[ Page 10147 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Loan for B.C. raspberry growers. Mr. Barlee –– 10147

Dioxin emission from pulp mill. Mr. Cashore –– 10148

Truckers' dispute. Mr. Sihota –– 10148

Challenger jet and government air logs. Mr. D'Arcy –– 10149

Flooding at Canyon City. Hon. Mrs. Johnston replies to question –– 10149

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 28: minister's office –– 10150

Mr. Clark

Ms. Cull

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Harcourt

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Miller

Mr. Perry

Mr. Williams

Mr. Sihota

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, today the government Whips and former Whips met to hold a not so formal investiture of the Loyal Order of the Whip. We celebrated 15 years of whippery in the House.

Today we have the individual on the floor of the House who not only brought a private bill in establishing the Loyal Order of the Sasquatch but he is also the patron of the Loyal Order of the Sasquatch. Of course, he's now the grand patron of the Loyal Order of Government Whips.

I would like to introduce to you — through you, Sir — Mr. George Mussallem. The coat of arms, I know, is not allowed to be demonstrated in here, but it is at the end with the current government Whip.

I also have two other people to introduce. In the gallery today we have someone who has felt the sting of Mr. Mussallem's whip many times. In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is our agent-general in London, Garde Gardom, QC. Would the House please make him welcome.

Here to speak with me and some of my officials today about items concerning trade in Canada and things that are happening, I want to introduce to you Mr. Sandy Morrison, president of the Brewers' Association of Canada. Mr. Morrison and leaders of Canada's brewery industry have been meeting in Vancouver. They hosted a reception Tuesday evening to highlight the industry's very active "Responsible Use" campaign. I look forward to meeting with him this afternoon. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I want to welcome both George and Garde. I'm delighted to see them here. I'd like to let them know that these days we no longer have the kinds of troubles that we had in the bad old days, and we're all much happier about it. Welcome to you both.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there's a special guest here today from London. She happens to be accompanying the former member who was introduced, and making him a success in his life. I'd like to introduce Helen Gardom to the House today.

MR. PERRY: I can't let the opportunity go by without welcoming Mr. Gardom on behalf of the people of Point Grey.

MR. SPEAKER: If the members think it's appropriate, perhaps the Chair could send a message to the Gardoms on behalf of the House.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are 23 members of the American Public Transit Association who are visiting our province for their annual convention. Also present among their number are some delegates from Europe.

All of these guests to British Columbia are enjoying observing our world-class transit system, which we are certainly very proud of. I would ask the House to please make all of our guests welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is absent in Ottawa these days, and myself, I would like the House to welcome two ladies from the constituency of Kamloops, Elsie and Pat Humphrey, who are in the members' gallery.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, a dear friend for over 25 years who worked with me in Strathcona in Vancouver is here today. She is now on Galiano Island running a small bed-and-breakfast called Polly's Place. I want to introduce to the House Pauline Topp. Would you please welcome her.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today I have a class from C.E. Barry Intermediate School in Hope. With them are their principal, Mr. Chris Harvey, a teacher, Kathy Warner, and an exchange teacher from Australia, Mr. Ed Blaker. I would ask the House to give them a real warm royal welcome.

Oral Questions

LOAN FOR B.C. RASPBERRY GROWERS

MR. BARLEE: This is to the Minister of Agriculture. Several weeks ago the Pacific Raspberry Co-Op Growers' Association in the Fraser Valley asked the government for approximately $1.2 million for a loan. This is not a subsidy; this is a loan. This loan, hopefully, will enable them to compete in a rather difficult market.

There are 200 growers involved; 1,400 worker jobs are at stake; 2,000 acres are involved and $48 million in annual receipts. I think this is important; I think you should understand it.

Time is becoming increasing important to the raspberry growers. Has the government made a decision on this loan? And if not, why not?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, to this House and to this assembly: let me assure you that this minister and this government are well aware of the problem in the raspberry industry. I might say it's not a unique area where there are problems relative to food production. But I can tell you, from the point of view of the $1.239 million request, that we are working with it. As you well know, it has implications relative to GATT and relative to the free trade agreement.

Therefore I am telling you that it is very important that we do not put British Columbia raspberry production in a position subject to countervailing action by our trading partners. So it is being carefully looked at, and we will continue to work diligently on their behalf.

We want to make sure that whatever type of assistance is given to those growers — and I support

[ Page 10148 ]

helping them — must be in the position that does not cause a countervailing action.

MR. BARLEE: Evidently they have already beaten that challenge from GATT in the courts once. How many times do they have to beat it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope that in making a statement like that the hon. member understands the implication of that decision. That dealt with strictly two particular applicants on assessment.

It is not, I remind you, the condition of all the decisions that were made in the anti-dumping case in the first place. As you well know — or at least I would hope you would know — it is important from Canada's position, since Canada is a signatory to GATT. I would hope that the opposition would be in the same position to support GATT.

By golly, I'll tell you: it's important that we deal within GATT rules if we are to be a trading nation among the 90-odd countries that are involved in it.

DIOXIN EMISSION FROM PULP MILL

MR. CASHORE: To the Minister of the Environment. The minister claims that dioxin emissions from B.C. pulp mills have been dramatically reduced. Yet dioxin emissions from the Western Pulp mill into Howe Sound have quadrupled since last September, and the company has not reported this dramatic increase to the government. Can the minister confirm that he has not required Western Pulp to provide this information to his ministry and to the public?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the question from the hon. member, taken from a press release by Terry Jacks, a man who a couple of weeks ago said that he had the grass roots in my riding and was going to beat me for my nomination. I guess he is just a little lonesome without the publicity. I can assure that member that his statements are false. In the first couple of months of this year there were no detection levels of dioxins from that mill. The results from testing in the last -couple of months are higher than they were in the previous months but still at least less than half of what they were last year, and the furans are only one-tenth of what they were last year. To say that my ministry is not in contact with Western Pulp is absolutely false.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary. The minister referred to Terry Jacks. I would remind the minister that the West Coast Environmental Law Association is a very reputable organization representing well over 80 environmental organizations. The minister knows that the mill's manager has stated that the dioxin increases, which he admits were increases, were not disclosed "because nobody asked for them." Has the minister now decided to take action to ensure that pulp mill dioxin emissions are continually reported to government and the results of that monitoring made public?

[2:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I have great respect for Bill Andrews and members of the West Coast Environmental Law Society. We're working with them right now to make sure that there is a list of all the mills, municipalities and others who are polluting in this province. He will get a copy of that report when it's available, I hope within the next two weeks.

I would stress to him again that to try to get the message across to the public that this government is not doing anything about dioxin levels I think is mischievous and irresponsible of him and his party. This government has brought In the toughest regulations in Canada. The mills know that and are working with us to solve the problem. The member across there knows that the mills in this province have the lowest dioxin levels they've had in years because of the toughness we've put on them in the last few months.

TRUCKERS' DISPUTE

MR. SIHOTA: Only a Socred would think that telling the truth is mischievous.

I have a question to the Minister of Labour on the independent truckers' dispute. The mediator in that dispute has recommended that independent truckers have full collective bargaining rights. Has the Minister of Labour now decided to move on that recommendation?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I told the member in response to a similar question just a few days ago that what he's talking about is potentially future policy. It may be; it may not be. But again, we are not going to discuss the welfare and well-being of people in industry and the legislation that affects people's lives in an arena such as this. When and if the legislation comes forward, we will advise you. But we will not discuss the future legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is apparently future policy now. A supplemental question.

MR. SIHOTA: Only a Socred would say that we ought not to discuss the welfare of people in the Legislature. This is a dispute that has the potential of causing all sorts of disruption in British Columbia. The government was forewarned of this very situation emerging when it introduced Bill 19. Could the minister explain why his government is reluctant to provide independent truckers full collective bargaining rights?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, how does the member know that the government is reluctant?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's inappropriate for a minister to ask a question of a member of the opposition, save and except the question can be put

[ Page 10149 ]

to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee by a member of the House. Other than that, it is not possible to put a question.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister says that the government is not reluctant, could he then explain why the government has not taken any action with respect to providing these people full collective bargaining rights?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the member refers to the reluctance of the government. I don't know how he's in a position to know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because you haven't done anything.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I suppose that In most cases the members opposite would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the things we might and might not do. That time will be afforded them. I guess you'll have to wait until the appropriate time, and we'll discuss that issue.

CHALLENGER JET AND
GOVERNMENT AIR LOGS

MR. D'ARCY: To the minister responsible for government air services. Now that the Challenger jet is back from the block, can the minister tell the people of British Columbia what she has decided to use this aircraft for?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The Challenger is back in British Columbia. It is still for sale. The market is soft. There are ten more aircraft for sale now than there were when it was put on sale. The aircraft will primarily be used for ambulance purposes outside of the province.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister tell the people of British Columbia on which one of these trips the Challenger jet and the person in need of ambulance services were used as a backdrop for the production of a government ad?

Can the minister tell the people of British Columbia when she is likely — or has she decided — to table the logs not only of the government aircraft, so the people of British Columbia will know what their dollars are being used for in this regard, but to as well provide information to the people of B.C. regarding the use of charters by the B.C. government?

HON. MRS. GRAN: If I thought the request for the government air logs was for anything other than muckraking, it might be different. It's a little bit like asking what the Leader of the Opposition needs $450,000 for an office in Vancouver for. Let's answer that question. There are lots of questions that could be answered on both sides of this House, and if we want to spend our time muckraking and making politicians look bad, then go for it.

MR. D'ARCY: It had never occurred to me for a moment that there might be any muck to rake. But the minister has now disabused me and the people of B.C. of that notion.

To the minister: is there not a statutory obligation to provide information about the use of government aircraft for any purpose?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I don't know what the member was saying, whether he was suggesting that a woman was abusing him or not; it was not my intention.

I don't know whether there is a statutory requirement when.... Obviously there isn't. When the time comes and I have completed a review in that part of my ministry, I will consider releasing those logs. But I ask the opposition members another question: how did you enjoy your dinner paid by the Vancouver Stock Exchange?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not appropriate for ministers to ask questions of the members of the opposition.

FLOODING AT CANYON CITY

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: During question period yesterday the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) put a question forward to this ministry, and I would now like to make a response to the question taken on notice.

The question concerned the Canyon City footbridge, a suspended cable span structure and the only form of access to the small native community of Canyon City, located on the north side of the Nass River. The bridge is on reserve land and is the responsibility of the band and Indian and Northern Affairs. The bridge was inspected on request by a ministry engineer about four years ago and found to be in an acceptable condition.

The most recent concern appears to be with regard to the condition of the timber decking and the Page-wire sides. Indian and Northern Affairs, in conjunction with a provincial emergency program, are presently looking into this problem. If requested to do so by Indian and Northern Affairs, our Ministry of Transportation and Highways will do an inspection of the bridge components that are of concern to the band.

In the meantime, it really is not within our jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to thank the minister for taking the appropriate action of bringing an answer back, taken during question period, after question period.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 10150 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 28: minister's office, $329,702 (continued).

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister had the appropriate staff in here this morning. I'm sure they will be here shortly. Given that the questions which we were discussing this morning had to do with contracting-out and the range of initiatives....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if you wish to have private meetings, I'd prefer you had them in the hallways. The second member for Vancouver East may continue.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up too much of the House's time at the early stages, but I think it would be important that the minister's staff be here, because we will have some technical questions. I hope the Chair shows some indulgence in terms of this discourse that I am pursuing while we wait for staff.

I don't know whether the minister has any of these statistics here, but I want to ask a question with respect to the number of personal service contracts that the government has entered into in the last year.

If the appropriate staff isn't here to answer that particular question, I will turn it over to the member for Oak Bay and she can pursue, perhaps, questions arising out of the minister's comments. We can get Into more specific questions when the appropriate staff arrive.

MS. CULL: I want to go back to the discussion we were having before adjournment. I asked the minister how he was going to implement pay equity within the public service, given the fact that we now have two systems in government for temporary employees. We have the regular auxiliary employees, who are members of the B.C. Government Employees' Union and are paid union wages and receive benefits according to the contract; and we have— side by side — contract employees, employed by office employee firms such as Kelly Temporary Services and others like that, who are making considerably less per hour for doing the same work.

[2:30]

Two things troubled me with the minister's answer. First of all, I think I heard him say that there wasn't a difference between auxiliaries and full-time equivalents, when we were taking about this discrimination. Certainly there is. I am sure his staff will advise him that there is a difference between an auxiliary employee and a full-time employee. Auxiliary employees are hired to fill positions that do not extend beyond a certain period of months stipulated in the contract. But when government offices find themselves needing employees for short periods of time, they are being directed more and more towards Kelly Temporary Services, as opposed to using the regular system of hiring an auxiliary under contract.

I hope the minister is clear about that difference. I am not concerned about contract employees making less than full-time permanent employees, but I am concerned about contract employees who sit next to auxiliary employees. The jobs are the same; the circumstances about the length of time those people are required for those jobs are the same. What is different is the salary and the benefits.

The other thing that disturbed me about the answer was that I thought there was a nice little pat answer that if there is a problem such as this, then there is a process through the contract whereby one can grieve it.

I could stand here all afternoon talking about circumstances that I have personal familiarity with, but I am not going to go on about it. But let me tell you what happens in government offices when there are women — usually office assistants 1 and 2 — who are hired on contract and someone in that office says: "Gee, shouldn't that person be an auxiliary?" Or perhaps the person in that position thinks that she should be an auxiliary because she has talked to the woman sitting at the next desk and realizes that the woman at the next desk has got a lot better deal. What happens is that those people, or their direct supervisors, are intimidated. They are told: "If you report this or grieve this, we will lose this position." And so they are silent. The women in those positions are silenced. The supervisors above them are silenced, because they are afraid that if they make a fuss and insist on an auxiliary and insist on fair treatment for these people— insist on what I guess we would call pay equity between these two positions — they will lose that position entirely. That happens time and time again. You could consult with anyone in your ministries and find that kind of information.

If the government persists in having a two-tier system for temporary employees, some of those people hired as auxiliaries and some of those people on contract, and they persist in allowing this kind of intimidation to go on within the civil service, how can we implement pay equity?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The member alludes to her expertise in the area, so I must assume she understands that the Issue of pay equity in the context in which we discussed it this morning is not related in any direct sense to this question of auxiliaries as she's trying to merge them. The member may not be aware that the auxiliaries are counted in the calculation of FTEs. So if there is some extrapolation of figures you've got in mind here, you should understand the basis on which the stats are collected.

I think we had a good discussion on this before lunch. And as I said before lunch, the government believes that we should — to the maximum extent possible — reduce the size of government. We do that with a variety of different devices.

Many of the forces at work here are contradictory in the sense that we assume new obligations every

[ Page 10151 ]

year — new services, new programs — and that of itself seems to inevitably result in expansion of the public service. To the extent that we are able, we do attempt to contract it out. To the extent that we are able, we want to ensure that those positions at the lower end of the pay scale get treated fairly. And because we have been unable to get that fair treatment at the bargaining table, we embarked on this pay-equity proposal.

In any event, the principal response to what I sense is the thrust of the question is that this government happens to think that smaller government is better government. Therefore, in the pursuit of that ambition, it's necessary for us to look at every possible device, including contracting-out, In order to ensure that we don't build into the bureaucracy permanent positions that may not be necessary. I think that deals with the thrust of the questions.

MS. CULL: Mr. Minister, auxiliary positions are not permanent positions. They are temporary positions, and that's what I am talking about. In some offices, when there is a temporary position -let's say we need an office assistant 2 in a ministry for a period of three months-that individual is hired sometimes as an auxiliary and sometimes on contract. Sometimes there are two positions, and one is on contract and one on auxiliary. We have the situation where people doing the same work are being paid different amounts of money. My understanding of pay equity is that that is not an equitable situation. I'm also concerned.... Are you saying it's a fair situation that ministries should be able to hire some temporary employees on an auxiliary basis and others on a contract basis without there being rhyme or reason for the difference between the two?

The other question comes out of what I hear you saying — and I hope it isn't what you are saying. Are you telling us that yes, we can have pay equity, as your government sees it, for the civil service, but that we're going to do it on the backs of some of the lowest-paid people in this province, in the civil service, by contracting out those jobs? Surely you are not suggesting that we are going to have a two-tier system in the province, where we will save money by contracting out to various firms those kinds of low-paying jobs so that we don't have to deal with the inequity of women who are doing the same work but not receiving the same amount of money.

It's been pointed out that we are not saving money on it in any event, because we are paying the private contractors' firms that extra money that we would be paying.... It's going into their pockets, not into the pockets of the women who are doing the work.

I'm concerned that we have inequities within offices and ministries of people doing the same jobs but receiving very different amounts of pay. This isn't an issue about adding to the civil service, even if we're talking about temporary employees — people who will have a short work duration, whether it's two or three months or what have you. We have situations where some of those individuals are hired on contract and others are hired under the public service as auxiliaries, and they are being paid different amounts. Do you think that's fair? Is this your idea of pay equity?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member seems to wish to impress us all with her grasp of one minute aspect of a far larger issue. The program of pay equity is intended to address pay equity across all aspects of government operation. The member, by virtue of her unique quality of being a government employee herself, I'm sure would appreciate that as a general rule positions are contracted out because there are no FFE allocations assigned for the task to be performed. The auxiliaries are counted as FTEs. I don't know if that's part of your confusion here, but they are counted as FTEs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Good. I don't know what more I can add. I think we've canvassed that one pretty thoroughly. The member rephrases the question a number of times, attempting to make out it's anew question. I don't sense there's anything new about it. I've answered the question as well as I am capable.

MRS. BOONE: Perhaps that's our difficulty. Perhaps we're expecting a little more out of the minister than he's capable of giving. That may be our problem.

I too am a government employee. In a previous life, I was on the opposite end of the spectrum, working on the management end for a temp personnel office, sending out people, and at that time the company that I worked for would have dearly loved to have some government business from B.C., but they couldn't get any. They couldn't get any because B.C. hired their own temporary people, took care of it all through the civil service commission, employed those people and gave them all those jobs. We would have dearly loved to have had that ability to staff those offices with temporary people because we, the company, made a profit. We made dollars out of that. We didn't do it out of the goodness of our heart. We didn't do it to save the government money. We did it because we wanted to make money, and that's what's happening right now. It is not saving the government money. It is not decreasing the size of government, because the positions that these people are filling are not new positions. They generally are positions that, as I said, are vacant because of illness or maternity leave or any number of things. They are positions that are there. They are filling existing positions.

Right now the government is not saving any money by contracting those out. It costs you probably more to go out and hire a person through an employment agency than it does to hire that person through existing government services and pay the wages there. The only difference is that instead of giving that entire amount to the employee, which is what we would like to see happen, you're giving a good portion of that to the employer of that em-

[ Page 10152 ]

ployee, who doesn't happen to be the government, and that employee only gets a small portion of it.

I really think that if the minister can't understand that this is controversial and in conflict with the whole idea of pay equity, of trying to make sure that women in the workforce receive reasonable pay, then he should be going back and revisiting the whole concept of pay equity so that he understands what it is, because I don't think he really understands what the purpose of pay equity is. Pay equity is to make sure that the lower-paid people receive adequate wages for the work they put in. When you've got people working side by side with others, doing the same job and receiving less money, even the same classification.... The whole idea of putting in a pay equity system when you won't even deal with the inequities that are there and that you could deal with just doesn't make any sense at all. If the government were serious about solving some of these problems for women and about making sure they received adequate pay, then they would institute a policy and say: "We will not contract these services out. We will employ people as auxiliaries and make sure they get fair wages." That's not happening right now, Mr Minister.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: All the rhetoric aside, the fact of the matter is that the government is providing efficient government services to the people of the province. You see that exhibited by our credit rating You see that exhibited by the fact that we don't have to borrow money. You see it exhibited by the comments of people in the financial community. To suggest that we're not running the government efficiently is just categorically false. To suggest, also, that it's the obligation of government to create full-time positions to do part-time work I find absurd. And to suggest that you as a private sector operator weren't getting your share of government contract work and therefore that didn't work, either, I find a contradiction in arguments. On the one hand you make a point about the private sector not getting their share; on the other hand you make the plea that we should be having more public servants. What exactly is your point, Madam Member? What exactly is your problem? What exactly would you do were you given the reins of power? What exactly would you add to the taxpayers' burden in this province in order to provide your perception of the perfect world? Tell us a little bit more about what taxes you're going to have to raise to finance this kind of utopian world that you envisage? I'd like to know a little bit more about that.

[2:45]

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, you seem unable to understand. You seem unable to get through with this. Perhaps it is because you have been counting beans for too long. I'm not sure. But if you are paying $20 an hour to an agency to provide the services of a secretary, and $10 of that is going into the pockets of the agency and $10 is going into the pocket of the employee, then that is not efficient. That is not paying that employee well. On the other hand, if you are paying $20 Into the pocket of that employee, that is not costing the government any more money, Mr. Minister; it is merely saying that the worker is getting their fair share of the dollar there. That is what the difference is.

We do not believe we have to raise taxes to pay people a fair wage. We do not believe you have to increase the size of government. Mr. Minister, you mentioned today that you had all kinds of contracting-out people working at home. just how many do you have working at home who aren't even shown on the government rolls? Just how many people are out there working, in between doing the diapers and doing the laundry, putting figures into machines to satisfy the government's need not to have them show up as government employees. Is that what this government wants to do— have the numbers reduced on paper so that they don't show as government employees, but still have them out there working at slave wages? Is that the purpose of this government?

You don't seem to understand. We are not asking you to increase the size of government; we're not saying you should increase what you've got. We are saying: "Replace those people who are on contract with an outside agency with temporary people." That is not an increase at all. It's merely shifting one to the other and saying: "We are putting the dollars in the pockets of the people who work for this province, not in the pockets of some entrepreneur out there." That is what we believe in. If you believed in some sense of fairness for the working people of this province, you would be saying that's what you should be doing as well.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, it might be useful to get the debate back on track. If ever you needed to see the attitude of the socialists capsulized in terms of their obligation to build their empire, the bureaucracy and the size of government, you only have to put the last speaker's comments next to the performance of the socialist government when they took power in this province in 1972. With the stroke of a pen, they increased the cost of governance and upset all of the equities that had been built into the system prior to that time. It took years to find an accommodation. If ever you needed any illustration of the difference between us, you just have to go back to those records.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to get the debate back into focus, I'd like to mention that the first speaker this afternoon asked for some information about personal service contracts. I understand that we don't capture the personal service contract information with FTEs incorporated. I suppose it could be possible to go through all of the public accounts and extract a figure, but it's not done that way. We have the cost of public service contracts, but not the number of employees associated with them. We're just not able to provide that information, unless we were to exert a great deal of staff time towards it.

Interjection.

[ Page 10153 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We know how many contracts there are, hon. member, but we don't know how many employees are covered by those contracts. Many of the contracts are with firms that have a number of employees. What I am saying is that we don't capture the FTE count. We can identify the dollars, but we don't have readily available the number of employees those contractors would be putting on the job— which would be the only basis on which you could make any comparison with government employees or FTEs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We can obtain that information, but we don't have it with us today. We certainly will undertake to provide it to you.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't seem to get the point. The point isn't just efficiency; the point is equity too.

What we're talking about is how to treat people. That's really what we're talking about: how we treat people. This government has taken the extremism of the past government and its restraint program and turned it into almost an art form— a macabre and savage art form — in the way people are treated. It's called "lower the FTEs." It's a body count. It's almost as though this government is a search-and-destroy mission of marines in Vietnam. They're out to lower bodies in the civil service; to go out and find bodies they can get rid of, they can pretend aren't there.

It's like the personnel equivalent of the BS fund of the Minister of Finance. It's like the equivalent of the environmental BS fund we talked about yesterday with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). We call it a legal fiction that's created to give the illusion that there are fewer people working for the government. All it is is contracting-out to get a political hit: "We have lowered the bureaucracy."

Interjection,

MR. HARCOURT: No, you don't. You've got the same number of people working either on contract or inside the civil service as full-time employees, temporaries or whatever you want to call them. What we're trying to get through to the minister is how you treat citizens in British Columbia; that's the issue.

It's been pointed out by some of my colleagues that you're talking about women, by and large, who are secretaries; who are at the bottom end; who lead a marginal existence; who lead an existence that is very difficult, particularly if they're single women trying to raise children, trying to pay the rents and the huge increases, with a government that doesn't have a rent stabilization plan to deal with zero vacancy rates, a government that has not provided proper child care for them to be able to go out and have a full-time job. That's what we're talking about: how you treat citizens in British Columbia.

We can give all kinds of examples. We're not just talking about temporary or contract secretaries. I'll give you another example. And it doesn't cost more money.

You heard the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) saying that $20 is $20, whether it's to a person working for the public sector as a full-time employee or to a contractor who takes half off the top and what's left goes to the employee. It's still going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia the same amount of money.

I'll give you another example of how people are being exploited at the lower end of the income scale in this province of ours. How you treat the most vulnerable people is how you measure the civility of your community. I'll give you another example where no money was saved: the flag people on the highways of this province, who are mostly women and who were making $12 an hour when they were within the BCGEU and when contracted out ended up making $5 to $7 an hour, with the balance going to the contractor and no security in a very dangerous job, where a number of them get injured every year working through very difficult weather conditions a lot of the time.

It cost the taxpayers the same amount of money, but those women are far worse off. How can a government can say it's serious about pay equity and equality for women, given their behaviour in those two instances? Most British Columbians know that the government, because of the way they're behaving, isn't taking equality for women and pay equity seriously.

Now, Mr. Minister, you can get outraged, you can get paternalistic about some of the questions that the women members have been trying to ask you, but it isn't getting through to you that it is not a matter of bean-counting; it is not a matter of big government versus smaller government. It is a matter of how British Columbians are mistreated by this Socred government.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm delighted that we've been graced with the presence of the Leader of the Opposition and that he chose to be a speaker here in this debate of my estimates, because it gives me a chance to repeat what I was saying this morning to his colleagues when he wasn't in the House: that this pay equity program is introduced by government because of government's inability to address what it has seen for years as a serious problem through the normal bargaining process. Finally, after the 1988 experience, when we deliberately attempted to bottom-load those negotiations, we found ourselves denied by the negotiating committee from the union— a male-dominated committee, I might add. Government's efforts to bottom-load our contractual relationships with our employees is a matter of record. That's easily proven and should be understood and appreciated during this debate.

Pay equity is overdue. We have said that. We have introduced a program to deal with it, because there's no other way we can find to deal with it. And we are determined to make it work.

[ Page 10154 ]

During the pontifications we've just heard from the last speaker, he said that he's going to give us a lesson on how to create citizens. My goodness— the socialist approach to trying to build a sense of personal responsibility and improve people's freedoms! Independence and economic freedom surely don't arise from the introduction of collectivism, which is what socialism is all about— as opposed to this side of the House, which believes in individualism.

It's only by nurturing the private sector that we are able to develop that independence of mind and that economic independence which are so important if people are to feel responsible for their own lives, as opposed to the approach that seems to be espoused by the members opposite who consistently and continually talk about expanding government's largesse and government's bureaucracy in some naive hope that it will work. It hasn't worked anywhere else in the world, my friends, and you know that well. It hasn't worked to the point that you've even changed your name, I understand, in the international forum.

In any event, we are talking here about pay equity and a program that government has brought in. After listening to all this rhetoric, it will be interesting to see whether members support the program or they don't. I certainly will be interested to see exactly how you belly up to the bar when it comes time to express your support in a way that can be read by the voters or used by your opponents during an election campaign.

The hon. member also talked about highway privatization, and he seemed to suggest that highway privatization was not a well-run exercise and did not save money. I've got to tell you, my friends, that highway privatization saved $100 million in the first term of those contracts. How on earth can you take the issue of a flagperson and compare some sort of rates— which I have no idea are right or wrong in that narrow instance — and try to fabricate an argument that highway privatization does not work?

In the year that we brought in the privatization initiatives, we documented in the appendix to the budget how we calculated that $100 million, and that $100 million has not been argued or contested. We have saved through the highway privatization initiative, my friends, not increased the expense. But here again it illustrates this government's serious approach to dealing with human and social problems. We bring in a program to address what we believe is an inequity, and you cast in all sorts of extraneous arguments around privatization and try to introduce the concept that we haven't operated that section efficiently. We have, and the evidence is there.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, nonsense!

HON. MR. COUVELIER: If you don't believe me, my hon. friend, read the appendix to the budget document that we released at the time we announced the program. It's all there on the record, if only you'd read it.

[3:00]

MS. MARZARI: We're not dealing directly with privatization; nor are we dealing directly with FTEs; nor are we dealing, it seems to me, with statistics of workers in the provincial workforce. What we're dealing with in this chamber today is women's work. We're dealing with the work that women do that has been over the years devalued and turned into something which is considered by our society, our culture and your government to be inferior to men's work. I canvassed this a bit this morning when I talked about the fact that work which women choose to do very often....

For example, at the turn of the century when the typewriter was first invented, there was a move in business schools, which were largely dominated by men at the time, to make the typewriter the property of men who were seeking management positions. In other words, the business of tapping keys and producing letters was in the honourable tradition of male clerks.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would remember that, would you?

MS. MARZARI: I don't remember it personally, Mr. Member, but I'm sure you might.

Over the course of the First World War it became quite apparent that the people going into clerical positions were women, for obvious reasons. The value of that work fell in comparison to men's work of the time. The clerical stream became a female stream, and in becoming a female stream became a lesser-paid stream than men's work. It's a simple fact. We can look at other areas where women have entered even a profession— the teaching profession — only to find that by their entry the very nature of the profession became devalued. We're talking about women's work.

This morning when we were getting into the area of contracting-out and contracting out clerical services — women's work — the minister made reference to women being at home, in the comforts of their own home with their family, to do their work. Is this government in the practice of creating out of women what you'd probably call small-profit centres, of keeping women at home, in other words, to do their piecework? Is this in fact happening through yourself or indirectly through some of your contractors?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm proud to say that this initiative has been in place in my ministry for a number of years.

I don't want you to take my remarks this morning out of context. I was merely responding to one of the questions put to me which suggested that people had to be in an office in order to perform work. I was making the point this morning that as the technology explosion occurs there will be more and more people performing work at home. It will be full-time work, or could be, but it could be work that they would do at their leisure, to suit their own personal timeframes.

[ Page 10155 ]

In answer to your specific question, yes, we have had such a program in the Ministry of Finance for a number of years. It's something that will grow, I suspect, as time goes by.

MR. PETERSON: I'd like to change the tempo of discussion a bit here, Mr. Chairman. I would like to bring up a process that I was involved in last fall; involved with me were the first and second members for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa and Mr. Chalmers), the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). It was called the caucus budget committee, and it was very ably co-chaired by our Minister of Finance and our caucus chairman.

I found it a very interesting process, and, I believe, a process unique — and you may correct me on this, Mr. Minister of Finance — in terms of the back bench having an input on the expenditure side of government. In fact, if I could elaborate somewhat, not only did we have an input on the expenditure side; we also had a very close look across ministry issues, whereby we looked for duplications in the big-government process, if you like, so that we could more effectively have our dollars at work in programs where they were needed, without duplication, thereby producing a net benefit for the people of British Columbia, not only in terms of taxpayers' expenditures but also in terms of putting the money where it was really needed for the programs that were indeed valid and indeed happening. I'm very pleased that we had the opportunity to do this.

I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the minister, Mr. Chairman, because I believe it was his idea. I also want to compliment our Premier at this time, because he wholeheartedly approved of it. It gave us an opportunity. I've been told by many ministers that probably members who served on the caucus budget committee know more about the government in total than a lot of the ministers themselves because they are so preoccupied with the immensities of their own ministries. We've got such an overall view, and the knowledge we gain from that most certainly helps us in our deliberations in caucus.

I hope that this will continue in future years, because it is an excellent process. I think we achieved a lot, and I just wanted to stand up and give this minister full credit for that. I wonder if the minister might wish to comment on his intentions— if that is acceptable to the House — and how he felt about the process in terms of dealing with senior staff and other ministers relative to these envelopes of spending that we deal with.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am indebted to the member for pointing out the budgetary process that this administration has been using in the last few years. It is unique in Canada; it is unique in the parliamentary system, as far as I know. In my conversations with parliamentarians from Great Britain, I understand that they also don't have such a system.

It has worked very well. Basically it amounts to the caucus members who are not burdened with cabinet responsibilities sitting around day after day reviewing ministry budgets and interviewing the ministry senior staff— in some cases the ministers themselves — about their budget requests.

Two things happen out of that process that we are benefiting from. First of all, there is a unique direct line from someone who is involved in his constituency and aware of his neighbours' and constituents' problems— and is therefore aware of where government might do a better job in some areas — having an opportunity to influence the critical way in which government applies solutions to problems and how they spend their money.

I believe that opportunity has resulted in a far more sensitive approach by each line ministry to the uniqueness of this province and the wide difference of needs between different regions in this province. Because of that, I think we get a particularly sensitive approach to public spending.

The second benefit I think arises from what the second member for Langley referred to, and that is the heightening of awareness of all caucus members about all cross-government and cross-ministry issues. In that process, once again— as we might consider options and opportunities — we start from a much higher plateau of learning and understanding. Once again it enhances the quality of the decisions that are made.

The caucus back-bench committee is an adviser to government. Its role is to comment on the ministry spending proposals. I can tell you that as a consequence of that valuable input and the individual approaches taken, many line ministries have reacted in a positive way to the suggestions they have received. So the program has worked very well, and we are still the only jurisdiction I am aware of in the parliamentary system that uses it. I would certainly expect that we would use it again next year, because I believe you get a far more sensitive and relevant approach to dealing with people's problems, which, after all, is what all of us in this House are expected to do.

MS. MARZARI: To get back to women's work, Mr. Minister, we are dealing very much with people's problems.

When you answered my last question about women at work in their own homes — as you put it: "at their leisure, working on clerical government work while in their own homes".... This morning I connect that with the words you used about "being with their families."

It's a comfortable picture of a woman being with her family at home doing the government's clerical work, possibly putting the bread in the oven in the morning to rise, going downstairs for a few minutes to pick up on some computer files and do a little bit of work, then bringing the children home from school, make them a little lunch, send them back and go back down to the basement. They probably incorporated themselves so they can deduct from their

[ Page 10156 ]

income tax that portion of their home they have their word processor in. What a sweet little setup you've suggested for us today.

Women are raising children, raising bread and keeping their income flowing through their household by doing government contract work. Are these women individual contractors, or are they contracted out by government contract? Do you know how many of these women are actually working in the sanctity and the bosom of their families every day? Do you have any idea what the hourly wage of these women might be? Do you have any sense of what the contractor for whom they are working might be making? Do these women have enough money at the end of the month to pay for a break— perhaps a bit of child care? Do these women and their happy family existence there — doing work at their leisure — have any opportunity for fringe benefits, disability plans, health plans or dental plans that their unionized sisters might have who are working directly for the government? Could you give us an idea of the numbers of these women?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I can appreciate that the hon. member is critical.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's the sarcastic way in which you run through the issue.

I'm not fully familiar with the individual cases. I can tell you that in at least one of the cases we were dealing with an employee— not a contractor. It's not uncommon in my ministry that women who wish to remain home during a pregnancy would retain work with the ministry. That has occurred.

I know of cases where women in the pursuit of higher education have come to us and asked for contract work that they might do in their spare hours in order to help finance their independence and the improvement in their lifestyles. We've obliged in all of those cases where it's possible to do so.

I don't believe we're the only ministry of government doing this. I think there are one or two others, but I don't have details of that. Nor do I have for your information today any numbers or summary. But if you'd like, I'd be delighted to give you the names of the individuals who have received this so you could interview them yourself. You could determine whether this government is attempting, in the most sensitive, responsible way we possibly can, to allow women in particular more flexibility in their hours of work.

[3:15]

We have some flextime initiatives that we've approved. I'm not aware of any option out there that we haven't considered. Our employees, I believe, are aware of the fact that we are happy to consider any proposal they might wish to bring to us to satisfy their desire to make a valuable working contribution, and also their desire to handle some personal issues that might require different than normal business hour attendance.

In any event, if that gives you any comfort, I'm quite happy to — upon receiving the approval of the employee — give you those specific names, and you could conduct your own interviews. If you found it unsatisfactory, I'd like to hear about it so I could react to it. I'm not aware of any criticisms that are presently out there from our ministry staff about this program not working, or that we're not serious about trying to make it work.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, sweatshops are sweatshops are sweatshops. Sweatshops by choice are even more abhorrent than sweatshops that have traditionally existed. By sweatshop in the 1990s, I mean piecework being done without support at home in an isolated situation by women who are, in the vernacular, supposed to be at home with their families in the first place and don't have the means for any other choice. I call them sweatshops. I call it piecework. I call it work done probably at minimum wage.

I would very much like to know, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: You can give me names. You can give me a list. I'd appreciate lists. We're getting a lot of lists for Public Accounts lately, and I wouldn't mind a list of the people you are contracting with individually. I wouldn't mind a list of contractors you are working with who, in turn, have women working in their word-processing rooms in their homes. I would like those lists.

I would like to know which other ministries are using this technique and calling it flextime and flexible working arrangements. I would like to know what those women are getting paid and what their contractor/ employers are getting paid. I'd like to know what their benefits are and what their future looks like and what their pensions and disability might look like. Yes, I would like those lists.

I'd also like to ask the minister if he's ever heard of the concept of contract compliance. When we were talking about pay equity, we were talking about closing the wage gap. This government is talking about closing the wage gap, all right. It hasn't really got a plan; it really doesn't have a fixed time-frame; it's not really quite sure how it's approaching it. But it does think it's going to have a think-tank. That's fine. But what you've done is taken a body of women and you've thrown them out Into the private sector. You've thrown them out into personal contracts, either through a contractor or directly with yourself. You don't count them as FTEs, and they don't qualify for pay equity, do they?

One way of getting around that, since I'm assuming that you are concerned about this problem, is to ensure that any contractor doing business with the provincial government falls under a program of contract compliance by which every contractor in the private market is asked to instigate a pay equity program similar to our own. This guarantees that the women being employed by contractors out there,

[ Page 10157 ]

working in their homes or working as Kelly girls, are being properly paid through their employer and are included in a pay equity and in an affirmative-action program. Is the minister prepared to bring in a contract compliance program that will take to the private contractors the same terms of fairness, the same terms of wage-gap closure that he is prepared to bring In for the inside workers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I sometimes have trouble responding to questions the way they're framed. The pay equity issue isn't limited to "inside workers." I don't know what that means. What we've said is that we want to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions and that we're well aware of the difficulties experienced around Ontario's pay equity program. One of the criticisms of that program that we have heard is that they tried to do too much too fast, and they tried to move the goalposts in the private sector at the same time they were dealing with the issue internally. As a consequence, they created chaos.

We made it plain in the throne speech and in the budget speech that we are dealing here with government employees. That is what we are talking about We are not dealing with the private sector. We don't intend to deal with the private sector. We believe that if we can make the program work, if we can implement it intelligently and sensitively, the merits of it will become self-evident to the private sector, and they might well choose to embrace it simply because it's the appropriate thing to do.

As the hon. member expressed herself this morning, it is a very complex issue. It was so complex that she brought armloads of material back from a conference in Ontario, she tells us, and offered to share them with us. We have the same material, and we have been working on this now for some months. So things are moving along. As I mentioned this morning, we have discussed it and are continuing to discuss it with the union representative. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what more I can add. We really are starting to repeat ourselves, me included.

MS. MARZARI: One more question. The Ontario legislation was broad-reaching. It said right off the top that organizations in the private sector that employed more than 500 employees had to report back with the pay equity scheme within 18 months...plus the public sector extended— that included hospitals, municipalities, libraries, etc.

Obviously it is a very large chunk to chew off, because in a further 18 months the next category of private employers had to report back, and the system is choking. They are just working through the backlog now, trying to go through the lists of private employers that are bringing in their pay equity schemes.

My question to you is very specific. I wasn't advocating that we move to a full-scale moving-out to the private sector, saying report back in 12 months or 18 months on how you're going to do it. No, I'm not saying that, and I don't want those words to be put in my mouth. I'm saying you've got some women working in their basements, raising the kids, probably at less than minimum wage in the last analysis. That's what I'm saying. And I want to know: if they are working for you, do they qualify under the pay equity program? If they're working for a private contractor....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I find that comment outrageous. The member talks about people contracting for the provincial government at less than minimum wage. That's outrageous, and shouldn't be allowed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, that is not a point of order. The member continues.

MS. MARZARI: just the other day I stood up and talked about welfare mothers in this province who are being encouraged to go into special child care training centres, which means they get ten hours of child care training in a day care centre. They get whipped back into their own house, told to bring in other people's kids, and by the end of it, the money that they make bringing in three or four other kids is deducted from their welfare cheque.

By the time you take off the allowance they get from their husbands through the FMA — if their husbands have taken off — these women are working for less than $50 a month. Yes, I'm talking about slave labour.

We do it in this province; we do it through the Ministry of Social Services. Are you prepared to say that the women who are working for you through contractors, in their own basements, are going to be eligible for pay equity through you bringing in a contract-compliance plan that makes it imperative that anybody out there doing work for us gets pay equity?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, we want the pay equity plan to work. It is a complex matter. It is a matter that has not been well handled in other jurisdictions; we're well aware of that. We're aware that it is full of pitfalls. We're aware that it will take much discussion, much good will, and a cooperative spirit among all the players, as I said this morning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe it would be a guarantee of the failure of the program. I suspect that may well be the desire of the members opposite. Nothing would suit your purposes better than to see the program fail by this administration, because it would suit your narrow political purposes.

But we don't intend to allow that to happen. It will apply to the employees of government — period.

[ Page 10158 ]

As it evolves and its success becomes evident to all, then it can well have a broader application.

But we're not going to stand here and misrepresent the challenge, or misrepresent our appreciation of the complexity of it. We're going to take this a step at a time. We're going to do it inside government. We're going to do it with a spirit of cooperation from all the players, and we're going to do it successfully, hon. member.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I can use a different example on this topic, because the point is very simple. That is, with contracting out and less government employees working directly for the payroll, it undermines the very noble goals the minister professes to hold with respect to pay equity.

Having pay equity in the public sector is of course a worthwhile goal. The minister said they're pursuing that direction. But if you contract out temporary services to Kelly Temporary Services, and those women are making half the wage, which is essentially the case, working alongside other people in the public sector, the question is: will those people from Kelly Temporary Services, who were working for the government more or less full-time in many cases at half the wage, be covered by the pay equity program introduced by the government?

You have the power. You say to the contractor: "We will contract out this service to you, provided that you pay a fair wage" — this and this and this — "and provided that you follow the kind of program which we're now putting in place in the public sector." That really seems to be the question.

If you do not make private contractors comply with your own pay equity rules with respect specifically to Kelly Temporary Services and services like that, then in fact you've undermined the very goals which you profess to hold.

That's the question that I think the member from Point Grey was asking, and I don't believe we really got an answer. I wonder if the minister would care to answer that for us now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I notice that the members enter and leave the chambers through the swinging doors with great alacrity, not bothering to listen to the answers, so I'm not quite sure how seriously I should take this string of questions, Mr. Chairman They obviously don't care about the answer.

I have said that the issue is complex. I have said it will require a spirit of cooperation of all the players. I have told you that we are in negotiations— no, negotiations is the wrong word — discussions with the BCGEU representative who deals with classification issues.

[3:30]

I don't want to pre-empt any of those decisions by giving you answers that would have the effect of offending people whose opinion I want. Your best efforts aren't going to get me to discuss specifics, because I don't have the arrogance to believe that I'm the sole source of wisdom. I realize this is a shock Every time I say such a thing, the members opposite break into howls of laughter, as if somehow this should be something I should be ashamed of. You know, the irony is that I'm not ashamed of it. I have never portrayed myself as being the sole fount of all wisdom.

I've always said — publicly, and to anybody who asks — that I do my best, and I require the support of many other intelligent minds to make sure we get the best solution to any specific problem. I don't happen to think that I'm the only person with an Independent-thinking mind.

I'm not troubled by the fact that I can't answer these specific questions, because I don't intend to develop a program until we've received all the valuable advice that is out there on this complex issue. So I'm sorry, my friends. You can portray it as ineptitude on my part if you like. It doesn't bother me in the least. We will do this job properly, we will do it thoroughly, we will do it sensitively, and we will do it by involving all of the players in the decision-making process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would just like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the matter of pay equity is being reasonably well canvassed today. As a matter of fact, although they are being phrased in somewhat different ways, the Chair can't help but notice that the questions bear a great deal of similarity one to the other.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the answers are the same.

Having mentioned that to the hon. members, I recognize the member for Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do something different — be nice.

MR. MILLER: Being mindful of the request of the Minister of Education to be nice, I will be; in fact, I think I'm always nice.

I think this is an issue that really is about the policy. It seems to me that it's the policy in this application, as my colleague from Vancouver East pointed out, that requires further clarification. I don't know why there's a reluctance to discuss it. Clearly there must have been discussions among the cabinet in arriving at the policy— fairly extensive discussions, I presume. It surely wasn't just a spur-of-the-moment addition to the budget script.

The policy question vis-à-vis contracting-out seems to me to be fundamental, particularly when you look, for example, at some of the hard numbers. The Ministry of Forests presented a brief just in the last few weeks to the Forest Resources Commission. They outlined in their brief how they have shifted from having their own employees undertake work required by the ministry to contracting that work out. I am mindful of some debates I had with the last Minister of Forests with regard to that issue. But when you look at the numbers, for example....

[ Page 10159 ]

I'm quoting from the Ministry of Forests brief of May 17: "In 1980 the ministry employed 2,682 permanent staff, 1,700 auxiliaries and 1, 00 contractor person-years, for a total complement of nearly 6,000 person-years." I should add that there is really no particular saving for the government in this contracting-out. Presumably what happens is that the contractors require a profit, and the difference really comes out of the pockets of the workers.

If we shift to the 1982-84 period, the ministry reduced its full-time complement by about 2,000 FTEs. So there's been a shift, and along with that shift.... What bears on this issue is how the policy is going to apply, given that the government, at least during the past 3½ years, has professed an overwhelming desire to privatize. We don't know yet, because the Premier stopped talking about phases 4 5, 6, 7 and 8, and just what's in store for us. I guess that falls into the category, as we heard from the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon Mrs. Gran), of not really wanting to talk about issues that might get us in trouble.

I am curious as to how the policy can be applied whether the government is serious about it and whether there was a lot of thought, consideration and work in coming up with a policy. Surely there must have been some consideration given to the question of shifting the permanent workforce — which would presumably benefit from the policy— to the private sector. We seem not to be able to get the minister to comment on whether or not those workers will also benefit from the policy. Perhaps the minister might like to explain to us how the policy was developed, whether there were considerations about that shifting workforce and how this policy will aid those jobs that have been moved from the government service into the private sector.

It seems to me a very straightforward.... In the words of the Minister of Education, I was nice. I put the question, I thought, quite rationally, and I can only conclude that there was no particular planning involved in this so-called pay equity. It's really just a sham.

It falls into the category of many of the other items we've seen promulgated by this minister — the public relations attitude towards policy that this government adopted from its inception: "Let's not really do anything; let's just say we're going to do something Let's run a host of government ads that seem to suggest to the public that we have somehow achieved a measure of pay equity and pensions for housewives"— misleading advertising. And when we try to explore the substance of the government's programs, we find that there is none. We find that the Minister of Finance refuses to get off his chair and deal with a very legitimate, straightforward question

I don't know what particular benefit the government sees, given that the cost to government has not been reduced by shifting the workforce to the private sector. You've simply reduced the wages and benefits of those workers in the private sector who work for the consultants and contractors.

So how can the government be taken seriously? Presumably if the privatization shift continues, if that's a policy of the government, we could see those numbers that I quoted earlier become even more distorted. We could find that the majority of the government service was not employed by the government but by the private sector. Would those people still have the benefit of the program that the government is promoting? Or is there really no substance to the program? Is there no intention to really deal with the serious issue of pay equity?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 28. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, again I can't understand the refusal of the Minister of Finance to deal with the issue.

MR. MOWAT: Read the Blues. Where have you been all day?

MR. MILLER: I was in the House for question period, Mr. Member for Little Mountain. I enjoyed myself hugely.

MR. MOWAT: Where were you this morning?

MR. MILLER: We were busy deciding which questions to ask in question period, and it proved to be quite effective. I'm glad I spent a little extra time deciding which questions to ask and which ministers to quiz.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Point of order. I believe we have been most patient on this side of the House' attempting to answer serious questions put to us, and as you pointed out earlier in your comments, some of those aspects of my ministry have been canvassed at length— ad nauseam, some might say. I find it totally irrelevant to find ourselves now in a discussion of how the members in opposition design their questions for question period.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we made the point that we have great concerns about the government's commitment to pay equity. We are not satisfied with the pace of change; we are not sure the process is correct; and we think it is in its infancy, to be very kind.

Beyond that, in terms of contracting-out, we have canvassed at some length some of our concerns about contracting-out. I might say that it is not an ideological concern per se that contracting-out is always bad. The problem is that they haven't saved any money by doing it, and the contractor very often makes a good profit and the workers receive less than the wages they otherwise would be accorded. So the real agenda for the government is ideological, not one that has to do with efficiency or the way government is managed. We are seeing a dramatic increase in personal service contracts and contracting-out, and we don't see any evidence that we're saving any

[ Page 10160 ]

money. As a matter of fact, in some cases it is costing us more. But the workers in that sector see their wages and living standards undermined. And that is essentially the point we have been trying to make.

There are several things I would like to canvass — and I'll alert the minister to this. We have some questions that deal with the staff person — Mr. Moser, who is here in the House — which we want to canvass. Beyond that, what flows from contracting out is privatization, and we have some very serious concerns about the way privatization is being characterized by this government and particularly by this ministry. So we want to canvass that.

First, I am going to turn it over to the second member for Point Grey, who wants to canvass some questions about some positions taken by the government on certain negotiations— some misleading positions, we believe.

MR. PERRY: just before I forget, I would like to pursue with the minister — since I'll be voting on his salary in these votes — a question I attempted to pursue with him in question period, when the answer was not entirely satisfactory.

Following a recent meeting with the editorial board of the Vancouver Sun, the minister was quoted as saying in an April 25 editorial in the Vancouver Sun:

"He" — namely the minister — "spoke about, without of course naming, a certain woman he has heard about who has had her blood pressure checked by her doctor every day. There's nothing wrong with her blood pressure, said the Finance minister. She's just lonely.

"He offered other examples. The broad thrust of Mr. Couvelier's remarks was clear. Medicare is costly and there are abuses."

The minister should have been aware — and I suspect he was aware — that there is an established committee between the Medical Services Plan, representing the government, and B.C. Medical Association to deal with so-called patterns of practice or suspected abuses in billing of the system. The kind of case he alluded to in his comment with the Sun editorial board is exactly the kind of case for which that committee is established.

The president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Anderson, wrote to the minister on April 30 requesting he turn over the name of the physician and patient of which he was aware to the patterns of practice committee so that an investigation could be performed. I asked the minister in the House in question period recently whether he had done so. He gave a very obfuscating answer without, in my view, answering the question.

I have since been apprised that on May 22 of this year, the minister wrote to the president of the Medical Association, Dr. Anderson, in response to Dr Anderson's letter, saying:

"I make no excuse for the fact that confidential matters are drawn to my attention that raise questions in my mind and in the minds of taxpayers about the propriety of certain services that are provided by medical practitioners. Our task, Dr. Anderson, is to work together to ensure that proper value is received for all services rendered, and I continue to support the fair-minded practitioners who provide needed services to the people."

As the minister knows, if he meant what he said in that quotation, he has an avenue — just as any physician who suspects an abuse or any member of the public who suspects an abuse has an avenue — namely, asking for that joint government-professional committee to investigate the case.

I would like to ask the minister a very simple question now before I'm prepared to vote on his salary. Has he provided the necessary information to the patterns-of-practice committee or to the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) to turn over to that committee or to Dr. Anderson of the medical profession?

[3:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Once again we see exhibited in front of the world the ineptitude and poor quality of research work that can be provided by the members of the opposition. They are given an ample budget to make sure they are able to develop their positions and provide useful help to government. Once again they've exhibited that evidently their sole source of commentary appears to be in the Vancouver dailies.

The doctor's issue is a difficult one. We have been involved in bargaining now for 15 months. The government has tried every device it can to seek a settlement amicably. We're still in negotiations. They haven't broken off. I see no point at this stage of the negotiations, given the fact the doctors themselves have evidently abandoned their advertising campaign which was designed to gather public support, and which I gather didn't realize that objective....

I don't think, given the current dynamic relating to those delicate, complicated and most difficult negotiations, that I add anything by commenting further. It's in the hands of the negotiators. I wish them Godspeed in finding a happy accommodation.

MR. PERRY: I understand increasingly well why the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) awarded the minister the bafflegab prize that he did last year.

I see the minister attempting to leave the House before I can repeat the question, but I think the record is clear. I will therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I just want it known that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) was wasting the time of this House by moving a motion and then voting against his own motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East

[ Page 10161 ]

(Mr. Clark) seems to be taking lessons from his leader. He seems to be completely ambivalent. He didn't vote either way on this issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He can't do that; he can't have it both ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, it's not a point of order.

MR. PERRY: For the record, I moved adjournment because the Minister of Finance walked out of the House in the midst of an important question, and there would be no point in this side of the House spending time in the chamber when the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the House does not require an explanation. We're back debating vote 28. Please continue.

MR. PERRY: In that case, I would like to rephrase the question I put to the minister, which has yet to be answered. The question is a simple one. The Minister of Finance has effectively usurped the authority of the Minister of Health to deal with an important issue that relates to the maintenance of health services in British Columbia; in this case, negotiations for a settlement of the Medical Services Plan contract between the government and physicians. And the same minister has, in the midst of exceedingly difficult negotiations that have become highly polarized, chosen to make in public gratuitous insults to the opposing side in negotiations.

It may be that the minister does have evidence for the types of abuses he described. I would be surprised if he did have evidence of the type he mentioned to the Sun editorial board. But my point is that if he does have such evidence, he has a responsibility as a public servant, and in particular as the Minister of Finance, to disclose that evidence to the relevant joint committee of government and the medical profession so that corrective steps may be taken.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

He would not be unprecedented in doing so. The normal procedure by which that committee identifies abuses of the system is through computer recognition of abnormal or unusual billing patterns; but periodically there are also complaints made to the committee. The very existence of the committee is based on the desirability of there being a mechanism to investigate and adjudicate complaints of the kind the minister made in public.

I would like to reiterate that very simple question. Has he reported his complaint to that committee, to the appropriate officials in the Ministry of Health, to his colleague the Minister of Health or to Dr. Anderson, who asked him for that evidence in a letter dated April 30, 1990, from which I have quoted?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe we went through the charade we did just a few minutes ago. The hon. member refuses to accept the answer I gave him to the same question he put five minutes before.

What are we doing here? Are we serious about doing the people's business, or are you just serious about getting on the record in Hansard so you can send it to your doctor friends? We are here, my friends, to deal with serious matters of government business. You asked that question five minutes ago; I answered it.

[4:00]

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that there are many other issues I'd like to be addressing. I will address some of them in this debate.

MR. LOENEN: When are you going to stop being a doctor?

MR. PERRY: The second member for Richmond asks me when I will stop being a doctor.

MR. LOENEN: When are you going to stop being in conflict of interest?

MR. PERRY: I'd invite him to repeat that implication outside the Legislature, where it would be actionable. I'd invite him to withdraw the remark now, because it's objectionable and offensive, and it impugns my reputation. I respectfully ask that he withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A number of things are said across the floor from time to time. Although the second member for Richmond did not have the floor, unless the member is offended by the statement, which he obviously is.... Perhaps the second member for Richmond may wish to rise and withdraw that statement.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I appreciate the comment you've made. The second member for Richmond indicated that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is engaged in some type of conflict of interest. Either he should explain why he thinks the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is engaged in conflict of interest, or he should withdraw the statement. It's up to him to exercise the choice, one or the other.

I would ask you again, Mr. Chairman, to ask the member either to withdraw or to take steps to explain his comment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Further to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, any remarks that may have been made by the second member for Richmond were certainly not on the record — at least not until the— member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew got up and put them on the record. If they are in there for everyone

[ Page 10162 ]

to see, it rests on the head of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: In response to that rather weak defence by the minister, quite frankly, we should have just asked the second member for Richmond to do the honourable thing and withdraw the point. You know, there have been occasions in this House when I've sat here and the Premier has uttered words about me while he was not standing. He was seated, but he was asked to withdraw those remarks. The precedent in this House has been set.

The comment was heard. The Chair asked the member to withdraw, and now the member should answer by either agreeing to withdraw or explaining the comment. What's the matter? Are you afraid? Stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I would just say at this point that it's impossible for the Chair to hear all of the comments that are made across the floor besides the person who is speaking. It's very difficult to obtain exactly what's being said. On that note, I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to continue on vote 28.

MR. PERRY: Sometimes I wonder whether I went to school in a different country or grew up in a political and historical culture that was totally different from that of some members on the other side. I was schooled in the traditions of the English Bill of Rights, the universal declaration of human rights in France, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the English common law. Perhaps my understanding of conflict of interest is different from that of the member for Richmond, the Minister of Health or some other members on the other side. I find it difficult to understand why a member on the other side....

MR. CRANDALL: You are absolutely wasting time now. Why don't you get on with it and do the people's business?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to deal with vote 28 that is before us.

MR. PERRY: I will, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps if you or your wife had been wakened up by the hate call occasioned by the Minister of Health's remark to me the other day, you might take these matters as seriously as I do. I did receive a hate call thanks to the comment that the hon. Minister of Health made in this Legislature about me, for which he apologized privately but not in public.

Now I see one of his colleagues attempting to make the same scurrilous allegations about me here. I take it seriously. I am trying to pursue the public business, and I have yet to receive a serious answer from the Minister of Finance to a very serious question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Everybody take a seat at this point. The business before the House at the present time is vote 28. Shall vote 28 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a number of questions in relation to the privatization benefits fund.

HON. J. JANSEN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey intimated my involvement in terms of some comments that were made to him. I think he used the words "death threat." I would like him to clarify that please, or withdraw those comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Health make his point once more?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think that the member was trying — in his own devious way — to point out to this House that my comments in the House led to a hate call that he received. I find that remark offensive in the extreme. I would ask him to clarify and give this House more details of that, so that we could respond. I think it's unfair to suggest by innuendo that I was responsible for some of the comments he gets from members of the public.

MR. PERRY: Since the minister asked for clarification, I will provide it to him. His comments in the Legislature on Tuesday were to accuse me of putting my hands into the public pocket, in some sense. He never offered any explanation of what he meant by that comment. It was reported in the public media the following morning. My wife received a hate call at quarter to six in the morning based on a newspaper article occasioned by and quoting directly his remarks in the House. I find his remarks were contemptible, and I think it would be appropriate if he offered a public apology so the matter could be put to rest.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the member was when I explained my comments in more detail. I indicated that I was trying to point out that the member is receiving cheques from a number of government sources. That was the extent of my comment in the House. I regret he found offence in that comment. I indicated to him, in a private conversation, that I regretted my outburst. However, the facts are true. They are for public record. I had no other motive than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the committee, in particular the two members in question.... While there has been a fair exchange on this subject, the Chair obviously cannot deal with this kind of matter when there has been that much debate on it. We will get on with the business of vote 28.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask that if the Minister of Health has any legitimate complaints, he make them public or make them outside the

[ Page 10163 ]

House, in writing, so they can be addressed in the suitable forum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I asked that the parties agree to get off of this subject because the Chair cannot decide on it, and here you go on again on the same issue. I would ask you kindly at this point to carry on with vote 28.

MR. PERRY: May I again ask the Minister of Finance if he will answer my question, which was posed very clearly. The record will show that I cited from his remarks as quoted by the Vancouver Sun, that I cited from a letter to him from the president of the Medical Association asking him to document his remarks and lay the appropriate complaint and that I cited even from the minister's reply to Dr. Anderson.

I have yet to receive — and this House has yet to receive — an answer whether the minister has laid any such evidence in front of the Minister of Health or his officials or the patterns-of-practice committee, which is the appropriate committee to investigate an allegation like that. This is a matter where, if the minister feels that there are abuses, he has a responsibility to investigate them. I am asking a very simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health has a request to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: I would ask this House to make welcome visiting students from Kent Elementary in Agassiz. They are grade 4 and 5 students accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Fraser and Mrs. Froehlich Would you please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: I think it's obvious we're not going to get an answer on this one.

I'll ask the minister another question. Is he aware that if he finds that mechanism unsuitable to address the issue I have raised and the one he's raised publicly in the midst of negotiations, the Medical Service Act provides for the appointment of an audit committee, which offers an even more powerful mechanism to investigate suspected abuses?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PERRY: Will he tell us whether he has considered advising his colleagues in the cabinet that an audit committee be appointed so that abuses, if they exist, can be investigated in an appropriate way rather than simply be alluded to in the media in such an unproductive and inflammatory way?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister of Health. Sorry, Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I've got enough problems with finance, Mr. Chairman, without taking health on.

As I mentioned and indicated to the hon. member, I don't believe, given the fact that we're back bargaining with the doctors and that they have evidently abandoned their megadollar advertising campaign, there's any point in my speaking to these questions.

Number one, as I have indicated to the member, I don't want to jeopardize these negotiations by making any further comment. I find it passing strange that during all of the 15 months that these negotiations have been going on, the hon. member, who is a member of that profession and affected by the outcome of the negotiations, has held his silence. Now that he senses that things are coming to a conclusion, he decides that he wants to all of a sudden act like the spokesperson for the profession. However, that's his choice.

[4:15]

In any event, those issues relating to the questions he's just asked are more properly in the province of the Ministry of Health. They certainly have no relationship to these estimates that we're dealing with now, and I would like to point out that you asked to proceed with the discussion on this particular vote about five minutes ago, and we still have failed to do that.

MR. SIHOTA: The member for Point Grey has asked what I think is a legitimate question. Perhaps the minister can help us all in understanding this matter by simply telling us how it was that he came to learn of this information.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: What information?

MR. SIHOTA: The information that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey just alluded to and the representations that you made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'd like to identify his ignorance. Now that he's been handed this written thing that he can refer to, he can now tell us what it is he was so curious about.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's get it straight, Mr. Chair. This Minister of Finance appeared before the editorial board of the major newspaper in this province and made accusations about abuses of the Medical Plan. He talked about a specific woman coming in daily just to get her blood checked for blood pressure, and there was never a problem. Well, you have some obligations, Mr. Minister.

You've had a letter now from the Medical Association asking for identification of this, dealing with the specifics, asking for the details. Since then, you've wandered off into all of the business of the negotiations between the medical fraternity and this government. Are you saying that that was just a ploy, that that was just part of the bargaining game on the part

[ Page 10164 ]

of the Social Credit Party, that that's the way you do business in British Columbia?

You got a letter on April 30. It's now a month later....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Please address your comments to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of a sudden we get some learned judgment out of this Chair, who has trouble even reading the first stage of the rules in this House.

This minister appeared before the editorial board of the Sun. He ended up laying these charges before them, printed in the public press. You've refused to answer the member from Point Grey in terms of the direct questions. We're asking you here and now: 'fess up. Was it just part of the game? How much trouble do you have to get yourself into in a session? How much time do you have to mislead and get into this kind of glue? This administration has enough trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask the first member for Vancouver East to withdraw the remarks he made concerning the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: There was nothing offensive, Mr Chairman. When that member for Richmond stood up and talked about a conflict of interest, you let that slide by. If the level of competence is a problem, you address it yourself, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, just to correct the first member for Vancouver East, the member for Richmond did not have the floor when he made any alleged comments. He wasn't on his feet in this House, and there's quite a difference.

I think it's deplorable for you to have to sit and listen to the tirade you just listened to. No chairman should have to put up with that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am certainly willing to withdraw the comments, Mr. Chairman. It's the government that appoints the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. PERRY: I'll yield, if the minister wishes to answer that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. PERRY: I'll yield to my colleague.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister made these representations to the Vancouver Sun. They must have been founded on some facts that were peculiar to his knowledge. Will he share with the House how he came to know of the situation? Who was involved? Is it a fabrication? Is it a truth? And if it is a truth— which I would expect it certainly is, because far be it from me to suggest that the minister would be involved in a fabrication — then he should expand on the details. How did he come to learn of it? Who is involved? Who was the doctor? The medical profession has asked for this information. Does the minister not think that it would be appropriate for him to provide those details, or does he think it's just okay for him to go in and make some kind of grand accusation in the public press about an unknown doctor and an unknown patient and then leave it at that?

Don't you think, Mr. Minister, that you've got some responsibility to say what or who you were talking about, how you learned of the situation? Don't you think you've got some responsibility to refer it to the appropriate authority for them to investigate? Or do you think it's just okay for you to make scurrilous comments without any kind of consequence?

Mr. Minister, it's time for you to 'fess up, so let's have the details. Will you now provide to the House the details?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We've now run through three of them asking exactly the same question that I answered a good ten or 15 minutes ago. The answer is on the record. If the members who have just arrived late haven't heard it, they can read it tomorrow in Hansard.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister spoke about a patient, a certain women who had a blood check by her doctor every day. Could the minister tell the House...?

MR. VANT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is being repetitious and redundant. I have heard that particular Vancouver Sun article quoted already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I know it's repetitious. We'll give the member a chance to evaluate the questions that have already been asked, and if you wish to continue, please proceed on vote 28.

MR. SIHOTA: We all know that the Minister of Finance must be in trouble when he has to engage the member for Cariboo as defence counsel.

Let me ask the minister: who was the doctor that you referred to?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me ask the minister this question: was it a fabrication?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 28 pass?

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister again. It's a very simple question for the minister to answer, and

[ Page 10165 ]

I would hope that the answer to the question is no. But, Mr. Minister, was it a fabrication?

MR. WILLIAMS: This minister gets up and does the ideological dance, but what we're seeing right now is the ideological non-dance of this minister. The reality is that he has these ideological biases about medicare. He believes that these kinds of things happen. Because he believes they happen, he says they happen. That's the reality.

So when you appear before the editorial board of the Sun, because you believe it happens, you tell them it happens. But when the doctors came forth more than a month ago and said, "Give us the evidence; there's a process to deal with this kind of abuse, " you couldn't provide the evidence. The reason is that you're caught in your own ideological trap, your own mind-set. You believe that happens. You believe that medicare leads to these kinds of abuses. That's your problem.

You've provided no answers to the doctors and no answers to the House. You can laugh away and say: "I gave you the answer." You gave us no answers, and you've given the doctors no answers. If you've given the doctors an answer, file the letter with this House, Mr. Minister.

You are captured by your own ideology. That's abundantly clear today. You don't believe in medicare. You think these kinds of abuses are rampant, and you run around saying so. In so doing, you fly in the face of something most Canadians cherish.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, indeed. Didn't you ever tune in on the free trade debates? Didn't you realize that most Canadians think we stand for something different than the people to the south of us?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on! Why don't you just stand up and give us a clear answer, Mr. Minister? Was there ever such a person? Was there ever such a doctor, or was it just a figment of your imagination?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned, probably 20 minutes ago now, I am not going to inflame currently very tender negotiations. The doctors have indicated their willingness to find some accommodation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let the minister answer.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The doctors have withdrawn their advertising campaign so that we now have, once again, some sense of harmony in the arena of these delicate negotiations, and I am not going to jeopardize them. I have a heavy responsibility to try to find an accommodation here. We have been working very hard to find that accommodation for 15 months.

I find it extremely humorous for the first member from Vancouver East to talk about ideologies. My goodness, the whole day has consisted of a debate about ideologies. If ever there has been a group of individuals so captured with an ideology, it's the members opposite. I see it with every speech, every question and every focus, bias and spin that they try to put on their interpretation of this question of my estimates.

The record will be clear, for anybody who wishes to read it, how the members opposite are the guilty ones in terms of being straitjacketed into some ideological restrictions that don't allow them to recognize the desire of every single British Columbian to be free and able to enjoy economic activity and prosperity— something that this government has brought forward in the best three years in the history of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: The doctors have pulled their advertising. Is the minister now saying that he has pulled his? Is that what he is saying now? We could talk about ideology all day long. I just want to talk about the truth, and I just want the facts.

My question to the minister....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is grossly misrepresenting the truth. We've never advertised dealing with this doctor's campaign. Not one red cent of public money has been spent on this issue, other than one explanatory ad, so the hon. member is totally distorting the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's an argument, not a point of order. I'll ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister: were you just joshing when you made this statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister, through the Chair, this question. Could you tell us whether or not this statement is a falsehood? Is it a fabrication, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the minister's nose is growing. He's sitting there and he's not prepared to answer the very simple question of who this certain woman was and who this certain physician was. He made these comments. Is it not true, Mr. Minister? You just made these comments. You just made them without any consideration as to whether or not they were true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. This subject has been canvassed very thoroughly. The minister is under no obligation to answer questions. I think it would be to the best interest and effectiveness of

[ Page 10166 ]

this debate if you would get on to the next subject under vote 28.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the minister earlier on talked about ideologies. We're talking about certain principles, and one of the most important principles here is that when ministers are questioned in this Legislature, in this chamber, under our democratic system, they're expected to answer the question in a forthright fashion and honestly. We're simply asking the minister a very basic question: will he name the doctor involved? Will you do that? Number two, will you explain why to date you haven't reported the incident to the proper authority? Number three, could you please indicate to this House whether or not the statement that you made is a fabrication? Those are three very simple questions.

We'll get on to what I want to ask the minister about, the privatization benefits fund, the moment the minister answers those three questions. They aren't skill-testing questions, Mr. Minister. Right? But there is a game called "Truth or Consequences, " and maybe that's what we're really talking about here, in terms of what the truth is and what the consequence is if indeed a minister goes out of his way to make a statement that is not accurate, that is a falsehood.

So, Mr. Minister, let me put those three questions to you again and with the expectation of an answer One, who was the doctor? Two, could you explain why you haven't reported it to the proper authorities? And three, could you tell us whether or not the statement is a fabrication?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the next member, I would just like to say again that there has been a lot of repetition on this particular item. It's tedious. It takes up a lot of time. Not just one member has repeated the statement; it has been repeated by several members of the House. I would ask those who wish to continue speaking on vote 28 to discontinue on this particular subject, because the minister is not about to answer the questions that you are putting, or is perhaps not.in a position to answer those questions. Therefore I would ask the hon members to cooperate and get off this particular subject and on to something else under vote 28.

MR. ROSE: I rise, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We have estimates in the House so that members, in a wide-ranging debate, dealing with the minister's office, not subsequent votes but all votes here.... And there is an expectation — that's why we have estimates conducted in this manner— of forthrightness. That's why we're called honourable members: "the honourable Minister of Finance." There's an expectation that he will answer with all dispatch truth and facts at his disposal. If he doesn't know, he should say he doesn't know. On the other hand— and this is becoming increasingly a tactic in here on the part of the government, in my view — there is the stonewalling, the refusal to answer. If you stonewall long enough, naturally the questions are going to become tedious and repetitious. The only reason that they become tedious and repetitious is because no answers are forthcoming.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister of Finance is not harassing me for being out a bit. I've been in here a good deal. I've heard a good deal of this today. I didn't hear this part. But obviously the question hasn't been answered or we wouldn't be asking the question all over again. For me, as a special favour, Mr. Chairman, will he answer the three questions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: You didn't get the answers you wanted, that's all.

MR. ROSE: Oh, we didn't like the answers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's what I say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I know it must be difficult for you, because today there have been times when this place has become a bit fractious. But you know, it takes two to tango. If the answers are provocative and we get lectures from the minister as we got sometime earlier today-or sort of ideological rants, you can expect similar treatment over here. It's very Interesting how sometimes these estimates go rather rapidly and relatively smoothly. But if things get cheeky on one side, they get cheeky on both sides. Right? So therefore I think that we should maybe try to turn down the temperature a little bit and get back to the facts. And let's cut out the extraneous material and comments and deal with the facts.

MR. WILLIAMS: What you said to the Sun editorial board was that you'd heard this story. Is that right? You'd heard this story. And then you tell us just a couple of minutes ago, Mr. Minister.... Maybe he needs this briefing help that he's getting right now. You heard this. Presumably after this hit the public print, you checked it out. Did you find that it was just an apocryphal story, that It didn't exist at all?

A few minutes ago you said that you didn't want to discuss this anymore, because you don't want to inflame the negotiations with the doctors. What you are really saying is that you were quite willing to inflame the situation with the doctors at an earlier stage when you were before the Vancouver Sun editorial board. I think it's pretty clear that this never happened, Mr. Minister. I suppose we don't have to spend a lot more time on it, because by your....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Hurray!

[ Page 10167 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Of course, you should say hurray. By your actions, by your non-response today and by your lack of reply to the doctors, you've indicated that it simply never happened. It is an apocryphal story. It has no substance whatsoever, and that's why you find it so difficult sitting here today. It was simply another attack by this administration on medicare and on the doctors. By what you said just a few minutes ago, you've indicated that. It is simply an exercise in inflating the dialogue between you— the medical fraternity and the government — and in feeding a pattern of lies about medicare in this province. By your actions today you've confirmed that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. The opposition House Leader wisely asked for the heat to be turned down in here; I think that's a good suggestion. We've heard words such as "truth" and "honesty" from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. We've heard "pack of lies" come from the second member for Vancouver East. He used that phrase. Mr. Chairman, you've asked these members to come to order several times, and I think you should exercise your prerogative in the chair. Maybe they don't understand that "no" is an answer. They're just not getting the answers they want to suit themselves, so they are fabricating their own answers. I suggest that we get back to the vote and that they heed your admonishment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — unless he rises on a point of order — I would just like to read section 43, which deals with irrelevance and repetition in debate:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct that member to discontinue speaking and, if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall follow the procedures in standing orders 19 and 20."

I would again ask the members to address themselves to areas within vote 28 other than the matter widely discussed this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm mindful of that, Mr. Chairman. Let me summarize. Let me put a question to the minister that hasn't been put to him. Let me put it this way to you, Mr. Minister: if you say something and you discover that what you said didn't materialize, I would describe that as a lie. How would the minister describe the statement he made to the Vancouver Sun?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 28 pass?

MR. PERRY: I think the minister's silence on that question speaks for itself, as did his response to the first member for Vancouver East, who described what I think is a well-known fact, that Canadians cherish the medicare system. We saw the Minister of Finance laughing. I never thought I would come to the day when I would see a government minister— even a right-wing minister — laugh at the idea that Canadians cherish medicare. It's not even a matter of ideological debate; it's a matter of public record that Canadians cherish medicare.

I'd like to move on to another issue which relates in a sense to the debate of the last few minutes: how the government conducts its negotiations with public servants or people who work for the people of British Columbia in the health field and in other fields. In the short time I've been in politics, I've seen a disturbing pattern whereby negotiations are frequently conducted in public. Government statements are relatively inflammatory. Granted, some of the claims made by the other parties to a negotiation are also sometimes exaggerated. But government has a role on behalf of all of the people, in my view, to maintain an absolute frankness and honesty.

Nobody could criticize the Minister of Finance if he were to represent the public interest as he sees it by telling the truth frankly. I'm one of those people who believes quite strongly that, as painful as it is, there's seldom much to be feared from the truth, and a lot to be gained. I would commend the Minister of Finance if, in his public statements about negotiations with people working in the health field, I felt that there was always frankness.

I'd like to raise another example that concerns me, because it's extremely topical at the moment. It's the dispute with the psychiatric and community health nurses in this province, in which the minister, through the government personnel services division, is presently in the midst of negotiations.

It would be inappropriate for us in this Legislature to engage in discussions of the details of the negotiations. It's entirely appropriate that those should be conducted quietly and discreetly. But I find the type of press release that I have in front of me somewhat disturbing, and perhaps misleading. The memorandum is undated. It appears to be from May 31, from the government personnel services division: "Negotiations Update on Nurses' Bargaining." It gives only one side of the story in this dispute.

[4:45]

For the background of members in the House who may not be familiar with it, let me just mention that we're discussing, in the case of the psychiatric nurses, those individuals who supply vital services to patients in institutions like Riverview Hospital and the Forensic Psychiatric Institute. These psychiatric nurses are skilled professionals who deal with, in the case of the Forensic Psychiatric Institute, the most difficult psychiatric criminal cases in the entire province: cases involving serious violence; cases of sexual offenders, child molesters and other people who are exceedingly difficult to deal with from the point of view of the health professions, government or anyone else.

The kind of public information released by the government suggests that the government is making

[ Page 10168 ]

an exceptionally generous wage offer. For example — I'm quoting from the release I just referred to: "...an employer's proposal for a wage settlement within the percentage parameters of the BCNU-HLRA agreement amounting to 20.93 percent over two years." I have no reason to question that figure, but the general tenor of press releases and of information released by the government is to suggest that it is offering parity with nurses working in the general hospitals under the HLRA contract. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of us may not be aware — I'm new enough to this field that I'm only beginning to understand — that past Social Credit governments argued strongly for the principle of parity between psychiatric and community nurses, and general hospital nurses. There are many valid reasons to do so. Any of us who have visited a forensic psychiatric unit or the Riverview Hospital have looked at the kind of work community health nurses do in dealing with seriously ill patients, palliative care and patients in the final stages of AIDS receiving home treatment. Any of us who are familiar with that kind of work— and I hope some members of this House are so familiar — will know that this is difficult work.

One thing I find intriguing and contradictory in the present government's ideology is its so-called commitment to the free market system. In terms of a free market in labour supply, the very concept implies to me that when the market mechanism shows a shortage of skilled workers, then the price of such workers would rise, just as for any other commodity, if I may use that term.

It's a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, that throughout British Columbia we face a shortage of nurses. Our health care system is increasingly stressed due largely to the shortage of nurses and the difficulty of recruiting nurses in this province. No one, including the Minister of Finance, I am sure, will dispute that that is a fact.

One of the unquestionable reasons for that, if we believe in the mechanism of a free-market economy, is that the price of the service has not risen to reflect the demand. Watching members on the government side of the House and their public pronouncements, I have been intrigued over the last year— including the time of the nurses' strike last summer when the Minister of Finance held the purse-strings — at the apparent difficulty in recognizing that when there is a severe labour shortage, perhaps the natural mechanism of the market should be utilized to rectify that situation.

Why do I make that preamble? Well, because when we look at the true relationship of psychiatric and community health nurses employed directly by the government with hospital nurses employed through the HLRA, we find a marked discrepancy in the wage levels.

For example, as of April 1, 1990, a starting nurse at the first initial classification who works for an HLRA employer would start work at, if I'm not mistaken, $20.27 per hour; a government-employed nurse would start work at $17.43 per hour. I could make many other comparisons about direct wages. I'll point out that the shift differential is different. General hospital nurses now make the glorious sum of $1 per hour extra for working at night, whereas government nurses make the glorious sum of 65 cents per hour extra for working at night.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker — I see that you are listening to this debate with interest — if it strikes you as logical or fair that a psychiatric nurse working with difficult patients in Riverview Hospital is inherently entitled to 35 cents less per hour, or 35 percent less on the differential, for working at night than a nurse working on a general medical ward in a hospital? I find it difficult to see a logic in that inequity. Similarly, in the weekend premium, a general hospital nurse receives an additional 50 cents per hour for working a weekend, whereas a government nurse does not. Similarly for responsibility pay.

I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Finance after laying out some of the reasons for my concern. Can he explain the general rationale adopted by the government in these negotiations? What does the government see as fair and what is the overall philosophy that the government is following in pursuing these negotiations? Let me be clear. I'm not asking him to provide the details of the negotiations; I'm asking him to provide us with some philosophic indication of where he sees fairness. This is an important question because these are vital services, and these are also largely women in this work -a question that relates to the issues that were raised earlier today.

I realize this is a complex question. If the minister is seeking advice, I'd be prepared to wait patiently and politely while he gives his answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance I would just like to say — not that I'm in the least offended — that when we are in Committee of the Whole, we normally refer to the person chairing the meeting as Mr. Chairman, and not Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We all make that slip of the tongue from time to time, Mr. Chairman.

The member refers to a current labour dispute, and as per my past practice, I have to be very careful in terms of how I respond. I'm not sure the member's knowledge base vis-à-vis this particular dispute is up to speed, so maybe I should make some general comments.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The government offer treats the psychiatric nurse sector in exactly the same way as the RN sector — the same dimensions of improvement. It's articulated in a slightly different form, but the effects are the same. The issue in that dispute, which is ongoing, basically comes to a difference of opinion as to reducing the traditional spread that has existed between the two disciplines.

[ Page 10169 ]

As you might appreciate, the union would like to narrow the spread, and government is saying quite categorically that when we raised the RNs, we did it with a very deliberate plan. We wanted to elevate and change their status in the hierarchy— in the pecking order — of wage settlements. We believed that RNs had been underpaid traditionally, and we gave a very generous settlement to them so they could leap-frog, if you like, their place in that pecking order or hierarchy.

It was well-known at the time that that was our intention, and it was — and still is — our hope that that doesn't, as a consequence, become a new benchmark for settlements. Clearly, were it to be the case' we would have an inflationary push that we couldn't contain.

So once again, it's a delicate area of negotiations, and I have to be cautious in terms of how I might respond to your questions. But just so you understand what the issue is there, it's quite simply that of one side attempting to narrow the traditional difference between the two sectors.

MR. PERRY: What I'm having difficulty understanding is.... The Government Employee Relations Bureau in 1979 made a submission to the arbitration board at that time, suggesting that:

"The employer has maintained generally that government nurses should be compared with their professional counterparts in the hospital industry. If one group of employers is out of line with their counterpart employers who seek the services of the same specialized group, inexplicable differences would hamper recruiting abilities and drastically affect an organization or a hospital's ability to function."

In listening as carefully as I could to the minister's reply a moment ago, I am not sure whether I clearly understood him. Does he suggest that the goal of government is to achieve wage parity for these two groups of employees? Or does he suggest that the government's goal is that their proportional increase each year be similar, which would In effect perpetuate the inequality between the two groups? Perhaps when he has answered that question, he could explain the rationale behind it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Clearly I cannot, nor should I be expected to. We are negotiating a contract.

If the hon. member has such little appreciation of the system and its process, I would be surprised. I am clearly not going to jeopardize the prospects of a successful outcome by discussing publicly the strategies of one side or the other.

I gave you the material I provided in my previous answer, just to make sure you understood what the Issue is. I am satisfied you now understand that. I will not enjoin with you in a discussion about where final positions might wind up. That would be totally inappropriate.

MR. PERRY: I think I will construe that answer as some indication of flexibility on the minister's part, and that he understands the points I have raised and will consider them.

MR. WILLIAMS: I thought I would like to reflect for a while on the great successes of this administration with respect to establishing Vancouver as a great financial centre. One of the great hallmarks of this minister has been to turn Vancouver into the premier financial centre on the Pacific coast, if not the Pacific Rim.

I wonder if the minister has reflected on how many of his financial friends have left town, how many of them have gone belly-up, and how many of them have just been so grossly mismanaged that they have had to disappear.

[5:00]

I wonder if he has ever toted up the damage out there, in terms of financial institutions that no longer exist in Vancouver since he wanted to establish Vancouver as a great financial centre.

Let's look at the list. Mr. Minister, what happened to Yorkshire Trust? Any memories about that one? I wonder if you are aware that Yorkshire Trust was the oldest incorporated trust company in British Columbia. During your tenure, Yorkshire Trust disappeared. That's one of them. Yorkshire Trust bit the dust. They used to have a head office down at Howe Street and Pender. They don't exist anymore.

Under this administration head offices — decision-making in Vancouver — have got thinner and thinner. I don't know, Mr. Minister, if we can afford this kind of thrust of government anymore. We're losing too many of the players in Vancouver. What about Western Capital Trust? That one bit the dust during your tenure. Western Capital Trust, Yorkshire Trust — gone. No decision-making.

Remember earlier on you had to deal with the teachers and that mess, the Investment and Housing Cooperative? That one has bit the dust; that one has gone. Maybe you can take some of the credit in terms of the policing of some of these operations.

When it comes to a group like Pemberton Securities, that was the one outfit that was significant in Vancouver. That disappeared in terms of local decision-making. Pemberton Securities is a name that has been around this province for ages. Even Tony Hepburn, who is generally an apologist for this government, said something like he was very disappointed to see a major regional firm like Pemberton virtually disappear from the local scene. Canada's investment community needs regional firms, and Pemberton was a first-class firm with a long tradition. Competition is good, and it's sad to see a Vancouver head office disappear. People like Fred Wright, who headed Pemberton's, have disappeared as well, in terms of senior decision-making in Vancouver. All of this happened during the great heyday of Social Credit making Vancouver a more important financial centre.

Interjection.

[ Page 10170 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, an international banking centre.

Pemberton had 28 offices located in the west. Local decision-makers are gone, taken over by the Royal Bank and moved east to Toronto. So the Royal Bank now controls that one.

You can reach further back and look to outfits like Laurentide, which had a head office here; that one is gone. Then even First City. First City is the famous shop based in Vancouver that has carried on a lot of activities across the continent. One would have thought once they'd established a vice-president for government relations— who was the former Minister of Finance in British Columbia — that suddenly we had dropped an anchor of some kind down there on Howe Street and that maybe Hugh Curtis could finally be the anchor who would help save Vancouver as a financial centre. Why didn't it happen? Despite the fact that First City has become a very significant banker with the province— though God knows why — after less than a couple of years, the anchor was cut loose; Hugh got turfed off the ship. He had to sue for wrongful dismissal. He thought he had delivered, but they cut poor old Hugh loose, and he had to go to court. Just a day or two before the court case, they ended up making some arrangements out of court. Since then, of course, the lips of the former Minister of Finance are sealed— and God knows what else — in terms of the Belzbergs and First City.

So what has First City done? They've moved head office. You were going to have more and more head offices in Vancouver. Despite your largesse and despite the nice arrangements in terms of this shop and this arrangement, First City suddenly became number two to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in terms of banking for the province of British Columbia— an extraordinary achievement in such a short time. Do they show their gratitude to the minister who wants all these financial institutions and head offices in Vancouver? No. They lift up the anchor and drift off to Toronto, like most of the financial institutions in this country. Not only that, they set sail for New York as well— greener pastures — after dealing with those they wanted to deal with here. So First City is effectively gone from Vancouver as a financial institution— head office is now in Toronto.

There was another, too, Mr. Minister. Remember Columbia Trust? That one was taken over by Skalbania and crew. There were some interesting recommendations in terms of laying some charges with respect to Columbia Trust that were not pursued but that the RCMP recommended. But that didn't happen, and that ship has sunk as well. Columbia Trust is gone.

Then there are your really close friends — again, in the brokerage business — Peter Brown and the crew of Canarim Investment Corp. That one, too, has gone. That one was sold off, and that too is based in Toronto. It's Loewen Ondaatje that has Canarim.

MR. CLARK: Yorkshire Trust has gone too.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yorkshire Trust, the oldest trust company in the history of the province, is gone too.

And so with the Bank of British Columbia. Under your tenure, Mr. Minister, that one too, as a local decision-making institution, is gone. You were a player. You've been a player through a lot of this exercise. You made the decision. You made recommendations to the Premier in terms of those options around the Bank of British Columbia. You're the one, along with the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) who was keen that that one should be taken over by the Hongkong Bank. You can take a lot of credit for that one, Mr. Minister, although I think the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain can take a little more. She's a familiar player in the corridors of power around here, and she and you convinced the Premier that he should reconsider what he was ready to do, in terms of the Bank of B.C.

Here we have an administration that said at the beginning of their term: "We're here to make Vancouver a great financial centre." The evidence is overwhelming in terms of that not occurring. Look at what the people in Quebec have done and compare that with us in British Columbia. Look at what they have done with pension funds in the province of Quebec. Look at what they have done with the Mouvement Desjardins, which is the equivalent of our credit union movement. They have the major decision-making processes locally based in terms of financial institutions. The exact opposite has occurred here.

It's your non-regulation and your inadequate regulation. Principal Trust was Alberta-based, but you can share a chunk of the blame for that one in terms of British Columbia. We all know that. Certainly the shareholders and participants in Principal Trust all know that, as do the people from the Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative.

What has happened in Quebec is a conscious, considered approach for decades now in terms of being masters in their own house and of financial institutions. The Mouvement Desjardins now has something like a 40 percent market share, in terms of financial institutions in the province of Quebec. They are the most powerful instrument in the province at the retail level.

Then there's the Caisse Placement, another significant institution using pension funds and becoming an incredibly strong player in terms of the various industries in the province and shareholding in those industries. There's simply no equivalent here. In fact, most of the time, there's simply nobody home.

We found earlier today that there's nobody home when it comes to answers from this minister. But in terms of this issue, there hasn't been anybody home. There has not been the kind of capability applied that should have been applied. If you reflect on what has happened in Quebec in terms of tax policy, in terms of an attitude to the Mouvement Desjardins, in terms of pension funds and the like, we pale dramatically before them. Clearly the Québecois have decided, for some time now— regardless of administration —

[ Page 10171 ]

that they intend to be masters of financial institutions more and more in their own province. They've been incredibly successful.

Now in British Columbia, the credit union system.... Is this it in terms of significant local decision-making? It's the credit union system, from a growing institution in Maple Ridge to Pacific Coast here in Victoria or VanCity Credit Union in Vancouver or others in the regions around the province.

Had there been a truly conscious program over the last half dozen years, we wouldn't have seen this pattern occur. You're the ones who said that you wanted to make Vancouver a significant financial centre. In fact, just the opposite has occurred.

You can talk about Michael Goldberg, the IFC office in Canada Place and so on. You can talk about the number of people who have signed up. But where are the deals? There's not much evidence in terms of that operation. He'll be returning to academia in a year's time or so, and so much for that.

In terms of indigenous local decision-making institutions, the last five years in this province have been a monstrous failure. The kinds of opportunities out there that I would suggest local institutions would be responsive to may not be seized. In Quebec, I think genuine commercial opportunities are seized by those local, indigenous players. In British Columbia, that's limited.

We don't have the regional structure or the regional institutions they have in Quebec. We don't have the commercial success of the province of Quebec. At the same time, countless major companies disappear in terms of local control. Look at the list. My God, you throw these financial institutions into the hopper in terms of losses over the last four or five years, and then you look at the major corporations as well. What you find is an abysmal failure in terms of retaining head offices on the Pacific coast.

Let's look at some of them. B.C. Forest Products and Crown Zellerbach are gone in terms of genuine local decision-making and control. Versatile Pacific Shipyards is gone. It was owned by the merchant banking outfit from Toronto, Shieldings Inc., who'll turn it into a real estate empire and probably con you guys for some land at Duke Point when they close down two shipyards, not one.

That's the kind of thing we face. The Bank of B.C. as I've already mentioned — lost in terms of local decision-making....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired.

MR. CLARK: I'm enjoying listening to the first member for Vancouver East and I would like to hear him continue.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as support from the government back benches is worrying me, I think I should make this short.

It's true of other outfits, like MDI, where Motorola has taken over. The decision-making is not local. Then you throw in the Expo lands and throw in downtown real estate in Vancouver, and virtually the entire downtown is owned outside the province and outside of the city. Then you start asking yourself how much decision-making is left in British Columbia, and you find it's reduced to somebody like the Minister of Finance and his turf. That scares the living blazes out of you in terms of this being the main decision-maker.

[5:15]

We've lost so many of these companies, we've lost so many of these financial institutions, and part of it is the lack of administration and the lack of review in terms of being on top of these institutions at an early stage. The other part is simply not being a player in the game, letting First City do its thing in Toronto and New York; not having a decent trade-off when you're dealing with them. Any other province would insist on some kind of a trade-off in terms of these exercises, in terms of involvement with government. There's not been that kind of requirement here. At the same time, there hasn't been a positive initiative in terms of the credit unions and the role they can play in the province.

Significant growth beyond present levels of growth could occur. The credit unions have significant problems in terms of capital accumulation. Let's face it, all of their equity comes from the annual profits or returns out of the operation, plus a modest equity payment of $25 to $50 in terms of an equity payment when a citizen becomes a member-owner of the credit union. At the same time, the banks and trusts have equity ownership, so there's tremendous pressure on the credit unions to keep up with the trusts and banks when they can have equity-share systems. So there's a whole range of innovative work the government could be doing to strengthen these remaining indigenous institutions, and there's precious little evidence of it.

I know you're going to refer to the statute and all of the rest of it, but in the crunch nothing has come through this chamber that comes close to what they've done in Quebec in terms of building up their commercial financial institutions; in terms of building up their capabilities in this area; in terms of using the tax system to build up stronger commercial financial entities within the province.

So that's a big lag in this province. When you just stop and look at all of the lost institutions, the failed institutions, or the institutions that moved back east to Toronto, then in this one sector alone, Mr. Minister, it's a failing grade.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That was a long discourse. Normally the practice is that we have questions and answers. The member wanted to give us his view, I guess, on a broad range of subjects, and he didn't really have any questions that I detected. But it did prompt a few comments that would be appropriate, I think.

[ Page 10172 ]

First of all, it's true that there has been a major regrouping. It's been an international phenomenon in the financial community. It's been happening all over the world, and we see the rationalization even in the American financial markets and certainly to a great extent in the London financial community, as the member must be aware if he knows the subject at all.

It's true that that's something that has been occurring, and it really is something that is beyond the ability of governments to control. Even national governments are having difficulty dealing with the regulation of these global financial institutions. The trend, unfortunately, seems to be that there will be more of that unfold as the months go by.

On the other hand, I think that the departure and demise since the early eighties of some of the financial firms the member listed in his litany.... They are being replaced by indigenous new local firms— new individuals, new groupings -and we suspect that that kind of dynamic will continue. There will be new winners and new losers arise out of all of that, depending on their luck in the marketplace and their sense of tin-ting. I think we can take some comfort from the fact that there are new firms now emerging because of the vacuum created by the departure of others.

Secondly, the member had a litany of what he thought were bad-news items. He should have had the grace to recognize the good-news issues. We've got the Hongkong Bank of Canada headquartered in Vancouver. They've moved their international computing network into British Columbia, so we'll be servicing out of that community. I think their new location is even in your riding, Mr. Chairman— or close to it, if I'm not mistaken. In any event, out of that facility they will be servicing all of their worldwide network, which is a significant achievement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I sensed in the hon member's comments that he was somehow being critical of the credit union movement. I find this astounding for a member who's a part of the credit union. Indeed, as far as I know, he still holds a senior position in one of the credit unions.

That he should now be so critical of the credit union movement for its failure to match the performance of Quebec, I find rather remarkable. We'll have to play that record back at the next annual general meeting of the credit union movement, and let them know what he had to say about their lack of performance. Certainly we on our side are anxious to assist the credit union movement in B.C. to mature and develop.

Also, the member didn't mention the investment diversification initiatives of this government, which are having a significant impact on the volumes being traded on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. That has resulted in the creation of a senior board on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a board of blue chips that will be....

MR. CLARK: There are four companies.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, the hon. member is wrong.

MR. CLARK: I was just joking.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I think the number is in the thirties. It's certainly more than 30; there may be as many as 40 or 50 stocks in that category, and more being added every week.

We as a government are using the tools that are available to us to do what we can to nurture the private sector.

Lastly, let's talk in glowing terms about the accomplishments of the International Financial Centre and Dr. Michael Goldberg, whom the member mentioned by name. I happen to think that Dr. Goldberg has done an outstanding job. He has now created in Vancouver the largest international financial centre in Canada. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Member. That's a pretty good accomplishment: the largest international financial centre in Canada. He now has 38 firms registered; he expects to have 50 by the end of the fiscal year that we're in. I tell you that that's very significant progress in a time when— as you would allude — Vancouver's prominence as a financial centre is diminishing, and people are leaving us in droves. How would you explain that contradiction, hon. member? How is it possible that we would now have managed— starting from a dead stop with nothing in place — by virtue of this government's creative legislation and the hard efforts of our very bright, intelligent staff and the brilliant leadership of Dr. Goldberg, to get ourselves in the position of having the largest international financial centre in Canada? That ain't bad, hon. member.

Clearly we can't be doing everything wrong. I happen to think that we've come through a very difficult cycle remarkably well, contrasted with most other provinces in the country. I think we can continue to look forward to good growth in the future, and I am looking forward to continuing being part of it, with the next government in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East — and I will remind all members that there is no smoking in the chamber here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that takes care of that, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. We would probably have been coughing over it.

It's the classic laissez-faire argument from the minister: new firms will replace old ones. It's so simplistic: "New firms will replace old ones. Automatically that will happen." What he doesn't seem to realize is that they left. They moved to Toronto. They moved to greener pastures. They moved to New York. And the lack of action on the part of the minister is there for all to see, in the losses that have been clearly identified over the last four or five years.

He talks about the failure of the credit unions. In fact, the growth has been very substantial, and it is

[ Page 10173 ]

the very success of the credit unions that is indeed a problem. The one that I'm involved in, for example, had a 20 percent growth rate in assets last year alone. But with the growth in assets, or deposits, is an obligation in terms of reserves and statutory reserve requirements. That's a significant problem when you don't have the kind of equity base that the banks, trusts and other financial institutions have.

The very success of the credit unions is in fact a problem for them. There's a need for government to be more creative and helpful to these local institutions, in terms of helping to supplement their capital base, because they're going to be frustrated, as they face these kinds of growth rates, by the lack of a capital base. In terms of the larger ones, such as VanCity, there will probably be creative opportunities that will not be there for the medium-scale and smaller credit unions in the province.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member in the background there says that they can all get bigger. Well, they have significant problems as they grow, because they don't have the equity base that the other institutions have. So it really begs for some positive policy work on the part of the ministry.

In a sense I'm almost happy that the minister isn't here, so I can talk directly to his staff and try and give them some good, positive direction. In that respect, I do hope that the three gentlemen who are here in lieu of the minister can seriously look at that question, because 20 percent growth per annum for the credit unions is tremendous growth indeed. There's simply no way they can keep up in terms of their reserve requirements, because that has to come out of profits. It simply won't be there, even in the most prudently well-run institution. So it begs the question in terms of more work.

I'm really happy that the minister isn't here, because I'm sure that his deputies and assistant deputies will take this matter seriously and will look seriously at what the people of Quebec have done in this area. They've looked at the tax laws and, through the tax laws, have created opportunities in terms of equity in these financial institutions, which we don't have in British Columbia. I'd feel a little more comfortable if I knew that some tax leakage was going into equity in indigenous British Columbia community-owned institutions rather than into the International Financial Centre of Michael Goldberg— as useful as that might be. If there's going to be tax leakage in the province of one kind or another, I'd prefer that it would benefit local financial and community institutions. I would hope that the advisers to the minister would feel the same way.

I think it would be really useful if they took a few more trips to Quebec — which is a lovely place to visit — and Quebec City, looked over that legislation and visited with Claude Morin of the Mouvement Desjardins and others, because I think there's a lot of common ground between the people of Quebec and the people of British Columbia. You find it in different ministerial conferences. They feel a kind of isolation in Canada, and to some extent we in British Columbia do too. They have some things to teach us in terms of developing home-based financial institutions. I do hope that the assistant deputies don't have to get the approval of the minister for travel and that they will visit Quebec City, Montreal and the Mouvement Desjardins.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure Siemens isn't the least bit interested in Caisse and the Mouvement Desjardins in Quebec.

Now that the minister has arrived, we can end this private discussion and pretend that it never happened. But I do expect to see results, because I know that he isn't a hands-on minister and that you folks will do the job that really needs to be done.

[5:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Was that some sort of dirty remark — "hands-on minister"?

MR. MILLER: I wanted to focus on just one small aspect of the issue of logging on private land. It concerns the Minister of Finance inasmuch as he is responsible for the Assessment Authority. First of all, it is a broad problem in British Columbia. There are four or five different scenarios requiring some kind of regulatory regime to allow a more orderly operation in terms of the right of private landowners to harvest timber. Under the Assessment Act, as I understand it, the Assessment Authority employs foresters....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Point of order. It has been a long day, and we've wandered all over the lot. I just want to point out to the member that the Assessment Authority is not under my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would certainly bring up the question of relevancy.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I haven't had a chance to rise much in these estimates, and I hope we can get through a few short items before 6 o'clock.

I'd like to first ask a couple of questions about bank closures. We have a problem with bank closures in small towns in British Columbia— the most recent is in Houston. Other jurisdictions in Canada have used the clout that the provincial government has to try and lever the continued operation of banks in small communities. I wonder if the government has given any contemplation to the programs that exist in, say, Saskatchewan— I know one of your staff people here is from there — to use that power to try and keep banking facilities in some of those communities in British Columbia.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm grateful to the member for his question which is certainly pertinent, timely and relevant. It's a pleasant change.

[ Page 10174 ]

The issue does grab a fair amount of our attention. In Houston — the member is quite right — the Bank of Montreal did shut down its branch in January of this year. Houston is served by the Royal Bank, and I think there's a credit union still there. As you might appreciate, it resulted in a transfer of accounts.

The larger problem arises, of course, when there is no other financial institution in the community. We had a situation like that in the community of Atlin, where they were left without one. We've negotiated a rather unique arrangement whereby, using other government agencies— either municipal government, or I think we're running a test with a government agent in one community — we are attempting to provide the cash-banking requirements of a community. It's still in the experimental stage. I can't really give you a report on the efficacy of the programs we've put in place, but at the moment, as far as I know, they appear to be making the best of what is a poor situation.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the answer. I don't want to belabour the point. There are towns I travel through In the constituency of Atlin that, of course, have nothing. The pub becomes the bank. With this high-tech world we're in, one would think it possible that a bank machine or something might replace the bank. I am encouraged that the ministry is looking at this, because I know it is a constant concern to people In rural British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: It would freeze up there.

MR. CLARK: My colleague tells me that they won't work in the....

I want to turn to another subject: the pension fund question — and I am glad your appropriate ADM is here. As the minister knows — we've canvassed this in the past and'I won't canvass it at great length today — this is now the only province in Canada without a pension benefits standards act. It concerns me, and I think it should concern all people in British Columbia— pensioners particularly — that we are now the last province without an act. In addition to the potential problems that that gives rise to for people on private sector pensions, there are problems In the public sector that relate to this point.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Is it going to come in shortly? Well, I want to.... The budget speech alluded to a pension plan for British Columbia, and obviously that's something which the government, I assume, will be tabling in the House at some point this session. We can have this discussion at that time, I hope, if it's in the form of an act or a White Paper.

However, I want to deal with a specific point with respect to what I call "pension fund raiding." In the cases of both SFU and B.C. Rail, as I understand it, the employer is taking the surplus from the pension plan that is negotiated with the employees. They are not part of the normal one at SFU; it's a poly-party agreement with a number of trade unions. It's offensive to me because it's my view that that money is the pensioners' money. That money is negotiated by the trade unions and by the employer— an arm of the government — and it's inappropriate, to say the least, for the university to be withdrawing, or taking a holiday on, payments to that fund, if it's in good faith. I wonder if the minister has any comments on that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Here again, Mr. Chairman, that particular regulatory aspect is not in my ministry. It has to do with the Superannuation Commission, who are charged with the monitoring of that. The Superannuation Commission is not in the Ministry of Finance.

MR. CLARK: We're shortening the estimates here. I'll canvass that issue with the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran). Could the minister confirm for me that a pension benefits standards act...? Would that kind of regulatory framework be in your ministry or is that in Government Management Services? The minister is shaking his head; that is also in Government Management Services. Okay, I will deal with that then. It seems to me there is obviously some overlap in that area.

I'd like to turn to a brief discussion of the property purchase tax. The minister knows that I have some real concerns with respect to what I consider to be loopholes in the Property Purchase Tax Act.

Ontario has in the last year introduced amendments to its property purchase tax act to deal with three problems. I think the amendments that they brought in are appropriate in British Columbia. This is not dealing with the question of tax breaks or reducing the tax for first-time homebuyers. This deals with three things.

First, intercorporate transfers are exempted from the property purchase tax. I would think members on the other side might agree with this. Wholly-owned subsidiaries— company owns property, transfers it to its wholly-owned subsidiary — in Ontario are exempt from the property purchase tax. I think that makes sense. I don't think that there has been a change in beneficial ownership, and it's quite appropriate for that to happen. I wonder if the minister has any comments with respect to that. That's a soft area, before I get into the other amendments in Ontario: transfers of real property to wholly-owned subsidiaries are exempted from the property purchase tax.

I might say — the minister may be getting this advice — that that exactly parallels the existing exemption in the provincial sales tax. The provincial sales tax has exactly that dimension; it's exempted from it. It seems to me that it's appropriate in terms of consistency in tax policy that that be considered by the government. I wonder if the government has given this any consideration. As I say, Ontario has just done that, but that's not the only reason. It makes sense in terms of fairness. It makes sense in terms of consistency with the provincial sales tax. I wonder if

[ Page 10175 ]

that's being considered by the government, or whether the government has any policy in this regard.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm aware of the fact that the member has expressed an interest in the Ontario legislation. He mentioned it earlier in debates. I wanted to make very sure the member understands that the Ontario legislation does not deal with transfers of shares of the company, even where the land and buildings are the sole assets of the company. I quote, for the member's information, the remarks of Mr. Lawrence Rotenberg, who is an Ontario tax lawyer totally familiar with the Ontario legislation: "There is a common misconception that Bill 48 will make share transfers taxable, at least those in which the major asset of the corporation is real estate. That is a misconception." We may have a problem here in terms of factual material.

MR. CLARK: I am quoting from an interpretation of the act by a partner of Coopers and Lybrand in Toronto. Perhaps this is a matter which will be litigated at some point. But the clear intent of the legislation was that.

The legislation — Bill 48 — which the minister referred to did three things. If we could deal with them individually, perhaps we could deal with that comment last.

The first point is that intercompany transfers are exempted now. We have an exemption from the provincial sales tax in British Columbia for intercompany transfers. We do not have an exemption for intercompany transfers with respect to the property purchase tax. That was one of the amendments made by Bill 48, and it certainly makes sense to me in terms of fairness. Far be it from me to be the champion of intercorporate transfers or the fact that they escape taxation, but it seems to make sense in terms of consistency and fairness.

The minister is talking about Bill 48. Does the minister not agree that it makes sense to exempt wholly-owned subsidiaries' transfer of real property — from the holder of the property to a wholly-owned subsidiary? If he doesn't agree and if he doesn't think it makes sense, would he agree to change the provincial sales tax exemption that exists for exactly the same thing?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: A host of technical problems are associated with any different application of land transfer tax, and there are also constitutional restraints. Under the Constitution Act, a province is limited to imposing direct taxes within the province, so if....

I just heard the exchange here between our House Leader and the members opposite, so I gather that we will be discussing this at some future date. I will endeavour to have the technician with me at that time to deal with that particular question.

MR. CLARK: Just to clarify, there are other questions with respect to property purchase tax. Would you prefer that I do the other questions?

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Okay, that's fine.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.