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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 18, Number 19
[ Page 14909 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Hon. H. Lali: I have some guests in the members' gallery. Attending here today are special guests from the government of Punjab in India. Join me in welcoming Mr. Vikramjit Singh with the Ministry of Power and Irrigation. He's got a post that's equivalent to our deputy minister. Accompanying him is his wife, Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur. I also see in the gallery my good friend Balwant Sanghera from Richmond. Would the House please make my guests welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd like to add my welcome to the official from Punjab and all those that are accompanying him -- and, more particularly, to Balwant Sanghera, who's here as a member of the Advanced Education Council of B.C. He's also chair of the NDP Multicultural Committee for British Columbia. Would the House once again please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: In the gallery today I have a friend from Golden, Geoffrey Nagle. Geoff is a retired school principal. He retired last year in Golden. He is presently the chair of the College of the Rockies board of governors, and he's down here for meetings with government and opposition MLAs. I'd ask the House to make Geoff welcome.
T. Stevenson: In the gallery today there are a number of individuals who are directors with the B.C. Persons with AIDS Society: the chair, Glen Hillson; the vice-chair, Tom McAulay; secretary, Joel Leung; treasurer, Jeff Anderson; executive director, Ross Harvey; and director of communications, Pierre Beaulne. They are here to meet with a number of ministers, including the Minister of Health. These individuals put hours and hours of work into the Persons with AIDS Society, as many might know, and this organization, of course, does a tremendous amount of good and helps countless numbers of people. I would hope that we would all join in making them welcome.
G. Janssen: Joining us today from the beautiful Alberni Valley are two constituents: Krista Schifflers and Cathi Waddington. I ask the House to make them welcome.
C. Hansen: I'd like to join the Deputy Speaker in his welcome to the board of directors of the Persons with AIDS Society. I'd also like the House to welcome a newly nominated candidate for the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, Lorne Maynecourt, who is here. Would you please make him welcome.
[1410]
R. Thorpe: It's a great pleasure for me to introduce to the House ten students from the Penticton Seventh Day Adventist School. They're accompanied today by their teacher, Cliff Wood, and parents Dolores Deleon, Kandus Thorp and Merv Kennedy. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Tom Lalonde, Rosalyn Drescher, Agda Neumann and Alisha Barbieri. All four of these individuals are both friends of my community and friends of the Métis. They represent the Métis Family Services in Surrey, and they're here to meet with government officials.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, visiting us from Gleneagle Secondary School in my riding, are 32 students accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Wright, and three adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON
PAYMENT
OF LEGAL FEES FOR FORMER PREMIER
G. Plant: I wish to ask the Premier a question about his government's decision to pay the ongoing legal fees for the member for Vancouver-Kingsway in respect of the criminal investigation into the casino scandal. The government's position, as I understand it, is that these fees are being paid pursuant to a government policy. In fact, yesterday the government handed out copies of a summary of the policy. I've got the actual policy -- both parts: the part that deals with employees and the part that deals with ministers. The policy is all about civil litigation. There's nothing in it about criminal investigations.
My question for the Premier is this: on what basis is his government paying for the former Premier's criminal defence lawyers?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, there were indemnity agreements signed pursuant to that policy. The policy is the same with respect to excluded public employees. In respect to those excluded public employees, the policy has been to extend those legal costs in respect of matters such as the ones to which the member refers.
The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston with a supplemental question.
G. Plant: I've got the government indemnity in front of me, and it's clear from the government indemnity that it doesn't go any further than the PSERC policy. That PSERC policy, on its terms, appears only to cover civil litigation, defamation lawsuits, cases where a minister of the Crown has been sued by somebody -- not criminal investigations.
So I want to try the question again: what is the basis upon which the government has made the decision to pay for the legal costs of the ongoing criminal investigation into the affairs of the former Premier?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a policy pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, so I'm pleased to provide some further information to the House. Let's be clear here: we pay for cabinet members' legal fees only when they're involved in court over decisions taken in conjunction with ministerial duties. As the member knows, they are protected under solicitor-client privilege. The coverage is quite consistent with that provided for excluded government employees, and that is the policy that we are following in this case.
The Speaker: Member for Richmond-Steveston with a further supplemental.
G. Plant: I want to refer to one particular part of the policy document, because it's pretty clear about one thing. It says that there's no coverage under this policy unless the
[ Page 14910 ]
Ministry of Attorney General "provides the government with a legal opinion that the [minister's] conduct was within his or her office or course of employment and was in good faith."
My question, again, to the Premier is: does he have a legal opinion that says that the conduct of the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, was in the course of his employment and was in good faith?
[1415]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The policy is based on one of the foundations of our legal system, and that is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The process protects members of the Legislature and cabinet from unfounded allegations of wrongdoing. I would point out to this chamber and to the member that it's important to note that fees are recovered if the party is convicted of an offence. That is the policy. It is being applied equitably in this case.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, actually, that's not the whole policy. I'll read from the policy document for the Minister of Finance. It says that the Ministry of the Attorney General must provide the government with "a legal opinion that the employee/appointee's conduct was within his or her office or course of employment and was in good faith."
My question is to the Premier, who should know better than any other member on that side of the cabinet. Was there or was there not a legal opinion that allowed the government to pay the legal costs for the member for Vancouver-Kingsway? Yes or no -- was there a legal opinion?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll surely take that question on notice and get back to the member. But let me say clearly here that I find it
Interjections.
The Speaker: Is the minister taking the question on notice?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
G. Farrell-Collins: My question was to the Premier, who should know better than any other member of cabinet, given his role in this. Was there or was there not
The Speaker: Excuse me, member.
G. Farrell-Collins:
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. That question was taken on notice.
COST OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING FORMER PREMIER
R. Neufeld: We're trying to get some information about how much legal costs are for members of the NDP to be defended in criminal cases. So far, nothing has been forthcoming. But the NDP has not been that reluctant in the past to release the legal fees. In 1995 the government released that it had spent $18,000 to defend Premier Harcourt from a conflict-of-interest charge. The NDP told the world that it spent almost $50,000 to defend Robin Blencoe just recently.
Will the Premier stand up and tell us, please, why Mr. Harcourt, when he was Premier, could release certain numbers, but this Premier won't release the amount that it has cost to defend that disgraced member for Vancouver-Kingsway?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer to the member's question relates to the fact that there has been litigation in the courts on this very issue that decided in 1996, in two cases in British Columbia, that in fact the information concerning financial arrangements between a solicitor and a client is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
In fact, I'd refer the member to such a case concerning the district of North Vancouver in which the Law Society of British Columbia intervened. In that case, it was held, indeed, that the financial relationship between
The Speaker: The member for Peace River North with a supplemental question.
R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to listen to the Attorney General now talk about something that happened in North Vancouver. We are talking about the present government. We're talking about the executive council. We're talking about people in the NDP government -- that their legal costs are being paid for by the public.
Premier Harcourt, when he was Premier, released documents and released the amounts that were spent. This Premier has decided not to release anything. And it makes everyone on this side suspicious, including the public.
Maybe what we should find out
[1420]
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I regret that the member apparently didn't understand the import of what I was saying. The decision that was decided, which happened to come from North Vancouver, was a decision in the B.C. Supreme Court that held that within the fundamental right that an individual -- a client -- has
I want to say, hon. Speaker, that I received a letter yesterday from a former Liberal justice critic, Allan Warnke, who lamented the fact that the members opposite seem to be so
[ Page 14911 ]
disrespectful of rights. I will quote Mr. Warnke. He said: "I have noticed repeatedly how the Attorney General critic has repeatedly illustrated an appalling lack of appreciation for such principles as conflict of interest and the sub judice rule of raising matters in the Legislature that are before the courts."
It's regrettable that the current Attorney General critic, who is legally trained, seems to have less appreciation of these rules than Mr. Warnke, who has no formal legal training, I understand.
The Speaker: The member for Peace River North with a further supplemental.
R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting. Maybe they should get Allan Warnke to run for the NDP and give the Attorney General some advice.
There's always a double standard, isn't there? They're willing to disclose the legal costs in some cases but not in others. In fact, they disclose spending $37,000 for the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin in the Bud Smith taping affair. They disclose that. They disclose the legal bills for Robin Blencoe, for Premier Harcourt, for the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. Why not the member for Vancouver-Kingsway?
My question, again, to the Premier is: how disgraced do you have to be before this government starts to cover up your legal costs?
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, it is particularly regrettable to see the justice critic opposite applauding a member who's suggesting that this government should ignore legal decisions from the British Columbia Supreme Court, which in two decisions held that it was a matter of preserving a fundamental right that has always been essential to the administration of justice and must be applied accordingly -- the right of individuals who are represented to have their privileges with respect to their solicitor-client relationship respected. This government intends to respect those privileges and listen to and adhere to those court rulings. I would hope that members opposite would do no less in furtherance of their responsibility to and support for the administration of justice.
C. Clark: This government disclosed the legal fees for the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. You just have to ask yourself: how disgraced do you have to be in this government before they won't disclose the legal fees anymore?
We all remember the day that the current Premier kicked off his leadership campaign with the disclosure that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway was under criminal investigation. On that day he said that it was in the public interest to know about that criminal investigation. So my question for the Premier is this: why was it in the public's interest to know about that criminal investigation when he was running for the leadership, but now that he's got the leadership, he no longer thinks it's in the public's interest to know how much we're paying to defend the member for Vancouver-Kingsway?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, it really saddens me. I am absolutely disappointed in the lack of regard the opposition has for individuals' rights in this province. They will say anything; they will do anything in a preamble to their questions. I believe that the opposition should have a balanced approach which balances some common sense with respect to people's rights in this province. The Attorney General, in a very able fashion, has indicated to the opposition -- and for the entire province to hear -- that there is a fundamental principle of law that has subsisted in this society for centuries, and that's the right of solicitor-client privilege. That right attaches not to government, not to me as the Premier on behalf of somebody else, but it attaches and accrues to the individual for whose benefit the solicitor is retained.
[1425]
C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the public is paying the bill for these lawyers, and the public has a right to know how much they're paying for their lawyers. That's the principle that we're discussing here today.
I remember when this Premier was quite happy, quite comfortable to disclose the fact that the former Premier was under a criminal investigation. I remember that. I remember what one of his colleagues said. I remember that he told the Vancouver Sun that this Premier put the knife into the former Premier's back, and he gave it that fatal twist.
Well, now this Premier got what he wanted. He sits in the Premier's chair, and he can't hide behind the Attorney General's office anymore. He's the leader. Show some leadership, and tell us how much we're on the hook for to fund the criminal defence for the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, at the slightest opportunity, the opposition chooses to wallow in mud -- absolutely wallow in mud. It is an absolute disgrace that we have a Leader of the Opposition and a learned justice critic sitting there, attempting by way of questions to undermine some of the basic principles that this society has functioned on. The opposition fails to understand -- and I am so saddened at their failure -- that the right of solicitor-client privilege attaches and accrues to the individual for whose benefit that solicitor or lawyer is retained. That privilege is sacrosanct under the laws and principles of British Columbia. I in fact pity the day
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The bell ends question period.
Tabling Documents
Hon. G. Wilson: It's my pleasure and privilege to table the 1998 annual report of the Job Protection Commission.
Hon. J. Doyle: I have the honour to present the 1999 annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.
Ministerial Statement
NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
Hon. J. Sawicki: This week British Columbians are joining with fellow Canadians in observing National Wildlife Week. This is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate and learn about wildlife and their habitats and, even more importantly, to consider ways to become actively involved in conservation in our communities, our workplaces, our schools and our everyday lives.
[ Page 14912 ]
The theme of this year's wildlife week is "Migration -- An Incredible Journey." There will be special focus on ensuring a safe journey for migrating wild birds, a reminder that while the sustainability of wildlife and habitat is a global issue, the responsibility begins at home.
In British Columbia the abundance and diversity of wildlife species and ecosystems surpasses that of any other province. Three-quarters of Canada's mammal species are found in British Columbia, and 24 of these species are exclusive to our province. More than 250 bird species breed in our province, and 162 of them -- well more than half -- breed nowhere else in Canada.
We also have potentially the highest number of species at risk. This is partly a reflection of the large area and geographical diversity of our province. British Columbia embraces a wider variety of ecosystems than any other jurisdiction in North America, from subarctic to coastal rain forest, semi-arid desert and many others. It also reflects the scale and pace of urban growth and the encroachment of human activity.
We are taking steps to protect the wildlife that depends on these varied habitats. The framework that we are using to protect them in British Columbia is the national accord for the protection of species at risk. The proposed federal Species at Risk Act will also be of immense importance to British Columbians because of the special challenges we face.
We in British Columbia support the appropriate action to protect endangered species and their habitat. For that reason, we have cooperated over the last three years in consultations around the national accord and the potential federal act. We want to ensure that federal action supports the national accord and represents a practical approach. In particular, we wish to ensure that all interests have a role in decision-making on what management practices and stewardship programs are undertaken. We support a rigorous, science-based approach to species listing. We will vigorously pursue all avenues to negotiate agreements with the federal government to recognize B.C. programs and roles and provide sufficient federal funding for stewardship and deal with impacts.
[1430]
Later during environment week, as trustee of the provincial habitat conservation trust fund, I will be announcing funding for conservation projects to benefit fish, wildlife and their habitat across the province during the coming year. I'd like to emphasize that a high proportion of these projects represent partnerships with community volunteers, naturalists, non-profit conservation groups and the hunters, anglers and other groups which support the trust fund through the licence and permit surcharge.
Also, this week I will be announcing a commitment to a package of initiatives which encourage communities to become more involved in preventing one of the most common kinds of conflict between wildlife and people. That is the threat posed to wild bear populations by improper garbage disposal and other unnatural food sources.
It is a privilege, and we should feel proud to share this land with these magnificent animals and all others. But that pride is only justified if we show respect for their wildness and an understanding of their needs. That is the essence of National Wildlife Week. Activities are already beginning across many communities in British Columbia, and they will be continued throughout the week. Many of the schools will be using an education package that's been distributed to classrooms across Canada to help children learn more about migration and other wildlife issues. I would encourage all members and all of our visitors today to support these Wildlife Week activities and the many other community conservation efforts that are taking place year-round across our province.
M. Coell: When I was advised that the minister was going to make a ministerial statement, I was hoping that maybe we'd find out what Tom Gunton is actually doing in the Ministry of Environment. But I stand to respond to the minister with regard to National Wildlife Week and also to encourage British Columbians to take part in the activities -- from school children through to corporations.
This year's theme for Wildlife Week is migration. The minister said that the responsibility begins at home, and I realize and agree with her that it does. I just want to give an example of where the responsibility could begin at home. There is a place not very far from here, in Delta South, that is the migratory path for 30,000 snow geese, 3,000 swans, 1,500 eagles and 10,000 ducks. That place is Burns Bog, and I would draw that to the minister's attention as a place where responsibility could begin at home.
As our society expands and our population expands, we have to learn to manage ourselves as much as we have to learn to manage the wildlife of this province. There are many challenges that lie ahead of this Legislature in doing just that -- learning to manage ourselves in order that we'll live in a province that has plentiful wildlife. Again, I rise to support National Wildlife Week and encourage all to participate.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call continuing debate on the throne speech.
[1435]
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to your new position. I would think that it is probably some relief that you've been awarded this position. You're probably the envy of a lot of members on the government side of the House, because now you can maintain a position of neutrality and not have to get caught up every week in the fray and cover-up for an incompetent government. So, hon. Speaker, I congratulate you.
Today we are dealing with the throne speech. I've read this through, and there are 13 pages of material that deal with the direction this government is now taking. The throne speech, as many people are well aware, lays out the course that government wishes to take in the next year. Everyone looks forward to the throne speech, because there's always some hope that maybe this year things will change a little bit. Maybe this year there will be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I've read through this, and I fail to see anything in here that British Columbians have been looking for. They've been telling this government for many years that they need to see changes take place; they need to see things happen. Once
[ Page 14913 ]
again, the people of British Columbia have been neglected. It really is a rather frivolous piece of paper. There's nothing in here that is going to really do anything.
We have a new budget-transparency law. To me and to most British Columbians, it seems rather ridiculous that we would have to legislate something to see that government can be straightforward and honest with British Columbians and present books the way they are supposed to be presented. Why would a government have to be legislated to tell the truth? It seems second nature. That's what they should do. They are elected to represent the people. They should lay the facts on the table and say: "This is what is happening." So we have a new law coming in that will legislate: tell the truth.
The thing that it covers is, of course, the numbers that we deal with in our budget: how many billion dollars we will be in the red this year; how big the deficit will grow this year. And all the time they keep making excuses about how they want to control deficit spending. There's nothing more hypocritical than people on the government side saying: "We have a real concern about the deficit in this province; we have a real concern about balancing a budget." Had this government gone one step further, they may have made some progress. Instead of legislating truth in their numbers, they should make it a point to be up front with the people of British Columbia, to become transparent and stop deceiving the people. They should stop trying to cover up.
[1440]
They should stop twisting the meaning of words so that words become absolutely meaningless when they're spoken over there. Balance, for instance, is one word that has no meaning anymore. You wonder what they're trying to balance here. They say: "We're trying to cut down the deficit; we're balancing this."
We have an act here; a juggling act is what it is, actually: "We're balancing everything; we're balancing things like tax cuts and deficit spending." It almost appears that they're balancing a peanut against a pumpkin in an effort to go somewhere. That kind of balance never works.
Transparency, accountability
They do have some ideas in here that really aren't too bad. They want to set a fixed budget deadline. That's common sense. Why wouldn't they? Every year we wait until the last day and come to the House and debate something that should have been done the previous month. They're going to open up the books to all British Columbians and show them what a terrible mess they're making with the finances of this province.
But they're apologetic. They say: "We are going to be honest and truthful with you. We care about deficit spending, and we care about the debt, so here are the figures. You can go home and have a heart attack. You can be stressed. You can suffer all the distress in the world. It doesn't matter. We pretend that we care." But actually, nothing changes -- nothing.
This is going to hold this government to a higher standard of transparency? I don't think so. We've been telling the members on the government side for some time what some of the steps are that need to be taken if they want to correct the situation that they are responsible for. Truth-in-budgeting legislation isn't quite going to do the job. What we need is balanced-budget legislation in this province.
For a long time the people of British Columbia have been saying: "We want fiscal accountability from the government. We want to see a balanced budget in this province." That's the legislation that should be coming down this session, not what this government is presenting here.
It goes on. There are two pages talking about how transparent and how accountable we are going to be. I don't think there are very many British Columbians that are actually going to look at this and say: "Yeah, this is great." What they are going to say is: "We don't believe a word they're saying. They haven't spoken the truth in the last nine years, and we don't think it is going to happen this year just because we have a new Premier and they're trying to set a new course. It's the same people with the same habits and the same ideas."
Another thing they can do when they bring in a budget is use a proper method of accounting. They are masters at what you call creative accounting. They can create numbers, and they can create all sorts of scenarios, but none of them jibe with regular accounting practices. That's what we need in this province, so the public can understand. They can actually see what is happening to their money, and they can understand what this government is up to and what they've done wrong.
[1445]
It goes on. We are now going to have a culture of openness, cooperation and balance. If question period today was any indication of openness -- and I think it probably was an indication of the openness that this government is suggesting -- there's no change there; it's exactly the way it has been. It's probably even less open than it was five years ago or four years ago -- three years ago. Every year, it seems, they tighten up.
Cooperation -- wouldn't that be nice? But what does cooperation mean, coming from this government? What I see as cooperation is that this government has said: "We failed; we can't do it. Would you please allow us to co-opt you? We haven't been able to do our job, so now we would like to co-opt you into not doing your job." That's the meaning that I can take from this.
Our job as opposition is to hold this government's feet to the fire, to try and make them accountable. Sometimes it seems like it's really an onerous task. It's almost impossible, because every week there's some other thing that shows up -- a new scandal or a new court case. Maybe they've just decided that they're above the law, and they will go on and make decisions that they know are wrong. Then the court will rule that they were wrong, and they'll come back and change it a little bit. But if they think for one minute that they would like us to work with them and not hold them accountable, then that's a mistake, because that's our job. When you look at the record of this government and what they've done, the problems they've created here, we would really be remiss not to keep this government on task and demand explanations for the things that they've done here.
The people of British Columbia have reached a point where they want this government out. They want them to call
[ Page 14914 ]
an election. They want to get rid of the socialist regime in this province so that they can get on with their lives and move forward. And here we have the next year's road map, and it's not doing that for the people. It's just more of the same -- the same agenda, the same path.
They talk about a balance in the budget, the need to maintain vital public services and the need to cut taxes to fuel economic growth. And then they talk about the need to control the deficit. Is a $1.3 billion deficit controlling the deficit? I don't think so. What they should say is: "We need to balance the budget." They tried that. Back in 1996 they talked about their famous balanced budget. We've all heard about that, and when the truth came out, it was anything but a balanced budget. Even though they knew that at the beginning, it was still sold to the public as a balanced budget.
They talk about balance. Everywhere in there, it's balance, balance, balance. They don't know what the word means. It's pretty obvious from looking at this that they don't care what the word is about. They don't care about balance. They have their own agenda, and that's where they're headed.
[1450]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
They don't want to move in an extreme way in any one of these areas that would undermine stable progress in our province. This road map is a straight line. It's a straight line in the same direction that we've been going in since 1996 and before. Hon. Speaker, we in this province have gone from first place -- being number one in our economy, in our lifestyle, in job creation -- to last place. And if you take this as what it says, it means we are going to continue to stay in last place. We are not going to turn around. We are going to continue down that slope further and further.
They talk about our health care system in here. It's become something
We do desperately need more nurses in this province, and we have to train more nurses. The numbers we're looking at today are not sufficient. We cannot graduate nearly enough nurses for the demand in our system. We have to depend on other jurisdictions, on graduates from Ontario, the Maritimes, the western provinces and Quebec. We are at their mercy. And you know, health care and the Canadian public are aging.
Every province is faced with the same problems that we're faced with in British Columbia. They have a problem hiring enough professional people to manage the system. But they have dealt with this in those places. They have increased their numbers of graduates, they have increased the training, and they've put money into continued education. British Columbia may have done a little bit, but what they've done is simply a token gesture. From a government that is broke, what else would you expect? They haven't got the finances, they haven't got the money, and they don't have the desire to promote our institutions of learning and increase enrolment to a level that we will require in this province in the next few years -- very, very, very shortsighted.
Then they make another statement here. It says: "Money alone will not sustain our public health care system." Well, that's true; money alone won't sustain it. Unfortunately, it would sure help, wouldn't it? When you look at the money that this government has wasted, it's appalling. We've got $7.5 million a day in interest payments. If you could only put that into the health care system, we'd have the greatest health care system in Canada. Where is it going? It's going to service the debt, which this government has doubled since it's taken over.
[1455]
That's just one of their small areas. We've got megaprojects that we could talk about; we've got business subsidies. Let's look at the fast ferry project: $463 million. Had that been spent wisely and not squandered, not spent on a project that didn't even have a direction when it began, just think of what it would have done for this province and the health care system. Seventy-three million dollars on a convention centre -- totally wasted. It went nowhere. Can you imagine? One billion dollars in business subsidies. That would certainly have helped out our health care system; it might have hired a few more nurses. There was $125 million in lost federal revenue from Nanoose Bay, $310 million on the government's fixed-wage policy. It all adds up.
And legal costs have escalated. I don't know how much since this government's taken over, but they've gone up and up and up. It's appalling. We tried to find out some of these numbers here in the House today, but the government has become anything but transparent. They won't release it.
Lawsuits, broken contracts
They talk about an innovative type of health care system and how other provinces, like Saskatchewan, have given elderly people free flu shots. That's really something that most provinces would not consider new; it's been going on for years in some areas. It saves money. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We all know that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that is the right course. But now I see in this throne speech that we have suddenly discovered that something like this is new and innovative. Well, it's not; it's been around a long time.
It's not going to reduce the surgery waiting lists. It's not going to reduce the number of people that are waiting for cardiac surgery, hip surgery, all of those things. In some cases, they wait nine months to a year on a waiting list. That's not acceptable -- absolutely not acceptable.
This government, in its direction this year, is going to go out and talk to other provinces -- to people who are experts from outside B.C. and from within B.C. They're going to have a B.C. health innovation forum. I wonder what they'll learn there. Probably one of the first things they'll learn is to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and spend it where it's best
[ Page 14915 ]
spent. And when they're there, do you suppose there's just the off chance that they will discover that the other provinces in Canada have been putting more money into health care? But at the same time they have been balancing their budgets, they have been lowering taxes, and they've been going forward.
[1500]
They might find that out, once they get on the other side of the Rockies and start talking to people in Canada. They might suddenly discover: "Hey, we're so far behind in British Columbia, we think we're first." I hope that when they come back from this innovation forum, they actually realize we are last place in Canada. And to anything that we have to offer the rest of Canada, they will say: "Thank you, but no thank you. We were there ten years ago or 15 years ago. We don't want to go back there."
So you see, hon. Speaker, what's happened here? They're going to roll their sleeves up. I like this statement: "We'll roll up our sleeves and work with other provinces
It really is remarkable. It's not remarkable; I shouldn't use that word. "Remarkable" indicates something good, something new, something that you can probably look forward to. But what this government has done is astounding. How they could take us from the situation we were in ten years ago or nine years ago -- from first place in Canada, with a good health care system, jobs, employment, investment -- and put us in last place, all in nine years
Then they go through health care, and they say: "We're going to fight to maintain the system we have here, and we are not going to go to an American-style, for-profit health care system." That's good. But let's look at some of the things that this government's actually done.
How about WCB claims? Do they fall under the same jurisdiction as Joe and Martha out there, who have to pay their health care premiums every year and expect something from this system? I don't think so. I call that two-tiered health care. They'll fly someone out of the province to get the work done and pay for it. What happened to our ambulance service in this province? It's terrible; it's user-pay. Who is guilty of this? None other than the NDP government in British Columbia. Talk about a hypocritical government. I have never in my life witnessed anything as bad as this.
We are in the worst shape in this province that we have been in, in 40 years. How did we get there? We've got a socialist government. They just don't understand it; they don't get it.
Hon. D. Lovick: It was a socialist government that got us the ambulance service.
J. Wilson: It's a socialist government that's put us down the toilet in this province.
Then, hon. Speaker, we go to education. You know, it's really something. I read this over
School district 27, which takes in part of my riding, has been under the gun because of this government's funding program. They are faced with closing up to five rural schools in that school district. I realize that the Premier would like to see a few portables go. But honestly, why can he not recognize the difference between a rural school and a portable? They are not the same thing. Rural schools are the centre of the community. They're the life of the community, the hub of the community. Communities need them. But they're closing them, because they have cut back, cut back, cut back.
[1505]
In that school district alone they get block funding. They get so much money to buy a school bus. When they buy a school bus, it's not a matter of putting that school bus on the road the next day with a driver. It costs up to $25,000 per unit to bring that up to safety code so that it can work and operate in subzero temperatures on winter roads in ice and snow. That's not funded by the ministry; that comes out of the block funding that the school board gets. School districts in other areas of the province aren't faced with those additional costs. This government has failed every year to recognize that there are additional costs there.
V. Anderson: Throne speech 2000 -- it's the opportunity to say thank you to the members of my Vancouver-Langara constituency who have elected me over two terms, to try to share on their behalf some balance in the activities in which we engage here in the Legislature. Here in the B.C. Legislature we have the responsibility to try and hear all sides of the situation. We have the responsibility to listen to the people of the province and, having listened to them, to try and work out, as best we are able, the legislation and the regulations, the policies and the actions that flow from it, which will best serve the people who have given us this sacred trust.
There are two main tasks that we have in the Legislature. One of those is to evaluate the planning that has gone on previous to our being in the Legislature and the planning that is being put forward by the government at this time. We have the added responsibility, as members of the opposition, to take on a special concern -- to do a critique of that which the government is undertaking, to try and highlight the positive elements of their undertakings and also to suggest improvements that come to us from the members of our constituencies.
As we come into this House, we have to understand the setting in which we find ourselves, the setting into which we come with different philosophical political perspectives. No doubt each of the perspectives we bring here has certain strengths and weaknesses. It is because we come with perspectives and can debate them and consider them that, hopefully, we come to a better conclusion for all.
As I have looked at the situation, there are probably three basic kinds of perspectives that we come with into this Legislature. One of these is to suggest that what is of primary importance is the concern and well-being of the individual. This takes precedence over everything else. Some would, in the popular opinion, say that this is the perspective of what we have come to call the Right. On the other hand, it's the perspective of some that it is the collective group -- whether
[ Page 14916 ]
it's the family or the community or the citizens of the province -- which is of primary importance and that the individual must take second place to the collective. In popular opinion, that's thought of as being the perspective of the Left.
Then there's the third perspective, which is the attempt to arrive at a balance between the priority of the individual and the priority of the collective -- to say, for instance, that the family as a unit must have priority as well as each member of the family having this priority at the same time. We come here with these three different positions, and each of them has, as I said, a certain validity and certain problems. Each of them is a position on a continuum.
[1510]
So we see that in popular opinion, the NDP is thought of as being on the Left, the Reform on the Right and the Liberal position in the balance in between. I'm quick to suggest that this may be an oversimplification of these positions. Yet, for me, it is a simple method of explaining why I personally am here in response to the trust that has been given me by the people of my constituency. For I must say, as I have said to them before, that I am inherently -- out of the training and upbringing I have had, even having been brought up in the CCF communities -- a small-l liberal.
I'm a small-l liberal in my personal thinking, in my religious thinking, in my political activities and in my community events. My critiques attempt to have a balance so that both the collective and the individual can be served to the best possibility. In my own frame of reference, it's also important that we have a universal point of view and -- from my point of view -- a religious faith expression point of view.
It is my understanding and my belief that everyone has a philosophical, religious value system by which they live and that their personality is developed by that system. The activities that they undertake in their lives are an expression of that system. I was brought up with a phrase which was very popular in some of the music in the earlier days: that we should accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. From this point of view and from this position, I am forced to say that I have once again found this throne speech, as the previous throne speeches, to be unbalanced and to lack the substance and depth and balance which I would expect of a government of this province.
It has tried to express, sometimes with a fair bit of validity, some of the positive things that have been done or were attempted by this government. But it has failed to recognize the full spectrum of the political needs of our people. It has failed to respond to all of the needs of our people in the province and has left many confused and uncertain. Especially, there is no encouragement or help in this budget for those who are striving to live in our province on inadequate incomes in what is a relatively prosperous society in our world. Indeed, there is no recognition of the horrendous difficulties of those children in our province who, along with their parents, are struggling with life's disabilities. These are the members of our families; these are the citizens of our communities.
There is no acknowledgement in this budget and in this throne speech of the great harm that has been caused to the businesses in British Columbia -- both small and large alike -- and how they are unable to hire wage earners, who provide the bread and butter and houses for our families. The personal and family grief that has grown on a scale such as we have not known since the Depression of the thirties is not given a recognition within this budget. Rather, we see an expression of unplanned initiatives which have come to naught. In their leadership race recently, they had the opportunity -- which they took -- to express to their own members that things had not gone well and that it was time to make a change.
Hon. Speaker, I will return to my seat for a moment, as I believe the member desires to make an introduction.
[1515]
G. Campbell: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Campbell: I think that one of the things that British Columbian thrives on is a great active seniors population. I'm very pleased that today in the Legislature we have the Kitsilano Senior Fun Walkers. They told me that they walked all the way from Vancouver, so I hope we'll make them welcome.
V. Anderson: All of the members in the recent leadership race acknowledged -- and I give them credit for that -- that things had not been going well within the province and that they wanted to make a decisive change. But the closest they came in the throne speech was to say: "Now is the time for changes in the way in which we conduct politics in the province." There was no confession, if I put it in religious terms, of the harm they had caused to people and no question of asking for their forgiveness. To suggest a biblical expression that the Speaker will know well: "You cannot put new wine in old wine skins, for they will burst." Indeed, I'm not even sure that they have new wine, because we have the same tired crew that we had before.
The throne speech has said that it is time for renewal of the mandate. It is time that the people decide who is to govern. The only real way for a real change in politics to come about in B.C. is for the government go back to the people for a new mandate. Now is not the time to introduce a new NDP act called the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Now is, rather, the time to have the accountability of giving people the opportunity for open financial books, so that they can go to the polls and make a new decision for all of us. This is the kind of accountability that we need now: action before the people. Let them act, and then we'll see where we go from here.
When talking about internal changes to the Legislature, there is usually no mention in this Legislature of the committee called LAMC -- the legislative, administrative committee of our Legislature, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. It's an internal committee of all of the parts of the Legislature, of all of the parties, who come together to look at the overall internal management. Unfortunately, ever since I was elected in '91, this committee has been basically inoperative because of the struggles and divisions that took place within it. Its task of oversight has not been well performed. Until that changes, the other aspects of how we operate in this Legislature are also going to be very inadequate.
When it comes to public service, the Premier says that we will maintain vital public services. But what is needed is to rebuild public services. We can't maintain vital services that we don't have. After nine years of erosion and decay and of dismantling service after service, we are in a desperate situa-
[ Page 14917 ]
tion. Show me a service in British Columbia that has been run by this government that is not in disarray -- whether it's education, health, social programs, forestry, fisheries, mining or agriculture, or whatever else.
[1520]
All we need to do is look at the stacks of conflicting, overbearing regulations which make a mockery of even those parts of valid legislation which have existed. Who makes and affirms these regulations? In the final analysis, it's the 21 members of the cabinet -- taken from the same group which has caused this havoc in the first place. There is really nothing new here.
Let me make sure that I am not misunderstood. In deploring the inadequate public services, I am not blaming the vast majority of public sector workers. Probably 95 percent of these are able, competent, dedicated, committed servants of the people of British Columbia, and they are doing their very best under very difficult circumstances. Their problem is the mismanagement by ever-changing ministries, driven by ideologies rather than by commonsense planning.
[K. Krueger in the chair.]
The philosophical bias of the government members is reflected through their ministers, and it's out of balance. Indeed, many civil servants who would not follow the party line have had to resign, and I appreciate their sacrifice.
British Columbia has unlimited potential -- first, in its wonderful mix of multicultural people and, second, in its abundant resources. This government has paid but lip service to these significant realities. During its tenure, thousands who came to British Columbia to find freedom, openness and opportunity have already left again. In 1981, I became involved in the formal political process because of the hurt of the people of the community. In response to a previous government's lack of action, we were forced to form the Vancouver Food Bank to help feed the starving and to develop the Youth and Family Addiction Services Society for young people who were struggling to find help in overcoming their addictions. We brought together a meeting of elected members of the municipal, provincial and federal governments to discuss the issue of poverty, for they were all elected by the same people -- one of the few times that such a group has come together in our province.
Those were desperate times, back in the sixties and seventies, for thousands of British Columbians of all ages. Today, some 19 years later, circumstances are much worse for many thousands more. My colleagues and I have been in the streets across B.C., and we hear plainly that since the Depression of the thirties, it has never been so difficult. Yet none of this reality is indicated in the throne speech.
I would like to share a few thoughts that come from an advocate working in downtown Vancouver. These are thoughts about the situation they find in their communities that are reflected across the whole province right at this present time. This is in a report given by an advocate through the First United Church in downtown Vancouver.
"Until 1997, the British Columbia welfare legislation supported the concept of a social safety net. There was a recognition that there were people in society who, because of illness, single parenthood, unemployment or a host of other factors, would be unable to be financially independent, either temporarily or in the long term. While the government wasn't liberally handing out money and advocates were often required to help people negotiate certain problems, there was a more cooperative and less adversarial environment.
"With the introduction of the current B.C. Benefits legislation in March 1997, the government's role in supporting society's most vulnerable was clearly diminished -- some might say it was virtually obliterated. The new BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act shifted the emphasis from assisting people -- and this is a direct quotation from the government -- to 'making work a better deal than welfare.' To diminish the so-called 'attractiveness' of welfare, legislation became much more restrictive, and the process of obtaining benefits became much lengthier and legalistic.
[1525]
"While few people -- including people on income assistance -- would argue that it is better to be on welfare than to work, the legislators, in their eagerness to get people working, failed to take several important factors into account:
"The unemployment rate remains high. There are simply not jobs for everyone, especially people who are poorly educated, unable to speak English or functionally illiterate
. . . or who are what the government used to call, informally, 'socially unemployable.' Individuals with certain addictions, and/or odd personalities who, in the past, might have been able to eke out a living in primary industry jobs like logging and fishing, no longer have these options. The jobs don't exist and have only been replaced by jobs in the service industry -- jobs that require a relatively high level of social functioning."Even when there are, theoretically, more jobs -- i.e., when the employment rate drops -- the majority of jobs now being created are either temporary or part-time. The result is that society's lowest-income people, when they do find work, often find low-paying, undependable short-term work
. . . . "Advocates" -- this person writes, who is herself an advocate -- "see more and more denials of requests for assistance and benefits, because the legislation no longer permits the front-line welfare workers to authorize many items. The situation appears to have become especially critical in the last year or so. The number of people seen in advocacy has grown by at least 50 percent and on many days is 100 percent higher than the number seen a couple of years ago.
"In addition to denying benefits, an informal policy known as 'diversion' has appeared in order to direct people away from welfare benefits. If an individual, for example, asks for $30 to purchase some badly needed shoes, he or she will most likely be denied the funds and chided that he or she should have saved their money from the $175 support money received monthly for food, clothing, transportation and all other costs. The individual is then directed to the limited number of places where free shoes could theoretically be obtained. If the individual cannot find any free shoes -- perhaps he or she has an unusual shoe size or is too ill to go from place to place, or there are simply no decent free clothes available -- he or she is expected to do without.
"The only other option is to begin the appeal process. If an individual asks that the case be reconsidered and is again denied, the appeal can go to the tribunal stage. As more and more people are forced to go through an appeal in order to get basic needs met, advocates have to help clients negotiate their way through what has become an increasingly lengthy and very legal process. One experienced advocate estimates the cost which the ministry could ultimately pay for a client to obtain the above-mentioned pair of shoes -- taking into account the cost of the tribunal ($175) and all the labour devoted by both the ministry and the advocate involved -- is approximately $650."
[1530]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Besides, there is the verification and the time that it takes to get this.
The advocate goes on to suggest some of the implications:
[ Page 14918 ]
"Even once an individual is granted a disability benefit -- either a full level 2 disability or the more temporary level 1, which offers a lower rate and for a more limited time period -- it can be difficult for them to get medical benefits they need without a complex legal process. Two cases publicized in a local newspaper highlight just some of the problems presented by the legislation."These are almost unbelievable.
Hon. Speaker, those are just some of the situations that occur on our streets throughout British Columbia."A man who had lost his voice-box as the result of a medical condition was denied the cost of a replacement voice-box because, the ministry stated, 'A voice is not necessary for communication.' A paraplegic, who lived in a suburban area poorly served by wheelchair-accessible buses and who used an electric wheelchair, was denied a replacement chair because, the ministry said, he was using his wheelchair 'as a form of transportation.' "
The throne speech has said health care is a top priority of the people, even as they said so in 1996. Yet this government, which had pledged to implement the Seaton report on health care back in 1991 by bringing people and health care closer to home, has failed. More money is spent, yes, but there is less service in the homes of our people in the community.
The throne speech does acknowledge repeatedly that we must have innovation, but it doesn't explain why we have not had innovation before this time to solve the problems that were known to all. Why are we going backward in health care and not forward? There is no plan in the throne speech. History will repeat itself.
The goal of the throne speech is to create an innovation culture, but we'd already have a culture of innovation among the people of British Columbia if they had been left to do it their way. But the government wants to restructure; the government wants to reorder. The government wants to do it their way on their basic principles. They appoint the boards and the committees, and they manage from a central position.
There's another focus in the throne speech, on education. Here the government has acted to create a community college, a northern university and a technical institute along with support for adult basic education. These are good things in and of themselves. Yet the policies that go along with these and the process of budgeting that these places must depend upon starve them of the resources, give increased bureaucratic control and destroy the morale of those who work there. Indeed, in public schools today, qualified, expert teachers shy away from becoming principals, because they are too hamstrung in doing their job and they're not prepared to be second-guessed in everything they do.
Resources for ESL and special needs are cut. On this the parents and the teachers and the school boards all agree: imposed contracts prevent effective decision-making. They make it impossible for either the employer or the employee to come together and make collective agreements.
[1535]
Late budget planning by government prevents school boards in their long-range planning
Hon. Speaker
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.
V. Anderson:
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to stand in my place to support the first throne speech of the twenty-first century, in the first session of the twenty-first century. I'm pleased to support this throne speech. It charts a new course for British Columbia in a number of ways, but at the same time, it also follows time-honoured New Democrat traditions and policies in a number of very important ways.
First of all, this throne speech points the direction to changes that are, quite frankly, leading the way in Canada.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry the members opposite
As I was saying, the budget charts a new course in a number of ways. First of all, we have brought in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Unlike some things we've seen from other parties, this is not a gimmick; it's not simply a facelift. What it does is make some very important changes to the budget-making process. It begins, for example, with an all-party committee. That's the starting place for budget-making in British Columbia once this legislation is passed. It provides for full disclosure of all budget assumptions and forecasts, including the advice of the Economic Forecasting Council that we put in place previously.
The bottom line in British Columbia now includes all of the Crown corporations and government agencies. The books are fully open on all major capital projects, and we're reforming the way we do estimates in this Legislature. That puts British Columbia on the leading edge of change in some key and important ways in this country, and I'm pleased to support that progress.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Secondly, the new Premier has made it very clear -- and we all agree with him -- that it's time to change the culture of this chamber and also this institution in some important ways. It is still very partisan. It needs to be partisan; that's what politics is about. We have differences of opinion; we should have. It's still political, of course. But in the last eight or nine years, we've seen a personalization of politics that I have never seen before in this province. It's not necessary to engage in character assassination; it is not necessary to call names, to pull in peoples' families, to lay phony allegations against people, to shriek across the chamber at people with some of the worst kinds of things that I've seen in a long time.
When we do that in this chamber
[ Page 14919 ]
We should disagree in this chamber; it's the essence of democracy. But we must have some respect for others to speak and hold their views without dragging it down into the mudslinging attack that has become all too common in this chamber.
[1540]
This throne speech points a new direction in those very important ways. It also continues to be consistent with the kind of values and principles on which the CCF and NDP were built. The people across the way are outraged that we have the same agenda; they're outraged that we continue to prioritize health and education. I certainly understand that those are not their priorities, but for heaven's sakes, that's what the New Democratic Party was built on. Of course we prioritize those things, and of course we will continue to, and I'm very proud of that.
This throne speech points the way to some important balances. It points the way to balances between environmental values, social values and economic values. I would offer that here is where the fundamental difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House begins.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Pullinger: When the men on the other side have stopped shouting at me, I'll continue. I would really appreciate the same kind of silence that they were accorded.
The difference begins with the fact that we on this side of the House try very hard to balance environmental values with social values and economic values. We try to represent -- and do represent, to some degree, to the best of our ability -- the values that you'll find in communities across British Columbia: values of cooperation, values of inclusion, values of closing the gap between the haves and have-nots, values of empowerment.
The members on the opposite side of the House, we know, reflect the values of the global marketplace. They see government itself as a business. They demand that everything function as a business, and they put business first. That's a legitimate point of view. It's built on the values of competitiveness; it's built on the values of winners and losers; it's built on the values of exclusion. That's a legitimate set of values. I don't agree with them at all, but those are the values that it's built on.
Hon. Speaker, I want to point to some things -- some differences -- that we've done and are doing in this throne speech and the budget that flows from it and point to how they're different from what the opposition would do. For example
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. You'll have the opportunity for debate.
Hon. J. Pullinger:
Overall, we have the second-lowest taxes in the country, despite what the opposition continues to say -- which we know is incorrect -- when they're hollering about high taxes. That's our tax agenda: middle- and low-income earners, small businesses and some targeted tax cuts to stimulate the economy in key sectors.
What is the agenda of the people opposite? As I say, I respect the fact that they have this agenda. It's a legitimate agenda, and it's based on a different set of values, as I outlined. Their agenda is based on that of the Business Summit; they've wholly embraced and endorsed the Business Summit findings. That means that the members opposite are committed to a $1.5 billion tax cut. It's a cut that will happen in a way that fully 50 percent of it will go to a handful of the highest-income earners. Something like 4 percent or 5 percent or 6 percent of the highest-income earners will gain the most from that tax cut. It was designed by the Business Summit, and the biggest cuts clearly will go to the biggest businesses and the highest-income earners. That's their vision, and that's what they want to do in terms of tax cuts. As I say, it's a legitimate point of view, but it's dramatically different from what we on this side are doing and believe ought to be done.
[1545]
Similarly in this budget, we see some green taxes. We see tax shifting to stimulate a green economy, something that the members opposite decry. They think we should simply leave those things to the markets and the markets will fix it. We on this side of the House know that's not the case, and so we're starting to do some tax shifting, where we remove taxes from things that have value to society and to a clean environment and a clean economy, and we're starting to load them toward those who would damage our environment and, ultimately, society and the economy. Those are the kinds of things that we on this side believe need to happen.
Similarly, in this throne speech and the budget that flows from it, we're investing in health and education. B.C. stands alone among the provinces in terms of its support for those two critical, key public services. There are more nurses; there are more teachers. We have a tuition freeze. We have more money for colleges and universities. We have more spaces, new courses. We have in the past made grade 12 equivalency free so that lower-income people can access it, and we've built new schools.
In the 1980s, when we were driven by a marketplace ideology, we saw virtually no rebuilding of our infrastructure and, particularly, our schools. We have put $70 million into my riding, and my riding's like every other riding in British Columbia. We have put hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into cleaning up the social deficit left by the coalition opposite when they were in power as Socreds in the 1980s. I note that in Alberta, the auditor general is ringing the alarm bell, because they're following the agenda and the ideology of the members opposite and they're not investing in infrastructure. Therefore the auditor general's starting to say: "You're heading for a wall. You've got to invest in the infrastructure if you want a strong economy, not to mention a strong society." Hon. Speaker, we've taken that step. We continue to invest in
[ Page 14920 ]
infrastructure. We think that's important for our children -- to have schools and hospitals and safe roads to inherit so that they have a strong economy in the future and today.
That's what we believe is important, and it's part of a balance that balances with those tax cuts. On the other hand, the members opposite, who embrace the marketplace ideology, have said that they'll do a $1.5 billion cut that benefits the biggest and the richest the most. And they're going to pay for it with -- get this -- a 5 percent across-the-board cut to all services. Now, that sounds like a small cut, but when you recognize the stress that we've been under in this province and across the country, when we have increased funding each and every year to health and education and there is still stress on the system, just imagine what a 5 percent cut will do to health care or education or welfare or any of the other programs that are so important to people in this province.
We know that the members opposite are using Alberta as their model. We know that private health care is on the agenda. Their candidates have said so. We reject that. As the founders of health care in this country, we reject that. We will do everything possible. We continue to say no to a two-tiered health care system and no to that ideology that's driven by the marketplace, that says free enterprise has a place in everything, including health care and education. We simply reject that. That's one of the key important differences between this side of the House and the other side of the House.
I listened with interest as the member for Vancouver-Langara spoke about poverty and spoke about the fact that beginning in the 1980s, he as a minister of the cloth became engaged in putting together food banks -- as did I, in my community. But you know, hon. Speaker, what's missing is an analysis of why we ended up in that situation in the 1980s. We all know now that in the 1980s, the gap between the haves and have-nots in this country, and thus in this province, grew faster than in any other decade in our history as a country -- any other decade. The 1980s saw bigger growth in that poverty gap than in any other decade in our history. Why?
Well, I would offer that that's when this New Right ideology started to really come into play. That's when we saw privatization, we saw deregulation, we saw our debt thrown offshore, we saw the tax cuts start in a major way. We used to have the corporate sector, which has an enormous amount of money, pay about half of the taxes in this country. Now it pays about 5 percent. We saw massive tax cuts balanced off -- paid for, quite frankly -- by service cuts on the other side. We've seen de-indexing. We've seen outright cuts to health and education and welfare and training programs and just about everything else that matters to people in their daily lives.
[1550]
That's what we've seen, beginning in the late 1970s, and that's the ideology that is dividing, on this globe, country from country; in this country, province from province; in this province and every other province, citizen from citizen. That gap between the rich and the poor
I find it amazing that somebody can stand up and say that they care, and at the same time, they stood up and applauded the federal cuts to health and education that have put the health care system and education system of every province in this country under some of the worst stress it's ever seen -- every single province in this country. The members opposite stood up and applauded those cuts and demanded more cuts. How in the world can you stand up and say that you care about poverty when you applaud cuts to welfare and health and education. My God, those are the most important tools we have to bring about equality.
I find that position to be, I guess, hypocritical. I find it hypocritical that they are going to cut taxes at the top and services for everybody else, and then they say they care about poverty. I find it hypocritical when they want to drive down minimum wage. They're committed to driving down minimum wage and bringing in a differential, even lower, minimum wage for young people, who need that money to get the education so they won't be poor all their lives.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
We know that they've formally endorsed the Business Summit's position; we know they have formally endorsed these positions. They are loath to stand up and admit it, unfortunately, but we know this is true. They have committed to driving down minimum wage; they want a differential wage for young people. They want to drive down employment standards. When they yack about their labour laws, what they are talking about is the fact that we have had a process -- a fair and balanced process -- on two fronts. One is to look at the employment standards and update them a few decades so that we include people like farmworkers, like very vulnerable women who work in other people's homes as nannies. And you know what? They object to that. They even stood up and voted, to a person, against health and safety legislation coming from the royal commission. They object to that. They want to roll that back.
We had a process, unlike
What we did was put together a balanced committee of labour and business, and they wrote the labour laws, Bill 84, that we have in British Columbia today. Labour and business wrote it. Yet they continue to spin the line that somehow its balance is off the rails. It's not; it's balanced. Fair employment standards, fair health and safety laws, fair labour laws and a decent minimum wage are some of the key tools to closing the gap between the rich and the poor. The member from Langara hasn't figured that out yet.
We have made those changes that are effective in closing the gap. People have access to health and education in a way they don't in other provinces, and they have better wages. I had somebody up in the Peace River, one of the Liberal ridings, tell me that their kids are staying in the Peace River because they don't want to go and work in Alberta, where the minimum wage is so much lower. We have a better minimum wage in B.C., and I am proud of that, because wages are what
[ Page 14921 ]
[1555]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, order please. Any member wishing to take part in the debate will have his or her opportunity.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
I would like to point out that we have -- what is it? -- a 17-year low in unemployment in British Columbia right now. And we've led the way through most of the 1990s in terms of job creation in British Columbia. Our Tourism ministry, high-tech and film are booming. True, we certainly have had economic difficulties when the global markets that were in the tank for forestry and minerals and other resources. There's no question.
But you know what? We didn't slip into recession, not like the 1980s when they were in power. We went way, way into a recession and took the longest time to come out of it, because of their policies. We made it through that recession. It was tough on people in my riding. But let's look at the truth; let's look at history. The 1982-83 recession was far deeper, far worse and far more prolonged in British Columbia because of the kinds of policies they had in place.
I have spoken about some of the things that close the poverty gap. One of them is the fact that we've done pay equity across the entire public sector and public service for women. We have done low-wage redress, and we have done pay equity, which the members opposite object to. They have been spinning a line out there, trying to pretend that we broke the zero-zero-and-2 guideline because we did pay equity and we hired more teachers.
Furthermore, they're trying to say it's a big secret. Well, we ran an election on pay equity, and we ran ads on the fact that we're hiring 1,200 more nurses and 1,000 more teachers. It's hardly a secret. It's very clear what we are doing, and it's been out there front and centre all the way along. But they objected to that, these members opposite.
Their marketplace ideology says that if you have a Ministry of Women's Equality, that's a bad thing. So they're going to get rid of it; they're going to eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality. I am telling the absolute gospel truth; it came out of their leader's mouth. Maybe he wasn't telling me the truth; I don't know. Their members are obviously upset about it. But they have committed to eliminating the Ministry of Women's Equality. That, along with a lot of the other cuts and the reversal and the regressive policies they have on labour laws and minimum wage, will exacerbate the gap between the haves and the have-nots in this province. It will make people poorer.
Let me speak about a couple of other things that we have done. We brought in the B.C. family bonus.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's very difficult, hon. Speaker, to speak if the members opposite will not allow me to.
An Hon. Member: Then sit down.
Hon. J. Pullinger: They want me just to sit down. I guess they don't believe in allowing
Interjections.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I would ask for silence in the House, if I may.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, it's true that both sides of the House are taking a different approach in listening to members' debates. I would suggest that you consider how you're listening to this debate and that you not interject while the minister is speaking.
Hon. J. Pullinger: In British Columbia a few years ago, we initiated one of the first new social programs in Canada in about 20 years, called the B.C. family bonus. Instead of having a system whereby people using income assistance are pushed aside, marginalized and trapped, we pulled them back into the system. We have drawn a line and said that if you fall under this line, which is about $30,000 for a two-parent family with two children, your children are going to feel the effects of poverty. If you're above that line, they're not.
Then we brought in a whole range of supports, including the things I've already spoken about: minimum wage, labour laws and so on. We've done all of those things, but we also brought in some very direct supports. For example, we brought in the B.C. family bonus, the first new social program in Canada in a couple of decades. That program provides for up to $105 per child, per month, for almost half of B.C. families. That program has allowed large numbers of single parents and two-parent families to move off income assistance and into independence, because they take that with them. It doesn't matter -- if they get a job, they don't lose benefits like in the past; they take those with them. And 90 percent of that benefit goes to families with lower than $18,000 a year income -- obviously where it's desperately needed -- and that's closing the gap.
We also brought in the B.C. Healthy Kids program, which entitles those same 45 percent of B.C. families
[1600]
We also expanded premium assistance for health care to those same 45 percent of B.C. families who fall under that line, to ensure that they had access to the best health care we can provide in this province.
We increased skills training. We doubled the skills training, and we also increased the help to help people find a job. We know there's a big gap between the jobs that need people -- need workers -- and workers that need jobs. We're helping to close that gap through jobs partnership and a variety of workplace-based training programs that have been very effective.
But we've also gone beyond that. When we were elected government in 1991, we carried out our commitment to build the Island Highway. Instead of doing it like the Coquihalla,
[ Page 14922 ]
where they just chucked it out the door in one piece
We negotiated a deal between the businesses, the workers and the government to put a floor on wages so that family wages are not a bargaining chip in the bidding game. It seems to me that that's just good social policy. Then we said: "You're going to pay decent wages; you're not going to abuse wages. You should bid for projects based on your ability to do the project and your efficiency as a business, not on how far down you can drive workers' wages." And then we said: "These are B.C. tax dollars, and they should go to B.C. companies and B.C. workers." So we divided up the highway project into little pieces and put together a hiring hall, and the work has gone entirely to British Columbians and to Vancouver Island workers. It has made a very significant difference in the lives of people on the Island and in the economy of Vancouver Island. Not only that -- that wasn't good enough -- we increased the apprenticeships. We doubled or tripled the apprenticeships and put in pre-employment training programs. At the height of the project, we had something like 24 percent equity hire as well -- aboriginal women getting work on the Island Highway project.
The market ideology on the other side of the House calls that social engineering and fixed wages. We call that good common sense, good social policy, good environmental policy and good economic policy, because it has injected a huge amount of money into the economies of Vancouver Island communities rather than simply going out of the province. The members opposite have said that they will end that kind of practice, that they will simply go back to the old system that exploits workers and their families and tosses the jobs out of province. They don't believe that B.C. tax dollars should go to create decent jobs in B.C. and clean up our environment; they don't believe that. There is simply a difference between this side of the House and the other. But let's be very clear. They're on the side of Philip Hochstein. We're on the side of the communities and workers on Vancouver Island.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I am pleased to note that the Labour critic, who thinks that the way to discipline workers is not through a collective bargaining process with a grievance policy but to whack workers
As well as the Healthy Kids premium assistance, increased skill training, increased education and better health care within the means that we have, we're also one of only two provinces left in the country that are building social housing.
I am proud of the things that we've been able to accomplish as government. We haven't been perfect; we've made mistakes. There's no question about that. But guess what. We also just wrote off $600 million for their mistake on northeast coal, in addition to the $1.5 billion spent earlier. The Coquihalla was 100 percent over budget -- not a little bit, but 100 percent. That was $500 million. Then we had to start fixing it right away.
[1605]
I am very proud of what we've been able to accomplish in terms of balancing environmental, social and economic interests. This throne speech points the way to that continued balance, to that continued New Democrat agenda, but it does so with increased accountability that's found nowhere else in Canada.
I hope that we can have these kinds of debates without the personal attacks, without the viciousness that we see all too often
Interjections.
Hon. J. Pullinger:
Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to support this budget.
The Speaker: The member for Richmond Centre rises on a point of privilege.
D. Symons: The previous member has in many of her comments maligned me, referring to what "we" have done in the past. I want you to know that I have never been a member of the Social Credit Party. I've never voted for the Social Credit Party in my lifetime. And to be blamed for the mistakes made by others is totally inappropriate.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. That's not a point of privilege.
I recognize the hon. member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
Interjections.
R. Kasper: No. Today I'm going to be good; I'm not going to do any attacks. I'm going to talk about some of the people who are close to me.
I am proud to say that living in a community such as Sooke, which voted last June to become one of the province's most recent municipalities. Believe me, it was a fairly emotional decision by the people who live in that community, because all too often we hear the debate: it's expensive; our taxes are going up; do we really need another form of government? Well, the citizens voted overwhelmingly to support that last June.
This November we had our very first election for council locally. The thing I noticed was that there was truly an excellent cross-section of candidates who represented a variety of lifestyles and had a variety of professional backgrounds. They also brought with them a variety of issues that they felt very strongly about. The results came in, and the community spoke fairly loudly. I am proud to say that we have a very excellent group of councillors in Sooke representing the interests of Sooke at the local level.
One of the things I found amazing was that we had a father-and-son team elected: John and Marcus Farmer. John
[ Page 14923 ]
Farmer owns one of the local pharmacies, and his son works for him. John topped the polls. It just goes to show. Somebody in his line of business -- the local pharmacist who is there talking to people on a day-to-day basis
Interjection.
R. Kasper: Doing whatever he does -- right. He had very close connection with the people in the community, and that paid off in volumes for him in the polls.
One of the youngest members of council is Jeff Stewart, a young businessman. I think Jeff is 24 or 25 years old. He is new at the political game, but he also brought a perspective to represent the interests of youth in the community.
We also have a couple of individuals who have had previous electoral experience: former electoral area directors for the Sooke area, Ron Dumont and Lorna Barry. Both of those individuals had represented the community quite well. They know what it's like when the hard and fast decisions have to be made on behalf of their citizens.
[1610]
I think I should mention the mayor, Ed Macgregor, who has proven to be an excellent leader for the council. He draws upon his personal experiences as a former deputy minister. I think that his activity at the provincial level will serve him well in his deliberations and involvement in the community as the mayor.
At their inaugural meeting in December, I made a pledge to that council to work closely with them and to always be available to fight on behalf of their interests and the community's interests, because I think it's important that people in my position -- as the MLA -- give a strong, sound commitment to our locally elected officials to ensure that we both speak from the same song sheet. We may not agree on all issues, but the song sheet should be cognizant and recognize what we're really there for: to represent the people in the Sooke community. It's a place where I live; I am proud to be a resident there.
The council does have some tough tasks. They have put their heads together to address a number of common issues. These are to help create more employment opportunities within the community and to ensure that those employment opportunities are real and reflect community values. Just recently -- and it shows that there is a fairly good economic indicator in the community of Sooke
Now, some people say: "Well, what does that mean? That's a fast-food outlet, and usually those are minimum-wage jobs." But you know, my sort of philosophical view is that I've never met a job I didn't like, whether it's a minimum-wage job or a high-paying union job. A job is a job. I think what we have to recognize is that when the private sector shows confidence in a community to make investments, then they know a few things that perhaps a lot of us aren't fully aware of on a number of occasions. That is, when they do their market analysis, their market research, what they look at is the demographics of the community. They also measure what kind of disposable income is within that community's reach. You know, I think those are good, healthy signs. Those are indicators or barometers that there are economic benefits available to the people who live and currently work in the Sooke area.
One of the things that the province did to help Sooke, as a newly formed municipality, was ensure that they had a financial commitment. In December, Sooke received some $600,000 as part of their first initial payment under the $200 per-year per-capita municipal restructure assistance grant. That money goes a long way to assist a municipality in making sure that they have some dollars in the bank to see them through both in current years and in future years.
I was pleased, just some two weeks ago, to announce at the council that their second payment -- some $600,000, which is year 2 of their restructure money -- was in fact paid nine months early. What that did for Sooke was give them the opportunity to invest those dollars in the bank to earn some additional interest, as opposed to the province earning that interest. I felt it was incumbent on the government to give Sooke a hand when a hand is needed.
[1615]
One of the things that we also did just recently, through the B.C. community spirit grants, was make a $200,000 financial contribution to the new pool that's being built in our area. We want to make sure that the province is there to assist the community when they need that financial assistance to construct a new pool. That $200,000 will assist them in some additional amenities. Those amenities are going to make the pool facility more attractive and perhaps offer some additional recreational opportunities for seniors who may make use of the pool facilities.
One of the things I want to say about that pool is that if you can imagine, Sooke is roughly 19 kilometres
Interjections.
R. Kasper: These guys are unreal. They don't let anything go by.
If I may carry on, just on the fact that we have people who would actually drive 20 minutes to go and make use of another community's pool
Over the next year I look forward to continuing to work with the Sooke council. They do have a number of issues they are tackling right now. They're looking at some major planning initiatives dealing with the core area of Sooke, which could lead to some additional growth and development.
When the Sooke area incorporated, it left a remainder. The remainder of the original Sooke electoral area then became the Juan de Fuca electoral area, which runs from East Sooke all the way out to Port Renfrew. The municipality of Sooke is embraced in the middle of this Juan de Fuca electoral
[ Page 14924 ]
area. In November we saw the election of Brian Henson. Brian, a young man, is an entrepreneur. He's also in the housing business; he builds houses. He's also in the music promotion business and does concerts. He brings with him a fresh approach, perhaps, with some new ideas. Brian, I think, has clearly demonstrated that he has the ability to bring the community together.
[1620]
During the past three years it was my analysis that a good portion of the Sooke electoral area was very divided on a wide range of issues. Brian has demonstrated the ability to bring the community together on local land use issues. We actually saw, just this year, something that was relatively new for our community, and that was a newly elected advisory planning commission. There was a general election for members to sit on an advisory planning commission, voted on by the residents in the area. The results of that, I think, clearly demonstrated that there is going to be a commonsense approach to land issues in the community, which I think gives a person like Brian, the area director, a mandate to ensure that the community's interests are truly looked at and recognized when he deliberates at the capital regional board.
Not only has Brian shown leadership there, but I was proud to work with Brian on the announcement of some funding for the electoral area. That dealt with an upgrade for the Otter Point fire hall. Again, the community spirit grant made sure there was some financial assistance, some $16,000, for a facility seismic upgrade, which I think is a commonsense thing. It's to ensure that the facilities that are there are going to be in good stead in the event of an earthquake.
Brian had also approached me during the November election -- there were issues raised in Port Renfrew -- to make sure that the community in fact received financial assistance for their water upgrade. The province, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs under water and sewer grants, made available some $60,000, which represents one-quarter of the $240,000 needed to upgrade their water system. The water system will actually allow for some additional development in Port Renfrew and ensure that there is adequate water supply for fire protection issues in the community.
That leads me to talk about some of the comings and goings in the South Cowichan area. In November we actually saw five area directors seek re-election, and four of the five were unsuccessful. We saw, in the Mill Bay area, Anne Bomford, who has been a well-known community activist
We also saw the election of Rick Spencer from Shawnigan Lake. Rick has a labour background. He's been a very outspoken community activist and a representative of the Shawnigan Lake parks and recreation organization. Rick is known to be outspoken, and I think that's an excellent trait in politicians, especially when they want to get the attention of different levels of government.
We also saw the election of a well-known local celebrity, Alex Robertson from Cowichan Bay. Alex is a sports commentator for CHEK TV through the BCTV network. Alex brings with him both recognition in the community, because of his years in television, and also his approach to helping solve local community issues and problems. I first met Alex at the local level at a public meeting when there was a local community concern, and Alex was representing the community in a volunteer way. I'm glad to see that he was elected by the citizens, because I think he too is going to do an excellent job.
[1625]
The other newcomer we saw was Loren Duncan from the Glenora area just south of Duncan. Loren brings with him a very strong environmental background. He's a strong advocate for environmental protection, but again, with that, his approach is balanced. He understands the needs and the values associated with the agricultural community in the Glenora area.
Last but not least we saw the re-election of somebody I consider a very good friend, and that's Richard Hughes, who represents the Cobble Hill area. I really believe he's done an excellent job working on behalf of the citizens in the Cobble Hill area. Richard, who's been very outspoken at the regional board level, is not afraid to tackle issues. He's not afraid to bring forward solutions that are perhaps contrary to the way business has been done in the past. Richard is there to make sure that people like myself are paying attention to what is important to the community that he represents. So just with saying that, it makes my job a heck of a lot easier when as an MLA, I can build a relationship with those people who are elected at the local government level -- to make sure that we try to develop the common interests and to make sure that the local community interests are going to be listened to at this level. That's very important, because all too often there are circumstances where MLAs may have a difficult time working with their respective councils or people who are elected at the local level. You know, I think it's important to set aside one's party affiliation, one's political beliefs, and to work hard and fight for the community that we all represent.
The issues that these individuals have brought forward just last week were concerns around improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway and to make sure that the ministry is cognizant of concerns raised at the local level. It's to ensure that when we embark upon the next phase of work between Mill Bay and Duncan, we do the right things: that we construct that section of highway in a way where we target those areas that have had the highest accident rates; that we don't carry out that project in a way that is going to sacrifice safety and also in a way where we ensure that there is good, strong local employment for the people who are carrying out those important tasks in constructing that section of highway.
Really, it's been long overdue because
[1630]
One of the things I found interesting just in the last week was the fact that the Cowichan Valley regional district has established an agricultural committee. That committee, in my view, is long overdue, because truly there's a recognition
[ Page 14925 ]
proud to say that we have five licensed wineries in the Cowichan area. We have B.C.'s only licensed cidery operation. I was told just on the weekend -- I met an individual -- that we have an up-and-coming cheese production facility in the community. That, in my view, blends well with the other agricultural products and commodities that are in fact grown and processed in the area I represent.
I'm confident that the committee, under Richard's leadership, will ensure that agricultural interests for the people who have been doing that task for many generations will come first and foremost. I think it's incumbent on all of us to ensure that the agrarian community, the people who have been there for decades, are given the opportunities and the tools to be able to do their job in a beneficial way, a less regulatory way, a less taxing way and in a way that helps to further instil the pride in what they do best -- and that's produce excellent food products for all of us in this province. I look forward to working with that group, because they are an excellent group of people.
Now I want to talk about Langford. You know, my heart's in Langford; I represented the Langford area for nine years before it incorporated in 1992. That community is booming. Anyone who's driven west of Victoria either on their way up-Island or just to go out there
We just saw the recent opening of a Home Depot, a Staples, a Real Canadian Superstore and a new Canadian Tire. All these things clearly demonstrate that the private sector is doing well, and they're investing. In my mind -- and I think all would agree -- it also demonstrates that they have confidence. They have confidence in investing in a community.
[1635]
More importantly, it's a community through the leadership of their mayor, Stew Young and the council that works with him. They want to make sure that there are jobs in their community, and they want to make sure that those are good-paying jobs. At the same time, they also recognize that if it wasn't for investment by the province in sewers and a new highway, some of these investments may not have occurred when they did. They might have been later, but they may not have occurred. When these sewers were built, it allowed for land that could not be developed to in fact get developed. A heck of a lot of construction is going on in the area.
Again, in Langford
Hon. Speaker, I see that my time is up, and I gave a commitment that I was going to talk about positive things -- nothing negative.
Point of Privilege
R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise subject to standing order 42(1) to respond to comments attributed to me by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the current Minister of Employment and Investment.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in his throne speech response of April 10, made the following comments in this House:
Mr. Speaker, I have never made such comments and never would. No such comments can be attributed to me, because I have never made them; nor do I support the position and comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Accordingly, I request that the member withdraw his comments."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 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."
The Speaker: I recognize the Deputy Premier on this point.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm acting as House Leader, hon. Speaker, just to reply -- just to take it on notice. I was just going to take it on notice for him -- that's all.
The Speaker: Taking it on notice for the minister.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for the advice from the Opposition House Leader. I appreciate it. I've been out of the business for a while.
It's just that the member is not present, and we'll certainly respond to it at a later date, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair would appreciate it if in future, members could give notice to the Chair, and we could facilitate this much more nicely.
D. Symons: It's interesting -- the point that has just been raised. I have listened today to a number of comments from the government members about policies that the Liberals have -- which we've never had. So it certainly fits in that it continues on and on. They're great at commenting on
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
D. Symons: Anyway, I will get on with the throne speech, because I appreciated the comments from the previous speaker. We had a bit of a travel view around Sooke and like areas. I would like to comment a little bit about my constituency of Richmond Centre as well. I come from a great community, and people don't know that Richmond is an island. It was called Lulu Island, after a young lady of dubious character, I think, a long time ago. Nevertheless, it's in the delta of the Fraser River. We have the three arms of the Fraser
[ Page 14926 ]
encircling our community, one arm cutting off the airport. Probably the first recognition that most people coming to the Pacific coast have
[1640]
Besides the airport in Richmond, which is the gateway to the Pacific, we also are a thriving community in electronics and in this new technology age. We have MacDonald Dettwiler, MDSI and a number of other world leaders in the new electronic age that our world is now moving toward. We have a diversified economy in Richmond.
It hasn't always been that way. At the turn of the century the big thing that Richmond was known for was Steveston, a huge fishing community where they had quite a number of canneries and a large fishing fleet. Japanese, Chinese, aboriginals and Caucasians -- all together -- went out to catch the fish. They were plentiful in the rivers at that time. We're finding now that that's not the case and that fishing's history and heritage in Steveston is somewhat dimming. We're trying to keep for heritage purposes some of those buildings to remind us of the past.
Richmond, when I moved there back in 1962, was primarily still a rural community. When I passed over the Oak Street Bridge, driving out to the area I live in, I passed through a number of areas where there was still farming, dairy farms and so forth. All of those, of course, have been infilled now, and they are all residential areas. We have moved, over the last 40 years, from a rural agricultural community to a thriving city.
We now have more employment in Richmond than there are employed, in that we import workers from other areas into Richmond because there are more jobs than there are people to fill the jobs.
Also, Richmond has changed a great deal demographically over the last couple of decades. We've had a very large influx of new Canadians. They are joining now and learning the process
One thing that I was concerned about when our population grew so dramatically is that the character of the community would possibly change. I am very happy to report that the real things that made Richmond a vibrant community in the past, when it was a small rural community -- those features of a community have stayed. We have a large volunteer section that crosses all the cultural lines in Richmond. The newcomers as well as the old timers believe in people helping people who are in need of help. That idea continues within the community today.
One thing that our new Canadians and the old Canadians who live in the constituency I represent have in common is that they feel they're overtaxed and not too well served by government. Too much government bureaucracy, red tape and tax is something I commonly hear from people when I go to various meetings. Somebody will take me aside and say: "What are you going to do about the taxes? What are you going to do about making it easier for business to get into business without all the red tape that they have to go through?"
Interjection.
D. Symons: I hear the minister across there talking about the lowest tax rate in Canada. You know, that statement was true for 19 hours. It is no longer true, so I should maybe update her on that: we no longer have the lowest tax rate in Canada. New Brunswick beats us out.
If we can get back to the throne speech, this NDP government says: "Now it is time for changes in the way we conduct politics in this province." I find it interesting that this government, which was first elected in 1991
[1645]
Many of the changes that this government is now saying they're going to be doing -- that they are now claiming to embrace -- are changes that we on the opposition side were advocating prior to the last election. We were advocating a fixed legislative calendar, which is something this government now says they are going to move toward.
During that election campaign, we were advertising truth in budgeting. I notice that this government isn't calling theirs truth in budgeting; they're calling it transparency in budgeting. That doesn't necessarily mean truth, does it? There's a slight difference between the two. We were then advocating a meaningful role for legislative committees. It's interesting that the government now says that they are going to be moving toward that.
These are not new ideas. It just takes this government a little longer to learn them and to consider them, and it takes a government that will have the will to implement them. I am not too sure, since nine years have passed, that this is the government that has that will to implement those changes.
This government has had nine years, five years, four years, three years, two years, one year and all the past years that have gone by to implement change, and they didn't do it. Now that they are in the last year, they're saying: "Oh, we're going to bring about changes." Why now? As this government is rapidly approaching the end of their mandate, why are they talking about change? Could it have more to do with the coming election than an actual desire for change? I think so.
We were promised changes prior to the last election and in the first throne speech following the 1996 election. More use of legislative committees was promised. A new Crown Corporations Committee was to be set up.
What has the record been on those promises? Well, the government never allowed the Crown Corporations Committee to sit and examine the operations and projects of the Crowns. I was on that Crown Corporations Committee; I was named to it, anyway. We never met. Could you just imagine how different things might have been if that Crown Corporation Committee had been allowed to meet and had been empowered to look into the affairs of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, particularly their involvement in the fast ferry program?
[ Page 14927 ]
Imagine if a legislative committee made up of members both sides of the House had had the power to investigate that back in '96 when the problems in B.C. Ferries really took off -- if we could have looked at that, if we could have brought people before us and had to get answers to the questions of how the costs were going on that. This government didn't have the stomach to ask Catamaran Ferries International, through their Crown corporations secretariat or through their Treasury Board: "Give me the numbers today." They let it go when the Ferry Corporation was not supplying the numbers, and they didn't demand that those numbers be given to them.
We could have quite a different situation in the province today. We wouldn't be writing off $1.1 billion of debt of the Ferry Corporation, if the Crown Corporations Committee that was promised in the '96 election had actually been fulfilled. It was actually promised after the election in the first throne speech of this particular government that we now have.
If you take a look at what has happened with the fast ferry program, if that Crown Corporations Committee had been formulated and drawn into business, things could have been quite a bit different as far as the B.C. Ferries go. It could have been in a much sounder financial condition.
Also consider B.C. Hydro. Suppose our Crown Corporations Committee had had the opportunity to talk and bring witnesses from B.C. Hydro and from the public to discuss Hydro. I noted three months ago that B.C. Hydro went to the B.C. Utilities Commission and said to them that within a year, B.C. Hydro was going to become a net importer of power. It's interesting. That's not a very positive statement to come out from this government on how they've handled B.C. Hydro. So it was interesting that two weeks after that appearance before the B.C. Utilities Commission and making that comment about becoming a net importer of power, B.C. Hydro basically publicly retracted that by saying: "Oh, we've got lots of power, enough to last us for at least seven years, and when the co-gen things come on, it will go on and on."
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
I don't know whether this government wanted to go to the public in an election campaign saying that we're about to become a net importer of power. They tell the B.C. Utilities Commission one thing; they tell the public another. Suppose that this Crown Corporations Committee had had an opportunity to look into the operations of B.C. Hydro. Then we would have found the truth under that.
[1650]
How about ICBC? Are the people in British Columbia happy with ICBC? Are we getting value for the premiums paid? When the motor vehicle branch was moved into ICBC, did the people of British Columbia know that the cost of operating the motor vehicle branch now is paid for through the premiums they pay for auto insurance? Do they approve of that? I think our legislative committee could look into that aspect of it.
WCB is another Crown corporation: Workers Compensation Board. There's a lot of criticism of the performance of that particular agency. Is it working in the best interests of the injured workers of British Columbia? Those are all issues that the Crown Corporations Committee, which was promised in the throne speech in '96 after this government was elected
Another promise made in this year's throne speech is: "My government recognizes the fundamental importance of transparency in budgeting." An interesting choice, that word "transparency," because it means you can see through something. Indeed, we're beginning to see through this government's budget process in the past years. We saw through the two balanced budgets that we were promised prior to the '96 election. They said that the '95 budget was balanced and that in the coming year we'd have our second balanced budget. That wasn't transparent then, but it's certainly transparent now. It doesn't say, truth in budgeting, you'll note, just that you'll be able to see through it.
It goes on to say: "In this session, my government will introduce a new law: the budget transparency and accountability act." We on this side of the House have been asking for a truth-in-budgeting act for a number of years, and we've actually tabled an act for that in this House that has never been acted upon by this government.
It's really interesting that indeed this is a government that has to bring in a budget transparency and accountability act. That should have been a given, I would think, for any government: that the budget you're going to bring in is truthful and transparent, and people can see that you're not hiding things in various accounts across the political spectrum in the government.
Here again, we have another NDP deathbed repentance -- another promise that won't really come into effect until after the next election because that transparency act is not yet law. So we find that they'll introduce it now, but it won't really come into effect till almost the day before the next election.
Something sounds very familiar about that promise. When I think about it, I think it's last year's budget that had something similar. I find that on page 24 of the "Budget '99" document from this government, it says -- and it was read by the Minister of Finance: "I have also followed the advice of the auditor general to make the budget more transparent. In the coming session I will introduce legislation to formalize a forecasting model -- an independent group of experts who will advise me on the economic outlook." The real problem is -- and the government's promising the same this year, by the way -- that the government had advice back in '96 and '95 on the budget, and they chose to ignore it. So it's no use them saying, "We'll go out and listen to people, and we'll take their advice," because they don't necessarily follow the advice. They haven't done that before.
Notice that in the 1999 budget, they promised a transparent budget. In this year, 2000, we again have a promise of transparency in the budget. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? That old '99 promise has now been recycled. I must say that this government's very good for the environment, because they're very good at recycling their ideas and their promises. Year by year by year we hear the same things over again in the throne speech or in their budget speeches.
[1655]
Each year we hear a promise of improving health care, of reducing wait-lists. Each year the situation gets worse, and the wait-lists get longer. The government talks of an all-party committee of the Legislature having access to budget preparation background material. It certainly would have been indica-
[ Page 14928 ]
tive of their sincerity of inclusion if they had just supplied the opposition with this material this year prior to the budget being released.
Carrying along with that transparency theme, the government also promises that the law -- this new transparency law that they're going to bring in -- will open the books on all major capital projects, fully disclosing their objective, business cases, performance targets and, each and every year, the current and anticipated costs to the taxpayer. I think that's a marvellous goal, and I wish the government well in doing it quickly.
Again, we have to look at what their actions have been recently. That promise is interesting in light of the fact that this newly minted Premier and government refuse to call a public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco. During the leadership bid for the premiership, the now Premier indicated that an inquiry or some sort of open Public Accounts Committee scrutiny was still needed. After becoming leader, he slammed the door shut on allowing any further investigation into why that $500 million failed experiment was allowed to continue, when it must have been known after the first year that the program was in trouble.
Is he concerned that he and over half of his chosen cabinet might be implicated, since they were either on Treasury Board or in cabinet or both, and they approved that particular project? Either they knew what was going on or they approved massive overspending without exercising due diligence. Either way, they had the obligation to know. They ought to have known what was happening, and they simply claimed ignorance. I don't think ignorance is a very good excuse. I think that saying sorry at the end of it hardly covers a $500 million misadventure.
Cabinet ministers take an oath of office that they will carry out their duties of responsibility. The Premier and half of this current cabinet failed in that responsibility in dealing with the issues of the fast ferries.
Remember the new law that they promised in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act? Well, "accountability" is the second word in that act they're bringing in, and the political masters of this fast ferry fiasco haven't been held accountable. They've been rewarded with a cabinet post. Saying, "I'm sorry, and let's forget it," is hardly being held accountable. It doesn't absolve them of rubber-stamping a poorly researched, poorly planned, poorly designed and poorly managed project. There has been no accountability in that fast ferry project. But it's nice to know that they believe in accountability.
On the subject of budgeting, the throne speech says further, on page 10: "My government will seek to balance the need to maintain vital public services with the need to cut taxes to fuel economic growth and the need to control the deficit." Now, the first thing we hear in there -- the first phrase they said -- is "the need to cut taxes." Last year this government had an unexpected revenue increase of $1 billion over what the minister began saying their expected revenues were at the beginning of the fiscal year in her budget speech. They had $1 billion extra. In spite of that, they still ran a $1.2 billion deficit. So I mean, they get a billion more; you'd think that would somehow pay down the $900 million dollar deficit they said they were going to have. Not only that, it was claimed in the budget at the beginning of the year that they were going to have a $900 million deficit. They ended up with a $1.2 billion deficit, in spite of having $1 billion more in a windfall that they weren't expecting in revenues.
So we've had a real problem in how this government manages its finances. How much of this budget's increase
[1700]
They talked about the need to control the deficit. Last year there was an increase in revenues that I talked about earlier, but there was still a $1.2 billion deficit. This year there's an increase in revenues, but they're also budgeting for a $2 billion increase in the deficit. So I wonder, when the government says in the throne speech that they need to control the deficit, where those controls are. Certainly there's nothing in last year's budget, this year's budget or in any of the nine years this government's been in office about any sense of control of the deficit.
This government has a consistent record of spending faster than receiving. And they claim to be a new government going in a modern direction. You know, that would be laughable if it wasn't so serious for our province and for our children, who are going to have to pay for this government's folly.
Listen to what our new Premier has said in the past in support of this government's tax-and-spend policies. The new Premier, back on April 7, 1992, said: "This budget is farsighted. It doesn't go 60 years, but it sets a trend for years to come." That indeed was a trend -- of tax and spend and deficits year after year -- and they followed the trend that this new Premier recognized in 1992.
In 1993 he said that this budget is a godsend for the people of British Columbia. That's the year that this government increased taxes by three-quarters of a billion dollars. In their first two years in government, this government increased the tax load on British Columbians by $1.5 billion.
Well, in 1994 this new Premier said: "Perhaps for the first time in many years, we are conscious of the fact that debt has to be repaid, and a beginning has been made now." The Premier said that in '94. He's now said it again in this year's throne speech. There's been no evidence between '94, when he made that comment I just read, and the throne speech this year that they're making any effort to control the deficit and start paying down the debt that this government has laid upon the province of British Columbia.
So how does the NDP mind work when it comes to spending, taxes and the taxpayer? Well, I have an interesting comment taken out of the Alberni Valley Times of March 2 of this year. It's got the heading: "Taxpayers Off the Hook." The article goes on to say: "The provincial government, not taxpayers" -- notice that it's the provincial government, not taxpayers -- "will pay for any cost overrun incurred when the new hospital purchases B.C.-made kitchen and laundry
[ Page 14929 ]
equipment." This is referring to the Alberni hospital that's going in. The government now has said that they're going to mandate that the kitchen equipment and laundry equipment must be B.C.-bought.
It goes on and quotes the member for Alberni. "Although the province feels that it is unlikely that there will be budget implications
I'm not quite sure where the province gets this money if it's not from the taxpayer. That's what I think the government doesn't really recognize: no matter how you spend it, it comes from the taxpayer. We have to pay it, and if there's debt and deficit there, it's going to be paid for many years to come.
In the throne speech, too, it talks about strengthening and modernizing health care. Eight years ago this government started its move on health care. It started with the Closer to Home initiative, which for many came to mean you're on your own. Then came regionalization, which resulted in people who were not in the major cities finding their local hospital no longer performed certain procedures, and they had to go farther afield to get certain operations done.
On the bottom of page 10, it says: "In the coming weeks, my government will set out 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 the nurses we'll need tomorrow."
[1705]
How many times over the years have we heard this government claim that health care is a number one priority? How many times have we heard that they are going to improve health care services? And each year our health care services have declined. Wait-lists have got longer; nursing shortages are critical; acute care and ICU beds aren't available. Children even from lower Vancouver Island and Victoria are now being diverted to Vancouver because the IC unit in Victoria is now closed.
Few would say that health care has improved under this government. They're guilty of malpractice in health care delivery. As far as bringing nurses in, in last year's budget, what do we find they have said? "Another key to meeting our goal is hiring more nurses
I'd like to give you a story of health care in British Columbia. It's a sad story. In the summer of 1998, a constituent of mine
In November of '98, based on the results of the MRI that finally came -- this is now months after she first had the problem -- the doctor ordered a biopsy. There were two postponements of that biopsy in December, and then there was another postponement in early January. The tests were finally done at the end of January.
That patient died March 31, 1999, of what was apparently a brain tumour. There was more than six months delay between the time she was told that she was going to need an MRI and the time she got that and finally the biopsy and so forth that proved she had a problem. I'm not sure if she'd be alive today if she'd been given care in a timely fashion, but she deserved that chance and didn't get it.
It's even worse, because there's not finality to this for the family. I was speaking to the mother just recently, and she told me that she's still waiting for the results of the autopsy. This is a year after the death. She's still waiting for those results, and she's been told that it may be months yet to come. It's very painful for the family that they're not able to bring closure to the death of their daughter.
One thing that this government is good at is recycling promises that they don't deliver on. A promise one year -- they'll promise it again in the next year. Indeed, they talked about further needing of
Hon. Speaker, there are some things missing in the throne speech. There are quite a few other things I'd like to say, but I'd like to get in just a couple of things here. There's no mention in the throne speech of the leaky-condo issue. I think that this is an important issue to many people in my riding. They're severely financially hit by this particular problem, and it was not of their making. They want to know, and I'm asking: what is this government going to do to help those unfortunate victims?
The second Barrett report -- I call it Barrett 2 -- has come out. A number of recommendations were made. One recommendation is that a federal, provincial and industry fund be set up to assist homeowners to pay for necessary repairs. There was nothing in the throne speech and nothing in the budget to indicate that this government is paying attention to the report that they set up. It would have been nice to have given these people that are affected by leaky condos some hope that this government was there for them. That has not been the case.
Also missing from the throne speech and the budget is a fiscal plan for government. Where is the plan for dealing with the yearly deficits? Where is the plan for paying down the debt? Most throne speeches give the people hope for the future -- a vision that people can buy into. This throne speech does not do that. This one promises more of the same, and that doesn't give me much hope for the future. I cannot support this throne speech, and I encourage all members on both sides of this House to vote against it.
[1710]
D. Jarvis: I also rise to speak on throne 2000. I guess this is about the ninth time since I've been elected that I've been told to rise and speak on the throne speech. It's amazing how time flies when you're having fun.
Mr. Speaker, this government has put forward a very questionable attempt to spin the truth about this province's true fiscal position. It's a very vain attempt, I think, to say in this budget speech how they could govern best for the people of British Columbia. It probably should be entitled, rather than throne 2000, something along the basis of "The Socialist Philosophy Just Doesn't Work."
All of the ministries are in a terrible, terrible state across the board with the unaccountable spending that they're doing,
[ Page 14930 ]
with little or no prioritizing of what is needed in order to give the best service to the taxpayers in British Columbia. It is more than obvious that all of their attempts since 1991 have failed drastically. And once again we see a massive debt in this province in the Finance ministry, and we see chaos in the Health ministry and general confusion throughout Education.
I only point out these three ministries as this government is always prone to say: "These are what we represent. This is what the NDP represents; these are the primary concerns of this government." But what we are actually seeing is that all of the ministries are in a state of confusion and mismanagement. The government is standing still while the ministers do their dance of fools, driven by their philosophy and not reality.
Our position in the global world is eroding, and our resource economy is in a state of virtual collapse. Mining is down tremendously; forestry doesn't know where it's going, especially on the coast here. This government has not been able to satisfy the position of the forest industry. As I said, the resource economy is ostensibly in a state of collapse as this government practices all its social experiments.
The reality is that the NDP fail to grasp the situation, as B.C. strolls along behind the economics of the rest of the Canadian provinces -- and that of the U.S.A. as well, more so. The government tries to escape this fact by stating that it's all because of the Asian crisis. However, our woes do predate the Asian crisis by nearly two years. This was confirmed by their own Finance department back in '95, when their Finance minister was warned that revenues from our resource industries were in a steep decline. And yet they stated they had their balanced budgets and didn't take into consideration what the dangers would be.
Today our resource industries are still in decline. The expected revenue for the mineral resources this year -- the year 2000 -- is down to $33 million. In '99 it was at $46 million; in '98 it was $51 million. Instead of going up, our resources are falling. There is a steady flow of revenue coming in from our resources, and it's a steady flow downwards. Our forest companies in '92 were hit with about a 155 percent rise in their stumpage fees. And we priced ourselves out of the market with the costs of compliance with the Forest Practices Code, which exceeded cost estimates by over 200 percent.
[1715]
Our mineral industry was destroyed by socialist decisions that did not consider the economic equation. The investment just went to other jurisdictions -- as simple as that. People picked up their money and went to other jurisdictions, where they could mine without those problems that this government brought on them through their social justice, as they call it. We became the highest-cost producers in the world. That is not the formula to sustain success. This Budget 2000 shows that -- I realize we're in the throne speech, but I'm talking about the budget as well, which we've just finished going through -- there is no credible plan whatsoever to halt the flow of red ink in this province. This throne speech certainly doesn't do anything to correct that situation.
By the time the Asian crisis hit B.C.'s economy, we already had been in decline for over two years. And this party, this government of yours, were unable to cope with it, didn't know what was going on. They went through Finance ministers every year that did nothing to improve the economy or improve our growth or improve our investment or our development. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Speaker, economic revival is the key to our recovery, not the change of Asian economies. We have to attract capital into this province. It is a very simple theory: if you do not invest, you cannot expect interest at the end of the year. And this government certainly does not see that point of view. In order to create growth -- to create jobs and wealth and revenues -- you require investment. Nowhere do we see in this throne speech that this government is heading to any sort of recovery on that aspect. All we see is the continued growth of debt -- a debt of approximately $36.5 billion, a legacy that we are leaving our children and our grandchildren to have to pay.
Our surplus, if any, appears to be going to paying for interest to the foreign banks. If you took all the ministries of Health and Education and interest payment to foreign banks, our interest payments would represent the third-largest-spending ministry in this province. We now pay in excess of $7,700,000 per day, every day of the year -- year after year after year, it's going to appear to be.
Without question, the most visible failure of the NDP government is its inability to manage British Columbia's economy. We are seeing again a government totally incapable of restraining its pro-spending policies. And Mr. Speaker, our position in Canada and the world continues to erode. No matter what they say, it is eroding, unless they turn something around very quickly. A concern with most British Columbians is the philosophical approach that this government will take to change or stay the course that our economy is presently on. The philosophical bent of the NDP, the public believes, is that they are more concerned with social issues than with economics. They forget about the aspect that economics is what truly drives our way of life in this province.
In other words, most people feel that the social well-being of our society does not put bread on the tables, says the NDP, nor does it pay the mortgage or afford the chance to send our children to quality schools or pay for our health care. Yet the NDP pursue the social aspect as though they have the right, and those that disagree are considered uncaring and uninformed. The NDP care more for the trees out there than they do for the human beings that are in this province. It appears that they care more for the marmots than they do for the children in foster homes.
We have to consider the number of innocent people that have had their lives trashed by this government and its policies. Whether they be in the resource towns or in the streets of our major cities, this government has forgotten that people are part of the equation too. The land claims in themselves have interfered with those conditions affecting humans -- those things that are important to the human condition. We see that even in the Children and Families ministry
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, even in the Draayer case
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, please.
D. Jarvis: Even in the Draayer case in Children and Families
[ Page 14931 ]
[1720]
An Hon. Member: You don't even know what you're talking about. They were removed, not seized.
D. Jarvis: We hear the former Minister for Children and Families trying to excuse herself for the way she handled the matter so abysmally. That is ostensibly why she was removed out of her job to where she is now on the back bench.
Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, member.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, we need a change, but the change is to show the investment world that B.C. will look at the social and the economic values first and consider what is best for this province as a whole, not just a specific few or a special interest group that the NDP seem to be caring for. We look at the past performance of this government, and we see that our revenues this past year increased by $1.1 billion. That would seem to indicate that the increase in revenues could possibly lead to a situation where we may possibly be getting our finances under control. However, this government continues to spend and spend, to the point where our deficit just grew and grew; we can now expect our deficit to exceed, I think the Finance minister said, $1.4 billion.
Great portions of our province's revenue come from either taxation or natural resources. What we do gain from these resources is erased by allowing our debt to rise. This indicates a complete lack of responsibility to the people of B.C. The fiscal policy of this province is in dire straits at this point. Our deficit could have been substantially reduced if only this new government -- which they mentioned in the throne speech about 15 or 20 times -- had demonstrated that they had some responsibility to show restraint. Alas, they reverted again to the Harcourt-Clark style of government: spend, spend, spend. It certainly looks like the same old gang is back. This seems to indicate that this province is doomed again, I guess, for at least another year, unless they decide that they may want to call an election sooner.
The Premier stood up, and his first words were that he would like to see the opposition stop our posturing and using excessive partisanship. At the same time his next-in-command stood up and referred to us as the enemy. Now, that is not what you'd call non-partisanship.
We don't need more transparency in this government as much as we need a change of the regime to one that is committed to a budgetary process that would give the citizens of this province a sense that this government is actually going to make financial sense, for a change.
The throne speech for the year 2000 was unquestionably a great disappointment to all across this province and in fact to all across this country. The substance was the same old rhetoric that the NDP are going to support health care, education and child care. Well, we know what their history has been. No changes are forthcoming. We still see, for example in child care, complete chaos out there.
The rallying call of this NDP government, whenever they were called on to make changes or to reconsider the way they were spending the taxpayers' money, was always to plead to us: "What schools do you want closed? What hospitals would you have us close down?" It's the same old silly rhetoric that they use all the time, as though they were the just and all those that would question their authority were next to being uncaring.
This NDP socialist government always feels that they are right and everyone else is wrong. But as it always turned out, health care took their dramatic shifts, and it ended up in total chaos. All across this province, we're still in chaos. Education throughout the province is in turmoil, and still this government tries to tinker with the system. Just about every school board across this province at this point, if it doesn't already have a deficit, is at a stage of having a deficit -- not because they haven't been putting money into education or into health, but because of their mismanagement of the situation.
[1725]
Something is wrong with the NDP way of doing the people's business. What do we see happening? What does the government say in this throne speech to suggest that its past ways need to be changed? Very little, unfortunately, other than the innovation forum that they will create. They say they are going to create an innovation culture throughout the system -- another delay, another study group at the expense of the taxpayers trying to find the right way. So while surgery wait-lists continue to grow and our children continue to go without materials for their education, this government will do yet another study. And while they stand around and forget about the parents and allow the quality of education to deteriorate, the unions get stronger; they get more money. The demand for this money grows and grows, and still the NDP vacillates in their reasoning as to what is wrong and what is actually happening out there.
This government appears not to understand that there's a big gap between what they say and what they actually do. They promise something, but they never follow through. This always leads everything into a chaotic situation. There is nothing in this throne speech that will in essence fuel the economic growth of this province.
This government will cut taxes for low- and middle-income earners, but not for the upper-income groups. Again, we see the socialist train of thought towards those who create the jobs and who invest in businesses that actually create the work -- those that they believe to be the bad ones. They do everything and their utmost to dissuade them from investing in this province.
We have here in B.C. the resources to turn this depressed economy around in a relatively short time, if it is addressed in a basically responsible manner. If we look at the past years, we can see that our economy grew at quite a steady rate. This growth built a strong public sector to support our health, education and transportation infrastructure -- though not since this government came in. At the same time, our private sector economy was also allowed to grow substantially. But not when the NDP came in. The whole picture turned around. Our economy in the sixties grew at 6.4 percent per year. In the seventies our economy grew at 4.8 percent. Through that high-interest depression period of the eighties, we still grew at a modest 3.7 percent. The nineties, when the NDP came in, has been the only decade out of the last three decades that has brought us into a negative growth. We went from the No. 1 province in this country to the No. 10 province; we went from the best to the worst.
Our problems in this province never really started until the nineties, when this socialist party became the government
[ Page 14932 ]
in 1991. At that time, as I said, British Columbia was in a very high business cycle while eastern Canada was entering into their sort of depression cycle. But this NDP government proceeded to destroy our economy with their social experiments, high taxation and questionable land use policies.
When we look at this throne speech, absolutely nothing is there that would indicate that this government's policy wants to encourage public or private investment to support our ailing economy. We have an unbelievable debt of $36.5 million, and it's growing. We pay over $7 million dollars a day in interest to the foreign banks. And they feel over there that this is good for our province.
Our major wealth producers in this province over the last decade have been severely damaged -- if not close to being destroyed. Along with the mining and forest industries being damaged by NDP policies, the people who work and reside in the resource areas of this province have been trashed by this NDP government. This is a government driven by ideology, as I said, and not reality.
[1730]
This socialist philosophy does not work. We are the last in job creation in this country; we are the last in economic growth in this country; we are last in the private sector investment in this country. No matter what they yell and scream about, the facts are there, and they are actual facts.
We have a situation where
For example, he has now gone
You know, they talk about how our economy is so good. In the paper this morning CMHC, in their urban starts of single-family housing
Well, the fact is that our economy is not good; it's been trashed by this government. People in British Columbia are having shrinking paycheques. As I said, the government records -- it's information taken from the government records -- say that B.C. is last in investment when it comes to the private sector. The B.C. government's record in job creation is last in the country; the B.C. government's record in economic growth is last in this country. We have gone from the best to the worst.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
As I said right from the start, when we are talking about this throne speech, it probably shouldn't be titled throne 2000; it should be titled, "The Socialist Philosophy Does Not Work." They have an abysmal record, and they are doing nothing to try to protect it or change the situation in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the only change that's going to come will be when we have an election and change governments.
On that premise, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'll say that I will not be supporting the throne speech, naturally.
[1735]
Hon. H. Lali: It's indeed an honour to stand here and support the throne speech which was introduced last month. Before I begin, I just want to talk about my constituency and some of the things that have gone on there and what we were able to achieve over the last number of years and, like the hon. member across the way says, all of the good roads that we built all across the province.
I've been elected as an MLA. It's my ninth year, and certainly it's been a pleasure to serve my constituents of Yale-Lillooet in this Legislature. As you know, you've travelled up in my neck of the woods on several occasions. Yale-Lillooet is a fairly large rural riding, stretching about 30,000 square kilometres. It's quite diverse in nature. We have different climatic zones -- far north, up in the heights of the mountains in the south Chilcotins, near Lillooet, down to the U.S. border at Princeton and Manning Park, and then on the east at Douglas Lake, which is almost up to Kamloops and Savona, and in the west as far as the Peters band, which is about 25 or 30 kilometres west of the town of Hope. So we've got quite a diverse constituency, and quite a diverse population as well.
We've got, obviously, one of the largest aboriginal populations of any constituency. I think it's the second- or third-largest, represented by 27 first nations bands. We've also got people from various European backgrounds, from northern Europe as well as southern Europe, from the Anglo-Saxon and the Catholic countries. We've had quite a large population of Italian- and Spanish-speaking people in Merritt. I remember when I first came to Merritt in 1966, there were quite a few Chinese Canadian families and also Japanese families in Merritt as well. The Chinese community had been fairly old in terms of
[ Page 14933 ]
There are numerous rivers and streams throughout my constituency, and it's actually, as I mentioned earlier, a fairly rugged constituency. We also have fairly good skiing and cross-country skiing as well. We have the Cayoosh Creek Resort, with Nancy Greene-Raine and Al Raine, who are working on that one. That's actually situated on the Duffy Lake Road in my riding.
I also want to talk a little bit about my constituency in terms of the number of people who work in the forestry, mining and agricultural sectors. It is primarily a resource-based constituency, so we actually have about 33 percent of the population that is dependent on the forest industry. I have more sawmills and plywood plants and small forestry outfits in my constituency than any other constituency in the province. I take quite a bit of pride in that.
Interjection.
Hon. H. Lali: Obviously the hon. member across the way is doing some heckling -- wouldn't know anything about forestry, and their party doesn't even have any policy on forestry. But in our neck of the woods people are quite interested in the forest industry, as so many work in the forest industry and also in the mining industry and agriculture.
I've mentioned previously that we have 27 aboriginal bands in my riding. In total I have eight municipalities, represented by four regional districts, and I have 52 communities in total, ranging anywhere from ten households to communities the size of Merritt, which has about 8,000 people, and another 10,000 to 12,000 people in the surrounding area. Yale-Lillooet is the fifth-largest constituency in area in this province.
[1740]
Hon. Speaker, it's indeed an honour to serve in this chamber. I've been elected twice now -- in '91 and '96. I look at the position of being a member of the Legislative Assembly as quite a noble calling. All members of this House, regardless of what political party they belong to, are honourable in this chamber. I truly believe that.
We may differ in our viewpoints, but at the end of the day, I know how hard members on this side of the House work. I know how hard the members on the other side of the House work as well. Often you have criticism of people in public life, in the media especially, and I think that to a greater extent, it's unwarranted, because all members of this House work hard. I know that all members of this House care about their constituents and the issues that come up in their ridings. They try to represent their constituents in the best way that they possibly know.
I know all members work hard, because I have seen for the last nine years that whether they're government members or opposition members, everybody's busy doing their thing. We may differ, as I mentioned earlier, in our philosophies and the way we do things, but I truly believe that all members are honourable and all members work hard -- contrary to the perception that is out there in the public that the only time members work is when the session is on.
As a matter of fact, members work harder when the session is out. Most of the work that we do is within our own constituencies, when we meet with everyday ordinary working folks and people who aren't working, as well, to deal with the situations -- their particular issues, whether they're related to their job
I know there was a report that was done -- I think it was in late 1992, early 1993 -- where all members were asked to give an idea of how much time they spent on their jobs. It was anywhere between 50 and 70 hours a week that members were spending, depending on which part of the province they lived in. Often people don't know that.
I want to talk a little bit about Transportation and Highways, because that is the ministry that I'm responsible for. I've indeed had quite the honour to serve in cabinet and also to be able to travel to various parts of the province to talk to individuals who have their concerns regarding transportation and highways.
We've been able to actually increase the amount of funding that we have put into transportation infrastructure. In 1998-99, it was $380 million from the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Last year it was $490 million, and this year it is $486 million. Part of the mainstay of the program for the last two years and this year has been the northern roads initiative. We went from a $26 million investment in that part of the province almost four years ago. The first year I became minister, we more than doubled it to $66 million. Last year it was $69 million, and this year it is $110 million. That includes the $20 million from oil and gas. And the people, especially in the Peace River country and all across the North, are quite happy with the investment that this government is making on their behalf to look after their roads and the travelling public. That helps the economy there and helps people to be able to get safely to and from health and educational facilities.
There are a number of issues that I have had to deal with as minister since February of 1998. We've had a number of projects, and there are a number of major projects that are actually in the ridings of the members opposite. The Lions Gate Bridge is well underway, in terms of the rehabilitation work that we are doing there, as is the Port Mann Bridge. I see the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is happy about that work. She has worked with me for the last couple of years on her particular issues. I mentioned the Port Mann Bridge; that's well underway -- and the Trans-Canada HOV lanes which go through the ridings of the members opposite as well. I know some people are able to save up to half an hour's time during rush hour, in order to get home to their families faster.
[1745]
There is also the South Surrey interchange, which we recently opened; that has been completed. Work is also underway on the 200th Street Langley interchange. I know the members for Langley and for Fort Langley-Aldergrove were instrumental in lobbying the government for that. There is also the Mount Lehman interchange, which was announced about a month or a month and a half ago and which is through an opposition riding. All of these major projects are in opposition ridings. And I know the members opposite are quite happy about that as well.
[ Page 14934 ]
There's the highway from the Sumas Canal to the Vedder Canal, a $10 million project. Again it's another opposition riding, as is the Nordel Way interchange announced last year -- the works that are going to be underway there. Sorry, it's not an interchange; it's the four-laning that will be done there.
Also, the Vancouver Island Highway is nearing completion. I was able to announce last year the four-laning from Campbell River to Courtenay, in a government riding. The Vancouver Island Highway also goes through Parksville-Qualicum, which is an opposition riding.
Also, Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies, represented by both opposition and NDP ridings
Also, the Lytton Bridge in my riding is well underway now, and people were long-waiting for that. I initially made the announcement in '95. It went into the capital freeze, and we were able to actually thaw it out and start construction on that and deal with some of the other issues. Four-laning of the Aspen Grove will begin as well, as we received approval from the Agricultural Land Commission just two months ago. The Glenrosa interchange in an opposition riding in Kelowna was recently completed. Construction is underway on the John Hart Bridge in Prince George as well. The Nisga'a Highway, Greenville to Kincolith; Highway 20 works, in the Cariboo; as well as the Castlegar interchange
Within the constituency, we've had a number of issues in Yale-Lillooet that I've had to deal with in the last nine years that I've been an MLA -- in health and education
Regarding health, in Merritt the Nicola Valley General Hospital had upgrading a few years back, as well as the long term care beds in Princeton, extended care in Lillooet and multilevel care beds in Hope. These are four major communities in my riding, hon. Speaker. We were able to look after the needs of the constituents there.
Also, sheltered housing. There are 18 units in Princeton that I announced a few years back, and it's been completed.
There are a number of schools that were also either rebuilt or major renovations took place. Merritt Secondary School was a $9 million project which was completed a few years back. Collettville Elementary School
There have been some rec centres as well. In Merritt there's the Nicola Valley Aquatic Centre. We've contributed a million dollars from the provincial coffers towards that. There's the library-pool complex in Hope as well, and that's a multimillion-dollar complex.
In terms of forestry issues, we had 250,000 cubic metres of wood that went out to small operators under the small business program. There were six companies that were successful -- three out of Merritt and three out of Princeton. I believe four of them had ownership and participation by aboriginal people within my riding.
In Merritt we were able to work hard -- my staff in Victoria and in Merritt -- to work with the forest industry to save the Weyerhaeuser aspen planer mill in Merritt. A deal was struck between aspen planers in Merritt, and obviously we were able to save 129 jobs in Merritt. Most recently was the J.S. Jones operation in Boston Bar, where the job protection commissioner's plan was accepted by the community and the workers, as well as the government and the company, to keep 200 jobs open there.
[1750]
Since I've become minister, on the international scene -- even before I became minister -- I've had the opportunity to go on a number of trade missions. Some of them I actually paid for myself, and there were a couple that obviously the government
In November of 1995, when Premier Harcourt was the Premier, I had a chance to actually go on a trade mission there. Also, in '96-97, I went on my own, actually, for a private visit and then did some trade work there. Also in August of '98, which again was a personal trip for me, I took time out to actually do some stuff on the trade side of things in terms of transportation infrastructure.
Then of course last April, in 1999, I went to the 300-year celebration of the Khalsa in Anandpur. I would ask the representative of this government to participate in those historic ceremonies, where over an eight-day period, five million people from all over the world -- mostly Sikhs -- were able to travel and do the pilgrimage there.
At the same time, there was some trade that we did. We've had the Punjab government and private businesses in Punjab interested in our seal-coating, crack-sealing and also hot-in-place remix technology, and they're planning a trade mission to British Columbia to take a look at our machinery firsthand this summer. So that's in the works, as well as a bus-building factory that wants to locate in British Columbia.
There are a number of other issues that I've been able to work on and have some successes with throughout the riding. In terms of the capital projects that have been completed, some of which I've mentioned
I know that the opposition members
[ Page 14935 ]
Interjection.
Hon. H. Lali: I'm talking about schools, and I see the Minister of Education wants me to keep on talking about schools -- many of those schools that have been built in Port Moody and Burnaby and Surrey and ridings of the members opposite. They should be happy about that. They should be happy that we're building schools and looking after the needs of parents and school children and teachers in their ridings. They should be happy about the roads and the bridges and the interchanges that we're building in their particular ridings. They should be happy.
But it's very, very hard for them to express that and be truthful and honest about it when they stand up in the Legislature. What do they do when they get to the Legislature? They start talking about the debt and the deficit, and they just won't get off that. When we ask members opposite, either as a group or individually, when we put them to the task
They can't -- they just won't, not a single one of them will -- stand up and have the courage to say: "Yeah we want to balance the budget. Here's the project in my riding that you can cut." They don't want to do that. They want those projects, and they want the deficit drawn down. Well, they just can't speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time -- ask with one hand and start railing at us on the other hand. They just can't have it that way.
Having said that
Interjections.
Hon. H. Lali: I just wanted to put the opposition members to task. You can tell how loud they're getting in their heckling; I must have hit a raw nerve. I must have hit a sore spot on those hon. members, in that they can't stand the heat. They're always like that; they can't stand the heat. When the heat's on them, they turn tail and run, and they cry all of the time.
[1755]
But the fact is that we are building British Columbia. We're building it in the ridings of the members opposite as well. That's why I'm standing up here and, with honour and with pleasure, supporting this throne speech and this government. I would urge the hon. members opposite -- every single one of them -- to come clean, be honest with their constituents, stand up for their constituents and vote in favour of the throne speech.
Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I would like to move adjournment of debate.
Some Hon. Members: Aye!
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I am sure my colleague is thrilled to get such an enthusiastic response to his motion. I simply want to advise all members of the House that we shall indeed be sitting tomorrow.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada