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)
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 17
[ Page 14869 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Campbell: I rise today to congratulate a number of talented British Columbians, dedicated B.C. athletes who made everyone in the province proud over the last weekend. Last weekend Kelley Law and her rink, including Julie Skinner, Georgina Wheatcroft and Diane Nelson, and Greg McAulay and his rink, including Brent Pierce, Bryan Miki and Jody Sveistrup, won the world championship in curling.
It's the second time the teams from a single Canadian province, the great province of British Columbia, have succeeded in winning the men's and women's gold medal at the world championship. What's amazing is that no other country in the world has managed to accomplish that feat. When you add that feat to the feat of Brad Kuhn of Vernon and his rink, who recently won the world junior men's curling championship, we are the only province ever to win three championships in a row. I know that every member of this House will want to join me, join you and join everyone else in British Columbia in celebrating this spectacular success.
Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition stole my thunder a bit, but you know what? It doesn't matter. As minister of sports for the province of British Columbia, I'm very pleased to get up on behalf of the government -- on behalf of all members of the House -- to wish these two teams that won the men's and women's world championships our congratulations for the honour they have done for British Columbia.
Also, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we want to acknowledge Brad Kuhn from Vernon and the junior men's curling championship. It came on the same weekend when some British Columbian women were on the championship hockey team. This was a great weekend for our British Columbian athletes. When they arrive at 5:56 p.m. at Vancouver International Airport, I urge many people to go and welcome them back. This is a great feat for British Columbia, and we're very, very proud of them.
[1410]
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, today we have a very special visitor from Germany. Some of us had the pleasure to meet him over lunch. Mr. Klaus Kröger is the newly appointed consul general of Germany in Vancouver. He's making his official calls in Victoria today. I know this House will give him a warm welcome. Please welcome him not only to this House but also to British Columbia.
C. Clark: We're joined in the gallery today by Elayne Brenzinger, who's the executive director of the Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education and -- the House might also like to note -- the next MLA for Surrey-Whalley. I hope the House will make her welcome.
Hon. J. Kwan: April 9 to April 15 is National Volunteer Week across Canada. Every year across British Columbia more than a million people volunteer their time in our communities -- some 169 million hours of volunteer time. Today in the gallery we have a number of representatives from the volunteer community. Alan Currie, the executive director of Volunteer Victoria, is here representing Volunteer B.C. and Volunteer Canada. Also in the gallery are several representatives from the Western Association of Directors of Volunteers, and they are Charlene Robson, Nancy Lenkorin and Linda Prochaska.
Also in the gallery are Tracy Wragg, Claire Lynch, Jackie Robson and Teresa Newhouse from the University of Victoria humanities 101 program. Of course, tonight I'll be going back home to Vancouver, where we will congratulate the participants of humanities 101 in Vancouver for their efforts upon their graduation.
Finally, visiting the gallery are family members of my special assistant, Rachel Turner-Bourne, from Revelstoke: Rachel's aunt, Rita Henry; her grandmother, Winnie Jerome; and her cousin, Kelly McPherson. Would the House please make all these visitors very welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: Joining us in the House today is a distinguished delegation from Khabarovsk Krai Territory of Russia, led by Deputy Governor Apanasenko. They are visiting British Columbia to examine how we manage our forests and to take a look at how British Columbia forest harvesting and processing are done. Please join me in welcoming them.
I. Chong: Today we have two very special ladies I would like to introduce on behalf of our legislative librarian, Joan Barton. We have visiting us a visiting scholar to the University of Victoria from Dalhousie University, Francis Gregor, and a long-time resident of Victoria and supporter of the arts, Ruth McLoughlin. Would the House please make them very welcome.
E. Conroy: Today in the gallery is Bill Trewhella. Bill is a former mayor of the village of Warfield and the former chair of the UBCM. He's in Victoria on business this afternoon. Would the House please make him welcome.
COST OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING FORMER PREMIER
G. Plant: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway is still under police investigation in the casino scandal. He is also the subject of a conflict-of-interest inquiry. He had his own legal counsel in the B.C. Hydro-Sheehan wrongful dismissal lawsuit, and now we learn that he is being sued for libel by a critic of the fast ferry project. I have a question for the Premier. Will he tell us how many publicly funded lawyers the former Premier has? And how much are the legal bills costing the taxpayers of British Columbia?
[1415]
Hon. A. Petter: As the member well knows, there is a policy in place that applies to senior public servants. It also applies to cabinet ministers in respect to the performance of their functions. That policy is administered under the Minister of Finance, and it applies in respect of legal proceedings where individuals are drawn into those proceedings because of their functions. That is the policy that has been applied in respect of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, as it has been applied in respect of other individuals in the senior public service and in government.
[ Page 14870 ]
The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston with a supplemental question.
G. Plant: Knowing that there is a policy and knowing that the government is purportedly applying it is one thing. But let's have some real accountability here and some real openness. Let's just have the answer to the question, for once. How many lawyers, and how much are the legal fees that have been paid to the lawyers that are currently on retainer to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't know the answer to the first question as to how many lawyers, hon. Speaker. But the question of legal fees, as the member should well know, is a matter of solicitor-client privilege. When the government provides legal fees in respect of these indemnity arrangements, it has to respect the privilege that is accorded to the individual concerned, and the question of the quantum of legal fees is attached to that privilege. The member should know that as a member of the bar and should respect that as a member of the bar, and not use this House as an avenue to try to circumvent that privilege.
The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston with a further supplemental.
G. Plant: I don't want to know what the advice is. I don't want to know what the recommendations are. Woe betide that I should know what kind of strategy the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is getting in terms of however many legal proceedings he is, and has been involved in. Still, I say that the taxpayers are entitled to know, because they're footing the bill: what is the bill? How much is it? Not the advice, not the recommendation, but how much are the taxpayers on the hook for, for all the legal representation that the former Premier is being given by this government?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me say two things in response to this line of questioning. First, as I recall, the member raised this same line of questioning last year, and the answer was the same.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. A. Petter: The answer was the same: this is a matter of solicitor-client privilege. The amount that the government pays to legal firms for legal representation is published every year, as the member well knows. But the specific amounts paid in respect of specific individuals under indemnity relationships is a matter of solicitor-client privilege.
I would also like to say that some of the matters the member is referring to are before the courts this very week. He is coming perilously close, in my view, to abusing the sub judice rule by using the Legislature as a forum to try to provoke issues around these court cases while they are in fact being adjudicated. I would discourage him from doing that, particularly during the time that those cases are before the courts.
The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston on a further supplemental.
G. Plant: The taxpayers are paying the bill. The taxpayers deserve to know how much that bill is. Let me expand the question, hon. Speaker, because goodness knows how many of those members are currently on the receiving end of taxpayer-funded legal advice, taxpayer-funded legal representation, for a host of proceedings. So let's try the Attorney General. No, better yet, let's try the man in charge of the government. Let's try the man who gives us -- who says he's giving us -- the new era of openness and accountability. How many members of his government caucus are currently receiving taxpayer-funded legal advice or representation?
[1420]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I recall very clearly the debate that took place in this House on this very issue. The hon. member is a respected member of the bar in British Columbia. He knows full well the principle of solicitor-client privilege. The hon. member has cast aspersions on each and every one of the members on this side of the House by asking an indirect question that he could not ask directly. The hon. member knows that you can't do indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition did the same the other day, when he said that government lied on a particular issue -- which was absolutely untrue. That means that the hon. Opposition Leader at that point said indirectly, for each and every one of us, what he couldn't say directly. I would challenge him to say the same thing outside the House.
TOM GUNTON SECONDMENT
G. Farrell-Collins: I know that sometimes the Premier has trouble paying attention, so perhaps he hasn't heard the many times that members on this side of the House have said, both inside and outside, that this government lied to the people of British Columbia about the 1996 budget.
I have a question for the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Since August of 1996, his ministry has been paying Mr. Gunton to work for his ministry, seeing as he's been seconded from the Ministry of Finance. Can the minister responsible tell us how much they're paying him and exactly what it is that Mr. Gunton is doing?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I don't have that at my fingertips at this moment, but I'd be happy to do what I can to find it out for the member.
The Speaker: Opposition House Leader on a supplemental.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, apparently he's being paid $115,000 a year. He's been getting his paycheque each and every two weeks, and apparently he's been working for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. But he's also apparently been working for the Ministry of Environment. Can the Minister of Environment tell us what Mr. Gunton has been doing since August, at $115,000 a year, for her ministry?
Hon. J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, I think I have to give the same answer as my colleague did. Since Tom Gunton, I understand, is reporting to another minister, I'm afraid I can't offer any more detail than that.
[ Page 14871 ]
The Speaker: Do you have a different question, Opposition House Leader?
G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, it appears that in the contract he's under, he's reporting to both ministers. I don't know which one it is -- or both -- but certainly that's the contract that he signed in August. So I'll ask either of the two ministers. I've done a search of the government's directory, and I can't find Mr. Gunton anywhere. He doesn't pop up anywhere. So perhaps the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Advanced Education -- they can choose whichever -- can tell us exactly where Mr. Gunton is working, what his phone number is, where his office is and perhaps even whether if he has e-mail anymore.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I'd be pleased to take that question on notice and report back to the House.
1996-97 BUDGET PROJECTION
CREDIBILITY
M. de Jong: When he was competing for the NDP leadership, the Agriculture minister had no hesitation in giving us the inside story on how the government misled British Columbians around the 1996 budget. In the Agriculture minister's words, the NDP was "afraid to tell the truth about how we were bleeding."
Well, the Premier was a cabinet colleague of that minister -- I guess he was paralyzed by the same fear of the truth
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This hon. member is also a member of the bar, perhaps unlearned -- as he might be, because he should know that this matter is sub judice.
[1425]
M. de Jong: Well, a cabinet minister says: "We are afraid to tell the truth." The Premier comes to this House and says, "We need transparency legislation," presumably because the government wasn't transparent. It's time, he said, that the government told the truth, presumably because in the past this government hasn't told the truth.
The Premier has a chance today -- he's had a chance since he took office -- to do something really unique by NDP standards, and that is to apologize for having misled British Columbians. They aren't our words; they are the words of his own colleagues, his own embarrassed party members who say that the NDP has misled. They haven't told the truth; his minister said it. What is the opposite of telling the truth? Let the Premier stand here today and make his response to that clear for all British Columbians to see.
Hon. A. Petter: It is frankly outrageous and a little sad that members opposite, particularly the justice critic opposite, would allow this line of questioning to take place in the very week that issues are before the courts. These members here have stood back and not asked these questions up to now. They waited for the very week in which issues are before the courts to raise them, without regard to the sub judice rule that they should be well aware of. If they're not aware of it, their justice critic should make them aware. If he's not aware, I'm happy to arrange for a briefing.
C. Clark: You know, there was a time when the Minister of Employment and Investment wasn't shy about saying what he thought, like the time in 1996 when he said that the government's fudge-it budget had undermined public confidence. Or there was the time in 1997 when he said that the government's fudge-it budget had misled the public. Then, just in case anybody was unclear about where he stood, he sent a letter out to every mayor and council in British Columbia saying that what the NDP had done was fraudulent.
I don't know if that minister is going to be appearing for the plaintiff or for the defence this week. But I would like to know from the Premier whether he agrees with his Minister of Employment and Investment that this 1996 budget was a premeditated, determined fraud.
Hon. A. Petter: Frankly, I hoped that we had more respect for the court process in this province than to try to use this House as a forum to provoke and raise issues that are before the courts, in the very time they are first before the courts. It's rather sad that the members opposite and particularly the justice critic opposite would allow this kind of questioning to take place, knowing that these matters are currently contentious and before the courts. To try to use this forum as a means to excite issues that are before the courts is completely inappropriate.
C. Clark: Well, thanks to the minister. I don't suppose he expects anyone to believe him this time either, just like maybe we shouldn't have believed the Minister of Employment and Investment when he stood on this side of the House attacking the budget.
But while he stood here attacking the budget, the now Premier sat over there defending it. Not only did he defend it, but he sat on Treasury Board and helped concoct that budget. Now everyone in British Columbia knows the truth. Everyone knows what happened there, and they know that the Premier had a role in it. Will he stand up today and apologize to every British Columbian for the role that he had in concocting that fraudulent budget?
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, we're given a very unique privilege in this House and in this chamber to be able to speak our minds. What everyone in British Columbia knows today is that the members of the opposition are prepared to abuse that privilege in every way possible to seek political advantage, without regard to the fact that these matters are currently before the courts and without regard to the sub judice rule. It's rather sad that they would put what they regard as their political self-interest in this matter ahead of a higher principle, and that is the principle that we do not abuse the privileges we have in this chamber. And we respect the right of the courts to resolve these matters without political interference.
[1430]
The Speaker: The bell ends question period. The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Repeatedly through question period, the Attorney General as well as the Premier cited the sub
[ Page 14872 ]
judice rule. I just want to read that into the record for this House -- the ruling that was made on June 28, 1972: "
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Farrell-Collins: "
It goes on to say: "
Clearly none of those is violated today. It's time that the minister, the Attorney General and the Premier stood up and answered those questions.
The Speaker: Attorney General on the point of order.
Hon. A. Petter: In response on the point of order, the sub judice role -- let me just read from a very simple enunciation of that rule so all members throughout the House can be aware of it -- "is an expectation that those occupying public office and others in positions of responsibility will not comment inappropriately on matters which have been given to the courts to decide."
The member opposite knows full well that they've had ample opportunity to raise these questions before they were before the courts; they will have opportunity after they've been before the courts. But to raise them while they're before the courts is totally inappropriate and contrary to the sub judice rule.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. The Chair may well have to bring forward a statement in regard to sub judice.
Petitions
R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition from 622 very concerned citizens of Naramata.
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the words ascribed to me during question period here, and I would like to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege concerning those words at another time.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call continuing debate on the throne speech.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
[1435]
C. Hansen: As I rise in this debate today, I want to address two fairly separate issues. I want to address the issue of labour force needs in our health care sector, which is an area that I think has been sadly overlooked and that probably epitomizes the lack of forward planning that we see from this government. From there, I want to move on and talk a bit about the state of the economy and some of the things that government should be doing in British Columbia to put this province back on its feet again.
I want to start with the whole issue of labour force needs in our health care sector. We've heard a lot about the shortage of nurses over the years. I think the thing that is the most distressing to me, and to many in British Columbia, is that this is an area that was totally predictable. I'm very much aware of the efforts that have been made by governments, both federal and provincial, across Canada to look at future labour force needs in a general sense. It's not exactly been a sterling record, because governments have not had a good track record at making those kinds of predictions.
I recall a conference that I attended in Ottawa in the early 1980s, when they were setting up something called the Canadian occupational projection system. It was an effort by government to determine what those future needs would be, so that they could ensure that training took place at our colleges, universities and other institutions across Canada in order to meet the needs of the private sector. I guess some would argue that those efforts have had some measure of success, but I think there's also a lot of detractors.
If you look at the area of health care, it is an area where we should be able to predict our needs much more accurately than this government has been able to do over the past five or six years. The nursing shortage that we have today is something that should have been avoided.
Hon. Speaker, I've talked to many people who are involved in nursing training. I've talked to organizations such as the RNABC and the B.C. Nurses Union, and they all tell me that they delivered the message very clearly to this government, three or four years ago, that we were facing an impending nursing shortage. Instead, what we saw was the number of nurses in our training institutions across British Columbia not increase but in fact decrease. If you go back to 1996, the year of the election, there were 703 B.C. graduates in nursing that went into nursing in British Columbia. From there, in '97 it dropped to 670; in 1998, down to 659. And what we see in this last year, 1999, is that in fact of all the registrants that started nursing in British Columbia, only 567 graduated from our own post-secondary institutions.
Let's look at that in another perspective. That means that of all the nurses that we need in this province today, we gave opportunities to our own young British Columbians for only 567 of those positions. This government, a year ago, made a commitment that there was going to be 1,000 new nurses hired over the space of three years. The commitment was that there would be 400 new nurses hired in that last fiscal year alone. Instead, hon. Speaker, when you look at the total number of new registered nurses that have been registered in British Columbia under the RNABC, we again see that the trend is actually in the wrong direction.
If you go back to 1996, there were 1,271 new registrants in British Columbia, and of those, only 703 were British Columbia graduates. In 1997 that number dropped to 1,229 new registrants. In 1998 it dropped to 1,135. And last year -- the
[ Page 14873 ]
year when this government said it was hiring 400 new nurses in British Columbia -- in fact the number of new registrants in this province dropped to 1,103.
Now, you would argue: "They promised 400; we got 1,103." But that's not what happened. We need about 1,200 new nurses a year in British Columbia just to sustain our existing needs. You know, we're not talking about meeting the delays that we have in terms of wait-lists. We're not talking about the intensive care units around British Columbia that are being shut down because of lack of nursing staff. We're not talking about the surgeries that are being delayed because of lack of nursing staff. We're not talking about the number of nurses that are working many, many hours of overtime -- which I want to touch on in a minute. But we're just talking about the registrants that are coming into nursing in British Columbia, who are not even meeting our attrition rates in this province.
So when the government says that it hired 400 new, additional nurses last year, the facts just do not sustain that. And what we see is that the problem is getting worse, not better.
[1440]
There are several things that government should be doing to meet this need. The first thing is to train more nurses. I'm aware that this government made a commitment to open up additional training spots in our colleges and institutions; it's desperately needed. You know, people will ask three and four years from now: "Why was it that it's taken so long? Why has the problem got worse?" Here we are in the year 2000. Is the problem in terms of the nursing shortage going to be better next year as a result of the actions of this government? No. In fact, the problem will be worse next year, and the problem will be the worst the year after.
The reason I say that is because the action that needed to be taking place to ensure that we could meet those needs next year and the year after
But there are some other things that need to be done and need to be done very quickly. We need to be looking at the working conditions that nurses are facing. It was only a few months ago that the B.C. Nurses Union put on an advertising campaign across British Columbia about the number of non-nursing duties that nurses are asked to do. I have great empathy for that campaign. I support the nurses in their campaign to allow them to focus in on the necessary nursing duties that they are trained for.
We have simply stretched the workforce too thin when it comes to direct patient care. We have to give those nurses support by other workers in our health care institutions. Otherwise, we're going to see increased burnout and decreasing morale in our health care facilities. We're going to see more and more nurses leaving the profession not because they don't like nursing, but because they are simply being burnt out.
We look at overtime rates. There was an article in the paper just last week, the Vancouver Sun, talking about the cost of the nursing shortage in one health region alone -- this is the Simon Fraser health region -- and about the overtime staff. The need for overtime in that region has resulted in $2.4 million of additional wages and salaries -- $2.4 million more than had been anticipated in that budget in order to cover the overtime costs.
So when you talk about the costs of hiring new nurses, when you talk about the costs of putting the support in place in the hospitals, and people say, "Where are these dollars going to come from?" the dollars are going to come from the dollars that we're putting down the drain right now because of overtime rates.
I shouldn't say down the drain, because they are going to those workers who are putting in those extra hours. But I know of nurses who take their phones off the hook when they're at home because of the number of times that they get phoned, sometimes from several different hospitals or institutions, asking them to come in for an extra overtime shift. The problem of nurses is that when their shift is up after 12 hours, they can't go home, no matter how tired they are, because there is not a nurse available to take over when they leave. So they are forced into involuntary overtime, which is leading to the increased burnout.
Another area that we have to aggressively move on is job re-entry. There are many British Columbians who have been trained in nursing over the years, who have practised in the profession, perhaps for a number of years, and have left the profession. It is time that we actively and aggressively recruit those individuals to come back into nursing. Part of that means that we need increased training and job re-entry skills for many of those workers, because health care has changed dramatically in the last several years. So the nursing training that may have taken place ten or 15 years ago may not be current today.
There's a need for more courses, not just along the lines of courses that may be offered at a college or post-secondary institution and take place Monday to Friday between the hours of 8 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock at night. We need training courses that are flexible to the needs of our health care workers. We need training that can be offered in our hospitals and health care institutions. Instead of trying to make the round pegs fit square holes, we need training courses that are actually designed for the needs of health care workers. That often involves shift work. It often involves individuals who may not be available Monday to Friday to attend a training course. So we need to build in that flexibility. Certainly there are organizations in this province that are working on that, but we have to accelerate those kinds of programs.
[1445]
Hon. Speaker, the final thing that we have to do in terms of addressing our nursing shortage is something that I find quite regrettable, and that's that we have to continue to do as we have done for many decades in this province. We have to continue to steal trained health care workers from other jurisdictions. That's something that we have relied on in this province for far too long. We've relied on that approach for our nurses, our doctors, our physiotherapists and all of our health care workers. Other jurisdictions have put the dollars into training and educating their people, and British Columbia's approach for too long has been to go out to those jurisdictions and recruit those individuals to come to British Columbia so that we wouldn't have to pay for their training. Somebody else would have had to pay for that training.
That's simply not good enough for two reasons. First of all, it doesn't work anymore, because all over the world we're
[ Page 14874 ]
seeing these shortages. We're seeing that jurisdictions are simply doing a better job of retaining their own health professionals, so they're not as willing to move to British Columbia with the high tax rates we have and the lack of job opportunities for their spouses when they come to this province.
There's another reason why we should get away from that method of recruiting our health care workers, and that's because those are good jobs. Nursing is a good profession, a noble profession. Physiotherapy, doctors
If you look at the shortages, we hear a lot about nurses. But it goes far beyond that. I was recently in the north end of Vancouver Island, where they have a great little hospital in Port McNeill that I had the opportunity to go through. It doesn't have a surgical operating room. For most of those kinds of surgeries, people have to travel out of that community -- which is, I'm sure, regrettable. I'm sure every community that size would love to have a full-blown hospital, but it's simply not practical throughout the province.
What is practical is that individuals, when they do have to travel out of the community for health care or for surgery, can at least come back to their community for rehabilitation. They can't do that unless they've got the professionals in the community that can deliver those services. They do not now have a permanent, full-time physiotherapist. That is regrettable. It means that we've got a great institution there, a great facility that can provide that kind of treatment. But if physiotherapy is not available, then you've got an institution that's going to sit underutilized while institutions in the rest of the province -- whether it's Campbell River, Nanaimo, the big Vancouver hospitals -- are all stretched beyond 100 percent capacity.
Many of our hospitals are today, and 100 percent capacity means that yes, you in fact have more than one patient in a hospital bed in any one day. As soon as one patient is out, that linen is taken off and new linen put on. There is a new patient in that bed as quickly as possible, because there's a lineup for those beds. We're seeing that more and more at all of our hospitals. Where we do have underutilized hospitals, we should be sure that the professionals are there to meet the needs and to serve those communities.
We also hear a lot about the growing shortage of doctors, and this is an area where I fear there is a philosophical difference between the NDP government and those of us on this side of the House. The doctors are an essential part of our health care delivery system in British Columbia. The problem we've got today is that we are desperately short of the number of doctors that we are going to need in the years to come. The average age of doctors is the late forties. I was told recently that the average age of an anaesthetist in British Columbia is 57. At UBC med school we have only 120 training spots for doctors, and that simply is not enough for us to meet our needs in British Columbia. It is something that must be addressed and must be addressed quickly, or that again is going to be a crisis that is going to grow. Our ability to steal doctors from other jurisdictions is going to become increasingly difficult.
There is a report that I understand has been delivered to the Minister of Health. It's a report of the advisory committee on the recruitment and retention of registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses. That report is not public. I hope the minister will undertake to make it public very quickly. It could be a very important part of the debate that we need in British Columbia as to how we can support our nurses and our health care professionals in this province, so that the problem can get better instead of worse in the years to come.
[1450]
I want to shift gears a little bit, because I want to move on to the area of the state of our economy and some of the things that government should be doing to get British Columbia back on its feet today. If we go back to 1991, when this NDP government was first elected, British Columbia was the number one province in all of Canada. We had the strongest economy of any province. Alberta may have been tied on a couple of aspects of economic growth, but we had a strong, dynamic economy. Now we are number ten out of all the provinces in Canada.
Interjection.
C. Hansen: The member asks: "By what measure?" I'll give him a whole bunch of measures. One of the measures is to look at economic growth per capita -- real economic growth on a per-capita basis.
Interjection.
C. Hansen: The member says: "What does that mean?" Real economic growth per capita means the amount of dollars in our economy for each and every person. And what we see is that British Columbia is the only province in all of Canada where there has actually been negative economic growth, when you look at it on a real per-capita basis.
We are in last place when it comes to private sector investment, which is another good measure of economic growth. In fact, it's interesting that this heckling should be coming from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. When he was on this side of the House, he was actually using a lot of these stats to condemn the economic record of this government. How things change.
If you look at private sector economic growth from 1992 to 1999, British Columbia had growth of 11.1 percent -- not per year, but 11.1 percent in total for that entire period of time, dead last out of ten provinces. The province that is second to last, Prince Edward Island, had economic growth of 41.6 percent. Then let's start comparing that to provinces like Alberta, which had economic growth of 107 percent over what it was in 1992. Taking 1992 at 100, Alberta is up 107.5 percent over that measure in that seven-year period.
Interjection.
C. Hansen: The Minister of Employment and Investment, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, says that it means nothing. That is a very sad comment coming from the minister who is supposed to be responsible for economic growth and responsible for job growth in British Columbia.
There is a whole bunch of areas that we can look at to measure what is happening in British Columbia. You can look at the after-tax income of British Columbians. This isn't according to numbers that we've cranked out using our calculator. But we can certainly confirm these numbers -- numbers coming out
[ Page 14875 ]
of B.C.'s Credit Union Central. The economist at that organization reports that the average loss, not gain, in after-tax income of British Columbia families is $1,800 during that period of time. Hon. Speaker, I think every British Columbian would tell you that they find it harder to get by than they have in the past. When you go out and talk to people in small communities around British Columbia as I did over this last weekend, they will tell you that it's tough, and it's getting tougher. The reason it's getting tougher is that governments are leaving less in people's pockets, and people are having a tougher and tougher time making ends meet. Where people are looking for opportunity is not in this province but in fact in other provinces. I want to get to some of the things that I think will turn that around for British Columbians in the years to come.
You look at the total debt load that has been added to future British Columbians, our children -- and ourselves, for that matter -- in the years to come, with the tax load that has to be paid by somebody sooner or later. We have total debt in this province that's doubled. And when you look at the taxpayer-supported debt while this government has been in office, it has increased by 166 percent.
Interjection.
C. Hansen: The member asks: "What about the asset base?" Hon. Speaker, are you going to sell the assets? No. This is debt load; this is debt that gets paid. This is debt that has to be serviced; this is debt for which there are interest charges. Sure, the minister can stand up and talk about asset base all he wants. It's a wonderful academic exercise, but it does not reduce the amount of money that this government is paying to the banks and the other financial institutions in order to finance the $35 billion in debt that this government is suffering under. The money that could have been used to pay for health care and education is money that is today going to the debt in this province.
[1455]
The minister is quick to point out: what about other provinces in terms of their debt, their average debt per population? When this government took over in 1991, British Columbia had the highest per-capita debt of any province in Canada. I noticed that in the documents that have come forward since this session started, the government talks about the fact that we're still number two. We used to be number one when it came to having the lowest debt, and they brag about the fact that we're number two. Well, this province may be number two when it comes to having the lowest debt per capita, but what is critical is that this is the only province in Canada that has a growing debt and a debt that is out of control, when you look at the track record of this government over the last couple of years. We're the only province that has seen a decline in the credit rating from the major bond-rating organizations from around the province. That's the legacy of this government.
Let's talk about what can be done, because so often when we talk about the economics of British Columbia, it's a pretty negative story. British Columbians should not be negative. British Columbians have everything to be positive about, because this is a strong province. It has a strong labour force. It's got a strong resource base, and it's got strong fundamentals. The only thing it doesn't have is a strong government. We have a weak government that's destroying the economy of this province.
We have said time and time again that the number one step in getting British Columbia back on track, the British Columbia economy back on the rails, is a significant cut in personal income tax. I find it astounding to hear members of the NDP caucus talk about how if you cut personal income tax, you will cut the revenue that is needed for health care and education in British Columbia.
This morning as I was driving down the Island from Courtenay, I was listening to the Rafe Mair program, and one of their favourite mentors, Bill Tieleman, was on there. He referred to the B.C. Liberal promise to significantly cut personal income tax, along with the promise to maintain funding for health care and education, as a big lie. What that shows is that that person making the comment doesn't understand the economics of British Columbia. What it shows time and time again, coming from NDP members in this House including the Minister of Employment and Investment, is that he doesn't understand economic fundamentals. He doesn't understand that by cutting personal income tax, you do not cut the revenues to government. It's been proven time and time again in North America that when governments
Interjection.
C. Hansen: You know, one of the rules about speaking in the House is: don't let yourself get distracted by heckling from the other members. But I had to get distracted by that comment, when the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said: "Read my book." There's a lot of books that I think that minister should read, in terms of what is needed to get a dynamic economy in this province working again.
What we have seen in other jurisdictions that have brought in a significant personal income tax cut is that government revenues increase. We will have the moneys necessary to meet our challenges in health care and education and to make sure that those ministries will not be cut, as members in the NDP would like to scaremonger and threaten around this province. And that's all it is; it's scaremongering, because it's not supported by good economic research.
We have made a commitment that we will eliminate business subsidies. That comes as a bit of a surprise to a lot of people who recognize and appreciate the fact that the B.C. Liberals are free-enterprisers. We believe in a strong free enterprise economy. We support the private companies that are going to build British Columbia. But we're not going to do it by taking taxpayers' money, picking winners and losers in the economy, and subsidizing those companies that are favoured by the government. That is the record that we have seen from this New Democrat government, and it is wrong. It is a wrong-headed approach, because it does not help build a long-term, sound financial base for our economy.
We have made a commitment that we will fully disclose the costs of our capital projects, and we will put contracts out to open tender. The question has to be asked by every British Columbian: how much money could have been spent on health care and education in this province if it had not been wasted on contracts that were not open in terms of their tendering -- contracts that were designed to be let to the favoured individuals in British Columbia, contracts that were restricted so that the only companies that could bid on them are the companies that employ the unionized workers of the building trades councils in British Columbia?
[1500]
[ Page 14876 ]
Hon. Speaker, we want to make sure that tax dollars are redirected to patients and students. We have to ask ourselves: what is the role of a provincial government? The role of a provincial government, in my view, is to operate three areas of government and operate them well. It should be there to operate a good, solid, secure public health care system. We don't want a private model for health care in British Columbia. We support a strong public health care system in British Columbia. And what is clear is that this government does not, because they have undermined that public health care system in British Columbia.
Many people are saying that we should eliminate the private sector completely from health care in British Columbia -- many people outside of government. I've never heard anybody in this House claim that. I've heard people in the NDP party claim that. But I've never heard anyone in this House from any party -- and I wouldn't even accuse an NDP member of this -- saying that the private sector should be totally driven out of the health care sector. There will be a role for the private sector, but what is key is that it's not the panacea to our problems in health care. We need a strong public health care system.
The other area that government should do and do well is public education. If you talk about what the operational side of government is, public education should be part of that operational side of government. But we're not doing it well, because dollars don't get into the classroom the way they should, the way this government has approached health care.
The other is the social safety net and public security. But we have to start looking at all those areas of government. What is government for? Government is there to provide service to people. Government should not be in the business of trying to buy up new industries and pick the winners and losers; government should get out of that area. Government should focus in on building a strong economy, building the environment for strong private sector growth in our economy. Only then are we going to have the tax revenues to government that we need for the strong operations of a publicly funded health care system, public schools, security and the social safety net.
We have to start looking at areas that this government has abused. We have to find ways of reducing regulation and red tape so the private sector can thrive and survive in this province. We also have to ensure that we stop the brain drain. We've had academic exercises as to whether or not the brain drain is real and what it's facing. But the biggest thing that's driving our brightest individuals out of this province is our high tax rates, and we have made a commitment to address that.
I've touched on a few areas where I think this government should be doing a better job, areas that unfortunately don't have short-term solutions, such as the nursing shortage. But we have to start quickly and decisively to make sure that those needs can be met as soon as possible.
I want to close by moving a motion to amend the motion that is before us regarding the throne speech. I would like to move the following, seconded by the member for Chilliwack:
On the amendment.["We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave and thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session," be amended by adding the following:
"But this assembly regrets that the Throne Speech fails to address the need for balanced budgets and economic stability; that this government refuses to take the steps necessary to end the fastest growing debt service costs of any province in Canada; and that this government is eroding the economic viability of this Province and it has again failed miserably in outlining a responsible economic plan to ensure the future prosperity of British Columbia and its people."]
[1505]
Hon. G. Wilson: You know, it is interesting that in my time as an elected member in this Legislative Assembly, having sat as all of Leader of the Official Opposition, leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance and now as a member of this government
It is interesting that we just heard from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who quoted percentage figures from various provinces, saying that one economy had a growth of 41 percent and another of 22 percent and another of 33 percent and Alberta of over 100 percent. Anybody with even a margin of intelligence knows that there is absolutely no point in saying that an economy has grown by 41 percent unless we are talking about 41 percent of a stated base -- 41 percent of what number? How is it that we talk about 41 percent growth with respect to the maritime economies and look at that as a comparable number to the province of British Columbia? They are not comparable.
When I responded to the budget speech, we talked about the fact that in British Columbia the infrastructure cost, the cost of constructing highways in this province, is substantially greater than the cost of constructing highways in the prairie provinces, where you don't have mountains to go through and valleys to cross and to bridge.
This group over here talks about the amount of debt and the extent to which debt has increased. Yet they don't give you comparable numbers with respect to the debt load of other provinces. The fact that we are second-lowest in Canada with respect to the proportion of taxpayer-supported debt to GDP is a real measure that has value. When you consider
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: The member for Langley says that it's the only one. It's the most important one, because the GDP is in fact the engine of growth in this economy, and the taxpayer-supported debt is the relationship or the ratio that is important.
An Hon. Member: Says who? Says you.
Hon. G. Wilson: Say most people who observe it. In fact, I think I recall a speech only a few months ago, when Ron MacDonald, who is a former Liberal Member of Parliament
[ Page 14877 ]
and now sits as the chair of COFI, stated in his speech that that is the only real measure of any merit for us to look at, because it does pinpoint whether or not our economy is in recovery. It is quite clear that we have been in a recession. There is no doubt that we've been in a recession, because our economy is heavily tied to the economies of Asia and also to that of the United States.
It is important for us to recognize, as we start to look as this non-confidence motion, that the members opposite will not give us the statistical information that the people of British Columbia want. First of all, they say that they're going to give significant tax cuts. How much? How much is it? Are they going to give us 1 percent? Two percent? Five percent? Ten percent? Twenty percent? What is that going to be? Then they say to call an election and they will
[1510]
The member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked about the fact that we could save money if we went to open tender on public contracts that are costing us millions. Name one. What is it? I asked him: "What is it? Give me the contracts that haven't gone to public tender and have cost us so much money." That member couldn't name them, because what he was really talking about was making sure that those public contracts went to non-union firms so that they could push down the price and have workers work for less money in British Columbia. That's what they're about.
He talked about health care. He says we've got to invest in nursing, which all of us recognize. There's a worldwide shortage of nurses. This is not something that is unique to British Columbia; it's not even unique to Canada. Yet that member opposite forgets the words that we heard from the member for Okanagan-Penticton just last week, when he was pressed on this very issue. I said: "How is it that you're going to reduce the cost of health care?" And he said through privatization. That's what he said. That is their agenda. It is through the privatization of our health care system. That's the truth that they don't tell British Columbians. The member for Okanagan-Penticton at least had the courage to stand up and come clean on what he was saying.
It seems to me that what the members opposite are trying to do is signal to British Columbians that there is no hope in our province. They are trying to suggest that this province is in deep, deep trouble that we're not going to recover from. They try to tell us that the economic indicators are so bad that somehow everybody who wants to invest in this province immediately vacates and goes elsewhere. That just is not true; that simply is not true.
First of all, if we look at our unemployment statistics in British Columbia, they are now the lowest that they've been in 18 years. That's the fact. If you talk about investment in high technologies and the new technologies
I spent this morning out at the University of Victoria meeting with some of the finest minds here in British Columbia. They are working in British Columbia universities developing everything from astronomy research right through to the forest industries -- to be able to look at new reforestation programs by making sure that we have a higher yield for trees planted and making sure that in the changing global climate, we are able to be a net contributor to the reduction of CO2 emission.
These people are world leaders in their fields. These are not part of a brain drain. And yes, it is important for us to recognize that what we need to do is continue to attract people. It is true that we are aging; all of us are aging. We need to make sure that we have a generation following that will equally be world leaders and that those people who are following are going to be able to move forward and take this new economy to all the heights that it is capable of.
It is also true that we have to start to restructure our economy and look toward the development of a new era in which we get away from such a high dependency on the traditional export markets of the past. We're starting to do that. It is interesting that when we take a look at where our new technologies are taking us, we are starting now to recognize that the forest industry is very greatly changed from what it used to be. No longer are we the exporter of raw logs; no longer are we even the exporter of dimensional lumber. We are moving into a whole host of value-added products that are taking fibre and making that fibre into new product that is developing niche markets all over the world.
Hon. Speaker, we are world leaders. I can tell you that as the Minister of Employment and Investment, I have delegations coming from all over the world to look at the leading technologies that we are now developing in our forest sectors. As we start to look at the value-added and the value-transfer in our forest sectors, we recognize that with the changing economy elsewhere, we can be world leaders in both the export of technology and the export of product itself, which keeps jobs right here in British Columbia. That's the positive development of the new economy.
Those members opposite refuse to acknowledge any of this. They refuse to acknowledge
[1515]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member for Okanagan-Penticton rises on a point.
R. Thorpe: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I rise to reserve my right to speak on a point of privilege on some comments raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: I guess they're getting a little touchy over there, hon. Speaker, when you start to unmask the real agenda.
Interjections.
[ Page 14878 ]
The Speaker: Members. Order, members. You'll get your chance to join in the debate.
Hon. G. Wilson: I didn't realize that speaking about the new economy was so controversial to the Liberals. Maybe they don't like to hear good news when they see it there.
We are changing; our economy is growing. We have to recognize that our ability to compete, our ability to take on the new challenges that the world is putting before us, requires that we start to focus on two major areas. I think we are starting to do that in this province with some success.
First of all, it is critically important that we have a well-trained population and a well-educated population. It is important that those people who desire to go into technologies and the trades are able to get the kind of skilled training that will put them in the forefront of their field. Secondly, it is important that those people, those young people in particular but also those who are already in the workforce and are returning for training, have opportunities to do that. We have made that available to British Columbians in record numbers this year. and that is a good thing. It's a good thing for people who know that in the field they are currently occupied in, where those jobs are diminishing or are disappearing, they have the opportunity to find retraining and to find meaningful work at a reasonable wage that can support their families.
The second area that we have to start to focus and concentrate on is trying to build balance between the protection of our environment and the expansion and development of our new industries.
It is interesting when the members opposite talk about where the province was with respect to its debt position in 1991 and where it is now. I asked them: "Well, what about the assets?" And they said: "Well, you can't count the assets. The assets don't mean anything, because you can't sell the assets." Therefore, if you can't sell the asset, the asset has no value.
Hon. Speaker, let me tell you something. They talk about having adequate health care. Well, hospitals cost money. They talk about having adequate education. Well, schools cost money. They talk about opening up the interior and the north and having opportunities for coastal communities. Well, highways and highway construction cost money. They talk about building local economies in local rural ridings. Every single one of those members knows that putting infrastructure into small communities costs money.
They talk about reducing personal income tax by a significant amount without ever telling us what that amount is. They say they're going to reduce government spending; they say they're going to balance a budget. They say they are going to do all of this, while at the same time every single member opposite will be first in line when it comes to getting more money for highways, for schools, for hospitals.
Indeed, we just heard the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who in one breath turned around and said in his speech just a few minutes ago that we had to balance the budget and weren't being fiscally tough enough. And in the next breath, he was turning around and saying that we need to put an additional 120 training spots in our universities to be able to train more doctors. That's exactly the kind of voodoo economics that you get from the members opposite, because they don't understand exactly where that situation is going to go.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. G. Wilson: I think there are several areas where we may start to move into some new and different visions for this province. As we start to recognize
[1520]
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson talks about Skeena Cellulose. I wonder if the member is aware that Skeena Cellulose is actually running a profit right now and indeed might even run up as much as $60 million in profit in this year. So if we had taken the advice of the Leader of the Official Opposition, Skeena Cellulose would have been closed. It would have been gone. The workers would have all been unemployed, and that community would have had no benefits, instead of showing -- instead of showing a profit this year at Skeena Cellulose. So there we are. You want to talk about Skeena Cellulose. So, hon. Speaker
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. G. Wilson:
I do want to talk, however, about a vision for this province, because I think that most British Columbians want to see
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: It is interesting how those members opposite make such jest of
I want to just take a moment to address a couple of things, because the Hansard record will be there. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain got up here the other day, and she was talking about 1960s radicalism and about my attendance at Woodstock and my opportunity to hear Martin Luther King speak. Hon. Speaker, you know what? This is a member who, when I was at Woodstock, wasn't even out of her diapers, I don't think, and she's standing up talking about radicalism of the 1960s. Born in 1966, what does she know about any of that information? And they laugh at it.
The member for Kamloops-North Thompson, born in 1957, was 12 years old. What did he know about any of that? Nothing. Look, let us not even dabble in the members opposite, because they are so misinformed, uninformed or partially informed that it doesn't warrant any comment.
[ Page 14879 ]
Let me at this point talk a little bit about where this province is going. There are challenges ahead of us; of that, there's no question. I don't think anybody would doubt it. But I think we have to start to put into perspective where the indicators would take us and where we would start to see things going.
It is interesting to me that we saw in the newspaper the other day a commentary from the Globe and Mail, which has been picked up by a number of other writers. It is unfortunate that in this province many of the journalists and the pundits who write will take one article and write on that article, using that as their primary source of information. It is unfortunate, because if the primary source of information is faulty, then we get a whole series of articles that are faulty. And the next thing you know, you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So I do want to make just one comment with respect to an article by Barbara Yaffe that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on April 6, where she talks about how we're becoming a have-not province. Hon. Speaker, I can tell you something. I meet with foreign delegations all the time. I meet with foreign business dignitaries all the time. I meet with people who come over here and are looking to invest their money here. And you know what, hon. Speaker?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: Here's the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who's looking to try to get the Olympic Games into his own community, telling us all that they run from British Columbia. Well, I don't think so, hon. member. And if you think they do, then I think you'd better take a look at your Olympic bid and see whether or not that's going to have any success.
[1525]
Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that these people do not run from this province. These people want to come, they want to invest, and they want to do well. Now, they look at comparable tax systems, and it is true that we have some work to do with respect to the comparable tax structure, particularly on machinery and equipment and a corporate capital tax. On those two we've already acknowledged that there's work to be done, and we have dropped the tax on machinery and equipment by three points.
But it is also important to note that they understand, when they come here, the opportunity that it provides for them, because they see an economy that is turning around. Now, the point I want to make to the members opposite
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: The point I would like to make to the members opposite, if they would take a minute to stop bellowing and listen, is the fact that because we have invested in the infrastructure in this province
We have put money into the economy at a time when the economy was suffering as a result of the loss of our foreign markets. And it's a good thing that we have, because now the economy is starting to turn around.
Yes, it is true that some British Columbians have suffered, and they have suffered badly. I will be tabling tomorrow the report of the Job Protection Commission. That will show you how we have moved in to give assistance to those communities and to those workers where there has been job loss. We have provided assistance, something the members opposite would rather we didn't do. We have provided that assistance to bridge us through tough times.
We have had tough times as a result of a falling economy, a failing economy, in Japan. Japan's economy has been all but stagnant. One hundred percent of our coal export, as an example, goes to Japan. What does that mean to the north and the interior communities that are dependent on the railway lines that move that coal and to people who live in those mining towns? It means that there has been serious economic hardship. We are acutely aware of it. We are taking steps to deal with those people in a fair and equitable way so that we can position them so that when the economy recovers, they will be in a position to be able to take advantage of that recovery.
The economy is recovering. I know those members opposite don't want to hear that. They don't want to hear that the economy is recovering. They don't want to see that in fact the growth last year, with $1 billion of unexpected revenue, was more than we had predicted, that we're likely to see
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: The member says we spent it. Would he not have written down B.C. Rail's debt? Are you suggesting, then, that we should not have written down that debt? He won't tell you. That's the problem. The problem is that they will not tell you what they will do, because they don't know what they will do. Or if they do, they're afraid to tell the people of British Columbia for fear that the people will understand the real agenda of those members opposite and will recognize that they're not going to put them into government.
The fact is that we have invested in infrastructure, in our health care, in education. We have made sure that there has been an investment in the high-growth sectors so that people are able to take advantage of the changing economy. And now that the economy is turning around, they can take advantage of it. What the members opposite should be doing is joining with us in sending a signal that we are hopeful that in the future, this province is going to grow economically, socially and in every way that deals with the broadening of a strong and vibrant culture. All of that is important for British Columbians to hear, to understand and to take advantage of.
I have sat on the opposition benches. It's easy to stand up, easy to criticize and easy to pick selected pieces of information and put it out in part. But I'll tell you: you come on this side and start to measure what we need to do, and it becomes very difficult sometimes to make some tough decisions and tough choices, recognizing that there is an opportunity for growth in the future.
Let me just conclude this commentary on the throne speech, or on the amendment, by talking a little bit about my community in Powell River-Sunshine Coast. It's been a priv-
[ Page 14880 ]
ilege to have served the members of Powell River-Sunshine Coast for the ten years that I have. I look forward to continuing to cover it.
I'll tell you what, hon. Speaker: this is interesting. These guys opposite have a propensity
[1530]
Do you know what that says? It says that the province has repolarized. It says that the centre and the Left and those who care about people, care about the individual, care about communities and care about seniors and the poor are all on this side of the House. And those people who care about the 10 percent who have all the wealth and control all of the economy through their wealth -- or would like to -- all sit on that side. That's what has happened; they're all on that side.
We have repolarized. Look at who's running for them. I understand that Bud Smith is back in the fray in Kamloops, trying to win a Liberal nomination. I wonder how the member for North Vancouver-Seymour -- who, when he ran before, had nothing kind to say about the Socreds who are now running as his colleagues -- feels about that. There's the member for Langley, who had nothing kind to say about the Socreds who are now running as their colleagues -- the old Social Credit guard, the ones who spent no money on hospitals, spent no money on roads, spent no money on schools and spent no money on ferries, which is the reason that in the last ten years we've had to spend so much money on all of that.
The member for Langley would like me
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I had no idea that my calm comments would have caused such disruption in the House. Let me say this: I will explain to the people of Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I have been talking with them, and I'm delighted that I have such a strong base of continued support in my efforts to help build that community.
We do have new highways that are being built there, and that's good. I look forward to the successful completion of a potential new courthouse that we're working on very hard -- to be able to announce that. I'm delighted that we've been able to bring in new technologies to cure what is a very bad problem with respect to the Powell River sewer. I'm absolutely delighted that the waterfront development in the community of Powell River will now be assisted by the Ministry of Highways. We're working and working hard. I will soon be going there to help open up the new theatre in Gibsons, which this government has proudly been a part of. I'll also be down on the waterfront in Gibsons to open up the new park as part of the overall marine development project, which again this government has been proud to support.
So let the negativity and the past Socred days rest with those members over there, because the enlightened and those with a vision of a future are all on this side of the House. When we go to the polls, the people will know the difference, and we will be back for another four years.
J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the Minister of Employment and Investment, for inspiring me. I had become rather bored during question period today, and as is my wont, given the age that I achieved a couple of weeks ago, I sort of need a little bit of a snooze after lunch. I really appreciate the liveliness in the interchange that was taking place just now. I really hope that the opposition will have used up all their energy in that process and that they'll sit there quietly and listen with
[1535]
Anyway, it is interesting hearing about my old friend Harold Long coming back into the House, when we sat over there and they sat over here. It looks like the metamorphosis is really completed, because I always thought that
That brings me to the points that the hon. member just made about infrastructure. Where I live in Coquitlam, Lou Sekora -- who, to my knowledge, never held an NDP card -- was fond of saying that during the time that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the member for Port Coquitlam were MLAs, more was done for infrastructure in the tri-cities area in a period -- at that time -- of six years than had been done in the previous 50 years. He said that he would say that to anybody, because it was true and because he wanted to acknowledge something that was successfully working for that community.
That's not talking about favouritism. That's talking about the fact that there had been a benign neglect that had gone on that failed to foresee that there was a time of growth coming into that community and that the infrastructure needed to be there to prepare for that growth. Can anyone imagine if the people who built the Toronto subway had said at the time of building it: "No, we can't afford this. It's going to take a long time to pay for it. It's something that we just can't do right now; we'll leave it to another day"? Could you imagine that that very, very fine subway system would ever have come into existence if they had left it till now? Or the problems that would have existed for their economy if they had left it until now?
Hon. Speaker, we are at this present time on the verge of a time of real optimism with respect to the economy -- the elements of the new economy, the aspects of the economy that the minister was referring to. It's really unfortunate, because here we have the Liberal opposition, which seems to have thought that it was just going to be able to go through some kind of a process where they didn't have to do anything and suddenly they'd find themselves as government.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
[ Page 14881 ]
They find out now that they're really worried, because they just don't seem to be in sync with the thinking that is leading to the future of governance in this province. They're not there. They're very concerned about the fact that once again they're going to be left in the dust, because the attitude is the problem. The attitude on the side of the official opposition -- I say with all respect -- is characterized by the character Eeyore in the Winnie the Pooh books. I'm sure you've all read those to your children and grandchildren.
We've got a negativism, a kind of dour, colourless lack of hope and an unwillingness to really look at the possibilities that there are to build a society and to recognize that part of building that society is in developing a very enabling kind of infrastructure that is going to train our young people, train people at post-secondary education. It's going to require, hon. members, a government that continues to come up with ideas such as the freeze on tuition, instead of what the Liberals do, which is just to tag on to an idea like that when they do their polling and realize that maybe they better say they support it too.
We are not seeing ideas coming out of the official opposition. I would challenge the members of the opposition to conduct a poll and ask the public what ideas of theirs they can identify. I would say that if they were to do that, they would find that no one out there would be able to talk about one thing that the Liberals are suggesting that will address the issues that they want to see addressed. That's why the Liberals are very, very concerned that once again they are going to be left at the post, and they're going to wonder: "What did we do wrong?" Well, I'm trying to explain to the hon. members that what they're doing wrong is this dour attitude, the Eeyore attitude, that is saying: "We don't have to come up with ideas. All we have to do is just let it happen."
[1540]
Hon. Speaker, I made some of the points that I wanted to make during that time I spoke on the budget speech, and now that I'm speaking on this amendment, I just want to refer further to some issues in my constituency.
Recently we had the announcement of the capital construction for schools. I'm very happy to say that in Coquitlam, in district 43, there will be $9 million for eight projects in the area. They reflect the commitment to reduce class size. Last year kindergarten was reduced to a ratio of 20 students per teacher. This year, in grades 1, 2 and 3, it'll be reduced to 23 students; and there's an overall goal in five years, for K-to-3, to reduce it to 18 or fewer. I think that is a very positive and hopeful approach that has been taken by our government.
These projects bring new life to old schools and make sure that the schools in Coquitlam are well maintained. It brings school construction to almost $1.4 billion since ten years ago.
Among the grants that are made for Coquitlam are the replacement of Alderson Elementary school, the expansion of the Centennial Secondary School gym
With regard to local volunteers, the Involve B.C. program recently announced some grants -- throughout the province, $2.2 million for local, regional and provincial projects. These moneys go to support volunteer organizations.
In the Coquitlam area, one of these grants went to the Colony Farm Park Association in Burnaby to provide a leadership training program to enhance volunteer stewardship capacity within park associations and affiliated volunteer agencies -- $16,500. And to a very fine organization in our community, the Share Family and Community Services Society in Coquitlam, providing training materials and a manual for crisis line practices, went $19,400. And a $20,000 grant went to the Association of Kin Clubs of Canada in Coquitlam to provide a series of capacity-building workshops and seminars, including board development and strategic planning.
I also want to mention a project that I am absolutely committed to in Coquitlam which reflects the work of a very fine organization, the Burquitlam Lions Club, which, among many of its worthwhile projects, has dedicated itself to care for seniors. So we have the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre, which requires $11 million for expansion and renovation in order to be able to fill a niche that is very economically wise and appropriate because of its ability to remove patients from acute care beds and the incredible cost that that entails.
[1545]
In my role as MLA, I continue to advocate for this project. It's a project that has been indicated in the past as having government support. We know that they have been providing excellent seniors care in that location. I just want to acknowledge the name of Lyall Holmes, who passed away just two weeks ago. Lyall really dedicated much of his life to completing this project, and I know that members of the Burquitlam Lions are certainly very supportive and are continuing to work hard to try to bring this about.
With this expansion, which would go into providing intermediate care, it would mean that people who live within the Lions Care Centre, when the time of transition came, would be able to move into that further program without going through the trauma of having to have a major move in their lives -- a time that can often be very, very difficult for the elderly. As I said, that commitment has been made, and I continue to be determined to see that project go forward.
Also, with regard to the Riverview lands in my constituency, I know that a very popular issue there is the Riverview grounds -- the absolutely incredible arboretum of trees representative of all of North America and indeed other areas in the world. It's one of the most significant arboretums in the world that was not even really recognized for its value until the horticultural society and the Burke Mountain Naturalists recently identified that. I know that our government, through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, has worked very well to prepare research materials to identify each one of the trees on that site and to document the history of that tree -- its origin with regard to the place on Earth from which it came -- and to also bring out all the information that possibly can be brought out to indicate what an amenity that is. The citizens of Coquitlam continue to be absolutely adamant that the integrity of that arboretum be protected.
[ Page 14882 ]
We have had a citizens advisory committee with which the government was reviewing the future of the Riverview lands. When it became apparent that the Ministry of Health was not yet able to determine the future health needs of the site, the citizens advisory committee did not continue after that point. It was preparing to continue at the time that the government was prepared to identify the future needs. That has not yet happened, but I pledged to those constituents that when that does happen, the citizens advisory committee will again come into place, and it is my prediction that government will not make a decision that is in conflict with that committee.
I can say that with a great deal of confidence, because we did exactly that on the Colony Farm lands. When I first became an MLA, I campaigned on protecting Colony Farm and continuing it as a green space, and I was told by many that they did not believe that would happen. They believed the government would see that as good real estate and seek to make a lot of income from it. But the fact is that we went through that process. The citizens advised that that land should be protected as urban green space, so it was. Now it's a very delightful regional park, because the land was handed over to the regional district -- so too with the Riverview lands, a more complex issue. But again I wish to indicate that the citizens of Coquitlam have made it very, very clear that they have some very sincere and genuine wishes for the future of that site. They are determined, where possible, to work with government to ensure that that happens.
[1550]
I also want to recognize another somewhat controversial issue which is very important to MLAs on the north side of the Fraser River, and that is the fact that almost ten years ago there was a licence given for a gravel mine on the upper Pitt River. Ten years ago I don't think we had the concern expressed in society over the fact that our food supply is being endangered, given what is happening to salmon both on the high seas and in places where there is river pollution and the habitat is endangered. Therefore on this site I think that there come times when we have to be able to make value-oriented decisions around the fact that such a licence exists and ask ourselves if we can take the risks that are truly risks that involve the salmon, the trout and the other species that inhabit that river. The four MLAs in the area have indicated that they are opposed to that area going forward as a gravel mine and that our efforts should be on enhancing and caring for the water quality in that river.
I can only cite the situation on the Coquitlam River, where the presence of gravel mining has had a very deleterious effect on the fish stocks, and indicate that I have been to the site on the Pitt River. It's my observation as a layman, but with the assistance of scientists, that it would be very, very difficult to have a gravel mine in that area without it having the potential to do serious damage to the ability of that waterway to maintain, among other things, what is the largest wild coho tributary on the lower Fraser system -- a tributary from which brood stock is taken to stock other streams elsewhere in the province. That is another issue that I know is of very, very serious concern to my constituents.
We talk about the throne speech, and we talk about finding a new direction, but I don't think it's so much finding a new direction. I think it's being willing to have a sense of hope and a sense of optimism, based on the fact that we are able to address difficult issues such as infrastructure needs, so that we can provide that future for our children, which they have a right to and which we have a responsibility to provide.
B. Penner: I rise to support the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. He has introduced a motion to amend the throne speech by adding a paragraph which I think is crucial to bring some sense of reality to what's contained in the throne speech. Clearly the throne speech does not reflect reality as it relates to the vast majority of British Columbians today.
The amendment is to add a paragraph as follows:
I couldn't have put it any better myself, and I therefore rise to second the motion put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to amend the throne speech."But this assembly regrets that the Throne Speech fails to address the need for balanced budgets and economic stability; that this government refuses to take the steps necessary to end the fastest growing debt service costs of any province in Canada; and that this government is eroding the economic viability of this Province and it has again failed miserably in outlining a responsible economic plan to ensure the future prosperity of British Columbia and its people."
As I said at the outset, the throne speech which we were presented with a couple of weeks ago by this government fails miserably to reflect reality in British Columbia. There are, contained in the throne speech, at least 21 references to the word "new." I was counting it just before I got up to speak, so I may have missed a couple of them. Clearly the government is desperately trying to portray itself as having some sense of new-found vision, perhaps even new-found competency -- but goodness knows that would be asking too much. Hon. Speaker, I ask you and I ask other members in this House: what is really new about the direction laid out not just in the throne speech but in the conduct of this government over the last number of weeks, months and years?
Again, I did this earlier when I spoke a few weeks ago. I sought the assistance of the Oxford English Dictionary to put things in context for us. Just to remind the members present, the definition of "new" is as follows: "
[1555]
When you compare what's in the throne speech against that definition, you will find that the throne speech fails miserably to live up to the definition of "new," because we have heard before that this government is committed to parliamentary reform, only to have our hopes dashed upon the cruel partisan desires of the NDP government. This government had a chance to show at least a little bit of commitment to their own rhetoric when we elected a new Speaker for this chamber. Unfortunately, the government rejected the official opposition's suggestion that an independent member of the Legislature be elected to the honourable office of Speaker of the chamber. I believe that that would have sent the message that there is a new tone being taken by the chamber, a new decorum being presented to British Columbians as we undertake to do important work on behalf of the people that have elected us.
But the government rejected that suggestion and insisted on electing one of their own partisan NDP members to occupy
[ Page 14883 ]
the position of Speaker. So much for their commitment to real, meaningful parliamentary reform. At their first opportunity -- the very first chance that they had to demonstrate that they were at least somewhat sincere -- they failed.
Hon. Speaker, they failed again only moments later when it came to electing the Deputy Speaker. Again the opposition suggested that an independent member of the Legislature would be the person best able to sit in that chair at the end of the chamber and act as a referee. After all, when you go to sporting events, I think most people come with the expectation that the referee will at least try to be independent. So it made sense to me that an independent person in the Legislature hold the position of Speaker and/or Deputy Speaker. But both of those initiatives on the part of the B.C. Liberal Party, here in opposition, were rejected by this government, again putting a lie to their commitment, expressed in the throne speech, to a new way of doing things here in the Legislature.
Rather than complying with the definition of the word "new," I submit that, if anything, this throne speech and this government's conduct for the last number of years better fits the description or definition of the words "dejà vu," which Oxford defines as an "illusory feeling of having already experienced a present situation." A secondary definition given is "something tediously familiar." That very accurately sums up the throne speech: tediously familiar.
There was no commitment to reduction of deficits and containing B.C.'s runaway debt. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has already pointed out here this afternoon that B.C. now has the fastest-growing debt service cost of any province in the country. This government -- the NDP government -- does not seem to understand the significance of increasing interest costs on our debt. Every dollar that goes to pay interest on our debt is a crucial dollar that is not available for health care, education or transportation projects that we all need in British Columbia. Rather, the government's response is to say: "Well, really our debt situation isn't that bad. It's bad, but it's not that bad. And it could be worse."
Well, they're right, hon. Speaker; it could be worse. Unfortunately, it is getting worse under this government's lack of attention, concern and awareness of what happens when a person's financial situation deteriorates. I liken it to somebody living in a large house, and they become aware that there is a small fire burning in the basement. They say: "Well, the rest of the house isn't on fire, so I guess the problem isn't really that bad. Most of the house is okay." Gradually the fire spreads because it's neglected. The people in charge of the house -- just like the NDP is in charge of the province -- don't deal with the problem when it's small. They don't move to contain the fire. The smoke starts to spread. The heat increases, and pretty soon you've got people living in the house saying: "Hey, we'd better get out. We'd better move out of the house. It's getting too smoky in here; it's hot."
That's what has happened in British Columbia. Thousands upon thousands of workers in British Columbia have left our province, moving to Alberta, to Ontario or even south of the line to Washington State and to Oregon. I know some people personally who have done that. They're leaving the province because they see the smoke that is spreading -- the fire that is spreading -- from this NDP government's inattention to our growing debt crisis in British Columbia. Eventually, if the fire is neglected, the entire home is engulfed and it's lost. I don't want to see that happen to British Columbia. I'm here, committed to prevent that from happening to British Columbia.
[1600]
The government will have you say: "Well, the economic recovery is well underway. There's nothing to worry about. We can just keep on ignoring that fire in the basement, and everything will be fine." Well, Statistics Canada will tell you otherwise. Just last Friday they released their latest report on the job situation in Canada. British Columbia was one of only two provinces in the entire country that lost jobs. There were a total of 3,000 fewer British Columbians employed last month compared to the previous month.
The only other province in Canada to see a decline in the number of people working was Quebec, a province that has been plagued with political instability and doubt over their potential to secede from the rest of Canada. Clearly that has had a hindering effect on investment into that province. As a proud British Columbian and a proud Canadian, I don't like being lumped into the same economic category as a province that is threatening to withdraw from the rest of Canada; I find that to be an insult.
In fact, the employment situation was even worse than those numbers that I just mentioned would indicate, because British Columbia lost 6,000 full-time jobs, but we saw a small increase of 3,000 part-time jobs. So the headline number is "B.C. loses 3,000 jobs." But really, we all know that a part-time job is not equivalent to a full-time job, certainly not in creating economic stability and consumer confidence and encouraging people to go out and spend and create further jobs in our communities.
So the situation in British Columbia is still very serious. That fire in the basement has not been contained but in fact is spreading. It would be interesting just to carry on with some of the comparisons across Canada.
According to Statistics Canada, Ontario created the most jobs of any province last month, with 28,000 additional workers finding employment in that province. We all know what happens when people find jobs: not only do they get the money and therefore are able to spend a bit more and create the spinoff benefit, but they pay taxes on the wages that they're earning. Granted, Ontario has lower tax rates than British Columbia, but they still do have income tax rates at some level; I think it's about 40 percent at the high end. So those 28,000 additional Ontario residents are now paying income tax, and that gives the Ontario government more revenue. That's why this year Ontario will be tabling a balanced budget; it's probably long overdue for Ontario, but they've at least taken steps to do it. This year they will have a balanced budget. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia our debt is increasing by $3 billion in terms of taxpayer-supported debt. There's nothing new about the NDP spending us into poverty, but they're continuing to do that.
To continue our cross-Canada sojourn just a little bit, before I conclude on this aspect of my remarks, Alberta saw an increase of 2,500 new jobs last month. Even little Prince Edward Island, way out there in the Maritimes, saw an increase of 700 new jobs last month. Meanwhile, just to summarize, in British Columbia we lost 6,000 full-time jobs last month alone.
There are reasons why our situation is deteriorating, and one of them came to light last week. This government belatedly released information about the true cost of their hidden public sector wage agreements over the last number of years. In total, this government admits to increasing the drain
[ Page 14884 ]
on the public treasury by $1.3 billion. Not all of that is annual ongoing cost, but that's the total cost of what was reported last week. Of that, about $1 billion is an annual ongoing cost to government -- the cost of operating. That is something that they have consciously, deliberately kept out of the public view for the last number of years. They did not want British Columbians, who have to pay the bills, to know the true size of those bills. Now we know, and we know why this province is in such desperate financial straits.
[1605]
Last week we had a contingent of auxiliary police come and pay a visit to this chamber. They're concerned that this government, the NDP, are busy destroying what was once a proud volunteer program. According to the government's own numbers, the number of auxiliary police in British Columbia has dropped from 1,089 in 1997 to approximately 477 this year; that's a drop of 56 percent in just a couple of years. It's been a remarkable accomplishment of this NDP government to take a great program and destroy it, and that's essentially what they've done. We had hoped that maybe with a different Premier or with a different Attorney General, we'd get a different response when we asked last week about the auxiliary program. Instead we here in opposition and the auxiliary police that were in the gallery heard the government stick to their tired line that, frankly, we just can't trust the auxiliaries in the important services and roles that they were providing before.
To my knowledge, we have never been advised of any serious problem arising from the auxiliary program. Yet the government saw fit to make dramatic changes. Hon. Speaker, we all have heard the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, the program wasn't broke, and this government set out to break it. They've pretty well succeeded. It's time for the Attorney General and the Premier to show leadership and send a message of what kind of policing service we want in British Columbia. They hide behind the advice that they receive and say: "It's not our responsibility to come up with different ideas." I say that it is; I say it's not good enough. If you're collecting a paycheque to be the Attorney General or the Premier, then show some leadership instead of hiding behind memos and documents from people who may be opposed to volunteers working in the public sector. I think that's what laid behind the decision to gut the program. There's nothing new there, hon. Speaker. This government's lack of commitment to the auxiliary program remains the same, notwithstanding a different Premier.
This government continues to have legal problems. I understand that there's a number of court cases starting today involving this government. That's nothing new. This government has been fraught with legal problems. I think it's been unprecedented in the history of British Columbia for a government to have so many cases lost in court. I've almost lost track; in fact, I think I have. We had the Carrier Lumber decision, where a B.C. Supreme Court judge found that this government went to great lengths to breach a contract, to withhold evidence and to undermine the rights of a private property owner in the province of British Columbia -- all to attain political ends.
Obviously we've got the Stockell case going on. That's the election fraud case going back to the 1996 election, when British Columbians were not told the truth about their tax dollars and the state of provincial finances. I understand that the former Premier, still a member of the NDP, is being sued for liable in a case that starts today in Victoria. Of course, we can't forget all the setbacks this government has had in courts as it attempted to impose expanded gambling on British Columbians. Municipality after municipality has stood up and taken this government to court, saying: "We don't want it in our community. Take those slot machines and put them somewhere else." The government wouldn't listen, so the municipal governments had to go to court, and the courts agreed that this government had crossed the line. In fact, in one case, the courts found that this government had broken the Criminal Code of Canada in its provisions as they relate to gambling and gaming activities. There's nothing new there, hon. Speaker. This NDP government is having legal problems today, and it had legal problems before. It's more of the same.
We move to the fast ferry project. That is an ongoing disaster that doesn't seem to have any end. It was entirely preventable and predictable. People on this side of the House did predict exactly what's happening today, but the government chose to ignore the advice that they were given not just by us but by independent experts. They decided that their political agenda was more important than services to British Columbians and the financial interests of the province. That's why we've got this ridiculous situation today, where we're committed to three fast ferries. One, goodness knows for what reason, is still under construction today. That means that every single hour, more tax dollars are being spent on this ludicrous program -- building the third ship when we're not even using the first one. Why are we building a third one, when we've decided we can't even use the two that are already completed, and the first one has been parked? We saw last week what happened to the second fast ferry, the newer of the two that are completed, the fast ferry Discovery. One of its four engines seized up. Why is that? How could that happen?
[1610]
I said a moment ago that we predicted that these problems would happen. Here's one of the things we predicted -- that if you run these engines near 97 or 95 percent capacity over and over again, you're going to have a mechanical breakdown. That's exactly what happened. The member for Richmond Centre predicted this, and this is what happened. He was absolutely correct. The engines were underpowered. Everybody could see it if they chose to look. In order to attain the kind of crossing speed that this government desired for political purposes, those engines had to be red-lined over and over and over again. Surprise -- the engine seized up. To make matters worse, in order to replace the engine, a hole has to be cut in the hull of the ship. That, more than anything, demonstrates a lack of planning and a lack of caring by a government that pretends to be interested in the interests of British Columbians. So there's nothing new there. The fast ferry fiasco just keeps on going.
Hon. Speaker, in the past this government has been cited for miscommunication, mismanagement and a lack of coordination. In the throne speech the government would like you to believe that they're new, that they've learned, that they've changed. Developments in just the last few weeks prove otherwise. I can rely on a few local examples from my community of Chilliwack to prove the point.
Late last week residents in my community learned that the government was planning to move ahead with its protected-area strategy of creating about 1,100 hectares of additional parkland. That land in question is currently Crown land, and it sits adjacent to many reserves occupied by first
[ Page 14885 ]
nations in the Fraser Valley. This government knew that many of the first nations were opposed to the recommendations in the protected-areas plan for the Fraser River. And yet they chose last week to let the word out that they were moving ahead, only a couple of days before treaty talks with the Stó:lo were set to begin. It's the right hand and the left hand not knowing what was going on.
What was the result? Well, it was entirely predictable. The treaty talks didn't start, because the Stó:lo and various member bands felt that they had been blindsided by the government with its announcement that notwithstanding their concerns about the protected-area strategy, it was going ahead only a couple of days before treaty talks were set to begin. That shows a tremendous lack of coordination between the agencies of government that are trying to implement the plan versus trying to negotiate treaties with first nations in the Fraser Valley.
Now we have to try and sort out the consequences. I spent some time on Saturday meeting with Chief June Quipp of the Cheam band, hoping to establish lines of communication between the provincial government and the first nations who feel offended that this plan was going ahead at the very time that the government said they were interested in starting sincere treaty negotiations.
Hon. Speaker, I can give you another local example of the lack of communication and coordination in this government. About six months ago I was approached by somebody who's responsible for managing B.C. parks in the upper Fraser Valley, who said that they had heard that there were plans to potentially designate a new area as an ecological reserve. For those of you who don't know, an ecological reserve is the highest level of protection that the B.C. government affords to sensitive areas in the province. So when an area is declared to be an ecological reserve, it's quite different than a provincial park, where plans could be made to increase access or awareness, and maps are drawn and trails are made -- quite the opposite. There are conscious efforts made to discourage human activity from going into areas that are declared to be ecological reserves. So this parks manager asked me if I could find out what the government's plans were with respect to this rumour.
I did two things. I had one of our staff people submit a freedom-of-information request to the Ministry of Environment to ask what, if anything, was planned for Liumchen Lake in terms of an ecological reserve, and I wrote a letter to the Minister of Environment. I got back two dramatically different answers. According to the freedom-of-information request, there were no records, there were no discussions, and there were no plans for Liumchen Lake, which is located a few miles from Cultus Lake up on a hillside.
[1615]
However, two days later I got a letter back from the minister, proudly declaring that in fact this area had been made an ecological reserve almost two years before, and an order-in-council was attached to the letter. So on the one hand, we have the Ministry of Environment staff people saying they have no records, no knowledge and no idea of anything to do with Liumchen Lake being called an ecological reserve. On the other hand, the government forwards an order-in-council showing that this thing had become an ecological reserve about a year and a half before. No one in our community in the Fraser Valley was aware of this. And none of the people I checked with in the fish and game club, the first nations or -- and this is the worst of it -- the people in the B.C. Parks ministry who are responsible for administering the area
This government just can't get its act together, and I think it's a real shame that they leave their public servants in the dark, that the people who are supposed to be carrying out the will of government aren't told what the government is doing. It's just like the rest of us, I guess; we're kept in the dark. I find it tremendously frustrating that people in the Fraser Valley were not consulted or advised that 5,400 acres were set aside in this ecological reserve, basically making it off limits to people who want to recreate.
Before I conclude my remarks in support of the motion for an amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, I'd like to touch on two other matters of local interest. This government again claims to be new, and they fail that test. Back before the 1996 election this government made some commitments regarding what was known as phase 3 for Fraser Valley College, now known as University College of the Fraser Valley. This was going to be a facility to replace what has, for 25 or more years, been a temporary solution to a problem at the college. The temporary solution was converting an old motel into classroom and office space. Everyone realized that this building was inadequate and still is. There's mould. I think there are problems with people occasionally being off sick, and the health department has had to investigate in the past.
The government proclaimed before the '96 election that since education was one of their priorities, they were going to move to complete phase 3. Based on that commitment, the college spent money on architectural drawings. After the '96 election -- you will remember this, everyone -- the then Premier got up to say that he needed a little bit of wriggle room, that the budget wasn't quite as had been presented to British Columbians during the election campaign and that there was a capital freeze. The phase 3 project for the University College of the Fraser Valley was caught in this capital freeze.
About a year came and went, and we were told that the capital freeze had thawed. UCFV was asked by the provincial government to go back and redo its drawings for a scaled-down version of phase 3. They spent more money on architectural drawings and plans in the hope and anticipation that this project would eventually proceed. It's now the year 2000, and I don't know how many times those plans and drawings have been revised. I don't know the true cost -- I'm working to get that -- but a lot of money has been spent revising, redrawing and redoing the plans for phase 3 at the University College of the Fraser Valley. It doesn't appear that we're any closer today to this government living up to their commitment.
Lastly, there's another issue of growing concern to Fraser Valley residents that I'd like to address. That has to do with plans by an American corporation to establish a large fossil fuel-powered generating station in Sumas, Washington, just south of the Canada-U.S. border. This project, known as Sumas Energy 2 plant or SE 2 for short, envisions a 660- megawatt natural gas-fired cogenerating plant to create electricity for the North American market.
[ Page 14886 ]
It's a sad reality that in the upper Fraser Valley, our air quality is already pretty substandard on many summer days. In my view, this plant will just make matters worse. We have not been provided with detailed estimates of the amount of pollutants that will come from this new generating plant. However, I was able to determine, by going on line and checking out the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council's web site, that by their own admission they expect that this new power plant will emit nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde and lead. The report goes on to admit: "Decreased visibility in scenic areas could occur."
[1620]
The relevance to the government of British Columbia in all of this, besides the concern for its residents who live in the Fraser Valley and will have to breathe these toxic substances, is that this plant may not be able to proceed if B.C. Hydro says to SE 2: "You can't connect to our grid." You see, the closest connection to the North American power grid is via B.C. Hydro's electrical grid that runs through Abbotsford, just a couple of kilometres north of the proposed plant. The company, in their documents, makes it clear that they are relying on getting access to the North American grid by connecting to B.C. Hydro's system.
I hope this government will release to all the people of British Columbia and the Fraser Valley copies of any reports that the Environment ministry has prepared, in terms of environmental impact studies, and any reports prepared by B.C. Hydro indicating what damage they think this could do to our air quality. It's not good enough to simply pay lip service to protecting the environment. This government enjoys doing that. They enjoy being seen as environmentally friendly. But here we have an issue that puts them to the test. Are they doing something to stand up for British Columbians on this issue, or are they hoping that it all goes quietly? The official opposition raised questions about this project in the Legislature about a year ago, and at that time the government's response was: "We're not involved in any discussions, any negotiations; we don't know anything about it."
Here we are a year later, and by going on line again to the Washington State regulatory agency's web site, I find references to the Ministry of Environment in B.C. having looked into this matter and having attended meetings and to B.C. Hydro making plans to hook up to this power plant that's proposed for Sumas, Washington. I look forward to receiving some response from the government to those questions, because it is of growing concern to people in the Fraser Valley. And it should be a concern to this government.
In summation, then
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.
B. Penner:
G. Abbott: It's a pleasure for me to rise and join in the throne speech debate on behalf of my constituents in Shuswap and to talk a little bit about this little document, the Speech from the Throne 2000. The Speech from the Throne, of course, is one of the most important events on our legislative calendar. The throne speech does, or at least should, set out the government's vision, its direction, for the coming year. In broad terms, it also signals the legislative agenda of the government. By extension, it also signals what's important to the government and what is not. So it's an important document. It tells us a lot, I think, about where the government is going -- or at least purports to want to go. It also provides us with a kind of special view of what the government's vision is about its role in the economic and social life of the province.
When historians look back at this NDP government that was elected in 1996 and look at its record from 1996 through 2000 -- or possibly 2001, if they go the full five years of their constitutional life -- certainly among the more important documents that those historians will look at will be the throne speeches. When you compare the throne speeches of 1996, 1997 and 1998 with that which was recently tendered in 2000, it does create some striking differences that we see over the term of this government.
[1625]
For example, if we look back at what this government had to say back in 1996, we see a very combative tone and character -- even in the throne speech, which is typically the least combative of documents ever generated by a government. Even there we find this quote, in the 1996 Speech from the Throne: "In this session, my government will pursue a vision of a government on the side of working families and the middle class." The government back then -- they try to hide it these days, because we're getting closer to an election -- was picking sides and being very pointed about that.
As well, we find in the '96 throne speech an absolutely shameless claim about where the province sat from an economic perspective. Again, we find in the '96 throne speech: "It will be B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row. Jobs will be up; the debt will be down."
We found out just days later that in fact we didn't have two balanced budgets in the province; we had two massive deficit budgets in British Columbia. But -- not enough to make that claim once in the throne speech -- on the next page this claim is made again, shamelessly: "Working together, B.C. has made impressive fiscal progress. The budget you will receive this week will be the second balanced budget in two years, and includes a reduction in overall debt." Absolute nonsense. It tells you a lot about where the government was at in 1996.
Further, and again just to highlight the change in the purported character of this government elected in 1996, we see in 1996 a bold, interventionist view of government that certainly we're not seeing today. For example, in the '96 throne speech we see the government saying: "
It certainly reflects the view of this government, although they are reluctant to articulate it these days, that by creating edicts and accords in Victoria, they can somehow cause new jobs to be created in the province. Obviously they have still failed to capture some basic economic truths about this province, the most notable being that unless there is some prospect of some return on investment in this province, one doesn't get the investment. Unfortunately, they still haven't captured that.
[ Page 14887 ]
There's a big difference in the throne speeches over time. One of the things that historians will note is that in 1999 there was no throne speech at all, which was, I think, a remarkable signal of the obvious confusion and dislocation of this government during that 1999 period.
Throne 2000, or the throne speech for the year 2000, can only be understood if we appreciate the context in which it was presented. This government is entering the fifth and final year -- we're all happy to say -- of its electoral mandate. Other things that we should note about the context: this government is led by the third Premier of this, so far, four-year term of this government. And both Premiers remain members of this Legislature, one seemingly happily and another clearly very unhappily a part of this Legislature.
[1630]
The most important element, I guess, in setting the context for the throne speech is that the overwhelming imperative of the current Premier and his executive council is to put distance between his government and that of his first predecessor, now simply the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. That is the prime imperative, obviously, that's driving the throne speech for 2000. It's an imperative that is driven by the long-term unpopularity of this NDP government. The government is enjoying a very modest growth in popularity as a consequence of the change of leaders, but they continue to be in the mire in terms of public support. Clearly, with their electoral mandate coming to an end, they need to turn that around. Again, I think the words we see in the throne speech are a reflection of that.
The challenge to this NDP government is therefore a very considerable one. They have to somehow project the notion that this latest incarnation of an NDP government is very different from previous incarnations, even though it is made up almost entirely of exactly the same people from the previous governments. Further, they have to somehow create that distance from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the government that he led, without entirely disenchanting that former Premier to the point where he no longer supports the agenda of the current administration in votes of this Legislature. So it's a considerable task. The government has to, in many ways, run against itself.
Therefore we get what might in some circumstances be highly amusing spectacles, like the Minister of Finance standing up and saying in his budget speech: "No more megaprojects." That's a very fine thing to say: "No more megaprojects." But who the heck was building the megaprojects? The same guys that are now trying to distance themselves from those same megaprojects. We all know that calculated ambivalence is part of the stock-in-trade of politicians, but it's been taken to a ridiculous level by this government as it attempts to shamelessly distance itself from its past.
The object obviously is to create distance or the illusion of distance. We may have, as they say, a new captain on the Pacificat. We used to say the Titanic, but now we can say Pacificat, because things have changed here in B.C. We may have a new captain on the Pacificat, but it's the same old crew that's driving it. The results are going to be exactly the same.
In many ways the government across the way here reminds me of the circuses I sometimes attended in my youth. Invariably in the circus there would be a freak show. This government reminds me in many ways of a two-headed cow in a freak show -- one body, but two heads kind of twisting and trying to go in different directions. That certainly seems to be the battle that we see played out across the floor here on a daily basis. This is a government that's deeply divided.
The throne speech is obviously an attempt to, in some ways, hold them together but also to create that illusion of distance from the past. The old expression is that a picture is worth a thousand words. I'm sure if they could have done it, they would. But obviously a throne speech can't have pictures. You have to paint the picture with words. In this case, the NDP government has devoted a few thousand words to create a picture that it wants to project to the people of British Columbia. The picture that they want to present is one of a new vision and new direction for the province. Again, what they want to present is a sharp departure, apparently, from the government led by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
[1635]
The centrepiece of this document, the Speech from the Throne 2000, is found on page 6: a new budget transparency law. Obviously the government likes that word "new," because in just this new section on the new budget transparency law the term "new law" is used ten times. There's always lots to be said in advertising about reinforcement. Clearly, in the case of the new budget transparency law, the government thought it was better to go with a lot of reinforcement rather than just a little.
We can talk further perhaps in a moment about why it is so necessary for such a transparency law to be here -- precisely because the government across the way has been the antithesis of transparency through its term to date.
The other thing we should note is that they follow up on the ten references to the new budget transparency law with a "new culture of openness, cooperation and balance," and so on. Obviously the object is to have people believe that this government is somehow possessed of a new vision and new direction. I think the NDP really underestimates the people of British Columbia. They are not going to be fooled by phony claims of new and improved, as if Tide or New Blue Cheer had been across the floor here. That's not the case. They're not going to be fooled by those phony claims.
Talk is cheap. People have had a lot of talk from this government. They have had continuous promises, promise after promise, about new jobs, new investment, balanced budgets, you name it. What they've received in addition to those many hollow promises are actual results that are broken promises, failures, boondoggles, broken hopes and broken dreams. Those have been the results; that's been the performance of the NDP government in British Columbia. You can take a donkey and dress it up in a new set of clothes, but most people are still going to know it's a donkey. Most people, regardless of how you dress up this NDP government, are still going to know it's the same gang that has pulled us down and taken away our economic potential over the past five years in British Columbia. People aren't going to be fooled by that. People want performance, not hollow promises.
The NDP have now had nine years to show some trace or semblance of fiscal responsibility in this province, and they've failed miserably. They promised, over the years, that they would balance the budget over the business cycle. Well, the business cycle, from the NDP's perspective, is certainly longer than nine years. Now we're looking at at least 13 years, and in
[ Page 14888 ]
all probability we would never, ever see a balanced budget from this NDP government in British Columbia. They had over a billion dollars in unanticipated revenue in the last fiscal year. Did they turn that into a balanced budget? No. They just turned around and spent more, and that's going to happen year after year, over and over, in the province.
I remember an NDP leader -- I think this was in '91 -- saying: "We're going to cut up the credit card; we're not going to run up the Visa bill anymore." Well, what has the product of that been? Over nine years we have seen the provincial debt more than double in British Columbia. It took the first political administrations in the province 125 years to rack up $16 billion in debt. The NDP have more than doubled it in the past nine years -- an astonishing record of fiscal incompetence in British Columbia.
I think the greatest irony that one finds in the throne speech 2000 is the new budget transparency law. You may ask: "Why do we need to do that? Shouldn't we be transparent without a law there?" Well, I guess this government is its own best example of why we need it.
[1640]
I can think back to the election of 1996, and I'm sure all the colleagues in here can think of that. One of the NDP's biggest selling points in the 1996 election was the now obviously phony claim that they had produced two surplus budgets. It was a claim that was repeated over and over again on the campaign trail. It was something that gave a veneer of respectability to the NDP's fiscal performance during their first five years.
In fact, just to give you a typical example of it, here, from B.C.'s election '96, is a quote from the then Premier, now simply the member for Vancouver-Kingsway: "We turned a $2.4 billion deficit into two consecutive balanced budgets." He went on to say, and I guess this is truly ironic: "Actions speak louder than legislation." That's what the then Premier had to say about balanced budget legislation: it wasn't needed. They'd produced two balanced budgets; they didn't need any balanced budget legislation. "Actions," he said, "speak louder than legislation." Well, obviously we are seeing an event played out this week in the Supreme Court of British Columbia that will, I think, reflect on those words and others that have come from the NDP side of the House.
The claims that there were two balanced budgets were, obviously, quickly proven false by the official opposition. We had a remarkable report from the auditor general that certainly answered a lot of the questions we had about what the government had done. And I think we're going to see more questions answered this week or in coming weeks and months, depending on how long the NDP lawyers can drag the thing out. I think we're going to learn a lot more as the courageous court action by David Stockell is played out in the B.C. Supreme Court. Mr. Stockell, of course, is challenging the election of the NDP, based on electoral fraud, pursuant to its supposed two balanced budgets.
You really couldn't ask for a starker contrast between the promise of a new budget transparency law and the reality of a court case alleging electoral fraud based on misrepresentation of budgetary realities. It is a stark contrast. We've got a government that says: "We're going to put in a budget transparency law." We've got a court case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia challenging the election of this government, based on allegations of electoral fraud.
I think there is a similar contrast between the claim of -- I think that this would be on page 9 of the throne speech -- a "new culture of openness, cooperation and balance." There's certainly a stark contrast between that claim and the operations of the House, this institution, that we have seen during the course of this NDP government.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The question is, of course: is this a sincere initiative on the part of the government, or is it a deathbed repentance of a government that has been chronically secretive, chronically uncooperative and consistently unbalanced? Let's talk about that. I hope it's the former, but certainly I'm going to wait to see the performance, not just the promises. We've seen far too many promises in this vein from the government.
[1645]
I had the honour and privilege of serving for 17 years in local government before my election to this chamber. Certainly, at least in the local governments that I was a part of, a very different culture existed than exists in this institution. I know that when others of my colleagues in local government were elected to this chamber, they were appalled by many aspects of the political culture that prevails here.
Among these -- and we all know them very well -- it was never clear when the Legislature would be called back together. We couldn't make plans with our constituents; we couldn't make plans with our family. Under the NDP it was some kind of state secret when we would return to session here in Victoria. We never knew from year to year when the budget would be delivered; we never knew from day to day what the government's legislative agenda would be. Frequently it would change without any kind of notice or consultation. That was the experience of the culture of openness, cooperation and balance in the NDP Legislature. Frequently we would be advised, certainly without notice or consultation, that we would be sitting late or perhaps sitting through the night, at the whim of the government.
That was the culture that certainly has prevailed in this institution that I've been a member of since 1996. I'd like to see a change, but we don't change a culture simply by saying in the throne speech that we'd like it to change. One of the reasons that a different culture prevails in local government is that people have to work together to try to balance a budget. That's one of their imperatives. They don't have the luxury of the NDP of producing massive deficit budgets every year. By law, they have to balance their budgets. I think councillors and regional directors are pulled closer together by that difficult process where they have to balance. They also have a working committee structure -- something which this chamber, this institution, certainly hasn't had in British Columbia.
Again, I hope the government is entirely sincere in saying that it wants to change the culture of this place, but I want to see some evidence that there's going to be some performance, not just a promise to get the government through the next provincial election. We know, hon. Speaker, that over the years the Leader of the Official Opposition and others, certainly most notably the late member for Delta South, made numerous attempts to improve the political culture in this place. They made numerous attempts, numerous positive and instructive proposals to the government, to change the character of this institution. Those attempts were rebuffed. So we'll await the performance, not just the promises.
[ Page 14889 ]
Before I conclude, I want to talk about the one area of the throne speech that I think is of particular concern to me. Again, it's a question of really looking at the words and whether they convey the truth about the situation in the province. On page 15 we find reference to "consolidating our strong competitive position." I want to talk a little bit about that as the Forests critic for the official opposition. We heard the member from Powell River-Sunshine Coast talking a little earlier on in the debate today about what a great job the NDP government had done in the province with the forest industry. Certainly they've done a job on the forest industry -- there's no question about that -- but it hasn't been great in any respect.
Frankly, saying that this government is going to consolidate our strong competitive position is something that is of much concern to me, because clearly no government in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world has done more to undermine the competitive position of its industries than the NDP has done in British Columbia. No jurisdiction has done more to undermine our competitive position.
If we look specifically at the forest industry, if we look back a decade and look at the position that the B.C. forest industry was in, in the late eighties and early nineties, pre-NDP, British Columbia was one of the low-cost producers of forest products in the world. The NDP, over their nine years, through their absolutely reckless imposition of new costs, new taxes, new regulations, have forced the British Columbia forest industry into being one of the high-cost producers in the world.
[1650]
Now, I know that there are lots of members on the other side that say: "What's wrong with being a high-cost producer? We've got this; we've got that. We can take the products of the forests and rather than make lumber, we can make fabulous widgets with it, and our cost structure is not going to be a problem."
But of course, again they have lost touch with reality. We are going to be the first forced out of the marketplace as a result of these costs. While our cost structure can be masked by high commodity prices, when markets turn downward -- as they inevitably will -- B.C.'s high cost structure will again be a killer of jobs in British Columbia. We've got a great industry, but it could be much greater if the NDP hadn't piled on costs to kill investment, kill initiative and kill jobs.
The forest industry's a great industry because it's got an educated workforce, it's got the fibre base, it's got technology, it's got climate, it's got trading opportunities. What we've got is the worst government in the world to manage it.
Notwithstanding the words of the throne speech, there's only one surefire way to turn around the economy of the province. The member for Skeena knows it; everybody knows it. The only way is to call an election, defeat this NDP government and elect a Liberal government committed to restoring prosperity, hope and opportunity in this great province of British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place in the throne speech debate and to provide some comments and some thoughts on the throne speech and how I see it impacting upon the province over the coming months -- and to contrast some of the things in the throne speech with some of the remarks and comments that are said by my colleagues on the other side of the House.
The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi says: "Doom and gloom." And guess what. You know, he's right, because that's all we ever seem to hear from that side of the House: doom and gloom. They think the sky is falling, the world is coming to an end. They never have a positive thing to say.
What's even worse
Well, anyone can say that. Tell us what you're going to do. Tell us which Crown corporations you're going to sell off. That's what the public of British Columbia wants to know: which Crown corporations are you going to sell off? Not just, "Trust us; wait until we get there," but tell us ahead of time what it is you're going to do. Instead of this, "Well, you know, just wait; we've got to get there" and "We're not sure; we're going to do something, but
The public want more than that. They want to know what you're going to do. Tell us; be specific. That's what the people of British Columbia want to know. Give us the specifics. As you like to say: "Tell the truth." Tell British Columbians the whole truth, not what you're hiding behind.
[1655]
What do we get? We get told: "Oh, we're going to have the lowest taxes within 90 days, but at the same time, we're not going to cut health care and education, and we're going to have a balanced budget."
Well, that does not compute. What it means is: they are not coming clean with British Columbians. They are not saying what we'll cut. They are not saying what is going to be cut. They are not saying which Crown corporations they will privatize or get rid of. And they need to make those points.
An Hon. Member: Let's hear what you're going to do.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "Let's see what you're going to do." I'm coming to that, hon. member, and I am quite enjoying coming to that.
I want to get on the record that all we hear is this blah, blah, blah from the opposition about how bad things are. They don't want to acknowledge the very positive things that are happening in the province right now. They don't want to acknowledge that we have the lowest unemployment in over 18 years. They don't acknowledge that. They don't acknowledge the fact that whole sectors of this economy are growing at unprecedented rates, whether it's the high-tech sector, whether it's film and tourism, whether it's oil and gas. The economy of British Columbia is changing, it's adapting, it's developing, it's innovating, it's moving forward into the twenty-first century, and it's meeting the challenges that have been caused by such things as the economic downturn in
[ Page 14890 ]
Asia. As our markets are recovering, we're seeing an increase in commodity prices. We're seeing mill towns putting the second and third shifts on and going back to work. There's a lot happening, but they don't want to acknowledge that.
Hon. Speaker, they criticize the desire by the government to be more open, to be more cooperative, to be less confrontational, and I think that's a shame. The member for Shuswap was commenting a moment ago on how we don't have a parliamentary calendar, how that is a terrible thing. Well, guess what -- we agree with you, hon. member. It is a terrible thing. That's why this side of the House is making a sincere and concerted effort to work with the opposition to develop a parliamentary calendar that will result in this Legislature moving from the nineteenth century into the twentieth century -- never mind the twenty-first -- bringing us into line with other legislatures in the country.
We are working to make that happen. What is going to be required is that you guys have to work as well. You guys have to be flexible and cooperate. It is, I think, a very good sign. It is a very good step, and it is long overdue. It is one that I hope, given the concerns raised by the hon. member, he takes back to his caucus and says: "Look, we've got to make this happen, and we have to bring a sense of civility to this Legislature so members can plan their lives and we can move forward in the way that legislatures in other parts of the country do." Plan your lives, hon. member. I think that this is a very important step forward for this place.
The other thing is that they don't like the idea of less confrontation and more willingness to work toward a common goal. I want to talk for a few minutes about some of the initiatives in the throne speech and how they can impact positively on the province and how they can impact in a way that I think even the opposition
An Hon. Member: Let's have consultation, NDP style.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, the member wants to know what is consultation NDP style. I'll give you an example. Recently I was in Montreal and Toronto at the Health ministers meetings, first with the ministers from the provinces and then meeting with the federal-provincial ministers. British Columbia played a very positive role in trying to move the health care funding debate forward in this country by wanting to recognize that provinces have to be flexible. We have to recognize that if we want the federal government to come to the table, they have to restore funding -- they have to be there in a funding capacity -- but they also have a national role to play in how health care is delivered in this country. British Columbia is willing to recognize that, and that's cooperation.
[1700]
It's a recognition that the federal government has a key role to play, and we need to encourage them to do that. We have to work with other provinces to ensure that happens, so that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are prepared to work with other provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to try and develop an agenda that sees the federal government at the table to start to restore that partnership that should exist in health care that was envisaged when health care was first set up on a 50-50 funding basis.
We've moved over the last number of years, with the reduction of federal transfer payments, to somewhere around 85 percent of the cost borne by the provinces and about 15 percent borne by the federal government. Well, that needs to change if we're to be able to deal with the changes that are taking place in the baby boom demographics moving through the health care system, placing increasing strains on the health care system. The fact that we have increasing drug costs in this country, and Health Canada has a significant role to play, the fact that we need to look at issues around technology and institutions on the replacement of institutions -- all those things need to be addressed. There's a role there for the federal government to play.
That's why British Columbia put forward a position paper where we advocate some of the areas where the federal government can get back in and restore the partnership in health care that needs to be restored in this country. We told the Health minister and we've told the federal government that we're willing to sit down without preconditions and work with them on doing that.
Some of the things we can do that need to be addressed, for example
So some of the things that we've put forward deal with the issues, the challenges facing B.C.'s health care system. One of them, for example, is around the issue of technology and institutions -- the ability to rebuild facilities, the ability to provide technology across British Columbia where British Columbians can have access to it in a timely fashion.
One of the things we've proposed is a technology fund or hospital fund whereby the federal government could, in partnership with the provinces -- in much the same way that they did with local government, where you have the infrastructure program -- have a hospital-and-technology infrastructure fund in this country to build new institutions, replace old institutions and deal with technology, whether it's MRI scanners or CT scanners -- the latest technology -- so that we can have an adequate standard right across the country. I think that would be a very positive move forward, and it's one I know the federal government is interested in.
Another area where I think we need to make important changes and important investments and where we have said to the federal government that we would like to see their participation is around the area of information technology, the ability to have information technology of a standard nature in every hospital and health authority in British Columbia -- linked up to physicians, for example -- and have the same thing in every province and territory right across the country. So you can then compare the inputs into hospitals, the inputs into health authorities and the outcomes. And you can compare it right across the country, so that provinces can compare who's doing what and where and how it's being done, control costs and check on whether patients are having too many diagnostic treatments -- who's doing what well.
These types of things need to be done. These types of investments need to be put in place if we're to deal with the pressures that the health care system faces now, but also as the infrastructure and the building block of the health care system in the future. The federal government, I think, is very receptive to that.
[ Page 14891 ]
We need to deal with issues around the training of nurses and the retention and recruitment of nurses. There's a role for the federal government to play with that as well, because the problems aren't just here in British Columbia, but they're right across the country. It's a national debate. So we need to address that. We need to address it in terms of physicians, in terms of the types of physicians that are being trained, where they're being trained, how we address issues around northern doctors, rural doctors, interior concerns -- with specialties in the types of physicians that we're going to need over the next ten, 15, 20 years as we see an aging population and an increase in the incidence of disease and problems that affect that particular demographic.
[1705]
Finally, we need to deal with such things as Pharmacare costs and the increase in drug costs, and there's a role there for Health Canada to play. This is one of the key cost drivers in health care. How do we deal with that? What is the role of Health Canada in approving new drugs? Should they be approved just on the standard efficacy procedures and tests that are in place now, or do they need to take into account other criteria? These are all the things that British Columbia is putting forward to the federal government as ways in which we can look at making the system better and areas where we're interested in sitting down with the federal government to move things forward. That is consultation and cooperation New Democratic Party-style. That's what we're trying to do -- to work so that we can get an agreement that will result not only in meaningful change that improves the system but in an increase in funding from Ottawa and a recognition of their role to play in protecting the health care system in this country. I think that's a very positive step. It's a very specific idea-driven agenda.
This is what we want to do; this is the direction we want to head in. But from the opposition, what do we hear? Nothing. Silence.
An Hon. Member: Blah, blah, blah.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's right -- blah, blah, blah. You know, they've learned pretty fast -- and no wonder, because they've been saying it so long, it's finally starting to sink in.
You know, hon. Speaker, other areas on the health care front that we need to move to address and where we need to establish a cooperative relationship, not just with the federal government but here in British Columbia, are around long-term care and home care -- all those things. That's why, as I said, we're prepared to sit down with Ottawa and look at how we do that.
You know, I think this is what we need in B.C., and that's the direction that the Premier has charted. That's the direction in the throne speech, and it's one that I am very pleased to move forward.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, as I said, the opposition likes to harp on the negative. They don't want to look at the positive. They don't want to offer up suggestions as to what they would do. I have just laid out, for example, where I think we need to go in terms of health care, in terms of bringing the federal government on board and how we do that in a cooperative manner.
We need to look at some of the accomplishments of the government in the last few years and see how our approach has benefited particular areas around education, whether it has been in a reduction in class size, and how the policies of government intend to continue that going forward. A specific focus on education, a specific focus on advanced education, so that we maintain the tuition freeze, which
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, hon. Speaker, I have to respond to the question, the heckle -- again, from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. And I do so love it when he comments, because he offers up so many opportunities for me to point to specifics of the government's program.
He mentioned portables. Well, you know, in my own riding of Port Coquitlam we have built more schools in the last nine years than were built in the previous 25 years -- a record that is unparalleled in this country.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, they don't want to acknowledge that prior to my election in 1991, there hadn't been a single junior high school built in the Port Coquitlam area since 1972 -- an absolutely
Interjections.
An Hon. Member: So you took care of your own riding.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, he says that I took care of my own riding. That's the job of an MLA -- to look after their constituents. That's the job of an MLA -- to go out and fight for new school construction in your constituency. That's the job of an MLA -- to go and fight for road construction in your own riding.
[1710]
I am not going to apologize to my constituents one bit. They can accuse me of looking after my riding. Of course I'm going to do that; that's my job. It's my job to get the Mary Hill bypass widened. It was my job to go and get the Red Bridge over the Coquitlam River replaced, which had been a one-lane bridge over the Coquitlam River since it was knocked out in a rain and wind storm one night in 1979 and hadn't been replaced for 15 years. That's my job, and I'm proud that I've been able to do that. I'm proud that we have a government that put in the widening of the Mary Hill bypass, that replaced the Johnson-Mariner overpass, that did the Cape Horn interchange, that eliminated that bottleneck at the Cape Horn interchange. That's my job, and I'm glad we did that. I'm glad we're widening the Port Mann Bridge, because those are all needed transportation infrastructure projects that are required not only to handle the growth in population but to make business more attractive in our area, to make it easier to move goods, and to make commerce move faster and better than it has in the past. That's what government should be doing. That's what your MLA is supposed to be doing. My God, you should be doing that, hon. member; you should be doing it.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
[ Page 14892 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, I'm not going to apologize for the fact that we have built three new high schools in my community over the last number of years. We've built Pinetree, we've built the new Terry Fox Secondary School, and we've built Riverside Secondary School. We've built so many middle schools. I think I've been at the opening of some 18 new schools in my community alone. That's a tremendous record of public infrastructure investment. Those are things that constituents, the public of British Columbia, want to see built.
They talk about the debt as though it is some evil thing that's out there, that somehow we have runaway debt, when we have the second-lowest debt in Canada. I never saw them complain once when the debt was to go to a school to be built in Richmond. I've never seen them complain once when the debt was to go and build a road in their riding or to get a school built in Delta or in Shuswap. That's where it goes: high schools, high schools, high schools. Never mind the middle schools and the elementary schools.
The opposition owes it to British Columbians to say what it is that they would do. If they don't want to see the debt increase, if they're not prepared to tolerate debt, then where are they going to build the schools? Which schools are they not going to build? The members said "portables." The result of not building capital infrastructures such as schools or roads means two things: an increase in the number of portables -- and that is a fact -- and interchanges and intersections throughout the lower mainland, throughout British Columbia, that remain in gridlock. That hurts both the residents and their constituents; it hurts business. It's not good for British Columbia. So we have to continue to make investments in infrastructure.
That's why we're building the SkyTrain project, which will benefit my riding and the lower mainland. It's a big investment of public dollars, but it has a huge economic benefit. Not only does it see the transit system put in place -- which we need, to move the increasing number of people who take public transit, who live in the lower mainland -- but it results in land-shaping on a scale that allows us to manage the growth in the lower mainland in communities such as Port Coquitlam, which are taking a lot of the increased growth as people move into British Columbia.
[1715]
It also allows us to tackle environmental issues such as air pollution. It allows us to design and build roadway systems to feed into the transit system so we can have an efficient public transit system. It is a worthwhile capital investment that will pay big dividends down the road in the livability not only of my own area of Port Coquitlam but of the lower mainland and the greater Vancouver regional district in general. It is a significant economic generator. That is a concrete action that the government is taking to improve the life of British Columbians.
What the public is asking, and what we're asking on this side of the House, is: tell us what you're going to do. Don't just stand up there, as I said, and mouth some platitudes that have been written for you by your researchers. Come up with something original. Let's hear
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, he says: "Tell the truth and do what's right." Well, tell us, then, which Crown corporations you're going to get rid of. Tell us if you're going to sell B.C. Hydro. Tell us if you're going to sell B.C. Rail. Tell us if you're going to sell off ICBC. Tell us those things when you're asked those questions. Start to give the public some answers. Put forward your agenda. I could speak at length
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I do have to address that point, hon. Speaker. This government has done more in terms of addressing the leaky-condo issue in terms of being at the forefront of addressing that issue, and from the opposition we have heard nothing. We have heard not one drop of criticism of the federal government, who has refused to come forward and deal with the issue. There has been not one solution put forward by the opposition, because (1) they don't have any, and (2) they're funded by the very people who caused the problem.
As I said, I could go on at length. I see that some of my other colleagues want an opportunity to speak, so I am going to take this opportunity, once more, just to say that we have a throne speech that charts a new direction for British Columbia. It's a throne speech which I can fully support, and I wait with interest to hear the opposition give us some positive suggestions as opposed to the usual rhetoric they give us.
E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure to join this lively debate late in the afternoon, and I thank my colleague for giving me some of his time so that I can make my remarks now.
I'd like to begin my remarks by acknowledging the passing of three constituents, all friends and mentors to me and to my community, the Comox Valley. I would like to remember Jack Shadbolt, a man who impressed me by his life lived; the way in which he straddled continents and led change in the visual arts; a man who walked with the likes of Picasso and Emily Carr, a gifted artist having international reputation and a mentor in his summer community of Hornby Island.
Jack Talbot, who never stopped his advocacy for small forestry enterprises, for woodlots, not long before his death was a successful advocate for a unique community forest pilot for the North Island Woodlot Association.
Finally, I would like to remember and celebrate the life of Jim Egan, nationally renowned as an advocate for rights for gays and lesbians -- basic economic rights. Jim is remembered locally, as well, as a war veteran, an effective local politician, a wonderful host and an outstanding gardener. At this time I would like to express my condolences to Jim's partner of 52 years, Jack Nesbit, a man who worked, gardened and hosted great community gatherings alongside Jim.
In considering my response to the Speech from the Throne, my support for the throne speech, I would like to review the commitments of the past four years in addition to those laid out by this year's throne speech. Each year this government has committed to protecting our health care system, strengthening our education system both in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 sector and in higher education, colleges, universities and technical institutes. Each year this government has committed to supporting opportunities for young people, through apprenticeships, higher education and employment initiatives. Each year this government has com
[ Page 14893 ]
mitted to supporting the diversification of our economy, building on our strengths to make both our society and our economy successful.
[1720]
Hon. Speaker, each year this government has committed to improving infrastructure -- roads and bridges, public transit, schools and hospitals -- essential for the provision of services that people require and expect, essential for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods and essential for the development of modern communities.
This government has committed to the expansion of parks and protected areas to regionally based land use planning, and has committed to the treaty process, to bring certainty of land and of opportunity for first nations communities and the province at large.
Each year this government has made commitments to improve circumstances for people -- for working people, for students, for families, for people who face health challenges, for people who are part of communities or industries in transition, for people who struggle with injustice. Each year the commitments of this government have benefited the citizens of the Comox Valley.
Additionally -- to my colleague -- I'd like to celebrate the construction of new schools in the Comox Valley. Unfortunately, our construction is now catching up to our population growth but does not meet the tremendous pace of construction in Coquitlam. But over the past four years I've seen the construction of four new schools and at least seven new additions to existing schools.
I see the demand for adult basic education -- grade 12 completion -- now tuition-free, growing in our public schools, in our distance education program and in our college system. I see a rapidly expanding community college, North Island College, as it grows to accommodate the demands for training in higher education. I see the opportunities for young people to work on environment youth teams in Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro and ICBC, to benefit from wage support to local businesses and to volunteer with local organizations for tuition credit.
Over the past four years there have been steady investments in our hospitals -- St. Joseph's General Hospital in Comox and Cumberland hospital -- in both construction and equipment, and educational opportunities for home support workers, so they can be even more effective in the important work they do with people who need health support in their own homes. We've seen the Comox Valley Nursing Centre move from experimental status to a fully funded, integral component of our community health care.
Probably the most visible commitment the Comox Valley has seen come to fruition is the Vancouver Island Highway project. Each year we've watched the new highway approach, and in October 1999, in a wonderful celebration at Cumberland Junior School, the Premier opened the Mud Bay to Cumberland stretch, along with the Comox Valley Parkway, connecting the new inland Island Highway to the communities of the Comox Valley. The work on this highway has featured a unique partnership between first nations and the Vancouver Island Highway project. Training opportunities for women and for aboriginal people and for people with disabilities
One of the most exciting developments which have occurred is the new working relationship between streamkeepers and the highway project. Just last week I had the opportunity to tour the new fish habitat which has been constructed alongside the highway construction. Larry Pederson and Nick Streusi, two streamkeeper enthusiasts, led us through the work which has been done to maintain or improve or build new habitat for trout and salmon species.
This relationship, four years ago, ranged from nonexistent to hostile. However, the Vancouver Island Highway project has remained true to its commitment to no net loss of fish habitat, has learned from the streamkeeper organizations and has worked with them to achieve these exciting results.
Over the past four years the Comox Valley has seen the benefits of government's commitment to assist with economic diversification -- support to the Comox Valley Airport Commission to investigate an air cargo facility, support for market development and research for value-added wood industries, support for the tourism industry through Tourism B.C. and the development of local signage and support for agriculture through our local farmers' market and fall fair.
[1725]
Hon. Speaker, I review the commitments of the past four years simply to show that it is a cumulative effect of a progressive direction, focusing on the strengths of people and their communities and of our rich and diverse natural environment, which can truly make a difference to each of us in our families and in our communities. This year's throne speech focuses on building trust between British Columbians and their government, through modernized legislative processes and new openness in budget processes and reports, and through a commitment to a calmer political culture. Speaking as someone who has served in this Legislative a mere four years, I welcome the initiatives by both government and opposition on this front, and I know my constituents will as well.
British Columbians want to have confidence in their government. They want to be able to understand how the resources of the province -- their resources -- are invested. They want to know that their elected representatives take seriously the trust they hold.
The commitment to improved budget processes, enshrined in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, will bring British Columbia to the forefront of public accountability in Canada. My service as Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has impressed upon me just how important this is. A provincial budget is a very complex document. However, every British Columbian and certainly every one of my constituents in the Comox Valley wants and deserves to know that the resources available to government are spent wisely for the programs and the infrastructure that they have come to expect.
Additionally, this throne speech makes a commitment to strengthen and modernize our health care system, to consolidate our competitive economic position, to continue to cut taxes for individuals and small business, and to support parents through improved access to safe and affordable child care.
So, hon. Speaker, what does this mean to the constituents of the Comox Valley? While negotiations continue between provincial and federal governments about modernizing our
[ Page 14894 ]
health care system, we know that we need to find new ways to deliver primary care. We know that we need to invest more in prevention activities like good prenatal care, nutrition and access to housing. We know that we need to improve continuing care and support for families who care for children and adults with special needs.
Comox Valley constituents will appreciate the tax cuts, particularly the reduction of the small business tax -- a reduction to 4.75 percent, second-lowest only to the province of New Brunswick -- and improved access to child care, a commitment to build safe and affordable school-based programs for before- and after-school care. Currently parents struggle to find appropriate care. Sometimes children have to take care of themselves at home. This program will support our families and communities and relieve the anxiety of working parents.
Hon. Speaker, I note that my time is very short. I would just like to wrap up very quickly by saying that the programs that have been put forward in this throne speech, programs that are community-based like the rural development program and programs like Involve B.C., which provide support to develop volunteer capacity in communities, in arts organizations, in services for children, families and seniors, and in environmental and multicultural organizations
In conclusion, I would just like to say that the opposition has been pounding home its negative view of the world and the prospects of British Columbians. But I had the opportunity just this weekend to be up at Mount Washington ski resort in the community of the Comox Valley, where this year they have experienced their best year yet -- over 300,000 visitors so far. It is a resort that is growing with the support of this government. I look forward to the opportunities for residents of the Comox Valley and for all British Columbians.
The Speaker: I'll now put the question on the amendment.
[1730]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Coleman | Stephens |
| J. Reid | Krueger | Thorpe |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi |
| McKinnon | Dalton | |
| NAYS -- 37 | ||
| Evans | Doyle | McGregor |
| Sawicki | Kwan | Lali |
| Hammell | Pullinger | Bowbrick |
| Mann Brewin | Boone | Orcherton |
| Calendino | Zirnhelt | Randall |
| Robertson | Sihota | Cashore |
| Conroy | Smallwood | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Petter | Lovick |
| Priddy | G. Wilson | Farnworth |
| Waddell | Stevenson | Gillespie |
| Streifel | Walsh | Kasper |
| G. Clark | Giesbrecht | Goodacre |
| Janssen | ||
Hon. D. Lovick: I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:38 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada