about land claims, that most probably is the best example where the veil of secrecy is really doing something destructive to the people of this province.
It is very sad to say that many people who in the past expressed strong support for a permanent and final settlement in dealing with our aboriginal peoples are now beginning to be extremely skeptical and very conscious in any longer showing support for a final agreement. They have been kept in the dark. With all the discussions, they have not been given any information on what really is on the table.
What we see happening now is that many supporters are turning away because of fear and frustration fuelled by the government's policy of secrecy. The people of British Columbia are so suspicious because of the lack of consultation and information, and that we see more and more confrontation. I believe it is the real proof that the process has failed us all, be it aboriginal or non-aboriginal peoples.
I could continue to talk about many other issues that are of concern in the resource-dependent communities in the Sea to Sky corridor. I also would like to talk a little bit more about the Lions Gate Bridge and its being or not being. I would like to express the frustration that I and my community of Whistler have experienced over the last four years in trying to deal with the officials of B.C. Hydro, related to the Daisy Lake Dam and the lack of flows into the lower Cheakamus River, which would have guaranteed the turbidity of the water and in return would have kept the river a living river.
For four years many letters have been written to various ministers, and the arrogance of the management of B.C. Hydro -- who practically shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, what about the fish? We can create more wealth for this province by keeping the water and putting it into turbines" -- has led to us now being faced with a potential cost to the taxpayers of this province, or B.C. Hydro, of $15 million, because the people have lost their livelihood. The people who have been affected by the killing of this river are speaking up and standing up and aren't going to take it any longer. It is unfortunate that it has to come to this point, to deal with the arrogance that has been shown by the management of B.C. Hydro.
Time doesn't really permit me to go into much more detail on this, because I would like to speak a little bit about my own background and what has motivated me to enter the provincial election and arena, with the hope that my presence in this House will make a difference for the people of this province.
I moved to British Columbia in 1977 from Holland. I was in Vancouver in 1976 for one week, and it was the beauty of Vancouver and the tremendous skiing opportunities at Whis-
[ Page 134 ]
tler that led me to go back to Europe and apply for my landed immigrant status. In 1977 I arrived in this beautiful part of the world that I consider to be very close to what paradise must look like.
Since my arrival as an immigrant I have had the fortune of opening nine different businesses in the Vancouver and Whistler areas, creating 52 year-round jobs and paying salaries higher than the minimum wage. I have been very successful, and I owe this country and this province a great deal.
[4:00]
It was for that reason that in 1986, when I semi-retired, it was time for me to give something back to this province and to the people who had provided me with these great opportunities. At that time, I decided to run for the council of Whistler. I got elected, and for the first four years I focused on something that I thought was going to be essential for Whistler, and that was to create job opportunities that were going beyond the four months of working on the ski hill. I was strongly promoting private enterprise to become partners in the Whistler magic and the Whistler dream, and put up front the money to build the infrastructures so that we would have a summer resort as well. And we succeeded in doing that, beyond belief.
In 1990 we not only had grown from a community of 250 people to a community of 4,000 people, but we had 6,000 permanent jobs created in the corridor, all related to the success of the Whistler story. So in 1990 I decided that now that we had the critical mass as a resort -- we had a community of 4,000 people -- it was time to focus on the well-being of these people as well, and I ran as mayor on a platform that now that we had built a resort, we had to build a community. We succeeded, as I said.
In 1990, as mayor, I promised the community that I would focus on providing and building with the community the infrastructure that would truly make us a community that had a quality of life that paralleled the quality of the experience of our visitors. We succeeded in doing exactly that. We succeeded in building an arena, an aquatic centre, a community centre and a medical clinic. We are just finishing the first secondary high school, and we also introduced in Whistler a transit system. Again, I'm very proud to say that last year we had close to a million riders, and it is the only transit system that actually runs in the black.
So I'm very proud of my record in Whistler. In particular, I'm very proud because at the time I ran as mayor, I made it very clear to the community that whatever we were going to do as far as the infrastructure was concerned, it had to be done with the money we had in the bank and not what we could borrow. I ran also on that platform, presenting a financial strategy of no new taxes and no new debt. As I said, we have built all these facilities -- $30 million worth -- without one dollar of debt. We knew what our municipal income was and we went to the communities and gave them the choice of what they wanted to have. We didn't tell them they could have everything at the same time; they had to make a choice, and choices they made. Every facility was paid for the day it opened -- no debt service, no payments to the bank. Every dollar of income goes towards operation, and therefore it is not a burden on the community and the taxpayers of Whistler.
That is how we kept our financial house in order in the community that I represent here today. I hope that we can begin to do the same in Victoria so that the people of this province can look forward to the time that they will also be able to keep some more money in their pocket.
Today I took the opportunity to speak about values that have dictated my business and personal life. In my political life the value of the role of government has always been to encourage business to invest in this province. The only way this will happen is by creating a business climate that does not tell people how to run their businesses; a business climate that will make the small and medium-sized business operators once again partners in their own future and in the future of this province; a business climate that will make this province a province of investors rather than a province of borrowers, as we have become. It is these principles that I will stand up for every time we have a debate in the House. It is these principles that will guide me, and I hope that ultimately it is these principles that will make a difference for the people of this province today and tomorrow.
S. Hawkins: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and deliver my inaugural speech in response to the budget.
I offer my congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, in your new role, and I wish you the best of luck in keeping us under control.
I stand before you today as the first Liberal and the first woman to represent the riding of Okanagan West. It gives me a great sense of pride, as well, that the voters of Okanagan West have given me the opportunity to be the first Punjabi woman to be elected to a Legislature in Canada.
The riding of Okanagan West has the largest voter population in the province. Historically it has been held by the Social Credit Party -- for the past 16 consecutive elections, from 1941 to this past year. This seat was first held by W.A.C. Bennett, then Bill Bennett and then most recently Mr. Cliff Serwa, who did an exemplary job of representing our community for the past ten years.
The central Okanagan is the fastest-growing area in British Columbia. Over 30,000 people have moved to this area in the past four years. The riding of Okanagan West is joined by Lake Okanagan, and it links the city of Kelowna on the east side to Westbank, the central Okanagan regional district and the Westbank Indian reserve on the west side. The Okanagan is known for recreation, and your imagination is the limit to the types of activities that are offered there.
Small business is a vital factor to the economy of this region. We are fortunate to be served by people who value individual enterprise and care about the future of our community and our country. They believe in those who take risks, invest in our community and create jobs, and they believe that when small businesses succeed, we all succeed.
Farming continues to provide a strong economic base to this community and helps generate tourism and other secondary industries.
The B.C. wine industry is committed to producing quality wines, and the Okanagan Valley growers are being recognized internationally as being on the leading edge of great cultivation practices. Forestry, construction, tourism and manufacturing are also very important to the economy of this region.
Issues that face my constituency include fair funding for our schools, action on our transportation and growth problems, fair funding for our health care programs and the need for better employment for our young people.
Hon. Speaker, I want to thank the people of my constituency of Okanagan West for this opportunity to serve them. I sincerely believe that those who are elected to public office
[ Page 135 ]
should not think that they've been raised to a position of power, but rather that they've been lowered or humbled to a position of service. I am humbled by the confidence, I am honoured by the trust that my constituents have placed in me, and I am very proud to begin my service as their new MLA.
Hon. Speaker, I understand it is traditional to say a few words about why I chose to run for office. I've been actively involved with the Liberal Party since 1984 because I am deeply committed to furthering the ideals of liberalism -- namely, honesty, integrity, freedom of individuals, minimal government control and the duty to care for individuals and the community. I've always wanted to serve the public and to make a real difference in the lives of people, and that's why I chose to become a nurse. For over a decade I shared in the experiences of my sick and dying patients. I shared the pain of those facing cancer. I shared the fears of those facing major surgery. I shared the courage of those individuals with head and spinal cord injuries, and I shared in the joy of those who overcame their illnesses. I'm proud of my contributions as a nurse, because I know that I made maybe just a small difference in the lives of the people I cared for. I also knew that I wanted to do more. I chose to run for office because I've always cared for people in my position as a nurse and as a lawyer.
I wanted to come to Victoria and speak about the things that mattered the most -- like the future of our children in the face of growing government debt, like the need for welfare reform that breaks the cycle of dependence passed from generation to generation, like a health care system that puts patients at the head of the line and mostly for the Matthew Vaudreuils of this world, who fell through the cracks in a government system that was more interested in protecting their butts than in protecting the lives of little kids.
Over the last four and a half years I've heard the call for change in this province, loud and clear. It means less talk and more action. It means fiscal responsibility. It means eliminating government debt and deficit and paying down the debt. It means creating a climate for long-term, good jobs here at home. It means a smaller, smarter government that puts an absolute priority on education and health care, and it means respecting the patience and pocketbooks of all taxpayers.
It has been evident over the past four and a half years -- and even more so in the past few days -- that this government cannot and does not know how to manage. The budgets that this NDP government has put forward are shameful and dishonest. They claim to have balanced the budget. They said they had a surplus. They ran an election campaign on that rhetoric. They used -- or shall I say misused -- taxpayer dollars to advertise that they had succeeded in balancing the budget only to announce days later that they had made a mistake -- a $235 million mistake. The people of B.C. feel deceived; they feel misled; they feel betrayed. The government's pathetic performance and comedic attempts to fudge numbers and cover up over the past few days has led to a general feeling of cynicism and pessimism in the general public.
Hon. Speaker, the people of B.C. want and deserve a government that is first in integrity and first in honesty. The NDP government has proved that it is first in scandal, first in cover-up, first in hypocrisy and first in breaking its promises to the people of B.C. This government has failed the integrity and the honesty tests over and over again. The people of B.C. believe there is a four-letter word that is missing from the NDP vocabulary, and that little word is spelled d-e-b-t. It's that shortfall between revenue and expenditure.
I can think of no one this budget means more to than the young people of B.C., because in the end it's their economic future that's at stake. This kind of pathetic performance by the NDP government points to a bleak future guaranteed to leave our young people with a legacy of debts and deficits. British Columbians, and certainly the people of my riding of Okanagan West, are outraged that our children will be crippled by heavy taxes all their working lives to pay for this government's money mismanagement.
British Columbia has the highest marginal tax rate, not only in Canada but in all of North America. For every seven new jobs created, five people went on welfare under this NDP government. Our students have lost nearly two million student-days to strikes since 1992. Our health care system is bloated with bureaucracy and low on delivery of patient services. These are all issues which are of utmost concern to the people in my riding of Okanagan West.
The people in my riding of Okanagan West are concerned about good long-term jobs at home. I grew up in Saskatchewan, and I know what it's like to leave home to find a good job. Our young people here shouldn't have to do that, but they're forced to, because they have to live with the taxes imposed by the NDP over the past four and a half years that are still choking investment and killing jobs. A tax freeze simply means that the people of B.C. will continue to feel the big chill long after the thaw.
The people in my riding of Okanagan West are alarmed at the lack of concern that this government demonstrates with respect to education funding for our children. Our student funding ranks 71 out of 75, at the bottom of the funding ladder. Because of the inequity of the current funding formula, our community experienced 60 layoffs this spring. This has had a direct effect on the quality of our children's school programs. One grade 7 student at Mount Boucherie high school asked me to remind the Premier and the then Minister of Social Services that when they came to Okanagan West during the election campaign, they promised that education was a priority and would not suffer cuts under the NDP. This student now sees her grade 7 band program cut and staff laid off. It's a tough lesson in empty promises and hypocrisy for a young person who thought leadership was about telling the truth.
[4:15]
Health care programs and the health of British Columbians are greatly at risk under the management of this NDP government. This government claims to be the protector of medicare. They claim to listen to the people. In fact, they put politics in front of patient care. They focus the benefits of health care policies on special interests, rather than the needs of patients. They failed miserably in their attempt to restructure the health care system by building layer upon layer of bureaucracy without constructing any kind of provincial strategic plan. They failed to build commitment for health care reform by failing to consult with stakeholders in the health care system. As a result they have failed to bring any accountability into the health care system for the benefit of patients, providers and the taxpayer.
Hon. Speaker, as patients suffered unacceptable wait lists on cardiac, transplant and cancer-treatment lists, this government spent $32.5 million precious health care dollars on the New Directions program. Three million dollars alone was spent last year on advertising to reassure us that New Directions was a good program, despite the fact that people from all around the province in alarming numbers raised issues around the lack of planning, difficulties in implementation,
[ Page 136 ]
cost containment, lack of consultation with key stakeholders and infighting with governance. Not one cent of this money was spent on any benefit to the patient. After wasting time and money, and after three years of pitting community against community and regional health boards against community health councils and against hospitals, this government has put the regionalization program on hold, but not before doing some serious damage to the existing health care system.
I cannot support this budget. Before I take my seat, I ask each member on the side opposite to consider what you promised -- what each one of you promised -- to the people in your constituency. Consider the position you find yourselves in today in being unable to deliver on those promises. If you have any integrity, if you're honest with yourself and with the people in your constituency, you too, like myself, will not be able to vote for this budget.
Hon. D. Miller: I want first of all to say I haven't spent a lot of time listening, particularly to new members. I've heard snatches of some speeches. I want to commend all members, those on our side as well as the opposition side. I recall my inaugural speech in this chamber when I was on the opposition side. It was deathly quiet. The place was packed, and I think that only added to my nervousness at the time. But since that
I do want to comment on some of the things that I have heard from members opposite with respect to the budget. We are debating the budget, but I think the Speaker realizes that there's a great deal of latitude in that. There should be, because the budget is not just an accounting of numbers. It in fact lays out, if you like, a sense of direction that's reinforced by both policies and programs of a government. I want to start with that point. Again, referring to some of the comments that I've heard -- and I've heard a lot of what I'll term "rhetoric"; I guess all of us from time to time may be guilty of using rhetoric as we speak -- I'd like to boil things down to reality.
I want to talk about that with relation to debt. The member who just spoke made what I thought was a glaring error in referring to debt as the difference between revenues and expenditures. In fact, on an annual basis that's called deficit. Perhaps therein lies one of the fundamental problems. These terms become so interchangeable that even people who use them forget there is a difference, and a very clear difference, between debt and deficit. Of course, the opposition is hot these days about deficit. They probably will be for a while, and that's fine. But I'd like to talk about debt and to talk about the budget as a blueprint and this province, the state of this province, the challenges we face, and why we have embarked on certain policies and programs.
I should say, and I meant to say at the
I was pleased, throughout my last term in government, to be able to address some of the issues that in some ways forgotten British Columbians -- people along the coast of British Columbia, some very historical places, up in the Nass Valley and places like
We managed to get a new bridge built across the Nass River at Gitwinksihlkw, commonly known as Canyon City, where for 30 years they had nothing but a swinging footbridge. Regardless of your age -- whether you were an elder or a young child -- that was your only access to and from that community. Believe me, I was up there one winter when the Nass was about a foot below that footbridge, and it was a bit terrifying for me.
I guess those of us who live in the larger areas tend to forget that there are British Columbians who live by conventional standards
As well, the new sawmill that has now been running for a few years in R
I got on the plane in Terrace and was talking to a forest owner -- a Japanese person who came to this country in the sixties, I believe, and is now in the forest industry. From his perspective, he said the Premier did exactly the right thing, that we should be forcing those kinds of issues. Do I have to remind people that when they talk
The significant job loss in forestry in this province took place not when this government came to power. In fact, there are about 14,000 more people working in the forest sector today than when my government took office in 1991. Part of that is clearly because the commodity markets improved fairly dramatically. We saw both pulp and
[ Page 137 ]
We're also seeing a real transition. We had, last year and, I think, this year, probably the largest hiring of forest technicians that we've ever seen in this province. Believe me, when I go to BCIT, as I did when I was Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, to speak to a graduating class of forest
Maybe I should get in to the main body of what I want to speak about today, and that is the state of our economy, what the challenges are and how we move to ensure what I think all of us here desire, which is opportunity -- particularly for young people. As a parent, and now as a grandparent, that is of even more concern to me. I don't think, by the way, that anybody has a monopoly on that. I think all members share in that concern.
But we've moved from an essentially resource-based economy that did very well. In fact, those people who spoke about how bad things are should reflect in a relative sense. We probably
Look at health care. There are enormous expenditures in health care in Canada. We have probably one of the best systems in the world, and one that we will fight very hard to maintain. That's why we seriously rejected the Liberal notion of two-tiered health care. But if you look around the world, if you do a world scan of health care and look not just at how much money they're spending on health care but at the relative health of the individuals, you'll see places like Japan where the public expenditures are, compared to us, very, very tiny. Yet the average citizen lives longer and is healthier.
Now, issues of lifestyle come into those questions, and that becomes a very difficult problem for governments to deal with, because we do live in North America and we're subject to all of those. You know, we think that whatever is taking place in the United States or in other parts of Canada should happen here. Our health care system is driven to a large degree by the technological changes that have taken place, and it's not a simple matter. I do submit, though, with all of the criticisms, that our health care system is essentially unparalleled.
So how do we change this economy? This government decided in 1991 that there were some essential things that needed to be done to shift from that resource-based economy. Essentially, that required two things; one is infrastructure.
I think this is a rather conservative view of things, but in a growing population, if you do not have transportation corridors -- highways -- and if you do not have transit systems, you've got gridlock in your cities. If you do not have the capacity to take in students, if you do not have the capacity in terms of health care, or all of those other issues, then it seems to me you are restricting your ability to expand your economy. It's not good enough to cry about debt and then stand up and make a speech, and say: "I want a new school in my constituency."
[4:30]
When I was the minister of post-secondary education, or Skills, Training and Labour, and for a brief time prior to the election, in this portfolio, I participated in several announcements, either announcing new projects or cutting ribbons on projects that had been completed. I made it a practice to always say, when we cut the ribbon on a new building, that the building represented debt. The questions I put were: was it necessary and was it something that was affordable? When I was at the University College of the Fraser Valley, I cut the ribbon on a new $10 million building. Everybody there said: "This is great. We need this building." It's $10 million worth of debt.
There are numerous examples around this province. I said it already, I think, when I was in Nanaimo and spoke to the Liberal candidate prior to the election -- the mayor of Nanaimo -- who thought that spending $100 million in his community was fabulous, that it was great. I said: "But it's debt." Well, he didn't respond. So do you really have the luxury of
I recall I spoke with a citizen in Richmond who phoned me months ago, because the Richmond MLAs would not come to this government and support the construction of new schools in Richmond. They wouldn't do it. I took a pretty hard-nosed position. My view was that we shouldn't build a single school unless the MLA is prepared to come forward and sign a letter, saying: "Yes, I agree that we should do this; we should incur this debt." Isn't that fair? Should we have the luxury of being able to walk on both sides of the street? One of the things that I clearly picked up from some of these speeches is -- you know, they kind of snuck it in: "Build my school, build my hospital, spend money. But, boy, you rotten government, look at all the debt you've got."
I hear a lot of people trying to define liberalism in these speeches, too, and I'm going to listen closely. One of them might actually get it. I've never been able to figure out what the definition of liberalism is.
How do we change the economy? How do we move and make sure that opportunity exists? Infrastructure, number one. If we don't have the infrastructure, we don't have the opportunity to expand our economy.
Number two -- in no particular order either, by the way -- is education. I would submit that the Skills and Training portfolio almost brought about a revolution in education in this province that's not quite felt. I was very pleased, when I left that post prior to the last election, that I got a letter from virtually every college and university in this province saying that they appreciated the work we had done together -- particularly the Skills Now initiative, because that initiative expanded space. We virtually eliminated the waiting lists for colleges and universities in this province. And we didn't do that by
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I heard someone say: "Throw money at the problem." We went to those institutions, and we said: "We're prepared to give you a lift in your funding." We gave them a lift for inflation. Then we said: "But we're going to hold back some money, another 1 percent. What you have to do to gain access to that money is increase your access over and above what you would normally do, over and above your funding." I think there were 14,000 new post-secondary spaces created in the last administration. We virtually eliminated the waiting lists for colleges and universities. That's a major accomplishment in my book, however humble that might be.
[ Page 138 ]
We gave degree-granting status to some of our institutes and created university colleges so students could get those degrees closer to home. Go up to the Cariboo. I heard one member talk about
We created new technology-based programs in those community colleges. We said to the institutions: "You've got to develop programs that match what's happening out there in the real world." Our slogan was: real skills for the real world. They did that. They developed six new technology-based courses. We went into our high schools. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, we introduced in-school apprenticeships in high school. For those students for whom it is an appropriate career choice, they can graduate from high school with the first year of their apprenticeship under their belts. To give it some importance, we also introduced a bursary program so that there was a scholarship for those
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the member is asking me where the initiative came from. I can tell you where the initiative came from, because it was my ministry that put together the outline of the Skills Now initiative, and that was one of the initiatives. Later on, guess what happened? A Liberal came along by the name of Lloyd Axworthy, who said: "Under our strategic initiatives, we'd like to share some of the cost of your program." So we put that one forward, and indeed Lloyd Axworthy and I held a press conference in the basement here. We both extolled the virtues of apprenticeship, and they're paying half of the bursary. That's great. It's really small change, but it's great. Then Lloyd Axworthy went back to Ottawa, and do you know what he did under the unemployment insurance changes? Do you know what the federal Liberals have done now? I've not heard one member speak about it. They have pulled the training supports away for apprentices when they go to school. This is the biggest blow to the apprenticeship system that we have faced in years in this province, and not one Liberal has criticized that Liberal in Ottawa for doing it. If you are going to write letters opposing it, send me a copy. Send me a copy just so I know you are serious.
The tremendous focus on education and skills training is one of the essential ingredients if we are going to move this economy -- if we are going to transform this economy -- and not abandon it. I'll give one example of how, if you are going to lay the framework for more jobs in the value-added
Another initiative is under Skills Now: developing forestry courses for our high schools. It's linked into our high schools for the first time. For the first time we are exposing students in high school to very good, real career opportunities with an opportunity to go right up the ladder. If they want to get out after college, if they want to go on to university, it's their choice, but the opportunities are there for the first time. What we are doing, essentially, is adding knowledge to that primary industry. That's going to grow it and nurture it, and that's going to guarantee that we do have those jobs in the future.
The member from Whistler spoke about the AAC reductions. I was the minister in 1991 who was faced with an internal report from the Ministry of Forests that said that our harvest rate was not sustainable. What do you do in the face of that? Close your eyes? That's what they had been doing for 20 years. When huge areas like here on Vancouver Island had been taken out of the forest land base and they maintained the harvest rate as though those areas were in the forest land base, they failed to meet their responsibilities.
I said: "We're not going to do that. We're not going to go the way of the cod. We're going to bring those harvest rates down to a sustainable basis." That's what the AAC program is all about. Are you doing people favours by not meeting those challenges? I would say you're not. You're just putting off to future generations a problem that we have the responsibility to deal with. That's the whole basis for it.
I notice the Liberals have now agreed with the 12 percent. It took them long enough. I think I heard, during the election campaign, that the Liberals now agree that 12 percent of the very best and representative areas of our province should be set aside.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, that's good. I'm glad you got to that realization.
An Hon. Member: About ten years late.
Hon. D. Miller: Right.
Look at the international markets. Look at the problems we had to deal with in terms of boycotts and how that has subsided. When I first came in in 1991 and was made Minister of Forests, there was a war in the woods. It's not there now. Do we have problems? Yes, we do. Do we have to work hard to try to overcome them? Yes, we do. Implementation of such a significant change like the Forest Practices Code does take time. Is it the right thing to do? Yes, it is.
Let's get on and manage those problems, but let's not think we can have the luxury of saying: "Yes, it's okay to have 12 percent, and yes, we have to have all this, but, boy, we don't want any of the trouble that comes with it. Yes, I want that school in my riding, but by the way, debt is bad." I don't know what magic they work in Whistler so they can pay as they go, but is the Liberal Party going to advance that we pay for capital projects as we go?
An Hon. Member: Open tendering, Dan.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll get to open tendering. In fact, it's on my list. How much time have I got? I want to talk about open tendering.
W. Hurd: Well, let's talk about it then.
[ Page 139 ]
Hon. D. Miller: I'll get to it, if you can be patient.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, if you could advise the member to be just a little bit patient, I'll get to it.
An Hon. Member: Build schools, not patronage.
Hon. D. Miller: Did I hear a Liberal talk about patronage? Hon. Speaker, I thought Liberals invented patronage.
In just trying to illustrate how you're going to move this province, it seems to me that there
I come from a municipality. I was an alderman -- oh, councillor now. We built -- unlike Whistler, which built everything for $30 million; and God, I don't know where they get the money -- a new performing arts centre and a new swimming pool in Prince Rupert, and we borrowed the money.
An Hon. Member: Private industry paid for it.
Hon. D. Miller: Oh, private industry paid for it.
We borrowed it, and we're paying it back. The taxpayers of that municipality are paying it back. They said they thought that was a good idea. They liked the idea of having that recreational facility, they liked the idea of having that cultural facility, and they were quite prepared to accept that a reasonable amount of debt -- I guess somewhat akin to a mortgage or whatever -- was okay.
If the members opposite think that we shouldn't be doing that, that there should be no debt, then I'd be interested in hearing that. If they think there should be a certain level of debt, I'd be interested in hearing that. But if what they're telling me is that there's not going to be any debt, I think they're fooling themselves. That means that not one of them can ever get up and make another speech about a new school, highway or hospital -- not one of them. They've disqualified themselves. If they do that, I can only
An Hon. Member: Hypocrites.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't use that language.
. . .that they want the ability to walk on both sides of the street. Indeed, what that might lead to is a definition of liberalism that they won't like. So I just want to throw that in there.
Now I want to deal with the issue of wages. I'm perplexed. I must say that my own background is not a sophisticated background. I was a millwright; I worked in a pulp mill for most of my working life. I've worked in the forest industry and on tugboats. I always appreciated, as a working person, that I had a trade union representing me and that when it came to issues of wages and working conditions, I had the ability as a worker to have a say in my workplace.
A member talked the other day
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I met with the Minister of Economy from Argentina the other day, and he talked about how they've managed to successfully deal with opening their economy. But one of the problems that they've created now is that their unemployment rate is about 18 percent. While they corrected one problem, they now have a very, very serious problem.
[4:45]
How do we all deal with that? If the marketplace dictates and there's a surplus of labour, is it acceptable that wages are the only casualty? Why wouldn't the members
Why would you want to cut or freeze wages of $7 an hour for the very lowest-paid workers in our society? Why would you want to do that? How can you say you're going to do that and at the same time stand and say that you're concerned about people's standard of living? Do you know the people who work for $7 an hour? Do you know who they are? Have you looked them in the face? Do you deal with them on a daily basis? Do you think they're making enough money? Not one head would even shake or nod -- not one. Do you think $7 is great? Would you live on $7 an hour, even if you had a full-time job? Again, hon. Speaker, not one nod of the head, not one shake of the head.
On Vancouver Island we entered into an agreement -- and yes, it does guarantee not the union scale but fairly close to it. It guarantees that local people on Vancouver Island are given a hiring preference, it's got equity hiring, and it's got the best apprenticeship ratios of any project I've ever seen. It protects jobs on Vancouver Island; it gives those working people a decent wage. Why shouldn't they have a decent wage? Why would you say that the first thing you're going to do is take away these people's decent wages? Why would you do that? "We're going to scrap the Vancouver Island Highway accord," they say. Why? There's only one reason: they think that the workers on those projects are making too much money, and that that's bad. That's the only conclusion I can
[ Page 140 ]
draw. What's wrong with people making decent wages? You make decent wages. Tell me why you would deprive a construction worker of decent wages. Tell me why you would deprive a minimum-wage earner.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: So it's just rhetoric. Now they're starting to get up and protest. "Oh, we don't mean that," they're saying. "Oh no, we really believe in people." You can't have it both ways.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Now we have a member saying that the world's a complicated place. Well now, isn't that great: the world's a complicated place. It's pretty straightforward. We have an agreement. It gives people a decent wage -- a decent wage, hon. Speaker -- so that those people can go home at night, care for their families, perhaps get a mortgage, and send their son or daughter to school, university or college. It's not a complicated world at all; it's a very simple world. You say you're going to scrap it; we say it's a good thing. We think it's good that working people
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: So here we are. We have these people over here who want to complain about debt, but they say: "Build that school in my riding." Right? They want to complain about people's standard of living, but they say: "We think minimum wages are terrible, and we think the Vancouver Island Highway accord that gives people decent wages is terrible." I'm perplexed, hon.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Are you telling me my time is up?
I might remain perplexed, but I'll try to listen with some patience to members opposite. I have heard some good suggestions, and I look forward to working with members in my critics' area in a productive way, and I look forward to vigorous debate in this chamber on issues of fundamental importance. What differentiates that side from this
The Speaker: I recognize now the member for Yale-Lillooet.
H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of my constituents for bestowing upon me the honour of serving them for another term in this Legislature. And I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for your election as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I know it was one of the hardest-fought elections that you have ever witnessed.
On May 28 the voters of this province gave the New Democratic Party a renewed mandate for another four, or maybe even five, years.
Interjection.
H. Lali: I see that the member for Surrey-White Rock is leaving the chamber right now.
Giving us a mandate means that we'll be sitting on this side of the House for four more years and that the opposition Liberals will be staying on that side of the House. The voters chose the NDP over the Liberals in the election; they also chose the NDP record and rejected the record of the Liberals when they were in opposition for the last four years.
The record of this government is quite clear. We have the number one economy of any province in Canada, and we have the best job creation record. We created over 200,000 jobs in the four and a half years that we were in office -- 40 percent of all the jobs in Canada. We have roughly 11 percent of the population of this country living here in British Columbia. We also have the highest credit rating of any province in the country, and it's a credit rating not given by any left-wing institution but rather by all the bond-rating agencies in Canada and the United States. We also have the lowest debt per capita of any province in the country. So the record of this party is quite clear.
The voters also selected, during the election on May 28, the economic plan that this government put forward over the plan that the Liberals put forth. As a matter of fact, it was shown quite clearly during the 28 days that the Liberal plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition was a sham and a fraud. The numbers never added up. As a matter of fact, the numbers kept changing from day to day. Depending on which audience the Liberal candidates happened to be speaking to, they were changing them.
The voters chose Premier Clark during the May 28 election but rejected the opposition leader, Mr. Campbell, in a big way. That's why he's going to be relegated to those benches on the opposition side for the next five years. The basic fact of the matter is that the voters did not believe the Liberals. They just did not believe what the Liberals and their leader have to say, because they rejected the hypocrisy of the opposition, the hypocrisy that the Liberals were putting forward, the hypocrisy of the party and the hypocrisy of their leader during the 28-day campaign. The election was quite clearly about choices. Certainly the people of this province chose the New Democrats over the Liberals.
We have listened to British Columbians. This budget that was put forth in the House reflects the messages that we heard during the campaign. This budget delivers on a major election theme, an election commitment that we made, which was a tax cut for families and small business and not for banks and big corporations, like these folks on the Liberal benches wanted to do. They wanted to give $1.1 billion tax breaks to big banks, their developer friends and multinational corporations. They wanted to do that on the backs of the ordinary middle-class working British Columbians of this province by cutting $3 billion out of the budget. They were going to cut health care, education, social services and just about everything else, and turn around and give those billions to their friends, the Howe Street boys. That's what they wanted to do.
We on this side of the House listen to British Columbians. We're acting on their priorities, like protecting health care and education, creating and protecting jobs, and guaranteeing opportunities for the young people of this province. As a matter of fact, for the last five budgets in a row, we are the only province in the entire country that has increased the budgets for health and education every year. Meanwhile every other jurisdiction in this country has been cutting back. We've been putting more money into health and education.
These folks wanted to cut $3 billion out of the budget. They wanted to make cuts. They wanted to close down hospitals. They wanted to shut down schools. We've listened to British Columbians. We listen to
[ Page 141 ]
their concerns about the debt and the cost of government, and we're acting upon them. This budget builds on our progress in balancing the budget, with new measures to cut costs and reduce the debt.
I like to compare what those folks across the way wanted to
An Hon. Member: Friends.
H. Lali: . . .as opposed
In this budget, as I mentioned earlier, we have made tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses, while from the Liberals there was no tax relief for the middle class, but there were huge tax breaks for corporations, as I've already mentioned.
In this budget there's a $27 million increase for universities and colleges. Meanwhile, the Liberals, in their plan, wanted a 5 percent cut to post-secondary education this year and a freeze for every year afterwards, which meant that over a four-year period there was going to be a 22 percent cut for post-secondary education. They were going to eliminate all of those spaces in colleges and universities that we have created over the last four years under our initiatives. We have frozen tuition fees for students for two years. Meanwhile, these folks, my friends across the way, wanted higher tuition fees for students and fewer student spaces, in order to pay for the big tax breaks they wanted to give to their Howe Street friends.
We have $6.8 billion, which is a 2.5 percent increase to protect our medicare from all of the cuts that Ottawa is trying to institute. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition was heard on many occasions to say: "Well, $6 billion is plenty." Then when he found out that it was politically not expedient for him, he changed his tune and said: "We would actually increase funding for health care." It depended on what audience the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to. To one audience he would say that they were going to make $3 billion worth of cuts. To another audience, which was a little bit friendly to them, they would say: "No, we're going to actually
This budget also has a $19 million increase for more police officers, a provincial homicide squad, and action against gang and youth crime. The Liberals, had they got in, were going to plan for a $19 million cut from police and jails, and a $17 million cut from criminal prosecutions, rape crisis and sexual assault centres, CLEU and Neighbourhood Watch. The record is quite clear on what the New Democrats are putting forth and what the Liberals said that they were going to put forth.
We're maintaining B.C. Rail and protecting the economic benefits to all British Columbians. B.C. Rail is quite important to my constituents, as it passes through Seton Portage, Shalalth and Lillooet, and then on through to Clinton, which actually is not in my riding but in the south Cariboo. As you know, hon. Speaker, over the last two years, B.C. Rail has been a profitable Crown corporation: there was a $44 million profit two years ago and a $46.7 million profit last year. The Liberals' plan was to sell off this profitable venture to their friends and insiders and use that to draw down the debt. It's like selling your house to pay down your mortgage. That was their plan for dealing with the debt: to sell the house to pay for the mortgage. Shame on those Liberals!
This government has created 40,000 new jobs this year and will create 43,000 new jobs in next year's budget. Under the Liberal plan, it would have meant that there would be 41,000 less
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Could I ask the member for Yale-Lillooet to take a brief breath.
Just for the benefit of new members, I would like you to know you are carrying on a grand tradition. It usually happens about 5 o'clock that the noise level rises to the point where we have to call for order. So I'm glad that grand tradition of the House is carrying on.
H. Lali: As everybody knows, the Liberal opposition is a lot larger than it was last term. There are 33 of them, I think. I think there are approximately a couple of dozen new Liberal members here. But I'm sad to say, hon. Speaker, that they haven't changed a lot. They may be larger, but they haven't changed a lot. Certainly the Liberals have not learned anything, especially not during this election. There are no new ideas coming forth from this Liberal opposition. It's still the same tired old rhetoric that we were used to in the last four and a half years from the Liberal benches; it's the same tired old rhetoric that they're putting forth in this Legislature as well.
[5:00]
They continue to oppose everything that is put forward. They oppose, and then they wonder why they lost the election on May 28. Well, my folks, you lost because there are no new ideas. You are unwilling to change. It's the same tired old rhetoric that you put forth in the last Legislature, and you're continuing that. They continue to say one thing, which they said during the election, but they did exactly the opposite when they were in opposition during the last four and a half years here in the Legislature. That's hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy that cost them big time on May 28, and that's why they will continue to sit in the opposition benches for the next four to five years.
I want to talk briefly about the record of this government, hon. Speaker. I'll start with the environmental record, the creation of parks. We made a commitment in the 1991 election that we were going to double parks and wilderness from 6 percent to 12 percent, and we're living up to that commitment. The Liberals voted against those environmental initiatives. But during the election -- as the speaker before me just pointed out -- they found a new love for the environment, and they agreed that they would double the parks from 6 percent to 12 percent as well. We're already doing it, and they said they would do it.
In 1994 we introduced the forest renewal plan, which was to pump $400 million a year for five years -- a total of $2 billion -- back into the forest land base, so we could have a forest industry not just for the next generation or two but for all generations to come after us, so that the forest resource would be sustainable. Those very Liberals voted against the forest renewal plan.
The aboriginal Treaty Commission. We have the agreement in principle with the Nisga'a which will go towards settling the issue of land claims in this province, and the Liberals again voted against that. Then they said that they would review all treaties if they didn't find them acceptable, if they were to form government -- thank God they are not government.
[ Page 142 ]
In our first year of being in office we introduced a new Labour Code. I'm happy to say that we have had the lowest number of strikes and lockouts in this province since the end of the Second World War as the result of that new Labour Code. And these honourable folks across the way again voted against the Labour Code. They wanted to take us back to the old days of Bill 19, when we had all of this violence at the picket lines.
The Skills Now initiative, where the government pumped $200 million into post-secondary education -- into colleges, institutes and universities -- and we created almost 20,000 new spaces over a four-and-a-half-year period, was another one of those positive initiatives that certainly benefits my riding and a lot of the other ridings that have colleges. These folks voted against that positive initiative.
The B.C. 21 program, the infrastructure program. Each one of these MLAs on the opposite side has absolutely no problem coming up to the various ministers demanding a school in their riding; or they want this courthouse built, or they want this hospital built, or any other infrastructure project that may have come forward. But again, in the last Legislature these folks voted against the B.C. 21 program.
I'm proud of the investment that this government has made over the last four and a half years, because those were the same issues that were coming up across the various towns in my riding, whether they wanted a new bridge, whether it was a new school, or whether it was a community centre or a downtown revitalization program. All of those positive initiatives that came forward, all the city councils, mayors and regional districts in my riding, and the citizens and chambers of
I want to talk about some of the initiatives that came up in my riding, specifically in the last year. For instance, the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Merritt, which is an aboriginal college, started in the early eighties with one small classroom of 14 students in the basement of a downtown building and now has over 300 full-time students. It was designated a public institution by this government over the summer. We also had the Stein Valley, which was protected in its entirety in the Lillooet TSA. It's located about eight or nine miles outside the community of Lytton. Also within that same TSA we have the Melvin Creek ski hill project, also known as Cayoosh Creek. Al Raine and Nancy Greene are the major proponents of that. The government has now given the go-ahead for it to go on to the environmental process stage, and in three, four or five years' time it should come to fruition and create anywhere from 3,000 to 4,000 jobs, a lot of them in the Lillooet area, in my riding.
The Boston Bar sawmill had some problems. It was being mismanaged by the people they had hired over the last couple or three years, and it had gone down. They tried very hard to blame it on the government, but we were able
Also during last summer we made the
In the community of Merritt, servicing the Nicola Valley, we had a proposal that went in for affordable housing of 32 units. It was a $3.4 million project which was again financed by the Ministry of Housing of this government. I'm quite happy that the residents of that town were able to see a project like that come to fruition.
The member across the way who lives in the community of Whistler was talking about annual allowable cuts. I'm happy to say that in the Merritt timber supply area the annual allowable cut went up 20 percent -- 250,000 cubic metres a year. Also, the Lillooet TSA is remaining the same. All the doom and gloom that the hon. member was sitting up here talking about is certainly not the case in major parts of this province, and especially not in my riding.
I was talking about the B.C. 21 infrastructure program and how my friend from Matsqui read out a letter to the editor that I had written. Incidentally, it didn't just go to the Hope Standard; it went to the other six newspapers in the riding as well, so it went to seven newspapers. I wanted to put that Liberal candidate, who ran as a Socred in 1986 and represented Yale-Lillooet for five
He was attacking the government's record and the $88 million worth of investment that we got in Yale-Lillooet. I wrote that letter to put him on record, to see if he wants that debt controlled -- because the debt is the direct result of all the capital projects we've been building in this
They are attacking the government's review. During the 28-day election, people said loud and clear that they wanted to see the debt being controlled, and we've listened to them. What we've
For the benefit of my friend from Matsqui over there, who is listening very attentively -- and I'm glad he is -- we are still going to be building $1.2 billion worth of projects in this year's budget. That's $1.2 billion.
[ Page 143 ]
Now those folks over
It's this schizophrenic attitude on the part of the Liberals that has prevented them from actually becoming government. The people saw right through the rhetoric that these folks were speaking during the election.
My question, as it was during the election and is now: where do you want to see those cuts? If you're going to sit there and criticize the government, at least have the courage of your convictions and stand up in this House and tell us where you want to see those cuts. Before the election they said they were going to cut $3 billion, and they knew where it was going come from out of the budget. It was going to come from health, and it was going to come from education. They were going to lay off 30,000 civil servants. After the election was called, they said they were going to increase funding for health and increase funding for education. Well, they couldn't have it both ways. They were flipping and flopping, and they were twisting and turning. They were telling all sorts of untruths, but they got caught.
Their leader got caught telling the biggest untruth right there on the televised debate, when he said they were not going to cut post-secondary education. He said: "If you don't believe me, it's right here in our plan." When we looked at the plan, there was no increase for post-secondary education. They were indeed going to make the cuts. So their leader got caught telling the biggest fib of them all right there on national television, and that's what cost you the election, my friends. You might think about having a review of your own when your convention comes up; you might want to review your own leader.
Of course, the biggest fib they told during the election -- I can't use that other word -- was about the backroom deals they were making with the Reform Party. They were going to make these backroom deals, where they would have the Reformers sit down and the Socreds sit down and not seek the seat, so they could have the votes come their way. They were actually going to bribe them with multiculturalism posts and posts in other parts of other ministries. That's the kind of bribery they were
But their leader, a couple of days later, finally had to come clean and say yes, deals were being offered. Deals were almost being made by the Liberals so they could have whatever means they wanted at their disposal to try and win the election, because they couldn't do it any other way.
Finally, I want to reiterate my support for the hon. Finance minister for this excellent budget that he has introduced in the House, a budget that is going to continue to work on our priorities, which are to look after average middle-income earners of this province -- not the Howe Street boys -- and not to give the big tax breaks like the Liberals wanted to do, by cutting the corporation capital tax and the school property tax for big business, developers and banks. We're looking after the average middle-income earners of this province.
[5:15]
It is indeed a pleasure to once again serve the people of Yale-Lillooet in this great House for the next four years on the government side of the House, as opposed to my friends on the Liberal side, who are going to be spending the next four -- maybe five -- years on the opposition benches.
B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a great privilege for me to be able to rise today as apparently the youngest member ever to represent the electoral district of Chilliwack.
An Hon. Member: Younger than Chisholm?
B. Penner: Apparently.
This is my inaugural address. I'm told it used to be known as a maiden address, but I'm certainly not a maiden, so I prefer the term "inaugural address." I would also like to extend not only my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to your distinguished office, but also my congratulations and heartfelt best wishes to all members who were elected to this assembly. I believe that every person who offers themselves in terms of public life deserves the public's respect, because we all know that we give up a great deal of personal time, family time and in some cases personal income to do this job. It's a job worth doing, and it's a job worth doing well. I take my hat off to all members and all candidates around the province, successful or otherwise, who are willing to put their name on the line and run for public office.
I'm humbled by and grateful for the confidence that the people of Chilliwack have shown by electing me to be their representative here in Victoria. I pledge to do my best to serve my constituents in Chilliwack by being honest and hopefully effective here in Victoria. In my role as a member of the opposition I hope to not just criticize for the sake of criticizing but to be constructive in my criticism. I hope that from time to time, members of the government may wish to listen to some of the points I may raise and the suggestions I may have about how things may be done in a better way.
I would like to take an opportunity to speak a little about my background and about my riding of Chilliwack. I am fortunate to be one of the third generation of Penners to have the privilege of living in Chilliwack. My ancestors moved to Chilliwack after leaving the Soviet Union. They came to Canada and to British Columbia looking for an opportunity to pursue their own lifestyle after leaving the harsh realities of communism. They didn't look for much. They looked for a chance to pursue farming, initially; later, members of the family went into public service in the areas of teaching and health. Basically, they came to Canada looking for individual opportunity and individual liberty. This is a concept -- a fundamental tenet -- that I strongly believe in, and that's one reason I chose to seek public office.
Chilliwack has a proud history in British Columbia. It was established as a community late in the last century, during the gold rush. In fact, I believe Chilliwack has the distinction of having been the first Supreme Court seat outside Victoria. In about 1892, I believe, they started having regular sittings when the judge known as His Honour Judge Begbie came to sit from time to time in Chilliwack. Chilliwack began, essen-
[ Page 144 ]
tially, as an agricultural community as well as a forestry community, and much of that continues today unchanged. Along the way, however, other industries came to Chilliwack. We now have a significant manufacturing base, and we also had -- at least until recently -- a military base.
I'd like to take a moment just to speak about Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. As I am sure most of you know, it will be closing in the very near future. In fact, on Canada Day -- that's just two days ago -- I was fortunate to be at what will be the last Canada Day celebration featuring members of the 1 Combat Engineer Regiment, which has been based in Chilliwack since 1942. Unfortunately, the federal government saw fit to close CFB Chilliwack. The 1 Combat Engineer Regiment will be moving to Edmonton. That move has already started this week, with various members moving out, and it will be completed by August.
There are two more components to CFB Chilliwack. One is the officer cadet training school; as well, there is the engineer training school. Both of those components will be leaving Chilliwack by the end of 1997. It will be a loss that will be felt throughout the community. I am told that the economic benefit that Chilliwack receives from CFB Chilliwack constitutes about 7 percent of the gross domestic product in my riding. Certainly they will be missed.
I grew up in Chilliwack and went to school with many students whose families were involved in the military, and I think they brought a unique perspective to my educational background. Many of them had been posted overseas, in Europe, or in other parts of Canada, and I think they really enriched my experience going to school, getting to hear about their time overseas and elsewhere in Canada.
I think it would be worthwhile for the provincial government to take a look at what can be done with what remains of CFB Chilliwack. There are approximately 250 acres immediately involved with the base in Chilliwack itself, and many of the facilities will be left vacant and could be turned to productive use. Frankly, the constituents that I speak to in Chilliwack, as well as
There is, for example, a new school that was built for the military engineers, which cost the federal government just over $10 million, and it opened only last year. I would be loath to see that building sit empty for an extended period of time. It is connected to the world through laser and fibre optics, and it represents, in my view, a tremendous educational opportunity.
I know that this government has spoken about opening a new technical university in Cloverdale; that is to be commended. Certainly we need more resources for our students in terms of educational opportunities. However, I think the government would be wise to at least consider what could be done with the educational facilities that exist at CFB Chilliwack and that are new and state-of-the-art. Perhaps it could be used as a satellite campus for any new technical university. It certainly has the facilities there. Or perhaps it should be the proper location for the technical university. CFB Chilliwack contains on its premises not only the new engineering school but many dormitories and eating facilities that would lend themselves perfectly to a post-secondary educational institution.
Chilliwack has also suffered other setbacks in the last year to year and a half. Pillsbury, a large employer located in Sardis, which is a suburb of Chilliwack, closed in April, throwing about 400 people out of work. That plant has been there for as long as I can remember. In addition, just over a year ago, an ancillary plant closed, and I believe that resulted in the loss of 170 jobs -- again in Chilliwack.
The people of Chilliwack don't expect government handouts; what they do expect is to be treated fairly. I believe that in the last five years it has been documented that Chilliwack did receive a lower percentage, compared to the average around the province, of provincial government spending on infrastructure projects. For the last 20 years, the Chilliwack courthouse has been slated for upgrading and eventually for replacement. We're now talking about replacement. The Chilliwack courthouse was built in the 1950s. I won't even hazard a guess as to what the population was in 1950, but it's certainly a lot larger in 1996.
The matter of the courthouse in Chilliwack, as I'm sure the hon. Attorney General will realize, is a legitimate concern. It's a safety concern; it's not a concern simply for the lawyers who happen to make use of it. Just about two years ago, an incident occurred where several maximum-security prisoners managed to escape from the lockup facilities in the back of the courthouse, and they were able to violently attack a number of the deputy sheriff's staff who were working there. In fact, one of the older gentlemen was stabbed in the neck, received a serious wound and had to be treated at Chilliwack General Hospital. These were prisoners who were serving life sentences for murder; clearly they had nothing to lose, and they knew it. The Chilliwack courthouse facility, although it has served us well, is simply time-expired and overutilized. It's just overcrowded, and it has outlived its usefulness.
There are other matters in Chilliwack which I think need to be addressed by the provincial government. Strong indications were given over the last year and a half with respect to the University College of the Fraser Valley and their phase 3 project in Chilliwack. That is a building which was intended to replace, again, what was called a temporary building 20 years ago. The college got established by moving into a former motel, and that formed the basis for the campus in Chilliwack. I attended that campus and I was in that building, and while I'm pleased about the education I received there, I can indicate to the House that the building is, again, time-expired. Twenty years ago we were told that it was only a temporary solution, and it still remains and it's still being used. So I urge the government to consider doing the appropriate and honourable thing: look at phase 3 and give the approval to that project as soon as possible.
Finally, with respect to my wish list for Chilliwack, if I can put it that way -- certainly Mr. Campbell has put it that way -- I would like to talk about a project known as the Evans Road flyover. It is a project to connect our community better. For those of you who have had the opportunity of travelling through the Fraser Valley, you'll have noticed one of two things: one might be the smell of the air as you drive through, depending on the time of year; the other is that the freeway goes through, basically, the heart of the Fraser Valley.
In Chilliwack it divides the community in half. There's the north side of the freeway, or the old part of Chilliwack, and the south side, which is Sardis and also Vedder Crossing. On the south side of the freeway the community has been expanding quicker than the rest of the community. What this means now, I believe, is that the population is roughly evenly split on either side of the freeway.
[ Page 145 ]
There is only one major conduit or connection between those two communities, and that's the Vedder Road-Yale Road overpass. That piece of infrastructure was constructed in the late 1950s, and I believe at the time represented the zenith of engineering skill and know-how. It was the first overpass of its type in British Columbia. But again, it was built in the late 1950s, and it is only one lane in either direction.
Chilliwack is now a community in excess of 60,000 people. For people to get from one part of the community to the other, most of them have to travel on this conduit, and it's simply inadequate.
The local council and the mayor have proposed an additional crossing: not a connection to the freeway but just a flyover above the freeway at Evans Road. I believe the approval for that was pending just before the election and wasn't actually given, although strong hints were made by this government that approval would certainly be coming for that project. I would endorse the government's move in that direction.
If the government is wondering how all these things could be paid for, I would venture to again offer one piece of constructive criticism, and that would be to review the proposal at Cloverdale for the technical university. The rough figure we've been given is that it would cost the provincial government and the taxpayers approximately $100 million in startup capital costs to build that facility. We essentially have that infrastructure and the resources available, presently sitting at CFB Chilliwack. As I've indicated, they will very shortly be sitting empty. The government may wish to consider how it can save itself $100 million in startup capital costs by examining the facility at CFB Chilliwack.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to being a member of this Legislature and to working with you and your staff and to working with all the members of this House in a constructive fashion, so that we can best represent not only the constituents in Chilliwack but all of the people around British Columbia. They truly deserve a government that is as hard-working and honest as the people who pay for it.
The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments.
Before I recognize the next speaker, if I might just
Having said that, I now recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.
[5:30]
V. Anderson: It's a privilege to be back in the Legislature and to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the highest chair in the chamber. We trust you will enjoy it and find that it keeps you awake continually for the next number of months and years.
I also want to congratulate all of those who have returned or have come for the first time the Legislature, on all sides of the House. I'd also like to think of and give appreciation to all those who ran for office but did not have the opportunity to be elected or come to the Legislature. I think our democracy depends on the reality of men and women really willing to put aside their own personal lifestyle for a period of time, at a cost to themselves and their families, in order to dedicate themselves to service in the community -- most of which they do not understand or appreciate until they get here. As one person has said, nothing in the world can prepare you for the kind of thing that goes on in the Legislature; it's totally different from anything else. That's probably why it's so misunderstood by people both outside and within the legislative precincts.
So I just want to give my appreciation to all of those who have contributed so much in offering themselves to be members of the Legislature, particularly to the thousands of persons who worked voluntarily and gave their funds in all the campaigns. If we were to take the time to add up the amount of money and volunteer time that men, women, young people and children have given to the campaigns -- many of them for the first time in their life, discovering what democracy is about -- we would have even more appreciation than we do of the validity of our process here in Canada: a process where we do not have to have armed guards; a process where we do not have to have outside observers come in to examine and make sure that we have fair play in our voting. In spite of all the difficulties we had with the new Election Act, it was still one of the best opportunities all of us have had in our years of living and working in our communities.
Having said thank-yous, I now come to look at the budget for 1996-97 as prepared by the government benches. I find myself having to repeat part of what I said a year ago, or when the budget was presented: a note of sadness, because of the areas of concern in our community which have been overlooked and neglected in the presentation of this budget. In reviewing the budgets of last year and this year, I find even a greater neglect in this present budget than what was there previously. At least there are certain areas in which there were no promises made. We've talked about promises that have been made and broken. But there are certain areas which are crucial to our community in which there were no promises made, so in a sense those promises cannot be broken. However, they have to deal with the lives of men, women and children in our community who are least able to do without our concern and our promises.
I'd like to go briefly through the budget. We talked about jobs, taxes and a balanced budget. Now, we're quite aware that the budget wasn't balanced, isn't balanced and won't be for some time. We're quite aware that, though theoretically it might be possible that taxes would not go up, taxes are certainly not going down, and the overall cost of government, which falls upon the citizens of our province, will not and is not, in the foreseeable future, going to go down. Also, when you talk to all of the people who are unemployed, there is no hope in their minds that jobs are going to suddenly appear out of nowhere and that they're going to find the jobs that they have so fruitlessly been seeking.
So to talk about jobs, taxes and a balanced budget is almost to say to them: "You don't exist. You're not part of our community; you're not part of our society. You're not part of the community to which this budget was directed." Indeed, the budget was not directed to some 20 or 30 percent of our community. It was not directed to them, because it was directed only and entirely and continuously, in phrase after phrase after phrase, to the middle class. The budget spoke, as did the election campaign, to the middle class. Everything was for the middle class.
In spite of the fact that the middle class is having more difficulty -- and I'm perfectly aware of that -- I'm also aware that the middle class of our communities is part of the richest middle class in the world. Yet in our campaign it was to the middle class that most of our presentation was made: "We are cutting taxes for middle-class families and small business."
[ Page 146 ]
Nowhere was there a definition of middle class. But let me suggest that if we think of it in economic terms, probably most people would say that it's $25,000 to $30,000 and up to $50,000; that that's somewhere in the middle class -- $25,000 to $50,000 in family income.
But 20 percent, 30 percent of our population comes below that category, economically speaking. They were not addressed in this campaign, and they are not addressed in this budget. I think that's a sad comment on where we have come to. I think it's a particularly sad comment, and I heard it from group after group and from those who even picketed the constituency office of the Minister of Social Services during the campaign. They, the NDP -- with the CCF heritage -- had completely ignored, in their campaign literature and in their presentations, this fundamental, important and valuable group in our society, this group that falls economically -- not in any other way, but economically -- below what's called the middle class.
I want to be concerned that we collectively acknowledge where we have come from and perhaps the mistakes we have made in doing that. They talked about cutting taxes for all British Columbians, and I emphasize that word "all." It's from the budget itself. Many of the persons I speak about don't pay income tax. They pay the taxes on their food and their clothing and their shelter, but they don't pay income tax, so a reduction in income tax does not affect them. The increase in the costs of the basic necessities of life affect them every day of their lives, and there's nothing in this budget to indicate that these persons will have a cutback in their cost of living.
In respect to the deficit, I have to acknowledge that before I came into this Legislature four years ago, I didn't know what a million dollars was. I couldn't talk about $235 million and imagine in my mind what it was. Millions and billions. The majority of the people that I've lived and worked with all my life talk about $10 and $100 and $1,000 as a major part of their conversation. When we get used to using these big numbers, we forget about the opportunities that other people in our communities do not have when we're talking about the kinds of budgets that we're talking about.
I think about a budget, and I remember a congregation I was in. The annual meeting was always a boring kind of thing, particularly when you had to go over the congregational budget, until one banker came along. He did the budget in terms of a family budget -- heat, light, shelter, clothing, entertainment. For the first time, many of the people in that congregation said: "Ah, I understand what's going on."
The kind of budget that we're talking about here is not relevant to the majority of the people who really are vitally concerned with the decisions that we make. It makes a difference in whether they eat tomorrow, a difference in whether they have a place to live and a difference in the kind of clothing that is available to them.
They talk about taxes and no taxes and jobs. They say in the budget that together these measures demonstrate whose side this government is on. Then they say they're on the side of middle-class working people and their families. I ask: who is on the side of the ordinary person who does not have the economic opportunity that the middle class is able to enjoy in our communities? There's nothing in this budget that says that we as a Legislature -- and I'm including all of us -- are on the side of those persons.
When we put forth a budget, it's not just the budget of a government -- it's not the budget of the NDP, the Liberals, the Socreds or whoever else it may be, although we talk about it in our terms. But it's the budget of the government and the Legislature of British Columbia. In the final analysis, every one of us who's been elected has said that we represent all of the people of our communities, not any select group, and that all of our constituents are our responsibility equally. I'm concerned that the budget that we present does not reflect that opinion.
The budget says we're listening to the people, but what people are we listening to? Sometimes we're not even listening to ourselves in this Legislature. If we had a listening stance, perhaps we would be listening to ourselves. Strange as it may seem, most of the people in the community have been taught in their schoolrooms that the Legislature is the place where people debate honestly and sincerely with each other how to make this a better province in which to live. Their understanding of that debate is that we listen to each other, we try to understand each other, and we try to counter each other's arguments so that we'll all be the wiser for it. And the legislation that we make -- not on behalf of ourselves, not on behalf of our political party, but on behalf of the people -- will be better off for that kind of listening and interaction in debate.
This budget does not indicate that we've been listening to all the people of the province, particularly those who are youth and children. Some 20 to 30 percent of our young people are unemployed. In a democratic, prosperous nation like ours, that is a shame. It's a shameful thing that for 20 to 30 percent of our youth who are able and capable and willing to work, there is not the opportunity. What have we been doing as a government over the years that this situation has arisen? Why have we not met their response? There is nothing in this budget to say that they will be any better off in the coming years. Who have we been listening to and for what purpose?
[5:45]
One of the realities brought home to me working with aboriginal people a number of years ago was trying to ask them to help me understand their point of view and concerns in life. One of the ways I had been trained to do that was to ask questions in order that they might answer my query, which was sincerely expressed. One of the things that I discovered was that I didn't know the questions to ask that were relevant. I didn't know, and they couldn't tell me. They couldn't answer my questions, because the questions were irrelevant.
We have to enter into dialogue in a different way. And we did say -- and I say "we" because all the parties who were campaigning said it -- that health and education were priorities: health, education, safety and balancing our budget. All of the parties said that. The people who listened shook their heads and said: "You're all saying the same thing." It became a question of whether they would believe any of us, or not.
The reality is that they're becoming less able to believe as the years go on. Particularly as a result of this budget and what's come since, the problem has increased, because they were promised that they would have new schools, new hospitals and new opportunities, and now they're all on hold. I know that we say that they're only temporarily on hold, but six months or a year in the lives of many people means that their opportunities are gone. It's too late for them. A year, two years or three years down the road, they'll no longer be here. They'll no longer have had the opportunity, and the money they saved to make use of those facilities will have been dissipated in the waiting.
False promises and delayed promises are no promise at all, regardless of how we want to say it. I've been talking to some of the persons who, with reluctance -- some with excite-
[ Page 147 ]
ment -- got involved in the process of regionalization of health care in our communities. I've attended the local community health council meetings, and I get the minutes regularly. People have worked hard and diligently and faithfully to try to make it a success whether they agreed with it or not, because that seemed to be the way we're going. And then they heard just recently that it's all on hold, and they're in the waiting period once more.
Well, hon. Speaker, if you're flying in a jet and they put you on hold above the airport, you can only stay up there so long; then it's curtains and it's all out. There's a fear and an uncertainty because halfway down the road the map's changed. The road's done away with, and people are left high and dry. Pardon the mixed metaphors.
An Hon. Member: No more mixed metaphors.
V. Anderson: At least I realize what they are now.
I mentioned the children earlier. In the budget we talk about health and education, but we talk about education and health primarily for young people once they start school. But in those five years before they start school, the format of their lives is already dictated. Many of our young people don't have the proper opportunity to get ready to go to school, so they carry the difficulties with them through the whole of their lives.
We have said that we are going to change our ways, that we are going to have a new ministry that deals with children. And we have all said somewhat the same thing, although we might vary in details. But our people have been hearing for so long that it's going to be. It's almost become a catchphrase: "It's going to be, it's going to be." And people want to know: when is it really coming, in reality? These children going through the first five years of their lives are "going to be" through those years before any of these things happen. The difficulties and inadequacies of health and education that poverty brings upon them will be with them for the rest of their lives, and all of the other work to try to catch up will never be able to put right what we -- and I say "we" collectively -- have allowed to go wrong.
Is education and health care really going to be available to our children from the very conception of their lives until they get the opportunity to go to school? We had the Gove report. The Gove report pointed out to us quite clearly and plainly where we had missed out in protecting and caring for, and even collectively loving, the children of our province.
In this budget we talk about eliminating 2,200 positions from the public service this year. It seems strange that over the last number of years we've added and added, and we haven't learned to eliminate. How can we have any trust that we'll be eliminating in the future?
One of the realities of the Gove report was to point out that the reorganizing of government at the top does not solve the problem. We have to look at the front lines, not at the bureaucracy. We have to look at the front lines first of all, where people meet and interrelate with each other. Start from there to rebuild, not in our government at the top level.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Oh, that has to be done, but the planning has to begin in the other direction.
I want to commend the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine for his presentation the other day on the budget, for pointing out to us that social and economic development is needed that helps to build and maintain pride and esteem within our people.
Our budget is very glib in its words; it's very general in its undertaking. But for the youth on the street it has nothing to say. For families in distress it has nothing to say. For children in despair, who are frightened by the world in which they live, it has nothing to say.
It has a priority for protecting and creating jobs, but jobs are lost and are not available. It talks about new jobs in the forestry sector in partnership with industry, but where do we find the consultations that have gone on with the industry to make those jobs a reality?
It talks about summer jobs for students and young people, but we've had summer jobs every year, as long as I can remember. However, when I was a student, you could earn enough in the summer to pay for your education in the winter. You can no longer do that. Our young people fail to have the opportunities that we had.
I had one young fellow come to me at the end of July, when I was working out front on the lawn. He asked: "Is there a job available?" He was an aboriginal young person who had spent May, June and July -- three months, every day -- job-hunting because he wanted to go back to university that fall. This was the end of July, and he had still not found a job.
Hon. Speaker, that same person would be in the same situation today, because things have not improved. The summer jobs are still a rerun of what we've always had. They're not any different; they're not any better. To say they are is a deception not only to the people out there, but to ourselves. I think that's too bad for all of us.
We've heard a great deal in this Legislature about moving to meet the needs of persons with disabilities -- both mental and physical disabilities. There is no mention of those persons within this budget. Just three weeks ago I met with the people on guardianship who worked hard to help to pass through this Legislature -- almost two years ago now -- new guardianship legislation. It's still not proclaimed. They're still not able to get regulations worked out that make it feasible and possible.
The budget, I would say, does not meet the needs of a good portion of our population, and I think we need to face that when we're talking about other aspects of our life here together.
In conclusion, I would
V. Anderson moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.