(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1996
Morning
Volume 1, Number 19
[ Page 381 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: First of all, I'd like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.
I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
K. Krueger: The people of my constituency, Kamloops-North Thompson, have asked me to express disappointment in the throne speech, both with regard to what is in the throne speech and what is not in it.
I'll speak first to some of the matters that are not addressed in the throne speech. Many speakers from various parties -- our own, the government and the Reform Party -- have expressed disappointment that the interior and its constituents are once again left out in many ways. The interior has been strip-mined of wealth for decades; that wealth is taken away and not sent back. We have heard complaints from government members and cabinet ministers about federal transfer payments, feeling that British Columbia is left out. Yet we have a parallel situation in British Columbia that goes unaddressed year after year, where economic activity is not fairly distributed to the interior; where a $1.2 billion Island Highway is built while people in my constituency have to plead for guard rails and simple maintenance of roads; and where our Premier said at one time, "Not to be too crass, but we did win every riding north of the Fraser River," in justifying construction of the West Coast Express. Not that anyone begrudges those people the West Coast Express, but it is an issue in my constituency when general revenue subsidizes ridership to the tune of $50 per day, and we can't get passing lanes built on Highway 5 to allow people to commute to and from Kamloops and their homes; when the Coal Creek Road goes unmaintained; and when people are worried about falling off the Dunn Lake Road because of the lack of a guardrail.
These are partly management issues, and the B.C. Liberal Party can help the government with those management issues, as discussed in my budget speech. When you open the West Coast Express, for example, you really should negotiate for the rights-of-way and the track before you purchase locomotives and lease rolling stock. Government needs to take a more businesslike approach to issues in order to avoid wasting the people's money.
Part of the issue here, of course, is priorities, and perhaps the government doesn't even realize how unfair its priorities have been to the people of the interior. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine spoke about marginalized people in his constituency, and I know he spoke from the heart. He's concerned about them; so are we. There are marginalized communities as well. The community of Clearwater in my constituency, for example, is said to have one of the highest welfare rates per capita in the province. The people there want to work; the people in Vavenby want to work. They're not allowed to work, because they're shut out of the forests by bureaucracy, by regulation. There's a lot of work to do -- salvage logging, silviculture, work that they know how to do.
We have to get some of the government staff off paper-pushing and drafting regulations and into the world of front-line service, thinking more along the business thinking of the 1990s and going into the next millennium. The B.C. government should think that way. Let them empower our front-end people to actually facilitate the delivery of government programs and the development of the economy, rather than endlessly tying them up with regulation and bureaucracy. Let's show some common sense.
We've seen some hopeful signs of common sense from the government benches. I just about fell off my chair when the Minister of Health stood up after our Health critic's private member's statement about regionalization last Friday and said she agreed with every word. That's tremendously encouraging. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spoke about the same concerns I've just mentioned for the people of the interior. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca spoke about the Motor Carrier Commission, and I've had a lot of grievances come forward in my constituency about the Motor Carrier Commission. The Minister of Transportation and Highways talked about the Workers Compensation Board and expressed the same concerns that we on the opposition side are hearing in our constituencies.
I hope we can build on that common sense and the consensus that we can find there, and build in a sense of fairness to communities and constituencies throughout the province. For example, wouldn't it be good to return the fines collected because of Motor Vehicle Act infractions to the communities where the offence occurred and allow people there to use them for community policing, traffic safety and loss prevention initiatives? Wouldn't it be good to take the resources tied up in the forest renewal plan and allow local communities where the money was raised to come up with their solutions and ideas as to how that money can best generate employment and positive results in the constituencies?
I hope no one is too proud to adopt good ideas from either side of the House. Wouldn't it be good to change some of the tax laws that shut out the 28 jobs from Kelowna which we heard about recently or to change the attitude that kept the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce telephone banking centre out of Kamloops, with the 500 jobs it would have created or to stop railing against investors and business, and stop talking class warfare in ways that frighten people from establishing their business in British Columbia? We hope that the government will allow the opposition to provide competent management, and advice on providing competent management, to the province.
We would really like to see some realistic changes to the Employment Standards Act. I met with truckers in my constituency over the weekend -- owner-operators, owners of trucking businesses -- who are seriously contemplating scaling back and operating only enough trucks that they and their families can drive themselves, because they're being put out of work by the Employment Standards Act. They fear the changes, and they can't live with them. Their drivers don't want them, either. It is, no doubt, a well-intentioned policy, but it's paternalistic and it doesn't work.
[ Page 382 ]
I was encouraged that the Premier says that the committees of the Legislature will be real working committees this time. We're here to do that. We're here to work, so let's walk the walk. When the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine spoke of the desperate hurts and despair of the marginalized people in his riding, I'm sure we all thought that we can change that. We can do things to make it right; we're in a position to do that. Let's focus on employment and on justice, and not on ideology. Stop the drain of government revenues into patronage appointments and rewarding friends and insiders, and instead work on these important issues that touch the lives of the people in our constituencies.
Let's move, for example, on traffic safety issues and deal with problems such as the licensing of drivers of commercial vehicles. There are so many operators of commercial vehicles driving the highways of the interior who really aren't qualified and who shouldn't be on the road. The RCMP themselves cringe when they have to meet one of them on the highway. On the Cariboo highways there are frequent incidents of commercial trucks flopping into the oncoming lanes, and terrible fatalities have occurred. Right now there's a gentleman camped out on the front lawn of the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, protesting the fact that the accident that took the life of his wife and four other people in 1989 has still not been resolved. That was a situation where an Alberta truck without brakes and an unqualified driver came down through Kamloops by mistake and hit 14 vehicles on the way. We should have much tighter controls over out-of-province truckers coming into this province, the shape of their vehicles and whether or not they're qualified to operate them. Let's put traffic safety education back into elementary schools, where it has been so successful.
Let's relax the approach on the Forest Practices Code at least to the extent that people can go back to work and empower them to do that. I'd like to see them harvest the Blue River bug kill before the trees all burn in a forest fire.
[10:15]
I'd like to see us spend our money in the right places. I had a call from a constituent over the weekend. He's on welfare, and he has broken his dentures. It costs $500 to replace them, and he can't get the money till next year, according to the current scheme of things. He's being told to go without teeth for the rest of 1996. He sees the government advertising a balanced budget and, a week after, admitting that it wasn't balanced at all. This sort of thing discredits us, discredits this assembly, discredits the government of British Columbia. We've got to do things to stop fuelling public cynicism, because it's dangerous.
We've got to provide for the needs of our people -- things like travel for health care, which the member for Peace River North mentioned. People in the interior are cut off from services that people in Victoria and Vancouver regard as matters of course. We need to provide those services. We need to fund the ambulance drivers in Clearwater and Barri�re and throughout the interior, who are gradually disappearing because of the changes that have been implemented. We should build the multilevel health care facility that was promised to the people of Clearwater well before the last election. We should fund the Barri�re medical clinic so they don't have to wonder from month to month whether they'll be able to meet their overhead.
We need to free up funds in the forest renewal plan for the creation of jobs. Imagine the unhappiness of the constituent who came to me recently and said that there's been practically nothing awarded in our constituency until now, and a major contract has been awarded to the inmates of the correctional facility. His point was that as a taxpayer, he's not allowed access and he's not allowed into the bush, but people in jail are.
It brought to mind the slogan from the last election: "We're on your side." Whose side are people on when things like that happen? There was a song in the union movement for years that went: "Whose side are you on, boys? Whose side are you on?" I don't know if it's familiar to the members opposite. I was in union leadership for ten years, and I've studied the history of the labour movement -- times when people were exploited and felt desperate enough to band together and bargain collectively. Whose side are you on? I ask the government: whose side are you on? Will you help the struggling middle class -- the class where people have gone to dual incomes to try to maintain even a moderate, modest middle-class lifestyle and still can't do it because every year the taxes get deeper, the take-home pay gets smaller and the fees increase?
Let's not let pride get in the way of making the kinds of changes that we know need to be made. It did the other night when we worked on the B.C. Benefits legislation. I thought that was an example of the sort of thing we could accomplish in this House if we genuinely set aside partisanship and work on things together. But I don't understand why the government refused to amend it to make sure that it didn't punish the poorest of the poor. We have a lot of work to do to find and eliminate waste in government ministries and break down the silos and empires that exist in ministries. That needs real communication and cooperation between ministries. For example, Ministry of Forests personnel in my constituency have told me that even though the Ministry of Transportation and Highways turns off its overhead signs over the major highways during the summer, they're not allowed to put the forest fire-reporting number on those signs. Why not? Why should they be so exclusive of one another that this sort of nonsense goes on?
We should revisit instances where unfairness has been stated and complained about in our constituencies. For example, there is the amalgamation of school district 26 with the Kamloops school district. People in Clearwater are desperately aggrieved about that and about the fact that other amalgamations were reconsidered, yet they can't seem to get any attention paid to theirs.
We need to exercise good stewardship of public dollars in order to restore public faith in this institution and in government in general, and there is no time to waste. The rampant cynicism is a great danger to our economy and our democracy. It fuels disrespect; it could lead to anarchy. It causes the underground economy and erodes all the positive things that government is trying to do.
When people see broken promises, they become more cynical. When they see a government promise things up to an election and pull the rug out from under them right after the election, it fuels their cynicism. When they hear false statements regarding balanced budgets and then the truth comes out, it fuels their cynicism. Government waste, overregulation and inefficiency all contribute to that cynicism, and British Columbia suffers as a result.
[ Page 383 ]
The throne speech contains the statement that the second balanced budget is being introduced. It isn't true, and the government has admitted that it isn't true. Why in the world would anyone in this House vote to endorse that? Let's not discredit ourselves. Neither budget is balanced. The throne speech should be amended. The people have sent you here, members opposite, to represent them, and you'll have to face them every day in your constituencies when you're home. You don't have to file in like sheep and bark like seals on the Whip's order to support something that isn't true. We could postpone this vote; we could amend the throne speech. Let's not support a lie. People still have hope. They sent us all here because they hope that we'll do the right thing and that you will do the right thing. They trusted you; don't disappoint them.
I heard a missionary story from Africa one time. A missionary had inadvertently left a window of his church open, and he saw a group of monkeys climbing in through the window and entering the church, so he ran down to chase them out. When he got there, they had filed into the pews and were sitting there. The leader was standing in the pulpit holding a banana and didn't know what to do. I suggest to government members that you don't want to be like those monkeys. You want to represent your people well; you want to do what they sent you here to do.
An Hon. Member: Put away the banana.
K. Krueger: Yeah, put away the banana, amend the throne speech, and let's have total truth in our throne
An Hon. Member: Through the Chair.
K. Krueger:...speaking through the Chair, of course. I thank you, hon. Speaker, for your indulgence of rookie members who forget to word things that way sometimes.
We do stand in a place of honour, a place of long tradition and of good people working hard to do the right thing and deliver good government. I plead with you members opposite to do the right thing today and not pass this throne speech as it is worded. I plead on the basis of your honour, your self-respect and your ability to face your constituents for the rest of this term, however brief it may be.
S. Orcherton: It is indeed a pleasure to be speaking in favour of the throne speech that has been presented. As I read through the throne speech in preparation for my comments today, I wanted to draw the attention of the House to the preamble to the throne speech, where we say that the direction of this government will be different from others in Canada and that Ottawa is steadily withdrawing funding from health care, education, child care and the social safety net. Many other provinces are responding with deep cuts of their own in those areas, and I want to say to this House on behalf of the people in my constituency -- and, I believe, on behalf of the people of the province -- that in the last election the people made a choice not to pursue that direction and to take another direction. I'm very, very pleased to be speaking today on behalf of the throne speech and in support of it.
We've made a decision in this throne speech to set a direction British Columbia that did not buy into the scenarios that have been put in place in Ontario, Alberta and with the federal government, and not go on a slash-and-burn program in a desperate race to the bottom to deal with debt and deficit issues somehow, to the detriment of the people in this province.
The situation, though, is that we are in difficult and dangerous times in the province. Ottawa has indeed cut health care and education funding, child care funding and the social safety net. We are in difficult and dangerous times; it is a difficult time for the people of British Columbia. We're having to look at making government work for them in different and more cost-effective fashions that are able to deliver the programs that people rely on in this province, particularly in the constituency which I represent, and not to the detriment of the province as a whole.
In my view, the people of British Columbia have said clearly that the direction they want the province to go is the direction laid out in this throne speech. I really believe that we were at a crossroads in the provincial election. We had a choice to make, and the people of British Columbia have made their choice. We are not going to enter into a program of slashing and burning social programs and dealing with the issues in that kind of fashion.
The members opposite made arguments during the election that the way to deal with the debt and deficit in British Columbia was to slash social programs and slash government. I remind the members of this House that there were programs on the table from the members opposite that talked about billions of dollars' worth of tax breaks to corporations and a $3 billion cut to government itself, which would have resulted in the layoffs of thousands of employees in British Columbia and the cutting of many programs that people in British Columbia rely on.
I understand the arguments that the members opposite make when they say that the way to deal with debt and deficit situations is to cut spending and offer more tax incentives, tax breaks and tax giveaways to corporations, big business and the wealthy. I do not believe they are evil people; I believe they have a different sense of how the world works than the government of British Columbia does. They think that if they offer tax incentives and tax breaks to large corporations, big business and the wealthy, somehow big business and the wealthy will make the economy prosper and somehow the wealth generated from those tax giveaways and tax breaks will trickle down to ordinary middle-class working people and their families.
I'll tell you that the people I know who live in Ontario who have gone through that kind of a program have not seen any trickle-down of their economy to ordinary people. In fact, it has been the exact opposite in Ontario and in Alberta. Ordinary working people, middle-class people and their families, are suffering in those provinces. I'm pleased that this government is not taking that position, to offer tax breaks to corporations to the detriment of the average working person in British Columbia. That's why I support this throne speech.
In the last four years, this province has not been cutting and slashing and burning. In fact, we've seen a province with more job creation and more prosperity for people in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. We've got the strongest economy in Canada; we've got the highest credit rating in Canada. And we have not adopted the agenda that was articulated during the election by the members opposite.
[ Page 384 ]
I think the direction that we're following in the throne speech is the appropriate one for the people of British Columbia; in doing what we've been doing we have protected health care and education. I see in the throne speech that we're providing relief through tax breaks for small business and the middle class. Those are positive incentives -- two positive incentives, in my view -- because I do not believe in the trickle-down theory. All you have to do to understand how that works is ask yourself when a large corporation or a bank last trickled on you, hon. Speaker. You'll see that that's not the case. The way to drive an economy is to offer opportunity and hope and aspiration to middle-class working people and their families. That will drive the economy; that will stimulate the activities of corporations and business. That's what makes our economic wheel drive in this province. That's why I think we're heading in the right direction in the throne speech and in the legislation that will be following.
Health care was a very important issue in this election, and it's a very important issue in this throne speech. We're protecting health care. We're going to be increasing hospital funding by 2.5 percent, we're dealing with waiting lists, and we're providing adequate funding for health care in each and every community around this province and will continue to do so.
[10:30]
There were arguments made in the last election from the members opposite, suggestions that it would be more cost-effective and more in the interests of British Columbians to move towards a two-tiered health care system. A two-tiered health care system is not what middle-class working people and their families want, nor is it what they can afford. Let me say that a lot of people on the opposite side of this House were very, very scared that this government would put an end to first-class systems in health care, and I want to put the members opposite at ease. This government is not about putting an end to first-class health care in the province; it's about putting an end to second-class health care systems and not bringing second-class health care systems into this province. That's what this throne speech is about; that's what this government is about. We're going to extend that. We're going to make sure that we have first-class transportation systems, first-class education facilities and first-class systems in place to deal with crime prevention in this province. That's what this government is about, so the members opposite can sit easy in their chairs and tell their friends back home that they don't have to worry about the first-class system being eroded in health care, in education or in anything else in British Columbia.
What we're going to get rid of through this throne speech is second-class everything in this province. We are not going to put in place a two-tiered system so that the wealthy can afford what they can afford and the poor can fall by the wayside in this province. The responsibility of government is to meet the needs and aspirations of middle-class working people and their families. That's what government's role is, in my view. Government's role is not to support the needs and aspirations of the wealthy, big business and corporations. They have enough dollars and wealth to be able to look after their own interests.
The forest industry. We have stopped the war in the woods in the province. We will continue to work in the forest industry, giving more power, more control and more consultation to local communities in terms of their own industries and working with those communities in a consultative approach. I view that as being a very positive step in what is one of our major industries in the province, an industry that affects the lives and economies of individuals and local communities in British Columbia. We'll continue to work with those communities.
The fisheries industry, one that's been very topical as of late but perhaps should have been topical for a long time
The Mifflin plan, in my view, is not a plan. I guess, if it is a plan, it's perhaps a plan for disaster and the demise of the fishing industry in British Columbia. I've been very pleased to see that during the election this became a topical issue and that the Premier took issue with it and put in place the steps that have led us to yesterday, where a process is now in place to work with the federal government to provide solutions for people who rely on the fishing industry and for communities that have the fishing industry as the mainstay of their economy.
The environment was a very topical issue during the election, and I'm pleased to see it is in the throne speech as well. Environmental issues are ones which my constituents in Victoria-Hillside are keenly interested in and which I support as well. I know that in the history of the government of British
In education, we have taken steps that are laid out in the throne speech. We've frozen tuition fees for students. We've created more post-secondary institutions -- more colleges and universities. We are dealing with retraining of the workforce. It's estimated that each and every individual entering the workforce today will require retraining seven times in their working life. I'm very pleased to say we've put in place post-secondary education institutions that are able to meet and will be able to deliver those requirements on behalf of the working women and men in this province.
We've also provided relief for middle-class working people and their families. We've provided a tax break, a three-year freeze on taxes. We're providing incentives to small business. When I talk about middle-class working people and their families, I'm talking as well about small business people, because I believe that they're part of the middle-class working people and their families, and that definition. Also included in there are working people, whether they're waged working people or unemployed. They're people in poverty. Those are the people whom this government is making every effort to represent. Those are the people we talked about in the election, in terms of the needs they had and the roles and responsibilities of government.
We've put in place Hydro freezes and ICBC freezes. All of those add up to an average of somewhere between $500 and $700 per individual in British Columbia. I know, in talking to the people in the constituency I represent, what that translates
[ Page 385 ]
into for most people: an additional paycheque a year, certainly welcomed by individuals and by many people who are working at minimum-wage jobs or are unwaged in my constituency. That means a whole lot more for them. Those are very positive initiatives in terms of driving our economy.
We're offering a hand up for the working poor and an opportunity for people on welfare to move into the workforce. We're bringing in the family bonus for people. That is a tremendous shift in social policy, and I'm not sure that everyone recognizes the significance of it. It is a tremendous thing. We're taking people on welfare who have children and offering them the opportunity to move into the workforce. We're offering that, along with an incentive -- by way of a family bonus of $103 for each child, up to a maximum of five children -- for those people who live in family situations where their net incomes are below $18,000 a year.
Coupled with the minimum wage being the highest in Canada -- and I am certainly supportive of that being at $7 an hour -- that means that when single mothers and single fathers and families who should be working are on welfare, they now have an opportunity to move into the workforce. They will be making just above the poverty line -- $10 to $11 an hour -- with this subsidy through the family bonus. I think that is a tremendous step forward. It is not welfare; it's a helping hand up for those people, to get them into the workforce so that we can have fewer people on welfare. We can have an active and productive workforce. Along with that goes the dignity of employment, the socialization that occurs during employment and the politicization of individuals that occurs in the workplace. I think all of those things are tremendous assets for those individuals, and ultimately all those individuals will become tremendous assets for the province.
There have been discussions from members opposite with respect to the Employment Standards Act. I've heard people say that the Employment Standards Act is regulation and bureaucracy. For those who do not wish to find out how the Employment Standards Act works, it is largely employers in this province who take the view that it is not their responsibility, that they don't have to understand and that they don't have to take time to look at it. I guess that in some sense they could -- perhaps in ignorance -- define that as regulation, bureaucracy and red tape. But the requirements laid out in the Employment Standards Act in terms of reporting and recordkeeping are largely the requirements of the federal government, and I don't believe that the red tape and bureaucracy that's being articulated by the members opposite is a real situation. I think it's more of a notion that's being put forward by employers who do not wish to partake in the aspects of the Employment Standards Act.
The Employment Standards Act lays out the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees in British Columbia. I've heard members opposite talking about discipline in the workplace and how discipline in the workplace should be meted out. I've heard members opposite saying: "You whack them once, and if they don't learn what's going on, you whack them a second time. If they still don't understand what's happening, you turf them." That is precisely why an Employment Standards Act in the province is a necessary requirement. There are employers out there who do not believe that they have any rights or responsibilities in the workplace with respect to their employees. That's why the Employment Standards Act is so important and so pivotal in terms of labour relations in the province. It lays out those minimum rights and responsibilities that employees and employers have to adhere to in terms of setting social responsibility and in terms of setting a climate in the workplace that allows for the value of work to be acknowledged.
I'm very, very pleased that we're having a workers' compensation review -- a royal commission that is long overdue. I know from personal experience and from the experience of many people in my constituency that there are serious problems with the Workers Compensation Board. I think it's high time that we had a good look at the board, and the review process is an opportunity to do that. It is my view that at the end of the day the administrative costs in a properly functioning Workers Compensation Board should be higher than the benefit costs that are paid out to workers who are injured. That's what we need to see, and I hope this review will uncover the fact that we need administration at the board level, and that means the enforcement of the legislation that's there. That means going out to workplaces and making sure that those workplaces are safe places for people to work. When that administrative cost is higher than the benefit costs paid out to injured workers when they have to work in workplaces that are unsafe, that's when the Workers Compensation Board will be working. That's when we'll be able to come to this House and say that we've put in place a Workers Compensation Board that meets the needs and requirements of working people and employers in this province.
Let me say as well, before I move from the Workers Compensation Board, that the Workers Compensation Board was brought into place in the early 1900s. It was brought into place driven by employers. It is not an act that was ever intended to represent wholly the interests of working people in British Columbia. It would probably be better named the employers' liability insurance scheme rather than workers' compensation. That was brought in place in the early 1900s because employees who were injured at the workplace were taking their employers to court, and the costs of those court settlements were starting to become very serious for employers. That's why employers lobbied for a workers' compensation act: to mitigate their losses at the workplace. We still have a workers' compensation act that has some measure of enforcement, some measure of looking after workplaces and making sure they're safe. But I believe we still are a long way from dealing with that situation wholly. The primary focus of the workplace and the Workers Compensation Board has to be safety at the workplace. We have to pay for that for through assessments from employers. When employers are found not to have a safe workplace, I think the continuation of fines and assessments against those employers should be heightened and it should certainly be continued.
There has been much talk in this House around capital freezes in terms of construction. There was much talk during the election about government spending. I think the pause to have a look at capital expenditures that have been slated for in the coming months is absolutely proper and appropriate, and for any member on the opposite side to argue differently is hypocrisy, in my view. I've heard time and time again that the government is moving too fast and that they have to pause and have a look at what the expenditures are, then detail and prioritize the issues at hand in terms of capital expenditures. I heard that time and time again in the election.
Now, here we are putting in place a review process to prioritize the capital expenditures that are going to be coming up in the province, and the members opposite say: "Spend, spend." That's what they say, hon. Speaker. They say: "Spend the money. Don't stop, don't look, don't prioritize, don't take issue. Don't do what the people suggested you do." In fact, they're saying don't do what the Liberals and the Reformers were suggesting they would do in the election. So when I hear them saying the capital freeze is something that shouldn't be supported and "Oh, my god, the government is doing some-
[ Page 386 ]
thing untoward here," my view is simply that it's a proper and appropriate process. It's one that I look forward to participating in and one that I will be lobbying very hard for in terms of the capital projects I am working with people in my constituency to prioritize.
[10:45]
We've had some discussions as well in terms of class war. There have been allegations that there has been a class war going on and that people have been putting that forward as part and parcel of the dynamics of the politics of British Columbia.
An Hon. Member: Whose side are you on?
S. Orcherton: The member opposite asked whose side I am on. I'd ask him: whose side are you on? I think I know whose side the members opposite are on: they're on the side of the wealthy corporations and big business. That is their role in this House, and that's who they are representing, in my view.
I'm not sure it could be characterized as class war. But I do know that Statistics Canada has said every year for the last number of years that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There's something going on in this province and in this country, and the hon. members opposite can characterize it as class war. But what this government is doing in terms of this throne speech and family bonuses and B.C. Benefits is trying to turn that around so that the rich are not getting richer, but so that the poor are getting richer and have a place in this province, and have the dignity that is required for them to be participating in the activities of this province.
We talked about a new role for MLAs. I am certainly supportive of that and of bringing MLAs in from the seats opposite to participate in the discussions and the debate at committee level and elsewhere in this House in terms of the decision-making. I certainly support that. But when I hear the bantering and catcalling coming from the opposite side, I have to wonder how productive it is going to be when we get into committee meetings if we have that kind of show going on in terms of the participation of members opposite.
I am certainly willing to talk and discuss issues of relevance at committee level, and I think the direction we are taking here, in talking about a new role for members of the Legislative Assembly from all parties, is a positive one. But I think the members opposite should be entering that with the full notion that this is a positive role, and that the negativity I have been hearing from time to time in this House does not foster that role or serve, in my view, the needs and aspirations of the people whom this government is elected to represent.
I think that we in British Columbia have an opportunity that's laid out in this throne speech. We had a choice in the election of whether to follow, through fear and intimidation, the programs of Ontario and Alberta and the programs and initiatives driven by the federal government or to lead by example. This throne speech talks about leading by example. It doesn't talk about following, through fear, and intimidation or beating up the people in this great province of ours who are least able to protect themselves. It talks about making sure that working and middle-class people have opportunities. I hope that when we talk about new roles for MLAs, we will be able to take that notion and the premises that are laid out in this throne speech and lead by example on that initiative as well.
W. Hartley: I am pleased to address the throne speech. Most of the speeches from members opposite thus far have been rehashed election campaign speeches. We are back on the hustings. Mind you, I am not complaining; after all, we won. Redoing it all is okay with me, but refusing to accept defeat, I submit, is just one reaction available to losers. I can understand that it must be difficult, but you can't make good wine with sour grapes. At some point reality sets in, you settle down and you make the best of it for your constituents. When you win, it's easier. I started my second term on election night. I have been looking forward to four to five years of good government ever since the evening of May 28.
The throne speech says it all. We are going to lead this great province into the next century. Leadership is the key issue. Strong leadership won the provincial election, and leadership is the key theme of the throne speech. While other provinces are being led by the nose by the federal Liberal government and cut funding to health care and education, British Columbia continues to increase funding for health care and education, as we have every year for the past five years. Our government has reduced waiting lists for heart surgery by 50 percent. We have increased funding to fight breast cancer and heart disease, and expanded funding for hospitals to meet the needs of our growing population. While other provinces are raising student tuition fees by 20 percent, British Columbia has frozen tuition fees. We have significantly increased investment in our schools: $1.7 billion over the last four years, and 15 capital projects in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows alone.
Our leader, the Premier, has become the first to represent the youth of British Columbia. Under his leadership we have the Guarantee for Youth, which offers young people hope for the future. In addition to affordable and accessible education, work experience will provide new opportunities for youth. That's good leadership.
The throne speech speaks to the question of leadership, leading us to the protection of health care, education, job creation and job protection, the Guarantee for Youth, and debt reduction. These issues are important to the people of my constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, and I'm sure they are important to every constituency. These are the issues I was able to talk about to the people on the doorsteps and at the public meetings.
I'm proud of the accomplishments of our government on these and other issues, including finance -- the lowest per capita debt in the country, the highest credit rating of any province, and a debt reduction plan that continues to protect health care and education. The budget we have just passed in this Legislature shows the economic strength of the province. In the face of severe cuts by the federal Liberals, the provincial budget still reflects the values and goals of the throne speech. It delivers on our commitments, and delivers on the needs of the residents of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and across British Columbia.
There has been an intolerable amount of rhetoric by the opposition in this House about truth, honesty and integrity. They attempt to portray themselves as something better than the rest of us -- that they have the trust of their constituencies and we don't. We've been subjected to speech after speech of self-righteous, sanctimonious drivel from members opposite. These are the same people who waged an attack on the poor -- promising to cut welfare from $500 to $470 a month, opposing the minimum wage and secure, safe working conditions -- while at the same time supporting billion-dollar tax cuts to corporations. As I said earlier, we won that election campaign and we will win the next one.
[ Page 387 ]
The integrity and honesty of every member of this House is proven, and it's time we put that away. We're all hon. members here. Now that the campaign rhetoric is winding down, we should remember what we're here for and get on with the business of government as it's laid out in the throne speech. A new role for MLAs is described in the throne speech. There's a potential for every member to better serve their constituents. We can work for British Columbia. British Columbia has been leading by example. We're building the future, we're giving hope to our youth.
The throne speech demands action from the federal government on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and a stronger provincial voice in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery. We all have to work on this issue. In my community we are working to breathe new life into the increased biomass in the Alouette River, one of the lower mainland's most crucial salmon-spawning streams. I submit that all members have work to do in this area.
It's going to require leadership in our communities. We're going to have to work with municipal mayors and councils, with community groups, with Crown corporations -- a tremendous amount of good work that we can all benefit our constituents by. We'll work with the leaders of our native groups.
There are other issues in my constituency which I can talk about in regard to quality of life and the environment. There's more work to do to make sure that the agricultural support in our community can be built on and that the transportation concerns I've been working hard on for the last four and a half years continue. We've now brought it up to a point where we've caught up to the problems that have existed, and we are getting rid of some of the congestion. But growth is happening in my constituency, as it is in others. We have to keep up with that growth. We need to double the capacity of the Albion ferry between Maple Ridge and Fort Langley. I'll be speaking much more about that issue in the future.
I hear members opposite attack issues in my community. I can't believe that they would use the time of this House to attack important issues in my constituency, when they have so many issues to work on in their own constituencies. Stop attacking the West Coast Express. Don't use it to try to benefit your community for some increase in transit or whatever you need. I appreciate that you have needs, but the West Coast Express serves the people of my community as it does the entire north side of the Fraser River. It is something that has been needed and talked about for 20 years, and our government has put it in place. In fact, there's public demand for increased service by the West Coast Express. It does you no good to attack the services of my community.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
That's the main point I want to make today in speaking to the throne speech. I think it gives all members in this House tremendous opportunity for the future to work together, to show leadership here in the House and to benefit the constituencies of the members of the House.
S. Hawkins: I welcome the opportunity to address the throne speech. The theme of the Speech from the Throne, apparently, is engendering hope. In the words of the Lieutenant-Governor, and I quote from the throne speech:
These are beautiful words. They are lovely concepts, but it is truly a shame that this government has left the people of British Columbia with broken promises and unfulfilled hopes: namely, lost hope that the debt management program will be followed; empty hope of a promised tax reduction in January; and, most shamefully, dashed hope of achieving a balanced budget in the province.
The Speech from the Throne promised to deliver B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. Imagine that! The second balanced budget in a row. It's right there in the throne speech; I read it not once but twice. I quote again from the throne speech: "The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two
This will be quite a feat, considering that the first so-called balanced budget came in with a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar deficit. The then Minister of Finance actually referred to that budget in her 1995 budget speech as a surplus budget. If a surplus budget results in a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar deficit, we should all be afraid of what this government's promise of a balanced budget means this year. I've heard estimates as high as a $700 million deficit arising from this year's so-called balanced budget. That would be close to a billion in deficits in two successive years.
[11:00]
British Columbians shake their heads in disbelief and dismay while the ministers puff and strut about their government's impressive fiscal progress and their two balanced budgets. It's not hard for us to understand the hopelessness that the public is feeling in the face of this awkward and inept management of public purses.
The government wants to build its plan for this session of the Legislature on hope. Well, hope is not a plan, and hope is definitely not a strategy. We can all hope that the budget will be balanced. We can all hope that prosperity will thrive in British Columbia. We can even all hope that a promise made by the Premier in May will be the same promise in July, but hope doesn't make anything happen by itself. We need more than hope; we need positive action. We need competent, accountable and honest government representatives who respect the people they represent. We need people who know how to lead and manage responsibly. Robert Ingersoll once wrote: "Hope is the only universal liar who never loses his reputation for veracity." If Ingersoll's words are correct, it makes it easier to understand why this government would base its plan on hope alone.
This government functions on more than a fiscal deficit; it functions with a moral deficit as well. We have all been witness to this government's past performance. A balanced budget becomes a deficit budget because of the vagaries of the weather or because of changed accounting practices -- but these excuses do not ring true. British Columbians feel that this government just doesn't care. A promise by the Premier of tax reductions in January, or his resignation, evaporates. Why? Because the Premier misspoke himself.
Now there's an intriguing concept. The Premier made a promise to voters during the election campaign, but when it proved to be a false promise, he excused his conduct as misspeaking himself. Using that kind of flimsy logic, I suggest to the Premier that members of the public have misvoted themselves when they put the likes of members opposite into positions of trust.
[ Page 388 ]
The people of B.C. are faced with a constant diet of falsehood from those government benches. Who could blame British Columbians for the cynicism and pessimism they have towards this government? The way to engender true hope and optimism in the public is easy: simply tell the truth, and when you make a promise, you should have the fortitude to follow through with it.
The Premier's Finance minister did not deliver a balanced budget for 1995-96, and I believe he knew that he couldn't deliver a balanced budget. The honourable thing for him to do as a minister of the Crown is to resign. The Premier himself promised to resign if he reneged on a January tax-cut promise. The honourable thing for the Premier to do in that instance is to reduce taxes in January or resign. A paltry apology for misspeaking oneself is not part of the bargain the Premier made with the people. It is not part of an honourable resolution. British Columbians expect complete honesty from their Premier -- nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Now that this government has set its agenda on fraud and deceit, it has damaged -- beyond repair, I believe -- the opportunity to create a trusted stewardship for the people of B.C.
The damage to credibility which occurs when one doesn't follow through on promises is long-lasting. This has been known for centuries. A Roman fabulist named Ph�drus wrote: "Whoever has even once become notorious by base fraud, even if he speaks the truth, gains no belief." I would suggest to members opposite that notoriety has tainted this government early in its term of office, and, as suggested by the wise writer Ph�drus, they will be accorded no belief.
This government has done nothing more than to outline a plan for failure. Why should we expect otherwise? They have a remarkable record of failure to build upon. This is the same government that failed to live up to its promise of no new taxes 29 times during its last mandate. This is the same government that failed to deliver a balanced budget for 1995-96. This is the same government that failed to meet its own debt reduction instalment in the first year that its highly publicized program was in place. This is the same government that failed to deliver on its promise of worthwhile health care reforms by 1996, and even now it has failed to provide real leadership to sort out this problem. This is the same government that has failed to remove partisan politics from health care and social programs by appointing a partisan committee to conduct evaluations of their New Directions fiasco. This is the same government that failed to protect the public from costly conflict of interest in Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro, while its own friends and insiders speculated to become rich on the backs of B.C. taxpayers. This is the same government that failed to protect the public from the scandalous fraud and greed of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. This is the same government that failed to protect little kids like Matthew Vaudreuil, who came into contact with the Ministry of Social Services literally dozens of times before meeting his pitiful demise.
This government and this Premier claim to set an agenda to engender hope in British Columbia, but what words have we seen describe our new style of government? We see words like cocky, arrogant, bossy, dictatorial, partisan and dishonest. The public are truly ashamed to witness this government's duplicitous behaviour. The style of this government has been established early by the actions of this Premier, who promises a new era of cooperation, yet continues to strive to divide the people of British Columbia along class lines.
This is the government which over and over again has claimed to be on the side of so-called working- and middle-class British Columbians. But actions speak louder than words. In reality, this government is only on the side of its friends and insiders, and their special deals are being paid for by all British Columbians. The truth is that this government is not on the side of working British Columbians; it's on their backs, in their pockets and getting on their nerves.
This government has put forward a plan of hollow hopes and empty promises. The throne speech contains nothing to spark hope in British Columbians. Rather, it serves notice that we have yet another term of misconduct, missed opportunities, mistakes, misspoken promises, miscalculations and more misadventures. British Columbians deserve better than to face a dismal future of deceit and debt, self-serving and inaccurate government advertisements, and government giveaways for friends alone. The people of British Columbia have entrusted this government with protecting the financial future of our province so that health care and education can be protected. British Columbians expect and deserve a government that is responsible with our finances. They expect their government to preserve available access to optimum health care. They expect their government to provide proper education for children so they can obtain gainful employment. They expect their government to be honest. British Columbians do not want their government to hurt them or damage the reputation of our province abroad.
This Speech from the Throne does not provide protection for health and education, it does not provide for the creation or protection of jobs, and it does not provide for debt reduction. For the sake of our future and the future of our children, British Columbians can only hope that this government will learn to listen, will learn to be honest and will learn to manage responsibly. I cannot support the throne speech, because I sincerely believe that it does nothing to address the real concerns of the people of British Columbia.
J. van Dongen: I am pleased to present my comments to this House today on the Speech from the Throne which was read by the Lieutenant-Governor on June 25. There are three items in the throne speech that I will focus on: the Workers Compensation Board, the new Crown corporations committee and the concerns about duplication in government.
Before I get into these issues, I want to acknowledge the decision by the government to allow the planning stage of the MSA hospital to proceed. This was one of the items included in the list of capital projects under review. It would have cost about $1.1 million to dismantle the team of people who are working on getting the plans to the tendering stage. The decision to allow the planning to be finished saves unnecessary unrest on an issue that is of major concern to the citizens of Abbotsford.
The government has announced that it intends to name a royal commission to do a wide-ranging review of WCB. We in the B.C. Liberal Party have said that a royal commission is an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money. We are also concerned about the further delay in implementing solutions that should be obvious to everyone. I am concerned that this will turn into another Gove inquiry -- that $3 million and one year later we will start to think about doing what is obvious to any competent manager today.
I would like to offer a few thoughts and suggestions regarding WCB. From the claimants' perspective, it is clear that a certain group of claimants constitutes the greatest oversight or failure of WCB. This group generally includes people
[ Page 389 ]
who have injuries which do not appear to be very serious, but which nevertheless are sufficiently serious to create ongoing pain and difficulties in getting back to productive employment. I found it very interesting that of about 200,000 cases per year, about 120,000 do not involve any time off work but may involve a doctor's bill or some other medical expense. I support WCB management's efforts to improve the processing of all claims. However, it seems that their greatest focus in the short term will be on the high volume of short-term claims. In just over one year as an MLA, I have never had a complaint from anyone about a short-term case or, on the other hand, from anyone who suffered an extremely serious injury. It's all the cases in between where the difficulties seem to be.
I believe that it behooves WCB to embark on a special and proactive program to deal with these in-between complainants. I do not accept the view expressed by some senior staff that a lot of the complaining is from people who have been through all of the appeal processes and clearly do not qualify for further consideration. On the contrary, all of the cases that I have examined are caught up in the WCB's web of bureaucracy somewhere. In reviewing the details of the decisions that are being made, I am of the view that there are many valid concerns.
The following ideas are not new but may be worth considering. First, on service and sensitivity, increased sensitivity training: when a family breadwinner is off the job and nursing an injury, the results in terms of family stress and loss of self-esteem are always serious and very often catastrophic. Even in cases I've seen which are relatively well handled, I feel that sensitivity needs to be improved. Many staff honestly do not understand what happens in the life of a person who is sidelined by an injury. Sensitivity training does not require a week-long course. It means that there need to be reminders to staff of the realities that claimants face.
Second, better service: the basic rules of returning phone calls, not making assumptions about a person's level of understanding and explaining things clearly.
Third, WCB needs to find the bad apples among its staff. These are the people who clearly demonstrate a record of arrogance, incompetence, bad judgment and bad service. WCB has some of these people and needs to deal with them decisively, because they set the tone of a negative image for the whole organization. Individual performance appraisal is a basic requirement if we expect to improve the performance of WCB overall, as well as many other parts of government. You could write all the legislation and policies you like, but if you have the wrong people implementing them in the wrong way, you will still have problems.
I have some comments about process, in particular single-window service. WCB needs to consider putting its better people on the difficult cases I've talked about. When the claimant has not had reasonable standards of service in the past, the outcome of a case will not be acceptable to them no matter how defendable the decision may seem to others. While I support an opportunity for appeal, I believe that the current proliferation of appeals in the Workers Compensation Board, with extremely long lag times between, is not serving anyone. Streamlining this process is a matter of great urgency.
Having an appeal process is no substitute for doing a quality job on a case in the first place. My definition includes appropriate sensitivity, service and competence. The fact that WCB has lost 88 percent of its appeals is an indication of a serious problem. WCB needs to emphasize quality within its whole organization, and in particular quality analysis of a case in order to determine the real facts and make wise decisions.
[11:15]
In all of the cases I have reviewed, I have not found that WCB in-house medical advisers add quality to the process. In fact, it seems to me that the opposite is true. They often provide assessments based on an apparent objective of minimizing claim expense or justifying their own existence rather than finding the truth. A system of using private sector doctors' opinions, coupled with good judgment by adjudicators, would be a lot more effective. The 80 or so medical advisers very often are not trained in the area that they're currently working in. There are indications that it's simply an old boys' club.
As I have said, the claimants who have had the most difficulty are those who cannot return to work fairly quickly or in fact have to find different work. The impact on lives in this situation is often nothing short of devastating. If the funding of WCB does not allow it to do a better job of these longer-term cases, then possibly WCB's focus needs to be revisited. Maybe they need to lengthen the waiting period after an injury and to provide adequate funding to properly deal with the more serious ones. This may not be met with universal acclaim, but it would be the right thing to do. We cannot continue to have lives being destroyed because of inadequate assistance in the face of problem injuries. I hasten to add that part or all of the cost of the waiting period should be borne by the employee. This would put some onus of responsibility on the workers themselves, something which I feel is lacking today.
I don't accept the argument that less staff means less service. On the contrary, with respect to WCB at the present time, I believe it is possible to reduce staff and improve services at the same time. The fact is that it costs time and money to move files around an office. I reiterate our party's view that the labour contract approved by management a year ago was overly generous in a number of areas. I believe that the high level of employment security and general working conditions for WCB staff contribute to their insensitivity to claimants, many of whom come nowhere close to enjoying the same benefits even in their regular jobs, never mind when they are injured. The government should be looking for an aggressive reduction in staff levels, staff numbers which increased by 50 percent over a five-year period while the case volume remained unchanged. I believe that there continue to be legitimate classification disputes by employers, and there are certain policy inequities which I intend to pursue on behalf of employers.
I want to close my comments on WCB by saying that I believe that they are making progress. Their project to install an e-file system will help improve productivity and service, and should hopefully reduce costs at the same time. I believe there are some good people in the organization who are striving for improvement. I was disappointed to see Lee Doney leave his position as chairman of the panel of administrators. I got the sense that at least he was listening to our concerns. Maybe he was overwhelmed by the scale of the job.
I reiterate our position. We feel that a royal commission into WCB is a waste of time and money, but if the government is going to have one, then it should get on with the job. I am hopeful that the announcement of a royal commission does not preclude ongoing efforts at WCB to improve performance and review existing policies. Given the well-documented failure of the government to effectively manage WCB, I welcome the establishment of a Crown corporations committee modelled after the Public Accounts Committee.
[ Page 390 ]
My personal observation and belief is that Crown corporations in general have been amongst the least accountable parts of government. It is also interesting to note that the auditor general is doing a study to examine the legislation, role, authorities, relationships and internal workings of boards of directors that are responsible for providing direction to Crown corporations.
My personal interest in corporate governance stems from almost 15 years' experience on the board of directors of Dairyworld Foods. In the private sector, effective leadership and governance is critical to staying alive in today's competitive world, never mind the basic goal of making a return on investment for shareholders. In the public sector there may be different and sometimes multiple goals for our Crown corporations; however, it is no less critical that these goals are set consciously with a high level of clarity. This is essential so that management knows what is expected of them. It is also one of the fundamentals for effective measurement of management performance.
We have an opportunity to review our Crown corporations to make sure that we have the systems in place to allow and effect good accountability. We also have an opportunity to work with the government to help improve the results of our Crown corporations on behalf of all taxpayers. I look forward to working with all members of the Crown Corporations Committee in this new initiative.
Finally, I want to respond to the comment in the throne speech that the government "will also work to eliminate duplication and overlap between federal and provincial jurisdictions that waste taxpayers' money and often force citizens and businesses to deal with two bureaucracies instead of one." This is a valid goal, and one that I fully support. However, I find it is always easy for politicians and governments to point to the other guy as the obstacle to progress. Local politicians blame Victoria, and provincial politicians blame Ottawa. In my view, it is important for the government to place a primary focus on issues of duplication and bureaucracy which are within its own control. There are numerous examples within the provincial government of conflict and duplication between agencies. There are also many examples of uncertainty and jurisdictional difficulties between local governments and provincial government. Again, I suggest that these difficulties are within the power of the provincial government to resolve. I note the recent comments by the ombudsman about the complexity of the investigations by her office. She comments on the difficulties created by increasingly complex multiple authorities.
It is very in vogue these days to talk about partnerships and multi-agency processes. However, I want to raise a concern about this trend. It seems to me that there needs to be a more conscious effort by government managers and politicians to simplify and streamline responsibilities in the delivery of service. We have many situations where different agencies blame each other for the answer that it can't be done. We have situations where citizens face a nightmare of bureaucracy and virtually no hope of getting a commonsense answer from anyone.
Within government we see enclaves within ministries that have become independent empires that are, in effect, not properly accountable to anyone. It bothers me to see the arrogance of some of these people in their dealings with the public and the inefficiency that results from those bad attitudes. Again, I hope the government will address some of these situations in its comprehensive review of all programs.
Finally, I would like to mention two civil servants who I feel exemplify what the government should be looking for from its employees. I want to recognize an individual named June at the residential tenancy branch in Burnaby and someone named Judy at the Workers Compensation Board. Both these individuals in recent weeks have demonstrated courtesy, competence and a genuine interest in helping my constituents. They exemplify the kind of performance that government should be looking for from all its staff. In closing, hon. Speaker, I ask the House to recognize them for a job well done. [Applause.]
L. Stephens: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise this morning in the reply to the Speech from the Throne. During the throne speech we listened to the government's vision of British Columbia and its plans for a future for British Columbians. We heard how government will maintain and enhance the quality of life for all people. During the last election the NDP said to the people of British Columbia: "We're on your side." Well, who believes that today? Not many people, I'll wager, and not after the last budget, a budget that clearly shows that the only side this government is on is that of more spending and more borrowing. During the election they made promises worth $3 billion, and they said to the people: "We're on your side." Now the people of British Columbia know the truth: the promises are broken and the province is deeper in debt.
The throne speech said: "In this session, my government will pursue a vision of a government on the side of working families and the middle class." The throne speech also said: "It will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. Jobs will be up; the debt will be down. Health care and education will be protected." Well, did they tell the truth? No, they didn't. They said that the budget would be British Columbia's second balanced budget. They have been saying that for five years, and it's still not true. I'll bet money that the budget of '96-97 will be a deficit budget, as well.
My very favourite line from the throne speech is the one that claims that the debt will be down for '96-97. The fact is that the debt has increased every single year that this NDP government has been in power. The government appears to believe in the big lie theory. The big lie theory states that if you say something long enough and loud enough, people will start to believe it. This government continues with the big lie. They say they're on the side of working families. Yet the NDP's first two budgets in '92 and '93 raised taxes 29 times, adding an extra $1.5 billion in taxation for each year. Since 1991, the NDP government taxes have taken $6.5 billion out of the wallets of taxpayers of British Columbia, all of those ordinary working British Columbians that this government likes to say they're standing up for. So you can see why members on this side of the House believe that this government has no credibility at all.
Let's look at some of the facts. This government announced the jobs and timber accord, tying access to public timber directly to the creation of new jobs. The member for Skeena, in his throne speech reply yesterday, boasted about this wonderful so-called initiative. But it scares me, because it appears that the government is abandoning all pretence of a free market economy. They are coercing lumber companies to employ more people in exchange for timber-cutting rights. That sounds like blackmail to me.
What about Forest Renewal B.C.? The government said the money in that account is sacrosanct. The government said that money is there for the people in forestry-dependent communities to deal with the economic difficulties of a reduced
[ Page 391 ]
forest cut. We'll be watching to make sure that where the money gets spent is to help those families adjust to the changes taking place in the woods today, and to make sure that the government doesn't scoop that money to try to save itself from another budget deficit in 1997. The people who live in our resource industry towns and cities deserve to be protected from the far-reaching implications of government's mismanagement.
Still on the subject of jobs, there is an interesting report from the B.C. Labour Force Development Board, released in November of '95, called Training for What? I didn't see or hear very much about this report in the media, and it's a shame, because I think it's a very important study. It talks about our education system, and it makes some excellent recommendations, in my view. I would encourage all members in the House to read it.
[11:30]
I'd like to read into the record some of the recommendations and some of the findings this board came up with in their April 1996 newsletter. It says:
"In its key finding, the report is critical of a large skills gap between the current mix of learning opportunities and the skills required by the labour force. According to the report, it is doubtful the current learning system can meet the education and training needs of its graduates and the employers who want to hire them."The board made 35 strategic policy recommendations in six key policy areas. Foremost among these recommendations is that business and labour lead the implementation of a workforce development key-industry strategy. The report recommends the creation of sectoral councils to identify skill needs and occupational standards and award credentials for skills learned in and out of the workplace. The report recommends making publicly funded education and training more relevant" -- and this is the important part -- "by changing the mix of applied and academic programs to place greater emphasis on employability skills and applied training.
"In the sixth major policy area, the report recommends improving accountability measures across the learning system" -- something the Liberal opposition has been talking about for the past five years. "It recommends the development of outcome-based accountability frameworks, more uniform measures of student outcomes and new means for employers to assess graduates' skills."
These are important recommendations, and I hope the government has been listening to this particular Labour Force Development Board and is looking seriously at some of these recommendations.
The board is moving forward, and they're starting to study another issue. It's called "Training for Whom?" They've identified the training for what; now they're identifying the training for whom. It's access and equity for entire labour market components. The components being examined are for the emerging workforce, the transitional workforce, the existing workforce, and members of aboriginal and equity groups. I look forward to this report and the issues and areas where it talks about youth employment and employment for women.
If we're to provide a secure future for our youth and all members of our society, we must change the way we deliver education services in our province. Students come first, and there must be more choices in our schools for our students, parents and teachers. The '96-97 budget announced that capital spending for school construction will be frozen pending a six-month review. The annual funding for K-to-12 school construction in British Columbia was $620 million in '91 and '92 -- and in '96-97, it's $220 million. That puts a lie to the government's assertions that it's protecting education in this province. It's not protecting education for our students in this province.
The throne speech did not address the very serious issue of protecting the physical well-being of our children. The Gove inquiry resulted in comprehensive and far-reaching recommendations for government. I urge the government to also examine the programs, policies, practices and procedures of the children in care of the Ministry of Social Services and to bring forward legislation to deal with child prostitution.
But what this government has done to health care in this province is the cruellest of all. The reality of health care in British Columbia is long waiting lists for surgery, fewer hospital beds, reduced hospital services and no community health services to take their place. We have drive-through babies. Young mothers are being sent home one or two days after giving birth. A great many of these young mothers have no one to help them and no one to guide them. This government seems to have forgotten that health care is for people. Patients must come first.
I want to tell you what happened to one of my constituents in Langley. He was admitted to the Vancouver General Hospital on January 19 for surgery at 3:30 that day. The surgery was for severe sleep apnea. They removed the soft palette tissue in his throat. Now, doctors tell me that this is not major surgery, but it's not day surgery either. At 10 o'clock the following morning the man's wife was called to come and get him, and she did, but she waited until 2:30 in the afternoon before she picked him up because she was afraid to take him home too soon. At 9:30 that evening he was admitted to Langley Memorial with a temperature of 38.4, and he was subsequently transferred to the critical-care unit in severe diabetic shock and with a blood clot in his lungs.
You hear stories like this from seniors all the time. I am sure all members of the House have heard these kinds of stories, and many seniors tell me that if they are really sick and have to go to the hospital, they want someone to watch out for them. They want to have confidence and they want to know that they are not being sent home too soon. And they want to be sure that when they do go home, they won't end up back in the hospital a few days later sicker than they were when they went in the first time.
This government doesn't even pay lip service to mental health. They announced a moratorium on the downsizing of Riverview, but nothing is happening. Community services for the mentally ill are almost non-existent. In my riding, parents of children with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are at their wit's end. There is no place for these children where they will be safe from harm. There is not enough secure housing for these children, and when they are being stabilized on their medication, or when they stop taking their medication, which is even
The reality is that health care regionalization in this province has been a disaster. A lack of leadership on the part of this government, poor planning and political ideology are responsible for the mess communities like mine find themselves caught in. The throne speech talks about this government being on the side of British Columbia families, but their actions and inactions clearly prove otherwise.
Deputy Speaker: That seems to conclude the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I think there is a motion on the floor at this point, and I would put the motion.
[ Page 392 ]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 38 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Priddy | Petter | |
| Miller | G. Clark | Dosanjh | |
| MacPhail | Sihota | Brewin | |
| Randall | Sawicki | Lali | |
| Doyle | Gillespie | Robertson | |
| Farnworth | Smallwood | Conroy | |
| McGregor | Janssen | ||
|
NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Hurd | |
| Sanders | Plant | Stephens | |
| de Jong | Coell | Anderson | |
| Nebbeling | Whittred | van Dongen | |
| Thorpe | Penner | Weisgerber | |
| G. Wilson | J. Wilson | Reitsma | |
| Hansen | C. Clark | Hawkins | |
| Symons | Abbott | Jarvis | |
| Weisbeck | Chong | Coleman | |
| Nettleton | Masi | McKinnon | |
| Krueger | Barisoff | Neufeld | |
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:46 a.m.