2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 4
[ Page 17355 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today is Mr. Sandy Dore from the Okanagan. Sandy has won many awards, and most recently he won the national Baha'i Race Unity Award. So would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are two police officers: Chief Superintendent Earl Moulton of the RCMP E Division and Chief Ben Andersen of the Oak Bay police force, who is also a representative of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. Both are joining us today to see if there's something this Legislature might do to make their jobs easier in dealing with sex offenders in this province.
[1410]
T. Nebbeling: Today in the gallery we have a very distinguished guest, Angus Ree, QC. He's from Tsawwassen, and he is here today with his family members and his son, Cameron Ree. We also have the grandchildren of Angus Ree here: Gillian, Travis and Jamieson. They all reside in White Rock, and my colleague from Surrey-White Rock is sitting here making sure that I mention each and every one of them. Angus was the MLA for North Vancouver-Capilano for the years 1979 to 1991, and he was the first Solicitor General of B.C. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: I'm pleased to introduce some guests today: Bruce Cottrell, Collette Cottrell and Stan Walker -- hard-working, dedicated teachers in our public education system in Golden. With them is Lori Cottrell from Victoria. Make them welcome.
Hon. G. Janssen: I'm pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, who unfortunately can't be with us, to introduce from the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association Penny Gambell, the current and first woman president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association in its 112-year history and the current and first woman president of the Canadian Horticultural Council; Allan Patton, vice-president; James Calissi and Sewa Bains, directors; Glen Lucas, general manager; Gerry Shaw, president, B.C. Tree Fruits; John Duncan, president, B.C. Fruit Packers Co-op; Jim Elliott, president, Okanagan North Growers Co-op; Don Kato, president, Sun Fresh Co-op; fruit growers Rob Holitzky and Kieth Holman; and Thal Poonian, fruit grower and chair of the NDP standing committee on agriculture. They're in Victoria to meet with the Premier and government officials. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. S. Hammell: Visiting us in the gallery is a friend of mine from our sister city, Seattle. Cathy Allen is the national vice-president of the National Women's Caucus in the United States. And that's actually the largest women's organization in that country. She is also the co-founder of the Center for Women in Democracy, a foundation connected to the University of Washington. She's here to observe us in this House, so would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my great pleasure to introduce a longtime friend today in the House. His name is Mike Lombardi. He's a longtime teacher in the province who currently works for the B.C. Teachers Federation and is well known for his teacher leadership over the last number of years. He's also joined by his wife Valerie Stevenson and his children Joey, Josh and Lyndsay. Would the House please make them welcome.
P. Priddy: I'd like to welcome a group of grade 10 students from Enver Creek Secondary School in Surrey-Newton. They're accompanied by two teachers, Mr. Harasymek and Mr. Riket. Enver Creek Secondary School is known, actually, throughout Surrey for its student leadership and mentoring activities at the school. They've just completed public performances of the musical The Music Man. Their grade 9 girls have just taken first place in the Fraser Valley basketball tournament, and one of their students is one of only 30 students in B.C. selected to participate in the ICBC Road Sense video. So I'm very proud to be connected to such a fine secondary school in Surrey. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: Last but not least, I'd like the House to welcome two new constituents to my riding, Denise and Cameron Burrows. Would the House make them welcome.
[1415]
Introduction of Bills
Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sex Offender Registry Act.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I am pleased to introduce Bill 11, the Sex Offender Registry Act. This bill establishes a sex offender registry in this province. The sex offender registry will improve public protection by making police aware of sex offenders moving into or living in their jurisdiction. Police will then be in a position to make appropriate community notification decisions where an offender presents a threat. The registry will also provide law enforcement with an additional investigative tool for solving crimes. The registry will hold current, specified personal and location information about all B.C. sex offenders for a minimum of ten years.
The bill may be proclaimed in two phases. The first phase, electronic tracing, is reflected in part 2 of the bill, which authorizes the registrar to demand specified personal or location information about offenders from public or private data holders. A six-month evaluation of this phase is planned. If electronic tracing is not effectively providing information to the registry, the parts of the legislation related to mandatory registration will be proclaimed. Mandatory registration will require offenders to register at their local community corrections office at least annually and whenever they move. Offenders who do not comply face prosecution, fines and possible incarceration.
Bill 11 includes some of the following highlights. It establishes a sex offender registry. It provides authority for the
[ Page 17356 ]
registrar of the sex offender registry to demand information from data holders in order to electronically trace registered sex offenders. It establishes relevant offences and types of offenders for the purposes of the sex offender registry. It establishes reporting requirements for offenders once they are registered. It establishes penalties for non-compliance by registered offenders, and it provides the opportunity for the offender to review and correct personal information.
I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 11 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Point of Privilege
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I rise at this time to make my point of privilege regarding statements made in this House by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain at the last sitting of the assembly.
One of the great privileges that we all enjoy in this Legislature is to speak our minds freely; to argue for positions we believe in; to advocate for our parties, our community and our province. This is our right as members of this body, whether we sit as government members, government ministers, opposition members or independents. But every right brings with it attendant responsibilities. On a very basic level we should seek to ensure that what we say is factually accurate. I believe we should seek, in all we say, to support the institutions of government which this chamber has established and support the public service who advise on the options before us and administer the laws we enact, and finally, as our duty as members, not to mislead this House.
On Thursday, March 15, the opposition's Finance critic rose to reply to the budget speech. He exercised his rights as a member fully and spoke his mind forcefully. I would expect nothing less from a critic. Regretfully, however, he also abused the privileges of this House by misleading members and the public. He went beyond questioning the choices government made and impugned the actions of members and of the public service of the province. In short, in both his use of inaccurate facts and unsupported conclusions, I believe he has crossed the line no member should cross and has misled this House and the people of our province.
Let's begin with the factual errors. The Finance critic charged that I "summoned the chair of B.C. Hydro" at 1 p.m., March 5, and "directed the chairman to find more optimism," referring to Hydro's net income for the coming year. This is not true. No such meeting took place, and no such direction was issued. I was in meetings here in Victoria at that time, but it was not with the chair or any other representative of B.C. Hydro. In fact, it would have been impossible for such a meeting to have occurred, because the chair of B.C. Hydro wasn't in the province -- wasn't even in the country on March 5. The fact is the meeting simply never occurred, and no such direction was ever given. I'll return in a few minutes, hon. Speaker, to how Budget 2001 forecast the net income of $300 million for B.C. Hydro.
[1420]
The member also waved around a couple of e-mails, apparently dated March 2 and 9, between B.C. Hydro officials and Finance ministry officials. E-mails, he said, prove that B.C. Hydro was opposed to the net income figure to be forecast in the budget and had never approved it. The member made selective use of these materials. The Hydro official the member spoke of was given an opportunity by Finance officials to comment on and edit the Hydro page in government's budget report. The Hydro officials sent an e-mail to a Finance official, making comments and edits on capital and other assumptions but leaving the net income figure as is. In respect to the rest of the budget report, including the net income figure, the Hydro official said: "Looks good."
The member's premise relies on a selective use of correspondence, which leads him to unfounded and false conclusions. The members of this House and the people of British Columbia deserve better than selective use of information that leads to inaccurate conclusions.
I do not believe that the critic did the House the normal courtesy of tabling the documents that he read from in his speech, so I will do so now and also table a more extensive documentation of correspondence between Treasury Board and B.C. Hydro officials.
Hon. Speaker, since the passage of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, this government has lived under Canada's toughest budget legislation. As recommended in the Enns report, we now operate with the summary account's bottom line, where the net results of Crown operations have a direct bearing on the government's bottom line.
Interjections.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This will bear on the point, hon. Speaker. This will bear. As a result, it is the job of Treasury Board and Treasury Board staff to satisfy themselves that the forecast being made by Crown corporations are reasonable and reflect the priorities of the government shareholder. In this work, Treasury Board staff must be as diligent with Crown forecasts and priorities as they are with those of ministries and other agencies. The documents that I am now tabling show that during the preparation of Budget 2001-02, Treasury Board staff learned from B.C. Hydro staff of the range of possible targets, from negative $100 million to positive $700 million. They show
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: They show that Treasury Board staff undertook vigorous discussions with B.C. Hydro staff about the implications of various targets. In the current year, 2000-01, we are forecasting that B.C. Hydro will have attained positive results of approximately $1.1 billion, before providing the $305 million energy rebates. Next year's target of $300 million is a bit more than one-quarter of this year's results.
Given the low precipitation in our province this winter
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Excuse me, minister, could you take your seat for a minute. I'm trusting that the minister is
[ Page 17357 ]
ready to wrap up his comments. I'm asking members of the House to control their comments and not to make comments towards the Chair from their seats. That is disrespectful, and I would ask the member for Matsqui to control that. I now ask the minister to complete his remarks.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, the net income forecast for B.C. Hydro that these documents show represents the midpoint of a range provided to me by a senior Finance official responsible for budget forecasting and the middle of ranges provided by the ministry senior liaison. Hon. Speaker, the opposition critic has charged that we have not operated in accordance with the provisions of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Every material assumption underlying revenue is presented, as are risks to those assumptions, in Budget 2001. I have acted entirely in accordance with that act, and the critic has presented no evidence that I have acted otherwise. The critic's charges are completely unsubstantiated and unacceptable and constitute an attack on my privileges.
As promised, the completeness of those assumptions in Budget 2001 has been attested to by the senior public servant and the Ministry of Finance's secretary to Treasury Board.
[1425]
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I've heard the minister's comments. I believe you're finished now, minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have one concluding remark here.
An Hon. Member: Point of order.
The Speaker: Members, I don't want to get into points of order at this point. I just want to hear the complete wrap-up very quickly from the minister, and other members are able to speak on this subject.
Hon. P. Ramsey: From the documents I've tabled today, I believe there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I call on the member opposite to withdraw his comments and to apologize to this House and to the public service of the province. I am prepared, hon. Speaker, to move the necessary motion should you find a prima facie case exists.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. If you have documents to table, I would ask that you, of course, ask the House for leave to do that before you do so.
G. Farrell-Collins: Before I respond to the minister's comments, I would encourage the Speaker to review Hansard from the attempted presentation by the member for Delta South, Fred Gingell, on a similar matter of privilege relating to the Budget '95-96, which, I think, was allowed to go on for about 30 seconds. I'd just encourage the Speaker to look at that.
I wish to respond to the comments by the Finance minister today. It is true that members of this House have a right and a privilege and a duty to speak freely and to speak accurately. I received documentation. I obviously do not have all the documentation the Minister of Finance has. However
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. I'd ask the member to take his seat, please.
Members, we've heard the point of privilege raised. I think it's only natural that we should hear a response. Could I ask the Opposition House Leader to do so, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: Very clearly, the documents which came into my possession and which I made public last Thursday indicate a somewhat different story than the Minister of Finance is telling us here today. I must say that while I heard on Thursday from the chair of B.C. Hydro, who is the individual that the Finance minister referred people to go to for the truth, the real figures
But if the minister assures me that there was no meeting on March 5, I take him at his word. That does not in any way, shape or form
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Proceed, please.
[1430]
G. Farrell-Collins: However, the documents that I put forward, which I had in my possession, stand.
On March 2 there was a figure of minus $100 million. It became plus $100 million. It became plus $300 million. None of the documents that I've seen, none of the documents the minister produced, until today, show any discussion whatsoever of a range. So I anxiously await the range, whatever that figure is.
Second of all, the only government that has ever done anything to intimidate or impugn the motives of the civil service is this government, when they did it in 1996. When confronted by the fact that the revenue projections didn't add up, they simply pressured and pushed those civil servants until they got a figure that the Minister of Finance was willing to put into the budget.
Now, I understand that members opposite may not believe the auditor general. I choose to believe the auditor general. The public chooses to believe the auditor general. I impugn no one other than the members of the New Democratic caucus that are sitting over there trying to pull the same thing they did in 1996 on the voters of British Columbia in 2001.
Mr. Speaker, all that aside, there is nothing in the statements of the Minister of Finance that qualify in any way, shape or form in any standing order in this House or any other as a matter of privilege. And I'll leave it at that.
[ Page 17358 ]
The Speaker: Thank you, members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The Chair will take the matter under advisement and make a later ruling.
The Opposition House Leader, on a matter.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have not had a chance to see the documents the minister put forward, so I may have further comment depending on when I see them.
Oral Questions
B.C. HYDRO BUDGET PROJECTIONS
G. Farrell-Collins: I have several very simple questions for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance tell us on what date the $300 million figure for the estimate of net revenue for B.C. Hydro was first included in the budget?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I guess I can continue with some of the facts that I was outlining for the member opposite.
We are now in an era, under summary accounts, where Crown corporations come to Treasury Board
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey:
The Speaker: The hon. House Leader has a supplemental.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Minister of Finance can explain, if the government chose the $300 million figure for B.C. Hydro on March 5, why it was that the government informed the public last Thursday and again today that Hydro didn't sign off on that figure until March 9.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member asked me when the target was selected, when Hydro was informed; I've answered that question.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader, further supplemental.
G. Farrell-Collins: Unfortunately, he didn't answer the question I just asked.
Let me give him this question: can the Minister of Finance tell us why the government chose the $300 million figure at least four days before B.C. Hydro had agreed to that figure? And did Hydro ever agree to that figure?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes indeed, Hydro both verbally and in conversation with the secretary to Treasury Board, and in the e-mails that I've tabled today, has said that this is an acceptable target for the year 2001-02.
[1435]
Hon. Speaker, Hydro is a very well run public corporation. They made significant money last year: $1.1 billion. They are having difficulties with low reservoir levels. They will not make $1.1 billion in the coming year, nor half of that. The target that we have tabled for B.C. Hydro is attainable, and I believe it is an entirely acceptable target for B.C. Hydro for the coming year.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's the crux of the problem. This is a figure that's set by the Minister of Finance. It has no bearing on reality with B.C. Hydro, and it conveniently gives the government an extra $200 million to $400 million in order to balance their budget this year. I rest my case. This is exactly what the government did in 1996.
In 1996 the government was given revenue figures that they didn't like, and they went back and made revenue figures that fit their budget. The $300 million figure went into the budget on March 5. Hydro didn't sign off on it -- if they ever did -- until March 9, according to the government. This is not a figure that Hydro, the experts, have any basis in reality on. This is a figment of the imagination of the Minister of Finance, and the voters will make sure they tell him that. Will the Minister of Finance apologize for once again misleading the people of British Columbia?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is the responsibility of treasury to work with Crown corporations and set targets for coming years. That is the job. If the member reads the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, he might understand some part of it, instead of relying on a few e-mails for his entire education on how the heck you set targets.
The target for B.C. Hydro was set, like all assumptions in this budget, on the strictest interpretation of the BTAA. Let me say it again: I sought advice from a wide variety of sources. The $300 million represents the midpoint -- the midpoint -- of a range presented to me by the senior official in the Ministry of Finance charged with budget forecasting. It also represents the midpoint of ranges presented to me by this ministry's senior liaison with B.C. Hydro after a full consultation with them and by an independent contractor that I also engaged to look at what is an appropriate level for Hydro revenues in the coming year.
Hon. Speaker, when I compare the work that I have done to inform myself about its appropriate range and to select an appropriate target for B.C. Hydro with the hon. member opposite's two e-mails and a wing and a prayer, I think the budget stands up.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
C. Clark: In 1996 Elizabeth Cull also thought that her political opinion was better than the one that was provided by the experts. And this minister is doing exactly the same thing. So my question is for the Premier. Why does the Premier believe that somehow his minister's political opinion should outweigh that of the experts at B.C. Hydro?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, this is desperation. No such meeting as the opposition
Interjections.
[ Page 17359 ]
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The critic stands up and says: "Oh, I guess the meeting that I said you had actually never happened; I'll take your word on that." He tables a partial e-mail and says this represents the total consultation and leaps to this horrendous conclusion -- absolutely unacceptable for behaviour in this House.
Hon. Speaker, let's be clear. What's really going on here is the smelliest red herring ever dragged across a budget in this province by that opposition. And what is increasingly apparent is that this opposition is afraid to debate the substance of this budget, because they know the people of this province support the choices we've made in Budget 2001 -- not radical tax cuts.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
[1440]
G. Campbell: The opposition has received another leaked internal B.C. Hydro document. It's a status report that was prepared by the risk management committee of B.C. Hydro. It's dated February 8 of this year. This risk management report makes it clear that it is the ratepayers and the taxpayers of British Columbia that are at risk because of this government's incompetence and manipulation.
These are internal Hydro documents that forecast water levels and energy needs for the upcoming year. The documents show that we are experiencing record-low runoffs and that B.C. Hydro is going to face substantial and significant increased costs to supply the energy needs of the people of British Columbia.
My question to the minister is: with reservoirs at record lows, on what basis, other than pure politics, could the minister artificially jack up Hydro revenues to $299 million?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We just tabled a pack of documents which talk about some of the further work that Treasury Board staff and Crown corporation staff have done with B.C. Hydro. All of the assumptions in that risk document that the member waves around are indeed considered by Treasury Board and Crown corporations secretariat staff as they look at what the range of outcomes could be for the coming year.
Hon. Speaker, I must say that I think the real risk to B.C. Hydro is if that opposition ever formed government and instituted their plans to deregulate, privatize or sell off parts of Hydro.
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplemental.
G. Campbell: I'm surprised that the minister, for all his homework, doesn't recognize that there's only one government in British Columbia that's deregulated B.C. Hydro, and that's the New Democrat government.
The documents show, and Hydro's experts point out, that we're going to need net energy purchases of 2,700 gigawatts in the next year. That means we'll need to buy 2,700 gigawatts in order to satisfy British Columbians' needs for energy alone. My question, again, to the minister is: how on earth could the minister predict an additional $400 million of revenue from Hydro when he knows their costs are going to go up and their revenues are going to go down?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Those, among others, were some of the considerations which went into setting the target of $300 million in this year's budget. On Thursday the government extended an invitation to the opposition for a technical briefing on these matters. To date they have refused. I make the invitation again. As the old saying goes, a little information is a dangerous thing, and they are surely illustrating that today.
G. Campbell: Manipulating information, as this minister has done, is a dangerous thing for the taxpayers of British Columbia.
It is very clear that based on Hydro's own experts
The Speaker: Could the member take his seat, please.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The Minister of Finance rises on a matter.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I ask the member to withdraw his accusation of manipulation of information. It is unparliamentary and inappropriate.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. I'm sure that if the member made such accusations, he will withdraw them.
G. Campbell: I made no accusations, hon. Speaker. I stated the facts, based on the documents that are presented by Hydro's own officials. It is that, based on the expected costs of power, the cost of energy in 2001 will increase between $1 billion and $1.5 billion.
With the brutal numbers that are coming from Hydro's professionals that the minister professes to believe in, why on earth would the minister predict more than $400 million in additional revenues at a time when he knows that that simply will not take place?
[1445]
Hon. G. Janssen: Hon. Speaker, it is a practice in this House, when a member asks for a withdrawal, that the withdrawal be given. I know it.
The Speaker: The opportunity was given to the member to withdraw. He said that he did not make the accusations.
To answer the question, the hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The number that we have set as a target for B.C. Hydro in this year's budget, I believe, is attainable by B.C. Hydro. I'll be pleased to offer again to the opposition a briefing by officials on the assumptions, including some of the ones the member has raised, that underlie this. Actually, they were given at least twice to the press on Thursday. This has been information that is available. The opposition has been invited.
[ Page 17360 ]
But let me say it again: this is not the issue in Budget 2001. We have made a conscious choice in this budget about where we put additional revenues. We can't do it all. You can't do mammoth tax cuts and balance the budget and invest in health and education. We have made our choice; I have yet to hear from the members opposite what their choice would be.
M. de Jong: Forgive me for not being particularly persuaded by the assurances of a Minister of Finance who has purposely decided not to be around to defend the consequences of his recklessness, Mr. Speaker.
The internal documents from Hydro state that the probability to get close to normal water is slim to none. As well, these new documents forecast that the cost of energy will be significantly higher in 2002 as a result of increased gas generation and gas purchases.
This government is putting British Columbians at risk, it is putting their supply of energy at risk, and it is putting their environment at risk. And all of us, all British Columbians, are still waiting to hear from this Minister of Finance what the actual evidence is that he and the Premier are relying upon to make these reckless revenue projections.
The Speaker: Noting the time, I would ask the minister to give a brief answer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Since I've already responded to the identical question from the critic and from the Leader of the Opposition, this requires no response other than to say: would you please get on with what the real issues in this budget are. Do you want to invest in health and education or want to jeopardize a balanced budget with reckless tax cuts?
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Petitions
K. Krueger: I seek leave to table two petitions.
The Speaker: Please do so.
K. Krueger: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 4,669 constituents of mine and of the member for Kamloops. They are concerned about the issue of pedophiles and others who commit violent crimes against children, asking that pedophiles be deemed dangerous offenders and asking for the government's close attention to this important issue.
The second petition, hon. Speaker, again from my constituents, expresses their profound concern about the government's moratorium on grizzly bear hunting.
L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition.
The Speaker: Please do so.
L. Stephens: This petition is on behalf of 18,000 British Columbians around the province who are protesting the 111 percent increase in natural gas prices for home heating.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
[1450]
Reports from Committees
R. Thorpe: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the fourth, fifth and sixth reports of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament.
I move that the reports be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the reports.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: I move that the reports be adopted.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Janssen: I call budget debate.
Budget Debate
(continued)
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and respond to the budget speech of 2001. My response will be brief, because I believe that once again we have seen that this government's budgets, this government's estimates, this government's projections cannot be trusted by British Columbians, and they're certainly not trusted by the opposition.
In general, let me say that the budget indeed does create a series of choices for British Columbians. Once again, we have watched as a government has failed to meet any of the projections which it placed before the people of this province. We've had a debt management plan, a modified debt management plan, a fiscal framework, a modified fiscal framework, a five-year fiscal framework. And yesterday, after the government failed to meet last year's projections set by this Premier and this Minister of Finance, we watched as costs increased by four times what were projected under the fiscal framework, and now we have a new three-year fiscal framework. Fortunately, this government will not be responsible for the fiscal framework of British Columbia from the day after they have the courage to go to the taxpayers of this province.
The budget speech yells out the pain of British Columbians. There is no plan for tax relief for the literally thousands of families in this province who have been overtaxed, overregulated and ground down by the NDP, no relief for the single parents that need to have a larger paycheque to take care of their children, no relief for the nurses and the doctors, no relief for the tradespeople. There is no relief for any British Columbian under this government's plan.
There is no plan in this budget document that deals with the brain drain. The loss of physicians from the province, the loss of nurses, the loss of teachers, the loss of tradespeople once again have been ignored by this government.
[ Page 17361 ]
There is no plan for job creation. There is no plan to encourage our young people that if they work hard, they can get ahead. There's no plan to tell our graduating students that they will have jobs, that they will have larger take-home pay, so they can pay down those huge student loans which have been built up under the NDP.
There is no plan to deal with the huge and looming cost overruns which this government currently understands are there: cost overruns for SkyTrain; cost overruns for the Lions Gate Bridge; huge cost responsibilities that they're going to face as a result of this government breaking contracts with taxpayer after taxpayer, including the Carrier Lumber decision. There are no plans without a one-time-only accounting adjustment, without the phony revenues which have been projected from B.C. Hydro. This is not a budget that has a surplus. It is a budget with a $310 million deficit, which has been loading up on British Columbians.
[1455]
Under this government, what has happened to the working families of this province? What has happened for the people of this province that are working hard to try and prepare for their future and to protect their children? What's happened is that we've watched as the average take-home pay for British Columbians has dropped by over $1,700 per annum. Today the average working family in British Columbia takes home $2,200 a year less than those in Alberta.
We've watched, after ten years of NDP mismanagement, incompetence and dishonesty, as over 10,000 British Columbians have left our province in search of opportunity elsewhere. And we have watched as 469 small and medium-sized businesses have left the province with all their jobs and all their future prospects, because this government has not understood the damage that's been done by taxation, by regulation and by their constant attack on strong economic activity in British Columbia.
This government has failed to see the human price and the human toll that its policies have exacted from the people of this province. British Columbia, our great province, is last in terms of private sector investment between 1992 and 2001 -- last place. We are so far behind that the province of Newfoundland has three times more economic growth and private sector investment than British Columbia over the same period. We are last in job creation in this province -- 5.2 percent over 1996 to 2000.
Our next-door neighbours in Alberta have almost quadrupled that figure in terms of future prosperity for the people that live in that province. We are last in economic growth -- last, with 5.3 percent economic growth in British Columbia between 1992 and the year 2000. The next closest, Nova Scotia, had economic growth which was three times that of British Columbia. That is NDP incompetence; that is NDP mismanagement. That is why the NDP is afraid to go to the electorate.
I think that at the end of the day, as I've mentioned before, you listen to the comments of the Minister of Health for the New Democrat government: "We made announcements about things we weren't even going to do
I want to take a moment today to speak about the sixth annual report of the child, youth and family advocate of the province. Joyce Preston is someone who has a history of serving the people of British Columbia. She was unanimously supported by the members of this House when we asked her to take on the role of advocating for our children, of making sure that the young people in this province that were most in need and most deserving of our support were properly represented.
What was this government's reaction? Well, let me quote directly from Ms. Preston's report, from the report of the child, youth and family advocate: "Over the past decade much has been written about the needs of children and youth who require government services. Extensive research has been conducted, substantive reports produced and recommendations made about the need for real change. Despite all of this activity British Columbia, has made little progress in ensuring that these young people's needs are met." For the most part, it has been all talk and no action, hon. Speaker.
[1500]
I'm pleased to see that a member who's decided to retire thinks it's funny to watch what's happened to the young people of this province under his government's rule. It is a disgrace that this man can sit in the Legislature and mock the child, youth and family advocate, who has done nothing more than stand up for the young people of this province. If nothing else, one thing we know for sure is that that member isn't running again, because with that attitude he would never, ever be elected again in the province of British Columbia.
We've watched as the child, youth and family advocate has said that this government's mismanagement has created instability. Year in and year out she has called for stable leadership. Instead of stable leadership, we have had six separate ministers -- six separate ministers, four separate deputies and three major restructurings. And all the while the children of British Columbia are at risk. All the while this government turns its back on the children, and that is why this government is afraid to go to the electorate.
But today the Premier made another one of his undertakings to the people of British Columbia. The Premier said today that the date of the election depends on the opposition. It depends on how we behave in this House. So today, hon. Speaker, I want to be very clear to the Premier and to his government. Just like the people of this province, the opposition believes it's time to restore the legitimacy of this legislative body. It is time for an election.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
If it depends on the opposition, I want to outline for you today how we intend to deal with this session of the Legislature. First, let me be clear. This government has no mandate to govern. This government is illegitimate in the eyes of the public today. They have no moral right to govern. This government has no mandate to pass legislation, no mandate to make appointments, no mandate to pass a budget.
So let me be clear on what the opposition intends to do in this 2001 sitting of the Legislature. We intend to do everything we can to give the people of this province the right to choose the future that they want. We intend to move through this legislative agenda that the government has set as quickly as we possibly can. We will put up one speaker to speak to the principle of every bill that this government introduces. We will be clear about where we stand. We will reserve the right
[ Page 17362 ]
to ask questions during the committee stage, but we will have one speaker and one speaker alone, because that's more speakers than this government actually deserves to respond.
I am sure this government will try and divide British Columbians in the future as they have in the past. I believe that has been destructive. But let me say that there are two items, specifically, that the government has raised that I want the government to understand what we intend to do.
The first is the issue of pay equity. We believe that people would like to have the principle of pay equity reinforced. We also believe that most private sector companies in fact are pursuing a goal of pay equity even today, as we speak. We do not believe that pay equity is something that you throw together in two or three weeks before an election, because of the impacts that it can have on people's lives, because of the impacts that it can have on the small businesses of this community.
I would think that after ten years in government, this government would understand that those who are at work in the small businesses of this province are working 80, 90, 100 hours a week to give their employees the paycheques they need just to make ends meet under this incredible regime of New Democrat government. Yet they say to them: "We'll give you two weeks." They care so much about it that they will only give them two weeks, in spite of an earlier commitment of this Premier that he would not be imposing pay equity legislation on the private sector. Once again, he broke his word. We will not break our word to the people of British Columbia.
[1505]
Regardless of what this government does with its legislation, the B.C. Liberal government, should we get the support of the people, will appoint a task force to review pay equity. It will be chaired by a judge. It will consult everyone in the province. We will listen to the voices of British Columbians. We will ask for that task force to review the economic impacts, the models that have worked and succeeded, the options that are available to us and the effectiveness of each of those models -- for in principle, while we agree with the principle of pay equity, we have to make sure that it works on behalf of all of the people that live here. It's deserving of consultation; it's deserving of thoroughness; it's deserving of a thorough review.
Hon. Speaker, the Premier has also tried to raise the issue of a woman's right to choose. I want to be clear about the B.C. Liberal Party's position with regard to this, and should we form government, I want everyone on the other side to hear what our position is. We do not intend
Furthermore, let me be clear about this. If this government pursues a tack of trying to divide British Columbians over this very important and personal issue, this very personally divisive issue, I will allow every single member of my caucus to have a free vote and vote for their conscience in this session of the Legislature, as they have in their past. When that vote is complete, I will guarantee this government and the people of British Columbia that there will be no reduction in services available to women. We will maintain the right of women to choose abortion services in the province.
This is a government whose time has run out. This is a government who strives to divide. This is a government who strives to watch as the people of British Columbia are divided -- north against south, rural against urban, men against women. This is a government that has brought this province's economy to its knees. This is a government that has constantly turned the cheek of all British Columbians as they have faced
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, could we have some order here. Could the government benches hold it down just a little bit.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, thank you very much.
It has constantly worked to divide the province. On this side of the House, we believe it is the people that create the strength of our province. We intend to unite them. We intend to work with them. We intend to respect their values as we move forward to build a new era of opportunity and hope.
So let me reiterate: this government has no mandate. This government has no legitimate authority any longer in the eyes of the people of this province. This government has a responsibility to go to the people of this province and ask for a mandate for its legislative agenda, for its budget agenda. We have the same obligation. There is a difference, though. We look forward to it, while the government runs
This government has no mandate -- no mandate to pass legislation, no mandate to make appointments. So I want to be clear that following an election, should the opposition be elected to government, we reserve the right to suspend legislation so it can be properly reviewed, to amend legislation or to repeal it. We reserve the right to dismiss any new appointments that this government makes, because this government's regime is over, hon. Speaker. This government's decade of decline and decay, their decade of incompetence and mismanagement, their decade of building, unfortunately, the distrust of people in our public institutions is about to end. At the end of the day, the people of British Columbia want their say. At the end of the day, the people of British Columbia will have their vote. At the end of the day, the people of British Columbia will decide the future of this province, and the NDP will not be part of that future.
[1510]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Wilson: It gives me great pride to stand and speak in favour of this budget. It is interesting to have just heard from the Leader of the Official Opposition all the things that the he says that that side of the House is committed to do. It's interesting that the Leader of the Official Opposition says that they're going to continue on in a spending program that is, he claims, not going to cut health care, not going to cut education, will maintain social service spending.
I just heard him suggest that while at the same time they're going to continue on with the spending program, they are going to introduce reckless tax cuts to give assistance to, among others -- I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition
[ Page 17363 ]
say -- doctors. I notice he said there was nothing in this budget for doctors. My goodness, how short we are in our memory in terms of the commitment this government has made to health providers, including physicians, in this province.
I want to start my remarks today by saying how upset I was at the official response from the critic, because the critic stood up in this House and pulled what amounts to nothing more than a political stunt. He suggested that there was a meeting that took place, hon. Speaker. He suggested that a meeting took place between the chairman of B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Finance in which he alleges, in his own words in Hansard that the Minister of Finance pressured the Hydro chair, Mr. Smith, to bring in more favourable numbers.
It is on the basis of this alleged meeting that the rest of the entire process of e-mail circulation is founded. In the absence of this meeting, one asks why there would be any confusion in the minds of anybody about the fact that in trying to estimate what Hydro revenues would be, there would be a natural exchange of information between Treasury Board, Ministry of Finance and B.C. Hydro. It would be a perfectly normal course of events, unless you could try to prove that somehow B.C. Hydro was unduly influenced by the Minister of Finance. And that was the charge.
For all of the talk about whether there should be less than $100 million or whether it should be $200 million or $300 million, or whatever the revenue targets are, do not lose sight of the fact that the member who is the official Finance critic, who the popular press would have us believe in a matter of months is going to be the Minister of Finance for this province, stood up in front of all of the bond holders, all of the financial institutions and agencies that fund this great province
Hon. Speaker, we find out today that no such meeting ever took place or could have taken place, because at the time and date that that member said the meeting took place, the chairman of B.C. Hydro wasn't even in the province and the Minister of Finance was in a whole different set of meetings talking about a different set of priorities with respect to the government.
The issue is clear. If the Leader of the Official Opposition has any integrity whatsoever, if he wants to be believed by the people of British Columbia, he will immediately dismiss that member as Finance critic, put him to the back bench, fire that member for such a ridiculous political stunt.
[1515]
But you know what? My guess is that the Leader of the Official Opposition won't do that. And I suggest that the reason that he won't do that is because -- notwithstanding the fact that we have proven quite clearly that that meeting didn't take place, that the allegations raised in this House by that member were entirely false -- the Leader of the Official Opposition was fully complicit with it, it would appear. He fully understood that in fact this was going to be the charade, the political stunt, that was going to be used to try and detract the people's attention from the real issues in this budget -- to try and distract the people's attention from the fact that this government has now, for three consecutive budgets, brought in a balanced
When I joined this side of the House in 1999, we had come off two very difficult years; 1997 and 1998 -- and all of British Columbia will know this -- were extremely difficult years. They were difficult years because what was happening in the Asian market with respect to our lumber, particularly coastal markets
It was also difficult because we as a province were in a period of transition. We had recognized that what we needed to do if we were to be able to compete in a modern world was to move from the time at which we were a resource-based economy -- a time when we had simply to go out and extract our resources at will -- to an economy that is diversified, that has brought in new technology, modern high-tech opportunities with film, tourism and other aspects, to try and broaden the base of economic development. It was also a time when this government had quelled the war in the woods that it inherited in 1991. And I want to come back to that, because that's exactly where we're headed to again.
I'm prepared to say to you that the difficulties that we have had in the introduction of a Forest Practices Code, of a Forest Practices board, of Forest Renewal B.C
And that we have done. There is nothing, no political stuntsmanship, no charade that this group can use over there -- or, as the Finance minister said earlier today, no red herring they can drag across the floor -- that will detract anybody from looking at the real facts of the budget to see that we have been balanced for three years with surplus. It is balanced. It is balanced with surplus, notwithstanding that the members opposite try to plead it differently. They simply can't.
Let me say this. I think the reason the members opposite are making this great big charade, the reason that they are hammering away at this issue, is because, having just heard the Leader of the Official Opposition promising all good things to British Columbians
They are trying to set the people of British Columbia up into believing that in fact the budget that is tabled here is really a deficit, so that should they -- God help us all -- form government, they will be able to use our documents to try and defend the fact that having brought balance to this province, having balanced the books and now working with a surplus, they'll plunge us into deficits.
[1520]
This tells us where the differences are between those members opposite and these members on this side of the
[ Page 17364 ]
House. What's interesting to me is, when you listen to the third-party rhetoric that goes around this budget
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Now they're saying ten deficits -- how bad they were. And there is the member applauding it. And yet, the applause that they had and the vehemence with which we were attacked for running deficits
That's why they're going to vote against it: because a deficit, when it goes to maintaining our commitment to health and education, is unacceptable. That's what the members opposite said. That's what the Leader of the Official Opposition said. That is alluded to in the comments by the B.C. Business Council, Gerry Lampert; that certainly is alluded to by Darcy Rezac, from the board of trade, in his comments. To run a deficit to protect health and education is unacceptable. But to run a deficit to give the wealthiest 20 percent of our province a reckless tax cut, to run a deficit to give business a tax cut, to run a deficit to actually put money in their pockets -- that is acceptable.
That's what the members opposite are trying to get us to understand: that it's unacceptable when you run a deficit because you are investing in the people of British Columbia, you're investing in their health care services, you're investing in their education, and you're investing in their social services. It is unacceptable to do that. But it is entirely acceptable if you're going to run a deficit because what you're trying to do is simply put money into the pockets of the people who finance those members opposite -- the top 20 percent in the business community.
I haven't heard one of those members opposite through the tough years, through the tough times, when this government has made a decision that it's going to continue to put money into health care
Similarly when it came to portables. Do you know why we have so many portables in British Columbia? It's because the likes of the Social Credit, who are now their colleagues, many of whom are running again, didn't put any money into the building of schools. They built portables.
So you hear the Leader of the Official Opposition stand up and proudly say: "It's going to be a new era in British Columbia." We hear it. We hear these members opposite talk about a new era. What is the new era?
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, order please. The Minister of Forests has the floor.
Hon. G. Wilson: So let's talk about this new era. Claude Richmond -- that's a new era. Harold Long, running against me -- there's a new era. I defeated him as a Socred in '91. How about Stan Hagen? Stan Hagen -- there's a new era. How about Graham Bruce? That's a new era. We all remember Graham Bruce from those days.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Did they deregulate gas?
Hon. G. Wilson: They did. In those days, the deregulation of gas
[1525]
C. Clark: What party did you run for last time? What about the time
Hon. G. Wilson: Now, the member for wherever it is -- Coquitlam? Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- asks me, hon. Speaker, what party I ran for. I ran for a party that had a progressive view and an attitude that said you invest in British Columbians first. The very fact that I am standing with this party, having to defeat an old Socred who ran in 1991 and who now runs for that party, tells me that I made the very right choice. That's what it tells me, because when that member opposite worked with me to defeat the Socreds -- the very people that that member now runs with -- that member knew what a mess they'd made of this province. And that member should clearly know what they would do to this province if they did that again -- God help us, and God forgive us if we elect them.
The real reason this budget herring has been thrown out here is because they don't want to tell the people that it's bad to run deficits when we're putting money into health care, education, the poor and child care, but it's okay to run a deficit if you're helping the rich and the powerful and the corporations of British Columbia. That is the reason. That is the reason, hon. Speaker. It's just that clear.
If you think that's not bad enough, let's talk about their agenda for privatization. The reason they don't want to get into a long and lengthy discussion on this budget is because we, in our budget, have forecast figures from a revitalized and new forest industry, an industry that the member we have and their official critic -- as well as official opposition -- say that they would like to see more privatized.
Now, it's interesting, when you go through this data and do a little research, to see exactly how they intend to privatize the public forest. And it's interesting when you read that in light of some of the work that's going on right now with respect to our negotiations with the Americans. It is interest-
[ Page 17365 ]
ing that what they are talking about is taking more of our public stands of timber. Instead of taking the choice that we have -- which, through our tenure reform, is to create community tenures, first nations tenures, tenures that allow us to put fibre back into the control of communities so that we can, through expansion of value-added industries in communities, make sure that wood is available -- their recourse is to put more of those public stands into private hands for sale through private corporations.
Well, I think that's a fundamental difference. I think the people of British Columbia need to know: do you really want to privatize public stands of timber and put that into corporate sale? The Americans would like that. That's what they're telling us at softwood lumber
You know why, hon. Speaker? Because it explains why these members opposite will say: "We may not gut the Forest Practices Code; we're simply going to make amendments to it." Why? Because, if they privatize the forest land base, as their critic and the Leader of the Official Opposition say they would like to do, they don't have to go through the Forest Practices Code. You know what? The Forest Practices Code does not apply to private lands. The Forest Practices Code can be bypassed on private forest lands.
So in June of last year, when the official critic said on Vaughn Palmer
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson:
The members opposite can try and deny it all they want. The nice thing about being in public life is that when you make a comment and it goes into the record, it's on the record, and we can bring it up and use it. And we are. And this is now, hon. Speaker, to let the people of British Columbia know what the distinctions are.
The reason they are prepared to say that they're going to move toward privatization of the forest land base is because that is in the corporate interests of those who finance them. Do you know that in the last four years, almost five years, the major forest companies have financed the members opposite to the tune of $1.3 million? Did you know that? It's $1.3 million the major forest companies have given the members opposite. That's a lot of money. And do you think they gave them that amount of money because they aren't going to be going around and trying to privatize more of the forest land base? Of course they are.
Why do you think they want a referendum on land claims? They want a referendum on land claims because they do not want to have first nations have an equal share in the economy of this province. The reason is because their agenda for privatization would be stalled if in fact the federal government, the provincial government or the first nations negotiate land agreements. That's the reason why. It all fits together, if you take a look at it. It's not difficult to puzzle it out. Sure, they haven't come forward, and they haven't told us their real agenda, but there it is. There it is, clear and simple.
Hon. Speaker, I'll tell you, and I say this without believing that I'm in any way embellishing on the fact -- the only thing in British Columbia that poses a greater danger to the success and rebuilding of the forest industry, other than the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, is the potential of a Campbell Liberal government. That's the only thing.
[1530]
Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to the members on the rules of the House on reference to a sitting member by their name.
Hon. G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I got so impassioned by this debate that I forgot.
I don't say that lightly, and I'll tell you why: because the people of British Columbia are not foolish and they understand quite clearly, when they hear the articulated visions of the two sides, who they're going to vote for. I say that a Liberal government in this province is the only thing that is likely to endanger the rebuilding of the forest industry greater than the softwood lumber agreement. I say that having considered the facts carefully.
Why? Because according to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who spoke to a Sechelt chamber of commerce meeting where I sat present to take a few notes and find out what he had to say, in the first 90 days these members are going to pick a fight with the teachers. They're going to go to essential service legislation. They're going to pick a fight with the environmentalists. He said he's going to gut the Forest Practices Code and reduce red tape. He's going to pick a fight with labour because he says he going to amend the Labour Code, and he's going to gut the Labour Code and make it more friendly to his particular financial friends. And he said he's going to move to a referendum on first nations.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. Speaker, that is what the Leader of the Official Opposition said to a Sechelt chamber of commerce, witnessed by all those in attendance. I stand here to be judged by those who witnessed it as I did. In the first 90 days he is going to pick a fight with the public sector workers, with unionized labour. He's going to pick a fight with first nations, with the labour movement. And we will have this province once again in turmoil -- the same turmoil that we had the province in, in 1991, the same turmoil that took me into public life at the provincial level because of the mess that had been made. And the very people, retreaded as they are as Liberals -- although they are former Socreds, the Socred retreads -- are now coming forward and running for these members opposite, thinking that this is somehow going to be a new era. A new era -- please, give me a break. There's nothing new about some of the old retread Socreds that are running for those members opposite. There's nothing new about it at all. An era, perhaps. If it is, I would argue it's the Jurassic era.
I want to talk about this first 90 days, because the members opposite, along with their leader, have continually talked about the idea of this 90-day movement. I think we have seen, in this budget, an attempt for us to be able to put money into where we believe that money can best be spent. It is a vision for British Columbia that recognizes that if we are going to have a strong and healthy economy, that strong and healthy economy is going to be brought about through an investment in education. And an investment in education is underway. Through our class-size reduction, through the removal of
[ Page 17366 ]
portables and by introducing new curriculum, where we are now moving in curriculum change on first nations languages, where we are doing work with respect to resources in the resource-based economies, we are providing a sound education for British Columbians.
I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition say that he wants to put a computer on the desk of every child. That's not possible and, at the same time, have these reckless tax cuts, nor is it necessary. We have connected every school through the Internet. Children are now able to hook into the new economy through the new electronic highway. That is something this government has not promised; it has done. And insofar as doing that, we have connected the rural children with urban children so that every child in British Columbia has an opportunity to get equal access to education.
When it comes to education, there is not a member opposite that can argue that this government has not put its money where its mouth is. We have done that. Even in '97 and '98, those years that these members opposite would like to try and remind us of, when forces external to this province made it difficult for us to balance budgets
[1535]
When it came to health care, I've already mentioned that these members opposite weren't in the parade. They weren't with us when we went to Ottawa. They weren't with us when we were fighting to get additional dollars. When we had the challenge with the doctors and the doctors needed money -- rural physicians -- did you hear any of these people speak out? Did you hear any of these people offer solutions? Did you hear a word from the members opposite?
No, you didn't. You didn't hear one word from them, and the reason is that their commitment isn't there. That is not where their heart is, that's not where their mind is, and that certainly isn't going to be where their pocketbook is. Health care will suffer because it has to suffer. You can't have the radical tax cuts, these dramatic tax cuts, that these members opposite talk about and still have money for health care, unless they're prepared to run a large deficit -- which, if they do, will simply go to fund the pockets of the top 20 percent of British Columbians.
Let's talk about our children. Let's talk about child care. Let's talk about what we are doing with respect to the child care programs in British Columbia. The initiative we have brought forward is second only to Quebec, and we are moving forward to get to where they are today. As we move forward to look after the interests of the young, the most vulnerable, the next generation of British Columbians, where have these members been on our financial commitment to children in British Columbia?
They have been nowhere. The only time you've heard these people raise children is when they've brought up, in the most disgraceful way, the individual case files of children who have found themselves in trouble. That's the way they've done it. They've exploited children, exploited them for their own political gain. They have never spoken out in the interests of children. Sheer exploitation -- that's where their commitment is. Their commitment begins and ends with their own political well-being.
Let's talk about first nations. Let's talk about our commitment to first nations. When I first joined this government, I had the great privilege to serve as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and I followed a number of members who had been Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and had done outstanding work. Why? Because it was generally recognized by British Columbians, indeed by Canadians, that it is important for us to finally resolve the outstanding issues with first nations people in British Columbia. And we brought forward the Nisga'a agreement, a historic agreement.
It's interesting that the only time the members opposite seem to find it funny is when we talk about first nations issues.
What happened when we brought in the Nisga'a agreement, when we finally tabled a document? What happened was that the members opposite, to an individual, voted against it and marched it to the courts to try and stop it. They are not committed to first nations treaties. They are not committed to trying to bring about some kind of resolution to first nations agreements.
When the Leader of the Official Opposition stood in front of Sechelt chamber of commerce, a member who clearly was not a New Democrat -- I don't know how that member was going to vote, although I've got a fairly good idea how they'll vote now -- stood up and asked the Leader of the Official Opposition a simple question: "What will you do to try and get the Sechelt nation, who have signed an AIP, back to the table to sign a treaty?"
And do you know what the response of the Leader of the Official Opposition was? "We are going to go to a referendum to ask the people whether or not they believe it appropriate to have a third order of government in British Columbia." That was the response. The Sechelts have had a third order of government, as that member calls it, for 11 years. Is he going to take it away?
Well, hon. Speaker, we have just heard him stand up in this budget debate today and say he reserves the right to withdraw legislation that has been before this House, because he does not believe that this government has a mandate. Is that one of the things he's going to withdraw? If his referendum shows that in fact the people who he talks to -- his majority in the interior and those people who have, frankly, not matured to the point where they understand that equality applies to all British Columbians and not to a select number of British Columbians
We have seen earlier today, and last week, the worst political stunt pulled by the official opposition Finance critic. It was a political stunt to take the views in the minds of the people of British Columbia off the reality of a budget that has been tabled in front of them today -- a budget that not only shows balance but that shows surplus, a budget that invests in health and education and the social fabric of our nation. In fact, it invests in the very communities and the very families that make up the fibre of this great province.
[1540]
That's why that stunt was pulled. It was a stunt that held out the idea that a meeting had taken place which never did,
[ Page 17367 ]
never could. Any leader worth his or her salt in this Legislative Assembly would fire the individual that made such an outrageous accusation without any substance, without any foundation. If there's any merit at all in the Leader of the Official Opposition, he will relieve that member of his duties as Finance critic and will put somebody in there who's prepared to sit down in an honest and sensible way and negotiate the real issues of this budget -- not some fictitious rubbish that they dreamed up some time before question period.
Hon. C. McGregor: It is my great pleasure to stand today and to support the budget that's been tabled in this House, unlike my colleagues -- or perhaps a better word that I don't want to use in this House, because I might be accused of being unparliamentary -- across the way, who are afraid to stand in this House and debate the issues before the people of British Columbia as represented in this budget -- absolutely afraid.
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Oh, member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I'd love to hear your views, member.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. C. McGregor: Why don't you stand up
The Speaker: Minister, please. Members, I couldn't quite hear the debate. So I would ask members to take their turn in speaking, as is the proper order.
Hon. C. McGregor: It is my pleasure to be here and debate this issue, unlike my colleagues across the way, who have a great fear, I guess, of standing up and debating the real issues that face British Columbians.
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Member, I encourage you to take your turn. Stand on the Speaker's list and have the opportunity to respond, because in fact I have a great deal to say about this budget and I would love to know what the member opposite
Interjections.
Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, it's clear to me that I really have touched a sensitive spot. Members, I really would urge you to stand up and take your place in this debate in the House. Feel no fear that your leader has told you to keep your lips closed. In fact, I think the members opposite need to get it off their chests, so I would urge them to participate in this debate.
I want to speak to the hidden agenda of the members on the other side, because the hidden agenda is clear. They have a one-point plan. Their one-point plan is dramatic tax cuts for those that have the most. They don't really care what happens to the other British Columbians as long as those dramatic tax cuts go to the supporters of the members opposite.
We heard from the previous speaker, my colleague the Minister of Forests, about where the donations of the members opposite come from. In fact, $1.3 million, the member reminds me, in donations from the forest sector went directly to those members opposite.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, in fact, Deputy Premier, it is true. It is true.
I wonder what part of their hidden agenda might be revealed if we lifted up the corner of that piece to look at their policy around forest practices. When I was Minister of Environment, I listened to the members opposite and heard what they had to say about the forest practices that we have in this province and the work that we've done to make sure that there is sustainable industry here. They have made clear that not only will they gut the Forest Practices Code and return us to the days of wars in the woods between environmentalists, communities and loggers, but in fact they want to increase the cut in order to remove the amount of timber that we need to maintain in order to keep jobs in communities across this province. I reject that view.
[1545]
There are other parts of this Liberal Party's hidden agenda, and I'd like to speak to some of them. In fact, it was quite revealing to me to hear the Leader of the Official Opposition talk about his lack of commitment to pay equity. I found it quite astounding, in fact, that he would stand in this House and say that women in this province don't deserve to earn the same dollars as men do in jobs of a similar nature. Now, we know that there's been a long history of women being paid less in this province than men. In fact, at one time those figures had 73 cents of every dollar earned by women compared to men.
And because of this government's commitment to pay equity in the public service, we've injected millions of new dollars to make sure women in the public sector are paid the equivalent wages of their male counterparts and, in fact, that jobs that were traditionally done by women were raised to the level of similar work by men. This is a very important principle, because women have traditionally been hired into work and jobs that fell into traditional roles and men in similar or equitable positions were given higher wage structures.
Now, these are the facts. As much as the member opposite doesn't want to believe that those are the facts for women in British Columbia, indeed they are. We have taken a decision as a party, as a government, to support pay equity for every woman, whether working in the public or the private sector.
I understand that there's been some concern raised by individuals and businesses that we not create a huge bureaucratic structure in order to support pay equity. I can honestly understand that view. We shouldn't create huge bureaucratic structures at huge cost to government and others in order to comply. But in fact, the processes that we've talked about with British Columbians -- we in fact consulted with women across the province over a year ago on how to achieve this outcome -- will avoid that kind of bureaucratic structure. We've had much more than two weeks of consultation, hon. member. You weren't around last summer, hon. member,
[ Page 17368 ]
because you weren't interested in coming to community meetings to talk about women's issues. No, no, no. You were much, much too busy.
The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.
Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Yes, and through you to the member opposite, I think it's disturbing that this member didn't see fit to participate in those public meetings as they were held around the province. In fact, I was there in the meeting that was held
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Oh, and their critic as well. Well, thank you, hon. member. I understand, through the Speaker to the opposite side, that even their critic wouldn't take the time to participate in those discussions.
Interjections.
Hon. C. McGregor: Oh, she was? Oh, pardon me, hon. Speaker. I wouldn't want to
But you know, I did participate in those meetings in my own community, and there was not one woman in that consultation who did not believe in the principle of pay equity nor that it should apply to every woman whether they were in the public or the private sector. In fact, no, I don't think anybody thought it was a goofball idea, other than the opposition Liberals across the way, who I understand have described it as a goofball idea. Well, I believe the women of British Columbia may share a very different view about the principles of pay equity and making sure that they apply to both the public and the private sector.
There are a lot of smokescreens on that side of the House. And I'm really looking forward to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain standing up to speak to the principles of pay equity, which I'm sure she and the critic opposite will want to do.
There are a number of things that were revealed in the Leader of the Opposition's remarks just moments ago. He talked about how he would in fact unite the people of British Columbia. I want to speak to that theme, because I was very, very disturbed at what happened in this House when this budget was tabled and in fact the members opposite took to laughter and engendered laughter and derision while we were talking about issues related to aboriginal people.
[1550]
An Hon. Member: Incredible.
Hon. C. McGregor: It was incredible. It was an incredible display of the most disturbing behaviour that one could see in this House.
We represent all British Columbians here in this House -- all British Columbians, not just those that live in certain types of neighbourhoods, that work for certain types of industries, that have certain levels of income, but in fact all British Columbians -- and that includes aboriginal people. So when the Leader of the Opposition talked about uniting the people of British Columbia, I couldn't help but remember the behaviour of the members opposite and how they ridiculed, through the budget debate, through the budget speech, those initiatives designed to assist aboriginal people.
As we know, aboriginal people do not enjoy a standard of living that many of us do. In fact, I recall during the debate around the Nisga'a treaty that there was considerable time spent on issues related to aboriginal health and the health and the educational needs of aboriginal children.
So when this budget that we've tabled in the House dealt with those questions: additional resources for aboriginal children, additional resources for children who are hungry and in fact need to have more nutritious meals -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal
Probably the most disturbing piece of their policy around aboriginal people is their determination to hold a referendum. Frankly, to put the issues of people's rights in a referendum forum is abhorrent to those of us who care about the rights of individuals, no matter what part of society they come from.
Hon. Speaker, how could that decision on their part unite British Columbians? I would argue, in fact, that what it will do is divide and cause considerable rancour amongst British Columbians and pit aboriginals and non-aboriginals against one another, pit aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities against one another and lead to the kind of confrontation and conflict that none of us would want to see revisited in our province.
So when the Leader of the Opposition talks about uniting the people of British Columbia, my response is: what he wants to do is to create a war, to create a line between people, to clearly differentiate a policy that would put aboriginal people in a different position than other British Columbians. I say that that is shameful.
It's not just this policy that those members opposite have as a part of their hidden agenda, that they refuse to stand up in this House and debate the issues. But what the Leader of the Opposition said just moments ago in this House is that they have no intention of living up to the democratic processes in this House and, when a bill has been voted on, to act upon that. Oh, no, instead -- we heard it here today -- they intend to roll back all of the legislation that they've decided might create a more just and reasonable society.
On the other hand, I would suggest
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: And that is a matter that the member raises with me that I would like to get to. What are the positions of the members opposite in terms of their hidden agenda around women's choice? There really is a double standard that has been laid before us by the members opposite.
You know, hon. Speaker, I was one of the women who, in the early 1990s, walked with a coat hanger in my hand through the streets of Ottawa, protesting the federal government because they were going to recriminalize abortion in this
[ Page 17369 ]
country. I and thousands and millions of women across this country have put their lives to the issue of abortion and choice. We will not have it removed by the members opposite. We will not allow them. Women in this province will rise up against the kind of divisive agenda that those members opposite would like to see re-created here in British Columbia, pitting individual against individual. Hon. Speaker, it is shameful that they will not stand in this House and, in fact, stand for women and the abortion services that they may need to access.
[1555]
I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition describe abortion services as a federal issue. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it is in this province that we offer those services. We provide the dollars through the health care budgets in order to deliver those services to women, no matter what part of the province they live in. In fact, it is this government that also brought in bubble zone legislation in order to protect those individuals who are delivering abortion services as well as those women trying to access those services. Hon. Speaker, that is a provincial matter. I challenge those members opposite who seem to be so disturbed with the views that I am expressing to stand up in this House, to debate this budget and tell us where they stand.
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Let's hear those pieces you're going to repeal, hon. member. I want to hear the members on the matter of choice: which one of those bills will those members repeal and turn back the clock on, creating conflict and confrontation between women across this province, taking away the rights women have earned across Canada and in this province? Don't be afraid, member. Stand up. Debate the issues. I invite you to debate the issues. We'll defend you. In fact, we will. And we'll be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder as you defend a woman's right to choose and make a commitment not just for you but for every member of your side of the House on where they stand on these matters.
Hon. Speaker, there's another war that the members opposite are trying to create, and that's a war with environmentalists, loggers and communities. It's very disturbing to me to hear the kinds of policy pieces that have been leaking out in bits and pieces as some members speak their minds in communities around the province. You know, there's actually not been much of that kind of external expression of members' views on issues around the province. I think that's because, as I made reference to earlier, the Leader of the Opposition has put a gag order on his members. In fact, I'm fairly certain he's put a gag order against one member, and that's the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, because the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, as we know, frequently sticks his foot in his mouth -- if that is a good way of putting it.
An Hon. Member: Foot-in-mouth disease.
Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, foot-in-mouth disease, hon. member, I would say that he suffers from it greatly. And in fact, I can't
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you, hon. member, for that information about the "HealthGuide."
I am deeply disturbed at the views expressed by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson about workers in particular. This is another area of conflict that the members opposite are trying to create in British Columbia. Far from the view of uniting British Columbia, in fact they want to divide people, and in particular, they want to create a war around working people.
The member for Kamloops-North Thompson in particular has expressed the view that the members opposite seem to share around people who have to work in our hospital and health care system. The member opposite, in a discussion around pay equity, referred to hospital employee union workers as just a bunch of overpaid toilet cleaners.
Hon. Speaker, it was the most disgusting display of strongly worded language that really reflected the view the member has about working people. You don't make those kinds of comments if you truly believe that working people, no matter what job they happen to have, are due the respect that they've earned.
[1600]
An Hon. Member: They don't care.
Hon. C. McGregor: Yeah, I know. They really don't care. In fact, hon. member, he is the same member who talked about progressive discipline in this House and talked about whacking workers. If they did the wrong thing, they should be whacked once, whacked twice. That's the view that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has about working people. It's disturbing that he is the Labour critic, as I understand it, for the opposite side. So it must be a view that's more broadly shared. In fact, I think it is a view that's more broadly shared, on the basis of the policy questions we've heard leaked out in dribs and drabs when the gag sort of slips off the corners of their mouths from time to time.
I want to speak to some of their policies around labour. They want to gut the Labour Code. I think that's in their 90-day plan, hon. member, my colleague the Minister of Forests. In their 90-day plan they talk about gutting the Labour Code and taking away the hard-earned rights of workers in this province. Hon. Speaker, on this side of the House, we stand firmly in favour of balanced labour laws and labour laws that protect the rights of workers.
More recently, I've heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about taking away the right of teachers to collectively bargain. As a former teacher in the Kamloops school district, I am appalled by the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite in terms of their willingness to take away the right of teachers to collectively bargain for the working conditions and salaries that they deserve, teaching in the public school system. It's another example of the kind of divisive policies that side of the House wishes to see delivered in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Hon. C. McGregor: And, hon. members, I know you're protesting
[ Page 17370 ]
But again, it's all about that hidden agenda. They have a hidden agenda. They don't want British Columbians to know what they really would do to our health investments and health care and education as a result of their decision to move forward with a program of dramatic tax cuts.
I seem to recall at the last election in 1996 -- that was my first time standing as a member wishing to serve as an MLA -- I watched my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson sign this little pre-election pledge. That pre-election pledge had a lot of pieces to it, but the part I remember most vividly is the commitment to a balanced budget. So I've always had the view
And yet what have we heard, slipped out of the corner of that gag, just in the last few days? Why, hon. Speaker, I do believe they've said they're going to run a deficit budget.
An Hon. Member: No.
Hon. C. McGregor: I agree, hon. member. I was shocked as well. Not only did they sign a pledge to say they would support balanced budget legislation and support balancing the budget, they're now saying: "We're going to run a deficit budget in order to give dramatic tax cuts to others." Now, I find the flip-flops that have been going on on the opposite side the House incredibly revealing. The flip-flops of those members opposite
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Member for Langley, I urge you to stand up and enter this debate and engage and talk about how you're still committed to balanced budget legislation and how in fact your party will not run a deficit budget if they become government. I'm urging the member to stand up and make that statement in this House, because I think it's what British Columbians truly need to hear.
[1605]
I do want to speak for a moment or two on another matter that I think is important to my local constituents. It's around our government's commitment to growing regional economic development in our area. As a government, we've taken a number of initiatives, largely out of the process we designed for regions to get together and talk about economic development and how we can partner together at the local, provincial and federal level in order to create an economic strategy that grows jobs in a variety of sectors in our local economies. Coming from a region of the province in which diversification of the economy beyond the traditional resource-based industries is incredibly important, I've been very pleased to support a number of the initiatives that are in this budget and some previous budgets which support growth in those areas.
I think it's important to note that the members opposite have been pretty clear about how they feel about these kinds of initiatives in communities. In fact, I believe I wouldn't be overstating the matter to say that they would cut each and every program that's designed to support economic initiatives in regions around the province, because they have been described as "subsidies to business." I just want to talk briefly about the kind of funding initiatives that our region has benefited from through this budget and previous budgets that fit that category and that countless residents are at risk of losing if the members opposite succeed in their wish to divide British Columbians with their platform.
There were a number of recent efforts taken with the province and the local regional development corporation to bring a company called Convergys to Kamloops. Convergys is a large American call centre company. They made a decision to locate in Kamloops in part because of the efforts under one of my colleagues' initiatives. It was called Links. We were bringing a number of players, partners, together -- including Telus, local communities and the provincial government -- to create a consortium, if you will, in order to support those businesses moving to British Columbia. One of the tools that government brought to that discussion was an agreement to fund training in order to train those individuals to work in that call centre. It was a fairly significant investment on the part of the province. I believe it was pretty close to $500,000. The call centre is already set up in Kamloops and has begun its operation. It will eventually support as many as 500 new jobs in our community.
Now, this is an initiative that was built together with our Venture Kamloops economic development arm of the regional district and the provincial government in order to diversify that region, and with the Ministry of Employment and Investment in order to diversify the jobs in our community. They were very supportive of the investment our government was prepared to make in order to assist with training programs.
But the members opposite will see that those programs cease and desist. And I, as a member from a more rural part of the province -- parts of the province that aren't necessarily enjoying the same kind of economic growth in a number of sectors as the lower mainland and the lower Island are -- need to make sure that our interests will be represented through budgets like the one we are tabling here in the House today, which continue to support regional initiatives like the one that brought Convergys to Kamloops.
The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has openly opposed that initiative, as he has openly opposed the initiative to build a film studio in Kamloops and he has openly opposed the strategies our government has done to support communities through the Community Development ministry. These are important tools that those of us who work in regions around the province need to have available to us to grow our regional economies.
I'm nearing the end of my speaking time, and I can't end without urging the members opposite to stand in this House and come clean and put their platform before British Columbians. Don't hide behind smokescreens any longer. Don't hide behind your leader's order for you to sit silent on your hands and not stand up and debate in this House, despite the fact that that's what you were elected to do. Stand now, members. Join with us. Debate this budget.
[1610]
Interjection.
Hon. C. McGregor: Stand here in this House and put your commitments on the table, hon. member, as I have here, as I have today.
[ Page 17371 ]
Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted to support this budget, and I urge all members in this House to stand up and speak to your convictions and your platform the same way I have.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak on Budget 2001 and to talk about some of the choices this government has made in terms of putting this budget forward -- choices that affect families right across the province and, in particular, in my own constituency. I want to talk for a bit about how they will benefit from this budget. I also want to contrast that with some of the statements and some of the positions that we've heard from the opposition over the last number of weeks -- positions which seem to change from week to week and leave people wondering what exactly it is that the opposition wants to do should they form government in the province after the next election.
This budget, as I said a moment ago, is about choices. It's about today's families; it's about the priorities of today's families. It's about health. It's about education. It's about child care. It's about the environment. It's about issues that matter to everyday people in British Columbia, everyday people in my constituency.
They're busy with their families -- working, raising their children, involved in Little League, involved in their community -- and they don't pay a great deal of attention to a lot of the rhetoric that takes place in this chamber sometimes and to a lot of the hyperbole that's sometimes spouted. But they do care about how the budget impacts on their community, and it impacts on their community in a number of ways.
Health care funding: up over $900 million. That's a $900 million increase so that we can provide more services, more nurses -- 400 more nurses in the budget so we can train more nurses -- more capital equipment so that we can build on the agreement that we achieved last year with Ottawa that saw an investment of $150 million in capital equipment last year. We'll see more investment so that we can have more CT scanners, more MRIs, more people to operate them, more operating hours and can do more procedures.
We can have innovation. We've seen some of that announced recently in terms of the "B.C. HealthGuide," where there are measures that are built on successful measures that were piloted here in Victoria and that have been carried out successfully in other jurisdictions in the United States. We can look at being innovative in how we reduce some of the pressure on our emergency rooms, our emergency wards.
That's what this budget is about -- having a practical, positive impact on the lives of British Columbians right across the province and a positive impact on the lives of constituents, such as mine in Port Coquitlam. It's a budget that speaks to education, that recognizes that over the last decade we have made great strides in addressing the need for capital funding for schools. I've opened up some 21 new schools in my riding in the last six years alone. That's a huge investment of capital dollars in education infrastructure so that we can provide the best facilities for our kids to learn in.
There's Internet access in those schools under construction, so they can take advantage of the latest technology. We're committed to extending Internet access right across the province and ensuring that no matter where you live in this province, your kids and their schools have access to the latest technology and access to all the opportunity that the Internet can provide.
Over $345 million increase in funding for education at the K-to-12 level, at the post-secondary university level -- that's an increase that will have a direct impact on education in this province. Ten years ago, hon. Speaker, this province was second to last in terms of post-secondary education participation rate. The third-largest province -- and one of the wealthiest provinces in Confederation -- had the second-lowest postsecondary participation rate. That was a national disgrace. It was very much a priority of this government to change that.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It was very much a priority. And I notice the member mentions Alberta, and I'm very glad he did, because ten years ago we lagged behind Alberta in post-secondary education participation. Today, thanks to the investments by this government in infrastructure, in operational funding and in reducing class size, we have the second-highest level of post-secondary participation in the country -- ahead of Alberta, ahead of the province that the member worships.
[1615]
We now not only have students in British Columbia who can access education, we also have some of the best universities in the country. In the national rankings that have been done by Maclean's magazine, some of the top universities, colleges and institutions are right here in British Columbia. The only province where new universities have opened up in the last 25 years has been right here in British Columbia -- not in Alberta, not in Ontario, not in Quebec or Nova Scotia but here in British Columbia.
That reflects the commitment of this government to education and to increased funding for education, and this budget reflects that. That means a direct impact on the people of this province and the people in my constituency and, more importantly, on their children and on their ability to know that in terms of education there's a long-term future if they want their children to go to post-secondary education here in British Columbia.
That's why not only were we not just satisfied to continue the tuition freeze, which we've had in place for the last several years and which helps make our tuition amongst the most affordable in the country, but this budget reduces the cost of tuition by 5 percent. That's an important step to continue our place as an education province, to continue our place as the leading post-secondary education province, making it cheaper for your kids -- the kids of parents right across the province -- to get the necessary post-secondary education and training they need so that today's families can take advantage of employment opportunities and can take advantage of educational opportunities. That's what this budget does. It's choices, and it does it in a manner that's balanced and has seen a balanced budget for the third year in a row.
This budget also deals with other priorities of today's families in this province and in my constituency. It addresses the issues around child care. One of the most important services that people tell me we need, along with health and education, is child care. They want to know that there's safe, affordable day care -- child care -- for their children, and they pointed to Quebec, which has the first comprehensive, universal day care program in the country. Over the last two years we've been working with parents, day care advocates, child care groups and organizations concerned about family to develop a program based on what took place in Quebec.
[ Page 17372 ]
We've developed a program that recognizes the successes that have occurred in Quebec and also learned from some of the mistakes they made, so that we could ensure that the program we have here in British Columbia is not only funded but achieves the objectives that it set out to do. So at the beginning of this year we announced $7 a day per child before- and after-school care in licensed day care facilities across the British Columbia.
That's a remarkable step, a significant step in our four-year plan to ensure that parents have access to day care -- licensed day care, quality day care, affordable day care. Not only do their children get the child care they need, but they have peace of mind and the ability then, in many cases, to have stability, particularly for single parents, particularly for two-income, low-income working families and middle-income families -- so that they can do things such as take courses to get more training and upgrade job skills so that they can take advantage of employment opportunities and increase their household income and be able to do a lot of the things which many people take for granted.
[1620]
We know that money invested in children at an early age pays huge dividends down the road. And it doesn't matter whether it's the Fraser Institute, whether it's the board of trade, whether it's children's advocates groups either provincial or national. It doesn't even matter if it's some wing nut separatist government in Quebec. They understand that money invested in child care pays huge dividends to the government and to society down the road. A wing nut separatist government in Quebec understands that, but this opposition doesn't.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I don't believe what I just heard uttered from the mouth of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. He just said that he supports, that he likes, the PQ government in Quebec -- that they're right and we're wrong.
D. Jarvis: Did I say that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: You just did.
The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: So, hon. Speaker, the point I'm making is that a bunch of separatists in Quebec understand the importance of day care, the Fraser Institute understands the importance of day care, children's advocates understand the importance of day care, but this opposition doesn't. This opposition doesn't want to implement the program. They say that it's day care for tennis moms. It shows how out of touch with today's families they really are.
That is the difference between us and them. That is what this budget is about: choices. It's about where you focus your resources. Do you do them to focus on the priorities of British Columbia families right across the province? Or do you do it to help your friends and be damned with the consequences?
I want to come to some examples about that. For the last eight years we've heard from the Liberal opposition that the government should balance the budget, that deficits are bad, that deficits are the worst thing you can do for the health of the provincial economy, that all the financial advisers are saying balance the budget. That has been their number one priority.
And every budget we've had that's had a deficit they have criticized, saying that the government has made the wrong choices when at those times we ran a deficit because we were investing in health care and investing in education and post-secondary education and day care and the environment and ensuring that the services people required were there and that we didn't cut those services. Now, all of a sudden, the opposition says: "No, no, no. We're going to run a deficit, because we want to bring in dramatic tax cuts."
For eight years they've been saying to the public of British Columbia that deficits are bad. The Investment Dealers Association says: "Well, run a deficit if you're going to bring in tax cuts." But wait a sec. I thought you guys were saying that the deficit was bad, that we should do away with it. Well, for the last three budgets we got a balanced budget. Why would you want to jeopardize that? Why would you want to put us back into a deficit position? Could it be that you've been misleading the people of British Columbia? For eight years you've been saying that deficits are bad, and now you're saying that it's okay because the Liberal Party will run one. They've been misleading the people of British Columbia.
I'll give you another example of their approach in that regard. For seven years -- or however long we've been here -- they've been going: "The changes you've made to the Labour Code are bad. They're going to kill investments; they're going to kill jobs. First thing we're going to do when we get there is repeal your Labour Code changes. We're going to repeal it, because it's bad." That's all you've been telling the public. Now all of a sudden they flip-flop again, and they say: "Well, no, no, no. We're not to change the Labour Code. We're going to leave it just the way it is."
[1625]
Wait a sec. I thought for the last several years you've been saying: "No, Labour Code changes are bad; we're going to change it." Now you say you're not going to do it. Again, you've been misleading the people for the last several years. You've been misleading the people of this province.
You say: "Hydro. We're going to privatize Hydro. We're going to review it." They use all the code words and all the buzz words to soften the edge around privatization -- that they're going to do this and they're going to do that. Then in the last weeks they came out and said: "Well, no, we're not going to privatize Hydro. We're not going to sell it." In fact, the flip-flop on Hydro was so great that, as someone said, it caused the earth to move in this province.
Hon. Speaker, listen to their language around Hydro. Listen to what it is they're saying. They say: "Well, we won't touch generation. We won't touch capacity in terms of transmission." But have you ruled out privatizing Powerex? No. Have you ruled out that arm of Hydro which generates a lot of the revenue for B.C. Hydro? No. Have you given a commitment on that basis? No, you haven't. Instead, you're embarking on this, trying to soften, trying to distance. Which is it we're to believe? For the last seven years: "We will review, review, review and spin off into the private sector. We will repeal, repeal, repeal the Labour Code. We will balance, we will balance, we will balance the budget." And now, all of a sudden: "It's okay for us to run a deficit, the Labour Code can stay as it is, and we're not going to touch B.C. Hydro."
[ Page 17373 ]
An Hon. Member: Tell the truth; you're filibustering.
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, hon. member. The choice is for you to tell the truth. The choice is for your leader to tell the truth. The choice is for your party to tell the truth to British Columbians, who want to know what it is you are going to do. Exactly how do you plan to give dramatic tax cuts, balance the budget and not cut health and education? You've already said that you like the spending increases for health care, that you like the spending increases for education, that you wouldn't touch them.
Now, I would like to think -- though I'm less than convinced -- that you wouldn't touch the spending that we do for people on social assistance. But then I wouldn't put it past you to kick the poor when they're down and out anymore than you did the last time, in the nineties, when you were saying that social assistance rates were too high.
The question is: what are you going to do? The bulk of the budget goes to health care, education and social services. You say you want dramatic tax cuts. That's the other question, too: what is a dramatic tax cut? Is it ten bucks a month? Is it 50 bucks a month? Is it 150 bucks a month? Is it 200 bucks a month? And who does it apply to? How big a deficit are you going to run and for how long? If the economy goes into the tank, as it seems to be in the United States, do you have a plan and projections in place? No, you don't. Instead, we're treated to: "Just trust us. Call an election. Then we'll tell everything."
You know what, hon. Speaker? I look forward to that 28-day campaign, because then we will hear, I hope
[1630]
It's about choices, hon. Speaker, and it's about choices of a government that wants to maintain a fiscal balance and invest in health, invest in education, invest in child care, invest in people and invest in opportunity.
I also want to talk for a minute about some of the other things that are in this budget before we move on. I've said this is about choices. This is about today's families. This is about our vision versus their vision of British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: Will it snow or rain? That's the choice.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, that depends on what part of the province you're in and what elevation you're at. If you're in the north, it probably snows. And if you're in the member's riding, it probably rains. I'm surprised the member has to ask that question.
Hon. Speaker, I'm coming back to the budget. This budget also deals with, I think, one of the proudest achievements of this government, which is around aboriginal land claims -- the treaty process -- bringing reconciliation to 125 years of injustice for aboriginal people in British Columbia. In the same way that governments across this country have dealt with treaties, other jurisdictions -- Australia, New Zealand, the federal government in the territories -- have been dealing with issues around treaty negotiations for many years and coming to resolution.
In British Columbia we're doing that, too, at the treaty table, as a partnership between ourselves and the federal government and aboriginal people, negotiating to bring an end to 125 years of injustice, dealing with the rights of minorities, dealing with minority interests. We've been clear right from the start that this is a fundamental issue that has to be resolved in this province if we are to take full advantage of the economic and social opportunities that treaty resolution will bring, and also -- just as importantly, if not more importantly -- to ensure that aboriginal people are fully able to take advantage of the economic and social opportunities available to them through the settlement of treaties. We have been clear and unequivocal in that.
What's been the response of the opposition? To fight it every step of the way -- to fight it in the courts, to fight it in this House, to fight it in the public press. Now all of a sudden they're saying, "Oh, well, we really support most of it," trying to back out of it again. For so long the Nisga'a treaty was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Now all of a sudden they're saying: "Oh, we support 85 percent of it." Well, which is it? Is the treaty bad? Or is it, you know
L. Stephens: We always did.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, misleading the public of British Columbia
Now the member for Langley is saying: "We support it." So what are they saying? They're saying: "Well, we want to talk about the principles." And I hope the member for Langley is paying attention to this particular point, because if I understand the Liberal position, it's
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I'll ask some questions.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member says: "Don't try and understand our position." That's an interesting message for the public of British Columbia: "Don't try and understand our position; just vote us in." Well, that's not good enough. So I'm going to try and understand their position on referendums and treaty. As I understand it, you want a referendum on principles, on reconciliation. Am I correct on that, hon. member? I see some heads nodding over there.
Interjections.
[1635]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, reconciliation is not something that we should be trying to achieve. The member for North Vancouver says I've got it all wrong. I guess reconciliation isn't part of the process. But I saw enough heads nodding over there to know that reconciliation is their reason for a referendum, and that principle is part of their reason for a referendum.
The trouble with referendums is that they appeal to the lowest common denominator. They're divisive, and it has been proven time and time again. On issues around minority rights, referendums are divisive. And why?
[ Page 17374 ]
An Hon. Member: What are you talking about? Minority rights are protected in the constitution. That's not what we're talking about.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, so the member's saying that by using that logic, we don't need a treaty process. If they're protected in the constitution, why do we have to go to a referendum? Why don't we just negotiate the treaty, hon. member? You just said that minority rights are protected in a treaty and that we don't need a referendum. So you want to have a referendum to confirm rights that are already in the constitution, you're saying.
Why on earth would you want to do that? Why on earth would you want to have a referendum to put on the table: "Okay, for this group of people, which is protected, we want a referendum just to confirm it"? It's not good enough that the constitution says: "You're okay. You've got the same rights as everybody else." That's not good enough for you. You want to say: "For this particular minority, we want to go and have a referendum just to make sure that it's okay with the public that we sign these treaties." That is shameful.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's funny the member should make that comment, because it reminds me of another jurisdiction that is currently undergoing a referendum. And it's ripping that jurisdiction apart. It's tearing at the social fabric. It's reigniting old wounds that should have healed a long time ago. It dates back to the same era and time in British Columbia when aboriginal people were dispossessed of their land. They were dispossessed of their rights, and it took 125 years to resolve and reconcile.
That's in the state of Mississippi. They're having a debate as we speak right now, and they're having a vote; I think it's in the middle of April. That's on whether to replace the old state flag, which has the confederate flag in the corner, with a new, inclusive state flag. The question around that is framed in language of reconciliation and moving forward and addressing old wrongs, and it's tearing that state apart.
An Hon. Member: Do you like the old flag -- is that it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. member, I really do think you need to think very carefully about what you're saying right now. I'm giving you the chance. Don't go where you're going, because you'll regret it.
It's tearing it apart, instead of doing what is right -- which is that minority rights should not be subject to referendum, that they should be done on what is right on the basis of principle, in the way the provincial government is doing, the way the federal government is doing, the way that aboriginal people are doing -- and recognizing once and for all that the treaty process is the way to deal with these, not through a divisive thing such as a referendum.
This budget contains money in it to ensure that the treaty process continues, to ensure that we move forward on land claims in this province, which is a choice that this government has chosen to make.
To sum up, hon. Speaker, this government is not about dramatic tax cuts. It's about recognizing that we have a sound financial footing in this province, a sound economy that's generating a revenue to balance off expenditures and allow us to make investments in health care of over $900 million, to allow us to invest over $345 million in post-secondary education, K-to-12 education, to reduce the cost of tuition by 5 percent to students here in British Columbia. It allows us to invest in day care, so that families right across the province start to see a comprehensive day care program that their children can benefit from and that at the end, when it's implemented, will result in savings of over $1,100 per child. It's a budget that allows us to move forward on the environment through stronger environmental protection. It's a budget that speaks to the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. Come the election, I look forward to defending this budget, and I look forward to implementing this budget.
[1640]
Hon. E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Budget 2001, a budget that could not more clearly lay out the choices for British Columbians. I must remark that this is an extremely unusual day in British Columbia politics, a day when opposition members have the opportunity to take their place in this House and to speak to British Columbians directly, to speak to their own constituents directly, about the choices that are in front of them, about their view of a budget for British Columbia.
This is a day when those members refuse to take their place and participate in the debate, refuse to tell British Columbians what they believe about this budget, Budget 2001. I have often said in the last few months that I have the best job in British Columbia. It is my great honour to serve as Minister of Women's Equality and to meet the wonderful, diverse, strong and incredible women of this province, 52 percent of the population of this province. I hear from women just what it is that they're looking for from their government, from their communities and from their province.
In community after community -- I think of just a few of the communities I've visited recently
In Williams Lake, I hear the same kind of message. In Prince George, in Port Alberni, in Vancouver, in Victoria, in Cumberland -- in every community I have visited, in every community where women have gathered together to speak about their desire to build better and stronger communities, women speak of the need for universal programs, for tax-supported programs, for programs that will help them build a stronger community.
In this province, as I've already said, more than half the population -- 52 percent of the population in this province -- are women. Of that 52 percent, over 59 percent of women over the age of 15 are in the workforce. And what is the most
[ Page 17375 ]
important thing to women in the workforce? Women in the workforce continue, after years and years of struggle, to work for pay equity.
In this province, government has led the way over the last ten years in implementing a proactive pay equity policy at the cost of 1 percent of our public service funds. Hon. Speaker, 1 percent is a very important and valuable investment to achieve pay equity for people who work in the education sector and in the health sector, who work in direct government services and who help us build stronger communities. Women in this province want to see pay equity throughout the private sector as well. They want to see pay equity in their local school boards. They want to see pay equity implemented in local governments.
That's just one thing that women in the workforce are looking for. Women in the workforce have also told us how much they appreciate the work that we have done to raise the minimum wage. Over 75 percent of minimum-wage earners over the age of 25 are women. Those women are not working for pin money. Those women are adult women who support themselves, who support their families on minimum-wage jobs. Changes to the minimum wage have been very important for them as they work toward establishing economic security in their own lives.
[1645]
Women tell me they need child care. They need safe child care. They need a high quality of child care. They need child care that can meet their needs at different hours of the day, as many women have to work shift work. They need child care that is affordable and accessible. Over the last ten years and continuing with this budget, Budget 2001, this government continues to make investments in safe, high-quality, affordable and accessible child care for women.
Women in this province also tell me that they want opportunity for themselves and for their children. How do they achieve that opportunity? They achieve that opportunity through education for their children -- for their youngest children to have the opportunity for smaller class size, where they have the opportunity for more direct interaction with their teachers, where smaller class size helps build a stronger educational environment. Women are looking for opportunities for themselves and for their children in higher education, as well: in colleges, in universities, in trade and technical schools. This government has ensured that opportunity and has built that opportunity over the last ten years and continues with this budget, Budget 2001.
Women in this province also talk about the need for safe and affordable housing for themselves, for their children. This NDP government in the year 2001 is one of only two provincial governments that continue to invest in housing for the elderly, for single-parent families, for those who are called hard to house -- people with mental illness, people who have lived on the street. It's a matter of great pride to me that in this province we continue to support people and to support communities by investing in social housing.
These are the kinds of things that women tell me are important to them, are important to their families, are important to their communities. These are the messages that I bring back to my government from Penticton, from Williams Lake, from Prince George, from Port Alberni, from Vancouver, from Victoria and from Cumberland.
I'd also like to speak a little bit about this budget and my own community, the Comox Valley. In this legislative session our government will keep British Columbia's books balanced, will invest in more health care, will invest in more education and will meet the needs of today's families to help build a modern economy that works for all British Columbians. As the MLA for Comox Valley, I say that's very good news for the people in my community, and as Minister of Women's Equality, I say that's very good news for the men and women right across this province.
Let me start by talking about education. One of the greatest equalizers among people is education. Our government has made education a priority in order to ensure that British Columbians have the opportunity to fully participate in our society. And our record is strong. Small class sizes for our youngest learners help to give them a solid start on their educational journey. A rapidly expanding college and university system, including three new universities in British Columbia, opens up opportunity for higher education. In my own community in the Comox Valley, watching the growth of North Island College as students see the opportunities there for them has been extremely rewarding.
Tuition fees have been frozen for the last six years, and now we're proposing a 5 percent reduction in tuition fees. Those tuition fees are the second lowest in Canada.
[1650]
Student loan programs, student support programs have been improved. And for any adult who wishes to complete their high school certificate, there is now no tuition charge. Hon. Speaker, I can only point to the success of that program in showing the incredible demand that has grown as adults seek that opportunity to complete their high school certificate.
In the Comox Valley we've never seen such a flurry of construction of new schools and additions to existing schools. We have Huband Park Elementary, École Aspen Park Middle School, Cape Lazo Middle School and Courtenay Middle School -- all new. These are only a few of the schools that are being built in British Columbia, where we see a new school built every 19 days.
There's a major addition to Highland Secondary School, to Lake Trail Junior, to Puntledge Park Elementary, to Glacier View Elementary, to Arden Elementary -- more classrooms for smaller class sizes, elimination of portables and meeting the needs of our burgeoning school population.
At Vanier high school we have an incredible opportunity for our young parents there, Teddies 'n' Toddlers day care, a day care that makes it possible for young mothers and fathers to complete their education.
At North Island College -- too small already when the new college campus was opened in the early 1990s -- we've added new campus facilities in Campbell River, a new library here in the valley and new student services and a classroom building soon to be under construction.
Hon. Speaker, the changes which have happened in the education sector in British Columbia don't happen by accident. They happen because this government is committed to opening the doors of opportunity for all British Columbians contributing to stronger communities and a stronger economy. We're committed to further expanding education and training opportunities for everyone. We'll cut tuition fees by 5 percent at all public post-secondary institutions. We'll add over 5,000 new spaces to universities, colleges and institutes. We'll fully fund the tuition cut and new spaces through a new access to
[ Page 17376 ]
education act. We will maintain small class sizes for the best start in learning with a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten and 22 in grades 1 to 3.
I notice this great silence from the members of the opposition. And again, I would entreat them to join in this debate -- to debate Budget 2001, to participate and to let their constituents know just what they have to say about this budget and their plans for the future of British Columbia.
The choices that we are making are clear. We choose education. We choose opportunity for British Columbians.
Now let me speak for a moment about health care. Our health care system is under stress right across Canada. We no longer have the partnership in place that we once had with the federal government, but we are committed to finding practical solutions here in British Columbia and getting results, and we are making progress.
Again, I speak of my own constituency, and I speak to my own constituents in the Comox Valley just to take a look at some of the advances that we've made in health care there. We have a new emergency and admitting area at St. Joseph's General Hospital. We have new radiology equipment and, as my constituents would have heard in the budget speech, the commitment to the operational funding for the CT scan, which will be in place this spring. And under construction right now in the Comox Valley, is a renal care unit. These are all important advances for the care of the people in the Comox Valley health region.
In this budget speech, it's made clear that putting health care first is a top priority. Part of the B.C. health action plan that the Minister of Health announced in December is to solve the nursing shortage by creating more nurse training spaces. We look forward to more of those spaces in effect at North Island College. Keeping pay and benefits competitive with the rest of Canada, ensuring qualified foreign-trained nurses can fill nursing vacancies and providing financial assistance to nurses getting upgrading or further education -- we're on the road to a practical solution to solve the nursing shortage. Education and health care are our two top priorities, but overall our priority is to help families make ends meet.
[1655]
We continue to move forward in the areas like minimum wage, before- and after-school child care, universal child care and pay equity. As I remarked in my opening comments, these are areas that are extremely important to women. Women these days are entering the workforce in greater numbers than ever before. They need to have the security of knowledge that their children are well cared for, in a quality environment, in an affordable child care system. This session we'll take further steps to implement our four-year universal child care plan. We will take action to improve minimum wage, and we will introduce amendments to the Human Rights Code to enshrine the fundamental right of equal pay for work of equal value. The time has come to stand up and tell the women in British Columbia, who still earn only 73 percent of what men earn: "We support you." It's time to end systemic wage discrimination based on gender alone.
Now, while I'm on the theme of equality, I'd like to talk for a moment about the broader equality and some of the social and economic markers of equality. We've heard earlier today about the Nisga'a treaty -- the first modern treaty, the flagship for treaties to come and a marker on the journey to social and economic equality. Changes to over 30 pieces of legislation, which give gay and lesbian couples the same rights and the same responsibilities in their family relationships as heterosexual couples, are another marker on the journey to equality. Pay equity for the public sector, including low-wage redress for public sector workers
There's still a way to go to achieving full equality. We have made significant progress, but progress which has been fought every step of the way by my colleagues across the House, the spokespeople for the powerful and for the privileged. One-third of the members opposite voted against extending rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples. They continually berate the public service and dismiss equity initiatives as unfounded or too expensive, pandering to friends and insiders. Well, let me tell you, I am proud to pander to the diversity within our population that makes up the face of British Columbia.
The changes we see in British Columbia, changes toward greater social and economic equality and a more just society, have not happened by accident. They are the result of the commitment of this government to the value of equality for women, to ensuring that we all move forward together as we work our way through the economic transition into new strength. Our priorities put health care, education and a high quality of life above tax cuts. The Leader of the Opposition says, as our economy begins to strengthen and we show a modest budget surplus, that now is the time to give dramatic tax cuts to those who already have the most. We say -- I say -- that now is the time to meet the needs of today's families and help build a modern economy that works for all British Columbians.
It's not just what I say, we say. I have heard from women right across this province, women who say: "We need universal access to social programs in order to build stronger communities, stronger families, a stronger economy."
[1700]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
So will more money in the pockets of the privileged fund a stronger health system? Will more money in the pockets of the privileged put more seats at North Island College? Will more money in the pockets of the privileged provide low-cost housing for families who require safe and affordable housing? Will more money in the pockets of the privileged support people who live with chronic and debilitating disease? Will more money in the pockets of the privileged support those who suffer from addictions? Will more money in the pockets of the privileged support those people who live on our streets? I look forward to hearing what the members of the opposition have to say about Budget 2001, and I look forward to their answers to these questions. Will more money in the pockets of the privileged open new child care spaces so that parents will have the security of knowing that their children are well taken care of while they do their work in this world?
The question for all of us is this: what comes first -- public health care, public education, public transportation, a universal child care program or dramatic tax cuts? We can't have it both ways. The needs of today's families -- education and training opportunities, real health solutions and making
[ Page 17377 ]
ends meet -- cannot be achieved with dramatic tax cuts. This budget, Budget 2001, articulates a vision for this province that supports today's family. The choice is clear.
J. Sawicki: Actually, I hadn't planned to give my budget speech today. I would have been happy to give it tomorrow or the next day. The reason I'm standing up today is because those people on the other side of the House have chosen to abdicate their responsibility to be part of this budget debate.
One has to ask why. Is it because their little trick on budget day that tried to bring into question some of the toughest budget procedures in Canada kind of fell flat? Or is it because they're not ready to debate this budget? Or is it because their constituents are telling them that yes, we on this side of the House have made the right choices to put health care first, to put education first? Is it their constituents telling them that yes, now that government has balanced the budget -- not one year, not two years, but brought in a third balanced budget -- what they want government to do with those dollars is to invest in communities?
Is that why the people on that side of the House do not want to enter this budget debate? If that's not the reason, then it would be very helpful to all of us and to British Columbians, I'm sure, for them to stand up and tell us why they do not want to participate in this budget debate.
I'm going to address some parts of the budget. Each of us hears different things in any budget speech. Certainly I could choose many aspects of the budget to comment on. But I'm going to talk about several of them that are important to my community of Burnaby-Willingdon and, clearly, also talk about some of the issues that I've spent a lot of time in this House talking about, which I was very pleased to see in this budget.
But I do want to say just a little bit more about the fiscal basis for this budget, because I think it's really important that British Columbians understand exactly what's happening in this province at this time. And what is happening is a government with a Premier that has done what he said he would do, and that is to get our fiscal house in order and fundamentally change the way that British Columbia manages the province's finances and reports on that management.
It's not just us saying it. The auditor general is saying it. We've got a piece of legislation that requires not only our government but all subsequent governments to follow this set process, so that we can be confident that what the numbers are in front of British Columbians in this budget, and the process that it has gone through to come to budget day, are indeed open and transparent. It's our government and this Premier that have made sure that British Columbians can be confident about that.
[1705]
There are often suggestions across the way that we've increased the debt in British Columbia and that that's a big problem. It is one of the least-known success stories for British Columbia that our GDP-to-debt ratio is one of the most favourable in Canada, and in this budget we are actually reducing that ratio to 19.7 percent.
My MP is Svend Robinson. I was at a meeting with him this weekend. He said: "You know, if the federal government had that GDP-to-debt ratio, they would just be dancing in the streets."
It's because we have that low GDP-to-debt ratio, and it's because we've got our fiscal house in order, that we actually have been able to make that choice. So what do we do with the dollars that we have this year? Some of them -- let's face it -- are not going to be here with us every year, because of the energy price increases, but they're here this year. And with prudent investment in the things that matter most to British Columbia's families, we can do a great deal to continue to improve the quality of life in this province -- clearly a quality of life that is recognized the world over as being one of the best places to raise your families.
Why is it the best place? It's because we have a clean and healthy environment, and this government is prepared to make the investments to ensure that future generations also have that benefit. It is because over the past decade this government has made a consistent commitment to choose to invest in health care, education and community building. I make no apology for that, because I think it's the right choice to make, compared to dramatic tax cuts to those in our province that need it least.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the things I've mentioned: health care and education. I'm going to start with health care. It's been on the front pages of the newspapers for quite a few months. I think all of us recognize that we have a tremendous challenge, as British Columbians and as Canadians, to fulfill our basic principles of ensuring that quality health care is available to every single Canadian and every single British Columbian.
This year's budget commits 52 percent of new program funding to health care. That's over $1 billion of new money that can go into programs in your communities, in my communities. When I look at Burnaby-Willingdon and the investments we've made in Burnaby Hospital over the last decade, when I look at the new equipment, the renovations
Interjections.
J. Sawicki: There are also some of the other aspects of our health
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for North Coast rises on
D. Miller: A point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While it appears that the members opposite do not wish to take part in this debate, they're quite happy to take part while sitting in their seats, and I have difficulty hearing my hon. colleague from Burnaby. I think it's the height of rudeness to first of all decline to take part in the debate and then sit
Deputy Speaker: Stick to the
D. Miller:
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, just state your point of order.
The Chair would like to recommend to all members of the House that if they wish to rise and participate in the debate, that's fine. As to the rules of the House, it's the members' rules. If they wish to heckle, they should at least
[ Page 17378 ]
return to their own seats so they can be identified as hecklers. Other than that, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor, and it would be appreciated if the members would allow her to speak.
[1710]
J. Sawicki: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I will continue. I was talking about health care. I just wanted to let the hon. members opposite know where I was in my comments, because I know they really did want to listen and that henceforth they will listen much more carefully.
We were talking about the investments in Burnaby Hospital. I want to mention a couple of other things within this year's health budget that I think are particularly important and certainly are being welcomed by my constituents. Those are in the areas of enhanced home care services to make sure that people, as they age in their neighbourhoods, can stay in their own homes as long as possible. You know, this is one of the areas that I've received several calls on, over the years, to say: "If we could just have a little more support at home, then I wouldn't need to move into a long term care home. And I really would rather stay in my own home." So I am very, very pleased to see that this budget has put some of those dollars into enhanced home care services.
At the other end of life, so to speak, at the early start of life with our children, this budget also invests $8 million in early childhood health and development. We know that we cannot continue to fund health care as disease-prevention programs. Until we get into prevention of illness, until we get into educating for wellness and healthy living, we will not be able to respond to the huge demands upon our health care system five years hence, a decade hence. I think it's extremely important to invest in early childhood health and development and to educate on wellness and healthy living. So I was very pleased to see that.
I want to move on to education. It has often been said, certainly in this House by some of my colleagues, that British Columbia under this government this past decade has made very clear the direction it wants to go. It wants to be known as the education province. We are making, and we started a decade ago, those essential investments to ensure that everyone can get the education they need not only to compete in a global workplace but also in fully experiencing all of the opportunities of life.
Now, in Burnaby-Willingdon, I have to say that you can hardly drive down to any parts of my constituency without seeing new classrooms having been built, portables being removed, new classrooms under construction: Marlborough, Royal Oak, Maywood, Cascade Heights, now Moscrop. I haven't even started to talk about the new post-secondary education spaces at BCIT.
There's a couple of other things that really demonstrate how seriously we take investment in education and why we believe that if there is a choice between dramatic tax cuts and investing in education, we on this side of the House will always choose to invest in education, not only for our young people but also perhaps for adults who maybe didn't have a chance to finish their high school education. One of the least well-known initiatives our government has taken -- and quite frankly, on a personal basis, one that I am most proud about -- is to eliminate the fees for adults who want to go back and finish their high school education.
But you know, hon. Speaker, I think why those members on the other side of the House don't understand the choices that we've made in this budget is because they don't understand it when we say we think what's good for B.C. families is good for British Columbia. They feel and they say that what's good for big business is good for British Columbians.
[1715]
Now, I have no difficulty with encouraging and promoting business. In fact, our government has done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that small business in particular, which creates so many of the jobs in our communities, actually does have the advantages. And I have to say that -- certainly in my work on the green economy -- when I was Minister of Environment and before and after, I have continued to talk with the business community in terms of the leadership role and the competitive nature that they can achieve through taking care of the environment.
So it's not that we on this side of the House have anything against big business or resource industries. We know that that is an essential part of our economy. What we do disagree with is equating the greater public good with the cumulative good for the privileged and the large corporations. I think that's what it really comes down to. We have chosen to say there is an essential role for government to help provide the kinds of services that people cannot provide themselves.
Now, perhaps, with the dramatic tax cuts that the other side would give to the privileged and those who need it least, those few people might be able to buy their private education, or they might be able to buy their private health care. But those are not the values on this side of the House. We believe a strong society and strong communities must be built in ensuring that everyone has equal access to health care, to education and to the economic opportunities, not just the privileged.
I wanted also, just briefly before I leave the education topic, to talk a little bit about BCIT. Members have heard me speak about BCIT in this House often, because I am very proud of the work it does. Not only have we created 40,000 new post-secondary spaces throughout British Columbia over the past decade, but we have created several thousand in technology, in the trades. Some of the incredible work that is done at BCIT in terms of training people for apprenticeships; business training; fish, wildlife, recreation; alternate energy; technology research
Right across from where I live, one of the new technology buildings at BCIT actually used photovoltaics in one of the walls to produce 40 percent of the energy for that building. That research was done right at BCIT. Why? Because this government is prepared to support them to do that.
In the time I have left, I want to talk, obviously, about the part of the budget that addresses the environment and its relationship to the economy. You know, one of the new things about this budget process this year compared to previous years is the fact that there are additional documents. One of them -- no one has mentioned it yet -- is the 2001-04 strategic plan. This was part of the changes that were brought in as part of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
It's the first strategic plan. It includes goals, objectives, measures and targets. I just want to refer to the last page of that plan, because that's the area where it talks about the measures and targets for achieving the objective of B.C.'s natural heritage being safeguarded and our quality of life improved. We, I think, know that some of the basic quality of
[ Page 17379 ]
life issues -- clean air to breathe, clean water to drink
[1720]
You know, hon. Speaker, as a past Minister of Environment I know how complex and how difficult it is to deal with water, because water kind of defies human intervention. It keeps moving around, whether it's on the surface or in the ground. It's very difficult to set up systems that will adequately protect water for human consumption, water for all of the other ecological functions, for all the other species, whether plants and animals, and yes, sustainable use of water for our economic endeavours and recreational pursuits. So I am looking forward to the drinking water protection act that has been identified in this throne speech and budget.
I want to return to the point that I mentioned about the goals and objectives and the measures and targets on the last page. Under clean water and clear air, it sets out very clearly what our targets are. I want to read a couple of them, because I defy those on the other side of the House to understand that we on this side of the House have made a commitment to sustainability and a commitment to environmental protection.
Our targets are: to set water quality standards and improve enforcement through legislation; a 16 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from government operations below the 2000 level; 75 percent of the province covered by liquid waste management plans; complete 20 B.C. Hydro water use plans. I could go on, but these are the kinds of documentations that lay out very clearly the choices that we have made in this budget. I do challenge those on the other side of the House to come clean, to stand up and criticize our priorities and tell British Columbians that no, they would not protect the environment; no, they would not invest in education; no, they would not invest in health care; they would give dramatic tax cuts. That's okay, if it is their choice, but it is not our choice.
Finally, hon. Speaker, I'm going to leave my last few moments to speak about something that's in this budget, and that is the commissioner for environment and sustainability. As all members know, this will be my last budget debate speech in this House, as I am not running for re-election. But in talking about sustainability, I think that I am perhaps ending this budget speech like I have ended probably every previous one.
I am tremendously proud. I was tremendously proud when I heard the Minister of Finance say that this government and this budget are firmly grounded in the value of sustainability and recognize that good environmental policy is good economic policy. The leading corporations in the world, the leading economies in the world know that that is what is going to make them the most competitive. That will ensure that they will lead, mainly because people understand that if you don't care of the environment, if you don't take care of the resources upon which our economy is based, then we cannot have a strong economy, and we cannot have a just and fair society.
I think the commitment for the sustainability commissioner, which is modelled on the federal model and improved, because there were some flaws in that federal model
That's what sustainability is about, and that is what our choice is about in this budget and, I hope, in the upcoming election: quality of life for British Columbians, a future for our children, a future for all other species with which we share this province.
I'm going to end my comments and hope that perhaps we on this side of the House have enticed those on the other side of the House to participate in this debate, to do their jobs as the official opposition, and to stand up and critique the choices we have made -- and hopefully defend their choice to offer dramatic tax cuts and not invest in health care, education and a clean environment.
[1725]
G. Farrell-Collins: I received a letter this afternoon from B.C. Hydro, and I just wanted to stand and reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege with regard to comments made by the Minister of Finance today.
G. Mann Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak to the House and to the people of British Columbia about today's families and about a budget, Budget 2001, that in fact talks about today's families, talks about the needs of today's families and, in my view, very much responds to the needs of today's families in British Columbia and in my constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill.
It is a budget that offers choices and that has made some significant choices, choices that I believe are very much along the lines that today's families have told us and have told me they want to see in their budget. I dare to say that it's one of the best budgets we have brought in to date. It balances our budget for the third time in a row. I believe that; I support that. I think the people of British Columbia will soon come to see that.
What I find passing strange is the fact that the opposition appears not to wish to participate in this debate. They were duly elected to this august body, to this great chamber, in order to talk. Certainly in the past they've not been reluctant to put their views on the table -- hour after hour after hour. It seems an odd thing for an opposition to do.
It sometimes happens that government members don't get to speak, but certainly the opposition has always taken its position and its role and understood it. Its way of getting at the government is to stand on its hind legs and speak, but not today, it would seem, nor perhaps in the future, on this very, very important budget that is before us. I don't understand that, and I think the people of British Columbia are surely going to ask some questions: "Why didn't you talk on the budget? Was that not an important budget?" Indeed, it's a very important budget, but they appear not to wish to speak about it. Is there some other issue that they are wishing to see happen, that at this stage they wish to avoid talking about the
[ Page 17380 ]
budget? What's in it that they want to avoid? Do they want to avoid talking about it because in fact they support it? Is that what's going on here? Well, I like the sound of that.
In the past they have certainly spoken against many pieces of our legislation, and then the odd time at the end of the day they voted for it. It's very puzzling, very puzzling, and I think it ought to be a concern to their supporters across this province that they're not talking about the budget in this chamber, which is set up in order to do that.
But let's look at this budget; let's leave them to their silence. We have an opportunity to talk about it. We are very proud of this budget, and I think we will be talking about it a great deal, because it is a very fair budget; it's a very honest budget; it's a very straightforward budget. It does the things that we said we were going to do, and it talks to today's families in a way that I think very few other political groups can do.
This budget puts health care and education first, not tax cuts. It's a balanced budget. It increases funding to health care and education by $1.2 billion, which I understand, if the papers are to be believed, is going to be supported by the opposition somewhere down the road. In fact, it's going to be
Interjections.
G. Mann Brewin: Well, we'll get to the deficit issue in a minute or two. The deficits are apparently okay now, in spite of all the thundering and sound and fury that we heard about how horrible deficits were. Now, for whatever reason, it seems to be okay. Well, more of that in a minute.
[1730]
Maclean's magazine has called B.C. Canada's education province. But you know, it wasn't always the case. When this government was elected back in 1991, it inherited a quite dreadful situation in education. The system had clearly been put on the back burner for decades. What intrigues me is that there are rather a few folks from that era, that wonderful era in this province, who are now currently running for the opposition. What does that say about the influence they will have and their interest in education? I don't know. I hope we don't ever live to really see how that unfolds. It makes me very, very nervous.Schools in this province at that time were severely underfunded. Colleges and universities had the second-highest tuition fees and second-lowest participation rates in the country. Where were those folks? Why did they leave such a legacy? We have fixed that. We committed ourselves, over the last ten budgets, to supporting education and health care, in the face of huge difficulties presented by the federal government in the health area and then such a deficit from previous governments in this province who just didn't care about education.
Today our public schools get more money per student than any other province. That's something we should be proud of. Are the opposition not proud of that? Are the opposition not delighted that in fact our students, on a per-pupil basis, are getting more money than any other province in this country? I don't understand why they wouldn't think that was a good thing. That's what we ought to all be working for and improving.
Full-time university enrolment is growing at nearly ten times the average national rate. Tuition fees have been frozen for five straight years -- six, if you count this year's cut in tuition fees of 5 percent. Is the opposition in favour of this? I don't know; they're not going to say. We aren't going to know. We have one spokesman who said -- through the newspaper, not in this House -- that they're maybe going to support this. Are we going to hear from the opposition? It doesn't sound like it. I think that's very unfortunate -- very unfortunate.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, devotes 28 percent of total program spending to meeting the needs of students, to funding teachers, schools, colleges, universities, and skills and training opportunities in our publicly funded -- and we're very much proud of that -- education system. Next year our government will increase funding to education in B.C. by more than $312 million. That's a significant amount of money. Does the opposition not want to comment on that? Do they think that's too high? I wonder if that's what they think. We don't know; they're not saying -- except in little asides. We don't get to hear what they really think. Maybe they're afraid that some of them won't say the right thing. I wonder if that's a problem for them on the other side. However, we don't know that.
This figure of $312 million is a tremendous contribution and a tremendous injection of funds into the education system. It is for public schools and universities and colleges and institutes. I'm enormously proud of the college system and the university system that we have in British Columbia and right in my own community, with Camosun College and University of Victoria and Royal Roads -- Royal Roads being one of the three new ones in British Columbia.
We can be very proud that we opened three new universities in the last ten years, when no other province was doing that. I think that speaks highly, speaks well of this province, of this government, of the people of this province saying, "This is what we need," and the government responding -- contrary to previous years, when it was decried, in fact very seriously neglected. I worry about what's to happen in the future with regards to education.
Budget 2001 increases post-secondary funding by 8 percent, or $143 million. That's really an important part of that, for while we said we would -- and we did -- freeze tuition and have now cut it, that created some problems for the universities, because of course their income was then frozen as well. Government responded to that. Government said: "Yes, we can fix that and we will." So now $143 million will go into the hands of post-secondary education, which includes, of course, the colleges. So that cuts tuition for B.C.'s post-secondary students by 5 percent and creates 5,000 new spaces.
[1735]
I think that if we've been reading our information, we know how important it is that we keep developing, keep encouraging our young people to go to universities, to go to post-secondary institutions and our local colleges and technical colleges. They are excellent institutions. So many of our young people are going to need more options. They need them, and we as a government, recognizing
This government and this budget also invests $505 million in capital funding. Now, capital funding is a pretty important part of the education world, so we get to build and
[ Page 17381 ]
improve schools, colleges, universities and institutes. An additional $123 million has been allocated over two years for seismic upgrading in public institutions, including the schools, colleges, universities.
I know firsthand what that means to a community. Sir James Douglas school, a very old school in the constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill, was in dire straits. It was a four-storey building and was not seismically safe. This government, in the last ten years, said, "We can fix that," just as it had said that to many other schools across this province. So with the help and support of the students, the teachers and the parents in the community of Fairfield, a lot of work went into the planning for the replacement of Sir James Douglas school. And today there it is: a magnificent new school that is seismically safe. Those children are in a wonderful place. The families are happy as all get out that they've got a very excellent school that they can be, and are, enormously pleased to have in their community.
That's what this government has done for today's families in education and building of schools to keep kids safe, to keep teachers in a safe environment and in a good environment for the teaching of our children and for, therefore, the future generations in our communities. I'm very, very proud of that kind of work. That's a good example of the kinds of things that happen and can happen and will continue to happen in this province.
In our public schools we've increased operating funds by $169 million. This allows class sizes in the primary grades to remain small, with 20 or fewer students in kindergarten and 22 or fewer students in grades 1 to 3. Now, there aren't many of us in this chamber
It's very important for our teachers that they have the ability, then, to work with the students, those who have special needs in the classrooms, to respond and to learn in that kind of environment. That's really important. Lots of parents have told me that, and that's what is happening in our schools across this province. And I'm very proud that's the case.
Twenty-two schools will be built or expanded, with improvements made on 190 others. Three new career technical centres will be funded in the Okanagan, North Vancouver Island and the northwest regions of this province, allowing, again, young people to kick-start their training or post-secondary education by getting their high-school diploma. How important that is today. In today's economic world and today's employment world, it seems that it's not good enough any more just to have a grade 10 education; you really need grade 12. And now there's huge pressure that we need to have university and we need to have college education. And that's going to make life a bit difficult for some, because universities aren't easy, and they're not for everyone, which is why also in our plan there are more plans for apprenticeship training, and that kind of thing -- getting young people into the trades. We will always need plumbers; we will always need carpenters. We're always going to need people who have those kinds of skills. The day will come soon when we can respond to that, and we will encourage more and more young people to go into those areas of work.
[1740]
So we know, too, that we are soon going to be facing a skilled labour shortage. The leading edge of the baby-boomer generation is going to be retiring shortly. Labour shortage is everywhere around us in all walks of life. This budget will double the number of apprenticeship and skills training spaces over the next four years to 50,000 spaces. I think we can be proud of that, and we can know that many of our young people with different interests and different skills are going to be able to find a strong and healthy economic future for themselves and for their families with that kind of support from the system, from the government that says: "We appreciate what you do. We appreciate the strengths and the skills that you bring, and we're supporting you in doing that. We recognize that that's what we are here to do."
[The Speaker in the chair.]
For our youth do indeed deserve our very best. They deserve to have the best, and they deserve the best from us. They deserve to have our commitment to supporting that education system and that our commitment remains firm. This budget reflects that.
I'd like to hear from the opposition. What do they think of that? I think in the past they've not been quite so supportive of these things. Does this mean they're going to support it now? Have they had such a wonderful change of heart? If that's the case, I'd like to hear that. But we're not going to, it would seem. They're going to be zippered shut; they're going to be muzzled. They are not to speak on this.
Budget 2001 puts health and education first, not tax cuts. It reflects and protects the programs and families that rely on it and know their need for it, and we respond to that on health care and in education.
I'd like to talk a little bit about health care. There are lots of points that have been made in the budget and in the budget documents about the moneys and the support that we're providing to the health care system and to the needs that are clear. We've seen them all the time, regularly, the need for more doctors, for more nurses, for more hospitals, for more services. They all are desperately needing funding. We have to continue to work very hard to respond and to reply to those needs.
We know that last fall our Premier went to Ottawa and convinced Ottawa to restore some of the funding that had been cut over the earlier part of this decade, the cutting of such funds that created major concerns and major difficulties in all the provinces. But this province, contrary to most, insisted on staying part of the health care system. We insisted on saying that we have got to keep contributing -- to the detriment of some of our other programs in other ministries in government over the last ten years. But we said every year that we must put more money into health care and education. And we did that. True, 3 to 4 percent; not 10 to 13 percent, which might have been what has happened in the past. And we wish we could have done something as much as that, but that was not going to be.
Now we have a health action plan, and it has within it a strategy for attracting more nurses to the profession, of attracting more doctors, of providing more education and training. And that is very clearly good news for our health care system.
[ Page 17382 ]
But we're also working on another front, and that's the front of prevention. I am really pleased
It's a very interesting document in and of itself, because one of the things it does is describe an ailment that sometimes will affect us. For instance, let's talk about burns. In this will be a description of what happens when you are burned, how to prevent burns, what kind of home treatment you might put into effect, and then when to call a professional. And there are many topics like that: infant and child care, headaches -- a great big chapter on headaches -- a big section on mental illnesses and how to recognize some of the parts of them.
[1745]
Interjections.
G. Mann Brewin: I don't quite understand what the opposition
What we really want to hear is a full-fledged speech from them on this. Is this health guide such a bad thing? Could it be improved? Even on the off chance that they might say: "We have an even better way of doing this health guide
But I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't sound like we're going to hear that from the opposition, so we'll just have to deal with it directly. And I think people will find this health
So on that basis, we can say that by providing people, and today's families, with more information about how to take care of the issues that happen in their homes, then we are in fact also helping our health care system to provide for those and to give to those who really, really are in need of it.
Let me just close with a few comments that I'd like to make about my own community and some of the things that past budgets have been able to provide that I am enormously proud of. Members know that my constituency is Victoria-Beacon Hill, and many of the members in the chamber in fact have either permanent or temporary accommodation within Victoria-Beacon Hill. They will know, then, this being the eve of the first day of spring, what a wonderful community it is that I am so fortunate to represent. Today the daffodils are blooming, the hyacinths are up, the tulips are up, the flowers are blooming, the crocuses are nearly done, and in some parts of greater Victoria even the fruit trees -- the cherry trees -- that normally bloom are finished. On my street they don't start until April, so I'm pleased about that. I still have that to look forward to.
The centre of our community is of course Beacon Hill Park and also a huge chunk of our downtown. I have to say that I'm really proud of the kind of legislation that has come into being around parks in our community and on business and downtown communities, and how all that exemplifies who we are as a community. The people who live around Beacon Hill Park take enormous pride in how that park looks. Many of them don't want any changes to the park at all. We respect that view, just as we would respect our opposition if they were to say something about many of these things. But somehow they're not speaking about these things today so
What has happened, then, in our community
The community is also supporting the public service, because many of the people in my constituency work for the public service. Again, I have some concerns about what I hear from the opposition about their views about the public service. That has created some real concern among the folks that I know in my community who do work -- and who have worked for many, many years -- for the public service. They feel themselves as having had a calling to work for the public service, being dedicated public servants. I represent many of those. I have been very distressed to hear some of the comments that have been made in the past from the opposition about that, seeming to suggest that the whole of the public service has somehow been contaminated by being part of government.
I reject that kind of view of the public service. In the public service, the people that I know at all levels are dedicated, hard-working, intelligent people who give good advice. Now, what a government does with that advice is another matter. But they are there. They're full of ideas, many of which have had opportunities to come to the fore. So I just wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Speaker.
[1750]
I also wanted to comment, in terms of community, about some of the needs that we've responded to over the years, which are also still in this budget. They have to do with issues like housing -- the needs in so many of our communities for housing for people caught in all walks of life. It's important that we know there is support for that at the highest levels of the governments of the day. I could give you quite a long list of some of the ones that have happened in this community, but at this stage I will leave that for another day.
I wish, then, to conclude by saying that this is an excellent budget -- Budget 2001. It puts health care and education first, not tax cuts. It is a budget for everyone. It is a budget for today's families. I am proud to support that budget, and I look forward to the vote despite the fact we won't hear from the opposition on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to move adjournment of the debate.
[ Page 17383 ]
[1757]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Kasper |
| Goodacre |
|
NAYS -- 33 |
||
|
Whittred |
Hansen |
C. Clark |
|
Campbell |
Farrell-Collins |
de Jong |
|
Plant |
Abbott |
L. Reid |
|
Neufeld |
Coell |
Chong |
|
Sanders |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Nettleton |
Penner |
Weisgerber |
|
Weisbeck |
Nebbeling |
Hogg |
|
Hawkins |
Coleman |
Stephens |
|
J. Reid |
Krueger |
Thorpe |
|
Symons |
van Dongen |
Barisoff |
|
J. Wilson |
Roddick |
Masi |
Motion without Notice
AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
Hon. G. Janssen: I move the following standing orders be amended for the duration of the fifth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, commencing on March 14, 2001, as tabled. [See appendix.]
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Janssen: I move the House stand adjourned until the next day.
[1800]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Kasper |
| Goodacre |
|
|
NAYS -- 33 |
|
|
Whittred |
Hansen |
C. Clark |
|
Campbell |
Farrell-Collins |
de Jong |
|
Plant |
Abbott |
L. Reid |
|
Neufeld |
Coell |
Chong |
|
Sanders |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Nettleton |
Penner |
Weisgerber |
|
Masi |
Roddick |
J. Wilson |
|
Barisoff |
van Dongen |
Symons |
|
Thorpe |
Krueger |
J. Reid |
|
Stephens |
Coleman |
Hawkins |
|
Hogg |
Nebbeling |
Weisbeck |
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
APPENDIX
MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE
Moved by the Honourable Gerard Janssen --
By leave, I move that the following Standing Orders be amended for the duration of the Fifth Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament commencing on March 14, 2001:
Sittings
Daily sittings.
2. The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:
Monday: |
2 p.m. to 6 p.m. |
|
Tuesday: |
Two distinct sittings: |
|
|
10 a.m. to 12 noon |
|
2 p.m. to 6 p.m. |
|
Wednesday: |
2 p.m. to 7 p.m. |
Thursday: |
Two distinct sittings: |
|
|
10 a.m. to 12 noon |
|
2 p.m. to 6 p.m. |
Hour of interruption.
3. If at the hour of 6 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, or 7 p.m. on Wednesday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:
On Monday |
until 10 a.m. Tuesday |
On Tuesday |
until 2 p.m. Wednesday |
On Wednesday |
until 10 a.m. Thursday |
On Thursday |
until 2 p.m. Monday |
[ Page 17384 ]
Routine Business
Daily routine.
25. The daily routine business of the House shall be as follows:
Prayers (morning or afternoon sitting)
Introduction of Bills
Oral question period (15 minutes, afternoon sittings: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday)
Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Committees
Motions on NoticeOrders of the day.
Written Questions on Notice
Proposed Amendments on Notice
The order of business for consideration of the House day by day, after the above routine, shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:
Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday
(Government Days)
Throne Speech DebateBudget Debate including Committee of Supply
Public Bills and Orders and Government Motions on Notice
Private Bills
Public Bills in the hands of Private Members
Adjourned debate on other motions
Private Members' Statements (6 p.m. Wednesday)
Private Members' Statements
Statements.
25A. (1) Every Wednesday at 6 p.m. a Private Member may make a statement, notice of which has been tabled no later than 6 p.m. the preceding Monday.
(2) The order in which such statements are to be called shall be determined by lot by the Speaker, before appearing on the Orders of the Day.
(3) The time allocated on Wednesday for statements and discussion thereon shall not exceed one hour, and the time for each statement shall be limited to 15 minutes as follows:
Proponent: maximum of 7 minutes(4) Private Members' statements shall not be subject to amendment, adjournment or vote.
Any other Members: maximum of 5 minutes
Proponent in reply: maximum of 3 minutes
(5) Statements and discussions under this Standing Order:
(a) shall be confined to one matter;
(b) shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same Session;
(c) shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, in respect to which a Notice of Motion has been previously given and not withdrawn;
(d) shall not raise a question of privilege.
Oral question period Friday.
47B. This Standing Order is suspended for the duration of the Fifth Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament commencing on March 14, 2001.[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada