2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 15
[ Page 14829 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
T. Stevenson: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
T. Stevenson: In the gallery this morning we have a Ms. M. Nelms, who is with the University of Victoria in the faculty of education. With her is a group from Thailand, who are educators that have come over to this country. This is a particular pleasure for me, because it was only a year or so ago that I was in Thailand and had a wonderful time, both in the north and in the south, except for a little motorcycle accident I had. But that is another story. We hope you have a wonderful time here in this country. Will the House make them welcome.
[1005]
Orders of the Day
Hon. I. Waddell: I call debate on the throne speech.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
B. McKinnon: I am pleased to rise and speak to the throne speech. My riding of Surrey-Cloverdale is one of the Surrey ridings that will have its boundaries changed in the next election and become two ridings. As it stands today, my constituency consists of many small blueberry, vegetable and potato farms, small businesses and an ever-growing residential population. We have some of the most beautiful golf courses in the province, one of which is Northview golf course on which the Greater Vancouver Open is played every year.
One of our biggest industries in Cloverdale is the Fraser Downs racetrack. This racetrack gives seasonal employment to a great many people in the community. The sad story for Surrey and for this province is that the horse-racing industry in British Columbia is dying from lack of government support. It is this NDP's government's expanded gambling policies, overtaxation and regulation that have created this devastating effect on this industry. I don't think people realize just how many jobs are at stake in this industry -- the number of individuals and families that are going to be negatively affected not just in my constituency but all around the province. The purse money has risen in other provinces but not in B.C., and racing stables are abandoning Fraser Downs for racetracks in other provinces.
My constituency has already begun to feel the effects of people moving to Alberta and Ontario, where there is hope and promise for this industry. The move is affecting both the standardbred and thoroughbred racing industry in British Columbia. Just two weeks ago another 18 horses left for the east, and it shows that British Columbia racetracks cannot even compete with smaller tracks in other parts of the country. Chuck Keeling from Fraser Downs has said that the industry is caught in a downward spiral; each negative leads to more negatives.
You may ask, hon. Speaker: "Why should we care?" We should care, because the lives of a thousand people employed at Fraser Downs are having a negative impact in our community to the tune of $115 million annually. Provincially, the horse-racing industry generates 12,500 jobs and has an annual economic impact of $550 million.
As I listened to the throne speech, I heard nothing that would give this industry hope -- hope to show the people in this province, not only in my constituency, that this government was listening to them. What should have been said in the throne speech was that this government was willing to immediately reduce or eliminate the parimutuel tax. It is a tax that no longer has any justification. The horse-racing industry must be allowed to compete on an even playing field. They are not asking for any more. British Columbia is the only jurisdiction west of Quebec that continues to extract a tax on the parimutuel gross revenue, which is as high as 3 percent.
There is another situation in my riding that has provincewide ramifications. It's a situation that has shocked and appalled all of British Columbia. It is a situation that has brought tears to my eyes and to the eyes of thousands of people. That situation is the seizure of two little girls from the only family they have ever known. That family, hon. Speaker, as you well know, is the Draayers.
Just days before Christmas, these two sisters, who were ten and 11 at the time and had grown up with Mr. and Mrs. Draayer, were torn from the arms of the only family they had ever loved and who had ever cared for them. One was still an infant and the other a year old when they were placed in the Draayers' care.
Mr. and Mrs. Draayer were so concerned about the welfare of their foster daughters last year that they notified the Ministry for Children and Families. They were trying to ensure the girls' future by arranging stable, long-term care in case anything happened to either of them. The couple, I should note, are advanced in age. But as millions of people in British Columbia and across Canada have seen, they are far from incapacitated and far from being unable to care for these girls. They had simply notified the ministry that should anything happen to them, they were taking action to ensure that the girls would continue to be cared for in a stable family environment.
[1010]
But what did the Ministry for Children and Families do? They unceremoniously, and virtually with no notice, removed the two girls from the Draayers' arms and sent them off to live with an uncle they barely knew. Not more than a month later, the uncle decided he could no longer care for the two sisters, and they were again shunted off to another home. And then, wouldn't you know it, a few weeks later they were moved again.This is compassion; this is caring for children. No, this is bureaucracy running wild by a former minister who cared little but to protect her staff. Nowhere was there any care exhibited for these girls, and now the new minister has, as of today, only given the Draayers' visiting rights, when we all know these two girls should be returned to them. They should be returned to the only family they have ever truly known.
Even the girls' maternal grandmother has said publicly that the girls should be returned to the Draayers; the Draayer home is where they should be. They should not be shunted from pillar to post until, I fear, these children become runaways -- become street children, become vulnerable to pimps and drug dealers.
[ Page 14830 ]
Is that what the Ministry for Children and Families wants for these two little girls that found love with the Draayers? These children were torn from the only family they've ever known. I ask you, hon. Speaker: where should these girls go? Back to this family that has loved them almost since birth? Or be condemned by the ministry to lives where they are shuttled from foster home to foster home to foster home, until they end up on the street? Victims of child-abusers? Exploited for sex? Used as saleable commodities to support the drug trade?The Legislature just received the 1999 annual report from the child advocate, Joyce Preston. In that report she said there was little improvement in the delivery of services to children and youth in need. Children, youth and their families have not had their needs met by this ministry. There are inadequate early intervention services, inadequate services to older youth and seriously inadequate services to children in government care. This ministry is focused on reducing costs, and this results in the reduction of services for children, youth and their families, leaving many people desperate and in crisis. There has been a significant reduction in the availability of programs for those who voluntarily request services. Local offices and their staff have not been given adequate support to develop comprehensive services.
This ministry has many standards and policies that have not been implemented. They use the excuse that there are no funds available. We can see why there's not any money for our children. The NDP government has wasted it on fast ferries that are useless to our waters. That $463 million could have done wonders to help children in this province, hire more workers and implement programs that are so sadly needed in this province. We have staffing crises in the ministry. Early development services have not been expanded, despite compelling research. Early intervention services have been reduced due to ministry pressure to reduce costs. If this ministry doesn't get a wake-up call soon, more of our children are going to fall through the cracks and end up on the street because of a government that doesn't care.
[1015]
I have heard nothing in the throne speech that would give my community any hope that provincial highways, such as the Highway 10 or the Pacific Highway from Cloverdale to the freeway, would finally be widened to ease the horrendous traffic volumes that travel on them. We have experienced tremendous growth in my constituency. This government has neglected these provincial highways for too many years now. It is time for a wake-up call and to call an election.An Hon. Member: Do you think that'll fix the highway?
B. McKinnon: That will help get a proper government in.
It is a sad day for British Columbians when we have to legislate telling the truth, when governments have to legislate to make sure that the people in this province are hearing the truth from the people they elect. Does this mean that we are going to actually hear the truth now -- get all the true facts on the budgets that this government produces? I doubt it.
When I read over the throne speech
Because of the situation this NDP government is creating in our schools, children who have depended on the schools for breakfast will go hungry. Schools in Surrey have also been forced to cancel their highly successful volunteer-run safe arrival programs. Parents raised the money to establish and administer these programs, and now, because this government puts unions before the well-being of our students, these successful programs will no longer be available. It's again the children who suffer. Does this government not care whether our kids arrive safely to school? No. All they care about is whether they have created another union job, something our schools can ill afford.
Most school boards in this province have little discretionary money to spend on the students themselves. It only amounts to approximately 8 percent. Up to 92 percent goes to salaries. Our children suffer from a lack of school supplies. They are going to school hungry. Is anybody listening over there? Is anybody listening to what is happening in our schools? Apparently not this government, hon. Speaker. Children are suffering in this province, and this government has to wake up. It has to quit putting its friends first and help the people who really need it.
The B.C. Liberals have always believed that volunteers are welcome in our schools, and everywhere else for that matter. We will provide the students with an education they deserve. You can depend on that. We will make education an essential service.
The Premier wants to reform legislation -- something, I might add, that the B.C. Liberals have been talking about since the last election. This is something that is long overdue. If this government is really serious about reform, then the people of British Columbia need to have their trust restored in government. The Premier said during his leadership campaign: "The people have a right to know. And their rights need to be protected in the most transparent way possible." If there is a lingering doubt about the issue, it needs to be resolved. Now that he is Premier, apparently we do not have to be so transparent. Why? I asked myself this question. The only answer I can come up with is that there must be something worth hiding, something that the NDP does not want this province to know. It makes one wonder if it could possibly be worse than what they've already done.
It is criminal, what this government has done to this province. The fast ferry fiasco is the NDP emblem of complete incompetence. As much as the NDP want to rid themselves of this financial albatross, they will continue to have it hanging around their necks until they allow the people to have a public inquiry. Those who are to blame should be punished for their gross negligence and mismanagement of taxpayer money.
The theme of this throne speech is shallow; it does not respond to our ailing and failing economy. Where is the vision, hon. Speaker? Our last Premier said in 1992: "Some would like us to increase spending significantly and allow the deficit to rise. But allowing the deficit to rise unchecked during the upturn in the business cycle is not a sound economic policy." Interesting, isn't it?
[1020]
The government continues to burden small business with added taxation; they do it in many ways. One of them is charging high licensing fees, such as they are doing with the U-brew industry. The government charges U-brews a $750 licensing fee because they believe the U-brews will require enforcement. I don't believe this is the case. It's just another money grab from the small business owner, one which they[ Page 14831 ]
can ill afford. The U-brews in my constituency believe that the $750 licensing fees are exorbitant and would like to know how the government can justify such a fee for small businesses who abide by all the laws, especially when they were never licensed before.If we take a look at the licensing fees of restaurants and even the largest wineries in British Columbia, their licences are only $500. So why are they picking on the U-brews? It doesn't make sense. Government should be working with small business, not against it. We should be encouraging small business to grow in British Columbia, not discouraging it.
It's amazing that the NDP have learned nothing in the last nine years of trying to govern this province. We have to have a sound economy, encourage investment, lower taxes and do away with all the red tape that is strangling businesses in this province. Then we can have an education system that serves our young people and a health care system that cares for the people of British Columbia.
This NDP government has shown little desire to ditch the tax-and-spend policies that have crippled the B.C. economy over the past nine years. This government needs an attitude change and needs to begin investing in the people, for the people of this province. It's time to put people before politics and call an election.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on the Speech from the Throne. My speech, hopefully, will be a little bit more in-depth than this very shallow document. My constituents have asked me to stress a few points today -- namely, health care, education, child care -- and we'll get into those. Before I do, I would just like to recognize a few of my constituents -- namely, Carol, Bill, Frances, Si and Jack -- and thank them very much for all of their counsel over the years. My thoughts are with them.
Hon. Speaker, we look at this throne speech of March 15, 2000. You know, quite frankly, this is a very disturbing document. It lacks vision. It admits they've not been telling the truth. It tells us that they do not understand health care, they do not understand education and, sad to say, they've ignored the cries and pleas of children and families.
This government and this Premier, who has been with this gang for ten years, all of a sudden want us to believe
One of their cornerstones is a new budget transparency law. Now, what does that tell each and every British Columbian? What does that tell them? It tells us that we have not been given the facts. The methodology in which they've been attempting to deliver the budget is certainly questionable, and I suppose some of those things will unfold as they should, starting next week. But for a government that now says it wants transparency and accountability
[1025]
If they're so serious about this, then why would they have shut down the Public Accounts Committee on the fudge-it budget review? Why would they have closed down the fast ferry inquiry, if this a government about transparency and accountability? These are the facts they wanted. They wanted the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. So you know, this isNow they want to bring in that as part of this new law that they're going to be open about all their capital expenditures. Well, isn't that just wonderful? After they have squandered away billions and billions of taxpayers' money to the point where our interest costs in British Columbia are now $2.8 billion each and every year -- over $7.704 million each and every day. So people are just not buying into this government's masquerade about a new way of managing the finances of the province in a transparent way. Enough on that subject.
Let us move to health care. Here's a government that's been here for nine years. I see we have a new minister. The janitor has now moved over. I do stand corrected. One member has been here a long time, but he's pointed out that he's only been a member of this government for one year. I don't seem to see that smiling face like I used to see, but perhaps in the future -- as the province works its way through its problems and the people of British Columbia have the opportunity for an election and a new government -- we will see a smile return to that member's face.
Let us talk about what's really important to British Columbians. It's their health care system. Here we have a statement, "Health care is the top priority of today's families" -- no question about that. Unfortunately, it has not been the top priority of this government, including that Premier over there. But let us just see what the Premier said in Ottawa just two days ago, and I quote from the National Post: "What we need to do is determine what needs to be done to modernize health care and what needs to be done to improve it, to enhance it so it serves the interest of the patients."
This is the Premier of the province of British Columbia saying those words about health care in the capital of our country. Where has he been? For nine years he's been dithering on this subject like he has on so many other subjects. British Columbians do not accept that approach with respect to their health care system.
All of a sudden the lights have gone on over there, and they said: "We have a shortage of nurses." They have been in charge for nine years. These things do not happen overnight. It happens because of the lack of planning and incompetence. That's why these things now have to be admitted to in this throne speech.
With respect to another amazing revelation in this Speech from the Throne, "We must improve access to long-term care," I have personally raised this issue in this House for three continuous years, and I will again in estimates -- perhaps with a new Minister of Health, who perhaps will hear and want to act. We in the Okanagan have a shortage of 600 long term care beds. We have been pleading; we have been suggesting. We have been willing to work hand in hand with this government to take it out of the political arena to get something done with the communities, with the government and with the opposition. It all falls on deaf ears, and of course, there's no action. I'm hopeful that the new minister will at least entertain a meeting on the subject and that we can have some discussions.
[1030]
[ Page 14832 ]
I also hope that when the new minister travels into the ridings of the South Okanagan, he will be a little bit more courteous than some of the previous ministers and actually let us know that he is coming to town, so that we can show British Columbians that we want to work together to solve their problems. I see the minister nodding his head, and I take that as a yes. I look forward to that.
With respect to education, we now have a statement that we're going to have quality education from K to J. It's right in here: "K to J." Where I come from in the Okanagan, the alphabet doesn't quite work that way. No wonder education is broken, when they can't get the alphabet right in their own document -- K to J. What is going on here? We're now going to have fewer portables. We have been hearing this hollow and empty rhetoric from that government for five years. We have two new middle schools in my riding. But you know what? We don't have enough books for the students. What is going on? If we're going to build the facilities, if we're going to have students, surely, Mr. Speaker -- and I know you'd agree with this -- we should have the basic tools that are required -- namely, books in the classrooms and books in the library. That seems fairly fundamental.
Moving to child care. This is very, very sad. They talk about safe, affordable child care. They talk about understanding. Well, the office of the child, youth and family advocate has just published its fifth report, "Not Good Enough," in shocking black. What does it say? "
We all know this is a very, very complex issue. When you work in a community and you have the opportunity to visit supported child care facilities, as I have in my riding
In supported child care we now have a wait-list in Penticton of over 40, and it's growing. We have families that have autistic children who actually have had to almost go into hand-to-hand combat with the ministry so that they can look after their children who are truly, truly in need. If we are committed to those families and to those children that are truly in need, why would they have to go into hand-to-hand combat to get the services for their children? That's not acceptable. We will continue the fight, as Barbara and Joe Rodrigues have done, and we will be there to support them. Let me tell you that it is fundamentally right to provide that family and their son with the services needed, so that they can have a good life and Jeremy has a chance. The child, youth and family advocate has told us that early intervention is how we are going to solve some of these problems and provide
[1035]
What is this throne speech missing? More importantly, because I do want to be positive, what is needed to move forward? In this throne speech and subsequent budget there is obviously no plan to stimulate private sector job creation. Let's be clear. It's the private sector that creates job in our province, in our country and around the world. It's private sector that makes sure that we are competitive in the global marketplace, the global economy. There is absolutely no plan to stimulate private sector investment or confidence in our economy and no plan to combat the brain drain or increase opportunities for all British Columbians, especially young British Columbians.There is absolutely no plan in this throne speech to really reduce personal income tax. All they've done, which many of their members have admitted, is flowed through taxpayers' tax dollars that they were going to get from the federal government anyhow. But it's British Columbians' money.
I was very glad to see one of the members yesterday recognize that this government has only contributed $50 million in tax relief when they took in $1.2 billion in additional revenue -- 4 percent is for the taxpayer, 96 percent for their incompetent funding programs. It's even more disturbing to me when they can give taxpayers only $50 million in tax relief, but at last count it was $463 million on fast ferries. When we add in the engines and some of the other things that have to be done, it will be $500 million. We've got the convention centre at $73 million. Over $573 million was wasted by that incompetent government over there, and they give back taxpayers $50 million. I think they've got it turned around. Taxpayers should have got back $573 million, because those two project should have never gone forward in the province.
We also have a government that says that it wants to get expenditures under control and that it's going to balance the budget once again. They were going to do that in '91, because they weren't going to spend any money that they didn't have, and they were going to do that in '93 and '95
The most disturbing thing in this throne speech
I know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast wants to hear positive solutions, and I want to give those right now. What we need is a government that has a vision, has a plan and has a leader who believes that results will do the talking, not the spin. I am very proud of the caucus that I am a member of. We have a caucus that comes from all walks of life. They have served in business, served their communities. They are very competent, and they will bring their successful experiences to this House. Then we can have a government that will deliver what it says it's going to deliver.
We have a team that has real experiences. We have a team of people who have actually had to stay up late at night
[ Page 14833 ]
running their small businesses, who have to sign the front of the cheque and know the responsibilities that go with signing the front of the cheque -- as opposed to that crew, that gang over there. All they've done is sign the back of someone else's cheque. They've never had to stay awake at night and sign the front of a cheque -- never. Our caucus knows that.[1040]
But what we need and what British Columbia needs is a new era of prosperity, with new hope and a new era in the public service. We have ten key points, and let me just give those quickly to you. The first one is that we believe that British Columbians deserve a dramatic cut in personal income tax, and a B.C. Liberal government will deliver that within 90 days of being elected. We will pass balanced-budget legislation within our first 90 days of being government, and will outlaw deficits. We will balance the budget within three years of forming the government. We will not talk about cutting red tape; we are going to actually cut red tape by one-third within the first three years of being in government. We want to -- and we will -- negotiate affordable, workable treaties with first nations that provide certainty, finality and equality.Interjections.
R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be
What we're also going to do is protect private property rights to prevent that government and other governments like them from expropriating private property without fair compensation. We are going to work every day with the people in Ottawa, no matter who the government is -- not just go down for a little photo-op spin with the entourage -- and talk about a variety of things. We're going to work with that government every day, so that British Columbians get their fair share each and every day; that's what we're going to do. We want new prosperity for British Columbia.
An Hon. Member: Real prosperity.
R. Thorpe: Real prosperity -- thank you very much.
People want new hope. People have to know that with a competent government, you can get your fiscal house in order and address the two key priorities of families and citizens of today. We will protect funding for health care and for education. We will focus our priorities on the patient and on the student. That's where the focus has to be -- not on our big insiders and special friends. That's where the focus has to be.
Of course, the other thing that is really important here in British Columbia -- quite frankly, it's important in all governments, and it's been eroded tremendously here in British Columbia
But as I close, I cannot close without sharing with this House what my constituents are very upset about. They are upset about the tremendous waste of their money that should have gone to health care and education, while this government chose to spend it on fast ferries. The $463 million -- and climbing by the day, soon to be over $500 million -- could have funded 200 additional teachers' salaries for one year, 400 nurses' salaries for one year, an additional 200 RCMP officers for a year; eliminated the cardiac and hip surgery waiting list throughout the province of British Columbia; built seven new rural hospitals; paid for 60 kidney and 40 liver transplants; paid for some 250 air ambulance trips from Prince George; bought six MRI scanners and 12 CT scanners; paid for the care of 200 children in foster homes; and bought new textbooks for over 10,000 high school students.
[1045]
These are the choices that this government made. Those are the things that the government, that old gang over there, chose not to do when it embarked upon the fast ferry fiasco. Yet they don't address that in the throne speech. That is very saddening and very disappointing.
British Columbians are now asking
I will, as I've had to against this budget, vote against this throne speech because it does not provide a vision, does not provide a plan and does not answer the very issues that hard-working British Columbians want answered today. People are sick and tired of hearing the old theme song: "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow." They don't want to hear it anymore. They want an election today. If this government is serious, and if some of the members over there are serious about their positions, then pay some respect to British Columbians, answer their question and call an election today.
I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
I. Chong: Visiting us today in the gallery are 16 students representing the student council of Braefoot Elementary School. They are in grades 4 to 7 and have just had a tour of the buildings. Some of them have been here several times, but some are new to this precinct. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Campbell, and three or four adults who have driven them to this wonderful place. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: I rise today to speak on the throne speech debate. I couldn't help listening
But first I want to say that I hear this call for an election
[ Page 14834 ]
a new direction. The throne speech shows the new direction, and it shows that the Premier is out there talking about and governing with a balanced approach, unlike what the opposition has proposed.
If you look at the speeches today
The member for Surrey-Cloverdale got up and said she wanted to widen Highway 10. "It's time for a wake-up call," she said. Well, let me suggest to the hon. member that to widen Highway 10 takes money. You have to spend money to do that. Then they stand up and say, "Well, we're going to cut government spending, and we're going to give dramatic tax cuts" -- read: dramatic tax cuts to the wealthy, the better off. The government in the budget, you notice, has given tax cuts to the middle class and to the working people and to small business. That party over there, the Liberal Party under the leadership of the leader of the opposition, wants to give "dramatic" -- and they said it, both speakers -- tax cuts. Read: dramatic tax cuts to big business in the economy. I respectfully suggest that that's not where the majority of British Columbians want to go.
[1050]
She talks about truth in budgeting, and the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton mentioned that as well. I want to quote what Jock Finlayson, vice-president of the Business Council of B.C., said on CBC's "B.C. Almanac" on March 27: "The government is disclosing more information underlying the budget forecasts for revenues and the economy, and that is good. It's good to have a low tax burden on the small companies and startup entrepreneurs. And we certainly support that. We" -- meaning B.C. -- "are still in a relatively strong position. Debt-servicing costs at 8 percent or 9 percent of government revenues are still relatively low."So let's have a little truth over there and acknowledge what the vice-president of the Business Council said vis à vis transparency in budgeting. Surely that is what the new Premier has been saying. You know what, hon. Speaker? The new Premier and the government have been delivering on that, and that's what the budget and the throne speech do.
The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale also suggested that
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm dealing with Cloverdale first, and then I'll deal with the hon. member from Penticton. He can just hold his fire.
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I've always believed that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It seems to me that the interests of the students were put before the interests of anything else. That's the plain fact about it, and I suggest that the hon. member look at her economics again.
With the dramatic tax increases for big business that the Liberal Party of British Columbia proposes
I want to deal with a few remarks by the member for Okanagan-Penticton. Again I say to him
Hon. G. Wilson: And a balanced budget.
Hon. I. Waddell:
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: Oh, public-private partnership? Now we're going to privatize
I tell you, British Columbians should be very, very careful about this crew over there. They are going to change B.C. dramatically, and it's going to be America. That's the idea.
[1055]
In the United States, in a time of prosperity and with the economy picking up
The hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton mentioned the shortage of nurses. You have to be
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: Give me a chance. This is a debate, and I want to deal with what the hon. members say, because I want them to be consistent and positive.
He mentioned a shortage of nurses. There's a worldwide shortage of nurses, and he should acknowledge that. It's a challenge that we all have, and it's going to take money and
[ Page 14835 ]
training to get more nurses. You're not going to get it with dramatic tax cuts for the rich and with lack of spending. You are just not going to get those nurses. It seems to me that's simple economics.He talks about child care. You know, we talked about child care in the budget. We want to do child care; we're going to do child care. We're going to build it up slowly so that there's real child care for working mothers in British Columbia -- working families. They're against child care. They've said it; their critic is against child care. They voted against it.
They talk about settlement of treaties, which we have to do to keep the B.C. economy going. They voted against the Nisga'a treaty. They're against treaty settlements. They even want to go to court on it. Surely that is the height of hypocrisy -- not only voodoo economics but hypocrisy when it comes to their dealings with aboriginal people. They just can't deliver for the province.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton talked about hand-to-hand combat -- one of his phrases. Maybe I'll leave that. The member's an expert in that area, and I could not possibly compete with him. I want to say: "Take up the challenge."
I want to say a few things about where the economy is really going. After an excruciatingly difficult period in British Columbia, where we've been dependent upon resource economies -- fishing, mining, forestry -- we're entering
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano is sitting over there. I hope there's not another disciplinary hearing there; I hear the bells.
Let me deal with this matter of the new economy. We are seeing the birth of a new economy in British Columbia. If you want a vision, this is the vision of the new economy. We're moving towards a greener economy; we're moving towards a high-tech economy; we're moving towards an economy that's built on talent.
As Culture minister, I got together a group of people last November to talk about culture in the new economy -- not a popular area. This was a new initiative. I brought together people from all different aspects. I asked the lead-off speaker
Look at the film economy. In film we are growing at the rate of about 35 percent a year. We have reached $1 billion in film production in British Columbia. We are ahead of Toronto; we're just next to Los Angeles and New York. We are booming in film. Why are we doing it? Because government is working together with the industry on this. Government and trade unions are working in a way that will carry on the prosperity. We just got a new three-year collective agreement last week. We started out with government help by providing loans to North Shore Studios and Lions Gate studios. Those loans have been paid off, and the company has done very well.
The hon. member should know that this is a mixed economy. It's a private-public economy. That happens all over North America, even in the so-called pure capitalism of the United States. South Carolina gets companies to go there by incentives -- by tax incentives, by working with them, by loans. We have been building up the film economy, and it has been a smashing success.
[1100]
Look at the tourism economy. Look at tourism in British Columbia. I was able to go with the tourism people two weeks ago and announce that we had a $9.2 billion economy. It is growing at a rate of 5 percent per year, and it will grow more. We will become the world leaders in ecotourism, the new form of tourism. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world; ecotourism is the fastest-growing part. We have this magnificent province. We are now getting the dividend of that investment. The Harcourt government started the process by getting 12 percent of our land into parks. Now we are going to benefit from that. We've made the investment.The hon. member says: "Where's the vision?" It seems to me that this government has a green vision. It's a young vision. It's for the new economy, and it targets young people. I challenge the hon. member: would the Liberal opposition have frozen tuition fees for university students? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. Why wouldn't they have frozen them? Well, it's simple economics. Listen to the speeches from the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale and the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton. They want dramatic tax breaks -- for whom? For the better off. And they want to cut spending, meaning spending for students. It's obvious. It will appear very much in the next election, and we will see.
I want to use a little bit of the time here to deal with some of the remarks that were made by Mr. Jeff Mooney. Mr. Mooney is quoted today in the Vancouver Sun. He is the chair of the Business Council. I want to address Mr. Mooney directly. First of all, as Minister of Small Business, I want to tell Mr. Mooney that
Mr. Mooney is the president of A&W, a fast-growing North Vancouver - based restaurant chain. They sell a lot of hamburgers. It says that Mr. Mooney has a home in Point Grey and a weekend retreat on Galiano Island. He's doing quite well in this economy, and his company has done quite well in this economy. He had some remarks to make today in the paper, and I want to deal with some of them.
He says that he wants major tax cuts. I say to him: we have made tax cuts -- over $230 million in this budget alone. But we have targeted small business, because we believe they are the people that are producing the jobs. They are producing most of the jobs in British Columbia. We've targeted small business, and
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. member would just give me a chance and listen, he'll get the floor in a minute.
He wants cuts in government spending. It's the same agenda that I am trying to deal with. He was asked: "Do you actively oppose this government?" He said: "No, we will work with the government to try and find solutions to the new economy in British Columbia." Now, I take Mr. Mooney up on that. The government will work with him, to try and work together so that we can find solutions.
[ Page 14836 ]
I want to point out -- I just want to get this on the record -- that according to the senior economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Derek BurletonInterjections.
[1105]
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. members are yelling at me: What is it elsewhere? Ontario was in a recession in the early nineties and have come out of it because of theInterjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, if the hon. members want to listen to me, I'll give my explanation, and they can get up and give theirs. Ontario was in a recession. The American economy picked up. They're an auto-part exporting economy in Ontario, and they're doing very well. Alberta is doing well; they're an oil-based economy.
An Hon. Member: Gas.
Hon. I. Waddell: Gas and oil. And they're doing very well; they've got lots of revenues. Look at the price at the pump. And are making a lot of government money in gaming, which we have chosen for various reasons not to do. We are moving, however.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: No, no. It's not true; we are. This economy is picking up. There's a projected growth rate in the budget of about 2.5 percent. The economist for the Toronto-Dominion Bank says 3 percent. There's increased consumer confidence. I say to Mr. Mooney that we are prepared to work together with him. You know, we have been working for a year on the Business Task Force to cut red tape; we've been working on it. We've made some real progress in cutting red tape. We've made progress in
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: It would take another hour to go through all the things. I ask the hon. member to talk to the task force members, talk to his friends in the business community who sit on that task force. There's a list of about 30 areas that we've made progress on, so we're doing that.
I want to say this to Mr. Mooney: we cannot and will not do a race to the bottom in British Columbia. We're not going to do a two-tiered health care system. We're not going to do a taxation regime that goes lower and lower so that we don't have any services in British Columbia. That's not the way we're going to compete. We're going to compete with a great tourism industry, with a new green economy; it's all reflected in the budget and the throne speech. We're going to cool this province down and have good relations with people. We're going to have better relations with Ottawa that we can deal with, and we can get the federal government contributing to things like our new convention centre. We have set a new course for the government, and I believe we're following it.
I notice in the article today that I've been quoting from, on Mr. Mooney -- because this is the real debate that's going on in the province -- that Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, was asked to respond to Mr. Mooney. He said: "Taxes have become a buzzword for cutting taxes for the wealthy
I think that's the key. This is a very, very wealthy
Interjections.
Hon. I. Waddell: I agree with the hon. members. We have to create
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: One of the reasons that we're having great difficulty in the private sector investment, and it's now picking up
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: We are going to have amazing growth in this province. I'll tell the hon. members why, and my vision. It's the new economy. It's going to based on the new world tourism economy. We're going to be top of the world in ecotourism. We're going to have the Olympics in 2010. We are fashioning a high-tech industry that's just beginning, because it's so nice to live in British Columbia. When all is said and done by, you can talk about: "Well, they're going to leave the province, because they can get a little better tax regime somewhere down in the States." But do you know what? You talk to some people; they want to live in British Columbia because it's a civilized society. It has good health care. It has decent education for their kids. It's safer than the other places. We've got the fundamentals here.
My riding of Vancouver-Fraserview has people from all over the world. We've had an influx of people from Taiwan recently. We have people from the People's Republic of China. We have people from south Asia -- from India, from the Punjab. We have a microcosm of the new British Columbia. I'm very proud, and I'm very proud to have a Premier that reflects that. You know what? They are positive people. Many of them are small business people; they are creating jobs in this province. They have a positive vision, unlike the opposition.
I want to quote from the throne speech, on page 18. It says: "My government's objective
[ Page 14837 ]
[1110]
"
"
"
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Today, in participating in this debate on the throne speech
I want to distinguish first of all between vision, which I think is sadly lacking amongst too many politicians today, and hindsight. Hindsight is something that too many politicians mistake for vision. They think that if they stand with their feet planted firmly looking backwards and invoke glorious images of the past, they're in fact offering vision. They're not; they're offering hindsight. Anybody can offer hindsight; it's more difficult to offer vision.
Last week in this chamber I heard members of the opposition invoking images and the memory of Tommy Douglas -- which is always somewhat amusing. I want to say this because I get awfully tired of hearing his name invoked too much -- on the Left and on the Right, frankly. For this reason, I think that if Tommy Douglas could comment today on the speeches that he hears here
I believe there has been little vision in politics in this country since the medicare debate in the 1960s. Ever since then, the principal approach of centre-left parties has been to simply defend the gains made at that time. Well, Hon. Speaker, that isn't enough. That does not inspire people. It does not offer vision for the future. There has been a lack of vision, I would argue, in this country, for decades now -- by those on the Left and on the Right.
On the Left, those who favour a role for government haven't inspired people with their articulation of the role they feel government can play and how it can make society better. On the Right, those who argue that the role of government should be minimized, that somehow government is inherently bad or its role necessarily leads to bad things too often, also lack vision. They also look backward, and I would submit that they don't offer new ideas. The real debate in political discourse right now, I believe, is about the role of government. It doesn't always come across that way, but that's the subtext of what's going on. The question is: do we believe in the role of the state to make society better, or do we see the state as something to be minimized because it is inherently bad? I want to touch upon a number of elements of this debate, offer my views and then offer a few thoughts, as I wrap up, about vision for the future.
[1115]
First, on the issue of deficit, I believe that the deficit must come down and that it must be eliminated. The budget that the government has brought in this year attempts to hold the line on the deficit, and I hope the deficit will come down. The difference between a modern Left and the Right is that the Left will accept that there may be times when a deficit can be run, but a modern Left accepts that it should be minimized -- absolutely minimized. Ongoing deficits aren't sustainable. Then there's the issue of the approach to elimination of the deficit. On one side, I would argue that many on the Right take up the call of cuts to services, and that's how we've seen many governments in this country balance their budgets. Unfortunately, what they've done -- and I believe it's just a timing problem they have -- is they've also brought in tax cuts, which have increased the problem of deficit at the same time as they're trying to balance the budget. The problem is that they've had to cut services further.On the other hand, I think we're in a time of good overall economic growth on this continent. We should be taking advantage of economic growth and directing a portion of that economic growth, in terms of the revenue it generates, to reducing the deficit. We should be applying a significant portion of the revenue increases to reducing the deficit, because then we can avoid massive cuts to services. I would argue, then, that after the deficit is eliminated is the time for larger tax cuts to follow.
Another issue, debt. I believe that in this province in the 1980s we had accumulated what might be called a capital deficit. What had happened was that not enough schools had been built, not enough roads had been built, and other public infrastructure had been neglected. When that happens, the question is: how fast do you make up that deficit? There is certainly no shortage of demand for public infrastructure, whether it's schools, hospitals or roads.
Some might argue -- and I think it's a legitimate debate -- about whether this government moved too fast in trying to make up that deficit and invested too much in capital too soon. That's a fair matter for public debate. But the bottom line is that we have to understand that most of the debt in this province was accumulated as a result of capital spending. It
[ Page 14838 ]
was an investment in infrastructure. Bad debt is when it's run up because you're running ongoing operating deficits. Debt will become bad, if you have too much of it overall. But debt is okay to a certain level as long as it's mainly the result of capital investment -- investment in infrastructure for the future.So I don't think that it helps when the debate over debt is being dominated by people who are rigidly, ideologically on the Left or on the Right -- those on the Right just saying debt is bad, bad, bad and we can never have it, and those on the Left who don't seem to think it's a problem or think that it's a problem that can be ignored. It can't be ignored.
On the question of taxes, there is no doubt that people today feel the squeeze financially all around -- especially if they live, like some of my constituents, in the lower mainland. We have large mortgages; we carry loans for vehicles, no doubt. We have all kinds of expenses in our lives. Taxes are part of those. Taxes in this country and, I would argue, in the industrial world generally since the Second World War have gone up not just because of increases in services
It's my position that taxes must come down. Again, we don't need this debate to be dominated by ideologues on the Right or on the Left. On the Right, those who say that taxes are just inherently bad somehow, that they can lead to no good
[1120]
On the question of business, I believe that we on the left have to do more to help business. We've made a good start in the budget this year with some of the initiatives outlined in the throne speech. I think, especially, that small business needs our help.What we have to be careful of, though, is the way we characterize the players in this drama. Too many on the Right simply worship people who are involved in business, and then they denigrate people who aren't in business -- they denigrate people in the public sector. We see this happen all the time. It's a sad, sad state, and it's unnecessary.
People should not be denigrated, whether they work in the public sector or whether they're hard-working small business people. The bottom line for me is that business people, especially small business people, I see as hard-working regular folks like anybody else, and they're a growing portion of this economy. As a reasonably young member of this House, I'll say that I recognize that, whereas a generation ago young people could graduate from university or college and go on and have a job for life as an employee. Increasingly, today young people end up in small business. They may be professionals, they may end up as consultants, and what have you. It's important that we hear what they have to say.
It's also important on the Left that we don't get too caught up in the rhetoric of some of those who purport to represent business, who represent a narrow ideological agenda. What we have to do is listen more carefully than that. We have to go past the ideologues and listen to the people on the ground who are in business and hear what they have to say.
I would argue, then, that a modern Left supports business -- supports small business in particular. The modern Left understands that this is not a break with our roots; in fact, it is entirely consistent with our roots in this country.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the predecessor to the NDP, began in 1932. It was an assorted, diverse group of people who were brought together. It included labour; it included intellectuals at the universities. It also included, I would argue, small business people. On the Prairies, the birthplace of our movement, it included small business people who were called farmers. They were a key element of our movement, and I would argue that what has happened is that we forgot about those roots and that we're just beginning to get in touch with them again. It's exactly the right thing to do, and for those who think that for us to give some tax cuts to business
On services. This is another area where the debate about the role of government manifests itself. It is not readily apparent that what is really happening is a debate about whether government should play a key role or not, but it manifests itself in this debate.
Health care. At some point we're going to have more honest debate in this country about what has to be done with health care. Maybe those on the Right who are promoting an agenda of privatization help in that debate, ironically, because it forces us to realize how precious our public health care system is and how tenuous our grasp on it can be, especially right now.
What is required for health care, I have concluded, is more money. We can hear all the rhetoric in the world about finding efficiencies and this and that, but it doesn't matter what the stripe of the government is -- Left or Right, any province in this country -- they're facing the same problem. It's going to come down to this. Either we are going to lose our public health care system, it's going to be gradually eroded, and become more privatized, or we are going to make a renewed commitment to health care and put more money into it in order to keep it public. We certainly put more money into health care every year in this province, and it gets eaten up in no time. We know the pressures are still out there. To say somehow that it's just about finding efficiencies, I think, is just not honest. If those who make those arguments were to find themselves in government, they would find very quickly that this isn't the case.
Fundamentally when it comes to health care, we must keep it in the public domain. The debate about the role of government is how much of a role government should play in medicare. I believe that the vast majority of Canadians and the vast majority of people in this province believe that it's a key area where government plays a role. With the private health care debate that is happening right now in Alberta we can already see in the opinion polling that half of Albertans are extremely uncomfortable with what Ralph Klein is doing, in spite of the fact that he is offering reassurances that it's not about the end of medicare.
[ Page 14839 ]
[1125]
On education. I think it's fair to say that the debate about whether government should play a role in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system is behind us. I don't think that is being challenged right now. I think the real point of conflict in the debate about the role of government in education happens in our post-secondary system, because what's happening in most provinces -- not this one -- is that students are seeing increased tuition. I would argue that increased tuition is a form of privatization. It's privatization, broadly speaking. It's saying that government should play less of a role in providing post-secondary education and that more of the burden should fall on individuals themselves.This is the nature of the debate about the role of government when it comes to post-secondary education -- less societal support, less of a role for the government, increased reliance only on oneself. I don't think that's where most Canadians are. I think most Canadians do not want to see us degenerate into a society where we rely only upon ourselves and our immediate families or where we rely too much upon charity. It's important to be self-reliant. It's important that people are charitable. But there is also a fundamental role for government, and that is being undermined in post-secondary education in most provinces in this country. We have a fundamental debate about the role of government in education taking place in the everyday lives of our students right now. It's one of the areas where we have to succeed, I would argue, on the Left.
I wanted to talk briefly about the role of government. I've briefly outlined some of my views on some aspects of this debate where the debate manifests itself, even if we don't necessarily see it as being an open debate about the role of government -- whether there is an increased role for government or whether it should be quite minimized.
I've outlined my view on debt and deficit and taxes and business, small business in particular, as well as on health care and education and social services -- infrastructure that government plays a role in offering to the public. The Left is on the defensive on all of these issues with the exception of services, I would argue -- health care and education. Generally the polling will show that people are more likely to trust the party on the Left to safeguard health care and education, but they are not as likely to trust them on the other issues. This is where the Left is on the defensive.
What is necessary now is for a modern Left to articulate a positive, modern role for government. I would argue that we have to start with this point as politicians. We have to ask ourselves regularly and think a great deal about the questions: Why are we here? Why are we here as politicians? Why do we go through the pain of being in public office? Are we here for the office? I don't think so. Are we here for a name on the letterhead? I don't think so.
I do think that for some politicians it's about ego. I think that for some it becomes far too much about the game. They lose sight of why we should be here. What are we here to do? What do we hope to accomplish? This is something that every politician should ask themselves when they have the honour to be a member of this House. I would say that it's important to try to accomplish some important change that will benefit our society -- not necessarily overnight but in the time that we have as politicians.
[1130]
I've thought a great deal about this. I've thought about previous generations on the Left that came before me and what they accomplished when they helped to bring about public pensions in this country or a public education system or the medicare system. They made great strides. They obviously had vision, and they had what it took to follow through. It wasn't just an idea that got lost somewhere. They remade this country into something better. The question is: how can we do that now, as a generation of politicians?My conclusion is this. If there is one thing that I could accomplish if I have the honour of being a member of this House for some time, it would be this. We need an extensive early childhood education system. We need to extend our education system to include the youngest members of our society. We should be looking at three- and four-year-olds. But I also want to make this clear -- because I believe that a modern Left has to be pragmatic, and it has to be patient: this has to be incremental. There is no credibility in saying that you're going to do this quickly. You cannot have credibility if you say you are going to spend massive amounts of money at a time when you don't have it to establish that kind of a system.
In the throne speech this year, we have a modest beginning: before- and after-school care that will cost about $14 million this year. That is a very modest beginning. It's a step in the right direction, but it will be a long time before we can accomplish something which I would argue would be the mark of a generation.
I would argue that accomplishing a system of early childhood education in this province is something that can only be done in the context of this broader debate about the role of government. It must be part of a vision of a modern state that can play a role in improving people's lives. It must be different. We have to distinguish the role of the modern state from what I would argue is the lumbering beast that government had become, quite often, by the seventies and the eighties. That lumbering beast is what has discredited the role of government. That's what has put the Left on the defensive, and it's our obligation to get beyond that.
I would say this as well. I said earlier that you can't have vision by looking to the past, but we do have to look to the past for something very important -- not for vision but, I would argue, for wisdom. For us personally, wisdom comes through our own experiences when we've learned from our own mistakes, presumably, and don't repeat them. But we can benefit greatly from the mistakes and the experience of others. That's why we should look to our past -- to gain that collective wisdom.
As a politician, I look to early social democrats like the founders of the CCF. What they demonstrated first and foremost was patience. Patience is a great virtue in politics. If I look back to the CCF in Saskatchewan and Tommy Douglas, who's been invoked so many times by members on the opposite side of this House, many forget -- and, I would argue, many on the Left and maybe even most on the Left -- this important, fundamental point: it took 17 years to implement medicare. The Douglas government was elected in 1944; medicare was fully introduced in Saskatchewan in 1961. It took 17 years for that government to lay the foundation for what many would argue was the greatest social policy innovation in our country's history.
[1135]
[ Page 14840 ]
It took 17 years to lay the foundation to make the mark of a generation. What they had to do in that 17 years was this: demonstrate that they could manage the province. That's what they had to do. Today demonstrating that you can manage the state, that you can manage government, means that you have to have modern views on some of the issues I've outlined -- on debt, on deficit, on taxes, on your approach to business. You have to have modern views on these things that will benefit today's families, because those families want to believe in a positive, modern role for government. There's no doubt in my mind about that. They want government to provide good education and good health care and other social services. They want it to provide environmental protection. Polls today consistently show that on the federal level, when they're looking at the surplus, people consistently rank reinvestment in health and education at least equal to tax cuts. They'll put paying down the debt and reinvesting in social services before tax cuts. This is where the Right gets out of touch with people today. Overemphasis on massive tax cuts is not where most people want to be. Most people still want to believe in the role of a modern government. So if the Left wants to do great things now, I would argue that it can't really do them right now; it can only begin. The Left has to demonstrate patience and understand that it is a long road that we're on. We're at the very beginning of that road.
To return for a moment to early childhood education, I would argue that if we were able to do this right
If any of us takes the time to talk to a kindergarten teacher, they tell us that they can already see, at five years old, the kids who are going to have problems later on. Yes, parents play the primary role and should play the primary role, but we have an obligation as a society to support parents and, most importantly, to support kids when they don't have the best possible environment. We have to give them every opportunity to succeed, and we all know -- all of us, regardless of ideological stripe; all of us as parents should know -- that we have to get to the kids when they're young to give them the best start possible.
Hon. Speaker, I think that my generation of politicians can leave its mark. I think it can make the mark of a generation, and -- I may be wrong -- I think it will be some form of expansion of the education system to include the youngest members of our society. But it will only happen if we show patience. It'll only happen if we're pragmatic, adopt a different view of the role of the state and not harken back to the days of the state -- lumbering beast that it quite often became by the 1970s. One day, some years from now, maybe we'll even run an election campaign on that issue.
You know what? We might lose. I remind those who say: "Gee, why would we do that? Why would we run on an issue like that and lose?" I would remind them that that's exactly what Tommy Douglas did in 1961. In 1961 he had to run on the medicare issue, and he lost. After 17 years, he lost. But because his generation of social democrats had the patience and the wisdom to lay the foundation, it didn't matter that they lost. Their generation still left its mark, a mark that we feel today. I was born in 1966. I'm at the very beginning of a generation of people in this country who grew up entirely under a medicare system. So I'm sure that those who were involved in that debate in 1961 are still with us today. They don't care that they lost an election campaign, because it's not about winning and losing election campaigns all the time. You have to win some, obviously, to get things done. But at the end of the day, it's about the mark that you leave. If we lay the proper foundation and if we have the patience to do that on the Left, we will succeed.
I just want to talk a little bit today -- during the throne speech debate -- about vision, because that's what the throne speech is all about. I want to offer some views about how I think a modern Left can achieve some great things for society. In this throne speech, I would argue that the child care initiative that we've outlined is the small kernel of something which could be much greater. If we handle it right and if we on the Left conduct ourselves right, then we will achieve it.
[1140]
J. Dalton: It's a pleasure to rise this morning and give my observations on the throne speech. I want to start with a remark or an observation that the Finance minister made on CBC recently; he said that the government was new. The throne speech itself has 18 "news" in it. The Premier said that he's put a new stamp on government. The speech even stated that we approach this new century with confidence and optimism. Hon. Speaker, I would like to examine the record to see first what, if anything, is new, and, second, to explore this new-found confidence and optimism that the government expresses.Firstly, is the cabinet new? There are actually only three faces in cabinet who were not members of the executive council under either the first or second Premiers of this thirty-sixth parliament, and one of those three was the previous Speaker of this House. So the cabinet in fact is not very new.
Do we see any new initiatives in the throne speech or in recent government announcements? The speech promises a new transparency-in-budgeting law. Now, I would submit that accountability for how taxpayers' dollars are spent will be built into the new law, but that is unnecessary. I mean, that's one of these sort of photo ops that this government is infamous for. Is this the same accountability we have witnessed over several years with the fast cats, for example? If that is so, of course, there is nothing new.
We are also invited as members of this Legislature to write one section of the budget implementation and accountability acts, which is dealing with the estimates process. Well, I would agree. Something will have to be done with estimates, if for no other reason, because there are so many new cabinet ministers, and of course they have to be brought up to speed as to how the estimates process will be dealt with in their particular portfolios. However, that's a side issue. The present process of estimates doesn't always produce actual answers to the questions that the opposition puts to the various ministers. So I in opposition certainly look forward to assisting in writing a new process, if in fact we get to that.
Hon. Speaker, the speech refers to the new culture of openness and cooperation in this assembly. The opening day
[ Page 14841 ]
itself fell somewhat short of that new spirit of cooperation. There was a hiccup, as the Premier described it. There are various homespun remedies for hiccups. I would ask: is there a cure for the government's failure to communicate effectively? There actually is; it's a simple medicine. It's called an election.
When you're promised the beginnings of new initiatives to support child care
I look forward to seeing the specifics of the green economy development fund, which was mentioned in the throne speech. I wonder: are there any more taxes built into that initiative? We will have to see.
Now let me move on to the new-found confidence and optimism that the members opposite are so prepared to defend, and I want to do that in the light of government announcements. Of course, I would not comment on the fast ferries project itself; other members have been known to do so. I would never remind the members opposite of the absolute disaster of the fast ferries.
[1145]
But we do know -- just while I'm commenting on this topic, which I said I wouldn't do -- that CFI will be wound up. The world market is invited to make offers on the three ferries, and the warranty has run out as of last week. I don't know about members opposite, but if I'm putting something on the market, the first thing a potential buyer is going to ask is: "Is there a warranty on this? What is the track record of these things?" How are the government members going to respond to any potential offers? Not very favourably, I trust, if they are as open and honest as they say they will be.While I'm on the subject of ferries, the Spirit of British Columbia is dead in the water this very morning. Isn't that appropriate, hon. Speaker? The Spirit of this province is dead in the water. And you know who authored that?
Now, the new Premier -- and this is the same person who was on Treasury Board
Interjections.
J. Dalton: Well, if I may say to the former leader of all sorts of movements, the maintenance issue of the ferry fleet
The new Premier stated at his swearing-in ceremony on February 29 that he had new plans. I actually went through his inaugural speech, and he said, among other things, that there are ten new things in the Premier's address. He said it would be a cabinet government. I think he was trying to distance himself from the previous regime of the Premier from Vancouver-Kingsway. But it's the same old faces, as I've already said. He would put the province's financial house in order. Well, since the throne speech, we've had the budget. And here's the financial order that we're in: a deficit of $1.278 billion; debt will be $36.5 billion by the end of the fiscal year. That's one elementary school a day, as I pointed out in my budget response -- $7.5 million in interest on a daily basis to service the debt that these people have foisted on the taxpayers of this province.
The Premier instructed his Advanced Education minister -- and of course his remarks preceded mine in the House this morning
So I invite the new Minister of Advanced Education to take up the instruction that was in the throne speech and plan beyond the freeze -- plan beyond just the superficial: "Well, we'll bring another bill exactly the same." As the Advanced Education critic said yesterday and as every other bill has been, the wording is the same, but the problem is also the same.
In the budget speech the Finance minister admitted that the Advanced Education budget was a start to provide relief from the tuition freeze shortfalls. That, of course, is an admission that funding in the past did not accommodate the shortfall. In fact, the University Presidents Council has recorded, in their opinion, a $54 million shortfall for universities alone -- for this government to fail to make up the difference from the tuition freeze and their requisite access needs
Enough of the pronouncements that were made on leap year day, which were the ones the Premier offered to us -- because there were a few. What about other policy statements over the past few months? We can look back to the time after the second Premier resigned -- we all remember the coming and going of these Premiers -- to the pronouncements during the interim third Premier and whatever the fourth Premier has to offer -- the fourth Premier being, just to remind people, the current Premier. It's in this period that presumably this province found this new confidence and optimism. Well, let's just search to see if we can find any of that new confidence and optimism. We had a Minister of Social Development and Economic Security in those days. For the fourth time he has left cabinet. What did he accomplish? Well, one thing that came to my attention is that he circulated a discussion paper titled "Building a Better Future for British Columbia's Kids," which is a laudable objective. Nobody would quarrel with it. It's one certainly to give confidence and optimism if it could be followed through.
[1150]
It was interesting, hon. Speaker. One of my constituents, who runs a day care facility for seven children, received 43 news release copies and 40 discussion papers. Now, what was she supposed to do with this documentation? She contacted my office, complaining about -- it may be a simple thing to the government -- the obvious misuse of distribution of this government document. The minister responsible at the time seemed to be in a rush to gather up the responses, because in February of this year I received in my office the child care[ Page 14842 ]
update, which was dated spring 2000. I know spring comes early in Victoria, but February and spring 2000 didn't quite seem to match. The message from the minister had an office number listed for the child care branch in Victoria, but unfortunately, one digit was missing. They had to send a correction to actually identify to the public, if they cared to call, what the real phone number was. Also, pages 6 and 7 of the document were transposed, so we were also invited, as readers, to switch the pages around. I don't think that was deliberate by the government. They don't deceive, of course, but they certainly made an error.The previous Minister of Education was also in the publishing business this February. I received that month 25 copies each of the elementary and secondary Better Learning magazine. This is the production that every year runs up a bill of $600,000 for distribution and printing.
I see members opposite are ready for their ham sandwiches, and I'm well aware that they're hungry and need food. I am too. I have a few more remarks, and then we'll be ready to close for the morning.
Obviously the Minister of Education saved money on the distribution. I think this is very relevant, hon. Speaker, and I drew this to the Minister of Education's attention a year or two ago. In the accompanying letter to the school principals, the letter admitted -- and this is a direct quote, so the members can check it: "Many had never seen the magazine before." And this thing had been created for three years. Well, what a surprise. I had been informed in previous years that the magazine was to go home with students. I've had two of those students graduate and have one still in school, and I have not yet seen one of these documents in my home. They never get to my home. They get to my office; they get to all our offices as MLAs. But they don't get out; the school principals have said so. Well, what's the point of spending $600,000 a year if you're not going to communicate with the customer, which is the parent? They're not only the customer; they're of course also the taxpayer who funds this public operation that this government is so proud of but doesn't tell anybody about.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker -- I have a few more pages -- but I'm not going to do so. I'm going to conclude my remarks and adjourn debate in a moment. I know that many of the opposition are ready this afternoon and beyond to pounce on this easy target called the government. Obviously I have concerns with the throne speech, and I've already made my remarks earlier in this session about the budget and the debt and the deficit. This is not a throne speech, as short as it was, that any member of the government could truly be in any way optimistic about, even though they talk about optimism. The defences I've heard from the government benches certainly were not terribly significant. In fact, all one of the ministers who rose this morning could do was try and pick holes in comments that the opposition had made. Why doesn't he advance his own thoughts and not try to take cheap shots at the valid criticism of the opposition?
Hon. Speaker, with those remarks, I would move adjournment of the debate.
[1155]
Motion approved.Hon. I. Waddell: I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada