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)
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 18
[ Page 14895 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
[1005]
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm told that we have in the gallery today Ms. Vorselaars and 15 grade 11 students from Cowichan Secondary School. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: I call resumed debate on the throne speech.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
R. Coleman: Four years of thrones, four years of budgets that have been in this Legislative Assembly, and not much changes. Frankly, it's garbage in and garbage out as far as I'm concerned.
These people today have come forward with a throne speech that tells us that they want to remake government, they want to change how British Columbians view the NDP. They want to all of a sudden have some metamorphosis that says: "We've seen the light. All of a sudden we can be good again. We can go and win back our constituencies again." Well, I tell you, hon. members, that is not the case and it cannot happen. Let's look at this particular speech -- this small piece of paper, this small booklet -- and deal with some of the things that are in it, so British Columbians really understand what's going on here.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
I want to do a few quotes from this speech today. First of all it says:
Where is the transparency? Where is the honesty? Where is the integrity? These words do not speak loudly in actions with an NDP government. This is the government that fudged the budget. This is the government that told British Columbians it had a balanced budget in 1995 and 1996 for one reason only: to deceive the people of British Columbia into getting them re-elected so that they could line their pockets and the pockets of their friends and insiders for another four years. That is not transparency; that is not honesty."New budget transparency law. My government recognizes the fundamental importance of transparency in budgeting. It is critical that British Columbians have the highest confidence in the budget numbers. Citizens may argue about the choices made in the budget, but they must have confidence that these choices and the facts and assumptions behind them are fully and fairly presented."
This government -- this Premier at Treasury Board -- sat there and approved a fast ferry program without a budget, without a business plan, and dropped half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money with no accountability, without even listening to the advice of its own experts on the viability of the project. What does this Premier do? What does this government do about transparency and honesty in the fast ferry program? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. It's very simple. What they do is say, "Transparency and honesty, but by George, let's not have an inquiry. Let's not let Public Accounts call any witnesses. Let's not find out what really happened here so we don't make this mistake in the future for British Columbians" -- to waste taxpayers money like this bunch did over there. "No, let's bury it under the carpet."
That's the transparency of this Premier and his government. It isn't there. The integrity is not there. This fast ferry program is one of those things that British Columbians will remember forever. It will become the legacy of this government, the legacy of wrongs and hidden agendas and untruths relative to its inquiry.
My challenge to this government is: look, if you want to put budget transparency and comments like this in a throne speech, then live up to them. Call an inquiry tomorrow or allow the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, immediately, to be able to have hearings and call witnesses on the fast ferry project. But you don't have it. You don't have the jam to do that over there.
Then you have a trade and convention centre. Imagine -- $70 million. In the Fraser Valley that's the 200th Street overpass, the Mount Leman overpass and another overpass up the Fraser Valley. That's real stuff. But you spent $70 million without a business plan on a trade and convention centre that we didn't know would work financially. Now that's brilliance. But where's the accountability there? Has anybody seen the so-called business plan yet? Has anybody at all seen the transparency on the trade and convention centre? Not a chance. Not one bit of transparency coming from this government.
[1010]
The biggest boondoggle of them all, the one we never talk about in this Legislature, the one that even the press doesn't pick up
Then while they did that, they left 6,000 British Columbians hung out to dry -- 6,000 workers in the forest worker transition program who were told: "Here are your retraining funds. Please go get re-educated so you can have a different career, because the industry is changing. We at Forest Renewal believe we have to do this for you and your families and their futures. And by the way, it's not taxable." Oops. Nobody checked with Revenue Canada. Now we have 6,000 families out there facing tax bills of up to $12,000 because this government can't even do something like a job creation program through FRBC without messing up people's lives. That's shameful, absolutely shameful.
It's ironic. I guess when you're down in the bunker and you know you're done, and you know you don't have a hope of ever winning another election, you bring an act like the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to the Legislature. Isn't it something else, that the B.C. Liberals had truth-in-budgeting legislation and balanced-budget legislation drafted in 1995? Isn't it something else, that they have continued to
[ Page 14896 ]
bring it to this Legislature so this government would keep the books like we ask other people to keep their books? All of a sudden, five years later you have a metamorphosis? Not a chance. The higher standards you want to reach are unachievable because you are in the habit of never achieving at all.
There is another culture in this throne speech. It says there is a balance we must strike "between the need for honest, forceful debate and a need for a new culture of civility, openness, respect and cooperation." As the Premier has said: "No one of us knows as much as us all." You know, this is a sweet one.
This is a government that made the side deal for half a million dollars to pay somebody's negotiation fees on a CUPE strike so that they could get more money out of the taxpayer, when union members are paying dues that are supposed to pay for those negotiations. This is a government that didn't want to admit to that, didn't want to tell us about it. This is a government that says: "My goodness. Yeah, we did some public sector wage things, we've done zero-zero-and-2, we've held the line." So after pressing after pressing after pressing by the opposition and by the media and by the people of this province, we find out that
[1015]
This is a government that allows the operation of the Workers Compensation Board to continue in the manner that it does, and it doesn't even respond to phone calls and inquiries from offices of Members of the Legislative Assembly on behalf of their constituents. But if you ever ask a minister about that, it's like: "Oh, well, we can't do anything about WCB."
There's another quote in here, and this one's interesting.
What a revelation! You knew that ten years ago. Where have you been? What have you done? For years everybody has been telling us that nursing is under pressure. But you've created no spaces in the last ten years to increase the number of nurses. It must be an election year, I guess, because all of a sudden we're going to find some way to train more nurses. Not one comment in there, however, about letting nurses go back to nursing and providing them with the support so they can do the front-line work they're being asked to do. Not one word in there that really identifies what we need to do."In the coming weeks, my government will set an agenda to begin to relieve the pressure on our hospitals -- the heart of our health care system. We must address the shortage of nurses today and expand training for nurses we'll need tomorrow. We must reach a new agreement with B.C. doctors. We must further upgrade hospital equipment. We must improve access to long-term care and home support, to provide better care outside of hospitals. Money alone will not sustain our public health care system."
The comment on home care and long-term care. I've recently been through this experience, and I've got to tell you that jurisdictions across this country
My goodness, it's something else, when we deal with stuff like this. We can do a better job in long-term care, we can do a better job in home care, but we can't do it under the regime of incompetence and incapacity that exists across this House.
Here's another one, and this is under education. "British Columbians know that B.C.'s economy depends on having a well-educated, well-trained workforce. Education is one of the best investments the provincial government can make. In this session, my government will further improve the quality of education, expand the opportunities for our young people to learn and work to keep our schools safe from violence." Another revelation in an election year, I guess. I've had children come through the school system. I've seen their friends and them have to make choices on private technical training because there's not enough spaces in the system for them to be able to get their technical training. I've seen students waiting up to two years so they can get into a trade at our technical schools and universities. You know what? It's nice to say it, but if the opportunities and the facilities are not there, they can't get there from here, and they're leaving this province for their education because they can't get it in this province because the spaces are just not there.
There are two other things that this little quote doesn't tell you. It doesn't say that this government will ever stand up for education and declare it as an essential service, as it should be, in the province of British Columbia, and it doesn't say anything about letting our parents continue to be involved as volunteers within our schools. An essential part of education is the involvement of a parent in the education of their children. I'm not sure what the commitment is over there, because I've never seen it. But I can tell you that our commitment is to parents, their children and their education -- and to parents being allowed to be involved in that education.
There is another quote -- No. 5, actually: "Tax cuts to fuel economic growth." It says here: "My government will pursue a modern, balanced approach to economic growth in B.C. My government believes that the best way to grow the economy at this time is to stimulate consumer spending by deliberately targeting tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners." What happened to the modern, balanced approach to economic growth in British Columbia for the previous nine years? What happened is that you put the economy in the tank with overregulation, overtaxation and over-everything as far as the business community and the individuals of this province are concerned.
[1020]
This province needs real measures, not minor ones. We need to restore our public service to the proud, professional public service it should be. People who work within our public service should know that their work is going to be valued. They should know that they are valued members of the public service, that their services are well regarded. The only way we can accomplish that is by bringing in a piece of legislation called merit employment legislation, to let them know they're going to be valued for their performance and their contribution rather than for what political card they keep in their back pocket. They're entitled to personal growth; they're entitled to professional development. They're entitled to feel good about what they do and not feel badly or embarrassed because the political masters are setting agendas down the line that they can't agree with. But they still have to support their families.
[ Page 14897 ]
This throne speech is also interesting for something that is not there. There's not a thing in here about housing. There's not a thing about the economic driver that's lost 77,000 jobs in housing starts. There's not a thing about affordability. There's not a thing about a vision for our young people -- a vision that would bring creativity, innovation and results, so our young people can own their own homes in the future. There's nothing about the need to balance all aspects of housing -- co-ops, social housing, the marketplace, the seniors sector -- altogether in a range of opportunities and options for everyone, so they can all have clean, affordable, livable housing. There's nothing about aging in place. There's nothing about designing homes so that home care can be more supportive in an environment, so that we can reduce the cost to health care in the future. There's nothing at all about the sector that's been ignored time and time again in the housing sector: the people who are suffering from mental illness in this province.
No opportunities, no innovation -- nothing like that. We want people to know that we want them to be able to buy their own home. We want to get the excess costs of housing down, so we can supply them with that affordability. That means real choices have to be made, and dollars have to be balanced. But we can do that, hon. Speaker, with innovation and vision. Unfortunately, none of that exists on that side of the House. It only exists on this side of the House.
There are a number of points as I close, and these all come from this infamous throne speech -- a number of bullet points at the end. It says: "My government's objective in this session is to reconnect with the hopes and values of B.C. families
The next point is "to rebuild trust between British Columbians
Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me, but a number of times you've spoken directly using the word "you." If you could direct your comments through the Chair.
R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, I am using "you" as a collective for the government, but that's fine.
Interjection.
R. Coleman: Them. Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The next bullet point is "to rebuild trust between British Columbians and the new government." Yeah, that's good. You fudged the budget; you did projects without a plan; you spent billions of dollars without a business plan. And all of a sudden this government wants to rebuild the trust of British Columbians? That trust is gone; that trust doesn't exist anymore. You can't write it down on a piece of paper, in a throne speech, and all of a sudden think you've made it right again.
[1025]
The next one is that they want "to rebuild credibility in the budget process" -- something the opposition has been calling for, for five years, and something this government hasn't done in nine. Thirty-six-point-some billion dollars in debt in British Columbia today
The next one is "to cool down the hot politics in our province." Hon. Speaker, it is hot politics out there, because people are just furious with the incompetence, the dishonesty and the way this group of people have operated government in British Columbia for the last nine years. They're not going to cool down; they're mad. They want an election; they want a change of government, because they're fed up with being told by words that somebody can just turn around and change how people think about things.
They want "to develop a new culture of openness and cooperation." All I know is that in the last four years, every time I've heard the word "cooperation" from this government and every time I've heard the word "consultation" from this government, that meant: "We're not going to talk to you, listen to you or do anything that you want us to do. We have an agenda, and we have absolutely no intention of caring what it does to your industry, what it's going to do to your family or what it's going to do to the economy, because we have an agenda. We just want to make it look like we're going to consult and cooperate."
There's another bullet point: "to strengthen and modernize health care." Isn't that something? Nine years in government, and in a throne speech in the year 2000 an NDP government -- the gatekeepers of the social programs, they'll tell Canadians -- is going to tell us that they can strengthen and modernize health care. You tell that to British Columbians out there sitting on waiting lists. You tell that to British Columbians that need heart surgery. You tell that to British Columbians working in the health care system who are overworked and overtaxed because they cannot get enough people to support them in the hospitals, in the jobs they've got to do. You ask them.
Boy, do I feel better. The NDP is actually going to strengthen and modernize health care, after destroying it for the last nine years. I'll bet you they don't have a hope in believing one thing about that.
Hon. Speaker, the next one is "to improve the quality of education from K to J." I've said a few words about that already. You know, they have to have the opportunities to get the training in order to have the education. If you don't supply the spaces and you don't supply the opportunities, it just won't happen. And it's not happening out there. People are waiting too long for their first opportunities. You can lose a generation, if you don't provide them the opportunities when they're motivated and they need them.
There are a number of other points here. One is "to consolidate our competitive economic position." Hon. Speaker, how do you consolidate zero times zero? How does a government plan to consolidate an economic position that they've already destroyed? You have nothing left to consolidate -- nothing.
It is us on this side of the House
[ Page 14898 ]
[1030]
The classic last point in this particular throne speech is: "
This is a government that doesn't even understand the words it writes in a throne speech. It should be ashamed of the fact that it even put these words on paper in front of British Columbians in the year 2000, because of what it's done to this province for the last nine years. It is shameless to go ahead and try to convince British Columbians that you have any of their interests at heart, after how you've treated this province.
There is not a hope that a B.C. Liberal will support this throne speech. As I said, garbage in, garbage out is still garbage. What this government has done to this province is shameful and disappointing, and it has hurt too many people.
R. Masi: It's a real pleasure to rise and say a few words on the throne speech. We've spent the past year in this province watching a government consumed by an endless series of internal debates, personal agendas and scandal. In the process, they have neglected to address the very real problems facing British Columbians and this province.
They reconvene the Legislature, complete with a Speech from the Throne. As I sat and listened to the speech, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact that it failed to offer any sense of hope, prosperity or opportunity. This is clearly a government which is more preoccupied with keeping power than rolling up its sleeves and getting on with the job.
Over the past few years my colleagues and I in the official opposition have been listening to British Columbians and developing policies to rekindle the entrepreneurial spirit of a great province. We are committed to implementing dramatic and substantial personal tax cuts within the first 90 days of being elected government, and we'll continue to lower personal tax rates until British Columbia has the lowest tax rates in the country. We believe that providing stable and increased funding for our health care and education system is most achievable combined with an expanding economy and a determined focus on reining in government spending. We are also committed to reforming the way that government operates by providing greater transparency in the decision-making process.
In the meantime, my colleagues and I are determined to hold the government to account and will continue to call for realistic, workable solutions to the challenges facing our province. I believe that British Columbia can once again be the envy of our country. All we need is a government that offers hope and a vision for the future.
There is no question that we need to revive confidence in the future and implement a cohesive, coherent policy framework around which we can rejuvenate the economy and create jobs. Rebuilding our economy -- once the envy of Canadians -- is critical. If we are to have the fiscal resources to restore and expand health care and education funding, we must then have the fiscal resources and the financial management to undertake this project.
On this side, we believe that substantive and dramatic personal tax cuts, coupled with a concerted effort to rein in government spending, can and will begin to put B.C. back on track. Only through a change of government can we begin the process of erasing the damage of the past decade.
Turning to my constituency, hon. Speaker, we really have three major issues in North Delta. The first is job creation, skills training and upgrading. Time after time constituents have told me of the troubles and frustration they or a member of their family experiences in trying to enter or re-enter the job market. It's a serious problem. British Columbia was once the province that Canadians looked to for economic leadership and innovation. Unfortunately, a decade of neglect and social experimentation by the NDP has placed us dead last in economic performance and job creation.
[1035]
We need to signal to British Columbians and indeed the world that we are open for business and that we welcome investment. To capitalize on opportunities created through increased investment will necessitate expanding our skills and training and upgrading technical and technological programs in order to make them available to all British Columbians. In a knowledge-based economy, we owe it to ourselves and our children to do no less.
Secondly, in North Delta traffic and transportation continue to be major issues. While we've made significant progress in resolving the Nordel Way extension -- and at this time I'd like to commend the Highways department for their prompt work in this area -- much remains to be done. In the meantime, motorists continue to run through our neighbourhoods. Similarly, the South Fraser perimeter road proposal is now mired in controversy. It's obvious that there is no simple solution; however, there is no question that some resolution will have to be reached.
Given the perceived importance of the proposal to the regional infrastructure, it is imperative that the provincial government adopt a more conciliatory, consultative stance in order to resolve the concerns of all the affected residents. The problem here, in the South Fraser perimeter road area, is the transportation of goods and services through Delta from the ferry terminals and the Delta port docks located at Tsawwassen. Over 2,000 trucks a day rumble through the residential area of River Road. This inflicts undue hardship on the residents. The long-awaited South Fraser perimeter road is still on the drawing board but has provoked much controversy. The residents today actually live in fear of expropriation, lowering house values and noise intrusion.
However, there is still a basic need for an effective but non-intrusive route which will move goods and still respect the requirements of the residents. I urge the Minister of Highways to examine the situation with care. I also urge the minister to guarantee to the community of River Road and the Delta council that all the alternatives have been studied and assessed before they go ahead with this plan. The South Fraser perimeter road proposal is one which requires a great deal of work in order to resolve the legitimate concerns of the affected residents.
The third major concern affecting North Delta is a resolution of the Burns Bog situation. We'd like to deal with this once and for all. It's been frustrating, trying to deal with the owners and the government, who have frittered away opportunity after opportunity to get a deal with the landowners and protect Burns Bog for future generations. Not long after the unfortunate PNE debacle of last year, the Leader of the
[ Page 14899 ]
Opposition and I toured Burns Bog to see firsthand the truly wondrous treasure that we have right in our back yard.
I can confirm for you that we are committed to saving Burns Bog. In fact, I expect it will be one of the major initiatives of our first term in office. Our approach will differ from the government's. We won't try to cut some cute, fancy deal, but we will simply do what needs to be done to conserve and protect this valuable treasure. It's an item of vital importance, and we know that the owners and the government have tough negotiations to go through. The price range is anywhere from $40 million to $300 million, as stated in newspapers today. I am sure that together we will be able to come up with a solution. The commitment is very clear on this side that we will establish a solution to this major problem.
However, the biggest challenge facing British Columbians and my constituents in North Delta is restoring faith in government and our economic future. Let us make no mistake; this is the bottom line. We need job security. We need to stop the move by the NDP to closed door, secret decision- and deal-making. The fudge-it budgets, fast ferry debacles and secret accords are prime examples of a government that is out of control. The B.C. Liberal Party is committed to balanced-budget and truth-in-budgeting legislation. We will allow free votes in the Legislature so that MLAs can truly represent the interests of their constituents, and we will set fixed dates for election and the tabling of the budget. We will revise the Recall and Initiative Act to make it easier for the public to hold MLAs accountable.
[1040]
I was very interested in the section of the throne speech referring to openness, cooperation and balance. This is a topic that is dear to my heart. I'd like to quote from the throne speech: "Civility and respect are gained by understanding a fundamental truth in our parliamentary democracy: members of this House are rivals, not enemies." I agree with that statement. There are no gains to be made from enmity. However, there are great gains to be made from healthy rivalry and competition, and of course that's what free enterprise and choice are all about.
The concept of democracy itself is based on inclusiveness, not exclusivity. I would like to quote from Aristotle: "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." Classical democracy embodies the notion of self-rule based on the belief that decision-making powers are most effectively channelled when such power is shared among the many rather than the few. However, in Canada -- specifically in British Columbia -- our Legislature does not operate as a true parliamentary democracy.
We teach responsible government in our schools, and I think we do a good job of it. But we don't demonstrate the precepts of responsible government in our Legislature. This is where it counts most, and this is where it should count most. We do observe the formalities -- we have the processions, the three-cornered hat, the mace and all that. But how many times really has the Legislature ever formulated legislation or even vetoed legislation? The essence of true responsible government is that cabinet and the Premier are responsible to the Legislature. Have we in this House ever seen withdrawal of confidence, an amendment passed or a rejection of government measures? A defeat or an amendment of a bill should not or does not mean that a government must resign. It means that perhaps the bill is not appropriate and that it should be reviewed or rewritten.
It is no wonder that the public is filled with cynicism about politicians and the political process. It is no wonder that there is cynicism when the proper and internal role of the Legislature, which is to amend or refuse legislation, has been abdicated. It's a sad situation. We've seen in this House the consequences of too much power in the hands of one person or in the hands of a small group of people. If we are to regain the trust and respect of the public, not as individuals but as a group of colleagues
A parliamentary calendar is a good start. When I arrived in this House, I was absolutely amazed that there was no organizational plan or timetable to conduct the public's business in the Legislature. I had a conversation with one of the Ministers of Education -- I think two past -- and I said: "You know, hon. minister, if we were to run our school system the way we run the legislative House, you'd fire the works of us." And I believe this is true; we really do need to bring this place up to the twenty-first century.
[1045]
There's a common question out there, hon. Speaker. People ask you in the course of your business: "When you going back to Victoria?" The answer is: "I don't know." The response is a total look of amazement: "How do you not know when you're going back? How do you not know when things are happening?" I'm very encouraged to see in the throne speech the mention of committees that would focus on public issues. I think I've been on a standing committee in this House since I was elected in 1996, and we haven't met yet. It's not a bad committee; it's a committee on education. I think there are some issues in education that we could deal with. I think that if we start to really use what we have here, we might get somewhere.
I hope they're not empty words in the throne speech. The use of committees in relation to proposed legislation would exact an extremely beneficial result, in my opinion. I believe that private members, in general, are more closely connected with the public and represent varied regional, local, economic and political points of view -- perhaps even a better and more immediate reflection of the public's point of view than cabinet ministers, who are very busy and tied up in their jobs.
There is nothing to prevent the realignment and reassignment of the functions and responsibilities of standing committees. It's only the will of the members that prevents this. Why should committees not initiate recommendations through a minister and subsequently have the recommendations enacted? Does a minister, a deputy minister or even a Premier have all the answers? I'd say no.
I was very interested the other day
[ Page 14900 ]
Senate, and it was approved by the President. To me, that's true legislation that is coming from the people upwards.
Well, the Premier seeks a change in the culture of the House. What better way to involve government and opposition members than on functioning committees with power to act? I think that "with power to act" is the important thing. Working together on important matters of public policy, people working with people -- never mind the party labels -- who have an objective in mind for the betterment of the people of British Columbia
Hon. Speaker and hon. members, we have really stayed too long with the present construct of government in British Columbia. I have seen members on both sides of the House absolutely numbed by the processes here -- bright, energetic, successful people totally turned off. If we are to attract the brightest and the best to the political process and if we are to reconnect with the public, then we must take a hard look at changes not just to the way the Legislature operates but to the whole electoral process.
How do we elect members in the first place? Is it fair? Is it representative? Should we examine proportional representation? Should we look at the transferable ballot? Should we re-examine the initiative and recall provisions? In my opinion, all these matters must be examined and recommendations put forward to the public for approval.
When this is done, we will then regain the confidence of the public. Some of us may even lose our seats, because we've changed how we do things. That might be a good thing. Power may not be as concentrated as it is now. Governments may have to compromise more in order to pass legislation -- what a terrible thing, eh? As well, individual members will have more responsibility. Are these all bad things? I think not.
[1050]
I'd say that the mark of a good opposition party lies in its ability to effectively highlight government shortcomings, mistakes and regrettably, with this administration, some scandals. Yet the most powerful testament to an opposition's effectiveness is when a government adopts the opposition's policies. On balance, I'd have to state that the opposition has been remarkably successful on all these scores.
We have led the way in challenging the NDP government to lower taxes as a means of resuscitating the economy and restoring confidence in British Columbia. We've underscored the need for open, transparent decision-making in government and for truth in budgeting legislation. From the outset we pointed out the need for the NDP government to develop a business plan before committing to the construction of the fast ferries. Unfortunately, the NDP government said they knew how to run the project, with the net result of a whopping $450 million bill to the taxpayer.
We proposed the adoption of fixed dates for the tabling of the budget in the Legislature -- I've referred to that before -- an idea long overdue in this province. We believe it's vitally important that the budgetary process be developed in a structured manner, not when it suits the government. I'm pleased to note that the government appears poised to finally accept the logic of our argument and has begun to set fixed budget dates. Yet I can't help but think that their concession is more of a deathbed repentance than a genuine acceptance of a proposal.
On another matter, I'd like to just comment a little about education in British Columbia. The throne speech does make some comments on it, but I hear nothing about a revitalized role for school districts with greater autonomy and increased spending responsibilities. I hear lip service to expanded skills and training programs in our secondary schools but no essential changes -- no firm commitment -- to the 50 percent of our grade 12s who will not enter post-secondary education. I hear about programs to reduce bullying in the schools, but I do not hear anything about essential service legislation to protect our students from bullying by special interest groups that in fact force our kids out of schools by closing the schools. That is the most unfortunate thing that I've experienced. It's something we should never allow in this province.
I hear a great deal of talk about the politically popular freezing of tuition fees but little talk to assist the student who must pay thousands more to stay an extra year or two because she can't get the courses needed in the time allotted. I hear a great deal about the opening of Tech U in Whalley, but I see no organized implementation plan for the expansion of post-secondary facilities throughout this province. Will we continue to open post-secondary institutions, like Topsy, or are we going to get down to it and have an organized, cost-effective plan of implementation in our post-secondary facilities?
I see a negative response by the Minister of Education to the public's demand for choice by the reduction of the percentage of increased funding to independent schools, which actually house and educate 60,000 of British Columbia's students. I continue to see top-down management of our schools by the Minister of Education relative to class size at the primary level, when research clearly shows that there is little, if any, academic improvement with the proposed class sizes. It's largely a political statement. In my opinion, if more money is put into the schools, it should be in terms of lowering the pupil-teacher ratio in general so that the teachers and the administrators can in fact use the resources in the schools to the best of their abilities.
On reflection, thinking about the throne speech, unfortunately, it's empty of vision and hope. It's somewhat depressing; it's very apologetic. It's a depressing commentary on ten years of government -- almost a deathbed repentance.
I guess it's my opportunity here to offer a little advice to government members, and I know they're just waiting to hear it. I'd like to read a quote by Oliver Cromwell to the English Parliament on April 20, 1653, and I believe it's apropos today: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
[1055]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I've listened to the last two speakers with some amusement and, I confess, some anger. We have an opportunity in British Columbia, and I think that's why most of us become involved in our communities and run for election. We feel, regardless of political perspective, that we have something to bring to improve our communities.
Before I actually respond to the last speaker, let me start by saying that we all are very pleased to have him rise in his place and that his health has improved.
I was intrigued by a number of things that the member said while working his way through the throne speech, talking about the Premier and the new style and new commitment that our new Premier brings to making this House work. The member identifies a number of areas in the throne speech
[ Page 14901 ]
where the new Premier has not only embraced some good ideas of the opposition but has challenged the opposition to take it to the next step. Where there are some agreements, we've made a commitment to move on those ideas and said: "There's more work to be done. We'd like to sit down with you and work on some of those ideas you have and bring them to fruition."
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The member ended with a quote. He talked about Oliver Cromwell's position with respect to nullifying the good work that has been done. This opposition can't have it both ways; they can't speak out of both sides of their mouth. The hypocrisy is cutting. We've heard two speakers this morning talk about accountability. Well, it goes both ways. There is accountability to the opposition as well. I've been there; I've sat on that side. I can say with pride that the work that I have brought to this government reflects my commitment to my community, my values and the principles that I stood up for when I was on that side, and I challenge the members to follow through and do the same.
That side talks about its role as the critic of the government. It's pretty easy to be a critic, but the test comes when you're prepared to put what you stand for on the line, when you are prepared to stand up and say what you will do, given the opportunity. Let's be really clear. There have been two consecutive elections held in this province where they have failed the test, where they have failed to put forward their platforms and have that platform embraced by the people of this province. They are extremists. They talk about balanced-budget legislation, which is a euphemism for gutting the public service.
[1100]
They talk about valuing the public service and the work that those people do for this province, yet they are not prepared to stand up and support an agenda that invests in teachers, invests in nurses and continues to support health and education when the federal government reneges on its commitment. When the federal government some years ago cut back on its commitment to Canadians to fund health and education -- 50-cent dollars, 50 percent partnership with the province in providing for not only the very lifeline for the future for our children but the very lifeline for families and for the health of British Columbians -- what did they say? They said that the federal government should have cut deeper.
That's what it means to be a Liberal in the province of British Columbia: extremism. When the members on the other side talk about accountability, I say to them that they should stand up and be accountable for what they believe and what they promise British Columbians -- and they will be rejected again.
Let me reflect on another number of statements that have been made in this House by the last two speakers. Let me start by saying how proud we are of our new Premier and the reflection of the multicultural makeup of our province. This province is changing, and we as a party are proud to be on the cutting edge of that change. We are proud that our government reflects the diversity in our province and not only has embraced that diversity but is prepared to reflect that diversity in our own makeup.
We have not only a new Premier but a new cabinet. I don't know how many of the members on the other side have reflected on this reality, but 49 percent of the cabinet is female. That is unprecedented not only in British Columbia but across Canada. Women make up 52 percent of the population; we're getting there. We're not quite there yet, but after the next election, it is my hope that the next cabinet formed by this government will represent the 52 percent that is the makeup in this province. We've come a long way. We have a lot to be proud of as a government. That pride is something that I look forward to talking to my community about when the election is called.
I want to talk about the fact that when we came into government, we were second to the bottom in education. We are now second to the top in education opportunities in this province. We are now the education province. We are the province that invested in education and in health care when the federal government walked away, unlike their heroes in Alberta and Ontario who gutted education and gutted health care. They've taken trips to Alberta to find out how they can do it too. The Liberals -- the opposition -- need to be held accountable for who they are and what they represent.
Let's look at what our neighbours in Alberta have done. Not only is their symbol for fiscal responsibility the blowing up
Education -- let's look at that. What did they do there? In Alberta they began to move on kindergarten children and required parents to pay for kindergarten. How regressive is that? This hon. member over here from North Delta challenged the concept that smaller class sizes improve opportunities for young people. It confuses me, because that hon. member has a reputation in the education system. That's certainly where he spent a number of years of his career.
[1105]
As a parent of children that have been part of the public education system, I know how much it means to have a teacher who's able to spend a little bit more time with a young person to give them that opportunity for some success. I represent a community that is very working class. It is a community that has a disproportionately high number of single-parent families.
When you see the disparities between a community like the north end of Surrey and the south end of Surrey, it is striking. In the south end of Surrey there are often two-parent families that are of higher income, with university educations and professions, and you see the opportunity that is brought by that affluence and the extracurricular opportunities provided for those children. Then you look at the north end of Surrey, where often it takes a two-parent family to work, because they are earning a lesser income. Often, in the number of single-parent families where those mothers work, the resources that you are able to put into the school and the difference in the time that teachers are able to give those children really count. That's a proud record. No matter how much you embrace the role of criticism, at the end of the day you too have to be accountable.
The member, I believe, in representing his constituents, talked about two issues. They talked about the south perimeter road and were on both sides of that issue. They want to support the people that are protesting and stopping the
[ Page 14902 ]
development of the road. "Gee, golly, gosh, we've got to have the road anyway." It'll be very interesting to see what side of that fence that member comes down on.
That member also talks about Burns Bog. It's fun to be in opposition. It's fun, because people don't hold your feet to the fire. You cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth. You've got to come down on one side or another. The challenge is: what side are you going to come down on? When it comes right down to it, in this business you are held accountable for your actions. It's not good enough simply to be a critic. What do you stand for? What are you going to do for British Columbians?
An Hon. Member: Protect the bog.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member says that the opposition is going to protect Burns Bog. Where's the cash? You can't have it both ways. You can't talk about not investing in this province and not supporting the people of British Columbia through the programs that are important to them. You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that your party will put up the cash? Will you put up the cash? That's the bottom line. We have a proud record -- 12 percent of this province invested in parks.
An Hon. Member: The $36.5 billion in debt -- that's your proud record.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Well, let's talk about that. The member across the way references the expenditures that our government has made by investing in standing beside and supporting the hopes and dreams of the people of this province. Hon. Speaker, 12 percent of the parks, a diverse ecosystem in this province preserved for future generations -- that's unprecedented. That is leadership, and we'll put our record to the test any day.
[1110]
Let's talk about our investment in education -- moving this province from the second place to the top, investing in schools. There's not a single member on that side who has not gone to a school opening in this province and praised the work of the community and publicly dedicated their commitment to the children who will have the opportunity for those cutting edge, high-tech schools -- the opportunities that allow our children to compete in the global marketplace. Hypocrites! They mouth the words in their communities. Then they come here and say that they wouldn't be spending that money. They criticize the money that has been spent when they are here and believe that they can make some brownie points with the boys that represent big corporate interests. You can't have it both ways; you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth. When you're talking about accountability, you need to be accountable. The members on the other side need to be accountable.
I want to talk more about this government's achievements, the achievements that have brought
I'm going to digress a little bit. On the other side they talk about making this place work. They talk about committees sitting. Well, what they're talking about is, again, a little hypocritical. You know, I'm thinking about a committee that I chaired a year or so ago when I was on our government's back bench, an important committee that talked about and looked into the question of international trade. They didn't like what they were hearing. They didn't like what they were hearing from the people of British Columbia, so they walked. It was an opportunity to deal with an economic issue that is on the cutting edge of our future in British Columbia, and it was like hear no evil, see no evil -- not embracing the challenge of dealing with the problems, being a strong advocate on behalf of their constituents and being there to talk to people about their perspective.
This place is about ideas, and it's about what you stand for. If you don't like what you're hearing, it's not good enough to just walk out and leave the room. Stand up, be accountable and tell us what you think, if you don't like what you're hearing. Tell us what you think and what you stand for. But they're not prepared to do that. So the opportunity that was afforded British Columbians -- a forum that was provided for British Columbians to come and talk about their concerns, their vision for the future, their hopes and dreams -- was boycotted by the Liberals.
[1115]
You see, they want this place to work. Let me get this straight: they want this place to work. They want to be part of committees, but only if the committees are doing work that they agree with -- that represents what they think and that does not make them do their work. If the committee is functioning well, then the opposition has an obligation to ensure that its point of view is represented and that there is a debate. You cannot fulfil your responsibility to making committees work if you walk away from it and don't do your work.
In some sense the process that our new Premier has embraced, by recognizing good ideas regardless of where they come from and inviting people in to be part of it, can only work if the opposition doesn't play silly games and play politics with it. It's accountability time: stand up, tell us what you're made of and be prepared to be held accountable for that.
In British Columbia, through the initiatives of this government, we have not only bucked the tide across Canada; we have not taken the leadership from the opposition's heroes in Alberta or in Ontario. We haven't gutted the things that people count on. We have continued to invest in the future. We have continued to support the hopes and dreams of British Columbians, and we have done that at the same time as we have brought in tax cuts that make our taxes the lowest in small business anywhere across Canada.
I listened to the speakers on the opposite side. You know, they are so busy playing politics -- the politics of opposition, the naysaying, the criticism -- that at no point did they even have the fortitude to say: "The government did the right thing there, and we agree with what the government did. It should be recognized; the government should be supported on that."
[ Page 14903 ]
Let me talk a little bit more about the throne speech. The other piece that I really noticed, which not a single one of them mentioned
What does that mean? Does that mean (a) he didn't understand the importance of it, (b) they disagree with it -- the opposition disagrees with this initiative and they are not prepared to support it? Or maybe he just needs his glasses changed.
An Hon. Member: Actually, he doesn't wear glasses.
[1120]
Hon. J. Smallwood: Well, maybe he needs glasses. Maybe that was the point.
The initiative that I want to talk about a little bit is the commitment to safe, affordable child care in this province. In British Columbia our child care advocates have led the way across Canada. I am so proud of the women and men that have provided that leadership -- have lobbied this opposition's friends in Ottawa to bring in universal day care. I remember that there was a promise made in Ottawa, but it was the same kind of promise as Ottawa's commitment to health care, education and social programs -- which has never amounted to a hill of beans.
Their friends in Ottawa not only gutted those programs that we all count on as Canadians but made a commitment to the children of Canada around poverty under Campaign 2000. They made a commitment to the children of Canada with respect to day care. The rate of poverty is on the increase, and there is no day care -- no commitment from Ottawa. But again, it's another example of how this government is prepared to stand by families in British Columbia, stand by women and children, to ensure that not only the health and education but also day care opportunities are there.
This initiative is unprecedented. It is a number of spaces that will have core funding. It will give parents the opportunity to ensure that their children are in safe day care in their neighbourhoods and have a high calibre of early childhood education. That takes one further worry away from parents' minds.
I've talked about my community. I've talked about the working families there and about the single parents. When I was first running for election back in 1986, I was canvassing in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in north Surrey. It was a three-floor walk up an apartment block, and I was knocking on doors and talking to many of those single parents, those women. I was really struck in particular by one parent who invited me into her apartment. Her kitchen table was full of books, because she was working, supporting her children and going to school at night. That kind of dedication to family and to the future opportunities of her children deserves a government that is prepared to invest in education and to ensure that when she is not able to be there in support of her children, there is backup in the community -- there is a high standard of day care. But I've not heard anything from the other side, not in this House.
When the initiative was brought in, one of their members -- and I believe it was the critic responsible -- was doing the circuit of talk shows with some of those extremist right-wing lobbyists that say there's no place for day care in government commitment. Can you imagine, hon. Speaker? That's what I talk about when we talk about accountability and that side standing up and being prepared to tell British Columbians what they stand for -- to be measured against that.
The opportunity that is provided to all of us to work on behalf of British Columbians should not be taken lightly. The opposition needs to ensure that it's fulfilling its responsibility as well. It's not just the easy stuff; it's not just taking potshots at a government that is working on behalf of British Columbians. It is also standing up and being accountable themselves.
[1125]
I want to celebrate not only the progress that we've made in British Columbia in this government's priorities; I want to celebrate the investment that we've made in capital infrastructure in education -- those wonderful high-tech schools that provide opportunities for our young people, the investment in the technical university and the investment around this province for the university colleges. Hon. Speaker, you don't hear them talk about that. But in communities around British Columbia we now have degree-giving institutions that allow people to get a high quality of education and stay at home. Who would not embrace that?
I see that my time is running out. I have so much more that I'd like to celebrate. Thank you for the opportunity, and I will look for other opportunities to speak more about our good record.
D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, during my last speech you weren't in the chair; the Deputy Speaker was. I would like to congratulate you on being elected Speaker here and wish you luck in overseeing a number of reforms in this Legislature.
I know we have featured parliamentary reform this session. There's a lot of hard work going on by members on both sides of the floor. We are following up on much of what was suggested by Fred Gingell, the late member for Delta South. In his name and in the spirit of making this place work better, we have work to do between now and later this spring in order to bring in much-needed reforms. I look forward to those. In particular, I look forward to the parliamentary calendar.
In this throne speech we have used this topic and the theme of reconnecting with families. We know that by reconnecting with our own families we are going to be in a position where we can work harder and more effectively for members of the public, particularly those that elect us and bring us into this chamber to work on their behalf.
In the past we have wasted a lot of time. I have sat through, as a minister, hours and hours of estimates where we had repetitive questioning, and I think there was clearly an attempt to carry on and keep the House going for the longest possible time. We have to put that behind us. We have to budget our time. There's adequate time to raise questions about ministerial budgets, and I think that can be achieved. It will have to be achieved by agreement, and I would urge members on the opposite side to find a way to set the ways in which this session can operate so that when the summer comes and it's the traditional time to be with our families, we can do that.
I'm pleased that the throne speech has allowed us to debate a limited number of things, although we can bring up
[ Page 14904 ]
anything in the speech. There are a number of things that the government focused on in the throne speech. It is a modest agenda in the sense that it is not too long. There are definitely matters in there that are achievable. Some of them will take time; others can be achieved now.
The first one, the new budget transparency law
I am pleased we are making a huge step forward here in this legislative session, and I believe that we will remain leaders in British Columbia. I think we should encourage all provincial governments to follow suit. I am sure members of the Public Accounts Committee will take that message to other provincial legislators as we meet occasionally with our colleagues across the country. B.C. can remain proud of the transparency it has brought in.
[1130]
Why do we need this? I think we need it to ensure that we are talking about the same thing. We are not referring to one bottom line on one side of the House and another bottom line on the other side of the House. That seems to me to be a minimum that we can offer to the people in British Columbia. I also think that the Minister of Finance, who has been holding public consultations prior to setting the budget, has welcomed an opportunity for an all-party committee of the Legislature to actually make a public report by December 31 on what they hear from the people.
It has been my experience that when people's views are sought with respect to relative balances in the budget -- how much we balance health care and education against stimulating the economy -- the public comes down on the side of being prepared to support a modest deficit, provided we can pay for the accumulated debt and provided we are not cutting other programs that need to be cut. In order to sustain a strong health care and education system, the public is prepared to support a modest deficit. They have done that, and I think they will continue to do that. But they can become more informed as the legislative committee goes around and puts the hard questions to the public.
In every public meeting I have been in, when I put it to the people, "Okay, you want this, so now tell me what is it you would like to cut," perhaps one time out of ten, people have an answer on what they would cut. But invariably, nine out of ten times people do not have a suggestion as to what can be cut. If they do have good suggestions, of course, we should heed those suggestions -- provided, of course, that the public generally agrees.
I look forward to a parliamentary calendar that says we should start this Legislature at a certain time and end at another time so that we can plan our time, set some priorities and, most importantly, be in touch with the communities. I believe that by spending more time at the right times of the year with our communities, we have a better sense of what they want us to do in this place.
The next topic I would like to refer to is strengthening and modernizing health care. There is no doubt that most people feel that it is a question of priorities. It is a question of getting enough money spent on prevention, on spending it on those areas of health care where it costs less by keeping people in their homes longer and keeping people healthy. The statistics on the aging population are frightening. It will be a challenge to us all to be able to provide a minimum level of support for an aging population. It is going to require that we find money in places that we haven't found it before, and that may mean people have to do a better job of planning for their retirement. We have to be sure that we invest adequately, so we don't end up with people who don't have appropriate home care or healthy lifestyles and end up on the acute side of the health care system.
In that respect, many people, including the province's own commissions, have repeatedly said: "There is enough money now in health care, but it has to be spent differently." In order to do that, people are going to have to be very innovative. There are some examples -- of what was done around flu shots, for example -- of ways of using public health to relieve pressure on the acute care system.
We have to work to continue to reduce tobacco addiction. We have to work with the federal government more closely to ensure that we have an adequate level of funding in the public health care system. If we don't put enough money into the public health care system, then we will end up with demands for private, American-style, for-profit health care systems which will truly be two-tiered -- one for the rich and one for the rest of us.
It seems to me that cooperating with the federal government is a way to start. I think the federal government realizes how they've left us hanging -- picking up 85 percent of the cost of health care when it used to be 50 percent. This provincial government has, year after year, picked up what is in effect an off-loading, and it has been at some cost. It has put pressure on us to run deficits. We've done that; it has to end. We have to get an appropriate level of funding from the federal government.
[1135]
I'd like to give credit to people in my constituency -- the various health councils that have been working hard. I had a report just this weekend that really, for the first time in decades, we have a regional view. It's not one community pitted against another, in terms of long-term planning for facilities and programs. It's not that every community wants everything; it's that one community says: "We would be best at doing this. We suggest that our hospital offer this service." Another community says: "It's our view that we can offer something else." So there is a certain amount of specialization, lots of coordination and, above all, cooperation.
The reports that I'm getting from the health leadership in the region that I represent are extremely positive. They say that they can cooperate, do better, spend the tax dollars more wisely. I think that they have reached a level of empowerment through the health council process and that all the troubles of teething that process are behind us. I have to give credit to those people who worked with provincial officials and with me to try to ensure that there is a high level of planning on behalf of the local taxpayer, who raises 40 percent of the costs of our health facilities, and the province, who raises 60 percent. We appoint people, on the local level, to the health councils to do that. They have pulled together, and they're to be commended for that.
I'd also like to give credit to the imagination of people in the 100 Mile House area who have pulled together, under one
[ Page 14905 ]
roof in a community health care centre, all the services that are provincially funded. That means that you can go through the door and be diverted to the appropriate place, and you don't have to run all over town. It was an opportunity presented to the community five or six years ago. They have risen to the challenge, and I'm happy to say that people are extremely proud of that in those communities.
Those communities who do that and take pride in what they have done are stronger, and it's those stronger communities that will be the healthier communities. In the budget speech, I spoke more of that, so I won't need to go into that today. But there is a new era, and I think that holding a conference with some of the best minds and the people who are actually doing it will take us to the next step.
With respect to improving the quality of education, we know that there is a huge workload with never-ending, ever-increasing social pressures on families that come into the classroom. We need to help by reducing class size. We have put our money where our mouth is with respect to this, and it is recognized. There is no one in the province, in my view, who is critical of what we're doing there by putting more teachers into the communities, by reducing portables, which may not be as healthy and are certainly not the best learning environment -- a bit disconnected from schools. By reducing the number, we've drastically improved the physical plant and the learning environment for our students.
When there is difficulty in getting employment in the modern economy, people know that education is critical to employment, to providing services, to understanding what's going on -- just to be a citizen in a complex world. I'm pleased with the extension of the provincial learning network as it goes into schools and into communities like the one I come from. Having it in the schools means it's accessible to adults as well, and adults are going back to school in huge numbers to get the education that they didn't think was necessary, perhaps, or that was beyond them when they were growing up. People sometimes went into the workforce by necessity but also because there was an opportunity there, as the industrial economy has been functioning full out, with some exceptions, for the last three decades.
We're not neglecting people who want to be in trades. We need apprenticeships. You need grade 12 now, it seems, for virtually everything. You need grade 12 math to be able to enter a mechanics course. Those kinds of opportunities we have provided. I have not had people come in and say that we have a shortfall there. Of course, we could always provide more. But by expanding the opportunities, particularly at the community college level, we are going a long way to supporting the demand and the necessity of having a well-educated, well-trained workforce.
[1140]
I want to pay tribute to the efforts made over the years by the skill centres. They were introduced some six years ago to try to touch base with people who were not comfortable back in school because of their age or who were not comfortable in the colleges, which tend to have a bit of an academic atmosphere -- skill centres where people could go in and learn at their own pace. I have to say that hundreds and hundreds -- particularly forest workers in the Cariboo -- have become more skilled. They're able to go back into their workplace with greater confidence, and they're better able to decide whether they want to go into some transition to another program or whether they want to stay and upgrade -- perhaps take a different job in the workplace just to meet the ever-changing demands of the modern workplace. People have to be reskilled. That's been entirely successful.
Many other programs focusing on need have been run by the skill centre -- a volunteer board across the community, a community board that's giving and setting priorities and following up on it. The skill centre in Williams Lake, under the able chairmanship of Terry Tate, has been struggling with respect to needing additional funding. They have trimmed down their administration; they are determined not to close. They are in discussion with the local college about how they might work complementarily. I say it's a tremendous service -- absolutely necessary for reskilling people.
I want to say something about education capital. I've watched education capital. We've built a lot of schools over the years, and there is a dedication to continuing to remove portables. I was pleased last week to make an announcement in 100 Mile House about 75 new spaces in a high school that is overcrowded. This should be on target with the projected population two or three years from now. People are going to be involved in the design to make the most effective use of the space. The commitment to reduce portables is being implemented in our area, although it's not as critical as in some other areas. We still are making progress. We did so at Dog Creek, where we got rid of a portable and put in a modular school. The community is tremendously proud of that. We're doing the same thing at Alexis Creek.
The higher education capital is also important. We have people involved in trying to consolidate a campus in the Williams Lake area that had been put into different buildings because of an unfortunate slide in the area. It's an example of cooperation. There's also the fact that there is money in the budget for this kind of facility, and I look forward to an announcement that this one will be funded.
I want to speak a bit about day care and child care. We said safe, affordable child care. Country life is similar to city life now, in the sense that everywhere you go people have single-parent families. Parents need to work. If there are two, they often need to work. They need a place to take their children. I know what it was like when my partner and I were both working, finding places where children could go, where you know it's safe, where you know that the people are trained, where you know they have a program that can stimulate your child and get them ready for school -- basically give them the stimulation that we would like to give them at home. So I'm looking forward to this huge challenge. We've put some money into it with this budget. We said we were going to start, and we're committed to work with parents and care providers to develop this program.
[1145]
It is a fiscal challenge to us, but it also is a challenge to develop the appropriate programs so that we know we are spending the money in the high-priority areas. I know this will be a major obsession of those ministers responsible, particularly the Minister of Women's Equality who spoke before me and who understands this issue very thoroughly. I commend the initiative, and I will support it.
There has been lots of debate about tax cuts. We heard in public consultations about the budget that we should make tax cuts, but that we should target it to those people who have the hardest time making ends meet -- the people who are out there spending on homes and goods that they need for their
[ Page 14906 ]
family. There is a need to stimulate consumer spending; we are doing that by reducing taxes considerably.
We also decided to target some of the business tax cuts that will encourage job creation. Some of the business tax cuts, if across the board, would not be enough to create any stimulation. So we've looked sector by sector and tried to find ways that we can do that.
There is an ongoing commitment in the region that I'm from to keeping the structural part of stumpage lower than it was before. That comes at some cost; some $200 million a year that would have been collected is not collected now. It is these kinds of tax cuts that, again, do contribute to our deficit, but they are seen as a signal and as a necessary move that will stimulate production and make our product saleable, because it's cost-competitive on an international market.
In order to have a strong economy, we have to do what I have spoken about before. We have to make sure that our children are taken care of and are educated and that we have a good health system. That is why we are maintaining the investment in those programs, because it will be important to support the working people and the economy. Never mind the expenditures in infrastructure; that is important and contributes to something like half a percent of growth in the provincial economy. Or to put it the other way, were we not to spend the money on schools, hospitals, highways, we would not have the same level of growth that we are anticipating today.
We have a huge challenge in continuing with respect to bringing together people at community levels to get the right balance between economic opportunity and environmental protection. What's good for one sector of the economy may not necessarily be good for another sector. We have to continue what we have encouraged, and that is cooperation between the various sectors to give them a place where they have some power to determine the outcome of the regional economy.
By setting targets of 12 percent of our province's land base in parks, we have said that we will achieve that goal. We said it some years ago, and we are on track to have 12 percent by the year 2000 -- a major promise and a major promise delivered.
With respect to the challenges before us today, with the Forest Practices Code we have set a high standard of environmental performance. But what do we hear? We hear never-ending complaints that there is too much red tape. Well, I think this chamber needs to recognize that red tape for some people is protection for others, and that comes to users of the forest. But there is some pretending going on that somehow there are huge cost savings in removing red tape.
We have removed the easy red tape; the rest is protection. We put out the challenge to the forest industry to come forward with a way to achieve the same results, but perhaps with less bureaucracy or red tape or less planning, as it is sometimes called. We found that they came forward, all right, to look at a results-based code. But when asked, "How much is this going to save you? What's the potential to save dollars?" the answer invariably was: "We can't be sure that there'll be any savings there." We're still committed to doing it, but there's nobody coming forth showing us where more dollars can be saved there.
One of the reasons that we have high costs in the forest sector is that we have logged the easiest and the best. If you want to go out and look on North Island or the coast, there are very few low-level, easily accessible watersheds to harvest. So our costs are going to be high because we live in a mountainous and diverse province, where people can see the logging because it's on hillsides.
[1150]
Obviously there are other industries, like tourism and fishing, that feel negatively impacted, so there's going to be a high cost -- perhaps higher than other jurisdictions. But we still have some of the best wood in the world. We are finding the balance between high-value product and high-value protection, and that will be with us all this year. The ministers involved in trying to find this balance are continually challenged, as are the officials working for us and the people that we have empowered in our various resource management committees and land and resource planning. But we have empowered people. You never hear that, because it's good news. You never hear that. But try to take that away from people or travel around, and you'll hear it. People will give testimony to the good things that have been done there, and they are continuing.
This throne speech recommits not only to doing more of what we've done in the past but to moving forward on the green economy -- that is, those environmentally sustainable activities that aren't ready for the marketplace yet. They need help to become commercial, and it is government's role to assist -- like Ballard Power, to help with the fuel cell. Government invests in those things. We will be doing more around encouraging the shifting of taxes and encouraging those activities that have no costs and that are passed off to others. I think that recommitment to an environmentally sustainable economy will benefit people for many years to come. We'll look back and say: "While it might have been difficult to get some of these initiatives underway, there's no doubt we should have done it; we did it, and it's paying off now."
Hon. Speaker, what we didn't cover in the throne speech but nevertheless is there and is part of what government continues to do
I want to mention a few of them. I alluded to them in my budget speech, but I want to talk a little bit more about how people work together when faced with difficult problems -- say, bad behaviour or criminal behaviour by young people. As a community, they will pull together and find a way either to create community policing or, to use one example, to divert young people from being put into jail as first offenders -- but going out to learn some self-respect, perhaps what they haven't got because of a weak family or lack of family support, or because of cultural dislocation.
There are many agencies working together. I would like to refer by name to the Puntzi Lake wilderness camp, which has been set up under the leadership of the Tsilhqot'in chiefs but supported by many of the people in the town of Williams Lake -- people working to create a better environment and perhaps better justice and better programs to rehabilitate, to divert people from worse behaviour in the future. Members from the other side are critical that ICBC would spend $75,000, when it was in their blatant self-interest to stop car theft. They set up a program, with hundreds of people coming together. The direction of the community
[ Page 14907 ]
their bottom line. It's unbelievable that anyone could criticize that kind of activity, when the community themselves say that they want to do it.
Social housing, if I can use that phrase, is something that communities want to own. Community people make those happen with support of agencies like B.C. Housing. I want to mention a couple of them. I just read in the local paper -- and I had been in discussions with some of the leaders there -- that the Cariboo Park Home Society wants to work on providing more seniors housing. That's commendable. They are also doing this in 100 Mile House, and other communities are thinking about the same thing. It takes a community of a certain size to do this, although some of the very small aboriginal communities have sought to do that so their elders too can live their golden years in relative comfort.
But it is local people who would set the priority and challenge us to respond to that. I'm pleased to say that we are a province -- I think still the only province -- that has social housing programs, and we are better and stronger for it.
[1155]
Finally, let me say that small communities, many of them, are achieving a safer community by working together. It might sound simple, but it takes a huge effort for people to put together things like fire protection. That is the major community effort in many small communities, and we are responding by supporting the construction of some of these rural fire halls. We're proud to be able to do that, because we know that the families are safer. It costs them less for their fire insurance, and the strong community efforts are made for people to pull together and contribute on their own behalf. We assist that.
I want to end by talking about encouraging the opposition to recognize the efforts made by this side in putting several hundred million dollars into pay equity -- that we are delivering on promises.
D. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Speaker's Statement
The Speaker: Just before recognizing the Government House Leader to adjourn, I would like to bring forward the statement I said I would in regard to sub judice rules in the House. I have had an opportunity to examine question period Blues from Monday, April 10 and have considered the line of questioning as it relates to the application of the sub judice rule.
Stated in its broadest terms, the rule prohibits discussion in the House of matters which are before the court for adjudication. There are obviously many refinements of this rule, and it has often been stated that the rule will be strictly enforced when it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of a case. It has also been stated that where there is doubt, the Speaker should rule in favour of the debate and against the sub judice convention, with the understanding that where there is a probability of prejudice to any party, the convention will be applied. I refer members to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 77.
The sub judice convention does not apply, in the Chair's respectful view, to inquiries surrounding legal costs incurred by any of the parties to existing litigation. But there may well be matters involving confidentiality or solicitor and client privilege respecting such a line of questions. That's not for the Chair to decide at this time.
A much clearer example of what the Chair views as a breach of the sub judice rule may be found during question period last Thursday, when the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, in his preamble to a supplementary question, is quoted as follows: "And now we read in the papers this morning that there's another obstruction tactic that the NDP choose to adopt here. Apparently on Monday they're going to try to convince the court that getting elected by fraudulent means is not prohibited by the Elections Act." It would appear to the Chair that the hon. member is making direct reference to an argument to be presented to the court and at the same time categorizing the defence as an "obstruction tactic," which the Chair finds is inappropriate and offends the letter and spirit of the sub judice rule.
The Chair would also observe here that it is not essential that the actual question need be put to make a determination that the sub judice convention has been breached. The offensive words or characterizations are often contained in the preamble to a question. I mention this in passing, as there seems to be uncertainty in some members' minds as to whether or not an offence could be committed short of asking the actual question.
I refer now to the question period Blues from Monday, April 10. The Chair has read carefully the questions posed by the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. I refer in particular to the following words: "Now, 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."
[1200]
The question was obviously an attempt to obtain an admission of fraud in relation to the budget in question and, as such, has the potential to have a direct bearing on matters under immediate adjudication by the court's hearing in Vancouver. A similar line was pursued by the same member in her later question, where she attempts to implicate the Premier and, at the same time, requests an apology for what she describes as his role in "concocting that fraudulent budget." The hon. member for Matsqui pursued a similar line of questioning, again with the intent of soliciting some form of admission from the Premier in relation to the 1996 budget.
My examination of the pleadings filed in the Supreme Court in this case tend to confirm the findings I have made. It is unlikely in these cases that it can be demonstrated with absolute certainty that questions and answers in an exchange, such as those which occurred during the last two question periods, would as a certainty affect the outcome of the present court hearing. Having said that, the authorities, in the Chair's view, encourage restraint, particularly in an instance where the matter in question is currently being heard in the courts of British Columbia. There is a more stringent test to be applied when the matter is actually at trial. I refer you to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 536.
[ Page 14908 ]
In summary, the courtesies between parliament and the courts have been well established, and I would ask hon. members to exercise restraint in these matters in order to avoid the impression that debates in parliament are being used to affect the outcome of matters pending before the court.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada