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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 16
[ Page 14843 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
C. Hansen: We're joined in the gallery today by a group of grade 10 students from Prince of Wales Secondary School in my constituency, along with their teacher, Ms. Jacquie Moon. I hope the House will make them welcome.
P. Calendino: It is an unusual introduction for me today, but I'm pleased to do it. We have here sitting on the floor with us a member of the federal Parliament. With your permission, I will do an introduction en français.
[It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of members of this House, to introduce the Member of Parliament for Charlesbourg, near Quebec City, for the Bloc québécois, M. Richard Marceau, who is here in British Columbia to consult with members of this House on the federal clarity question.]
[Translation provided by P. Calendino]
So would the House please welcome the MP for Charlesbourg, Quebec, M. Richard Marceau.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my great pleasure to introduce today Dwayne Hartle, who is my new executive assistant. This is his first trip visiting Victoria in his new capacity as senior staff in my office in Kamloops. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: Today, of course, is Tartan Day, April 6. We're here to celebrate the contributions of Scottish people to the growth and development of British Columbia. As well as the proclamation, I have some guests in the Legislature that I'd like to introduce to the House. I'd like to introduce, first of all, Alex Dalrymple and his daughter, Anne Djilali. They lived near us in Scotland when I was a little boy, and I've known them since I was about two years old. I'd like to introduce them and my mother -- who, of course, I've known a long time -- Isabel Waddell. Would the House please make the Dalrymples and my mother welcome.
[1410]
Given that I was born in a small, dusty village in Scotland -- they call it Glasgow -- I would like to introduce some
Finally, I'd like to recognize Gail Gajda from my office, who's worked so hard over the last two years to help us celebrate this day. She has also managed -- and I have to tell the House this -- to get Tartan Day proclaimed in perpetuity, so you'll have us here for a long time.
E. Gillespie: Visiting in the precinct yesterday and today is my son, Ceilidh Curtis, accompanied by his friend Corey Edmondson. Given that today is both Tartan Day and Ceilidh's birthday, I ask all members to make both boys welcome.
Tabling Documents
Hon. P. Ramsey: Pursuant to the Premier's commitment, I am tabling today a Treasury Board staff report. It's entitled "Compensation and New Costs in the British Columbia Public Sector and Public Service, Negotiated for 1998-99 to 2000-01." As well, I am tabling summaries and the texts of ratified accords which have funding implications for ministry budgets, which were also negotiated between 1998-99 and the year 2000-2001.
Oral Questions
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY'S
ACTIONS IN AMANDA SIMPSON CASE
L. Reid: Four-year-old Amanda Jean Simpson died last November despite 20 reports of child abuse and neglect, after 20 cries for help heard by this ministry -- two within a year of Amanda's death and apparently discovered during a ministry audit. Five years after the release of the Gove inquiry into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil and three and a half years after the creation of a new ministry, can this minister get to her feet and tell us why this government has failed this little girl?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Thank you very much to the hon. member for the question. I want to begin by saying that my heart goes out to Amanda, to her family and to her community. I want to assure this House that action has been taken against the staff who failed Amanda. I want to say to this House that the ministry must do better to protect kids in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Member for Richmond East on a supplemental.
L. Reid: Yesterday the ministry decided to blame the social workers, when the advocate's report has said that it is a front-line staffing question -- that this ministry has not been able to retain staff, especially in northern communities. Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us why her ministry continues to blame front-line workers, when the child advocate says that it is this government that has failed to fix the problems within this ministry?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: It's important that we recognize that action had to be taken in this situation. There was no doubt about that. Action has been taken against those four members who were involved in this unfortunate situation where the ministry failed Amanda. It is very much, as I understand it, the ministry's exercise and interest to put more social workers in the field. To that end, we are searching for 130 new social workers to be brought in this year; 255 were brought in last year. That is the commitment from the ministry.
REPORT ON COST OF
PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES
C. Clark: I want to move to a different topic. Today the Premier released the costing of the accords with the public sector finally, after weeks of promising it -- after weeks of promising that we would see a true and complete and full accounting of what that phony public sector zero-zero-and-2 contract was actually costing taxpayers.
[1415]
In the briefing today his own officials admitted that the information they'd provided wasn't complete. Will the Pre-
[ Page 14844 ]
mier stand up today and admit that what they delivered wasn't what they'd promised? It isn't complete; it isn't transparent. Can he tell us what happened to his promise that his government was going to do things differently?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have been advised by the Minister of Finance that the document placed and tabled before the House is certified and actually done by Treasury Board staff. If the hon. member opposite is casting aspersions on the work of Treasury Board staff, I would like to hear that directly. I think it's important that we show respect for workers within the Ministry of Finance who have put these documents together. It has obviously taken some time to do that, because this is the first time in the history of this province that this kind of work on numbers has been done. I'm proud of that.
The Speaker: Member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on a supplemental.
C. Clark: Well, unlike in 1996, the officials in the Ministry of Finance are actually allowed to come out and say what they think. And you know what they're saying -- that this document isn't complete. It's not the full facts. That's what they said in the briefing. Every single time this government touches a budget document, they do everything they can to obfuscate, to mislead, to somehow make it impossible for the public to get the information they need. Will the Premier tell us today what happened to his commitment to transparency? And why doesn't he think that the public has a right to know where every single penny of their money is spent?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I am very proud of the work that Treasury Board staff have done in preparing this document for release. Contrary to what the member opposite says, the document that was tabled here goes beyond what the Premier committed to. The Premier said that we would table the results of compensation and funding arrangements that were negotiated in the period 1998-99 through 2000-2001, and that is part of what has been tabled today.
The Treasury Board staff went further. This also includes information for the cost and adjustment to the ongoing base in ministry budgets for contracts that were negotiated before 1998, but that had funding implications between 1998 and the year 2000. That is included in here. And beyond that, the Treasury Board staff have also included one-time funding for things such as pension plans and the rule of 85. Everything has been accounted for that had an impact on budgets over those three fiscal years.
This is excellent work. It is transparent; it is comprehensive. For the first time in this province, we now have this sort of accurate costing and the effect on ministry budgets of negotiated settlements and accords in the public sector.
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is astounding in the extreme that the Premier and then the Minister of Finance can stand up in this House, after nine years in government, and say that for the first time in nine years -- after many members, including the Premier, served on Treasury Board when these deals were signed -- they know what they agreed to. This government has hardwired over a billion dollars a year of costs into the cost of government in this province from now to eternity.
How can the Premier stand up and say that after nine years and all the time he's served on Treasury Board, this is the first time he was aware of what these deals were going to cost the people of British Columbia?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The costs of negotiated settlements are always considered in the preparation of ministry budgets. What we have done in response to the Premier's directive is make sure that we had a rollup and a summary of all costs for contracts negotiated from 1998-99 to 2000-2001. That's what this document does.
[1420]
It goes beyond that, hon. Speaker. It quantifies the cost of additional wages. It looks very closely at what this government has done -- and we're proud of it -- in making sure that low-wage workers had redress and that wage equity was something that was the norm in the public sector. It goes beyond that. It quantifies the costs of increased services that have been bargained with public sector workers -- more teachers, more nurses, more physician services both in urban and in rural British Columbia. It goes beyond that and talks about induced costs from the contracts negotiated in previous years, and it also puts in writing anything we know about one-time costs that also had an impact on budgets in those three years.
I am proud of this work. It reveals our commitment to openness and reveals our commitment to enhancing services, to low-wage redress and to negotiating fair settlements with public sector workers.
G. Farrell-Collins: On Monday the people of British Columbia -- if the government and the NDP Party don't obstruct it further -- will be witness to a sight that I don't think we've ever seen in this country: a court case that alleges this government lied to get itself into office.
Hon. Speaker, since 1996 this government hasn't learned its lesson. It's been telling people year after year, time after time -- time after time in this House -- that this government was holding the public sector wage increases to zero-zero-and-2. Why, when they make those commitments -- when they've told people year after year that that was the case -- are they only now coming out with these figures? How is it that they've been going on for year after year, misleading the people of British Columbia time after time? And how can the Premier allege that he's known nothing about this and he sat on Treasury Board when these deals were signed?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Maybe a little less rhetoric and a few more facts
An Hon. Member: What about the rest?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member asks: "What about the rest? So 25 percent of the total is improved services. Of the rest, 30 percent goes to pay equity and low-wage redress. I invite this member to come to Prince George and say to a social sector worker who is working 24-hour shifts
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
[ Page 14845 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey:
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This reveals our commitment to them; it says it clearly. Everybody can look at it and see where this money is going.
MAPLE RIDGE-MISSION
BY-ELECTION FUNDING
D. Streifel: My question today is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The mayor of Mission, Mr. Randy Hawes, apparently plans to run for the B.C. Liberal nomination in the new riding of Maple Ridge-Mission. During the municipal election campaign, Mr. Hawes said that if he becomes the next Liberal MLA, the B.C. Liberal Party will cover the municipality's cost of running a by-election to replace him. That could be in excess of $20,000. Can the minister tell this House whether the municipality can accept donations from a political party for this purpose?
Hon. C. McGregor: I'd really like to begin by thanking the member for his question. Obviously my opinion is that that would be completely inappropriate. However, I would advise the member that he should check that matter with the chief electoral officer at Elections B.C. Or if you would prefer, hon. member, I would certainly provide you with more specifics if you would pass your question along to me, and I'll report back on the matter to this House.
PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES
IN BUDGET TRIAL
G. Plant: While we're on the subject of elections, we know that on Monday, the long-awaited fudge-it budget trial will finally get underway. I have a question for the Premier. Can he assure this House -- can he in fact stand up and confirm -- that not one dollar of taxpayer money will be used to provide legal advice or representation to any defendants or witnesses in this important trial?
[1425]
Hon. A. Petter: I can assure the member that the government policy with respect to the provision of assistance for legal services is consistent in this case, as it is in others. When people are participating in any case in respect of activities they undertook in their official capacities, then certainly assistance is available for legal services.
The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a supplemental.
G. Plant: Well, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't really an answer. So let's try the question a little bit more and see if we get a little bit more clarity. Is the government paying the legal fees of the three defendants in the lawsuit, the trial of which is to start on Monday, or is it not? Yes or no.
Hon. A. Petter: The matter is before the courts, and the parties who are before the courts are no doubt responsible for the direct legal fees. However, insofar as witnesses are called or involved in respect of their official capacities in government, then certainly legal fees may be provided through the regular government policy that exists within government -- which the member is well aware of -- and that is applied consistently in this case, as in others.
The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a further supplemental.
G. Plant: For years the plaintiffs in the fudge-it budget lawsuit have tried to get their issue before the courts. They've been blocked at every step of the way by NDP obstruction tactics. They've had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight for the right to a trial date. They've got that trial date; it's Monday. And now we read in the papers this morning that there's another obstruction tactic that the NDP choose to adopt here. Apparently on Monday they're going to try to convince the court that getting elected by fraudulent means is not prohibited by the Election Act. So I have a question for the Premier.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Interjections.
G. Plant: I have a question for the Premier, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Member, could I ask you to take your seat for a moment, please.
Members, the Chair doesn't want to interrupt question period, but I think that in this line of questioning we have to be cautious when matters are before the courts. I'd like to take it under advisement to determine whether it offends the sub judice rule.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: First of all, the question hasn't been asked yet. I don't have any idea how you can possibly take under advisement a ruling on a question that hasn't been asked.
The Speaker: The line of questioning has been quite clear to the Chair, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would encourage the Speaker as well as others to review Erskine May's rulings on this, which are very clear. The member at no time referred to the content or tried to sway the content of the court case in itself. He's asking about the legal fees and the role of the government in that, and that is completely and totally in order.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, this particular pas de deux is indeed offensive to this House. The reality is that that opposition has, for a number of years, abused this question period and the rules of this chamber by asking questions that are clearly out of order, which will never be raised except
[ Page 14846 ]
then. The only purpose in posing those questions is to make statements, and that's what we are seeing here, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we don't have to eat the whole cheese to know it is rotten.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. The bell ends question period.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Question period has ended. The member for Matsqui will come to order. The member for Matsqui will come to order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. I recognize the Minister of Health on a point of order.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my understanding that members of the executive council must be drawn from the governing party. We have amongst us an agent provocateur. The member for Surrey-Whalley, it has come to our attention, is in fact a member of the B.C. Liberal Party. We ask you to investigate and to determine, hon. Speaker, whether or not
[1430]
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Women's Equality on this point of order.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps as a matter of personal privilege, hon. Speaker
I attended a convention of the Liberal Party three whole years ago. To add insult to injury, they made me pay 200 bucks to do it. Now, if that's not enough of an affront, hon. Speaker, they took my 200 bucks, and they put it on their membership list. I assure you; there was nothing signed, and there was no intention of joining that party. So I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of putting it on the public record that my values and principles are intact and that my membership in the New Democratic Party is held in good faith, and I am proud of that.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm constantly amazed at how broad this coalition is becoming. I check my mail every day awaiting the membership application form from the member for Victoria-Hillside. I know it's en route. I want to assure the member opposite that she and, I believe, four other individuals -- unfortunately for her, I suppose -- were merged with some other thousand New Democrats who happen to appear on our membership list. I think there were five of them who attended the 1996 convention.
I'm sure she'll get a letter from the president of the B.C. Liberal Party acknowledging that she never was a member of the party, but there are probably a few people in our party who wouldn't mind having her. I'm not sure if they're anybody here, but there may be some. I want to thank her for her $200 donation, make her aware that we missed her at the 1997, 1998 and 1999 conventions, and extend an invitation to her and any other New Democrat who feels that their party has lost its direction and isn't doing the right thing for British Columbia and wants to join the next government for the province of British Columbia.
The Speaker: The Chair doesn't feel compelled to rule on that matter of privilege.
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Miller: I have the honour to table the annual report of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.
Hon. D. Lovick: I now call continuing debate on the throne speech.
[1435]
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
T. Nebbeling: Like my colleagues, I would like to speak for a little while on the throne speech that we had the pleasure of listening to two weeks ago. I can sum up my feelings about the throne speech -- I think I can say it in a few words -- by explaining that I personally am very disappointed to see that the new Premier of British Columbia did not take the opportunity to have his first throne speech truly set a path for this province that would have taken a different direction than where we have been going as a province in the last nine years.
I thought the Premier was going to take the opportunity not only to explain the path towards prosperity the way he as the Premier sees it but also to give us a bit of a picture of a moment in time. That clearly would show what improvements this province would experience if indeed his leadership would lead us on that path of prosperity. Regrettably, what we got was a very short throne speech -- very little substance. Personally, I think this throne speech will most likely go down in history not for what was said in the throne speech but for what was missed out.
There's just a couple of items that I'd like to mention which I think are significant in the context of this province and were totally ignored in the throne speech. The first one is that there is truly no mention or recognition of the struggle that our young people today still face in trying to find a job opportunity in this province. Worse than that, young people today in this province are often driven to leave the community where they have grown up to find opportunities to work in other municipalities, in other areas and often in other provinces. I think that over the last couple of years, we have recognized that this has created a tremendous problem in smaller communities, where the young people are leaving for lack of opportunities to create a future for themselves in their own home towns.
[ Page 14847 ]
This throne speech did not once mention any approach towards solving that problem. We know that today, with all the unemployment around, it is the youth that are taking the brunt of the unemployment. When we see unemployment numbers down in the province of British Columbia, it is not necessarily that we have created jobs for people in this province. A lot of people have decided not to bother any longer, because there are no opportunities. A lot of people have decided to leave this province.
When people are not applying for jobs any longer in the work agencies, when they leave the province, sure, these numbers logistically come down. But it truly doesn't mean that more people are at work. I fear that the youth -- the young people of this province -- still carry a large percentage of the missed opportunities that should have been available to them so that they as young men and women could also establish a future for themselves. I think the throne speech, in that sense, has really missed the mark, and I regret to see that has happened, because it is far too important today to take care of our youth and create opportunities.
[1440]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
The other social
The statement the Premier made in the throne speech about the new way of doing business in the province of British Columbia, the new way of running government, the new relationship between the members here in the House, included that word "respect." We have to work with respect when we work with each other. I would like to see that, but I also believe that respect can only be given when it has been earned. I do not see anything that has happened over the last nine years with this government, in which today's Premier has played a fundamental role, that gives me the sense that I have respect for the Premier or for the team -- the government that he has been working with. I just cannot see anybody feeling that way.
With respect -- and a lack of respect, Mr. Speaker -- comes my second problem. As the province really has not delivered a throne speech with a vision, I am basically asked by this government to trust them. That's what the Premier basically said: "Here is a summary of some of my ideas. It may not have much substance, but I know I can make a difference in this province. I know I can turn things around. How am I going to do it? Well, I can't give it to you at this time, but trust me that I will do it."
Again, in order for me to give trust to the Premier and his government
We are all aware of how this government over the last couple of years has tried to force town councils and city councils into accepting a level of gaming in the community. It was not based on a cooperative approach. It was really like: "This is what we're going to do, this is how we are going to do it, and we expect you to like it -- take it or leave it." It really was, for me, an important thing to be part of these last four years, because when I was the mayor of Whistler in '93-94, the government actually tried to start a destination casino in Whistler. The community of Whistler basically said: "No way. We do not want anything of an asocial nature that is an activity that is not compatible with what Whistler is all about, Whistler being a resort focused on outdoor recreational opportunities." And here was the government saying: "No, we have done our polls, we have done our surveys, and the overwhelming majority of people surveyed said that Whistler should be the place."
[1445]
As the mayor of Whistler, I took on the fairly serious battle encouraging government not to ignore the voice of the communities. If they indeed felt that this is what the Whistler community wanted, then they should have dared to call a referendum. If the referendum said that yes, Whistler had decided that this is what they wanted to include in their package of recreational amenities, then so be it. But without that referendum, without that voice of the community being heard, no way.
Well, we won the battle in '93 for Whistler in '94. Unfortunately, in the second half of the nineties -- in '97 and '98, when the battles were going on in Victoria, in Surrey, in the city of Vancouver, where the government imposed slot machines in certain facilities, forcing these councils to go to court -- the government was not willing to even consider a role for the voice of the communities.
The reason I bring this up is that the Premier today was the Attorney General at the time that all this was happening, and I never once heard the Attorney General saying: "This is wrong, folks. We cannot impose this kind of new -- what we consider recreational, but what the communities consider asocial -- activity in these communities without their approval." Not once did I hear the Attorney General, today the Premier, say: "Stop this right now." It had to be the courts, at a large cost, that told this government: "You cannot do what you tried to do."
That is the first issue I thought about in trying to find a way to say: yes, I can trust this Premier. I don't think that experience over the last couple of years gives me much sense of trust. It gets worse when I start looking at what the Attorney General introduced a year ago. That was a bill that was focused on taking away the right of citizens in Nanaimo from suing the government and going after the money that fraudulently was taken from these charities in Nanaimo.
[ Page 14848 ]
We all remember this. The Premier at that time and the Attorney General, today's Premier, knew that we were talking about maybe $100 million that this government morally -- and, after a court case, mostly likely legally -- had to put on the table to compensate all these charities that had that money fraudulently taken away from them. So what did the Attorney General do? He brought in a bill in the House that said that retroactive to 1983, anybody who sues us as a government and is found to be right cannot go after us for any financial compensation.
People who had their money taken away from them were denied the right of petitioning the courts to say: "We want justice done; we want our money. That is money that was in a charity that had been created for us. The Commonwealth Holding Society took it; now we want it back." That to me, Mr. Speaker, is really the reason that I can say that I cannot trust and I cannot give my trust to a Premier who felt it morally right to bring in legislation of that nature, which basically set the clock back to the Middle Ages. At that time, in the Middle Ages, if you wanted to complain about something, you first had to go to the king and bow to the king and ask the king permission to sue somebody or complain about somebody. That is where the Premier today has taken us as a province again, when it comes to citizens and corporations demanding the right of finding justice in the courts. I think it is appalling, and for me it is a reason to say that I cannot trust this Premier. For that reason alone I cannot give my trust to this Premier, as a consequence of the throne speech.
Another point that I have tried to consider very carefully
[1450]
I had many mayors and councillors calling me as the critic for Municipal Affairs, saying: "Hey, wait a second; I don't think that as a mayor or as a councillor I can do the things that can be done under this Nisga'a agreement. I would like to see the Municipal Act changed to reflect the same rights that are given." Of course we knew that the government was not telling us the truth. As we know, municipal powers are delegated powers, controlled by the provincial government. That means that the provincial government can say: "Yes, you as a municipal council can make your decision. But if we don't like it as a provincial government, we can take it back, and we will just tell you how to deal with an issue." That's delegated powers.
We also know that within the Nisga'a agreement, there are some supreme powers given to the Nisga'a people. That's a big difference. And what truly appalled me was the fact that the Attorney General -- who today is the Premier of this province -- stood in this House day after day being asked the questions related to this particular issue, and he always said: "No, no. It is compatible. It is compatible. It is compatible." This went on for weeks, and then at the end of the debate he was cornered so well that he had to stand up and basically say that it is a bit of a stretch to say that this is a new form of government that is compatible with municipal government. We all know it is not.
They spent $8 million -- and the Attorney General was responsible for defending that message -- of taxpayers' money to fool the people of British Columbia into believing that they were negotiating a deal that did not create a third form of government but created another form of municipal authority.
Again, looking back at that particular debate, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for me to consider for even a second that I should give my trust to the Premier to let him decide what the vision has to be for this province and what the path will be to get to that point in time that is our vision, the picture of the future that is supposed to be a picture of prosperity for all.
I can go on with many other examples where, as the Attorney General
I give another example quickly: the job report. Forty thousand jobs were going to be created by this government over the five years since 1997. Everybody was just in full glory. This was going to happen. This was not only going save the economic base of all the communities that depend on natural resources, but it would really turn this province around again. It would entice the investment world to come back into British Columbia and invest. Well, how many jobs have been created? We can't go by the number that the government likes to use, and it says now that for every $20,000 we spent, we create a job. They did that once, and then after exhaustive analysis of all the documentation that we were given by the province, we found out that there was actually spending of $450 million in one particular year and they had created 387 jobs. It ultimately came, after the cost of managing the whole project, to $503,000 per person. They should have given that money to these people, and they would have been a lot better off.
But again, never, ever during that whole debate -- and it was here in the House -- did I hear the Attorney General saying: "Folks, we are not giving the facts. Folks, we are not telling the people of British Columbia what is truly happening." As the Attorney General is supposed to be the person, I believe, who not only holds up the law but is also responsible for the integrity of the government, I think he should have at least made his colleagues stop trying to continue this misinformation that was going on.
[1455]
My trust certainly cannot just be handed over to this Premier. As a matter of fact, I think the throne speech indicates to me that this government is going to try to stay in as long as it can hold on. It is going to be driven more by panic and trying to fill the holes where the cracks are constantly appearing, rather than doing the right thing and starting to work for this province -- start doing the things that this province needs for the turnaround that we so fundamentally need in order to get the economy going again.
I have a little bit of time left, which I am going to spend on the issue that is related to the budget but also, again, to the throne speech -- that is, why every member opposite who has
[ Page 14849 ]
spoken so far has talked about the vision. I think I have clearly shown there is no vision. But they also talk about how we on this side are going to change the things that we clearly show the government has not been able to do, how we are going to bring back prosperity in this province, how we are going to have the funding available for health care, how we are going to have the funding available for education, and how we will be able to get a climate of industry again in this province which will make the investment world out there say: "You know what? Truly British Columbia is open for business again. It is safe to invest in that government. It is safe to invest in that province. It is safe to invest in the people in the province, because the bases are there." Every time we bring this argument up, we get this: "How are you going to do that? What are you going to cut? You can't do it. You won't have the money for it."
I am going to quickly show a couple of things where we will find money, because the one thing that this government will be known for forever and ever and ever is that it is the government that has wasted more than any other government in the history of this province. If we look at a little list -- and I am going to name them here -- and add up these amounts of dollars that that list reflects, we will see how, with the same money, we can do a lot more for education. We can do a lot more for health care. Fixed rates policy -- $310 million as a bonus added to any project that is paid for by the provincial government. No justification, except the unions like it -- $310 million. Business subsidies -- $700 million for business. We have said on this side that we will not give business grants. Business can flourish in an environment where the economy is assisted through less red tape, less bureaucracy -- allowing businesses to do their business rather than being constantly occupied in fulfilling the demands of the government. That is $700 million that we will not spend.
I talked about the Nisga'a propaganda -- $8 million. Some people may say it's only $8 million, but believe me, it does add up. It builds a school. Plus, $8 million is what you just wasted on propaganda, trying to give misinformation to the people of this province on what the Nisga'a-style government truly meant. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre -- $73 million, just wasted; not one penny returned for $73 million. How is it possible that the government can be so foolish that time after time, they run programs, they waste money without a business plan in place to show that either it is a viable project or it is not? That's $73 million wasted on thin air.
The Forest Practices Code. We have had so many complaints over the years that this government just creates policies after policies, making life impossible for industry, making life impossible for business. The Forest Practices Code is a good example. It cost this province $1 billion in revenue, for which there was no return except a lot of red tape. That is $1 billion that could have been pumped into the province. It could have been pumped into the infrastructure. It could have been pumped into health care. It could have been pumped into the education system. That's how that money could have been spent. That's why we will find the money. We don't waste money on these kinds of things.
[1500]
Skeena Cellulose -- $390 million for an old, out-of-production pulp mill. Lawsuits for mismanagement by government for taking back contracts from lumber operations and then giving these same contracts to others
We have wasted -- in administration, in consultation, in the wrong projects -- another billion dollars taken out of the forest industry at a time when it was in tough shape. But this government never had a problem with it. They just kept going back for more -- another billion dollars. If we add up all these numbers, we will see that we are close to $4 billion wasted by this government. That is $4 billion dollars that we are committed not to waste. When this side says, "Well, how are you going to pay for health care? How are you going to pay for education
G. Plant: I'm really delighted to have the opportunity to use the throne speech debate to talk about an issue that I think is important. It is of growing importance as part of the public policy debate in British Columbia. It wasn't an issue mentioned by the government as one of its priorities for the upcoming session. But I know it's on the radar screen for government, because during the last day or so, when the committees have been reconstituted, there was a select standing committee of the House constituted to look into this issue.
The issue I want to talk about is privacy rights. In particular, I want to talk about privacy rights in the private sector. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is an existing piece of legislation -- brought in by this government, actually -- called the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which enacts a range of rights and qualifications with respect to access to information from government and the protection of personal privacy rights when government has information about us as citizens. In this House we've been presented with a report from a committee that was asked to look into that act to see whether it was working well. It was, I think, the view of that committee that the act was serving the interests of British Columbia well. There were some minor changes that needed to be made to it. There was -- and there is -- a continuing need for a commitment by government to ensure that the act is made real. But it's an important part of the book of laws of the province of British Columbia.
[1505]
But there really isn't, on the books of laws of British Columbia -- the statute books -- any law that speaks com-
[ Page 14850 ]
prehensively to the issue of the protection of personal privacy rights in the private sector. That is, not what happens when governments take our personal information, but what happens when other members of the public -- businesses and other citizens -- have access to our personal information.
I should put this in context, I suppose, for a moment by explaining that very recently -- I think within the last day or so -- the federal government has, both through the House of Commons and now, as I understand it, through the Senate, given passage to Bill C-6. Bill C-6 represents a significant public policy change in federal law. I'm going to have some more to say about that during the course of my remarks today. Bill C-6 is a statute which includes a code to protect privacy rights in the private sector, and it will create a legal framework for the application of that code in a certain set of transactions.
What's going to happen is that for the first three years of the operation of that statute, the privacy protection code is going to apply to the private sector transactions in what is often called the federally regulated private sector. That would be those businesses that are subject to federal legislation generally. That would include transportation, national utilities, broadcasting, communications and banks. Those businesses will be subject to Bill C-6 for the first three years. Then after three years, the federal statute will expand its range and will cover commercial transactions across the entire private sector, including the private sector which is otherwise the subject of provincial regulation.
So we have this federal statute that over the course of three years is going to apply within British Columbia and enact a set of rules and an oversight mechanism that are intended to protect privacy rights in the private sector. That is subject to one caveat: unless each of the provinces of Canada, one at a time, enacts its own set of laws to deal with the protection of privacy rights in the meantime. The passage of the federal bill -- which, as I say, I understand happened earlier this week; but if it hasn't happened yet, it will certainly happen soon -- will have significance here in this chamber, because it will start a clock ticking. It will give us three years, here in this chamber, to decide what if anything we want to do as a province to protect personal privacy rights in the private sector.
I want to talk about that issue for a few moments here today, because I think it's an issue which is on the radar screen for us here as legislators. Really, it's part of our job as legislators to try to raise public awareness around this issue and to get the public engaged in the dialogue, so that we as legislators get some sense of what the public wants us to do in this emerging area of concern.
I am looking forward to the opportunity of serving as a member of this legislative committee that has been reconstituted and working with some of the members opposite and some of my colleagues in the months to come to listen to British Columbians and to get this public debate going. Then eventually I hope to come back here with a report that government may find useful when it considers what its response should be to this federal legislation.
[1510]
Mr. Speaker, it's April. Early in February, I had the chance to visit the community of Zeballos, which is in what I suppose might be called northwest Vancouver Island. It's a west coast community not that far by air from Port McNeill. I was actually spending a few days in the northern part of Vancouver Island with my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.
We were trying to get a sense of how health care works -- or doesn't work -- in rural British Columbia, in smaller towns of British Columbia. We were given an opportunity to accompany a local physician on her rounds in Zeballos. We spent pretty much the better part of the morning getting into Zeballos, learning how the health clinic works there, meeting some people, getting a sense from them about health care and then getting out -- leaving and heading back to Port McNeill.
On the way in, we were having a conversation on the helicopter about Zeballos and its history. It's an interesting community. I won't go into that history now, but one of the comments that someone made in that discussion I thought was quite interesting. I said: "What is it that people go to Zeballos to do?"
One of the answers was: "Well, sometimes people go to a community like Zeballos not to get to a place but to get away from the rest of civilization."
I know, Mr. Speaker -- if I may be personal for a moment -- that in your personal life you have from time to time found that part of a way of restoring the soul, as it were, is to get away from this, to get away from civilization.
It made me think there are probably many of us here in British Columbia whose ancestors came here in this century or just past, who may have come to British Columbia for somewhat the same purpose -- not so much to come to something as to leave something, to be in a place where it was possible to achieve a certain level of anonymity, where we could be alive on the surface of the Earth and doing what was important but also be detached from society. The person that I was talking to thought that there may well be people in Zeballos who were there because it was a place to be removed and detached from the larger world.
It's getting harder and harder to achieve that goal, if that's your goal. It's getting harder and harder, in our society, to achieve any level of anonymity. I think that a hundred years ago or so, you could probably achieve anonymity by not doing anything to engage in society and remaining virtually anonymous. Nowadays, if you function at all in the social world, it is virtually inevitable that you lose your anonymity.
Of course as someone who very much values citizenship and participation in civil society, I'm someone who encourages people to get involved in our society, even to get involved in politics and to participate in the work that we do in this chamber. But clearly there are still some people for whom that is not the way they wish to live their lives, and for them it's getting harder and harder, as I say, to preserve any sense of anonymity -- any sense of real, meaningful privacy. I think all of us read the newspapers and see the TV accounts, and we may read the magazine articles, in which we learn about the way that the development of technology is making it harder and harder to preserve that sphere of anonymity or to maintain, in any real sense, our personal privacy.
Back in the fall, I had an opportunity to spend an evening in the RCMP detachment in Richmond. At one point during the tour of the detachment, I entered a room. There were a couple of local RCMP officers, and they were doing an investigation into a commercial fraud case. Part of the investigation that I walked in on was
[ Page 14851 ]
over the course of a day at a 7-Eleven store in Richmond. Of course, 7-Elevens -- and they're not alone in this
[1515]
They had evidence that connected the person that was the suspect in the case to the 7-Eleven store at some point during the day. They had enough of a description that they knew that if they studied the videotape carefully, they would in fact eventually find the person who was the suspect. And they would get a picture of him, which they could then use in their investigation.
We don't know that when we go into a shopping store or a convenience store -- whatever it is -- nowadays to buy a couple litres of milk, we lose our anonymity. It's perhaps not yet quite as electronically sophisticated as some of the movies would have us believe; it's a little slower. It involves a couple of RCMP officers sitting in an office somewhere going through a videotape, hour by hour. Nonetheless, everybody who went into that store that day was identified or seen at some point during that investigation. We know that it happens at Cashstop machines.
We know that it happens here in this chamber -- for good reasons, usually. And that's what I want to talk about for a second too. When we take each of the incidents in which someone has decided that a little bit of surveillance or a little bit more information or a little bit less privacy is a good decision, it is usually done in the context of: "We will, in effect, sacrifice a bit of privacy rights in order to achieve a larger or different public good that may be more important than the privacy rights of the individual." Or at least, so goes the argument.
To go back to the example of the 7-Eleven and the RCMP officers, I think I would probably find myself in the camp of those who thought that in the interests of the operators of convenience stores -- who find themselves, late at night, fairly vulnerable to who knows what coming in their door, depending on what part of town they're in -- it's probably legitimate for those folks to use video cameras as a way of kind of enhancing the general security of their operations. And it's certainly legitimate at that point for the police to have access to that information as a way of conducting their investigations.
But we ought not to kid ourselves. There's something that's been lost in pursuit of that larger good. What's been lost is the ability of someone to go and buy a litre of milk and be anonymous in that transaction. I was reminded of the difficulty of these balancing acts a few weeks ago, when we heard the very tragic story of yet another attack in the front seat of a taxicab in Vancouver -- a taxicab driver who, tragically, was attacked and killed during the course of a day's work. Those are always very upsetting stories. It's truly upsetting to think that people in this province, just by going to work from one day to the other, might be exposing themselves to the threat of personal injury or worse.
In the aftermath of that incident, people talked -- as they should -- about ways in which we could try to preserve the safety or protect or enhance the protection and safety of taxicab drivers. One of the suggestions was that there should be video cameras installed in the back seat of taxicabs. I remember listening to people explain that idea and thinking, you know, that there's obviously something good about that idea. The taxicab drivers late at night in downtown Vancouver are people who expose themselves to more risk than I would willingly, in order to earn a living. If they can, by installing some form of camera in the back seat of their taxi, raise their level of personal security so they feel more comfortable doing their job, well, that's a good thing. I'd sure like to try and help improve the level of security in taxicabs. But I also have that thought -- the other thought -- which is: there's another little bit of erosion of our personal privacy. No longer is it possible, for example -- if this were to come into effect -- for someone to get into the back seat of a taxicab and get a ride home in relatively complete anonymity.
[1520]
If you think about it for a moment, we could argue, I suppose, that no one deserves privacy if their purpose in taking a taxicab is to assault or perhaps kill a taxicab driver. How could we possibly oppose any measure that would enhance the personal safety of cab drivers? Well, those are the kinds of questions that get asked and the kinds of issues that deserve to be examined in the context of those problems. That is really the way privacy issues tend to get presented to us. They tend to get presented to us as individual instances where it appears that the public good in favour of eroding the privacy right trumps the privacy right.
I think it's hard for us sometimes to grab hold of how important the privacy right may be, and it's certainly hard to do that in any context where the issue may be public safety or the safety of individuals, where we have this vague, amorphous sense that privacy of individuals -- their right to be anonymous -- is important. But that comes up against the very specific, very concrete question around the personal safety of, say, taxicab drivers.
Another context in which this issue arose for me within the last few months was a presentation that was made to a group I was part of, around the technology for electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Speaker, is a way of, in effect, punishing people who have been convicted of crimes by sentencing them to house arrest and monitoring them by means of technology in the form of a bracelet that will ensure that the offender's whereabouts are known at any given moment in time. If the offender moves too far away from wherever the offender should be, then an alarm should go off. Or in some way the technology is triggered, so that the people in authority know that the criminal is not complying with his or her conditions of release.
We also learned that it's now possible for the victims of domestic assault to be set up in their homes in a way that there's technology in the house, a sort of alarm system that would ring if the person who is the offender should get too close to the house. It's some form of electronic device that sounds an alarm so that the innocent victim of a repeated series of domestic assaults knows when the perpetrator is in the neighbourhood. Clearly there's got to be some public interest in support of looking at that kind of technology, because we're always better off to see how we can prevent crimes than when we're forced to figure out what to do after the fact.
That presentation made me realize that we are really very close, technologically speaking, to a time when it's possible for someone -- the state -- to know absolutely everything about where we are and what we're doing at any given moment. We really have to be careful, before we get too much further down that road, to make sure that we strike the right balance in
[ Page 14852 ]
every case between the needs of the state and other needs, on the one hand, and the need to ensure that our privacy rights are protected.
There is a particular context in which privacy issues arise and are much discussed nowadays, in the media and elsewhere, and that is in the context of consumer transactions. Increasingly, it seems that when we go to the store, we hand somebody not just money but a card that allows the store owner to track our spending habits -- and this is done. It is harder and harder to find a major store that will not actually pretty darn well insist that we'd be idiots if we didn't have their special card. The special card is a key to getting discounts on products, so we should get that card. What we don't know oftentimes is that the information from our spending habits when using those cards goes off to some place in Utah or wherever, and it gets put into a huge data bank.
[1525]
There are people who read that data to learn how we spend money. There's even a term for what they do. It's called data mining. It's a new term in the art of marketing; it's called data mining. In fact, there's a huge vocabulary growing up around the way in which technology can be used as a tool to track how we spend money. Mr. Speaker, you may not know this, but you've been demmed and you've been clustered. So have I, and so has everybody else in this chamber. We have been demmed. Demmed means that we've been assigned, by the people who study these things, to some form of demographic category or other. We've been clustered. The whole of society, in fact the whole of the planet, has now been organized into sets -- into clusters -- of groups of information about people that allow the marketing scientists to say that, well, there are really only 128 different types of people in the whole world.
This is a part of globalization. It's a part of the growth of technology, and it's going to happen whatever, notwithstanding anything we may do in this chamber. It is, in fact, a way in which the world of commerce is changing that affects our anonymity. It affects our privacy rights. It affects our autonomy as individuals in ways that we don't always completely understand and in transactions where that exchange of information and the use to which it is later put is often quite unknown to us as consumers.
As I say, the business of being demmed and clustered is part of this new jargon. What's interesting about it is this. I think there is sometimes a tendency in political discourse to look at the issue of globalization as some kind of a conspiracy that's being created by some very small group of corporate elite. In fact, in relation to the issues that I'm talking about, we're actually talking about the analysis that is made of the personal consumer choices that individuals make voluntarily every day.
What's happening across the world is that consumers, in towns that we don't even know the names of, choose to want to go and have their morning coffee in Starbucks. That's not a choice that someone's dictating to them; it's a choice they make. And yes, all of us who go and have our morning coffee at Starbucks are part of one demographic cluster or another.
What can we do about these things? I could talk at some length about the evidence
[1530]
What do we do as public policy-makers to respond to these issues? Bill C-6, which I talked about earlier, is one such response. It's the federal government's response to create a privacy code and a scheme of regulation that will apply, as I said, in the first three years of operation to the federally regulated private sector, and thereafter it may apply here in British Columbia.
There are three things I want to say about Bill C-6. The first two are procedural, if you will, and then I want to talk about the substance of the bill itself. The first comment is this. I have followed
I do have questions about the ability of the federal government to expand its jurisdiction beyond the federally regulated private sector to include the whole private sector. Every private sector commercial transaction will eventually be covered by this bill. That's an issue. I want to hear from the government on that issue. I also have a concern about the fact that the bill is not well drafted. We'll look at that, I hope, when we get to it in the course of our committee debate.
I want people to understand that the constitutional issue really goes beyond simply the issue of privacy rights. As we enter an information technology age, the question is whether or not the federal government can use the regulation of information exchange as a means of eventually eroding all provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.
I'm not going to have much time to say a lot about the model code, which is part of the substantive protection of this bill, but it's important to know that it's simply one way of regulating and protecting privacy rights. I think British Columbians need to study that code and determine whether it suits their own needs and whether it's a solution that works for us in British Columbia. I do hope that people will engage in this debate and participate in it with us as a Legislature and that we will be able to develop a position on the protection of privacy rights in the private sector over the next few months that will serve the interests of British Columbians as we continue to move forward into this era where technological change is changing everything around us, and in particular
[ Page 14853 ]
where technological change is having such a significant impact on our anonymity, on our privacy and on our autonomy as citizens of this province.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak about this subject this afternoon, and I look forward to the opportunity to participate in the discussion further.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to take my place in this debate to speak in favour of the throne speech. As always, a throne speech sets out government's agenda for the coming year, an agenda that focuses first and foremost on families and children. This throne speech reinforces our commitment to health care and to education and, for the second year in a row, targets tax cuts to low- and minimum-income families, where they can do the most good.
Listening to the opposition's debate on this throne speech, they suggest that there is actually nothing new in this throne speech. In some ways, you know, they are right. There is nothing new in our support for education; there is nothing new in our support for health care. These have been the hallmark of our government this past decade. I am very proud of the achievements we have made under very difficult circumstances, with a rapidly growing and aging population on the one hand and, for the last couple of years, a very sluggish forest sector and the withdrawal of a lot of traditional federal dollars that used to support the provinces in delivering these kinds of services.
[1535]
But we have remained committed to relieving the pressures on our hospitals, to building long term care spaces, to taking leadership on one of the main causes of illness and death in this province -- that is, the use of tobacco. In recognition of the critical shortage of nurses, we've taken that step to try to ensure that there are more nurses in the health care system. Our target this year is 600 more nurses. And in recognition that the shortage of trained nurses is worldwide, we have also created 400 new spaces, providing the opportunity for young people to enter this very important and satisfying profession.
We remain committed to investing heavily in our education system, in all aspects of the education system, from the adult basic education system to capital facilities to K-to-12 -- whether it's portable reduction or class size reduction -- to post-secondary spaces, to tuition freeze, to training and apprenticeship. These are the priorities that we've had in previous years, and these are the priorities that we have in this year's throne speech.
I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that these are the priorities that my constituents want their government to have. Just two days ago the Minister of Education announced the block funding for this year. We increased last year's per-pupil funding by $143 per pupil. This year that figure is going up by another $227. What that means in my community is an additional $3.5 million into Burnaby schools, and that is despite the fact that we in Burnaby have experienced a very slight decrease in our enrolment.
On the capital side, last year I was very pleased that we had substantial additions to two of our elementary schools, Maywood and Cascade Heights, and the addition announced for our junior secondary school at Moscrop. The capital projects are not out yet, but I am very hopeful that when they do arrive, I too will see some more additional spaces built in the schools in Burnaby-Willingdon.
Tomorrow I will be attending BCIT, which is also in my riding. It's the institution that's the leader in training and technology and many other fields, producing job-ready graduates for our very rapidly changing world. I know that the extra spaces we've been able to provide in places like BCIT and the extra spaces that we will provide again this year have made an incredible difference to people who want to get this kind of training and launch themselves on a successful career. The tuition freeze, which has just been extended for the fifth year -- the envy of students across Canada -- means that capable, qualified, motivated young people can actually afford to go to places like BCIT.
So the opposition is right: these things are not new. Protecting health care and education is something that our government has been all about. While the opposition -- this year, as in all previous years -- continues to attack government expenditures, I believe that my constituents and their constituents are thankful that we have stuck to our priorities. They're thankful that British Columbians have not had to go through the very difficult times of provinces like Alberta and Ontario. And they're thankful for a government that understands the needs of growing and aging families and is not only investing in the facilities to provide health care and education but is also trying, as our budget allows, to make those tax cuts for those families that can benefit most from those tax cuts.
What the opposition is obviously missing in this throne speech are the parts that are indeed new. I want to touch on just a couple of them. Firstly, child care -- the commitment to work with parents and care providers to begin to build a publicly funded integrated care system, beginning with safe and affordable before- and after-school care. I am very excited about this announcement. Just coincidentally, the city of Burnaby has adopted their new child care policy, committing the city to assist in the establishment of a comprehensive and inclusive system in Burnaby. I really want to commend my city for taking this initiative, and I really look forward to working with them and other stakeholders to begin putting in place those first very important pieces.
[1540]
I agree with the minister when she said that we need to do it right. We need to begin by consulting with communities and with parents to determine what those first steps should be. That is how government should work: cooperatively and respectfully with communities, with British Columbians. The new Premier has made it clear that's how he wants to proceed. I know people in my community will respond in kind and support the initiatives that we're taking.
Another significant new theme contained within this year's throne speech comes under the heading of strengthening our competitive economic position. I am, of course, referring to the green economy initiative. As I hope hon. members will recall, this is something I've spoken about often during debates and during private members' statements over the past couple of years. Today is the first time I have the opportunity to make comments from my current position as Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.
I believe there is tremendous economic opportunity inherent in reducing waste and increasing resource efficiency and in restoring, protecting and enhancing the environment. Our economy is changing in British Columbia, and it's changing very rapidly. While there are those who believe that we can hang onto yesterday, that we can recreate yesterday -- and having listened to debates from the other side of the
[ Page 14854 ]
House for the past decade, that's clearly where the opposition are at -- we on this side of the House understand that if we want to maintain our high quality of life, if we want a prosperous, vibrant, sustainable economy, if we want to be competitive, we need to embrace environmental innovation and sustainability. It is no longer going to be good enough for companies to be lean and mean; they're also going to have to be clean and green.
That's why we've embarked upon the green economy initiative. Its goals are threefold: (1) to help grow B.C.'s fledgling environmental technology sector; (2) to help existing businesses and industries make that transformation to compete in today's and tomorrow's greener global marketplace; and (3) the long-term goal, which is to foster the behavioural and attitudinal change in government, in business, in communities and, yes, in our own individual personal lives that advances sustainability.
I was very pleased that this year's throne speech does contain several initiatives that would help further these goals. First is the commitment to establish the green economy development fund to actually support green entrepreneurship in research and demonstration projects for made-in-B.C. technologies.
That sector currently contributes about $1.5 billion to the provincial economy, and it employs about 22,000 British Columbians in everything from innovative wastewater treatment to energy conservation, biomass recycling, non - greenhouse gas energy alternatives and pollution prevention.
I was just at Globe 2000 a couple of weeks ago, together with several of my colleagues, and I must say that there was tremendous excitement at Globe 2000. I was very proud of British Columbia's showing there, and the number of companies that we had there -- proudly showing their innovation and technology. At Globe as well, in cooperation with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, we announced $300,000 to launch Ethanol B.C. -- a partnership with the forest industry, university researchers and the petroleum industry to put their technology forward for commercial ethanol production using softwood residue.
[1545]
The ethanol announcement is a good example of the synergies that we are trying to achieve through encouraging what I call green economy thinking. It would be utilizing something that we traditionally regarded as a waste, converting it to non-greenhouse-gas-producing energy, helping to get rid of beehive burners, reducing health impacts of degraded air quality, creating jobs and nurturing innovation and technology that can be marketed here and abroad. I think that is good news, and it is a good example of our vision on this side of the House for the economic future of British Columbia.
The second green economy initiative contained in this throne speech that I want to comment briefly on is the reference to moving forward in practical ways to shift taxes from environmentally damaging activities to environmentally friendly activities. This follows on our initiative last year with the commissioning of a discussion paper on the concepts of tax shifting and some of the challenges that we might meet in terms of moving forward -- yes, gradually and incrementally, but moving forward nonetheless.
I must say I am very heartened by feedback that we are getting on the discussion paper, the feedback that we've got in the coverage in the media, when I have discussed the idea of tax shifting. Some of that positive feedback may come as a real surprise to the members across the way, who always like to portray themselves as the only party who can work with the business community. Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council -- he was quoted in the newspapers not too long ago -- is actually commending our government for taking the initiative around the tax shift discussions.
The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce -- Robert Wickson -- sees tax shifting as potentially a win-win. He and I have discussed at quite great length how that could benefit small businesses.
It's not necessarily because these business people are raging environmentalists, but because like progressive members in every major industrial sector, I submit, they see the writing on the wall and recognize that this is where successful economies and successful businesses are going to be going in the coming years. That's why they're looking to environment technology, to conservation-based innovation. And that's why they're beginning to look at tax-shifting tools as a way to ensure that when they take those initiatives, they actually benefit and become more competitive, not less.
Last year we had a couple of small pilot projects in tax-shifting around ethanol and the partial sales rebate for factory-produced alternate-fuel vehicles. In this year's throne and budget speeches we've announced another pilot project on beehive burners -- and to look at a tax-shifting opportunity that would encourage the development of new closed-containment technology in aquaculture and to look at vehicle fee rebates, a policy that would encourage all of us to actually buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. When we begin to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, then I can assure you, they will start to build much more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Paul Hawken, in his now-famous book The Ecology of Commerce, probably best summarizes the vision of the green economy initiative that we have taken on this side of the House when he says: "We have the capacity and ability to create a remarkably different economy, one that can restore ecosystems and protect the environment while bringing forth innovation, prosperity, meaningful work and true security."
B.C. wants to be, needs to be -- it's very well positioned to be -- one of those kinds of economies. I want to challenge the opposition to abandon their dinosaur thinking, recognize the direction that leading economies and corporations will be going in the world, and help us build this kind of economy here in British Columbia.
In the time remaining, I want to mention one other aspect of the throne speech. That is the commitment on this side of the House to work with the opposition to change how we do business in this place -- to look at parliamentary reform around a new parliamentary calendar; around a much-needed, more efficient and respectful way to proceed through budget estimates; to look at giving all-party legislative committees real work around important emerging public issues.
[1550]
It would be a tremendous achievement if this House could put aside its differences and come to an agreement on how we could make this a more respectful and respected place. You know, there are a number of conflicting views of this institution that we call parliament. The cynical see it as a place of perks and privilege for politicians, sort of an old boys' club. I believe it's central to our concept of democracy and indeed the greatest institutional protection we have against the arbitrary imposition of laws.
[ Page 14855 ]
What I'm saying is that it's high time we reminded ourselves that we are indeed here in three capacities: as representatives, as partisan politicians and as parliamentarians. I want to continue with those comments in just a few moments.
I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for allowing me to make an introduction. I'm making this introduction on behalf of the member for Okanagan-Boundary, who is not able to do so at this time. I would like the House to welcome 13 students and Mr. Hessell, the minister of the Hillview Seventh Day Adventist School in Grand Forks. I believe they've had a tour and are now enjoying and watching these debates. Would the House please make them very welcome.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister, for your patience.
Hon. J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, I'm sorry if I misread your signals. I thought you were giving me the signal that my time was up, and I kept looking at the clock, thinking: "No, no, it's not up yet." But I was pleased to give way to the hon. member to make the introduction.
As I was mentioning, we are here in three different capacities. Certainly as a former Speaker -- and there are now three of us in this House; it's got to be some kind of a record -- I've sat in that chair, and I'm sure you will agree that it gives one a very different perspective of this House. Indeed, it is a very fascinating place from the Speaker's chair. Unlike the chairs that I now sit in, the Speaker sees this House not in terms of government side and opposition side. You tend to see this House as a sort of living organism, where the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts.
This place is also very dynamic. The rituals and rules by which we agree to conduct ourselves have evolved through centuries of British Parliament and through the Canadian process of nation-building to take on a mantle of political culture that is, as we all well know, uniquely British Columbian. That is our challenge as we embark upon parliamentary reform of this House. We do need to somehow rationalize an institution that has been slowly evolving for centuries with a fast-paced, impatient, modern society where, by and large, the 15-second news clip has all but buried the passionate oratory that used to be so gracing of parliamentary chambers such as ours.
As Speaker, I also had the opportunity, of course, to travel to other parliaments across Canada and the Commonwealth. Each House does have its own culture. Each has developed its own level of sophistication, in terms of civility and efficiency, with which they carry out the public's business. To be candid, hon. Speaker -- with no disrespect intended to this House or to any hon. members -- we in British Columbia are far behind on both counts. It's not that we haven't had very significant benchmarks of reform over the last several decades, but it is amazing to think that it's only since 1973 that we've actually had a question period, when the first NDP government under Dave Barrett actually entrenched the right of the opposition members to hold governments to account on virtually all and any issues of the day. Although I'm sure that over the years many a cabinet minister and perhaps even some of my own colleagues might have dearly wished to rescind such a provision, I think we all recognize how essential it is to our democracy.
That same government also expanded Hansard to cover all the debates of the House so that people in British Columbia who elected us could actually read every word that we said. Of course, television came in around 1990 -- when you think of it, only a mere two years before most of us entered this chamber.
[1555]
When we get beyond that, hon. Speaker, I say that when we go through the nineties, while we have made efforts to do parliamentary reform, that reform has been sparse indeed. When I was appointed Speaker in 1992 -- and the operative word is "appointed" -- our Legislative Assembly had very little of the trappings of the modern-day administration that we now have. Our standing orders have not been substantially amended since 1985, although we were very fortunate in 1997 to have the updated Parliamentary Practice -- a document, I might say, hon. members, that is proudly used in many parliaments across the Commonwealth.
While we have made previous attempts at parliamentary reform, somehow the synergy between both sides of the House has not been able to succeed beyond, let's say, establishing Committee A and beyond establishing a way that we can actually elect a Speaker in British Columbia. I am hoping that with this announcement in the throne speech, we do have this opportunity to bring about the reforms that I believe all of us would clearly desire: to address the potential for a parliamentary calendar so that it would bring civility and predictability to this job not only for us as members but for all who work here; a calendar, also, that could bring an end to both the complaints of endless hours of filibustering on the one hand and legislation by exhaustion on the other.
The second area that I am hoping we will be able to address is an area that is woefully in need of reform, where effectiveness could be significantly improved: our estimates process. Surely we can agree that a Committee of the Whole is not an overly useful form in which to handle detailed examination of expenditures.
I can recall that the Ministry of Forests estimates alone, a couple of years ago, took up over 200 hours of House time. Other jurisdictions have overcome this problem by agreeing to examine the spending of a limited number of ministries in detail, so that they had better flexibility in procedures and a more satisfactory method of actually looking at ministerial programs. I would hope that both sides of the House and the public would welcome a system that would encourage more light and less heat on the estimates process.
In closing, I want to say that we have an opportunity to leave our partisan hats in our collective caucus offices and act in our role as parliamentarians -- to leave this chamber a more dignified, civilized, efficient and responsive place. I believe we owe that to those who have preceded us in this chamber, who did their part to further this institutional foundation of democracy. And I think we owe it to hon. members who will follow us. But we need to do it right. We need to do it in such a manner that it will stand the test of time.
I would really urge both sides of this House -- and you, hon. Speaker, as servant of this House and this Legislative Assembly -- to take seriously the task that's before us. Quite apart from the sometimes mundane and sometimes very ani-
[ Page 14856 ]
mated day-to-day debates, we who have the privilege to sit in this chamber have a duty to safeguard, to nurture and to enhance this fragile but incredibly enduring institution that we've inherited. It's not only the symbol of our democracy; I believe it's the foundation of our democracy. With that, I will take my place and say that I am proud to speak in favour of this throne speech.
[1600]
Hon. D. Miller: I was tempted to speak about issues of my own ministry, but I won't do that. There's lots of opportunity in the future to talk about those things. I would note that I'm very pleased to see that, year over year, the revenue obtained in the last fiscal year was about $300 million more than the previous fiscal year. That, I believe, is ample testimony about the success of the oil and gas initiative.
But I want to talk about two issues that I think are dominating to some degree, enough to dominate the political landscape. One of those is health care, and the other is children and families. Both of them are difficult.
Let me start with the area of children and families. We have now received once again a report from the children's advocate. We've seen another report detailing, to be fair, what appears to be a mishandling of a situation with respect to a young girl. I listened, as well, to some of the remarks made by the member for Richmond-Steveston when he talked about privacy, an issue that has been discussed in a lot of depth over a number of years. Obviously it is an issue that people have concerns about in this increasingly technology-driven age.
We frequently, in this House in question period, see the issues raised around children and families. We see the names of children raised. We hear questions about how issues are managed, even though all of us in this House understand that we cannot, because of privacy laws, make public most of the information that is being asked. It can't be made public because it would be illegal to make it public. And to a large degree, my own view on this is that it's inappropriate to overly politicize this area. It's appalling to me, really, as a British Columbian -- as someone who thinks of themselves as fairly progressive -- that we have in our society the capacity to abuse children so much. I simply don't understand it. Like all British Columbians who feel the same, I'm always shocked and puzzled when I read of reports of children who have been abused and have not been cared for properly by people who have the responsibility to care for them properly. Most of the time it's their parents -- not always, but most of the time. I wonder at our collective inability in this society to deal with that.
I was discussing with one of my colleagues that really in broad political terms, there are those who argue
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, you'll have your opportunity.
[1605]
Hon. D. Miller: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I've offended
Let me say that it was my impression that that was the case. I didn't stand up to make a speech to invite heckles. I think this is a serious topic. I don't think anybody on any side of the House, quite frankly -- if they really search their souls -- has the answer to what is a very, very serious problem. Nobody has the answer; nobody has ever had the answer. Nobody in any other province of any political stripe, regardless of their politics, has the answer or has come up with a system that is foolproof, that doesn't see, from time to time, children not taken who should have been taken and perhaps interventions that were inappropriate as well -- no one; no political party.
I wish we could get to a point in this House where we might agree on some topics. We might agree, for example, that when a tragedy occurs in a family, we wouldn't make it the subject of question period. I'd be quite happy with that kind of
What I really wanted to get into in a broader way was the notion that there has to be, I think, more effort made in terms of trying to have society, through communities or whatever other name you might put on it, take more responsibility in a general sense for what's happening. Maybe it's in a neighbourhood sense.
All of us tend to be reluctant to intervene. We don't want to go poke our noses in some other family's business. But at the same time, the law says you have to, actually. The law that we passed says that if you see abuse, you must report it. But surely all of us understand that it's the collective -- it's the neighbourhood or the community -- that has to find some way to address these questions more broadly. Regardless of all the legislation you might write, all the money you might spend and all the workers you might hire, fundamentally it's not a problem that's going to be fixed by government.
I think, in defence of people who work in the field, it's also important to note the pressure that those people are under. There were lots of discussions, I gather, about the inability to hire people. Quite frankly, it's not a field that would attract me. I just don't think I have the temperament for it. It's a very, very difficult field of work.
I would remind all members that we put those people into these jobs -- these very, very difficult jobs, where they're dealing with human tragedy on a daily basis -- and we say to them: "Boy, if you make a slip-up, we're going to get you." I'm not suggesting for a moment that where people have failed to
[ Page 14857 ]
live up to their responsibilities, you don't take action. But surely that has to guide us. It has to guide us when we're dealing with workers in this particular field.
I just offer those thoughts, hon. Speaker. As I say, I'm more and more appalled as I get a bit older about the kinds of atrocities I see visited upon children. I wish that we could collectively find better ways to get the word out to British Columbians to try to push the responsibility right back down to where I think it belongs, and that's with primary care givers.
I want to talk briefly about health care as well. I was very pleased by the Premier's visit to Ottawa, because it's a theme that I talked about while I was the Premier and subsequently. I think, again, we've come to a point where we focus so much in health care on those areas where there may be the occasional breakdown, but we don't look very much at our overall system.
[1610]
I listened recently to a Yale health economist talk about the Canadian health care system. The argument was very interesting, because this person, who is a renowned expert in health care systems
That resolve has weakened in the decade. There's a broad risk, I think, that if Canadians' confidence in the medical care system is not maintained -- in other words, if they don't have a basic level of confidence -- then they might be inclined or attracted to this sort of grass-is-greener concept. People come along with these notions that, "Oh, it'll be better if you try this," when it's not. Which is why the Premier has argued and has agreed with the federal government that before
I don't think that's an easy task, because everybody in the system becomes entrenched. Nobody likes change. The doctors don't like change; nurses don't like change; the HEU doesn't like change; the people who run the system don't like change. All of them have, in my view -- and I'm not trying to throw rocks at anybody -- an unfortunate tendency that I think has produced some of the negativity, or cynicism, that we see about our health care system.
It would be an interesting exercise. All you have to do is go back and review the media at the times when people -- whether it's the health care unions or the doctors; you name it -- were trying to get more money, collective agreements. Every campaign that's been run has been run on the basis of, "In fact, if we don't get more money, the health care system is going to collapse," and people over time start to believe it.
I think we've got to start looking at ways in which we can be more flexible, where instead of people going to emergency rooms inappropriately, maybe they can see a doctor after 5 o'clock. You don't have to run to an emergency room if you've got a problem. After all, when I was young and went to open my first bank account, the banks opened from ten till three. I see a bunch of young people in the gallery, and they would probably be amazed at this, but the banks used to be open -- I'm not sure they were open on Monday -- during the day, 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Monday afternoons -- you're right. The banks weren't
Well, now technology
You never used to be able to shop on a Sunday. It used to be against the law to shop on a Sunday, but now
An Hon. Member: You used to be able to smoke in restaurants.
Hon. D. Miller: You used to be able to smoke in restaurants -- I'll leave that one alone. And people never thought anything of it; that was even better.
[1615]
My point is simple, Mr. Speaker. Lots of services that used to be there only on a very rigid basis have now been expanded. I think there are stores where you can shop 24 hours a day if you want. I'm not recommending or advocating that; I'm simply pointing out that the service is there to meet the needs of consumers. If health care is a service, then surely we ought to be looking at more ways in which health care can be available regardless of the office hours -- the nine to five.
That may be one way of taking tremendous pressure off hospital emergency rooms. It may be a way of achieving tremendous savings. I venture to say that if we suggested to doctors, "Well, maybe you ought to work shift work," there might be some resistance. I'm not trying to be provocative in saying this, but if that was one way to achieve significant savings, then surely that ought to be on the list for consideration.
So I really agree with and support the Premier in his discussions with the Prime Minister, in which he says -- and I think quite appropriately -- that we should not get into some divisive political battle about health care that's all about politics. We should be discussing health care and trying to make reforms to the system for the benefit of patients, for the public. I think it's quite a challenge, but I hope we can get to that debate. I think that if we can get to that debate, if we can look at the kinds of reforms that are possible within the system to achieve savings, then we'll get a level of confidence back in medicare. I think Canadians continue to value the system and would like it a heck of lot better with some of these kinds of reforms.
Just a couple of observations today. I haven't held either portfolio, so I'm not speaking as someone who says that they
[ Page 14858 ]
know everything about it. But I think those two areas are ones that
With that, I'll take my place.
A. Sanders: This is my first throne speech since Fred Gingell, former MLA for Delta South, has been gone, and I need to acknowledge his passing. I came to this House in 1996. My mother -- who is much wiser than I will ever hope to be -- told me, upon election, to affiliate myself with those that I respected and that I would wish to emulate in parliament. And so I did. After the 1996 election I phoned Fred and told him I wanted to share his group of offices so that I could be close to his premises. "Oh," was his response to me, not really sure what that all meant.
At that time an office was built for me in the hallway space next to Fred's office, because there were no other offices for the very large increase in Liberal MLAs that were elected in the 1996 election. In order to accomplish that goal, we constructed an office right outside his office. It was actually a little bit more like a kennel, but nevertheless, it was home to me. Now that same office that I first came to this House in is occupied by the newest member of the Legislature, the member for Delta South, and I'm in the office down the hall. And if I could hope to provide for that new member a modicum of the wisdom and guidance that Fred provided me over the time that we shared in that space, I would be very, very proud indeed.
Fred Gingell taught me that the job in opposition was to hold the government's feet to the fire. So today I dedicate my throne speech response to Fred. When I lose my way around here and wonder why on earth I am in this building doing this job, then I remember Fred and his unshakeable faith in the role that the MLAs play in the governance of British Columbia.
[1620]
Let me characterize throne speech 2000, the latest missive from the NDP to this chamber: that opus from the recycled administration is a lost opportunity.
This is the government that in the nineties put the jackboots to the economy -- to the forest industry, to the mining industry, to the prosperous future of Okanagan-Vernon -- for a decade. This is the government that over the past nine years has put a shroud over the concept of timely health care in B.C. This is the government that over the past nine years has turned a blind eye to the central flaw in the teachers' agreement. This agreement, after two years in place, has brought CUPE into job action and put our kids on the street rather than in the classroom. We knew it was going to happen; we knew it was going to come. This government knew it was going to come and did nothing to prevent it from happening.
Throne speech 2000 is nothing more than a requiem at the close of the decade. It's a flat note, a sour note. It's devoid of the plan needed to bring our youth into the year 2000 -- bare of any hope for their future, for positive expectations or new opportunities, for a strong economic base to build their future.
The B.C. economy must give our best and brightest the hope that their skills and creativity will be valued in places like the Okanagan and that we will, in that location, provide them with the opportunity to be actually employed in the communities of their origin, should they choose. Instead, we ask them to pick up their skills, pick up their kids, pick up their future dreams and their valuables and move to places like Saskatchewan, for goodness' sake, in order to earn a living in a job that would be a family-supporting job.
Throne speech 2000 delivers the usual NDP catechism about health care without any concrete plans to deal with our sick or elderly, who live in fear of wait-lists that ration every service they try to access and in fear of hospitalization, where they're robbed of their dignity -- parked on gurneys in the hospital hallways, in wards that are overflowing and with elderly women, partially clothed, left alone on four-bed wards with unknown men in the other three beds. There's increased sick leave, stressed workers, stressed health care all over. This is the reality of health care in British Columbia.
Throne speech 2000 does not speak of the poor in Vernon: the 80 folk who are daily fed a hot meal at the Upper Room Mission -- they come there every day to get a meal, and it's their only meal for a lot of those people -- or the 990 families who came to the Salvation Army food bank at Christmas for a food hamper, for presents, for a holiday with their children and all that constituted. In Okanagan-Vernon poverty is rising under a decade of the NDP. Let's look at the food bank, because it's often a good place to see the tip of the iceberg. In 1993 seven people accessed our food bank; in 1994, 96 people; in 1995, 195 people; in 1996, 312. In 1997, 437 people came to the food bank. In 1998, 748 people came to the food bank in Vernon; in 1999, 999.
[1625]
Guess what. In the year 2000, in the first three months, 336 people have used the food bank. They are on target, according to their statistics over a decade of NDP rule, for 1,300 people to use that food bank in the year 2000 -- up from seven in 1993. If that isn't poverty in an area where there has been a stable population in the riding, I don't know what is. These people have paid the price for NDP fiscal mismanagement.
I speak of the unemployed forestry workers in Lumby, a town of under 2,000, who lost their jobs and who've watched their savings slip in the last year, below a sea of red ink, and of our middle-class, two-parent working families whose average take-home pay is $3,000 less since the NDP took power. These people are dipping into their retirement savings to provide their children with the standard of life they deserve -- and had, prior to this government. I speak for all of those faceless people who come to my MLA office -- in fear, in poverty, in frustration, in trouble -- looking for some kind of hope. Before us is British Columbia; within us is British Columbia. This throne speech is not good enough for British Columbia.
Health care is the top priority of most British Columbians, whether they're pensioners, single adults or families. This government suggested that it would strengthen and modernize health care when, over the last decade, it has done everything but. Under the NDP government the B.C. health care system is bleeding to death. At Vernon Jubilee Hospital our surgical wait-list is 1,400 hundred souls. Our hospital is 30 percent full of long term care patients with absolutely nowhere else to go. Our region is 135 beds short for long-term care. Our population is aging. The Ministry of Health's long-
[ Page 14859 ]
term solution to our conundrum when presented with this evidence and pressured into acting: they provided us in January with four additional long-term beds. That is a 3 percent solution. The last time I taught school, a 3 percent grade was a dismal failure. That was then, and it still is now.
A $150 million mental health plan was announced by this government. The plan was lauded by the advocates of mental health, hopeful for the future. A plan for those British Columbians who are often too ill to fend for themselves -- this was seen as salvation. More services? The plan held more community access; the plan talked about more timely care, more facilities, more support of housing. The list goes on.
Were any of these commitments delivered? No. None. The former Minister of Health now informs us that the plan conjured never had a plan to deliver the wish. Imagine that. We announce it. We re-announce it. We talk about a mental health plan. We take the accolades that come from the interest groups. We take a bow for all we've thought about and planned. We raise the expectations of the consumers and their families, and we never have any intention to deliver. That is the mental health plan this government brought forward.
Congratulations, NDP. Congratulations on another sterling example of good health care at a time when B.C. is the only province that still refuses to fund the modern anti-psychotic medications for the severely mentally ill -- that even on sound evidence that they work and are good for these individuals, denies these individuals access to those drugs that would make their lives and their families' lives more bearable again. We are the only province in Canada that does not allow some of these drugs to be used for the mentally ill. Take a bow, British Columbia -- take a bow, NDP -- for what you are doing for the acutely mentally ill and the acutely psychotic: an imaginary mental health plan.
[1630]
The real plan, hon. Chair? If you go down to East Vancouver, to St. Paul's Hospital, where a lot of the mentally ill live on the street, it's to treat them and street them. Treat them and street them. That is how we look after these individuals. The single man living in Stanley Park where you run in the morning, the homeless women at Denman and Robson, the elderly living in flophouses on Vancouver's east side -- treat them and street them.
Deteriorating health care services, soaring health care bureaucracy, rationing of every medical test imaginable
Throne speech 2000 states: "
The brain drain from the Okanagan is a leaky faucet. We train them. But can we keep them? Not in the Okanagan. There are no jobs. Our young people -- our professionals, our entrepreneurs, our inventors, our best -- send postcards to their parents in the Okanagan from Halifax, where they are cancer researchers working on gene therapy; from Quebec, where they are chemists working in pharmaceutical research; from the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Brussels -- where they work. B.C. is not competitive in their professional careers tax-wise, regulation-wise, innovation-wise, research-wise. We are very unwise to lose these competent people from B.C., for they are our future.
Yes, we wanted our kids to be successful in the global economy. Yes, we did want them to be global citizens. But we thought they would do it from British Columbia. We thought they would actually stay here -- that we would subsidize their education, look after them and educate them in the first place and then have them contribute to our society -- not make Saudi Arabia a better place to live. Dismal, disappointing, hollow promises.
The throne speech promised a new era of openness, transparency and accountability. It brought it in a budget transparency law, so government would have to tell the truth -- a new law to say that government is obliged to tell taxpayers the truth, legislation that this government was forced into, embarrassed into, coerced into, by the David Stockells of the world, by the disenchanted electorate, by the fudge-it budgets that have cast a jaundiced eye and aspersions over every member of this House, which will last for years to come.
This throne speech was designed to give the illusion of a brand-new government -- squeaky-clean, not the same old one from '91 or '96, but one anointed with a brand-new vision. On opening day, the new government and new Premier stumble into the House, hoping they'll be exonerated from the record, their hands washed, fresh from the confessional, abrogated of any former judgments or responsibilities.
Well, if you dust a crime scene, you get fingerprints, and your fingerprints are hard evidence in a court of law. When we look at this Premier, this cabinet and this government, the dust on their prints is on Bingogate, Raiwindgate, Skeenagate, Burns Bog-gate, convention centregate, Premier's deckgate, Carrier Lumbergate and last, but not least -- and certainly not all -- Ferrygate. The prints of the Premier, the cabinet and the government are all over these scandals. As much as the Premier wants us to lift his prints and the implication of their presence, these megaprojects and NDP scandals, these horrendous loss of funds now not available to health care and education, are covered with the Premier's fingerprints -- the litmus test that confirms that he was in fact in this House and in this government over the last nine years. He was on the scene. On Treasury Board, on Public Accounts, in cabinet, in caucus meetings -- we cannot exonerate this Premier here and now from his responsibilities.
[1635]
The former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, since being bounced from his post, tells me he has time on his hands. He has taken up running. What's he running from? He wants to do a marathon. He wants to run a long way.
The reality is that the Premier du jour, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, has also taken up running. He's trying to run far and fast from his record and from his government's record. And he too will have to do more than a marathon -- a lot more than a marathon -- for a single citizen to let him forget or run away from the part he played in this decade of deterioration in this province of British Columbia. The government has frittered away tax dollars needed by British Columbians for health care, for education and for the social safety net, which instead has gone to a tragic record of megaprojects and misadventures. This is a legacy of shame for this Premier and this government.
[ Page 14860 ]
J. Weisbeck: Hon. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan East and respond to the throne speech. As we enter the twenty-first century, the world is undergoing rapid change. It is so rapid and profound that it constitutes a global revolution of unprecedented magnitude. Never before in our daily lives have we faced such fundamental changes. Never before has the promise of prosperity been greater as the old economy gives way to the new economy. The new economy also represents a paradigm shift in the way government functions and delivers services in the public sector.
These are exciting and challenging times we live in: the Internet, the information age, knowledge management, e-commerce. We live in a brave new world where already some 200 million people communicate and conduct commerce instantly with each other from anywhere at any time. In a few years, one billion people will be regularly using the Internet. We live in a digital world, where electronic business has replaced the traditional brick-and-mortar model, the new world where clicks and mortar will be the accepted model, a cyberworld where knowledge has more value than resources and capital, a virtual world where national and provincial boundaries are disappearing. We live in a world where even governments can soon become redundant.
My riding in the heart of the Okanagan Valley has also undergone dramatic changes. By the time the next election is called, I hope to be representing the newly created riding of Kelowna-Lake Country. I welcome this change and the challenge to chart a new course towards a better future for all the citizens of my riding. Regardless of the name change, it's still home, and I'm proud to call it my birthplace. Throughout my life I've witnessed much change in the Okanagan, a once isolated, quiet community best known for its endless sunshine, bountiful orchards and international regatta. It could well have stayed quaint and isolated, but we were fortunate to send not one but two Premiers to Victoria. These visionaries knew that the Okanagan's success lay in ending the isolation and getting connected to the rest of the province to communicate and conduct commerce. Thus the longest floating bridge in British Columbia -- in the British Commonwealth -- was constructed, a major highway system was built, and the airport was expanded. And as a result, the Okanagan Valley has been transformed into one of our province's most diverse and dynamic regions.
Today the central Okanagan's population is nearing 200,000, with almost 100,000 citizens living in Kelowna. We are world-class in many respects. Industry leaders -- Sun-Rype, Western Star Trucks and Kelowna Flightcraft -- trade globally. Our retailers and restaurants are cosmopolitan quality. Our award-winning wineries compete with the world's best. We have created a first-class, four-season holiday destination that is second to none. To top it all, our newest showcase, the 16,000-seat Sky Reach Place, was just voted Canada's best entertainment venue in its class.
[1640]
Most exciting for me, as the opposition critic for Advanced Education, Training and Technology, is the high-tech sector emerging in the Okanagan. We are now becoming known as the Silicone Vineyard. Software firms such as Total Care Technologies, Bridges.com and Microsurvey, to name a few, are creating the core of a cluster of similar enterprises developing products for a global market. A high-tech industrial park is under construction.
In my travels I never hesitate to invite everyone to come and visit what many of us believe is the best place in Canada to live and work. I'm proud of my constituents and their accomplishments, particularly through this past NDP decade of economic decline. I want to share that snapshot of my riding, because I think it serves as a reality check to measure the government's throne speech and its track record of the past ten years. What we have in B.C. is a two-tier economy -- one private, the other public. The success side of Kelowna-Lake Country can be directly attributed to the spirit and sweat of its workers and entrepreneurs. The sad side of my riding's economy is the public sector -- government, education, health care and the heavily regulated construction, resource and agricultural industries -- which is directly the result of this government's ill-planned policies. My colleagues amply articulated case studies to support this contention, and my riding is no exception.
What struck me about this throne speech and reviewing the last one, delivered some two years ago, is how similar they were. There was almost no change in the words or tone or intent. The speeches could well have been carbon copies. Aside from the sameness, I was more struck by what the speeches didn't say. The silence spoke loudly and demonstrated how dysfunctional this government has become. It has become disconnected to what's happening outside this Legislature. Listening to the throne speech, I had a sense of entering an isolated world, a virtual reality, where time sat still and nothing changed -- a world just entering the industrial age, not the information age.
The throne speech isn't a vision of the future but a look to the past viewed through the wrong end of a telescope. This is a government that clearly doesn't understand, nor fit in with, what's going on in the real world. One has only to look beyond the feel-good phrases of the throne speech to find the sad reality that is affecting every riding and person in British Columbia.
The government repeatedly reminds us that education is a priority. To support this claim, the NDP proudly points out that it is willing to outspend any other jurisdiction as proof that it cares, as if out-of-control spending was somehow a virtue. However, we live in a new world where spending smarter is better than spending more. This government actually has the nerve to trumpet B.C. as the education province, a somewhat exaggerated stance on this government's support of post-secondary education over the past years. There has been so much intent with improving access that they have not taken care of the other side of the equation -- quality. As a result, we are witnessing classes being cut, programs being severed and a lack of library funds and the ability to keep and attract staff. Certainly all British Columbians will long remember the NDP's handling of the recent school strike in the K-to-12 system.
Let's do an education reality check. In the field of education technology this government has again failed the students of British Columbia. Compared to the rest of English-speaking Canada, we are at the bottom of the class. Internet usage in B.C. schools, at a dismal 9.6 percent, is among the lowest rates in our nation. Our students are not being given the tools and training needed to participate in this new economy. Here is where the disconnect comes in. B.C. citizens and businesses are leaders in Internet usage and e-commerce. The private sector scores the highest in Canada, yet our schools score the lowest. Clearly there is a reason for this, and the responsibility rests fully with this government and its lack of a strategic plan.
[ Page 14861 ]
[1645]
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
This government has also abandoned the students of British Columbia in the acquisition of computer hardware and software. The NDP has issued countless vision statements stating its ideal goal of providing one computer for every three students in the public school system. The reality behind the high-tech hype presents a different picture. To date, this government hasn't even achieved one-third of its own vision. Instead of one computer for every three students, the ratio is actually closer to one computer for every nine students.
Vision without action is meaningless. More than half the computers in the schools are obsolete and unable to perform today's required tasks. Meanwhile, for reasons only understood by the NDP, this government has gone overboard and acquired for itself more computers than there are staff. While every nine students must share one piece of antiquated equipment, the NDP has supplied approximately 1.5 machines for every bureaucrat. No wonder this government paints such a rosy picture of B.C.'s high-tech future.
We clearly have a government without a strategic plan, whose spending is out of control and whose priorities are upside down. Not only has this government failed the students of British Columbia, it has forsaken its citizens and jeopardized our collective future. British Columbia is not losing the high-tech race; we're not even in it. The NDP high-tech bandwagon is stalled in the ditch on the information superhighway.
"What We Heard" is the report of the Summit Panel on Securing B.C.'s Future. This was a report done in March 2000. There were 15 business leaders who went throughout the province and held public meetings in 14 communities. They had basically a number of reforms in three key areas. As part of this report, they talked about taxation -- that both business and personal income taxation levels within the province are too high and are impeding existing and prospective business activity. They talked about the need to streamline regulation and cut red tape, and they also talked about the need for labour management cooperation.
In this report they also spoke about high-tech. They had some interesting insights. They talked about there being considerable room for capacity-building by adding bandwidth and fibre optics in rural areas. They said that government and business should build high-tech infrastructure capacity to these rural communities.
There was interesting a presentation by a Nelson city councillor. He made this comment: "
This government's failures to deliver on its high-tech hype was recently revealed in my own riding. Almost four years ago the NDP had another vision -- that B.C. libraries would provide public access to the Internet. That's a commendable notion, hon. Speaker. Once again the reality behind the public relations indicated that this wasn't the case. We have one computer in the Kelowna library -- one public access computer in the main library of a modern city of 100,000 people. Things were so desperate that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recognized that we are a have-not area and graciously awarded the library a quarter of a million dollars to get it up to speed. At this time we would like to publicly thank Bill and Melinda Gates for this generous gesture. So much for this government's high-tech strategy -- another example of an ambitious vision, an unrealized outcome and a missed opportunity.
[1650]
I was somewhat puzzled that the throne speech made mention of the provincial learning network, the digital jewel of the NDP's education technology strategy. It strikes me as odd that this is the first mention of a project that began several years ago and is finally nearing completion. Here again, B.C. is at the bottom of the class in delivering education technology. Our neighbours, Alberta and Washington, have long since completed their connectivity phases and are actually applying advanced technology in the classroom. We will not have all our schools connected until July of this year at the earliest. In comparison, New Brunswick schools were connected in 1996. We are clearly losing the race. In the new economy, faster is better than bigger.
Not only is B.C. losing the racing, a large number of our schools are connected at speeds slower than many individual households. Before the NDP intervened at the local level, B.C. schools were well underway in connecting to the Internet. This government intervened, centralized decision-making and clawed back technology funding to schools. It then spent one and a half years fighting B.C. Internet service providers, trying to exclude them from participating in the provincial learning network. Here we have a government, which promotes itself as a small business party, turning its back on the entrepreneurs of B.C.
The government eventually lost this battle because its policy was wrong. This government's legacy in education technology ranks down there with the fast ferry fiasco. Unfortunately, in this instance they've not only squandered time and money; they've squandered our children's education and their future. In terms of its technology policies, the NDP have build a backward Bosnia within the North American community, a low-tech wasteland surrounded by the fruits of the new economy.
The throne speech announced the establishment of a high-tech commission. I don't think B.C. needs another level of bureaucracy. Anyone familiar with the high-tech sector knows that it's driven by entrepreneurs and small business. This government has already created agencies, branches and divisions to deal with advanced technology. The problem is not going to be solved by a new commission.
B.C. needs and deserves a government that understands its role in the new economy and has sound policies backed by solid delivery. Even with this government's sizeable bureaucracy, British Columbia is still on the losing end of international trade in this important economic sector. B.C.'s high-technology trade deficit is worsening. Since 1996 the trade deficit has increased over 25 percent, rising to almost $2 billion. During the same period, the total value of high-technology imports was almost four times as great as the value of high-technology exports, and this government is trying to sell us on the idea that another level of bureaucracy is going to produce positive outcomes.
[ Page 14862 ]
A discussion paper was published by the Science Council of B.C. This was published in 1995, and they had an action plan listed. I just want to read the first three items of this action plan for government and industry. It mentions developing a strategy to help companies attract senior U.S. personnel to relocate to the province, a tax equalization scheme to correct B.C.'s reputation as the most highly taxed province in Canada and it talks about the appointment of a full-time cabinet minister solely responsible for knowledge-based industry and science policy. And the list goes on. This is one of many reports by the business community with their suggestions on how to improve the economy of British Columbia, but this government is so stuck in its ideology that it hasn't listened to any of these suggestions.
This government is at least consistent with its narrow focus and blurred vision in the area of post-secondary education. Students in my riding attend what amounts to a hybrid -- the university college concept. While the jury is still out on the merits of this approach to advanced education, the verdict is in on this government's neglect and mismanagement of Okanagan University College over the past ten years. While my riding is in the heart of one of Canada's fastest-growing regions, comprising 9 percent of B.C.'s population, OUC receives only 3.3 percent of all funding, leaving us dead last in per-capita funding. We do not receive our share of learning-resource funding. This isn't just a case of underfunding; it's a clear case of unfairness.
[1655]
I was hoping to hear some creative solutions in the throne speech addressing the student-loan debt problem. Yesterday we had the opportunity to debate the Tuition Fee Freeze Act and learn of some of the positive and negative effects of this freeze. As you know, tuition constitutes a minor portion of a student's total debt after graduation. Student debt is still considered to be one of the major concerns of students. I don't understand why this government hasn't listened to some of the practical solutions and recommendations from the university community, such as income-contingent loan programs. A flexible plan will allow students to repay loans based on a set portion of their incomes. Even in tough economic times, as we've experienced in British Columbia over the past years, graduates wouldn't be saddled with unmanageable payments or forced into bankruptcy.
I was hoping that in this throne speech we would have some solutions to deal with this concern of students, creative solutions such as prepaid tuition savings programs. The biggest burden with student debt is the sad reality that graduates can't find work and earn a decent living to repay these loans. We're educating a skilled workforce for the rest of the world.
This government wasn't listening to my constituents when it prepared its throne speech. Had it been listening, it would have heard loud and clear what the majority of our citizens are telling us. I've conducted surveys amongst my constituents, and repeatedly they tell me their priorities are less taxes, less government spending, less government waste and less public debt. The government has missed a golden opportunity to address these legitimate concerns. The best way to achieve what our citizens want is through a complete overhaul of the old way of conducting the people's business. Where is the NDP's commitment to an e-government strategy -- a commitment to catching up with the rest of the world? Our governments have long recognized the need to embrace the electronic revolution to better serve their citizens. Electronic processing costs one-fifth of pushing paper. E-government provides 24-by-seven access to many public services.
Knowledge management is understanding that 45 percent of the cost of business is in the transaction process. E-government would dramatically reduce costs and give our citizens value on their investment in government. The best thing government can do is lead by example. Citizens are demanding to become more empowered, because they can perform their own transactions better than government is able to deliver them.
Washington State, an important trading partner and a leader in the information age, is already providing direct democracy and electronic voting. What we have is a digital divide between the haves and the have-nots. B.C. used to be the envy of Canada; now we are not. Many jurisdictions throughout North America are moving into the world of e-government. B.C. under the NDP government continues to look to the past for solutions, praying and hoping for a miracle recovery in the resource sector. Meanwhile this government has isolated our province, and the public sector remains frozen and fossilized.
B.C.'s best lies ahead of us, not behind. To properly function in this brave new world, government needs to commit to bold action, not rely on blind luck. B.C. needs new ideas and innovation, not old ideology and outdated rhetoric. B.C. needs renewed confidence and collaboration, not confrontation and central control. If this government hoped that its throne speech was going to provide positive solutions to our province's problems, it sorely missed the mark. Madam Speaker, the only thing I can support, after a decade of the NDP, is a general election. That is what the public wants, and that will provide the first step in rebuilding our once-great province.
[1700]
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on our government's Speech from the Throne. I do think I should begin by congratulating our new Speaker on his recent election. I think he has longstanding experience as a member of this House, and I fully expect he will set the kind of tone and ability for us to work together as colleagues as he has done on occasions in his early days in his role as Speaker.
At this time I'd also like to welcome the new member for Delta South. This is my first opportunity to say welcome to her from myself, speaking in this House today. I had the opportunity to listen to her inaugural speech, and I'd like to congratulate her on many of the valuable bits of information she gave us in talking about her community. I think she gave her speech a great deal of thought, and I appreciated her thoughtfulness in its delivery.
If I could, I'd like to begin talking today, as the throne speech did, about ways in which we are emphasizing the key goals of our government through the Speech from the Throne. First I'd like to speak to the theme of openness, transparency and providing British Columbians with the biggest and clearest picture we can on financial matters. That, of course, is something that the throne speech and the new budget legislation that the Minister of Finance has introduced are designed to promote. In fact, it delivers not only on the goals of the auditor general's report but on the recently completed and released Enns report.
[ Page 14863 ]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
One of the things that I like best about our Finance minister's approach to this question is his interest in involving British Columbians in a discussion around setting priorities for budget spending. As part of the budget exercise, he will be visiting British Columbians. In fact, it won't be the Finance minister; it will be an all-party committee. Members from both sides of this House will have the opportunity to tour the province and talk with British Columbians about what they see as their most important budget priorities. Then that committee will report to this House and to the Finance minister on what they have heard from British Columbians, prior to the Finance minister moving forward with deliberations on the budget. I think that's a very constructive and open approach. It's one that I know was supported by the members from Kamloops, who met with the Minister of Finance when he was in Kamloops this spring.
I also believe that our throne speech is around the theme of balance. It is important that it reflects the right kind of balance for British Columbians. That means achieving a balance not only between the needs of business and industry -- and what we hear consistently about the need for tax cuts in particular -- but also through the spending that we do, so that spending reflects the priorities and wishes of British Columbians. Of course, what I have heard as a local MLA, and certainly what I know the Finance minister heard on his tour through Kamloops, was the need to continue to invest in the important areas of health and education and to take steps which will strengthen both our provincial and our regional economies.
I want to begin my comments by addressing that question of achieving and strengthening our provincial and regional economies. The throne speech talks about setting a modern direction. I'd like to talk for a few minutes about how it does that. A modern direction in the sense of economic security means that we have to think about the goals and values of our province and in communities and regions throughout it. "Diversification" or "the new economy" is how it's often described in communities in my area, in the southern interior, to northern British Columbia and Vancouver Island. I've spoken, as have others in this House, about how government needs to support the goals of these communities. We need to work with people from the ground up and make sure that diversification suits the needs and the qualities of the communities around the province.
[1705]
The economic summits that have been planned and held in a number of areas around British Columbia have really set the groundwork on what we need to do at all levels of government in order to achieve these outcomes. So when we talk about diversification in the Kamloops region, we're talking about some of the areas that are described in the Speech from the Throne as our new economy.
I'd like to start by talking about film, because the Speech from the Throne talks about some exciting new opportunities for the advancement of the film industry outside of the lower mainland. As my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson knows, this is a very interesting area of diversification for the Thompson-Nicola regional district, Kamloops and surrounding regions. In fact, we have a very active film commission sponsored by the Thompson-Nicola regional district. They are active in developing a regional strategy that builds on our successes as a very good location shoot for a variety of film productions from the U.S. and around the world. That's been supported, in fact, by the existing film tax credit program that this government brought into place in last year's budget.
While that's done some to attract film outside of the lower mainland, it's clear that we need to do more work. So when we talk about having support for film commissions around the province, the Thompson-Nicola Film Commission is very excited about how we can take advantage of that program and really build on the expertise we have and bring a larger number of films to the central interior region.
I also think that when we talk about a new economy or diversifying our economy, we need to talk about supporting entrepreneurship. In other words, we have to give communities the tools they need to achieve success. That was something, again, that was a key theme of the southern interior economic summit in Kamloops. We know -- those of us who live outside of the lower mainland -- that our communities and the people who live there have lots of innovation and interest as entrepreneurs. We need government to work with us to support those efforts.
As a government, whenever we talk about diversification, we go back to the view that we start in the grassroots, in the communities, and we build on those successes. An excellent example that I'd like to profile for the members of this House is the enterprise facilitation program partly funded by the Ministry of Employment and Investment and also funded through business investment across Kamloops, as well as by the federal government. It's a very good example of how a small amount of money targeted to a community, at the community level, can be levered into huge new investment opportunities and into areas that business people in our region want to make steps forward in.
I brought the Premier to meet with Wendy Snelling and representatives of the North Shore Business Improvement Association recently, when he was in Kamloops. He was incredibly impressed with the work they have done. They told us their statistics. Hon. Speaker, you will find them amazing as well. In only five and a half months of operation, more than 90 new businesses have been started or built upon, and more than half a million dollars in investment has been attracted to the community as a result of the work of that program. A small investment of $30,000 has simply grown and blossomed, with the innovation we have in our community, into more than half a million dollars of investment and more than 90 new and improved businesses. That's the kind of innovation we need to continue to support in our community and in communities around the province.
How can we continue to grow that level of innovation in communities? Well, we have a new ministry in our government, and it's supporting regional economic diversification. That's the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. That new ministry and its programs have been very well received in Kamloops. I'd like to speak of several projects that have been approved through that new ministry in order to lever additional dollars, more growth and more economic diversification in our region.
First, we received, through the organic food co-op, $8,500 to enable them to build a comprehensive business plan. Our organic food co-op has been around Kamloops for a long time. It is really an example of that kind of grass-roots organization, with hundreds of members who belong through a single share of membership. They are building a cooperative that will
[ Page 14864 ]
market an organic food product throughout our region and potentially in a much broader way to the lower mainland or perhaps even foreign markets. While that $8,500 is a small amount in terms of their overall financial need, it is partnered with dollars from a number of agencies and businesses and the members themselves in the community in order to make a business that will meet the needs of our region.
[1710]
We've also received dollars for a co-op conference that was sponsored by our local Community Futures organization. It was held in both Kamloops and Salmon Arm. Again, it speaks to the nature of giving communities tools through which they can then lever and make decisions about what kind of economic activity is important for them to put their energy and efforts into.
I'd like to speak for a moment or two about high-tech, because again, I want to take pride in being a representative from Kamloops. We're a community that's thought very hard about this issue of diversification and moving towards a broader economy that doesn't rely strictly on resource-based industries. We have an opportunity to learn from some of the other organizations we've seen develop in the Okanagan and in the Victoria area. They really show that Kamloops has the kind of high-quality community and low cost of living that can attract a high-tech industry.
The cooperative spaces that were announced as part of the Speech from the Throne are a very exciting way to build on the entrepreneurial spirit and ability that exist in our community. I recently read an article in Kamloops This Week that talked about high-tech from one of our local businesses, MediaWeb Solutions. The owner of that local business talked about how the creation of the thousand new co-op spaces will impact the industry and his web-designing business in Kamloops almost immediately. "I think that idea was brilliant," he says, adding that just about all of his 13 employees were hired through the co-op program with the University College of the Cariboo. Again, it's an example of how this throne speech takes an idea and gives the community a tool through which it can prosper and grow a broader economic base.
In the same area of high-tech, I think it's also important to talk about a very exciting new job centre in Kamloops that was recently announced by myself and the Minister of Employment and Investment; it's a call centre for Kamloops. I really do have to give credit to the provincial government and the Ministry of Employment and Investment for the work they did with something called the LINX B.C. program. Again, this is about partnering with local communities and designing a strategy to attract businesses from, in this case, the U.S. market to the central interior.
It's true that many people in British Columbia are employed in call centres, particularly in the lower mainland. But in communities outside of the lower mainland like Kamloops, there has been little progress in attracting that kind of business. So in cooperation with the provincial government, communities like Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George and Nanaimo created a consortium and said: "Let's go after this business."
Government assisted by funding the project and by taking the tax off 1-800 calls, which was an important step necessary before we could bring a call centre of this size to the Kamloops area. In addition, as a province we've decided and agreed to invest in the people that will be hired at the call centre. The Ministry of Employment and Investment will be providing training dollars to support some of the more than 500 new employees that are likely to be hired in the next few months as our call centre goes into operation.
[1715]
It's important to note how we achieve these outcomes. The province works as a partner, and it cooperates by working with local communities, provincial agencies and the private sector. That's how this throne speech supports communities across British Columbia and assists us in one of our most important goals, economic development. That team approach is something that I think has been conveyed broadly to our community and that people in Kamloops really believe in.
That's why our newly elected mayor, Mayor Rothenburger, talked to both myself and my colleague across the way, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, about an idea he had, called Team Kamloops. It takes that idea of partnership, and it brings together local government, provincial government, our colleague from Ottawa, Nelson Riis, at the federal level and aboriginal representatives, aboriginal governments in our region, where we work at a common table to achieve goals that are to the benefit of our community. Importantly, they want to take and the mayor wants to take a non-partisan approach. Both myself and my colleague across the way have agreed that we will participate in that forum, because we believe our efforts have to go to achieving what is best for our community.
What else is on the horizon for Kamloops and region in an economic sense? What are the new opportunities for diversification beyond high-tech, entrepreneurship and small business? Well, tourism is a very important growth area for our region. In fact, I have another article from Kamloops This Week, which is a wonderful local newspaper; it gives a lot of very good information to the public about what's going on in our community. It talks about B.C.'s tourist industry as well as our own local industry.
In this report we hear that British Columbia's tourism industry hit record marks last year, and the Kamloops region definitely held up its end of the bargain. In fact, members of the Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association reported a 48 percent revenue increase over 1998. Wow! That is an amazing level of growth -- not surprising to those of us who come from the interior, who know some of the wonderful opportunities there are for both recreation and outdoor adventure in our part of the world. But in fact, the province understands this as well. Again, when we talk about the throne speech, there is a reference directly to what we call gateway communities and to using tourism and our fabulous natural environment, including our beautiful B.C. parks, as a tool through which we can take advantage and draw additional tourism into our area.
Ecotourism in particular is a high-growth area. In my former life, when I was involved with the Ministry of Environment, I knew full well some of the opportunities there are in places like Wells Gray Park in our region, as well as Lac du Bois, which is a grasslands park directly in the Kamloops area. While it's important on a preservation level to have these parks as a part of our communities, it's also important for us to think on a community level how we can use these parks to our advantage in a tourism and economic-growth capacity.
[ Page 14865 ]
Lac du Bois in particular, I think, provides a new opportunity, because we have some existing businesses in Wells Gray. I think there are some new opportunities there as well. But in Lac du Bois, we have a unique grassland ecosystem.
I've had a chance to talk recently with a constituent named Bruno Delesalle, the Grasslands Conservation Council representative, who now resides in Kamloops. I talked to him about the educational opportunities that our proximity to this wonderful grassland ecosystem can provide from both an educational perspective and an ecotourism point of view. I think that's a very important new area that we can use, through this budget, as a tool to help grow, again, the tourism and ecotourism opportunities in our region.
When I'm talking about how our throne speech supports economic diversification in the Kamloops and southern interior area, I would be remiss if I didn't talk for a moment or two about the tax cuts that are a part of this budget and how that too is a generator of continued economic growth.
[1720]
We had the opportunity, both last budget and this budget, to reduce taxes to small business across British Columbia. I think that was one of the smartest decisions we made in this budget, because we all know how important small business is to each and every community around British Columbia and how it continues to grow jobs in every region of the province. It promotes that entrepreneurial spirit that I talked about. More jobs will grow as a result of those tax cuts occurring across British Columbia. I think it's a very important signal of what we believe here, as New Democrats, about the importance of small business and making British Columbia strong economically.
Beyond tax cuts, though, and beyond economic activities, we need to talk a little bit about some of the other investments our government is willing to make as part of this throne speech. I would like to talk next about education and the fact that, as my colleague has coined, B.C. is the education province.
I was actually very disappointed in the remarks of the member for Okanagan East, because I think he denigrates the education system in what he says about the quality. As a former educator, I can tell you that the quality of the education system in British Columbia is absolutely top-notch. There are thousands of dedicated teachers and administrators, school trustees and parents, who work extremely hard every single day trying to make our school system the best it can be.
Of course, this government has continued to invest and improve, through their investment, the quality of education for children across the province. I speak specifically to the reduction in class size in particular, as a tool through which we have improved the quality of education.
There are enormous benefits to reducing class size, particularly at younger grades. We all know -- and I think both sides of the House will agree -- that when we make investments in our children through the public school system or the health system and have early intervention as our focus, we are spending our dollars extremely wisely.
We will then avoid additional expenses in the future by understanding that children learn so much in those first early years. If we can create the kind of classroom environment, where children can learn well because there are a smaller number of students in their class, then I think that's an important direction for us to take. So I'm very pleased that the Speech from the Throne contains such a major investment in education and the continued effort to reduce class size as part of its focus.
Of course, it also makes reference to career technical centres. I don't think many members in this House have really drawn upon that or talked at some length about the importance of that in the context of the throne speech. The career technical centre that exists in Kamloops was one of the first to be announced around the province, and it's a tool through which we can give students more choices in their senior years of school. In other words, students can choose to enter this program and earn credits towards a post-secondary degree or certificate program at the same time as they're earning their grade 12 Dogwood Certificate.
At the end of a two-year program they may well have completed a complete program, like a trades partsperson program that's offered at UCC. Or they may have completed two years towards a cook's training program and have only one more year to go post-secondary -- past their secondary school graduation. It's a very exciting program. Not a lot of students are taking advantage of it yet, but school districts and universities and colleges are using this opportunity to work together to provide even more options for secondary students as they enter and get ready for their careers.
In the context of our support for education, I'd also like to talk for a moment or two about the tuition freeze. The tuition freeze -- and I'm pleased that the members on the opposite side decided they would support it -- gives students an opportunity for greater access to post-secondary programs. If you come from outside the lower mainland, that's a very important thing to do. In the past, students from the interior and northern British Columbia were much less likely to attend post-secondary training, because they had to travel long distances and at great cost to their families to go to major university centres in the lower mainland or Victoria region.
[1725]
Through the university college model and the creation of the University of Northern British Columbia, we have provided huge opportunities for access to students across the province, as well as through the effect of tuition freezing. Freezing tuitions enabled families to be able to afford that post-secondary education for all their children.
Unlike the member for Okanagan East, who thinks the jury is out on the effectiveness of the university college model
While I'm talking about UCC, I think it's also important to notice the commitment this throne speech made to the addition of new nursing spaces across the province to deal with the nursing shortage in British Columbia. Once again, at UCC we are ready and able to take some of those new spaces that were announced, so that we can play our part in terms of dealing with the necessary recruitment of new nurses from across British Columbia. I know that the recruitment strategy cannot stop at simply creating new spaces at universities and university colleges across British Columbia. This is only one
[ Page 14866 ]
part of a strategy that is being developed with the help of health care professionals and the Ministry of Health. I certainly look forward to hearing more about how that nursing shortage can be addressed with government support.
While talking about the University College of the Cariboo, I also want to speak to the capital investments this province is willing to make not only in the education setting but in the health setting as well. In the context of the University College of the Cariboo, we are waiting to hear that we will have some dollars, as a part of this budget, towards a new animal health technology building. It's very necessary, because there's been a recent review by the accreditation agency charged with examining these programs and on whether they meet national standards. While I'm very pleased to report that at UCC we have the best animal health technology in Canada -- that's certainly documented through the reviews that have been done -- our facility is abysmal.
We've been working to try and make sure that there are adequate dollars to replace that facility so that program can continue to offer great benefits to students across British Columbia. In that regard, I would really like to acknowledge the assistance that the member for Cariboo North has provided in making sure that that building is replaced. I appreciate the approach that the member is taking to work, in a non-partisan way, on behalf of people who need the training in an animal health technology program in British Columbia.
I see from the lights that my time is drawing to a close. At this time, I would like to reiterate my support for this budget, for the direction and vision that has been detailed in the Speech from the Throne. I believe that it does achieve the right balance in strengthening B.C.'s economy and investing in British Columbians. Our priorities reflect the priorities of British Columbian families in health care, in protecting the environment, in investing in our children and creating B.C. jobs. I believe it's the right balance, and it's the right balance for today and tomorrow.
M. Coell: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the Legislature. I know you're going to enjoy the job, and I look forward to working with you.
[1730]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand on behalf of the citizens of Saanich North and the Islands to make some comments on the throne speech. To me a throne speech is always when a government has an opportunity to set the tone for government, to set the agenda and the tone for the coming year. I think, as a member of the opposition, you're expecting that we would comment as to what's not in the throne speech that should have been there. I'd like to take the opportunity to point out what I think were some of the deficits in the throne speech and some areas that I think could help to make the province a better area.
One of the main thrusts of the throne speech this year was reconnecting with the hopes and values of B.C. families. I can understand that, with the present government being as unpopular as they are, they would want to do that in the last year of their mandate. One of the statements is: "
I think any time you look at what a government has accomplished or not accomplished, you have to look at what they've done, not what they've said. I'd just like to go back a few years as to what the government said and what they actually did. In 1992, just after being elected, in the throne speech was a statement: "When this government sought its mandate from the people of British Columbia, it promised no miracles." Well, I think they've kept that promise. They committed not to spend any money that they couldn't afford and to manage the province's finances openly and responsibly. It's taken nine years for the government to actually bring that legislation and put it before the House. So they've accomplished something they set out to do in 1992. Why they didn't do it in 1992, I don't know. That may lead to some of the problems they've had with credibility.
In 1993, from the Speech from the Throne: "The new British Columbian Investment Office, reporting to the Premier, will work to cut unnecessary red tape and duplication within the normal regulatory and review processes." That simply hasn't happened, and in the past nine years we've seen a great deal more red tape. That again, I think, may have something to do with the credibility of the government today.
As I've said, I always watch what people do, not what they say. In 1995, in the Speech from the Throne, they commented on the budget. "We balanced the budget a full year ahead of our promise to the people of British Columbia, and we have done it while maintaining our commitment to freeze taxes." Well, as we look back to 1995, that didn't happen. That wasn't what they did; it was only what they'd said. Again, in 1996 the statement: "This government will soon introduce its second consecutive balanced budget." This was in the throne statement. Again, that's not the reality of what happened. I think that's what has hurt this government and their credibility with the people of British Columbia.
This government finds itself in a throne speech unable to set a tone that is believable, because of their past practices. I know we've had a change in Premier and we've had a change in cabinet, but quite frankly, it's the same people, the same philosophy and the same track record. I understand why they want to change, because they're extremely unpopular at this point. It is time that credibility was brought back to this House, and another government will implement some of the measures we have seen now -- although they're a decade late -- and it will work to the benefit of the citizens of British Columbia.
[1735]
One of the things that I found was missing in reading the Speech from the Throne was an emphasis on the mental health problem in British Columbia, from adequate drugs that this government hasn't funded to housing to having a strategy for mental health. There are many people living on the streets in British Columbia who don't have adequate services and who are suffering from varying degrees of mental illness. I can remember, a number of years ago now, another time when the government said something and didn't do it -- about bringing in a mental health strategy to help the thousands of people who suffer from mental illness in this province. There was a great deal of satisfaction when the government announced that, and there's a great deal of dissatisfaction right now. Those people are living the same lives they were three years ago, and there isn't a strategy to help them. That's a shame, because we're judged a great deal by those who need our help.
[ Page 14867 ]
Another area that was missing from the throne speech was organized crime. Where's the strategy to fight organized crime in this province? Where's the emphasis? Surely in a throne speech, when we have an epidemic of organized crime in Canada and especially in British Columbia, you would have mentioned it. There would have been some mention of: "We understand there's a problem; we're going to work on a strategy to deal with increasing crime and organized crime in all of British Columbia. It's something that has been pointed out to us by the courts, the judges, the police chiefs." Nothing -- nothing at all in the throne speech. We can read into that that it isn't a priority for the government, and it certainly should be.
The member for North Coast was commenting earlier on Children and Families and the problems in that ministry. There isn't any mention of dealing and tackling those problems in the throne speech. Certainly the children of British Columbia should be a priority. He said there aren't any easy answers, but there are some answers that weren't addressed -- the answers to alcohol and drug problems, the answers to crime and the answers to uneducated parents. Those are things that we could have been looking at -- could have been helping. They are all tied in together.
One of the other speakers mentioned the downtown east side in Vancouver. I've spent some time there -- and I know other members of the Legislature have as well -- trying to get a handle on those problems. A lot of those children living in that situation are suffering. The alcohol and drug problems are a direct contribution of organized crime. There are literally thousands of people living in the downtown Vancouver east side and elsewhere in the province, where organized crime, pushing drugs and prostitution are festering those problems and making them greater. These are people like you and me; they are no different. The old adage, "There but for the grace of God go I
I don't see anything in the throne speech to deal with that problem. They are all interrelated -- children and families, alcohol and drugs, and organized crime. Those are some of the issues that needed to be addressed. They're high profile; they're issues that are of great concern to British Columbians. The issue of child prostitution was not mentioned, along with the children and families not being mentioned. We seem to be spending time on photo radar and on disarming the RCMP auxiliary police, and those issues seem to be taking up government's time.
[1740]
In the throne speech, there was mention of health care. Again, I look back at other throne speeches where health care is mentioned -- that good things are going to happen. But I have to tell you that good things aren't happening in health care in British Columbia. In my riding the Saanich Peninsula hospital is continually under attack. This week there was a suggestion that they would lose 65 acute care beds. We saw last night that the pediatric intensive care unit is being closed; the burn unit is being closed. These aren't good things happening in the hospital system. They are underfunded, they are poorly managed, and in the last decade we had millions and millions of dollars spent on studies to reorganize and then to reorganize the reorganization.
So when I read that in the throne speech, I just wonder if this is like all the other promises -- to balance budgets, to cut taxes, to cut red tape, and "We're going to do a good job of health care too." It's a little hard to believe, and I think that's what British Columbians are saying too: "We're watching what you do now, not what you say."
Another issue that I think should have been mentioned is the disaster of leaky condos in this province -- literally a billion dollars' worth of damage, problems that need to be addressed for thousands of British Columbians. Where was the vision to look after this problem and make sure it doesn't happen again?
An Hon. Member: Just mention it.
M. Coell: A mention would have been nice: "We understand there's a problem." When I look at this throne speech, it was the tiniest little document that you'd ever want to see. Surely you could have taken time to say: "Let's look at some of the problems in British Columbia, and let's address them."
The other missing piece to this was the forest industry. Where's the plan? Where's the ability for the forest workers and the forest-dependent communities to know that the government sees there's a problem and cares? We just had another report out yesterday that basically says that we need more studies. I think that what people want is to go back to work. They want to know that government is on their side.
The issue of the environment has a couple of sentences in the throne speech, but we have a major issue with greenhouse gases and clean water in this province. No mention -- no mention at all.
The other issue that I think is worthy of comment, in a document that should be a vision statement for the province, is our own sovereignty -- the fact that right now the forest industry on the coast and Greenpeace and a number of other environmental groups are negotiating over the forests without the government involved. Why isn't the government involved? Where is the vision of the government for forestry in the future -- and for the environment? They're taking a back seat.
Those are some of the things that weren't in this throne speech and that should have been. Now I'd like to tell you some of the things that I think should have been in the throne speech. We needed to see that government was serious about a dramatic cut in income tax. We needed to say to business that we're going to cut subsidies and let them stand on their own.
We needed a full public inquiry into the fast ferries. That would have been nice, instead of stopping the debate in the Public Accounts Committee. My riding is dependent on the ferry system, and I grew up using the B.C. ferry system. It was a proud corporation at one time. Employees, management and the people of British Columbia were very proud of that corporation. This government has driven the Ferry Corporation onto the rocks with the fast ferry program. I think to myself, when I see that money spent and I see those ships idle for the most part: what could that money have been used for? Could that money have been used for health care, for children and families, for education? That money is just gone; it's gone out of the economy.
[1745]
This government has had a disastrous nine years of not doing what it says. And when we look at what they've done with the debt, the deficits -- the mismanagement -- it's pretty
[ Page 14868 ]
tough to read this throne speech and believe it. I don't think the people of British Columbia believe this government. I don't think this throne speech goes any way to repair the damage that nine years of NDP throne speeches and nine years of NDP budgets have done. This government is at the bottom of the ninth inning, and it has just struck out again. It has struck out again for the people of British Columbia.
I can't speak in favour of this throne speech. I've tried to point out what I think is missing in the throne speech and some of the things that could have been put in to set a tone, a vision for the future, a vision that British Columbians want -- of a positive, responsible government that governs for all of British Columbia, that doesn't govern for its friends, doesn't govern for insiders. Once you're elected, you represent all the people. I don't see that in this throne speech, and I certainly don't see that in the new-look government.
I won't be supporting the throne speech. With that, I would like to adjourn debate of the throne speech.
M. Coell moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I want to wish all members of the chamber a safe and happy weekend away from the travails of this place.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada