(Hansard)
Morning
Volume 1, Number 8
[ Page 149 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of business done in pursuance to the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House for the Special Committee of Selection to meet this morning.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call budget debate.
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Transportation
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, thank you.
The Speaker: I should point out, members, that I wasn't questioning whether it was Transportation and Highways, but rather whether this was in fact the first speaker.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand here today in support of this budget, a budget that delivers on our major election promises and on what British Columbians told us their priorities were. They told us that they were concerned about the tax dollars being spent wisely. They were concerned about rising costs and the shrinking dollars that they have in their pockets. They were concerned about the cost of government, but they did not want to see B.C. become another Alberta or another Ontario, and they clearly rejected the Ralph Klein vision for British Columbia. British Columbians wanted health care and education protected. They did not want to see those services reduced so that they could give tax breaks to the wealthy or to the large corporations.
When I was out there on the hustings and going door to door, I told constituents that I would love to give them the tax breaks that the Liberals were promising them. I would love to give those types of tax breaks, but we couldn't do so without severely jeopardizing health care and education for our families. It's not possible to protect those services and to promise the huge tax breaks that were being promised by the Liberals during the election. What we did promise, and what I promised, was that we would give modest tax breaks to the middle-income earners and to the small business people.
This budget delivers on that promise. As of July 1, the personal income tax rate is reduced by 1 percent for those earning up to $80,000. That's not a huge amount. It is a small amount, but it is in keeping with this budget, which is protecting health care and education. To do other than that would be irresponsible and not in keeping with the promises we've given.
Hon. Speaker, this budget also says that in 1997 there will be another 1 percent reduction in personal income taxes for middle-income earners -- something that I'm proud of, and something that I think this entire side of the House really stands for. All individuals and families see their taxes frozen until the year 2000. ICBC rates have been frozen, Hydro rates have been frozen, tuition fees have been frozen, and this is saving the average family income about $500 a year. Again, it's not a huge amount, but it's a start. It's something that the average taxpayer out there is willing to see and willing to accept, because they know that we're doing so in order to protect health and education. We listened to the people we spoke to, not with the radical cuts that are coming from Alberta or Ontario, but with a planned budget that recognizes that we need to continue to invest in our people and in health care and in education. And we did so knowing that we are not going to hurt our families.
The reasoned cuts that we have here protect the people's choices, protects what they are saying is important to them. It's keeping money in their pockets. Education and health care are our priorities, and they have been protected in this budget.
Students across this province were worried about their future. They had every justification to be worried, because the federal government's cuts were severely impacting everything around here. Health and education could have been severely reduced due to the cuts that were coming from the federal government, but this Premier and this government chose to protect those services. They did so with a freeze in tuition fees, something that students across this province applauded. There was tremendous fear out there as to what the future was going to be for all those students -- incredible fear because they did not know what type of increases they were facing. We have put a freeze on tuition fees, which means that education is still available to everybody in this province -- and not only available to the few wealthy over there that I'm sure the other side of the House would have had this available for.
We need to compete with the world in education. We need to make sure that our students are out there and can compete on worldwide markets. We can only do that by continuing to invest in our students through investing in education, and we are doing so throughout this province. We did not abandon the students of this province, as has happened in other areas. Not only did we put a freeze on tuition but we also increased by $27 million the moneys that are going to universities and colleges.
A tuition freeze is one part of our commitment to students. Last term we met our commitment to the people of the north with UNBC, something that we are very proud of and something that has made a tremendous change to our region. My region, the northern half of the province, or the central half of the province -- my colleague from the North Peace is not here to advise me that we are not the north -- had the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education of any region. That has changed. That has changed because we invested in UNBC, because we put money into our students, because we put money into the north, and now we are seeing our participation rate in post-secondary education increasing every year. UNBC has changed what happened in the interior before.
We've kept our commitment not just to the universities but also to colleges, because colleges are a very important part of our whole education system. In Prince George, again, we had a decrepit, old system, with trailers that were literally falling down. They were leaking and were a terrible eyesore
[ Page 150 ]
and of absolutely no use to that institution. We now see the expansion of CNC taking place, and that is something I think we are all very proud of. So it's not just that we have frozen tuition fees; it's not just that we have given universities and colleges more money. We have actually invested in structures that are providing spaces for students.
When we were first elected in 1991, there were huge waiting lists -- incredible waiting lists -- for people to get into university throughout this province. We have created more spaces for students than ever before in this province -- no more waiting to get into universities and colleges.
[10:15]
We have also protected health care. Despite cuts from the federal government, we have maintained and increased dollars for health: $6.8 billion, a 2.5 percent increase in health care, which is presented in this budget. That is something we can all be proud of, and something that everybody on this side of the House really stands for. Health and education have been protected in this budget. That's what British Columbians said was important to them.
They also said they wanted some tax breaks for small business, and that's what we did. On July 1, the income tax rate for small business was decreased 10 percent. Eligible businesses which are incorporated after May 1, 1996, and before March 20, 2001, will receive a two-year tax freeze. That's good news for the small businesses out there and for the new people who are looking to create small businesses. As you know, small businesses are some of the economic drivers of our communities and create many jobs out there. So this is good news for the small business people, the middle-class people, education and health care, and I'm proud of what we've done in this budget.
During the election the opposition promised that they were going to sell B.C. Rail. Well, they misjudged the people of this province, because the people responded -- in my area, particularly -- very loudly, saying: "We do not want to see B.C. Rail sold." Those who live along this line know the importance of B.C. Rail to us. They know that it has opened up the north, that it's an important economic driver for their communities and that this is something that should not be sold to the highest bidder. B.C. Rail has been making money in the past while. I ask you: who out there would want to sell something that is actually making money -- and which one of your supporters over there actually wants to buy it so that they can make money off the backs of the people of British Columbia?
I'm proud that we have made a commitment to maintain B.C. Rail, and I'm proud that it will remain in the north to service the north because this government has said so.
British Columbians told us that they were concerned about the debt, and the people over there certainly made the debt an issue, as did all the newspapers and many individuals out there. Because they said that, we listened to them, and we have instituted a freeze on all capital projects for five months. That's not something that I particularly like to see. I'd very much like to proceed with all those capital projects, but I do not have a problem with sitting back and waiting for five months for the assessments of the projects that are there, to make sure they are reviewed and that each and every project that government money is spent on is a priority -- that they're required and they're essential. Some may go ahead immediately, some may not go ahead until later on, but they will be assessed taking into consideration the people's priorities.
I always find it amazing. Suddenly these people's projects become the ones that must proceed because theirs are the only ones that have a priority. It is also amazing, isn't it, that suddenly the debt doesn't matter. I've had individuals come up to me and say: "What about my highway?" They don't care about the money. They don't care how much money it costs. "What about my highway? What about my particular hospital? What about the bridge? What about these things here?"
They never connect to it that their particular project also increases the debt or does any of those things. We are assessing those things. That's good government, and that's what all governments should do: assess what's taking place, recognize that the people have spoken, recognize that there's concern about the debt out there, and make sure that those that take place are priorities for government and are absolutely essential. The dollars that are there will be spent, and they will be spent on the essential services for British Columbians.
I don't have a problem defending my particular projects with the government, and I can assure you that I will be there to make sure government recognizes that my projects are important. I assume that all the members would be doing the same thing and that they won't criticize when those dollars are spent on their projects.
This year is not going to be an easy one for government. We have some real challenges to meet in making our budgets. We all recognize those things, but they have been challenges that have been taken on every year. Every year, government has to make certain choices; it has to meet the challenges of coming in with a budget that meets those commitments. But we will keep our commitment to give low-income families the family bonuses. We have kept our commitment to reduce taxes. We will protect health and education. It won't be easy, but we will keep our commitments to those people.
We promised to give breaks to the middle-income family. A government budget is a sign of what that government stands for. Government after government has shifted the burden from corporations and the wealthy to the middle-income earners. It has happened at the federal level, in government after government; it has happened at the provincial level across this country. There are large corporations in this country that pay no income taxes. There are wealthy people who pay no income taxes. How does the federal government respond to this? Not with filling in those loopholes. Not with making various things so that there is a fair taxation law. They do it by cutting health and education. That shows whose side they're on, and this budget shows whose side we are on.
The working man and woman out there know that this budget reflects their priority. This budget shows clearly that this government is on their side. There are no giveaways to large corporations; there are no tax breaks for the wealthy; there is no privatized health care. This budget does give middle-income earners a tax break. It does protect services to your family and my family, and it does show whose side we're on. I'm very proud to stand here and defend this budget, and I think the people of British Columbia will also recognize that this is a budget that reflects their priorities.
J. Smallwood: As it is the first time and the first opportunity I've had to speak in the Legislature this session, I'd like to add my voice of congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, on your new post and to all members of this House on their election and the responsibility that they carry in representing their constituents.
It's been a very interesting number of months. The election in this province saw the return, for the first time in the history of this province, of an NDP government. I think that
[ Page 151 ]
for many of us, not only do we feel the weight of that responsibility but the privilege that has been bestowed upon us by the people of this province. Thirty-nine constituencies -- neighbourhoods and communities -- around this province decided that their best interests were served by electing an NDP representative. It has been those decisions in 39 constituencies that would see our members representing their interests and ensuring that they have a government on their side.
I think it's important for us all to reflect not only on the election, when debating the budget, but also on this budget and its context in history. Many of us spoke of that history during the election, reflecting on the fact that much that made us Canadian was at risk.
I also reflect now, sitting in this House, on the Liberals across the way. I think about the number of new members who have joined this House and the things they must be thinking of. Some of those people who have been elected are, I know, true Liberals. The conflict that they will feel in the days to come in their own caucus, in learning how to conduct themselves not only in their caucus but in the House, and the pressures that are brought to bear, knowing the grand history of the Liberal governments in the past, both federally and -- I'd like to say provincially, but more to the point
Now to find themselves in the conflict of a national Liberal government undermining and indeed gutting those things that made us Canadians, the conflict that those members must feel in this House and through the election of their leader standing up and talking about tax breaks for
Interjections.
J. Smallwood: I hear the chant across the way by all the new Liberals saying: "Well, it's the corporations that create the jobs." Check reality. It has not been the corporations that have created the jobs. It has been the corporations and the elite they represent that have eliminated jobs, that have downsized and created the unemployment we're facing across Canada. It has been the leadership provided by an NDP government that has ensured that this province has the strongest economy of any province in Canada.
It must be a tremendous conflict for the true Liberals in that caucus to have to deal with a leader who talks about cutting the cost of government on the backs of the poor. It was $470 for a single person on welfare that was the promise of that party and the leader of the so-called Liberal-Socred coalition that has been elected to represent the opposition. It must have been appalling for you to have to face the reality of the leader of your party opposing a minimum wage for the huge numbers of individuals who are trying to support their families and pay their rent and buy food for their children. It must be a true conflict for all of you. My sympathies go out to you in trying to deal with the number of days in your caucus and those real contradictions that you must all face.
This is an interesting time in government, and it's a real challenge. Most of the pundits have recognized the fact that here in British Columbia the second-term NDP government is bucking the tide. It has stood up against all that you said you were as the neoconservatives-slash-liberals in the election. We have stood up against the tide of what we have seen in Ottawa, with the slashing and cutting of all that is Canadian. We've stood up against the tide of the Albertans and of the Ontario neoconservatives. We have said clearly that it is faulty to balance the budget on the back of the future of our children. I want to point out the lie when I hear the number of members on the opposition side talk about the debt in the context of our children's future, because it truly is a lie.
[10:30]
When members on the opposition side talk about the debt -- and they talk about cutting government, child-protection workers, environmental conservation officers and a number of preventive programs with respect to the preservation of safe communities -- the lie is there, because what they are saying is that they're all right, that they can buy private education and private health care and that they represent the privileged. Well, hon. members, the reality is that the majority of British Columbians rely on government services. It is government services that give our children a future and an opportunity to grow up and stand as equals to those whom you represent: those privileged and select few who can pay for the services and who don't need the equality that public services provide.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
The reality is that our party, in standing on the side of the average British Columbian, represents the public good. It is clear that your party -- and it was clear in the election -- represents private privilege and the opportunities for individuals with private privilege to perpetuate the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude. It will be an interesting session to see your caucus try to deal with the conflict between the real Liberals -- the Liberals that care about social policy -- and the right-wing Socreds that have infiltrated your party.
It's important for us to recognize not only that 39 constituencies -- communities and neighbourhoods -- understood whose interests were represented by the New Democrats and subsequently returned 39 members to this Legislature to ensure that their interests were represented, the interests of the public and the interests of the broad communities and
Our government recognizes the challenge that is presented: the challenge of not only bucking that conservative tide but of trying to find the answers. It's not going to be easy. This budget represents our best attempt to deal with that balance and ensure that the interests of the public are preserved, while struggling with the dwindling resources brought about not only by the cutting of those programs and the betrayal of that promise that has made Canada great but also by the downloading of the national debt, a debt that was created not by the public good but by private greed -- and that is the truth. For us to strive as a government not only to buck that tide but to ensure that those programs are funded will be a real challenge. Let me speak about that challenge.
One of the realities that I think we all will accept is that while those programs have created the standard of living and the great country that is Canada, the reality for all of us is to find a way to ensure that those programs can continue and that we can find ways of finding them. It is a truism when average taxpayers say that they can no longer support the
[ Page 152 ]
weight of those programs alone. When the opposition talks about the corporations that create the jobs -- and it was for those corporations that they were going to give tax
During the election many of the members of the opposition talked
Interjection.
J. Smallwood: The member says: "Truth in budgeting." Then let's talk about the budgeting of provinces and the national government, and about those values that the opposition purports to represent: the interests of business and of ensuring that government is run like a business.
Many opposition members have spoken out of both sides of their mouths, talking about stopping the funding and the investment in communities and at the same time calling for continued spending on programs and on capital alike.
For governments in general, I think it's important for all of us to challenge the way governments have kept their books and the way governments have delivered services, and we're doing that. We're looking at each and every program to ensure that the programs are delivered in the most efficient, effective and accountable way to the people who pay for them. We're also looking at the way governments keep their books, because traditionally governments have not kept their books in a very businesslike fashion.
Let me speak directly to that. Governments have kept their books in a national accounting method, not only here in Canada but in most industrialized countries, that shows expenditures and does not have, as businesses would or as most of us would, another side to the balance sheet that also shows assets. For all of us to be able to measure the standard of living and the quality of life -- not only here in British Columbia, but with national governments -- it is essential for us to challenge that way of keeping our books. I think it's essential for us to insist that our common assets be shown as prominently on the other side of the ledger.
When you look at Canada as a country and particularly at British Columbia as a province, by comparison with our neighbours to the south we are a rich and wealthy country and a rich and wealthy province. That wealth is not only private wealth; it is public wealth as well. The World Bank says that we are the second-wealthiest country in the world. As we start to look at accounting procedures and challenge ourselves as governments to keep that other side of the ledger in order to ensure that we account for our public assets and show that wealth, it will serve us well for companies that come to invest in British Columbia, for our international trade and for our international position. People of the world will see the wealth and the strength of this province and understand that the quality of life is worth preserving.
It is that investment and that foresight that our government represents, and that confidence was reflected in the election returning 39 members representing 39 communities that clearly understood that it was on their side and in their best interests that this government continue to struggle with that paradox in British Columbia. We continue to struggle against that tide of neoconservatism that your party represented -- that lockstep with Ottawa and that betrayal of the Canadian promise, of communities, of the standard of living and of the public interest.
I stand with considerable pride to represent my constituency. I thank my constituents for their vote of confidence, and thank all of the volunteers and activists that were part of a very pleasant campaign. I thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this House, and I wish the opposition and the true Liberals well, because in this House we will need true Liberals to stand up with us against the tide of neoconservatism.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Surrey-Whalley, and now recognize the hon. member for Delta North.
R. Masi: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I also would like to congratulate you on your election to the position of Deputy Speaker of the House. I have the greatest confidence that you will perform your functions as Deputy Speaker well and be a credit to the House as a firm defender of the traditions of fairness and equity.
It is for me an honour and a privilege to represent the people of Delta North, and it is with great respect that I follow the first elected member for Delta North, Mr. Norm Lortie, who served our community of Delta well, both as a municipal councillor and an MLA. The constituency of Delta North, which could be described as a typical suburban neighbourhood, is actually unique because of its long and historical association with fishing, boatbuilding and the lumber mills located along the Fraser River.
The historical community of Annieville, located along the banks of the Fraser River, is representative of North Delta's affinity and long association with the river and the last surviving wetland. This close and historical association helps explain the deep concern that the constituents of Delta North have for environmental issues.
One of the major environmental concerns of my constituents is Burns Bog. Burns Bog is a peat bog of 10,000 acres, which covers approximately one-quarter of the land mass of the municipality of Delta. These wetlands, often called the lungs of the lower mainland, are at the present time under assault and are being gradually eroded by the Vancouver landfill as well as by private landfills. The Speech from the Throne indicates that the government will work to complete the protected-areas strategy. I know the people of North Delta have very high expectations that this government, after long delays of more than 20 years, will move quickly in cooperation with the municipality and the GVRD to ensure that Burns Bog be designated as a protected area.
As well as environmental issues, the people of Delta North are faced with a growing and serious commuter traffic problem. Sandwiched between Vancouver and the quickly growing population centres in Surrey, Langley and the Fraser Valley, the residents of Delta North find their streets overcrowded with commuter traffic. This situation is largely due to the inaction of this government in completing the half-finished NorDel extension, and the delays in moving on the south perimeter highway. The completion of these two vital projects will assist in the removal of commuter traffic from the neighbourhood streets of North Delta and move the heavy truck traffic to the south perimeter road, which is designed to link up the Trans-Canada Highway through Surrey and on to the Tsawwassen terminal. In my opinion, these are two projects of extreme urgency that should not be pushed to the back burner but pursued with vigour by the Minister of Highways.
[ Page 153 ]
I am pleased to see in the budget the government's commitment to safer communities. Like many suburban communities, Delta North has experienced a rise in property crimes and general vandalism. I would propose to the Attorney General that additional support be given to local police forces by the return of a percentage of moving-traffic fines to the municipality in which they are collected. These funds should then be directed to community policing, crime prevention programs and youth programs, in order to deal with the root cause of vandalism, youth excesses and property crimes.
However, as I mentioned earlier, I am proud to represent the constituents of Delta North, and I would like to comment on some of the more positive aspects of the constituency. The strength of Delta North lies in its outstanding community spirit and its dedication to the many diverse activities and organizations which represent the community, the first of which are the minor sports organizations. The people of North Delta are solidly committed to a highly visible program of minor sports and athletics, which has produced many outstanding athletes who have pursued excellent careers by means of the attainment of athletic scholarships.
As well, the constituency of Delta North is strong in its support of cultural diversity, as represented by the steady growth in attraction of the Punjabi market located at the north end of Scott Road.
[10:45]
These organizations, as well as the many service clubs, business organizations, churches, ratepayers' groups and youth groups, together make North Delta a vigorous, active community with a longstanding tradition of people involvement.
I have some comments on the provincial school district amalgamation policy. I would like to commend the former Ministers of Education for their initiatives toward school district amalgamation. I believe this direction is the appropriate direction for the future. However, I seriously question the process and the motivation involved in the implementation of this policy. Did the policy of amalgamation include a process of consultation with each school district related to real cost saving? Were the problems of communications and interactions really considered for the interior of the province? And why were the obvious lower mainland school districts, such as New Westminster, North Vancouver and West Vancouver, left out of the process?
I must ask: was amalgamation simply a knee-jerk reaction to the charge of "too much administration," and just a fa�ade of effecting efficiencies? I hope not, because we should not be experimenting with our children's future, nor should we disrupt and destabilize the education system. Change must be based on sound educational principles and thought. Amalgamation, if properly implemented, could and should bring about a different approach to educational administration by returning the focus of administration and governance back to the school itself.
Large districts should not necessarily create large bureaucracies. School-based management principles can effectively be applied in large districts, with a resulting increase in parent and community participation. I hope the new minister will seriously consider a hard and in-depth look at reversing the trend to larger and larger district administrations, and return the focus of education to the schools. Amalgamation could be an effective vehicle to bring about this necessary and valuable change.
On another note, the Minister of Finance indicated that the government would be committed to protecting education by finding savings in other areas. This is a most commendable objective. However, with his first major public announcement, the minister has backtracked on his promise to protect education by announcing a freeze on many school construction projects throughout the province. This is a sad state of affairs, when a government which had built up so much hope during the last election campaign rudely pulls the plug on the needs of so many of our students. These same students will now be subjected to many more months of instruction in second-rate facilities. I believe, and I believe strongly, that the children of British Columbia are first-rate and deserve first-rate facilities. Let us hope that this government will show the courage to change in its approach to the debt situation and look at effecting savings in less critical areas than education.
I observe that the Ministry of Education has been given a modest increase in funding for the 1996-97 year. I have no objection to this increase. On the contrary, it was my understanding that protecting education would result in a more generous application of funding to this ministry.
However, as a former educator and a longtime high school principal, I have some concerns regarding the philosophic stance of the ministry in relation to the outcome of our educational programs and the expectations of our students. While we as educators in British Columbia do a fine job in preparing those students who are bound for universities or the technological institutes, we must ask ourselves the question: how do we serve the majority of our students? How do we serve those students who cannot meet the stringent requirements of entrance to a university, a college or an institute of technology?
The answer is very clear: we do not serve them well. We insist on requiring the majority of students in British Columbia to take courses that have no relevance to their lives or to their aspirations, all in the name of academic standards. Obviously, standards are important in education, but unrealistic, unattainable objectives simply add to the frustrations of many of our students, especially those who wish a more directed program specifically related to a skill, a trade or a definite career path. As a result, the school system has a much lower rate of grade 12 completions than is necessary or even acceptable.
I believe it is time for a philosophic shift in our education system that would place skills training on an equal footing in terms of social acceptance and prestige. The need for skilled tradespeople in British Columbia has never been greater, yet the youth unemployment rate has never been higher. We must face the reality that there can only be so many so-called professionals in our society. The problem is that the majority of parents cling to the idea that somehow a technical education is second-class, and they have not supported it.
They may be correct in their assumption, given the present state and status of technical programs. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Education to pay more than lip service to the establishment of technical and technological programs at the secondary school level that are fully integrated with the community college and apprenticeship programs. It should not be beyond the realm of possibilities that freestanding secondary-level technical schools be established which offer the latest in technological advances, combined with the appropriate supporting academic courses. Parents and students, the educational clients, are demanding more choices from our educational system, more results from the
[ Page 154 ]
system, and that students be better prepared to face the difficult challenges of rapid change brought about by the technological revolution and the information age.
There is no lack of will from the educators in the field. There is only a lack of direction and a lack of determination from those in leadership positions who are charged with bringing education into the twenty-first century.
In terms of national issues, I commend the government for its position on the elimination of duplication and overlaps between federal and provincial jurisdictions, but I question the tactics of making B.C. the bad boy of Confederation. This tactic appears to be a throwback to the W.A.C. Bennett era, which in historical terms accomplished very little in relation to national unity. A more prudent approach based on a position of strength and the enunciation of clear principles, which we in this great province can surely demonstrate, would in my opinion accomplish much more towards the goal of national unity and improved federal-provincial relationships.
Hon. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by saying that I'm impressed, very impressed, by the talent and the energy of the members on both sides of the House. I hope that the government will make good use of these talents for the betterment of all people of British Columbia.
G. Abbott: It certainly gives me great pleasure to rise and join in this debate. I've long been fascinated by the political history of this province, and it feels rather magical to have the honour of being a member of this assembly. I feel particularly honoured in being the first Liberal elected in Shuswap since the riding was created in 1924. I'm certainly going to work hard to justify the confidence that my constituents have shown in me. With luck and hard work, I'm sure we can retain this seat for another 75 years.
I would like to first of all extend my congratulations to you, hon. Speaker. Everything I have seen and heard in my very brief tenure here certainly confirms that this House made a wise choice in calling upon you to fill your distinguished office. One of the very first Speakers of this assembly, J.A. Mara, was from what is today the Shuswap constituency. I hope that you, like Speaker Mara, do such a fine job that they name one of the province's most beautiful lakes after you. Personally, I think that given some recent events, you should hold out for a natural lake as opposed to a man-made lake, but surely I am projecting too far into the future.
At this time, I would also like to acknowledge the many kindnesses that you, hon. Speaker, as well as legislative staff and officials, have shown to new members. These kindnesses have certainly been much appreciated. As this is my first official speech in the Legislature, I would like to briefly share with other hon. members a few words about the constituency which I am so very proud to represent here.
I had the good fortune to be born and raised in the Shuswap, and to live most of my life there. From my perspective, there is no finer place to grow up, work, raise a family or retire in than the Shuswap. The Shuswap has provided me with a wonderful life, and I intend to work very hard as a member of this Legislature to reward my constituents for the great honour they have extended to me by electing me to represent them here.
The Shuswap is so rich in natural beauty and history that I can only provide a superficial description in the short time I have here. The Eagle Pass in the Eagle Valley, site of the Last Spike in the transcontinental railway, forms the eastern boundary of my constituency. At the mouth of the Eagle River is Sicamous, a community which I have been proud to call home throughout my life. Sicamous is the gateway to Mara Lake and Shuswap Lake, two of the most beautiful lakes in this province.
A little further to the west is Salmon Arm, appropriately termed the Gem of the Shuswap, a thriving municipality which forms the hub of much of the commercial and industrial activity in the Shuswap. The community of Sorrento on the main arm of Shuswap Lake, the village of Chase on Little Shuswap Lake and the community of Pritchard along the Thompson River valley form the picturesque eastern end of my riding.
The communities of the North Shuswap form the northern edge of my riding. The North Shuswap, as I am sure most members are aware, is home to one of the great marvels of the natural world: the Adams River salmon run, a resource we are all most anxious to protect. To the south of Shuswap Lake is the north end of the Okanagan Valley. Here one will find the city of Enderby, a community rich in history and one of the first in B.C. to incorporate as a city, back in 1905. A little further south are the municipalities of Armstrong and Spallumcheen -- vigorous and long-established communities where, like in other parts of the riding, the economic emphasis is on forestry and agriculture. To the southwest is the community of Falkland, home of the famous Falkland Stampede.
I would also like to note the rich aboriginal heritage found throughout my constituency. This heritage is reflected in many ways, from the ancient pictographs along the shores of Mara Lake and Shuswap Lake to the elegance of Quaaout Lodge, a facility developed by the Little Shuswap Indian band that provides a unique blend of the traditional and the modern.
A striking natural beauty has long made the Shuswap a favourite tourism destination for British Columbians and western Canadians. The government of Alberta, it is said, could hold its summer cabinet meetings on the shores of Shuswap Lake and Mara Lake. Agriculture has also been a economic mainstay in the Shuswap and North Okanagan for over a century. Farming has never been easy, and I think that government, through taxation and overregulation, has made it more difficult to survive and succeed. I think it is very much a tribute to the hard work and persistence of the farming community that it remains a vital part of the economy today.
The backbone of the Shuswap economy is forestry. Without a healthy and vibrant forest sector, we cannot hope to survive and prosper. We have, I think, a good mix of large and small lumber plants and plywood manufacturers, as well as value-added wood manufacturers. Unfortunately, the biggest threat to the forest sector is, once again, the oppressive hand of government. Nobody in the forest sector takes comfort or hope from this government's claim that it will create many thousands of new forest jobs through expansion of the value-added sector.
Hon. D. Miller: Want to bet?
G. Abbott: Yes, I would.
People in the forest sector are well aware that you do not create long-term, sustainable jobs by edict from Victoria. As the Leader of the Official Opposition correctly pointed out, there are different types of forests across this province. There
[ Page 155 ]
are even different types of forests within my riding. Attempting to impose a simplistic, ideologically driven model of forest management onto this province will only serve to undermine its most important industry. Artificial quotas, in combination with the already heavy hand of government, will be a disaster to the forest industry.
No enterprise, value-added or otherwise, exists in a vacuum. It needs raw materials, it needs skilled labour and it needs markets. The government may be able to manipulate the first two elements through its treatment of traditional lumber manufacturers, but it can do little to create demand where none exists. We are fortunate to have quite a number of value-added plants in the Shuswap constituency. There are at least three major threats to their health and survival: (1) the backlog in the Ministry of Forests small business program; (2) inordinate delays in accessing timber as a result of some provisions in the Forest Practices Code; and (3) the imposition of a ban on burning wood waste without first putting in place a realistic and viable alternative.
[11:00]
With regard to the latter concern, I must underline the distress this has caused to forest operators in my constituency. These operators had been looking forward to the development of a cogeneration plant at Kamloops to dispose of their waste, but B.C. Hydro has dashed those hopes by dropping Kamloops from their project list. This lack of coordination in government policy is appalling.
Let me quote briefly from a letter from Mr. Simon de Boer, who is the chairman of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. Let me just quote him in this regard from a letter of June 26, 1996, which notes:
"...the regional district's very serious concerns with the provincial government's imposition of very stringent wood-waste burning regulations without taking responsibility for the impacts created by its regulations.
"This matter, once again, has come before the board when information was received from B.C. Hydro reporting on the results of its recent search for alternate sources of electrical power. My board was apprised by B.C. Hydro that its shortlist of potential electrical suppliers includes four hydroelectric proposals, three natural gas proposals and three wood residue proposals.
"My board was disappointed that this opportunity was not utilized by the provincial government or its Crown corporation to achieve multiple objectives, rather than the single purpose of identifying alternate sources of electrical generation. My board feels this was an excellent opportunity, firstly, to have sought a cogeneration alternative which would have complemented the provincial government's regulatory initiative concerning wood-waste burning, and secondly, to have achieved a viable alternative electrical generator."
Let me say, hon. Speaker, in all sincerity, that I would be more than pleased to work with the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment to help resolve this unfortunate situation. Everyone would like to see more forest jobs; everyone would like to see more value-added plants. But we also need to do what we can to protect the plants and jobs that exist today.
I intend to work very vigorously as MLA for Shuswap toward the resolution of challenges that face my constituency. I would like to highlight a few of these.
First, a dispute in the summer of 1995 disrupted access by people at Adams Lake, causing not only grave upset in their lives but also very substantial losses in property values. I don't propose to pass judgment on this complex and troubling situation. I believe we should work in a non-partisan and non-controversial way toward improving the situation there. In particular, as a short-term measure, I would like to see substantial improvements in the ferry service at Adams Lake. That, I think, is the least the people of Adams Lake should hope and expect from this government.
Second, in late May of this year some serious property damage occurred in the village of Chase and in the adjacent electoral area of the Thompson-Nicola regional district as a result of the flash-flooding of Chase Creek. I hope the government is prepared to respond in a substantial way to the need to develop more protective works along this creek, perhaps through a reactivation of the riverbank protection assistance program or some comparable program. Again, I look forward to working with the Minister of Environment toward the resolution of a situation which is causing deep anxiety among some of my constituents.
Third, people in the North and West Shuswap are deeply concerned with the deterioration of ambulance services in their areas. I was recently in receipt of a copy of a petition containing 1,299 signatures protesting this deterioration. Ambulance service is a vital part of health care, and people in the North and West Shuswap certainly have every right to expect better in this regard than they've been getting. In some cases, people may have to wait up to one, two or three hours for ambulance service.
In the last election, B.C. Liberals argued that the key to protecting vital services like health was streamlining and simplifying government. Hopefully the government will listen to the pleas of my constituents and of people throughout this province, and ensure that all British Columbians receive a reasonable and adequate level of ambulance service.
People are also very concerned about the need for improvements to highways in a number of areas in the Shuswap. Major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway have long been promised at Three Valley Gap and between Sicamous and Salmon Arm. Fulfilment of these promises is certainly no closer today than it was before the throne speech and budget were delivered. These are some of the problems that occur when a government fails to follow through on its promises.
In a similar vein, I must point out yet another commitment which the province is falling short on and which is causing much concern to the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the Okanagan Basin water board and others. These jurisdictions signed a cost-sharing agreement with the province for Eurasian milfoil water control in 1994, an agreement which was to provide $450,000 annually in provincial funding. Regrettably, only two years into this agreement, the province is proposing to reduce its contribution from $450,000 per year to $340,000 per year in the coming year. This will severely impair the program. If the government is not prepared to restore funding in the current year, I certainly hope they will in subsequent years.
My constituents also have concerns with respect to school district amalgamation and health regionalization. I look forward to addressing these issues in a detailed way during our consideration of estimates.
Before concluding, hon. Speaker, I would also like to offer some general comments on the budget speech. Certainly, as others have noted, it is a most disappointing and uninspiring piece of work. The most prominent theme is federal- government-bashing, a device obviously geared to deflect attention away from the sorry performance of the current provincial government. There are faint echoes of B.C. Liberal themes such as streamlining government in order to protect
[ Page 156 ]
key services. These echoes, again, are an obvious attempt to capture some of the ground which provided my party with the largest percentage of the popular vote in the recent election. Unfortunately, this government lacks the courage for real and substantial change. The kindest adjective I can use to describe this speech is "insipid." It sets the stage for a government which is just about to step back from many of the promises it made so unequivocally during the last election. It sets the stage for a government that says one thing before the election, then does something else after.
If this government was serious about putting this province's financial house in order, it would start by terminating the fixed-wage accords that have cost this province hundreds of millions of dollars over the past four years. How many schools, how many hospitals, could have been built by the money squandered by these accords? Many, hon. Speaker, in your riding and mine. The accords won't be terminated, of course, because of the structural links between the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Federation of Labour.
If this government was serious about getting their financial house in order, they would eliminate the regressive corporate capital tax, which has cost this province much new investment and many new jobs. This tax is more than a disincentive to invest; it is a penalty for believing in the potential of British Columbia. It is a flashing neon sign that says: "This province is closed for business."
Most importantly, if this government was serious about financial responsibility, it would take meaningful action against a spiralling debt in this province. This government added over $11 billion in new debt during their last term. Nothing I have seen in the House in recent days gives me any confidence that this government's performance will be improved in their second term.
To conclude, during the interim supply debate a few evenings ago, I noticed that one of the government members across the way was engrossed in a book The End of Work, by Jeremy Rifkin. I do have an eagle eye, obviously, to pick out the author as well as the title. Does the hon. member, I wondered, know something about the vision, direction and purpose of this government, something which outsiders can only suspect? Was the hon. member preparing himself in his own quiet way for the inevitable consequences of the policies of this government? In any event, I certainly look forward to seeing the choice of reading material on the government benches during this debate. I appreciate the frequent reminders of why I'm so proud to be a Liberal member of this Legislature.
G. Plant: I'm honoured to have the opportunity to speak today in this House as the newly elected representative of the constituency of Richmond-Steveston. I want to begin, as others have done, by offering my congratulations to you, hon. Speaker, upon your elevation to one of the most important offices in our system of parliamentary democracy. It is a significant transition to make, from the enthusiastic practice of partisan politics to the position of neutral arbiter of debate in this House. I've already come to appreciate the skill and courtesy that you bring to the discharge of your duties, and I look forward to the continued progress of debate under your supervision.
There are a number of customs associated with the inaugural speech, which I intend to honour. First, I would like to express my gratitude to the voters of Richmond-Steveston for having shown their trust in me. I would also like to express my gratitude to the many hard-working volunteers who made my campaign both successful and a lot of fun. Most of the people who helped my campaign were participating in politics for the first time in their lives. What we learned working together is that with hard work, enthusiasm and a commitment to worthwhile ideals, it is possible to at least begin to make a difference. I hope that I will continue to earn the respect of those who worked with me, as well as the respect of all of the constituents of Richmond-Steveston. I also hope that I will have an opportunity here in my own small way to make a positive difference in the lives of others.
I want to acknowledge the representation provided to the people of Richmond-Steveston by its former representatives, including Harold Steves, who since his time in this House has continued to serve the public as a city councillor in Richmond, and Jim Nielsen, also a former cabinet minister and more recently, among other things, a political commentator, who has decided to move to the sunny Okanagan after many years of life in Richmond. I also want to acknowledge the work of my immediate predecessor, Allan Warnke, who has been and remains a diligent student of politics and the political process. Regardless of party affiliation, I respect the sacrifices that each of these individuals has made in order to serve the public.
This past election marked my first attempt to seek public office, but I was raised by parents who believed in and throughout my childhood actively participated in the political process. They did so always as volunteers, working hard behind the scenes to elect to public office those whose ideals and willingness to serve earned their respect. I learned from my parents that there is no higher calling than public service.
I was fortunate enough to be raised in a time and place when the generations of my parents and their parents were able to construct health care and education systems and other social programs which became the envy of the world, all the while maintaining and enhancing the economic conditions necessary for growth and prosperity. I'm grateful for the opportunities which were provided to me. I'm also mindful of the responsibility which our generation now bears to protect and preserve this legacy for our children and their children. I chose to run for public office because I want to do what I can to preserve this legacy. I believe it is possible to maintain a balance between government's role in providing essential social programs and letting private enterprise create prosperity. But this possibility exists only if we are willing to discard the tired old practice and rhetoric of class division and adopt creative, practical, commonsense solutions to the problems that face us.
[11:15]
Good things come in small packages. My constituency is one of the smallest in the province, but it has splendid ocean views, a busy waterfront, a wonderful village and many active, suburban neighbourhoods. The village of Steveston holds the traditions and memories of a century-old fishing community. It is home to an older generation that remembers when, with hard work, it was possible to earn a decent living from the rivers and the sea. It is also home to a younger generation concerned that the resource which sustained their parents is no longer there to sustain them and their families. This is an issue which requires immediate, continued and persistent attention. My hope is that we can work together to find solutions which depend less on cowboy-style theatrics at first ministers' conferences and more on the hard work of negotiating a compromise of competing interests.
Steveston is also home to the excitement and stress of a growing small business community whose members labour under the burden of excessive regulation and taxes that just
[ Page 157 ]
never seem to quit. These are people who know that tax holidays never last forever and that tax freezes are all too often followed by even steeper rises made necessary to pay for past improvements.
Finally, my constituency contains a large suburban population which experiences the many rewards and challenges of life in a fast-growing area of the lower mainland: a transit system that doesn't move enough people quickly enough to enough of the right places, education in portables instead of schools and health care increasingly lost in the bureaucratic nightmare of a regionalization initiative that isn't working.
There is a special dimension to the population of my constituency: a large and growing population of new Canadians. Earlier this week, on Canada Day, I had the honour of participating, along with my fellow representatives from the other Richmond ridings, in the fifty-first annual Steveston Salmon Festival. The thousands of Canadian flags waving along the parade route were a wonderful demonstration of the love which all Canadians have for their country. But for sheer enthusiasm nothing beats the patriotism which new Canadians bring to the life of my constituency.
But this wave of immigrants has brought with it its own challenges. Among them are the implications for Richmond's school system. A few years ago ESL was required to assist only a few percent of the total student body. Today 42 percent of the students in the Richmond school system are in ESL programs, and if you include those who have been but are no longer enrolled in ESL programs, the number climbs to 50 percent. This is a remarkable transformation of a community. At the risk of sounding naïve, I believe that so far this transformation is, for the most part, a success, but this government has an important role to play in its continued success. Continued support for multicultural initiatives is essential, as is continued emphasis on community youth initiatives. For my part, I am tremendously grateful for the support which I received in my election campaign from Richmond's new Canadians.
I turn, then, to the important question: whether the concerns of my constituents are addressed in the budget which has been introduced by this new government. In the last week of the election campaign I received a telephone call one evening from a gentleman who told me that he had that day visited a heart surgeon for the first time in his life. The surgeon had told him that he had a life-threatening illness and that he required surgery. The doctor also told him that the earliest he could be admitted into hospital for this surgery was November, six months down the road. In the meantime, this gentleman was forced to leave his job for ill health, and because he has no independent means, he will have to apply for social assistance. Needless to say, he was upset and angry. He was upset that his health would remain at risk for many months while he waited for surgery, and he was angry that he would be forced onto social assistance for the first time in his life and that he could no longer be a productive, tax-paying citizen.
So we have an unfortunate irony. Our government needs his tax dollars to pay for health care services, but government's failure to deliver timely health care will in fact deprive it of those tax dollars. What this story says to me is that fundamentally the budget which we are now debating is less about numbers than it is about real people: children who walk through the rain to portable classrooms, sick people who wait anxiously by the telephone for news of when their illness will be treated, commuters waiting for buses and small business owners who stay up late at night worrying their way through government forms. Mr. Speaker, those people are not here in this chamber with us today, but they are the reason for our being here.
If I may respond briefly to something the Minister of Employment and Investment said yesterday, this is not about irresponsible and never-ending demands for luxuries. The ordinary British Columbians who are my constituents understand what it means to have to make ends meet. They know that government is sometimes about hard choices, but they also know when schools are delivering high-quality education and when they are not. They know what it means to be put on a waiting list, and they know that in the final analysis, warehouse accounting and fiscal policy flip-flops cannot hide the truth of overspending, inefficient spending and spending which does not achieve its purpose.
Hon. Speaker, it is ironic that the $235 million which the government lost to bad weather last year is almost enough to pay for the capital projects which it has frozen this week. In my home community of Richmond, the review -- the freeze -- places on hold four significant school renovation projects: the Alberta Street school, Hugh McRoberts Junior Secondary, J.N. Burnett Junior Secondary and R.C. Palmer Junior Secondary. While in the eyes of this government these projects may not have been legally committed, in the lives of the children, parents, teachers and staff who study and work in these aging, overcrowded facilities, these projects were committed in every sense that matters. Promises were made by those who ought to have known whether they could be kept, and now these projects are to be put on hold while, as one of the members opposite said yesterday, the government decides which of them will proceed and which won't. In these circumstances, a promise delayed is a promise broken.
On a different aspects of the capital spending freeze, I cannot help but note with some interest that the 1996-97 project list released last Friday shows the new Sea Island connector crossing as a project which is both legally committed and under review. I have no idea what this means. Perhaps in the mind of the Minister of Finance it is possible to put a project on review and proceed with it at the same time. I hope that this confusion will be clarified in due course.
I turn now to the question of whether I will support this budget. My colleague from Richmond E
Interjections.
G. Plant: Wait for it! My colleague from Richmond East spoke on Tuesday about the important issue of integrity that is raised by this budget and its aftermath. I agree with what she said. During the recent election campaign I knocked on many doors in the neighbourhoods of my constituency. I learned a great deal about the concerns of the ordinary British Columbians who live in my riding: concerns about fiscal responsibility, high taxes, schools, health care and the fishery. But the one concern I heard more often than any other was the question of integrity. Why don't politicians keep their promises? Why should we even bother to vote at all when politicians say one thing before an election and do something different after the election?
Integrity is a precious commodity. Once lost, it can seldom be regained. This government, which by a narrow squeak of good fortune was given a renewed mandate, had a rare opportunity to make a new start and help restore the faith that the people of British Columbia want to have in the democratic process. It has taken less than a week to destroy that opportunity.
[ Page 158 ]
Yet again the voters of this province have been given ample reason to be cynical about the political process and distrustful of its practitioners. The damage I'm speaking of tarnishes all representatives of this House. It tarnishes those backbenchers across the floor from me who want to bring good government to their constituents and now must explain this inexplicable turnabout to them. It tarnishes those of us on this side of the House who also want good government for our constituents and now must, at least for a time, suspend hope that such government might be possible from this administration.
I cannot support this budget. I do not have
I want to say again that I am honoured that the voters of Richmond-Steveston have seen fit to give me the opportunity to serve them in this House, and I hope that I will honour their trust in me over the weeks and months to come.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
P. Calendino: It is with real pride that I rise in this assembly for the first time to give my inaugural speech as the MLA for Burnaby North. As others have done ahead of me, hon. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your unanimous appointment to the solitary but also very important position of Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on her appointment. A better choice could not have been made. I'm certain that neither of you ever had an easier election and that both of you will maintain the fine tradition of fairness and non-partisanship in your deliberations.
I'm proud to be standing here on the winning side of the House as part of a New Democratic government that has made history on a number of fronts. First, to the chagrin of the opposition, this New Democratic government was elected, for the first time in the history of British Columbia politics, to an unprecedented second five-year term. This is a clear indication that the electorate was satisfied with the performance of the NDP government over the last five years and that British Columbians trusted us more than any other party to protect health, education, jobs and the environment.
Second, this government has made history by electing the first Canadian of Chinese origin, who sits two seats to my left. I'm pleased to say that the opposition has also elected a Chinese Canadian in Oak Bay-Gordon Head.
Third, this government has made history by electing for the first time as a New Democrat a Canadian of Italian origin, who is currently speaking to you, hon. Speaker. Again, I'm pleased to see that the opposition has succeeded in electing a candidate of Italian origin of its own, albeit Canadian-born, Mr. Masi from Delta North.
[11:30]
It is satisfying to see members of Dutch, German, Indian, Ukrainian, Irish, Scottish and Scandinavian origin -- and likely other origins that I'm not aware of. This thirty-sixth parliament is making history by truly reflecting, more than ever before, the multicultural reality of this beautiful province of ours and of this great country, which I'm sure we're all happy and, may I say, privileged to inhabit.
I'd like to offer my congratulations to all my colleagues on the winning side of the House, who have defied all odds in winning their seats and in contributing to the election of the New Democratic government. I extend equal congratulations to all members on the opposite side of the floor, who also fought very hard to win their seats. I hope that for the next five years we can all put aside our animosities and display a spirit of collaboration and dedication that will permit this government to deliver the kinds of services that the people elected us for.
In that vein, I'd like to express my fullest support for the budget presented in the House last week by this government. It is a budget that reflects the expectations of the people of British Columbia and that delivers what we campaigned on, in spite of the ranting and raving of the opposition. The truth is that they can't accept the fact that we are the ones that won the election. We have formed the government, and we are delivering on our promises.
We have delivered on the personal income tax cut for individuals and small business, effective July 1. We have delivered on the two-year tax holiday for small business. We have delivered on freezing taxes until the year 2000. We have delivered on freezing Hydro and ICBC rates. We have delivered on freezing tuition fees, and we are delivering on the implementation of the family bonus for low-income families. We have also delivered on protecting health and education and on creating jobs, in spite of the $435 million cut in transfer payments from Ottawa. In fact, as the Minister of Finance indicated in his speech, 34,000 new jobs were created since December '95. I am sure that this is again a record in Canada.
All the members of the opposition can do is keep harping on the issues that lost them the election, such as giving tax breaks to large corporations and criticizing the school system.
As is the tradition, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters of Burnaby North for giving me the privilege of sitting in this Legislature as their representative. In particular, I'd like to thank all those great people who managed my campaign -- from the manager to the various organizers -- and I would be remiss if I did not include all the hundreds of volunteer workers who, through their dedication and hard work, succeeded in electing another NDP MLA for Burnaby North to this Legislative Assembly.
I say this to let the House know that Burnaby North has elected CCF and NDP MLAs for the last 63 years, ever since Ernie Winch won his first election in the riding of Burnaby for the CCF in 1933. I believe it is a record in B.C. political history. Mr. Winch kept the riding of Burnaby until 1956 -- seven straight elections -- and he was joined then in a dual riding by Mr. Gordon Dowding. The two kept the riding until 1966. At that time, Burnaby North became a single-member riding, and the Hon. Eileen Dailly -- affectionately known as the most progressive Minister of Education that British Columbia ever had -- won it and retained it for six more consecutive elections, until 1986. At that time she retired, and Mr. Barry Jones
[ Page 159 ]
-- who many of you know from the last Legislative Assembly and who left us the legacy of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- won the riding and kept it for ten years.
I am proud and at the same time humbled to be following in the footsteps of such a long line of very distinguished MLAs, and I know that keeping the NDP tradition in Burnaby North, even for the shortest duration of any of my predecessors, will be a huge challenge.
Now I would like to say a few words about my constituency of Burnaby North and about the needs of its residents, which, by the way, are not any different from the needs of any urban riding. Burnaby North is an urban, sophisticated constituency extending from Boundary Road, which separates us from Vancouver, to Duthie Avenue at the foot of Burnaby Mountain, where Simon Fraser University is situated, and from the Burlington Northern railway on the south side to the shores of Burrard Inlet. It comprises an area of about 40 square miles, which is very small in comparison to many of the rural ridings, but it does have over 45,000 residents. Its population is made up of mostly working-class families, but the area is one of the most sought after in the greater Vancouver region in terms of livability, accessibility to services and amenities, proximity to places of work, high quality of education and generally a superlative standard of life.
For these and other reasons there is an ever-increasing number of young and middle-aged professionals and wealthy immigrants moving into the area, some from other parts of greater Vancouver, others from other regions of Canada and from overseas. The Capitol Hill slopes are home to many independent fishermen and their families, who are affected by the Mifflin plan. But we have as well our share of low-income families, seniors and families or individuals on income assistance. In all, there is a wide range of occupations and incomes, but it is fair to say that once someone moves into Burnaby North it is very rare that they leave the area, because it is a great area to live and to raise kids.
Burnaby North is home to a myriad of nationalities. The most prominent are the Chinese and Italian communities. They add much flavour to the area, both figuratively and literally. In fact, Hastings Street, the major commercial artery of Burnaby North, could easily be called Cappuccino Street or Won Ton Avenue for its numerous Italian and Chinese cafes and restaurants.
But these are not the only two ethnic groups in Burnaby North. We are also fortunate to have sizable contingencies of Indo-Canadians, Croatians, Japanese and Koreans, and to a lesser extent, people of Hispanic, Middle Eastern and Slavic origins. In other words, Burnaby North is a microcosm of the great Canadian mosaic. In fact, children who attend schools in Burnaby North bring to class a wealth of more than 40 languages.
In terms of natural resources, I don't think I would be stretching the truth if I said that we don't have any mineral, gas or forest resources. But we have the greatest resource of them all: people, with plenty of skills and initiative. In Burnaby North there are hundreds of small businesses of all types, particularly in the communications industry. We also have major employers such as Dairyland and B.C. Tel's training centre.
On the shores of Burrard Inlet we have two large oil refineries that people would very much like to see gone, not because they are polluters anymore -- thanks to the strict laws brought in by the NDP government -- but because people want access to the waterfront. Perhaps some Liberal MLAs in the Fraser Valley might want to invite Chevron and Shell to move into their ridings.
As for the needs of my constituents, they're no different than the needs of other urban ridings. I'm proud to say my constituents are generally pleased with the services provided by the NDP government for the last four and a half years. That is the reason I'm here.
People in Burnaby North are happy with their schools and feel that they provide a great range of options for their children. I've heard in the last few days members of the opposition making many disparaging remarks about the school system. Perhaps it is time that they look at their local management. In Burnaby, we have found good solutions to the challenges that face every growing district.
I'm proud to say here that Burnaby North Secondary School, one of the largest in the province, is also one of the most academic schools in the province. It offers the largest advanced placement program in North America. Nearly one in five students is registered in courses ahead of their grade level, and many complete university-level courses in their grade 12 year. As well, Burnaby North students racked up over $400,000 in scholarship money this year, and the amount keeps growing every year. But aside from academics, Burnaby North Secondary also offers the largest work experience program in the district, with nearly 800 students being placed in workplaces all over. The school also offers one of two apprenticeship pilot projects for about a dozen students under the Skills Now initiative. It also offers dozens and dozens of locally developed career-oriented and technology courses.
There are a lot of good things happening in our public schools. Students do experience a lot of success and are able to develop to their full potential. I'd like to give the House an example of the success that students experience in national and international competitions in math and science. I'm sure that everyone knows that the rote learning of the past is giving way to active participation and exploration of concepts, and to collaborative problem-solving. With these strategies of learning in Burnaby, 1,000 grades-4-to-7 students from all elementary schools, and hundreds of secondary students, took part in a number of national and international math competitions. Across North America, 1,500 schools and over 20,000 students took part in the competition, but only 50 schools got chosen for the honour roll. I'm pleased to say that all five Burnaby secondary schools and 20 Burnaby students made the honour roll, out of 1,500 schools. In fact, 27 of the 50 schools that made the honour roll were B.C. schools. That is an amazing accomplishment by our students and by our system, one that should dispel the myths that children in B.C. schools don't learn and don't do much, or that schools are not provided with adequate resources. The opposition members should bite their tongues when they badmouth the school system.
On an individual basis, I'm very proud to inform the House that a grade 7 student was one of four students across the country who achieved a perfect score in the Gauss math test. I'm sure Mr. Masi relates to those. In the grades-9-to-12 tests, I'm pleased to say that Burnaby North Secondary placed first, fourth and seventh in respective math tests out of about 1,500 schools, and several students placed on the Canadian honour roll.
As you can see, schools in Burnaby are great places to learn. I'm proud of the commitment that this government has made to education, both in the throne speech and in the '96-97 budget, even in the face of drastic cuts from Ottawa. No other province in Canada has made the same commitment to educa-
[ Page 160 ]
tion that B.C. has made. Investing in public education means investing in the future of our youth and in the prosperity of our province.
Turning to health care, the people of Burnaby North are quite satisfied with the level of service they get, thank you, and they are pleased with this government's direction in bringing services closer to home. That does not mean that things are perfect and that they don't want to see improvements. They do have reservations about the decrease in acute and long-term care beds and the apparent decrease in nurses in hospital wards, while at the same time the bureaucracy seems to grow. This perception is one area that needs to be addressed.
I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Health has already taken action by putting a temporary hold on the regionalization process in order to have a fair assessment of what is going on and what kind of changes are being envisioned by the regions. This was a bold but very welcome intervention by both the public and the service providers, and I applaud the minister for taking that step.
Earlier I mentioned the large number of fishermen that live in my constituency. At this time, I'd like to convey to the members of this House the feeling of despair and disgust that these people harbour toward Ottawa for its mismanagement of the fishery resource, which for most of them represents their only source of income. These independent fishermen are furiously miffed about the Mifflin plan, if you will forgive the pun.
One of these fishermen invited me to his house during the election. He showed me all sorts of data -- articles, pamphlets, books, letters, maps, names of boat owners, companies and their shareholders, and native bands and their fishing grounds. Anything you'd want to know about the fishing industry, he could find an answer for. Then he explained to me how disastrous the Mifflin plan is and how it does nothing for fish conservation, enhancement and rehabilitation of fish habitat, or reduction of the fish catch. All it does is take away licences from independent small operators and concentrate them in the hands of large companies, without reducing the number of fish that can be caught. As Terry Glavin wrote in an article in the Georgia Straight: "Fisheries minister Mifflin gave B.C.'s nine biggest fishing companies everything they had ever asked for." Chris Newton, a former DFO economist, calls Mifflin's plan a "very cynical" corporate gift, and ends by saying: "What Mifflin is doing is moving everything towards dividends and profits and away from fishing communities, and that's what's been killing fisheries all over the world."
This fisherman who invited me to his house urged me then to ask my government and my leader to do everything possible to fight the Mifflin plan. I'm very proud to say that I did not have to urge my leader very much. Indeed, the Premier used his own initiative and showed real courage and determination in taking on the inept federal government on the fisheries issue. The Premier's refusal to roll over and play dead vis-�-vis the Ottawa agenda is forcing Ottawa to consider devolution of the management of fisheries to the province.
[11:45]
The next topic that my constituents have some concern about is public transit and transportation. Burnaby, because of its geographic location, has become the corridor for commuters from northeast communities on both the north and south side of the Fraser. There are literally tens of thousands of cars that go through Burnaby via the Lougheed Highway, the 401 or Hastings Street. All that traffic makes a negative impact on the air quality of our community, and the people of Burnaby North expect from this government an improved rapid bus system and the building of the LRT on the Lougheed-Broadway corridor in the not too distant future. My constituents are very pleased that the West Coast Express has taken thousands of cars off Burnaby streets, and that the HOV lanes on Hastings Street and on the 401 will encourage more people to leave their cars at home. But Burnaby North residents would also like to see a West Coast Express stop in Burnaby, and connecting bus services to SFU, BCIT and the major areas of business.
Finally, perhaps the most important thing in the minds of my constituents, the one I heard the most about, is the issue of jobs. I'm proud of the accomplishment of this government, which in the last five years helped create some 200,000 jobs in B.C. -- 40 percent of all the jobs in Canada and more than any other province. Yet it does not seem to be enough. What is happening as we approach the new millennium is that people are getting meaner. The population is being divided into overworked and overstressed people on one side, and the unemployed or underemployed and those on welfare on the other. We can't allow this kind of division to become entrenched in our society. It is time, I believe, that as a government we look at decreasing the workweek and limiting overtime as a means of reducing unemployment. This is not by any means a novel idea. It has been tried with success in European countries, as we see from the Volkswagen experiment. It has been tried in Canada by Chrysler and Bell Canada, and closer to home, B.C. Tel has a flexible-time shorter workweek.
The concept of shorter hours of work and more time for leisure and the family has been debated for decades. Yet it is shelved time after time by corporations and big business in their big push for higher productivity and higher profits. This narrow-minded approach has serious societal implications in terms of higher health costs, more dysfunctional families and more youth problems.
The advisory group set up by the federal government in 1994 tabled a report to the then Minister of Human Resources, Lloyd Axworthy, in which it endorsed in principle a new public policy priority that emphasized redistribution and reduction of working time. The report was shelved, as usually happens in Ottawa.
I urge our government to therefore take the initiative of developing and promoting a public policy on working-time issues, in collaboration with employers, public and private, and with trade unions and other employee groups, and to start a dialogue on the national level as a way of dealing with the issue of chronic high unemployment, which the federal government seems prepared to accept as a necessary evil in Canada. It does not have to be that way. We have a highly skilled workforce, and we are rich in resources in this country. We can do better.
But I leave you with a hopeful thought, hon. Speaker. As I was watching the news a couple of weeks ago, an item caught my attention: the Japanese, after decades of computerization of their production lines, are now beginning to mothball their robots because in these times of obsolescence, the robots are becoming obsolete themselves. The Japanese have finally discovered that robots are more expensive to replace than humans. One more victory for humanity; there is hope for us after all.
[ Page 161 ]
I've touched on a few issues of interest to my constituents. I'm sure that I will return to them in the future. As a newly elected MLA, I appreciate the talent on both sides of the House, and I look forward to participating in the activities of this Legislature in the hope of making a positive contribution for the benefit of the people of Burnaby North and of those of the rest of the province. Noting the hour, hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.
P. Calendino moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.